TA Diagrams 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

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 First Order
Structural Model P
Parent ego-state
behaviours, thoughts and feelings
copied from parents and parent figures

Adults ego-state
A behaviours, thoughts and feelings
which are direct responses
to the here-and-now

Child ego-state
C behaviours, thoughts and feelings
replayed from childhood

From Stewart &

Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.12

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Second Order
Structural Model
P3 P3 P3 P3
Introjected parents and parent-figures,
Parent (P2) A3 A3 A3 A3 each with his/her own Parent, Adult
and Child ego-states. Identity and
number will vary with the individual.
C3 C3 C3 C3

Adult (A2) A (Adult not subdivided)

P1 Parent in the Child (‘Magical Parent’)

Child (C2) A1 Adult in the Child (‘Little Professor’)

From Stewart &

Joines, TA Today Child in the Child (‘Somatic Child’)
(1987) p.31
C1

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Functional Model
Controlling Parent CP NP Nurturing Parent

A Adult

Adapted Child AC FC Free Child

From Stewart &

Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.21

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 +ve and -ve
Functional Model
+CP +NP
Controlling Parent Nurturing Parent
-CP -NP

A Adult

+AC +FC
Adapted Child Free Child
-AC -FC

From Stewart &

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

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Contaminations
P P
P

A
A A

C C C

From Stewart &

Parent Child Double
Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.50 Contamination Contamination Contamination

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Drama Triangle P R P R H Racket
Each person as one or two
favourite positions in the drama
triangle and will seek out others
V who will exchange strokes from
complementary positions.
W
Here a Husband (H) & Wife
(W) adopt helper (R) and
helpless (V) positions,
exchanging complementary
V transactions that stroke each
other’s not-OK position.

Drama Triangle
(also called the Racket or Game
Triangle to emphasise the discounting W P R H Game
aspects of the three positions) The Racket becomes a Game
when one or both participants
shift positions on the Drama
V Triangle and gain a Racket
Feeling payoff.
W
Here Wife (W) moves to
Developed by
Steve Karpman,
H Persecutor (P) and Husband to
Victim (V) when the husband’s
in Wollams & earlier rescuing proves
Brown: ineffectual (the strokes dry up).
Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.132.

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
First Order
Symbiosis
P2 P2

A2 A2

From Stewart & C2 C2

Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.194

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
Second Order
Symbiosis
P2 P2

A2 A2

P1 P1

From Stewart & C2 A1 A1 C2

Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.202
C1 C1

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Impasse
Diagrams
P3 P3 P3

P2 A3 P2 A3 P2 P2 A 3

C3 C3 C3

1 2
A2 ° A2 ° A2 A2

P1
AC

C2 C2 C2 A1 3 3 C2
° °
FC
C1

First Degree Second Degree Third Degree First Degree

(Structural) (Structural) (Structural) (Functional)
Showing three varieties

Developed by
Ken Mellor, in
Wollams & Brown:
Third Degree 3
Transactional
(Structural)
C2 °
Analysis (1978)
pp.175. Historical

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

7+ 6 5 4 3 2 1 Birth
2011. TA Student
 Diagram (Mellor)
Structural Impasse
P2

Type 1
A2

P1
Developed by
Ken Mellor, from
(“Impasses” in Type 2
C2
Note
Volume of A1
Selected Articles Impasses were originally
from TAJ 1971-80) described as degrees, as
P0
pp.336-343). Type 3 in “First Degree
C1 A0 Impasse”, but Type is
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, C0 now preferred.
2011. TA Student
 Depressive Position U+

Corralogram
Healthy Position

GAF GOW

I– I+

GNW GRO
Futility Position
U– Paranoid Position

Legend: Life Positions

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

CP NP A FC AC

Legend: Ego States

Positive
Negative
Note:
Developed by Jack Dusay’s Constancy Hypothesis CP: Controlling Parent
Dusay, cited in suggests that if you change NP: Nurturing Parent
Stewart & Joines, TA something about yourself, eg, A: Adult
Today (1987) p.28 spend more time in NP, then you FC: Free Child
will have less of another ego state. AC: Adapted Child
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 How often do you How often do you How often do you How often do you refuse to give

Stroking Profile
give +strokes to accept +strokes? ask others for the the +strokes they expect from
others? +strokes you want you?

Almost Always

Usually

Frequently

Often

Seldom

Almost Never

Giving Taking Asking For Refusing to Give

Almost Never

Seldom

Often

Frequently

Usually

Almost Always
How often do you How often do you How often do you How often do you refuse to give
give take ask others -strokes
-strokes to others? -strokes? indirectly or
McKenna. directly for the
–strokes that you
(1974), Stroking want?

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),
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, they are likely to have a low negative (eg, give few
2011. TA Student negative strokes) and vice versa.
 Racket System Racket System

Script Beliefs / Feelings Rackety Displays Reinforcing Memories

Beliefs About 1. Observable Behaviours Emotional Memories
1 Self (stylised, repetitive) (“Trading Stamps”)
Provide Evidence
and Justification

2 Others
2. Reported Internal
Experience (somatic
aliments, physical
3 Quality of Life sensations)

3. Fantasies
Developed by (Intrapsychic (Best & Worst)
Richard Erskine Process)
& Marilyn Feelings Repressed at the
Zalcman, cited in Time of Script Decision
Stewart & Joines,
TA Today (1987)
p.221

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Composite
Scale
Script Decision

Brother
Sister

Mum
Dad
OK to Don’t
Exist 0 10 Exist
Composite Script Decision
(Don’t Exist Injunction)
D
DG
DT DH DF DI
DW DS DB DE DC DY
Permission Injunction
(OK to …) (Don’t…)
0 10
Allower Driver
TH BP HU PO
BS
Composite Script Decision Scale

Woollams & Injunction Legend: Drivers Legend:

Brown, D = Don’t DI = Don’t be Important PO = Please Others
Transactional DE = Don’t Exist DB = Don’t belong BP = Be Perfect
Analysis (1978) DY = Don’t be You DC = Don’t be Close TH = Try Hard
pp.162-175. DH = Don’t be a Child DW = Don’t be Well (Sane) BS = Be Strong
DG = Don’t Grow Up DT = Don’t Think HU = Hurry Up
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
DS = Don’t Succeed DF = Don’t Feel
2011. TA Student
Script Messages
Experiencing
Internalised
Mum Dad

P P
A A P2
C C
Be Strong
Please (people)
How to be
A2 comfortable
in misery

Don’t feel Don’t belong

Don’t be close Don’t make it
Don’t grow up
Don’t be C2

Note:

Woollams & Originally, the Program

was shown as coming
Brown,
only from the same sex
Transactional Parent as the child (as
Analysis (1978) shown here). Now it
pp.178. recognised that both
parents can transmit
Program messages
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 Discount Matrix MODE
T1 T2
TYPE
T3

EXISTENCE Stimuli Problems Options

T2 T3 T4

Significance of Significance of Significance of

SIGNIFICANCE stimuli problems options

T3 T4 T5

CHANGE Changeability of Solvability of Viability of

POSSIBILITIES stimuli problems options

T4 T5 T6
Person’s ability
PERSONAL Person’s ability Person’s ability
to react
ABILITIES to solve problems to act on options
differently
From Stewart &
Joines, TA Today
(1987) p.182

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Movement through the miniscript:

Miniscript
“Miniscript theory does not predict any
specific sequence of movement from 1 DRIVER
one position to another. Each
individual has her own typical (I+IF)
patterns.” p.167 No feelings

3 BLAMER
(I+U-)
Typical rackets:
Blameful, triumphant,
euphoric, spiteful,
blameless, furious

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

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Pie Chart
Time Structuring Intimacy
(expressing authentic
Withdrawal
(carrying on an internal
uncensored feelings)
monologue)

Games Rituals
(transactions
where both end (pre-programmed
feeling bad) social interaction)

Pastimes
(talking about
something, but not
doing)

Activities
(doing something, or
planning to do it)
Stewart &
Joines, TA Today To edit, press Alt and click & drag at the same
(1987) pp.94-95
time, to move the line to the desired angle. Zoom
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, in to make any final edits to get the edges right
2011. TA Student
 Script Matrix Mum You Dad

P P P

A A A

C Don’t feel
C Don’t belong
C
Don’t be close Don’t make it
Don’t grow up
Don’t be

Note:

Woollams & Originally, the Program

was shown as coming
Brown, only from the same sex
Transactional Parent as the child (as
Analysis (1978) shown here). Now it
recognised that both
pp.177.
parents can transmit
Program messages
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 Script Matrix
Mother Father
You
P P
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
 Cocreative
Script
Matrix
Be Strong Be Strong
Summers, G. and Tudor, Be Perfect Please Others
K. (2000) Cocreative
Transactional Analysis.
P Be Strong P Be Strong P
Be Perfect Be Perfect
Transactional Analysis
Journal 30:1 pp.23-40 Take great care/follow rules Sublimate yourself to others
Be away from home Be stubborn
“Our horizontal diagram Drink to relax Be weak and incapable
does not represent equality
in parent-child relationships. A Friends = Networking A Home is a remote haven A
It is intended to emphasize Be careful of Reputation Work is first priority
our ongoing capacity to Be reasonable (unemotional)
influence and be influenced.
Don’t be Close Be self sufficient
The matrix can be used to
map mutual influences at Don’t be Well
Don’t be Close
any stage in the life cycle Don’t Belong Don’t be Important
and be be applied to various
situations in which we may
C Don’t be Close
C Don’t be Close
C
be more or less powerful Don’t Feel Don’t Feel
than the others by virtue of Don’t be a Child Don’t be Important
status, knowledge, financial
Don’t Grow Up
resources, age or
discrimination based on Colleagues Harold Don’t
Don’t
Succeed
Exist
Wife
class, disability, gender,
race, sexual orientation, and
so on.”

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 Script Helix
Female Scottish
P P

A A

C C

P P P

A A A

C C C

Protestant Catholic

P P

A A

Adapted from C C
Summers & Tudor, in
Cornell & Hargaden. Irish Female
From Transactions
to Relations (2005)
p.119
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 Th +C

Therapy Triangle
Workaholic B P
A
(Obsessive/Compulsive)
BE PERFECT +C
BE STRONG Doubter B P
A
I-Y+ Th (Paranoid)
BE PERFECT
BE STRONG
I+Y-
F
NP FC NP FC

Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation F
NP NP

Paranoid Adaptation

Th Key (Client)
A
Disapprover Th Th = Thinking
FC (Passive-Aggressive) F = Feeling
TRY HARD B = Behaving
Key (Therapist)
(BE STRONG)
A = Adult
I-Y- FC = Feel Child
NP = Nurturing Parent
Allen, P. The +CP = Positive Controlling
Therapy Parent
Triangle, A tool
F
for diagnosis and NP NP
therapy. TAJ 22: Direction of
1, 48-53 movement
Passive-Aggressive Adaptation for therapist
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 Appetite Model
Hunger Paths
Unhealthy Appetite Paths and the Healthy Psychological
Showing the Self with Core and Script Area, The
Unhealthy Appetite Paths Leading to Tragic Outcomes

Go Crazy Withdraw

Harm Self Harm Others

Often discussed with an

additional “Run Away”
tragic outcome,
becoming withdrawn
and isolated
Script Core Self

Stimulus Hunger Incident Hunger

Jody Boliston, in Appetite Recognition Hunger Sexual Hunger

Path Model Working with
Escape Hatch Resolution
with Clients Who Use
Drugs and Alcohol Contact Hunger Structure Hunger
TA UK No 61 Autumn 2001
p.9
Healthy Appetite Paths Meeting Psychological Hungers and Nourishing the Core Self

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student
 P2 Transference
b

a d

Mioso, in Cornell & a = internal dialogue

Hargaden. From b = projected structure
Transactions to c = social transaction
Relations (2005) p.34
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol, discounted by the patient)
2011. TA Student
 The Undeveloped
Self P2

A2

P1- P1+
‘Split-off’ core self
________ Impermeable
Hargaden & Stills,
Transactional
Analysis, A Relational
C2 A1- A1+ division in A1 and P1
implies a more
Perspective (2002) fragmented self
p.25 P0
C1
C0
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 The Cohesive Self P2

A2

P1- P1+ A0 indicates an adequately

cohesive self

Hargaden & Stills,

Transactional
Analysis, A
C2 A1- A1+ ………….. Permeable
division in A1 and P1
Relational indicates the possibility
Perspective (2002) P0
of integration
p.24 C1 A0
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
C0
2011. TA Student
 The Cultural Self P2

A2

Introjected denigrating injunctions

Idealized image of stereotypical
Rejected ‘unacceptable’ P1- P1+
elements of culture
elements of cultural identity
Conforming, conventional
Hargaden & Stills,
‘belonging’ adaptation
Transactional ‘Not OK’ self accepts A1- A1+
Analysis, A Relational Parents’ conscious and
denigrating stereotype
Perspective (2002) unconscious feelings about their
p.99 P0
cultural identity
Sense of cultural identity A0
(for example bi-racial; female; middle class) C0 Infant’s innate temperament
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student
 Social Level and

Communication
Psychological Level Group Leader

P P

A A

C C
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
 Transactional Analysis
of “Parallel Process”
P P P

Help! I really don’t

know what
I can’t think think
A I don’t know A about this A
client I
what to do!
feel so
confused and
helpless

C C C

Keith Tudor (2002)

Transactional Analysis Client Therapist/ Supervisor
Supervision or
Supervision Analyzed Supervisee
Transactionally, TAJ
32:1 p.52
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2012. TA Student
 Treatment Triangle
Contract Diagnosis

Treatment Direction
In what order?
Which interventions?
(=Treatment Sequence)

Ian Stewart (1996) Content Process Long-term Short-term

Developing
(what) (how) (strategy) (tactics)
Transactional Analysis
Counselling p.179
Originally by: Guichard
1987, with modifications by
Ian Stewart
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
20129. TA Student
 Treatment and
Supervisory Triangles
Supervisory Contract
A bilateral, sometimes trilateral
agreement defining the supervisee’s
learning needs, goals, and direction
Diagnosis/Assessment
of supervisee’s/practitioner based
(traditionally) on ego state,
transactional, game, and script analysis

Clinical Clinical
Contract Diagnosis/
Assessment

Learning Direction in Supervision

including establishing a working alliance,
decontamination, deconfusion and further
learning

Keith Tudor (2002)

Transactional Analysis
Supervision or Supervision
Treatment Direction
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
 “Submarine” Diagram

Group
Leader

Self Those Others

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student