The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
Role Profiles: a drama therapy assessment instrument
Robert J. Landy, Ph.D., RDT/BCT∗ , Bree Luck, M.A., Erin Conner, M.A.,
Sara McMullian, M.A., RDT/BCT
New York University, Drama Therapy, 35 West 4 Street, New York, NY 10012, USA
Introduction
Role Profiles is a new assessment instrument
in drama therapy. Its earliest version was created
in 1997 by Robert Landy as an extension of his
work in role theory in drama therapy (see Landy,
2000). Historically, both psychologists and drama
therapists have developed approaches to clinical
assessment through drama. In a review of the literature, Forrester (2000) tells us that psychologists
have used dramatic approaches to assessment since
World War II, when Murray and his colleagues (see
McReynolds & DeVoge, 1977) used role-playing
to assess the readiness of soldiers to assume officer status. Forrester well documents the many uses
of drama-based assessment by non-drama therapy
psychologists, including behaviorists and cognitive
psychologists. She also mentions the most significant
predecessor of drama therapy, J.L. Moreno (1946),
who developed an early form of psychodramatic
assessment.
Within the field of drama therapy, two assessment instruments have been in use since the 1970s.
The first is the Puppetry Interview, developed by
Irwin and her colleagues (Irwin, 1985; Irwin, Levy,
& Shapiro, 1972). Applying a psychoanalytic-free
association approach, Irwin presents children with a
basket of puppets and asks them to tell and/or dramatize stories through the puppet figures. Following
the stories, Irwin helps the children reflect upon their
stories and dramatizations. Later she interprets the
stories from a psychodynamic perspective, in terms
of their content and form.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: robert.landy@nyu.edu (R.J. Landy).
Johnson (1988) developed two versions of the
Diagnostic Role-Playing Test (DRPT). In the DRPT
1, a subject is given five roles—grandparent, bum,
politician, teacher, lover—and asked to play one
at a time. In the DRPT 2, the subject is given the
following directions:
I am now going to ask you to do three scenes. After
each one I will ask you some questions . . . Enact
a scene between three beings in any way that you
wish. Who or what these three beings are is up to
you. Tell me when you are finished.
Following each scene the subject reflects upon the
action by responding to the following questions: “Tell
me in as much detail as you can what happened in
that scene . . . Now, describe the three beings, one at
a time.” (Johnson, 1988)
Like Irwin, Johnson interprets the behavior of
the subjects in role, assessing such aspects as: (a)
spontaneity; (b) ability to transcend reality; (c) role
repertoire; (d) organization of scenes; (e) patterns in
the dramatic content of scenes; (f) attitude toward
enactment; (g) style of role-playing.
Both instruments have been used for research and
treatment with a number of subjects and clients, including emotionally disturbed children, schizophrenic
adults and war veterans suffering from post-traumatic
stress syndrome (see Irwin, 1985; James & Johnson,
1997; Johnson & Quinlan, 1993).
Throughout the 1990s, several other drama therapy assessments have been developed based in storytelling and storymaking. Israeli drama therapist and
psychologist, Mooli Lahad (1992), created an instrument called six-piece storymaking (6-PSM) to assess
the coping styles of individuals under conditions
of stress and trauma. Through 6-PSM, the subject
divides a piece of paper into six parts and draws
0197-4556/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0197-4556(03)00048-0
152
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
a picture in each part representing the following: a
main character and his/her place of residence; the
mission or task of the character; a person or thing
that will help the character fulfill his/her mission; the
obstacle that stands in the character’s way; the way
the character deals with the obstacle; the ending or
continuation of the story.
After the subject tells the story, based upon the
drawings, the researcher analyzes the story according to criteria developed by Lahad (1992). Lahad’s
model, BASIC Ph, specifies the following coping
styles:
B:
A:
S:
I:
C:
Ph:
coping through Beliefs and Values;
coping through Affective means;
coping through Social relationships;
coping through Imaginative means;
coping through Cognitive means;
coping through Physical means.
Gersie (1991, 1997) uses a similar six-part structure to assess a subject’s ability to tell and create stories. Her system and criteria are, however, much more
open-ended. Gersie asks individuals to either draw or
tell or enact a story according to the following aspects:
the landscape, the character, the dwelling place, the
obstacle, the helpmate, and the resolution. Following
the storymaking, Gersie assesses the subject’s resistances and suggests means to proceed through drama
therapeutic treatment.
Landy (2001) introduced Tell-A-Story (TAS) assessment in 1997 as a means of assessing a subject
through criteria based in his role method (see Landy,
1993, 2001). The structure of TAS is less structured
than that of Lahad and Gersie. Subjects are given the
following directions:
I would like you to tell me a story. The story can
be based upon something that happened to you or
to somebody else in real life or it can be completely
made up. The story must have at least one character.
If the subjects are unable to tell a story verbally,
they are encouraged to tell the story through movement or projective objects such as puppets. Following
the storytelling, the subject is asked to respond to a
series of questions designed to assess the subject’s
ability to specify the character’s qualities, functions
and styles of presentation, all aspects explained in
detail within Landy’s role method and role theory
(Landy, 2001). Further, subjects are asked to specify
the theme of the story, the connection among characters in the story, and the connection between the
fictional characters and the subject’s everyday life.
As is the case with all drama therapy assessments, the
data gathered through TAS can serve both research
and treatment purposes.
Role Profiles
Like TAS, Role Profiles, a second assessment instrument developed by Landy (2001), is grounded in
role theory. Role theory views human beings in terms
of their behaviors in role. Role is a set of archetypal
qualities representing one aspect of a person, an aspect that relates to others and when taken together,
provides a meaningful and coherent view of self (see
Landy, 1993). A human personality, in turn, is essentially an amalgamation of the roles a person takes on
and plays out. According to role theory human beings
are motivated to seek balance among their often discrepant roles. Implicit here is the notion that humans
have access to an internal system of roles and that
they may call upon those roles as they are needed.
Landy’s role method of drama therapy suggests
that psychological and behavioral change can occur
by increasing the number of roles that a person can
effectively take on and play out, increasing the depth
or quality of such roles, and helping the client move
more flexibly from one role to another (Meldrum,
1994). Furthermore, the optimal state of balance is
achieved as the client is able to integrate a problematic
role with its counter role by means of a transitional
guide figure (see Landy, 2001).
In an effort to specify and name the roles that humans are capable of playing, Landy (1993) turned to
theatre as the source of the most common archetypal roles. After completing an exhaustive study of the
dramatis personae of some 600 plays, ranging from
Greek tragedies to contemporary drama, he discerned
84 discreet archetypal roles plus many sub-roles for
a total of 146. He organized these roles into a comprehensive system which he called the Taxonomy of
Roles.
Originally, the Taxonomy was of conceptual rather
than practical value. Its primary use was in revealing the quantity and quality of roles that emerge in
everyday life and in drama therapy, and generally, in
providing a structure for categorizing different roles.
Although critics of the taxonomy argue that it is too
rigid to explore the human psyche (see Meldrum,
1994, Landy, 1994), the Taxonomy does provide a
starting point for a diagnostic approach to psychological functioning through role.
With this in mind, Landy (2001) has worked
toward demonstrating the practical value of the
Taxonomy of Roles by developing two assessment
instruments based upon these role types. TAS, mentioned above, is one. The second is Role Profiles.
Role Profiles was originally created in 1997 as a paper and pencil test. Subjects were given a list of 90
roles, corresponding to an abbreviated version of the
146 roles specified in Landy’s (1993) Taxonomy of
Roles. They were asked to rate themselves in terms
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
of each role on a Likert-type scale. Then they were
asked to choose several prominent roles and to tell a
story about these characters.
In a number of trials with graduate students from
1997 to 1999, Landy determined that the instrument
was too cumbersome and time-consuming. He removed the section concerning storytelling, which
became an assessment instrument in its own right,
Tell-A-Story. In 2000, he revised the instrument
into a card sort, limiting the quantity of roles to 70,
based upon feedback from both graduate students
and colleagues in drama therapy and related fields.
Again, he ran trials with graduate and undergraduate
students from a number of different cultures to refine
the instrument. In its current form, the instrument is
administered with the following instructions:
This experience is intended to explore your personality as if it were made up characters commonly
found in plays, movies, and stories. You will be
given a stack of cards. On each card is the name of a
role, which is a type of character you have probably
seen in movies and plays or read about in stories.
Please shuffle the cards thoroughly. Place each card
in one of four groups that best describes how you
feel about yourself right now. Each group is labeled
by a large card which says: I Am This, I Am Not
This, I Am Not Sure If I Am This, and I Want To Be
This. Try to group the cards as quickly as possible.
Any questions? When you are ready, begin. Be sure
to place each card in one group only.
Although Role Profiles still requires substantial
research to test its validity and reliability, a number of
preliminary studies are underway. This paper presents
the findings of three researchers, all drama therapists trained by Landy in the administration of Role
Profiles. Each researcher took part in a series of trials
exploring the efficacy of the 2000 version of Role Profiles. To encompass issues of generalizability, Landy
asked the researchers to work with a range of subjects
in terms of age and mental status. In two cases, the researchers chose non-clinical subjects, one a teenager,
the other an elderly couple, both with no discernable
disabilities or mental illness. These subjects, living
in different regions of the United States and from different socio-economic statuses, were recommended
by professional colleagues of the researchers.
In the third case, that of Darcy, the researcher
chose a clinical subject, also recommended by a colleague. Darcy was diagnosed with mental illness and
substance abuse and attends a rehabilitation facility
where the researcher works. The researcher was not
the subject’s therapist.
All subjects volunteered freely and provided informed consent. Each researcher describes her experiences below administering Role Profiles to the given
subjects. The results are presented as modified case
153
studies and will include a discussion of the efficacy
of the instrument. Names and identifying characteristics of the subjects have been changed to protect their
confidentiality.
Dakota
Dakota is a thirteen-year-old female who lives in
North Carolina with her mother. An only child of
divorced parents, Dakota is an eighth-grade honor
student in a public school. She and her mother attend a Christian church regularly, and Dakota feels
that the church has been a primary influence in her
upbringing.
Dakota was asked by the researcher to take Role
Profiles, and she was eager to complete the assessment. After the researcher explained the directions
to Dakota, the participant quickly, but thoughtfully,
categorized the seventy role cards. She held Avenger,
Killer, Bigot, Asexual, and Atheist aside for several
moments as she proceeded with the categorization
of the other roles. Halfway through the sorting process, Dakota asked the researcher whether or not
she could inquire about the meanings of some of
the roles. The researcher told her to try to find her
own meanings for the roles, but if she needed a
definition of a term, the researcher would define it
for her. Dakota did not know the definitions of four
terms: Avenger, Bigot, Asexual, and Atheist, and the
tester provided definitions as objectively as possible.
In addition, Dakota thought carefully about a fifth
term, Killer, as she tried to determine whether she
should define the word metaphorically or literally
(Table 1).
When Dakota completed her sorting of the roles,
the tester asked her to look at her assortment, and to
move any roles that seemed out of place. Dakota did
so, and in a moment exclaimed “Oh Duh! There are a
few that I want to move to the I want to be category.”
Thereafter, she moved Saint, Wife and Mother from
I am not This into I want to be This. After making
these adjustments, she expressed her satisfaction with
the new arrangement.
The researcher then asked Dakota to see if she
could find any relationships or connections between
the roles. Dakota pointed out that many of the family
roles, such as Mother, Daughter, Child, Sister, and
Mother, were either a part of her, or who she wanted
to be. She explained that family was very important to
her. She also noticed that Daughter and Orphan were
next to each other, even though they were in different
categories.
Dakota first noted that these roles were seemingly
opposites and that, according to society’s definitions,
the very reason that she was not the Orphan made her
154
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
Table 1
Dakota’s role distribution
This is who I am
This is who I am not
I’m not sure if this is who I am
This is who I want to be
Worrier
Critic
Child
Clown
Angry person
Heterosexual
Daughter
Healer
Killer
Survivor
Person of faith
Helper
Sinner
Dreamer
Artist
Lover
Rich person
Warrior
Radical
Optimist
Adolescent
Slave
Sainta
Villain
Pessimist
Simpleton
Bisexual
Orphan
Bully
Coward
Husband
Conservative
Elder
Poor person
Outcast
Wifea
Demon
Mothera
Bigot
Homeless person
God
Sick person
Son
Adult
Lost one
Victim
Suicide
Brother
Homosexual
Asexual
Slave
Father
Beauty
Miser
Innocent
Egotist
Beast
Judge
Avenger
Zombie
Police
Atheist
Average person
Hero
Wise person
Witness
Rebel
Spiritual leader
Sister
Magician
Saintb
Wifeb
Motherb
a
b
Denotes removal of a role card from its original position.
Denotes a role card’s new place, moved from its original position.
the Daughter. After a brief pause, however, Dakota
had a deeper explanation of the relationship of the
two roles. She admitted that, as the daughter of parents who divorced when she was three years old, she
often felt lonely. She had only one memory of her parents living together, and primarily remembered them
living separately.
Despite living with her mother for the majority of
the time, she felt closer and more similar to her father.
“I’ve got the same temper, and I’m more laid back,
and we have a lot of the same beliefs and interests,”
she admitted. “My mom and I are like two total opposites. We don’t agree on anything . . . It probably
has to do with my age, you know, being a teenager.
But it goes further than that. She’s so into church and
living sin-free, and I just want to have fun and do the
things I love without worrying about whether or not
the church is going to agree. I mean she freaks out
when I say damn! I guess I feel like an orphan, in a
way, sometimes, because I don’t feel like the woman
I live with is really a mother I can relate to and consider myself a part of, as much as I would like to.
This probably has a lot to do with why Sinner is in
the I Am column, too.”
Dakota went on to discuss the relationship between Bully and Coward in her categorization. She
said that a bully is a coward, proclaiming “Bullies
protect themselves from the truth about themselves
by picking on other people. They’re just picking on
the things they don’t like in themselves by seeing it
in those people. If they were brave, they’d see it’s
themselves they should be making fun of.”
When asked about the I am not This category,
Dakota quickly pointed out that she felt very disconnected from some of the roles. For example, she felt
that Homeless Person, God, Sick Person, Asexual,
and Brother did not apply to her. Other roles she had
categorized as not her felt more important, such as
Suicide, Poor Person, Coward, and Bigot. “No matter how little money I ever have, I’ll never consider
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
myself a Poor Person. I’m rich in other ways, like in
my relationship to my family.”
She also stated that she would never consider suicide because it is simply another way of being a Coward. She was also adamant about not being a Bigot. “I
don’t want to have others be prejudiced against me,
so why would I be prejudiced about someone else?
That’s what a Bigot is—prejudiced.”
Dakota went on to discuss the I’m not sure column.
Dakota admitted that she was still wondering about
some of the roles in that list. She explained that she
was still trying to figure out who she was as a person,
and as she had little experience with some of these
roles, she was not ready to make a firm decision about
whether she was or was not those things. She admitted
that she felt uncomfortable accepting some roles in a
social situation. Dakota said, “I don’t want to say that
I’m a Beauty, just like that. That’s big-headed. I think
I know I am, but it wouldn’t be polite for me to say it.”
Finally, Dakota examined the I want to be This
column. The researcher pointed out that Dakota made
changes early in the discussion by moving roles from
I am not This to I want to be This. Dakota explained
that she simply forgot about the latter category during
her sorting process. While considering the Sister role,
Dakota revealed her desire to have a sister with whom
she could talk and share her life. “It would be a lot
easier if I had someone who could go through the
same things as me,” she said, “so we could talk and
she’d understand on a level that a friend or other
relative can’t.”
Dakota also explained that she always wanted to
have a magical part in her. She claimed she knew that
she was already a magician, but that it seemed more
important for her to classify the role as something
that she wanted to be. The Wife and the Mother roles
were self-explanatory, according to Dakota. She said
that she knew she would become these roles when
she was grown.
Dakota had a difficult time discussing the Saint
role, but used the moment to describe her frustration with the organization of the church she attended.
Nevertheless, she claimed that she still had respect
for God and for holy things. This, she explained, was
why the role of the Saint was something she wanted
to achieve in life.
Discussion
In many ways, Role Profiles appears to be useful
with adolescents who are still experiencing many of
the roles and qualities for the first time. The act of
delineating who one is (or is not) by sorting cards is
an apt metaphor for the adolescent who is discovering
her own identity as a human being, and a keen way
to begin the therapeutic journey.
155
On the other hand, a potential limitation in using
the instrument with adolescents concerns the need to
provide definitions for the terms. It would be easy for
the researcher to provide a biased definition of a particular role type, and yet doing so would compromise
the assessment’s objectivity and reliability. This researcher notes that when assessing younger children
or clients with limited verbal capabilities, it would be
essential to revise the instrument so that the participant would be able to understand the meanings of the
different roles, without relying on the objectivity of
the tester.
Darcy
Darcy, a Caucasian woman in her mid-forties, was
diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder as well as
borderline personality disorder with antisocial personality traits at the time of taking Role Profiles. She
has a long history of substance abuse, and was a drug
runner for many years. Darcy claims that, as a young
girl, she was sexually abused by her uncle. Further,
she acknowledges that she was extremely violent, was
quick to cut others with a knife if they made her mad
or got in her way. She has been imprisoned several
times, and is now seeking help from an intensive psychiatric rehabilitation treatment program for adults
who have a co-existing diagnosis of mental illness
and substance abuse/dependency.
Darcy resides with a man she refers to as her
husband, although they are not married. Her teenage
daughter also lives with her. Darcy also has a teenage
son, who was raised in the foster care system after
she was determined to be an unfit mother. This son
has been involved in the criminal justice system, and
he has minimal contact with his mother.
As Darcy began sorting the cards (Table 2), she
often spoke out loud, but did not direct her speech towards the researcher. Rather, the researcher felt that
she was talking to herself in an effort to reinforce
or remind herself of the roles and their placements.
Darcy found an innovative way to sort the cards.
Rather than sorting the cards out in columns, she
created her own system of organizing the cards. For
example, she delineated the I am not This category
(which contained the most cards), by fanning the
cards out in a semicircle. She placed the rest of the
categories underneath this broad fan.
As Darcy proceeded with the sorting process, she
was unable to place six cards in any category. Therefore, she created what she called a new category. Visually, this category appeared to be a ladder, linking
I am This to I am not sure if I am This. I want to be
This held three cards, and was also physically within
the boundaries of I am not This.
156
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
Table 2
Darcy’s role distribution
This is who I am
This is who I am not
I’m not sure if this is who I am
This is who I want to be
Rebela
Child
Orphan
Artist
Zombie
Coward
Homeless
Judge
Slave
Clown
Outcast
Demon
Magician
Police
Bigot
Pessimist
Hero
Witness
God
Saint
Warrior
Avenger
Radical
Rich person
Poor person
Homosexual
Egotist
Miser
Sick person
Elder
Asexual
Adolescent
Healer
Angry persona
Atheist
Simpleton
Suicidal person
Killer
Critic
Villain
Victim
Angry personb
Rebelb
Spiritual leader
Bullyb
Sinnerc
Innocentc
Beastc
Dreamerc
Wifec
Motherc
Conservative
Wise person
Person of faith
Adult
Survivor
Average person
Beauty
Daughter
Sister
Helper
Optimist
Bullya
Sinnerc
Innocentc
Beastc
Dreamerc
Wifec
Motherc
a
Denotes a role card’s new place, moved from its original position.
Denotes removal of a role card from this placement.
c Denotes a role card placement that straddles two categories.
b
Once the cards were sorted, Darcy was selective
and brief in her discussion of the roles. In I am This,
Darcy spoke about a Person of Faith. She referred to
the concept of a higher power in the tradition of recovery from substances. Darcy claimed that she did
not identify with a particular belief system or faith.
She defined Adult as being a lady as opposed to a
woman of the streets. She felt that her ability to survive many years as a gang member was a source of
great strength, and made her a Survivor. She identified
her beauty as being from the inside. While she clearly
identified with the role of the Daughter, she wondered
out loud if it meant a good daughter. This made the
researcher wonder about the impact of her childhood
abuse. She claimed that the role of the Helper was
sometimes a problem because, she claimed, “I go over
the top, and have to learn how and when to speak out
or not.” Darcy refused to elaborate any more on the
roles or relationships between and among roles in this
category.
Next, Darcy discussed the new category. When
asked about her decision to create this category,
Darcy stated, “When something isn’t there that I
need, I add it myself and make something new.” She
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
sees this ability as being very resourceful. Upon further discussion, the category seems to have contained
roles about which Darcy felt strong ambivalences.
For example, in discussing the Innocent, Darcy said,
“My heart is innocent, but my mind is not.” While
discussing the Beast, she claimed, “Sometimes I
think the way a beast thinks, but I don’t act on it
anymore.”
Further, on discussing the Wife, Darcy explained
that she saw the role to be concerned with daily tasks
and functions, such as cooking dinner and cleaning
the house, and claimed that, “Sometimes I am a good
wife, and sometimes I am not.” She also noted that
she was a Mother because she has two children, but
she also has a son whom she did not raise, and who
harbors substantial anger towards her. She went on
to discuss her son’s feelings, but declined to speak
of her own feelings about her son, or the role of the
Mother.
When Darcy moved on to discuss I am not This,
she briefly identified five roles: The Lost One, Child,
Orphan, Coward and Zombie. She said, “I am not
lost. I am not a child anymore. I am not an orphan or
coward, and now that I’m in recovery, I am NOT a
Zombie.” Although she withheld comment on any of
the other cards in this category, she did observe that
she had a large number of cards in this realm, and felt
good about this, as she identified letting go of these
roles as a part of her recovery process.
Darcy offered no comments about the two roles in
the I am Not Sure category, but moved on to discuss
the three roles in I want to be This. She defined the
Lover not as a sexual role, but as someone who is
capable of being tender and empathic. The role of the
Conservative, she said, meant someone who lives like
a normal person. In addition, Darcy wanted to be a
wise person because she wanted to have knowledge
and insight.
Discussion
Upon examining the choices of roles, as well as
the visual picture that Darcy created in the sorting
process, it is clear that Role Profiles offers rich opportunities to better understand behaviors and character
traits which relate to the client’s diagnosis. In particular, the researcher could examine the way that the
client defines certain roles, to gain some insight into
her development. For example, in this case, Darcy’s
concept of family and social roles are clearly in the
imitative stage, reflective of her phase of recovery. At
present, she follows the rules, does what is expected
within the therapeutic model, but is not yet able to
internalize these roles or behaviors for herself.
In addition, her clear issues with boundaries, the
struggle to control her violent tendencies, and her
157
ambivalence in the placement of some of the roles,
offers the researcher information that can facilitate
the formulation of early treatment interventions and
approaches.
Moreover, the Role Profile assessment offers a descriptive diagnostic picture of the client’s concept of
self, behavior, and functioning that may relate to the
traditional Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).
Indeed, when therapists and counselors are asked to
use the GAF in measuring outcomes of treatment,
there is often a sense of frustration when the GAF
numbers do not shift in a way that reflects the changes
that have taken place in therapy. It is possible that
if given as a pre- and post-test, Role Profiles could
be more illustrative of growth and outcome than the
GAF for clients in day treatment, psychiatric rehabilitation, outpatient care, or other community settings.
The profile could continue to be given at different
stages of treatment, so that the facilitator could evaluate the shifts, changes, and consistencies in the card
sort and discussion.
In effect, Role Profiles offers rich opportunities for
drama therapists to develop treatment plans, to evaluate and assess levels of functioning, and to develop
outcome measures for clients. It will be both necessary and critical for drama therapists to work toward
the development of these tools, furthering the efficacy
of their work in the clinical arena.
Anne and Rex
Anne and Rex are a married couple who reside in
a resort town in Southern Florida. Anne, who is 76, is
a working homemaker and industrial film producer,
and is very active in the community. She is currently
taking medication for what she describes as a lifelong
battle against migraines and depression. Her husband,
Rex, is an 81-year-old entrepreneur who works every
day and golfs regularly. He has no history of mental
illness, but voices concern over his recent heart attack,
which he had two months before taking Role Profiles.
Anne and Rex have been married for 55 years, and
have never before sought marriage counseling. Both
claim to be content with their relationship, although
Anne admits that there have been some difficult times.
Anne and Rex both volunteered to participate in a research project about personality by taking Role Profiles. Their cases have been outlined here because of
their ages as well as the implications the instrument
might have for couples therapy (Table 3).
One of the first things that this researcher noticed
when comparing the ways that Anne and Rex sorted
the cards, was that differences emerged simply in the
style of sorting. Anne meticulously and slowly sorted
through the cards, commenting on each role as she
158
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
Table 3
Ann’s role distribution
This is who I am
This is who I am not
I’m not sure if this is who I am
This is who I want to be
Helper
Rebel
Conservative
Wife
Mother
Adult
Survivor
Sister
Average person
Daughter
Child
Lover
Adolescent
Dreamer
Optimist
Person of faith
Sinner
Rich personb
Bigot
Father
Clown
Victim
Pessimist
Killer
Son
Heterosexual
Atheist
Homosexual
Innocent
Worrier
Asexual
Miser
Artist
Hero
Radical
Lost one
Beast
Outcast
Bisexual
Angry person
Bully
Coward
Police
Suicide
Poor person
Brother
Demon
Homeless person
Simpleton
Villain
Zombie
Husband
Orphan
Saint
Sick person
Rich persona
Avenger
Judge
Critic
Egotist
Slave
Warrior
God
Magician
Witness
Healer
Visionary
Spiritual leader
Wise person
Beauty
Elder
a
b
Denotes removal of a role card from its original position.
Denotes a role card’s new place, moved from its original position.
placed it in a category, and she made sure to fan out the
cards into discreet columns so that she could see each
role clearly. After sorting all of the cards, she named
the roles in each stack, and only during this process
did she change the placement of some of the cards.
Rex, on the other hand, sorted through the cards
(Table 4) quickly, never commenting on the roles.
Only once did he look up to address the researcher to
clarify the meaning of a role (Heterosexual). Unlike
Anne, he stacked his cards on top of each other, so
that only one role was visible in each category.
Anne and Rex both had similar distributions of
roles in the different categories. Both Anne and Rex
had most of their cards in I am not This (Anne, 36;
Rex, 41), followed by I am This (Anne, 18; Rex, 29).
During her reflection, Anne noted this by saying, “I
have a big stack of what I am not. I don’t seem too
unsure of myself.”
Similarly, Rex commented, “When I look at this,
I would say that I’ve been pretty successful. This is
who I am and who I am not.”
In addition, Rex had no roles in I want to be This.
According to him, this had to do with age. “I know
who I am. At my age, I better. And maybe that’s why
I don’t want to be anything. Because if I haven’t done
it by now, then what’s the point?”
Likewise, Anne commented on the paucity of roles
in the same category by saying, “I don’t desire to be
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
159
Table 4
Rex’s role distribution
This is who I am
This is who I am not
I’m not sure if this is who I am
This is who I want to be
Rich person
Helper
Rebel
Adult
Misera
Heterosexual
Pessimista
Victim
Clown
Father
Survivor
Husband
Brother
Lover
Sinner
Person of faith
Witness
Visionary
Spiritual leader
Healer
Optimist
Son
Warrior
Dreamer
Critic
Judge
Avenger
Elder
Wise person
Radical
Bigot
Hero
Artist
Asexual
Worrier
Innocent
Homosexual
Atheist
Killer
Police
Coward
Bully
Angry person
Bisexual
Outcast
Beast
Average person
Saint
Orphan
Zombie
Villain
Simpleton
Homeless person
Demon
Sick person
Child
Adolescent
God
Magician
Egotist
Pessimistb
Miserb
Slave
Suicide
Poor person
Daughterb
Sister
Motherb
Wifeb
Conservativeb
Lost one
Conservativea
Wifea
Mothera
Daughtera
Beauty
No cardsa
a
b
Denotes removal of a role card from its original position.
Denotes a role card’s new place, moved from its original position.
a lot of things, but as I get older, I do think that I’d
like to be more of these few things.”
Discussion
The researcher found these similar distributions
remarkable, and suggests that future trials with Role
Profiles examine the way role distributions shift over
a lifespan. Perhaps what is a healthy distribution at 13
is very different from a healthy distribution at 80. A
longitudinal study involving Role Profiles may provide more insight into the common patterns of role
distribution.
The differences in the style of dispersing the cards
may reflect personality traits that could give the researcher insight into the client’s personality. Further
research involving Role Profiles may investigate the
way different styles of card dispersion are correlated
with different personality traits, psychological disorders, gender, or cultural values.
160
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
Another issue that arose in this case involved semantic ambiguity of roles. Anne and Rex had similar
difficulties understanding the meanings of some of
the roles. For example, Anne clearly misunderstood
the meaning of Heterosexual. When this long-married
woman placed the card in I am not This, she said,
with conviction, “Well, I’m certainly NOT this.”
In an analogous fashion, Rex asked of Heterosexual, “Does this mean I like guys or women?” before
he would commit the role to an appropriate category.
In his reflection, Rex also asked for clarifications of
homosexual, asexual and bisexual.
These misunderstandings could be explained in
two different ways. First, they indicate the potential
for semantic limitations, or a cultural or age-related
bias. Practitioners should be aware of these potential
limitations when giving the instrument, and should be
especially sensitive to people who may have limited
vocabularies.
On the other hand, the semantic ambiguity can also
be advantageous in the evaluation of couples because
it allows the researcher to see how the individuals in
a couple deal with similar verbal stimuli. In this case,
for instance, Anne and Rex have similar misunderstandings of words. Just as they have misunderstandings, though, so too do Anne and Rex comprehend
roles similarly. Two examples of this are their interpretations of the roles, Rich and Beauty. Anne commented in her reflection, “Rex always says that we
are rich, and I guess we are because he’s made some
money, but I think we are rich because of love.”
Rex, in his discussion, held a similar view.
“There’s nothing more important than family,” he
noted, “the one you’re born into and the one you
make. That’s why we’re rich. It’s not the money.”
Anne and Rex both verbally acknowledged that
they could interpret Rich in two different ways, and
both committed to the same interpretation of the role.
Similarly, Anne and Rex both interpreted Beauty as
physical beauty. Anne noted, “I’m no Catherine Zeta
Jones, but I’d sure like to be a beauty like her.”
Rex claimed, “I’m not sure if I’m a Beauty. Maybe
I am. I don’t think of myself that way. People say
I look good for my age, but I don’t like close-up
pictures too much.”
Role Profiles thus allows the researcher to see how
closely individuals in a couple match in their understanding of different roles. This may give the practitioner clues into the couple’s communication styles.
One of the advantages of using Role Profiles with
couples is that it gives the researcher/therapist the opportunity to compare many components of the client’s
personality in one pass. Here alone, the researcher
was able to examine not only the different styles of
sorting roles, but also the content of the roles, reflective of the clients’ world views. In couples therapy,
the therapist could use this information to understand
what strengths and weaknesses the couple may have
in everyday life by looking at the individual’s understanding of the roles, as well as the relationships between and among roles.
Further, the therapist could use Role Profiles as a
springboard for therapeutic interventions by pointing
out key similarities or differences. For instance, this
researcher might have noted to the subjects that they
both had most of their cards in the same two stacks,
and this might have led into a discussion relating the
cards in the stacks to each other. Role Profiles could be
useful for drama therapists and other psychotherapists
as a way to begin the therapeutic process.
Conclusions
This article attempts to move the debate in the field
of drama therapy forward from description of technique and theory to clinical applications of practices
and concepts. The focus on assessment falls within
a developing tradition of role-playing in general psychology and specific role-based approaches in drama
therapy. Practitioners of Role Profiles, like those who
practice its predecessors such as the Puppetry Interview, the Diagnostic Role-Playing Test and 6-PSM,
seek to examine the present functioning of clients by
surveying their abilities to take on and play out various roles. Role Profiles is unique in that it looks to role
theory (Landy, 1993, 2001) to explain the kinds of
roles individuals chose and the ways they view themselves in terms of the roles chosen and denied. Such
drama therapy assessment is helpful to researchers
and clinicians who can use the data to map treatment
strategies and to hypothesize on the quantity and quality of roles essential for given individuals to fashion
an effective existence.
As we have seen, Role Profiles can be administered to a range of individuals—adolescents, adults
and elders, normal-neurotic and mentally ill. Further
studies would give the instrument more credence,
moving into a wider range of populations and a larger
sample of subjects. If Role Profiles were tested with a
large group of participants using a quasi-experimental
design, the reliability and validity of the assessment
technique could be examined. The large issue of the
universality of the role types versus the subjective semantic ambiguities faced by specific subjects could
also be explored.
Like other dramatic-based instruments, Role Profiles offers a way to access the present functioning of
individuals and groups in terms of their perceptions
of themselves in and out of role. Role Profiles is more
reflective and internal and less action-oriented than
DRPT, the Puppetry Interview, 6-PSM and similar
R.J. Landy et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 30 (2003) 151–161
improvisational assessment instruments. However,
like other dramatic assessments, it seeks to make
sense of a similar process—that of the presentation
of self through role.
References
Forrester, A. (2000). Role-playing and dramatic improvisation as an assessment tool. The Arts in Psychotherapy,
27(4), 235–243.
Gersie, A. (1991). Storymaking in bereavement. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Gersie, A. (1997). Reflections on therapeutic storymaking.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Irwin, E. (1985). Puppets in therapy: An assessment
procedure. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 39,
389–400.
Irwin, E., Levy, P., & Shapiro, M. (1972). Assessment
of drama therapy in a child guidance setting.
Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, 25, 105–
116.
James, M., & Johnson, D. R. (1997). Drama therapy in
the treatment of combat-related post-traumatic stress
disorder. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 23(5), 383–
395.
Johnson, D. R. (1988). The diagnostic role-playing test. The
Arts in Psychotherapy, 15(1), 23–36.
161
Johnson, D. R., & Quinlan, D. (1993). Can the
mental representations of paranoid schizophrenics be
differentiated from those of normals? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 60, 588–601.
Lahad, M. (1992). Storymaking: An assessment method of
coping with stress. In S. Jennings (Ed.), Dramatherapy,
theory and practice 2. London: Routledge.
Landy, R. (1993). Persona and performance—The meaning
of role in drama, therapy and everyday life. New York:
Guilford.
Landy, R. (1994). Drama therapy: Concepts, theories and
practices. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Landy, R. (2000). Role theory and the role method of drama
therapy. In P. Lewis & D. R. Johnson (Eds.), Current
approaches in drama therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Landy, R. (2001) Role profiles—An assessment instrument.
In New essays in drama therapy—Unfinished business.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
McReynolds, P., & DeVoge, S. (1977). Use of improvisational techniques in assessment. In P. McReynolds (Ed.),
Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 4). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meldrum, B. (1994). Historical background and overview of
dramatherapy. In S. Jennings, A. Cattanach, S. Mitchell,
A. Chesner, & B. Meldrum (Eds.), The handbook of
dramatherapy. London: Routledge.
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama. Beacon, New York:
Beacon House.