Rehearsals for Growth

1. Introduction

Version followed: Rehearsals for Growth (RfG; styled "Rehearsals! for Growth" on Wiener's Intellect author page) as developed by Daniel J. Wiener, PhD, and described in the publisher's listings for Rehearsals for Growth: Theater Improvisation for Psychotherapists (W. W. Norton), his Intellect author profile, his couples-therapy training video, and secondary summaries of his Drama Therapy Review papers. Sourced points: Wiener's credentials and founder role (Intellect author page), the three-session format and 1 h 41 min length of the training video (Psychotherapy.net), the book's publisher and ISBN (Norton UK, Eurolivro), and the editors, year and publisher of Action Therapies with Families and Groups (NADTA bibliography). The book's text, an RfG website and Wiener's Drama Therapy Review articles are not openly available, and no published step-by-step description of named RfG games was found, so the procedures below are reconstructed: 8 of the 12 inventory entries are mainly the writer's [synthesis] and no named RfG game is given. The safety guidance (screening, pacing, de-roling, closure, retraumatisation) is general good practice for therapeutic enactment and is marked as such.

What it is. RfG applies theatre improvisation games and exercises to psychotherapy with groups, couples, families and individuals [source: Norton UK book page; Eurolivro listing]. Its founder, Daniel J. Wiener, is a professor at Central Connecticut State University, a licensed psychologist and licensed marriage and family therapist, a diplomate in family psychology and an AAMFT-approved supervisor; he has written or edited six books and received the Zerka T. Moreno Award (ASGPP) and NADTA's Research and Gertrud Schattner Awards [source: Intellect author page]. The name is trademarked and he offers trainings nationally and internationally [source: Psychotherapy.net, Action Methods in Couples Therapy]. It is a set of action methods used inside an existing psychotherapy (the book is subtitled "for psychotherapists"), not a stand-alone school with its own diagnostic theory [source: Norton UK; inferred from subtitle and video framing — uncertain].

How change is thought to happen. Improvised scenes let clients practise new ways of relating, as a rehearsal, instead of only talking about them. The training video's premise is that both therapist and clients can get stuck in "stale ways of engaging", and that improvised exercises open new options [source: Psychotherapy.net]. In couples work, Wiener is summarised as working from a constructivist view: partners each construct their own version of reality, conflict grows when one invalidates the other's version, and mutual validation is a key marker of a satisfied couple. Staged enactments are used to work on that invalidation, drawing on Moreno's psychodrama [source: Roberts 2025, Lesley thesis, summarising Wiener 2015]. The general improv idea of "accepting the offer" (building on what a partner gives you instead of blocking it) is the obvious link between stage skill and relational skill [source: Shohet, PESI UK blog, citing Keith Johnstone; its central place in RfG is inferred — uncertain].

2. Framework

No published RfG phase model is available in the sources used [uncertain]. What the sources show:

Format. Used in individual, couple, family and group therapy [source: Norton UK]. In the couples video, Wiener works with one married couple over three sessions, alternating exercises with observations of the couple's dynamics and his reasons for each choice [source: Psychotherapy.net].
Session count. Not specified in the sources used; RfG appears to be added to ongoing therapy rather than run as a fixed-length course [uncertain].

Working session structure (a [synthesis] drawn from standard drama-therapy and psychodrama practice and from the DvT couple sessions described by Roberts 2025, not an RfG manual):

Screening and contracting (before any enactment; see 4.1–4.2). Goal: decide whether action work is safe for this client or couple now. Move on only when risk is assessed and agreements are in place.
Warm-up (5–15 min). Low-stakes games that build playfulness, trust and the habit of accepting offers. Move on when people are laughing, moving freely and following instructions without heavy self-monitoring. Roberts (2025) notes that one couple struggled because she had "neglected to provide enough warm-up" [source: Roberts 2025].
Main enactment (15–30 min). One or more improvised scenes tied to the therapy goal (a conflict pattern, a new behaviour, a feared conversation). In comparable couple work, play segments ran about 15–20 minutes within a one-hour session [source: Roberts 2025, DvT not RfG]. Move to closure when the scene has given one clear new experience or observation, or as soon as arousal rises beyond what the client can reflect on.
De-roling and closure (5–10 min). Step out of roles, return to the room, mark the end of the scene.
Processing (10–20 min). Verbal reflection linking what happened in the scene to real life; homework or a rehearsal plan.

Criteria for deepening across sessions [synthesis]: move from structured, low-emotion games, to scenes about everyday interactions, to scenes about the core conflict, only when the client(s) can de-role reliably, return to calm within the session, and report no lasting distress between sessions.

3. Guiding principles

Principles drawn from sources are tagged; the rest are [synthesis] for safe use.

Action, not only talk. Prefer a short enacted try-out to a long discussion when a pattern keeps repeating. [source: Psychotherapy.net; Wiener's Beyond Talk Therapy, per ProQuest review]
Accept offers; notice blocks. Treat what each person does in a scene as an offer; watch who builds on it and who shuts it down, in the scene and in the relationship. [source: Shohet citing Johnstone; RfG application inferred — uncertain]
Validate each partner's reality. Use enactment to make each person's version of events visible and acknowledged, not to rule on who is right. [source: Roberts 2025 summarising Wiener 2015]
Alternate doing and observing. After each exercise, say what you saw in the couple's interaction and why you are choosing the next one. [source: Psychotherapy.net]
Rehearsal frame. It is "only a rehearsal": mistakes are expected and can be replayed. This lowers stakes and invites experiment. [synthesis, from the method's name]
Play is protected space. Agree that characters and scenes will not be used against anyone afterwards; in one improv workshop the group agreed not to analyse what a character "said about" its player, which the author calls "very important". [source: Shohet, PESI UK]
Represent harm, never cause it. Aggression, rejection or touch are shown, not done; real touch can be turned into pretend touch. [source: Roberts 2025 citing Johnson's DvT rules; adopted here as synthesis]
Grade the material. Start with a stressor that is "mild to medium", not the most raw or recent issue. [source: Roberts 2025, DvT practice]
Choice and opt-out. Anyone can pass, pause or stop a scene at any point without explanation. [synthesis]
Therapist as director, not performer. Keep enough distance to track safety and the clinical goal; step in only to shape the scene. [synthesis]
Work within your training. These are powerful methods; use them inside your professional scope (see Professional frame in section 5). [synthesis; Beyond Talk Therapy lists minimum training and contraindications per technique, per ProQuest review]

4. Intervention inventory

The full set of RfG games is in Wiener's book, which is not openly available, so this inventory is not a complete list of his exercises [uncertain]. It includes (a) procedures the available sources describe, with attribution (4.6 from the RfG training video; 4.4–4.5 from a general improv source, not RfG; 4.7 framed by a summary of Wiener 2015), and (b) the safety and structuring procedures any enactment work needs, marked [synthesis]. No game below should be read as a named RfG exercise unless it says so.

4.1 Screening for enactment readiness

Purpose / when: Before the first improvised scene with any client, couple, family or group; again when someone's situation changes (new crisis, disclosure, relapse). [synthesis]
Steps: (1) Check current risk: suicidality, self-harm, active substance misuse, psychosis or dissociation, recent trauma. (2) In couples and families, screen each person separately for intimate-partner violence, coercive control and fear of the partner; do not do conflict enactments while violence or coercion is active. (3) Ask about past experiences of drama, role-play or group work that went badly, and about trauma reminders (shouting, being watched, being touched, being laughed at, playing a "bad" character). (4) Check mobility, pain, pregnancy and balance for movement-based games. (5) Agree a starting level: games only, everyday scenes, or conflict scenes.
Contraindications and cautions: In the neighbouring improvised method Developmental Transformations, Johnson is cited as advising that clients who are violent or experiencing psychosis are not candidates, and that couples in violent or abusive relationships may not be suitable [source: Roberts 2025 citing Johnson 2009]. Apply the same caution to RfG conflict scenes [synthesis]. Acute crisis may call for verbal work only [source: Roberts 2025 citing Johnson 2009].
Example language (illustrative): "Some of what we do here will be on our feet, playing short scenes. Before we try that, I'd like to hear from each of you, separately, about anything that could make that feel unsafe."
Watch for: One partner answering for the other; reluctance to speak alone; freezing or startle when role-play is mentioned. Any of these means stay with verbal work and keep assessing.

4.2 Contracting and play agreements

Purpose / when: At the start of action work and briefly at the start of each session. [synthesis, with sourced elements]
Steps: (1) Explain what an improvised exercise is and that it is a rehearsal, not a test. (2) Agree the rules: anyone can pass or stop; a clear stop word or hand signal; harm is shown, never done (no real hitting, pushing or restraint) [source: Roberts 2025 citing Johnson 2013]; touch only with explicit, revocable consent, and never sexual. (3) Agree that characters played will not be used against anyone afterwards, inside or outside the session [source: Shohet, PESI UK, on agreeing not to analyse characters]. (4) In groups, agree confidentiality and that no one is required to watch or perform. (5) Agree how the session will end (de-roling and talk time).
Example language (illustrative): "If anyone says 'pause', or puts a hand up like this, everything stops and we step out of the scene. No reasons needed."
Watch for: People agreeing too quickly. Rehearse the stop signal once, so it is real.

4.3 Warm-up games

Purpose / when: Every session before scene work, to build spontaneity, trust and readiness [source: Roberts 2025 on the cost of too little warm-up; content is synthesis].
Steps: (1) Start seated or standing with simple, low-exposure tasks: passing a sound or gesture round, naming objects, a one-word-at-a-time story. (2) Raise the energy and physical movement gradually. (3) Keep content light and away from the presenting problem. (4) End the warm-up when people are responding without long pauses.
Example language (illustrative): "There are no wrong answers here. Whatever comes first is the right one."
Watch for: Self-consciousness, apology, freezing. If present, lower the exposure (seated, eyes on the therapist, shorter turns) rather than pushing.

4.4 Accepting offers ("Yes, that's right" building)

Purpose / when: To teach and show the difference between building on a partner's idea and blocking it; useful early in couple, family and group work. The game itself comes from Keith Johnstone's improv teaching as described by Shohet; its use as an RfG couple exercise is [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Give the pair an absurd item to "sell" together to the therapist or group (Shohet's example: pink elephants). (2) One speaker adds a feature. (3) The partner says "Yes, that's right" and adds the next feature. (4) Alternate for 2–3 minutes. (5) Optional contrast round [synthesis]: one partner answers "Yes, but…" each time; compare how each round felt. [source: Shohet, PESI UK]
Example language (illustrative): "Your only job is to say yes to whatever your partner just said, and add one thing."
Watch for: Who struggles to accept; who takes over; laughter and loosening (a sign it is working). Link it to home life only after the game, and only gently: "Did either of you recognise the 'yes, but' round?"

4.5 Invented introduction

Purpose / when: A group or workshop opener that frees imagination; Shohet reports that invented characters can bring up unconscious material. Described by Shohet in his own improv workshops, not as an RfG exercise [source: Shohet, PESI UK].
Steps: (1) Pair up. (2) Each person introduces their partner to the group with entirely invented facts. (3) No analysis of what the invented character "means" about its creator or subject, unless the person asks [source: Shohet, PESI UK].
Example language (illustrative): "Introduce your partner, but nothing you say may be true."
Watch for: Invented details that shame, sexualise or mock the partner. Set limits beforehand ("nothing you wouldn't want said about you") [synthesis]. Not suitable for clients with paranoid ideas or a history of being lied about [synthesis].

4.6 Alternating exercise and observation

Purpose / when: The basic rhythm of RfG couple work as shown in the video: after each exercise, the therapist names what they saw in the couple's interaction and why the next exercise is chosen [source: Psychotherapy.net].
Steps: (1) Run a short exercise. (2) Stop and describe the interaction you saw in plain behavioural terms (who led, who followed, who blocked, what changed). (3) Ask each partner what it was like. (4) State the choice of the next exercise and its purpose. [steps 2–4 are synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "What I noticed was that when Sam offered an idea, Alex picked it up the first two times, and then started steering. Did that match how it felt?"
Watch for: Observations heard as blame. Describe both partners, keep it specific, and invite correction.

4.7 Staged enactment of a couple conflict

Purpose / when: To make a recurring conflict visible, help each partner see and acknowledge the other's version of reality, and try new responses. Wiener has written about staging dramatic enactments to resolve couple conflicts, drawing on Moreno's psychodrama and a constructivist focus on mutual validation [source: Roberts 2025 summarising Wiener 2015]. Wiener's own protocol is not available in the sources used, so the steps below are the writer's [synthesis] from standard psychodrama-style enactment, not Wiener's protocol.
Steps (synthesis): (1) Choose a conflict that is "mild to medium", not the most raw or recent one [source: Roberts 2025, DvT practice]. (2) Set the scene briefly: place, time, the opening line. (3) Partners play a short version (1–3 minutes) as it usually goes. (4) Freeze; ask each partner, still in place, what they were feeling and what they think the other was feeling. (5) Optional: partners swap roles and replay a few lines, so each speaks from the other's position (a psychodrama technique; whether Wiener uses it here is [uncertain]). (6) Replay with one small change chosen by the couple (an accepting response instead of a block; a slower pace; one validating sentence). (7) De-role (4.10) and process (4.11).
Example language (illustrative): "Let's freeze it here. Without leaving your spot, tell me what you were trying to get across just then." / "Now try the same moment again, and this time, before you answer, say back what you heard."
Watch for: Rising arousal beyond what the scene needs (flushed face, raised voice, shaking, going blank); the scene turning into a real fight. Freeze early and lower the intensity (4.9). Signs it is working: each partner can say the other's view in words the other accepts; softening of tone; a new response appears and holds on replay.

4.8 Status in couple scenes

Purpose / when: Wiener has published on performing status manoeuvres in conducting couples therapy [source: reference listed in Roberts 2025]. The article's procedures are not described in any available source [uncertain]. The following is a cautious [synthesis], not Wiener's method.
Steps (synthesis): (1) In a short neutral scene (planning a holiday, choosing a film), ask partners to notice who leads and who defers. (2) Replay with the positions deliberately exchanged. (3) Process what each position felt like and which one is familiar from home.
Example language (illustrative): "Same scene again, but this time you make the decisions and you go along with them."
Watch for: Do not use where there is coercive control or fear of the partner (4.1). Playing the dominant role can feel unsafe for a partner who has been controlled; offer to stop or switch to observing.

4.9 Pacing and grading inside a scene

Purpose / when: Throughout every enactment, to keep arousal in a workable range. [synthesis]
Steps: (1) Keep first scenes short (under 3 minutes). (2) Use "freeze" freely to check in. (3) To lower intensity: move from first person to a fictional couple, from real words to gibberish or slow motion, from enacting to placing objects or chairs, or have the client watch from outside while the therapist or a group member stands in. (4) To raise it only when the client asks and is clearly regulated: make the scene more specific, closer to real events. (5) Never escalate after a stop signal.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's step out and look at this from over here, as if it's two other people."
Watch for: Any loss of contact with the room (glazed eyes, not answering, numbness, flashback-like reactions). Stop at once and ground (section 5).

4.10 De-roling

Purpose / when: After every scene in which someone played a role, especially an antagonist, a partner's role or an emotionally loaded character. Not described in the available RfG sources; general drama-therapy practice [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Each player physically leaves the scene area or chair. (2) Each says one way they differ from the character ("I'm not Alex's father; I'm Jo, and I've never met him"). (3) Brush off, shake out, or remove a prop or scarf used for the role. (4) Players state their own name, and the group or partner calls them by it. (5) Check that no one is still feeling the role's emotion; if so, repeat or ground.
Example language (illustrative): "Before we talk, let's step out of the parts. Say your own name and one way you're different from the person you played."
Watch for: A partner still angry "as the character"; a group member treated as the role they played. Repeat de-roling and address it explicitly.

4.11 Closure and processing

Purpose / when: At the end of every action segment and session. Verbal processing straight after the playspace is used in comparable couple work, with a separate debrief offered if wanted [source: Roberts 2025]. Remaining steps are [synthesis].
Steps: (1) Mark the end of the scene (step back, lights or chairs reset). (2) Ask what each person noticed, felt, and learned, starting with the least exposed person. (3) Link one moment from the scene to real life, without interpreting characters against anyone's will (4.2). (4) Ask a calm-down check: "How settled are you now, 0–10?" (5) Offer follow-up contact or a separate debrief if anyone is still stirred up.
Example language (illustrative): "What's one thing you'll take from that scene into this week?"
Watch for: Ending a session mid-scene, or with high arousal. Leave at least 10 minutes for this.

4.12 Rehearsal and transfer

Purpose / when: After a new response has worked in a scene, to carry it into daily life; this follows from the method's name and premise of practising new ways of relating [source: Psychotherapy.net; steps are synthesis].
Steps: (1) Replay the new response two or three times until it feels natural. (2) Agree when and where it will be tried at home. (3) Next session, review what happened and replay any moment that went badly.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's rehearse that once more, so it's ready when you need it."
Watch for: Homework that sets up a confrontation. Keep the first real-life try small and low-risk.

5. Handling problems

The available sources say almost nothing about problem handling in RfG; Wiener's edited volume Beyond Talk Therapy is reported to cover resistance, population fit, contraindications and minimum training for each method, but its RfG content is not described in any available source [source: ProQuest review; uncertain]. Everything below is [synthesis] unless tagged.

Professional frame. RfG is taught by Wiener in his own trainings, offered nationally and internationally; the training-video page makes no statement about any RfG certification or credential [source: Psychotherapy.net], and none was found elsewhere [uncertain]. Wiener himself practises as a licensed psychologist and marriage and family therapist [source: Intellect author page], and the book is written for psychotherapists [source: Norton UK], so use it within your existing licence and scope (e.g. MFT, psychologist, counsellor). Deeper trauma-focused enactment belongs to people trained in drama therapy or psychodrama: in the US, NADTA's Registered Drama Therapist (RDT) or ASGPP/ABE psychodrama certification; in the UK, HCPC registration as a drama therapist (BADth is the professional body) [uncertain: registration details]. Do not run trauma re-enactments on the strength of reading the book alone. [synthesis]

Physical safety. Clear the floor of trip hazards and sharp furniture edges; check mobility, pain and pregnancy before movement games; no lifting, carrying or falling-back trust games without training; keep props soft and non-breakable; ensure exits are visible and unblocked. [synthesis]

Touch. Only with explicit, specific, revocable consent asked each time; always offer a no-touch version; never sexual or genital touch; be aware that touch, holding or being blocked in can be trauma reminders and that cultural norms differ. Real touch can be turned into pretend touch [source: Roberts 2025]. [rest synthesis]

Children and families. Norton lists family work as an RfG application [source: Norton UK]. Get carer consent and the child's own assent; keep games age-appropriate (shorter, more concrete, more movement); never ask a child to enact a parent's abuse or a parental conflict in front of that parent; know your local safeguarding and mandatory-reporting duties and act on any disclosure. [synthesis]

Enactment is not evidence. What someone plays or invents in a scene is not proof of abuse, trauma or disorder. Use observations from scenes as hypotheses to discuss with the client, never as diagnostic findings. [synthesis]

Overwhelm and retraumatisation in a scene

Signs: sudden stillness or going blank, shaking, rapid breathing, crying that escalates, speaking as if the past is happening now, not hearing the therapist, wanting to flee.
Respond: (1) Stop the scene at once: "Let's stop here." (2) Bring the person out of role and into the room: use their name, the date, the place. (3) Ground: feet on the floor, slow exhale, name things they can see; offer water. (4) Remove or turn away from props, chairs or people who represent the distressing figure. (5) Do not process content until they are settled; then name what happened without blame ("that scene got too close"). (6) Check settledness before they leave; make a safety plan if needed; offer contact before the next session. (7) Review screening and lower the starting level next time (4.1, 4.9). [synthesis]
In groups: One co-facilitator or a designated person stays with the distressed member while the other holds the group; reassure observers, who can also be triggered; check in with every member at closure. [synthesis]

Couple scene turns into a real fight

Freeze, separate physically (each to their own chair), lower the voice, name the pattern rather than the content, and return to calm before any replay. If it repeats, go back to games (4.3–4.4) or verbal work. If fear, threats or violence emerge, stop all conflict enactment and assess safety with each partner separately. [synthesis; caution on violent couples per Roberts 2025 citing Johnson 2009]

Reluctance, embarrassment or refusal to enact

Treat it as information, not resistance to overcome. Offer lower-exposure options: seated games, the therapist playing the role while the client directs, objects or chairs instead of bodies, watching first. Never pressure. Explain the purpose plainly and keep a verbal route open. [synthesis]

Stuck or flat scenes

Shorten the scene; give a clearer, smaller task; add a constraint (one word each, gibberish, slow motion); switch to a warm-up; ask the client to direct you instead. If the therapist feels stuck in "stale ways of engaging", that is the problem the method's training aims to address [source: Psychotherapy.net]; changing the exercise is better than pushing the same one. [rest synthesis]

Characters used against someone afterwards

Restate the play agreement (4.2) [source: Shohet, PESI UK, on not analysing characters]; de-role again; name the difference between the role and the person; if it continues, return to verbal work about the hurt. [synthesis]

Non-adherence to rehearsal homework

Make the homework smaller, rehearse it again in session, and explore what got in the way; do not frame it as failure. [synthesis]

Ruptures with the therapist

An observation (4.6) or a scene choice can feel exposing or biased toward one partner. Acknowledge it directly, take responsibility for your part, ask what would help, and give equal attention to both partners in the next observation. [synthesis]

Group-specific difficulties

Scapegoating or one member always cast as the villain: rotate roles, de-role carefully, and use only neutral or fictional antagonists. Over-performing for laughs: honour the humour, then bring the focus back. Members who only watch: give them observer tasks and permission not to perform. [synthesis]

Sources

Pages used:

Books and articles cited (through the pages above):

Wiener, D. J. (1994; Norton UK lists the hardback as 1995). Rehearsals for Growth: Theater Improvisation for Psychotherapists. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-70187-6. [year differs between listings: 1994 on Eurolivro and Massive Bookshop, 1995 on Norton UK; page count given as 269 (Eurolivro) and 294 (Massive Bookshop); uncertain]
Wiener, D. J. (Ed.) (1999). Beyond Talk Therapy: Using Movement and Expressive Techniques in Clinical Practice. American Psychological Association. 309 pp. [details from the ProQuest review]
Wiener, D. J. (2011). Action Methods in Couples Therapy [Video]. Psychotherapy.net. [year from Roberts 2025]
Wiener, D. J. (2015). Staging dramatic enactments to resolve conflicts in couples. Drama Therapy Review, 1(1), 7–20. [from Roberts 2025 reference list]
Wiener, D. J. (2018). Performing status manoeuvres in conducting couples therapy. Drama Therapy Review, 4(1), 39–51. [from Roberts 2025 reference list]
Johnson, D. R. (2009). Developmental transformations: Towards the body as presence. In D. R. Johnson & R. Emunah (Eds.), Current approaches in drama therapy (2nd ed.). Charles C Thomas. [cited via Roberts 2025]
Wiener, D. J., & Oxford, L. (Eds.) (2003). Action Therapies with Families and Groups: Using Creative Arts Improvisation in Clinical Practice. American Psychological Association. [editors, year and publisher from the NADTA bibliography; subtitle from a library catalogue]
Blatner, A., & Wiener, D. J. (Eds.) (2007). Interactive and Improvisational Drama. iUniverse. [from the NADTA bibliography]

Wiener's book and Drama Therapy Review articles are cited here only through the listings, review and thesis above; their procedures are [uncertain].

← Previous · VIII-113Narradrama Next · VIII-115 →Therapeutic theatre