Exploring Transactional Analysis Groups: Insights and Practice

1. Chapter 15 Transactional Analysis, Reality Therapy, Adlerian, and Person-Centered Groups Prepared by: Nathaniel N. Ivers, Wake Forest University

2. Roadmap • Transactional Groups • Reality Therapy Groups • Adlerian Groups • Person-Centered Groups

3. Transactional Analysis (TA) Groups • Founded by Eric Berne • Oriented toward groups since its inception • Emphasis placed on understanding intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics • Learning occurs through participating in interactions in sessions and through homework assignments • Groups are main choice of treatment for redecision school of TA (Goulding, 1987)

4. Premises of Transactional Analysis Groups • Development and interaction of an ego state • Three basic ego states exist and operate within every individual • Parent • Adult • Child • Ego states can be observed in the dynamic interactions with individuals

5. Premises of Transactional Analysis • Parent Ego State: Dualistic – both nurturing and critical • Adult Ego State: Functions like a computer – it receives and processes information from the parent, child, and environment • Child Ego State: Divided into two parts – The Adapted Child (conforms to rules and parental wishes) and Free Child (natural child; reacts more spontaneously)

6. Premises of Transactional Analysis • Four basic ways to identify an individual’s current ego state: • Behavioral • Social • Historical • Phenomenological (Woollams et al., 1977)

7. Premises of Transactional Analysis • Knowledge of ego states empowers individuals and those working with them to assess which types of transactions they are most likely to have and to take corrective measures, if needed (Hargaden & Sills, 2002) • This knowledge helps people avoid playing games • People who play games operate from three distinct positions: victim, persecutor, rescuer

8. Premises of Transactional Analysis • Strokes • Physical or psychological recognition • Six major ways in which people structure their time to obtain strokes • Withdrawal • Ritual • Pastimes • Work • Games • Intimacy (Berne, 1972)

9. Premises of Transactional Analysis • People develop scripts • Habitual patterns of behavior • Influence how people spend their time, for example, as losers, nonwinners, and winners (Berne, 1972; Capers, 1975) • Include transactions, or social actions between two or more people

10. Premises of Transactional Analysis • Types of transactions • Complementary • Crossed • Ulterior

11. Practice of TA in a Group • Preferably used in groups that serve as a setting in which people can become more aware of • Themselves • The structure of their individual personality • The transactions they have with others • The games they play • The scripts they act out

12. Practice of TA in Groups • Objective in group settings: “fight the past in the present in order to assure the future” (Berne, 1966, p. 250) • TA groups are based on participants’ ability and willingness to make and work on therapeutic contracts (Stewart, 2014) • Specific, measurable, concrete statements of what participants intend to accomplish during group

13. Practice of TA in Groups • Classical Contracts • Carried out with an emphasis on one or more of the following: • Structural analysis • Transactional analysis • Game Analysis • Life script analysis • Redecision Contracts

14. Role of TA Group Leader • More than just group members • They stand apart as “primarily listeners, observers, diagnosticians, and analysts – and, secondarily, process facilitators (Donigian & Hulse-Killacky, 1999, p. 115) • Group leader – group member transactions are considered major • Group leader – group member transactions are considered minor

15. Role of TA Group Leader • Four specific roles within the TA group: • Protection • Permission • Potency • Operations (Corey, 2012)

16. Desired Outcomes of TA Groups • Self-awareness • Changes in feelings, thoughts, and behaviors • Freedom from Parent messages (injunctions) • Freedom from early, self-defeating scripts

17. Desired Outcomes of TA Groups • Seven steps that lead to positive outcome • Trust in the other • Trust in self • Moving into group • Work • Redecision • Integration • Termination (Woollams & Brown, 1978)

18. Strengths of TA • Cognitive clarity of the language used to explain TA concepts (Grimes, 1988; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) • Simplicity • Efficiency – group members make progress quickly • Flexible – can be sued in task/work, psychoeducational, counseling, and psychotherapy settings

19. Limitations of TA with Groups • Restrictive interpretation of the complexities of human nature by categorizing them into a limited number of games, ego states, and scripts (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) • Strong emphasis on understanding • Neglect of emphasizing group process (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005) • Lack of empirical evidence to support its effectiveness

20. Reality Therapy Groups • Founded by William Glasser • Basis has evolved from control theory, a complete system for explaining how the brain works, to choice theory • Developed in educational systems • Emphasis placed on raising self-esteem and altering behaviors and attitudes • Has gained traction in task/work environments, such as with the total quality movement (TQM)

21. Premises of Reality Therapy Groups • Emphasizes that “all behavior is generated within ourselves for the purpose of satisfying one or more basic needs” (Glasser, 1984, p. 323) • Claims that human behavior is a reaction not to outside events but rather to internal needs

22. Premises of Reality Therapy Groups • Four human psychological needs: • Belonging • Power • Freedom • Fun

23. Premises of Reality Therapy Groups • Differs from other psychotherapeutic systems in the following ways: • Rejects the concept of mental illness • Emphasizes the present as the “cutting edge” of people’s lives, focusing on how individuals can effectively control the world they live in and choose behaviors that are best for them

24. Premises of Reality Therapy Groups • Differs from other psychotherapeutic system in the following ways: • Does not deal with transference but relates to clients’ perceptions • Does not consider the unconscious or dreams but rather concentrates on present awareness • Stresses that persons must judge their own behaviors in light of personal and societal values • Attempts to teach people a better way of fulfilling needs and taking responsibility for themselves (Glasser, 1965, 1999, 2001, 2003)

25. Practice of Reality Therapy in Groups • Emphasizes observable behavior in a here-and-now setting (Glasser, 1992, 2000) • Focuses on helping clients take responsibility for their actions, find better ways to meet their needs, and change inappropriate or destructive ways of behaving (Glasser & Breggin, 2001) • Two main components involved in reality therapy groups: setting up the environment and applying proper procedures using the WDEP framework (Wubbolding, 2011)

26. Practice of Reality Therapy in a Group • Setting up the Environment • ABCDE dos and don’ts: • Always be courteous and determined as well as enthusiastic. • Don’t argue, belittle, criticize, demean, or get lost in excuses

27. Practice of Reality Therapy in a Group • Original Basic Steps of Reality Therapy • Make friends/establish a meaningful relationship • Emphasize present behaviors/Ask, “What are you doing now?” • Stress whether clients’ actions are getting them what they want. • Make a positive plan to do better

28. Practice of Reality Therapy in a Group • Original Basic Steps of Reality Therapy (cont.) • Get a commitment to follow the positive plan. • No excuses. • No punishment. • Never give up.

29. Practice of Reality Therapy in a Group • Four special techniques for reality therapy groups: • Skillful use of questioning • Self-help procedures • Use of humor • Use of paradox (Wubbolding, 2011)

30. Role of the Reality Therapy Group Leader Reality therapy group leaders: • Are active and involved • Strive to be warm • Confront group members

31. Role of the Reality Therapy Group Leader • Four criteria for effective reality therapy leaders • Responsible persons who are able to fulfill their own needs • Mentally strong and able to resist group members’ pleas for sympathy and excuses for nonproductive behaviors • Accepting of group members for who they are • Emotionally involved or supportive of group members

32. Desired Outcome of Reality Therapy Groups • Members move past self-defeating patterns of behavior • Members engage in new behaviors designed to help them achieve responsible, present-oriented goals • Members gain greater awareness of their values

33. Strengths of Reality Therapy Groups • Emphasizes accountability • Emphasizes action and thinking • Viable with people in society on who others have given up (Glasser & Breggin, 2001) • Emphasizes definable procedures for working with individuals in groups • Treatment continues only until participants are able to resolve difficulties

34. Limitations of Reality Therapy Groups • Its emphasis on the exchange of communication, either verbal or written (Glasser, 1984) • Its simplicity • Its extreme position on some issues, such as the etiology of mental illness • Its lack of proven effectiveness

35. Adlerian Theory Groups • Has always had a group focus • Concentrates on the inherent social interest of persons and emphasizes social development, cooperation, and education.

36. Premises of Adlerian Groups • People are motivated by social interest • Other major concerns that undergird Adlerian theory: • Purposefulness of all behavior • Subjective nature of perception • Holistic nature of people • Importance of developing a healthy style of life • Self-determinism of the individual to chart a future based on expected consequences of behavior (Corsini, 1988; Hawes, 1985)

37. Practice of Adlerian Theory in a Group • Primarily psychoeducational in nature, though some can be therapeutic as well • The idea is that people can learn from one another • Different types of Adlerian Groups • Adlerian parent education • C group • Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (S.T.E.P.)

38. Practice of Adlerian Theory in a Group • Unifying factors that link Adlerian groups together: • Interpretation of a person’s early history • Practice of stressing individual, interpersonal, and group process goals during the duration of the group • Insight and reorientation phases

39. Role of the Adlerian Group Leader • Qualities of an effective group leader: • Well-balanced • Adaptable • Courageous • Humorous • Sincere • Accepting of others • Open in a way that promotes honest interchanges • Knowledgeable of members • Active in confronting faulty logic

40. Role of the Adlerian Group Leader • Focus on understanding present behavioral patterns of group members and challenging them to change • Use group dynamics to help groups help themselves • May encourage group members to confront one another

41. Role of the Adlerian Group Leader • With children, Adlerian group leaders use encouragement, natural consequences, and acting as if. • With adults, Adlerian group leaders may employ more systematic plans, including the three tasks mentioned above and task setting and push button.

42. Desired Outcomes of Adlerian Groups • Emphasize growth and actions of the individual within the group rather than the group itself. • Group members should be socially oriented, personally integrated, and goal directed by the end of the group. • Group members should have corrected faulty beliefs, eliminated competitive behavioral stances and become more in contact with family-of-origin issues

43. Desired Outcomes of Adlerian Groups • Children in Adlerian groups should recognize more clearly the logical consequences of their actions and who they can be • Adolescents are helped to deal better with their own and others’ perceptions of themselves and to realize they do not have to engage in competitive behaviors to be accepted • For families and adults, Adlerian groups are directed toward social adjustment

44. Strengths of Adlerian Groups • Nonthreatening • Methods associated with the approach are logical and based on common sense (Sweeney, 2009) • Holistic • Eclectic nature • Flexible

45. Limitations of Adlerian Groups • Leader’s Style • Narrowness of their scope • Lack of uniformity • Week empirical support

46. Person-Centered Groups • Founded by Carl Rogers • Adapted the T-group (training group) structure and combined it with his own clinical approach and positive humanistic views to create what he called basic encounter groups

47. Premises of Person-Centered Groups • Encounter groups built on several premises: • Trust in the inner resources of people • Trust in the group to help members develop their potential • Certain conditions must be created within the group for members to maximize their potential • A qualified person with special training and experience will facilitate them (Rogers, 1970)

48. Premises of Person-Centered Groups • Core Conditions • Communication • Empathy • Genuineness (congruence) • Acceptance (unconditional positive regard) • Active Listening • Self-Disclosure • Authenticity • Immediacy • Confrontation

49. Practice of Person-Centered Theory in a Group • Unstructured group format • Feedback and communication are critical • Feedback – giving another person his or her perception of his or her behavior • Communication of thoughts and feelings – best conveyed when clearly understood language and gestures are used

50. Practice of Person-Centered Theory in a Group • Rogerian-oriented encounter group 15-stage process: • Milling around • Resistance • Revealing past feelings • Expression of negative feelings • Expression of personally meaningful material • Communication of immediate interpersonal feelings