Origins and Development of the Egogram

The Egogram was created in 1977 by John M. Dusay, a colleague of Eric Berne — the founder of Transactional Analysis [1]. Dusay conceived it as a way to visualize the distribution of psychological energy across the five ego states (Parent, Adult, Child). In its original form, the Egogram was a subjective, clinician-drawn bar chart based on the therapist's impressions of a client's behavior.

Over time, researchers developed questionnaire-based versions of the Egogram to allow for more objective, self-report measurement. This shift made the tool accessible to a wider audience and enabled statistical analysis of ego state profiles. Two widely recognized questionnaire-based instruments emerged from this work:

TEG (Tokyo University Egogram) [2]: Developed by the Psychosomatic Medicine Department at the University of Tokyo School of Medicine. The TEG is widely used in Japan and has been formally validated for reliability.

SGE (Self-Growth Egogram) [3]: Developed under the supervision of Masato Murakami and colleagues, the SGE focuses on personal development, providing insights designed to support the user's inner growth.

Other practitioners within the TA community have also developed their own instruments. In building this test, we drew on the conceptual foundations, question formats, and scoring approaches established in this body of prior work.

Drawing on existing research, a three-person development team — comprising a Certified Clinical Psychologist (Japan), a Certified Public Psychologist (Japan), and a graduate of a psychology master's program — created 10 questions per ego state, for a total of 50 items. Each question was carefully selected to capture the defining characteristics of each ego state in a way that is clear and easy to reflect on honestly.

Question List

CP — Critical Parent
1. I point out others' mistakes when needed.
6. I am punctual.
11. I follow rules carefully.
16. I tend to blame myself or others.
21. I often use phrases like "should" or "must."
26. I keep my commitments without exception.
31. I have a strong sense of responsibility.
36. I rarely change my opinion once I've formed it.
41. I don't compromise on dishonest behavior.
46. I find it hard to forgive irresponsible people.

NP — Nurturing Parent
2. I am considerate of others.
7. I'm good at giving compliments.
12. People often come to me with their problems.
17. I think carefully about how others feel.
22. I tear up at movies or dramas.
27. I want to volunteer and help others.
32. I enjoy caring for people or animals.
37. I speak gently and calmly.
42. I actively help people in need.
47. I'm fond of children and those younger than me.

A — Adult
3. I analyze the situation when problems arise.
8. I think based on facts and evidence.
13. I look for reasons behind what happens.
18. I'm more logical than emotional.
23. I take an interest in social issues.
28. I prepare by anticipating outcomes in advance.
33. I judge things calmly and objectively.
38. I value objectivity.
43. I keep track of my schedule and tasks.
48. I consider how others might view a situation.

FC — Free Child
4. I have many things I want to try.
9. I'm good at switching off and recharging.
14. I laugh a lot.
19. I'm naturally curious.
24. I tend to be quite positive.
29. I like being the center of attention.
34. I love trying new things.
39. I get deeply absorbed in things I enjoy.
44. I have many hobbies.
49. I react expressively — "Wow!" "Amazing!" etc.

AC — Adapted Child
5. I adjust to match the mood around me.
10. I'm cooperative with others.
15. I worry often about inconveniencing others.
20. I watch people's expressions for cues.
25. I keep quiet even when something bothers me.
30. I act in ways that make others think well of me.
35. I put others' opinions before my own.
40. I work hard not to be disliked.
45. I struggle to say no even when I want to.
50. I apologize even when I've done nothing wrong.

Each question is answered on a 3-point scale:
Yes = 2 points / Sometimes = 1 point / No = 0 points

Each ego state is measured by 10 questions, giving a score range of 0–20 per state.

3-Level Classification (used for type assignment):
0–8: Low
9–14: Moderate
15–20: High

5-Level Classification (used for individual ego state feedback):
0–7: Very Low
8–10: Somewhat Low
11–13: Moderate
14–16: Somewhat High
17–20: Very High

The five ego state scores — each rated Low (C), Moderate (B), or High (A) — produce a five-letter code (e.g., ABCBA). From the many possible combinations, we identified 31 representative personality types with distinct, recognizable profiles.

Each type has a unique name designed to bring the profile to life. A selection:

CP-Dominant: Artisan
CP-Low: Gentle Soul
NP-Dominant: Nurturer
NP-Low: Fair Judge
A-Dominant: Analyst
A-Low: Dreamer
FC-Dominant: Party Star
FC-Low: Supporter
AC-Dominant: Peacekeeper
AC-Low: Risk Taker
P-Dominant: The Mentor
P-Low: Man-Child
C-Dominant: Free Spirit
C-Low: Sophisticate
M-Type: Confidant
W-Type: Strategist
N-Type I: Angel
N-Type II: The Helper
N-Type III: Gopher
Reverse N-I: The Guard
Reverse N-II: The Master
Reverse N-III: Creator
U-Type I: Loyalist
U-Type II: Passionate
U-Type III: Devoted
Trapezoid I: The Anchor
Trapezoid II: The Host
Trapezoid III: Life of the Party
Flat-Low: Minimalist
Flat-Mid: Zen Master
Flat-High: Superstar

For each of the 31 types, we wrote a detailed description covering strengths, areas for growth, and tendencies in work, friendships, and relationships. These descriptions are grounded in Transactional Analysis theory and the combined clinical experience of the development team. Our goal is for every person who takes this test to walk away with something genuinely useful — not just a label, but a richer understanding of themselves.

This test was developed through careful review of prior research and by a team with professional training in psychology. That said, we want to be transparent about its limitations.

This instrument has not undergone formal statistical validation, including factor analysis or reliability and validity testing against normative samples. It reflects the clinical knowledge and judgment of its developers, not a peer-reviewed research instrument. For this reason, it is not suitable for academic research purposes, and results should be interpreted as a starting point for self-reflection rather than a definitive psychological assessment.

The following literature was consulted in developing this diagnosis.

[1] Dusay, J. M. (1977). Egograms: How I see you and you see me. Harper & Row.
[2] Tokyo University School of Medicine, Psychosomatic Medicine Department, TEG Research Group. (2006). New edition TEG II: Commentary and egogram patterns. Kaneko Shobo. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
[3] Murakami, M. (Supervisor), Katsura, T., & Ashihara, M. (1999). The complete guide to the Self-Growth Egogram (SGE): SGE manual. Nihon Bunka Kagakusha. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Additional references:
Shigeta, C. (2003). The development and practice of Transactional Analysis in Japan. Kazama Shobo. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Shigeta, C. (2004). Build great relationships: A practical guide. Chukei Publishing. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)
Stewart, I., & Joines, V. (1987). TA today: A new introduction to Transactional Analysis. Lifespace Publishing.
Dusay, J. M. (2000). Egograms: How I see you and you see me (Rev. ed.). Harper & Row.