How Do I Know If I’m Neurotic? Signs, Limits of the Label, and Better Questions to Ask
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
If you are asking “How do I know if I’m neurotic?”, the most accurate answer is that there is no modern clinical status called “being a neurotic person” that you can confirm from a checklist. “Neurotic” is an everyday and historically derived label whose meaning changes with the speaker. A better approach is to identify the specific thing you are noticing—worry, repetitive thinking, emotional reactivity, self-criticism, perfectionistic concern, checking, reassurance seeking, avoidance, insecurity, or something else—and then ask whether it is a temporary state, a repeated behavior pattern, a personality trait, a symptom, a risk factor, or part of a diagnosable condition.
That distinction matters because a social label cannot do the work of diagnosis. The American Psychiatric Association explains that DSM diagnostic criteria specify symptoms, duration, rule-outs, and other conditions, and are intended for trained professionals using clinical judgment rather than for the general public to self-diagnose. The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 clinical diagnostic manual is likewise designed to support accurate diagnosis of defined mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders.
What does “neurotic” mean when people use it today?
In ordinary conversation, “neurotic” is often used loosely for someone who seems unusually worried, tense, high-strung, self-conscious, emotionally reactive, controlling, perfectionistic, or preoccupied with small risks. The word can also be used about a particular behavior—someone may say they are “neurotic about” cleanliness, punctuality, health, mistakes, money, or how other people perceive them. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries documents this informal worried or non-calm use alongside the word’s older connection to neurosis. A dictionary can document usage; it cannot tell you what psychological process is actually present in a particular person.
Three different ideas are especially easy to mix together. Everyday “neurotic” is a variable social label. Neuroticism is a measurable personality trait. Neurosis is a historical clinical and theoretical concept with its own diagnostic history. Those are related by language, not interchangeable scientific categories. If the historical distinction is what you are trying to understand, see Neurosis vs Neuroticism: Historical Disorder Concept vs Big Five Personality Trait.
There is no single validated checklist of “signs that you are neurotic”
Search results commonly present lists of “neurotic signs” as though a recognized syndrome were being described. That format creates false precision. The items on those lists usually come from several different psychological domains at once: ordinary stress, personality traits, anxiety symptoms, rumination, perfectionism, interpersonal insecurity, compulsive behavior, depressed mood, or habits that have become reinforcing. A person could recognize several items and still have no mental disorder. Another person could recognize only one item and have a clinically important problem if that symptom is severe, persistent, and impairing.
The useful question is not “How many neurotic signs do I have?” It is “What exactly is happening, how often, in what situations, for how long, with what consequences, and what more precise construct best describes it?” That route preserves self-understanding while avoiding self-diagnosis from a vague label.
What the evidence can and cannot tell you
Established evidence: neuroticism is a dimensional personality construct, and research links higher neuroticism with broad mental-health risk. Current anxiety and obsessive-compulsive diagnoses are defined by disorder-specific symptom patterns, duration, distress, impairment, and clinical assessment. Research also supports associations between constructs such as rumination, perfectionistic concerns, and excessive reassurance seeking and particular forms of psychological distress.
An important evidence boundary follows from that: findings about measured Big Five neuroticism cannot automatically be transferred to everyone who is casually described as “neurotic.” The everyday word has no standardized measurement rule, so the population selected by ordinary language is not the same as a research sample selected by a validated personality measure.
Plausible interpretation: when someone says “I’m neurotic,” the word may point toward a real underlying process—worry, repetitive negative thinking, emotional reactivity, perfectionistic concern, reassurance seeking, avoidance, or another pattern. The interpretation becomes scientifically useful only after that process is identified more precisely.
Unsupported inference: recognizing a collection of popular “neurotic signs” does not establish a clinical syndrome, a diagnosis, or a fixed identity. The evidence base belongs to the specific constructs and disorders being measured, not to the everyday label itself.
Common experiences people may be describing with the word “neurotic”
Frequent worry and repeated “what if?” thinking
Someone may call themselves neurotic because their mind repeatedly generates possible problems: What if I made the wrong decision? What if I get sick? What if I upset someone? What if I forgot something? Worry can be a normal response to uncertainty, a temporary response to stress, a habitual cognitive style, or a symptom within several conditions. The presence of worry by itself does not identify which of those is true.
When worry is persistent, difficult to control, broad across areas of life, and interferes with functioning, anxiety becomes a more precise question than “Am I neurotic?” The National Institute of Mental Health describes generalized anxiety disorder as involving unusually frequent or intense worry and anxiety that can persist for months or years and interfere with daily life. This does not mean frequent worry automatically equals GAD; duration, control, associated symptoms, context, and impairment matter.
Rumination and post-event analysis
Another common meaning is repetitive analysis after something has happened: replaying a conversation, reviewing a mistake, asking why you reacted as you did, or trying to think your way to certainty. Rumination is a more precise research term than “neurotic thinking” for some of these loops. In longitudinal work, McLaughlin and Nolen-Hoeksema found rumination involved in the overlap between depressive and anxiety symptoms and described it as a transdiagnostic process rather than a diagnosis in itself.
Repetitive thinking can look similar on the surface while serving different functions. One person may be problem-solving. Another may be dwelling on loss. Another may be trying to neutralize uncertainty. Another may be performing a mental compulsion. The form and function of the thinking are more informative than the everyday label.
Strong emotional reactions or slow recovery after stress
Some people use “neurotic” to mean that emotions feel intense or are easily activated by criticism, conflict, uncertainty, frustration, or perceived failure. That description can overlap with the personality trait neuroticism, but an episode of emotional reactivity is not the same thing as a stable trait. A difficult week, a stressful environment, a recurring relationship conflict, and a long-standing cross-situational tendency are different psychological situations.
Modern personality research uses neuroticism to describe a dimensional tendency toward negative emotional responses. Lahey’s review defines neuroticism as relatively stable differences in responding with negative emotions to threat, frustration, or loss. The key words are trait and relatively stable. Feeling unusually reactive in one context does not demonstrate that you have high neuroticism, and high neuroticism does not itself constitute a mental disorder.
Harsh self-criticism, guilt, and fear of mistakes
A person may use “neurotic” when they notice a constant internal evaluator: Was that stupid? Did I embarrass myself? Should I have done more? What will people think? Self-criticism can accompany anxiety, depression, perfectionism, shame, low self-esteem, stressful environments, or learned standards. It can also occur without a diagnosable disorder. The label does not tell you which explanation fits.
A better observation is specific: “After mistakes, I criticize myself for hours,” or “I assume one awkward interaction means people dislike me.” Specific descriptions can be examined for triggers, frequency, consequences, and alternative interpretations. “I am a neurotic person” compresses all of that information into a global identity judgment.
Perfectionistic concern and attempts to control uncertainty
Perfectionism is another pattern often hidden inside the label. Wanting to do something well is not the same as being trapped by fear of error, chronic doubt, or self-worth that depends on flawless performance. A large systematic review and meta-analysis of adult perfectionism found that perfectionistic concerns had moderate associations with anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, while perfectionistic strivings showed smaller associations. Association does not make perfectionism a diagnosis, and it does not make every perfectionistic person “neurotic.”
If the issue is perfectionism, ask about the perfectionism: What standards are you setting? What happens when you fall short? Do you delay, overprepare, repeatedly check, avoid finishing, or seek certainty? That is more actionable than deciding what kind of person you are.
Reassurance seeking and repeated checking
Repeatedly asking “Are you sure?”, checking messages for signs of rejection, asking whether a decision was correct, or repeatedly verifying that something is safe may be described casually as neurotic. Yet reassurance seeking is not specific to one diagnosis. Research has examined it in depression and interpersonal processes, including a meta-analysis by Starr and Davila that found associations between excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection. In other contexts, reassurance can also function as part of an anxiety or obsessive-compulsive cycle.
Checking is equally nonspecific. Everyone double-checks sometimes. In OCD, the relevant pattern involves obsessions, compulsions, loss of control, time consumption, distress, or interference. NIMH explicitly notes that not every repeated thought or double-check is OCD and describes OCD as involving recurring obsessions, compulsions, or both that can become time-consuming and impairing. For the full disorder-specific territory, see OCD: What Is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.
Sensitivity to criticism, rejection, or uncertainty
People sometimes call themselves neurotic because they closely monitor tone of voice, delayed replies, facial expressions, social feedback, or signs that someone may be displeased. That could reflect ordinary concern in an important relationship, a period of insecurity, social anxiety, attachment-related expectations, rejection sensitivity, depressed mood, or another process. The observable behavior is real; the label remains under-specified.
The practical move is to separate evidence from prediction. What happened? What did you infer? How certain were you? What did you do next? Did you ask for reassurance, withdraw, argue, monitor, or replay the interaction? Those questions identify a cycle without assigning a global identity.
Avoidance, indecision, and difficulty tolerating uncertainty
Another person may mean that they overprepare, postpone decisions, avoid situations that might go badly, or keep gathering information because certainty never feels sufficient. Avoidance can temporarily reduce discomfort, which may make the behavior more likely to repeat. But avoidance appears across many ordinary and clinical contexts. It is not a diagnostic marker for “neurotic behavior.”
If indecision is the problem, describe the decision process. If avoidance is the problem, describe what is being avoided and what feared outcome is being prevented. If uncertainty is the problem, describe what level of certainty feels necessary before action is possible. Precision reveals mechanisms that the word “neurotic” hides.
The most important distinction: state, pattern, trait, symptom, risk factor, screening result, diagnosis, and disorder
A large share of confusion disappears once these categories are separated. They answer different questions and require different kinds of evidence.
Emotional state
A state is what is happening now or during a limited period: anxious today, tense during an exam week, irritable after conflict, ashamed after a mistake. A state can be intense without being a stable personality characteristic. Calling a temporary state “who I am” turns a time-limited experience into an identity claim.
Behavior pattern
A behavior pattern is a response that recurs: repeatedly seeking reassurance, avoiding difficult conversations, checking work many times, or replaying decisions. Patterns can be learned, reinforced, context-specific, or linked to several different conditions. A pattern is something you do, not automatically something you are.
Personality trait
A personality trait describes relatively stable individual differences in typical patterns across time and situations. Neuroticism is such a trait. The Big Five Inventory-2 was developed and validated as a research measure of Big Five domains and facets. A neuroticism or negative-emotionality score answers a personality-measurement question; it does not diagnose a disorder and does not prove that the everyday social label “neurotic person” is appropriate.
Symptom
A symptom is a reported or observed experience that may be relevant to one or more conditions: excessive worry, sleep disturbance, intrusive thoughts, compulsive rituals, low mood, panic, concentration problems, or avoidance. A symptom can occur outside a disorder. Its meaning depends on the full pattern, duration, severity, context, and impairment.
Risk factor
A risk factor is statistically associated with a greater likelihood of an outcome; it is not destiny and it is not the outcome itself. Neuroticism illustrates this distinction. Research has linked higher neuroticism with a broad range of mental-health outcomes, but Ormel and colleagues’ review emphasizes that the relationship with common mental disorders is complex and can reflect multiple models, shared causes, symptom overlap, state effects, and other confounding. They describe neuroticism as a useful nonspecific marker of general risk, not a simple causal diagnosis.
Screening result
A screening result estimates whether further assessment may be useful. Screening tools are designed for particular constructs or disorders and have specific scoring rules, populations, and limitations. A positive screen is not a diagnosis. A generic internet quiz that says “you are neurotic” usually mixes everyday language with personality or symptom items and should not be treated as a clinical conclusion.
Diagnosis
A diagnosis is a formal clinical determination based on defined criteria and professional assessment. The APA’s DSM guidance explicitly states that diagnostic criteria are meant for trained professionals using clinical judgment. Diagnosis also involves ruling out other explanations and considering duration and associated conditions. The phrase “neurotic person” does not perform that work.
Clinical disorder
A clinical disorder is a defined condition within a current classification system, not a synonym for having an uncomfortable trait or behavior. Modern diagnostic practice asks whether a particular disorder’s requirements are met. The WHO ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements are built for that kind of specific identification. If your concern is persistent worry, compulsions, depression, trauma symptoms, or another domain, the appropriate question is about that domain.
Does recognizing several “neurotic” signs mean you have high neuroticism?
Not necessarily. Everyday labeling and trait measurement are different operations. Someone may be called neurotic because of one conspicuous habit even if they would not score especially high on a broad personality measure. Someone else may score high on neuroticism yet never use the word neurotic about themselves. The overlap is plausible because both can involve negative emotionality, but they are not interchangeable categories.
Personality science treats neuroticism dimensionally. Lahey’s review describes substantial variation across the population rather than a simple “neurotic/not neurotic” divide. That is one reason a binary self-label loses information. A trait score is also influenced by how a particular instrument defines and measures the construct.
If your actual question is about Big Five neuroticism, it is better to ask that directly: “What does neuroticism measure?” or “How is neuroticism assessed?” This article keeps that trait-science territory separate because your original question—“How do I know if I’m neurotic?”—usually begins with an everyday label, not a psychometric score.
Could “I’m neurotic” actually mean “I’m anxious”?
Sometimes, but not automatically. Anxiety can be a normal emotion, a temporary response to stress, a symptom, or part of an anxiety disorder. NIMH notes that occasional anxiety and worry are normal parts of life, whereas generalized anxiety disorder involves more persistent, difficult-to-control anxiety or worry that interferes with how a person lives. The distinction depends on the pattern, not the slang label.
If your worry is broad, persistent, hard to control, and functionally disruptive, asking about anxiety is more precise than asking whether you are neurotic. If the concern is primarily sudden panic, a specific fear, social evaluation, health anxiety, or trauma-related fear, those are different questions again. A single adjective should not collapse multiple anxiety presentations into one category.
Could it be OCD because I check, overthink, or seek reassurance?
Those behaviors can occur in OCD, but they do not establish OCD by themselves. In OCD, obsessions are intrusive and unwanted thoughts, urges, or images, while compulsions are repetitive behaviors or mental acts performed in response to obsessions or according to rigid rules. NIMH notes that people with OCD generally have difficulty controlling the symptoms, may spend substantial time on them, and experience significant distress or daily-life problems. Read the NIMH OCD overview for the clinical pattern.
If you are trying to distinguish chronic worry from obsessive-compulsive processes, our live comparison OCD vs GAD: What Is the Difference? Obsessions, Worry, Compulsions, and Generalized Anxiety separates those two evidence-based constructs. The point is not to replace one self-label with another; it is to ask a question that can actually be assessed.
Better questions to ask than “Am I neurotic?”
1. What exactly am I noticing?
Name the phenomenon without interpreting it. “I worry about work for two hours after I get home” is more informative than “I’m neurotic.” “I reread messages ten times before sending them” is more informative than “I’m obsessive.” “I ask my partner whether they are upset several times a night” is more informative than “I’m insecure.” Begin with observable experience.
2. Is it mainly a thought, emotion, behavior, bodily response, or interpersonal pattern?
This separation prevents different processes from being treated as one thing. Worry is not identical to anxiety sensations; anxiety sensations are not identical to avoidance; avoidance is not identical to reassurance seeking. They can interact, but each may have a different function and evidence base.
3. How often does it happen, and how long has it been happening?
Frequency and duration help distinguish a passing reaction from a recurring pattern. A behavior that appeared during a stressful month deserves a different interpretation from one that has occurred across years and settings. Diagnostic systems also use duration for many disorders, which is another reason a one-time checklist cannot substitute for assessment.
4. What triggers it, and what makes it better or worse?
Look for contexts rather than character judgments. Does the pattern emerge under uncertainty, criticism, deadlines, health scares, relationship ambiguity, or after making mistakes? Does it fade when the situation changes? Context sensitivity can reveal whether you are looking at a situational response or something more pervasive.
5. What do I do to reduce the discomfort?
This question often reveals maintaining cycles. Do you check, avoid, seek reassurance, research, replay conversations, apologize repeatedly, overprepare, procrastinate, or ask other people to decide? The immediate effect matters. If an action brings short-term relief but has to be repeated more and more, that pattern is worth understanding on its own terms.
6. How much distress or impairment does it cause?
Intensity alone is not the whole story. Ask whether the pattern interferes with sleep, work, study, relationships, decision-making, leaving home, completing tasks, or enjoying ordinary activities. Distress and functional impact are central to deciding when an experience has moved beyond a personality description or occasional habit into a clinical concern.
7. Is the pattern stable across situations, or concentrated in one domain?
If you react strongly in nearly every uncertain situation, a trait-level explanation may become more relevant. If the pattern appears only in one relationship, one workplace, one health concern, or one specific fear, context-specific explanations may be more useful. This is another reason not to infer broad personality from one behavior.
8. What alternative explanations fit the same behavior?
One behavior can have several meanings. Rechecking can reflect ordinary caution, high standards, anxiety, memory distrust, habit, or compulsion. Reassurance seeking can occur with relationship insecurity, depressed mood, generalized worry, health anxiety, or OCD. Emotional reactivity can reflect temperament, current stress, interpersonal circumstances, or symptoms. Good self-understanding keeps alternatives open until there is enough evidence to narrow them.
9. Am I describing myself, or repeating someone else’s judgment?
Sometimes “you’re neurotic” is not an assessment at all; it is a criticism used during conflict. If another person used the word, ask what specific behavior they meant. “You ask me the same question repeatedly when you are worried” can be discussed. “You are neurotic” gives almost no information and can turn disagreement into a character verdict.
10. What more precise construct would make the next step clearer?
The most useful endpoint is a precise question: Is this worry? Rumination? Perfectionistic concern? Reassurance seeking? Avoidance? A Big Five trait? An anxiety symptom? An obsessive-compulsive process? Relationship insecurity? A stress response? The closer the question gets to a defined construct, the better the evidence and the more appropriate the next step can become.
A non-diagnostic way to observe your own pattern
You can gather useful information without turning self-observation into a home diagnosis. For a short period, write down six things when the pattern occurs: the situation, the thought or prediction, the emotion and its intensity, what you did next, what happened immediately afterward, and what happened later. The goal is not to calculate a “neurotic score.” It is to identify a repeatable sequence.
For example: “My manager sent ‘Can we talk?’ I predicted I had made a serious mistake. Anxiety rose quickly. I reread my recent work, messaged a coworker for reassurance, and checked email repeatedly. I felt better for fifteen minutes, then the worry returned.” That description contains information about trigger, appraisal, behavior, short-term relief, and recurrence. It can be discussed far more precisely than “I’m neurotic at work.”
Self-monitoring also helps distinguish a stable trait from a local cycle. If the pattern appears across many domains over a long period, trait-level tendencies may be relevant. If it appears only around one uncertainty, relationship, or responsibility, the local mechanism may matter more. Neither conclusion should be forced in advance.
What should you not conclude from the label?
Worry does not by itself mean generalized anxiety disorder. Checking does not by itself mean OCD. Perfectionism does not by itself mean OCD or a personality disorder. Jealousy or insecurity does not by itself establish an attachment style or personality disorder. Emotional sensitivity does not by itself establish a clinical condition. A high neuroticism score does not mean mental illness. A difficult week does not establish a stable trait. A screening score does not equal a diagnosis.
These distinctions protect against two errors: medicalizing ordinary human variation and dismissing genuine distress as “just being neurotic.” Specific symptoms deserve specific attention. Everyday labels should neither inflate nor minimize them.
What if a personality test says I have high neuroticism?
Then you have information about a trait estimate from that particular measure—not a verdict about your identity and not a diagnosis. Validated measures such as the BFI-2 are designed to assess broad personality domains and facets. Their results are interpreted dimensionally. The scientific question is how you score within a measure’s framework, not whether you belong to a type called “a neurotic.”
Be especially cautious with quizzes that do not identify a validated instrument, scoring method, reference sample, or purpose. A quiz may still prompt useful reflection, but the output should not be upgraded into a clinical status. If the real concern is distress or impairment, symptom-specific assessment is more relevant than a personality label.
When does professional help make sense?
Consider professional assessment when worry, rumination, checking, avoidance, reassurance seeking, emotional distress, or another specific pattern is persistent, hard to control, escalating, or interfering with daily life. You do not need to decide whether you are “neurotic” first. You can simply describe what is happening and how it affects you.
For anxiety, NIMH emphasizes persistence and interference with daily activities. For OCD, NIMH highlights recurring obsessions or compulsions that are difficult to control, time-consuming, distressing, or disruptive. Those are examples of disorder-specific thresholds, not a general “neuroticism threshold.” A clinician can assess the actual symptoms, their course, functional impact, differential explanations, and whether any formal diagnosis is appropriate.
If you seek therapy, the treatment target should be the underlying problem that assessment identifies. There is no evidence-based treatment protocol for the everyday category “a neurotic person.” There are evidence-based interventions for specific disorders and psychological processes. The phrase you started with can be useful as a doorway, but it should not become the treatment target.
Can these patterns change?
Many patterns that people casually call neurotic can change, but change depends on what the pattern actually is. A habit of reassurance seeking, a perfectionistic rule, a worry cycle, an avoidance pattern, a depressive rumination loop, and a personality trait are not identical targets. Some change through learning and practice; some respond to psychotherapy; some are best understood within treatment for a diagnosed disorder. The correct unit of change is the specific construct, not the label.
This article therefore stops at identification and routing. Detailed change strategies belong to help-focused pages and disorder-specific owners. Until those pages are live, the safest route is toward existing construct-specific material rather than inventing a generic “treatment for being neurotic.”
A compact decision path
If “neurotic” is just a word you or someone else used, translate it into a specific observation. If the observation is occasional and context-bound, treat it as a state or ordinary behavior until there is reason to think otherwise. If it is stable across time and situations, a personality-trait question may be relevant. If it is a recurring symptom pattern, identify the symptom domain. If it causes persistent distress or impairment, consider professional assessment. If a validated screening or personality measure is used, interpret it only for the construct it was designed to measure. If a diagnosis is being considered, use current disorder-specific criteria and clinical judgment.
The central idea is simple: move from label to phenomenon, from phenomenon to construct, and from construct to evidence. That gives you more information and less stigma than asking whether you are “a neurotic person.”
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know if I’m neurotic?
You cannot confirm a modern diagnosis called “being neurotic,” because that is not a current clinical category. Identify the specific experiences behind the word—such as worry, rumination, reactivity, checking, perfectionistic concern, reassurance seeking, or avoidance—and assess their frequency, duration, context, distress, and impact.
What are the signs of a neurotic person?
There is no validated clinical checklist for a “neurotic person.” In everyday speech, people may mean frequent worry, emotional reactivity, self-criticism, perfectionism, reassurance seeking, sensitivity to criticism, indecision, or repetitive thinking. Each can arise for different reasons and none is diagnostic by itself.
Is neurotic a diagnosis?
No. “Neurotic person” is not a modern DSM or ICD diagnosis. Current diagnostic systems use defined disorders and criteria. The word also survives as everyday language and in historical discussions of neurosis.
Is neurotic the same as neuroticism?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait measured in personality research. “Neurotic” in everyday speech is a loose label. A person can be described with the word without having a measured neuroticism score, and a high neuroticism score is not a diagnosis.
Can an online quiz tell me whether I’m neurotic?
A generic quiz can prompt reflection but cannot establish a clinical status called “neurotic.” A validated personality inventory can estimate neuroticism, which is a different question. A disorder-specific screening tool can indicate whether further assessment may be useful, but screening results do not equal diagnosis.
Does worrying a lot mean I have an anxiety disorder?
Not automatically. Worry exists on a continuum from ordinary concern to clinically significant anxiety. Persistent, difficult-to-control worry accompanied by other symptoms and interference with functioning warrants a more specific anxiety assessment.
Do checking and reassurance seeking mean I have OCD?
No. They can occur in many contexts. OCD involves a specific pattern of obsessions, compulsions, distress, time consumption, and impairment. If checking or reassurance is driven by intrusive doubts and has become repetitive and hard to resist, an OCD-specific assessment may be appropriate.
When should I talk to a mental-health professional?
When the specific pattern is persistent, distressing, difficult to control, escalating, or interfering with work, study, sleep, relationships, decisions, or daily activities. You can ask for help with the actual symptoms without first deciding what label describes you.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). About DSM-5-TR.
Callaghan, T., Greene, D., Shafran, R., Lunn, J., & Egan, S. J. (2024). The relationships between perfectionism and symptoms of depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 53(2), 121–132. PubMed PMID 37955236 · DOI: 10.1080/16506073.2023.2277121
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. PubMed PMID 19449983 · DOI: 10.1037/a0015309
McLaughlin, K. A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2011). Rumination as a transdiagnostic factor in depression and anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(3), 186–193. PubMed PMID 21238951 · DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.12.006
National Institute of Mental Health. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know.
National Institute of Mental Health. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: When Unwanted Thoughts or Repetitive Behaviors Take Over.
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. PubMed PMID 23702592 · DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003
Oxford University Press. neurotic, adjective — Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. PubMed PMID 27055049 · DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000096
Starr, L. R., & Davila, J. (2008). Excessive reassurance seeking, depression, and interpersonal rejection: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(4), 762–775. PubMed PMID 19025224 · DOI: 10.1037/a0013866
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization.