Coping With High Neuroticism: Stress, Worry, and Emotional Regulation
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Coping with high neuroticism is best understood as learning to work skillfully with stress sensitivity, worry, negative emotion, and recovery. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait, not a psychiatric diagnosis, and a high score does not mean that a person is ill, irrational, or destined to develop an anxiety or depressive disorder. The practical goal is therefore not to “cure” a personality trait. It is to reduce costly patterns, increase flexibility, and make emotional reactions easier to navigate.
The evidence supports that distinction. A meta-analysis covering 165 samples and 33,094 participants found that Big Five traits were related to coping, but the associations depended on the specific coping strategy, the sample, and how coping was measured. Higher neuroticism was associated on average with less problem solving and cognitive restructuring and with more withdrawal, wishful thinking, and other emotion-focused responses; it was also associated with more support seeking, showing why the simple idea that people high in neuroticism use only “bad coping” is inaccurate (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007).
Daily-life research also shows that neuroticism is connected to how stress is appraised and experienced. In a classic 14-day diary study, people higher in neuroticism reported more negative appraisals of stressful events and greater distress in connection with those appraisals (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). More recent experience-sampling studies reinforce the importance of separating overall negative affect, exposure to stressors, emotional reactivity, and recovery rather than treating them as one process (Lücke et al., 2024; Wrzus et al., 2021).
This article owns the practical coping intent. For the broader meaning of elevated scores, see High Neuroticism: Meaning, Traits, Strengths, and Risks. For the stress mechanism itself, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
The short answer
If you are high in neuroticism, the most useful target is usually not the trait label. Target the sequence that creates difficulty: what happens, how you interpret it, what emotion follows, what you do next, and how long it takes you to recover. The sequence can change even when your relative position on a personality scale changes little.
A workable coping system has five jobs. It distinguishes a problem that can be acted on from a threat prediction that cannot yet be solved. It reduces repetitive negative thinking when thinking has stopped producing new information. It expands the range of emotion-regulation strategies available to you. It limits avoidant behavior that makes short-term relief expensive in the long term. And it protects recovery so that one stressful event does not occupy the rest of the day.
Those goals are compatible with personality science. Personality traits show substantial stability, yet they are not perfectly fixed. A systematic review of 207 intervention studies found measurable personality-trait change during interventions, with emotional stability showing the largest average change. The authors also emphasized that much of this literature involved clinical interventions and a mixture of experimental and pre-post designs (Roberts et al., 2017). Coping skills can be useful whether or not a neuroticism score eventually changes.
What high neuroticism means in this article
Neuroticism describes a broad tendency toward more frequent or intense negative emotional responses to threat, frustration, uncertainty, and loss. In contemporary Big Five research, it is continuous: people vary from lower to higher levels rather than falling into two natural categories. Some modern instruments use the opposite pole, emotional stability; the BFI-2 uses the closely related label Negative Emotionality. These terms overlap substantially, but they are not invitations to treat every questionnaire as interchangeable.
A “high score” only has meaning inside a named instrument, scoring method, normative sample, and population. NEO instruments, the BFI-2, IPIP scales, and Eysenck measures differ in item content, facet structure, score ranges, and norms. A raw score that looks high on one scale cannot simply be transferred to another. The Hub’s Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results explains these measurement boundaries in detail.
The word neuroticism also does not mean the same thing as current negative affect, anxiety, trait anxiety, worry, rumination, or a psychiatric symptom score. A person can have a relatively high trait level while feeling calm today. A person with lower neuroticism can experience intense anxiety during a crisis. Current symptoms can influence how people answer personality items, so state and trait variance can coexist.
Neuroticism is statistically associated with many mental health outcomes and is often described as a broad or transdiagnostic risk marker. That status does not convert the trait into a diagnosis. Reviews of the neuroticism–mental-health relationship emphasize shared causes, spectrum overlap, vulnerability processes, and state effects rather than a single one-way causal explanation (Ormel et al., 2013).
Coping and personality change are different questions
A coping intervention can succeed in several ways. It can reduce the intensity of a particular stress response, shorten recovery time, reduce worry, improve behavior under stress, lessen psychiatric symptoms, or change a personality-trait measure. These outcomes are related, but they are not equivalent.
State fluctuation is short-term variation in emotion or behavior. Symptom change concerns problems such as anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, panic, or compulsive behavior. Trait change refers to a more enduring shift in a personality construct as measured across time. Mean-level personality change describes average change in a group, while individual change concerns a particular person. An intervention study can show one of these without proving the others.
This distinction matters because some treatment studies recruit people with diagnosed emotional disorders, not community samples selected only for high neuroticism. Their findings tell us that trait measures can move under certain clinical conditions; they do not establish that every person with a high Big Five score needs treatment.
Why stress can feel different when neuroticism is higher
Stress is not one variable. Researchers can study stressor exposure, perceived stress, appraisal, momentary negative affect, reactivity to an event, coping behavior, and recovery after the event. Higher neuroticism is associated with several of these processes, but not always in the same way or with the same strength.
For example, a 2024 daily-life study using two age-heterogeneous samples found higher neuroticism associated with higher overall negative affect in both samples, while a stronger link with stressor reactivity appeared only in the older sample. Extraversion and openness did not consistently buffer the associations (Lücke et al., 2024). That pattern is a useful warning against turning “high neuroticism means more reactive” into a universal law.
Longitudinal work adds another layer. In a six-year measurement-burst study, increases in momentary affective reactivity to daily hassles were associated with increases in neuroticism, especially earlier in adulthood. Mere frequency of hassles was not the same predictor (Wrzus et al., 2021). This is consistent with the idea that how a person repeatedly experiences and responds to stress may matter as much as the simple count of stressful events.
For a full treatment of exposure, reactivity, and recovery, use Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery. Here, the practical implication is narrower: identify which part of the stress process you can actually influence.
A practical coping model
A useful way to organize coping is to move through six questions in order: What happened? What did I predict or assume? What am I feeling and how activated am I? Is there a concrete action available now? Which regulation strategy fits this situation? What will help the episode end rather than continue indefinitely? The questions prevent a common mistake: trying to solve every emotional state with more analysis.
1. Separate the event from the appraisal
Start by describing the event in observable terms. “My manager sent a two-line message asking to talk tomorrow” is an event. “I am probably being fired” is an interpretation. “If I lose this job, everything will collapse” is a prediction. The distinction does not mean the feared outcome is impossible. It means you are keeping evidence, inference, and emotion in separate mental containers long enough to choose a response.
This is especially relevant to neuroticism because daily-diary research has linked higher neuroticism to more negative primary and secondary appraisals of stressful events (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). Appraisal is therefore a reasonable coping target even though changing one appraisal does not “change your personality.”
2. Ask whether the problem is solvable now
If a stressor is controllable, coping should usually contain a behavioral component. Define the next concrete action, the information you need, the decision deadline, and the point at which further analysis stops. If a stressor is currently uncontrollable, repeated problem solving can become disguised worry because there is no action available to complete the loop.
The personality-and-coping meta-analysis found that neuroticism was related to specific coping strategies rather than to one global coping style, and those relations varied by context and method (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). That favors a flexible rule: match the response to the problem instead of trying to become a person who always uses the same “healthy” strategy.
3. Convert worry into a decision or label it as worry
Worry can feel productive because it is future-oriented and verbally analytical. Sometimes it is productive: it identifies a real risk, generates options, and produces a plan. The practical cutoff comes when the thought process keeps cycling without producing new evidence, a new decision, or a new action.
At that point, use a simple test. Is there a current problem? Can I take a useful step today? What would count as enough information to act? If there is an answer, write the step and schedule it. If there is no current action, label the process accurately: “This is a threat simulation, not a task I can complete right now.” Then shift attention deliberately rather than continuing the internal debate.
Higher neuroticism and worry are related, but they are distinct constructs. The Hub’s Neuroticism and Worry: Why Higher Scores May Mean More Anticipated Threat covers that relationship without equating worry with the Big Five trait.
4. Target repetitive negative thinking as a process
Worry and rumination differ in emphasis, but both can become forms of repetitive negative thinking: recurring thought that feels urgent while producing little new information. The most useful intervention target is often the process itself, not proving every individual thought wrong.
A 2025 transdiagnostic meta-analysis of 55 randomized controlled trials with 4,970 participants found that cognitive-behavioral interventions produced a moderate overall reduction in repetitive negative thinking compared with controls, and interventions specifically targeting repetitive negative thinking showed larger effects than less-specific approaches (Stenzel et al., 2025). These were treatment studies across clinical problems, so the result supports the process as modifiable rather than prescribing a particular therapy to every high-neuroticism person.
For the personality relationship specifically, see Neuroticism and Rumination: Repetitive Negative Thinking and Emotional Distress.
5. Use emotion-regulation flexibility
Emotion regulation is not synonymous with calming down. Sometimes the useful response is to reduce emotional intensity; sometimes it is to tolerate an emotion while acting; sometimes it is to change the situation; sometimes it is to seek information, communicate, rest, or postpone a decision until arousal decreases. The goal is functional flexibility.
A meta-analysis of 132 studies, 156 independent samples, 46,345 participants, and 753 effect sizes found that higher neuroticism was associated on average with less use of strategies commonly classified as adaptive, such as reappraisal, problem solving, and mindfulness, and greater use of avoidance and suppression. The associations varied across samples and regulation contexts (Barańczuk, 2019).
Modern regulation research therefore cautions against a fixed list of universally good and bad strategies. Regulatory flexibility depends on reading the situation, selecting a response, implementing it, monitoring whether it works, and changing course when necessary (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Gross’s process model also makes clear that regulation can occur before or after an emotional response becomes intense, through situation selection, situation modification, attention, cognitive change, and response modulation (Gross, 1998; Gross, 2015).
The Hub’s Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress explains the evidence and measurement issues in depth.
6. Reappraise selectively, not compulsively
Cognitive reappraisal can be useful when a first interpretation is incomplete, exaggerated, or unnecessarily rigid. A practical reappraisal question is: “What is another plausible reading that fits the same facts?” The goal is not forced optimism. It is to widen a narrow threat interpretation enough to support better action.
Reappraisal becomes less useful when it turns into endless reassurance seeking from yourself: generating ten benign explanations, checking them, doubting them, and starting again. If the core problem is uncertainty that cannot be eliminated, tolerating unresolved uncertainty may be more functional than producing one more explanation.
7. Use acceptance when the emotion is not the problem
Some emotions are proportionate responses to difficult circumstances. Grief after loss, fear during genuine danger, anger at mistreatment, and sadness after disappointment do not become errors simply because they are unpleasant. In these situations, fighting the existence of the emotion can add a second layer of distress.
Acceptance in this context means allowing an internal state to be present while choosing behavior intentionally. It does not mean approving the situation, abandoning boundaries, or refusing to solve problems. For a person high in neuroticism, this distinction can reduce the tendency to interpret emotional intensity as proof that something has gone terribly wrong.
8. Reduce avoidance in small, observable steps
Avoidance works quickly because it reduces contact with an uncomfortable cue. That immediate relief can make avoidance self-reinforcing. The longer-term cost appears when the person loses opportunities, relationships, information, practice, or confidence and then becomes even more sensitive to the avoided situation.
The coping meta-analysis linked neuroticism with withdrawal and other disengagement strategies on average (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). A practical response is graded approach: define the smallest meaningful action that moves toward the task without requiring you to feel calm first. If avoidance is part of a diagnosable anxiety disorder, trauma-related condition, OCD, or another clinical problem, treatment should be organized around that condition rather than around a personality label.
9. Protect recovery after activation
Coping does not end when the stressor ends. A person can continue the episode through replay, checking, self-criticism, or repeated conversation. Recovery therefore deserves its own plan: identify the end of active problem solving, lower unnecessary stimulation, return attention to current activity, and avoid reopening the same decision unless genuinely new information appears.
Daily-life research shows why this is worth separating from reactivity. Stress exposure, emotional response, and recovery are related but distinct processes, and their association with neuroticism can differ by sample and age (Lücke et al., 2024). The practical metric is not “Did I feel upset?” but “Did the episode continue longer or spread further than the situation required?”
10. Use routines to remove unnecessary uncertainty
High neuroticism can make open loops disproportionately expensive. Routine can reduce the number of decisions that must be repeatedly reconsidered. Useful examples include fixed times for checking messages, written criteria for recurring decisions, preparation the night before a demanding morning, buffers between high-load tasks, and a defined shutdown routine at the end of work.
These systems do not alter the meaning of the personality trait. They reduce avoidable ambiguity and cognitive load. The best routine is one that makes the next useful action obvious without becoming rigid enough to create a new source of distress.
11. Seek support without turning support into a certainty ritual
Support seeking is not inherently maladaptive. In fact, the coping meta-analysis found that neuroticism was also associated with more support seeking (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). The question is what the conversation does.
Helpful support can provide information, perspective, emotional connection, or practical assistance. Reassurance loops are different: the same feared question is asked repeatedly, relief lasts briefly, and uncertainty returns. A useful boundary is to decide what you want from the conversation before you start: information, empathy, help with a task, or a second opinion.
A two-week coping experiment
Instead of trying to change everything at once, run a short observation-and-practice period. Do not retake a neuroticism inventory every day. Trait measures are not designed to function as moment-to-moment dashboards.
For each meaningful stress episode, record six items: the event in observable terms; the first interpretation or prediction; emotional intensity on a simple personal scale; what you did; whether the action solved anything or only reduced discomfort; and how long it took before the issue stopped occupying attention. Add one sentence about what you would repeat or change next time.
At the end of two weeks, look for repeated leverage points. Perhaps uncertainty triggers worry, interpersonal ambiguity triggers checking, fatigue makes reappraisal harder, or avoidance gives immediate relief but lengthens distress. Choose one recurring process and one replacement response. This produces a behavioral target that is much more actionable than the global instruction to “be less neurotic.”
How to know whether a coping strategy is working
Judge a strategy by function and time horizon. A strategy can reduce distress immediately yet create larger costs later. Another strategy can feel uncomfortable now while improving functioning over time. The useful question is not only “Did I feel better?” but also “Did this help me act effectively, preserve relationships, solve what was solvable, and recover without creating a new problem?”
Four outcome domains are especially useful. First is functioning: can you do what matters despite emotion? Second is recovery: does activation settle rather than dominate the day? Third is flexibility: can you switch strategies when the first one does not fit? Fourth is repetition: are worry, checking, avoidance, or reassurance becoming less automatic?
These outcomes can improve even if a standardized personality score remains relatively stable. That is why practical coping should not be evaluated only by whether a later neuroticism score is lower.
Mindfulness, decentering, and self-compassion
Mindfulness-related approaches are common in search results for high neuroticism, but the evidence needs scale and context. A pilot randomized study recruited 34 people selected for high neuroticism and compared an eight-week mindfulness-based cognitive therapy program adapted for neuroticism with online self-help. The mindfulness group showed lower post-intervention neuroticism as well as changes in rumination, self-compassion, and decentering (Armstrong & Rimes, 2016).
That study is useful because it directly targeted people high in the trait, but it was small and explicitly a pilot. It supports further study; it does not establish mindfulness as a universal treatment for neuroticism. A practical takeaway is narrower: skills such as noticing thoughts as mental events, returning attention, and responding to distress without immediate self-attack may be useful components of a broader coping repertoire.
Can therapy help someone who is high in neuroticism?
Yes, when there is a meaningful problem to work on. Therapy may target anxiety, depression, repetitive negative thinking, avoidance, emotion-regulation difficulties, relationship patterns, or other sources of impairment. A high neuroticism score alone is not a clinical indication.
The broadest evidence comes from the systematic review of 207 intervention studies. Across an average intervention period of about 24 weeks, personality-trait measures changed, with emotional stability showing the largest average shift. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental designs and was dominated by clinical interventions, so it supports malleability without proving that one specific treatment changes neuroticism in everyone (Roberts et al., 2017).
More targeted evidence comes from the Unified Protocol, a transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral treatment designed for emotional disorders. In a randomized trial of 223 patients with principal anxiety disorders, participants receiving the Unified Protocol had lower neuroticism at week 16 than participants receiving symptom-focused CBT or a waitlist; the group differences remained after accounting for simultaneous fluctuations in anxiety and depression symptoms (Sauer-Zavala et al., 2021).
Smaller mechanistic studies show why the trait-versus-state distinction remains important. In a 2024 clinical trial with 38 participants, neuroticism showed state-level change by session 6 and trait-level change by session 12, with bidirectional relations between within-person neuroticism reductions and anxiety symptoms (Stumpp, Southward, & Sauer-Zavala, 2024). A 2026 randomized study of 70 adults with emotional disorders found that six versus twelve sessions did not differ over the first six sessions, while the longer condition showed greater reductions from sessions 7 to 12; controlling for anxiety and depressive symptoms changed the early-session picture (Stumpp et al., 2026).
These studies support a careful conclusion: personality-trait measures can change during treatment, and some treatments explicitly target processes related to neuroticism. They do not justify treating high neuroticism as a disease or promising a cure.
What success can look like even without trait change
Successful coping may mean that a difficult email still creates a surge of anxiety, but the surge no longer produces three hours of checking. It may mean you still notice possible problems quickly, but you distinguish a useful warning from a hypothetical threat. It may mean anger still arrives fast, but you wait before sending the message that would damage a relationship. It may mean uncertainty remains uncomfortable, but you stop demanding impossible certainty before acting.
This is an important outcome because personality traits describe tendencies, not commands. A tendency toward negative emotion can coexist with excellent behavioral regulation, good relationships, professional effectiveness, and a meaningful life. Skills change what happens after a tendency is activated.
Common mistakes when trying to cope with high neuroticism
Treating the trait score as a diagnosis
A Big Five score cannot diagnose generalized anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, a personality disorder, or any other clinical condition. Neuroticism is a risk-related personality construct, while diagnoses require their own criteria, symptom patterns, duration, context, and impairment. See Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor for the broader evidence.
Trying to suppress every negative emotion
Negative emotion is not itself a coping failure. Some situations should produce fear, sadness, anger, guilt, or concern. Effective regulation concerns fit, timing, intensity, behavior, and recovery. Suppressing expression can occasionally be useful, but habitual suppression is not a universal solution, and meta-analytic associations between neuroticism and suppression do not prove that suppression causes the trait (Barańczuk, 2019).
Using reassurance as an infinite resource
Reassurance can be reasonable when it supplies genuinely new information. It becomes inefficient when the same question is repeated because no answer can produce permanent certainty. If reassurance repeatedly resets the worry for only a few minutes, the more useful target may be uncertainty tolerance and repetitive negative thinking.
Avoiding anything that triggers emotion
A life organized around avoiding activation can become progressively smaller. Coping aims to preserve functioning while emotions are present. If exposure to a situation is genuinely unsafe, avoidance may be appropriate; if the cue is safe but feared, graded approach may be more useful. Context decides.
Retesting personality too often
Personality inventories are designed to summarize relatively broad patterns. Repeated testing over very short intervals can become a form of monitoring that confuses normal state fluctuation with trait change. If you use a personality measure, keep the exact instrument, scoring method, and normative context constant and interpret changes over an interval appropriate to the measure and purpose.
When professional help is worth considering
High neuroticism by itself does not require therapy. Professional assessment becomes more relevant when distress is persistent, functioning is impaired, avoidance is expanding, sleep is substantially disrupted, relationships or work are repeatedly affected, or symptoms suggest a specific mental health condition. The clinical target is then the symptom pattern and impairment, not the moral value of a personality score.
Because neuroticism is associated with broad mental-health risk at the population level, it can be useful as one piece of context. It cannot identify which disorder a person has, whether a person has any disorder, or which treatment an individual needs. The distinction between statistical risk and diagnosis is central to responsible use of personality science (Lahey, 2009; Ormel et al., 2013).
Frequently asked questions
Can you cope well and still score high in neuroticism?
Yes. A trait score summarizes a tendency toward negative emotional experience and stress sensitivity. Coping skills describe what you do with those reactions. A person can remain relatively high on the trait while becoming much more effective at appraisal, problem solving, emotion regulation, communication, and recovery.
What is the best coping strategy for high neuroticism?
There is no single best strategy. Evidence favors matching strategies to the situation. Problem solving is useful when action is possible; reappraisal can help when interpretation is unnecessarily narrow; acceptance can help when emotion is appropriate but uncomfortable; attention shifting can interrupt unproductive loops; support can provide information or connection; and graded approach can reduce costly avoidance.
Does high neuroticism mean I have anxiety?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension. Anxiety can refer to a temporary emotional state, a symptom, a narrower trait tendency, or a diagnosable anxiety disorder. The constructs are related but not interchangeable.
Can worry be useful?
Yes, when it identifies a plausible problem and leads to preparation, information gathering, or action. Worry becomes less useful when it repeats without new evidence or action. The practical question is whether the thinking changes what you can responsibly do.
Should I try to lower my neuroticism score?
A lower score is not automatically the best personal goal. Focus first on the outcomes that matter: distress, functioning, sleep, relationships, avoidance, repetitive thinking, decision quality, and recovery. Intervention research shows trait measures can change, but improvement does not require turning a personality score into the main performance indicator.
Does CBT change neuroticism?
Some clinical intervention studies report changes in neuroticism or emotional stability, and a randomized Unified Protocol trial found greater neuroticism reductions than symptom-focused CBT and a waitlist in patients with principal anxiety disorders (Sauer-Zavala et al., 2021). The finding is specific to clinical samples, measures, and treatment protocols; it is not evidence that CBT is required for every person with high neuroticism.
Does mindfulness lower neuroticism?
There is preliminary direct evidence. A small pilot randomized study of a neuroticism-focused mindfulness-based cognitive therapy program found lower post-treatment neuroticism than online self-help, but the sample included only 34 participants (Armstrong & Rimes, 2016). That is promising rather than definitive.
How long does it take to change neuroticism?
There is no universal timeline. Trait change depends on the person, measure, developmental period, intervention, symptoms, and context. In treatment research, early changes can partly reflect state improvement, while more sustained trait-level changes may emerge later. A 2026 Unified Protocol study, for example, found evidence that a longer course was associated with additional neuroticism reduction after the first six sessions in a clinical sample (Stumpp et al., 2026).
What should I track if I want to improve coping?
Track events, appraisals, emotional intensity, behavior, recovery time, and functional consequences. These variables tell you where the coping sequence can be changed. Repeatedly tracking a global personality score gives much less information about what to do next.
Related Articles
References
Aldao, A., Sheppes, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation flexibility. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39, 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9662-4
Armstrong, L., & Rimes, K. A. (2016). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Neuroticism (Stress Vulnerability): A Pilot Randomized Study. Behavior Therapy, 47(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.12.005
Barańczuk, U. (2019). The five factor model of personality and emotion regulation: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.025
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Lücke, A. J., Schilling, O. K., Kunzmann, U., Gerstorf, D., Katzorreck-Gierden, M., Hoppmann, C. A., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G., Riediger, M., & Wrzus, C. (2024). Neuroticism, emotional stress reactivity and recovery in daily life: Examining extraversion and openness as moderators. Journal of Research in Personality, 109, 104474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104474
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088
Sauer-Zavala, S., Fournier, J. C., Steele, S. J., Woods, B. K., Wang, M., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (2021). Does the unified protocol really change neuroticism? Results from a randomized trial. Psychological Medicine, 51(14), 2378–2387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720000975
Stenzel, K. L., Keller, J., Kirchner, L., Rief, W., & Berg, M. (2025). Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating repetitive negative thinking, rumination, and worry — a transdiagnostic meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 55, e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000017
Stumpp, N. E., Southward, M. W., & Sauer-Zavala, S. (2024). Assessing theories of state and trait change in neuroticism and symptom improvement in the Unified Protocol. Behavior Therapy, 55(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2023.05.005
Stumpp, N. E., Southward, M. W., Hines, A., Kushner, M. L., Schäuffele, C., Fruhbauerova, M., Bridges, E., Rahman, A., & Sauer-Zavala, S. (2026). When and under what circumstances does neuroticism change in the Unified Protocol? Psychotherapy Research, 36(4), 785–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2521779
Wrzus, C., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G., & Riediger, M. (2021). Longitudinal coupling of momentary stress reactivity and trait neuroticism: Specificity of states, traits, and age period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000308