I t therapy - curative force and

e: a c a s e study
Susanne Jacobs
Institute for Child, Adolescent and Family Studies, Huguenot College, Wellington, South Africa
[email protected]

I report on the findings of a study into the use of humour in therapy, which forms part of ongoing
attempts to identify new ways in which to enhance therapy towards a positive experience for both
client and therapist. In contrast to the many clinical papers that deal with the patient‘s inability to cry
and mourn, few discuss the inability to laugh or use wit and humour. Most research points to this
behaviour as a maladaptive response and uses humour for developmental assessment. In contrast,
this exploratory article describes a single case, where the client revealed a habitually resisted con-
tact through deflection and where she moved from a denial state to full awareness to emotional
wellness through the use of humourtechniques. Furthermore, it is argued that humour can be taught
and used constructively as a coping mechanism in potentially harmful situations. In addition, humour
can create awareness with the client, therapist and other users to improve humour capabilities.

I Keywords: awareness; contact boundary; Gestalt; humour; psychotherapy; resistance, therapy

One extremely potent yet apparently little recognised mechanism in therapy is humour (Olsen, 1994).
Since the desire to be entertained through humour is strong and near universal, the establishment of
the return of a positive sense of humour may well be considered a goal of therapy. In this article I
report on the findings of an investigation into the use of humour in the therapeutic situation and try
to answer the question of whether its application is conducive to a situation where a client deflects
and avoids contact. I used humour particularly for its attributes as a deflective mechanism in order
to address contact boundary disturbance. I also seek to investigate Yontef’s (1989) argument that
useful purposes may be served by deflection. Furthermore, the aim was to investigate if through the
use of humour the experience of pain and avoidance could be turned into enrichment and clearer
boundaries in order to create more interpersonal comfort instead of discomfort.
The reader is provided with background to the lack that exists in literature pertaining to a
client’s use ofhumour. T o be able to guide the reader to what can be expected further on, the concept
“humour” and its relation to awareness from a Gestalt therapeutic perspective will be described. In
order to arrive at possible answers, the terms “awareness” and “contact” are described, and “deflec-
tion” is narrowed down to contact boundary disturbance indicating how the client uses humour as
deflection. After the method is discussed, the case study is described, in which categories are
identified according to baseline and second baseline responses, followed by a discussion of the
synthesis for the Gestalt therapeutic process. Subsequently, recommendations are made with regard
to its implementation, implications and the use of techniques, after which the conclusion follows:
humour can be taught by making the client aware.

Context
The point of entry for this study is the holistic approach used in Gestalt theory as interpreted by
Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman during the early 1950’s (Yontef, 1989), based on the phenomeno-
logical existential perspective. The focus is on people’s existence, relations with each other, joys and
suffering, personal awareness as well as process (Yontef, 1989). Gestalt therapy consists, in part, of
introducing a process of heightened awareness so that the person’s natural functioning can reinstate
itself. It is concerned with and focused on the present, aiming to enhance personal growth, expand
self-awareness, and help clients to accept responsibility for who they are and what they are doing,

0 Psychological Society of South Africa. All rights reserved. South African Journal ofPsychology, 39(4), pp. 498-506
ISSN 0081-2463

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

 Gestalt therapy 499

and to make choices (Harris, 2007). Gestalt theory argues that if the process of awareness can b e
increased then the clients may receive feedback from themselves and others and the environment
more efficiently (Yontef, 1989). The value of deflection can be understood against the background
of awareness and contact boundary disturbances.

Literature survey
Although laughing and crying are two basic inborn emotional relations, psychoanalysts and psycho-
therapists have been much more interested in the phenomenon of crying than laughing (Strean,
1994). A variety of studies have indeed shown that humour strengthens the immune system and often
speeds recovery from illness and can be an important curative force for children, both psycholo-
gically and physically (Kaduson, Cangelosi, & Schaefer, 2004; Cattanach, 2003; Van Eeden, 2006;
Kekae-Moletsane, 2008).
However, theorists globally claim that humour should play a limited role in psychotherapy since
it has significant drawbacks, and spell out cautionary advice concerning the destructive potential of
humour in psychotherapy (Pierce, 1994). In Gestalt play therapy many references point to the use
of games, fantasy and imagery techniques in order to create pleasant and safe surroundings for the
internalisation ofbehaviour (Cattanach, 2003; Kaduson et al., 2004; Kottman, 2001). However, the
literature fails to link the concepts of humour and playing in therapy to being taught as a coping
mechanism where deflection presents itself as a contact boundary disturbance. I nevertheless believe
that the therapist can use humour quite constructively in making therapeutic interventions by impro-
ving the potentially harmful situation, and can also make the client aware of and improve his humour
capabilities.
There are a variety of different perceptions of humour, as we see from the large numbers of
definitions that exist. In a very simple explanation, humour can be seen as the ability or quality of
people, objects, or situations to evoke feelings ofamusement in other people (Kaduson etal., 2004).
McGhee & Chapman (1980) distinguish between humour as a characteristic and as a state or con-
dition, thus pertaining to a qualitative reaction to humoristic stimuli. In most cases, something is
perceived as humoristic when it contains an element of surprise, for instance a sudden and unex-
pected incongruity (McGhee & Chapman, 1980), and takes an unsuspected twist at the end, all of
which cause a pleasant feeling, a mounting pleasure as a result of a perceived incongruity, absurdity
or strangeness. In a second exposure to the same context, the humour would lose its impact. Humour
entails a process in which one needs a sense of humour, where “sense” refers to the ability to feel or
appreciate something; the ability to be aware comes to the fore. According to McGhee & Chapman,
(1 980), the only prerequisites for humour are the capacity for play and the ability or “sense” to detect
incongruities.
Awareness, characterised by contact, sensing, excitement and Gestalt formation, is considered
a primary therapeutic mechanism (Yontef, 1989) and a major cornerstone in Gestalt therapy (Joyce
& Sills, 2001; Zinker, 1994; Harris, 2007). An attempt is made to help the client to become aware
of that which he projects onto others in order to enhance his awareness of his self-identity with the
aim of stimulating contact with the environment in a self-nurturing manner.
In Gestalt terms, psychological health is having good contact with self and others. Contact
means “the awareness of, and behaviour toward, the assimilable, and the rejection of the unassimi-
lable novelty” (Harman, 1996). Contact boundary disturbances are processes, and not character traits,
and can be further explained as the boundary between the self and the environment that gets lost and
becomes vague and ill-defined (Zinker, 1994). One contact style leads to growth and development,
the other to dysfunction. These disturbances may occur with certain people, under certain conditions
such as stress, or may be manifested in a fixed (stuck) way in all interactions with others (Joyce &
Sills, 200 1). Interpersonal discomfort is avoided and the individual appears listless, depressed, hurt,
in pain and depleted of energy, out of balance and incapable of suitable awareness. The person can
therefore not share, or respond to his or her real needs, or work things out to everybody’s satisfaction
(Zinker, 1994).

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

500 Susanne Jacobs

Disturbances at the contact boundary usually take one or more forms: projections, deflections,
introjections, retroflections, and confluence (Joyce & Sills, 2001). For the purposes of this article
the focus is on “deflection”, a common way of avoiding awareness in the figure formation phase.
Deflection, as described by Zinker (1 994), is avoidance of enrichment. According to Harman (1996),
when a person deflects he or she turns aside or in some way, diffuses possible contact, or shifts the
contact to some other topic that provokes less anxiety or waters down feelings. This is an active way
of ignoring internal stimulus (feelings and impulses) and avoiding the needs or demands of the en-
vironment (Clarkson, 2004).
As a boundary disturbance, deflections are used to interfere with contact by both receivers and
senders of messages. Senders “scatter” their messages while receivers deflect contact, so that mes-
sages have little impact on them (Yontef, 1989). Examples include endless talking or laughing,
avoiding eye contact, focusing on the need of others rather than self (a passive aggressive person
might stare out ofa window or sit sulking); verbosity (long-windedness), vagueness, understating and
talking “about”, rather than “to” (Harman, 1996). By not noticing the deflection, the system colla-
borates to accept unfinished business. Deflection is therefore seen as a prime boundary disturbance.
Yontef (1989) argues that useful purposes may be served by deflection where, with awareness,
a situation needs cooling down. Since much of therapy focuses on unaware forces, a goal is to bring
these unaware forces presenting as resistance to awareness so that clients can choose to transform
themselves into more “contact-full’’ units. The therapist’s task is to entice clients to a curiosity about
how these occurrences are managed, what is avoided, and the price that is paid for staying safe. The
Gestalt therapist must be willing to ask, tease, cajole, persuade, flatter, coax, sweet-talk, provoke or
demand contact in a humorous way. In responding the deflector begins to experience the contact
boundary as an energising and exciting place to be (Harman, 1996).

Research design
The research was designed within the qualitative paradigm. Data were captured by making use of a
single systems design case study as research strategy, an empirical enquiry that investigates a pheno-
menon within its real life context (Yin, 2006). Empirical data were collected over a specific period
of time, both before and after manipulation (pre- and post-treatment), in a specific environment.
The measuring instrument was developed after the literature research was undertaken, when an
informed idea of relevant indicators that could be tested as baseline behaviour could be formed.
Comparisons were made between first baseline deflective responses and second baseline responses
(after intervention with humour took place). The continuous involvement, observation and reflection
of the researcher in the research process and the gathering of data over a period of three months
increased the value and credibility of this study. The use of audiovisual methods, repetitive field
entry, triangulation, member-checking, reflexivity and peer evaluation further enhanced credibility,
applicability, consistency and neutrality. This was undertaken with regard to the implementation of
humour in the therapeutic process.
The method used in this study was a single case (intensive investigation of an individual), using
narrative in-depth analysis from which a detailed description emerged. Hofstee (2006) and Mouton
(2004) have argued that case studies are subjective, giving too much scope for the researcher’s own
interpretations. However, more scientific discoveries have arisen from intense observation than from
statistics applied to large groups (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In addition, the choice ofmethod should depend
on the problem under study and its circumstances. According to Yin (2006,) even single case studies
are multiple in most research efforts because ideas and evidence may be linked in many different
ways.
The immersion and engagement that is possible during a case study allows a researcher to be-
come intimately familiar with the respondents’ lives and cultures. The researcher also brings own
personal experiences into the description, without disturbing the flow of responses.

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

 Gestalt therapy 50 1

Eth ical con side rations

Permission was granted in writing from the various authorities of Child Welfare, as well as from the
subject to use information as recorded. The principle of confidentiality was applied as I do not refer
to the participant’s real name in the article. The participant was not exposed to any stressful, em-
barrassing, anxiety-producing, or unpleasant situations.

Data collection and selection of participant

Angelique, a girl from a children’s home was selected as a case for this study and participated volun-
tarily. Purposeful sampling, according to Neuman (2006), provides rich description ofthe experience
and Angelique was the ideal subject who, in my judgement, was featuring deflective behaviour in
many ways.
The aim was to provide comprehensive description, through documentation and analysing of
deflective baseline responses (repetitive measurement of the target problem at regular time intervals)
before and after intervention of humour, to see if changes have occurred. The outcome focused on
understanding rather than predicting general patterns of behaviour.
As the situation, in which qualitative research is done, is unfixed and flexible (so too for case
study inquiry - i.e. it cannot be controlled, as in conventional research methods) the researcher has
to rely on techniques such as interviews, observations, document analysis and nonverbal cues. The
data for this study were collected by means of a series of structured and unstructured therapy/
interview sessions that were video recorded which enabled me to concentrate on the discussion. The
interaction between me and the participant, who was at ease, was the most vital connection in the
collection of information. The interview as a research design to collect data is considered to be an
appropriate method when it comes to description of certain feelings, attitudes, intentions and inter-
actions. Baseline responses revealing deflective and nonverbal behaviour were noted meticulously
in the process notes. The recording of the sessions allowed for intensive revisiting of the whole
process by me and a social worker.

Quality assurance strategies (triangulation, crystallisation)

In this study, the traditional reliability and validity is conceptualised in terms of trustworthiness
(Neuman, 2006) and credibility. The techniques ofprolonged engagement (1 2 one-hour therapy ses-
sions over a four-month period), triangulation, member checks, collection of data from different
sources and analysis were used for ascertaining trustworthiness. Research findings involved a conti-
nuous cycle of implementing interventions, evaluating the impact, modifying and implementing the
intervention.

THE CASE: BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION, ANGELIQUE

Angelique, whose parents have been divorced for seven years, and with whom she has little contact,
has lived in a children’s home since she was in Grade 4, and 10 years old. When the study was
undertaken she was 13 years old, a time when intellectual development is marked by the onset of
more independent thoughts, increased memory and attention span, the ability to compare, plan, re-
flect and reconstruct logically.
Angelique’s losses include family unity, parental involvement, physical contact, trust, own
identity, supporting relationships due to relocation, social status, economic security and quality of
living, which all have effects on the body, the affect, cognition, and behaviour. The experience of
having to adapt to the home and a new school intensified the trauma the client was subjected to.
The initial reasons why the client was referred was a result of her stealing, lying, disobedience,
throwing tantrums, “framing” other children, poor school performance, laziness and showing ag-
gressive behaviour; these behaviours result in her being in trouble often, both at school and at home.
Observation of the client’s process pertaining to first baseline responses during the first session
indicated a variety ofbehaviours: frustration, uncertainty, aggression, manipulation, loss of pleasure,

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

502 Susanne Jacobs

uninspired to play, troublemaking, promiscuity, disinterest in schoolwork, irritability, withdrawal,

argumentativeness, blaming, confusion, egocentrism, pessimistic, reasoning, rebellious, resistant.
From the observations it was deduced that the client was functioning from the false layer of her
personality, incomplete Gestalts, with contact boundary disturbances such as introjections, projec-
tions, retroflection and deflection all occurring at the same time.
The core beliefs that were communicated were: “I can do everything by myself; and other
people cannot be trusted”. First baseline verbal deflectors observed were that Angelique did not want
to come to therapy and made many excuses, used vague and open-ended answers, hints and remarks
such as the following: “I don ’t have time now, i f I come now, I will not be able tofinish my home-
work and then I will be in trouble at school”. The conversation was marked with responses such as
“I don ’t know”, “Why?” as well as resistance: “I can ’t choose -you choose f o r me”, which revealed
very little awareness of her own behaviour. The most important “indicator” of her deflective be-
haviour was that Angelique was not able to be “here”, she only lived in the past and in the future; and
refused to use the word “now”.
Nonverbal deflectors pertained to looking away, changing the topic every few seconds, ignoring
questions asked, looking at me cross-eyed, slouching, fumbling and fidgeting to an extreme extent
and a sad and unhappy look.
According to Joyce and Sills (2001) problems arise when habitual responses are not updated
for new or changed conditions. It may become a general style of contact across a range of situations
which can pervade all aspects of the person’s way of making contact. The client in this case did not
realise that she deflected from any difficult emotion by changing the subject, and that she tensed her
body every time she spoke about her father. She was also unaware ofthe options for self-expression.
N o “sense of humour” was detected or observed by the therapist.
Therapists must choose therapeutic pathways to suit the child’s intellect and emotional develop-
ment. Once the therapist knows the child’s process, humour can b e selected and modelled in a
directive manner. The therapist needs to be aware of what is on the foreground of the child on that
particular day, before implementing humour.
During the second session the therapist brought in exaggeration, modelling and banter, by
exaggerating many of the problems the client seemed to have, in a playful tone of voice. Also, the
therapist often said: “I am joking”, as this message about the message was an invitation to the child
to join in the humorous frame of mind. Modelling can be regarded as the environmental process of
influencing humorous behaviour, either purposeful or not, and should be used with banter (Strean,
1994), which was found to be very effective. One of the most difficult things for many clients is to
develop and maintain a truly positive sense of self-worth while finding out something about them-
selves that does not fit their self-ideal. During the interpretation phase, where the session is clarified
and evaluated, humour became a marvellous technique used by the therapist for allowing the client
to see some of the useless things she was doing, taking off the edge and lessening resistance without
causing offence. When some of the strongest interpretations were presented with a glint in the eye
or phrased in a humorous way, the therapist had better results with a higher degree of acceptance by
the client. The therapist’s message became, “This is what you are doing to louse yourself up, but I
still like you anyway”, or “Who could like you?”. Birner ( 1 994) suggests that a patient may say, “I’m
pretty bad”. In this case the therapist responded: “You are absolutely the worst”. “That is not true”,
the client protested in joyful disagreement, rhus encountering the former neurotic posture. Humour
can also be used by the therapist when there seems to be no direct or other way to communicate
criticism. Kind, loaded humour can be the most pleasant or sugar-coated way of offering constructive
criticism.
The goal of the third session was to establish the client’s process in board games, how she re-
acted to choices and responsibility, competition and an awareness of humour. The client did try to
bend the rules all the time, but did not express meanness, and appeared to be relaxed and somewhat
playful.

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

 Gestalt therapy 503

Games function to promote and enhance the process of change due to the game creating mini
life-situations through which children can learn social rules and procedures while developing new
strategies for use in real life settings (Dunn, 2004). Games may then help children feel more com-
fortable in strange situations and promote engagement with therapy through improving their ability
to communicate thoughts and feelings. If therapy can be derived in a fun way, children can learn that
they can be part of a social experience of having fun and being fun to be with. This may then add to
their feelings of self-worth (Kekae-Moletsane, 2008).
A marked difference with regard to humour came to the fore. The games left ample scope for
introducing spontaneous enjoyment and laughter, but also became a metaphor for her powerlessness.
Games help children to identify strengths and abilities, and help to make ideas concrete and address
the problem in the context of the here and now. The client strongly requested the therapist to “please
come again”, and to “bring more games”. The client was given an assignment, namely, to look out
for a “funny situation” and tell the therapist during the next session.
The telling o f a j o k e by a child reflects a positive motivation of wanting to share an enjoyable
experience. Many children’s favourite jokes are often related to underlying sources of conflict or
distress points and can be aligned to the importance of the coping functions of humour (McGhee &
Chapman, 1980). An outcome of this is that humour helps children overcome conflict and anxiety.
By playfully confronting stressful situations in the context of humour, many children appear to be
able to master the anxiety associated with those situations.
The client tended to deflect less than during previous sessions but still said “I don ’t know”. It
was remarkable that the client ceased to squint and was able to look the therapist straight in the eye.
During the next three sessions of therapy a game that focuses on deflective behaviour was
played by the therapist and the client. In this case use was made of “ A game o f learning about FUN:
the talking, feeling and doing way”, which enabled competence and ability transfer where skills
obtained in the therapeutic environment were moved to the problem context of deflection as contact
boundary disturbance.
Some of the questions (that focus on the recognition of humour, and deflection, based on the
cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains) were:
How can a person learn to see things less seriously? What would you suggest? Do you tend to
laugh when you are feeling serious?/Frightened?/Depressed? When somebody talks about something
that you don’t like what do you do? Also explain why, and consider what else you could have done?
Angelique enjoyed talking about and discussing the various options. She revealed remarkable
insight into deflective behaviour of other people, and her own deflective behaviour, and mentioned
being aware of the fact that people sometimes laugh when they are shy or trying to evade a painful
situation. She was able to distinguish between healthy deflection and “evasive” deflection. In these
sessions it was also addressed that problems have more faces than originally anticipated. The atmos-
phere of the game play inevitably meant that a light atmosphere existed.
During the last sessions a much stronger sense of self was revealed by the client, as she often
initiated humour and provoked the therapist by teasing.
Second baseline responses that were observed after treatment pertained to two major categories
of behaviour: argumentativeness and reasoning. It can be deduced that the client’s much stronger
sense of self and insight into her behaviour might be the reason. Contact boundary disturbances were
reduced to a point where the client felt free to “argue” and “reason” in a healthy way, also reflecting
her developmental level. It can be deduced that changes occurred during and after treatment.
In addition, the client seemed to be content, satisfied, calm, confident, inoffensive, constructive,
playful, smiling, teasing, interested, in a good mood, present, challenging, enlightened, altruistic,
proactive, accepting and trustful. It was found that Angelique not only has a strong and a good sense
of humour, but also the ability to enjoy humour as well as create it. She did not cease to deflect alto-
gether. Here I would like to refer the reader to Harman (1996), who states that doing therapy with
deflectors requires helping clients establish contact in order to add zest and freshness to their

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

504 Susanne Jacobs

interactions and that useful purposes may be served by deflection.

The following types of humour (McGhee & Chapman, 1980) were spontaneously used by the
participant: conflict humour (used as a weapon to reveal aggression); control humour (here the client
maintained order where people would otherwise be antagonistic towards each other); consensus
humour (promoted comradeship and friendship, and elicited the client to dare and take more risks
easily, here the element of pleasure was recognised most strongly); and concealment humour (which
allowed the client to avoid/deflect in a healthy manner).

Findings: Synthesis for Gestalt therapeutic process

The therapeutic work with Angelique centred primarily on the awareness of contact boundaries and
enhancing her awareness continuum. This was congruous with the objective of Gestalt Therapy,
where the goal is awareness (Yontef, 1989) and where growth and autonomy are achieved through
an increase in conscience. Awareness of sensations and feelings but also automatic mannerisms and
habits are brought into awareness. The product of awareness is to discover the self, to get to know
the environment, to take responsibility for choices, and to develop self-acceptance and the ability to
be in contact.
In the case of Angelique these processes were approached through engagement in Gestalt play
therapy. Angelique became aware of sensory experiences, discovered who she was, related to objects
and people and learned to take responsibility for her choices. These processes took place within a
secure relationship, maximised through structured handling strategies and making consciously use
of humour in a directive and nondirective way throughout the sessions.

DISCUSSION ,
My overall aim in this article was one that sought to investigate the dynamics of humour as a curative
force and catalyst for change, by adding new findings to the successful use of humour in therapy,
specifically focusing on the value of making use of humour as a treatment technique for addressing
deflection as contact boundary disturbance.
Some of the positive effects that clients have attributed to the Gestalt approach include in-
creased levels of self-actualisation and personal effectiveness, maximum development ofpersonality
potential and the expansion of awareness and ofexperiencing (Clance, Thompson, & Simerly, 1994).
The most important findings were that children who make use of deflection do not use their energy
efficiently in order to receive feedback from themselves, others and the environment. This agrees
with the literature which says that as we look at deflection as contact boundary disturbance in order
to protect against the risk of psychic pain, hurt, discomfort, difficult confrontation and rejection, we
also witness the price paid: listlessness, lack of intellectual spark, depleted energy, depression, loss
of humour and playfulness. The impact of the study is that humour can be used in a positive manner
to enhance awareness for long enough to facilitate change towards positive well-being.
It was found that deflection is useful as it can take the heat out of responses where the situation
needs cooling down, not to respond to all the stimuli so that it is possible to remain in contact and
not to withdraw, or, in extreme cases, not to attack. In this sense deflection can be regarded as
healthy, and this agrees with the literature.
It was also found that agood sense of self is aprerequisite for good contact (Steyn & Mynhardt,
2008). When contact-making skills are used optimally, a person can start reacting in more playful
ways, and can both react towards humour initiated by the therapist and initiate humour. The stronger
the sense of self, the more scope there is for humour and a humorous personality, whether created
and initiated or enjoyed.
In addition it is stated that sadness and unhappiness can be seen as the polarity of humour. It
is found that this is not completely true: humour does not “take away” the “unhappy” situation the
client finds himself in, but it changes the “perception” of the situation. Adding a humorous atmos-
phere and quality to therapy helps the client to feel uplifted, which then alters the perspective.

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

 Gestalt therapy 505

However, it seems critical to keep in mind that humour is a means to an end and not an end in itself
in therapy.
Given a choice, most children prefer to interact in a playful way. Serious discussion and metho-
dological problem solving may impose on children’s communication, shutting out their voices, inhi-
biting their specific abilities, knowledge and creative recourses (Freeman, Epston, & Lobovitz,
1997). The process of choosing seriousness from us as therapists may be dampening our own re-
sources, such as the ability to think laterally, remain curious, be light-hearted enough to engage
playfully with the child, and have faith that the situation is resolvable. Lacking these, we may have
our wits dulled, lose our appeal to kids or become overwhelmed. Do we dare to be playfully creative
in the face ofworrisome problems? W e believe this leads to the rise of inspired problem-solving and
the downfall of serious problems (Freeman, Epston, & Lobovits, 1997).
As McGhee & Chapman (1980) note, children who are “skilled at humour” may be more suc-
cessful in social interactions throughout their childhood, for it is difficult not to like someone that
makes you laugh. Those who laugh together soon forget their differences as humour provides a
common bond for mutually shared experiences, where the participants momentarily drop their guard
and relate authentically. Humour can therefore be seen as a universal means of relationship building.
Individual differences in humour may be important in the design and effectiveness of thera-
peutic interventions. In the future it may be beneficial to use different procedures for people with
different personal attributes. With increasing knowledge of both humour and individual differences
it becomes more important to know more about what kind of funny things should be done with
whom. The limitation with this study, however, is that it focuses on one child only, and the researcher
acknowledges that other factors that have not been mentioned could also have led to the client feeling
safe and regaining control.
In conclusion, it can be stated that humour can be taught and be made aware of, and only a
minuscule shift can evoke change. Furthermore, a client who makes full contact is able to reveal
liveliness, increase in humour and playfulness instead of loss of it.
The case study provided a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analysing infor-
mation, and reporting results. As a result I gained a sharpened understanding of why the instance
happened as it did, and ofwhat may become important to look at more extensively in future research.
It appears that more extensive effort is justified to free humour ability and appreciation.

REFERENCES
Birner, L. (1994). Humor and the joke of psychoanalysis. In H. Strean (Ed.), The use of humour in
psychotherapy (pp. 55-62). London: Jason Aronson Inc.
Cattanach, A. (2003). Introduction to play therapy. Sussex: Routledge.
Clance, P.R, Thompson, M.B, & Simerly, D.E. (1994). The effects of the Gestalt approach on body image.
Gestalt Journal, 17, 95-1 14.
Clarkson, N. (2004). Gestalt counselling in action. London: Sage.
Dunn, M. (2004). The development of a board game as preventative measure against the sexual abuse of
grade 4 children in South AfYica. Unpublished D DIAC thesis, University of South Africa.
Freeman, J., Epston, D., & Lobovits, D. (1997). Playful approaches to seriousproblems. USA: Norton
Company.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquivy, 12,219-245.
Harman, R.L. (1996). Gestalt therapy techniques: working with groups, couples and sexually dysfunctional
men. USA Jason Aronson Inc.
Harris, N. (2007). Renegotiation of life space. Gestalt Therapy, 13, 15-18.
Hofstee, E. (2006). Constructing a good dissertation: apractical guide tofinishing a Master’s, MBA or
PhD on schedule. South Afiica: Sandton: EPE Publishers.
Joyce, P., & Sills, C. (2001). Skills in Gestalt Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage.
Kaduson, H.G., Cangelosi, D., & Schaefer, C. (Eds). (2004). The playing cure: individualizedplay therapy
for specijk childhoodproblems. New York: Aronson.
Kekae-Moletsane, M. (2008). Masekitlana: South African traditional play as therapeutic tool in child
psychotherapy. South African Journal of Psychology, 38, 367-375.

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016

506 Susanne Jacobs

Kottman, T. (2001). Play therapy: basics and beyond. USA: American Counselling Association.
McGhee, P.E., & Chapman A.J. (1980). Children’s humor. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mouton, J. (2004). How to succeed in your master’s & doctoral studies: A South African guide and
resource book. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social research methods. USA: Pearson.
Olson, H.A. (1994). The use of psychotherapy. In H. Strean (Ed.), The use of humour in psychotherapy (pp.
79-89). London: Jason Aronson Inc.
Pierce, R.A. (1 994). Use and abuse of laughter in psychotherapy. In H. Strean (Ed.), The use of humour in
psychotherapy (pp. 42-53). London: Jason Aronson Inc.
Steyn, R., & Mynhardt, J. (2008). Factors that influence the forming of self-evaluation and self efficacy
perceptions. South African Journal of Psychology, 38, 563-573.
Strean, H. (1994). The use of humour in psychotherapy. London: Jason Aronson Inc.
Van Eeden, J. (2006). HaHaHaHaha ... In: Beeld, 20 April. South Africa: Media 24.
Yin, K. (2006). Handbook of complementaly methods in education research. London: Routledge.
Yontef, G.M. (1989). Gestalt therapy: an introduction. Currentpsychotherapies. Illinois: Peacock
Publishing House.
Zinker, J.C. (1994). In search of good form: Gestalt therapy with couples and families. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Downloaded from sap.sagepub.com at Lulea Univ. of Technology on March 8, 2016