1 / 36

TA Diagrams

Edit these diagrams according to your own needs 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. TA Diagrams. Redrawn by Rob van Tol,

damian-ortega
Download Presentation

TA Diagrams

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. P Parent ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelingscopied from parents and parent figures First OrderStructural Model A Adults ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelingswhich are direct responses to the here-and-now C Child ego-state behaviours, thoughts and feelingsreplayed from childhood From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.12 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  3. P3 P3 P3 P3 P1 A3 A3 A3 A1 A3 C3 C3 C3 C1 C3 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) 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. CP NP Controlling Parent Nurturing Parent Functional Model A Adult AC FC Adapted Child Free Child From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.21 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  5. +CP +NP -CP -NP Controlling Parent Nurturing Parent Functional Model +ve and -ve A Adult +AC +FC -AC -FC Adapted Child Free Child From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.22-26 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

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

  7. P P R R V V P 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 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) 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

  8. P2 P2 First Order Symbiosis A2 A2 C2 C2 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.194 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  9. P2 P2 Second Order Symbiosis A2 A2 C2 P1 C2 P1 A1 A1 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.202 C1 C1 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  10. P2 P2 P2 P2 P3 P3 P3 P1 A2 A2 A2 A2 1° 2° A3 A3 A3 A1 C2 C2 C2 C2 AC C1 C3 C3 C3 3° 3° FC First Degree (Structural) Second Degree (Structural) Third Degree (Structural) Showing three varieties First Degree (Functional) C2 3° Third Degree (Structural) Historical 7+ 6 5 4 3 2 1 Birth Impasse Diagrams Developed by Ken Mellor, in Wollams & Brown: Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.175. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  11. P0 A0 C0 P2 Structural Impasse Diagram (Mellor) A2 Type 1 C2 P1 Developed by Ken Mellor, from (“Impasses” in Volume of Selected Articles from TAJ 1971-80) pp.336-343). Type 2 A1 Note Impasses were originally described as degrees, as in “First Degree Impasse”, but Type is now preferred. Type 3 C1 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  12. U+ Depressive Position Healthy Position GAF GOW Corralogram I– I+ I+ GRO GNW U– Futility Position Paranoid Position Legend: Life Positions You Developed by Franklin Ernst, cited in Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.124. 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

  13. 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

  14. How often do you give +strokes to others? How often do you accept +strokes? How often do you ask others for the +strokes you want How often do you refuse to give the +strokes they expect from you? Almost Always Usually Frequently Often Stroking Profile Seldom Almost Never Giving Taking Asking For Refusing to Give Almost Never Seldom Often Frequently Usually Almost Always How often do you give -strokes to others? How often do you take -strokes? How often do you ask others indirectly or directly for the –strokes that you want? How often do you refuse to give -strokes McKenna. (1974), Stroking 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), they are likely to have a low negative (eg, give few negative strokes) and vice versa. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  15. 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

  16. Dad Sister Brother Composite Mum OK to Exist Don’t Exist 0 10 CompositeScript Decision (Don’t Exist Injunction) Script Decision Scale D DG DH DE DT DW DF DC DI DY DS DB Injunction (Don’t…) Permission(OK to …) 0 10 Allower Driver TH BP HU BS PO CompositeScript Decision Scale Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.162-175. 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

  17. 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: 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 Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.178. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  18. T1 T2 T3 Discount Matrix T2 T3 T4 T3 T4 T5 T4 T5 T6 From Stewart & Joines, TA Today (1987) p.182 Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  19. 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, unwantedhopeless, 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

  20. 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

  21. Mum You Dad P P P Script Matrix A A A 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: 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 Woollams & Brown, Transactional Analysis (1978) pp.177. Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  22. Mother Father P P You P Please (people) Be Strong Script Matrix A A A How to be Comfortable in Misery How to Prevaricate 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

  23. CocreativeScript 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 P P Be StrongBe Perfect Be Strong Please Others 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 Don’t be Close Don’t be Well Don’t Belong C C C Don’t be CloseDon’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

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

  25. Th +CP B Workaholic (Obsessive/Compulsive)BE PERFECT BE STRONG I-Y+ A +CP B Doubter (Paranoid)BE PERFECT BE STRONG I+Y- A F NP FC NP FC Obsessive/Compulsive Adaptation F NP NP Th 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 Paranoid Adaptation Th Disapprover (Passive-Aggressive)TRY HARD (BE STRONG) I-Y- FC F NP NP Passive-Aggressive Adaptation Th 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

  26. Unhealthy Appetite Paths Leading to Tragic Outcomes Go Crazy Withdraw Harm Self Harm Others Appetite Model Showing the Self with Core and Script Area, The Unhealthy Appetite Paths and the Healthy Psychological Hunger Paths Often discussed with an additional “Run Away” tragic outcome, becoming withdrawn and isolated Core Self Script Stimulus Hunger Incident Hunger Recognition Hunger Sexual 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 Contact Hunger Structure Hunger Healthy Appetite Paths Meeting Psychological Hungers and Nourishing the Core Self Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2011. TA Student

  27. b P2 Transference 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

  28. P2 P2 P1+ Projective and Introjective Transferences A2 A2 b a C2 C2 + – Based on Mioso, in Hargaden & Sills. Transactional Analysis: A Relational Perspective (2002) p.50 C0 Client Therapist Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2012. TA Student

  29. P2 A2 P1- P1+ C2 A1- A1+ P0 C0 C1 The Undeveloped Self ‘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

  30. P2 The Cohesive Self A2 A0 indicates an adequately cohesive self P1- P1+ 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

  31. P2 The Cultural Self A2 Introjected denigrating injunctions Rejected ‘unacceptable’ elements of cultural identity ‘Not OK’ self accepts denigrating stereotype Idealized image of stereotypical elements of culture Conforming, conventional ‘belonging’ adaptation Parents’ conscious and unconscious feelings about their cultural identity Infant’s innate temperament P1- P1+ 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

  32. Group Leader P P A A C C 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

  33. P P P Transactional Analysis of “Parallel Process” A A A Help! I really don’tknow what think about this client I feel so confused andhelpless I can’t think I don’t know what to do! C C C Client Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision Analyzed Transactionally, TAJ 32:1 p.52 Therapist/Supervisee Supervisor Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 2012. TA Student

  34. Contract Diagnosis Treatment Triangle Treatment Direction Which interventions? In what order? (=Treatment Sequence) Content(what) Process(how) Long-term(strategy) Short-term(tactics) Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p.179Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian Stewart Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student

  35. Supervisory ContractA bilateral, sometimes trilateral agreement defining the supervisee’s learning needs, goals, and direction Diagnosis/Assessmentof supervisee’s/practitioner based (traditionally) on ego state, transactional, game, and script analysis Treatment and Supervisory Triangles Clinical Contract Clinical Diagnosis/Assessment Learning Direction in Supervisionincluding establishing a working alliance, decontamination, deconfusion and further learning Keith Tudor (2002) Transactional Analysis Supervision or Supervision AnalyzedTransactionally, TAJ 32:1 p.52 Developed from Ian Stewart (1996) Developing Transactional Analysis Counselling p.179Originally by: Guichard 1987, with modifications by Ian Stewart Treatment Direction Redrawn by Rob van Tol, 20129. TA Student

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

More Related