Egograms · Atlas

1. Introduction

Version followed: John M. Dusay's intuitive (hand-drawn) egogram as set out in "Egograms and the 'Constancy Hypothesis'" (Transactional Analysis Journal, 1972, 2(3), 37–42; read in an authorised-looking Serbian translation hosted by a TA training site), with the drawing steps as taught in current UK TA training. Dusay's 1977 book Egograms: How I See You and You See Me (Harper & Row) is not drawn on; anything attributed to it below is marked [uncertain]. Questionnaire versions (Tokyo University Egogram, TEG; Heyer's ego-state questionnaire) are noted as variants, not followed.

What it is. The egogram is not a stand-alone therapy. It is an assessment-and-change tool inside transactional analysis (TA): a bar graph with five columns, one per functional ego state (Critical or Controlling Parent, CP; Nurturing Parent, NP; Adult, A; Free Child, FC; Adapted Child, AC). The height of each bar shows how much psychic energy ("cathexis") the person puts out through that ego state: how often and how intensely they act from it. Dusay developed it in the San Francisco TA seminars around Eric Berne. He received the Eric Berne Memorial Scientific Award for it in 1973 and was ITAA president in 1974–75. [source: Dusay 1972; Dusay obituary, SF Chronicle/Legacy 2025]

How change happens. Dusay's constancy hypothesis says total psychic energy is roughly constant. When one ego state gains intensity, another must lose it. So therapy does not have to attack an over-dominant state head-on. Client and therapist pick the under-energised state that matters most for the client's contract and build it up through real activity. The over-dominant state then drops as energy is redistributed. In Dusay's key case, raising a low Nurturing Parent was followed by a fall in a high Adapted Child and by the contract being met. Dusay himself said the hypothesis is approximate, not exact, and likened it to homeostasis; he also noted that the size and direction of the shift cannot be predicted in advance. [source: Dusay 1972; Rossini et al. 2022]

2. Framework

Dusay set out no fixed phases or session count. The egogram is used inside an ordinary TA contract-based treatment, individual or (as in Dusay's practice) group. The sequence below is the one his 1972 cases follow; the phase names and criteria are my structuring [synthesis].

Phase A: Contract and first egogram (usually 1–2 sessions).

Goal: an observable behavioural contract (Dusay's client Pat had a concrete earnings contract), plus a first egogram drawn by the therapist from observation, by the client, and if in a group by members. [source: Dusay 1972]
Move on when: client and therapist agree which columns are highest and lowest. Dusay reports observer and self-drawn egograms agreed closely on the highest and lowest bars. [source: Dusay 1972]

Phase B: Choose the target ego state (1 session).

Goal: pick the least-energised state whose growth would most plausibly serve the contract. For Meri (contract: orgasm), therapist and client agreed her NP was lowest and her AC highest, and chose to build NP. [source: Dusay 1972]
Move on when: the client can name the target state and why it links to the contract [synthesis].

Phase C: Energise the target state (weeks to months).

Goal: regular out-of-session activity that exercises the target state, plus in-session techniques that activate it. Meri's change came about three months after she started a cooking course. Dusay lists Gestalt methods, permission classes, Karpman's Adult technique and chair techniques that encourage the client to energise all five ego states, without giving detail. [source: Dusay 1972]
Move on when: the client and others notice the target state more often in daily life, and the re-drawn egogram shows the shift [synthesis].

Phase D: Re-draw, review, close (1–2 sessions, then follow-up).

Goal: a post-treatment egogram compared with the first, and a check of the contract. Because the size of the shift cannot be predicted, Dusay kept himself available after treatment as protection. He warned that this availability could become a trap that lets the client avoid confronting things in the group. [source: Dusay 1972]
End when: the contract is met and the new profile is stable at follow-up [synthesis].

Format. Paper or whiteboard; in groups, several people draw egograms of the same person and compare. Variant: standardised questionnaires (TEG: 60 items, three response options, percentile norms from Japanese adults; used widely in Japanese psychosomatic medicine). TEG is a licensed instrument; do not reproduce its items. [source: TEG study in treatment-resistant depression, MedCrave JPCPY; Bando, Juniper]

3. Guiding principles

Functional, not structural. The egogram plots observable behaviour (how much each ego state shows), not the inner history of the Parent or Child. Practical meaning: draw from what you see and hear, not from what you infer about childhood. [source: Dusay 1972; Rossini et al. 2022]
Intensity over direction. Egograms show how strongly and how often each state is energised. Game and script diagrams show who does what to whom. Dusay tried and abandoned combining the two diagrams as confusing. Practical meaning: use the egogram alongside game and script analysis, not instead of it, and keep the drawings separate. [source: Dusay 1972]
Constancy hypothesis. Energy shifts between states; it is not created. Practical meaning: expect a drop elsewhere when a state rises, and check what that drop costs. [source: Dusay 1972; mcpt.co.uk]
Build the low state rather than suppress the high one. Dusay's case worked by raising the deficient state. He did not state this as a general rule in 1972. Secondary TA texts attribute it to his 1977 book [uncertain]. Practical meaning: set tasks that add a behaviour, not tasks that forbid one. [source: Dusay 1972]
Intuition first, checked against others. Dusay said egogram judgements start intuitively because only partial objective criteria exist, and he checked them against other observers' drawings. Practical meaning: always compare at least two views, the client's and yours. [source: Dusay 1972]
Shared, transparent drawing. Clients draw their own egogram and compare it with the therapist's or the group's ("show me yours, I'll show you mine"). Practical meaning: the egogram is made with the client, not handed down to them. [source: Dusay 1972]
Tie everything to the contract. The target state is chosen because it serves the client's stated change. Practical meaning: no "balanced profile" goal for its own sake. [source: Dusay 1972]
No ideal shape. Neither Dusay nor the TA trainers consulted label any single profile as healthy. Practical meaning: judge a profile by whether it fits the person's goals and situations. A very tall single bar suggests a narrow range of responses. [source: Dusay 1972; mcpt.co.uk] [uncertain: the "narrow range" reading comes from a secondary, non-clinical source]
Activity outside therapy counts. Meri's change came from a cooking course, not from in-session catharsis. Gestalt, encounter and massage work had not moved her Free Child. Practical meaning: prescribe real-life practice that exercises the target state. [source: Dusay 1972]
Protection after change. Shifts are unpredictable. Practical meaning: plan follow-up contact, and watch that it does not become a way to avoid doing the work. [source: Dusay 1972]
Some deficits are not psychological. Dusay argued that starvation or severe cultural deprivation lower energy directly, and that psychotherapy cannot repair them; cultural or social enrichment can. Practical meaning: address material and social conditions before or alongside egogram work. [source: Dusay 1972]

4. Intervention inventory

Dusay's 1972 paper describes procedures through case material, not as a manual. Each entry says what is sourced and what is my operationalisation. Twelve procedures in all.

4.1 Therapist's intuitive egogram

Purpose / when: At intake or early in treatment, to get a working picture of which ego states the client energises most and least. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Watch the client across at least one full session, or in a group, before you draw. (2) Draw a baseline and five columns, labelled CP, NP, A, FC, AC (Dusay's 1972 label for the first column translates as "Prejudicial Parent"; later usage is Critical or Controlling Parent). (3) Draw the column you saw most often and most intensely first, as the tallest. (4) Draw the least-seen state as the shortest. (5) Place the other three relative to those two. (6) Treat the result as a hypothesis to check with the client (4.2, 4.3). [source: Dusay 1972; mcpt.co.uk] Steps 1 and 6 are [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "I've made a rough sketch of how I see your energy going out. I'd like to compare it with yours before I say anything about it."
Watch for: Drawing from content (what the client talks about) rather than from how they behave. Your own reaction to the client (for example, being on the receiving end of a lot of CP) inflating one bar. Dusay noted that an observer who barely knew the subject drew a less accurate egogram. [source: Dusay 1972]

4.2 Client's self-drawn egogram

Purpose / when: Early in treatment, to build self-observation and a shared language; repeat at reviews. [source: Dusay 1972; mcpt.co.uk]
Steps: (1) Briefly describe the five functional ego states in everyday terms (see 4.4). (2) Ask the client to think of themselves at a specific time, such as a typical working week or a past period. (3) They draw their most-energised state as the tallest column. (4) Then the least-energised as the shortest. (5) Then the rest in proportion. (6) Ask what they notice, without interpreting yet. [source: mcpt.co.uk; Dusay 1972] Steps 1 and 6 are [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Think about how you were at work last month. Which part of you was out the most, which hardly showed? Draw the biggest first."
Watch for: Clients drawing their ideal rather than their actual self. Dusay noted that the egogram grew partly out of clients describing both how they saw themselves and how they wanted to be. You can ask for both, on separate sheets. [source: Rossini et al. 2022, describing Dusay's origins] [synthesis: the two-sheet split]

4.3 Comparing egograms: "show me yours, I'll show you mine"

Purpose / when: After 4.1 and 4.2, to check the picture and to give feedback in a form the client can hear. Dusay reports this comparison move worked with every client he used it with. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Client and therapist (or group members) draw independently, not looking at each other's. (2) Put the drawings side by side. (3) Compare the highest and lowest columns first; Dusay found observers agreed most on these. (4) Explore the gaps: ask the client for examples, and give your own observed examples. (5) Agree a working egogram. [source: Dusay 1972] Steps 4 and 5 are [synthesis].
Group variant: In Dusay's demonstration with Berne's seminar, six volunteers each had their egogram drawn on a board by fifteen observers and by themselves; the high and low columns matched almost completely. In a therapy group, two to four members can draw for each person. [source: Dusay 1972] Group size is [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "We both put your Adapted Child highest. Where we differ is the Free Child: you drew it tiny, I drew it medium. When did I see it, do you think?"
Watch for: Feedback turning into a group game of criticism. Insist each drawing is framed as "how I see you", backed by an observed example. [synthesis]

4.4 Behavioural cues for rating each column

Purpose / when: Gives client and therapist concrete evidence for bar heights. Dusay's 1972 paper offers no cue lists. The descriptions below come from TA training material and follow Berne's behavioural diagnosis. [source: mcpt.co.uk] [uncertain: not checked against Dusay 1977]
Cues: CP: firm, critical, dogmatic tone; many "should"s; rule-stating. NP: caring, protecting, comforting. A: measured, clear, fact-gathering, problem-solving. FC: spontaneous feeling, curiosity, play, uncensored laughter or anger. AC: compliance (polite automatic thanks while holding back other feelings) and its flip side, token rebellion. [source: mcpt.co.uk; TEG study, MedCrave]
Steps: Have the client note one real example per column from the past week before drawing or re-drawing. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Give me one moment this week when your Nurturing Parent was out. What did you say, and how did your voice sound?"
Watch for: Treating any column as purely good or bad. Each can be used well or badly. A high CP can mean healthy limits or harshness. [synthesis]

4.5 Two-point egograms (then and now)

Purpose / when: To show change over time, or how the person functioned in an earlier life period compared with now. In the Schiff-family case Dusay describes, one member drew one egogram of how he was when he came into the family and another of his current functioning. The difference matched a change others had seen in his thinking, and the family agreed with it. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Ask for an egogram of a named earlier period. (2) Ask for one of now. (3) Compare which bars rose and which fell. (4) Link the changes to what happened in between. [source: Dusay 1972] Step 4 is [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Draw yourself the year you started this job, then yourself today. What grew? What shrank to make room?"
Watch for: Grief or shame when a valued state has shrunk. Name the shift as energy moving, not something lost for good. [synthesis]

4.6 Choosing the target ego state

Purpose / when: After an agreed working egogram (4.3), to focus change work. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Restate the contract. (2) Look at the lowest columns. (3) Ask together which low state, if raised, would most plausibly help the contract happen. With Meri, building the low NP served the contract better than working on the high AC directly. (4) Predict which high column should fall as a result. (5) Write the target into the treatment plan. [source: Dusay 1972] Steps 1, 4 and 5 are [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Your Adapted Child is carrying most of the load. Instead of fighting it, which of these short bars would you like to grow?"
Watch for: Choosing a target the client feels they should raise, which is itself an Adapted Child move. Check that the client really wants it. [synthesis]

4.7 Energising the low state through real-life activity

Purpose / when: The main change method once a target is chosen (4.6). Meri enrolled in a cooking course, which exercised nurturing. She resisted at first, then became absorbed, and eventually became an accomplished cook. About three months later her contract was met and her egogram showed a strong Nurturing Parent. [source: Dusay 1972] Secondary sources say Dusay's 1977 book makes "increase the low state rather than decrease the high one" an explicit rule, with practice suggestions for each state; This is [uncertain].
Steps: (1) Ask the client to brainstorm everyday activities that need the target state. (2) Pick one with a regular schedule and some outside structure (a course, a club, a care role). (3) Agree how often they will do it. (4) Expect and normalise early reluctance. (5) Review weekly and log examples of the target state showing up in other settings. [source: Dusay 1972 for 1, 2 and 4 by example] Steps 3 and 5 are [synthesis].
Starter ideas per state ([synthesis], my own, not Dusay's list): CP: state a preference or a limit once a day; say no to one request. NP: take on a regular caring task (a person, an animal, a plant, cooking for others); give one sincere compliment a day. A: gather facts before a decision; keep a short decision log; ask "what are the data?" FC: a scheduled play activity (dance, sport, music, art) done for its own sake; notice and voice one want a day. AC: practise everyday courtesies, take turns, follow an agreed plan through. Pick activities that fit the client's culture and resources, without specific performance targets.
Example language (illustrative): "Nurturing is a muscle. What's something you could do every week that makes you look after someone or something?"
Watch for: The activity turning into another performance for approval (AC). Check whether it feels freely chosen. Working signs: unprompted examples of the target state in new settings; others commenting on the change; movement towards the contract. [synthesis]

4.8 In-session ego-state activation

Purpose / when: To give the client live experience of the target state. Dusay lists Gestalt methods, permission classes, Karpman's Adult technique and Stuntz's chair techniques that encourage energising all five ego states. He gives no procedure, and Karpman's and Stuntz's originals are not drawn on [uncertain].
Steps ([synthesis], generic multi-chair procedure, not Dusay's or Stuntz's text): (1) Set out five chairs, one per functional state, and label them. (2) Ask the client to sit in each in turn and speak about a current problem from that state. (3) Coach voice, posture and words until the state is clearly there. (4) Spend longest in the target state's chair. (5) Back in their own seat, the client reflects (Adult) on what was new.
Example language (illustrative): "Sit in the Free Child chair. Forget being sensible for a minute: what do you want here?"
Watch for: Dusay notes that Gestalt, encounter and massage work had not helped Meri's Free Child. In-session work may not carry over by itself, so pair it with 4.7. [source: Dusay 1972] Stop chair work if the client becomes overwhelmed or dissociated (see 5). [synthesis]

4.9 Constancy check: tracking the compensating drop

Purpose / when: Each review during change work. Because energy is redistributed, a rise in one state means a drop elsewhere, and Dusay says the amount and direction cannot be predicted. [source: Dusay 1972; Rossini et al. 2022]
Steps: (1) Re-draw the egogram (4.2, with the therapist's view as in 4.3). (2) Find which bar or bars fell. (3) Ask whether the fall is welcome (for example AC dropping) or costly (for example FC or A dropping). (4) If costly, adjust the activities or add a second target. [synthesis built on the Dusay 1972 hypothesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Your Critical Parent is up, which you wanted. Something made room for it. Is it your Adapted Child, or has your playful side gone too?"
Watch for: A newly cooperative but joyless client (AC up, FC down) is a recognised pattern. [source: jobcannon.io blog, secondary] [uncertain]

4.10 Post-treatment egogram and protective follow-up

Purpose / when: At the end of treatment, to confirm the change and give protection while the new balance settles. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Draw the end-of-treatment egogram, both client and therapist. (2) Put it next to the first one. (3) Link the changed bars to the contract outcome. (4) Agree how the client can reach you after ending, and on what terms. [source: Dusay 1972] Step 4's terms are [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Here's where you started, and here's now. If things tip in a way that worries you, here's how to get back in touch."
Watch for: Dusay warned that open availability can become a trap: the client fires off a hit and then leaves instead of facing confrontation in the group. Make follow-up time-limited and contract-based. [source: Dusay 1972]

4.11 Questionnaire-based egograms (variant)

Purpose / when: When you need a standardised, repeatable measure (research, medical settings, monitoring), or when intuitive drawing is not practical. Main versions: Heyer's ego-state questionnaire (TAJ); the Tokyo University Egogram (TEG; 60 items, yes / no / in-between, percentile norms, scores at or below the 5th or at or above the 95th percentile treated as outliers); a Brazilian six-state inventory (Rossini et al.). [source: TEG study, MedCrave; Rossini et al. 2022] [uncertain: Heyer is cited as 1972 in one source but in TAJ volume 9, which suggests 1979]
Steps: (1) Use only a licensed or published version, and do not copy items into your own forms. (2) Score by the manual. (3) Turn the scores into a bar profile. (4) Discuss it with the client exactly as in 4.3, treating it as one view among others. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "This questionnaire puts your Free Child quite low compared with most people. Does that match your sense of yourself?"
Watch for: Population norms do not equal a treatment goal. The TEG study notes there is no standard normal range per state. [source: TEG study, MedCrave] In Japan, cognitive-behavioural work is commonly planned from TEG profiles [source: MedCrave]; details are [uncertain].

4.12 Using the egogram alongside games and script analysis

Purpose / when: Throughout treatment. Games and script diagrams show who does what to whom; the egogram adds how intensely each state is energised. Dusay compared the two to the anatomy and the physiology of the heart. [source: Dusay 1972]
Steps: (1) Analyse the client's main game (Meri's was a version of "do something for me"). (2) Note which ego states carry the game. (3) Check whether the egogram explains why script insight alone has not delivered the contract (with Meri it had not). (4) Keep the diagrams on separate sheets. [source: Dusay 1972]
Example language (illustrative): "We understand the game well. The egogram suggests why it keeps running: there's very little Nurturing Parent energy available to you."
Watch for: Drawing game arrows on the egogram. Dusay found the combined diagrams confusing and dropped them. [source: Dusay 1972]

5. Handling problems

Dusay's 1972 paper deals with three of the problems below: resistance to the assigned activity, unpredictable shifts, and dependence after ending. Everything else is my own synthesis, marked [synthesis].

Resistance to the energising activity. Meri resisted the cooking course at first and then became absorbed in it. Response: predict reluctance in advance. Keep the client in the activity long enough to get past the first weeks. Make it smaller rather than drop it. [source: Dusay 1972]
Stuck: insight without change. Meri understood her script well but her contract was not met. Response: stop adding insight. Re-draw the egogram, pick the low state that serves the contract, and switch to activity (4.6–4.7). [source: Dusay 1972]
Stuck: in-session techniques do not carry over. Gestalt, encounter and massage work had not moved Meri's Free Child. Response: change the route to outside, structured, repeated activity rather than adding more cathartic work. [source: Dusay 1972]
Unwanted compensating drop (for example FC or A falls as CP rises). Response: run the constancy check (4.9); add a second target or rebalance the activities. Dusay says the size and direction of shifts cannot be predicted, so check often. [source: Dusay 1972] Checking schedule [synthesis].
Dependence after ending / "hit and run". Response: time-limited, contract-based follow-up. If the client brings a confrontation to follow-up and then leaves, name the pattern and steer it back to the group or a new contract. [source: Dusay 1972] Wording [synthesis].
Client disputes the therapist's or group's egogram. Response: treat the difference as data. Ask for concrete behavioural examples on both sides (4.3, 4.4). Agree a working version or keep two versions side by side. Do not insist on your own. [synthesis]
Feedback rupture in groups (an egogram used as a weapon, or felt as a verdict). Response: stop and repair. Restate the frame of "how I see you, with an example". Invite the person drawn to say what landed badly. Let a hurt client redraw the group's view of them. [synthesis]
Adapted Child compliance with the exercise (doing the homework to please you). Response: ask what the client wants for themselves. Let them choose or redesign the activity. A refused task can itself be welcomed as a bit of Free Child or Critical Parent showing. [synthesis]
Non-adherence. Response: shrink the task and tie it to an existing routine. Check whether the target was the client's choice or yours (4.6). Consider whether low energy reflects depression or material deprivation. [synthesis; deprivation point from Dusay 1972]
Overwhelm or dissociation during chair work (especially Free Child or Critical Parent work with trauma survivors). Response: stop, ground in the present (Adult questions about the room, time, breathing), and return to drawing-only work. Re-contract before resuming. [synthesis]
Depression and suicide risk. Dusay linked depression to strong Adapted Child tension with weak Parent and Adult energy. [source: Dusay 1972] Response: a profile is not a risk assessment. Assess suicide risk in the standard way whenever low mood, hopelessness or self-harm appear. Include safety planning and lethal-means counselling (safe storage or removal), and refer for medical review where indicated. [synthesis]
Substances and medication. Dusay noted that drugs, including alcohol, opioids and antipsychotic medication, alter which states are energised. [source: Dusay 1972] Response: record current substance use and medication when you draw the egogram. Expect egograms drawn while the client is intoxicated, or after a medication change, to be unrepresentative. Do not give medication advice; liaise with the prescriber. [synthesis]
Deprivation and social adversity. Dusay argued that starvation and severe cultural deprivation lower energy directly and are beyond psychotherapy. [source: Dusay 1972] Response: address practical needs (food, housing, community resources) first or in parallel; do not treat a flat egogram as purely a psychological deficit. [synthesis]
Cultural mismatch. Japanese TEG data show NP as typically prominent, and norms differ by culture. Response: interpret bar heights against the client's own context and goals, not against Western or Japanese norms. [source: asploro.com] [synthesis]
Over-reliance on questionnaire profiles. Response: TEG and similar scores do not define a normal range for each state. Use them alongside drawn, discussed egograms. [source: TEG study, MedCrave]

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on) [uncertain where relied on]:

Dusay, J. M. (1977). Egograms: How I See You and You See Me. Harper & Row.
Dusay, J. M. (1972). Egograms and the "constancy hypothesis". Transactional Analysis Journal, 2(3), 37–42 (English original; read via the translation above).
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. Grove Press.
Heyer, N. R. Development of a questionnaire to measure ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 9(1) (year given as 1972 in one source; the volume number suggests 1979).
Ikemi, Y., & Sugita, M. (1975). The Oriental version of transactional analysis. Psychosomatics, 16(4), 164–170.
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University of Tokyo (1995). Egogram Pattern, New Edition. Kaneko Shobo.
Kuboki, T., et al. (1993). Multidimensional assessment of mental state in occupational health care (TEG, TSS, POMS). Environmental Research, 61(2), 285–298.

← Previous · III-054Classical transactional analysis Next · III-056 →Radical psychiatry and emotional literacy