Transactional Analysis within Relationships, from MBTI Perspective

Transactional Analysis Theory is a modern psychological theory attesting that within any interaction between two or more people, there are multiple “games” being played.

Within this theory, there are three observable ego states called “the parent”, “the child” and “the adult”. Each interaction between 2+ individuals has an intended transactional purpose to feed one of these ego states, regardless of whether the participants realize it or not. These ego states are a step-up from the Freudian ideas of the id (child), ego (adult) and superego (parent).

The child (id) is pure internal reactions and feelings. It is a very primal in its way of being.

The parent (superego) consists of learned behavior from growing up. It represents our family values, societal values and other types of conditioning from when we are young.

The adult (ego) is thought-based, representing our ability to think and make decisions, independent of the child or parent.

Effective transactions (or communications) are often complimentary to each other. The child ego state may manifest in ‘Player 1’ with them seeking emotional support. ‘Player 2’ may then respond with a parent ego state, fulfilling the role of a comforter, allowing them to receive internal gratification by taking on this role. Both players complete a successful transaction in this scenario. Other successful scenarios could be with two matching ‘adult’ ego states that come to an agreement or two matching ‘id’ ego states that have a mutual sensory appreciation of an experience.

Given that we understand the basics of transactional analysis, how would this translate between the relationship choices between certain MBTI personality types? The question being, is there a consistent theme of transactional needs being fulfilled between two specific personality types, thus explaining why certain personality types are more likely to mesh well with each other than others? If we understood the ‘games’ that each personality type is more prone to playing, then that could strongly influence our approach and help us recognize what each personality type may be looking for within the interaction.

My theory is that the specific MBTI types that get along most commonly have many ‘matching’ ego states. I also am seeing a common trend of certain MBTI types to have a preference for a ‘dominant ego’ state over the other two.  While an ideal match would have all three ego states naturally match, many serious relationships will start with the matching of at least two ‘primary’ ego states. When it comes to less serious relationship/friendships, we may find that they suffice with one matching ego state. It is also very likely that certain relationships end quickly because the two players may have one very strong ego state interactions but because the other ego interactions are weak/lacking, the connection weakens.

Based on my observations, these MBTI types seem to have the following preferences for these ego states WITHIN SERIOUS RELATIONSHIPS (if it wasn’t serious, they are likely to be more lax in this area with the ‘child’ taking precedence):

Dominant/Auxiliary Si types (ESFJ/ISFJ/ISTJ/ESTJ) tend to have a focus on the parent (superego). This makes sense as Si is normally about representing the cultural values of their family and/or society. As for their second ego state preference, it will depend on whether they identify more with their adult (ego) or child (id).

Dominant/Auxiliary Ne types (ENFP/INFP/INTP/ENTP) present a child side primarily. This makes sense as extroverted intuition is an experiencing function. Depending on whether they identify more with their parent or child, they will seek someone with a similar child + a matching counterpart to their adult (ego) or parent (superego). Generally, Ne types will place a higher emphasis on the adult rather than the parent.

Dominant/Auxiliary Ni types (INTJ/INFJ/ENFJ/ENTJ) identify more with the adult (ego) state. This makes sense as these types tend to strongly identify with being ‘independent thinkers’, regardless of the influence society has on their thinking direction. Depending on whether they identify more with their child (id) or parent (superego), they will seek someone with a similar ‘adult’ + a matching counterpart to their adult (ego) or child (id).

Dominant/Auxiliary Se types (ESFP/ESTP/ISTP/ISFP) identify with the child, similar to Ne types. Extroverted sensing is an experiencing function just like extroverted intuition. Depending on whether they identify more with their ego or superego, Se types will often seek someone with a similar child (id) + a matching counterpart to their parent (superego) or adult (ego). Generally, Se types will place a higher emphasis on the parent rather than the adult. 

You may be wondering why I haven’t included the Feeling & Thinking functions as primary factors when it comes to Transactional Analysis. My view point is that the thinking and feeling functions will have some influence in relationship matching but will mainly manifest by influencing the real-time interactions. The thinking/feeling functions won’t necessarily have a foundational effect on the successful completion of transactions. Thinking & feeling are the ‘rational’ functions as Jung would coin it while sensing & intuition are the ‘irrational’ functions, which makes sense within this context.

So this all begs the question, what games are you playing?