Jealousy and Reassurance: When Reassurance Helps—and When It Feeds the Cycle

Sep 27

18 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.

Reassurance can be a healthy part of a close relationship. When jealousy is triggered by an ambiguous situation, a partner’s clear answer, warmth, or confirmation of an agreement can reduce uncertainty and help both people reconnect. Reassurance can also become less useful when the same fear repeatedly returns after it has already been answered and the relationship begins to revolve around obtaining more certainty.

The difference is not simply how often someone says “I love you” or asks “Are we okay?” The more important questions are what the reassurance is doing, whether new information is actually needed, whether relief lasts, whether the request respects both partners’ autonomy, and whether the pattern strengthens trust or turns into repeated proof-seeking, checking, monitoring, or interrogation.

Jealousy itself is an emotion and relationship-threat response, not a diagnosis. A 2026 systematic review found substantial variation in how romantic jealousy is conceptualized and measured across research instruments, which is one reason broad claims about a single “jealousy cycle” require care. Papa et al. (2026) reviewed 32 studies covering 21 jealousy measures and emphasized the construct’s complexity and measurement limitations.

This article focuses on general jealousy and reassurance. Repetitive questioning about a partner’s romantic or sexual past belongs to the separate topic of reassurance seeking in retroactive jealousy, while OCD diagnosis, compulsions, exposure and response prevention, and disorder-specific reassurance treatment belong to the OCD clinical domain.

Quick answer: when does reassurance help jealousy?

Reassurance is most likely to help when it responds to a real relational need: clarifying an ambiguous event, confirming a mutually agreed boundary, repairing a misunderstanding, communicating care, or providing information that has not already been established. It is especially useful when the answer can be integrated into a broader pattern of reliable behavior rather than treated as a guarantee that uncertainty will never return.

Reassurance is more likely to feed a repetitive cycle when its main function becomes the immediate removal of doubt and the same underlying fear soon demands another answer, another promise, another comparison, or another form of proof. Research on excessive reassurance seeking in couples, attachment, anxiety, and depression supports the existence of these repetitive interpersonal patterns, although the evidence base is much broader than jealousy itself. That distinction matters: a mechanism established in OCD or anxiety research should not automatically be assigned to ordinary romantic jealousy.

A useful working distinction is this: reassurance can support connection; certainty-seeking tries to eliminate uncertainty. Close relationships can offer evidence, reliability, responsiveness, and agreed boundaries. They cannot provide perfect access to another person’s thoughts, guarantee the future, or remove every possible rival, ambiguity, or uncomfortable feeling.

What reassurance means in the context of jealousy

Reassurance is an interpersonal response intended to communicate safety, care, commitment, clarification, or confidence. In a jealousy context, it can include answering a reasonable factual question, acknowledging a partner’s fear, restating a relationship agreement, clarifying what happened in an ambiguous interaction, expressing affection, or showing through consistent behavior that commitments are being kept.

This is different from surveillance. Asking “Can you tell me what happened at dinner? I felt left out and uncertain” is a request for conversation. Requiring continuous location access, passwords, screenshots, proof of whereabouts, or covert access to a device changes the function from communication to monitoring. Consensual transparency is voluntarily negotiated and can be revised; surveillance is organized around verification, pressure, or hidden observation. See Transparency vs Surveillance in Relationships: When Reassurance Becomes Monitoring for that boundary.

Reassurance is also different from deception management. If there is credible evidence that a partner has lied, broken an agreement, or concealed material information, the issue is not simply an anxious need to be soothed. Trust then depends on evidence, accountability, behavioral consistency, and the specific cause of the rupture. General reassurance cannot substitute for facts.

Why reassurance can genuinely help

1. A clear answer can resolve genuine ambiguity

Some jealousy is triggered because the situation is unclear. A message is misread, a plan changes without explanation, a relationship boundary was never explicitly discussed, or two partners assumed different meanings. When the problem is missing information, providing accurate information can solve the information problem. The critical feature is that the answer changes what is known rather than merely repeating a promise intended to suppress a feeling.

An older three-study paper on jealousy evocation and partner reactions found no simple evidence that jealousy itself causes relationship stability; after prior commitment was controlled, the longitudinal association was not significant. The authors concluded that partners’ reactions to jealousy may matter more than jealousy alone. Sheets, Fredendall, and Claypool (1997) therefore offers a useful caution against both romanticizing jealousy and assuming every response to it is harmful.

2. Responsiveness can signal care and relational safety

Relationship research distinguishes a partner’s responsiveness from repeated certainty-provision. Responsiveness includes being caring, understanding, accepting, and attentive to a partner’s needs. In a study of 472 people in 236 couples, greater perceived partner responsiveness was associated with lower partner-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance, particularly among people who were generally more insecure. Rice, Kumashiro, and Arriaga (2020) used cross-sectional data, so the study does not prove that one reassuring conversation creates attachment security, but it supports the broader importance of perceived responsiveness.

A 2023 review similarly described partner responsiveness as a relationship safety signal that can influence whether people move toward connection or self-protection in moments of relational risk. Murray (2023) emphasizes that feeling valued and responded to is part of how people judge whether vulnerability is safe. Warmth and responsiveness therefore have a different psychological role from endless proof.

3. Reassurance can be part of trust when words match behavior

Relationship trust is not naive certainty. Contemporary trust research treats trust as a meaningful psychological construct involving expectations about a partner and the willingness to accept vulnerability under conditions where outcomes cannot be completely controlled. Camanto and Campbell (2025) revisited the construct and emphasized the need to study trust directly rather than treating it merely as a proxy for overall relationship quality.

Words can contribute to trust when they are congruent with behavior. “I will call if plans change” becomes reassuring when the person reliably does so. “Our agreement is that flirting with ex-partners is outside our boundaries” becomes more meaningful when both partners actually follow that agreement. Reassurance that contradicts repeated behavior has limited informational value. For the broader construct, see What Is Trust in a Relationship? Predictability, Dependability, and Faith.

When reassurance can start feeding the cycle

The phrase “reassurance cycle” is useful when it describes a repeated functional pattern, but it should not be treated as a diagnosis. The pattern is most plausible when reassurance produces short-term relief without changing the underlying appraisal of threat, and the person soon needs another external confirmation to feel safe again.

Direct jealousy-specific research on this process is still limited. A 2026 cross-sectional dyadic study of 412 romantic couples reported positive associations among romantic jealousy, reassurance seeking, partner monitoring, and relationship instability. Because the design was correlational, it cannot establish that reassurance seeking causes instability or that reducing reassurance would improve a relationship. It is best treated as emerging direct evidence rather than a clinical rule. Lagersted-Olsen and colleagues (2026) provide a recent jealousy-specific model, but longitudinal and experimental replication is still needed.

The broader literature is stronger. In a daily-diary study of 110 heterosexual couples, anxious attachment was associated with greater daily excessive reassurance seeking, and lower trust was associated with greater daily reassurance seeking. Yet the next-day trust findings differed by attachment pattern and gender, including one partner effect in the opposite direction. Evraire, Dozois, and Wilde (2022) therefore argues against a simplistic formula in which reassurance is always damaging.

A common repetitive pattern

A jealousy trigger appears: a partner mentions a coworker, a delayed reply feels significant, an ex is visible on social media, or an interaction is interpreted as threatening. The person asks for reassurance and receives an answer. Distress falls. Later, the answer feels incomplete, unreliable, too vague, or insufficiently convincing. A new question appears. The request becomes more detailed, more frequent, or more difficult to satisfy.

At that point the target may shift from resolving a question to obtaining a feeling of complete certainty. The partner can answer the literal question while the emotional problem remains untouched. “Do you still love me?” can be answered. “Can you make me certain that I will never be rejected, replaced, deceived, or hurt?” cannot be guaranteed by any relationship.

This distinction is consistent with broader reassurance research. Shaver, Schachner, and Mikulincer (2005) found excessive reassurance seeking in couples was strongly tied to attachment anxiety, and partners noticed one another’s reassurance seeking. In anxiety research, Clark and colleagues (2020) found attachment anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, and worry were associated with threat-related reassurance seeking in a community sample. These studies do not show that ordinary jealousy is an anxiety disorder; they show why repeated reassurance can sometimes function as an uncertainty-reduction strategy.

Short-term relief does not automatically mean long-term resolution

A behavior can be soothing in the moment and still fail to resolve the process that generated the distress. This is familiar across several reassurance-seeking literatures. A meta-analysis of 38 studies involving 6,973 participants found an association between excessive reassurance seeking and concurrent depression, while a second meta-analysis of 16 studies found a smaller association with interpersonal rejection. Starr and Davila (2008) also reported important methodological caveats, and the evidence was not specific to jealousy.

Likewise, studies of anxiety disorders have measured reassurance seeking as a transdiagnostic process. Rector and colleagues (2011) identified reassurance dimensions concerning decisions, relationship security, and general threat in treatment-seeking anxiety samples. Cougle and colleagues (2012) found excessive reassurance seeking was associated with several anxiety symptom domains and prospectively predicted changes in some anxiety symptoms over one month. These findings should inform, not overwrite, jealousy-specific interpretation.

Helpful reassurance and repetitive certainty-seeking are not the same thing

Helpful reassurance tends to answer a defined question

The person can identify what information or connection is missing. The partner gives a direct answer. The answer can be accepted as one piece of evidence, even if an uncomfortable feeling takes longer to settle. The conversation ends without creating a new requirement for proof.

Helpful reassurance respects autonomy

A request leaves room for consent and boundaries. A partner can answer, decline a level of detail that feels invasive, or negotiate how a recurring topic will be handled. Reassurance does not require surrendering passwords, location access, private correspondence, friendships, work relationships, or ordinary independence.

Helpful reassurance is proportionate to the event

A confusing incident may reasonably call for clarification. A broken promise may call for accountability. A missed message may call for a simple explanation. The response matches the actual evidence and stakes rather than expanding into a permanent verification system.

Cycle-like reassurance repeatedly asks certainty to do what evidence cannot do

Signs include asking the same underlying question after it has been answered, changing the wording to test consistency, requiring increasingly specific promises, repeatedly comparing oneself with other people, treating hesitation or imperfect wording as evidence of deception, or escalating from conversation to checking and monitoring. None of these behaviors, by themselves, establishes an OCD compulsion or any diagnosis.

The partner’s accommodation can become part of the pattern

A partner may initially answer every question, provide screenshots, avoid ordinary social interactions, or preemptively report their movements because it reduces immediate conflict. The short-term effect can be calmer evenings. The long-term cost may be that more and more of the relationship becomes organized around preventing jealousy. That is a relationship pattern, not proof of any particular disorder.

Jealousy, anxious attachment, and reassurance

Attachment anxiety is one well-studied vulnerability factor for jealousy-related threat sensitivity, but it is neither a diagnosis nor a complete explanation for an individual relationship. Classic work found that attachment styles were associated with different emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to romantic jealousy. Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick’s 1997 findings helped establish attachment as one framework for understanding individual differences in jealousy.

More recent couple research connects attachment anxiety with higher excessive reassurance seeking. That does not mean an anxiously attached person should receive no reassurance. It means reassurance works inside a broader dyadic system in which responsiveness, trust, perceived threat, uncertainty, and each partner’s behavior interact. For the jealousy-specific attachment evidence, see Anxious Attachment and Jealousy: Threat Sensitivity, Reassurance, and Trust.

Jealousy, trust issues, and the difference between fear and evidence

Reassurance questions are easier to interpret when the couple separates two problems: “What evidence do we have about the relationship?” and “What fear remains even after the evidence is considered?” Those problems can coexist. A person may have a history of abandonment and also be dating someone who breaks promises. Another person may feel intense jealousy despite a partner’s consistent reliability. A third may be responding to genuinely ambiguous behavior.

Trust should therefore be calibrated rather than absolute. Reliable behavior, predictability, openness about relevant commitments, respect for boundaries, and willingness to be vulnerable all matter. If distrust has become broad and persistent, see Trust Issues in a Relationship: Signs, Causes, and What Helps. That article keeps realistic mistrust distinct from generalized fear and from delusional conviction.

Jealousy can affect conflict, reassurance, trust, and control in different ways across couples. For the broader relationship-level consequences, see How Jealousy Affects Relationships: Conflict, Reassurance, Trust, and Control.

Retroactive jealousy needs its own reassurance boundary

Retroactive jealousy concerns distress about a partner’s past romantic or sexual experiences. Reassurance in that context often takes the form of repeated questions about ex-partners, comparisons, sexual history, past feelings, or the specialness of the current relationship. Direct research is still emerging. A qualitative study of people seeking help for retroactive jealousy described reassurance seeking as part of the lived pattern for some participants. Blayney and Burgess (2024) provides qualitative evidence rather than a diagnostic framework.

Because this is a distinct search intent and research construct, the detailed mechanism belongs to Reassurance Seeking in Retroactive Jealousy: Why More Answers May Not Bring Relief. Retroactive jealousy is not an official DSM or ICD diagnosis, and repeated questioning about a partner’s past should not automatically be labeled an OCD compulsion.

Digital reassurance can cross into surveillance

Digital tools make proof unusually easy to request: read receipts, online status, shared passwords, live location, device access, activity histories, screenshots, and social-media audits can all be framed as “just reassurance.” The psychological meaning depends on consent, function, and consequences.

Consensual location sharing may be a practical convenience for one couple. The same technology can become coercive when one partner must remain continuously trackable, faces punishment for disabling it, or is required to prove innocence through monitoring. The CDC includes GPS tracking and technology-assisted spying among stalking tactics when used in a pattern of unwanted behavior that causes fear or safety concerns. CDC guidance on stalking makes clear why monitoring should not be normalized as evidence of love.

When jealousy is the primary reason for repeated phone checks or proof demands, the issue belongs to relationship trust and surveillance rather than general digital habits. The relevant distinction is developed in Transparency vs Surveillance in Relationships.

What to do when you are the person seeking reassurance

The aim is not to ban reassurance. It is to make the request more informative, proportionate, and capable of ending. The following steps are a practical synthesis of relationship, trust, attachment, and reassurance-seeking evidence; they are not a validated jealousy treatment protocol.

1. Name the specific threat before asking

Try to identify what feels endangered: commitment, exclusivity, importance, attractiveness, honesty, a boundary, or fear of abandonment. A specific concern is easier to discuss than a global demand to “make me feel secure.”

2. Ask whether you need information, connection, or certainty

Information has an answer. Connection can be offered through responsiveness and care. Certainty about another person’s future thoughts and behavior has no final proof. Knowing which one you are seeking changes what a useful response looks like.

3. Ask one clear question rather than running multiple tests

If something is genuinely unclear, ask directly. Avoid embedding several comparison questions, hypothetical traps, and consistency tests into one conversation. A direct question gives the answer a chance to become usable information.

4. Decide what evidence would count before you ask

If every possible answer can be reinterpreted as suspicious, the problem is no longer the wording of the answer. Decide what a reasonable answer or behavior would look like in advance. This reduces the tendency to move the goalposts after reassurance is received.

5. Allow some residual uncertainty to remain

An answer may be adequate even when the emotion does not disappear immediately. Feelings can lag behind evidence. The continued presence of jealousy is not, by itself, evidence that the reassurance was false.

6. Evaluate patterns over time

Trust is built from repeated observations. One reassuring sentence cannot compensate for chronic unreliability; one awkward sentence does not erase a long pattern of dependability. Give behavior enough time to become evidence.

7. Keep reassurance separate from monitoring

If the next step is “Now show me your phone,” “Keep your location on,” or “Send a photo so I know where you are,” pause and examine whether the request has shifted from communication to verification. Consent and autonomy remain relevant even when jealousy feels intense.

What a partner can do without becoming an endless reassurance system

A partner can be responsive without accepting responsibility for eliminating every jealous thought. The goal is neither cold refusal nor unlimited proof. It is an interaction that communicates care while preserving reality, consent, and boundaries.

Answer reasonable questions directly

If an event is ambiguous, provide the missing information. Evasive answers can create unnecessary uncertainty. Direct answers are especially important when the question concerns an actual agreement or something the partner has a legitimate reason to know.

Validate the feeling without confirming an unsupported accusation

“I can see that this scared you” acknowledges an emotional experience. “Yes, you are right that I must secretly want that person” would endorse a claim that may have no evidence. Emotional validation and factual agreement are separate acts.

Use reliability rather than escalating proof

If the relationship agreement is clear, keep it consistently. Reliability is more informative than increasingly elaborate demonstrations of innocence. A relationship organized around proof can become less autonomous even while both partners say the goal is trust.

Set a boundary when the same reassurance is no longer resolving anything

A boundary can acknowledge the fear and the repetition at the same time: the topic can be discussed without agreeing to repeated interrogation, device inspection, or permanent monitoring. The exact boundary will depend on the relationship and the seriousness of the underlying evidence.

Treat real trust violations as trust violations

If you have lied, hidden relevant information, broken promises, or violated an agreed boundary, asking the other person to stop needing reassurance is not a substitute for accountability. Repair depends on the cause of the rupture, and some causes—especially infidelity or abuse—have their own recovery pathways.

Reassurance is not the same as a compulsion

The word “compulsion” has a clinical meaning. Repeated behavior can look ritualized without meeting criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD involves obsessions and/or compulsions that are time-consuming or cause significant distress or impairment, and diagnosis requires clinical assessment. The National Institute of Mental Health describes compulsions as repetitive behaviors a person feels an urge to perform in response to an obsession, but reassurance seeking should not be labeled an OCD compulsion solely because it is repeated.

Research on reassurance seeking spans OCD, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, panic, depression, attachment anxiety, and relationship processes. That transdiagnostic distribution is exactly why the behavior cannot identify a disorder on its own. Disorder-specific treatment, including exposure and response prevention for OCD, belongs to clinical assessment and the OCD evidence base rather than a general jealousy article.

When reassurance is no longer the main issue

Jealousy can coexist with controlling behavior, stalking, threats, violence, or delusional conviction. In those situations the priority changes. More reassurance is not a safety plan and should not be presented as the treatment for coercion or violence.

A mixed-methods systematic review covering 51 papers from 28 countries found a consistent association between real or suspected infidelity, romantic jealousy, and intimate partner violence against women. The review described multiple social, interpersonal, and emotional pathways and did not establish jealousy as a sufficient cause of violence. Pichon and colleagues (2020) is important precisely because association should not be turned into a justification: jealousy never excuses abuse.

The CDC defines intimate partner violence to include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression, including communication used to exert control. CDC guidance on intimate partner violence provides current U.S. public-health definitions. If jealousy is accompanied by threats, stalking, forced monitoring, isolation, intimidation, or violence, prioritize safety and local support rather than trying to supply more convincing reassurance.

Delusional jealousy also requires a different clinical frame. A fixed belief of infidelity held with delusional conviction is not equivalent to ordinary relationship insecurity or an anxious request for reassurance. It can occur in psychiatric, neurological, neurocognitive, or substance-related conditions and warrants clinical assessment. A 2024 systematic review of 73 published cases found etiologies spanning primary psychiatric disorders, other medical conditions, and medications or substances, underscoring the need for differential diagnosis rather than treating delusional jealousy as ordinary relationship insecurity. Park and colleagues (2024) also reported violence in a subset of published cases, although case-report literature cannot estimate population prevalence.

When professional help may be useful

Professional help may be worth considering when jealousy and reassurance seeking consume substantial time, repeatedly disrupt sleep or work, dominate the relationship, create escalating checking or conflict, or persist despite clear evidence and repeated attempts to change the interaction. The target of help should be based on formulation: emotion regulation, communication, attachment-related insecurity, trust repair, anxiety, a diagnosed disorder, or safety concerns may require different approaches.

Jealousy itself is not a clinical diagnosis. There is no single evidence-based treatment package that applies to every form of jealousy. Evidence is stronger for treating established disorders when they are actually present than for importing those protocols into ordinary jealousy. Couples work may also be inappropriate when coercive control or violence makes joint sessions unsafe.

A small study of 21 couples found that a single psychoeducational session for relationship-based anxiety reduced reassurance seeking, self-silencing, and partner accommodation. The sample was very small and the finding is preliminary, so it should not be treated as evidence for a standardized jealousy treatment. The study is indexed in PubMed and is best read as proof that dyadic reassurance patterns can be modifiable, not as a treatment guideline.

Frequently asked questions

Is reassurance bad for jealousy?

No. Reassurance can be caring, clarifying, and relationship-strengthening when it addresses a real question or need for connection. The concern is a repetitive pattern in which reassurance mainly removes distress for a short time and creates pressure for more certainty without increasing durable trust.

How many times should a partner give reassurance?

Research does not provide a universal number. Frequency alone does not determine whether reassurance is helpful. Look at function and outcome: Is there new information? Is the same fear returning unchanged? Can the answer be accepted? Is the request becoming more demanding or intrusive? Are both partners still acting voluntarily?

Why do I feel better after reassurance and then jealous again?

Short-term emotional relief can fade because the answer resolved the immediate distress but not the underlying threat appraisal, uncertainty, comparison, trust problem, or attachment concern. The return of jealousy does not prove that the answer was false. It may indicate that the question and the underlying fear are not identical.

Should I show my phone to reassure my partner?

There is no universal rule that healthy partners must provide device access. Voluntary transparency can be negotiated, but password demands, covert checking, forced device inspection, or permanent monitoring should not be normalized as proof of love. The relevant questions are consent, proportionality, purpose, and whether access can be declined without punishment.

Can reassurance build trust?

Yes, when reassurance is part of a wider pattern of reliability and responsiveness. Trust grows from evidence over time. Reassuring words that align with behavior can contribute to trust; repeated promises that contradict behavior cannot substitute for dependability.

Is asking for reassurance a compulsion?

Not automatically. Reassurance seeking can occur in ordinary relationships and across multiple psychological conditions. Calling it a compulsion requires clinical context, including its relationship to obsessions, distress, impairment, and the broader diagnostic picture.

Does reassurance seeking mean I have OCD?

No. Reassurance seeking is not specific to OCD. It appears in attachment anxiety, general anxiety, depression, relationship insecurity, and other contexts. OCD diagnosis depends on a full pattern of obsessions and/or compulsions and clinically significant distress or impairment.

What if my jealousy is based on something my partner actually did?

Then reassurance may be only one small part of the response. If there was a real lie, broken promise, privacy violation, or boundary breach, the issue includes evidence and accountability. If the rupture was infidelity, post-infidelity trust repair belongs to the separate Infidelity & Betrayal Recovery pathway rather than general jealousy reassurance.

The central distinction

Reassurance works best as communication inside a trustworthy relationship, not as a machine for manufacturing certainty. A partner can answer, clarify, care, repair, and behave reliably. The person feeling jealous can use that evidence while also accepting that close relationships always involve some vulnerability.

The most useful question is therefore not “Should reassurance stop?” It is “What function is reassurance serving now?” If it creates clarity, connection, and proportionate confidence, it may be doing relational work. If it repeatedly converts the same uncertainty into demands for new proof, it may be preserving the problem it is trying to solve.

For the broader foundations of the emotion itself, see What Is Jealousy in a Relationship? Meaning, Triggers, and What Research Shows.

References

Camanto, O. J., & Campbell, L. (2025). Trust in close relationships revisited. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(9), 2516–2544. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251346105

Clark, G. I., Rock, A. J., Clark, L. H., & Murray-Lyon, K. (2020). Adult attachment, worry and reassurance seeking: Investigating the role of intolerance of uncertainty. Clinical Psychologist, 24(3), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12218

Cougle, J. R., Fitch, K. E., Fincham, F. D., Riccardi, C. J., Keough, M. E., & Timpano, K. R. (2012). Excessive reassurance seeking and anxiety pathology: Tests of incremental associations and directionality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.001

Evraire, L. E., Dozois, D. J. A., & Wilde, J. L. (2022). The contribution of attachment styles and reassurance seeking to trust in romantic couples. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.3059

Lagersted-Olsen, N., Rostami, M., Mardani, F., Howe, L., & Khalil, M. (2026). Testing a dyadic model of romantic jealousy, reassurance seeking, partner monitoring, and relationship instability. Research and Practice in Couple Therapy, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.61838/rpct.4.2.4

Murray, S. L. (2023). Regulating relationship risk: Partner responsiveness as a safety signal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 50, 101582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101582

National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Obsessive-compulsive disorder: When unwanted thoughts or repetitive behaviors take over. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-when-unwanted-thoughts-or-repetitive-behaviors-take-over

Papa, C., Uvelli, A., Franquillo, A. C., Floridi, M., Perdighe, C., Mancini, F., & Pugliese, E. (2026). Measuring jealousy in intimate relationships: A systematic review of instruments and their psychometric qualities. Current Psychology, 45, Article 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08635-9

Park, J. H., Sarwar, S., Hassett, L. C., Staab, J. P., & Fipps, D. C. (2024). Clinical characterization, course, and treatment of Othello syndrome: A case series and systematic review of the literature. Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, 65(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaclp.2023.09.006

Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165682

Rector, N. A., Kamkar, K., Cassin, S. E., Ayearst, L. E., & Laposa, J. M. (2011). Assessing excessive reassurance seeking in the anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(7), 911–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.05.003

Rice, T. M., Kumashiro, M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2020). Mind the gap: Perceived partner responsiveness as a bridge between general and partner-specific attachment security. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197178

Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(6), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00088-3

Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271709

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013866

Psychological Encyclopedia