Psychologists who, under the guise of research, amuse themselves by observing the behavior of mice and try to draw useful conclusions in comparison to human behavior sometimes discover interesting things.

The Hunger for Stimuli: What Mice Teach Us About Humans

A classic experiment involves raising three groups of mice under identical housing and feeding conditions, but with very different behaviors:
– With the first group (A), the researchers act “gentle” and “kind,” petting them and talking to them;
– with the second group (B), they act “rude” and aggressive, hitting them from time to time;
– with the third group (C), they avoid any contact. The mice are fed via an automatic feeder.
The purpose of the study is to determine whether, after a certain period of time, differences can be identified among the mice in terms of health status, given the type of treatment they received.
As one might easily imagine, the mice in group (A) are the ones feeling better; but which ones are feeling worse?
Contrary to expectations, after a few months, the health of the mice that had no contact with the researchers is worse than that of the mice that were mistreated.
Why?
Since external stimuli—preferably positive ones—are essential for all living beings to maintain a healthy psychophysical balance, if the prospect of receiving positive stimuli proves difficult or impossible—due to specific circumstances—we are willing to accept and even seek out negative stimuli (or “psychological blows”). The parallel with food is very similar: of course, we all prefer what is good and what we like, but if we are starving, we are willing to eat anything, more or less edible.
This discovery underlies a series of mechanisms and behaviors that would otherwise be incomprehensible and that will be of fundamental importance for understanding “games.”
But let’s take it slowly.

Psychological Calories: Understanding “Strokes”

Transactional analysis (which we discussed in the last issue) defines any type of interaction between human beings as a “stroke”—an English word that has no direct equivalent in Romanian and which means both a blow and a caress. Let’s say that a compliment, a greeting, or a kiss are positive “strokes,” while an insult or a slap are negative “strokes” (if we want to continue the food analogy, we could say that a “stroke” is equivalent to a “psychological calorie”).
Eric Berne, in his final work, wrote that for most of us, life is nothing more than a continuous search for “strokes,” and the entire social framework is nothing more than a means to organize their production and distribution.

The 6 Modes of Time Management

In our research on strokes, Transactional Analysis (TA) identifies six modes of time management, all (except the first) intended for the exchange of social interactions.

1. Isolation
It represents a lack of contact with others, characterized, of course, by the absence of interactions. There is nothing negative about it if it represents a moment of “relaxation” taken on one’s own initiative.

2. Rituals
These are approach maneuvers that do not represent actual transactions, but are a way to test the waters (“Hi! How are you? – Thanks, I’m fine. And you?”) and to gauge the other person’s openness to deeper contact.

3. Pastimes
Beautiful day, isn’t it?
Of course, not like last week, when it rained the whole time.
Anyway, they said on the radio that it’ll keep up until Sunday…

Conversations of this kind—which may concern the weather, vacations, entertainment, fashion, or sports—can last much longer than rituals, thus allowing for a more substantial exchange of “strokes,” but they usually do not convey real information and are not dangerous, as long as you never truly get involved (despite the apparent intensity of discussions about sports or politics—discussions that can end with a blow—these rarely call into question the value of the other person as a person, thus rarely leaving the “psychological wounds” we find in “games”). They serve primarily to select the people with whom you will engage in the transactions that involve you the most.

4. Activities
This definition applies to all actions aimed at a specific goal: preparing a meal, engaging in conversation to obtain information (other than for leisure), writing a letter, and, above all, working with others. Even recreational activities fall into this category.

5. Intimacy 
This is the type of exchange that is frank, sincere, and authentic. It is, of course, the most rewarding but also, because it involves “letting your guard down,” the riskiest, requiring maturity and trust in oneself and in others (OK–OK, as we will see later).

6. Psychological games
Eric Berne devoted an entire book (“Games People Play”) to these “games,” which are not at all entertaining and serve to manipulate us into seeking “strokes”—in this case, negative ones. A psychological game consists of a series of standardized transactions in which the participants unconsciously slip into (it’s clear that no one plays these roles deliberately!) the roles of Persecutor, Victim, or Rescuer. The transactions are almost all hidden and ambiguous, which makes them difficult to understand.
In the last issue, I promised that in this article I would discuss “psychological games” from the perspective of Transactional Analysis and how they influence every type of contact or communication—whether commercial or not—between human beings and between social entities. But to gain an understanding that will truly help you with the mechanisms at your disposal, a series of theoretical premises is still necessary; without them, there is a real risk of oversimplification. So let’s delve deeper into some concepts and leave the analysis of “games” for the next issue.

*************************************

We have seen that various components—which we have termed Adult, Parent, and Child—are at work within every person, and that in every social contact (or transaction) these components interact at various levels.
Often, however, states of the self do not manifest clearly, but rather involve overlaps or exclusions that make it necessary to learn how to recognize them. Before delving deeper into the discussion of transactions, let’s look at some new aspects of the state of the self.

Contamination

The Adult Contaminated by the Parent
The impression is one of clear and correct logic, but the assumptions are prejudices and a priori assertions.
The hidden goal is to reinforce the parental clichés that were previously passed on to them.

The apparent adult:
– reflection
– logic
– openness to dialogue

The hidden parent:
– principles
– norms
– a priori assertions
– prejudices.

The Adult Contaminated by the Child
The speech is rational, impartial, and objective, yet it also conveys personal emotions and impressions.

The apparent adult:
– objectivity
– impartiality
– open-mindedness
– rationality.
The hidden child:
– enthusiasm
– spontaneity
– feelings
– impressions.

The Adult Contaminated by the Parent and the Child
Behind the apparent adult, the person behaves simultaneously as both Parent and Child.
The apparent adult:
– reason
The hidden Parent:
– prejudices
The hidden child:
– spontaneity.

Exclusion

Exclusion occurs when one of the three states of the self is never present in the subject, who thus exhibits only two of the three states of the self. If a person were to use only one state, this would constitute a genuine personality disorder.
Exclusion of the Parent state:
– absence of principles
– lack of respect for rules
– absence of a moral sense.
The person proves to be childish, and their behavior is uncontrollable. They take refuge in social and cultural stereotypes.
Exclusion of the Child state:
– absence of emotions
– absolute insensitivity
– absence of emotional reactions to external events.
This person is tough and strict, and their actions are guided solely by reason.

Types of Relationships

Let’s take a closer look at the various types of transactions:

Complementary (or simple) transactions
A complementary transaction occurs when the sender receives the information they expected.
A: Put on your helmet when you enter the facility.
B: Yes, boss!
(Nurturing Parent – Adapted Child)
A: Damn it, I got the measurements wrong again!
B: Why aren’t you paying a little more attention to what you’re doing?
(The submissive child – The controlling parent)

Cross Transactions
A cross-transaction occurs when the state of self requested by one person does not manifest but is replaced by another state from which a response was not expected.
A: Shall we go get some coffee? (Child – Child)
B: But do you realize how much more work we have to do? (Parent – Child)

Subsequent Transactions
A subsequent transaction conceals a double message beneath a clear and unambiguous appearance. The main objective is manipulation.
A: This is probably very expensive for you. (Actually: You don’t really look like you can afford this item – Parent).
B: I’m getting it anyway. (Actually: Oh yeah? Just you wait, I’ll show you—The Rebellious Child).

Life Positions

Let’s take a quick detour to discuss another fundamental concept of Transactional Analysis. If we define (in American style!)
the “OK” position as feeling good in one’s own skin, being independent and accommodating, then the “non-OK” position would be that of someone who feels defeated, timid, and not up to the task.
In our interactions with others, we therefore have four possible relationships:

I’m OK – You’re OK
This is the winners’ stance: I can feel good without denying the person next to me the same right. It is the stance that enables productive relationships, the achievement of common goals, cooperation, and synergy.

I’m not OK – You’re OK
This is the submissive position, that of someone who feels the need to cling to others and who needs someone to tell them what to do. Their participation in interactions is exclusively in the role of Victim.

I’m OK – You’re Not OK
This is the arrogant stance: I am always right; if something goes wrong, it is always someone else’s fault. The goal of these interactions is to belittle the other person. This stance is extremely common among bureaucrats and the countless petty dictators we encounter every day in organizations large and small. When participating in these games, one can take on the role of the Persecutor or the Rescuer.

I’m Not OK – You’re Not OK
This is the passive position; it’s not worth getting involved, you can’t trust anyone. The prevailing feeling is indifference, and activity is low. And here, too, is the Victim position.
The OK–OK concept is one of the best-known in Transactional Analysis and deserves to be explored in greater depth.
This concept also underlies modern negotiation techniques (moving away from the outdated and unproductive “I win—you lose” approach toward the far more motivating strategy of meeting mutual needs: “I win – You win”—about which those interested can learn a great deal from the book available in the I.A. Library— “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”).
As is usually the case, I renew my invitation for you to reflect and observe, trying—even with the few elements provided—to analyze the transactions you carry out every day.

One last thing: the “OK” stance is a way of perceiving oneself and has very little to do with what actually happens.
Since it depends almost entirely on us, why not give it a try?