Neuroticism and Social Support: Seeking, Perceiving, and Using Support
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism is associated with how people perceive and use social support, but the pattern is more specific than the popular idea that a “neurotic person” simply has less support. The strongest meta-analytic evidence shows that higher neuroticism is linked to lower perceived availability of support: people higher on the trait tend, on average, to feel less certain that useful emotional, informational, practical, or companionship support would be available when needed. Evidence for actual received support is weaker and does not justify the claim that people higher in neuroticism objectively receive less help.
That distinction matters because social support is not one variable. Researchers separately measure perceived availability, received or enacted support, support seeking, social-network structure, social integration, negative interactions, and support from particular providers. These measures are related, but they are not interchangeable. A person may receive substantial help and still experience it as insufficient, poorly matched, intrusive, or unreliable; another person may receive little support in a given week yet remain confident that support is available if needed.
Neuroticism itself is a continuous Big Five personality trait, not a psychiatric diagnosis. It describes relatively stable individual differences in negative emotionality and susceptibility to distress. For the broader construct, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. This article stays with one narrower question: how neuroticism relates to seeking, perceiving, receiving, and using social support.
The Short Answer
The clearest synthesis comes from Barańczuk’s 2019 meta-analysis of 72 studies, 84 independent samples, 624 effect sizes, and 37,678 participants. Lower neuroticism was associated with greater perceived availability of social support. The meta-analysis also found that the personality–support association depended on what kind of support was measured: all five Big Five domains were related to perceived availability, whereas only extraversion was associated with perceived received support. In other words, neuroticism showed a clearer relationship with believing support is available than with reports of support actually received.
Research on support seeking adds another layer. People higher in neuroticism may experience more distress and therefore have more occasions on which help could be sought, yet attitudes toward asking for help can be ambivalent. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis found that neuroticism was associated with more negative attitudes toward professional psychological help while also being positively associated with help-seeking behavior in several studies. Evidence specifically about informal social-support seeking was sparse, so it would be inaccurate to reduce the literature to a rule such as “high neuroticism means more support seeking” or “high neuroticism means avoiding support.”
Longitudinal work also argues against a one-way story. Personality and perceived social support show correlated change across years in middle and older adulthood, and a 2024 lagged study during the COVID-19 pandemic found that higher neuroticism predicted lower perceived support one year later after accounting for earlier perceived support. These designs strengthen temporal information, but they still do not establish a single causal mechanism operating identically for every person.
What Social Support Means in This Research
Social support is a heterogeneous psychological and interpersonal construct. A methodological review by Gottlieb and Bergen emphasizes that studies can assess perceived or received support, from the perspective of the recipient or provider, and can also measure network structure and the mobilization of supportive resources. That heterogeneity is essential for interpreting any finding about neuroticism.
Perceived availability of support
Perceived support asks whether a person believes useful support would be available if needed. Measures may ask about emotional reassurance, practical assistance, advice, companionship, validation, or the availability of specific people. Perceived availability is partly grounded in actual relationship history and partly in expectations, appraisals, memory, trust, and interpretation.
This is the form of support most consistently related to neuroticism in the meta-analytic literature. Higher neuroticism is associated, on average, with perceiving less support as available. The finding is probabilistic. It does not mean that every person high in neuroticism feels unsupported, nor does it establish that a lower perception is inaccurate.
Received or enacted support
Received support concerns supportive actions that actually occurred over a defined period: someone listened, gave advice, provided transportation, helped with a task, offered money, stayed present during a crisis, or performed another supportive behavior. Received support is more situational than perceived availability because it depends on whether a need arose, whether others knew about it, whether help was requested or offered, and whether the provider was able to respond.
Perceived and received support overlap only partly. A meta-analytic review by Haber and colleagues estimated a moderate association between self-reported received and perceived support, reinforcing the point that they are related constructs rather than two names for the same thing.
Support seeking
Support seeking is behavior directed toward obtaining help, comfort, information, validation, companionship, or practical assistance. It can be explicit, such as asking a friend for help, or indirect, such as disclosing distress in ways that invite a response. Research must also distinguish informal social-support seeking from professional care seeking. Contacting a therapist or physician, asking a partner for reassurance, calling a sibling, and posting in an online community are different behaviors with different barriers and consequences.
Social network and social integration
A person can also be described by the size, diversity, frequency, and structure of their social contacts. These structural features are not equivalent to support quality. A large network may provide little usable support, while a small network can be highly dependable. Likewise, loneliness is a subjective experience of insufficient social connection and is not simply the inverse of measured support. The Neuroticism cluster reserves the broader loneliness question for its own canonical article rather than collapsing it into social support.
What the Meta-Analytic Evidence Shows
The most directly relevant quantitative synthesis is The Five Factor Model of Personality and Social Support: A Meta-Analysis. It included 72 studies, 84 independent samples, 624 effect sizes, and 37,678 participants. Ninety percent of the included samples assessed perceived availability of support, while a much smaller portion assessed perceived received support.
The central neuroticism result was an inverse association with perceived availability. People lower in neuroticism tended to report greater perceived support availability. The association was not simply a generic “social life” effect: the meta-analysis separated support functions and provider types, and the strength of personality–support associations varied depending on how support was defined and who was considered the potential provider.
The contrast with received support is especially informative. In the meta-analysis, higher extraversion was associated with greater perceived received support, while neuroticism was not established as a comparable predictor of received support. This asymmetry is one of the strongest reasons to avoid saying that neuroticism causes people to receive less help. The evidence is much more consistent with a relationship between neuroticism and the perceived availability or appraisal of support.
Provider type also mattered. Associations between personality and perceived support were stronger when participants rated support from broad or multiple sources than when they rated support from a concrete person. This suggests that broad support beliefs may partly reflect generalized interpersonal expectations and dispositional appraisal tendencies, whereas ratings of a specific provider are constrained more heavily by that particular relationship.
Perceived Support Is Not Merely a Biased Version of “Real” Support
It is tempting to interpret lower perceived support among people higher in neuroticism as a simple perceptual error. The evidence does not support such a crude conclusion. Perceived support can differ from received support for several legitimate reasons. A supportive act may not match the recipient’s need. Advice may arrive when emotional validation was wanted. Frequent checking may feel caring to one person and intrusive to another. A provider may be available in theory but inconsistent in practice. A person may have learned through repeated experience that asking for help carries costs.
Neuroticism may influence attention and interpretation, but interpersonal processes can also change the environment itself. Personality can shape which relationships people enter, how they disclose needs, how they respond to reassurance, how conflict unfolds, and how other people react over time. The social world is therefore partly perceived and partly enacted. A lower support rating can reflect appraisal, relationship history, actual provider behavior, or a combination of all three.
This distinction parallels a broader relationship-science finding: a 2025 meta-analysis by Esplin and colleagues found a robust negative association between neuroticism and relationship quality across 148 published studies, with an aggregate correlation of about −.24. That literature does not prove that perceived support is the mechanism, but it shows why social support should be interpreted within reciprocal relationship processes rather than as an isolated belief. For the narrower satisfaction evidence, see Neuroticism and Relationship Satisfaction: What the Meta-Analytic Evidence Shows.
Why Higher Neuroticism May Be Linked to Lower Perceived Support
There is no single established mechanism. The strongest interpretation is a set of plausible, interacting pathways supported to different degrees by correlational, longitudinal, and experimental research.
1. Threat-sensitive appraisal
Neuroticism is associated with greater negative emotionality and sensitivity to threat, frustration, and uncertainty. In a social context, ambiguous behavior can therefore carry more negative weight. A delayed reply may feel more like rejection; a neutral comment may be experienced as criticism; qualified reassurance may feel uncertain; a small mismatch between desired and offered help may become more salient.
This mechanism can change perceived availability without implying that the perception is fictional. Human judgments always integrate external behavior with expectations and emotional state. The scientific question is how much variance comes from the provider, the recipient, the relationship, and the situation—not which side owns a uniquely “real” account.
2. Memory and generalized expectations
Perceived support is partly a summary judgment built from many previous interactions. Repeated negative or disappointing experiences can create a stable expectation that support will not be available. Higher neuroticism may also increase the accessibility of negative interpersonal memories. Over time, trait-linked appraisal and actual relationship experience can reinforce each other.
3. Support elicitation and communication
People differ in how clearly they communicate needs. Some ask directly; some hint; some seek reassurance repeatedly; some withdraw until others notice; some disclose only after distress has become intense. Neuroticism can be associated with stronger distress signals and greater interpersonal sensitivity, but the behavioral expression varies widely. Other traits, attachment patterns, learned communication styles, culture, and the relationship itself matter.
4. Reactions from support providers
Support is dyadic. Providers have their own limits, interpretations, and emotional responses. Frequent reassurance seeking, conflict, criticism, withdrawal, or rapidly changing support needs can alter how others respond. Conversely, a responsive and predictable support figure can reduce uncertainty and improve the recipient’s sense of availability. Because both parties influence the interaction, actor-only explanations are incomplete.
5. Negative interactions and social strain
Supportive interactions coexist with conflict, criticism, demands, disappointment, and social strain. Older survey research found that higher neuroticism was associated both with lower reported support and more negative interactions. These patterns can amplify one another: a network can be simultaneously available and stressful. Measuring only “support” may therefore miss a substantial part of the interpersonal environment.
6. Current distress can affect both sides of the measurement
Neuroticism is a trait, while distress varies from day to day. Depression, anxiety, acute stress, sleep loss, grief, illness, and conflict can influence perceptions of support and the amount of support actually needed or received. Cross-sectional studies that measure trait neuroticism, current symptoms, and support at the same time can therefore mix stable individual differences with temporary states. This is one reason longitudinal evidence is important.
Do People Higher in Neuroticism Seek More Social Support?
The answer is not a simple yes or no. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of personality and help-seeking synthesized 48 studies reported in 47 records. Across the Five Factor literature, neuroticism showed a notable split: it was associated with more negative attitudes toward professional psychological help in meta-analysis, yet several studies found more actual help-seeking behavior among people higher in neuroticism.
The likely reason is that attitude, intention, need, and behavior are different variables. A person can dislike asking for help while experiencing enough distress to seek it anyway. Someone can endorse positive attitudes toward help while never encountering a situation that prompts action. Higher neuroticism may increase the frequency or intensity of distress that creates a need for help, while self-consciousness, fear of judgment, pessimism, or previous disappointing experiences can make asking feel costly.
Evidence specifically about informal social-support seeking was much thinner than the broader care-seeking literature. The review identified only a small number of studies addressing social-support seeking, and some findings varied by sex or sample. The strongest conclusion is therefore modest: neuroticism may relate differently to help-seeking attitudes and behavior, and informal support seeking should not be inferred from professional treatment-seeking data.
Does Neuroticism Mean a Person Receives Less Support?
The best available meta-analysis does not support treating lower perceived support as proof of lower received support. Neuroticism was reliably associated with perceived availability, while the received-support result was much less consistent. This distinction matters for both research and everyday interpretation.
Actual support receipt is shaped by need and opportunity. A person facing illness, bereavement, job loss, caregiving demands, or another major stressor may receive more help because the need is visible. Someone who is less distressed may receive less because less is required. That means high received support can sometimes indicate a more difficult situation rather than a more supportive life.
Support receipt also depends on disclosure, accessibility, reciprocity, provider resources, cultural norms, and the fit between what is offered and what is wanted. A single questionnaire score cannot reveal all of these pathways.
Stress, Neuroticism, and the Usefulness of Support
Social support is often discussed as a stress buffer. The classic review by Cohen and Wills distinguished general beneficial effects of social integration and support from stress-buffering effects that become especially relevant under high stress. Modern evidence retains the basic insight that support can matter for coping, while also showing that effects depend on support type, context, timing, and the recipient’s needs.
For a detailed treatment of trait differences in stress appraisal, reactivity, and recovery, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery. In the present context, the important point is that people higher in neuroticism may encounter or appraise more situations as stressful, which can increase both the potential need for support and the difficulty of feeling sufficiently supported.
A cross-cultural study by Park and colleagues illustrates why blanket statements about buffering are risky. In Japanese and U.S. adults, the association between perceived support and health varied with culture, life stress, and neuroticism. The results show an interaction in a particular design and population; they do not establish a universal rule that support works only for people low in neuroticism.
Experimental evidence also suggests that social context can change emotion-regulation performance in people selected for elevated neuroticism. In a study of 121 undergraduates, Metts and Craske found that participants reported less aversiveness and negative affect and more positive affect when reappraising stressful images while reminded of a social support figure than when reappraising alone. This is useful mechanism evidence, but it concerns a laboratory reappraisal task in a selected young-adult sample, not a demonstration that social support generally changes the personality trait itself.
What Longitudinal Research Adds
Cross-sectional correlations cannot tell us whether neuroticism shapes support, support shapes neuroticism, both influence each other, or a third process contributes to both. Longitudinal studies improve this situation by measuring the same people repeatedly, but they still require careful causal interpretation.
In middle adulthood, Allemand, Schaffhuser, and Martin followed 346 adults across an eight-year interval. Personality was measured with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory, and four types of perceived social support were assessed. The study found correlated changes between personality traits and support. Correlated change means that the constructs changed together statistically; it does not identify a single direction of causation.
A later study by Pfund and Allemand used two waves eight years apart in 491 older adults and examined emotional support, practical support, social integration, and social strain alongside NEO-FFI personality traits. Changes in neuroticism were among the personality changes associated with changes in social-support dimensions. Again, the result supports developmental coupling rather than a one-variable-causes-the-other conclusion.
A 2024 lagged analysis by Morstead and colleagues followed 1,386 North American adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. After controlling for perceived support in 2020, higher neuroticism predicted less perceived support in 2021, whereas extraversion and conscientiousness predicted more. The time ordering makes a purely simultaneous explanation less likely, yet pandemic conditions, self-report measurement, and unmeasured factors still limit causal inference.
Social Support, Neuroticism, and Mental Health
Neuroticism is a broad transdiagnostic risk factor for psychological distress, while social support is associated with many mental-health outcomes. For the trait’s broader clinical associations, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor. The social-support relationship should be interpreted as one part of that larger network of associations, not as a diagnostic pathway.
A person with high neuroticism and low perceived support does not thereby have depression, an anxiety disorder, PTSD, OCD, a personality disorder, or any other diagnosis. Likewise, strong perceived support does not rule out a disorder. Traits, symptoms, environmental resources, coping, impairment, and diagnosis occupy different levels of description.
Studies sometimes report that social support statistically mediates an association between neuroticism and symptoms or well-being. Mediation in cross-sectional data should not be translated automatically into a causal story. A statistical indirect effect can be consistent with several temporal models, including reverse or reciprocal pathways. Stronger causal claims require temporal ordering, repeated measurement, experimental manipulation where feasible, and designs that address confounding.
Support can still be clinically and practically important without being a cure for neuroticism or a guarantee against distress. A supportive relationship can provide information, co-regulation, material resources, perspective, companionship, and help with coping. Whether these functions are available and useful depends on the person, provider, problem, and moment.
Measurement Matters More Than It Looks
There is no universal “neuroticism and social support score.” Both sides of the association depend on specific instruments. Neuroticism can be measured with NEO inventories, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality, IPIP-based scales, Eysenck measures, and other instruments. These scales target overlapping constructs but differ in item content, facet structure, score ranges, norms, and labels. A raw score from one instrument cannot be converted into a clinical category or treated as equivalent to a raw score from another.
The longitudinal studies above illustrate this point. The middle- and older-adult studies used the NEO-FFI. Other research uses Big Five inventories, Eysenck measures, or abbreviated scales. When a study reports that “neuroticism predicts support,” the result belongs first to the operationalization, sample, design, and outcome used in that study.
Social-support measurement varies at least as much. Researchers may measure perceived availability, received support, emotional support, instrumental or practical support, informational support, companionship, integration, or strain. They may ask about family, friends, partners, coworkers, or support in general. A difference in measurement can change the size—and sometimes the meaning—of an association.
That separability has been emphasized in both measurement reviews and health research. Uchino’s life-span review argues that perceived and received support have distinct antecedents and mechanisms and should be analyzed separately. This is particularly important in personality research, where perceived availability may be more closely tied to stable appraisal tendencies than support received during a particular event.
Neuroticism, Support, and Relationship Context
Social support occurs inside relationships, so broad trait effects do not replace relationship-specific explanations. A supportive partner, friend, family member, coworker, community, or professional can differ in availability and responsiveness. The same person may feel highly supported in one relationship and unsupported in another.
Neuroticism also operates alongside attachment, rejection sensitivity, communication patterns, conflict, trust, reciprocity, and relationship satisfaction. These constructs overlap conceptually in places but remain distinct. For example, anxious attachment concerns expectations and behavior in attachment relationships; neuroticism is a broad personality dimension. Neither should be used as a substitute label for the other.
A relationship-level analysis also needs actor and partner perspectives. The recipient’s trait may influence what they perceive and request, while the provider’s characteristics influence what is offered. Dyadic studies can separate some of these effects. Broad single-person questionnaires cannot.
What the Evidence Does Not Show
The current literature supports several careful conclusions, and it also leaves clear limits.
It does not show that high neuroticism means a person has no friends or lacks meaningful relationships. Network size, intimacy, support availability, and trait neuroticism are different variables.
It does not show that lower perceived support is simply inaccurate. Perceptions can reflect dispositional appraisal, but they can also reflect real inconsistency, poor fit, conflict, inaccessible providers, previous invalidation, or support that comes with interpersonal costs.
It does not show that people high in neuroticism uniformly seek more support. Help-seeking attitudes and behaviors can diverge, and the evidence specifically on informal social-support seeking is limited.
It does not show that receiving more support necessarily means having a better social environment. High support receipt may occur because needs are unusually high. It can also be mismatched, unwanted, controlling, or ineffective.
It does not show that social support “treats” neuroticism. Personality traits can change over the life course, and social relationships are part of the developmental environment, but evidence linking support to trait change is not equivalent to an intervention that reliably lowers neuroticism.
It does not show that neuroticism causes a mental disorder through low social support. Neuroticism is a risk factor and correlate across many forms of distress; social support is one contextual resource among many. Diagnosis requires disorder-specific clinical assessment.
Practical Implications Without Turning a Trait Into a Diagnosis
The research points toward a practical distinction: if someone feels unsupported, the useful question is not merely whether the feeling is “because of neuroticism.” A better assessment separates at least three things—what support is actually available, how support is interpreted, and whether the available support matches the current need.
Make the need specific
“I need support” can mean listening, advice, reassurance, practical help, company, advocacy, transportation, financial help, or space. Specific requests reduce the amount of interpretation required from both sides. They also make it easier to notice whether the problem is lack of availability, poor fit, unclear communication, or something else.
Compare expectation with observable behavior
When support feels uncertain, it can help to separate predictions from events. Who has responded reliably in the past? Who tends to offer emotional support but not practical help? Who is available only in certain contexts? This is not an exercise in declaring feelings wrong; it is a way of increasing resolution in the social map.
Use more than one support source
Different relationships are often suited to different functions. One person may be good at listening, another at problem-solving, and a community or professional resource at specialized support. A diversified support network can reduce the pressure on any single relationship and improve the fit between need and resource.
Notice state effects
Acute stress, sleep loss, depression, anxiety, grief, physical illness, and conflict can change both support needs and interpretations. A conclusion reached at the peak of distress may not represent the person’s stable social environment. Repeated patterns over time are more informative than one difficult day.
Address persistent interpersonal difficulty at the level where it occurs
If support problems repeatedly involve fear of rejection, reassurance cycles, conflict, withdrawal, or difficulty communicating needs, the relevant target may be a behavioral or relationship pattern rather than the personality label itself. If persistent distress or impairment is present, a qualified mental-health professional can evaluate symptoms and help identify what is maintaining the difficulty without treating a neuroticism score as a diagnosis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is neuroticism associated with lower social support?
Higher neuroticism is reliably associated with lower perceived availability of social support in meta-analytic evidence. The evidence is less clear for support actually received. Saying “lower perceived support” is therefore more accurate than saying “less support” without qualification.
Do people high in neuroticism seek more support?
Sometimes, but there is no universal pattern. Research suggests that neuroticism can be associated with negative attitudes toward professional help while also being associated with more help-seeking behavior in several samples. Evidence specifically on informal social-support seeking is limited and heterogeneous.
Why can someone receive support and still feel unsupported?
Received support and perceived support measure different things. Support may be poorly matched to the need, arrive from the wrong person or at the wrong time, feel controlling or invalidating, or fail to create confidence that help will remain available. Personality, relationship history, current distress, and provider behavior can all influence the gap.
Is perceived social support the same as loneliness?
No. Perceived support concerns the believed availability or adequacy of supportive resources. Loneliness is the subjective experience that social connection is insufficient relative to what a person wants. They can correlate, but either can occur without the other.
Can social support buffer the effects of stress in people high in neuroticism?
Social support can be associated with better coping and can buffer stress in some settings, but the size and form of the effect depend on stress level, support type, cultural context, timing, and measurement. It is not a universal interaction that works identically for everyone.
Can social support lower neuroticism?
Personality and social support can change together over time, but correlated change is not proof that increasing support directly lowers neuroticism. Neuroticism is a relatively stable but changeable personality trait, and trait change is influenced by multiple developmental, experiential, and possibly intervention-related processes.
Does low perceived support mean someone has a mental-health disorder?
No. Low perceived support is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It can occur for many reasons and can coexist with or without clinical symptoms. A diagnosis requires condition-specific assessment of symptoms, duration, impairment, context, and differential explanations.
Is a high neuroticism score enough to predict who will struggle with social support?
No. A trait score shifts probabilities at the group level; it does not determine an individual outcome. Interpretation also depends on the specific instrument, scoring method, reference sample, and population. Social support is influenced by relationship quality, network structure, other personality traits, life circumstances, culture, and current stress.
Perceived social support and loneliness are related but distinct. For the dedicated evidence on loneliness, social perception, isolation, and well-being, see Neuroticism and Loneliness: Social Perception, Isolation, and Well-Being.
Related Articles
References
Allemand, M., Schaffhuser, K., & Martin, M. (2015). Long-term correlated change between personality traits and perceived social support in middle adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569492
Barańczuk, U. (2019). The Five Factor Model of personality and social support: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.002
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000463
Gottlieb, B. H., & Bergen, A. E. (2010). Social support concepts and measures. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(5), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001
Haber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1–2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9
Metts, A. V., & Craske, M. G. (2023). Influence of social support on cognitive reappraisal in young adults elevated on neuroticism. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 167, 104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2023.104355
Morstead, T., Rashidi, R., Zheng, J., Sin, N. L., & DeLongis, A. (2024). Personality as a predictor of changes in perceived availability of social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 226, 112708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112708
Park, J., Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Curhan, K., Markus, H. R., Kawakami, N., Miyamoto, Y., Love, G. D., Coe, C. L., & Ryff, C. D. (2013). Clarifying the links between social support and health: Culture, stress, and neuroticism matter. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312439731
Pfund, G. N., & Allemand, M. (2024). Correlated change between personality traits and perceived social support in old age. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221120493
Szücs, A., Lam, R. H. X., Tang, W. S. W., Zhou, L., Lazarus, M., Maier, A. B., & Valderas, J. M. (2025). Personality and help-seeking for psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1405167. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1405167
Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x