How to Stop Neurotic Behavior: Start With the Specific Pattern, Not the Label
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
If you want to stop what you call “neurotic behavior,” start by replacing the label with a specific, observable pattern. You cannot meaningfully change “being neurotic” as a vague everyday category. You can work on repeated worry, rumination, reassurance seeking, checking, avoidance, perfectionistic overcontrol, self-criticism, emotional reactivity, or a communication habit that is creating distress or friction.
That distinction is the core of effective change. Neurotic behavior is an informal phrase, not a modern psychiatric diagnosis. A behavior that looks “neurotic” from the outside may be ordinary stress, a learned coping habit, a temporary emotional state, a personality-linked tendency, a symptom, or part of a recognized clinical condition. The useful question is therefore not “How do I cure neurotic behavior?” but “What exactly am I doing, what keeps it going, and what evidence-based strategy fits that pattern?”
This article focuses on behavior change. It does not turn the everyday label into a disorder, and it does not assume that a person described as neurotic has high Big Five neuroticism, historical neurosis, an anxiety disorder, OCD, or any other diagnosis.
The short answer: change the loop, not the label
Name one behavior precisely. “I ask my partner whether everything is okay six times after a short reply” is more useful than “I am neurotic.”
Identify the trigger and the feared or unwanted outcome. What uncertainty, mistake, emotion, memory, bodily sensation, or social cue starts the loop?
Notice what the behavior does in the short term. Reassurance, checking, avoidance, overpreparation, or control often reduces discomfort briefly, which can make the behavior more likely to return.
Choose an intervention that matches the pattern. Repetitive negative thinking, perfectionism, self-criticism, safety behavior, and disorder-specific compulsions have different evidence bases.
Measure functioning, not moral worth. The practical outcomes are less time lost, less interference, more flexibility, better communication, and greater ability to tolerate ordinary uncertainty and emotion.
If you are still trying to decide what the label means in your case, the cluster guide to neurotic behavior patterns separates common worry, avoidance, reassurance, control, and self-critical patterns before you choose a change strategy.
What “neurotic” can mean — and why the distinction changes what you do
In contemporary English, dictionaries document neurotic as a word associated with anxious, worried, or unusual behavior. Cambridge Dictionary records this everyday usage, including the phrase “neurotic behavior.” That tells us how the word is used. It does not establish a clinical syndrome.
Psychologically, several different levels can sit underneath the same label. An everyday label is a social description. A behavior pattern is something a person repeatedly does. An emotional state is a temporary experience such as anxiety, irritability, or shame. A personality trait is a measured dimension that tends to show some stability across time and situations. A symptom is one clinically relevant experience. A risk factor changes probability rather than establishing illness. A screening result indicates that more assessment may be useful. A diagnosis requires the criteria and assessment appropriate to a recognized condition. A clinical disorder is a defined syndrome with characteristic symptoms and relevant thresholds such as distress, impairment, duration, or exclusions.
Those levels should not be collapsed. Calling someone neurotic after an argument does not measure neuroticism. Repeated checking does not by itself establish OCD. Worry does not by itself establish generalized anxiety disorder. Perfectionism is not a diagnosis. Reassurance seeking can occur in ordinary relationships, anxiety presentations, OCD, and other contexts. The same outward action can therefore require very different explanations.
First translate the label into a target you can observe
A change plan becomes much stronger when the target can be described without using the word neurotic. Try to write a sentence that another person could observe or count. The goal is behavioral precision, not self-surveillance.
Instead of “I overthink everything,” try: “After I send an important message, I replay it for 30 to 60 minutes and search for signs I offended the person.”
Instead of “I am controlling,” try: “When plans change, I repeatedly ask others to return to the original plan and become tense until the uncertainty is resolved.”
Instead of “I need constant reassurance,” try: “When I notice distance from my partner, I ask several versions of the same question even after receiving an answer.”
Instead of “I am a perfectionist,” try: “I redo work after it already meets the requirement because a small possibility of criticism feels unacceptable.”
Instead of “I am too emotional,” try: “When I feel criticized, my arousal rises quickly and I reply before I have checked what was actually said.”
Instead of “I am obsessing,” try: “I repeatedly return to the same feared possibility without reaching new information or a decision.”
This is also the safest way to avoid self-diagnosis. If your main question is “Am I neurotic?”, use the Hub’s self-understanding guide to separate a vague identity label from the specific experiences that can actually be assessed.
Use a functional map: trigger → meaning → emotion → behavior → consequence
Many persistent patterns make more sense when you ask what function they serve. A simple five-part map is often more informative than asking whether the behavior is “normal.”
Trigger: What happened immediately before the reaction? A delayed reply, an uncertain decision, a bodily sensation, a mistake, a change of plan, a critical comment?
Meaning or prediction: What did your mind say the trigger meant? “Something is wrong.” “I cannot cope with uncertainty.” “If I make one mistake, the result will be disastrous.”
Emotion and body: What followed—anxiety, shame, anger, tension, urgency, racing heart, agitation?
Behavior: What did you do—worry, check, ask, avoid, redo, monitor, argue, withdraw, control, research, seek certainty?
Consequence: What happened immediately, and what happened later? Did discomfort fall for five minutes but the need to repeat the behavior become stronger the next time?
The final question is especially important. A behavior can feel helpful because it produces immediate relief while still maintaining a longer-term loop. That is one reason avoidance, safety behavior, and reassurance have become important targets in several cognitive-behavioral models. The existence of that mechanism in specific clinical literatures does not mean every instance of the behavior is pathological.
Pattern 1: repetitive worry, rumination, and mental replay
If the main problem is hours of repetitive negative thinking, the target is not your personality label. The target is the thinking process: repeatedly circling possible threats, past mistakes, or unresolved questions without producing proportionate new information or action.
A 2025 transdiagnostic meta-analysis of 55 randomized studies with 4,970 participants found that cognitive behavioral therapy produced a moderate overall reduction in repetitive negative thinking, including worry and rumination, and that interventions specifically focused on repetitive negative thinking showed larger effects than less specific approaches. Stenzel and colleagues therefore support treating repetitive negative thinking as a concrete, modifiable process rather than as evidence that someone is a “neurotic person.”
What to practice
Start by distinguishing productive problem-solving from repetitive processing. Productive problem-solving defines a problem, identifies realistic options, chooses a next action, and eventually stops. Repetitive worry keeps reopening the question after the available action has already been identified.
Write the question in one sentence. If it cannot be answered now, identify what information or event would make it answerable.
Decide whether there is a concrete action available today. If there is, do or schedule that action instead of continuing to mentally rehearse it.
If no action is available, practice allowing the question to remain temporarily unresolved rather than repeatedly trying to manufacture certainty.
Notice whether more thinking is generating new information. If the same arguments are repeating, the process itself has become the target.
Difficulty tolerating uncertainty can be relevant across several forms of distress. A meta-analysis by Gentes and Ruscio found substantial associations between intolerance of uncertainty and symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, and OCD. That transdiagnostic association is useful precisely because it discourages the assumption that one vague behavior points to one diagnosis.
Pattern 2: avoidance and safety behavior
Avoidance can be obvious—canceling an event, refusing to make a decision, staying away from a feared place—or subtle, such as only entering a situation when several backup plans are available. Safety behavior refers to actions used to prevent or reduce a feared outcome while remaining in a situation. The exact role of a behavior depends on context.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis by Goodson and colleagues examined experimental manipulations of safety behavior. The literature supports safety behavior as a meaningful treatment mechanism, while also showing why broad claims such as “all reassurance or caution is bad” are too crude. Whether a behavior maintains fear depends on what it is doing in the learning process and on the clinical context.
What to practice
Do not try to become reckless. The practical goal is to reduce unnecessary avoidance that prevents learning that you can tolerate uncertainty, discomfort, or an imperfect outcome. Choose a situation that is safe enough to approach, identify the protective behavior you normally rely on, and reduce that behavior gradually while observing what actually happens.
For example, if you reread a low-stakes email ten times before sending it, a behavioral experiment might be to reduce the number of checks and observe both the actual outcome and your ability to tolerate residual uncertainty. If the feared situation carries real danger, medical risk, legal consequences, or other high stakes, ordinary risk management takes priority over exposure-style experimentation.
Pattern 3: repeated reassurance seeking and checking
Reassurance is part of ordinary human relationships. The problem is not asking for support. The pattern becomes a useful target when reassurance is repeatedly sought for the same fear, relief is brief, and the person soon needs another answer, another check, or another version of the same confirmation.
In a clinical sample of 738 treatment-seeking participants with panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or OCD, Rector and colleagues found reassurance seeking across diagnostic groups and reductions in reassurance seeking during CBT that were associated with clinical improvement. A separate study of generalized anxiety disorder found elevated cognitive and behavioral avoidance, safety behavior, and reassurance seeking relative to healthy comparison participants, with reductions during behavioral therapy. Beesdo-Baum and colleagues also found that higher residual avoidance and safety behavior predicted poorer longer-term outcome.
What to practice
Define the question you are repeatedly asking. Is it a request for new information, emotional support, or certainty that cannot actually be guaranteed?
If you already have the relevant information, delay the next reassurance request briefly and observe the urge rather than answering it immediately.
Ask for connection directly when connection is what you need. “I am anxious and would like some support” is different from asking another person to guarantee an unknowable future.
Reduce repeated checking in low-risk situations gradually rather than demanding instant elimination.
If reassurance or checking is part of diagnosed or suspected OCD, use OCD-specific assessment and treatment rather than a generic self-help rule.
That last distinction matters. NICE guidance for OCD specifically addresses compulsive behavior, avoidance, and reassurance seeking in treatment plans and includes exposure and response prevention within OCD-focused CBT. NICE OCD recommendations support reducing accommodation and reassurance in that disorder-specific context. They do not justify diagnosing OCD from checking or reassurance alone.
Pattern 4: perfectionistic overcontrol and endless correction
People often use neurotic to describe someone who cannot leave a detail alone, overprepares, becomes distressed by small deviations, or keeps correcting work that is already adequate. Sometimes the more precise target is perfectionism rather than anxiety in general.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials with 912 participants found medium-to-large effects of CBT for perfectionism on several perfectionism measures, with additional effects on anxiety, depression, and eating-disorder symptoms. Galloway and colleagues noted important limitations, including the number of trials and scarcity of active treatment comparisons, so the evidence supports a specific intervention target rather than a promise that every high-standard or detail-focused person needs treatment.
What to practice
Separate the actual requirement from the private rule. “The report must be accurate” is different from “No sentence can be less than perfect.”
Define a stopping criterion before you start. Decide what “good enough for this task” means while you are calm.
Test whether a small, safe imperfection actually produces the predicted consequence.
Track time spent correcting versus the value created by the correction.
Notice whether standards are flexible across stakes. Healthy care usually scales with importance; perfectionistic overcontrol often treats minor and major tasks as if both require certainty.
Pattern 5: emotional reactivity and rapid defensive behavior
Another person may use neurotic to mean “reacts strongly.” The change target then needs to be more precise: rapid escalation, difficulty recovering, impulsive communication under stress, threat interpretation, or difficulty regulating an intense emotion.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials found that psychological treatments including the Unified Protocol, CBT, DBT, and mindfulness-based approaches were associated with changes in emotion regulation, with moderate effects during treatment in the included studies. Antuña-Camblor and colleagues treated emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process, which is a better scientific target than the everyday label neurotic.
What to practice
Insert time between arousal and action. The purpose is not to suppress emotion; it is to reduce behavior made under peak urgency.
Name the emotion and the interpretation separately. “I feel afraid” and “this relationship is ending” are not the same statement.
Check the evidence for the interpretation after arousal has dropped enough to think clearly.
Choose a response that fits the actual situation, not only the intensity of the feeling.
Review recovery time. Progress may look like returning to baseline sooner even before the initial emotion becomes less intense.
Pattern 6: harsh self-criticism after mistakes
Some people call themselves neurotic when the more specific problem is relentless self-attack: replaying mistakes, treating ordinary imperfection as evidence of personal failure, or using shame as a motivational strategy.
Self-criticism has a distinct research literature. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Löw and colleagues found that higher pretreatment self-criticism was associated with poorer psychotherapy outcome across included studies. A separate meta-analysis of 20 randomized trials found that self-compassion-related interventions produced a medium reduction in self-criticism relative to controls, while the authors emphasized moderate study quality and substantial heterogeneity. Wakelin and colleagues therefore provide promising evidence for changing self-critical processes without treating self-kindness as a universal cure.
What to practice
Replace global verdicts with specific correction. “I handled that conversation badly and I want to repair it” contains information and a next step. “I am impossible” contains neither. A useful standard is whether the inner response improves learning and behavior. If it only prolongs shame, increases avoidance, or triggers another round of checking, it may be part of the maintaining loop.
Pattern 7: interpersonal control, conflict, and reassurance loops
Behavior often becomes visible to other people before it feels excessive to the person doing it. Repeated checking on a partner, demanding immediate certainty, revisiting settled arguments, micromanaging plans, or reacting strongly to ambiguous messages can create interpersonal friction even when the underlying motive is fear rather than hostility.
The change target is again the interaction pattern. Ask what you are trying to obtain from the other person: information, closeness, certainty, compliance, relief from anxiety, or protection from rejection. Then ask whether the current strategy actually produces that outcome over time.
State the underlying need once, clearly, instead of repeatedly testing the relationship.
Ask one direct question when information is available, then decide what you will do with the answer.
If the future cannot be guaranteed, ask for support rather than certainty.
Agree on practical boundaries around repeated checking or repeated reopening of the same topic.
If the interaction includes intimidation, coercion, threats, stalking, or abuse, do not reduce the problem to “neurotic behavior.” Those behaviors require their own safety and relationship framework.
How to choose the right target when several patterns occur together
Worry, reassurance, avoidance, perfectionism, emotional reactivity, and self-criticism often travel together. Trying to change all of them at once usually makes measurement impossible. Choose the smallest pattern that creates the largest amount of impairment or keeps the rest of the loop active.
Choose worry first when most of the day is consumed by repetitive mental threat simulation and the other behaviors follow from it.
Choose avoidance first when life is becoming smaller because situations, decisions, people, or responsibilities are being escaped.
Choose reassurance or checking first when the same uncertainty repeatedly sends you back to another person, device, search, test, or verification ritual.
Choose perfectionism first when excessive standards and endless correction are consuming time and driving avoidance or procrastination.
Choose emotion regulation first when the main cost is rapid escalation, impulsive responses, or long recovery after relatively ordinary stressors.
Choose self-criticism first when mistakes reliably trigger shame spirals that interfere with learning, repair, or action.
If you want a broader map of whether change is possible across states, habits, symptoms, and traits, see Can You Stop Being Neurotic? What Can Change and What the Label Gets Wrong. That article owns the general change question; this page owns the practical behavior-level route.
A practical two-week behavior experiment
A short experiment can tell you more than repeatedly judging your personality. Two weeks is not a treatment course and is not a diagnostic test. It is long enough to collect useful examples and test whether a specific response can become more flexible.
Days 1–3: observe without trying to fix everything
Choose one target behavior. Record only the trigger, what you predicted, what you felt, what you did, and the immediate and later consequence. Keep entries short. The purpose is to discover the loop, not to create a new monitoring ritual.
Days 4–7: change one response
Pick one small competing response. Delay one reassurance request. Send one low-stakes message after fewer checks. Leave one harmless minor imperfection in place. End one worry episode by moving to a defined action. Pause before one reactive reply. Keep the experiment safe and proportionate.
Days 8–11: repeat in several ordinary situations
Behavioral learning requires repetition. Use the same principle in different low- or moderate-stakes situations rather than constantly inventing new techniques. Track whether distress rises and falls, whether the feared outcome occurs, and whether you function better even when uncertainty remains.
Days 12–14: review function, not perfection
Ask whether the pattern is taking less time, whether you can interrupt it earlier, whether relationships are less dominated by reassurance or control, and whether you are doing more of what matters despite discomfort. Progress does not require becoming permanently calm or never repeating the old behavior.
What usually makes change harder
Trying to eliminate normal emotion
Anxiety, uncertainty, disappointment, anger, embarrassment, and caution are normal parts of life. A plan built around never feeling them can create another avoidance loop. The more useful goal is flexible responding.
Turning behavior change into self-punishment
If every lapse becomes evidence that you are defective, the change plan itself becomes a source of threat. Use lapses as data: What triggered the old response? What short-term benefit did it provide? What smaller alternative could you try next time?
Seeking certainty about whether you are ‘really neurotic’
The label cannot give you the certainty you are seeking because it is too broad. The Hub’s overview of what a neurotic person means in modern psychology explains why everyday usage, personality science, symptoms, and diagnosis need to remain separate.
Using one technique for every mechanism
A breathing exercise may lower arousal but will not necessarily change a checking ritual. Cognitive restructuring can be useful for some interpretations but can become another form of reassurance if repeated endlessly to prove that nothing bad will happen. Exposure-based methods can be powerful for fear and compulsive avoidance but need a disorder-specific framework when a clinical condition is present. Match the tool to the mechanism.
Changing too many variables at once
If you simultaneously stop checking, overhaul sleep, start meditation, change your relationship rules, begin a strict exercise plan, and monitor every thought, you will not know what helped and may create an unsustainable project. A smaller experiment gives cleaner information.
What if you actually mean neuroticism?
Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait, not a synonym for the everyday judgment that someone is neurotic. If you mean a measured tendency toward negative emotionality or lower emotional stability, the relevant evidence comes from personality science.
A systematic review of 207 intervention studies found changes in personality trait measures during interventions, with emotional stability showing the largest average change among the trait domains examined. Roberts and colleagues also found that changes could persist beyond the intervention period. A 2026 systematic review of nonclinical interventions targeting neuroticism and related constructs identified 99 eligible articles but emphasized substantial heterogeneity in strategies, targets, and proposed mechanisms. Wright and colleagues developed a taxonomy partly because the literature does not yet support a single simple recipe for “lowering neuroticism.”
Those findings support the broader proposition that measured traits are not perfectly fixed. They do not justify inferring a trait score from an everyday label, and they do not turn this article into a neuroticism intervention protocol.
What if you mean neurosis?
Neurosis is a historical and clinical-theoretical concept with its own history. It is not the same thing as the modern everyday adjective neurotic, and it is not interchangeable with Big Five neuroticism. The historical meaning, diagnostic genealogy, psychoanalytic uses, and older nosologies belong to the separate Neurosis cluster. For behavior change today, the useful target remains the current pattern or recognized condition that is actually present.
When a clinical condition may be underneath the label
Sometimes the behavior is part of a broader clinical problem. The threshold is not whether another person finds the behavior annoying or calls it neurotic. Clinically relevant questions include persistence, intensity, loss of control, distress, functional impairment, avoidance, physical symptoms, time consumed, and whether the pattern fits the criteria for a recognized condition.
NICE guidance for generalized anxiety disorder recommends comprehensive assessment that considers distress and functional impairment rather than relying only on symptom count, severity, or duration. NICE GAD recommendations also place CBT-based interventions and, when appropriate, medication within a stepped-care model for diagnosed GAD. The National Institute of Mental Health likewise describes psychotherapy, medication, or both as treatment options for GAD, with treatment chosen according to the person’s needs and medical situation.
The clinical implication is simple: medication does not treat a diagnosis called neurotic behavior. A clinician may recommend medication for a recognized condition when evidence, medical history, severity, preferences, and safety considerations support it. Likewise, psychotherapy targets defined symptoms, mechanisms, functioning, or disorders—not a vague identity label.
When to consider professional help
Consider a professional assessment when the pattern is persistent, difficult to interrupt, causes substantial distress, interferes with work, school, sleep, relationships, or daily responsibilities, or is accompanied by symptoms that suggest a more specific condition. Professional help is also appropriate when repeated self-help attempts are becoming another cycle of monitoring and self-criticism.
Worry, panic, fear, or avoidance is taking over large parts of daily life.
Checking, reassurance, mental rituals, or intrusive thoughts consume substantial time or feel difficult to resist.
Mood symptoms, hopelessness, severe irritability, or loss of interest are persistent.
Sleep, eating, substance use, or physical health is being affected.
Relationship conflict is escalating because reassurance, control, jealousy, withdrawal, or repeated testing dominates interactions.
The pattern appeared suddenly or changed markedly and medical, medication-related, substance-related, neurological, or sleep-related causes may need evaluation.
There is immediate danger, inability to care for basic needs, or risk of harm; urgent local medical or crisis support is then appropriate.
Frequently asked questions
How do I stop neurotic behavior?
Start by naming the specific behavior and the loop that maintains it. Then use an approach supported for that target—for example, CBT methods for repetitive negative thinking, graded reduction of unnecessary avoidance or safety behavior, OCD-specific treatment for compulsions, CBT for problematic perfectionism, or interventions that directly address self-criticism or emotion regulation. There is no single treatment for a diagnosis called neurotic behavior because that diagnosis does not exist.
Can neurotic behavior be changed?
Many specific behaviors, coping habits, and emotional responses are changeable. The amount and pace of change depend on what the pattern actually is, how long it has been present, its function, the surrounding environment, and whether a clinical condition is involved. Measured personality traits can also change, but trait-change research should not be used as proof that every person casually called neurotic has the same underlying trait.
Is neurotic behavior a mental illness?
No. Neurotic behavior is an informal phrase. A behavior described that way may occur during ordinary stress or alongside a mental health condition, but the label itself is not a modern clinical diagnosis.
Should I stop asking for reassurance completely?
No universal rule says reassurance is harmful. Support and reassurance are normal parts of relationships. The relevant target is repetitive reassurance that briefly reduces anxiety but repeatedly returns, especially when it interferes with functioning or forms part of a recognized anxiety or obsessive-compulsive pattern.
What is the first behavior to change?
Choose the smallest repeatable behavior with the clearest cost. If one pattern repeatedly triggers the others—for example, worry leads to reassurance, checking, and conflict—starting with that upstream pattern may simplify the rest. If risk is high or a disorder-specific symptom is suspected, assessment comes before experimentation.
Can therapy help with behavior people call neurotic?
Yes, when therapy targets a defined problem that has an evidence base. Research supports therapies for repetitive negative thinking, anxiety disorders, OCD, perfectionism, self-criticism, and emotion-regulation problems. The therapist’s task is to formulate the actual problem, not to treat the everyday label as a diagnosis.
Can medication stop neurotic behavior?
There is no medication indicated for “neurotic behavior” as a standalone diagnosis. Medication may be appropriate for a recognized condition such as an anxiety disorder when a qualified clinician determines that it fits the person’s clinical situation.
Is being neurotic the same as having high neuroticism?
No. Neuroticism is a measured personality trait. Everyday use of neurotic is a loose social label. A comment, stereotype, or single behavior cannot substitute for a personality assessment.
Related Articles
References
Antuña-Camblor, C., Gómez-Salas, F. J., Burgos-Julián, F. A., González-Vázquez, A., Juarros-Basterretxea, J., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J. (2024). Emotional Regulation as a Transdiagnostic Process of Emotional Disorders in Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(3), e2997. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2997. PubMed
Beesdo-Baum, K., Jenjahn, E., Höfler, M., Lueken, U., Becker, E. S., & Hoyer, J. (2012). Avoidance, safety behavior, and reassurance seeking in generalized anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 29(11), 948–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.21955. PubMed
Cambridge Dictionary. Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/neurotic
Galloway, R., Watson, H., Greene, D., Shafran, R., & Egan, S. J. (2022). The efficacy of randomised controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for perfectionism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 51(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2021.1952302. PubMed
Gentes, E. L., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.05.001. PubMed
Goodson, J. T., Patel, T. A., Zech, J. M., Sala, M. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2026). The standalone effect of safety behavior manipulations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 124, 102703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102703. PubMed
Löw, C. A., Schauenburg, H., & Dinger, U. (2020). Self-criticism and psychotherapy outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 75, 101808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101808. PubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults: management (CG113). Recommendations
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: treatment (CG31). Recommendations
National Institute of Mental Health. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. NIMH
Rector, N. A., Kamkar, K., Cassin, S. E., Ayearst, L. E., & Laposa, J. M. (2019). Reassurance seeking in the anxiety disorders and OCD: Construct validation, clinical correlates and CBT treatment response. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 67, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102109. PubMed
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. PubMed
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. PubMed
Wakelin, K. E., Perman, G., & Simonds, L. M. (2022). Effectiveness of self-compassion-related interventions for reducing self-criticism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2586. PubMed
Wright, A. J., Haehner, P., Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2026). A Systematic Review and Taxonomy of Neuroticism Interventions for the General Public. Personality Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/27000710261421531. Journal