Personality Adaptations Further Clarified
Vann S. Joines
Abstract
This article clarifies some of the ideas in
Personality Adaptations by Joines and Stew-
art (2002) and offers a response to the arti-
cle “From Client Process to Therapeutic Re-
lating: A Critique of the Process M odel and
Personality Adaptations” by Tudor and
W iddowson (2008).
______
W hen I read the article “From Client Process
to Therapeutic Relating: A Critique of the
Process Model and Personality Adaptations”
by Tudor and W iddowson (2008), I was struck
by the large number of misperceptions it con-
tained regarding the theory of personality adap-
tations. I decided to write this article to clarify
how I view the adaptations. I wanted to (1) pro-
vide a clear presentation of the model and (2)
describe how my thinking differs from Tudor
and W iddowson’s perceptions.
I originally wrote the first draft of Person-
ality Adaptations (Joines & Stewart, 2002) to
share the insights I had gained from 30 years of
clinical work, including further investigations
into the adaptations that Paul W are had identi-
fied and the personality types that Taibi Kahler
had researched in the 1970s. Ironically, my
insights were gained through the same process
(the relational approach; see Hargaden & Sills,
2002) Tudor and W iddowson advocated in
their article. These insights were achieved by
listening to what clients describe about their
own experience, attending to how that impacts
the therapist, and, in turn, looking at how the
therapist’s way of relating impacts the client.
The model was thus developed largely from the
“inside” rather than from “outside” descriptions
of what the therapist observes and tries to im-
pose on the client. Eric Berne, in developing
transactional analysis, taught us that if we ob-
serve how clients present themselves and are
intuitively sensitive to what is going on, they
will show us their personality and history. What
appealed to me about the personality adaptations
92
model (W are, 1983) is that it differed from tra-
ditional diagnosis by offering a way of empathi-
cally understanding the purpose of the behavior
and working with it, rather than the diagnosis
simply being a way of labeling people.
Using Transference and
Countertransference
In 1977, in a chapter on “An Integrated Sys-
tems Perspective” (Joines, 1977) in Transac-
tional Analysis After Eric Berne (Barnes, 1977),
I presented the idea and diagram of the “pro-
jection screen” (see Figure 1, p. 96). I pointed
out how individuals can transact with their own
projected archaic ego states while maintaining
the delusion of being in contact with the other
person. I later presented this information, along
with additional insights, in a workshop at an
ITAA conference in Villars, Switzerland, pointing
out how the individual can be in Parent and
project his or her Child or be in Child and pro-
ject his or her Parent. These projections can oc-
cur at any level (P 3, P 2, P 1, P 0 or C 3, C 2, C 1, C 0).
Carlo Moiso attended that workshop and used
my ideas and diagram in his 1985 article on
“Ego States and Transference,” for which he
received the Eric Berne M emorial Award. Un-
fortunately, he failed to reference my ideas and
diagram in his article, but when I later pointed
this out, he apologized and gave me credit in a
“Letter to the Editor” (Moiso, 1996).
It was apparent to me quite early on that we
as therapists can play out both sides of a trans-
ference-countertransference transaction: W e
are both subject and object. W e identify with
one side and project the other. Therefore, we
need to monitor continually what is happening
in ourselves as well as in our clients. This phe-
nomenon is also recognized in the energy psy-
chology approaches (Gallo, 1999), which point
out that everything is energy and we are all
interconnected and influence one another ener-
getically. Again, we need to look at how our
energy affects the other in the therapeutic rela-
tionship. As W innicott (1960) said, “There’s no
Transactional Analysis Journal

such thing as a baby” (p. 39), meaning you
have to look at the mother-baby interaction and
how each shapes the other. The same is true in
the therapeutic relationship. This method of
observation was how I developed my insights
about the adaptations.
The Process M odel
I, myself, do not use the process model (Kah-
ler, 1979, 1996, 2008) that Tudor and Widdow-
son (2008) criticized. I am a redecision (Gould-
ing & Goulding, 1979) therapist who also inte-
grates elements of developmental (Levin, 1988;
Schiff et al., 1975), relational (Hargaden &
Sills, 2002), systems (B ertalanfly, 1969), and
energy therapy (Clinton, 2002; Gallo, 1999)
approaches. I use the personality adaptations
information to inform my redecision, devel-
opmental, relational, systems, and energy thera-
py work. That is one of the nice things about
the model: The information can be used regard-
less of one’s therapeutic approach. It provides
information about how to establish rapport, ad-
dress the area that is most effective for the cli-
ent in achieving therapeutic change, and avoid
getting stuck in the client’s defenses, which is
where the client is usually stuck. It enhances
therapeutic attunement and empathy by helping
the therapist appreciate the value of the client’s
adaptation(s) from the inside, and it helps the
client to resolve the parts of the adaptation(s)
that are self-limiting. W hen the therapist only
observes from the outside, the danger is that he
or she will try to change the client to adapt to
the therapist’s adaptations(s). W hen the thera-
pist attends only to the inside, the danger is a
loss of objectivity. W e need a foot in both
worlds. The personality adaptations model was
never meant to be imposed on the client in a
quick-judgment fashion, as Tudor and W id-
dowson imply, but rather as a guide to empath-
ic and objective understanding.
After writing the original version of the per-
sonality adaptations book, I asked Ian Stewart,
who was my coauthor on TA Today (Stewart &
Joines, 1987), to edit the manuscript for me. In
looking it over, he wanted to also add some in-
formation from Kahler’s (1996) process model
because it is helpful in initially identifying the
adaptations. I had previously included many
Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2011
PERSONALITY ADAPTATIONS FURTHER CLARIFIED
other behavioral descriptions to identify the
adaptations and agreed to the additions Ian
wanted to make. In retrospect, I would have
omitted the reference to the process model be-
cause the book (Joines & Stewart, 2002) was
not intended to advocate that approach. In fact,
Kahler (2008) criticized us for not accurately
covering his ideas. I do not solely use drivers to
identify the adaptations, although it is useful in
the beginning until one learns more about the
adaptations. I use a clinical interview to look at
the client’s total presentation, followed by the
Joines Personality Adaptation Questionnaire
(Joines, 2002a) to compare what I have per-
ceived. It is the whole picture the person pre-
sents, including the developmental issues with
which he or she is having difficulty, that pro-
vides the best guide to the client’s adaptations.
Simplicity
Any model is a map, including the relational
approach (Hargaden & Sills, 2002), and as
Korzybski (1933) pointed out, “The map is not
the territory” (p. 750). It is only a map. Part of
the genius of Eric Berne was to take profound,
complex insights and express them simply.
That is what makes a model elegant and a clear
guide to the terrain, but the terrain must always
inform the map. As Kuhn (1962) indicated,
once a map (paradigm) is no longer helpful, it
is replaced through a paradigm shift by a more
accurate one. There are certainly additional in-
sights I have gained since writing Personality
Adaptations, but overall, I think it is still one of
the clearest, most accurate, and most helpful
maps I have experienced. Clients continually
tell me, “That’s me!” when I describe their adap-
tations. The personality adaptation information
provides clients with a new understanding and
appreciation of their own behavior. The criti-
cism of Tudor and W iddowson (2008) that the
personality adaptations model is too simplistic
reminds me of the early criticism of transac-
tional analysis, when people took a superficial
glance at it rather than understanding it in depth.
Personality Adaptation Defined
There also seems to be some confusion about
what a personality adaptation is. I see it as a
combination of innate characteristics plus the
93
VANN S. JOINES
way an individual adjusts his or her behavior in
order to survive physically and/or psychologi-
cally and to get along well in his or her family
of origin. I also see each adaptation as relating
to specific developmental issues at the stages
when those issues are most pronounced or at
other times when those same issues are signifi-
cantly present. I further see a personality adap-
tation as a significant part of one’s script. I
think each of us develops the adaptations that
work best for us in our given family situation.
I experience the adaptations across the spec-
trum, from health to dysfunction, and as having
both positive and negative aspects. They are
not simply innate traits or disorders but particu-
lar personality structures that operate across
different levels of functioning. They are tradi-
tionally described as disorders when the nega-
tive behaviors are used in a chronic maladapt-
ive way. They can be seen from healthy to psy-
chotic levels of functioning.
Basic Building Blocks
The six personality adaptations W are (1983)
originally identified and Stewart and I presen-
ted in our book, I believe, represent the basic
building blocks of personality. They are creative-
daydreamer, charming-manipulator, brilliant-
skeptic, playful-resister, responsible-workaholic,
and enthusiastic-overreactor. In my experience,
the other personality types represent combina-
tions of these core adaptations. For example, I
see avoidant as a combination of creative-day-
dreamer and brilliant-skeptic. Passive-dependent
is a combination of creative-daydreamer and
playful-resister. Narcissistic is a combination of
charming-manipulator and brilliant-skeptic.
Borderline is a combination of charming-manipu-
lator and playful-resister. One could describe
all of these combinations as personality adap-
tations as well because they involve adaptation,
but I do not believe they are core types, which
is what Stewart and I wanted to present in our
book. I do not think we should get into compe-
titive battles about who has the truth, because
I do not think anyone has the complete truth.
W e are like the five blind men who went to see
the elephant, and the more we learn from each
one’s perspective, the closer to describing the
whole we will get. To equate the adaptations
94
with personality disorders creates confusion,
because the disorders are mainly the negative
sides of the adaptations, and some of the dis-
orders represent combinations of adaptations.
In using the questionnaire I developed (Joines,
2002a), I experience that most of us use the
behaviors of all the adaptations, but each of us
has preferred adaptations that are most promi-
nent. It is the negative behavior of the ones that
are prominent that causes us the most difficul-
ty, and the goal is to learn to use the positive
behaviors and let go of the negative behaviors
that are no longer needed. The negative behav-
iors helped us survive and get along well in our
families but limit us in the present. They were
substitute ways of getting our needs met that
can now be met in direct ways as we learn to be
autonomous and securely attached individuals.
Narcissism
W ith regard to narcissism, it is first impor-
tant to know that the term narcissism is a neu-
tral word that simply refers to “a sense of self
that feels adequate and competent . . . derived
mostly from reality” (Masterson, 1993 pp. 12-
13). Unfortunately, in the mental health field,
narcissism has become equated with pathology.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish be-
tween healthy narcissism and pathological nar-
cissism. Healthy narcissism is a real-self ex-
perience of having a high sense of self-esteem
based on reality factors, along with a sense of
empathy and regard for other people. Patho-
logical narcissism is a false-self defense con-
sisting of a grandiose sense of self based on the
fantasy of being unique, special, adored, and
admired, along with little or no empathy or re-
gard for other people. W hile narcissism can be
seen on a continuum from health to dysfunction,
it does not seem to be a core adaptation but rather
a combination of adaptations, as do borderline,
passive-dependant, and avoidant personality
types. My experience in working with individu-
als who were wounded at the beginning of their
experience, with their parents refusing to ac-
knowledge their real feelings and needs, is that
I find the core adaptations of charming-manipu-
lator and brilliant-skeptic, which then results in
narcissistic behavior rather than a “narcissistic”
adaptation.
Transactional Analysis Journal

It is worth noting that in the proposed Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition
(DSM-V) (to be published by the American
Psychiatric Association in May 2013), guide-
lines for “personality disorders, narcissistic” is
omitted as a type. There are five proposed
types and six broad, higher-order personality
trait domains: antisocial/psychopathic, avoidant,
borderline, obsessive-compulsive, and schizo-
typal. The trait domains are negative emotion-
ality, introversion, antagonism, disinhibition,
compulsivity, and schizotypy. Narcissism is
listed as one of the facets under the trait of
antagonism for the antisocial/psychopathic type
(for more information, see http://www.dsm5.
o rg /P ro p o se d R e v isio n s/P a g e s/P e rso nality
andPersonalityDisorders.aspx ).
I do not see the personality adaptations on a
spectrum between personality traits and person-
ality disorders as Tudor and Widdowson (2008)
suggested nor with personality adaptations at
one end of the spectrum and personality disor-
ders at the other (as they have misinterpreted
with regard to the work Stewart and I have done).
Rather, I view them as overarching personality
structures that span the spectrum and are seen
at every level of functioning. The difference at
each level is how the adaptations are used with
regard to their positive versus negative aspects.
The structures of the six core adaptations
also differ quite markedly from the narcissistic
structure, which has a unique formation in the
Child ego state of a fused Parent-Child rela-
tionship, with split sides of perfect versus de-
fective characteristics. In contrast, the six core
adaptations have a more integrated Child ego
state structure with fewer primitive defenses.
In addition, the functioning of the personality
structures, in terms of ego state contamination
and exclusion, can be clearly drawn for each of
the six core adaptations. In contrast, it is diffic-
ult to imagine how to draw a structure repre-
senting a combination of adaptations, as in the
case of narcissism and the other personality
types that are represented by a combination of
adaptations. Also, the six core adaptations fac-
tor out fairly cleanly on a factor analysis, which
indicates good evidence for the existence of
these in reality (Joines, 2002b). M ore research
is needed to see if the same holds true for nar-
Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2011
PERSONALITY ADAPTATIONS FURTHER CLARIFIED
cissism, borderline, passive-dependent, and avoid-
ant personality types. Certainly they can be
measured, as M illon, M illon, and Davis (1994)
have done, but we do not yet have the evidence
for whether they are pure types or represent
combinations of adaptations, as I have suggest-
ed. W hat is important is that, either way, they
can be effectively treated in therapy.
Conclusion
I invite transactional analysis therapists to
learn about the personality adaptations, just as
they have learned about other aspects of TA,
and to experiment with the therapeutic doors
(W are, 1983) and other parts of the theory to
see for themselves whether this information is
a useful guide for them and their clients. I also
invite them to see whether it helps their clients
understand and appreciate their own unique-
ness. My experience is that whatever clients are
doing is for reasons that are important for them
historically, and the personality adaptations are
an accurate description of what they are doing.
W hen those adaptations are understood and ap-
preciated by both client and therapist, it greatly
facilitates the change process.
Vann S. Joines, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical
psychologist; a licensed marriage and family
therapist and AAMFT-approved supervisor; a
Certified Teaching and Supervising Transac-
tional Analyst (psychotherapy); a Certified Ad-
vanced Integrative Practitioner, Trainer and
Teacher; a Certified Energy Diagnostic & Treat-
ment Methods Practitioner and Level I – III
Teacher; a Certified Group Psychotherapist; a
Diplomate in Redecision Therapy; and the win-
ner of the 1994 Eric Berne Memorial Award. He
is coauthor of TA Today and Personality Adapta-
tions and author of the Joines Personality Adapta-
tions Questionnaire and the JPAQ Administra-
tion, Scoring, and Interpretive Manual. He directs
the Southeast Institute for Group and Family
Therapy in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.
He can be reached at 659 Edwards Ridge Rd.,
Chapel Hill, NC 27517, U.S.A.; vjoines@
seinstitute.com; www.seinstitute.com .
REFERENCES
Barnes, G. (1977). Transactional analysis after Eric
Berne: Teachings and practices of three TA schools.
New York, NY: Harper’s College Press.
95
VANN S. JOINES
Bertalanfly, L. (1969). General system theory. New York,
NY: George Braziller.
Clinton, A. (2002). Seemorg matrix work: The trans-
personal energy psychology. In F. Gallo (Ed.), Energy
psychology in psychotherapy: A comprehensive source
book (pp. 93-115). New York, NY: Norton.
Gallo, F. P. (1999). Energy psychology: Explorations at
the interface of energy, cognition, behavior, and health.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Goulding, M. M., & Goulding, R. L. (1979). Changing
lives through redecision therapy. New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel.
Hargaden, H., & Sills, C. (2002). Transactional analysis: A
relational perspective. Hove, England: Brunner-Routledge.
Joines, V. (1977). An integrated systems perspective. In G.
Barnes (Ed.), Transactional analysis after Eric Berne:
Teachings and practices of three TA schools (pp.
257-272). New York, NY: Harper’s College Press.
Joines, V. (2002a). Joines personality adaptation ques-
tionnaire (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Institute.
Joines, V. (2002b). Joines personality adaptation quest-
ionnaire (3r d ed.): Administration, scoring, and inter-
pretation manual. Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Institute.
Joines, V., & Stewart, I. (2002). Personality adaptations:
A new guide to human understanding in psychotherapy
and counseling. Nottingham, England, and Chapel Hill,
NC: Lifespace Publishing.
Kahler, T. (1979). Process therapy in brief. Little Rock,
AR: Human Development Publications.
Kahler, T. (1996). The process communication model
seminar manual. Little Rock, AR: Taibi Kahler Associates.
Kahler, T. (2008). The process therapy model: The six
personality types with adaptations. Little Rock, AR:
Taibi Kahler Associates.
Korzybski, A. (1933). A non-Aristotelian system and its
96
necessity for rigour in mathematics and physics. In A.
Korzybski, Science and sanity: An introduction to non-
Aristotelian systems and general semantics (pp. 747-761).
Lakeville, CT: The International Non-Aristotelian Library.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, P. (1988). Cycles of power: A user’s guide to the seven
seasons of life. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Masterson, J. F. (1993). The emerging self: A develop-
mental, self, and object relations approach to the treat-
ment of the closet narcissistic disorder of the self. New
York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Millon, T., Millon, C., & Davis, R. (1994). Millon clinical
multiaxial inventory-III. Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems.
Moiso, C. (1985). Ego states and transference. Transac-
tional Analysis Journal, 15, 194-201.
Moiso, C. (1996). Letter to the editor. Transactional
Analysis Journal, 26, 272.
Schiff, J., with Schiff, A. W., Mellor, K., Schiff, E., Schiff, S.,
Richman, D., Fishman, J., Wolz, L., Fishman, C., Momb,
D. (1975). Cathexis reader: Transactional analysis
treatment of psychosis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Stewart, I., & Joines, V. (1987). TA today: A new intro-
duction to transactional analysis. Nottingham, Eng-
land, and Chapel Hill, NC: Lifespace Publishing.
Tutor, K., & Widdowson, M. (2008). From client process
to therapeutic relating: A critique of the process model
and personality adaptations. Transactional Analysis
Journal. 38, 218-232.
Ware, P. (1983). Personality adaptations: Doors to therapy.
Transactional Analysis Journal, 13, 11-19.
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The maturational processes and the
facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional
development. London, England: Hogarth Press.
Figure 1
Projection Screen
(Joines, 1977;
also used by
Moiso, 1985)
Transactional Analysis Journal