NB: this is the abridged version.
For the full exploration, see also;
Forensic Psychology Case Report: Transactional Games, Projection, and Introjection
(abridged version)
Abstract
This case report presents a forensic psychological analysis of a manipulative communication dynamic between two parties, herein referred to as “Speaker” and “Recipient.” Using Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis (TA) (Games People Play, 1964) as the primary framework, the analysis identifies covert domination strategies, the role of projection as a psychological weapon, and the risks of introjection for the Recipient. The report proceeds in three stages:
1. Games: Speaker’s manipulative phraseology establishes domination frames and power imbalance.
2. Projection: Speaker disowns internal conflicts and attributes them to the Recipient.
3. Introjection: Recipient risks unconsciously internalizing these projections, resulting in role entrapment, secondary trauma, and identity contamination.
The integrated analysis highlights how abusive communication is not a mere exchange of words but a systemic process of psychological colonization, where pathology is exported from the Speaker and imported by the Recipient.
Part I: Games as Covert Domination
Introduction to Games
Eric Berne defined a game as “an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome” (Games People Play, 1964). In this case, the Speaker engages in a repeated interpersonal game designed to establish dominance, destabilize the Recipient, and maintain ego control.
Instance One: Deflection and Invalidation
• Speaker: “Keeping this real, though …”
• Analysis: The phrase signals a subtle shift into a Critical Parent stance, followed by a non-debunk attempt to debunk. Rather than addressing the Recipient’s point directly, the Speaker diverges into a tangential issue. This functions as:
1. Denial of the Recipient’s statement.
2. Invalidation through criticism of a point the Recipient never made.
The outcome is to push the Recipient into the Adapted Child role, forced to clarify or defend unnecessarily.
Instance Two: False Concern as Control
• Speaker: “I’m worried about you because…”
• Analysis: Ostensibly framed as care, this phrase disguises a power move. It operates on two levels:
1. Virtue-signaling: Speaker assumes moral superiority.
2. Dom-sub frame-setting: Speaker positions self as arbiter of Recipient’s mental state.
The Recipient is subtly pathologized, reduced to an object bolstering the Speaker’s ego. The move resembles a chess gambit—sacrificing false concern to establish strategic dominance.
Counter-Strategies
The Recipient’s task is to avoid being drawn into the game. As Berne emphasized: “The only way to stop a game is to stop playing.” (Games People Play). Refusal to operate within the Speaker’s frame, combined with public exposure of manipulative tactics, neutralizes the covert abuse.
Part II: Projection as a Manipulative Strategy
Definition and Function
Freud described projection as the displacement of internal impulses onto others (Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, 1917). Jung extended this: “Projections change the world into the replica of one’s own unknown face.” (Collected Works, Vol. 9ii).
In this case, the Speaker’s claim—e.g., that the Recipient is “potentially paranoid”—is not descriptive of the Recipient but expressive of the Speaker’s own paranoia.
Projection as a Game Move
• Speaker’s Ego State: Critical Parent.
• Recipient’s Forced Role: Adapted Child.
• Game Outcome: Recipient destabilized, forced into defense or submission.
Berne’s model shows how projection sustains predictable outcomes: the Speaker disowns their pathology while ensuring the Recipient carries its burden.
Conscious vs. Unconscious Projection
• Unconscious: Projection as defense mechanism, indicating sociopathic rigidity.
• Conscious: Projection as calculated manipulation, suggesting psychopathic control.
Either way, the relational effect is identical: the Recipient is trapped in a no-win double bind (Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972).
Emphatic Phraseology
The Speaker’s use of “potential” is a linguistic escape hatch—an accountability shield. It enables plausible deniability while embedding a destabilizing suggestion. This indicates not only projection but deliberate self-monitoring of language for manipulative effect.
Part III: Introjection and Role Entrapment
From Projection to Introjection
When repeated projections are directed at the Recipient, the psychological risk shifts from external manipulation to internal incorporation.
Freud described introjection as the unconscious incorporation of external voices (On Narcissism, 1914). Fairbairn (Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality, 1952) termed these “bad objects” that contaminate the psyche. Winnicott warned that repeated hostile projections could create a false self (The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, 1965).
Thus, the Recipient may unconsciously accept the Speaker’s accusations as truth: “Maybe I am paranoid.”
Mechanism of Internalization
1. Repetition of Projection: Each accusation is pressed into the Recipient’s psyche.
2. Double Bind: Resistance appears as proof; silence appears as consent.
3. Psychic Short-Circuit: Internalization resolves unbearable tension.
4. Identity Contamination: The Recipient carries the Speaker’s pathology as if it were their own.
Role Entrapment (Drama Triangle)
Karpman’s Drama Triangle (1968) reveals how internalization locks the Recipient into dysfunctional roles:
• Victim: Helpless, self-doubting.
• Persecutor: Acting out the projection.
• Rescuer: Over-functioning to “fix” self or Speaker.
Whichever role emerges, the Speaker’s dominance persists—even in absence.
Secondary Trauma
Judith Herman (Trauma and Recovery, 1992) identifies the long-term impact of repeated psychic violation:
• Hypervigilance and self-doubt.
• Internalized shame and criticism.
• Dissociation from authentic self.
The Speaker’s pathology thus becomes parasitic, colonizing the Recipient’s psyche.
The Pathology of Containment
Robert Johnson observed: “What is unconscious will be lived out in the other.” (Owning Your Own Shadow, 1991). Here, the Recipient becomes a container for the Speaker’s shadow, enacting what the Speaker cannot face.
Counter-Strategies for Recipients
1. Recognition: Name the introject (“This is not my voice”).
2. Adult-to-Adult Reframing (TA): Insist on reciprocal, non-hierarchical communication.
3. Shadow Work: Integrate one’s own shadow to reduce susceptibility.
4. Boundary Setting: Refuse repeated psychic colonization.
5. Community Validation: Expose the game to break isolation.
Conclusion
This forensic analysis demonstrates the triangular progression of manipulative dynamics:
• Games: Speaker establishes domination through covert phraseology.
• Projection: Speaker disowns pathology by attributing it to the Recipient.
• Introjection: Recipient risks internalizing the projection, leading to role entrapment and secondary trauma.
Abusive communication is therefore best understood as a systemic process of psychological colonization. The Speaker exports their pathology; the Recipient, if unprotected, imports it. Forensic intervention requires both exposure of the game and reinforcement of the Recipient’s capacity to resist introjection.
Index of Sources
• Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972).
• Berne, Eric. Games People Play (1964).
• Berne, Eric. Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy (1961).
• Bernstein, Albert J. Emotional Vampires (2001).
• Fairbairn, W.R.D. Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality (1952).
• Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957).
• Freud, Sigmund. Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1917).
• Freud, Sigmund. On Narcissism (1914).
• Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery (1992).
• Johnson, Robert A. Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche (1991).
• Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol. 9ii: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1959).
• Jung, C.G. Collected Works, Vol. 16: Practice of Psychotherapy (1954).
• Jung, C.G. Psychological Types (1921).
• Karpman, Stephen. Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis (1968).
• Stark, Evan. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (2007).
• Winnicott, D.W. The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment (1965).
No comments:
Post a Comment