Neurotic vs “Crazy”: Why the Comparison Is Misleading and Stigmatizing
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
“Neurotic” and “crazy” are not equivalent psychological or psychiatric terms. In everyday English, neurotic is a vague label that usually points to perceived worry, tension, emotional reactivity, overthinking, self-criticism, rigidity, or similar patterns. Crazy is much broader slang: depending on context, it can mean unreasonable, extreme, surprising, intensely enthusiastic, or mentally ill. When it is used to describe a person’s mental health, it can be stigmatizing.
Neither word tells you what diagnosis, if any, a person has. Current diagnostic systems classify specific disorders using defined criteria; they do not diagnose someone as “a neurotic” or “crazy.” The useful question is therefore not which label fits better. It is what specific behavior, emotion, thought pattern, symptom, trait, or impairment the speaker is actually trying to describe.
Neurotic vs “crazy”: the short answer
Neurotic in everyday speech is usually an informal label for a person or behavior perceived as excessively worried, tense, reactive, self-critical, overcontrolled, perfectionistic, or preoccupied. It is imprecise and is not a diagnosis.
Crazy is a broad colloquial word with several meanings. It may mean irrational or unreasonable, intense or extreme, surprising, highly enthusiastic, or mentally ill. Its meaning depends heavily on context.
Neurotic and crazy are not two degrees on one clinical scale. A person does not move from “neurotic” to “crazy” as symptoms become more severe.
Neuroticism is different from neurotic. In personality science, neuroticism is a measurable trait describing relatively stable tendencies toward negative emotional responses. Research on measured neuroticism should not automatically be applied to anyone casually called neurotic.
Neurosis is different again. It is a historical and theory-dependent clinical concept. Its history, diagnostic genealogy, and psychoanalytic uses belong to the separate neurosis literature.
Crazy is not a synonym for psychosis. Psychosis is a current clinical concept involving symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations and disturbances in contact with reality. Calling someone crazy does not establish that they are psychotic.
The comparison becomes stigmatizing when a vague judgment is treated as if it identifies a person’s mental illness, character, dangerousness, or worth.
For the broader everyday-language framework, see What Is a Neurotic Person? Meaning, Traits, Behavior, and Modern Psychology.
Why do people compare “neurotic” and “crazy”?
The comparison feels intuitive because both words are often used when someone’s reactions seem excessive, difficult to understand, or outside another person’s idea of normal behavior. A person may say that a friend is “neurotic” because the friend worries repeatedly about small risks. The same speaker may say that the worry is “crazy” because it seems unreasonable to them. In ordinary conversation, the two words can therefore overlap as judgments.
That overlap does not make them psychological equivalents.
The word neurotic has a recognizable psychological history and is still used in everyday speech around worry, tension, and unusual behavior. Cambridge Dictionary documents current uses involving anxious, worried, or unusual behavior. A dictionary can show how a word is used; it cannot establish a clinical syndrome.
The word crazy is even less specific. Cambridge Dictionary documents uses ranging from “not sensible” to mentally ill and intensely enthusiastic. Someone can call an idea crazy, say they are crazy about music, or use the word as a derogatory mental-health label. Those uses do not share one psychological construct.
So “neurotic vs crazy” is not a comparison between two diagnoses. It is a comparison between two pieces of everyday language whose meanings only partially overlap.
What does “neurotic” usually mean in everyday language?
When people use neurotic today, they often mean that someone appears to worry too much, reacts strongly to uncertainty, repeatedly seeks reassurance, overthinks, becomes tense when plans change, criticizes themselves harshly, tries to control details, or is unusually sensitive to perceived problems.
Those descriptions may point toward real psychological phenomena, but the label does not tell us which phenomenon is present.
For example, repeated reassurance seeking can occur in ordinary stress, relationship insecurity, health anxiety, generalized anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or other contexts. Perfectionistic behavior can reflect personal standards, fear of mistakes, occupational demands, anxiety, compulsive processes, or learned habits. Emotional reactivity can be temporary, situational, trait-like, or associated with many different mental-health conditions. None of these patterns becomes a diagnosis merely because someone calls it neurotic.
That is why the cluster’s broader article on Neurotic Behavior: Meaning, Examples, and What It Does Not Diagnose treats the word as a starting point for clarification rather than a clinical conclusion.
Everyday label is not the same as personality trait
A common source of confusion is the resemblance between neurotic and neuroticism.
In personality psychology, neuroticism is a measured personality dimension. Benjamin Lahey’s review describes neuroticism as a relatively stable tendency to respond with negative emotions to threat, frustration, or loss (Lahey, 2009). Research also links measured neuroticism with broad vulnerability to common mental disorders, although the mechanisms and causal interpretation are complex (Ormel et al., 2013).
That evidence applies to neuroticism as it is defined and measured in personality research. It does not justify assuming that a person called “neurotic” by a partner, coworker, parent, or social-media commenter necessarily has high neuroticism.
For the direct distinction, see Neurotic vs Neuroticism: Everyday Label vs Big Five Personality Trait.
Everyday label is not the same as historical neurosis
Neurotic also carries historical echoes of neurosis. That can make the modern everyday word sound more diagnostic than it is.
Neurosis has had multiple meanings across psychiatry, psychology, and psychoanalysis. Its history includes changing diagnostic groupings and theoretical frameworks. Modern classification reorganized many conditions that earlier systems grouped under neurotic terminology. This article does not use that history to define people today.
The practical rule is simple: when someone says “neurotic” in ordinary conversation, first ask what observable pattern they mean. Do not silently convert the word into a historical diagnosis.
What does “crazy” mean in everyday language?
Crazy is one of those words whose meaning changes dramatically with context.
“That is a crazy price” may mean extremely high. “I’m crazy about jazz” means enthusiastic. “That plan is crazy” may mean unreasonable or risky. “You’re crazy” can be playful between friends, an insult during conflict, or a stigmatizing claim about someone’s mental state.
This semantic breadth is exactly why crazy is a poor psychological descriptor. It compresses very different judgments into one word.
If a speaker means “I cannot understand why you are doing this,” crazy describes the speaker’s reaction. If they mean “you are acting impulsively,” impulsivity is the behavior to describe. If they mean “you seem extremely distressed,” distress is the relevant observation. If they mean “you are hearing things I do not hear,” the perceptual experience deserves direct assessment. The label itself does not sort these possibilities.
Is a neurotic person “crazy”?
No clinical inference follows from that comparison.
A person casually described as neurotic may be experiencing ordinary stress, recurring worry, a personality style, perfectionistic habits, relationship insecurity, an anxiety symptom, a compulsive pattern, or something else entirely. They may also have no mental disorder.
Likewise, being called crazy does not establish that a person has any mental disorder. It may reflect disagreement, conflict, fear, ridicule, surprise, or a speaker’s lack of more precise language.
The phrase “neurotic person” is therefore already an interpretation. “Crazy” adds another interpretation on top of it. Combining two vague labels does not produce a more accurate psychological assessment.
Neither “neurotic” nor “crazy” is a modern stand-alone diagnosis
Current diagnosis is based on defined clinical categories and criteria, not on everyday labels. The American Psychiatric Association explains that DSM-5-TR organizes recognized mental disorders and provides criteria that trained clinicians evaluate when making diagnoses (American Psychiatric Association). The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements similarly provides standardized descriptions and requirements for identifying mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders (World Health Organization, 2024).
Neither system contains a stand-alone diagnosis whose name is simply “neurotic person” or “crazy person.”
That matters because diagnosis answers a different question from everyday labeling. A diagnosis depends on the nature and pattern of symptoms, duration, severity, distress, functional impairment, developmental and medical context, exclusions, and differential diagnosis. A casual adjective cannot substitute for that process.
The psychological categories that people often mix together
A large part of the confusion disappears when the underlying categories are separated.
Everyday label
An everyday label is an informal word people use to summarize another person. Neurotic and crazy can both function this way. Labels are socially meaningful, but they are not measurements or diagnoses.
Behavior pattern
A behavior pattern is something a person repeatedly does: checking, avoiding, asking for reassurance, arguing when uncertain, controlling details, withdrawing, or repeatedly seeking certainty. A behavior can be described directly without naming a disorder.
Emotional state
An emotional state is a temporary experience such as anxiety, fear, irritability, shame, sadness, anger, or overwhelm. A state may arise in response to circumstances and does not by itself define a personality or disorder.
Personality trait
A personality trait is a relatively enduring dimension on which people differ. Neuroticism is one such trait in major personality models. It is measured with personality instruments and exists on a continuum. A trait is not automatically a disorder.
Symptom
A symptom is a clinically relevant experience or behavior that may occur within many conditions. Worry, insomnia, panic, intrusive thoughts, low mood, irritability, hallucinations, or compulsions are examples of experiences that require context. One symptom does not automatically identify one diagnosis.
Risk factor
A risk factor changes the probability of an outcome; it does not guarantee the outcome. Measured neuroticism, for example, is associated with later common mental-health problems in longitudinal research, but that does not mean everyone high in neuroticism will develop a disorder, nor that a casual “neurotic” label identifies that risk factor.
Screening result
A screening questionnaire estimates whether further assessment may be useful. A screening result is not a diagnosis and should not be converted into an identity label.
Diagnosis
A diagnosis is a clinical classification made by applying defined criteria and considering alternatives. It is more specific than an everyday judgment.
Clinical disorder
A clinical disorder is the condition defined by the relevant diagnostic framework. Its assessment and treatment belong to evidence about that specific disorder, not to the vague category “neurotic person.”
These distinctions are not semantic trivia. They prevent a conversation from jumping from “this behavior worries me” to “this person is mentally ill” without evidence.
Does “neurotic” mean mentally ill?
Not necessarily.
In contemporary conversation, neurotic is often used for behavior perceived as excessive or anxious, whether or not any disorder is present. The label may describe an interpersonal impression rather than a clinical state.
Even measured neuroticism does not equal mental illness. Neuroticism is a personality trait distributed across the population. It is associated with elevated risk for several forms of psychopathology, but risk association and diagnosis are different things. Ormel and colleagues emphasize that the relationship between neuroticism and common mental disorders is complex and can reflect several overlapping processes rather than one simple causal pathway (Ormel et al., 2013).
A person can be high in neuroticism without meeting criteria for a mental disorder. A person can also have a mental disorder without anyone describing them as neurotic.
Does “crazy” mean psychotic?
No.
Psychosis is a specific clinical concept. The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health describes psychosis as a collection of symptoms involving some loss of contact with reality, with disrupted thoughts and perceptions; common symptoms include delusions and hallucinations (NIMH).
Crazy is not a clinical synonym for psychosis. A person may be called crazy because they are angry, eccentric, impulsive, intensely enthusiastic, anxious, unconventional, or simply disagreeing with someone. None of those descriptions establishes psychosis.
Conversely, a person experiencing psychosis deserves a precise description of symptoms and clinical assessment rather than a derogatory label.
For the direct clinical-language boundary, see Neurotic vs Psychotic: Historical Language, Reality Testing, and Modern Diagnosis.
Why the comparison can be stigmatizing
The problem is not that every casual use of either word has the same intention. Context matters. People sometimes use crazy playfully, metaphorically, or about events rather than people. Some individuals also reclaim historically stigmatized language for themselves.
The problem arises when a label collapses a person into a stereotype about mental illness.
The CDC’s guidance on stigma-free mental-health communication specifically advises against words such as “crazy” and recommends neutral, respectful language. The Mental Health Foundation likewise argues that words including crazy and neurotic can carry outdated or stigmatizing associations in mental-health contexts.
There is also empirical evidence that stigma has consequences beyond etiquette. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Schnyder and colleagues found that personal negative attitudes toward help-seeking and stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental illness were associated with less active help-seeking (Schnyder et al., 2017). A larger systematic review by Clement and colleagues, covering 144 studies and 90,189 participants, found an overall small-to-moderate negative effect of mental-health stigma on help-seeking (Clement et al., 2015).
Internalized stigma also matters. Livingston and Boyd’s systematic review and meta-analysis found robust negative associations between internalized stigma and psychosocial variables including hope, self-esteem, and empowerment among people living with mental illness (Livingston & Boyd, 2010).
Research on specific words should still be interpreted carefully. A 2026 Delphi study involving health professionals and mental-health service users in Spain found consensus that “crazy” was highly stigmatizing among the terms participants rated (Ferrer-Martínez et al., 2026). That finding is useful evidence about perceived stigma in a particular sample and linguistic-cultural context; it is not proof that every person, community, or conversational setting interprets the word identically.
Older research also illustrates how diverse derogatory mental-health labels can become. In a study of English school students, Rose and colleagues collected 250 words and phrases used to describe people with mental illness, with “popular derogatory terms” making up nearly half of the terms analyzed (Rose et al., 2007).
The broader evidence supports a practical conclusion: language that turns mental-health difficulty into a dismissive identity judgment can contribute to stigma. More precise language makes it easier to discuss what is actually happening.
Why “crazy” can hide the information that matters
Suppose someone says, “My partner is acting crazy.”
That sentence could refer to dozens of different situations. Perhaps the partner is sending repeated messages after an argument. Perhaps they are panicking about being abandoned. Perhaps they are furious. Perhaps they are checking locks repeatedly. Perhaps they have not slept. Perhaps they are intoxicated. Perhaps they are reporting a belief the speaker finds implausible. Perhaps the speaker is using the word to discredit a reasonable complaint.
Each possibility calls for a different understanding.
The label therefore creates an information problem. It sounds strong while conveying little clinically useful detail.
A better description answers concrete questions: What happened? How often? In what situation? How long has it been happening? What was the person feeling or fearing? Was there impairment? Was anyone unsafe? Were there changes in sleep, substance use, medication, physical health, or perception? Those details are more informative than whether someone appeared “crazy.”
What people may actually mean when they say “neurotic” or “crazy”
“They worry about everything”
This may describe frequent worry, intolerance of uncertainty, stress, or anxiety symptoms. It does not by itself establish generalized anxiety disorder or any other anxiety diagnosis.
The more useful questions concern frequency, controllability, physical tension, sleep, concentration, distress, and interference with daily life. For the everyday-language comparison, see Neurotic vs Anxious: What Is the Difference?.
“They overthink every conversation”
This may refer to rumination, post-event processing, self-criticism, uncertainty, or social concern. “Overthinking” is itself an everyday umbrella term. The pattern becomes clearer when the repeated thought process and its consequences are described.
“They need constant reassurance”
Reassurance seeking can occur in several contexts. A person may be trying to reduce uncertainty about health, relationships, mistakes, morality, safety, or another feared outcome. Short-term relief can sometimes make repeated reassurance more likely, but the relevant mechanism depends on the underlying problem.
It should not be assumed to mean OCD unless obsessions, compulsions, impairment, and the broader clinical picture support that interpretation.
“They need everything perfect”
Perfectionism is not identical to neuroticism, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. High standards, fear of mistakes, self-criticism, rigid rules, and compulsive behavior need to be distinguished rather than merged into a single personality label.
“They get emotional very quickly”
Emotional reactivity can reflect temperament, stress load, sleep deprivation, relationship context, trauma-related responses, mood symptoms, neurodevelopmental differences, substance effects, medical factors, or many other influences. Describing the emotion, trigger, intensity, duration, and recovery is more informative than calling the person neurotic or crazy.
“They are jealous or insecure”
Jealousy and insecurity have their own psychological and relationship contexts. They may involve fear of loss, attachment-related concerns, prior betrayal, low trust, self-esteem, relationship dynamics, or controlling behavior. A vague neurotic label can obscure those distinctions.
“They check or repeat things”
Repeated checking may be a habit, a response to uncertainty, a safety behavior, part of perfectionistic checking, or a compulsion. OCD-specific questions belong to OCD assessment rather than to a neurotic-person label.
“They believe something that seems impossible”
This is the point at which precision is especially important. An unusual or strongly held belief does not automatically establish psychosis. Clinical assessment considers the content, conviction, cultural context, evidence, insight, associated symptoms, substance or medication effects, medical causes, and functional change.
If there are new hallucinations, delusions, marked confusion, or a substantial loss of contact with reality, those experiences deserve direct clinical attention. The correct response is not to decide whether the person is “crazy.”
Better language than “neurotic” or “crazy”
You do not need clinical jargon to speak precisely.
Instead of “She’s neurotic,” you can say, “She becomes very worried when plans change and asks for reassurance several times.”
Instead of “He’s crazy about germs,” you can say, “He spends a long time washing and avoids touching things he thinks may be contaminated.”
Instead of “My partner went crazy,” you can say, “My partner became extremely angry, shouted for twenty minutes, and sent repeated messages afterward.”
Instead of “That belief is crazy,” you can say, “I do not share that belief, and I’m concerned because it seems new and is affecting sleep and daily functioning.”
Instead of “I’m so neurotic,” you can say, “I notice that uncertainty makes me anxious and I keep checking for reassurance.”
These descriptions create something that can actually be understood, discussed, and assessed.
What if someone uses “crazy” during a relationship conflict?
The word can function as more than a casual adjective. In conflict, it can dismiss the other person’s perspective, imply that their emotions make them unreliable, or shift attention away from the behavior being discussed.
That does not mean every use is deliberate manipulation. People also use the word impulsively when frightened, overwhelmed, or frustrated. The useful move is to return to observable events.
“What happened?”
“What did each person say or do?”
“What boundary was crossed?”
“What emotion was present?”
“What needs to change?”
Relationship problems become harder to solve when disagreement is converted into a psychiatric label.
What if you call yourself neurotic or crazy?
Self-labeling can feel efficient. “I’m neurotic” may be shorthand for “I worry a lot.” “I’m going crazy” may mean “I feel overwhelmed.” The shorthand can also become misleading if it replaces curiosity about the actual pattern.
A more informative self-check separates several questions:
What exactly am I experiencing: worry, panic, intrusive thoughts, low mood, irritability, sensory overload, insomnia, jealousy, compulsive urges, or something else?
Is this a temporary state or a recurring pattern?
What triggers it?
How much distress does it cause?
Does it interfere with work, relationships, sleep, self-care, or daily functioning?
Is the behavior helping in the long term, or only reducing discomfort briefly?
Have there been major changes in sleep, substance use, medication, physical health, or perception?
Would a qualified professional help clarify the pattern?
The aim is not to replace one self-diagnosis with another. It is to move from a global label toward specific information.
When does a pattern deserve professional assessment?
A person does not need to prove that they are “neurotic enough” or “crazy enough” to seek help.
Assessment may be useful when worry, fear, intrusive thoughts, compulsive behavior, mood changes, emotional reactions, relationship patterns, or other symptoms are persistent, distressing, difficult to manage, or interfering with daily life. The clinician can then assess the actual symptom pattern rather than treating “neurotic” as a condition.
New psychotic symptoms deserve specific attention. NIMH notes that psychosis may involve delusions, hallucinations, and difficulty distinguishing what is real (NIMH). Sudden marked confusion, major changes in behavior, or new perceptual disturbances can also have medical, neurological, substance-related, or medication-related causes and should be evaluated in context.
Treatment claims should follow the identified problem. Anxiety disorders, OCD, depression, trauma-related disorders, sleep disorders, substance-related conditions, relationship problems, and other concerns have different evidence bases. There is no evidence-based treatment protocol for the diagnosis “neurotic person,” because that is not a modern diagnosis.
What the evidence supports, and what it does not
Established clinical and scientific points
Current diagnostic practice uses defined disorders and criteria rather than diagnosing people as neurotic or crazy. Neuroticism is a measurable personality trait, not a synonym for the everyday label neurotic. Psychosis is a specific clinical phenomenon and should not be replaced with the slang word crazy. Mental-health stigma is associated with meaningful barriers to help-seeking.
Strong but construct-specific evidence
Measured neuroticism is associated with greater negative emotional reactivity and with increased risk for several common mental-health problems. Those findings concern measured neuroticism. They do not allow us to infer a person’s trait score from a casual label.
Context-dependent evidence about language
Organizations such as CDC and the Mental Health Foundation recommend avoiding stigmatizing mental-health labels, and research documents harmful social meanings attached to mental-illness terminology. The precise impact of a particular word varies with speaker, audience, culture, relationship, and context.
Preliminary or limited evidence about a specific term
The 2026 Delphi finding that “crazy” was perceived as highly stigmatizing is useful but context-specific. It reflects consensus within a particular panel and should not be generalized as a universal numerical estimate of how every population perceives the word.
Everyday terminology
Neurotic and crazy remain common words in ordinary language. Their popularity does not turn them into clinical categories. Search frequency documents language use, not diagnostic validity.
The most useful way to interpret “neurotic vs crazy”
Treat the words as clues to a communication problem.
If someone asks whether a person is neurotic or crazy, the next question should be: What specific pattern are we trying to understand?
If the answer is chronic worry, discuss worry. If it is repeated checking, describe checking. If it is reassurance seeking, identify the feared uncertainty and the cycle around reassurance. If it is jealousy, discuss jealousy and trust. If it is hallucinations or delusions, discuss those symptoms directly. If it is simply behavior someone dislikes, keep the disagreement separate from mental-health diagnosis.
That route preserves both scientific accuracy and human dignity: everyday label → specific meaning → psychological construct or clinical status → evidence → alternatives → practical implications.
Frequently asked questions
Are neurotic and crazy the same thing?
No. Neurotic is usually an informal label associated with worry, tension, reactivity, or similar patterns. Crazy is much broader slang with several everyday meanings. Neither word is a stand-alone modern diagnosis.
Does neurotic mean mentally ill?
Not necessarily. Someone can be called neurotic because they worry, overthink, or seem tense without meeting criteria for any mental disorder. Even neuroticism, the measurable personality trait, is not itself a diagnosis.
Is “crazy” a medical or psychiatric diagnosis?
No. Crazy is colloquial language, not the name of a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 mental disorder.
Does “crazy” mean psychotic?
No. Psychosis is a specific clinical concept involving symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations and impaired contact with reality. Crazy can be used for many unrelated meanings and should not be treated as a diagnostic synonym.
Can a neurotic person become psychotic?
The everyday label neurotic and the clinical concept psychosis are not stages on one continuum. Being worried, emotionally reactive, perfectionistic, or casually called neurotic does not mean someone is progressing toward psychosis.
Is neuroticism the scientific word for being neurotic?
Not exactly. Neuroticism is a defined personality trait measured in personality research. Everyday neurotic is an informal label. The words are historically related, but a casual description cannot substitute for a personality measure.
Is it offensive to call someone neurotic?
It can be experienced as dismissive or stigmatizing, especially when it reduces a person to a mental-health stereotype. Context and personal preference matter. Describing the specific behavior is usually clearer.
Is it offensive to call someone crazy?
Mental-health organizations commonly recommend avoiding crazy as a label for a person’s mental health because it can carry stigmatizing associations. Its impact still depends on context: metaphorical or playful uses are not identical to using the word to discredit someone experiencing distress.
What should I say instead of “neurotic” or “crazy”?
Describe the observable pattern: “very worried,” “keeps checking,” “asks for reassurance repeatedly,” “became extremely angry,” “has not slept,” “reports hearing voices,” or another accurate description. Precision is more useful than a global label.
If I think I am “going crazy,” what should I do?
Translate the phrase into what you are actually experiencing. If you mean severe anxiety, panic, insomnia, intrusive thoughts, perceptual changes, confusion, or another symptom, describe that symptom directly. If symptoms are intense, new, persistent, or impairing, professional assessment can help identify the underlying problem.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What is the DSM? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-the-dsm
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Crazy. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/crazy
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/neurotic
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Tips for stigma-free communication about mental health. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/healthcare/communication-resources/stigma-free.html
Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Morgan, C., Rüsch, N., Brown, J. S. L., & Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129. PubMed
Ferrer-Martínez, M. del P., Hurtado, M. M., Navarro-González, E., Amaoui, S., Mejías-Martín, Y., Aguilera-Serrano, C., & Martí-García, C. (2026). Perceptions of mental health stigma toward diagnostic labels among health professionals and mental health users: A Delphi study. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1863313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1863313. Journal
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309. PubMed
Livingston, J. D., & Boyd, J. E. (2010). Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 71(12), 2150–2161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.030. PubMed
Mental Health Foundation. (2019). Why the language we use to describe mental health matters. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/blogs/why-language-we-use-describe-mental-health-matters
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Understanding psychosis. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003. PubMed
Rose, D., Thornicroft, G., Pinfold, V., & Kassam, A. (2007). 250 labels used to stigmatise people with mental illness. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-97. PubMed
Schnyder, N., Panczak, R., Groth, N., & Schultze-Lutter, F. (2017). Association between mental health-related stigma and active help-seeking: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 210(4), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.189464. PubMed
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263