Neurotic Behavior: Meaning, Examples, and What It Does Not Diagnose
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neurotic behavior is an everyday phrase, not a modern psychiatric diagnosis. In ordinary conversation it usually points to a pattern that seems excessively worried, tense, self-critical, emotionally reactive, avoidant, reassurance-seeking, controlling, or preoccupied. The phrase does not tell you why the behavior is happening, whether it is temporary or persistent, whether a personality trait is involved, or whether any mental disorder is present.
The most useful translation is therefore not “this person is neurotic,” but “what exactly is happening?” Describe the behavior, the trigger, the thought or feeling around it, how often it occurs, what function it serves, and whether it causes distress or interferes with life. That shift turns a vague label into information that psychology can actually evaluate.
This distinction matters because current search results often blend three different ideas: the everyday adjective neurotic, the Big Five personality trait neuroticism, and the historical concept of neurosis. They overlap linguistically, but they are not interchangeable psychological categories.
What does “neurotic behavior” mean?
In contemporary everyday English, “neurotic” commonly describes behavior seen as unusually anxious, worried, nervous, or preoccupied. Cambridge Dictionary documents this current usage and even uses the phrase “neurotic behavior.” A dictionary can establish how a word is used; it cannot establish a clinical syndrome.
In psychology, there is no single scientifically standardized list of “neurotic behaviors.” The phrase functions as a loose umbrella. One speaker may mean chronic worry. Another may mean repeated checking, emotional overreaction, perfectionistic overpreparation, reassurance seeking, jealousy, self-doubt, rumination, or difficulty tolerating uncertainty. Those patterns belong to different research literatures and can arise for different reasons.
That is why a good psychological explanation translates the label into a more precise construct instead of treating the label as the construct. The same outward behavior can have several functions. Rechecking a door, for example, can be ordinary caution, a habit, a response to a recent burglary, a memory strategy, or part of a clinically significant compulsive pattern. The word neurotic does not resolve that question.
The short answer
Everyday label: “neurotic behavior” is informal language for behavior someone perceives as excessively worried, tense, reactive, rigid, or preoccupied.
Behavior pattern: a repeated action or response such as reassurance seeking, avoidance, checking, overpreparation, or repeatedly revisiting a concern.
Emotional state: temporary anxiety, irritability, shame, insecurity, or distress can produce behavior that looks “neurotic” without describing a stable trait.
Personality trait: neuroticism is a measured dimension of personality science. It is not identical to being called neurotic in conversation.
Symptom: a specific experience such as persistent worry, intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbance, panic, or compulsive behavior may be clinically relevant, but one symptom does not establish a diagnosis.
Risk factor: a variable may be associated with greater probability of later problems without being a disorder itself.
Screening result: a questionnaire score can indicate that further assessment may be useful; it does not by itself diagnose a disorder.
Diagnosis: a diagnosis requires the criteria and assessment appropriate to a recognized condition.
Clinical disorder: a disorder is a defined clinical construct involving a characteristic pattern of symptoms and, depending on the condition, criteria such as duration, severity, distress, impairment, or exclusions. “Neurotic behavior” is not such a category.
Examples of behavior people may call “neurotic”
The examples below describe possible everyday uses of the label. They are not diagnostic signs. Each example can occur in ordinary life, during stress, as part of a personality style, or alongside many different psychological conditions.
Repeated reassurance seeking
A person sends a message to a partner, notices that the reply is shorter than usual, and asks several times whether the relationship is okay. Another person repeatedly asks coworkers whether a small mistake will cause a serious problem. In research, excessive reassurance seeking has been studied across anxiety disorders and OCD, including reassurance about decisions, relationships, and perceived threat. Rector and colleagues found that reassurance seeking cut across several clinical groups. That evidence supports reassurance seeking as a useful construct; it does not turn reassurance seeking into “neurotic behavior syndrome.”
In relationships, reassurance can be supportive and entirely ordinary. The clinical question concerns repetition, function, short-lived relief, dependence on certainty, and whether the cycle creates distress or impairment. For a focused relationship discussion, see Jealousy and Reassurance: When Reassurance Helps—and When It Feeds the Cycle.
Worry that keeps restarting
Someone solves one concern and almost immediately finds another: finances, health, work, a social interaction, a family member, then a future possibility. Worry itself is common and often useful. Persistent, hard-to-control worry is different. The National Institute of Mental Health distinguishes ordinary worry from generalized anxiety disorder by features such as persistence, difficulty controlling worry, associated symptoms, duration, and interference with daily life.
Calling frequent worry “neurotic” skips those distinctions. It can also falsely imply that worry reveals a person's character when it may reflect a stressful period, a specific anxiety process, sleep loss, illness, uncertainty, or another context.
Rumination and mental replay
A person repeatedly replays a conversation, searches for what they “should have said,” or mentally revisits a mistake without reaching a useful decision. Psychological research often studies this kind of process under rumination, worry, or the broader construct repetitive negative thinking. A study by Gustavson and colleagues found substantial commonality between worry and rumination, supporting repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic construct associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms.
A recent meta-analysis by Stenzel and colleagues synthesized 55 randomized studies and found that cognitive behavioral interventions reduced repetitive negative thinking across diagnoses. The implication for the word neurotic is precise: when repetitive negative thinking is the real problem, it is better to name and address that process than to treat a vague identity label.
Avoidance and “playing it safe”
A person may avoid a meeting because criticism feels unbearable, refuse to travel because uncertainty feels too high, or rely on elaborate precautions to prevent embarrassment or feared outcomes. Avoidance can be sensible when danger is real. In anxiety research, however, some forms of safety behavior are studied as strategies used to prevent feared outcomes or reduce distress.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis by Goodson and colleagues found that experimentally reducing safety behaviors was associated with reductions in both safety behavior use and clinical symptoms across the included studies, while increasing safety behaviors was associated with higher symptoms. The review also reported moderators and publication-bias concerns. That evidence supports a role for safety behaviors in some clinical problems, not a universal rule that caution or preparation is pathological.
Overcontrol and repeated checking
Someone checks an itinerary again and again, repeatedly confirms that an email was sent correctly, or tries to control minor details because uncertainty feels difficult. This may be ordinary conscientiousness, a response to high stakes, a habit, anxiety-related safety behavior, or—under particular conditions—part of OCD or another clinical picture.
Repeated checking does not equal OCD. The National Institute of Mental Health defines OCD around uncontrollable recurring obsessions, excessive repetitive behaviors or both, with symptoms that can be time-consuming, distressing, and disruptive. For the OCD-specific reassurance cycle, see OCD Reassurance Seeking; for the broader disorder, see OCD: What Is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?.
Harsh self-criticism after small mistakes
A minor error becomes evidence of personal failure: “I always ruin everything,” “everyone noticed,” or “I should never make mistakes.” Self-criticism is a researchable construct in its own right. Löw, Schauenburg, and Dinger reviewed longitudinal psychotherapy studies and found that higher pretreatment self-criticism was associated with poorer treatment outcome overall, although the size of the association varied by problem area and change findings were inconsistent.
This does not mean self-criticism is a diagnosis or that every self-critical person is neurotic. It means that harsh self-evaluation is more informative than the label because it describes a process that can be assessed directly.
Strong reactions to uncertainty or ambiguity
A delayed reply, an unclear plan, a medical test awaiting results, or an ambiguous comment may trigger disproportionate mental effort to obtain certainty. Research on intolerance of uncertainty provides a more specific vocabulary for this pattern. A meta-analysis by Gentes and Ruscio found substantial associations between intolerance of uncertainty and symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and OCD, with limited specificity to one diagnostic category.
Again, the construct is transdiagnostic. Difficulty with uncertainty can appear in different conditions and also outside disorder. It should not be used as a shortcut to diagnose anxiety, OCD, depression, autism, or any other condition.
Relationship vigilance and insecurity
A person may scan for signs of rejection, interpret small changes in tone as evidence that something is wrong, or seek repeated confirmation that a partner still cares. Everyday speakers may call this neurotic. Psychology may instead ask about attachment-related anxiety, jealousy, prior relationship experiences, current relationship safety, self-esteem, uncertainty, or other mechanisms.
An anxious attachment pattern is a specific relationship construct, not a synonym for neurotic behavior. See Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows for the attachment-specific evidence and boundaries.
What “neurotic behavior” does not diagnose
No single behavior listed above establishes a mental disorder, and the phrase neurotic behavior does not identify a diagnosis. Current clinical systems use defined diagnostic categories and requirements. The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 clinical manual provides current diagnostic descriptions and requirements for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders; the American Psychiatric Association maintains DSM-5-TR and its approved updates. Neither system uses “neurotic behavior” as a stand-alone diagnosis.
It does not diagnose generalized anxiety disorder. Persistent worry can occur in GAD, but diagnosis requires the disorder-specific pattern and criteria.
It does not diagnose OCD. Checking, reassurance seeking, perfectionistic behavior, or repeated thoughts can occur in OCD and outside OCD.
It does not diagnose depression. Rumination and self-criticism may occur with depression but are not equivalent to depression.
It does not diagnose a personality disorder. Personality-disorder diagnosis requires a much broader assessment of enduring patterns, functioning, context, and specific criteria.
It does not diagnose an attachment style. Relationship insecurity may be interpreted through attachment theory, but the constructs are not interchangeable.
It does not diagnose neurodivergence. Anxiety, rigidity, sensitivity, repetition, overwhelm, or a preference for predictability can have many meanings and should not be reverse-engineered into autism, ADHD, or another neurodevelopmental diagnosis from a casual label.
It does not diagnose “neurosis.” Neurosis belongs to historical psychiatric and psychoanalytic traditions rather than a current one-to-one diagnostic category.
It does not prove high neuroticism. Neuroticism is measured as a personality dimension; being described as neurotic in conversation is not a personality assessment.
Neurotic behavior vs. neuroticism vs. neurosis
Neurotic behavior: an everyday description
Neurotic behavior is best treated as colloquial language. It usually describes what an observer finds excessive or difficult to understand: worry, emotional reactivity, preoccupation, repeated checking, reassurance seeking, avoidance, or control. Because the speaker chooses the threshold for “excessive,” the label is partly evaluative.
Neuroticism: a measured personality trait
Neuroticism is a personality-science construct. Lahey’s review describes it as a relatively stable tendency to respond with negative emotion to threat, frustration, or loss. People vary continuously on the trait. A trait score therefore describes relative tendencies; it is not a diagnosis.
The relationship between neuroticism and mental health is real but complex. Ormel and colleagues reviewed several competing explanations for the association between neuroticism and common mental disorders and concluded that no single model explains the full pattern. A large meta-analysis by Jeronimus and colleagues further showed that prospective associations with mental disorders were substantially reduced after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history. These findings are exactly why an everyday label should not be converted into a causal statement or diagnosis.
Most importantly for this article, research on measured neuroticism cannot automatically be generalized to everyone whom a partner, parent, coworker, social-media user, or clinician casually calls neurotic. The measurement construct and the everyday label overlap imperfectly.
Neurosis: a historical clinical concept
Neurosis has a long history in medicine, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis, and its meaning changed across periods and schools. Modern diagnostic systems reorganized much of that territory into more specific categories. This article does not retell that history because it belongs to a separate topic. For the historical and modern mapping, see Neurosis: What It Means Today, Symptoms, History, and Modern Diagnoses and Neurosis vs Neuroticism: Historical Disorder Concept vs Big Five Personality Trait.
Why the same behavior can mean different things
Behavior is not self-interpreting. The meaning of an action depends on context, function, duration, intensity, flexibility, and consequences. Two people can perform the same action for different reasons, and one person can perform it for different reasons at different times.
Frequency
Occasional reassurance after a frightening event and hourly reassurance about ordinary uncertainty are not the same pattern. Frequency helps distinguish a moment from a recurring cycle, although frequency alone still does not diagnose anything.
Trigger
What happened immediately before the behavior? A real deadline, an ambiguous text, a traumatic reminder, a health concern, social evaluation, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, or a recurring intrusive thought can lead to superficially similar reactions.
Function
What is the behavior trying to accomplish? It may seek information, reduce uncertainty, prevent danger, avoid shame, obtain closeness, neutralize an intrusive thought, prevent a mistake, or regulate an overwhelming emotion. Function often tells you more than appearance.
Flexibility
Can the person choose another response when circumstances change? A flexible precaution can be adaptive. A rigid ritual or avoidance strategy that feels impossible to resist deserves a different level of attention.
Short-term relief and long-term cost
Many repetitive patterns persist because they work briefly. Checking can lower uncertainty for a moment. Reassurance can calm fear for a moment. Avoidance can immediately remove distress. The important question is whether relief lasts or whether the person becomes more dependent on the behavior the next time uncertainty appears.
Distress and impairment
Psychology and psychiatry become more concerned when a pattern causes marked distress, consumes substantial time, damages relationships, interferes with work or school, restricts daily life, or creates significant risk. The threshold and exact criteria depend on the construct or disorder being considered.
A better framework than the label
When someone says “I am neurotic” or “my partner is acting neurotic,” replace the global description with a six-part observation:
Situation: What was happening?
Trigger: What uncertainty, thought, sensation, memory, or interpersonal cue appeared?
Response: What did the person think, feel, and do?
Function: What immediate problem did the response try to solve?
Consequence: Did it help briefly, help sustainably, or create a new cycle?
Pattern: How often does this happen, how rigid is it, and how much does it interfere with life?
This framework avoids turning a behavior into an identity. It also makes professional assessment more efficient because a clinician can work with observable patterns rather than first trying to decode a loaded adjective.
What may be happening underneath the label?
There is no single mechanism of neurotic behavior because there is no single clinical entity by that name. Several established psychological processes can nevertheless produce behaviors that everyday language groups together.
Repetitive negative thinking
Established evidence: worry and rumination share a transdiagnostic repetitive component and are associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms. The research does not imply that every repeated thought is pathological. Repetition becomes more clinically relevant when it is difficult to disengage from, unproductive, distressing, or functionally impairing.
Intolerance of uncertainty
Established evidence: intolerance of uncertainty is associated with symptoms across multiple diagnostic areas rather than belonging exclusively to one disorder. This is one reason a person who repeatedly seeks certainty should not be assigned a diagnosis from that behavior alone.
Reassurance cycles
Established clinical evidence: excessive reassurance seeking has been measured across several anxiety disorders and OCD. A useful formulation asks what the reassurance concerns, whether relief is brief, and whether repeated reassurance increases dependence on external certainty.
Avoidance and safety behavior
Established but context-sensitive evidence: avoidance and safety behaviors can maintain anxiety-related problems, yet sensible precautions are adaptive. The line depends on realistic risk, the person’s goals, whether the strategy prevents corrective learning, and whether it increasingly restricts life.
Self-criticism
Established evidence: self-criticism is associated with multiple mental-health problems and psychotherapy outcomes. It is more precise to assess harsh self-evaluation directly than to infer a broad “neurotic personality.”
Relationship threat and attachment-related anxiety
Plausible interpretation requiring construct-specific assessment: repeated checking of closeness, sensitivity to rejection, and reassurance seeking may sometimes reflect attachment-related anxiety, jealousy, current relationship instability, prior betrayal, or combinations of these. The same behavior cannot establish which explanation is correct.
When is the behavior ordinary stress rather than a mental-health problem?
Human behavior becomes more worried, vigilant, irritable, repetitive, and controlling under stress. A person waiting for a biopsy result may check a portal repeatedly. A parent whose child is late may send multiple messages. Someone who made a serious work error may review details many times. These reactions can be understandable responses to context.
The distinction is not whether the behavior looks dramatic from outside. Ask whether the response is proportionate to the situation, whether it settles as the situation resolves, whether the person remains flexible, and whether normal functioning returns. The NIMH similarly distinguishes ordinary anxiety from GAD using persistence, difficulty controlling worry, associated symptoms, duration, and interference.
Stress can also amplify an existing vulnerability without proving a disorder. A person may become more reassurance-seeking during a relationship crisis or more perfectionistic during a high-stakes project. That can be worth addressing even when no diagnosis applies.
Alternative explanations a good assessment keeps open
The same everyday label can hide many different explanations. A careful assessment keeps several possibilities open until there is enough information to narrow them.
A temporary stress response or adjustment to a difficult life event.
An anxiety process such as persistent worry, fear of evaluation, panic-related avoidance, or intolerance of uncertainty.
Obsessions or compulsions when behavior is driven by recurring intrusive thoughts and repetitive neutralizing actions.
Depressive rumination or self-criticism.
Attachment-related anxiety, jealousy, or insecurity in a particular relationship.
Perfectionistic standards, fear of mistakes, or overcontrol.
A learned family or cultural style of handling uncertainty, conflict, danger, or emotion.
Sleep loss, physical illness, medication effects, substance use, or another medical/contextual factor affecting anxiety or emotional regulation.
A neurodevelopmental profile in which predictability, repetition, sensory demands, executive demands, or social uncertainty matter—but only after assessment of the actual neurodevelopmental construct rather than reinterpretation through the word neurotic.
A stable personality tendency, including possible higher neuroticism, which would require trait assessment rather than an everyday label.
No disorder at all: an observer may simply dislike another person’s coping style, emotional intensity, caution, or need for detail.
Why labeling a person is less useful than describing a pattern
“You are neurotic” compresses behavior, emotion, personality, and diagnosis into one word. It can also turn a changeable pattern into an identity claim. “You asked me five times whether I was angry after I said I was fine” is more specific. “I notice that when plans change, I start checking everything because I feel I need certainty” is more informative still.
Language matters clinically because labels can change how people interpret themselves and others. The Mental Health Foundation has specifically described “neurotic” as outdated and potentially stigmatizing mental-health language. The practical alternative is not to police every casual use of the word; it is to choose more precise language when accuracy, relationships, or clinical decisions matter.
If someone calls you neurotic
Treat the word as a prompt for clarification rather than as psychological evidence. Ask what behavior the person is referring to. “Do you mean I worry a lot before plans?” “Do you mean I ask for reassurance when I think you are upset?” “Do you mean I get overwhelmed when details change?” A concrete answer gives you something you can evaluate.
Then separate feedback from judgment. The other person may be accurately noticing a recurring pattern and still be using an unhelpful label. Or the label may simply express irritation with your emotional style. The value of the feedback depends on the observable pattern and its consequences, not the adjective.
If you recognize a pattern, ask whether it is causing problems for you. You do not need a diagnosis to work on worry, rumination, reassurance seeking, avoidance, self-criticism, emotional regulation, or communication. You also do not need to assume that changing one pattern means changing your whole personality.
If you are describing someone else
Describe what you observe and how it affects the interaction. “When plans change, we spend an hour rechecking everything and both of us become stressed” is actionable. “You are neurotic” is not. In relationships, concrete language also makes it easier to distinguish a request for accommodation from criticism of the person.
Avoid using the label as remote diagnosis. A partner’s jealousy does not prove an anxiety disorder. A coworker’s perfectionism does not prove OCD. A family member’s emotional reactivity does not prove a personality disorder. A child’s need for predictability does not prove neurodivergence. The responsible next step is to identify the actual pattern.
Can “neurotic behavior” change?
Specific patterns can change. The relevant evidence is attached to the pattern or disorder, not to a treatment for “neurotic people.” For example, the 2025 meta-analysis by Stenzel and colleagues found that CBT interventions reduced repetitive negative thinking, and the 2026 review by Goodson and colleagues found benefits from reducing safety behaviors across included studies. Evidence-based treatment also exists for defined anxiety disorders and OCD.
The intervention should match the formulation. Persistent worry may call for strategies used in evidence-based anxiety treatment. Compulsions require OCD-specific assessment and treatment approaches. Relationship reassurance may need work on the interpersonal cycle, while reassurance functioning as a compulsion belongs in an OCD formulation. Medication decisions likewise belong to an actual diagnosed condition or symptom target, not to the adjective neurotic.
For everyday patterns that do not meet criteria for a disorder, change may still involve experimenting with less checking, delaying reassurance, tolerating a manageable amount of uncertainty, shifting from rumination to problem solving, practicing self-compassion instead of self-attack, or communicating directly. These are pattern-level strategies, not a self-diagnosis.
When professional help may be useful
Consider professional assessment when the underlying pattern is persistent, difficult to control, highly distressing, time-consuming, increasingly avoidant, damaging to relationships, interfering with work or school, restricting ordinary activities, or accompanied by other significant symptoms. The purpose of assessment is to identify what is actually happening—not to confirm that someone is “a neurotic person.”
A clinician may ask about onset, triggers, duration, severity, physical symptoms, intrusive thoughts, compulsions, mood, trauma and stress history, sleep, substances, medical factors, relationships, developmental history, and functional impairment. That information can distinguish ordinary stress from a treatable disorder and can separate overlapping problems that look similar from the outside.
Frequently asked questions
What is neurotic behavior in simple terms?
It is an informal phrase for behavior someone sees as excessively worried, tense, reactive, preoccupied, avoidant, reassurance-seeking, controlling, or self-critical. Psychology does not recognize one standardized syndrome called neurotic behavior.
What is an example of neurotic behavior?
An everyday example might be repeatedly asking a partner for reassurance after a neutral message, checking minor details many times because uncertainty feels intolerable, or replaying a small mistake for hours. The behavior does not reveal a diagnosis by itself.
Is neurotic behavior a mental illness?
No. The phrase is not a current diagnosis. Some behaviors described that way can occur in mental disorders, but they also occur during ordinary stress and outside clinical conditions.
Is neurotic behavior the same as anxiety?
No. Anxiety is an emotional and physiological response; anxiety disorders are defined clinical conditions. Everyday neurotic behavior can include anxiety-related patterns, but the label is broader, vaguer, and non-diagnostic.
Is neurotic behavior the same as OCD?
No. OCD involves obsessions, compulsions, or both in a defined clinical pattern. Reassurance seeking, checking, or perfectionistic behavior can occur in OCD, but those behaviors alone do not establish OCD.
Does being called neurotic mean I have high neuroticism?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait measured with validated personality instruments. An everyday judgment about someone’s behavior is not a trait assessment.
Does neurotic mean neurosis?
Not in ordinary modern usage. The words share historical roots, but neurosis is a historical clinical and theoretical concept, while neurotic is now also used casually to describe worry, nervousness, or perceived overreaction.
Does neurotic mean psychotic?
No. The words refer to very different ideas. The National Institute of Mental Health describes psychosis as a collection of symptoms involving some loss of contact with reality, often including delusions or hallucinations. Everyday use of neurotic usually refers to worry, reactivity, or preoccupation and should not be treated as a psychosis label.
What causes neurotic behavior?
There is no single cause because there is no single disorder called neurotic behavior. The pattern may reflect stress, learned coping, repetitive negative thinking, intolerance of uncertainty, relationship threat, anxiety, compulsive processes, self-criticism, a personality tendency, or another explanation. The specific behavior and context determine which hypothesis is worth testing.
How do I stop neurotic behavior?
Start by replacing the label with the exact pattern. If the problem is rumination, work on rumination. If it is reassurance seeking, examine the reassurance cycle. If it is avoidance, identify what is being avoided and why. If symptoms are severe or impairing, seek assessment for the underlying condition rather than trying to “treat neuroticism” from a casual description.
The practical rule
When you encounter the phrase neurotic behavior, translate it before interpreting it. Ask: What happened? What did the person feel or fear? What did they do? What did the behavior accomplish in the short term? What did it cost in the long term? Is it occasional or persistent? Is it flexible or rigid? Does it cause distress or impairment?
That sequence preserves the useful observation hidden inside the label while removing what the label cannot tell you. It leads from everyday language to a precise psychological construct, from a precise construct to evidence, and from evidence to an appropriate response.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. Updates to DSM-5-TR Criteria and Text. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/updates-to-dsm/updates-to-dsm-5-tr-criteria-text
Cambridge Dictionary. “Neurotic.” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/neurotic
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
Gustavson, D. E., du Pont, A., Whisman, M. A., & Miyake, A. (2018). Evidence for transdiagnostic repetitive negative thinking and its association with rumination, worry, and depression and anxiety symptoms: A commonality analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.128. PubMed
Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., & Ormel, J. (2016). Neuroticism’s prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: A meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443,313 participants. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2883–2906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001653. PubMed
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309. 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
Mental Health Foundation. (2019). Why the language we use to describe mental health matters. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/blogs/why-language-we-use-describe-mental-health-matters
National Institute of Mental Health. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/generalized-anxiety-disorder-gad
National Institute of Mental Health. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd
National Institute of Mental Health. Understanding Psychosis. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003. PubMed
Rector, N. A., Katz, D. E., Quilty, L. C., Laposa, J. M., Collimore, K., & Kay, T. (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
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
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. ISBN 978-92-4-007726-3. WHO