TA D
iag
ram
s
Adapt and modify for your own needs
1. Edit these diagrams according to your own needs
2. “Paste Special” them into Word as a “Picture (Enhanced Metafile)”
In Word 2010 – Paste Options + U
In Earlier, go toEdit Menu > Paste Special
and select
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
C C CCon
tam
inati
on s
From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.50
ParentContamination
P
A
P
A
P
A
ChildContamination
DoubleContamination
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
Seco
nd
Ord
er
Str
uct
ura
l M
od
el
From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.31
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’)
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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°
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Please Edit to Your Own
Needs(and delete this Note - Rob)
Impasses were originally described as degrees, as in “First Degree Impasse”, but Type is now used.
Note
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
Almost Never
Seldom
Often
Frequently
Usually
Almost Always
Almost Never
Seldom
Often
Frequently
Usually
Almost Always
Str
oki
ng
Pro
file
Developed by Jim McKenna. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.80
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.
Give Take Ask For Refuse to Give
Positive
Negative
Legend: Strokes
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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)
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Th
Doubter(Paranoid)
BE PERFECTBE STRONG
I+Y-
F
A
NP NP
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
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
Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.24
A0 indicates an adequately cohesive self
………….. Permeable division in A1 and P1 indicates the possibility of integration
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
Th
e C
ult
ura
l S
elf
P2
A2
P1-
A1-
P1+
A1+
P0
A0
C0
Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.99
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)
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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:
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student