TA Diagrams
Adapt and
modify for your
own needs
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
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 to
Edit Menu > Paste Special and select
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
Second Order
Structural Model
P3 P3 P3 P3
Parent (P2)
C3 C3 C3 C3
Adult (A2)
Child (C2)
From Stewart &
Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.31
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
A3 A3 A3 A3
Introjected parents and parent-figures,
each with his/her own Parent, Adult
and Child ego-states. Identity and
number will vary with the individual.
A
(Adult not subdivided)
P1
Parent in the Child (‘Magical Parent’)
A1
Adult in the Child (‘Little Professor’)
C1
Child in the Child (‘Somatic Child’)
Drama Triangle
Developed by
Steve Karpman,
in Wollams &
Brown:
Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.132.
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
P
R
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
Symbiosis
C2
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
P2
P2
A2
A2
P1
P1
A1
A1
C1
C1
C2
Impasse
Diagrams
P3
P2
P3
P2
A3
C3
A2
P3
P2
A3
P2 A
C3
1°
C3
2°
A2
A2
A2
P1
C2
3
C2
C2
AC
3°
A1
3°
FC
C1
First Degree Second Degree Third Degree
(Structural)
(Structural)
(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°
C2
Historical
7+
6
5
4
3
C2
2
1
Birth
Structural Impasse
Diagram (Mellor)
P2
(and delete this Note - Rob)
A2
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Type 1
P1
Developed by
Ken Mellor, from
(“Impasses” in
Volume of
Selected Articles
from TAJ 1971-80)
pp.336-343).
Please Edit to
Your Own
Needs
C2
A1
P0
C1
A0
C0
Type 2
Type 3
Note
Impasses were
originally described as
degrees, as in “First
Degree Impasse”, but
Type is now used.
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
Developed by
Jim McKenna.
Cited in Stewart &
Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.80
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Almost Always
Usually
Frequently
Often
Seldom
Almost Never
Give
Take
Ask For
Almost Never
Seldom
Often
Frequently
Usually
Almost Always
Legend: Strokes
Positive
Negative
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.
Refuse to Give
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
Reinforcing Memories
1. Observable Behaviours Emotional Memories
(stylised, repetitive)
(“Trading Stamps”)
Provide Evidence
and Justification
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)
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
Discount Matrix
Ref
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
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
A
A
A
C
Note:
Woollams &
Brown,
Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.177.
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
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
Mother
P
Father
You
P
A
A
A
C
C
C
Developed by
Claude Steiner.
Cited in Stewart &
Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.129.
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
P
Cocreative
Script
Matrix
Summers, 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.”
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Be Strong
Be Perfect
P
Be Strong
Please Others
P
Be Strong
Be Perfect
Be Strong
Be Perfect
Take great care/follow rules
Be away from home
Drink to relax
A
C
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
P
Sublimate yourself to others
Be stubborn
Be weak and incapable
A
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
Don’t
Don’t
Don’t
Don’t
be Close
Feel
be Important
Grow Up
Succeed
Exist
A
C
Wife
Script Helix
Female
Scottish
P
P
A
A
C
C
P
P
P
A
A
A
C
C
C
Protestant
Adapted from
Summers & Tudor, in
Cornell & Hargaden.
From Transactions
to Relations (2005)
p.119
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Catholic
P
P
A
A
C
C
Irish
Female
Therapy Triangle
Allen, P. The
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
+CP
B
A
Th
NP FC
NP
Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation
Disapprover
(Passive-Aggressive)
TRY HARD
(BE STRONG)
I-Y-
NP
F
F
NP
Paranoid Adaptation
Th
FC
Doubter
(Paranoid)
BE PERFECT
BE STRONG
I+Y-
Th
NP
Passive-Aggressive Adaptation
A
Key (Client)
Th = Thinking
F = Feeling
B = Behaving
Key (Therapist)
A = Adult
FC = Feel Child
NP = Nurturing Parent
+CP = Positive Controlling
Parent
Direction of
movement
for therapist
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
Harm Self
Script
Harm Others
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
P2 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 the therapist is shown as a dotted line
to indicate that its actual existence or significance is
discounted by the patient)
The Undeveloped
Self
P2
A2
P1- P1+
Hargaden & Stills,
Transactional
Analysis, A
Relational
Perspective (2002)
p.25
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
C2
A1- A1+
P0
C1
C0
‘Split-off’ core self
________ Impermeable
division in A1 and P1
implies a more
fragmented self
The Cohesive Self
P2
A2
P1- P1+
Hargaden & Stills,
Transactional
Analysis, A
Relational
Perspective (2002)
p.24
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
C2
A1- A1+
C1
P0
A0
C0
A0 indicates an adequately
cohesive self
………….. Permeable
division in A1 and P1
indicates the possibility
of integration
The Cultural Self
P2
A2
Introjected denigrating injunctions
Rejected ‘unacceptable’ elements
of cultural identity
Hargaden & Stills,
Transactional
Analysis, A
Relational
Perspective (2002)
p.99
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
‘Not OK’ self accepts denigrating
stereotype
Sense of cultural identity
(for example bi-racial; female; middle class)
P1- P1+
A1- 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
Experiencing
Internalised
Script Messages
Mum Dad
Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.178.
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
P
A
A
C
C
A2
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
P2
Be Strong
Please (people)
Note:
Woollams &
Brown,
P
How to be
comfortable
in misery
Don’t belong
Don’t make it
C2
Social Level and
Psychological Level
Communication
Petruska Clarkson,
“Group Imago and the
Stages of Group
Development” TAJ
Vol. 21 No.1, January
1991
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Group
Leader
P
P
A
A
C
C
“Submarine” Diagram
Incomplete
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
Group
Leader
Self
Those Others