the English article

ON THE FIRST-ORDER FUNCTIONAL MODEL OF THE EGO STATES
1
Jordi Oller Vallejo
Abstract
2
3
In this article the author summarizes the result of his research about the first-order functional
model of the ego states. This is based on contributions from transactional analysis and the body of research
from psychology and neurology. He also shares his views about the psychic organs and their cerebral
foundation, as well as about their structural interplay in the ego states. The results of the different phases of
his research have been published in several articles, which appear in the references section.
Introduction
Since my first work on the Withdrawn Child (Oller-Vallejo, 1986), but principally since 1997, I have
developed theoretical and empirical research about the ego states. My first objective has been to resolve the
controversy between the different ego state models and particularly between the historical-biographical
model (referred to when examining their dysfunctional origin) and the functional model (referred to when
examining their healthy utility), offering an integrating approach (Oller-Vallejo, 1997). But when carrying out
this task, I observed that the conflict between the two models was artificial. In fact, there is only a single
model (Oller-Vallejo, 2003b) based on Berne’s contribution and containing the majority of his viewpoints,
including the healthy use of all the ego states. Berne certainly started from an historical approach to the ego
states that is particularly useful in psychotherapy, but he also started the functional approach, according to
the usefulness of each ego state for the development of human beings. And my point of view is that, even
more important than Berne’s contribution to the historical approach of the ego states, is his contribution to
the development of the first-order functional model where the historical focus is only the dysfunctional
manifestation arising from the former and a special case of the same.
In this article that is based on the different articles that I have published in the past, I present a summary
of the result of my research up to this time about the first-order functional model, basing it both on psychological
(Oller-Vallejo, 2001b) and neurological (Oller-Vallejo, 2005a) points of view. I also neurologically justify the
existence of the psychic organs postulated by Berne (1961/1980): the exteropsyche, the neopsyche, and the
archaeopsyche, which he considered as the “organizers” of the ego states.
The three basic functional ego states
Berne (1972) defined the ego states as “coherent systems of thought and feeling manifested by the
corresponding patterns of behavior” (p. 11). He then classified them into three main types that were familiarly
called Parent, Adult and Child. These names have become popularized, both for good, as they are very
descriptive of the realities that Berne wanted to emphasize in psychotherapy, and also for bad, due to their
usage having become trivialized, and thus decreasing their scientific credibility in spite of their conceptual
consistency and usefulness. On the other hand, they are names that contain too great a reference to an
historical-biographical approach to the personality that develops in infancy in relation to the parents. In fact,
these names do not cover everything which are functionally the ego states and remain useful for the entire life.
1. In the original article the author appears as Jorge Oller-Vallejo.
2. Published in the 87 issue of EATA Newsletter, October 2006.
3. Part of this research has been supported by a grant from the EATA.
1
From these arose the terms of Caregiving Parent, Individuating Adult and Caregetting Child, which I have
adopted (Oller-Vallejo, 2001a, 2001b) to the first-order functional model (Figure 1). They better express the
basic functional utility of the three primary ego states (Figure 1), as well as being applicable not only in
psychotherapy, but also for personal growth in general. Furthermore, and mainly with people who are not familiar
with transactional analysis, I sometimes use the respective terms (Oller-Vallejo, 2004, 2005b) of caregiving ego,
individuating ego and caregetting ego, which further eliminates all historical-biographical connotations.
4
Figure 1
The Three First-order
Functional Ego States
The three basic functional ego states are the fundamental manifestations of the personality that are
useful for helping a person live a full life in all senses. In general, they fulfill adaptive functions and are used
above all for survival, but also to live. Each of the three ego states are functionally manifested in their own
way. It is simple; people essentially need to be able to be cared for, to be able to care for others and to be
able to individuate. Thus, phylogenetic evolution has led to the basic function of the Caregetting Child being
to seek and receive care, for the Caregiving Parent to take care of others and for the Individuating Adult to
individuate. (With a broad point of view, I consider that the manifestation of caring includes not only healthily
nourishing and protecting, but also includes all those behaviors, messages, teachings and even objects that
are useful to healthy development [Oller-Vallejo, 2001b]). And furthermore, functional sub-forms (OllerVallejo, 2002, 2003a) have also developed, derived from each basic ego state. These are utilized in the
second-order functional model (Woollams & Brown, 1978) of the ego states, generally simply called the
functional model.
In principle, the functional purpose of the Caregiving Parent, the Individuating Adult and the
Caregetting Child is positive. Their manifestations respectively result of a psychic including control, at a
structural level, which then integrates the contribution of all the psychic organs in a healthy manner (Figure
2c). However, it can also have a negative manifestation when old things from the past are dysfunctionally
repeated (the idea of “negative” or “dysfunctional” in this context must be understood only in a relative sense,
because it represents the best the person could do to survive). For these manifestations, I use the terms
Introjected Parent, Robotized Adult and Regressive Child (Figure 2a) (and at times, when I wish to avoid any
historical connotation, I also call them respectively the introjected ego, the robotized ego and the regressive
4. Modified from the original published in the TAJ (Oller-Vallejo, 2001b) and reproduced with permission from the ITAA.
2
ego), which are more descriptive and refer to the difficulties displayed by people in psychotherapy. And
subsequently, their analysis belongs to an historical-biographical approach to the personality.
Figure 2
5
A Structural View on the Ego States
Psychological foundation of the basic ego states
The main function of each of the three basic functional ego states arises from the appearance and
evolving development of the psychological needs of attachment-separation-individuation (Oller-Vallejo,
2001b), vital so that a person can survive and grow throughout his life.
On the one hand, starting at birth, a person needs to form attachment bonds (Bowlby, 1969) in order
to survive and live. And therefore, phylogenetic evolution has made it possible for the recently born to
develop a type of behavior that is known as attachment behavior, such as for example, gurgling, crying,
smiling, following someone with his or her eyes, etc. These expressions are what I call filial attachment,
whose purpose is to keep the person that can protect and care for them close by and available, in such a
way that an affective bond is formed, ensuring that s/he will receive the protection and cares s/he needs. At
the beginning, this person is generally the mother.
But attachment processes aimed at meeting protection and care needs do not only take place in
infancy, they also continue into adult life (Parker, Stevenson-Hinde & Marris, 1991) with its different affective
bonds; such as for example, couple bonds (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Unlike what happens in paternal-filial
bonds, certainly the most appropriate case in adult bonds –although this is frequently not the case- is the
interchange of receiving protection and care depending on the respective needs.
Therefore, besides being evident, it is a psychological tenet that seeking and receiving protection and
care is a basic need of people throughout their lives. This is a need that is even more urgent than receiving
food at times (Harlow, 1959), and can lead to serious consequences when this need is not met (Spitz, 1945).
5. Original published in the TAJ (Oller-Vallejo, 2006) and reproduced with permission from the ITAA.
3
This basic need of seeking and receiving protection and care is what justifies that a specific function
appears through evolution in order to satisfy this need. When this is implemented by the ego, it is manifested
through the Caregetting Child ego state.
It is obvious however that it would all be futile if the behavior of seeking and receiving protection and
care did not have its natural complement, also a result of phylogenetic evolution, in the behavior of giving
protection and care by a caregiving figure. In infancy, this behavior is generally maternal, where the mother
has her own specific attachment behavior (Delassus, 1995), such as for example, smiling at the baby,
repeating the sounds s/he makes, caressing him or her, responding to his or her funny ways, etc. These
expressions are what I call parental attachment.
But this is also a need that extends to the affective bonds made in adult life, including those of
couples, where unlike paternal-filial bonds, the exchange of giving protection and care depending on what is
needed is suitable. Therefore, giving protection and care is also a clear and justified basic need of people to
be able to live and develop. Through this need, evolution responds precisely to the caregetting needs that
the person has. And therefore, the basic need of caregiving is what justifies that a specific function appears
evolutionarily in order to satisfy this need. When this is implemented by the ego, it is manifested through the
Caregiving Parent ego state.
Lastly, for healthy development, a person also has the need to be himself, or to individuate,
independently of the “obligation” involved by being dependent on receiving and giving protection and care in
order to survive and live. Once again resulting from phylogenetic evolution, the person can thus explore and
discover him or herself and even the world, with his and her autonomy growing. It is the balancing
counterpoint of the attachment needs of children and adults, which is expressed through the needs of
separation-individuation (Mahler , Pine & Bergman, 1975; White, 1985), in order to also be able to develop
as an individual. The need for separation facilitates individuation gains. And through the different
individuating processes throughout life, the person will continue to develop and consolidate the sense of self
(Stern, 1985).
Therefore, individuating is yet another no less clear and justified basic need of the person in order to
be able to live and develop. And as a need, it also evolutionarily makes its own functioning possible to satisfy
itself. When this is implemented by the ego, it is manifested through the Individuating Adult ego state.
However, the three basic functional ego states are not only founded from the point of view of
psychological development, but also from a neurological point of view, making the evolution of cerebral and
psychic structures (the psychic organs according to Berne [1961/1980]) possible that are necessary for their
manifestation.
Neurological foundation of the psychic organs
In general, phylogenetic evolution has made it possible for three basic neurological groups (OllerVallejo, 2004, 2005a) to be observed in the brain, which can respectively be called (Panksepp, 1998) the
instinctive brain, the emotional brain and the rational brain. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that
the brain is a unit where everything is interconnected, in which the inseparable functional cooperation
existing between the instinctive brain and the emotional brain must be emphasized, to the degree that they
can be functionally integrated into what I call the instinctive-emotional brain.
The instinctive-emotional brain stands out as regards basic biological regulation survival, in which the
brain stem and the hypothalamus contribute, as well as the popular limbic system (there are authors who
place the hypothalamus in this system). The functional collaboration between the hippocampus and the
4
amygdala is also important in this brain, memorizing the emotional situations undergone between both of
them, where it is the hippocampus that memorizes the situation and the amygdala the emotional personal
experience. And all of this can be copied without cortical contributions, and thus, this memory system
neurologically justifies the existence of the Regressive Child ego state, a manifestation in which the
instinctive-emotional brain exercises a discounting or even an excluding control over the other two brains.
As a whole, the instinctive-emotional brain is ( Oller-Vallejo, 2005a) the neurological substratum of the
archaeopsyche postulated by Berne, which can also be called the reactive mind and that, from my point of
view, includes (Oller-Vallejo, 2006) the Freudian id (Figure 2b). However, although in their beginning are
clearly instinctive (MacLean, 1990), the brain mechanisms for imitation must be “separated” from this brain
because are part of the so-called imitative brain (Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002), which also includes necortical
contributions. This is the neurological substratum of the exteropsyche postulated by Berne that can also be
called the identifying mind and that includes the Freudian superego (Figure 2b). And along with the
instinctive-emotional brain and the imitative brain is also the contribution of the rational brain that is more or
less prominent depending on the case, and whether it is conscious or not. This is the neocortex and its
structures, which are the neurological substratum of the neopsyche postulated by Berne and can also be
called the reasoning mind and that is equivalent to the Freudian ego (Figure 2b).
During healthy operation, each one of the large cerebral systems where the basic functional ego
states are based includes the contribution of the instinctive-emotional brain, the rational brain and the
imitative brain. Or from the point of view of the psychic organs, the healthy manifestation of each ego state
includes archaeopsychic, neopsychic and exteropsychic contributions, in accordance with their functional
usefulness.
Neurological foundation of the basic ego states
Neurophysiologist Jaak Panksepp (1998) has researched and written about several subcortical
operating systems that are essential for our survival. From my point of view (Oller-Vallejo, 2004, 2005a),
some of them are the subcortical neurological substratum of the ego states, and a contribution of the
instinctive-emotional brain. These are functional systems that have been structured throughout the
evolutionary history of mammals in general and human beings in particular, having an adaptive usefulness.
Their general function is to organize and integrate, at first automatically, the different physiological,
behavioral and psychological resources necessary to survive and grow.
These systems are demonstrated with patterns that integrate emotion, cognition and behavior, having
generally typical facial expressions and gestures, as occurs with the ego states described by Berne. In my
way of seeing it, they are in fact patterns, that when implemented by the ego, could be considered as
functional ego states themselves, with Berne’s definition of ego states being clearly applicable here.
Amongst the neurological systems described by Panksepp, four of them are the subcortical instinctiveemotional substratum that contribute in three types of the basic functional ego states. Concretely, these are
the following:
•
the PANIC system
•
the COMFORT system
•
the CARE system
•
and the SEEKING system.
5
By the PANIC system, Panksepp understands that which –subcortically- has the function of ensuring
that the child maintains his attachment to his parents, thus being able to receive the protection and care that
s/he needs from them. To do this, this system supplies the child with feelings of defenselessness and loss,
as well as being able to emit some type of vocalization if this contact is lost. Concretely, this makes the socalled separation cry, which contains an underlying mixture of separation anxiety and separation protest. All
of these reactions have been well studied by the attachment theory and also have their versions for adults,
as the PANIC system continues operating throughout life. And this system is part of the subcortical
substratum that makes the Caregetting Child ego state possible.
According to Panksepp as regards neurology, subcortical circuits in which the anterior cingulate, bed
nucleus of stria terminalis and preoptic area, dorsomedial thalamus, and dorsal periaqueductal gray
intervenes, stand out in the PANIC system. And as chemical neuromodulators, diverse endogenous opiates
(inhibiting), oxytocin (inhibiting), prolactin (inhibiting), the corticotrophin releasing factor (activating), and
glutamate (activating), are key.
The COMFORT system, the other part of the subcortical substratum that makes the caregetting Child
ego state possible, has the function of helping safety and tranquility live, feelings that result when a person
has the necessary protection and cares, and without which the child definitively cannot survive. Panksepp
believes that this system, that he places with the PANIC system and with which it is antagonistic but
complementary, comprises part of a single neurological system that he calls the social affect system. But I
call it the FILIAL ATTACHMENT system. And as a whole, it is the subcortical substratum where the
functional manifestation of the Caregetting Child ego state is based, also being a system that continues
operating throughout life, including in adulthood.
Although research is ongoing with regard to the specific neuroanatomical circuits related to attachment
itself (Insel & Young, 2001; Nelson & Panksepp, 1998) in the COMFORT system, the chemical
neuromodulators of these circuits are well known. Here the action of several endogenous opiates, oxytocin,
and prolactin is crucial; all three can activate the system while, antagonistically, they are able to inhibit the
PANIC system.
The CARE system (in which what could be called the parental attachment system intervenes) is the
natural neurological complement of the FILIAL ATTACHMENT system. This system intervenes in providing
parents with behavior to give the child the protection and care that s/he needs in all senses, even giving him or
her a secure base (Bowlby, 1988), not only from which to explore the world, but also to start individuating,
developing into his or her own being. And this system is the subcortical substratum in which the functional
manifestation of the Caregiving Parent ego state is based.
In this system, neurological circuits involve the anterior cingulate, bed nucleus of stria terminalis,
preoptic area, ventral tegmental area, and periaqueductal gray. Key chemical neuromodulators include
oxytocin (activating), prolactin (activating), dopamine (activating), and several opiates (some activating and
others inhibiting).
Lastly, as an indispensable balancer of the FILIAL ATTACHMENT system and the CARE system, is the
contribution of another of the subcortical systems described by Panksepp that is called the SEEKING system.
In a person, this system promotes a search and exploration of his or her environment, moving him or her with
interest, curiosity and an eagerness to investigate things, which provides the person not only with success in
finding primary resources, such as for example food, but also the carrying out of intellectual tasks. This not only
brings him or her to want to discover the world and its complexities, but in its most advanced examples, also to
find out the meaning of life and about him or herself, this is, achieving self-knowledge in all its possible facets.
6
And this system is the subcortical substratum in which the functional manifestation of the Individuating Adult
ego state is based.
The system of self-stimulation, also called the reward or reinforcement system, which is located in the
hypothalamus lateral, is very closely connected to this system. The contribution of dopamine is crucial to this
reward system, in such a way that this neuromodulator is also fundamental for the SEEKING system.
The SEEKING system is originally formed by instinctive-emotional neurological circuits, which include
the nucleus accumbens, the ventral tegmental area, mesolimbic and mesocortical outputs, the lateral
hypothalamus, and the periaqueductal gray. Key chemical neuromodulators include dopamine (activating),
glutamate (activating), many neuropaptides, several opiates (activating), and neurotensin (activating).
Nevertheless, in spite of all these subcortical contributions, we must remember that in an operationally
healthy person, the development and contribution of everything neocortical makes better resources possible
with respect to the mere but necessary subcortical contribution of the operating systems described by
Panksepp that are part of the instinctive-emotional brain.
Thus, a more advanced form of the SEEKING system is configured neurologically with development,
which I call the cerebral individuating network, which not only includes the contribution of the instinctiveemotional brain, but also the rational brain and the imitative brain. And an analogous development takes
place starting from the subcortical in the CARE system and the FILIAL ATTACHMENT system, giving rise
neurologically to the cerebral caregiving network and the cerebral caregetting network, respectively.
Therefore, in each of the three large basic functional cerebral systems in healthy development, the
three brain types contribute and participate together (Oller-Vallejo, 2005a) (Figure 3). These are the
instinctive-emotional brain, the rational brain and the imitative brain, which as we remember, are respectively
the cerebral substratum of the archaeopsyche, the neopsyche and the exteropsyche.
Figure 3
6
A Global View on the Neurological Substrata of the Ego States
6. Modified from the original published in the TAJ (Oller-Vallejo, 2005a) and reproduced with permission from the ITAA.
7
The three dysfunctional ego states
When one of the three psychic organs or, from a neurological point of view, one of the three brains
exercises a discounting or even an excluding control over the other psychic organs or the other brains due to
survival needs from the past, then as a type of ego state, the negatives are manifested which are
respectively, the Introjected Parent, the Robotized Adult and the Regressive Child (Figure 2a). In short,
these are the dysfunctional forms with an historical-biographical origin from the Caregiving Parent, the
Individuating Adult and the Caregetting Child, respectively.
The objective of the Introjected Parent is to survive by providing negative care for lack of anything
better, both to others and to the person himself, identifying himself with negative caregivers from the past.
Here the parental rule of these figures has unconsciously lacked giving positive care (whether because they
don’t value its importance, because they don’t know how to give it or simply because they are repeating what
has always been made) and instead of giving no type of care whatsoever, it is better to give negative care
(for example, “Spare the rod, spoil the child”). And analogously to the defense mechanism known as
“identification with the aggressor”, the person identifies with negative parental figures and their cares, so that
in this way the situation becomes more bearable to him. However, despite dealing with negative care, they
frequently do not seem negative and even at times seem positive, such as with what occurs with counterscript injunctions (for example, “be self-sufficient”). Whatever the case may be, these figures and their cares
are introjected in the exteropsyche, with them being repeated by the person as their own through the Introjected
Caregiving Parent, generally unconsciously.
The exteropsyche –and thus that which is interiorized through imitation and identification- is the
psychic organ that controls the manifestation of the Introjected Parent, while the reasoning of the neopsyche
is discounted (frequently a discounting of the importance or of the significance) and even excluded, as
well as the instinctive-emotional reacting of the archaeopsyche, which are both necessary for giving
healthy care.
With respect to the Regressive Child, his objective is also to survive by seeking and receiving
negative cares due to lacking anything better, both from others and with respect to the person himself. This
is about the type of negative cares that the person has grown used to seeking and receiving from negative
caregiving figures in his past, after not being able to satisfy his need for positive care. Here the unconscious
rule of who in order to survive depends on another, for want of receiving any positive care and instead of
receiving no type of care, it is better to receive negative care. At a deep level, the person in his Cargetting
Regressive Child still wants to receive, of course usually at an unconscious level, the positive care that was
never received in the past in order to satisfy these needs.
The archaeopsyche –and therefore the instinctive-emotional- is the psychic organ that controls the
manifestation of the Regressive Child, while the reasoning of the neopsyche is discounted (frequently a
discounting of the importance or of the meaning) and even excluded, as well as the interiorized
identifications of the exteropsyche, both necessary for seeking and receiving healthy care.
As regards the Robotized Adult, his objective is also survival, leading the person to individuate in a
way that is not only not really autonomous, but rather for want of a better individuation, unconsciously
manifests as an automaton who computes data constantly, including when giving or receiving care would be
the appropriate response. When the person acts as an Individuating Robotized Adult, he avoids
manifestation both as a caregiver and as a caretaker.
8
The neopsyche –and thus the rational- is the psychic organ that controls the manifestation of the
Robotized Adult, while the identifications interiorized in the exteropsyche and the instinctive-emotional
reactions of the archaeopsyche are discounted (frequently a discounting of the importance or of the
significance)
and
even
excluded, which are both necessary for
reaching
positive
individuation
achievements. In healthy individuation, the person considers both the modeling of individuated figures and
becoming individuated with those he identifies with, like the individuating instinctive-emotional (for example,
the explorative instinct).
When any of the dysfunctional ego states are manifested, a therapeutic restructuring is thus required
that helps the person to obtain or recover his functionality. This is the objective that justifies the usefulness of
transactional analysis as psychotherapy (Oller Vallejo, 2005b).
Conclusion
The psychological and neurological foundation of the function of the three basic ego states
contribute to placing the first-order functional model that were started by Berne in its corresponding place in
the theory and practice of transactional analysis. In short, this is the primary model, from which on the one
hand, the second-order functional model is derived, and on the other hand, the historical-biographical model,
where the latter is a particular case of the primary model, which is centered on the dysfunctional
manifestation of the ego states.
Jordi Oller Vallejo is Certified in Psychology by the University of Barcelona and is a Certified Transactional
Analyst (Clinical) in the ITAA and EATA. He is a psychotherapist working in Barcelona. He can be reached by writing
Jordi Oller Vallejo, c/. Martí, 110-112, entlº, 1ª, 08024-Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; e-mail: jollerv@gmail.com .
References
Berne, E. (1980). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematic individual and social psychiatry.
London: Souvenir Press. (Original published in 1961).
Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello?: The psychology of human destiny. New York: Grove
Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment: Volume 1 of Attachment and loss. London: The Tavistock Institute of Humans
Relations.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical aplications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Delassus, J. M. (1995). Le sens de la maternité. Paris: Dunot.
Harlow, H. F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 200, 68-74.
Insel, T. R. & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 12936. London: Nature Publishing Group.
MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. New York: Plenum
Press.
Mahler, M., Pine, F. & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and
individuation. New York: Basic Books.
Meltzoff, A. N. & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, E. E. & Panksepp, J. (1998). Brain Substrates of Infant–Mother Attachment: Contributions of
Opioids, Oxytocin, and Norepinephrine. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22, 437-452.
Oller-Vallejo, J. [nee Vallejo, J. O.] (1986). Withdrawal: A basic positive and negative adaptation in addition
to compliance and rebellion. Transactional Analysis Journal, 16, 114-119.
9
Oller-Vallejo, J. (1997). Integrative analysis of ego state models. Transactional Analysis Journal, 27, 290294.
Oller-Vallejo, J. (2001a). Vivir es autorrealizarse: Reflexiones y creaciones en análisis transaccional [Living
nd
is self-actualizing: Reflections and creations in transactional analysis] (2 ed.). Barcelona: Editorial
Kairós.
Oller-Vallejo, J. (2001b). The ego states and the three basic functions. Transactional Analysis Journal, 31,
167-171.
Oller-Vallejo, J. (2002). In support of the second-order functional model. Transactional Analysis Journal, 32,
178-83.
Oller-Vallejo, J. (2003a). In favor of preserving the functional model. EATA Newsletter, 77, 4-5.
Oller-Vallejo (2003b). Three basic ego states: The primary model. Transactional Analysis Journal, 33, 162167.
Oller-Vallejo, J. (2004). La personalidad integradora: El doble logro de ser sí mismo y vincularse [The
integrative personality: The double achievement of being oneself and bonding]. Barcelona: Ediciones
CEDEL.
Oller-Vallejo J. (2005a). Neurological substrata of the basic ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 37,
52-61.
Oller Vallejo, J. (2005b). 6º Congreso Virtual de Psiquiatría, Interpsiquis 2005. Psicoterapia de los estados
del yo en análisis transaccional [Psychotherapy of the ego states in transactional analysis]. Extracted
March 3 2005 from http://www.psiquiatria.com/articulos/psicologia/19912/.
Oller-Vallejo J. (2006). Freudian agencies, psychic organs, and ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal,
36, 20-24.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Afective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Parker, J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.) (1991). Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 128-159).
London: Routledge.
Shaver, P. R. & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 5, 473-501.
Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood.
Psychoanalitical Study of Child, 1, 53-74. New York: International Universities Press.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental
psychology. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
White, A. (1985). Transference based therapy: Theory and practice. Leederville, Australia: Omega
Distributions.
Woollams, S., & Brown, M. (1978). Transactional analysis. Dexter, MI: Huron Valley Institute Press.
10