Neurotic Friend: Worry, Sensitivity, Reassurance, and Friendship Boundaries
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A “neurotic friend” is not a modern psychological diagnosis. In everyday speech, people usually use the phrase for a friend who seems unusually worried, emotionally reactive, sensitive to changes in tone or contact, prone to overthinking, or repeatedly in need of reassurance. The phrase compresses many possible experiences into one label, so the useful psychological question is not “Is my friend neurotic?” but “What specific pattern is happening, how often does it occur, what triggers it, and what effect does it have on the friendship?”
That distinction matters because the same outward behavior can arise from ordinary stress, uncertainty in a friendship, a recent loss, attachment insecurity, depressive symptoms, an anxiety problem, obsessive-compulsive processes, perfectionism, rejection sensitivity, chronic stress, or a broader personality tendency. None of those possibilities can be inferred from the word neurotic alone.
This article uses “neurotic friend” only as contemporary search and everyday language. For the broader meaning of the label, see What Is a Neurotic Person? Meaning, Traits, Behavior, and Modern Psychology. For the broader relationship context, see Neurotic Person in Relationships: Worry, Reassurance, Conflict, and Connection.
Quick Answer: What Does “Neurotic Friend” Mean?
In everyday language, a “neurotic friend” usually means a friend whose worry, sensitivity, repeated checking, reassurance seeking, rumination, or emotional reactions feel unusually frequent or difficult to manage. It is a description made by a speaker, not a standardized psychological category. Cambridge Dictionary documents anxious or worried uses of the word neurotic, but a dictionary records language use; it does not establish a diagnosis or a psychological mechanism.
The American Psychiatric Association describes the DSM as an official diagnostic classification with explicit criteria that are intended to be used with professional clinical judgment. DSM-5-TR diagnostic categories are defined by criteria, not by casual labels. The World Health Organization likewise publishes formal clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. ICD-11 clinical diagnosis is based on defined disorders and requirements. “Neurotic friend” is therefore best treated as colloquial language that needs translation into more precise observations.
The Most Useful Translation: From a Label to an Observable Pattern
A label such as “neurotic” can make a friendship problem sound like a fixed property of the person. A more useful description names what is actually happening. Instead of “She is neurotic,” the observation might be “She asks several times whether I am angry when I answer briefly.” Instead of “He is too sensitive,” it might be “He assumes a delayed reply means I am withdrawing from the friendship.” Instead of “My friend overreacts to everything,” it might be “A small change of plan leads to hours of worry and repeated requests for certainty.”
This translation immediately separates at least eight different psychological statuses that are often blurred together online: an everyday label, a behavior pattern, an emotional state, a personality trait, a symptom, a risk factor, a screening result, and a clinical diagnosis. Those statuses are not interchangeable. A person can worry intensely during a stressful month without having an anxiety disorder. A person can seek reassurance without having OCD. A person can score high on a personality measure without being clinically ill. A person can also have a diagnosable condition without anyone around them ever using the word neurotic.
“Neurotic,” Neuroticism, and Neurosis Are Different Concepts
Neurotic as an everyday label
In current conversation, neurotic is a loose adjective. It may refer to worry, nervousness, self-consciousness, repeated checking, perfectionistic concern, irritability under stress, emotional intensity, insecurity, or a tendency to anticipate what could go wrong. Because speakers use it differently, the label does not identify one psychological process.
Neuroticism as a personality trait
Neuroticism is a measurable personality trait, commonly studied as a dimension of individual differences. Benjamin Lahey’s review describes it as a relatively stable tendency to respond with negative emotions to threat, frustration, or loss. That scientific construct is dimensional rather than a diagnosis. A friend who is casually called neurotic may or may not score high on a validated neuroticism measure, and a person high in measured neuroticism may never be described that way by friends.
The relationship between measured neuroticism and mental health is also more complicated than “high neuroticism equals disorder.” A major review by Ormel and colleagues concluded that neuroticism is useful as a broad marker of nonspecific risk while multiple causal and measurement models remain relevant. The evidence does not make neuroticism an etiologically specific diagnosis.
Neurosis as a historical-clinical concept
Neurosis belongs to a different historical and clinical lineage. Its changing diagnostic history, psychoanalytic meanings, and older classification systems are not the same thing as calling a friend neurotic today. The present article does not use neurosis as an explanation for friendship behavior.
What People Often Mean When They Call a Friend Neurotic
The everyday label often appears when one person notices a recurring combination of worry and interpersonal uncertainty. The friend may ask whether everything is okay after an ordinary pause in conversation, reread a message for signs of rejection, worry that a canceled plan means the friendship is fading, or need repeated confirmation that they have not offended anyone. Another person may use the same label for someone who becomes tense when plans are uncertain, has difficulty letting go of a small disagreement, or interprets ambiguous social cues in the most threatening way.
These examples are descriptive, not diagnostic signs. Their meaning depends on frequency, intensity, context, flexibility, and consequences. Asking “Are we okay?” after a conflict can be healthy repair. Asking the same question repeatedly despite clear answers, obtaining only brief relief, and returning to the same fear may indicate a reassurance cycle worth understanding. Feeling hurt by a delayed reply can be ordinary. Organizing an entire friendship around monitoring reply times is a different pattern.
The broader phrase neurotic behavior is similarly nonspecific. The more precisely the behavior is described, the easier it becomes to distinguish a temporary reaction from a recurring interpersonal pattern or a symptom that deserves clinical attention.
Worry in Friendship: The Content Matters Less Than the Pattern
Friendship worry can focus on many themes: “Did I say something wrong?”, “Are they bored with me?”, “Why did they invite someone else?”, “What if I am becoming a burden?”, “Why have they not replied?”, or “What if this friendship ends?” The content may change from day to day while the process stays similar: uncertainty appears, attention narrows around possible threat, the person searches for signs, asks for certainty, experiences temporary relief, and then encounters a new ambiguity.
That process does not automatically indicate pathology. Friendships genuinely contain uncertainty, uneven availability, misunderstandings, and changes in closeness. Worry can also be proportionate to real circumstances. The relevant question is whether the response remains flexible and reality-based, or whether uncertainty repeatedly produces distress and behaviors that strain the relationship.
Sensitivity: Real Experience, Multiple Possible Explanations
A friend who seems highly sensitive may notice small changes in voice, punctuation, facial expression, timing, group dynamics, or plans. The experience of hurt or alarm can be completely real even when the interpretation is uncertain. A short message may genuinely feel cold. Feeling that impact does not prove that the sender intended rejection, and it does not identify why the reaction was strong.
Sensitivity can be situational. People often become more vigilant to social threat when they are exhausted, grieving, lonely, under chronic stress, recovering from conflict, or facing instability elsewhere in life. It can also overlap with more enduring patterns, including attachment anxiety, depressive cognition, anxiety, trauma-related vigilance, perfectionistic self-monitoring, or a general tendency toward negative emotionality. Those are different constructs with different evidence bases.
This is why “too sensitive” is usually poor psychological language. It mixes the intensity of the person’s internal reaction with a judgment about whether the reaction is legitimate. A clearer conversation separates three questions: What did you feel? What did you infer from the event? What evidence supports that inference?
Reassurance Seeking: Normal Support Versus a Repeating Cycle
Reassurance is a normal part of friendship. Friends tell each other “I am not angry,” “You did not ruin anything,” “I still care about you,” and “We can talk tomorrow.” Support becomes clinically interesting when reassurance is excessive, repetitive, difficult to retain, or primarily used to neutralize uncertainty rather than to exchange new information.
Research on excessive reassurance seeking has been developed most clearly in depression and anxiety-related literatures. A meta-analysis by Starr and Davila reviewed 38 studies involving 6,973 participants and found an association between excessive reassurance seeking and concurrent depression; a subset of studies also supported a smaller association with interpersonal rejection. The meta-analysis supports the existence of an interpersonal reassurance pattern but does not make reassurance seeking a diagnosis.
Daily-life research also shows that anxiety and reassurance seeking can move together. In an ecological momentary assessment study, Meyer and colleagues described reassurance seeking as relevant to anxiety and depression and examined day-to-day co-fluctuation. The study helps explain why reassurance can be repeatedly recruited during anxious periods.
Clinical research across anxiety disorders has identified different reassurance domains, including uncertainty about decisions, security of relationships, and perceived threat. Rector and colleagues found these domains in treatment-seeking anxiety samples. That finding should not be reversed into self-diagnosis: a friend who asks for reassurance does not thereby have an anxiety disorder.
Why reassurance can feel effective and still fail to settle the fear
Reassurance often works immediately. The friend receives a clear answer, distress drops, and both people feel the problem has been solved. If the deeper difficulty is intolerance of uncertainty or a recurring negative interpretation, however, the relief may depend on receiving another answer the next time doubt appears. The behavior can then become negatively reinforced by relief: uncertainty feels bad, reassurance reduces the discomfort, and asking again becomes more likely.
The same outward question can have a different function in different people. “Are we okay?” may be ordinary repair after conflict, a request for emotional connection, a depression-linked reassurance pattern, an anxious-attachment behavior, or part of a compulsion. Function matters more than the surface sentence.
When Reassurance Is Connected to Depression
Excessive reassurance seeking was originally studied extensively in interpersonal models of depression. Joiner and Metalsky reported a series of studies supporting reassurance seeking as a distinct interpersonal construct and as a prospective vulnerability associated with later depressive reactions to stress. Their findings concern a defined research construct, not the everyday category “neurotic friend”.
Evraire and Dozois later reviewed excessive reassurance seeking together with negative feedback seeking in models of depression and interpersonal dysfunction. Their review emphasizes that reassurance-related behavior can interact with self-views and relationship processes. This is one reason a friend’s repeated need for confirmation should not automatically be interpreted as manipulation or attention-seeking.
When Reassurance Is Connected to Attachment
Some friendship worry can be better understood through attachment than through the word neurotic. Adult attachment research commonly examines dimensions such as attachment anxiety and avoidance, and researchers use multiple measures that differ in focus and method. A 25-year review of adult attachment measurement examined 29 instruments and emphasized the need to match the measure to the relationship and construct being studied. Adult attachment is a research framework with specific measures, not another name for being neurotic.
Fraley’s review of adult attachment also emphasizes ongoing debates about how attachment functions shift across development and close relationships. Attachment patterns are relationship-relevant constructs with their own scientific questions. For a friendship-specific explanation, see Attachment Styles in Friendships: Anxiety, Avoidance, and Security Beyond Romance.
Research on excessive reassurance seeking in romantic couples has found links with attachment anxiety. Shaver, Schachner, and Mikulincer studied couple relationships and found that the association between excessive reassurance seeking and depression was accounted for by attachment anxiety in their samples. That evidence is informative about mechanism but should not be automatically generalized from romantic couples to every friendship.
What Neuroticism Research Can—and Cannot—Tell Us About Friendship
A person who is casually described as a neurotic friend is not automatically a person with high measured neuroticism. Still, personality research can provide a limited background hypothesis when the construct is measured properly. The strongest recent synthesis relevant to close relationships is a 2025 meta-analysis by Esplin and colleagues. Across 148 published studies, measured neuroticism was associated with lower relationship quality, with an aggregate correlation of r = −.238. The association was robust but varied with several moderators.
That result is an average association across research samples. It does not show that a particular person is neurotic, that every high-neuroticism person has poor relationships, or that neuroticism alone causes friendship problems. The meta-analysis concerns measured trait neuroticism and relationship quality, while the search phrase “neurotic friend” is an everyday label. Keeping those levels separate prevents a common reasoning error: turning group-level trait research into a diagnosis of an individual friend.
The evidence also does not justify a moral judgment. A person can be emotionally reactive and deeply loyal, anxious and highly attentive to others, sensitive and capable of strong repair, or high in neuroticism and still maintain meaningful relationships. Personality tendencies influence probabilities and experiences; they do not define the worth or fate of a friendship.
Friendship Quality Is a Psychological Resource
It is worth protecting good friendships rather than reducing them to a problem-management exercise. A systematic review of 38 studies on adult friendship and wellbeing found that friendship quality and socializing with friends were generally positively associated with wellbeing, while also noting substantial limitations and gaps in the literature. The review supports the importance of adult friendship while cautioning against simple causal claims.
That broader context changes how boundaries should be understood. The goal is not to eliminate vulnerability, worry, or requests for support. Healthy friendship often includes all three. The goal is to keep support compatible with reciprocity, autonomy, honesty, and the ordinary limits of two people’s lives.
Friendship Boundaries: Define the Behavior, Not the Person
A friendship boundary is most useful when it describes your own availability or participation. “I cannot keep checking my phone during work, but I will reply this evening” is a boundary. “You are too neurotic” is a judgment. “I can talk about this for twenty minutes, then I need to sleep” is a boundary. “Stop being so sensitive” is a judgment. “I will answer the question once, but I do not want us to spend the night repeating the same reassurance loop” is a boundary tied to a specific behavior.
Clear boundaries can coexist with warmth. A limit does not require emotional withdrawal, punishment, sarcasm, or a threat to end the friendship. In many situations the clearest message combines three pieces: acknowledgment of the person’s feeling, a direct statement of what you can or cannot do, and a concrete next point of connection.
For example: “I hear that the silence made you worry. I am not angry with you. I cannot keep checking this every ten minutes, but I can call tomorrow after work.” The important feature is not the exact wording. It is that reassurance is finite, the boundary is behaviorally clear, and connection is not made contingent on the friend becoming emotionless.
How to Respond to a Friend Who Worries and Seeks Reassurance
Ask what kind of support is actually needed
Before supplying certainty, ask whether the person wants information, emotional support, perspective, practical help, or simply company. “Do you want me to help you think this through, or do you mostly need me to listen?” can prevent both friends from entering a loop in which one person keeps giving answers that do not address the underlying need.
Validate the feeling without certifying every feared conclusion
You can recognize that your friend is scared, hurt, embarrassed, or uncertain without agreeing that the feared interpretation is true. “I can see why that message made you nervous” is different from “Yes, that definitely means they are rejecting you.” Emotional validation and factual certainty are different forms of response.
Give clear information when you actually have it
Ambiguity can intensify worry, so ordinary clarity is helpful. If you are not angry, say so. If you cannot meet this week, explain that the constraint is scheduling rather than rejection if that is true. If the friendship needs a difficult conversation, do not offer false reassurance to avoid discomfort. Reassurance is most useful when it communicates real information rather than postpones reality.
Notice whether the answer is retained
A practical sign of a reassurance cycle is that an answer produces relief but does not become usable knowledge. The same uncertainty returns almost unchanged, sometimes within minutes or hours. When that happens, repeating the answer indefinitely may be less useful than naming the pattern: “I notice I have answered this several times and it helps briefly, but then the fear comes back. Maybe the problem now is the uncertainty itself rather than missing information.”
Protect reciprocity
Friendship support can become unbalanced when every contact turns into crisis processing, one person is expected to be continuously available, or the worried friend has little capacity to notice the other person’s needs. Reciprocity does not require equal support every day. People go through hard periods. It does require that the friendship remain capable, over time, of containing both people.
What Not to Do
Do not diagnose your friend from a list of behaviors. Worry, sensitivity, rumination, checking, jealousy, reassurance seeking, perfectionism, and emotional reactivity are transdiagnostic or nonspecific experiences. They can appear in ordinary life and in many different clinical and nonclinical contexts.
Do not use “neurotic” as a shortcut for difficult, irrational, dramatic, unstable, or mentally ill. Those words can collapse a complex interpersonal problem into a character verdict. If there is a concrete problem—frequent calls at night, accusations after delayed replies, repeated checking, pressure to cancel other plans, or escalating conflict—name the behavior.
Do not promise unlimited availability simply to stop distress in the moment. Promises that you cannot sustain create a second problem later. And do not abruptly withdraw all reassurance as though reassurance itself were harmful. Ordinary reassurance is part of human connection. The question is whether a repetitive behavior is maintaining distress or replacing the person’s ability to tolerate uncertainty.
Could Reassurance Seeking Be OCD?
Sometimes reassurance seeking functions as a compulsion in obsessive-compulsive disorder, but reassurance seeking by itself does not diagnose OCD. In OCD, reassurance may be used to neutralize distress linked to obsessions, intrusive thoughts, images, urges, memories, or doubt, and it usually makes sense only in the context of the broader symptom pattern.
If the repeated questions are driven by intrusive doubt and feel ritualized, time-consuming, difficult to resist, or necessary to prevent a feared outcome, the appropriate next step is not to label the friend neurotic. The OCD-specific question belongs to the OCD evidence base. See OCD Reassurance Seeking: What Is It? Why Reassurance Relieves Distress and Reinforces the OCD Cycle for that distinction.
Could the Pattern Be an Anxiety Disorder?
Persistent worry can occur in anxiety disorders, but friendship worry alone is not enough to identify one. Clinical diagnosis depends on the full pattern of symptoms, duration, distress or impairment, context, differential diagnosis, and professional assessment. A friend who worries intensely about being disliked may be under temporary stress; another may have social anxiety; another may have generalized worry across many domains; another may have no disorder at all.
This is also why “treating a neurotic friend” is the wrong frame. If a person has a defined anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, trauma-related disorder, or another condition, treatment recommendations should come from evidence for that condition. If the problem is a relationship habit without a disorder, the relevant work may involve communication, emotional regulation, uncertainty tolerance, conflict repair, or broader psychotherapy goals rather than treatment of a supposed neurotic personality.
Alternative Explanations to Consider Before Using the Label
A real change in the friendship
Sometimes the worried person is detecting something real. Contact may have dropped, plans may repeatedly be canceled, a conflict may remain unresolved, or one friend may be disengaging. Calling the other person neurotic can become a way of avoiding a needed conversation. Before interpreting worry as overreaction, ask whether the friendship itself has changed.
Acute stress or loss
People often become more reassurance-seeking when their wider sense of safety has been disrupted. Job loss, illness, bereavement, relocation, family conflict, financial strain, or another relationship ending can make a friendship feel especially important and uncertainty especially difficult.
Depressive symptoms
Depression can affect self-worth, expectations of rejection, interpretation of social information, and reassurance behavior. The reassurance-seeking literature includes substantial depression-focused evidence, which is another reason the behavior should not be assigned one meaning from the outside.
Attachment insecurity
Some people become particularly activated when closeness feels uncertain. That can resemble the everyday picture of a neurotic friend, but attachment anxiety is a specific research construct. Friendship attachment can also vary across relationships rather than functioning as a single permanent identity.
OCD or another anxiety process
Repeated questions can look similar on the surface while serving different functions. In OCD, the question may neutralize intrusive doubt. In social anxiety, it may seek certainty about social evaluation. In generalized worry, it may reduce uncertainty about many possible outcomes. None of these can be diagnosed from one friendship behavior.
A learned interpersonal habit
Not every persistent pattern is a disorder. A person may simply have learned that repeated checking brings immediate comfort or keeps others engaged. Habits can become self-reinforcing without constituting a diagnostic category.
If You Are the Friend Being Called “Neurotic”
Treat the label as information about another person’s perception, not as a verdict about your identity. Ask what concrete behavior they mean. “When you say I am being neurotic, what am I doing that is difficult for you?” converts a global judgment into something that can be examined.
Then separate the emotion from the behavior. You may have every right to feel worried while also deciding that sending ten follow-up messages is not helping. You may feel genuinely hurt while discovering that your interpretation of a delayed reply was inaccurate. You may need reassurance and also notice that no amount of reassurance seems to stay reassuring for long.
Useful self-observation asks: What triggered the worry? What did I predict? What did I do next? What happened to my distress immediately? What happened an hour later? Did the behavior improve the friendship, or only reduce anxiety for a moment? Those questions produce more actionable information than asking “Am I a neurotic person?”
When Professional Support May Be Worth Considering
Professional support becomes more relevant when the underlying pattern is persistent, difficult to control, or clearly impairing daily life. Examples include anxiety that occupies large portions of the day, repeated reassurance or checking that feels compulsory, depressive symptoms, panic, severe sleep disruption, avoidance of ordinary activities, recurrent conflict across relationships, or distress that continues despite reasonable support from friends.
The reason to seek help is the distress, impairment, or defined symptom pattern—not the label neurotic. A clinician can assess whether the experience is best understood as an anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, trauma-related symptoms, a personality-related pattern, situational stress, or something else. That distinction matters because evidence-based treatment belongs to the actual condition or problem being assessed.
A Practical Friendship Framework
When “neurotic friend” is the phrase that brings you to this topic, a useful sequence is simple. First, translate the label into an observable behavior. Second, identify the immediate trigger and the emotion underneath it. Third, ask what function the behavior serves—information, comfort, certainty, connection, avoidance, or relief. Fourth, check whether the pattern is occasional and flexible or repetitive and costly. Fifth, respond with warmth and clear limits. Sixth, route any specific clinical pattern to its own evidence base rather than using neurotic as a substitute diagnosis.
That sequence preserves two truths at once: your friend’s experience can be psychologically real, and the explanation for it can remain uncertain until there is better evidence. Friendship works better when concern is specific enough to discuss and boundaries are specific enough to follow.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is “neurotic friend” a diagnosis?
No. It is an everyday label, not a modern clinical diagnosis. Clinical diagnoses are based on defined criteria and assessment. If the phrase seems to describe a real problem, translate it into specific behaviors, emotions, triggers, and consequences.
Is a neurotic friend the same as a friend high in neuroticism?
No. Neuroticism is a measurable personality trait. “Neurotic friend” is colloquial language. Research on measured neuroticism should not be automatically applied to anyone who receives the everyday label.
Why does my friend keep asking if we are okay?
Possible reasons include ordinary repair after conflict, uncertainty about the friendship, attachment anxiety, depressive reassurance seeking, social anxiety, generalized worry, OCD-related doubt, recent stress, or a learned habit. The repeated question has no single diagnostic meaning.
Should I stop reassuring my friend?
Not as a blanket rule. Reassurance is a normal part of supportive friendship. If reassurance becomes repetitive, provides only brief relief, and keeps returning in the same form, it may be more useful to name the cycle, provide clear information once, and set a reasonable limit on repetition.
How do I set boundaries with a sensitive friend?
State what you can do rather than defining what your friend is. Be concrete about availability, time, messaging, repeated questions, or the way conflict will be handled. A boundary can be warm and direct: care for the person and limits on a behavior can coexist.
Does neuroticism mean someone will be a bad friend?
No. Research finds average associations between measured neuroticism and relationship quality, not a deterministic rule for individuals. Friendship quality depends on many factors, including communication, reciprocity, context, compatibility, support, conflict repair, and the behavior of both people.
Could repeated reassurance seeking be OCD?
It can be part of OCD when reassurance functions as a compulsion in response to obsessions or intrusive doubt. It can also occur in many other contexts. The broader OCD symptom pattern and clinical assessment are necessary for diagnosis.
When should I encourage my friend to see a therapist?
Consider suggesting professional support when worry, mood symptoms, checking, reassurance seeking, avoidance, or conflict is persistent, causes marked distress, interferes with work or daily life, or repeatedly damages relationships. Frame the suggestion around the person’s experience and goals rather than telling them they are neurotic.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022–2026). About DSM-5-TR.
Cambridge Dictionary. Neurotic. Cambridge University Press.
Esplin, C. R., Rasmussen, B. D., Hatch, S. G., Hawkins, A. J., & Braithwaite, S. R. (2025). Neuroticism and relationship quality: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 594–610. PubMed (DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000463)
Evraire, L. E., & Dozois, D. J. A. (2011). An integrative model of excessive reassurance seeking and negative feedback seeking in the development and maintenance of depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(8), 1291–1303. PubMed (DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.014)
Fraley, R. C. (2019). Attachment in adulthood: Recent developments, emerging debates, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 401–422. PubMed (DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102813)
Joiner, T. E., Jr., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). Excessive reassurance seeking: Delineating a risk factor involved in the development of depressive symptoms. Psychological Science, 12(5), 371–378. PubMed (DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00369)
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. PubMed (DOI: 10.1037/a0015309)
Meyer, A. E., Silva, S. G., & Curry, J. F. (2023). Is everything really okay?: Using ecological momentary assessment to evaluate daily co-fluctuations in anxiety and reassurance seeking. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 171, 104429. PubMed (DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104429)
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. PubMed (DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003)
Pezirkianidis, C., Galanaki, E., Raftopoulou, G., Moraitou, D., & Stalikas, A. (2023). Adult friendship and wellbeing: A systematic review with practical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1059057. PubMed (DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1059057)
Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(4), 419–432. PubMed (DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006)
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. PubMed (DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.05.003)
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. PubMed (DOI: 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. PubMed (DOI: 10.1037/a0013866)
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Health Organization.