Where the questions
come from.
Every statement is linked to its intended conceptual basis. The questionnaire remains an original adaptation.
Are these Stewart and Joines’ questions?
No. The 36 statements, response choices and scoring were authored for this app. They adapt everyday behavioural distinctions discussed by Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–29; see also 2012, ch. 3). They are not quotations, a reproduction of their exercises, or a validated Stewart–Joines questionnaire.
The 2012 reference is the second edition of TA today, a book. Functional analysis begins on p. 23; Adult and egograms on p. 28. The detailed distinctions below were checked in the 1987 edition. Berne and Dusay are cited for theoretical origins, not authorship of these statements.
All 36 questions
Q numbers match the questionnaire and chart labels. This mapping states the intended reading of an app-authored item; it does not prove that the item measures the proposed construct.
| Item | Original app statement | Aspect | Related concept | Theoretical source | Personalised chart label |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | I set a clear boundary when someone’s behaviour could cause harm. | CP+ | Protective direction that respects the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Controlling/Nurturing Parent section begins p. 27 | Protective boundaries |
| Q2 | I call someone selfish, stupid or careless instead of talking about what happened. | CP− | Direction involving discounting or putting down the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Personal criticism |
| Q3 | I ask a friend or family member whether they would like help before stepping in. | NP+ | Care that respects the person receiving it | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Asking before helping |
| Q4 | I do something for someone that they could do themselves because I assume they will struggle. | NP− | Care from a one-up position that discounts capability | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Assuming incapability |
| Q5 | When something upsets me, I check what happened before deciding what it means. | Adult | Responding to the present with grown-up resources | Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Adult section begins p. 28 | Checking what happened |
| Q6 | I let myself laugh, play or be silly when the situation allows it. | FC+ | Spontaneous expression with constructive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; Child section begins p. 24 | Play and laughter |
| Q7 | I do something on impulse even when I can see it may hurt me or someone else. | FC− | Spontaneous expression with harmful or unproductive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Harmful impulses |
| Q8 | I follow a sensible shared rule, such as taking turns, without giving up my judgement. | AC+ | Adaptation that remains useful in the present | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Sensible rule-following |
| Q9 | I say yes to a friend or family member when I want to say no because I fear their reaction. | AC− | Adaptation, including reactive rebellion, that limits present choice | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Approval-driven yes |
| Q10 | I say what is acceptable without insulting the other person. | CP+ | Protective direction that respects the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Controlling/Nurturing Parent section begins p. 27 | Respectful limits |
| Q11 | I raise my voice to make someone do what I want. | CP− | Direction involving discounting or putting down the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Pressuring with volume |
| Q12 | I listen and offer comfort when someone close to me is upset. | NP+ | Care that respects the person receiving it | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Offering comfort |
| Q13 | I step in to help even after someone says they do not need it. | NP− | Care from a one-up position that discounts capability | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Unwanted helping |
| Q14 | I change my mind when I discover that my first impression was wrong. | Adult | Responding to the present with grown-up resources | Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Adult section begins p. 28 | Revising first impressions |
| Q15 | I try a creative activity for the pleasure of doing it. | FC+ | Spontaneous expression with constructive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; Child section begins p. 24 | Creative enjoyment |
| Q16 | I keep doing something enjoyable while ignoring something important I need to attend to. | FC− | Spontaneous expression with harmful or unproductive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Neglecting important needs |
| Q17 | I adjust a plan with a friend or partner so it works for both of us. | AC+ | Adaptation that remains useful in the present | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Mutual compromise |
| Q18 | I hide what I need to avoid upsetting someone. | AC− | Adaptation, including reactive rebellion, that limits present choice | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Hiding your needs |
| Q19 | I speak firmly when someone needs protection. | CP+ | Protective direction that respects the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Controlling/Nurturing Parent section begins p. 27 | Protecting others |
| Q20 | I dismiss a loved one’s view because I think I know best. | CP− | Direction involving discounting or putting down the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Dismissing loved ones |
| Q21 | I encourage someone to try for themselves while letting them know I am there. | NP+ | Care that respects the person receiving it | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Encouraging independence |
| Q22 | I treat someone close to me as though they cannot manage without me. | NP− | Care from a one-up position that discounts capability | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Creating dependence |
| Q23 | I consider what is possible now rather than automatically repeating an old response. | Adult | Responding to the present with grown-up resources | Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Adult section begins p. 28 | Present-focused choices |
| Q24 | I show excitement about something I enjoy while respecting those around me. | FC+ | Spontaneous expression with constructive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; Child section begins p. 24 | Sharing excitement |
| Q25 | I express my excitement or frustration in a way that crosses another person’s boundaries. | FC− | Spontaneous expression with harmful or unproductive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Crossing boundaries |
| Q26 | I accept useful guidance while still thinking for myself. | AC+ | Adaptation that remains useful in the present | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Accepting useful guidance |
| Q27 | I refuse a suggestion mainly because I dislike being told what to do. | AC− | Adaptation, including reactive rebellion, that limits present choice | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Reactive refusal |
| Q28 | I explain a limit while recognising the other person’s dignity. | CP+ | Protective direction that respects the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Controlling/Nurturing Parent section begins p. 27 | Firmness with dignity |
| Q29 | I speak to someone as though they are beneath me when they disappoint me. | CP− | Direction involving discounting or putting down the other person | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Talking down |
| Q30 | I care for someone without deciding their choices for them. | NP+ | Care that respects the person receiving it | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Care without control |
| Q31 | I try to prevent every difficulty for someone instead of allowing them to learn. | NP− | Care from a one-up position that discounts capability | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 25–26); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 27 | Overprotection |
| Q32 | I notice my feelings and consider my options before making an everyday choice. | Adult | Responding to the present with grown-up resources | Stewart and Joines (1987, p. 26); see also 2012, ch. 3; Adult section begins p. 28 | Feelings and options |
| Q33 | I express affection or delight spontaneously when it is welcome. | FC+ | Spontaneous expression with constructive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; Child section begins p. 24 | Spontaneous affection |
| Q34 | I take a needless risk because I want the thrill of it. | FC− | Spontaneous expression with harmful or unproductive consequences | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 23–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Needless risk |
| Q35 | I respect an agreement that helps me get along with others. | AC+ | Adaptation that remains useful in the present | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Honouring agreements |
| Q36 | I keep following an old expectation even when it no longer fits my life. | AC− | Adaptation, including reactive rebellion, that limits present choice | Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–24); see also 2012, ch. 3; section begins p. 24 | Outdated expectations |
Scoring, drawing and labels
Four equally weighted statements produce each aspect average. Constructive and limiting aspects each contribute half their average to the category’s total span; Adult uses its unsplit average. Both layouts use the same lengths. These are app-authored descriptive choices, not formulas specified by Berne, Dusay or Stewart and Joines.
The graph previews one highest-answered item at Sometimes or above per aspect, with question order resolving ties. A tooltip contains up to two selected labels. This selection is not a diagnostic threshold. When all responses are identical, the app identifies a uniform response pattern instead of ranking the categories.
Intuitive self-drawing has a basis in Stewart and Joines’ exercise (1987, pp. 26–29). The prominence and balance sliders are this app’s controls. A drawing is identified separately from a question-derived profile; personal revisions retain the original answers in the record.
Exact calculations and workspace guide · Why Adult is centred and how the weights match.
Proposed Adult influence visual
The small Parent–Adult–Child bar uses the egogram’s same aspect averages. Parent positive and limiting areas average CP with NP; Child areas average FC with AC; Adult remains unsplit. Areas are then scaled together to show relative response patterns. “Positive contamination” is Steve Spittle’s proposed interpretation. The questionnaire can point to related responses but cannot establish that Parent or Child material has contaminated Adult functioning.
Stewart and Joines describe contamination as Parent or Child material being mistaken for Adult reality-testing (1987, pp. 50–51). Temple (2002) discusses theoretical links between structural ego states and functional modes; that conceptual connection does not validate this app’s mapping. Endorsement labels (“Consistently endorsed”, “Mixed responses”, “Little endorsement”) describe responses to the related items only. They are not diagnostic evidence or statistical confidence.
Evidence and boundaries
Conceptual mapping does not establish reliability, factor structure, equivalence across contexts or identification of inner ego states. The questionnaire has no norm group or validation study. Averaging ordinal response codes assumes equal spacing for this descriptive exercise.
Testing the display should examine understanding of the baseline, combined category spans and unsplit Adult. Testing the questionnaire is a separate task involving wording, response processes, reliability and construct validity. Similar-looking behaviour can have different meanings in different contexts.
The Adult influence bar is a speculative visual derived from egogram areas, not a test or established extension of Berne’s contamination concept. References to Temple, Berne’s autonomy and Cook’s connection proposal document related conceptual discussion; the app does not score Functional Fluency, autonomy or homonomy.
References
Harvard author–date style. These sources support the concepts indicated, not validation of this questionnaire or visualisation.
Berne, E. (1957) ‘Ego states in psychotherapy’, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 11(2), pp. 293–309. doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1957.11.2.293.
Berne, E. (1961) Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematic individual and social psychiatry. New York: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1964) Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. New York: Grove Press.
Cook, R. (2022) ‘Connection, hungers, and time structuring: A relational, inclusive, and transpersonal development of autonomy’, Transactional Analysis Journal, 52(4), pp. 279–294. doi:10.1080/03621537.2022.2115641.
Dusay, J.M. (1972) ‘Egograms and the “constancy hypothesis”’, Transactional Analysis Journal, 2(3), pp. 37–41. doi:10.1177/036215377200200313.
Functional Fluency International (2022) FFI starter pack. Available at: functionalfluency.com (Accessed: 12 October 2026).
Heiberger, R.M. and Robbins, N.B. (2014) ‘Design of diverging stacked bar charts for Likert scales and other applications’, Journal of Statistical Software, 57(5), pp. 1–32. doi:10.18637/jss.v057.i05.
Stewart, I. and Joines, V. (1987) TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis. Nottingham and Chapel Hill: Lifespace Publishing.
Stewart, I. and Joines, V. (2012) TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis. 2nd edn. Melton Mowbray and Chapel Hill: Lifespace Publishing. Second-edition contents and introduction.
Temple, S. (2004) ‘Update on the functional fluency model in education’, Transactional Analysis Journal, 34(3), pp. 197–204. doi:10.1177/036215370403400302.
Temple, S.F. (2002) The development of a transactional analysis psychometric tool for enhancing functional fluency. PhD thesis. University of Plymouth. Available at: University of Plymouth Research Portal.
Source verification: detailed functional distinctions and intuitive drawing were checked in Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 22–29). The 2012 contents confirm functional analysis begins on p. 23, Adult and egograms on p. 28, and the distinction between functional behaviour and thinking/feeling on p. 31; the full 2012 chapter has not been checked. Berne’s autonomy passages were checked in Games people play (1964, pp. 178–180). Temple’s 2004 publication is referenced for its model; practical mode descriptions are paraphrases informed by FFI (2022). Cook’s specific proposal was verified in the published abstract, not by a full-text reading. Page numbers are not transferred between editions.