TA Diagrams Edit these diagrams according to your own needs

Presentation on theme: "TA Diagrams Edit these diagrams according to your own needs"— Presentation transcript:

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

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

Second Order Structural Model
P3 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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