海峽兩岸心理劇成員經驗之比較：以心理衛生助人者為例

A Cross-Strait Comparison of the Experiences of Psychodrama Participants: An Investigation of Mental Health Helpers

白泰澤(Tai-Tse Pai)；賴念華(Nien-Hwa Lai)

中國大陸 ； 心理劇 ； 台灣 ； 風險 ； China ； psychodrama ； risk ； Taiwan

中華團體心理治療

26卷2期（2020 / 06 / 30）

24 - 37

繁體中文

參與心理劇的獲益已經獲得確認，但很少有研究指出其潛在風險。目的：本研究旨在比較台灣與中國大陸心理衛生助人者的心理劇經驗。方法：研究者發展網路自填問卷後，在台灣透過心理劇學會的臉書，以及在大陸透過微信的心理劇群組發布研究訊息，一共回收有效問卷220筆。結果：本研究發現大多數成員的心理劇經驗是正向的，同時他們有意願持續參與。就負向經驗來說，中國大陸有較高的人際退縮比例，同時停止的原因為獲得團體內其他成員的協助也比較多。結論：基於本研究的發現，在中國大陸的治療師要更注意心理劇成員的人際退縮，在台灣的治療師則需要提供他們更多的協助，來減少潛在的風險。建議未來的研究可以對心理劇的風險以及將風險轉化為獲益的機制進行分類。

While the benefits of participating in psychodrama have been identified, few studies have noted any potential risks involved for participants in psychodrama. Objectives: This study was aimed to compare the psychodrama experiences of mental health workers and students in Taiwan and China. Method: An exhaustive questionnaire was developed for completion online. It was then published on the Facebook page of the Taiwan Psychodrama Association, and the Psychodrama Forum on WeChat in China. As a result, 220 valid responses were received. Results: The study found that for most participants the psychodrama experience was positive and that they would continue to attend. In terms of negative experiences, Chinese participants had more interpersonal issues but received greater levels of support from members within the group than those from Taiwan. Conclusions: Based on the present study, therapists in China need to focus more on the interpersonal issues of psychodrama participants, while those in Taiwan need to provide them with additional assistance to minimize any potential risks. Recommendations for future research are to categorize the types of psychodrama risks, and the mechanisms that transform those risks into benefits.

1. 張高賓,戴嘉南(2005)。國內 “兒童團體諮商與心理治療” 整合分析研究。中華輔導學報，18，77-119。
   連結：
2. 黃瑛琪,戴嘉南,張高賓,連廷嘉(2005)。台灣青少年生涯團體諮商效應之整合分析研究。諮商輔導學報，12，71-100。
   連結：
3. 賴念華(2013)。臺灣心理劇文獻回顧1968-2011：看心理劇的發展與轉變。中華輔導與諮商學報，36，33-65。
   連結：
4. 2014 ACA Code of Ethics. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-ethics-fin-aladdress.pdf?sfvrsn=96b532c_2
5. Barlow, D. H.(2010).Negative effects from psychological treatments: A perspective.American Psychologist,65(1),13-20.
6. Blatner, A.(2000).Foundations of psychodrama: history, drama, and practice.New York:Springer Publishing Company.
7. Blatner, A.(1996).Acting in: practical applications of psychodramatic methods.New York:Springer Publishing Company.
8. Book, H. E.(1998).How to practice brief psychodynamic psychotherapy: The core conflictual relationship theme method.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
9. Bystedt, S.,Rozental, A.,Andersson, G.,Boettcher, J.,Carlbring, P.(2014).Clinicians' perspectives on negative effects of psychological treatments.Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,43,1-13.
10. Doxsee, D. J.,Kivlighan, D. M.(1994).Hindering events in interpersonal relations groups for counselor trainees.Journal of Counseling & Development,72(6),621-626.
11. Hoffmann, L. L.(2005).Provo, UT,Brigham Young University.
12. Hoffmann, S. O.,Rudolf, G.,Strauss, B.(2008).Unwanted and damaging effects of psychotherapy. An overview with a draft of a new model.Psychotherapeut,53(1),4-16.
13. Kane, R.(1992).The potential abuses, limitations, and negative effects of classical psychodramatic techniques in group counseling.Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry,44(4),181-189.
14. Kim, K. W.(2003).The effects of being the protagonist in Psychodrama.Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry,55(4),115-127.
15. Kipper, D. A.,Ritchie, T. D.(2003).The effectiveness of psychodramatic techniques: A meta-analysis.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,7(1),13-25.
16. Kösters, M.,Burlingame, G. M.,Nachtigall, C.,Strauss, B.(2006).A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of inpatient group psychotherapy.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,10(2),146-163.
17. Lai, N. H.(2013).Psychodrama in Taiwan: Recent development and history.The Journal of Psychodrama, Sociometry, and Group Psychotherapy,61(1),51-59.
18. Lambert, M. J.(2013).Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change.Hoboken, N.J.:John Wiley & Sons.
19. Payne, K. T.,Marcus, D. K.(2008).The efficacy of group psychotherapy for older adult clients: A meta-analysis.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,12(4),268-278.
20. Sang, Z. Q.,Huang, H. M.,Benko, A.,Wu, Y.(2018).The spread and development of Psychodrama in mainland China.Frontiers in Psychology,9
21. Yalom, I. D.(1995).The theory and practice of group psychotherapy.New York:Basic Books.
22. Yalom, I. D.,Lieberman, M. A.(1971).A study of encounter group casualties.JAMA Psychiatry,25(1),16-30.
23. 白泰澤(2018)。心理劇成員負向經驗調查—心理衛生助人者與精神官能症住院病患之比較。台灣心理劇學刊，1，8-35。
24. 林美珠(1994)。精神病患參加完演劇心理治療的主觀感受分析。中華民國心理治療的主觀感受分析，4，101-115。
25. 林美珠,王麗斐(1998)。團體治療性與反治療性重要事件之分析。中華輔導學報，6，35-59。
26. 邱皓政(2019).量化研究與統計分析：SPSS與R資料分析範例解析.台北市:五南.
27. 褚增輝,吳就君,陳珠璋(1998)。精神醫療機構演劇治療團隊成員對其療效認知調查。中華團體心理治療，4(2)，3-20。
28. 鄭玉英(1990)。心理劇參加者的獲益程度研究。東吳政治社會學報，14，605-625。