TA Diagrams

TA D

iag

ram

s1. Edit these diagrams according to

your own needs

2. Use “Paste Special” or “Paste Options: Picture” to copy them into Word as a “Picture (Enhanced Metafile)”

In Word 2010 – Paste Options + UIn earlier, go to Edit Menu > Paste Special

and select

Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

C

Firs

t O

rder

Str

uct

ura

l M

od

el

From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.12

P

A


Parent ego-statebehaviours, thoughts and feelingscopied from parents and parent figures

Adults ego-statebehaviours, thoughts and feelingswhich are direct responses to the here-and-now

Child ego-statebehaviours, thoughts and feelingsreplayed from childhood

Seco

nd

Ord

er

Str

uct

ura

l M

od

el


Parent (P2)

AAdult (A2)

Child (C2)

C1

P1

A1

C3

P3

A3

C3

P3

A3

C3

P3

A3

C3

P3

A3Introjected parents and parent-figures, each with his/her own Parent, Adult and Child ego-states. Identity and number will vary with the individual.

(Adult not subdivided)

Parent in the Child (‘Magical Parent’)

Adult in the Child (‘Little Professor’)

Child in the Child (‘Somatic Child’)


AC FC

Fun

ctio

nal

Mod

el


CP NP

A


Nurturing Parent

Adult

Free Child

Controlling Parent

Adapted Child

+AC +FC-AC -FC

Fun

ctio

nal

Mod

el +

ve a

nd

-v

e

From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.22-26

+CP +NP-CP -NP

A


Nurturing Parent

Adult

Free Child

Controlling Parent

Adapted Child

C C CCon

tam

inati

on s


ParentContamination

P

A

P

A

P

A

ChildContamination

DoubleContamination


Dra

ma T

rian

gle

Developed by Steve Karpman, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.132.

P R

V

Drama Triangle(also called the Racket or Game

Triangle to emphasise the discounting aspects of the three positions)

P R

V

H

W

RacketEach person as one or two favourite positions in the drama triangle and will seek out others who will exchange strokes from complementary positions.

Here a Husband (H) & Wife (W) adopt helper (R) and helpless (V) positions, exchanging complementary transactions that stroke each other’s not-OK position.

P R

V

H

W

GameThe Racket becomes a Game when one or both participants shift positions on the Drama Triangle and gain a Racket Feeling payoff.

Here Wife (W) moves to Persecutor (P) and Husband to Victim (V) when the husband’s earlier rescuing proves ineffectual (the strokes dry up).

W

H


Firs

t O

rder

Sym

bio

sis

P2

A2

C2

P2

A2

C2



Seco

nd

Ord

er

Sym

bio

sis

P2

A2

C2

P1

A1

C1

P2

A2

C2

P1

A1

C1



Imp

ass

e

Dia

gra

ms

Developed by Ken Mellor, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.175.

P2

A2

C2

First Degree(Structural)

P3

A3

C3

1°

P2

A2

C2

P3

A3

C3

2°

Second Degree(Structural)

P2

A2

C2

P1

A1

C1

3°

Third Degree(Structural)

Showing three varieties

C2

P2

A2

P3

A3

C3

FC

AC

3°

First Degree(Functional)

Third Degree(Structural)

Historical

7+ 6 5 4 3 2 1 Birth

C23°


Str

uct

ura

l Im

pass

e

Dia

gra

m (

Mello

r)

Developed by Ken Mellor, from (“Impasses” in Volume of Selected Articles from TAJ 1971-80) pp.336-343).

P2

A2

C2

P1

A1

C1

P0

A0

C0

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Impasses were originally described as degrees, as in “First Degree Impasse”, but Type is now preferred.

Note


U+

U–

I– I+I+

GAF

GNW

GOW

GRO

Healthy PositionDepressive Position

Futility Position Paranoid Position

Corr

alo

gra

m

Developed by Franklin Ernst, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.124.

You

GAF: Get Away FromGOW: Get On WithGNW: Get Nowhere WithGRO: Get Rid Of

Legend: Life Positions

U+ You’re OKI+ I’m OKU– You’re Not OKI– I’m Not OK


Eg

og

ram

Developed by Jack Dusay, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.28

Note: Dusay’s Constancy Hypothesis suggests that if you change something about yourself, eg, spend more time in NP, then you will have less of another ego state.

Positive

Negative

CP: Controlling ParentNP: Nurturing ParentA: AdultFC: Free ChildAC: Adapted Child

Legend: Ego States

CP NP A FC AC


Almost Never

Seldom

Often

Frequently

Usually

Almost Always

Almost Never

Seldom

Often

Frequently

Usually

Almost AlwaysS

troki

ng

Pro

file

McKenna. (1974), Stroking Profile. TAJ 4(4), 20-24

Note: McKenna’s inverse relationship suggests that if someone has a high positive (eg, give a lot of positive strokes), they are likely to have a low negative (eg, give few negative strokes) and vice versa.

Giving Taking Asking For Refusing to Give


How often do you give -strokes to others?

How often do you take -strokes?

How often do you ask others indirectly or directly for the –strokes that you want?

How often do you refuse to give -strokes

How often do you give +strokes to others?

How often do you accept +strokes?

How often do you ask others for the +strokes you want

How often do you refuse to give the +strokes they expect from you?

Rack

et

Syst

em

Developed by Richard Erskine & Marilyn Zalcman, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.221

Racket System

Script Beliefs / Feelings

Rackety Displays Reinforcing Memories

Beliefs About1 Self

2 Others

3 Quality of Life

1.Observable Behaviours (stylised, repetitive)

2.Reported Internal Experience (somatic aliments, physical sensations)

3.Fantasies(Best & Worst)

Emotional Memories(“Trading Stamps”)

Provide Evidence and Justification

(Intrapsychic Process)

Feelings Repressed at the Time of Script

Decision


Scr

ipt

Deci

sion

S

cale

Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.162-175.

D = Don’tDE = Don’t ExistDY = Don’t be YouDH = Don’t be a ChildDG = Don’t Grow UpDS = Don’t Succeed

Injunction Legend:

DI = Don’t be ImportantDB = Don’t belongDC = Don’t be CloseDW = Don’t be Well (Sane)DT = Don’t ThinkDF = Don’t Feel

PO = Please OthersBP = Be PerfectTH = Try HardBS = Be StrongHU = Hurry Up

Drivers Legend:

HUBS

POBPTH

DTDW

DDGDHDE

DS

DFDC

DIDYPermission

(OK to …)Injunction(Don’t…)

0 10

DB

Allower Driver

OK toExist

Don’tExist0 10

Com

posite

Mu

m

Bro

ther

Sis

ter

Dad

Composite Script Decision Scale

Composite Script Decision(Don’t Exist Injunction)


Experi

enci

ng

Inte

rnalis

ed

Scr

ipt

Mess

ages

Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.178.

How to be comfortable in misery

P2

A2

C2

Mum Dad

Don’t feelDon’t be closeDon’t grow up

Don’t be

Please (people) Be Strong

Don’t belongDon’t make it

P

A

C

P

A

C

Originally, the Program was shown as coming only from the same sex Parent as the child (as shown here). Now it recognised that both parents can transmit Program messages

Note:


Dis

cou

nt

Matr

ix



MODE TYPE

EXISTENCE Stimuli Problems Options

SIGNIFICANCE

Significance of stimuli

Significance of problems

Significance of options

CHANGE POSSIBILITIES

Changeability of stimuli

Solvability of problems

Viability of options

PERSONAL ABILITIES

Person’s ability to react

differently

Person’s ability to solve

problems

Person’s ability to act on options

T1 T2 T3

T2 T3 T4

T3 T4 T5

T4 T5 T6

Min

iscr

ipt

Developed by Taibi Kahler. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.165

Movement through the miniscript: “Miniscript theory does not predict any specific sequence of movement from one position to another. Each individual has her own typical patterns.” p.167

1 DRIVER(I+IF)

No feelings

3 BLAMER(I+U-)

Typical rackets:Blameful, triumphant,

euphoric, spiteful,blameless, furious

2 STOPPER(I-U+)

Typical rackets:Guilty, hurt, worried,

blank, confusion,embarrassed

4 DESPAIRER(I-U-)

Typical rackets:Worthless, unwantedhopeless, cornered,

unloved, futile


Tim

e

Str

uct

uri

ng

Pie

C

hart

Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) pp.94-95

Withdrawal(carrying on an internal monologue)

Intimacy(expressing authentic uncensored feelings)

Rituals(pre-programmed social interaction)

Games(transactions

where both end feeling bad)

Pastimes(talking about something, but not doing)

Activities(doing something, or

planning to do it)

To edit, press Alt and click & drag at the same time, to move the line to the desired angle. Zoom in to make any final edits to get the edges right


Originally, the Program was shown as coming only from the same sex Parent as the child (as shown here). Now it recognised that both parents can transmit Program messages

Scr

ipt

Matr

ix

Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.177.

Note:

P

A

C

Mum

P

A

C

You

P

A

C

Dad

Don’t feelDon’t be closeDon’t grow up

Don’t be

Please Others Be S

tron

g

How to be OK

in Misery

Don’t belongDon’t make it


Scr

ipt

Matr

ix

Developed by Claude Steiner. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.129.

P

A

C

Mother

P

A

C

YouP

A

C

Father

Don’t feelDon’t be close

Don’t grow upDon’t be

How to Prevaricate

Please (people) Be Strong

How to be

Comfortable

in Misery

Don’t belong

Don’t make it


P

A

C

Colleagues

P

A

C

Harold

P

A

C

Wife

CocreativeScript MatrixSummers, G. and Tudor, K. (2000) Cocreative Transactional Analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal 30:1 pp.23-40

“Our horizontal diagram does not represent equality in parent-child relationships. It is intended to emphasize our ongoing capacity to influence and be influenced. The matrix can be used to map mutual influences at any stage in the life cycle and be be applied to various situations in which we may be more or less powerful than the others by virtue of status, knowledge, financial resources, age or discrimination based on class, disability, gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on.”

Be StrongBe Perfect

Be StrongPlease Others

Be StrongBe Perfect

Take great care/follow rulesBe away from home

Drink to relax

Friends = NetworkingBe careful of Reputation

Home is a remote havenWork is first priority

Be reasonable (unemotional)Be self sufficient

Be StrongBe Perfect

Don’t be CloseDon’t FeelDon’t be ImportantDon’t Grow UpDon’t SucceedDon’t Exist

Don’t be CloseDon’t FeelDon’t be a Child

Don’t be CloseDon’t be WellDon’t Belong

Don’t be CloseDon’t be Important

Sublimate yourself to othersBe stubborn

Be weak and incapable


Scr

ipt

Helix

Adapted from Summers & Tudor, in Cornell & Hargaden. From Transactions to Relations (2005) p.119

C

P

A

C

P

A

C

P

A

C

P

A

C

P

A

C

P

A

C

P

A

Female Scottish

Irish Female

Protestant Catholic


Th

era

py T

rian

gle

Allen, P. The Therapy Triangle, A tool for diagnosis and therapy. TAJ 22: 1, 48-53

BWorkaholic(Obsessive/Compulsive)BE PERFECTBE STRONG

I-Y+

Th

F

A

FCNP

FCNP

+CP

Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation

ThBDoubter

(Paranoid)BE PERFECTBE STRONG

I+Y-

F

A

NP

NP

+CP

Paranoid Adaptation

ThDisapprover(Passive-Aggressive)

TRY HARD(BE STRONG)

I-Y-

Th

F

FC

NP

NP

Passive-Aggressive Adaptation

A Key (Client)Th = ThinkingF = FeelingB = BehavingKey (Therapist)A = AdultFC = Feel ChildNP = Nurturing Parent+CP = Positive Controlling Parent

Direction of movement for therapist


Ap

peti

te M

od

el

Sh

ow

ing t

he S

elf w

ith C

ore

and S

crip

t A

rea, Th

e

Unh

ealt

hy A

ppeti

te P

ath

s and t

he H

ealt

hy

Psy

cholo

gic

al H

unger

Path

s

Jody Boliston, in Appetite Path Model Working with Escape Hatch Resolution with Clients Who Use Drugs and Alcohol TA UK No 61 Autumn 2001 p.9

Core Self

Unhealthy Appetite Paths Leading to Tragic Outcomes

Healthy Appetite Paths Meeting Psychological Hungers and Nourishing the Core Self

Stimulus Hunger Incident Hunger

Recognition Hunger

Sexual Hunger

Contact HungerStructure Hunger

Go Crazy

Harm Self Harm Others

Script


Withdraw

Often discussed with an additional “Run Away” tragic outcome, becoming withdrawn and isolated

P2

Tra

nsf

ere

nce

Mioso, in Cornell & Hargaden. From Transactions to Relations (2005) p.34

a

b

c

d

a = internal dialogueb = projected structurec = social transactiond = transference message (ulterior transaction)(The Parent of the therapist is shown as a dotted line to indicate that its actual existence or significance is discounted by the patient)Redrawn by Rob van

Tol, 2011. TA Student

Pro

ject

ive a

nd

Intr

oje

ctiv

e

Transf

ere

nce

s

Based on Mioso, in Hargaden & Sills. Transactional Analysis: A Relational Perspective (2002) p.50

a

C2

P2

A2

C2

P2

A2b

ClientRedrawn by Rob van Tol, 2012. TA Student

Therapist

+ –

P1+

C0

Th

e

Un

develo

ped

S

elf

Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.25

‘Split-off’ core self________ Impermeable division in A1 and P1 implies a more fragmented self

C2

P2

A2

C1

P1-

A1-

P1+

A1+

P0

C0Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

Th

e C

oh

esi

ve

Self

C2

P2

A2

C1

P1-

A1-

P1+

A1+

P0

A0

C0


A0 indicates an adequately cohesive self

………….. Permeable division in A1 and P1 indicates the possibility of integration


Th

e C

ult

ura

l S

elf

P2

A2

P1-

A1-

P1+

A1+

P0

A0

C0


Idealized image of stereotypical elements of culture

Conforming, conventional ‘belonging’ adaptation

Parents’ conscious and unconscious feelings about their cultural identity

Infant’s innate temperament

Introjected denigrating injunctions

Rejected ‘unacceptable’ elements of cultural identity

‘Not OK’ self accepts denigrating stereotype

Sense of cultural identity(for example bi-racial; female; middle class)


Soci

al Le

vel and

Psy

cholo

gic

al Le

vel

Com

munic

ati

on

Petruska Clarkson, “Group Imago and the Stages of Group Development” TAJ Vol. 21 No.1, January 1991

A

P

C

A

P

C

Group Leader


Transa

ctio

nal

Analy

sis

of

“Para

llel

Pro

cess

”

Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision Analyzed Transactionally, TAJ 32:1 p.52

A

P

C

A

P

C

Client Therapist/Supervisee


A

P

C

Supervisor

Help!

I can’t think

I don’t knowwhat to do!

I really don’tknow what think about this client I feel so confused andhelpless

Treatm

ent

Tria

ngle

Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p.179Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian StewartRedrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student

Contract Diagnosis

Treatment DirectionIn what order? (=Treatment Sequence)

Which interventions?

Content(what)

Process(how)

Long-term

(strategy)

Short-term

(tactics)

Treatm

ent

and

Superv

isory

Tr

iangle

s

Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision Analyzed Transactionally, TAJ 32:1 p.52Developed from Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p.179Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian StewartRedrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student

Clinical Contract

Clinical Diagnosis/Assessment

Treatment Direction

Supervisory ContractA bilateral, sometimes trilateral agreement defining the supervisee’s learning needs, goals, and direction

Diagnosis/Assessmentof supervisee’s/practitioner based (traditionally) on ego state, transactional, game, and script analysis

Learning Direction in Supervisionincluding establishing a working alliance, decontamination, deconfusion and further learning

Group Leader

Self Those Others

“Subm

ari

ne”

Dia

gra

m


TA Diagrams

Documents

Transcript of TA Diagrams