When Countertransference Handcuffs the Play Therapist SARAH STAUFFER, PHD, LP, LPC, RPT-S
Attending to safety and security concerns provides a solid foundation for all human relationships, particularly therapeutic ones. For 25 years, Ausloos (1995) has argued that therapists must assure a personal equilibrium in session that allows their creativity and originality to be useful and beneficial to the therapeutic system. In fact, comfort for the therapist underlies comfort in the intervention (Ausloos, 1995; Mainguet, Mousnier, &
Vanneste, 2011), and play therapy is no exception.
Based on research about toy guns in the playroom (e.g., Winburn, Dugger, & Main, 2017), Winburn (2018) argued that some children “need aggressive toys to fully express themselves and that therapeutic value outweighs therapists’ personal beliefs or attitudes towards guns” (p. 16). But what happens when a potentially triggering event for the play therapist outweighs the potentially therapeutic value of using an aggressive toy, handcuffs for example?
Munns (2008) cautioned play therapists to be attentive to their reactions to children’s play behaviors and any countertransference that may arise. The present author (2019) advised play therapists to examine any previously difficult or traumatic personal or professional experience that might give rise to negative countertransference in supervision or personal therapy. Protecting the therapeutic relationship by preserving the therapist’s own sense of emotional safety may be a valid reason to exclude handcuffs in play therapy.
Several play therapists have recounted adverse experiences with toy handcuffs on the Association for Play Therapy general discussion board. Zelinger (2020) shared how a locking mechanism malfunction on her toy handcuffs during a play therapy encounter necessitated a locksmith’s intervention and resulted in painful ligature marks on her
of tolerance, they can brainstorm alternatives. For example, cuffing a large stuffed animal, using a soft fleece rope or scarf instead, or even substituting the metal/plastic handcuffs for a pair of stretchy plastic cuffs could bridge therapist capacity and child need.
Some therapists feel strongly about allowing children to handcuff them and believe this is important to the child’s play and trauma narrative. Play therapists work with populations that experience community and interpersonal/family violence. Children witness family members being taken away in handcuffs, and some children have been handcuffed themselves.
Therapists that may feel comfortable being cuffed by one client, but not by another. This experience of intuitively feeling or knowing that a child needs to “go there” has happened to many of us. We cannot quite explain why “yes” to this child, but “no” to another. Perhaps it is the depth, intensity, or necessity of the child’s play in that session; maybe it is the
COUNTER POINT
hands. Gestal (2020) stopped offering toy handcuffs after a client’s nanny had to seek help from a fire department to remove them from the child’s wrists. Although both of these instances were stressful for the therapists, consider the impact they had on the children involved.
Beyond these situation-specific instances, having one’s hands partially or fully bound may trigger the therapist and transport them out of the session and into their personal history with relationship violence. It might impact their capacity to offer encouraging responses, to recognize play themes, or to be fully present in session, all manifestations of traumatic stress within the play therapy relationship (Turner, 2019).
No clinician would debate the importance of providing a broad range of toys and creative outlets for children to express needs, fears, lived experiences, and concerns. An essential part of limit setting in play therapy is offering acceptable alternatives to the targeted behavior (Kottman & Meany-Walen, 2018; Landreth, 2012). To express a need for constraint or to convey helplessness in play therapy, children may use miniature handcuffs in the sand tray or other materials that could be manipulated easily or removed in an emergency, such as pipe cleaners, rubber bands, or hair ties on stuffed animals or puppets. These options allow play to continue unencumbered to promote abreaction, catharsis, or emotional regulation, and allow the play therapist to remain attuned with the child.
Clinicians may choose which toys, for very personal reasons, should be excluded from the play encounter. Once they have addressed potential countertransference issues related to the use of particular toys in supervision or personal therapy, they can decide not to let countertransference handcuff them.
clinical understanding of the child’s trauma narrative. Experience and personal awareness in the playroom allows therapists to stretch their own window of tolerance to accommodate the needs of the child, staying regulated and calm during intense or scary play.
The realities and experiences of the children we serve need to be honored and present in our playrooms; it is essential to provide culturally relevant toys and symbols that signify the world in which they live and help provide the toy “vocabulary” for their narrative. Regardless of the choice “to be or not to be” handcuffed, taking time self-reflect and be curious about our boundaries and reasons (for or against) having a certain prop or supply in the playroom is critical. As play therapists, we ultimately have a duty to find ways to be present and partner with the child in their play, honoring the windows of tolerance for both child and therapist, while respecting our clients’ cultures and lives.
www.a4pt.org | March 2020 | PLAYTHERAPY | 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
