CHAPTER 1

History, Rationale, and Purpo

se of Play
Play therapy is a modality designed to serve children base
d on their most effective form of communication—play. Am
ong play therapists, there are several statements that are r
outinely used to discuss the value of play, such as “play is t
he child’s natural form of communication,” “play bridges c
oncrete experience to abstract thought,” and “play is intrin
sically motivated,”among others. In fact, these statements
are used so often that it is difficult to trace their origins. C
ertainly, Jean Piaget (1962), Swiss biologist and philosoph
er, is the most frequently cited contributor to a rationale fo
r play in therapy. His exploration and explanation of how a
child progresses through development using play as a form
of assimilating the environment are thefoundations of unde
rstanding the child’s application of play in therapy. The his
tory, research, and theories of play are rich with observati
on and discussion. The scholarly approach of Piaget and ot
hers is only one side of play inquiry. Play has been explore
d as an cultural phenomenon, instinctual drive, mode of ed
ucation, economic influence, religious connotation, as well
as its significant relationship with psychology and develop
ment— all of which have implications for the practice of pl
ay therapy.

History of Play
Play is depicted and discussed throughout the history of th
e world, mostly concentrated on its link to the experiences
of childhood. Early views from the ancient Western world c
onsidered children as helpless, incapable, and having speci
als needs, such as the need to play (Hughes, 2010). Plato e
mphasized the use of play to build skills but also cautioned
against too much adult supervision (Hughes, 2010; Smith,
2010). The rise of Christianity led

to the belief that each child possessed a unique soul that w

as valued by God. The growing attitude of the individual va
lue of each child, along with the belief that the child was in
nately sinful and unruly, led to a parental view of child’s pl
ay as needing adult guidance and supervision. The adult ro
le was to channel the play of the child into activities that w
ere beneficialand productive.

Christianity led to the rise of Protestantism in England dur

ing the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A stricter ap
proach to play was adopted in which play was seen as idle
and mixed with instinctually negative motivations. John Lo
cke of England (1632–1704) promoted the widely accepted
philosophy that the child was born as a blank slate (tabula
rasa) and the environment needs to be completely controll
ed by the parent to move children in the right direction. C
hudacoff (2007), who traced the history of play in America,
writes of Locke’s influence on the early Puritan way of life:

Locke was no modernist; his aim was to inculcate self-

control, denial,
and order in children’s behavior, and the play that he most
favored
was the kind that a child could undertake under a teacher’
s careful
supervision. Unstructured play, to him, was not appropriat
e (p. 27).
As a result, play was virtually suppressed by the middle an
d end of the eighteenth century (Hughes, 2010).

As Protestantism heavily influenced the view of children in

England and America, a philosopher from France, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, published a novel, Emile, or On Educati
on (1762), suggesting a positive nature of children. Rousse
au believed that the natural state of children was moveme
nt toward taking in human virtue and goodness. Children n
eeded to be appreciated, cared for, and allowed to operate
naturally with little adult supervision. An outcome of this v
iew of children was that play was accepted as an appreciat
ed part of being young, embraced by adults as a celebratio
n of childhood. Rousseau’s philosophy ushered in a new, ro
mantic perception of children that was quickly embraced b
y others throughout Europe, and eventually America. Fried
rich Froebel (1782–1852) in Germany founded the kinderg
arten system based on his advocacy of play as a means of l
earning while Maria Montessori (1870–1952) in Italy integ
rated play into education as a means of learning about real
life (Smith, 2010).

In America, the view of play was met with ambivalence. Th

e early settlers were conflicted about a basic belief in sub
mission to God, juxtaposed against a strong, growing sens
e of independence demanding freedom from human author
ity. Practically speaking, early America was an agricultural
society that demanded a workforce consisting of all able b
odies. Hence, children were viewed as independent, worth
y of appreciation but vessels to be guided by adults to beco
me productive members of a community, lest they give in t
o an innate sinful nature. The adult response to play was
the concrete manifestation of this ambivalence. Play was al
lowed but only under conditions that it was not an idle was
te of time and led to the child’s development of religious a
nd work ethics. Often, during this time, there was no delin
eation between adult and child play. Children and adults of
ten played games together and played with the same toys,
materials used by anyone for amusement. It was not until t
he mid-eighteenth century that toys began to be produced
or viewed as materials belonging specifically to children (C
hudacoff, 2007).

The beginning of the nineteenth century marked an emergi

ng acceptance of childhood as a separate entity of develop
ment. In this acceptance, children were romanticized as in
nocent and playful, encouraging parents to delay the onset
of adult responsibilities. This romanticism should also be vi
ewed in the context of a growing industrialization in Ameri
ca where preadolescents labored in factories and worksho
ps. The boundaries of childhood were limited to very youn
g ages. Yet, by 1850, society recognized the playful rather
than corrupt nature of children and not only tolerated but
began to appreciate children’s play (Chudacoff, 2007). The
second half of the nineteenth century saw a rise in professi
onal interest in play. Child study experts published manual
s for parenting and child development, mostly concerned
with the intellectual and moral growth of children, and mo
stly advocating a supervised approach to play. Philosopher
s continued to debate the purpose and use of play. Herbert
Spencer (1820–1903), an English philosopher working wit
hin an evolutionary approach, described play as derived fr
om excess energy developed in evolutionary higher species
stimulated by highly developed nervous systems, referred t
o as surplus energy theory (Smith, 2010). Karl Groos (1861
–1946), a German psychologist and author, argued that pla
y was of functional significance and provided practice for s
kills needed for survival (Hughes, 2010; Smith, 2010). One
of the first American psychologists interested in child deve
lopment, G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), countered what he s
aw as Groos’ simplistic view of play. Hall observed that pla
y was cathartic in nature and tied to theevolutionary progr
ession of humans through playing out natural instincts fro
m human history, referred to as recapitulation theory (Hug
hes, 2010; Smith, 2010). In America, this new and focused
concentration on play translated behaviorally into the esta
blishment of playgrounds, manufacturing of toys, and an a
dult focus on the initiation and supervision of children’s pl
ay. Despite these adult efforts to encourage play, Chudaco
ff (2007) cited the psychology study of T.R. Crosswell in 18
96 in which he surveyed 2,000 school children and conclud
ed that free, unstructured play apart from work, school, or
adult supervision was the most beneficial use of children’s
leisure time.

The advent of the twentieth century welcomed an explosio

n of interest in child development and child play. Psycholo
gists turned their attention

to the details involved in the psychological, intellectual, an

d educational nature of development. The use of play has a
lways been closely aligned to an explanation of developme
nt, and authors of the twentieth century seemed attuned to
this relationship. Sigmund Freud saw children as progressi
ng through sexual stages of life, each one demanding a suc
cessful resolution. Children could use play to reduce anxiet
y, managing instinctual negative drives, through the stage
s of development. John Dewey advocated a progressive vie
w of education that accepted the natural state of the child
and promoted an appreciation of the child’s own instincts,
activities, and interests as the guide for education. The tw
entieth century was the child-centered era of adopting the
structure of childhood as a separate and unique phase of h
uman development. This child-centered era (not to be conf
used with child-centered play therapy or person-centered t
heory) wassignified by an appreciation of childhood as a st
ructure, a desire to study the uniqueness of the child’s exp
erience, and a need to generalize children’s experiences in
to a coherent explanation of development. It is within this
context, continued confusion over the role and purpose of
play, that all theories and practices of play therapy develo
ped.

The child-centered era in the twentieth century also gener

ated what Smith (2010) refers to as the “play ethos” (p. 27
). Smith noted that from the 1920s forward, educational th
inking seemed to be impacted by an overarching view of th
e importance of play. He defined the play ethos as “a stron
g and unqualified assertion of the functional importance of
play, namely that it is essential to adequate (human) devel
opment…” (p. 28). He further questioned the acceptance o
f the play ethos due to assumption of correctness and lack
of empirical support.

There are two noticeable controversies emerging from a hi

storical study of play. The first is most obvious and describ
ed throughout the literature, the conflict regarding the nat
ure of the child. If a child is viewed as innately positive, bo
rn of the inherent good nature of humankind, then play is i
nstinctively destined to move the child toward growth and
should be trusted as a self-initiated element of childhood.
However, if the child is born a blank slate or with an inclin
ation toward a depraved nature, play will be an exercise in
the child’s lack of knowledge of what is good or practice in
evil, thereby needing adult attention, supervision, and guid
ance. The second controversy regarding play appears to be
a central theme in Chudacoff’s (2007) historical review. De
spite adult perspectives, actions, focus, guidance, initiatio
n, and supervision of play, children will exert a need for au
tonomy away from the adult world to fully express their pl
ay. Chudacoff (2007) concluded from the period of 1850 to
1900, “… the breach of adult constraints signifies a vital di
mension of children’s play” (p.93). Later, he observed, “Do
dging the control of parents has long been a part of growin
g up, but in the first half of the twentieth century

resistance and the quest for autonomy flourished in ways t

hat previously had not existed…about the mid-1950s, the n
ature of unstructured play, the places in which it occurred,
and the peer-oriented culture of childhood promoted a typ
e of behavior that, in varying degrees, signified children’s f
reedom of action” (p. 151). In his observation of 1950 to pr
esent, he suggested, “The ways that children have used, a
nd continue to use, toys rather than how grownups want to
ys to be used remains the most vital quality of children’s a
utonomous play…children’s manipulation of objects for the
ir own purposes creates true play value” (pp. 197–198). In
his final conclusions regarding the history of play in Ameri
ca, Chudacoff wrote, “Nevertheless, kids still want to be ki
ds in their own way, and although they are generally willin
g to follow adult prescriptions, they also inhabit an indepe
ndent, underground culture of self-devised play. And thus t
he two main continuities in children’s play are the quest fo
r autonomy and the demonstration of creativity” (p. 219).
Properties and Type of Play
Properties of Play
The definition of play is illusive, due to its various identifie
d types and definitions. There is not just one definition, but
theorists contend that there are many elements that help d
istinguish play from other activities. Garvey (1977) describ
ed five properties of play, including play must be pleasura
ble/ enjoyable, have no extrinsic goals, be spontaneous and
voluntary, involve active engagement by the participant, a
nd contain an element of makebelieve. Although this descr
iption of play is cited often in the literature, it has limited
use in understanding play therapy. Brown (2009) concurre
d with Garvey but offered more specificity in his list of ele
ments. He noted that play is apparently purposeless, volun
tary, inherently attractive (fun), provides freedom from tim
e, diminished consciousness of self, improvisational potenti
al, and a continuation desire. These representations of pla
y construct a view of play as a fun activity with little purpo
se as acknowledged by the player.

Experienced play therapists would question whether the pl

ay observed in play therapy is always pleasurable to the ch
ild or whether it appears to be spontaneous and voluntary.
Many children appear angry, sad, and confused when they
play out certain scenes and sometimes appear as though t
hey are being forced to carry through on play scenes that
are painful for them, yet they keep playing, possibly lookin
g for some end outside of their awareness. These kinds of
actions in play therapy lead to further questions regarding
the classification of certain behaviors in play therapy as pl
ay, or the proposal of a different definition of play. Concret
ely, when a child in the

playroom screams angrily over and over at a doll because t

he doll knocked over a toy lamp, is this child playing or sho
uld this activity be labeled differently? Vygotsky (1966) cla
imed that the definition of play based on the pleasure it giv
es the child is incorrect for two reasons: (a) there are a nu
mber of activities that give a child more pleasurable experi
ences than play (such as sucking in an infant), and (b) ther
e are games and play activities in which the child does not
derive pleasure (such as losing at a baseball game). In con
sideration of previously identified elements and Vygotsky’s
contribution, perhaps the elements that best describe play
in play therapy would be activity in which the child is free
from adult direction, actively engaged, experiencing a flow
with little self-consciousness, and released from literal gro
unding to reality.

Types of Play
Again, just as there is no consensus on the definition and p
roperties of play, there are a multitude of identified types
of play. David Elkind (2007), a leading child psychologist, i
dentified four types of play, including mastery play, innova
tive play, kinship play, and therapeutic play. Mastery playi
s denoted by exploration and repetition. The child is goal o
riented and working toward competence of a given skill. O
nly after a child has mastered skills is there the opportunit
y to expand and elaborate on them. Piaget claimed that pla
y could only occur after a skill had been mastered (Kohlber
g & Fein, 1987). The mastery of language and motor skills
leads to innovative play, which is an expansion of both non
verbal and verbal types of play. Kinship play occurs with th
e interaction of more than one child, usually through self-
initiated games. Therapeutic play helps a child deal with st
ress, impulsivity, or trauma, among others, by offering an
outlet for the child to express troublesome reactions to eve
nts. Elkind cited that all children use play therapeutically a
s a way of dealing with stress.

Smith (2010) attempted to summarize six types of play tha

t are commonly recognized in the literature: social conting
ency, sensorimotor, object, language, physical activity, and
fantasy. Social contingency play is play that is based on th
e participant’s interaction with another [Link]
or play is primarily confined to infancy and involves activiti
es with objects based on the sensory properties of the obje
ct. Children usually initiate object play following the senso
rimotor period by engaging in activities with objects. Lang
uage play consists of playing with words and verbalization
of concepts. Physical activity play includes play that involv
es gross motor skills. Fantasy or pretend play is play that u
ses objects, actions, or verbalizations and is released from
the boundaries of realism, allowing for symbolic expressio
n. The modality of play therapy allows for each and every t
ype of play identified by both Elkind and Smith, especially
play therapy that allows for child self-direction.

Play Development
Developmental theories on play typically measure play beh
aviors up to 4 years of age, due to children’s mastery of pl
ay structure to process and communicate by this age. Alth
ough the majority of play therapy clients will exceed 4 year
s old, comprehension of developmental sequence of play al
lows the play therapist to track the child client’s history an
d mastery of play as a developmental marker. The seminal
author on children’s play as developmentally linked was Je
an Piaget (1962). To understand play in Piaget’s cognitive
theory, one must master the two basic concepts he purport
ed: assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is taking
newstimuli from the real world and fitting it into the child’
s already established pattern of thinking, making it fit. Acc
ommodation is the changing of the structure, in this case t
he child’s way of thinking, based on something new in the
environment. Piaget identified play as dominated by assimi
lation in which the child “… is able to dismantle establishe
d instrumental behavioral sequences and reassemble them
in new ways” (Kohlberg & Fein, 1987, p. 396). Expanding t
his understanding of play to play therapy, it is easy to see
how processes of assimilation and accommodation work to
gether for change. In play therapy, the child uses the proc
ess of assimilation to completely control her world, making
everything outside the playroom fit into her way of thinkin
g in the playroom. As the child experiences mastery, safety
, and empathy from the therapist, processes of accommoda
tion start to occur where the child changes structural patt
erns that can be practiced in the playroom and then initiat
ed in the real world, thereby changing selfto meet the dem
ands of the environment.

Upon understanding assimilation and accommodation, Pia

get then moves into the explanation of the four stages of pl
ay development. Piaget described the first type of play to t
ake place in infancy as sensorimotor play, also identified a
s practice play. This was the contributory basis for Elkind’s
(2007) discussion of mastery play described earlier in whic
h the child strives for mastery of basic motor skills. Betwe
en the first and second year of life, symbolic play emerges
in which the child initiates pretend play. Symbolic play allo
ws the child to develop early pretend gestures of using a c
up that has nothing in it, moving to short storylines of feed
ing a doll with a bottle or pretend food. The period of symb
olic play is marked by solitary play. During the second and
third years of development, sociodramatic play emerges in
which the child engages others or the pretense ofothers as
part of play. It is during this period that the child can prete
nd to be someone else and role playing becomes part of pl
ay. Following the age of 6 years old, the child engages in g
ames that are affected by internal and external rules, and t
his play often supersedes symbolic play (Smith, 2010). Eac
h stage is accompanied by increasing acquisition and use o
f language.

Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff (2003) characterized play devel

opment differently but still similarly aligned with Piaget. B
abies begin to play as early as 3 to 6 months old when they
learn to grasp objects. Between 6 and 9 months, infants be
gin intense object exploration, usually involving onlyone ob
ject at a time and only using the object for its intended use
. The second year of life brings three major changes to pla
y: an increase in the use of multiple objects at the same ti
me, the use of objects in appropriate ways, and the ability
to pretend things are real (symbolism). Progresstoward sy
mbolism allows the learning of language, reading, and pro
blem solving. Pretend play dramatically increases in the fo
urth year as children become directors of elaborate play sc
enes that can be focused and lengthy. Hirsh-Pasek and Gol
inkoff (2003) concluded, “…pretend play is practice for chil
dren in freeing themselves from what is right in front of th
eir eyes. Pretend play allows children to consider answers
outside the box. Pretend play allows our children to consid
er alternative worlds” (p. 219).

A final notable developmental theory of play involves progr

ession of play between children, categories of social partici
pation observed by Mildred Parten in 1932 and described
by Smith (2010). The social participation developmental th
eory addresses a child’s movement toward social interactio
n in a play environment. In the first stage, the child is unoc
cupied and not engaged in any activity. In the second stag
e, the child is described as an onlooker and just watches ot
hers but does not join in. During the third stage, solitary, t
he child plays alone, away from others. Parallel play takes
place in the fourth stage in which the child plays near othe
rs with the same materials but does not interact. At the fift
h stage, the child is associative by interacting with others
at an activity and doing similar things. And finally, the chil
d engages in cooperative play where the child interacts wit
h others in a complementary way. The significance of the s
ocial participation developmental theory can be seen in its
application to the social interaction of child clients. Childr
en who have emotional or behavioral difficulties can be fou
nd anywhere along the developmental continuum of social
participation, indicating possible challenges to peer relatio
nships. However, Smith (2010) cautioned that solitary play
behavior may not necessarily be an indicator of immature
behavior due to some children’s preference to play alone.

Vygotsky and Three Functions of Pl

ay
The two major influential developmental theorists contribu
ting to current understanding of play were Jean Piaget and
Leo Vygotsky. Piaget (1896– 1980) worked for most of his l
ife as head of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute at the U
niversity of Geneva. In the progressive environmentof Gen
eva, his ideas were allowed exploration and exposure. Due
to his

environment, his lengthy lifespan, and his meticulous appr

oach to observation of children, Piaget’s work became mos
t widely known and most widely accepted in the mid-
twentieth century. His emphasis on the cognitive developm
ent of children limited discussion of child’s play as a purely
cognitive feature and was readily embraced by educational
experts and institutions. As Piaget’s ideas flourished, Vygo
tsky (1896–1934) was performing similarly meticulous rese
arch with children but in a much different environment. In
the suppressive Russian political environment of the 1920s
, Vygotsky was extremely productive in his research and th
eoretical contemplation through his many writings. Howev
er, a year after Vygotsky’s death at the age of 38 to tuberc
ulosis, Stalin outlawed developmental psychology and mos
t of Vygotsky’s work went underground, delaying translati
on and dissemination of his work for a great number of yea
rs. In the late 1960s, English translations of Vygotsky’s pu
blications began to emerge and appeared to offer an altern
ative to Piaget’s highly concentrated cognitive work. For pl
ay therapists, Vygotsky’s work is especially energizing bec
ause it offers a view of play as an affective process in addit
ion to a cognitive process. He claimed that play was the le
ading source of development in the preschool years.

Speaking to cognitive processes, Vygotsky described play

as liberating children from the constraints of reality and al
lowing them to move into the world of ideas, necessary for
cognitive development. Affectively, Vygotsky recognized th
at play is invented by a child when the child canno longer
make reality fit with desires or tendencies, usually about t
he age of 3 years. He proposed that, “…why a child plays
must always be interpreted as the imaginary, illusory reali
zation of unrealizable desires” (pp. 7–8). Vygotsky recogniz
ed three functions of play, including the creation of the chi
ld’s zone of proximal development, helping the child separ
ate thought and action, and finally the facilitating of self-
regulation (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003). Vygotsky char
acterized the concept of the “zone of proximal developmen
t” as a dynamic that occurs in play in which the child acts
above his average age, able to reach a higher level of deve
lopment without the restriction of reality. The second funct
ion of play occurs through the ability of the child to be libe
rated from external constraints through his activity in an i
maginary situation, thereby allowing a separation of thoug
ht and action. Self-regulation occurs throughtwo processes
: the practice of subordination to rules and the narration of
private speech. Vygotsky (1966) claimed that one paradox
of play is that the child “learns to follow the line of greates
t resistance, for by subordinating themselves to rules child
ren renounce what they want since subjection to rule and r
enunciation of spontaneous impulsive action constitute the
path to maximum pleasure in play” (pp. 13–14). Private sp
eech was a unique concept in Vygotsky’s theory, which he
noted as a child’s

way of working out what they want to do and how they sho
uld proceed. Based on the need for private speech, Hirsh-
Pasek and Golinkoff (2003) recommended environments w
here children can verbalize as they play. A final contributin
g concept of Vygotsky’s was the observation that as childr
en grow older, play is converted to internal processes movi
ng to internal speech and abstract thought. Whereas Piage
t claimed that egocentric speech disappeared in deference
to concrete thought, Vygotsky believed that private speech
and play still occurred but within internal thoughts and im
agination of the older child and adult.

Vygotsky’s contribution to understanding play is perhaps e

ven more influential than that of Piaget in the practice of p
lay therapy. There are multiple implications for play thera
py based on his work. The first is the recognition that play
is not necessarily born of a need for fun butappears to be b
orn as a reaction to distress caused by the child’s inability
to meet a growing set of internal needs with resources fro
m the real world. In terms of play therapy, this first implic
ation provides a ration ale for why play therapy is critical t
o children under stress from the environment. For trouble
d children, normal development dictates growing desires,
but reality offers fewer sources of help, as parental or othe
r adult figures cease to provide support, thereby increasin
g the need for play. Practically speaking, one implication o
f Vygotsky’s work is that playtherapy is most effective follo
wing the age of 3 when the child is using play to work thro
ugh environmental stressors. Play therapy can still be usef
ul for children under 3 but for different reasons such as rel
ationship building and attachment. The zone of proximal d
evelopment againprovides a rationale for the benefit of pla
y therapy where children can experience their capabilities
beyond everyday life, bringing about an increase in confide
nce and self-direction. And finally, the issue of verbalizatio
n becomes a focal point in play therapy. For nondirective f
orms of play therapy, verbalization is seen as unnecessary
for therapeutic work. However, according to Vygotsky, ver
balization might be a marker for understanding the child a
s a child narrates her play. For younger children, this can
give significant insight into the inner workings of a child’s
processes. Experienced play therapists have certainly obse
rved play-byplay commentary by a child in play that seems
to have no interactive quality. Some play therapists interpr
et this behavior as unattached or disconnected. In reality,
such verbalization demonstrates the ongoing narrative taki
ng place within the child, the child making sense of thewor
ld. For older children, the concept of private speech indica
tes that children are still formulating a narrative of which t
he play therapist may not be privy. In this case, play thera
pists are limited by, but attuned to, the child’s open verbali
zations and play behaviors as a method of understanding t
he child’s inner world.

Rise and Development of Play Ther

apy
In the context of a lengthy history of ambivalence toward c
hild’s play, acknowledgment of childhood as a separate ph
ase of life from adulthood, study of developmental and play
processes related to children, and growing interest in psyc
hology and human motivation and distress, theories of play
therapy have emerged. Throughout the 20th century, the
medical and psychology communities attempted to address
the peculiarities of children using the modality of play. As t
rue for most psychological interventions, the beginnings of
play therapy trace back to Sigmund Freud (1909/1955) wh
o never directly worked with children but described the ca
se of “LittleHans,” a child who had developed a phobia, ref
using to leave the house due to his fear of being bitten by
a horse. S. Freud directed Hans’ father to observe and rep
ort Hans’ play behavior to Freud, who then analyzed the b
oy through correspondence. S. Freud concluded that the c
ase wasfurther confirmation of his theory regarding sexual
stages of development. Psychoanalysts subsequently provi
ded analysis to children using the modality of play. Hermin
e Hug-Hellmuth (1921) is regarded as the first child psych
oanalyst, using play as a means of analysis. She was a proli
fic writer and published multiple descriptions of her work
with children, citing the importance of play in conducting
psychoanalysis yet not providing a structural framework fo
r therapy. Melanie Klein (1975/1932) and Anna Freud (194
6), both of Vienna, were credited with the expansion of pla
y therapy through their exploration, writings, and presenta
tions on play as a method for psychoanalysis. Long before t
he publications of Piaget or Vygotsky, Klein (1975/1932) re
cognized the value of play in therapy when she wrote “in c
hild-analysis we are able to get back to experiences and fix
ations which, in the analysis of adults can often only be rec
onstructed, whereas the child shows them to us as immedi
ate representations” (p. 9). Klein believed that play was th
e child form of free association and interpreted everything
done in play as having an underlying symbolic function. Sh
e also suggested that children have the insight necessary t
o recognize the meaning of their behaviors if pointed out b
y the therapist. A. Freud(1946) differed from Klein in that
she did not believe that interpretations of child’s play were
valuable without the transference relationship necessary f
or analysis. She proposed that children needed a preparat
ory period for analysis in which the therapist establishes t
he transference relationship. A. Freud (1946) wrote, “…I t
ook great pains to establish in the child a strongattachmen
t to myself, and to bring it into a relationship of real depen
dence on me” (p. 31). Despite differences in approach, bot
h analysts practiced a nondirective approach to play thera
py in which they allowed free play with available toys. Hen
ce, psychoanalytical play therapy offered the first organize
d approach to play therapy, providing a theoretical rationa
le and

description of practice. Psychoanalytic play therapy was th

e primary form of play therapy in the early 20th century un
til the introduction of childcentered play therapy (CCPT) in
the 1940s.

As a response to the unstructured play methods of Klein an

d Freud, a new strand of play therapy emerged in the 1930
s that embraced a structured approach to play, including t
he goal-oriented practice of eliciting play reenactments for
catharsis. Structured play therapy still held psychoanalytic
beliefs regarding children but believed that goals were mo
re readily achieved through structure imposed by the ther
apist. In David Levy’s (1938) Release Therapy, he worked s
pecifically with traumatized children by providing toys that
he believed would facilitate trauma-related play allowing f
or resolution through catharsis. Gove Hambridge (1955) to
ok release therapy one step further, calling his method str
uctured play therapy, by directing children to play out stre
ssful events from their lives, and then allowing free play.

The third, and arguably most influential, wave of play ther

apy was the introduction of play therapy as an expansion o
f Carl Rogers’ (1942) person-centered approach to counsel
ing. Rogers (1902–1987) is cited as being the most influent
ial counselor and psychotherapist in American history (Kir
schenbaum, 2004). Virginia Axline (1947), who was a stud
ent and colleague of Rogers, fully applied the philosophy a
nd concepts of personcentered theory to her work in couns
eling children. Axline utilized person-centered theory in a
developmentally responsive manner in her work with child
ren by providing an environment conducive to their natura
l way of communicating. This environment consisted of a p
layroom of specific toys that allowed children to express th
eir inner selves through play. The development of the relat
ionship within the context of the playroom provided childr
en a safe environment in which to express themselves verb
ally and nonverbally. Axline was especially influential for s
everal reasons. First, she was the first play therapist to un
dertake extensive investigation of her therapy methods thr
ough research, thus providing evidence of its efficacy. Sec
ond, she provided a structure to the theory and delivery of
play therapy in her publication, Play Therapy (Axline, 1947
). Third, and probably most likely the basis of popularity of
the approach, was the publication of her book, Dibs: In Sea
rch of Self (Axline, 1964). Dibs is widely known in the play
therapy profession as essential play therapy reading in whi
ch Axline presented a case of a boy, described as autistic b
y today’s criteria, over the course of a year in play therapy.
While presenting the mechanics and rationale of play thera
py, Axline involves the reader in an emotional tale of a chil
d’s triumph. Axline labeled her approach to play therapy a
s nondirective, highlighting the person-centered therapist
conditions of unconditional positive regard, empathic unde
rstanding, and congruence. Through continued presentatio
n of the person-centered, nondirective approach in the

works of Guerney (2001) and Landreth (2002), this approa

ch to play therapy is now referred to as child-centered play
therapy (CCPT). Chapters 3, 4, and 5 in this book elaborat
e extensively on the theory and practice of [Link]
CCPT emerged as a defined approach to play therapy, rela
tionally based play therapy has contributed significantly to
its definition and practice. Clark Moustakas (1959) present
ed essential conditions for relationship play therapy, inclu
ding respect for the uniqueness of the child, focus on the p
resent living experience, therapist empathy for and unqual
ified acceptance of the child, and freedom of expression fo
r the child. Haim Ginott (1959) also contributed to the rela
tional focus in play therapy by suggesting permissiveness i
n the therapist/child relationship allowing for all verbal an
d symbolic expression of [Link] the latter part of the 2
0th century, play therapy modalities were supported by va
rious theoretical approaches to psychology. Child therapist
s working within the frameworks of Adlerian, Jungian, Gest
alt, psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, and attachment t
heories defined the play therapy modality according to ado
pted theoretical principles. These approaches are addresse
d in detail in Chapter 3 of this book. The growth of play th
erapy indicates that there is professional acceptance of pla
y as a prominent means of communication in therapeutic h
ealing.
Conclusion and Implications for Pl
ay Therapy
This chapter attempted to cover a substantial amount of in
formation regarding play, including the history of play, pro
perties and types of play, purpose of play, developmental t
heories regarding play, and historical use of play in therap
y. Although broad, when consolidated, this play informatio
n has global implications for the practice of play therapy. I
n reviewing information on play, questions arise for the ad
vanced play therapist regarding the role of play in play the
rapy. Here are a few that came to mind. I do not attempt t
o answer these questions; I only offer them as points of dis
cussion.
1. If fun is a required element that defines play, can what
most children do in play therapy be considered play?
2. Are children actually free in play therapy? Based on Vy
gotsky’s view, children are always restricted by implicit
rules of play. How confined are they by these internal r
ules, and how much freedom do they experience?
3. Is play always voluntary and non-goal oriented? If this i
s true, is the scene that is played out by a child with dis
turbing and negative affect voluntary and without an in
ternal goal? As a play therapist, I question the child’s v
oluntary and non-goal-directed nature of reenacting tra
umatic scenes that appear painful, yet the child

appears compe
lled to play it o
ut until the end
. Again, is this
play or somethi
ng else?
4. In modern American culture, has free play
disappeared to the extent that play therap
y is needed by more children as an environ
ment that is not afforded them in any othe
r setting? Is play therapy needed for the pr
ogression of normal development?
5. What is the role of the therapist in the facil
itation of play? Based on historical perspec
tives, do therapists work in the adult guida
nce role or in the nondirective role of provi
ding a facilitative environment? How is the
answer to this question related to a therap
ist’s view of humankind?
Although questions abound, the advanced play therapist k
nows the value of ambiguity in thought and the richness of
discussion for these areas. But there do appear to be some
definitive implications for the purposes of play in therapy b
ased on accrued information in this chapter. Ideveloped a l
ist of functions served by play in play therapy resulting fro
m a review of the history and theories of play. Play in play
therapy is used for
1Fun: The use of play in play therapy provides the opportu
. nity for fun, either for the child or for the therapist and ch
ild. Although it is recognized that play is not always fun fo
r the child, especially in therapy, it can often be fun. The
allowance of fun in a therapeutic environment lowers a ch
ild’s resistance to the therapeutic relationship, and offers
an experience that is often missing from the life of a child
who is experiencing several environmental conflicts.
2Symbolic expression: Play in play therapy allows for the s
. ymbolic expression of thoughts and feelings. As eloquentl
y presented by both Piaget and Vygotsky, children use sy
mbols for the acquisition of language and expression of e
motion and cognition. The symbolic expression of play in t
herapy invites the play therapist into the child’s world. Th
e child is no longer confined by reality and can pretend, c
reating scenes for the expression of emotion or building o
f coping skills.
3Catharsis: Play in play therapy allows a child to work thro
. ugh those issues of greatest consequence to the child. No
ndirected play provides an environment in which the child
chooses direction of effort.
4Social development: Play not only allows for the expressio
. n of the child’s world, but also promotes communication b
etween child and therapist—or in the case of group play t
herapy, between peers. The building and maintenance of
a nurturing relationship facilitated through play strengthe
ns a child’s social motivation and skills.
5Mastery: In play therapy, play is used by the child to cont
. rol her world. She has the power to be anything and the c
apability to do anything. She is not limited by real-world r
 estraints. The child uses play in play therapy to develop a
sense of control and competence over the environment.
6Release of energy: Although the use of play to release ene
. rgy may not seem like a therapeutic endeavor, children ar
e likely to use play therapy as a place of free expression f
or unused or confining energy. Children who spend the da
y attempting to “keep it together” in structured environm
ents often need a safe place for energy release, which, on
ce expended, allows for focused therapeutic work.