Psychasthenia: Pierre Janet, Obsessions, Anxiety, and the History of the Concept
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Psychasthenia is a historical psychiatric and psychological concept most closely associated with Pierre Janet’s 1903 work Les Obsessions et la psychasthénie. In Janet’s system, psychasthenia was a broad syndrome involving obsessions, chronic doubt, phobias, anxiety, repetitive or compelled mental and behavioral acts, feelings of incompleteness, experiences of unreality or depersonalization, and difficulties with attention, volition, and effective engagement with present reality. Janet explained this pattern through his theory of reduced psychological tension and impairment of the fonction du réel, or reality function.
Psychasthenia is not a current DSM-5-TR diagnosis and should not be used as a one-to-one synonym for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, or any other modern diagnosis. The APA Dictionary of Psychology now labels psychasthenia an archaic term and notes that the name survives in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Historical scholarship, however, shows that Janet’s original construct was considerably broader than a simple old name for anxiety or OCD.
For the broader historical umbrella in which psychasthenia was later discussed, see Neurosis: What It Means Today, Symptoms, History, and Modern Diagnoses. For the historical taxonomy of neuroses, see Types of Neurosis: Historical Categories and Their Modern Equivalents. This page owns the history and modern interpretation of psychasthenia itself; modern OCD diagnosis and treatment remain with the English Hub’s OCD clinical pillar.
Psychasthenia at a glance
Historical status: psychasthenia is a legacy psychiatric and psychological term, not a single current clinical diagnosis. Its most influential formulation came from Pierre Janet at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Core historical meaning: Janet described psychasthenia as a syndrome organized around diminished psychological tension and impaired adaptation to present reality. In his account, obsessions were important but were not the whole disorder. Pitman’s English synopsis of Janet’s 1903 volume emphasizes failures of attention, volition, and present-related emotion, together with ruminations, phobias, anxiety, tics, and other “forced agitations.”
Modern meaning: when clinicians or readers encounter the word today, the safest interpretation is historical. The described person may have had phenomena that now fall across several diagnostic territories, especially obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, anxiety and fear-related disorders, dissociative symptoms, tic-related phenomena, depressive symptoms, or personality features. The old label alone cannot determine which current diagnosis, if any, applies.
Measurement meaning: “Psychasthenia” also survives as the traditional name of MMPI Scale 7. A scale name on a psychological inventory is a measurement construct, not a revival of psychasthenia as a contemporary diagnosis.
Where did the concept of psychasthenia come from?
Psychasthenia emerged from late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century attempts to classify disorders of doubt, fear, compulsive action, fixed ideas, impulses, and obsession. Historical work on pre-Freudian obsession shows that French alienists had already been debating whether obsessive phenomena belonged to intellectual, emotional, degenerative, or other pathological frameworks. Huertas’s historical review places Janet’s psychasthenia within this broader nineteenth-century genealogy of obsession.
The decisive publication was the two-volume 1903 work by Pierre Janet and Fulgence Raymond, Les Obsessions et la psychasthénie. The book assembled extensive clinical observations and proposed psychasthenia as a coherent way to understand a wide family of obsessional, anxious, phobic, impulsive, and incompleteness-related phenomena. Later historians have treated the work as a major milestone in the clinical history of obsessive phenomena.
Janet himself later described this line of research as an effort to identify unity among tics, phobias, obsessions, impulses, and related disturbances. In his 1930 autobiographical account, he characterized psychasthenia as a broad syndrome or form of neurosis distinct in his system from hysteria. That historical self-description matters because it shows why translating psychasthenia directly into a single modern category distorts Janet’s original project.
What did Pierre Janet mean by psychasthenia?
Janet’s psychasthenia was both a clinical description and an explanatory theory. He did not merely group people who had intrusive thoughts. He proposed that a more general alteration in psychological functioning made a wide range of symptoms possible. The theory is historically important, but its mechanisms should be described as Janet’s theoretical framework rather than as established modern neuroscience.
Psychological tension
A central Janetian idea was tension psychologique, usually translated as psychological tension. In simplified terms, Janet organized psychological operations hierarchically. More complex acts required a higher level of tension because they demanded flexible coordination with the present situation. Historical and philosophical scholarship on Janet’s system describes psychasthenia as a weakening of this capacity for high-level engagement with current life.
Low psychological tension, in Janet’s account, did not mean ordinary stress or tiredness. It was a theoretical explanation for why higher-order acts could become difficult while lower-level, repetitive, ruminative, or substitute activities remained available. This is one reason the word psychasthenia should not be read literally as simply “mental weakness” or “exhaustion.”
The reality function
Janet also emphasized the fonction du réel, or reality function. This referred to the capacity to organize thought, emotion, attention, decision, and action in relation to the demands of the present situation. Pitman’s 1984 synopsis identifies attention, volition, and present-related emotion as especially affected in Janet’s account.
The reality function was not the same concept as modern psychotic loss of reality testing. A person described by Janet as psychasthenic could experience severe doubt, indecision, unreality, or inability to act effectively without having delusions or hallucinations. Translating fonction du réel as if Janet were describing modern psychosis creates a false equivalence between historical theories.
Feelings of incompleteness
One of Janet’s most influential observations concerned a pervasive sense of incompleteness: actions, perceptions, decisions, or experiences could feel unfinished, insufficient, or not fully real. In Janet’s model, obsessions could emerge as a later expression of this underlying state. Pitman’s review and commentary highlights the importance of symptoms surrounding obsessions rather than reducing the syndrome to obsessions and compulsions alone.
This historical observation remains interesting because modern OCD research has independently studied incompleteness and “not just right” experiences. A 2016 study by Belloch and colleagues found that incompleteness and not-just-right experiences were associated with obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions and severity, while also showing that these experiences are not fully specific to OCD. Summerfeldt’s clinical review likewise discusses incompleteness as an important motivational dimension in some OCD presentations. The modern evidence therefore supports the clinical relevance of incompleteness without validating Janet’s entire psychasthenia theory.
Forced agitations, ruminations, phobias, and repetitive acts
Janet used the idea of agitations forcées, often translated as forced agitations, for activities that could occupy psychological energy when higher-level adaptation failed. Pitman’s synopsis describes mental manias, ruminations, tics, phobias, and anxiety among these phenomena. Some resemble what a modern reader might call compulsive behavior, rumination, reassurance-like mental activity, or anxiety-driven avoidance, but the categories are historically different.
This distinction is crucial. A repetitive act described in a 1903 psychasthenia case cannot automatically be retrodiagnosed as a DSM-5-TR compulsion. The historical description may lack the information required by current diagnostic criteria, and Janet’s conceptual categories were built around his own hierarchy of psychological functions.
What symptoms and experiences were historically included under psychasthenia?
Historical descriptions were broad. Lanteri-Laura’s review of the history and evolution of Janet’s concept identifies feelings of non-fulfillment in action and emotion, experiences of oddness and depersonalization, obsessions, and phobias as characteristic features. Janet’s own framework also included chronic doubt, indecision, scruples, fears, repetitive mental activity, difficulty converting intention into action, and a sense that present experience lacked immediacy or completion.
For a modern reader, these historical phenomena can be organized descriptively without assigning a diagnosis: intrusive or persistent thoughts; repetitive mental acts or rituals; chronic doubt and checking-like behavior; fears and phobias; generalized anxiety or tension; perfectionistic or scrupulous concerns; tics or repetitive movements; difficulty deciding or acting; depersonalization or unreality experiences; and persistent feelings that an action or perception is incomplete.
The list is intentionally descriptive. Each phenomenon has a different modern differential diagnosis. Anxiety can occur across many disorders and outside disorder. Intrusive thoughts are common in the general population and are not sufficient for OCD. Depersonalization can appear in multiple contexts. Tics have their own diagnostic framework. Indecision and perfectionism can reflect traits, stress, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive phenomena, or ordinary variation.
Was psychasthenia a type of neurosis?
In Janet’s historical framework, yes: psychasthenia was treated as a major form of neurosis. Janet contrasted it especially with hysteria, while later psychiatric and psychoanalytic traditions reorganized these territories in other ways. For the broader instability of the neurosis umbrella, see Types of Neurosis: Historical Categories and Their Modern Equivalents.
This historical classification should not be projected forward. “Neurosis” itself no longer functions as a single diagnosis in DSM-5-TR, and ICD-11 uses contemporary disorder groupings rather than psychasthenia as a general neurosis diagnosis. A statement such as “psychasthenia is a neurotic disorder” is historically meaningful only when the period and classification tradition are specified.
Psychasthenia, neurasthenia, and hysteria were different historical concepts
Psychasthenia is sometimes confused with neurasthenia because both names contain the Greek-derived idea of weakness or asthenia. Historically they were not identical. Neurasthenia was commonly organized around fatigue, weakness, irritability, somatic complaints, and nervous exhaustion, although its meaning varied by country and period. Janet’s psychasthenia focused much more strongly on obsession, doubt, phobia, incompleteness, and impaired psychological synthesis of present action.
Psychasthenia also differed from Janet’s concept of hysteria. Janet’s writings on hysteria emphasized dissociation, narrowed fields of consciousness, fixed ideas, automatisms, and related phenomena in a different theoretical organization. Some experiences, such as depersonalization or altered experience of self and reality, could appear near both historical territories, which is another reason modern differential diagnosis cannot be reconstructed by translating a single old label.
How did psychasthenia become linked with obsessional neurosis and OCD?
After Janet, the term psychasthenia continued to circulate, but its theoretical meaning became less stable. Lanteri-Laura notes that later usage sometimes treated psychasthenia as synonymous with obsessional neurosis or even with obsessional personality. That convergence in later language is historically important, yet it does not prove that the concepts were originally identical.
Janet’s work belongs to the prehistory of modern OCD because it gave unusually detailed attention to pathological doubt, obsessions, repetitive acts, phobias, anxiety, and incompleteness. Pitman’s 1987 review argues that Janet’s clinical observations remain valuable even though much of the theoretical framework became dated. This is a useful model for reading psychasthenia today: preserve the phenomenological observations, while evaluating mechanisms and diagnosis using current evidence.
The relationship between historical obsessional neurosis and modern OCD is covered in detail in Neurosis vs OCD: Obsessional Neurosis and Modern Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. That comparison is the better destination for the evolution of obsessional-neurosis terminology across psychiatric and psychoanalytic systems.
Is psychasthenia the same as obsessive-compulsive disorder?
No. Psychasthenia and OCD overlap, but they are not equivalent categories. Psychasthenia was a broad historical construct with a distinctive Janetian theory. OCD is a current clinical diagnosis defined by contemporary diagnostic criteria and differential diagnosis.
Current descriptions of OCD center on obsessions, compulsions, or both, together with clinically significant burden and appropriate exclusions. The APA Dictionary of Psychology entry for OCD notes that DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR place OCD within obsessive-compulsive and related disorders rather than treating it as a neurosis. The WHO ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements similarly provides a current diagnostic framework organized around contemporary categories.
The overlap is real at the level of phenomena. Janet described obsessional thoughts, doubt, repetitive acts, checking-like behavior, fear, scruples, and incompleteness. Modern OCD can include intrusive thoughts, urges or images, compulsive checking, washing, ordering, repeating, mental rituals, reassurance seeking, avoidance, and “not just right” experiences. Yet overlap of symptoms does not establish identity of diagnoses.
The difference is also theoretical. Janet’s diagnosis depended on ideas such as psychological tension and the reality function. Modern OCD diagnosis does not require those mechanisms to be true. A person can meet contemporary criteria for OCD without fitting Janet’s psychasthenic theory, and a person described historically as psychasthenic may not meet current OCD criteria.
What about Janet’s feeling of incompleteness and modern OCD?
The strongest conceptual bridge between Janet’s observations and contemporary OCD research may be the feeling of incompleteness. Modern studies have examined experiences in which actions or perceptions do not feel “just right,” even when the person does not primarily fear a specific catastrophe. Ecker and Gönner’s review describes incompleteness, not-just-right experiences, and difficulty reaching a sense of closure as clinically relevant in OCD.
However, modern findings do not convert psychasthenia into a validated modern syndrome. Belloch and colleagues found that incompleteness-related experiences can range from normality to clinically significant OCD and are not fully specific to the disorder. The contemporary construct is therefore best understood as one potentially important dimension within OCD and related psychopathology, not as evidence that Janet’s full psychasthenia theory has been confirmed.
Is psychasthenia the same as an anxiety disorder?
No single modern anxiety diagnosis is equivalent to psychasthenia. The APA Dictionary of Psychology gives the contemporary shorthand definition “an archaic term for any of the anxiety disorders,” which is useful as a warning that the word is obsolete in current diagnosis. Historically, however, Janet’s psychasthenia also included obsession, compulsive or repetitive activity, incompleteness, depersonalization-like experiences, tics, and impaired action. Reducing it to “old anxiety disorder” loses much of the original concept.
If a historical record says psychasthenia and the person’s dominant presentation was fear or anxiety, a present-day clinician would still need to determine which current pattern is actually present: generalized anxiety, panic, social anxiety, specific phobia, OCD, trauma-related symptoms, depressive symptoms, dissociative symptoms, another condition, or a nonclinical stress response. The old label does not decide among them.
Is psychasthenia the same as obsessive-compulsive personality disorder?
No. Historical authors sometimes used psychasthenia, obsessional neurosis, and obsessional personality language in overlapping ways, but modern OCD and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) are distinct constructs. OCD is organized around obsessions and compulsions. OCPD is a personality-disorder diagnosis organized around a pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control.
Perfectionism, rigidity, scrupulousness, or chronic doubt can appear in both historical psychasthenia descriptions and modern personality research, but these shared features do not create diagnostic equivalence. A trait is not the same thing as a disorder, and a historical label is not a substitute for a current personality assessment.
Psychasthenia, depersonalization, and feelings of unreality
Janet’s psychasthenia included experiences that historical writers described as oddness, estrangement, unreality, or depersonalization. Lanteri-Laura’s review explicitly includes depersonalization among the characteristic clinical phenomena in the evolution of the concept.
Modern depersonalization and derealization have their own definitions and differential diagnoses. Similar subjective language can occur with panic, trauma-related states, depression, severe anxiety, sleep deprivation, substance effects, neurological conditions, and other contexts. A historical phrase such as “loss of the feeling of reality” therefore cannot be converted mechanically into depersonalization/derealization disorder.
Does psychasthenia still exist on the MMPI?
The word survives most visibly in psychological assessment as the traditional name of MMPI Scale 7, Psychasthenia (Pt). The APA Dictionary of Psychology specifically notes this continuing use. An Oxford clinical reference on MMPI-2 interpretation likewise lists Scale 7 as Psychasthenia.
This persistence can confuse readers because a contemporary test scale and a contemporary diagnosis are different things. Historical MMPI scale names reflect the diagnostic language available when the instrument was developed. An elevated Scale 7 score does not mean a person has a current disorder called psychasthenia, and it does not by itself diagnose OCD, an anxiety disorder, or any other condition. Psychological test interpretation depends on the instrument version, validity indicators, profile configuration, referral question, clinical context, and qualified professional interpretation.
What is the current diagnostic status of psychasthenia?
Psychasthenia is a legacy term rather than a current standalone diagnosis. The American Psychiatric Association’s history of the DSM documents the major shift introduced by DSM-III in 1980 toward explicit diagnostic criteria and a classification intended to be more neutral regarding etiological theory. Historical scholarship on psychasthenia notes that DSM-III described many relevant phenomena in other rubrics while ignoring the term itself.
The current U.S. manual is DSM-5-TR, and current OCD classification places obsessive-compulsive disorder within obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Internationally, ICD-11 came into effect on January 1, 2022, and the 2024 ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements provides the contemporary diagnostic guidance for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Neither framework requires clinicians to revive psychasthenia as a unifying diagnosis for the broad Janetian syndrome.
This is a classification change with practical consequences. When an old record, family story, historical case, or older psychological text uses psychasthenia, a modern clinician translates the described phenomena, not the label. The task is to identify current symptoms, duration, impairment, developmental course, medical and substance factors, and differential diagnoses.
What modern diagnoses can resemble parts of historical psychasthenia?
There is no single modern equivalent. The best mapping is one-to-many and symptom-by-symptom. Several contemporary territories can capture parts of what Janet grouped together, depending on the individual presentation.
Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders
Obsessions, compulsions, chronic doubt, checking, ordering, mental rituals, and incompleteness can point toward OCD when the full current criteria are met. For modern clinical intent, use OCD: What Is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment. For conditions that can resemble OCD, use OCD Differential Diagnosis.
Anxiety and fear-related disorders
Phobic avoidance, persistent fear, autonomic arousal, worry, anticipatory anxiety, and reassurance seeking can occur in modern anxiety disorders. Which diagnosis fits depends on the object and structure of fear, the pattern of avoidance, duration, impairment, and other criteria. The presence of anxiety alone is never enough to translate psychasthenia into a specific anxiety disorder.
Dissociative and depersonalization-related symptoms
Feelings of unreality, estrangement, or depersonalization in historical psychasthenia may resemble modern dissociative symptoms. They also occur outside dissociative disorders. Their interpretation depends on context, associated symptoms, persistence, substance and medical exclusions, and whether reality testing remains intact.
Tic and repetitive-movement phenomena
Janet’s clinical material included tics and repetitive acts among a broader range of forced or automatic phenomena. Modern tic disorders, stereotyped movements, compulsions, body-focused repetitive behaviors, and other repetitive actions are classified using different criteria and mechanisms. Surface similarity is not enough for retrospective diagnosis.
Personality traits and personality disorders
Chronic perfectionism, indecision, rigidity, self-criticism, conscientiousness, avoidance, or dependence can function as personality traits without constituting a disorder. When traits are pervasive and impairing, personality-disorder assessment may be relevant. Again, the historical term psychasthenia neither proves nor excludes a modern personality diagnosis.
Depressive and stress-related presentations
Fatigue, reduced initiative, rumination, self-reproach, indecision, and diminished engagement can also occur in depressive disorders or during prolonged stress. These overlaps help explain why psychasthenia became difficult to preserve as a single diagnostic category: its phenomenology crossed boundaries that modern systems separate more explicitly.
How should a modern reader interpret an old diagnosis of psychasthenia?
Treat the historical label as a clue to the period’s clinical vocabulary, not as a current diagnosis waiting to be renamed. The most useful information is the original symptom description: What thoughts were intrusive? What actions were repetitive? What fears were present? Was there avoidance? Did the person feel unreal or detached? Was there chronic doubt, guilt, or incompleteness? How severe was impairment?
Then separate three questions. First, what did the historical clinician mean by psychasthenia in that particular school and year? Second, what phenomena were actually documented? Third, how would those phenomena be assessed today? Keeping the questions separate prevents diagnostic anachronism.
The same method applies to the larger neurosis vocabulary. Neurosis: What It Means Today, Symptoms, History, and Modern Diagnoses explains why historical umbrella terms cannot be mapped directly onto current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnoses.
Treatment implications: treat the current problem, not the historical label
There is no contemporary evidence-based treatment protocol for “psychasthenia” as a single diagnosis because psychasthenia is not the current diagnostic target. Treatment follows the condition and mechanisms that are actually present now. A person with OCD receives OCD-focused care; a person with a phobic disorder receives treatment appropriate to that fear pattern; a person with dissociative symptoms requires assessment and care matched to those symptoms and their differential diagnosis.
For current OCD, the National Institute of Mental Health describes psychotherapy, medication, or their combination as established treatment approaches and specifically identifies exposure and response prevention (ERP), a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, as an effective treatment. That evidence belongs to OCD, not to psychasthenia as a historical umbrella.
This distinction protects against two opposite errors: assuming that every historical psychasthenia case was really OCD, and assuming that a person who identifies with a historical psychasthenia description should seek a treatment designed for a diagnosis they may not have. Current symptoms and assessment determine the treatment target.
What parts of Janet’s concept remain scientifically interesting?
Janet’s causal theory is historical, but several clinical observations remain relevant to modern research questions. The first is that obsessive-compulsive phenomena can include much more than overt rituals. Doubt, indecision, mental repetition, incompleteness, avoidance, and altered subjective certainty can be central to lived experience.
The second is that similar behaviors can arise from different motivations. A repeated action may be performed to prevent feared harm, achieve a feeling of completeness, reduce uncertainty, neutralize an intrusive thought, follow a rigid rule, relieve sensory discomfort, or respond to another process. Modern dimensional research on OCD has made this heterogeneity explicit without adopting the psychasthenia diagnosis.
The third is that historical psychopathology can preserve detailed phenomenology that remains worth studying even when the original explanatory model is no longer accepted. This is why Janet’s work is still cited in the history of OCD: it is a source of careful observation, not a current diagnostic manual.
Limitations of the psychasthenia concept
Psychasthenia bundled together phenomena that modern systems distribute across multiple disorders and dimensions. This breadth made the category clinically evocative but diagnostically unstable. A label that can include obsessions, phobias, tics, depersonalization, chronic doubt, anxiety, perfectionism, and impaired volition risks describing a large territory without establishing where one disorder ends and another begins.
The theory also depended on constructs such as psychological tension and a hierarchy of reality functions that are not the organizing mechanisms of DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. Some Janetian observations have modern analogues, but theoretical resemblance is not empirical validation.
Finally, historical case descriptions were produced within the clinical language and cultural assumptions of their period. Symptoms such as scrupulosity, sexuality-related guilt, social role conflict, or moral doubt can be interpreted differently across eras. Historical diagnosis must therefore be read in context rather than retrofitted wholesale into current categories.
Common misconceptions about psychasthenia
“Psychasthenia is the old name for OCD.” This is too simple. Psychasthenia is part of the genealogy of obsessive-compulsive psychopathology, but Janet’s syndrome was broader than modern OCD and rested on a different theory.
“Psychasthenia means anxiety disorder.” Modern dictionaries may use this as an abbreviated archaic gloss, but Janet’s original construct also included obsessions, compulsive or repetitive phenomena, incompleteness, depersonalization-like experiences, and disturbances of action.
“A high MMPI Psychasthenia score means I have psychasthenia.” No. MMPI Scale 7 is a psychometric scale with a historical name. A test score is not a diagnosis and requires interpretation in the context of the complete assessment.
“Psychasthenia was psychosis because Janet discussed reality.” No. Janet’s reality function concerned effective engagement with present reality and complex action. It should not be equated with the modern psychosis construct or with loss of reality testing.
“If a historical description sounds like me, I have the modern equivalent.” Similarity to a historical description can be intellectually useful, but diagnosis requires current criteria, context, impairment, exclusions, and differential diagnosis.
Practical interpretation for a modern reader
If you encounter psychasthenia in an old medical record, psychoanalytic text, psychiatric history, or personality-test report, first identify which meaning is being used. A 1903 Janetian diagnosis, a mid-twentieth-century descriptive label, a psychoanalytic use, and an MMPI Scale 7 score are not interchangeable.
If the word appears in a historical record, preserve the original label in historical discussion and then translate the documented symptoms into modern descriptive language. If it appears on a test report, interpret the scale within that instrument rather than as a standalone disorder. If it appears in everyday conversation, avoid using it to label another person.
If the underlying concern is current distress—intrusive thoughts, compulsions, severe anxiety, phobic avoidance, depersonalization, repetitive behaviors, or inability to function—the useful next question is which current symptom pattern is present and whether professional assessment is needed.
Frequently asked questions
What is psychasthenia?
Psychasthenia is a historical psychiatric and psychological concept associated especially with Pierre Janet. It described a broad syndrome involving obsessions, phobias, anxiety, doubt, incompleteness, repetitive or compelled activity, and difficulties with effective engagement in present reality. It is not a single current DSM-5-TR diagnosis.
Who coined psychasthenia?
Pierre Janet is the figure most strongly associated with the systematic concept, developed in his 1903 work Les Obsessions et la psychasthénie with Fulgence Raymond. Janet later presented psychasthenia as a major syndrome or form of neurosis within his own psychological system.
Is psychasthenia still a diagnosis?
Psychasthenia is a legacy term rather than a current standalone DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. Contemporary assessment uses specific current diagnostic categories and symptom dimensions. The word survives in historical literature and as the traditional name of MMPI Scale 7.
Is psychasthenia the same as OCD?
No. The two concepts overlap historically, especially around obsessions, doubt, repetitive acts, and incompleteness, but psychasthenia was broader and theoretically different. See Neurosis vs OCD for the full comparison.
Is psychasthenia an anxiety disorder?
It should not be translated into one modern anxiety diagnosis. Anxiety and phobias were central in many psychasthenia descriptions, but the historical syndrome also included obsessional, dissociative-like, repetitive, and personality-related phenomena.
What did Janet mean by loss of the reality function?
Janet’s reality function referred to the capacity to coordinate attention, emotion, decision, and action with the demands of the present situation. It was part of his historical theory of psychological tension and should not be confused with the modern clinical concept of psychotic loss of reality testing.
What is the feeling of incompleteness in psychasthenia?
Janet described a persistent sense that actions, perceptions, decisions, or experiences were unfinished or insufficient. Modern OCD research has studied related incompleteness and “not just right” experiences, but those findings do not make psychasthenia a current diagnosis.
What is Psychasthenia Scale 7 on the MMPI?
Scale 7, traditionally called Psychasthenia (Pt), is one of the historical MMPI clinical scales. The name reflects older psychiatric terminology. A high score is interpreted within the broader psychometric profile and clinical context and does not diagnose a disorder called psychasthenia.
Can psychasthenia be treated?
Modern treatment targets the person’s current condition rather than psychasthenia as a historical label. OCD, anxiety disorders, dissociative symptoms, depressive disorders, and other conditions have different evidence-based approaches. Assessment determines which treatment framework is appropriate.
Related Articles
OCD Differential Diagnosis: What Conditions Can Look Like OCD? Anxiety, Autism, Psychosis, OCPD, and More
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM History. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm/history-of-the-dsm
American Psychological Association. (2018). Psychasthenia. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/psychasthenia
American Psychological Association. (2023). Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/obsessive-compulsive-disorder
Belloch, A., Fornés, G., Carrasco, A., López-Solá, C., Alonso, P., & Menchón, J. M. (2016). Incompleteness and not just right experiences in the explanation of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 236, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.01.012
Chitussi, B. (2021). Exercise, tension and ‘fonction du réel’: The psychological analysis of Pierre Janet. Between, 11(21). https://doi.org/10.13125/2039-6597/4409
Ecker, W., & Gönner, S. (2006). The feeling of incompleteness: Rediscovery of an old psychopathological symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Der Nervenarzt, 77(9), 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-006-2070-6
Graham, J. R. (2013). Interpreting clinical scale scores on the MMPI-2. In Psychologists’ Desk Reference. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199845491.003.0022
Huertas, R. (2014). Obsessions before Freud: History and clinical practice. História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos, 21(4), 1397–1415. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702014005000014
Janet, P. (1930). Autobiography of Pierre Janet. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 1, pp. 123–133). Clark University Press. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Janet/murchison.htm
Lanteri-Laura, G. (1994). La psychasthénie: histoire et évolution d’un concept de P. Janet [Psychasthenia: history and evolution of the P. Janet concept]. L’Encéphale, 20(Spec No. 3), 551–557. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7843050/
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Obsessive-compulsive disorder: When unwanted thoughts or repetitive behaviors take over. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-when-unwanted-thoughts-or-repetitive-behaviors-take-over
Pitman, R. K. (1984). Janet’s obsessions and psychasthenia: A synopsis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 56(4), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064475
Pitman, R. K. (1987). Pierre Janet on obsessive-compulsive disorder (1903): Review and commentary. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(3), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1987.01800150032005
Raymond, F., & Janet, P. (1903). Les obsessions et la psychasthénie. Félix Alcan. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3411236f
Shamdasani, S. (2001). Claire, Lise, Jean, Nadia, and Gisèle: Preliminary notes towards a characterisation of Pierre Janet’s psychasthenia. Clio Medica, 63, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333406_018
Summerfeldt, L. J. (2004). Understanding and treating incompleteness in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(11), 1155–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20080
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263