9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress

Access provided by University of Illinois @ About  |  Contact  |  Help  |  Tools  |  Order  |  Saved Citations (0)
Urbana­Champaign Library [Change]

for Librarians   for Publishers   Advanced Search

OR

Browse > Film, Theater, and Performing Arts > Theater and Performance Studies > Theatre Topics > Volume 9, Number 2,
September 1999

The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Theatre
Topics
Boundary Blurring, Growth,and Emotional Distress Volume 9, Number 2,
September 1999
Suzanne Burgoyne (bio), Karen Poulin (bio), and Ashley Rearden (bio)

In “A Crucible for Actors: Questions of Directorial Ethics,” which appeared in the first
issue of Theatre Topics, Suzanne Burgoyne posed the question of what impact acting
may have on student performers’ personal lives. The article resulted from her own
experience directing The Crucible, in which she observed what she called
“psychological fall-out” from the show, including actors’ reported nightmares. Since
nothing in her training had warned her that acting might result in student emotional Research Areas
distress—much less prepared her to deal with it—she began researching the impact of Film, Theater, and
Performing Arts > Theater
acting on performers. She found that, though some theatre educators seemed aware of and Performance Studies
the issue, little research had been done. Indeed, Richard Schechner contends that theatre
scholars have traditionally focused their attention on the production itself and that
“aftermath,” which he defines as “the long-term consequences or follow through,” is the Recommend
least studied aspect of performance (19). Email a link to this page
 
Seeking a research methodology that would allow her to begin to understand and
document the impact of acting, Burgoyne contacted Karen Poulin, a psychologist with
expertise in a qualitative methodology known as grounded theory. Burgoyne and Poulin
brought together backgrounds in theatre and counseling psychology to collaborate on a
study. 1 Burgoyne joined Poulin’s research group to learn grounded theory; Poulin took
an acting class and served as a consultant on several productions. Frequently
Downloaded
Our review of the (scanty) literature dealing with the impact of acting revealed that a
View Citation
voice conspicuously underrepresented was that of the university student actor. In our
study, we decided to allow this voice to be heard. In this article, we present the theory Save Citation
emerging from our study, in which we conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with
Related Content
fifteen student actors. 2 The theory suggests that the blurring of boundaries between
actor and character may be a significant condition for impact, and that the actor’s ability
to control that blurring may influence whether an acting experience leads to growth or
emotional distress. Since some inside-out approaches to acting encourage the actor to
use her own personal experience in building a character, thus facilitating boundary
blurring, this theory has major implications for theatre pedagogy. 3 [End Page 157]

While some of our interviewees have learned through experience that boundary
blurring may become problematic, none of them reported having been taught boundary
management. Liz, a doctoral student who has studied in several theatre programs, felt
that “the psychological aspects of acting” are not addressed systematically in actor
training:
In theory, we’re supposed to learn this in class, but it’s really not what you get taught even when you’re taught
The Cultural Cover-
Stanislavsky method or Lee Strasberg or any of that stuff. You’re just really not taught how to attune yourself
Up of College
psychologically and how to get back out of that state. It just . . . sort of happens for most people, and, quite
Athletics: How
frankly, there are a lot of actors I know who can’t get out of roles, who step into a part once they’re cast and . .
Organizational
. whenever the show ends, that’s when they start losing the personality aspects of their character in their daily
Culture Perpetuates an
lives.
Unrealistic and
Idealized Balancing
Awareness of boundary blurring appears to be a first step for students to develop Act
strategies for boundary management. Although teachers may understand that acting can
have psychological side-effects, our interviews reveal that young actors may be

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 1/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
unaware of that possibility until they have an emotionally distressing experience. On the
basis of the theory emerging from this study, we suggest that the theatre profession
address boundary management as an aspect of acting pedagogy.

Methodology

A brief explanation of our methodology, known as grounded dimensional analysis (a

form of grounded theory), is first necessary to show how we have developed the theory
we propose here. 4 Like other qualitative approaches to social science research,
grounded theory is used to investigate subjective experience, as opposed to quantitative
approaches, which investigate more objective matters. The goal of dimensional analysis
is to generate theory about a complex phenomenon from the point of view of the Grounded Theory: An
participants. Prior to beginning the study, the researchers record their own assumptions Alternative Approach
about the topic in order to avoid imposing those assumptions on the data. After to Research in Higher
conducting interviews and having them transcribed, they engage in a rigorous process of Education
coding and matrixing the “dimensions” (aspects of the phenomenon) found in the
interviews. 5 Researchers organize the emerging theory to answer the questions posed in
the grounded theory paradigm: What actions, processes, or strategies occur? Under
what conditions? With what consequences? For whom? The researchers constantly
memo their ideas, creating a written record of their theory-building. 6 They work with a
research group that double-checks their interpretation of the transcripts. These
procedures ensure “credibility,” which is to qualitative research what “validity” is to
quantitative research. Rather than conducting all the interviews at once, the researchers
do a few initial interviews, analyze those, and, as the theory begins to emerge, engage in
“theoretical sampling,” choosing additional interviewees and/or focusing the questions
posed, to follow up on and flesh out relationships in the theory. 7 The theory developed
from such a study is thus grounded in the descriptions of the [End Page 158] The Four
phenomenon reported by those who have experienced it. The goal of grounded Fundamental Verbs:
dimensional analysis is to generate theory rather than to prove a hypothesis. An Approach to
Playing Actions
The methodology seems compatible with theatre practice because the process
involves a kind of textual analysis similar to directorial analysis of a script. Each
interview, after all, presents a narrative. Grounded theorists search this narrative for a You have access to
“core category,” a dimension around which the phenomenon seems to be organized, in a this content
process not unlike looking for a play’s spine or through-line. The grounded theory
Free sample
paradigm itself resembles a root action statement because the researcher seeks to
identify a main action (what actions occur?), a result (with what consequences?), and a Open Access
protagonist (for whom?). Restricted Access

The Study

We initially interviewed five actors, asking them to respond to a broad question about
whether or not their acting experiences have had a significant impact on their lives, and,
if so, what the impact may have been. 8 As the study progressed, we selected
respondents and/or focused the question for purposes of constant comparison and to
follow up on dimensions emerging from earlier interviews. Since our goal was
grounded interpretation of narrative text rather than achievement of statistical power,
large numbers of subjects were not necessary for our research. Furthermore, given that
this was a qualitative study, we selected the sample for the purpose of fleshing out the
emerging theory rather than obtaining a “representative” cross-section. Our initial
interviews suggested a student’s level of theatre experience as a significant factor within
our paradigm, and so we sampled along that dimension. Overall, the study included one
professional actor, four PhD students, one recent MA graduate, one recent MFA
graduate, one BFA student, and seven BA students (all but three of whom were theatre
majors). 9

Our first group of respondents indicated that yes, their acting experiences had
significant impact, both artistically and personally. We chose to focus subsequent
interviews on the personal impact, given that our analysis of relevant literature
suggested that, whereas the fields of educational drama and drama therapy foreground
the personal impact of acting on participants—as do the few studies of acting in the field
of psychology—most of the theatre literature, including acting textbooks, foregrounds

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 2/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress

the artistic impact. 10 Notable exceptions in the theatre field include two Theatre Topics
articles that suggest specific ways to avoid actor distress. Richard Geer proposes a
strategy based on Alba Emoting’s “step out” procedure to minimize what he calls
“emotional hangover.” Robert Barton, contending that some students may experience
“intense and conspicuous emotional distress” resulting from acting class activities,
suggests techniques he devised after consultation with therapists (“Therapy” 105).

A recent qualitative study in psychology by Lisa Tust-Gunn analyzes “how

professional actors use themselves to portray characters, and how they utilize [End
Page 159] roles to explore themselves.” Tust-Gunn notes that “in contrast to previous
literature,” her research suggests that “acting may foster psychological health rather
than dysfunction” and compares “Stanislavski-based acting” to psychodynamic
psychotherapy (1). Although Tust-Gunn interviewed professional actors, we have found
similar issues in our own interviews and will refer to her study to help flesh out those
dimensions.

The developing picture of significant impact that emerges from our study is of a
complex process, in which life and theatre are linked in a kind of feedback loop. As
Monica, a highly experienced senior nonmajor, said of the relationship between her
acting and her life experience, “It’s all intertwined.”

Acting strategies reported by our first respondents include comparing themselves to

their characters and drawing upon their personal experiences to flesh out characters.
These first interviewees all mentioned using such inside-out strategies to build
character. As John, a doctoral student, observed, “Over time as an actor, that’s what you
learn you do.” Mitch, a BFA sophomore, described using himself “as a tool to have a
character genuinely come to life and have human emotions.”

The inside-out approach may be a significant condition for what respondents describe
as a blurring of the boundaries between themselves and their art, between self and
character. Monica described this relationship as “the lines” separating “craft and self”
being “blurred.” Jennifer, a recent MA, talked about “the self” being “interconnected”
with the art form, the two “bleed[ing] back and forth into each other, like a water color
painting.” In general, this first group of respondents reported that they found this
blurring artistically effective; however, they also reported consequences of the blurring
on their personal lives, both positive and negative.

Tust-Gunn discusses these boundaries “between acting and the actor’s personal life”
in a somewhat different way. Acknowledging that “roles could affect actors’ personal
lives,” she suggests that stage work provides a safe zone for personal exploration
because in acting “the boundaries of exploration are specified and confined to the time
allotted to the play or performance, the physical space of the stage, and the actions
which are specified by the play. . . . Under most circumstances experiences acting did
not cross any of these boundaries in a threatening way” (167). We disagree with Tust-
Gunn’s interpretation because some of our interviewees (as well as some of hers) did
report emotionally distressing consequences from boundary blurring. We speculate that
less experienced actors may be unaware of boundary blurring issues and thus more
likely to encounter problems.

Positive consequences reported by respondents involve some type of growth. Various

interviewees explained that acting experiences enhanced sensitivity, empathy, and
awareness; strengthened sense of identity and values; facilitated emotional growth;
improved understanding of self and others; and [End Page 160] cultivated skills in
relating to others. Tust-Gunn reports similar respondent evaluations (162–66).

Jennifer reported that acting, particularly in shows that “ask a lot” of her, has helped
her “to grow emotionally or to understand a personality or a kind of person that I didn’t
understand before.” For her, learning to understand people is necessary for acting, and
she has found this enhanced understanding carrying over into her real life:
You cannot perform a character and be outside that character. You have to get inside to know what motivates
that character. . . . And doing that is sort of a vicarious experience to getting inside the skin of someone else.
And, in that sense, I think it has made me a better person, a stronger person, because I understand people. . . . I
can look at them outside of a theatre context and understand what motivates them or why they are upset.

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 3/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
Respondents subsequent to our initial group also reported significant personal impact.
For example, Donald, a senior theatre major, told of experiencing a “paradigm shift” as
a result of playing a homosexual character. Having grown up in a “conservative” small
town, Donald described himself as “closed-minded,” though not homophobic, prior to
playing the role. His experiences in preparing for the role enabled him “to destroy all
these constructs I had been growing up with” and to empathize “with anybody who is
different.” The shift led to his decision to pursue an acting career instead of the career
his family expected of him. Donald now believes his life “is much more worthwhile”
since that acting experience.

Negative consequences reported by respondents involve some type of emotional

distress. While a number of factors contributed to these experiences, an important
condition appears to be the degree of blurring of the boundaries between self and role.
Monica noted that the boundaries “should be blurred. Not to the point where you’re
doing something and it causes you trauma, causes you personal trauma, but I think to be
effective in your craft, they have to be blurred.” In instances of emotionally distressing
experiences described by informants, they perceived the blurring of boundaries as
excessive and/or inappropriate.

For example, Jennifer recounted a rehearsal experience in which the director told her
to use the image of her own mother “hanging from a noose in a corner of the theatre” as
a means of achieving her character’s emotional state. She found the personal image
painful: “That image is in my mind forever. I cannot erase it. And [the director] gave it
to me because I did not create that image on my own. He gave it to me.” She
characterized this experience as “emotional prostitution” for which the director served
as “pimp.” She noted that she would now refuse to use such an acting technique.
However, “at the time . . . he was the director, and I was young and inexperienced and . .
. I did what he told me.” [End Page 161]

Allen, a junior theatre major, reported an experience in which he practiced being the
character offstage but then discovered that he found it difficult to shake the character
off:
You forget who you are sometimes. You start intermingling with this character and you lose yourself and you
start doing things. I remember I was in a show . . . and I played a character who had a certain walk. . . . I
would walk around [that way] onstage. And I would be walking around [campus] . . . and be doing the same
thing. I would realize I’m doing that and having this bad attitude that this character has about everything I’m
seeing. I think, “Whoa, I don’t know if this has gone too far or not.”

In using his own personal experience to create his character biography, Allen found
his life looping into the character and the character back into his life: “I’m building this
character, and my real life is flooding in on this character and causing me this mental
strife in my real life. I’m trying to be this character, but, ‘Oh my real life is beaming
down on me’ and I’m getting upset and I’m crying and I’m going on and on.” However,
noting that the director “drove” the actors to “get inside the head” of their characters,
Allen also observed that this acting experience was the first in which he really “made a
connection with a character.”

Both Jennifer and Allen reported the artistic consequences of self/character blurring
as at least initially effective but the personal consequences as emotionally distressing.
Furthermore, both said they did not know how to handle the experience at the time it
occurred. “Sometimes you don’t know who you are unless you have really great
control,” said Allen. Control over the process and degree of boundary blurring emerges
from our study as an important condition for actor safety.

In one of the few acting textbooks to address personal impact, Don Richardson
emphasizes control. Calling acting “a controlled obsession,” Richardson contends the
difference between the actor and the madman is that the
madman cannot stop the obsession at will, because he has no control over it. But the actor’s obsession must
end at the moment the curtain comes down. . . . If you carry the character home with you, it can cause havoc in
your private life. . . . You must always be able to stop being the character at will, instantly.

(20)

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 4/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
Along these lines, several of our respondents reported “out of control” behavior.
Margo, a senior theatre major, defined an “out of control” actor as one who was
involved in her “own thing . . . not in the world of the play anymore.” She told of losing
control once earlier in her acting career, “before I had any idea what I was doing. I did a
piece that I really connected with, didn’t know how to handle it. . . . Luckily there was
no one else on[stage], it was a monologue, so I didn’t hurt anyone else in the process.”
Speaking of an out-of-control acting [End Page 162] partner, Barb, a doctoral student,
said, “He just couldn’t sometimes tell the difference . . . between him as a character and
him as a person.”

Consequences described by respondents include the out-of-control actor behaving in

unpredictable ways, sometimes physically hurting other actors or damaging the set. For
instance, Barb told of playing a nun in Marat/Sade and having to perform a violent rape
scene with an actor who “often was completely out of control.” No matter how many
times Barb tried to establish safety procedures with her acting partner—and in spite of
the cast having worked with a fight choreographer—she reported that her partner
“would often bruise me, hurt me, just throw me too hard; whatever it was, he would
often cross those lines between, ‘This is safe and this is not safe.’” Barb noted that this
incident occurred early in her acting career. Not knowing how to deal with the situation,
she never approached the director for help but blamed herself: “I thought, ‘Oh, I must
be stupid . . . maybe it’s my fault that he’s doing this or maybe . . . that’s how it’s
supposed to be.’”

Donald reported feeling out of control while performing in “a very emotionally and
physically violent show.” Believing at the time that “it was necessary to actually feel
what the character was going [through],” Donald personalized a scene in which the
character kills his father by using a memory of an encounter with his own father in
which Donald “backed down.” Donald now perceives the out-of-control experience, in
which he got emotionally “worked up” and actually cut the actor playing the father with
a retractable knife, as an unconscious act of revenge upon his own father. At the time
the experience occurred, Donald did not understand what had happened and, like Barb,
felt ashamed. He even made excuses to avoid working with that theatre company again.
Now, after learning more about potential consequences of self-use, Donald has
“completely changed” his “approach to acting,” no longer trying to feel the character’s
emotion but seeking an internal approach that will give him more control. Donald
articulated a positive result of the experience as a shift in priorities from performance to
his own life, noting, “It’s not necessary to go through emotional hell and . . . pretend or
actually kill my dad on stage every night.”

Overall, our respondents reported two major types of potentially emotionally

distressing boundary blurring. In the first type, the actor’s personal life may take over in
performance, leading to the actor’s loss of control onstage (as in the case of Donald).
Conversely, the actor’s character may take over offstage, with the actor carrying over
character personality traits into daily life (as in the case of Allen).

Although we have found no psychological studies of actor loss of control, there is

some literature dealing with character carry-over. For instance, Janice Rule
conceptualizes the demands of acting—the actor’s need “to suspend temporarily his
own boundaries”—as conditions for an “amalgamation of the actor and the character”
that, while artistically effective, may cause problems [End Page 163] if “the actor is
psychologically compelled to carry this into his private life” (53–54). A few quantitative
researchers have attempted to test the theory of character carry-over. For instance, two
sets of researchers, using different instruments to measure student actor and character
personality pre- and post-production, have reached conflicting conclusions. Charles
Neuringer and Ronald Willis suggest no significant change in actor self-concept, while
Mo Hannah and her colleagues contend that the actor’s self-perceived personality did
become more like the character’s. 11 Neither study examines conditions related to the
individual actor, type of show, or rehearsal process that may have influenced the impact
of the experience on the actors—conditions that our own study suggests may be
important. 12

Tust-Gunn seems to shed some light on the phenomenon of character carry-over,

which, she emphasizes, should not be viewed as a kind of demonic possession. A
https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 5/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
number of Tust-Gunn’s interviewees reported drawing upon previously undiscovered or
unexpressed parts of themselves in creating a character. Tust-Gunn notes, “Often a facet
of the self was developed for the role and then became more emphasized, sometimes
permanently, in the actor’s own life.” She cites a respondent’s explanation: “‘There’s
always character bleed-through. . . . Whatever is in the core of the character, that of
course I’ve found in myself someplace as well, that aspect of my personality really does
get emphasized or enhanced . . . in the rest of my life as well. That is always true’”
(122–23).

One of our own interviewees, Tom, described a moment in an undergraduate

rehearsal in which, following an intense exercise, “I could not find any way to maintain
a hold on who I was. . . . There was no sense of an ‘I’ as in ‘me, Tom.’ It was all a sense
of an ‘I’ as in ‘me, [the character].’” 13 Furthermore, Tom found his character’s
manipulative behavior carried over into his real life. Additionally, before the first show
closed, he went immediately into rehearsal for a second show. Consequently, Tom said,
“I was still having a problem finding who I was, so there was no ‘me’ to . . . build the
other character from. So I was like three characters all fighting for the same body.”
However, Tom also observed that his preparation for the first role involved comparing
himself to his character; thus he discovered a previously unrecognized joy in
manipulating people, a tendency usually held in check by social convention but
unleashed by playing the character.

Our analysis of the interviews suggests a continuum of role/self blurring, from

extreme to none at all. On the latter end, we find Peter, an undergraduate nonmajor, who
said, “When I’m not in character, I’m not in character . . . and when I’m not thinking
about doing something or . . . building a character . . . I just, you just leave it . . . and it’s
gone.” On the “extreme blurring” end, we find Allen, who experienced a sense of
identity loss during an acting experience. This young actor views his identity as
centered on acting, sees no boundaries between self and role, and practices strategies for
improving his acting (such [End Page 164] as role-playing in malls) that imply he
views life as practice for theatre. In the middle of the continuum, we find a mature actor,
John, who reported awareness of how the life/theatre feedback loop functions as well as
the ability to make choices about which aspects of the character to let into his life. He
stated that he views theatre as practice for life. Tust-Gunn quotes a respondent who
voices a similar view, for whom acting is “a way . . . to practice being a person” (163).

Our emerging theory suggests there may be an optimal degree of blurring that
facilitates both artistic effectiveness and personal growth, while minimizing emotional
distress. Two important conditions for the actor’s achieving such optimal blurring may
be 1) awareness that the life/theatre feedback loop may operate in acting experiences,
and 2) development of strategies for boundary control that give the actor the ability to
choose how and when to blur and reclarify boundaries.

Some interviews suggest that, once an actor becomes aware of the boundaries issue
(whether through personal experience or observation), the actor begins an evolutionary
process of learning how to handle boundaries. John proposed, “Any act of theatre is
ultimately going to have some effect on you, and one of the things you have to do as an
actor is learn to translate those out.” For instance, he noted that, when he was younger,
he always fell in love with his “leading lady,” but, in his “later years,” he “understood
that process” and no longer let it affect him. 14 Tom experienced identity loss during a
show in his undergraduate career, but feels that, in his MFA training, he has learned an
acting process that allows him boundary control. He noted to us that, although he was
not consciously aware of his boundary problems when he entered the MFA acting
program, “Those issues were addressed because it was a problem, and it came up in my
work in the program. So it began to be a drag, and then I began to realize . . . ‘These are
problems that I’ve seen before,’ and now I recognize they were problems.” Recently,
Tom and his acting partners became so intensely involved in a rehearsal that the scene
became violent; however, he said, “There was no carry-over.” He was able to separate
himself from his character and make a choice “not to let that happen again,” recognizing
that, although his character enjoyed the violence, “I, Tom, know . . . it’s not a good
thing.”

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 6/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
Since the five actors we initially interviewed used an inside-out approach, we
conducted subsequent interviews with three actors who self-identified as outside-in
actors. 15 PhD students Barb and Rich are mature, experienced performers; junior
theatre major Charles considered himself relatively inexperienced. None of these actors
reported having difficulties maintaining boundaries. However, Rich explained that his
initial training was external and, at the time he began acting, he did not know how to
make emotional connections or control the use of personal emotions in performance.
While evaluating “method” acting as “indulgent” and “unethical,” and believing in
maintaining strict role/self boundaries, Rich also noted he has more difficulty getting
into [End Page 165] rather than out of character and now thinks using more inside-out
strategies would improve his acting. Barb specifically pointed to an experience with an
“out-of-control” acting partner (the Marat/Sade rape scene) as the condition for her
discovery of a need to set boundaries for herself and therefore to choose an outside-in
approach. One of Charles’s directors once told him that getting “lost in the character”
leads to “sloppy,” (that is, ineffective) performance, so he now uses an outside-in
approach to maintain boundaries.

Control of boundary blurring appears significant for outside-in as well as inside-out

actors. Barb emphasized her need for “emotional security” onstage and discussed
specific strategies she uses to maintain safety; Rich called losing control onstage
“dangerous”; and Charles described moments of total emotional involvement he has
experienced onstage as “scary.”

It appears that not all actors who lose control turn to an outside-in approach, but
losing control may leave a residue of anxiety. Margo, who once lost control onstage,
confides that such experiences are “just frightening . . . I was afraid of that happening
again.”

The degree of blurring of the role/self boundary is not the only condition that may
produce personal consequences for the actor. Respondents pointed out that the impact of
theatre is a complex process involving many interweaving factors, both in terms of
circumstances within and outside the production. John said, “It’s not as simple as, ‘I
take on a role, and so this is the effect’ . . . There’s an exchange that occurs. It’s a
process more than crystallized pieces.” In terms of circumstances within the production,
some respondents identified the type of show (demanding, emotionally “truthful”) as a
condition for growth experiences. 16 Conditions in the production that respondents
associated with emotional distress include: a) type of show (demanding, “dark,” violent,
sexual); b) stress (sometimes created by directorial pressure); and c) acting techniques
imposed by the director without giving the actor a choice. Circumstances external to a
production that appear to influence the type of impact (positive or negative) include: a)
who the actor is (experience and maturity level, mental stability, personal values, open-
mindedness, degree of self-reflectivity); b) what acting approach the actor chooses; and
c) what is happening in the actor’s life, in terms of both personal background and
current experiences.

Several actors reported parallel struggles occurring in their personal lives and their
characters’ lives as conditions for the impact of the acting experience. For instance,
John told of using his performance of a character who decides to divorce his wife as a
“rehears[al]” for his real-life decision to divorce his own wife (who happened to be
playing his character’s wife in the production). In some cases of parallel struggles,
actors indicated they used the strategy of comparing themselves to their characters, thus
bringing themselves to more conscious awareness of a personal problem. John said:
[End Page 166]
I didn’t know it as the play began, but by the end of the play, I really was saying goodbye. . . . I used my work
as an actor to work through that decision that I needed to get out of that relationship. . . . At first I wasn’t
aware of any of this. It was just the character trying to find some honesty. And then, as the actor trying to find
places in me for that character, I certainly began to recognize that some of the things that were leading him to
the things that he did and mine were similar.

Analogies between the actor’s and the character’s experience may intensify role/self
blurring. Margo, who played a survivor of sexual abuse and is herself a survivor,
recalled:

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 7/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
I was afraid I was going to lose some measure of control because this character and I had so much in common.
I knew where she’d been. . . . And I tried and tried at keeping her experiences and mine separate, and it just
didn’t work. And finally, I don’t know what it was that took over inside me . . . our dreams started getting
mixed up. I mean, I have my dreams, and she talks about dreams that she has, and at night, in real life, when I
was asleep, they would mix. Sometimes it would be . . . my dream, her faces. Sometimes it would be
something happening to her but with people that I knew.

When the analogy involves emotionally distressing experience, the actor may feel
anxious about her psychological safety.

Three women we interviewed reported another kind of parallel struggle, in which

typecasting influences one’s self-image. Monica’s recognition of her typecasting
resulted in personal growth. Her realization that she tended to be cast in cold, bitchy
roles led her to reflect upon her real-life behavior, and her improvement in expressing
vulnerability onstage led to similar changes in her offstage responses.

Both of the other respondents, however, viewed their typecasting as negative. Both
women described themselves as “large” and discussed how their typecasting, by
confirming the stereotype of what is and is not physically attractive in a female, has had
a negative impact on their self-concepts. Jennifer, who is usually cast in maternal roles,
said she has to struggle to maintain her personal self-image as a sexual being. She finds
particularly rewarding those roles that allow her to show another side of herself and
challenge cultural stereotypes. Mary, a former professional actor, recounted what may
be a different kind of boundary blurring, in terms not of individual role but typecasting.
From her first roles in her teenage years, she was cast as old women, unattractive
younger women, or men. Mary explained that her casting, combined with family issues
and several abusive relationships, “pretty much destroyed” any “sense of myself as a
woman and being attractive.” At the same time, she had a passion for acting and
achieved considerable success as a performer, which validated her identity as an actor.
Thus Mary experienced identity confusion: “It was like, I accepted that I was an old
woman. . . . I [End Page 167] wasn’t getting cast as a young woman, so I would either
have to quit acting to be a young woman, or have a career in acting and be . . . an old
woman.” Eventually, her distress became so great that she quit acting in order to “find
out who I was that was not an actor.” While we have not chosen to focus our study on
the impact of typecasting, our interviews suggest that further research into this question
may address feminist concerns, raised by Linda Jenkins and Susan Ogden-Malouf,
about the consequences of casting on a female actor’s self-concept.

Whereas comparing character to self and discovering similarities seem to increase

blurring, contrasting character with self and focusing on differences appear to help some
actors re-establish boundaries. Several respondents mentioned the strategy of
contrasting, particularly in regard to values. For instance, John, who divorced his wife,
discovered not only similarities between himself and the character but also
discrepancies—the character had affairs, a behavior that contradicted John’s personal
values. John made a conscious choice about which of the character’s behaviors he
wanted to incorporate into his life: he chose to separate from his wife but not to have
affairs.

Some inside-out respondents mentioned individual strategies for managing

boundaries. Examples include grounding oneself in a normal daily activity, such as
spending time with one’s spouse, and practicing a physical activity. Tom suggested that
staying “in the moment,” the acting approach he learned in his MFA program, helped
him manage boundaries and improved his artistic work because, although his
connection with the character was closer and his “emotional attachment to the scene
was much stronger” onstage, when he left the stage, he “wasn’t holding onto that
emotional attachment.” Tom also noted that mask work, in which the actor studies the
mask, puts it on to act, and takes the mask off after performing, has “probably
subconsciously become part of my process.”

Outside-in actors also described individual strategies for maintaining boundaries.

Barb’s strategies include always referring to her characters in the third person and
making a list of things she likes and dislikes about the character. 17 Charles talked about
separating from the character by “split[ting] myself in two . . . see[ing] myself . . .

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 8/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
playing it as if I was sitting out in the audience.” The outside-in approach itself may
serve as a strategy for boundary maintenance. Rich observed,
If you take the approach of . . . imitating something, then, once you stop imitating it, then you’re back to
yourself again. When you take a different kind of approach where you . . . step into this character . . . then it’s

probably not as easy to step out of it. 18

Summary: Implications for Acting Pedagogy

Returning to the grounded theory paradigm (What actions, processes, or strategies

occur? Under what conditions? With what consequences? For whom?), we [End Page
168] now can summarize the core dimensions of the theory emerging from our study. In
the context of an inside-out approach, actors may use strategies for connecting
emotionally with their characters (such as comparing themselves to their characters and
personalizing) that, in interaction with other conditions, may result in the blurring of
role/self boundaries and the activation of what we describe as the life/theatre feedback
loop. When this process is activated negatively, the actor’s personal life may supplant
the character in performance, leading the actor to lose control onstage. Conversely, the
actor’s character may take over offstage, with the actor carrying over character behavior
into everyday life. A consequence of both processes may be emotional distress. When
the process is activated positively, growth in aspects of the actor’s onstage life may lead
to growth in aspects of offstage life (and/or vice versa). Important conditions
influencing whether the consequences are positive or negative seem to be the degree of
role/self blurring and the actor’s ability to control the process of blurring.

For whom does the blurring of boundaries become a problem? Our study has not
identified all the possible conditions for potential boundary problems, and we encourage
further research on this issue. However, an actor’s emotional connection to a character
seems to be a necessary condition for boundary blurring to occur. Factors that appear to
facilitate the actor’s emotional connection are the belief that emotional connections are
desirable (artistically and/or personally), the ability to make connections, specific
techniques (such as comparing character to self and personalizing), the tendency
towards self-reflection, and parallel struggles (analogies between the character’s
experience and the actor’s). 19 Mental instability, though not a necessary condition, may
intensify blurring. 20 Conditions that may inhibit blurring include the belief that
emotional connections are undesirable (artistically and/or personally), lack of
knowledge about how to connect, and specific techniques the actor chooses to use (such
as those associated with an outside-in approach).

While parallel struggles seem to assist some actors in making emotional connections,
analogous experiences that are emotionally distressing may inhibit these connections.
The issue of parallel struggles also arises in Tust-Gunn’s interviews, including an
actor’s artistically productive use of the death of a child. Some actors noted, however,
“that it was also necessary to have some distance from events in their own lives which
they used. Otherwise they felt that there was a danger of either having insufficient
control or over-controlling a role.” Tust-Gunn quotes an actor who used the experience
of the death of his brother for performance and decided never to repeat that strategy,
saying, “‘I wasn’t going to lose control. But it was scary.’” Another actor reported not
being able to use painful personal emotions she was currently experiencing: “‘It was too
raw. . . . I did not want to be feeling those things. So all my energy was bent to not
feeling’” (117–18).

To the degree that the profession teaches an inside-out approach in which student
actors are encouraged to compare themselves to their characters and [End Page 169]
thus increase role/self blurring, our study suggests that theatre educators may have
reason to be concerned about the discrepancy between positive artistic consequences
and potentially negative personal consequences. One strategy for addressing this
concern would be to abandon inside-out approaches that call for self-use. However, our
interviewees also reported positive personal consequences of inside-out approaches,
sometimes even for an emotionally distressing acting experience. A better strategy,
perhaps, would be to analyze the conditions under which negative side effects occur and
find ways to minimize them. Some conditions identified in the study (such as imposing
techniques that intensify blurring without giving actors a choice) could be addressed by

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 9/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
directors or teachers, though others (such as parallel struggles in the actor’s personal
life) would be hard to identify, much less eliminate. We suggest that more research
needs to be done in this area, in the interest of developing guidelines for actor safety.

Another strategy that emerges from our study involves optimizing the impact of
blurring through increasing the actor’s awareness of how the life/theatre feedback loop
operates, thus giving her more control and enabling her to make choices. Although
actors’ skills at handling boundaries may evolve over time—and some of our
interviewees describe individually developed strategies for maintaining boundaries—it
seems to us preferable for theatre educators to help actors discover how to handle
boundaries rather than to ignore the problems and let students flounder. Tom, for
instance, noted that, although he learned how to manage boundaries during his MFA
training, the issue was only briefly addressed, if at all: “I don’t think anyone ever came
out and said . . . ‘It may be a problem for people to differentiate between themselves
and their characters, so we are going to help you here with this.’” Because of his own
experience with boundary problems, he feels all actors should have training that allows
them to “harness” and “focus” their talent. Margo reported that an opportunity to
discuss the personal impact of acting with a group of students and faculty members
reassured her; just “an acknowledgement” that the phenomenon of boundary blurring
existed allowed her to grow as a performer because she realized her own experiences
were not unique or “unprofessional.”

Of course, in order to teach students how to optimize the use of boundaries, we need
to learn how boundary control can be achieved. A grounded dimensional analysis assists
researchers in generating theory, which can then be investigated by other researchers
and/or by means of other methodologies. More research needs to be done regarding
which factors in the actor, approach, script, rehearsal, and training increase the risk of
uncontrolled blurring. Researchers might investigate how strategies currently used by
individual actors work. Research into boundary control as conceptualized by other
disciplines, such as psychodynamic psychotherapy, might yield strategies applicable to
acting. Strategies such as Alba Emoting’s “stepping out” or the techniques suggested by
Barton in “Therapy and Acting Training” could be studied. 21 [End Page 170]

However, until the profession has developed and tested techniques for boundary
management, it seems to us that an ethical first step would be to incorporate discussion
of boundary issues into the curriculum for acting and directing students. Our study
suggests that actors’ awareness of these issues may not only lead to developing
strategies for preventing uncontrolled blurring, but also give them a context in which to
understand problems that may arise. Tust-Gunn argues that, for her respondents,
the primary determinant of whether confronting themselves through their characters resulted in personal
growth or distress for actors seemed to be whether or not they were able to understand and synthesize their
discoveries. . . . It was disturbing if difficult issues were evoked and the actor had no outlet for understanding
them, working them out, or releasing them creatively.

(159–61)

Many of the emotionally distressing experiences described by our interviewees

happened relatively early in their training, taking them by surprise and resulting in
confusion and sometimes self-blame.

Theatre educators may not feel qualified to deal with students’ psychological
problems (referral to a counselor is often the appropriate strategy), but unless teachers
warn young actors about the potential personal consequences of acting, students may
not even recognize when problems occur. For instance, shortly after our study was
completed, a senior theatre major approached Burgoyne in some distress. Another
student had told the senior she should avoid an inside-out approach to acting—the only
approach the student had learned—because it was dangerous. In addressing the senior’s
concern, Burgoyne explained the theory of boundary blurring, and the student realized
for the first time that she herself had experienced character carry-over in a recent role,
resulting in what she called “really crazy” behavior. We understand that theatre
educators may feel reluctant to cross the boundary (itself blurry) between theatre and
therapy. However, if teachers fail to discuss boundary blurring issues with students,
young actors have no resources but the student grapevine—a frequent source of

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 10/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
misinformation. Even though the theatre profession has not yet developed boundary-
management programs, we think now is the time to bring the subject out of the closet
and into the classroom.

Suzanne Burgoyne
Suzanne Burgoyne is Professor of Theatre at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Karen Poulin
Karen Poulin holds a PhD in Counseling Psychology and is a Counseling Psychologist at the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Ashley Rearden
Ashley Rearden is a recent BA Theatre graduate from the University of Missouri, Columbia.

Footnotes
1. The study was funded by the University of Missouri Research Council. Ashley Rearden assisted in researching and writing the
theatre section of the literature review, as well as participating in the grounded theory research group. His work on the project was
supported by the University of Missouri College of Arts and Sciences Undergraduate Mentorship program.

2. Quotations in the text are drawn from interviews listed in Works Cited. We have given the respondents code names to safeguard
anonymity. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Chris Hodson and Doug Powers in conducting some of the
interviews.

3. We acknowledge that “inside-out” and “outside-in” represent what might be regarded as two extremes on a continuum of acting
approaches and that actors may use a combination of approaches. However, since our first group of interviewees described their
acting strategies in terms of techniques associated with an inside-out approach, for purposes of constant comparison, we solicited
some respondents who self-identified as “outside-in” actors.

The acting literature includes a major debate over the issue of these approaches, also conceptualized as Method vs. technique,
mind vs. body. Worthen, citing Hobgood, suggests that “Stanislavsky’s goal is to teach the actor to experience both himself and
his role simultaneously during performance” (145). In the context of American Method acting (adapted from Stanislavsky’s early
work by Strasberg), the emphasis lies upon the actor’s use of self (Hull, Marowitz). Joe Seneca, for instance, says, “The whole
deal with Strasberg is to make everything in the script relate to you so that even though you’re saying someone else’s words,
you’re attaching your own personal experience to those words” (qtd. in Sonenberg 191). On the outside-in end of the spectrum,
we find actors such as Olivier, noted for finding a “physical model that inspires and guides his creation” (Bates 35). Zarrilli
contends that acting theory and pedagogy are moving away from Method and toward more physical approaches, noting, “Both
Richard Hornby (1992) and John Harrop (1992) reject (explicitly or implicitly) a Strasbergian-based version of an over-
indulgent method approach to character acting, and replace it with their own revisions of a textually-based approach to acting
building on the later Stanislavskian notion of physical action” (324). Worthen cites Cohen as an example of a text-based approach
that prioritizes role rather than self and does not “imply any relation between [the actor’s] identity and the provisional reality of
his dramatic role” (170).

4. Based in the tenets of symbolic interactionism (Blumer), grounded theory (Glaser and Straus) is a qualitative approach to
research developed specifically for the study of sociopsychological phenomena. Grounded dimensional analysis includes the
analytic refinements articulated by Schatzman, first demonstrated by Bowers, and further described by Kools et al. Rather than
seeking to test hypotheses statistically in order to yield predictive models, as is typical of traditional quantitative inquiry,
grounded theory researchers seek to build theories that represent and explain a given phenomenon from the perspectives of the
interviewees. Like its quantitative counterpart, qualitative research is as much a worldview as a research technique. Grounded
theory is based on the assumption that realities are multiple and socially constructed. Just as for the theatre artist there is no one
“right” way to play Hamlet, the grounded theorist recognizes that different respondents may tell different or even conflicting
stories while all still telling “the truth.” Not only is this assumption reflected in the methodological procedures of grounded
theory, it is also evident in the structure of a grounded theory “dimensional analysis” of the literature base, which discusses the
various ways in which the phenomenon has been conceptualized, and by whom.

5. Data analysis initially involves “open coding,” a careful word-by-word, line-by-line categorization of text to identify variables
(“dimensions”) within each interview. Open coding is somewhat like a director’s first pass at interpreting a script, in that the focus
is on remaining open to possibilities. Subsequent “axial coding” sensitizes the researcher to specific aspects (“subdimensions”) of
each dimension. The analysis is informed by a concept known as “constant comparison,” which involves ongoing consideration of
the similarities and differences among dimensions, as well as between emergent data and working hypotheses.

6. Emerging dimensions, connections, theory statements, and methodological decisions are all carefully recorded as “memos.”
Team members and others who wish to examine the process and logic of the research may review the memos to ensure the
credibility of the theory.

7. In “theoretical sampling,” as developed by Glaser in Emergence vs. Forcing, groups or individuals with certain characteristics
are chosen as needed in order to elaborate an emerging theory’s explanations and interpretations. As further described by Glaser
in Theoretical Sensitivity, theoretical sampling along a given dimension stops when that dimension is either thoroughly described
(“saturated”) or integrated into the emerging theory.

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 11/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
8. Grounded theory researchers do not use a set list of specific questions; rather, they deliberately frame the initial question
broadly so as not to lead the interviewees into telling them what the researchers might want to hear.

9. Educational level given for participants reflects their status at the time we conducted the interview. All of the theatre majors had
acting experience in productions as well as scene study; a few of the graduate students had also acted professionally. Two of the
nontheatre majors had taken a beginning acting course; one had considerable performance experience as well as substantial
theatre course work. Some student interviewees responded to notices requesting volunteers for the study; we asked some others to
participate based on criteria such as articulateness—or dimensions that emerged in the theory, such as approach to acting. Some
choices were recommended to us by colleagues at our own or at other institutions.

10. A dimensional analysis of the literature reveals differences among disciplines, concerning not only the assumptions and
methodologies but also the consequences foregrounded (artistic or personal) and for whom the consequences are analyzed
(students, patients, professional actors).

On educational drama, see Wagner. On drama therapy, see Valente and Fontana. Reviewing psychological studies of acting, Tust-
Gunn observes, “The psychological literature which pertains to the actor is dated and very sparse” (67). As far as the impact of
acting is concerned, research has focused on professional actors, though a few studies deal with students. A major question raised
is whether acting has consequences for a performer’s sense of identity. A debate has arisen between those who theorize that actors
are drawn to acting because of failure to develop a strong sense of identity (Henry and Sims; Kris; Mason; Taft; Weissman,
Creativity) and those who contend identity confusion arises from the actor’s constantly playing different characters (Kjerbühl-
Petersen, Rule). DeCosta et al. take a slightly different position, contending that, for the three actors in their case study, “problems
were often related to boundaries—where the characterization left off and the individual himself began” (132). Adding to the
debate, other theorists argue that the actor’s identity must be particularly strong so she can take on different roles (Bates, Fisher
and Fisher), and/or that acting “strengthens and expands identity” (Tust-Gunn, 64; Bates; Moreno, Psychodrama, Who). Much of
the psychoanalytic literature analyzes personality traits, suggesting, for instance, that actors are exhibitionistic (Barr et al.;
Friedman et al.) and/or narcissistic (Fenichel; Taft; Weissman, “Development”). Wilson cautions that such studies may be heavily
influenced by assumptions, since “psychoanalysts tend to see immaturity and pathology wherever they look” (172).

The theatre literature in our sample includes textbooks, theory, actor biographies, interviews, and intellectual histories. The
autobiographies of Brando and Olivier represent the polar extremes of acting approach. Sonenberg and Bates present an eclectic
sample of actors’ opinions and experiences. Textbooks include some of the most popular and accessible (Barton, Acting;
Benedetti; Hagen; Meisner and Longwell; Spolin). Biographies seem to foreground personal consequences of acting more than
textbooks, which foreground artistic consequences.

11. Kepke and Wayne-Smith also interpret their quantitative studies as suggesting lack of actor identification with character.

12. Hammond and Edelmann compare two actors and suggest that instability of actor self-perception may be a condition for
influence of roles on the actor’s self-concept. However, Mason, studying student actors, does not find confirmation of her
hypothesis that acting would impact identity formation. In comparing male and female student performers, she theorizes that “the
more acting experience females obtain, the more sensitive they become to interpersonal nuances and develop their ability to act in
ways that satisfy social demands. Thus, the boundaries between acting on stage and in real life have become blurred” (102–03).

13. Tom also observed that the experience had positive consequences, saying, “it was probably one of the first moments that I
began to seriously think of myself as an artist and know that I could actually do this.” He explained that the experience made him
realize he needed intense training.

14. Tom and Liz similarly mentioned the importance of strategies for reconnecting with acting partners as people—to avoid carry-
over from characters’ into the actors’ personal relationships.

15. Tust-Gunn describes her sample’s approach to acting as “eclectic” but primarily informed by Stanislavsky and American
Method (180). She suggests, “It might prove productive to compare an emotional approach to roles to a more physical procedure
in order to determine whether there are differences in how they affect actors emotionally and psychologically” (206). The three
actors we interviewed all described their acting process as beginning with a physical approach to characterization, though we
acknowledge these actors may use a combination of approaches.

16. For some interviewees, such a show has a “significant theme,” is “realistic,” or relates in some way to the actor’s life. For
Jennifer, growth-producing shows require self-exploration and lead to new insights; she said she particularly appreciates “those
shows that ask you to go someplace maybe dark that you’ve never been before.”

17. Note that this latter strategy is a variant of comparing and contrasting.

18. Peter, who reported no blurring of boundaries, also described using an external approach in which he observes models for his
character and copies them. Rich added that his approach is not entirely external: “I hope I’ve gotten to the point where I no longer
just . . . imitate something.” Peter and Rich both described moments of losing oneself and becoming the character onstage, but
Peter noted that he cannot do that “on command” and that “it’s a lot easier . . . to find yourself [than] to lose yourself.”

19. Tust-Gunn notes that most of her interviewees “tended to be very psychologically-minded and interested in examining
themselves; many commented that they had a particular disposition towards self-analysis” (185–86).

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 12/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
20. Only one of our respondents reported mental instability as an issue.

21. We have been experimenting with a debriefing process that might assist actors in dealing with boundary issues. We plan to
publish a study later. However, a preliminary examination of the interviews from the first debriefing experiment suggests a point
relevant to the current study: that boundary issues may have been significant for two actors dealing with parallel struggles. Both
actors reported that debriefing provided a safety net that allowed them to explore the role/self connection more deeply than they
might otherwise have done, not only giving them a measure of personal control over boundaries but improving their acting. Both
describe learning to access and use distressing aspects of personal experience in a controlled way.

Works Cited
Allen. Personal interview. 3 June 1997.

Barb. Personal interview. 4 May 1998.

Barr, Harriet L., et al. LSD: Personality and Experience. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972.  Google Scholar

Barton, Robert. Acting: Onstage and Off. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1984.  Google Scholar

———. “Therapy and Actor Training.” Theatre Topics 4.2 (1994): 105–18.  Google Scholar

Bates, Brian. The Way of the Actor: A Path to Knowledge and Power. Boston: Shambhala, 1987.  Google Scholar

Benedetti, Robert L. The Actor at Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­Hall, 1976.  Google Scholar

Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­Hall, 1969.
Google Scholar

Bowers, Barbara. “Intergenerational Caretaking: Processes and Consequences of Creating Knowledge.” Diss. U of
California, San Francisco, 1984.  Google Scholar

Brando, Marlon, with Robert Lindsey. Brando: Songs My Mother Taught Me. New York: Random House, 1994.
Google Scholar

Burgoyne Dieckman, Suzanne. “A Crucible for Actors: Questions of Directorial Ethics.” Theatre Topics 1.1 (1991): 1–
12.  Google Scholar

Charles. Personal interview. 3 April 1998.

Cohen, Robert. Acting Power. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1978.  Google Scholar

DeCosta, Louise, William Buse, and Audrey Amdursky. “Personal Myths: Living Them and Pretending Them.”
Dynamic Psychotherapy 4.2 (1986): 131–40.  Google Scholar

Donald. Personal interview. 21 July 1998.

Fenichel, O. “On Acting.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 15.2 (1946): 144–60.  Google Scholar

Fisher, Seymour, and Rhoda L. Fisher. Pretend the World is Funny and Forever: A Psychological Analysis of
Comedians, Clowns, and Actors. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.  Google Scholar

Friedman, H. S., et al. “Understanding and Assessing Non­Verbal Expressiveness: The Affective Communication
Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1980): 333–51.  Google Scholar

Geer, Richard Owen. “Dealing with Emotional Hangover: Cool­Down and the Performance Cycle in Acting.” Theatre
Topics 3.2 (1993): 147–58.  Google Scholar

Glaser, Barney G. Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology P, 1992.
Google Scholar

———. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley: Sociology P, 1978.
Google Scholar

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm Strauss. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago:
Aldine, 1967.  Google Scholar

Hagen, Uta. A Challenge for the Actor. New York: Macmillan, 1991.  Google Scholar

Hammond, J., and R. J. Edelmann. “Double Identity: The Effect of the Acting Process on the Self­Perception of
Professional Actors—Two Case Illustrations.” Psychology and Performing Arts. Ed. G. D. Wilson. Amsterdam:
Swets & Zeitlinger, 1991. 25–44.  Google Scholar

Hannah, Mo Therese, et al. “Acting and Personality Change: The Measurement of Change in Self­Perceived
Personality Characteristics during the Actor’s Character Development Process.” Journal of Research in
Personality 28 (1994): 277–86.  Google Scholar

Harrop, John. Acting. London: Routledge, 1992.  Google Scholar

Henry, W. E., and J. H. Sims. “Actors’ Search for Self.” Transaction 7 (1970): 57–62.  Google Scholar

Hobgood, Burnet M. “Central Conceptions in Stanislavski’s System.” ETJ 25 (1973): 149–50.  Google Scholar

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 13/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
Hornby, Richard. The End of Acting: A Radical View. New York: Applause, 1992.  Google Scholar

Hull, Loraine S. Strasberg’s Method As Taught by Lorrie Hull: A Practical Guide for Actors, Teachers, and Directors.
Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow, 1985.  Google Scholar

Jenkins, Linda Walsh, and Susan Ogden­Malouf. “The (Female) Actor Prepares.” Theater 17.1 (1985): 66–69.
Google Scholar

Jennifer. Personal interview. 28 June 1996.

John. Personal interview. 11 June 1997.

Kepke, A. N. “A Study of Communication of Perception of Character Among Actors, Director and Audience, Using Q­
Methodology.” Diss. Michigan State University, 1963.  Google Scholar

Kjerbühl­Petersen, L. Psychology of Acting. Trans. S. T. Barrows. Boston: Expression, 1935.  Google Scholar

Kools, Susan, et al. “Dimensional Analysis: Broadening the Conception of Grounded Theory.” Qualitative Health
Research 6.3 (1996): 312–30.  Google Scholar

Kris, Ernst. Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. New York: Schocken, 1964.  Google Scholar

Liz. Personal interview. 12 March 1998.

Margo. Personal interviews. 19 March and 10 July 1998.

Mary. Telephone interview. 7 May 1998.

Marowitz, Charles. The Method as Means: An Acting Survey. London: Herbert Jenkins, 1961.  Google Scholar

Mason, Rennae. “The Relationship between Theatrical Role Playing, Identity Achievement, Identity Consistency and
Gender.” Diss. California School of Professional Psychology, 1985.  Google Scholar

Meisner, Sanford, and Dennis Longwell. Sanford Meisner on Acting. New York: Random House, 1987.  Google

Scholar

Mitch. Personal interview. 26 July 1997.

Monica. Personal interview. 26 June 1996.

Moreno, J. L. Psychodrama. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Beacon, NY: Beacon House, 1972.  Google Scholar

———. Who Shall Survive? 3rd ed. Beacon, NY: Beacon House, 1978.  Google Scholar

Neuringer, Charles, and Ronald A. Willis. “The Cognitive Psychodynamics of Acting: Character Invasion and Director
Influence.” Empirical Studies of the Arts 13.1 (1995): 47–53.  Google Scholar

Olivier, Laurence. On Acting. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986.  Google Scholar

Peter. Personal interview. 5 May 1998.

Rich. Personal interview. 4 June 1998.

Richardson, Don. Acting Without Agony: An Alternative to the Method. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.  Google

Scholar

Rule, Janice. “The Actor’s Identity Crises: Postanalytic Reflections of an Actress.” International Journal of
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 2.1 (1973): 51–76.  Google Scholar

Schatzman, L. “Dimensional Analysis in and for Qualitative Research.” Unpub. ms. Dept. of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, School of Nursing, U of California, San Francisco, 1986.

Schechner, Richard. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1985.  Google
Scholar

Sonenberg, Janet. The Actor Speaks: Twenty­Four Actors Talk about Process and Technique. New York: Crown,
1996.  Google Scholar

Spolin, Viola. Improvisation for the Theater. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1983.  Google Scholar

Taft, R. “A Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors and Related Professions.” Genetic Psychology
Monographs 64 (1961): 309–83.  Google Scholar

Tom. Telephone interview. 9 July 1998.

Tust­Gunn, Lisa. “A Mirror to Nature: The Theatre Actor’s Relationship to Character and Use of Roles for Self­
Exploration.” Diss. California School of Professional Psychology, 1995.  Google Scholar

Valente, Lucilia, and David Fontana. “Dramatherapy and Psychological Change.” Psychology and Performing Arts.
Ed. G. D. Wilson. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1991. 251–60.  Google Scholar

Wagner, Betty Jane. Educational Drama and Language Arts: What Research Shows. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1998.  Google Scholar

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 14/15
9/29/2017 Project MUSE - The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
Wayne­Smith, R. “Actor­Character Personality Identification in a Theatre Production.” Empirical Research in Theatre
1.1 (1971): 29–38.  Google Scholar

Weissman, Phillip. Creativity in the Theater: A Psychoanalytic Study. New York: Basic, 1965.  Google Scholar

———. “Development and Creativity in the Actor and Playwright.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 30.4 (1961): 549–67.
Google Scholar

Wilson, Glenn D. Psychology for Performing Artists: Butterflies and Bouquets. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1994.
Google Scholar

Worthen, William B. The Idea of the Actor: Drama and the Ethics of Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1984.
Google Scholar

Zarrilli, Phillip B. Introduction. Acting (Re)Considered: Theories and Practices. Ed. Phillip B. Zarrilli. London:
Routledge, 1995. 7–21.  Google Scholar

Copyright © 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Welcome to Project MUSE Connect with Project MUSE

Use the simple Search box at the top of the page or the Advanced Search
linked from the top of the page to find book and journal content. Refine Join our Facebook Page
results with the filtering options on the left side of the Advanced Search
page or on your search results page. Click the Browse box to see a
selection of books and journals by: Research Area, Titles A-Z, Publisher, Follow us on Twitter
Books only, or Journals only.

Project MUSE | 2715 North Charles Street | Baltimore, Maryland USA 21218 | (410) 516-6989 | About | Contact | Help | Tools | Order |
Accessibility

©2017 Project MUSE. Produced by The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower Library.

https://muse-jhu-edu.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/article/35212 15/15