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

Parent
Contamination

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.

(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

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
others 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 husbands
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 A

P3

P2 A

C3

P3

P2

P2 A

C3

C3

A2

A2

P1

C2

C2

C2 A

AC

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)

Historical

7+

C2

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

C 1 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+

GRO

GNW
Futility Position

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+ Youre OK
I+ Im OK
U Youre Not OK
I Im Not OK

Egogram

CP

NP

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:
Dusays 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:
McKennas 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

Allower

Brother

Permission
(OK to )

Sister

Dad

OK to
Exist 0

Composite Script Decision

(Dont Exist Injunction)

DT
DW

DS

D
DG
DH DF DI
DE DC DY

DB

Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.162-175.

TH

BP

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student

Injunction Legend:
D = Dont
DE = Dont Exist
DY = Dont be You
DH = Dont be a Child
DG = Dont Grow Up
DS = Dont Succeed

Injunction
(Dont)
10

HU
BS

PO

Composite Script Decision Scale

Woollams &
Brown,

Dont
10 Exist

Drivers Legend:
DI = Dont be Important
DB = Dont belong
DC = Dont be Close
DW = Dont be Well (Sane)
DT = Dont Think
DF = Dont 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

You

Dad

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

rs

Note:

he
Ot

Dont
Dont
Dont
Dont

feel
be close
grow up
be

A
C

Be

se
ea

St
ro
ng

Pl

Script Matrix

Mum

O
be
o
t y
w
r
Ho Mise
in

Dont belong
Dont make it

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
A
C

Father
You
Plea
se (
p

How

eop

l e)

P
t
Be S

ro n

A
to P

reva

rica
te

Don
t
Don feel
t
Don be clo
se
t
Don grow u
t b
p
e

A
C

e
to b ble
w
o
H
f or t a
Com isery
in M
long
e
b
t
it
Don make
t
Don

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

Be Strong
Please Others

Be Strong
Be Perfect
Take great care/follow rules
Be away from home
Drink to relax
Friends = Networking
Be careful of Reputation
Dont be Close
Dont be Well
Dont Belong
Dont be Close
Dont Feel
Dont be a Child

Colleagues

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

Dont be Close
Dont be Important
Dont be Close
Dont Feel
Dont be Important
Dont Grow Up
Dont Succeed
Dont Exist

C
Wife

Script Helix

Female

Scottish

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

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+

NP FC

+CP

A
Th

NP FC

NP

Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation

Disapprover
(Passive-Aggressive)
TRY HARD
(BE STRONG)
I-Y-

NP

NP

Paranoid Adaptation

Th
FC

Doubter
(Paranoid)
BE PERFECT
BE STRONG
I+Y-

Th

NP

Passive-Aggressive Adaptation

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

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+

C1

P0
C0

Split-off core self

________ Impermeable
division in A1 and P1
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

P2

A2

C2
C1

P1- P1+

A0 indicates an adequately
cohesive self

A1- A1+

.. Permeable
division in A1 and P1
indicates the possibility
of integration

P0
A0
C0

The Cultural Self

Hargaden & Stills,
Transactional
Analysis, A
Relational
Perspective (2002)
p.99
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

P2

A2

Introjected denigrating injunctions

Rejected unacceptable elements
of cultural identity

P1- P1+

Not OK self accepts denigrating

stereotype

A1- A1+

Sense of cultural identity

(for example bi-racial; female; middle class)

P0
A0
C0

Idealized image of stereotypical

elements of culture
Conforming, conventional
belonging adaptation
Parents conscious and
unconscious feelings about their
cultural identity
Infants innate temperament

Experiencing
Internalised
Script Messages

Mum Dad

Transactional
Analysis (1978)
pp.178.
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

A2
Dont feel
Dont be close
Dont grow up
Dont 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,

How to be
comfortable
in misery
Dont belong
Dont 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

Submarine Diagram
Incomplete

Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

2011. TA Student

Group
Leader

Self

Those Others