Neurotic Thinking: Worry, Rumination, Catastrophizing, and Self-Doubt
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
“Neurotic thinking” is an everyday phrase, not a diagnosis and not a standardized contemporary psychological construct. People usually use it to describe thinking that feels anxious, repetitive, threat-focused, self-critical, or difficult to disengage from. In modern psychological language, the more precise process may be worry, rumination, repetitive negative thinking, catastrophizing, self-doubt, self-criticism, intrusive thoughts, or another pattern. These processes can overlap, but they are not interchangeable, and none of them by itself proves that a person has a mental disorder.
The most useful way to understand the label is therefore to translate it. Instead of asking “Am I a neurotic thinker?”, ask what the mind is doing: predicting uncertain future threats, replaying past events, jumping to worst-case outcomes, doubting decisions, attacking the self after mistakes, checking for certainty, or becoming stuck in a loop that no longer produces new information. That shift moves the question from a vague identity label toward a psychological process that can actually be described, measured, and—when necessary—treated.
What does “neurotic thinking” mean?
In present-day everyday English, neurotic commonly refers to being unusually worried, nervous, tense, or emotionally preoccupied. The Cambridge Dictionary entry for neurotic documents this current usage. A dictionary can establish how the word is used; it cannot establish a diagnosis or a psychological mechanism. That distinction is especially important here because the everyday label is broader and looser than the constructs used in scientific research.
The exact phrase “neurotic thinking” also has a historical footprint. For example, a 1974 article indexed in PubMed used the phrase within the older clinical framework of “neurotic disorders.” That older literature is not the right template for interpreting a modern search such as “why is my thinking so neurotic?” Contemporary research typically studies narrower constructs such as worry, rumination, repetitive negative thinking, cognitive bias, self-criticism, or specific disorders.
For this reason, “neurotic thinking” works best as a translation problem rather than as a clinical category. The label tells us that someone experiences their thinking as excessive, tense, repetitive, or self-undermining. It does not tell us why the pattern occurs, whether it is a temporary response to stress, whether it reflects a personality tendency, whether it belongs to a diagnosable condition, or whether it is clinically significant at all.
A practical translation: what might the label be pointing to?
Worry: repeated thinking about uncertain future problems
Worry is usually future-oriented. The mind generates possibilities—“What if I fail?”, “What if something goes wrong?”, “What if I missed something?”—and keeps trying to reduce uncertainty by thinking more. Some worry is ordinary problem anticipation. It becomes more clinically important when it is excessive, difficult to control, persistent, and associated with distress or impairment.
Generalized anxiety disorder is one condition in which worry is central, but ordinary worry is not the same thing as GAD. The National Institute of Mental Health describes GAD as persistent and excessive worry that is difficult to control and interferes with life, together with other symptoms. A person cannot be diagnosed from the fact that they worry, overthink, or use the word neurotic about themselves.
Rumination: repetitive thinking that keeps returning to distress
Rumination usually refers to repetitive thinking about distress, its meaning, its causes, its consequences, perceived mistakes, losses, failures, or negative self-evaluations. It is often described as more past- or self-focused than worry, while worry is often more future-focused. That contrast is useful, but it is not absolute. A person can ruminate about the future and worry about something that began in the past.
A contemporary research umbrella for their shared repetitive quality is repetitive negative thinking, or RNT. Hitchcock and Frank’s 2024 review describes RNT as a transdiagnostic construct encompassing worry and rumination while emphasizing that the two processes also have important differences. The practical implication is that the loop itself can matter even when the topic changes.
Catastrophizing: moving quickly toward the worst plausible outcome
Catastrophizing is the tendency to interpret an uncertain situation through an extreme negative forecast: a mistake becomes a career-ending disaster, delayed reassurance becomes evidence that a relationship is collapsing, a bodily sensation becomes a sign of catastrophe, or one awkward interaction becomes proof of lasting rejection. The thought may be possible, but possibility is treated as if it were probability, and the expected consequences may be treated as if they would be unmanageable.
Catastrophizing is not a diagnosis. It is also not a single universal explanation for anxiety or depression. A 2025 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on cognitive biases found that cognitive biases had a statistically significant but small prospective association with later anxiety and depression symptoms overall. That is a useful corrective to simplistic claims: biased interpretations can matter, but one style of thought does not mechanically determine a future disorder.
Self-doubt and self-criticism: uncertainty directed toward the self
Self-doubt is a broad everyday phrase rather than a single clinical construct. It can mean uncertainty about a decision, low confidence in memory or judgment, fear of making a mistake, concern about how one is evaluated, perfectionistic doubt, or a harsh tendency to interpret errors as evidence of personal inadequacy. Those possibilities should be separated rather than collapsed into a single “neurotic” identity.
Self-criticism is more directly represented in psychological research. A systematic review of self-criticism and psychopathology found associations across multiple forms of psychological difficulty, while a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcomes found that higher pretreatment self-criticism was associated with somewhat poorer outcomes on average. These findings establish clinical relevance for self-criticism as a process; they do not mean that everyone who doubts or criticizes themselves has a disorder.
Why worry and rumination so often feel like the same mental machine
When people say “my brain won’t stop,” they are often describing the process rather than the topic. Worry and rumination can both be repetitive, negatively valenced, difficult to disengage from, and experienced as an attempt to solve something important. One loop may revolve around tomorrow’s uncertainty; another around yesterday’s mistake. Both can create the subjective impression that one more round of thinking might finally produce certainty, safety, or closure.
The RNT literature helps explain why the exact content is not always the key variable. The 2025 transdiagnostic meta-analysis by Stenzel and colleagues synthesized randomized trials targeting repetitive negative thinking, worry, and rumination across diagnoses. This evidence base does not validate “neurotic thinking” as a condition. It shows that repetitive negative thought processes are scientifically tractable across different clinical presentations.
The distinction between productive reflection and RNT is functional. Productive thinking tends to generate new information, a decision, a plan, or a changed understanding. Repetitive negative thinking tends to revisit the same unresolved material without proportionate gain. A long period of thought is not automatically pathological; the key question is whether the thinking is moving the problem forward or repeatedly circling it.
A common mechanism: intolerance of uncertainty
One reason worry can persist is that uncertainty itself becomes difficult to tolerate. If “not knowing” feels dangerous, irresponsible, or unbearable, the mind may continue searching for an answer even when the available evidence cannot provide certainty. This can turn thinking into a certainty-seeking activity rather than a problem-solving activity.
The association is well supported at the group level. A 2026 preregistered meta-analysis of 115 studies and dissertations with 28,693 participants found a strong association between intolerance of uncertainty and worry (r = .59), with the strongest disorder-specific association for generalized anxiety disorder among the anxiety outcomes examined. This is evidence about statistical relationships across samples. It does not allow anyone to infer a diagnosis or a personal cause from one episode of uncertainty or worry.
In everyday terms, uncertainty can generate questions that have no final answer: “Can I be completely sure I chose correctly?”, “Can I guarantee they are not upset with me?”, “Can I know that this symptom means nothing?”, “Can I prove I will not fail?” The mind can spend enormous effort answering a question whose standard is certainty rather than reasonable confidence. Recognizing that structure is often more informative than calling the whole pattern neurotic.
How the loop can maintain itself
A typical loop may begin with a trigger: an ambiguous message, a mistake, a physical sensation, a deadline, a memory, a decision, or a relationship change. The trigger creates uncertainty or negative emotion. The mind responds with analysis, prediction, replay, or self-evaluation. Thinking briefly feels like action because attention is focused on the problem. If no definitive answer appears, the unresolved feeling becomes evidence that more thinking is needed. The loop restarts.
This sequence is a plausible process model, not a universal law. Different disorders and life situations have different mechanisms. In OCD, for example, repeated mental review, checking, reassurance seeking, or other rituals can function as compulsions. The NIMH description of OCD emphasizes that OCD involves obsessions, compulsions, or both, with symptoms that are time-consuming, distressing, or impairing. Not every repetitive thought is an obsession, and not every attempt to feel certain is a compulsion.
The practical point is to look at what happens after the thought. Does the person obtain useful information and move on? Do they repeat the same mental argument? Do they ask several people the same question? Do they repeatedly check messages, memories, locks, symptoms, or online information? Do they avoid a decision because certainty has not arrived? The behavior following the thought can be as informative as the thought content itself.
Examples of what people may call neurotic thinking
Work and performance
A manager sends “Can we talk tomorrow?” An ordinary interpretation is that the topic is unknown. A worry loop begins generating threats: “I must have done something wrong.” Catastrophizing escalates the forecast: “I am going to be fired.” Rumination reviews recent meetings for evidence. Self-doubt rewrites neutral memories as proof of incompetence. The phrase neurotic thinking compresses four different processes into one label.
Relationships
A partner takes longer than usual to reply. Worry predicts rejection. Rumination replays the last conversation. Catastrophizing turns delay into abandonment. Self-doubt asks whether one is lovable. Reassurance seeking may briefly reduce distress, then make the next ambiguous delay feel even more urgent. Relationship uncertainty can produce repetitive thinking without proving any attachment disorder, personality disorder, or other diagnosis.
When repetitive thought is specifically about another person, uncertainty, or limerence, the article Why Can’t I Stop Thinking About Someone? Limerence, Rumination, and Relationship Uncertainty examines that narrower pattern in detail.
Health
A new bodily sensation creates uncertainty. The mind searches for explanations, notices the most frightening one, scans the body again, searches online, and asks for reassurance. That sequence may occur in ordinary stress, health anxiety, panic-related processes, OCD, a medical problem, or another context. Calling it neurotic does not resolve the differential question. New or concerning physical symptoms should be evaluated on their medical merits rather than dismissed as “just anxiety.”
Mistakes and moral self-evaluation
After saying something awkward, a person may replay the conversation, reconstruct the other person’s facial expression, imagine reputational damage, and conclude that the mistake reveals a defective character. The observable behavior is repetitive self-focused thought. Possible mechanisms include rumination, social-evaluative anxiety, perfectionistic standards, shame, self-criticism, or—when specific obsession-compulsion patterns are present—OCD-related mental rituals. The label alone cannot distinguish them.
Decisions
A person makes a reasonable choice, then repeatedly reopens it: “What if the other option was better?” They compare, research, ask others, reverse the decision mentally, and return to the same uncertainty. This can be ordinary indecision, a stressful high-stakes choice, perfectionistic doubt, anxiety, compulsive checking, or another process. The clinically meaningful information lies in frequency, function, distress, impairment, and the behaviors used to obtain certainty.
Neurotic thinking is not the same thing as overthinking
In ordinary conversation, the two phrases overlap. “Overthinking” is another umbrella term used for many experiences: prolonged analysis, indecision, worry, rumination, replaying conversations, repeated checking of one’s reasoning, or simply thinking more than someone else thinks is necessary. Neither phrase is a formal diagnosis.
The more useful distinction is not between two informal labels but between forms of cognition. Is the person solving a real problem, planning, reflecting, learning, or generating options? Or are they repetitively returning to uncertain threats, negative interpretations, or self-attacks without gaining information? A thought process can be lengthy and still productive. A short thought process can be maladaptive if it immediately triggers avoidance, compulsive checking, or severe self-criticism.
Neurotic thinking is not the same thing as neuroticism
Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait in contemporary personality science. It concerns a broad tendency toward negative emotionality and related patterns across time. “Neurotic thinking,” by contrast, is an informal description of a perceived thinking style or episode. You cannot infer a person’s neuroticism score from the fact that they worry, ruminate, catastrophize, or call themselves neurotic.
A broad review by Lahey on the public-health significance of neuroticism summarizes the trait’s associations with multiple outcomes, but trait evidence should not be pasted onto people who merely fit a conversational stereotype. Questions about measurement, facets, development, outcomes, high and low neuroticism, and trait change belong to the separate topic of neuroticism rather than to the everyday label neurotic thinking.
Neurotic thinking is not the same thing as neurosis
Neurosis is a historical and clinical concept with a long and complicated history. “Neurotic thinking” in current everyday search language does not automatically refer to that historical category. The article Neurosis vs Neuroticism: Historical Disorder Concept vs Big Five Personality Trait explains the distinction between the old clinical concept and the modern personality trait.
A useful distinction is simple: neurosis belongs to the history of psychiatric and psychoanalytic concepts; neuroticism belongs to personality science; neurotic thinking is treated here as an everyday label that must be translated into more precise psychological processes.
Does neurotic thinking mean anxiety?
It can describe anxious cognition, but it does not establish an anxiety disorder. Occasional anxiety and worry are normal parts of life. The NIMH overview of anxiety disorders distinguishes ordinary anxiety from disorders that persist, occur across situations, worsen, or interfere with functioning. The American Psychiatric Association’s anxiety-disorders overview similarly emphasizes persistence, disproportion, and functional interference when describing clinically significant anxiety disorders.
If a person’s main problem is persistent, difficult-to-control worry across many areas of life, generalized anxiety disorder may be one condition a clinician considers. If the problem is sudden panic, social evaluation, a specific phobia, trauma-related symptoms, or another pattern, different diagnostic questions arise. “Neurotic thinking” is too imprecise to decide among them.
Does neurotic thinking mean OCD?
No. Repetitive thinking, doubt, checking, and reassurance seeking can occur in OCD, but they also occur outside OCD. NIMH explicitly notes that not all repeated thoughts are obsessions and not all repeated behaviors are compulsions. OCD assessment depends on the pattern of obsessions and/or compulsions, the time they consume, distress, impairment, and other clinical details.
The article OCD Rumination: What Is It? Mental Review, Analysis, Doubt, and Hidden Compulsions examines the specific question of rumination functioning as a mental compulsion. For the distinction between generalized worry and OCD mechanisms, see OCD vs GAD: What Is the Difference? Obsessions, Worry, Compulsions, and Generalized Anxiety.
Does neurotic thinking mean depression?
Rumination and self-criticism are associated with depression, and repetitive negative thinking is studied as a transdiagnostic process across anxiety and depressive conditions. But neither rumination nor self-criticism is equivalent to depression. A depressive disorder involves a broader syndrome assessed through mood, interest or pleasure, cognition, sleep, energy, functioning, duration, and other features.
This is a recurring principle throughout the topic: a psychological process can be clinically relevant without being a diagnosis. The same process may appear in several disorders, during ordinary stress, or in people who meet no diagnostic criteria.
What the scientific evidence supports—and what it does not
Established evidence
Worry and rumination are well-studied forms of repetitive negative thinking with substantial overlap. RNT is used as a transdiagnostic research construct. Intolerance of uncertainty has a robust association with worry across large bodies of research. Self-criticism is associated with several forms of psychopathology. Cognitive-behavioral interventions can reduce RNT, worry, and rumination in randomized trials.
Evidence that is strong but indirect for the everyday label
Research on RNT, worry, rumination, cognitive biases, self-criticism, and uncertainty can help explain experiences that people call neurotic thinking. The evidence is indirect because studies generally measure those named constructs, not a standardized “neurotic thinking” syndrome. The label is therefore a bridge from everyday language to science, not a scientific variable that can be assumed to have all the properties of the constructs beneath it.
Plausible interpretation
When a person describes “neurotic thinking” as endless what-if questions, replaying mistakes, worst-case prediction, and doubting their own judgment, it is plausible to map parts of that description onto worry, rumination, catastrophizing, uncertainty-related cognition, and self-criticism. The mapping remains a hypothesis until the actual pattern, context, and function are examined.
Claims that are not established
There is no evidence-based rule that a “neurotic thinker” has a particular diagnosis, personality type, attachment style, childhood history, relationship pattern, level of intelligence, or prognosis. There is also no valid shortcut from one behavior—such as reassurance seeking, jealousy, perfectionism, emotional sensitivity, or overthinking—to a psychiatric diagnosis. Those constructs have their own definitions and evidence bases.
How to tell useful thinking from a repetitive negative loop
A useful first question is whether the thought process is producing new information. Productive problem-solving usually narrows uncertainty: the problem becomes clearer, options become more specific, a decision criterion emerges, or an action can be taken. A repetitive loop often expands uncertainty: each answer creates another what-if, each memory prompts another review, and each reassurance requires another reassurance.
A second question is whether the problem is currently solvable. “What time should I leave for the airport?” can be answered with information and a decision. “Can I guarantee that nothing will go wrong on the trip?” cannot. When an unanswerable certainty question is treated like a solvable planning question, thinking can continue indefinitely.
A third question is what the thinking does to behavior. Does it help the person act, communicate, repair a mistake, or prepare? Or does it delay decisions, interrupt sleep, trigger repeated checking, create avoidance, repeatedly pull attention away from the present task, or lead to hours of internal argument? Function matters more than whether the thought sounds “rational” in isolation.
How to respond when you notice the pattern
Name the process, not the person
Replace “I am neurotic” with a more specific description: “I am worrying about an uncertain future,” “I am replaying the same event,” “I am predicting the worst outcome,” or “I am treating a mistake as a verdict on myself.” This does not solve the problem by itself, but it removes a global identity judgment and creates a more precise target.
Separate a solvable problem from a certainty problem
If there is a concrete problem, define the next observable action: send the email, make the appointment, check the document once, write the plan, ask the relevant question, or set a decision deadline. If the demand is for absolute certainty, recognize that more analysis may not be capable of delivering what the mind is requesting.
Test catastrophic predictions at the level of probability and coping
A catastrophic thought often fuses several questions: Could this happen? How likely is it? How bad would it be? What would I do if it happened? Separating those questions can reduce the leap from possibility to inevitability. The aim is not forced optimism; it is a more proportionate estimate that includes both risk and coping capacity.
Turn self-criticism into specific evaluation
“I am a failure” provides almost no actionable information. “I missed a deadline because I underestimated the task; next time I need an earlier checkpoint” does. Specific evaluation preserves accountability while reducing global self-attack. This distinction is especially useful when rumination disguises itself as self-improvement but repeatedly returns to the same verdict about the self.
Notice repeated certainty-seeking
Repeated reassurance, checking, research, mental review, or comparison can sometimes maintain a cycle by delivering short-lived relief without resolving the underlying intolerance of uncertainty. This is especially important when the behavior feels compulsory, consumes substantial time, or is linked to intrusive thoughts. In that situation, trying to “reason harder” with every thought may be less useful than obtaining an assessment of the actual pattern.
Protect the conditions in which thinking works
Sleep loss, sustained stress, high caffeine intake, illness, conflict, and overload can make worry and reactivity harder to regulate. NIMH’s guidance on anxiety and stress includes sleep, exercise, stress management, and reducing excess caffeine as supportive measures. These habits are not substitutes for treatment when a disorder is present, but they can reduce background conditions that intensify anxious thinking.
Can therapy help repetitive worry, rumination, and self-critical thinking?
Yes, when the target is defined precisely. Psychotherapy is used for persistent worry, rumination, anxiety, depression, OCD, self-criticism, and related difficulties, depending on the person’s actual presentation. The NIMH overview of psychotherapy describes psychotherapy as treatment aimed at changing troubling emotions, thoughts, and behaviors and improving functioning.
For repetitive negative thinking specifically, the evidence is substantial. The 2025 Stenzel meta-analysis included 55 studies with 4,970 participants and found a moderate overall post-treatment effect of cognitive-behavioral interventions on RNT compared with controls (Hedges’ g = -0.67). A 2026 corrigendum revised the subgroup classification but reported that the main conclusions were unchanged; after reclassification, RNT-specific interventions showed a larger effect (g = -0.87) than less specific approaches (g = -0.48).
The correct interpretation is not “CBT treats neurotic people.” The evidence concerns defined cognitive processes measured in clinical trials. Treatment should be matched to the problem that is actually present. OCD may call for exposure and response prevention; GAD may be treated with evidence-based psychotherapy and, in some cases, medication; depression, trauma-related conditions, insomnia, or relationship problems may require different formulations.
Is there medication for neurotic thinking?
There is no medication indicated for an everyday label called neurotic thinking. Medication may be appropriate for a diagnosable condition whose symptoms include excessive worry, intrusive thoughts, depression, panic, or another problem. For example, NIMH describes psychotherapy, medication, or both as treatment options for GAD, and it describes medication as one of the evidence-based treatment approaches for OCD.
Medication decisions depend on diagnosis, symptom severity, medical history, other medications, risks, benefits, and patient preference. A person should not infer from “I overthink” or “I catastrophize” that they need a psychiatric medication, and they should not stop prescribed medication because a symptom has been reframed as a thinking pattern.
When does the pattern deserve a professional assessment?
Consider an assessment when repetitive thinking is persistent, difficult to disengage from, causes substantial distress, repeatedly disrupts sleep or concentration, interferes with work or school, strains relationships, drives avoidance, consumes large amounts of time, or is paired with compulsive checking, reassurance, rituals, panic, depressed mood, trauma symptoms, substance use, or major changes in functioning.
Assessment is useful because similar surface descriptions can have different underlying structures. “I keep thinking about it” could describe ordinary grief, generalized worry, depressive rumination, OCD mental rituals, trauma-related intrusions, relationship uncertainty, perfectionistic error monitoring, a medical concern, or a stressful decision. The point of assessment is to identify the actual pattern rather than attach a global label.
Urgent mental-health or medical symptoms should be handled according to their own level of urgency. A phrase such as neurotic thinking should never be used to dismiss sudden neurological symptoms, severe physical symptoms, marked changes in mental state, or immediate safety concerns.
A better question than “Am I a neurotic thinker?”
Ask: What is the repeating process? What triggers it? Is it about the future, the past, danger, certainty, mistakes, morality, relationships, health, or self-worth? What do I do in response? Does the response create durable information or only brief relief? How much time does the loop consume? What does it stop me from doing? Those questions produce information that can guide self-management or clinical assessment.
The central idea is simple: a label describes an impression; a formulation describes a process. “Neurotic thinking” becomes psychologically useful only when translated into the mechanism that is actually operating.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is neurotic thinking in psychology?
“Neurotic thinking” is not a standardized modern psychological diagnosis or single research construct. In everyday use, it usually refers to anxious, repetitive, self-critical, or worst-case thinking. More precise psychological terms may include worry, rumination, repetitive negative thinking, catastrophizing, self-doubt, self-criticism, intrusive thoughts, or other processes depending on context.
Is neurotic thinking a mental disorder?
No. The phrase itself is not a mental disorder. Some of the experiences people describe with it can occur in anxiety disorders, depression, OCD, or other conditions, but they also occur during ordinary stress and in people without a diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis depends on defined symptom patterns, duration, severity, distress, impairment, and differential assessment.
What is the difference between worry and rumination?
Worry is often organized around uncertain future threats, while rumination often dwells on past events, distress, causes, consequences, or negative self-evaluation. They overlap substantially and both can be forms of repetitive negative thinking. The past-versus-future distinction is useful as a tendency, not as an absolute rule.
Is catastrophizing the same as anxiety?
No. Catastrophizing is a style of interpretation or prediction in which an extreme negative outcome is given disproportionate weight. Anxiety is an emotional and physiological state, and anxiety disorders are clinical syndromes. Catastrophic thoughts can accompany anxiety, but they do not define all anxiety and do not by themselves diagnose an anxiety disorder.
Why do I keep doubting myself even after I make a decision?
Repeated self-doubt can arise from several processes, including intolerance of uncertainty, fear of mistakes, perfectionistic standards, low confidence in memory or judgment, social-evaluative fear, self-criticism, or compulsive doubt. The pattern is more informative than the label: notice what you are trying to become certain about and what you do to obtain certainty.
Does neurotic thinking mean I have high neuroticism?
No inference can be made from the everyday phrase alone. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait measured with personality instruments; neurotic thinking is an informal description. A person can worry or ruminate intensely during a stressful period without that observation establishing their standing on a personality trait.
Can neurotic thinking be OCD?
Some experiences described that way can be part of OCD, especially when intrusive thoughts are followed by mental review, checking, reassurance seeking, neutralizing, or other compulsions. But repetitive thoughts and doubt are not automatically OCD. OCD requires assessment of the obsession-compulsion pattern, time burden, distress, impairment, and differential explanations.
Can I stop neurotic thinking by forcing myself not to think?
Trying to eliminate every unwanted thought is an unrealistic target. A more useful goal is to change how much time, attention, checking, reassurance, and behavior the thought recruits. For persistent RNT, evidence supports psychological interventions that target worry, rumination, and related processes. The appropriate method depends on what the pattern actually is.
When should I talk to a therapist?
Consider professional help when the pattern is persistent, distressing, hard to control, consumes substantial time, interferes with sleep or functioning, drives avoidance or compulsive behavior, or occurs with other significant mental-health symptoms. Therapy should target the underlying process or condition rather than the label “neurotic person.”
Related Articles
References
Akbari M, Sheikhi S, Navab Safiadin MS, Rahmani M, Forootan R, Asmundson GJG. A hierarchical uncertainty framework of anxiety: Preregistered meta-analytic structural model of intolerance of uncertainty and worry across anxiety disorders. Clinical Psychology Review. 2026;128:102773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102773
American Psychiatric Association. What Are Anxiety Disorders? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/anxiety-disorders/what-are-anxiety-disorders
Cambridge Dictionary. Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neurotic
Hitchcock PF, Frank MJ. From tripping and falling to ruminating and worrying: a meta-control account of repetitive negative thinking. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2024;56:101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101356
Lahey BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist. 2009;64(4):241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Löw CA, Schauenburg H, Dinger U. Self-criticism and psychotherapy outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2020;75:101808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101808
National Institute of Mental Health. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. Revised 2025. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/generalized-anxiety-disorder-gad
National Institute of Mental Health. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: When Unwanted Thoughts or Repetitive Behaviors Take Over. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-when-unwanted-thoughts-or-repetitive-behaviors-take-over
National Institute of Mental Health. Psychotherapies. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/psychotherapies
Serban G. The process of neurotic thinking. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 1974;28(3):418–429. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1974.28.3.418
Stenzel KL, Keller J, Kirchner L, Rief W, Berg M. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating repetitive negative thinking, rumination, and worry—a transdiagnostic meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine. 2025;55:e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000017
Stenzel KL, Keller J, Kirchner L, Rief W, Berg M. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating repetitive negative thinking, rumination, and worry—a transdiagnostic meta-analysis—CORRIGENDUM. Psychological Medicine. 2026;56:e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291726103304
Vos LMW, Nieto I, Amanvermez Y, Smeets T, Everaert J. Do cognitive biases prospectively predict anxiety and depression? A multi-level meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review. 2025;116:102552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102552
Werner AM, Tibubos AN, Rohrmann S, Reiss N. The clinical trait self-criticism and its relation to psychopathology: A systematic review—Update. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019;246:530–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.069