Neurotic People and Reassurance: Why Certainty Can Become a Relationship Cycle
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Calling someone “neurotic” because they ask for reassurance says very little clinically. In everyday relationship language, the label may point to repeated questions, fear that affection has changed, requests to confirm that nothing is wrong, checking the meaning of messages, difficulty accepting an uncertain answer, or a need to settle conflict immediately. Those behaviors can matter, but “neurotic person” is not a modern diagnosis and reassurance seeking is not a diagnosis either.
The psychologically useful move is to replace the label with a more precise question: what is the person trying to become certain about, what happens just before the reassurance request, what happens immediately after the answer, how long the relief lasts, and what happens to the relationship when the same uncertainty returns? This article focuses on that relationship process. For the broader label itself, see What Is a Neurotic Person? Meaning, Traits, Behavior, and Modern Psychology.
Reassurance can be healthy. Close relationships normally include comfort, clarification, affection, repair, and reminders of commitment. A problem is more likely when reassurance becomes rigid, repetitive, costly, or organized around obtaining impossible certainty. Even then, the pattern has several possible explanations. It may reflect ordinary stress, attachment anxiety, generalized worry, obsessive-compulsive processes, jealousy, depression-related interpersonal patterns, a real trust problem, or a relationship that is genuinely ambiguous or unstable.
Quick Answer: Why Can Reassurance Become a Relationship Cycle?
A reassurance cycle can form when uncertainty triggers distress, the person asks a partner for certainty, the answer produces short-term relief, and the underlying uncertainty remains unresolved. When doubt returns, the person may ask again, seek a stronger answer, check additional evidence, or monitor the partner more closely. The partner may respond with more reassurance, irritation, withdrawal, argument, or accommodation. Each response can change the next round of the interaction.
Clinical research supports parts of this sequence most clearly in anxiety and obsessive-compulsive samples. In a study of people with OCD and panic disorder, reassurance was associated with short-term relief followed by a later return of discomfort and the urge to seek more reassurance; the authors also emphasized important limitations, including retrospective self-report. Salkovskis and Kobori (2015) is evidence about those clinical groups, not proof that every person who asks a partner for reassurance is caught in the same mechanism.
Daily-life research also shows that anxiety and reassurance seeking can rise and fall together. In a 14-day ecological momentary assessment study of 104 university-affiliated young adults, daily reassurance seeking fluctuated concurrently with daily anxiety, while baseline reassurance seeking was associated with trait anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty. See Meyer, Silva, and Curry (2023). The study shows co-fluctuation, not that reassurance inevitably causes anxiety.
What Does “Neurotic” Mean Here?
Cambridge Dictionary documents current everyday uses of neurotic that center on anxiety, worry, or unusual behavior. A dictionary can establish how a word is used; it cannot establish a clinical category. In this article, “neurotic” is treated as an everyday label that people may apply to themselves or others when worry, sensitivity, repeated reassurance, overthinking, control, or emotional reactivity becomes noticeable.
That everyday label must remain separate from neuroticism. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait measured in personality research. A partner saying “you are neurotic” is not a personality assessment and does not establish a neuroticism score. It must also remain separate from neurosis, a historical clinical and theoretical term whose history belongs to a different topic.
It is equally important to separate a behavior pattern from an emotional state, symptom, risk factor, screening result, diagnosis, and clinical disorder. Repeated reassurance is a behavior. Fear or tension is an emotional state. Worry can be a symptom, but it can also be ordinary. A personality trait can be associated with risk without being a disorder. A screening score can suggest that fuller assessment may be useful without diagnosing anything. A diagnosis requires the criteria and clinical context of a specific disorder.
The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM overview explains that DSM diagnoses are defined through specified criteria and clinical judgment, while the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements provides a modern diagnostic framework for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Neither framework turns the everyday phrase “neurotic person” into a diagnosis.
For a focused explanation of the behavior label, see Neurotic Behavior: Meaning, Examples, and What It Does Not Diagnose. If the question is personal—“Am I neurotic?”—the more relevant route is Am I Neurotic? How to Understand the Label Without Self-Diagnosing.
Reassurance Is Not the Same as Certainty
Reassurance is interpersonal communication intended to reduce distress, clarify reality, restore connection, or help someone cope. It can be as ordinary as “I am still upset, but I love you and we can talk tonight,” “No, that message did not mean I am leaving,” or “I know you are scared; I am here with you.” Healthy reassurance does not require the relationship to eliminate uncertainty.
Certainty seeking is narrower. The goal becomes a definitive answer that removes doubt: “Promise you will never stop loving me,” “Tell me exactly why your tone changed,” “Are you absolutely sure you are not attracted to anyone else?” or “Can you guarantee this conflict means nothing?” Because relationships involve other minds, future events, changing feelings, incomplete information, and imperfect memory, some of these questions have no answer capable of delivering permanent certainty.
The distinction is functional rather than moral. The same sentence can be ordinary reassurance in one context and part of a repetitive cycle in another. The useful questions are whether the request brings genuinely new information, whether the person can accept a reasonable answer, whether the request must be repeated, whether the threshold for certainty keeps rising, and whether the interaction is narrowing the couple’s life.
A Step-by-Step Model of the Relationship Cycle
1. An ambiguous cue appears
A message is shorter than usual. A partner is tired. A plan changes. An argument remains partly unresolved. There is a delay in replying. The cue may be trivial, meaningful, or genuinely concerning. The cycle does not begin with proof that the cue is harmless; it begins with uncertainty about what the cue means.
2. Uncertainty is interpreted as threat
The person may think, “They are pulling away,” “I did something wrong,” “This means the relationship is ending,” or “I need to know now.” In a community sample of 328 participants, attachment anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and threat-related reassurance seeking were related, with analyses suggesting an indirect pathway involving intolerance of uncertainty and worry. See Clark, Rock, Clark, and Murray-Lyon (2021). Because the study was cross-sectional, it supports an association and proposed pathway rather than proving a causal sequence.
3. Reassurance is requested
The person asks directly, asks indirectly, rereads earlier messages, tests the partner, requests explanations, checks whether the partner is angry, or asks a third person what the partner probably meant. Reassurance can also be covert: mentally replaying a conversation until one interpretation feels safe or repeatedly reviewing evidence of the relationship.
4. Relief or co-regulation occurs
A clear answer can calm the nervous system and restore connection. That is not inherently problematic. In fact, emerging relationship research also shows that reassurance provision can be part of partner responsiveness. In two 2026 studies involving 108 and 147 couples, people who perceived a partner as more anxiously attached provided more reassurance during stressor discussions and daily life. Sun and colleagues (2026) therefore provides an important counterweight to the idea that reassurance is always maladaptive.
5. The unresolved uncertainty returns
If the answer settled a factual misunderstanding, the issue may end. If the goal was absolute certainty, however, the mind can generate a new exception: “What if they were only saying that to calm me?” “What if their feelings change tomorrow?” “What if I missed something?” In anxiety and OCD research, this return of doubt is one reason reassurance can become repetitive rather than conclusive.
6. The relationship adapts around the cycle
Partners may begin giving longer explanations, avoiding topics that trigger questions, reporting their whereabouts in more detail, answering the same question many times, or withdrawing because every answer seems temporary. The person seeking reassurance may interpret withdrawal as further evidence of danger, increasing the urge to ask again. At this point, the problem is no longer one anxious thought; it is an interactional pattern.
This six-step sequence is a descriptive model, not a diagnosis and not a claim that all reassurance follows this path. The cycle can stop at any point, and sometimes the appropriate response is more information, a repair conversation, a boundary, or a change in the relationship itself.
When Reassurance Is Healthy
Reassurance serves relationships when it supports reality, emotional regulation, repair, and mutual care without demanding omniscience. A partner who never reassures, never clarifies, or treats every need for comfort as pathology is not automatically practicing healthy boundaries.
Reassurance is proportionate to the event: a difficult conversation, loss, conflict, health scare, transition, or genuine uncertainty.
The answer contains relevant information and can be received without immediate escalation into a new demand for proof.
Both partners can say what they know and what they do not know.
Comfort is mutual rather than one-sided and compulsory.
The interaction returns the couple to ordinary life rather than opening an endless investigation.
The person can tolerate some remaining uncertainty without repeatedly transferring responsibility to the partner.
The partner can provide warmth without surrendering privacy, autonomy, or reasonable boundaries.
A useful distinction from clinical work is the difference between support and threat-focused reassurance. A small qualitative study of people with OCD and health anxiety found that participants described support seeking as help coping with distress, while excessive reassurance focused more on obtaining safety information or reducing perceived threat. Halldorsson and Salkovskis (2017) studied clinical groups, so the distinction should be used as a conceptual aid rather than imposed on every relationship.
When Reassurance Starts Acting Like Certainty Seeking
No single number of questions defines “too much.” Frequency matters, but function and flexibility matter more. The pattern deserves closer attention when the same answer repeatedly fails to hold, the request becomes increasingly specific, or the partner is expected to certify something that cannot actually be known.
The same question is asked repeatedly with little or no new information.
A reasonable answer produces relief for minutes or hours but not durable acceptance.
The person asks for stronger wording, more detail, screenshots, timelines, proof, or repeated promises.
Reassurance expands into checking, monitoring, testing, confession, interrogation, or repeated comparison.
The partner becomes responsible for regulating every spike of uncertainty.
Not answering immediately is interpreted as evidence that the feared conclusion is true.
The couple gives up activities, sleep, work, friendships, or privacy to manage the reassurance process.
Reassurance becomes entangled with control, threats, coercion, or punishment.
The last item changes the problem substantially. Coercive control, intimidation, surveillance, or violence should not be reduced to anxiety or a “neurotic” reassurance style. Relationship safety and boundaries become the primary issue.
Why the Answer May Stop “Sticking”
Intolerance of uncertainty
Some people experience uncertainty itself as especially difficult. The mind treats “I do not know” as a problem that must be solved immediately. Reassurance can then function as an attempt to remove uncertainty rather than understand new evidence. A 2026 study of 204 undergraduates reporting high worry found that intolerance of uncertainty and cognitive avoidance uniquely predicted reassurance seeking and other worry-related behaviors; metacognitive beliefs also contributed to reassurance seeking. See Crawford and Purdon (2026). The sample and design limit generalization, but the findings fit a broader uncertainty-based account.
Attachment anxiety
Attachment anxiety concerns fear of rejection, abandonment, or inconsistent availability in close relationships. It is not the same as an everyday label of being neurotic. In two couple studies, excessive reassurance seeking was associated with attachment anxiety and depression-related processes. Shaver, Schachner, and Mikulincer (2005) found that the association between excessive reassurance seeking and depression in their samples was accounted for by attachment anxiety.
The English Hub’s Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows owns the attachment-specific intent, while Attachment Styles in Adults provides the broader attachment framework. Reassurance alone cannot establish an attachment style.
Anxiety and worry
Reassurance seeking appears across multiple anxiety presentations. In treatment-seeking samples, Rector and colleagues (2011) identified reassurance about decisions, attachment and relationship security, and general threat/anxiety as distinguishable domains. In a larger treatment-seeking sample of 738 people with panic disorder with agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or OCD, Rector and colleagues (2019) again supported those three domains and found that reductions in reassurance seeking during CBT were associated with clinical improvement.
These findings show that reassurance seeking is not specific to one diagnosis. They also do not mean that a person who seeks reassurance has an anxiety disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health distinguishes ordinary anxiety from anxiety disorders by persistence, severity, and interference, among other clinical features.
Obsessive-compulsive processes
In OCD, reassurance can function as a compulsion or safety behavior when it is used to neutralize obsessional doubt or obtain certainty. That is a disorder-specific pathway and should not be inferred from ordinary relationship worry. The English Hub article OCD Reassurance Seeking: What Is It? Why Reassurance Relieves Distress and Reinforces the OCD Cycle owns that clinical intent, including OCD assessment and treatment context.
Jealousy and trust uncertainty
Reassurance about fidelity, attraction, ex-partners, social media, or perceived rivals can be part of jealousy, but jealousy has its own mechanisms and relationship context. The article Jealousy and Reassurance: When Reassurance Helps—and When It Feeds the Cycle owns the jealousy-specific reassurance intent. If there has been actual deception, betrayal, secrecy, or boundary ambiguity, the need for information cannot be understood solely as an internal anxiety problem.
A real relationship problem
Sometimes the answer does not stick because the environment does not feel trustworthy. A partner may give inconsistent explanations, alternate closeness and withdrawal, refuse reasonable clarity about commitment, or repeatedly violate agreed boundaries. In that case, “stop asking for reassurance” can miss the central issue. The work is to evaluate the relationship reality, not simply reduce the person’s questions.
What Relationship Research Shows—and What It Does Not
Relationship evidence should be interpreted at the level of the construct actually measured. A 2025 meta-analysis of 148 published studies found an overall negative association between measured neuroticism and relationship quality, with an aggregate correlation of r = −.238. Esplin and colleagues (2025) also reported moderation by factors such as region, measurement method, age, and relationship length.
That meta-analysis is important relationship science, but it is evidence about measured neuroticism, not about everyone casually called “neurotic.” The everyday label is noisy: one person may mean worry, another jealousy, another perfectionistic control, another emotional sensitivity. It would be a category error to take the meta-analytic effect for neuroticism and apply it directly to a partner because someone used the word neurotic.
Couple-specific reassurance research is also more nuanced than a simple rule that reassurance damages trust. In a daily diary study of 110 heterosexual couples, anxious attachment was associated with more daily excessive reassurance seeking and lower trust with more reassurance seeking, but next-day associations varied by attachment and partner configuration. Evraire, Dozois, and Wilde (2022) explicitly found different interpersonal patterns rather than one universal effect.
The evidence therefore supports a contextual conclusion: repetitive reassurance can participate in worry, insecurity, and conflict cycles, especially when it functions to eliminate uncertainty, yet reassurance can also be a normal form of responsiveness and connection. The scientific task is to identify the function of the interaction rather than moralize the behavior.
Reassurance, Trust, and the Paradox of Proof
Trust is not the same as certainty. Trust usually involves acting under incomplete information while relying on a pattern of evidence, shared commitments, boundaries, and the other person’s behavior over time. Reassurance can contribute to trust when it clarifies intentions or repairs a rupture. It becomes less useful when the relationship is asked to produce proof of an unknowable future.
This creates a practical paradox: the more a person asks for proof that the relationship is safe, the more the partner may feel that previous answers do not count. The partner may become frustrated or defensive; the person seeking reassurance may read that frustration as new evidence of danger. A loop can then be generated by the interaction itself, even if neither person intended it.
The broad relationship authority page Neurotic Person in Relationships: Worry, Reassurance, Conflict, and Connection examines this larger relationship context. The more specific label-focused page Neurotic Partner: What People Mean, Relationship Effects, and Better Language helps translate a global partner label into observable patterns.
How to Respond Without Diagnosing Your Partner
A productive response separates emotional support from impossible certainty. The goal is neither endless reassurance nor cold refusal. It is to answer what can be answered, name what remains uncertain, protect both partners’ autonomy, and keep the relationship from reorganizing itself around repeated proof.
Ask what kind of help is being requested
One question can change the interaction: “Do you need information, comfort, help making a decision, or help tolerating the uncertainty?” Those are different needs. Information calls for facts. Comfort calls for connection. Decision support calls for shared reasoning. Tolerating uncertainty calls for staying present without pretending certainty exists.
Give a clear answer when a clear answer exists
If the question is factual—“Are you upset with me?” “Did you mean that message as criticism?”—a direct answer is often more useful than strategic vagueness. Healthy boundaries do not require withholding ordinary relationship information.
Do not escalate from reassurance into courtroom proof
When the same issue has already been answered, adding more and more evidence can accidentally teach the interaction that the previous answer was insufficient. A partner can say, “I have answered what I know. I can stay with you while the uncertainty settles, but I cannot make it 100 percent certain.”
Validate distress without endorsing the feared conclusion
Validation can sound like: “I can see that this feels threatening,” “I know the delay scared you,” or “I understand why this argument is still on your mind.” Emotional validation does not require agreeing that the feared interpretation is true.
Set collaborative boundaries
A boundary works better when it describes what the partner will do rather than labeling the other person. For example: “I will answer new questions about what happened, but I am not going to reread the same messages repeatedly tonight.” This preserves care while limiting an interaction that has become repetitive.
Return responsibility gradually
If one partner has become the permanent regulator of the other’s uncertainty, both people may need to rebuild autonomy. That can mean pausing before asking, writing down the previous answer, deciding whether new evidence exists, or choosing a coping action that does not require another person to certify safety.
If You Are the One Seeking Reassurance
The first useful step is not to decide whether you are “a neurotic person.” It is to map the specific sequence. Precision makes change possible because it separates a vague identity judgment from a behavior that occurs in a context.
Name the exact uncertainty: “I am afraid this silence means rejection,” rather than “Something is wrong.”
Ask whether there is new information available. If not, another question may be seeking a feeling of certainty rather than a fact.
Notice what relief does. Does the answer settle the issue, or does a new exception appear immediately?
Record the answer once. If you want to ask again, check whether you are asking a genuinely new question.
Separate support from verdict. You can ask, “Can you stay with me while I feel anxious?” without asking the partner to prove an unknowable future.
Let some uncertainty remain when the situation is fundamentally uncertain. Relationships cannot provide guarantees about every future feeling or event.
Take real relationship evidence seriously. If agreements are repeatedly broken, focus on boundaries, trust repair, or decisions rather than treating every concern as anxiety.
For a broader map of worry, avoidance, reassurance, control, and self-criticism, see Neurotic Behavior Patterns: Worry, Avoidance, Reassurance, Control, and Self-Criticism.
Helpful Language for Couples
Instead of “You are being neurotic again,” try: “I notice we are trying to make this completely certain. What part can we actually know?”
Instead of “I’m done reassuring you,” try: “I can answer the question once and stay emotionally present, but I cannot keep proving the same thing.”
Instead of “Stop overthinking,” try: “What new information would change the answer? If there is none, maybe the hard part is the uncertainty itself.”
Instead of “Promise you will never leave me,” try: “I’m scared of losing the relationship. Can we talk about how we are doing now and what commitment means to us?”
Instead of asking for a verdict—“Are we definitely okay?”—try asking for observable information: “Do you want to stay in this relationship?” “Is there a problem you want us to address?” “When can we return to this conversation?”
These are communication examples, not a substitute for individualized therapy. Their purpose is to translate a global label into a workable interaction.
What Partners Should Avoid
Mocking, shaming, or repeatedly calling the person neurotic.
Assuming reassurance seeking proves an anxiety disorder, OCD, insecure attachment, or a personality problem.
Turning every request for ordinary clarification into a “symptom” that must be ignored.
Attempting to conduct exposure therapy or response prevention on a partner without a proper clinical plan.
Using “boundaries” to evade reasonable accountability for actual secrecy, betrayal, inconsistency, or broken agreements.
Giving false guarantees simply to end the conversation.
Participating in coercive monitoring, surveillance, threats, or control in the name of reassurance.
The central principle is accuracy: respond to the actual process. A request for factual clarification, a need for comfort, a compulsive reassurance ritual, and a safety concern are different problems.
Can the Cycle Change?
Yes, specific reassurance patterns can change, but the target should be the actual construct or condition rather than a supposed diagnosis called “neurotic person.” In clinical anxiety and OCD samples, CBT-related reductions in reassurance seeking have been associated with symptom improvement. Rector and colleagues (2019) supports that statement within diagnosed treatment-seeking groups.
For nonclinical relationship cycles, change may involve clearer communication, more tolerance of uncertainty, less repetitive checking, stronger self-soothing and decision skills, better conflict repair, or direct work on the real trust problem. If attachment anxiety is central, attachment-informed work may be relevant. If OCD is central, OCD-specific treatment is the proper clinical owner. If jealousy is central, jealousy and trust processes need to be addressed directly.
There is no medication for “being neurotic” as an everyday label, and reassurance seeking by itself is not an indication for medication. When a specific anxiety or other mental disorder is diagnosed, medication decisions belong to that disorder and to individualized clinical care.
When Professional Help Is Worth Considering
Professional assessment becomes more useful when reassurance seeking is persistent, hard to resist, time-consuming, or seriously interfering with sleep, work, study, parenting, social life, or the relationship. It is also worth considering when the pattern is tied to intrusive thoughts, compulsions, panic, severe generalized worry, depression, trauma-related symptoms, or escalating conflict.
Assessment should identify the actual problem. A clinician may ask about triggers, feared outcomes, frequency, duration, avoidance, checking, compulsions, mood, relationship history, trauma, functional impairment, and what happens after reassurance. The goal is not to confirm the label “neurotic,” but to determine whether the pattern is ordinary distress, a relationship problem, a measurable trait, a symptom process, or part of a specific clinical disorder.
If reassurance requests occur in a relationship involving intimidation, surveillance, threats, coercive control, or violence, safety and specialized support take priority over trying to optimize a reassurance cycle.
Evidence Map: How Strong Are the Main Claims?
Established evidence: Reassurance seeking occurs across multiple anxiety and OCD diagnoses in treatment-seeking samples, and distinct reassurance domains include decisions, relationship security, and general threat. Clinical studies also document short-term relief followed by renewed anxiety or renewed reassurance urges in OCD and panic samples.
Supported but context-dependent evidence: Attachment anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, worry, trust, and reassurance seeking are associated in community and couple studies. Daily-life research shows anxiety and reassurance seeking can co-fluctuate. Relationship effects vary across people and contexts.
Trait evidence with a strict boundary: Measured neuroticism is associated with lower relationship quality on average in a large meta-analysis, but that evidence cannot be automatically transferred to people casually described as “neurotic.”
Emerging evidence: Recent couple research suggests that providing reassurance can also function as partner buffering when a partner is perceived as anxiously attached. This helps explain why a blanket rule to “stop reassuring” is scientifically and relationally crude.
Plausible interpretation: The everyday certainty-seeking relationship cycle described in this article integrates findings from anxiety, OCD, uncertainty, attachment, and couple research. It is a practical model for organizing behavior, not a formal diagnosis or universally validated single construct.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do “neurotic people” always need reassurance?
No. “Neurotic people” is an everyday label, not a defined group with a required behavior pattern. Some people called neurotic may seek reassurance often; others may withdraw, avoid, ruminate privately, become self-critical, or show none of these patterns.
Is needing reassurance in a relationship unhealthy?
No. Reassurance, comfort, clarification, and repair are normal parts of close relationships. Concern rises when reassurance becomes rigid, repetitive, difficult to resist, unable to produce lasting resolution, or costly to autonomy and relationship functioning.
Why do I need reassurance even after my partner answers me?
Possible explanations include intolerance of uncertainty, worry, attachment anxiety, obsessional doubt, jealousy, depression-related reassurance patterns, learned habits, or a relationship that does not actually feel reliable. The same behavior can have different functions, so the surrounding pattern matters.
Does repeated reassurance mean I have anxious attachment?
No. Research links attachment anxiety with greater reassurance seeking in some samples, but reassurance seeking alone does not establish an attachment style. Attachment is measured as a broader pattern.
Does repeated reassurance mean I have OCD?
No. Reassurance can function as a compulsion in OCD, but OCD requires a disorder-specific pattern involving obsessions, compulsions, distress, time burden, or impairment. Ordinary relationship reassurance cannot be diagnosed as OCD from the behavior alone.
Should I stop reassuring an anxious partner?
A blanket stop rule is too simple. Healthy relationships include reassurance. A better approach is to distinguish useful information and emotional support from repetitive certainty seeking, answer what can genuinely be answered, and set collaborative limits around loops that no answer can resolve.
What if my partner really has broken trust?
Then the relationship context matters. Repeated questions after betrayal, secrecy, or inconsistent behavior may reflect a real trust-repair problem. The solution may require transparency, accountability, changed behavior, boundaries, or a decision about the relationship—not merely reducing reassurance seeking.
Can therapy help with reassurance seeking?
Therapy can address the specific process that drives reassurance seeking. Evidence exists for changes in reassurance seeking during CBT for diagnosed anxiety and OCD samples. For other cases, treatment should be matched to the actual problem—such as attachment insecurity, depression, relationship conflict, trauma-related symptoms, or another identified condition.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022; current online resource). What is the DSM? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-the-dsm
Cambridge Dictionary. Neurotic. Contemporary English usage reference. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neurotic
Clark, G. I., Rock, A. J., Clark, L. H., & Murray-Lyon, K. (2021). Adult attachment, worry and reassurance seeking: Investigating the role of intolerance of uncertainty. Clinical Psychologist, 24(3), 294–305. DOI: 10.1111/cp.12218. Journal article
Crawford, T., & Purdon, C. (2026). Predictors of worry-related safety behaviours and avoidance. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1111/bjc.70075. PubMed
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. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000463. PubMed
Evraire, L. E., Dozois, D. J. A., & Wilde, J. L. (2022). The contribution of attachment styles and reassurance seeking to trust in romantic couples. European Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 19–39. DOI: 10.5964/ejop.3059. PubMed
Halldorsson, B., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2017). Why do people with OCD and health anxiety seek reassurance excessively? An investigation of differences and similarities in function. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(4), 619–631. DOI: 10.1007/s10608-016-9826-5. PubMed
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104429. PubMed
National Institute of Mental Health. Anxiety Disorders. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/anxiety-disorders
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.05.003. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102109. PubMed
Salkovskis, P. M., & Kobori, O. (2015). Reassuringly calm? Self-reported patterns of responses to reassurance seeking in obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 49(Pt B), 203–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.09.002. PubMed
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. DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271709. PubMed
Sun, E. R., Kong, X., Mitala, J. A., Oh, J., & Jakubiak, B. K. (2026). Perceiving to Provide: How Partner Attachment Perceptions Inform Reassurance Provision in Romantic Relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/01461672261448771. PubMed
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO