1. TA Diagrams Edit these diagrams according to your own needs
“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
TA Diagrams
Adapt and modify for your own needs
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

3. Second Order Structural ModelP3 A3 C3 P3 A3 C3 P3 A3 C3 P3 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.
Parent (P2)
Second Order Structural Model A
Adult (A2)
(Adult not subdivided) C1 P1 A1
Parent in the Child (‘Magical Parent’)
Adult in the Child (‘Little Professor’)
Child in the Child (‘Somatic Child’)
Child (C2)
From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.31
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

5. Symbiosis P2 P2 A2 A2 C2 C2 P1 P1 A1 A1 C1 C1 Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

6. Showing three varietiesP2 A2 C2
First Degree
(Structural) P3 A3 C3 1° P2 A2 C2 P3 A3 C3 2°
Second Degree
(Structural) P2 A2 C2 P1 A1 C1 3°
Third Degree
(Structural)
Showing three varieties C2 P2 A2 P3 A3 C3 FC AC 3°
First Degree
(Functional)
Impasse Diagrams
Developed by Ken Mellor, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.175.
Third Degree
(Structural)
Historical
Birth C2 3°
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

7. Structural Impasse Diagram (Mellor)
Please Edit to Your Own Needs
(and delete this Note - Rob)
Structural Impasse Diagram (Mellor) A2
Type 1 C2 P1
Developed by Ken Mellor, from (“Impasses” in Volume of Selected Articles from TAJ ) pp ). A1
Type 2
Note
Impasses were originally described as degrees, as in “First Degree Impasse”, but Type is now used. C1 P0 A0 C0
Type 3
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

8. Corralogram U+ GAF GOW I– I+ I+ GRO GNW U– Depressive Position
Healthy Position
GAF
GOW
Corralogram I– 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.
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

10. Stroking Profile Give Take Ask For Refuse to Give
Almost Always
Usually
Frequently
Often
Seldom
Stroking Profile
Almost Never
Give
Take
Ask For
Refuse to Give
Almost Never
Seldom
Often
Frequently
Usually
Almost Always
Developed by Jim McKenna. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.80
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.
Positive
Negative
Legend: Strokes
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

12. Script Decision Scale OK to Exist Don’t Exist Injunction (Don’t…)
Dad
Sister
Brother
Composite
Mum
OK to
Exist
Don’t
Exist
Script Decision Scale
Composite Script Decision
(Don’t Exist Injunction) D DG DH DE DT DW DF DC DI DY DS DB
Injunction
(Don’t…)
Permission (OK to …)
Allower
Driver TH BP HU BS PO
Composite Script Decision Scale
Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp
Injunction Legend:
Drivers 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
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

13. Discount Matrix
Ref
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

14. Typical rackets: Guilty, hurt, worried, blank, confusion, embarrassed
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
Miniscript
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
Developed by Taibi Kahler. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.165
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

16. Script Matrix Mum You Dad P P P A A A C C C
Please Others
Be Strong
How to be OK
in Misery C C C
Don’t feel
Don’t be close
Don’t grow up
Don’t be
Don’t belong
Don’t make it
Note:
Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.177.
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

17. Script Matrix Mother Father P P You P A A A C C C
Please (people)
Be Strong
Script Matrix A A A
How to Prevaricate
How to be
Comfortable
in Misery C C C
Don’t feel
Don’t be close
Don’t grow up
Don’t be
Don’t belong
Don’t make it
Developed by Claude Steiner. Cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.129.
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

18. P P P A A A C C C Colleagues Harold Wife
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.” P
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
Sublimate yourself to others
Be stubborn
Be weak and incapable A A A
Friends = Networking
Be careful of Reputation
Home is a remote haven
Work is first priority
Be reasonable (unemotional)
Be self sufficient C
Don’t be Close
Don’t be Well
Don’t Belong C C
Don’t be Close Don’t be Important
Don’t be Close
Don’t Feel
Don’t be a Child
Don’t be Close
Don’t Feel
Don’t be Important
Don’t Grow Up
Don’t Succeed
Don’t Exist
Colleagues
Harold
Wife
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

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

20. Therapy Triangle B Workaholic (Obsessive/Compulsive) BE PERFECT
BE STRONG
I-Y+ Th F A FC NP
+CP
Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation B
Doubter
(Paranoid) BE PERFECT
BE STRONG
I+Y- F A NP
+CP
Paranoid Adaptation Th
Therapy Triangle Th
Disapprover
(Passive-Aggressive) TRY HARD
(BE STRONG)
I-Y- F FC 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
Allen, P. The Therapy Triangle, A tool for diagnosis and therapy. TAJ 22: 1, 48-53
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

21. Unhealthy Appetite Paths Leading to Tragic Outcomes
Go Crazy
Appetite Model Showing the Self with Core and Script Area, The Unhealthy Appetite Paths and the Healthy Psychological Hunger Paths
Harm Self
Harm Others
Core Self
Script
Stimulus Hunger
Incident Hunger
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
Recognition Hunger
Sexual Hunger
Contact Hunger
Structure Hunger
Healthy Appetite Paths Meeting Psychological Hungers and Nourishing the Core Self
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

22. P2 Transference 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)
Mioso, in Cornell & Hargaden. From Transactions to Relations (2005) p.34
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

23. The Undeveloped Self P2 A2 C2 C1 P1- A1- P1+ A1+ ‘Split-off’ core self
________ Impermeable division in A1 and P1 implies a more fragmented self
Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.25
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

24. The Cohesive Self P2 A2 C2 P1- P1+
A0 indicates an adequately cohesive self
Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.24 C2
A1-
A1+
………….. Permeable division in A1 and P1 indicates the possibility of integration P0 A0 C0 C1
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

25. The Cultural Self P2 A2 P1- P1+ A1- A1+
Introjected denigrating injunctions
Rejected ‘unacceptable’ elements of cultural identity
‘Not OK’ self accepts denigrating stereotype
P1-
P1+
Idealized image of stereotypical elements of culture
Conforming, conventional ‘belonging’ adaptation
Parents’ conscious and unconscious feelings about their cultural identity
Infant’s innate temperament
Hargaden & Stills, Transactional Analysis, A Relational Perspective (2002) p.99
A1-
A1+ P0 A0 C0
Sense of cultural identity (for example bi-racial; female; middle class)
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

26. Experiencing Internalised Script Messages
Mum Dad P2 P A C P A C
Experiencing Internalised Script Messages
Be Strong
Please (people) A2
How to be comfortable in misery
Don’t feel
Don’t be close
Don’t grow up
Don’t be
Don’t belong
Don’t make it C2
Note:
Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.178.
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
Redrawn by Rob van Tol,
2011. TA Student

27. Social Level and Psychological Level Communication
Group
Leader
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

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