Berne’s psychological games: what keeps the pattern going

Olena, a designer, tells her colleagues about another client who rejected her work. They share her indignation. Someone suggests revisiting the terms of the job, but the conversation soon returns to how ungrateful people can be. She leaves feeling supported, although her agreement with the client remains unchanged. The following week, it happens again.

There is real disappointment here, a need for recognition and an unresolved problem. Transactional analysis examines the functions of a psychological game to explore such repetition. “Advantage” refers to something that sustains a familiar interaction even when its consequences hurt. It does not establish a conscious plan or a wish to suffer.

Olena interprets the rejection as a judgement of herself: “My work is being dismissed again.” She feels hurt and ashamed and looks to colleagues to confirm she is right. Shared indignation reduces loneliness, but a discussion about acceptance criteria is postponed. Brief relief reinforces the familiar response, while unclear terms create conditions for the next conflict.

This is an editorial analysis of a particular loop, not an established motive behind every complaint. The client may indeed have broken an agreement. Facts, payment and agreed requirements need checking first. A psychological model does not erase actual wrongdoing.

In Games People Play, Berne described six categories of game advantages. This is a historical model for analysing interactions, not a test that reveals someone’s intentions without discussion. The following explanations pair each category with a question for personal observation.

This perspective concerns internal psychological stability. In Olena’s episode, her colleagues’ approval temporarily eases shame. Notice when relief arrives: after sympathy, justification or reassurance that there was no mistake. Ask: “Which feeling became easier to bear after this conversation?”

Here the focus is avoiding an anxiety-provoking situation or intimacy. Olena finds it difficult to ask the client about specific shortcomings and set terms for extra work. Discussing the client’s character postpones that conversation. Ask: “Which question did I never return to?” Check the circumstances: a delay can also be needed to gather documents or find support.

This category concerns familiar exchanges within a close circle. At the studio, the conversation repeatedly starts with a complaint and ends with shared indignation. A direct request—“Please tell me what works here and what needs improving”—would open a different exchange. Ask: “Which line do we repeat, and what response are we expecting?”

This concerns related conversations with other people. Olena retells the episode to acquaintances, and ungrateful clients become a shared topic again. Complaining or discussing the news is not, by itself, a game. Analysis requires a recurring interaction, an ulterior level of expectation and a characteristic outcome. Ask: “What happens when someone offers a different view?”

In Berne’s terminology, this concerns the exchange of “strokes”—acts of recognition. Olena receives time, sympathy and interested responses. She can seek recognition directly without needing another conflict first. Ask: “What attention am I missing, and how could I ask for it?” The term “biological” does not establish that shouting or humiliation is healthier than no contact.

This perspective concerns a life position. After several episodes, Olena says: “Nobody ever values me.” That broad conclusion starts shaping expectations even of new clients. Ask: “What sentence sums up the story for me, and does it account for all the facts?” Infidelity or violence remains the responsibility of the person committing it; there is no basis for assuming the harmed person wanted that outcome.

You do not need to find all six functions in every conflict. Take one episode and write down the event, your interpretation, feelings, response to the other person and consequence. Add what became easier immediately and what remained unresolved. Then choose one available action: clarify requirements, ask for support or agree on payment for additional work.

You can use the personal-boundaries diary, CBT SHIFT or the online diary for these notes. They help keep observations specific, but cannot determine someone else’s motives or guarantee changes in a relationship. The article “How to stop psychological games in conversation” offers practical phrases for the next conversation.

Once you understand which need a familiar response was serving, you can look for another way to meet it. Recognition, closeness and protection from overload remain legitimate needs. What changes is the action through which you seek them.

Eric Berne, Games People Play (1964), “Notation”: the book’s list of categories. The examples and questions in this article are editorial applications of the model, not quotations or clinical cases from Berne.