The Racket System: A Model for Racket Analysis

Summary

To resolve some discrepancies in rackets theory and its place within TA theory and treatment, this article proposes the addition of Racket Analysis and explains how the Racket System is a model for identifying and dealing with racket-related phenomena. The Racket System is self-reinforcing and distorted, based on script, and consists of Script Beliefs and Feelings, Rackety Displays, and Reinforcing Memories. When Eric Berne (1964) introduced the terms racket and trading stamps, he noted that his article was "only a bare outline, an introduction to what is... at the clinical level a highly elaborated subject." Berne (1966, pp, 308-309; 1970, pp. 157-158; 1971, pp. 137-147) later gave expanded descriptions of how people use rackets and trading stamps in games and script. He did not, however, fit the concepts of rackets and trading stamps into the general theoretical framework. Other TA authors have delineated the psychological development of rackets and their operation in social transactions. Currently, the literature on rackets and trading stamps presents the reader with contradictions which reflect the widely varying conceptualizations of several authors. The systematic theoretical development of rackets still remains far behind clinical usage. The inconsistencies are immediately evident when one compares the definitions of a racket: (a) feelings used to manipulate or exploit others (Berne, 1964; Steiner, 1971, p. 16; Goulding, 1972, p. 116); (b) feelings experienced as payoffs in games and the reason for playing games (Berne, 1964; Steiner, 1971, p. 16); (c) feelings substituted for suppressed or prohibited feelings (English, 1971); (d) feelings which are outside the context of here and now (Goulding, 1972, p. 116); (e) transactional events or behavioral sequences, e.g. "racketeering" (Ernst, 1973; English, 1976); (f) the basic existential position (Steiner, 1971, p. 13); and (g) an underlying exploitative design for experiencing unpleasant feelings (Holloway, 1973, VI). Thus, in TA theory, rackets are like the diverse descriptions of an elephant given by four blind men positioned at the elephant's trunk, leg, side, and tail. Each one experiences only a part of the elephant and does not conceptualize the whole elephant. While TA authors identify the phenomena they are describing as rackets, they seem to be describing different or related aspects of the same phenomena and arrive at very different conclusions about exactly what is a racket. In our experience, the different approaches to rackets are all valid and quite applicable to clinical situations; however, several phenomena observed are not adequately explained by existing theories: (1) Individuals frequently use a variety of feelings to engage in rackety manipulation rather than a single "favorite feeling." (2) For some individuals there appears to be a hierarchy of substitute feelings rather *�Copyright, \975, Marilyn 1. Zalcman and Richard G. Erskine.

RICHARD G. ERSKINE AND MARILYN J. ZALCMAN than a direct substitution of one feeling for another. For example, in the process of dealing with scared feelings a client may switch to angry feelings, only to discover that it was sad feelings which were most strongly suppressed in childhood. (3) Whereas rackets have been primarily limited to feelings, "thinking rackets" are sometimes observed. For example, guilt, inadequacy and confusion rackets would be more accurately described as "thinking rackets" accompanied by feelings and physical responses. (4) Equating rackets and trading stamps as the same "favorite feeling" does not always apply. This is especially true for clients experiencing depression. In many instances depressed clients use sad feelings as a manipulative racket and save angry feelings as their trading stamps to justify suicide or a trip to the hospital. An additional problem is that rackets have not been sufficiently integrated with other concepts in TA theory. In addition to its definition as a separate construct, rackets have been classified as types of transactions (Steiner, 1971, p. 16; Ernst, 1973; English, 1976) and as internal games (Berne, 1970, p. 163; Goulding, 1976). And while rackets have been related to games, especially game payoffs (Berne, 1964; Steiner, 1971, p. 16), rackets and games have not been clearly differentiated (Karpman and D'Angelo, 1976; English, Erskine, M. Goulding, Karpman, Mellor, Zalcman, 1976). Furthermore, the interrelationships which exist between rackets and scripts lack specific theoretical clarity. While identified as an element in the early decision (Holloway, 1973, IV) and related operationally to scripting, rackets and their specific relationships to scripting and elements of the script have not been explained. In this article we propose two advances in TA theory: 1. The addition of Racket Analysis to the four major divisions of TA theory and phases of treatment; and 2. The use of the Racket System as a model for identifying, explaining, and dealing with the phenomena related to rackets and trading stamps.

Racket Analysis

Structural analysis, transactional analysis proper, game analysis and script analysis were developed to constitute a complete system of theory sufficient for describing all human behavior and dynamics relevant to social psychiatry (Berne, 1961, p. 11). Limiting consideration to ego states, transactions, games and script* omits the intrapsychic or intrapersonal processes involved in human behavior. In our opinions, these four areas alone do not meet the requirements for a complete system of TA theory and therapy. To effect change at a script level is highly unlikely without focusing on the intrapsychic processes in TA treatment; furthermore, much of the therapeutic work of TA clinicians does not fit into any of the established four categories, particularly when the therapeutic emphasis is on decontamination and deconfusion. As a major division of TA theory racket analysis will precede script analysis and will include analysis of: 1. the intrapsychic (intrapersonal) processes of thinking, feeling and physical responses which occur as intervening variables in social transactions and through which individuals structure their perceptions and interpretations of experience; and 2. the behavioral phenomena which are directly related to these intrapsychic processes and which may occur as separate events or as a part of transactional sequences. This definition of Racket Analysis includes both the intrapsychic processes and associated behaviors related to script and provides theoretical grounding for research *In his Terminological Grid, Berne (1971, pp. 409-413) limited transactional terms to ego states, transactions, games and script. 52 Transactional Analysis Journal and clinical practice.* As an area of TA theory Racket Analysis would include phenomena which: (a) may be explained in terms of ego states;** (b) may occur in the absence of social transactions (and, therefore, not a method of structuring time); (c) are not transactions, games or scripts but may influence or be operating as a part of these phenomena; and (d) can be related to structural analysis, transactional analysis proper, game analysis and script analysis. As a phase of TA treatment Racket Analysis would include the identification of these phenomena and the therapeutic operations designed to effect changes in them.

Theoretical Constructs and Definitions

The Racket System is defined as a selfreinforcing, distorted system of feelings, thoughts and actions maintained by scriptbound individuals. The Racket System has three interrelated and interdependent components: the Script Beliefs and Feelings, the Rackety Displays and the Reinforcing Memories. The Script Beliefs and Feelings are all the Parent and Child contaminations of the Adult based upon and supporting script decisions.*** They begin developing when a child is under pressure either from parental programming (injunctions, counterinjunctions, attributions) or environmental trauma and his/her expression of feelings does not result in needs being met. The child's suppression of feelings and concomitant failure to satisfy needs produce an incomplete emotional experience. If closure (a completed or dynamic Gestalt)

does not occur the contained energy goes into either a physiological or cognitive attempt at closure (a secondary or fixed Gestalt). Through the process of cognitive mediation, the child attempts to make sense of the experiences and produces fixed Gestalten-survival conclusions or script decisions, which remain as the Core Script Beliefs**** or the basic decisions about self, others, and the quality of life (personal destiny). These Core Script Beliefs are usually expressed in concrete terms consistent with the thinking levels of which young children are capable (Piaget, 1952). Once adopted, the Core Script Beliefs influence what experiences are attended to, how they are interpreted and whether or not they are regarded as significant by the individual. The child then begins to add Supporting Script Beliefs which reaffirm and elaborate upon the Core Script Beliefs. Years later when the person experiences feelings similar to those felt at the time of script decision, the Script Beliefs may be stimulated. Or, when the person is actively believing a Script Belief, the old feelings may be stimulated. As long as the Script Beliefs and Feelings remain contaminations of the Adult, they are not available for updating with new information and experiences. For example, if the script decision included the belief, "I'm unlovable," and the feeling present at the time was sadness, there will be a continual recycling of the Script Belief ("I'm unlovable") and Feeling (sadness) on the intrapsychic level, which reinforces and maintains the script. And, when this intrapsychic process occurs, the person is likely to engage in Rackety Displays. *That is, results of studies, such as the left-brain, right-brain research (Sample, t975) describing how neurological development and processes influence perception and interpretation of experience, would be as appropriate for consideration in Racket Analysis as clinical studies describing how individuals distort experiences to maintain, elaborate upon and advance the script. **This meets requirements Berne sets forth as necessary for TA theory. ***The term Script Beliefs is used to describe contamination of the Adult which results from script and, therefore, is not the same as frame of reference (Schiff, et. al., 1975, p. 49) which includes all the ideas about self, others and the world. ****For the sake of clarity we are describing the early script decision or survival conclusion and the adoption of Core Script Beliefs as though they occur at a particular time in a child's life. It is important to keep in mind that these may occur over a period of time and may be the result of fantasy as well as of an actual occurrence. Script Beliefs are synonomous with script decisions or survival conclusions except that the latter two refer to what the child may have decided in 1945 and Script Beliefs refer to how the person is maintaining those decisions or conclusions as beliefs and associated feelings in 1978.

RICHARD G. ERSKINE AND MARILYN J. ZALCMAN The Rackety Displays consist of all the overt and internal behaviors which are manifestations of the Script Beliefs/Feelings. Included are the observable behaviors such as words, sentence patterns, tones of voice, displays of emotion, gestures and body movements a person makes which are a direct result of the intrapsychic process. A person may either act the way defined by the Script Beliefs, i.e., saying "I don't know" when believing "I'm stupid" or attempt to defend against the Script Beliefs, i.e., being very quiet and nice when believing "I'm bad." During childhood a whole range of behaviors is tested (English, 1971, 1972; Holloway, 1973, IV) to elicit strokes while maintaining compatibility with the Script Beliefs. The child experiments to find which behaviors will elicit responses in others that will confirm what (s)he is believing. Parents and other significant figures also influence the child's choice of behaviors through instructions ("Boys don't cry"); prohibitions (Don't you ever do that again"); stroking (You're so cute when you pout"); attributions ("He's the toughest kid in the neighborhood"); and modeling (Dad's temper tantrum always get's everyone's attention). The child's interpretations of the outcomes of his/her own or others' behaviors result from symbolic and egocentric thinking (Piaget, 1952) in which magical powers may be attached to certain behaviors with the expectation that engaging in them will either ward off or fulfill the Script Belief. Eventually, the child settles on a specific group of behaviors including displays of emotion and uses them repeatedly and especially in situations which may challenge the Script Beliefs. These behaviors may be labeled Rackety Displays since they are repetitive and stylized and are a manifestation of the Script Beliefs/Feelings. In adolescence and in adulthood individuals may continue to use the Rackety Displays learned in early childhood. They may, also, decrease or increase their repertoire of behavior after contact with the world outside the family. An individual may have a body reaction to the intrapsychic process in addition to or in place of the overt behaviors. These reported internal experiences are the behaviors which are not readily observable but on which the person can give a selfreport, such as fluttering in the stomach, changes in perceived body temperature, increased muscular tension, headaches, colitis and all the somatic responses to the Script Beliefs/Feelings. These internal behaviors are a manifestation of the Script Beliefs/Feelings and also maintain the script. Rackety Displays also include fantasies in which the individual imagines behavior, both his/her own or someone else's, which lend support to the Script Beliefs. During the time of script decision a child may symbolize behavior (Piaget, 1951) to either confirm or deny his/her experience. In the absence of one's own overt or somatic behavior, or when no other person is present, an individual may fantasize or hallucinate behaviors of himself or others which are syntonic with Script Beliefs. These fantasied behaviors function as effectively in reinforcing Script Beliefs/ Feelings and, in some instances, even more effectively than the overt behaviors. Each of the various ways of engaging in Rackety Displays can result in the collection of Reinforcing Memories. Reinforcing Memories are the recall of selected events during the person's lifetime. They are a collection of emotional memories of transactions, either real or imagined; recall of internal bodily experiences; or the retained remnants of fantasy, dreams or hallucinations. Each memory has an emotional or feeling component associated with the experience. In some instances people may forget the factual aspects of an event but will retain the emotional components of the memory. Berne (1964) terms this feeling component, "trading stamps." Reinforcing Memories serve as feedback to the Script Beliefs. Each Reinforcing Memory has the capacity either to reinforce or to negate the Script Beliefs. Since Script Beliefs function as a contamination of the Adult only those memories which support the Script Belief are readily accepted and are used as reinforcement of the beliefs. Those memories which negate the Script Beliefs are often rejected or forgotten since they would challenge the prejudice and serve to decontaminate the Adult. They may also be distorted through fantasy to create script-syntonic memories which serve to support the Script Beliefs. For example, a person may have a Script Belief, "No one likes me" and when the therapist says to the person, "I like you," (s)he may attempt to maintain the belief and associated feeling of sadness by saying, "You didn't really mean it because you didn't say it with much feeling. "* When memories which are syntonic with Script Beliefs are recalled, they serve to reinforce and strengthen the Script Beliefs which then stimulate the feelings present at the time of script decision. Those feelings in turn stimulate the Script Belief and the intrapsychic process serves to reinforce continually the contamination. When a memory is dystonic with a specific Script Belief the person may, instead of distorting the memory, simply negate it by switching to another Script Belief. In the example above the person distorted the memory of "I like you" by saying that the therapist's statement lacked feeling; the person could also switch to another Script Belief, "People cannot be trusted." In switching, the memory which challenges the Script Belief is negated and the person continues to be sad, thinking remains contaminated and is in script.

Case Example of a Racket System

The following example of the Racket System illustrates how the client maintained script through Script Beliefs/Feelings, Rackety Displays and Reinforcing Memories. Beginning with the birth of her first sibling Louise made a decision, based on the care her sick sibling received and her being "pushed off," that she was not important. At this time her mother was under great emotional pressure and was psychologically unavailable while father was frequently away. The early decision, "I'm not important" was reinforced with each successive sibling and in every traumatic home situation where, being oldest, Louise's needs were ignored. Louise reported in therapy that she often experienced her parents' non-verbal attitude as an injunction, "Don't be important." At an early age the client discovered that one solution to the problem of not being important was to take care of others-siblings and parentswhich would make it possible for some of her needs to be met. In adult life this decision was observable in her choice of a helping profession. Her general demeanor was quiet and with- I SCRIPT BELIEFS/FEELINGS I Beliefs About: "\ I 1. Self \ I 2. Others \ I 3. Qualityof Life I I . \ (Intrapsychic Process) / \ Feelings Repressed at J \ theTime ofScript Decision I RACKET SYSTEM

Rackety Displays

1. Observable Behaviors (stylized, repetitive) 2. Reported Internal Experiences (somatic ailments; physical sensations) 3. Fantasies Figure 1

Reinforcing Memories

Emotional Memories ("Trading Stamps") Provide Evidence and Justification "Grossly misinterpreted or fantasized experiences are sometimes called "counterfeit strokes" and are seen as distortions of the intended stroke (James and Jongeward, 1971; Bruce and Erskine, 1974).

RICHARD G. ERSKINE AND MARILYN J. ZALCMAN I SCRIPT BELIEFS/FEELINGS (Beliefs About: ....- - - '\ I 1. Self I I Core: I'm notimportant. I I Supporting: I'm allalone. i I 2. Others I I Core: Other people are most I I important. I I Supporting: No one wants me. I I No one loves me. : I 3. Duality ofLife I I Core: Life is difficultand I I lonely. I I Supporting: I I The way tobelikedand I : wanted istotake care of : I others. . I I I have todoIt bymyself. I '''Repressed Feelings: - - - ,,' Hurt Anger LOUISE'S RACKET SYSTEM I

Rackety Displays

1. Observable Behaviors: Sad Quiet Spends time alone Does allthework Avoids eye contact Addresses others' needs Does notaskforself 2. Reported Internal Experiences: Stiff neck-holds back feelings Headaches 3. Fantasies: Ending upold and alone Appreciation from others for helping Figure 2 Louise's Racket System I

Reinforcing Memories

Siblings come first Mother sad-unable totake care ofme Few friends Being ignored Not invited tojoininactivities drawn, deferring to others. The social response from others was that she was ignored and often did not get what she wanted, thereby reinforcing her belief that she was not important, was unwanted and that others were more important. Her affective behavior was one of sadness, leading to periods of depression and/or severe headaches. Her fantasy life often centered around the counterscript decision that if she were good enough to someone else they would love her and take care of her. To support this decision she also occasionally fantasized ending up alone, poor, and unloved. The course of treatment involved (1) reexperiencing a series of old traumas where the original and reinforcing decisions were made and making new decisions about self, others, and the quality of life; (2) expressing the underlying anger at not being taken care of; (3) beginning to identify and ask for needs to be met; (4) behaving in a more sociable manner to experience positive responses from people; (5) changing fantasies from being alone to being loved for being joyful, spontaneous and intimate; and (6) massage work on neck muscles where inhibition of self was reflected. CLINICAL THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS USING THE RACKET SYSTEM Another common example is the person who has a belief about self, "I'm helpless" and about others, "No one can understand me." Behaviorally the person will often act helpless or confused, say "I don't know," sigh and shrug his/her shoulders. This presents a double bind for the therapist. If the therapist helps, the memory of the helping therapist will be used as evidence to prove "I'm helpless;" if the therapist suggests that the person is not helpless and can do it him/herself then the belief that "No one understands me" is reinforced. We have found it quite effective to draw the Racket System (See Fig. 3) for the client pointing out that we do understand-in

[HE RACKET SYSTEM HELPLESS/MISUNDERSTOOD RACKET SYSTEM SCRIPT BELIEFS/FEELINGS /Beliefs About: \ I Self: I'm helpless. \ I Others: No one can understand' I me. I \Repressed Feelings: j ~Angry / Hurt . RACKETY DISPLAYS Asks same question repeatedly Does notanswer questions when asked Says, "I don'tknow." Acts confused Acts scared orsad Does not express wants Speaks sottly sonoone can hear

Reinforcing Memories

Therapist helps Therapist does nothelp Mother never helped Teachers picked on me Some people help People ignore me People donot listen tome Figure 3 Helpless/Misunderstood Racket System fact we understand that they believe that no one understands them and that they are helpless. Once the Racket System is drawn out the person may act helpless and seem not to know what is on the board. At that point we record the request for help under the Observable Behavior and tell the client that we are risking reinforcing "I'm helpless" but will do so this time to explain. Each subsequent request for help is listed in writing along with switches to supporting beliefs. The process often elicits a strong emotional reaction which can be used to disconnect the rubberband (Erskine, 1974) to the Script Feeling. Any therapeutic intervention which interrupts the flow in the Racket System will be an effective step in the person's changing their Racket System and therefore their script. Contracts which focus on changing the overt behavior in the Rackety Display will result in different social responses from other people and hence a change in the Reinforcing Memories. It is possible for someone to change his/her overt behaviors and still maintain the Racket System by imagining script-related behavior and collecting Reinforcing Memories as a result of fantasy. For some clients it is important, therefore, for the therapist to check if the script is being lived out in fantasy; this is most often apparent in dreams.

In Louise's case the stiff neck and headaches produced memory traces that reinforced the belief, "Life is difficult." In therapy the somatic level of the Rackety Display can be dealt with through techniques designed to change the body or physiological levelof script. Such approaches may include deep muscle massage, biofeedback, bioenergetics, meditation and yoga, or physical exercise such as expressive dancing. Reinforcing Memories will no longer have an effective role in maintaining the system when people live in the "here and now" and do not dwell on old memories or fantasied memories of events that are yet to come, that is, when they let go of all of their trading stamps. A specific therapeutic intervention may invovle the confrontation of discrepancies between what the client remembers and what actually occurred and the meaning of what occurred. The Script Beliefs themselves can be challenged directly through various decontamination operations (Berne, 1966, pp. 233-247). Based on how the client describes him/herself we will often hypothesize what the Script Beliefs might be, write them on the board and then check if the hypothesized beliefs are operational for the person, particularly in stressful situations. A direct question, "Is this belief

RICHARD G. ERSKINE AND MARILYN J. ZALCMAN really true in your life today?" frequently produces the insight that he/she is operating from old perceptions or misconceptions and has been living life based on Script Beliefs that originated in early childhood. For some clients the only thing needed at this point is an invitation to drop the Script Beliefs and to live with an awareness of all the possible options which are available. Where trauma has played a significant part in forming the script, clients have made major changes in their Racket Systems when the therapeutic work has been focused on the unexpressed affect which was present and suppressed at the moment of script decision. The release of repressed emotion through cathecting to an early age, Gestalt work, or the expression of primal feelings often leads to a redecision and disconnecting the rubberband. The therapeutic focus may then become cognitive and/or behavioral as the person decides to change his/her Script Beliefs. The Racket System concepts may be taught to clients so they have a conceptual tool for understanding how they have maintained script, and contracts for new behavior may be negotiated to support their decision to change their beliefs about self, others and the quality of life. However the therapist decides to intervene-at the level of Script Beliefs, the repressed Script Feelings, the various Rackety Displays, or the Reinforcing Memories-any change which stops the flow in the Racket System can stop the script. The more aspects of the Racket System upon which the therapist focuses, thereby dealing with the behavioral, cognitive and affective levels, the greater the probability that the client will maintain a scriptfree life.

Conclusion

As a whole, the Racket System is maintained through selective awareness and perceptions which are based upon the requirements of the script and involve discounting as a mechanism. The Racket System operates only when a peson is living in script and may be viewed as a cross-section of the script. That is, the Racket System in operation is a demonstration of how the person is supporting and carrying out the script decisions in day-to-daylife. The Script Beliefs provide a distorted framework for viewing self, others and quality of life. Since these are paired Parent and Child contaminations of the Adult, the views are not available for updating and any contradictory information will be ignored. Rackety Displays are stimulated by the Script Beliefs and are designed to confirm or get others to confirm the contaminations and to avoid or reexperience the Script Feelings. In order to engage in a Rackety Display individuals must discount other options and frequently will maintain that their behavior is the "natural" or "only" way they can respond. When used in social transactions Rackety Displays are likely to produce Reinforcing Memories, especially as game payoffs. Reinforcing Memories, in turn, are governed by and contribute to the reinforcement of the Script Beliefs and Rackety Displays, as well as the elaboration and advancement of the script. Thus, the Racket System is distorted and self-reinforcing through the operation of its three interrelated and interdependent subsystems: Script Beliefs/Feelings, Rackety Displays and Reinforcing Memories. The Racket System has been proposed here as a theoretical and clinical model for Racket Analysis. It specifies those phenomena' appropriately fitting in this area of TA theory and therapy and offers criteria for selecting therapeutic interventions. The diverse definitions and descriptions of rackets and trading stamps in TA literature have been integrated in the Racket System. Discrepancies noted between theory and clinical observations have been taken into account. The Racket System is also offered as a framework for further theoretical developments in Racket Analysis, for the integration of other psychotherapy concepts, and for research. Richard G. Erskine, PhD, CTM, is training director of the Institute for Integrative Psychotherapy, New York City. Marilyn J. Za/cman, MSW, CTM, has therapy and training programs in the Washington, D.C. area and in Florida.

References

Berne, E. Transactional analysis in psychotherapy, New York: Grove Press, 1961. Berne, E. Trading stamps. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 1964,3(10),127. Berne, E. Principles of group treatment, New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Berne, E. Sex in human loving. New York: Pocket Books, 1970. Berne, E. What do you say after you say hello? New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1971. Bruce, T.T., & Erskine, R.G. Counterfeit strokes. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1974, 4(2), 18. English, F. The substitution factor: Rackets and real feelings, part I. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1971,/(4),225-230. English, F. Rackets and real feelings, part II. Trans- . actional Analysis Journal, 1972,2(1),23-25. English, F. Racketeering. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1976, 6(1), 78-81. English, F., Erskine, R., Goulding, M., Karpman, S., Mellor, K., & Zalcman, M. Rackets and games. Panel presented at International Transactional Analysis Association Conference, San Francisco, 1976. Ernst, F.H., Jr. Psychological rackets in the OK corral. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1973, 3(1), 19-23. Erskine, R.G. Therapeutic intervention: necting rubberbands. Transactional Journal, 1974,4(1), 7-8.

Discon- Analysis

Goulding, R. New directions in transactional analysis: Creating an environment for redecision and change. In C.J. Sager & H.S. Kaplan (eds.) Progress in Group and Family Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1972, 105-134. Goulding, M. In feeling rackets: Notes from state of the art, Winter Congress, January, 1976, Karpman, S.B. and 0'Angelo, A. (Eds.), Transactional Analysis Journal, 1976,6(3),344. Holloway, W.H. Rackets-an up-dated view. Monograph VI, mimeographed. Medina, Ohio: Midwest Institute for Human Understanding, 1973. Holloway, W.H. Shut the escape hatch. Monograph IV, mimeographed. Medina, Ohio: Midwest Institute for Human Understanding, 1973. James, M., & Jongeward, O. Born 10 win. Menlo Park, California: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971. Piaget, J. The origins of inteiligence in children. Translated by Margaret Cook. New York: International Universities Press, 1952. Piaget, J. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Translated by C. Gattegno and F.M. Hodgson. New York: W.W. Norton, 1951. Sample, R.E. Learning with the whole brain, Human Behavior, 1975, 16-23. Schiff, J., Schiff, A.W., Mellor, K, Schiff, E., Schiff, S. & et, al. Cathexis reader: Transactional analysis treatment ofpsychosis. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1975. Steiner, C. Games alcoholics play: The analysis of life scripts, New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1971.