TA Diagrams Redrawn by Rob van Tol 2011

TA Diagrams Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student 1. 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 + U In earlier, go to Edit Menu > Paste Special and select

First Order Structural Model From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 12 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P A C Parent ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelings copied from parents and parent figures Adults ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelings which are direct responses to the here-and-now Child ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelings replayed from childhood

Second Order Structural Model P 3 P 3 Parent (P 2) C 3 C 3 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student A (Adult not subdivided) P 1 Adult (A 2) Child (C 2) From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 31 A 3 A 3 Introjected parents and parent-figures, each with his/her own Parent, Adult and Child ego-states. Identity and number will vary with the individual. Parent in the Child (‘Magical Parent’) A 1 Adult in the Child (‘Little Professor’) C 1 Child in the Child (‘Somatic Child’)

Functional Model From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 21 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Controlling Parent CP NP A Adapted Child AC FC Nurturing Parent Adult Free Child

Functional Model +ve and -ve From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 22 -26 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Controlling Parent +CP +NP -CP -NP A Adapted Child +AC +FC -AC -FC Nurturing Parent Adult Free Child

Contaminations From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 50 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P A C Parent Contamination P P A A C C Child Contamination Double Contamination

Drama Triangle Developed by Steve Karpman, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp. 132. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P R H Racket Each 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. R H Game The 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). V W V Drama Triangle (also called the Racket or Game Triangle to emphasise the discounting aspects of the three positions) W P V W H

First Order Symbiosis Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P 2 A 2 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 194 P 2 A 2 C 2

Second Order Symbiosis Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student A 2 C 2 P 2 A 2 P 1 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 202 P 1 A 1 C 1 C 2

Impasse Diagrams P 3 P 2 A 3 C 3 A 2 P 3 P 2 A 3 C 3 1° C 3 2° A 2 A 2 P 1 C 2 3 C 2 A C 2 1 AC 3° 3° FC C 1 First Degree Second Degree Third Degree (Structural) First Degree (Functional) Showing three varieties Developed by Ken Mellor, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp. 175. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Third Degree (Structural) 3° C 2 Historical 7+ 6 5 4 3 C 2 2 1 Birth

Structural Impasse Diagram (Mellor) P 2 A 2 P 1 Developed by Ken Mellor, from (“Impasses” in Volume of Selected Articles from TAJ 1971 -80) pp. 336 -343). Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Type 1 C 2 A 1 P 0 C 1 A 0 C 0 Type 2 Type 3 Note Impasses were originally described as degrees, as in “First Degree Impasse”, but Type is now preferred.

Corralogram Depressive Position U+ Healthy Position GAF GOW I– I+ GRO GNW Futility Position U– Paranoid Position Legend: Life Positions Developed by Franklin Ernst, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 124. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student You GAF: Get Away From GOW: Get On With GNW: Get Nowhere With GRO: Get Rid Of U+ You’re OK I+ I’m OK U– You’re Not OK I– I’m Not OK

Egogram CP NP A FC AC Legend: Ego States Positive Negative Developed by Jack Dusay, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 28 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student 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. CP: Controlling Parent NP: Nurturing Parent A: Adult FC: Free Child AC: Adapted Child

Stroking Profile 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? 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 Almost Always Usually Frequently Often Seldom Almost Never Seldom Often Frequently Usually Almost Always Mc. Kenna. (1974), Stroking Profile. TAJ 4(4), 20 -24 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Note: Mc. Kenna’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.

Racket System Developed by Richard Erskine & Marilyn Zalcman, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 221 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Racket System Script Beliefs / Feelings Beliefs About 1 Self Rackety Displays 1. Observable Behaviours (stylised, repetitive) 2 Others 3 Quality of Life (Intrapsychic Process) Feelings Repressed at the Time of Script Decision 2. Reported Internal Experience (somatic aliments, physical sensations) 3. Fantasies (Best & Worst) Reinforcing Memories Emotional Memories (“Trading Stamps”) Provide Evidence and Justification

Script Decision Scale Mum Composite Brother Sister Dad OK to Exist 0 Composite Script Decision (Don’t Exist Injunction) Permission (OK to …) Allower DT DW DS D DG DH DF DI DE DC DY DB 0 Transactional Analysis (1978) pp. 162 -175. TH BP Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Injunction Legend: D = Don’t DE = Don’t Exist DY = Don’t be You DH = Don’t be a Child DG = Don’t Grow Up DS = Don’t Succeed Injunction (Don’t…) 10 HU BS PO Composite Script Decision Scale Woollams & Brown, Don’t 10 Exist Drivers Legend: DI = Don’t be Important DB = Don’t belong DC = Don’t be Close DW = Don’t be Well (Sane) DT = Don’t Think DF = Don’t Feel PO = Please Others BP = Be Perfect TH = Try Hard BS = Be Strong HU = Hurry Up Driver

Experiencing Internalised Script Messages Mum Dad P A Transactional Analysis (1978) pp. 178. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student A C C A 2 Don’t feel Don’t be close Don’t grow up Don’t be 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 P 2 Be Strong Please (people) Note: Woollams & Brown, P How to be comfortable in misery Don’t belong Don’t make it C 2

Discount Matrix MODE TYPE T 1 EXISTENCE Stimuli T 2 PERSONAL ABILITIES Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student T 3 CHANGE POSSIBILITIES T 3 Problems Significance of stimuli SIGNIFICANCE Options T 4 Significance of problems T 4 Changeability of stimuli T 4 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 182 T 2 Significance of options T 5 Solvability of problems T 5 Viability of options T 6 Person’s ability to react differently solve problems act on options

Miniscript Developed by Taibi Kahler. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 165 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student 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 4 DESPAIRER (I-U-) Typical rackets: Worthless, unwanted hopeless, cornered, unloved, futile 2 STOPPER (I-U+) Typical rackets: Guilty, hurt, worried, blank, confusion, embarrassed

Time Structuring Pie Chart Intimacy (expressing authentic uncensored feelings) Games (transactions where both end feeling bad) Withdrawal (carrying on an internal monologue) Rituals (pre-programmed social interaction) Pastimes (talking about something, but not doing) Activities Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) pp. 94 -95 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student (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

Script Matrix Mum You Dad P P P ro n St Be rs he Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Ot Transactional Analysis (1978) pp. 177. A A K e. O b y r to w ise o M H in C Note: Woollams & Brown, g se ea Pl A 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 Don’t feel Don’t be close Don’t grow up Don’t be C Don’t belong Don’t make it C

Script Matrix Developed by Claude Steiner. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p. 129. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Mother P Father You Plea se ( peo p le) A C How P P rong t Be S A to P reva rica Don ’t feel ’t Don be clos ’t g row e Don up ’t b e te A C e to b ow rtable H fo Com isery in M long t be ’ t Don make i ’t Don C

Cocreative Script Matrix Summers, G. and Tudor, K. (2000) Cocreative 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. ” Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Be Strong Be Perfect P A C P Be Strong Be Perfect Take great care/follow rules Be away from home Drink to relax Friends = Networking Be careful of Reputation Don’t be Close Don’t be Well Don’t Belong Don’t be Close Don’t Feel Don’t be a Child Colleagues Be Strong Please Others A Be Strong Be Perfect Sublimate yourself to others Be stubborn Be weak and incapable Home is a remote haven Work is first priority Be reasonable (unemotional) Be self sufficient C Harold Don’t be Close Don’t be Important Don’t Don’t be Close Feel be Important Grow Up Succeed Exist P A C Wife

Script Helix Female Scottish P P A A C C P P P A A A C C C Protestant Catholic P A Adapted from Summers & Tudor, in Cornell & Hargaden. From Transactions to Relations (2005) p. 119 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P A C C Irish Female

Therapy Triangle Allen, P. Therapy Triangle, A tool for diagnosis and therapy. TAJ 22: 1, 48 -53 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Th Workaholic (Obsessive/Compulsive) BE PERFECT BE STRONG I-Y+ A NP FC F B +C P A Th Doubter (Paranoid) BE PERFECT BE STRONG I+Y- NP FC Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation NP F NP Paranoid Adaptation Th FC Disapprover (Passive-Aggressive) TRY HARD (BE STRONG) I-Y- NP F Th A Key (Client) Th = Thinking F = Feeling B = Behaving Key (Therapist) A = Adult FC = Feel Child NP = Nurturing Parent +CP = Positive Controlling Parent NP Passive-Aggressive Adaptation Direction of movement for therapist B +C P

Showing the Self with Core and Script Area, The Unhealthy Appetite Paths and the Healthy Psychological Hunger Paths Appetite Model 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 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Unhealthy Appetite Paths Leading to Tragic Outcomes Go Crazy Withdraw Harm Self Script Harm Others Often discussed with an additional “Run Away” tragic outcome, becoming withdrawn and isolated Core Self Stimulus Hunger Incident Hunger Recognition Hunger Contact Hunger Sexual Hunger Structure Hunger Healthy Appetite Paths Meeting Psychological Hungers and Nourishing the Core Self

P 2 Transference Mioso, in Cornell & Hargaden. From Transactions to Relations (2005) p. 34 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student b c a d a = internal dialogue b = projected structure c = social transaction d = transference message (ulterior transaction) (The Parent of therapist is shown as a dotted line to indicate that its actual existence or significance is discounted by the patient)

Projective and Introjective Transferences P 1+ P 2 A 2 b P 2 A 2 a + – C 2 Based on Mioso, in Hargaden & Sills. Transactional Analysis: A Relational Perspective (2002) p. 50 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2012. TA Student C 0 Client Therapist

The Undeveloped Self P 2 A 2 P 1 - P 1+ Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p. 25 C 2 A 1 - A 1+ C 1 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P 0 C 0 ‘Split-off’ core self ____ Impermeable division in A 1 and P 1 implies a more fragmented self

The Cohesive Self Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p. 24 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student P 2 A 2 P 1 - P 1+ A 1 - A 1+ C 2 C 1 A 0 indicates an adequately cohesive self …………. . Permeable division in A 1 and P 1 indicates the possibility of integration P 0 A 0 C 0

The Cultural Self P 2 A 2 Introjected denigrating injunctions Rejected ‘unacceptable’ elements of cultural identity Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p. 99 ‘Not OK’ self accepts denigrating stereotype Sense of cultural identity Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student (for example bi-racial; female; middle class) P 1 - P 1+ A 1 - A 1+ P 0 A 0 C 0 Idealized image of stereotypical elements of culture Conforming, conventional ‘belonging’ adaptation Parents’ conscious and unconscious feelings about their cultural identity Infant’s innate temperament

Social Level and Psychological Level Communication Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Leader P P A A C Petruska Clarkson, “Group Imago and the Stages of Group Development” TAJ Vol. 21 No. 1, January 1991 Group C

Transactional Analysis of “Parallel Process” Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision Analyzed Transactionally, TAJ 32: 1 p. 52 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2012. TA Student P P Help! A I can’t think I don’t know what to do! A P I really don’t know what think about this client I feel so confused and helpless A C Client Therapist/ Supervisee Supervisor

Treatment Triangle Contract Diagnosis Treatment Direction Which interventions? Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p. 179 Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian Stewart Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student In what order? (=Treatment Sequence) Content (what) Long-term (strategy) Process (how) Short-term (tactics)

Treatment and Supervisory Triangles Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision Analyzed Transactionally, TAJ 32: 1 p. 52 Developed from Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p. 179 Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian Stewart Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student Supervisory Contract Diagnosis/Assessment A bilateral, sometimes trilateral agreement defining the supervisee’s learning needs, goals, and direction of supervisee’s/practitioner based (traditionally) on ego state, transactional, game, and script analysis Clinical Contract Clinical Diagnosis/ Assessment Learning Direction in Supervision including establishing a working alliance, decontamination, deconfusion and further learning Treatment Direction

“Submarine” Diagram Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student Group Leader Self Those Others