Transactional Analysis Journal

ISSN: 0362-1537 (Print) 2329-5244 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20

Understanding Second-Order Structure and

Functioning
Ego State Structures, Relational Units, and the Divided Psyche

Vann S. Joines

To cite this article: Vann S. Joines (2016) Understanding Second-Order Structure and
Functioning, Transactional Analysis Journal, 46:1, 39-49, DOI: 10.1177/0362153715616651

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1177/0362153715616651

Published online: 28 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2324

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20
Article

Transactional Analysis Journal

2016, Vol. 46(1) 39-49
Understanding Second-Order ª International Transactional Analysis
Association, 2015
Reprints and permission:
Structure and Functioning: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0362153715616651
Ego State Structures, Relational ta.sagepub.com

Units, and the Divided Psyche

Vann S. Joines

Abstract
Understanding second-order ego state structure and functioning in transactional analysis can be
difficult. In this article, the author draws on his 40 years of clinical experience to help clarify
these aspects of TA as well as to offer some new insights. Jacqui Schiff postulated that ego states
are neural networks of associated responses. The author suggests that these networks form ego
state structures that operate partly consciously and partly unconsciously. The conscious part is
observable as distinct ego states, and through further investigation, the operation of unconscious
parts, which can be thought of as ego state relational units (Little, 2006; Joines, 1977), can be
discovered as well. The structure of the psyche is divided into a natural part that wants to grow
and develop spontaneously and an adapted part that tries to protect the individual from further
hurt by holding him or her back and maintaining his or her survival script. The positive intent of
this latter part is often overlooked because it causes additional difficulty in the individual’s
present life. Appreciating and working with this part facilitates discovering new ways to both
grow and protect oneself in the present.

Keywords
second-order structure, second-order functioning, ego state structures, ego state relational units,
divided psyche, neural networks, intrapsychic symbiosis, Adapted Child, Natural Child, adapted
structure, script structure, autonomous structure

Eric Berne, based on Penfield’s (Penfield & Jasper, 1954) research, defined an ego state as ‘‘a con-
sistent pattern of feeling and experience directly related to a corresponding consistent pattern of
behavior’’ (Berne, 1966, p. 364). In a Southeast Institute conference workshop in the early 1980s,
Jacqui Schiff (1981) postulated that ego states are made up of neural networks of associated
responses. This idea of neural networks of associated responses is consistent with Hebb’s (1949)
famous axiom is summarized by Carla Shatz’s (1992) phrase ‘‘cells that fire together, wire together’’
(pp. 60-67). Schiff (1981) went on to speculate that the greatest number of these neural network

Corresponding Author:
Vann Joines, Southeast Institute for Group and Family Therapy, 659 Edwards Ridge Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517,
USA.
Email: vjoines@seinstitute.com
40 Transactional Analysis Journal 46(1)

responses reside in the Child ego state, the second greatest in the Adult ego state, and the fewest in
the Parent ego state. She suggested that this is why it is easiest (i.e., takes the least energy) to be in
one’s Child, why it takes more energy to be in one’s Adult, and why it takes the most energy to be in
one’s Parent.
In addition, Schiff hypothesized that these neural networks are all interconnected. For every Parent
message, there are specific ways of thinking about it in the Adult and specific fantasies, feelings, and
decisions in the Child. What we usually observe on the social level is the activation of a single ego state,
but I think the other ego states are always active as well, behind the scenes, on an unconscious level. I
think the person is actually activating an entire structure or complete neural network of associated
responses. Siegel (1999, 2007) and Schore (2012) have pointed out that the framework for our neural
networks is provided by our genetics, but we program them based on our early experiences. Thus, the
structure is genetic but the programming results from early interactions with our environment.
Because the different ego states (Parent, Adult, and Child) are interconnected, for every message
we have in the Parent in the Parent (P3) (see Figure 1), we have additional information in the Adult in
the Parent (A3) about why that is important and further implied information in the Child in the Parent
(C3) about the significance of the message. (See the key at the end of this article for an explanation of
these and other terms.) We also have information in our Adult (A2) about what we have observed
happens to people if the message is followed and if it is not followed. We further have a fantasy
in the Parent in the Child (P1) about what will happen if the message is not followed, and that fantasy
ultimately involves annihilation or abandonment. The P1 fantasy is what makes the message so pow-
erful, much more so than the original P3 message, because the P1 message is interpreted by the Adult
in the Child (A1) as a matter of life and death.
As the Parent in the Child (P1) shares that fantasy with the Child in the Child (C1), the latter
responds with scare, anger, or sadness, and the Adult in the Child (A1) has to figure out a way to
do what the Parent (P2) requires and to take care of the Child’s (C1) needs at the same time. That
is what the early decision is all about. The Adult in the Child (A1) figures out a clever way of doing
both. All of these neural connections make up an ego state structure that activates when this issue is
present. The early decision ultimately results in the fight, flight, or freeze response we see with
trauma when the amygdala is activated. What we usually observe on the social level is one of these
ego states operating (e.g., the Child), but it is important to realize that the entire structure has been
activated and part of it is operating behind the scenes on an unconscious level. As another example, a
Critical, Controlling Parent (P2) is usually being driven, behind the scenes, by a scared Child.

Ego States or Ego State Structures?

The question naturally arises as to whether we ever cathect a single ego state or whether we always
cathect an entire ego state structure. I believe we do the latter. We simply experience one ego state
consciously, but the rest of the structure is present, operating unconsciously. I will illustrate this type
of ego state structure with a clinical example (see the left side of Figure 1).
As shown in Figure 1, the original message from mother’s Parent is ‘‘Be a good boy!’’ This is the
part that is most likely to be conscious. Much of the rest of this structure is likely to be unconscious or
at least preconscious. The reason mother originally gives from her Adult is ‘‘so people will like you.’’
Her implied (secret) message from her Child is, ‘‘Don’t be you. Make me look good.’’ The child who
receives these messages observes with his own Adult that when people act good, parents, teachers, and
others seem to like them, and when people do not act good, other people do not seem to like them.
As a child, the individual formed a fantasy (now stored in P1) that if he did not act good, he would
not be liked and would be abandoned. He knew that if he was abandoned that he could not survive.
When he thought of that, he felt scared. Underneath his scare he felt sad that he was not loved uncon-
ditionally. Underneath his sadness, he felt angry that he had to earn his mother’s love and was not
Joines 41

Figure 1. A Script Ego State Structure.

free just to be himself. He dared not express his anger, however, because his mother saw him as
being bad when he got angry. So, he expressed scare instead, which she accepted, and that became
his racket (i.e., a feeling that is used to elicit attention and support from others; Stewart & Joines,
2012).
In light of his fantasy of abandonment and his scare, he had to figure out what to do to take care of
himself in this situation. Using his Little Professor (A1), he decided, ‘‘I’ll act good as long as you’re
looking, but when you aren’t, I’ll do what I want.’’ In that way, he could both meet his mother’s
wishes and secretly do what he wanted. Figure 1 shows the neural network of associated responses
that formed an ego state structure for how to meet his mother’s requirements and take care of himself
at the same time. You might also recognize that this is the structure of his script (life plan) messages,
beliefs, feelings, and decisions.
42 Transactional Analysis Journal 46(1)

Helping Uncover a Script Structure

I offer here an exercise that I have found useful for uncovering such a script structure. First, I draw a
second-order structure and ask the client to think of any parental message she received as a child,
which I write out beside P3. Next, I ask if her parent gave any reason for why she should do that
and write her response beside A3. Then I ask her what the implied message was and write that beside
C3. The next step is to have her think of any evidence that she saw as a child with her own Adult for
why she should or should not comply with that message and write that beside A2.
To elicit the Child fantasies, feelings, and decision(s), I ask, ‘‘What is your fantasy as a child
about what will happen if you don’t follow that message?’’ I write that beside P1. Then I ask,
‘‘What do you feel emotionally as you imagine that?’’ and write that beside C1. It is useful to find
out what she feels underneath the feeling she identified and then what she feels underneath that.
Everyone will have the feelings of mad, scared, and sad in some order depending on what was
safest to feel, what was next, and what was least safe to feel. The feeling that was safest to feel
is usually the racket, and what was least safe to feel is usually the natural feeling underneath that
the client needs to access to solve the problem.
Finally I ask, ‘‘What are you deciding as a child about what you are going to do to take care of
yourself in light of your fantasy and what you are feeling?’’ I write that out beside A1. Note: It is useful
to ask the questions to the person’s Child in the first person, active, present tense to help him or her get
into the experience because the Child is not oriented to time and space but, rather, to feeling. I think the
Child, which processes experience on the basis of feeling and intuition, can be thought of as part of the
emotional brain as opposed to the cognitive, rational brain (Schore, 2012). The emotional brain is often
referred to as the right brain. It is located in the right hemisphere and processes experience based on
feelings and intuition. The rational brain is often referred to as the left brain. It is located in the left
hemisphere and processes information based on rational thinking (Schore, 2012).

How We Respond to Stimuli in Adult Life

Because these ego states are all interconnected, they tend to function together. If we think about the
Adult, for example, A0 is connected to A1, which is connected to A2, which is connected to A3. It is
as if there are extension cords from one to another. The same is true for the different levels of the
Parent ego state (P0 – P1 – P2 – P3) and the Child (C0 – C1 – C2 – C3) ego state. I see the 0 level as
based on instinct, the 1 level as based on intuition, the 2 level as based on cognition, and the 3 level
as based on what was internalized historically from authority figures. When a stimulus occurs, if
there is information in our Parent for how to handle it, we do that automatically, without having
to think about it. If we do not have the necessary information there, we go to the Adult level and
think about it. If we cannot figure it out there, we go to the Child level and use our intuition. If that
is not successful, we go to basic instinct.

A Word About ‘‘Natural’’ Versus ‘‘Adapted’’

People often confuse structural and functional categories, for example, calling P1 the Adapted Child
or C1 the Natural Child. As I mentioned in a previous article (Joines, 1976), when people are func-
tioning as an Adapted or Natural Child, it is the total structure (P1, A1, and C1) involved, not just one
ego state.

A Nonscript Autonomous Structure

For an example of a nonscript (spontaneous rather than adapted), autonomous structure, see the right
side of Figure 2.
Joines 43

Figure 2. Autonomous Ego State Structure.

The Formation of Ego State Relational Units

At birth, the normal, natural symbiotic relationship between a mother (or father) and child is one in
which all of mother’s ego states are involved in caring for the child (see Figure 3). Mother takes respon-
sibility for the child from her Parent ego state. She thinks about what the child is feeling and needing
from her Adult ego state and problem solves to meet the child’s needs. She also empathically identifies
with the child and delights in the child from her Child ego state. Her caretaking is unconditional.
There are also times when her Child ego state may not be involved, like at 3 AM when the child
needs to be nursed and she would rather sleep. It is necessary at those times for her to be willing to
postpone her needs in order to take care of her offspring. The symbiosis then looks like Figure 4. She
is willing to do that as long as she is taking care of her own needs at other times and has help from
others in doing so.
However, if her needs are not being met at other times, she may feel in competition with her off-
spring about whose needs are going to be met and shift all her energy into her Child ego state. When
that happens, the relationship looks like Figure 5.
44 Transactional Analysis Journal 46(1)

C C

Figure 3. Normal Symbiosis.

C C

Figure 4. Occasionally Necessary Symbiosis.

When this occurs, there is no question about who is going to win this competition because
mother is older and bigger and her infant is younger and smaller. The infant has to adapt his
or her behavior in order to appease mother’s Child ego state. The relationship then looks like
Figure 6.
Once mother’s Child is appeased, she will shift her energy back to her Parent and Adult ego states
and resume meeting the needs of her offspring (Figure 7).
Mother’s caretaking is no longer unconditional and requires her child’s adaptation in order for
her to be willing to give it. This new conditional relationship is comprised of what Little (2006)
and I call Parent-Child ego state relational units. The Parent requires the child’s adaptation in
order to support him or her, and the Child adapts in order to obtain what he or she needs from
the parent to survive. The child then internalizes two different ways of relating: one uncondi-
tional with autonomous behavior and the other conditional with the adapted, symbiotic survival
behavior of the relational units. As shown in Figure 8, the adapted, closed system and symbiotic
functioning of the second-order structure on the left side reflects the internalization of the rela-
tionship depicted in Figure 7. The right side shows the natural, open system and autonomous
functioning of the second-order structure, which is an internalization of the relationship depicted
in Figure 3.
Joines 45

C C

Figure 5. Competitive Symbiosis.

P1

C
P
A1
C1

Figure 6. Adapted Second-Order Symbiosis.

Figure 7. Adapted Conditional Symbiosis.

46 Transactional Analysis Journal 46(1)

Figure 8. The Two Internalized Ways of Relating: Adapted, Symbiotic Relational Units and Autonomous.

The Divided Psyche

These two ways of relating result in a divided psyche. As a therapy client practices autonomous
behavior that goes against his or her script and makes therapeutic gains, at times P1 will consciously
or unconsciously try to scare C1 into going back to the old survival behavior (script) by running the
fantasy that the person’s actual or emotional survival is at stake because that was the person’s orig-
inal experience. At those times, the client is likely to regress. P1 attempts to keep the person safe by
preventing him or her from acting in ways that brought on the original wounding in childhood. As
someone once put it, ‘‘P1 guards the rock in front of the cave where the Natural Child resides’’ (ori-
ginator unknown). P1 locks away the Natural Child to keep it safe. The client is likely to experience
setbacks or reversals in his or her therapeutic progress until this is brought into awareness because it
usually occurs on an unconscious level. The lower the individual’s level of functioning (or the
greater the trauma), the harsher and more punitive P1 becomes because it is defending against what
feels like unbearable emotion. I believe that this phenomenon is what Kalsched (1996) described as
‘‘the psyche’s archetypal self-care system’’ (p. 4). He wrote:

The ‘‘system’’ is archetypal because it is both archaic and typical of psyche’s self-preservation opera-
tions, and because it is developmentally earlier and more primitive than normal ego-defenses. . . . Once
the trauma defense is organized, all relations with the outer world are ‘‘screened’’ by the self-care system.
What was intended to be a defense against further trauma becomes a major resistance to all unguarded
spontaneous expressions of self in the world. . . . The person survives but cannot live creatively. . . . The
resistance thrown up by the self-care system in the treatment of trauma victims is legendary. As early as
Joines 47

1920, Freud was shaken by the extent to which a ‘‘daimonic’’ force in some patients resisted change and
made the usual work of analysis impossible (Freud 1920: 35). So pessimistic was he about this ‘‘repeti-
tion compulsion’’ that he attributed its origin to an instinctive aim in all life toward death (Freud, 1920:
38-41). Subsequently, clinicians working with the victims of trauma or abuse have readily recognized the
‘‘daimonic’’ figure or forces to which Freud alludes. Fairbairn (1981) described it as an ‘‘Internal Sabo-
teur’’ and Guntrip (1969) as the ‘‘anti-libidinal ego’’ attacking the ‘‘libidinal ego.’’ Melanie Klein (1934)
described the child’s fantasies of a cruel, attacking, ‘‘bad breast;’’ Jung (1951) described the ‘‘negative
Animus,’’ and more recently, Jeffrey Seinfeld (1990) has written about an internal structure called simply
the ‘‘Bad Object.’’ (p. 12)

This is the part that says, ‘‘Never again! I will never allow myself to be hurt like that again.’’
Its behavior is often harsh, attacking, and punitive and can be self-traumatizing, even though its
intent is to protect at whatever cost. This brings to mind the military leader in Vietnam who said,
‘‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it’’ (attributed to an unnamed U.S. Major)
(Arnett, 1968, p. 14).
Functionally, the client will experience a division in his or her psyche. The autonomous struc-
ture, led by the Natural Child and motivated by excitement and the desire to evolve, will attempt to
move forward, and the survival structure, led by the Adapted Child and motivated by fear and the
desire to stay safe or survive, holds the person back and acts out the relational units. In redecision
therapy this is referred to as an ‘‘impasse’’ (Goulding, 1974, p. 28; see also Perls, 1969, p. 147).
The positive intent of P1 is often not recognized because it is usually unconscious and causing
additional difficulty in the person’s life. He or she frequently ends up fighting against himself
or herself. The key at that point is to help the client recognize the positive intent of P1 and encour-
age him or her to be emotionally present and protective of his or her Child in the way his or her
parents were not. Then the individual can feel safe and not have to use his or her script relational
units as a substitute way of doing that. The person can instead work with P1 rather than against it in
finding new and better ways in the present of providing safety and protection while, at the same
time, he or she grieves the old losses and recovers his or her Natural Child joy and spontaneity.
For example, I recently had a client who immediately developed an excruciating headache
when she made a significant redecision that went against her script. I asked her to brag for a few
minutes about her new behavior, to congratulate her Child self for the excellent work she had
done, and to reassure her that her grown-up self was here now and would take care of her. Her
headache went away.

Conclusion
From the discoveries of modern neuroscience, we now know that the brain retains its plasticity
throughout life, and as Siegel (1999, 2007) pointed out, new neural pathways—and in my think-
ing, new ego state structures—can be created through new experience. My own experience is con-
sistent with what Schore (2012) suggested, which is that lasting change in psychotherapy results
from working with the emotional brain rather than the cognitive brain. By working experientially,
the emotional brain is accessed and the structure of the script in the relational units can be brought
into awareness and worked through. The client can be assisted in accessing his or her autonomous
structure in its place and in creating new experiences that develop new neural pathways of asso-
ciated responses. These, I believe, create new ego state structures that allow the client to grow and
change and to feel safe at the same time. An important element in this process is helping the client
to appreciate the original survival value of the relational units rather than negatively judging him-
self or herself for having them. In that way, the person can change from a position of OKness that
greatly enhances the process.
48 Transactional Analysis Journal 46(1)

Key for Author Terms and Ego State Abbreviations

First-order structure: The ego states of the grown-up individual, referred to as P2, A2, and C2
Second-order structure: The ego states that exist within the Parent and Child ego states of the
grown-up individual, namely, the ego states of one’s parents and other authority figures that
one dealt with growing up (P3, A3, and C3) and are internalized into one’s Parent ego state,
and the ego states that one developed in childhood between birth and approximately 6 years
of age that are based on intuition and feeling (P1, A1, and C1) and reside within one’s Child
ego state in the present
Script: A person’s life plan, concerning what of significance will happen to him or her in life
based on early decisions in childhood and likely to be unconscious in adult life
Early decision: A plan of action the child decides on in order to try to be okay with his or her
parents and take care of himself or herself; the primary decision on which the script is based
Racket: A familiar unpleasant feeling or feelings that a person seeks out and maintains as a way
of eliciting support from his or her environment
P3: The Parent ego state of one’s parents and other authority figures that one dealt with growing
up
A3: The Adult ego state of one’s parents and other authority figures that one dealt with growing
up
C3: The Child ego state of one’s parents and other authority figures that one dealt with growing
up
P2: The Parent ego state of the grown-up based on logical functioning that nurtures and sets
appropriate limits on the positive side but can overnurture and overcriticize on the negative
side (focused primarily on value judgments)
A2: The Adult ego state of the grown-up based on logical functioning that can aid in decision
making by estimating probabilities (focused on reality)
C2: The Child ego state of the grown-up based on present experience (focused on here-and-now
feelings, wants, and needs)
P1: The Parent ego state that one developed between ages 3 and 6 that is based on magical think-
ing and operates with intuition and feeling (often referred to as the ‘‘Magical Parent’’)
A1: The Adult ego state that one developed between 18 months and 3 years based on intuition
and feeling that is ingenious and creative (often referred to as the ‘‘Little Professor’’)
C1: The Child ego state that exists from conception on that is the original part of the personality
between birth and 6 months and consists of an innate structure that the child is born with,
referred to as P0, A0, and C0, that operates with instinct (often referred to as the ‘‘Infant’’)
P0: The Parent ego state primarily operative from conception to 6 months and that functions on
instinctual programming for how to get needs met
A0: The Adult ego state primarily operative from conception to 6 months and that functions on
instinctual problem solving
C0: The Child ego state primarily operative from conception to 6 months and that functions on
instinctual preferences

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Joines 49

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Arnett, P. (1968, 8 February). Major describes move. New York Times. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Peter_Arnett
Berne, E. (1966). Principles of group treatment. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Goulding, R. (1974). Thinking and feeling in transactional analysis: Three impasses. Voices: The Art and
Science of Psychotherapy, 10, 11–13.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York, NY: Wiley.
Joines, V. (1976). Differentiating structural and functional. Transactional Analysis Journal, 6, 377–380.
Joines, V. S. (1977). An integrated systems perspective. In G. Barnes (Ed.), Transactional analysis after Eric
Berne: Teachings and practices of three TA schools (pp. 257–272). New York, NY: Harper’s College Press.
Kalsched, D. (1996). The inner world of trauma: Archetypal defenses of the personal spirit. London, England:
Routledge.
Little, R. (2006). Ego state relational units and resistance to change. Transactional Analysis Journal, 36, 7–19.
Penfield, W., & Jasper, H. (1954). Epilepsy and the functional anatomy of the human brain (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.
Perls, F. (1969). Gestalt therapy verbatim. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Schiff, J. L. (1981, April). Ego states. Workshop at the Southeast Institute Annual Spring Conference, Raleigh,
NC.
Schore, A. N. (2012). The science of the art of psychotherapy. New York, NY: Norton.
Shatz, C. J. (1992). The developing brain. Scientific American, 267(3), 60–67.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflections and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York,
NY: Norton.
Stewart, I., & Joines, V. (2012). TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis (2nd ed.). Melton
Mowbray, England, and Chapel Hill, NC: Lifespace Publishing.

Author Biography

Vann S. Joines, PhD, is a Teaching and Supervising Transactional Analyst (psychotherapy) and
President and Director of the Southeast Institute for Group and Family Therapy, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, USA, where he divides his time between teaching, training, doing therapy, and windsurf-
ing. He can be reached at Southeast Institute for Group and Family Therapy, 659 Edwards Ridge
Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27517, USA; email: vjoines@seinstitute.com; Web site:
www.seinstitute.com.