The egogram,
with both sides visible.

What comes from TA, and what is adapted

Berne (1957; 1961) provides the underlying ego-state model; Dusay (1972) the egogram; Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–29; 2012, ch. 3) the functional descriptions used here. Stewart and Joines describe an intuitive drawing exercise and optional positive/negative subdivisions of bars.

“What matters is the relative height of each bar as compared to the others.”

Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 28). The exact wording has not been verified in the 2012 edition.

The original questionnaire items, response averaging, below-axis presentation and drawing controls are Steve Spittle’s adaptation. The traditional stacked view remains available so the same profile can be inspected in a familiar arrangement.

Why place limiting expression below the axis?

Separate directions make constructive and limiting expressions easier to distinguish while allowing both to coexist. Frequent supportive care and frequent taking over should remain visible together; subtracting one from the other could hide them both.

The baseline is a visual divider, not a health norm. “Negative” describes a proposed limiting function in context, not a negative amount or a judgement of the person. Heiberger and Robbins (2014) provide a useful analogy through diverging displays; their paper does not validate this questionnaire or establish that this arrangement is superior.

Keeping Adult comparable

The earlier diverging display mixed two scales: each split aspect had a whole allowance, while Adult had only one. This made the total Parent or Child span potentially twice Adult’s maximum. The corrected display gives every category one maximum total allowance in both views.

For a questionnaire profile, the constructive and limiting contributions are each half their own aspect average. Adult uses its full unsplit average. Thus each split category represents the mean of its two aspects, while Adult represents its single aspect.

In the updated view, Adult is a continuous neutral bar centred on the baseline. Its lower half is explicitly part of unsplit Adult. This makes equal category averages occupy equal total spans and preserves Adult’s comparison with the other categories. In the traditional view the same Adult length sits above the line.

A smaller map of possible Adult influences

Beside the egogram, a compact bar places Parent patterns at the top, Adult in the centre and Child patterns at the bottom. Green areas retain Steve Spittle’s proposed phrase “positive contamination”; hatched areas mark limiting responses that may be worth exploring. The graphic follows the same profile, so a taller area reflects a more prominent response pattern in the related questions or drawing.

For questionnaire profiles, the Parent areas average CP and NP responses of the same polarity; the Child areas average FC and AC responses. Adult remains its own unsplit average. The five areas are scaled together to show their relative share of the profile. Selecting a Parent or Child area takes you to its related questions, where endorsement support is shown as “Consistently endorsed”, “Mixed responses” or “Little endorsement”.

This is a reflection aid, not an inference that contamination exists. Stewart and Joines distinguish Adult functioning from Parent or Child material mistaken for present reality (1987, pp. 50–51). A questionnaire cannot tell whether a response in a current situation came from an internalised Parent or Child message. The highlighted areas therefore identify places to ask further questions, not causes or measured contamination. The phrase “positive contamination” and this composite visual are Steve Spittle’s proposal, not established TA terminology or a validated measure.

The visual draws on the distinction between structural ego states and observed functional behaviour (Stewart and Joines, 1987; 2012) and on Temple’s theoretical discussion of linking structure and function (Temple, 2002). Neither source validates this mapping or the questionnaire. The response-support markers describe item endorsement only; they are not confidence scores or evidence of contamination.

The geometry

Let p and n be the constructive and limiting aspect averages, a the Adult average, and K the common maximum category length. In the updated view:

The stacked view rearranges those same lengths above the baseline. It does not change their weights. Both layouts retain a category’s total length K(p+n)/2, or Ka for Adult.

For a drawing, category prominence t is set directly. Its constructive/limiting balance b allocates lengths Kt(1−b) and Ktb. Adult has one length Kt. These controls allow a full-sized category to be entirely constructive or entirely limiting. They express personal judgement, not questionnaire findings.

What the profile can support

The graph summarises responses to these statements or an individual’s own drawing. It cannot establish measured time in ego states, psychological energy, a diagnosis or underlying Adult capacity. The app does not enforce Dusay’s constancy hypothesis.

Behaviour labels are traceable to responses or personal selections. They can help a person discuss a real situation, but cannot establish which inner ego state supplied a behaviour’s content. Compare total spans and look at the meaning of the selected statements.

Why keep the current scope small?

This version focuses on understanding the updated egogram alongside the conventional stacked arrangement. The former extra stages and circular view have been removed from the active interface.

Ideas involving Temple’s Functional Fluency work, autonomy (Berne, 1964) and connection/homonomy (Cook, 2022) remain possible subjects for future discussion. They are not inferred or scored by this egogram. The immediate research question is whether people understand the revised display, especially Adult’s neutral span, better when both arrangements share the same weighting.

The proposed benefits still need testing. A conceptual mapping and clear geometry do not validate the questionnaire or establish novelty within TA.