The play genogram developed by Eliana Gil replaces symbols with small figures, which children themselves place in family positions — a nonverbal, trauma-sensitive approach, especially suitable for younger children, children with limited language skills, and children with experiences of violence.

Why Symbols Often Don’t Work for Children

The classic genogram according to McGoldrick uses abstract symbols — rectangles, circles, lines — and requires a cognitive operation: the symbol stands for a person, the line stands for a relationship. For adults and older adolescents, this operation is taken for granted; for children aged four to about ten, it is not. From a developmental psychology perspective, children in this age group are still in the preoperational to concrete operational stage (Piaget); abstract representation is possible, but emotionally distant.

There is a second difficulty: children who have experienced violence, neglect, or loss are often unable to speak — not because they lack words, but because activating language also activates traumatic material. Trauma research (Bessel van der Kolk, Bruce Perry) has consistently shown over the past two decades: traumatic content is often encoded nonverbally; its processing requires nonverbal approaches.

Eliana Gil, US family therapist and pioneer of child trauma therapy, developed the play genogram based on these two observations — a method that translates the genogram into play materials.

Methodology: Figures Instead of Symbols

The play genogram follows a simple basic operation: instead of drawing symbols on paper, the child selects from a curated collection of small figures — animals, people, fantasy creatures — those that "fit" for the family members. The figures are then placed on a play surface (sand tray, tray, large cloth) as the child experiences the family.

The process typically has three phases:

  1. Selection phase: The child looks at the available figures and chooses one for each person to be represented. The therapist comments little, observing which figure is chosen for whom, which are rejected, and what difficulties arise.
  2. Placement phase: The selected figures are positioned in the space — distances, heights, directions of gaze, groupings. Again, there is little commentary; the placement is the statement.
  3. Verbalisation phase: Only once the arrangement is complete does the conversation begin — cautiously, child-led — about the choices. "How come you chose a mouse for Mum?" Never interpretive ("So the mouse is small and weak"), always open-ended.

Choice of Materials as a Methodological Decision

The collection of figures is not arbitrary. Eliana Gil has outlined methodological guidance for curating the collection in Helping Abused and Traumatized Children (2006) and in materials from the Multicultural Family Institute. A suitable collection includes:

  • Animals of different sizes and connotations: predators, prey, pets, wild animals
  • People of different ages, genders, and skin colours — important so that children with a migration background are not limited to white figures
  • Fantasy creatures: dragons, angels, monsters — important for representations that go beyond the real
  • Ambivalent objects: broken figures, half figures, objects with unclear identity
  • Protective objects: walls, bridges, gates, boxes — important so that needs for protection can be represented

The collection should not be too small (the child must have a real choice) and not too large (the child should not be overwhelmed). Experienced child therapists work with 50 to 150 figures.

Observational Focus

What the child communicates about the family is not in the words, but in the arrangement. Skilled observation focuses on:

  • Distances: Which figures are close together, which are far apart? Where are the largest gaps in the picture?
  • Heights: Which figure towers above the others? Which is lying on the ground?
  • Directions of gaze: Are figures looking at each other? Who looks away? Who looks at whom without reciprocation?
  • Groupings: Which figures form clusters? Which stand isolated?
  • Omissions: Who is missing? Has the child left out a family member — and if so, how do they respond to a gentle enquiry?
  • Size and robustness: Who is represented by a tiny, fragile figure, who by a massive one?

These observations are not interpreted. They are noted and — if the child is ready — gently brought into the conversation.

Verbalisation: Child-Led, Non-Interpretive

The most common methodological mistake is premature interpretation. "The mouse is small because you feel small" closes the child off, rather than opening them up. Gil recommends an open-ended way of speaking: "Tell me something about the mouse." If the child does not want to say anything, the mouse remains a mouse, and the session continues. If the child does speak, the therapist follows the child’s narrative, not their own hypothesis.

In the tradition of trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), the play genogram is used as an adjunct method: not as the main intervention, but as preparation for the later verbal trauma narrative phase. The image provides the material that can later — when the child is ready — be worked with verbally.

Fields of Application

The play genogram is particularly indicated in the following contexts:

  • Trauma therapy with children after domestic violence, sexual abuse, severe loss
  • Work with foster children: as biographical work with younger foster children, often in combination with the life story book
  • Family court assessments (BFA, attachment diagnostics): as a supplementary procedure that adds a nonverbal level to verbal statements — with all forensic caution (see Lesson 8)
  • First contact with children with limited language skills: children growing up multilingually, children with mutism, children with refugee backgrounds
  • Children’s groups: siblings can create play genograms separately and then compare — a striking way to access different family experiences

Practice Vignette

A seven-year-old boy is referred to a child protection clinic after a period of domestic violence. Verbally, he is barely accessible — he answers monosyllabically or remains silent. The therapist introduces the play genogram. For himself, he chooses a tiny white mouse, for his father a large, red-painted dragon, for his mother a broken vase, for his older sister a horse, which he positions upright. He places the mouse behind the horse, shielded by its body. The dragon is placed far away, with its back to the mouse. The broken vase lies on the ground, some distance away. This arrangement becomes the starting point for several weeks of work — the therapist talks about the horse that shields the mouse long before talking about the father or mother.

State of Research & Discussion

Eliana Gil’s method is well established in North American child trauma therapy, particularly as an adjunct to trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) as developed by Judith Cohen, Anthony Mannarino, and Esther Deblinger. Empirical efficacy studies specifically on the play genogram are, however, rare — the method is sustained by clinical plausibility, qualitative case research, and its integration into evidence-based trauma therapy programmes.

The Multicultural Family Institute, where Eliana Gil worked for many years and which, alongside the work of Monica McGoldrick, is a key centre for genogram-based family therapy, has canonised the methodology in trainings and video productions. In German-speaking countries, the play genogram is less systematically disseminated; however, it is increasingly being adopted in specialised child protection clinics and in some areas of foster care support. Frank Schubert and Karoline Schubert, in their work on systemic child therapy, have built methodological bridges between play therapy and genogram work that are related to Gil’s method.

There is ongoing discussion about its transferability to the German context: a US therapy room with a large toy collection is not always available; mobile practitioners need compact figure sets. There is also debate about its forensic applicability: a play genogram arrangement is diagnostically valuable, but it does not replace a forensic psychological assessment in the criminal law sense.

Cross-References

  • Module 4 "Genogram Work with Adoptive and Foster Families" — methodological integration with biographical work
  • Module 4 "Forensic Genogram and Child Welfare Endangerment" — play genogram as adjunct in child protection diagnostics
  • Module 2 "Initial Interview" — child-appropriate initial contact settings

Further Links