Games People Play

1A; 
"Hi!" (Hello, good morning.) 
1B: 
"Hi!" (Hello, good morning.) 
14

---

2A: 
"Warm enough for ya?" (How are you?) 
2B: 
"Sure is. Looks like rain, though." (Fine. How are you?) 
3A: 
"Well, take cara yourself." (Okay.) 
3B: 
"I'll be seeing you." 
4A: "So 
long." 
4B: "So 
long." 
It is apparent that this exchange is not intended to convey information. Indeed, if there is any 
information, it is wisely withheld. It might take Mr. A fifteen minutes to say how he is, and Mr. B, 
who is only the most casual acquaintance, has no intention of devoting that much time to listening 
to him. This series of transactions is quite adequately characterized by calling it an "eight-stroke 
ritual." If A and B were in a hurry, they might both be contented with a two-stroke exchange, Hi-Hi. 
If they were old-fashioned Oriental potentates, they might go through a two-hundred stroke ritual 
before settling down to business. Meanwhile, in the jargon of transactional analysis, A and B have 
improved each other's health slightly; for the moment, at least, "their spinal cords won't shrivel up," 
and each is accordingly grateful. 
This ritual is based on careful intuitive computations by both parties. At this stage of their 
acquaintance they figure that they owe each other exactly four strokes at each meeting, and not 
oftener than once a day. If they run into each other again shortly, say within the next half hour, and 
have no new business to transact, they will pass by without any sign, or with only the slightest nod 
of recognition, or at most with a very perfunctory Hi-Hi. These computations hold not only for 
short intervals but over periods of several months. Let us now consider Mr. C and Mr. D, who pass 
each other about once a day, trade one stroke each—Hi-Hi —and go their ways. Mr. C goes on a 
month's vacation. The day after he returns, he encounters Mr. D as usual. If on this occasion Mr. D 
merely says "Hi!" and no more, Mr. C will be offended, "his spinal cord will shrivel slightly." By 
his calculations, Mr. D and he owe each other about thirty strokes. These can be compressed into a 
few transactions, if those transactions are emphatic enough. Mr. D's side properly runs something 
like this (where each unit of "intensity" or "interest" is equivalent to a stroke): 
ID: "Hi!" (1 unit.) 
2D: "Haven't seen you around lately." (2 units.)
3D: "Oh, have you! Where did you go?" (5 units.)
4D: "Say, that's interesting. How was it?" (7 units.)
5D: "Well, you're sure looking fine." (4 units.) "Did your family go along?" (4 units.) 
6D: "Well, glad to see you back." (4 units.)
7D: "So long." (I unit.) 
This gives Mr. D a total of 28 units. Both he and Mr. C know that he will make up the missing units 
the following day, so the account is now, for all practical purposes, squared. Two days later they 
will be back at their two-stroke exchange, Hi-Hi. But now they "know each other better," i.e., each 
knows the other is reliable, and this may be useful if they should meet "socially." 
The inverse case is also worth considering. Mr. E and Mr. F have set up a two-stroke ritual, Hi-Hi. 
One day instead of passing on, Mr. E stops and asks: "How are you?" The conversation proceeds as 
follows: 
IE: "Hi!" 
 IF: "Hi!' 
2E: "How are you?"
2F (Puzzled'): "Fine. How are you?"
3E: "Everything's great. Warm enough for you?"
3F: "Yeah." (Cautiously.) "Looks like rain, though."
4E: "Nice to see you again." 
15

---

4F: "Same here. Sorry, I've got to get to the library before it closes. So long."
5E: "So long." 
As Mr. F hurries away, he thinks to himself: "What's come over him all of a sudden? Is he selling 
insurance or something?" In transactional terms this reads: "All he owes me is one stroke, why is he 
giving me five?" 
An even simpler demonstration of the truly transactional business-like nature of these simple rituals 
is the occasion when Mr. G says "Hi!" and Mr. H passes on without replying. Mr. G's reaction is 
"What's the matter with him?" meaning: "I gave him a stroke and he didn't give me one in return." 
If Mr. H keeps this up and extends it to other acquaintances, he is going to cause some talk in his 
community. 
In borderline cases it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a procedure and a ritual. The 
tendency is for the layman to call professional procedures rituals, while actually every transaction 
may be based on sound, even vital experience, but the layman does not have the background to 
appreciate that. Conversely, there is a tendency for professionals to rationalize ritualistic elements 
that still cling to their procedures, and to dismiss skeptical laymen on the ground that they are not 
equipped to understand. And one of the ways in which entrenched professionals may resist the 
introduction of sound new procedures is by laughing them off as rituals. Hence the fate of 
Semmelweis and other innovators. 
The essential and similar feature of both procedures and rituals is that they are stereotyped. Once 
the first transaction has been initiated, the whole series is predictable and follows a predetermined 
course to a foreordained conclusion unless special conditions arise. The difference between them 
lies in the origin of the predetermination: procedures are programmed by the Adult and rituals are 
Parentally patterned. 
Individuals who are not comfortable or adept with rituals sometimes evade them by substituting 
procedures. They can be found, for example, among people who like to help the hostess with 
preparing or serving food and drink at parties.