Psychotic Level of Organization

Hallmarks

Identity

Grave difficulty, sometimes extending to uncertainty about whether one exists at all. McWilliams describes people who ask in earnest how they know who they are, or how they know they exist, and who may be confused about basic matters of self-definition such as body, age, or gender. They often cannot count on others having a continuous self either, and live in fear that a trusted person will abruptly turn persecutory, what Harry Stack Sullivan called “malevolent transformations” (McWilliams, 2011, p. 60). See differentiation and integration.

Reality testing

Marked deficits, which may be obvious or subtle. People at this level may be preternaturally attuned to the feeling in a situation yet misread its meaning, often in a self-referential way (McWilliams, 2011, pp. 60–61). The PDM-3 lists overgeneralized, concrete, or bizarre thinking, self-referential interpretations, and the unshakable conviction that one’s attributions about another person are correct whatever that person says or does (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 660).

Defenses

McWilliams lists withdrawal, denial, omnipotent control, primitive idealization and devaluation, primitive forms of projection and introjection, splitting, extreme dissociation, acting out, and somatization. They are preverbal and prerational, and they protect against a dread so overwhelming that even the distortions they create are the lesser evil (2011, p. 60). The PDM-3 adds psychotic denial, autistic withdrawal, distortion, delusional projection, fragmentation, and concretization (p. 660), and the PDC-3 anchors its lowest defense ratings to delusional projection, psychotic denial, and psychotic distortion (Gordon & Bornstein, 2025). Some researchers have added a “level 0” of psychotic defenses to the standard defense hierarchy (Lingiardi, Muzi, & Bornstein, 2026, p. 735).

Object relations

A tendency to fuse psychologically with others rather than relate as separate people (McWilliams, 2011, p. 85). The central anxiety is annihilation anxiety, the terror that the self will be overwhelmed, engulfed, or cease to exist (p. 55; McWilliams, 1999, p. 79). See trust, empathy, and intimacy.

Other capacities

People at this level lack the reflective function, the capacity to think about minds that Fonagy and Target describe as critical to cognitive maturation, and so have trouble getting perspective on their own difficulties (McWilliams, 2011, p. 61). See mentalization. On the M axis, psychotic functioning corresponds to the lowest band, M7: major and severe defects in almost all domains, with impaired reality testing, difficulties distinguishing self from others, and disturbed regulation of feeling and thought (Lingiardi et al., 2026, pp. 738–740). The PDC-3 summarizes the level as delusional thinking, poor reality testing and mood regulation, and extreme difficulty functioning in work and relationships (Gordon & Bornstein, 2025).

How It Feels From the Inside

The core experience is fear. McWilliams writes that close to the surface in people with psychotic-level psychologies one finds “both mortal fear and dire confusion” (2011, p. 62). Wilfred Bion called the underlying terror “nameless dread,” and Frieda Fromm-Reichmann observed that people struggling with psychosis carry an immobilizing dread of their own imagined capacity for destruction (p. 60).

The central conflict is existential: life versus death, existence versus obliteration, safety versus terror. R. D. Laing called it “ontological insecurity.” McWilliams adds that no one has disproved the observation that the person at this level is deeply unconvinced of their right to a separate existence, or may be unfamiliar with the sense of existing at all (2011, p. 62).

Feelings can be confusing and overwhelming rather than simply hidden. McWilliams notes that in many vulnerable people feelings are not so much unconscious as unformulated, and that people at this level can be flooded by primitive images and impulses that most people keep out of awareness (2011, pp. 79–80). Many have also spent years in what she calls the “sick role,” treated by family and institutions as oddballs, so they arrive expecting to be seen as crazy (p. 80). At the same time, their access to painful realities others prefer to ignore can be striking; as Bertram Karon noted, they often see our flaws and limitations with stunning clarity (p. 63).

Across the Styles

The PDM-3 gives examples of people who may be usefully understood as functioning in the psychotic range, often without hallucinations or frank delusions: people with recurrent, severe paranoid reactions; people with extreme compulsions who experience annihilation anxiety when asked not to act on them; somatizing people who experience their own bodies as persecutors; dissociative people who cannot distinguish past trauma from present reality; and people with eating disorders whose conviction about their bodies holds firm in the face of grave physical danger. In each case the person’s fixed ideas are so absolute as to approach delusion, and questioning them tends to bring anxiety, hostility, or a sense that the clinician is dangerous (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661).

Other styles take characteristic forms here. Anxious people at this level may be so filled with dread that they rely on primitive externalizing defenses and overlap with paranoia (p. 676). Lower-level, deficit-based forms of the schizoid style may bring severe difficulty in making sense of one’s own and others’ behavior (p. 683). In the obsessive–compulsive style, McWilliams describes people who are virtually delusional and use ruminative thoughts to ward off psychotic decompensation (2011, p. 46). Dependent people at this level may become badly dysregulated when they must rely on their own resources (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 673). Paranoid, psychopathic, and sadistic styles are found mainly at the borderline and psychotic levels (pp. 690, 692, 694). The PDM-3 also notes that DSM-5 lists schizotypal personality disorder both among the personality disorders and among the schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, suggesting that a similar presentation may reflect personality, illness, or both (p. 661).

In Therapy

Two terms help here. Transference is the way a person experiences the therapist through the lens of earlier relationships; countertransference is the therapist’s own emotional response. At this level, McWilliams writes, transferences are so total that the person can learn about their distortions only when reality is painted in stark colors in front of them (2011, p. 78). The usual countertransference is surprisingly warm: feelings of parental protectiveness and deep empathy, and gratitude in return, alongside the weight of a responsibility that can feel all-consuming (pp. 62–63).

Traditionally the treatment of choice has been framed as supportive therapy, which actively supports a person’s dignity, self-esteem, and strengths, and meets their need for information and guidance (McWilliams, 2011, p. 74). The PDM-3 cautions that supportive and exploratory therapy are not sharply separate (p. 664). Its description of what experienced clinicians do with people at this level is a portrait of respect: they answer questions directly, give concrete advice when needed, help make sense of frightening experiences, identify what triggers the worst states, educate about emotions and thoughts, disclose something of themselves, and present as real people who are concerned, nonhumiliating, plain-spoken, and sympathetic. They build on strengths, take an authoritative enough stance that the person feels safe, and convey a deeply egalitarian attitude (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, pp. 664–665). People in this range need clinicians who are “especially respectful, conversational, and down-to-earth,” and patience is critical, since language may be impoverished and the ability to tell one’s history impaired (p. 664). Effective clinicians focus on what concerns the person most, which is not necessarily what the therapist finds most troubling (p. 665).

McWilliams’s account of supportive work fills in the details (2011, pp. 75–82):

• Safety, respect, and honesty. Interpretation of the transference, useful with healthier people, may be heard as a diabolical evasion. Instead the therapist actively counters the person’s worst fears, treats them as a moral equal, and is emotionally honest. Asked “Are you mad at me?”, a therapist might acknowledge a little frustration at not being able to help faster, then ask why the person wondered.
• Education and normalization. Explaining that frightening thoughts and feelings are natural parts of being an emotionally responsive human being invites the person, in McWilliams’s phrase, to “join the human race.”
• Attention to triggers. After a frightened outburst, the therapist waits, notes that the person seems more upset than usual, and helps find what set it off, often a separation.
• Joining. Rather than arguing with a frightening belief or explaining it away, the therapist may for a time accept the person’s frame of reference and invite more conversation; sometimes only by being joined this way does a person feel understood enough to accept later reflections, and McWilliams notes there is always some truth in even the most paranoid constructions.

McWilliams closes with rules from the psychiatrist Ann-Louise Silver, including do no harm and “Never humiliate your patient,” ending with the most central: try to understand the person as an individual human being (2011, p. 83). She argues that psychotherapy with people in the psychotic range is effective and gratefully received, and that mental health culture tends to overstate their pharmaceutical needs and understate their need for therapy (pp. 71, 82). Medication often has a place too: McWilliams calls medicating “often the compassionate response to psychotic levels of anxiety” (2011, p. 47), and the PDM-3 notes that clinicians may need to help monitor it alongside basic self-care (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 664).

How Different Thinkers See It

Freud

Freud distinguished psychosis from neurosis as a disturbance in the ego’s relation to the outside world rather than a conflict between ego and id (Freud, 1924/1961; de Oliveira Moreira & Drawin, 2015). In the structural view, psychotic people suffered because their defenses were too weak, leaving them overwhelmed; McWilliams compares this to a pot boiling over, so that therapy aimed to strengthen defenses rather than loosen them (2011, pp. 46–47).

Federn

Paul Federn, one of Freud’s early followers, argued that the egos of psychotic patients lacked sufficient investment of energy, not that they had too much libido as Freud had thought. He developed concepts such as “ego feeling” and the boundaries of the ego, and he treated psychosis by supporting the patient’s efforts at integration and strengthening defenses, without interpreting the transference (Accerboni, n.d.). His Ego Psychology and the Psychoses (1952) became a foundation of supportive therapy (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 664).

Klein and Bion

McWilliams, like many analysts, finds it useful to think of some people who never become diagnosably psychotic as living consistently in what Melanie Klein called the “paranoid–schizoid” position, in which other people are not yet fully appreciated as separate (2011, pp. 25, 59). Wilfred Bion distinguished a psychotic from a non-psychotic part of the personality. In his view, contact with reality is never entirely lost in psychotic patients able to attend analysis, and a psychotic part exists in everyone (O’Shaughnessy, n.d.; Bion, 1957). The idea implies that the psychotic level is an extreme of something human, not something alien.

Searles and the interpersonal tradition

Harold Searles wrote with unusual frankness about the emotional storms of working with people with schizophrenia, including his 1959 paper on their efforts to drive the therapist crazy, and Winnicott’s “Hate in the Countertransference” (1949/1958) did the same in Britain. Both helped establish the therapist’s own intense reactions as a way of understanding overwhelmed, disorganized patients (McWilliams, 2011, p. 34). Sullivan, Fromm-Reichmann, Searles, and others built a tradition of talking therapy with psychotic patients (p. 75).

Mahler and Erikson

Developmental theories located psychotic-level difficulty in the earliest phase: Erikson’s stage of basic trust versus mistrust and Mahler’s symbiotic phase, before a child clearly separates inside from outside (McWilliams, 2011, pp. 25, 53–55). Psychotic-level people, on this view, are unconsciously preoccupied with issues of the symbiotic phase, especially trust (p. 55).

Kernberg

In Kernberg’s model, the suspension of reality testing is the core feature of psychotic personality organization (Hörz-Sagstetter, Ohse, & Kampe, 2021). He has continued to write about psychotic personality structure in relation to psychotic transferences and the treatment of chronic psychosis, integrating object relations theory with neurobiology (Kernberg, 2019).

Where they disagree

Explanations of the lack of an observing self in psychosis have ranged from energy spent fighting existential terror, to the ego psychologists’ lack of internal differentiation, to relational accounts of boundary confusion and attachment deficits, to arguments by John Read and colleagues for a traumatic contribution to schizophrenia. Mid-century family studies reported patterns of communication in which a child received subtle messages that they were not a separate person. McWilliams concludes that a full account probably includes all of these along with genetic, biochemical, and situational factors (2011, pp. 61–62). Clinicians and researchers have also differed: clinical writers describe a psychotic range of personality functioning, while researchers have mostly treated psychosis as a discrete illness, though the PDM-3 notes growing research support for the clinical view (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661).

In Other Systems

• DSM-5-TR and ICD-11: neither has a personality-level category for psychotic organization. Psychotic disorders are classified separately, and schizotypal personality disorder straddles the line in DSM-5 (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661). On this site’s mapping, the closest personality ratings would be extreme impairment (level 4) on the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (Hörz-Sagstetter et al., 2021) and severe personality disorder in ICD-11 (Bach & First, 2018), but neither rating requires the loss of reality testing that defines this level.
• Kernberg’s instruments: the STIPO’s levels run from normal through three borderline levels (Hörz-Sagstetter et al., 2021), as do the five levels of the revised STIPO-R (Blüml & Doering, 2021); psychotic organization is defined in Kernberg’s theory by the suspension of reality testing (Hörz-Sagstetter et al., 2021).
• PDM-3 and PDC-3: M7 on the M axis; mostly 1–2 on the PDC-3, with 3 used for people who move between the borderline and psychotic levels (Gordon & Bornstein, 2025).

Examples

The gym and the sad face

One of McWilliams’s patients told her, with obvious dread, that he would never return to his gym: three times someone had moved his things, so clearly he was not wanted there. Another patient changed the subject abruptly whenever he began to feel very sad. When McWilliams asked why, expecting him to say it hurt too much, he answered as if it were obvious that he could see he was hurting her. He had seen sympathetic sadness on her face and could not imagine he was not damaging her. Both men functioned in the world; both lived with a frightened, self-referential reading of ordinary events.

Nancy McWilliams, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis (2nd ed., 2011), pp. 59–60

Reading the therapist’s face

A very paranoid patient whom McWilliams saw for many years had an uncanny feel for her therapist’s emotional state, but attached her perceptions to her own fears about being good or bad: an irritated look meant McWilliams thought she was a bad mother; a bored look meant she had given offense the week before. It took years before she felt safe enough to say how she was interpreting these expressions, and several more years to transform the conviction that evil people were going to kill her because they hated her way of life into the thought that she felt guilty about some aspects of her life.

Nancy McWilliams, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis (2nd ed., 2011), pp. 60–61

A father’s death

McWilliams briefly treated a young man having a psychotic reaction after his father’s death. He sometimes believed his father had taken over his body and had dreams of monsters that became his father and tried to kill him. Rather than exploring the fantasy as she might with a healthier person, she told him it was a natural, if not always conscious, fantasy after bereavement that would fade as he mourned, and explained what it expressed: denial that his father was dead, guilt at surviving him, and an attempt to feel safe. The example shows the educative, normalizing stance McWilliams recommends with frightened people, and it also illustrates an acute psychotic reaction to loss, which is not the same thing as an enduring psychotic-level organization.

Nancy McWilliams, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis (2nd ed., 2011), p. 80

How It Differs From Look-Alikes

Acute psychosis

A temporary state that can occur at any level of organization under extreme stress, intoxication, illness, or trauma (McWilliams, 2011, pp. 57, 95). The psychotic level describes an enduring way of organizing experience, which may or may not ever include a psychotic episode (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661).

Schizophrenia

A diagnosable illness, studied mostly within a medical model (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661). The PDM-3’s level describes personality functioning and can apply to people who have never had a psychotic illness. McWilliams points to Elyn Saks’s (2008) memoir of living with schizophrenia as showing that people with psychotic dynamics, given good medical and psychological care, can live rich, generative lives (2011, p. 69).

The borderline level

Both rely on primitive defenses and have a weak sense of self; the decisive difference is reality testing. A person at the borderline level can usually see that others might find something about them unusual; a person at the psychotic level is more likely to become frightened at not being understood. People at the borderline level may be confused about identity, but “they know they exist” (McWilliams, 2011, pp. 64–65). See the borderline level.

Unusual beliefs and culture

Most people hold some magical beliefs, such as the worry that saying something positive will jinx it. What marks the psychotic level is that such beliefs are not experienced as odd by the person (McWilliams, 2011, p. 60). Beliefs and behaviors that are normal in a person’s own culture should not be mistaken for pathology (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, pp. 654, 661–662).

Organic conditions and neurodivergence

The PDM-3 stresses distinguishing personality from organic brain syndromes, neurodivergence, and psychotic-spectrum disorders. Ritualized behavior, for example, may reflect a personality style, a psychotic delusion, an organic condition, or repetitive behavior associated with the autistic spectrum (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 654).

History

The oldest distinction in psychiatry is between the sane and the insane (McWilliams, 2011, p. 45). Emil Kraepelin classified severe mental illnesses into syndromes and regarded “dementia praecox,” later renamed schizophrenia, as an organic deterioration of the brain and incurable (p. 46). Freud framed psychosis as a break in the ego’s relation to reality, and for decades analytic supervisors taught that defenses should be loosened in neurotic patients and supported in psychotic ones (pp. 46–47).

Over the middle and later twentieth century, analysts including Paul Federn, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, Harry Stack Sullivan, Harold Searles, Silvano Arieti, and Bertram Karon developed psychodynamic therapy for people with psychosis (McWilliams, 2011, pp. 59, 75). Hoch and Polatin’s (1949) “pseudoneurotic schizophrenia” and the emerging borderline concept blurred the line between neurosis and psychosis (p. 52). With antipsychotic medication in the 1950s came a tendency to assume that medication would do the work of “covering over” and would be needed for life, and a warning against any exploratory work with potentially psychotic people (p. 47). McWilliams notes that the mental health culture now tends to overstate pharmaceutical needs and understate the need for therapy, and points to the International Society for the Psychological Treatments of Schizophrenia as a gathering place for therapists who work with psychosis (p. 71).

Kernberg’s structural model placed psychotic organization at the bottom of the severity spectrum, defined by the loss of reality testing (Hörz-Sagstetter et al., 2021; Kernberg, 2019). The second edition of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (Lingiardi & McWilliams, 2017) introduced a psychotic level of personality organization, as its editors describe (Lingiardi, McWilliams, & Muzi, 2017), and PDM-3 notes that since the first PDM the clinical idea of a psychotic range of personality functioning has gained research support (McWilliams & Shedler, 2026, p. 661).

Sources

• Accerboni, A. M. (n.d.). Federn, Paul (1871–1950). In International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Encyclopedia.com. encyclopedia.com
• Bach, B., & First, M. B. (2018). Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 18, 351. doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3
• Bion, W. R. (1957). Differentiation of the psychotic from the non-psychotic personalities. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 38(3–4), 266–275.
• Blüml, V., & Doering, S. (2021). ICD-11 personality disorders: A psychodynamic perspective on personality functioning. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 654026. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.654026
• de Oliveira Moreira, J., & Drawin, C. R. (2015). Possible relation between psychosis and the unconscious: A review of “The Unconscious,” by Freud. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1001. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01001
• Federn, P. (1952). Ego Psychology and the Psychoses. Basic Books.
• Freud, S. (1961). Neurosis and psychosis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), Standard Edition, 19, 149–153. (Original work published 1924)
• Gordon, R. M., & Bornstein, R. F. (2025). Psychodiagnostic Chart–3 (PDC-3): The operationalized PDM-3, adult version [Rating form]. sites.google.com/site/psychodiagnosticchart
• Hoch, P., & Polatin, P. (1949). Pseudoneurotic forms of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Quarterly, 23(2), 248–276. doi:10.1007/BF01563119
• Hörz-Sagstetter, S., Ohse, L., & Kampe, L. (2021). Three dimensional approaches to personality disorders: A review on personality functioning, personality structure, and personality organization. Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(7), 45. doi:10.1007/s11920-021-01250-y
• Kernberg, O. F. (2019). Psychotic personality structure. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 47(4), 353–372. doi:10.1521/pdps.2019.47.4.353
• Lingiardi, V., & McWilliams, N. (Eds.). (2017). Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (2nd ed.; PDM-2). Guilford Press.
• Lingiardi, V., McWilliams, N., & Muzi, L. (2017). The contribution of Sidney Blatt’s two-polarities model to the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 20(1), 242. doi:10.4081/ripppo.2017.242
• Lingiardi, V., Muzi, L., & Bornstein, R. F. (2026). Profile of mental functioning—M axis. In V. Lingiardi & N. McWilliams (Eds.), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (3rd ed., pp. 709–759). Guilford Press.
• McWilliams, N. (1999). Psychoanalytic Case Formulation. Guilford Press.
• McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• McWilliams, N., & Shedler, J. (2026). Personality styles and disorders—P axis. In V. Lingiardi & N. McWilliams (Eds.), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (3rd ed., pp. 651–708). Guilford Press.
• O’Shaughnessy, E. (n.d.). Psychotic part of the personality. In International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Encyclopedia.com. encyclopedia.com
• Saks, E. R. (2008). The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness. Hyperion.
• Searles, H. F. (1959). The effort to drive the other person crazy: An element in the aetiology and psychotherapy of schizophrenia. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 32(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1959.tb00463.x
• Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Hate in the countertransference. In Collected Papers (pp. 194–203). Basic Books. (Original work published 1949)