Integrating Genograms and Script Matrices Robert F. Massey, Susan Comey, and Robert L. Just Abstract ‘Multigenerational socialization processes ave diagrammed by tratsactional analysts using script matrices and hy family systems ‘therapists using genograms. Combining the two techniques shows more of the context of seripting and of the personal dynamics of amity patterns. Two case examples illustrate the integrated use of genograms and script matrices. Many family systems adherents use ‘enograms to outline pertinent maltizenera- onal informadon ebout families (Guerin & Pendagast, 1976; McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985). Berne (1972) also used a modified ver sion of a genogram in writing about ‘a scripty family tee” (p. 73). He discussed “the transmission of precepts, patterns, and con- trols ... through generations” (p. 285) and the ‘communication of “an injunction ... from one generation to another, calling such « series a “taily parade’ (p. 233). Berne illustrated these processes, which occut in the ‘multigenerationa! transmission of script in- fluences, with diagrams of ego states. Berne (1972) adopted Steines (1966) sctipt- matrix diagram to visually represent material con script which he hud developed earlier (2958/1977, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1970) However, he did not fink the use of fami tees cither with seript matrices or with diagrams of seript influences as transmitted through ego states. It was not until several years lator that Magee (1980) proposed that “the guiding prin- ciples of systems models contribute signficant- |y to life-script analysis by including investiga- tion of the extended family network over three ‘of more generations. The enlarged perspective. cof generational transmission ... does, indeed, Yok. 18, No. 4, Ocwber 1988 complement and enhance the transactional analysis of scripts"? (p. 329). In addition, Matherne (1980) specifically suggested “the use of genograms and egograrns ... [0] help predict the results of modifications to the Family system" (p. 38). ‘The combined use of genogranas and seript satrices as not yet been implemented. The feasibility and advantages of doing so are the subjects of this article. Critique of Script Theory Cornell (1988) criticizes script theory for 1) focusing primarily on the nuclear family, pae- siewlary the parent’ infinonon children, 2) limiting the script matrix toe diagram involv- ing only parents and a child on whom the purenis’ power descends, 3) accenting te ‘determining quality of script dyzaamics as they are passed from the upper genecation(s) 0 off spring, and 4) stressing the transinission of ‘Pathology rather than the enhancement of com- petency. Cornell advocates revising script ‘theory to 1) consider significant influences samong extended family members over genera- tions, 2) examine the mutual impact between family members, and 3) explore resiliency, creativity, and activity both in childhood and ‘throughout the life cycle. ‘Gonograms address the points raised by Cor- nell by providing information on an extended family and tracing patterns in a system. By in- ‘lading all Family mornbore and portraying the family structure, genograms outline the wider ‘context within which scripts develop. ‘Expanding Script Theory Beine (1963, 1966) consideved the impact of ‘siblings and non-parent figures on personality and social relations in his material on group ragoes. Althaugh he (1963) deseribea serROBERT F. MASSEY, SUSAN COMEY, AND ROBERT L. JUST and group imagoes as going through similar ad- justments and noted their impact on each other, he did aot elaborate on these ideas in his later writing or in diseussing script matrices. ‘However, using genograms with script matrices allows for the inclusion of individuals whom, ‘Beme coasidered important in rlation to group 1gnes but whom he neglected to incorporate into the theory and diagramming of sctipts. Berne (1961, 1964, 1970, 197) developed “relarionship analysis” in order to explore the possible channels of communication in a par- ticular dyad as well as their quality and extent ‘of we. He did not discuss relationship analysis in the books (1963, 1966) in which he spoke about group imagoes, nor did he combine rela- tionship analysis with script analysis either in theory or in diagram foram. Although Berne (1972) acknowledged that “the crux of script theory lies in structural analysis” (p. 400) of ego states, he did not syn- thesize structural analysis and script analysis, Herein lies the key 10 the integrative use of ‘genograms andl script matrices. Crucial script- ing processes occur within famiies, and the ¢x- petiences of scripting involve ego states. Ex teropoychic ego states 1eeurd tie ineualicae tioa of family influences accepted as introjec- tions, imitations, or identifications. Archaea psychic ego states chronicle how each family member responds to family inusnces. Struc~ tural analysis of ego states depicts the history of inlernlized family inoences and the history ‘of one's decisions and functioning within a family system, It also reveals the development of script and the phenomenological network ‘within which a seript has evolved. Thus, serpe ‘alysis is dependent on structural analysis, which shows both the significant personal turn ‘ng points in script and a person's perceptions cf the impact of one's family context on his oF hher development. Script Matrices and Genograms Script matrices and genograms provide overlapping and distinct information. A. ‘genogram depicts the social-psychological en- vironment withia which seripting communica tions and decisions occur and encapsulates Perceptions about others and sclfin-relation- fo-others. On the other hand, a script matrix shows the personal processing of sacialization 526 influences, It records perceptions of the impact of others on oneself and personal responses to these. The dynamic thrust of a genogram generates 4 social-psychological relationship blueprint, A script matrix. portrays the Psychosocial comet of decision making. [Effectively imegrating information from _genograms and script matrices implies hi fordcr structural analysis. In reality, seaipting is not simply restricted to parent-child in- ficences. Second- and third-order structural analyses demonstrate how great-grandparents ‘and grandparents set the psychosocial context for scripting and to what extent thei inucnces persist. How higher-order structoral analyses and script matrices are hanced depends on the focus of information. Drawing a structural dingram of one set of exo states which includes second- or third-order analysis depicts ancestral influences as perceived and dealt with by one person. Sketching a standard script matrix in- volving two parents and one child adds an in- teractional dimension, yet contains information ‘only about the experiences of three persons, ‘even if grandparent or great-grandparent in- fluences, as internalized inthe exteropsyche of Parent anc responded to in the archaeopysche ‘or Child, are included. To actually capture the active scripting influences of grandparents, Parents, and one (grandchild, a script matrix needs 10 portnty seven sets of ego states par- Aicipating in scripting processes, This amount ‘of information can become voluminous and ‘may sem unwieldy to some, although it allows {for greater precision and accuracy. This pro- cedure also begins to reveal congruences and discrepancies between 1) what has been inter- nalized from family influences, 2) influences that were offered as part of a family systema but ‘hich some individuals remained autonomous cof, 3) what creativity family members have in- fused into a family, and 4) the complemen- ‘arities and reciprocitics among partners in scripting, _.. Genograms depict the multidirectional in- fluences and interconnecting dynamics which ‘cocur in a multigenerational family. ‘The pat- ‘ems in genograms may be reinforced in mult ‘le ways and circularly causcd, making change for an individual or subgroup easier or more difficult (Warziawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Geaograms give both a blneprint of how changes have occurred in a system and a Trarsoctionel Anais JournINTEGRATING GENOGAMS AND SCRIPT MATRICES summary of patterns with which current at- tempts at change would have to deal. They record pattems of competency and achievement as well as pathological trends (Walsh, 1982), and they show how younger members affect the functioning of their elders (Bowen, 1976, 1985; Minchin, 1974; Satir, 1972). Finally, genograms detail the already established upper. ‘generational patterns which younger members ‘eed to rework and change in order to differen- tate and assert themselves within a family system (Bowen, 1976; Carter & McGoldrick, 1980; Carter & Orfanidis, 1976). Tntegrating Genograms and Script Matrices in Clinical Practice ‘Two case examples illustrate the method and value of combining genogram and script infor- imation. The first example shows how family patterns and script processes are linked as the same issues reverberate throughout a system, ‘The seeond discusses weys to use the integrated information in therapy. Example 1. Lester came to therapy to deal \with psychosomatic problems with his stomach and mou; negative feedback at work; GC ty in gotting out of debt; loneliness and long. ing fora satisfying, commited relationship; and being codependent in his family. Lester’s pro- Dlems with these issues are embedded in his multigeneratioal fumily system. These issoes ‘merge not ony in his development but are also ‘modeled and reinforced by family interactions, expectations, and socialization processes. The integrative genogram/script matrix diagram shown in Figure I uses the standard farnily-tree layout, Exteropsychie, neopsyehic, and ar- cchacopsychic ego states are depicted as circles, ‘or females and as squares for males in keep- ing with the use of these symbols in genograms, ‘This format is not intended to alter ego state theory, but rather to make males and females easily distinguishable and to show the link be- tween the processes in scripting and family system dynamics. Information about some family members is more plentiful than for others. The absence of information does not im- ply that an individual did not have extero- psychic, neopsychic, or archaeopsyehic ego states or that a particular person has not ex- petienced ego states around themes other than those mentioned. The attribution of informe- Vo, 18, Mo. 4, October 1968 tion to certain sets of ego states and the absence ‘of awareness about others also indicates that, in analyzing the impact of a relationship on setipting and family patterns, only that which ‘is mutual and reciprocated has an effect. Lester has been significantly influenced by poor health. He was born premature, and his, ‘mother nearly died in childbirth. Lester himsetf ‘was in intensive cere tor months and was frail as a child, At seven and eight he required surgery as a result of running into a car on his bicyele and being kicked in the mouth by @ horse. To sirengthen himself, Lester practiced ‘hard to play soccer and run track. He tended to overexercise to the point of physical and emotional exhaustion. Lester's father was hospitalized frequently, and his mother felt drained from taking cate of her mother who ‘was dying of uterine eancer over a prolonged petiod. At seven, Lester's father lost his father due to heart disease, ard work ites been a consistent theme on bboth sides of the family, except for Lester's maternal grandfather who was more of a “big talker."” Lester’s mother is overworked and underpaid. His. fether overexerts himself spite a heert condition and diabetes. Lester allowed overly demanding. and hypercritical supervisors to pressure him into working long hours, Lester’s mother came froma struggling family with an aleoholic father who beat the childfen and did not provide well while his wife ‘was forced to make ends mect by working out- side the home, Although Lester's. patemal grandmother came from a well-to-do family and his paternal great-grandparents and great- sreat-grandoarents were successful financial- 4, his paternal grandfather was popular but not well off financially. Lester’s father went ‘berikrupt and his mother gambies. Lester was ‘n the habit of loaning money to his parents, especially his mother, who delayed repaying |him. He also asked them for money. He con- Linued penchant for purchasing expensive clothes. This ran up his eredit accounts so that he had to borrow against his retirement fund. He fairly frequentiy exchanged loans with friends who sometimes reneged on the deal. Lester also had models of combining work with responsible fulfilment. Several genera- tions of men on Lester's paternal grandfather's side were creative as chemists and inventors, Lester's grest-grandfather David was also an 27ROBERT F. MASSEY, SUSAN COMEY, AND ROBERT L. JUST % ‘akan aa ‘oo ey ee a Wale © = Female K = Died A = Miscarriage Figure Inteyrative GenogramSorpt ‘Transactional Analysis FearnINTEGRATING CENOGRAMS AND SCRIPT MATRICES ‘sh Protestants deca Cabo Because of protien. car ark Fight wren fe drank ang had ais Matrix of an Only Child Vol. 18, No, 4, Ocwber 1988ROBERT F. MASSEY, SUSAN COMEY, AND ROKER L_JUST Tom eabeth esr 1858 pea 1 Figure 2: Genograrm/Script Matrix of a ‘ransueional Analysis JournalINTEGRATING GENOGRAMS AND SCRIPT MATRICES Moni 41867 Sree ets Woman Sexually Abused as a Teenager Vol 18, No. 4, Ocsober 198ROBERT F, MASSEY, SUSAN COMBY, AND ROBERT L. JUST ‘inventor. Great-grandmother Martha was a ‘ressmeker, and his grandmother Martha con- tinued the theme by dressing elegantly. Many marriages in the family have been problematic, Four ofhis mother’s siblings have alcoholic spouses, and there have been a number of affairs, including one between Un- cle Mark and Uncle George's second wife ‘When Lester was in late grammar schoo!, his mother formed a liaison. Lester’ parents quite possibly would not have marti had his mother rot been pregnant with hin, Lester was 0 ‘engrossed in work and in responding to his parents” financial and health crises that he had litle time and energy for social life and dating, though he displays « pleasant and responsi- ble personality and had serious relationships in the past. His mother told him directly that she ‘wants to rely on him and opposes his marrying. ‘This is a family of caretakers, who easly become codependent. Lester has been care of his parents by holding them together since he was conceived. His mother actively ‘ebuits her husband's oocasional displays of af fection, yet sho is a dutiful caregiver. She assists ha Invchand with madioal peneedwrat ‘when he is il, she nursed her ailing mother, and she raised her sister Laura. Lester's mother’s mother, Ann, cazed for her brother: Roger and Norm whea they lived with be: family. Great Aunt Rose, wio never matrid, is remembered for caring for her ill mother although she was "mean and spitefnl.” Lester's paternal great-grandfather, David, cared for bit Gaughter and son-indaw by buying them 3 house. Lester recalls how the only grandparen: he knew, his father's mother, Laura, was car- ing for him the day she died. He was sitting imher lap when she went unconscious. He hal to get a key from a dark closet where he was normally forbidden to go so-he could care for her by going downstairs to tell the neighbors to call an ambulance. An integrative genogram/script matrix ix constructed from the perspective of one i= dividual It shows the family members who ar: significant forthe group imago of one persov. ‘Those aro the individuals perceived as relevart to group functioning, at least insofar as family members are concerned. Both Lester and Jody in our second example have significant relatior- ships with friends and neighbors. A complete group imago would incorporate. these ir~ an dividuals as they are relevant. Lester's dilemmas about how to resolve his therapy issues do not arise de novo, but involve participation inthe rmltigenerational transmis sion process which inhibits authentic differen ‘tation of self (Bowen, 1976; Papp, 1982). Suc- cessful therapy must deal with the interlocking of script infernalizations and contextual in~ fluences. Otherwise, resistance from one will ‘undermine change in the other because they in- terconnect dynamically. ‘Example 2. Jody entered thecapy to deal with issues concerning six years of sexual abuse by hher paternal uncle Tom. Genogram patterns (see Figure 2) explain how the context rein- forced the dynamics of abuse. Seript material shows how Jady experienced difficulty in ex- tricating herself from this traumatizing simuation, Jody's maternal aunts and uncles, except for ‘Aunt Agnes, all experienced severe marital problems, Among her seven paternal uncles, three never married; Don separated after one ‘year of marriago; Tom, who abused her, slept ‘apart from his ‘wife; and two bad decent marriages. ‘Tody's maternal grandparents were very strict, and the children were not allowed to speak at dianer. Jody's mother, Sheila, was hit ifthe disobeyed. She was taught to do what was demanded of her. After marrying, Sheila ‘moved im with her husband’ family. Tn addi- tion to caring for her husband, she cooked, ‘cleaned, washes, and ironed for her fether-in- Taw and two brothers-inclaw, William and John. {All three mea lived in Sheila's household unt they died, she father-in-law during the first year of marriage, William when Jody was 14, and ‘John when she was 21. In effect Sheila “‘mar- ried” tor husband's family, Jody's maternal uncle, Hugh, also moved in after separating from bis wife when Jody was in high school. Jody feit insecure in her femity and was con- sidered “one of the little ones." Her carly ‘memories are sparse and vague. She mostly remembers playing with her sister Kate and girlfriends and being allowed only very gradually to go further away from home. Jody's self-confidence was undermined by feeling dominated by her younger sister, Kate, who ‘does as she pleases” and insists on her way. Heer two older sisters seemed to receive more encouragement 9 be successful; they were ‘raasacionelAnalyis JournalINTEGRATING GENOGRAMS AND SCRIPT MATRICES ‘good students and eventually completed ‘master's degrees. Her oldest brother, Sean, was his father’s right-hand man, but was small throughout high school. His parents refused to ay ution for private school because of his low ‘grades. The next brother, Joha, resented not receiving his father's guidance and approval as ‘Sean bad, They both have straggled with drink- ing problems and with establishing sadsfacrory love relationships, At age thirteen, Jody experienced her father's death as a great loss, She had been “‘Daddy’s litle girl," and her life was gencrally pleasant ‘until then. The abuse began shortly afterward. Uncle Tom acted solivitous and appeared friendly to Jody's family by doing favors such asbringing over ice cream. Afier he kissed her sisters sensnously on the lps, they avoided him. ‘When he abused her, he would corner her in the basement while she was playing the piano or in her room when she was by he had not been instructed in. sexual ‘mother or any other responsible adult, and she felt she should obey her elders, Both of Jody's parents came from strict families where “Children are to be seen and not heard,”” oiler gave an example of duuifuily July's submiting to men's wishes. Uncles who lived in the house reinforced the need to respect the ‘wishes of elders. When going to the tavern with Jody's father, Jody's paternal uncle and god- father, Sean, would say, ““We're going to the chapel, Don’t tll the children anything now.” Because of the general expectation of fami- Jy invoivement and of the admonition to heed elders, Jody was fearful of revealing the abuse. ‘She was confused by the loss of ber father, by her mother’s continual drinking, and by her ficulties in_understanding school subjects. Before the abuse started, she had been an A sti dent, Afterward she foundered in school. Problems with mastering homework cpit Jody's script and her role inthe family. She re- calls many nights when she felt stumped by homework while her mother was preparing din- ner and sipping a glass of wine. Jody would get tense and more frstrated when her mother, try- ing to help with the bomowork, would bang on the table and shout, “Look at thist Look at it"® Jody would ery both because she felt rejected and because she could not understand the work. The cycle of Jody’s feeling inadequate and of hher mother's help not geting dhrough to her Vol. 18, No. 4, October 1985 perpetuated insecurity, confusion, frustration, and blocked development. Like a metaphor for her not erying out for help or for having her need for proteetion not be heard, Jody was often il with upper respiratory infections and frequently Tost ber voice with laryngitis, Jody Kept quiet abort the abuse until Uncte Tom was dying. She “did uot waat to let him dic oa u pedestal," Ste informed her two ober sisters and their hesbands. A prolonged debate ensued over whether to reveal the secret 10 other family memiers and whether Jody should sexk therapeutic help. Without explanation and without the help of a program, Jody's mother stopped drinking after the death of her brotner- in-law, Tom Tina patient and supportive therapeutic at- mosphere, Jy began to face and deal with her issues. Those who knew of the secret feared that mother wete informed, she would return tocrinking, Jody asked her sister Eileen to ac- company her to many of the sessions. Eileen served as a surrogate mother to comfort and ‘encosage. Change ovcurred slowly. Change involved helping Jody to understand and to rework family system pattems in conjunction ‘wht clarifying and altering her lifeplan or script. Jody Became less enmeshed by learn- jing to say "no" to others’ demands at home ‘and work. She established boundaries by stand- ing up to Kate’s domineering behavior, by tk- ing the iead on dates to interact only to the ex- ‘tent she feels comfortable, by insisting that ‘thers inthe household pay their fair share, and by asking her siblings o assist her in not being ccomered by Tomn’s widow and his family at family gatherings. She was also instrumental inestablishing a boundary between her brother ‘Sean, who spends 2 lot of time alone and does not dats, and Sheila’s young daughter whom hhe used to take to his room to play with. Tose ‘who knew of Jody's abuse were terrified of the situation, but afraid to speak up. Sean was understanding when the context was explained to him, Eventually cach of Jody's siblings found out ‘bout the abuse. She invited her brother John to. couple of seasions, and he zelated that their Uncle Jobin had played with him in sexually arousing ways. He had told his mother, and she locked her brother-in-law out of the house. Because of financial pressures and uncertain ty about her career, Jody was considering coROBERT F. MASSEY, SUSAN COMEY, AND ROBEFT TL. JUST ‘moving back home after being away at college aad then having worked in another city for two years, Since her mother hed changed Significanly by topping drinking and Jody was afrzid she Would still be perceived and respond ed to as 2 dependent youngster, Jody was ‘challenged to not return home unless she could reenter 28 a different person who would not keep hrnful ccrets. Thus both women could renew thei relationship within a changed con- text. Finally Jody let her mother in on the secret. Her mother expressed regret and joined Jody for a couple of therapy sessions. Sheila ‘opened up communication about the family members her daughter knew less about and pro- Yided information onthe early years of her mar- riage and on Jody's growing up. For a long time Jody stayed dependent by working at low-paying jobs and by giving her Simancially strapped mother @ large portion of hier salary. She gradually clarified her interests and options and decided to not let herself be taken advantage of at work. In contrast to the sclfdoubting and painstaking way in which she hhad switched jobs several times before, liter in therapy Jody quickly and exuberantly pur- tice ngeh whch he Hes and whack doubled her pay and gave her more responsibility. AS therapy progressed, Jody rejected her extero- psychiic introjects about submission to inap- ‘propriate family closoness and sbout not pro- fecting rightfl intorests. When focasing on ex- petiences with affection and sexual expression, archacopsychic ego states quickly emerged Jody spoke in a barely audible voice ful of fear, vylnerabitity, and puzzled disgust. Over the course of therapy, noopsychi i predominance as she i confidence, let herself make decisions, and Aiscovered the pleasures of sensual massage. As she became empowered to set fits on rela~ tionships and to assert her desires, Jody let ddovin the walls of scare and confusion which had prompted her to run ftom intimacy, She explored the exchange ot affection and caring ‘with a very patient and attentive male friend In differentiating herself, Jody bas. det angled from adhering to expectations stemming ‘rom a dysfunctional nuclear family emotional system as transmitted over the generations, s0 tha she can relate spontaneously in the present (Bowen, 1976). Each of her siblings has suf fered in some way from their mother's 336 alcoholism. Through all of these events the celebrations of graduations and weddings pro- ided high points which reaffirmed the fami- 1y's vitality. Fascimatingly, her two older sisters, who bad miscarried during the period ‘when Jody was divulging the abuse, both car- Tied to term and delivered healthy bebies atthe point when Jody decided to protect and launch ‘horself, These concurrent events signalled that the system is now safe for children to thrive in. Conclusion Information from script matrices and genogrars complement each other. Script matrices show how individuals have processed the significant trends ina family through their ‘own personal cevelopment. A genogram ‘outlines the network or structure of interrela- tionships which result from and impact upon scripting processes. It portrays the social- psychological context of emotionaly reinforced {nterperceptions in a ferily as scripting pro- ceeds (Laing, 1971; Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966), In tems of a comprehensive understand ing of familics and their members, neither 2 setipl uiuis wou gengran is suticemt sone, A script matrix provides the “inside” perspec- tive on the formation of the selves of the ‘embers, and a genogram the “structural” viewpoint of how the family system operates. Lasting change requires attention to how the selves of family members arc interconnected (hrough the system they coereate and are struc- tured by (Massey, 1986). ‘Systems thinking developed as an antidote to individual, intrapsychic approaches to therapy in an effort to consider interpersonal relations and context in hoaan development and func- tioning. Systems thinking, ix seeking to avoid reductionism and explaining social structures, as nothing more han manifest psychodynamics, sometimes ignored or rejected the personal pro- ‘ceases of the members of a system, Recently, more comprehcmsive theorists have explored the interconnections among persons and systems, notes dichotomous entities, bat as es- sentially intertwined processes (Massey, 1986; Nichols, 1987; Pearce & Friedman,” 1980; Wachtel & Wachtel, 1986). Transactional smalysis can meaningfully contribute to this trend because it both addresses how individuals assimilate and respond to femily contexts in eg0 Transactional Analyte JournalINTEGRATING GENOGRAMS AND SCRIPT MATRICES states and scripts, and it offers an inoplicit’y systemic understanding of families as networks- ofpersons, who ereate and are structured by their social psychological contents. Thus, trans actional avalysis offers understanding of and ‘vocabulary for the issue of how self and system interconnect Kobert F. Massey, PA.D., ts Professor of Psychology at St. Peter's College in New ‘Jersey. He condcts therapy and supervision ‘a8 a licensed psychologist and marriage fami- Ip therapist. Please send reprint requests to Dr. Massey at 106 Steyvesama Ave., Kearny, N.J. 07032, U.S.A. Susan ‘Comey, Ba., is a Vocational Counselor atthe Occupational Center of Hud- son County in New Jersey. Robert L. Just, W.S., 18 a Coordinator of Youth Consultation Services for Hudson Cownty in New Jersey. He is a Clinical Member in the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. [REFERENCES Bem, E. (961). Trsuclonal anc in psychos. ‘Now York: Grove Pros. ‘pens Be (1509). There end mares of organ ‘ont und groups. New York: Balatine. ere, Fs (196. Games people ply. New York: ‘Ballast. Bee, E196. Pape of gp meme. Nw Yo ‘Berne, (197). Se aon loving. New Yor: Siron 4 Scher Bere, B. G972). What do you say afer ou sey hello? ‘New York: Bana ‘Berm, £. (1977. Trawsotionl aan: A new ad of: festive antag of gow terapy. I, Be, Irion ar ogo ene (P, McCormich 6), Gp. 148138). San Franco. TA Pres. (Orginal werk poblised 1958) Bowen, M. (1976). ‘Theory inthe practice of Teschatherapy. InP. Guerin (.), Fama hrapy (9. £2.03, New York: Gade Vol. 18, Ne. 4 Oxober 1988 owen, M. (985). aw erpy cnc! pratie. ‘ew York Jason Aronson rar fs Meld (2950). Th amy 86 tle New York: Oster Cine E& Orta, M. (1970) Faty trap wits es ein ne yet ly a ‘Shere, ora a1, New Yor Gardner. iis ‘Cornel, W.F. (1985). Le srg henry: A real review ackvetatd paspelive, Temeutined ets Jownat, 18, 270-292. Goern,P, de Pendagest (1976). Bvcbation of fail penn pega 17, Qa) Fah ey "Now York: Gardner. Lal, R87). Te pole of Be ily. New York: ‘Vintage. Laing, Philpson, He Lee, A. (1966) erpersonat ‘perception. Now Yor: Hosper & Row ‘Magee J. (1580) A family systems comtext for ieseipt ‘nays, Trnational Anais Zoural, 10, 326-32, nays. Trantaclonal Anetta Journal, 10, 38-1 MeGolarck, M., a Getson, R. (1985). Genograms in fest assesonnt. New York: Noro. ‘Mlauehia,$. (1994). Faas and fn terapy. Ca bees, MA: Haraed University Press, [choke M989) The olf inh mate, New Yorks BranneiMael, Papp, P (1982, Jone), Remacks at conference on “New elopacns i any ray oo a ses oe A tie.” Nathan Ackerman Inti for Pamuly Therapy, New York. ‘Peares, J, & Friedman, J (1980). Family sherapy: Com ‘inolgpevchedsnamte and fly stows approaches, New York: Grune & Staton Sate, V. (1972). Pooplenating, Palo Alto, CA: Soience fn Behavioe Books ‘Stine, C. (1966). Seip and coumersrpt. Tramsctional Anas Balen, 5(19), 133135. Wace, E. & Woche, (1986), Fay Individual paychadherapy. New York: Gailoed. Walsh, F. (24). (1982). Normal family processes. New ‘York: Galfrd Waluvick, P., Beavin, 1. & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmaries of human’ communication.” New York: Noro.