Neuroticism and Worry: Why Higher Scores May Mean More Anticipated Threat
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Higher neuroticism is associated with a greater tendency to worry, anticipate possible problems, and experience future-oriented threat as emotionally salient. That relationship is real at the group level, but the constructs are not interchangeable. Neuroticism is a broad dimensional personality trait; worry is a cognitive process focused on possible future negative outcomes. A person can score high in neuroticism without experiencing clinically significant worry, and a person can worry intensely without a personality profile that is uniformly high in neuroticism.
The phrase “higher scores” also needs measurement context. A neuroticism score belongs to a particular instrument, scoring method, norm group, and population. A score from the NEO PI-R cannot be treated as numerically equivalent to a BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, an Eysenck neuroticism score, or an IPIP-based score. Likewise, a worry score on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire measures a different construct from a Big Five personality score.
For the broader personality construct, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the broader clinical relationship between neuroticism and anxiety, see Neuroticism and Anxiety: What Research Shows. This article owns the narrower mechanism question: why neuroticism and worry tend to travel together, what “anticipated threat” means in this context, and what the evidence does and does not establish.
Neuroticism and Worry: The Short Answer
People higher in neuroticism tend, on average, to experience negative emotions more readily and to appraise uncertain or potentially adverse situations as more threatening. Worry is one way that future-oriented threat can be represented cognitively: the mind repeatedly simulates what might go wrong, searches for ways to prevent it, and remains engaged with uncertainty. Contemporary work describes anxiety as a sustained, future-oriented response to potential threat and places trait anxiety within the broader neuroticism domain, which helps explain why worry, anxiety, and neuroticism overlap without becoming the same construct (Watson et al., 2022).
Direct longitudinal evidence also argues against simply equating worry with neuroticism. In a five-year community study of adolescents, worry and neuroticism were strongly interrelated over time, yet confirmatory factor analyses supported two distinct constructs rather than one undifferentiated factor (Hale et al., 2010). The best interpretation is therefore dimensional and relational: higher neuroticism can make worry more likely or more persistent, while worry remains a separable process with its own content, triggers, measurement, and clinical significance.
What Worry Means in Psychological Research
Worry usually refers to repetitive thought about uncertain future events with potentially negative consequences. It is especially concerned with anticipation: What if this happens? What if I cannot handle it? What if an important outcome goes badly? Clinical and experimental literatures often emphasize the repetitive, difficult-to-disengage quality of excessive worry, while ordinary worry can also be brief, proportionate, and useful for planning. Reviews of generalized anxiety disorder describe worry as a central process but also emphasize that multiple mechanisms can sustain it (Newman et al., 2013).
The most widely used research instrument specifically designed to assess trait-like worry is the 16-item Penn State Worry Questionnaire, or PSWQ. Its original validation work found high internal consistency and good test-retest reliability and treated worry as a measurable disposition rather than as a synonym for general anxiety (Meyer et al., 1990). A PSWQ score therefore answers a different question from a Big Five neuroticism score.
Worry Is Not the Same as Anxiety
Anxiety is broader than worry. It can include subjective fear or tension, physiological arousal, vigilance, avoidance, and sustained preparation for possible threat. Worry is primarily a cognitive mode of anticipating negative possibilities. Someone may feel anxious with little verbal worry, and someone may spend substantial time worrying without intense physiological arousal at every moment. Structural work on personality and psychopathology treats anxiety as future-oriented threat responding while preserving distinctions among personality traits, symptoms, and disorders (Watson et al., 2022).
Worry Is Not the Same as Trait Anxiety
Trait anxiety refers to a relatively enduring tendency to experience or appraise situations as anxiety provoking. It overlaps strongly with neuroticism, and the amount of overlap depends on the measure. This matters because the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait scale is sometimes interpreted too narrowly: a meta-analysis of 388 studies involving 31,021 participants found that STAI-T scores were similarly strongly correlated with anxiety and depressive symptom severity and concluded that the scale may function more like a broad negative-affectivity measure than a highly specific measure of anxiety proneness (Knowles & Olatunji, 2020).
Worry Is Not the Same as Negative Affect
Negative affect describes unpleasant emotional experience, either at a momentary state level or as an average tendency depending on the measure. Worry is thought content and process; negative affect is emotional experience. Neuroticism predicts both, but their levels can move differently. A person can be thinking about a possible problem while remaining relatively calm, or can feel intense negative affect without engaging in extended verbal worry.
Why Higher Neuroticism Can Mean More Anticipated Threat
The title of this article does not mean that neuroticism produces a literal threat detector with a universal setting. “More anticipated threat” is a psychological description of a probabilistic pattern: people higher in neuroticism are more likely, on average, to notice possible adverse outcomes, judge uncertainty as consequential, experience stronger negative affect around those possibilities, and keep mentally returning to them. Several partially overlapping mechanisms can generate this pattern.
1. Threat Appraisal Is More Readily Activated
A broad feature of neuroticism is heightened sensitivity to negative, frustrating, threatening, or uncertain events. When the future contains ambiguity, the mind must estimate what could happen and how costly a bad outcome would be. Higher neuroticism can shift those appraisals toward greater perceived threat or lower confidence in coping. That creates more raw material for worry: there are more scenarios that feel important enough to keep evaluating.
This is one reason the relationship is stronger than a simple semantic coincidence. In a laboratory neuroimaging study of 120 women selected across the neuroticism distribution, higher neuroticism was associated with more trait worry and with stronger state worry during a worry induction. The study also examined neural correlates of the induced state, but those findings were group-level associations and are not an individual biomarker or diagnostic test (Servaas et al., 2014).
2. Uncertainty Can Become Harder to Leave Unresolved
Worry thrives on uncertainty because uncertain situations do not provide a clean stopping signal. A person can continue generating possibilities, checking assumptions, or rehearsing responses without ever reaching certainty. Intolerance of uncertainty has therefore become an important candidate process linking broad personality vulnerability with worry and anxiety. Recent personality research found that intolerance of uncertainty was associated with neuroticism and with most NEO neuroticism facets in two sizable samples (Altungy et al., 2025).
That result supports a relationship, not a settled causal chain. Most studies in this area are correlational or use statistical mediation, so they cannot by themselves prove that neuroticism first causes intolerance of uncertainty and that intolerance of uncertainty then causes worry. The variables may influence one another, share antecedents, or partly overlap in what questionnaires ask respondents to report.
3. Repetitive Negative Thinking Can Keep Future Threat Mentally Active
Worry belongs to the broader family of repetitive negative thinking, often abbreviated RNT. RNT captures the process of repeatedly returning to negatively valenced material even when continued thinking is no longer producing much new information. Contemporary reviews emphasize that worry and rumination share substantial process-level features while still differing in typical temporal focus and content (Hitchcock & Frank, 2024).
This provides a useful bridge from personality to cognition. Neuroticism describes a broad disposition; repetitive negative thinking describes what the mind may repeatedly do. Small cross-sectional studies have found that worry and rumination statistically account for part of the association between neuroticism and symptoms of anxiety or depression, but these mediation models should be read as models of covariance rather than proof of psychological causation (Muris et al., 2005).
4. Worry Can Feel Like Preparation
Worry is unpleasant, yet it can also feel functional. Rehearsing possible failures may create a sense of preparation, reduce surprise, prompt checking, or motivate effort. Experimental work by Tamir found that people higher in neuroticism were more likely to choose to increase worry before demanding tasks, and one study in the series suggested that such short-term unpleasant affect could sometimes support performance (Tamir, 2005).
This does not make chronic worry broadly beneficial. It shows why a person may continue a mental process that feels bad: under some conditions, worry is treated as instrumental. The consequences depend on dose, context, controllability, accuracy, and whether the thinking leads to effective action or simply repeats threat scenarios.
What Direct Research Shows About Neuroticism and Worry
Five-Year Longitudinal Evidence
Hale and colleagues followed two community cohorts of Dutch adolescents annually for five years. Their central question was unusually direct: is worry simply another form of neuroticism? The answer was no. Worry and neuroticism showed strong reciprocal relations across time, yet measurement models supported two distinguishable entities (Hale et al., 2010).
That result is especially important for the present search intent. It means that a higher neuroticism score can meaningfully predict a stronger tendency toward worry without allowing us to replace one construct with the other. It also cautions against treating temporary worry as direct evidence of a stable personality level.
Laboratory Evidence
Servaas and colleagues combined a neuroticism measure, the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and an experimentally induced state-worry task. Higher neuroticism was related to both greater trait worry and stronger worry during the induction (Servaas et al., 2014). The study helps connect a broad personality dimension with a momentary cognitive-emotional state, while also illustrating why trait and state must be kept separate: the experiment measured what happened during a particular induction, not an immutable property of the participant.
Clinical-Sample Evidence
In a clinical study of 134 patients with generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, or mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, neuroticism was correlated with worry and brooding across diagnostic groups. Statistical mediation models suggested that worry may be one pathway linking neuroticism with anxiety symptoms (Merino et al., 2016). Because the design was cross-sectional, the mediation estimates identify a plausible structure among measured variables rather than a demonstrated temporal mechanism.
Taken together, these lines of evidence converge on association and partial process overlap. They do not establish a single one-way causal pathway from personality to worry. Longitudinal relations can be reciprocal, state distress can influence self-reports of personality, and shared measurement content can increase observed correlations.
Measurement: What Does a “Higher Score” Actually Mean?
There is no universal neuroticism score that can be interpreted independently of the instrument. The correct question is always: higher on which measure, compared with which normative population, scored in what way, and for what purpose? The Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results explains this broader measurement problem in detail.
NEO PI-R and NEO-Style Measures
The NEO PI-R assesses a broad Neuroticism domain and six narrower facets. The hierarchical model matters because a domain score summarizes multiple tendencies rather than a single worry tendency (Costa & McCrae, 1995). A person could have a high overall neuroticism score because of a particular facet profile and not because every negative-emotional tendency is equally elevated.
BFI-2 Negative Emotionality
The BFI-2 uses the domain label Negative Emotionality and measures three facets: Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility. It is a Big Five instrument, but its labels, item content, scale lengths, and score distributions are not interchangeable with the NEO PI-R or Eysenck instruments. The BFI-2 was explicitly designed as a hierarchical measure with 15 facets nested under the five broad domains (Soto & John, 2017).
Eysenck and IPIP Measures
Eysenck neuroticism scales come from a different personality framework and use their own item sets and scoring. IPIP is an open item pool from which many researchers and websites construct Big Five or NEO-like measures; the exact item set matters. A label such as “neuroticism 80” or “high neuroticism” therefore has little scientific meaning unless the underlying instrument, score range, norming method, and comparison group are known.
Worry Measures
The Penn State Worry Questionnaire measures a disposition toward excessive or persistent worry rather than Big Five neuroticism (Meyer et al., 1990). Other studies may use worry subscales, daily diaries, ecological momentary assessment, diagnostic interviews, or experimentally induced worry. Results should be interpreted in relation to the actual method rather than generalized as if all “worry scores” meant the same thing.
Neuroticism, Worry, Anxiety, and Disorder: The Boundaries
Neuroticism is a broad dimensional personality trait. It describes relative tendencies across time and situations and is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
Worry is a future-oriented cognitive process involving anticipated negative outcomes. It ranges from ordinary planning-related concern to persistent, difficult-to-control repetitive thinking.
Anxiety can be a temporary emotional state, a recurring symptom, a trait-like tendency, or part of a psychiatric disorder. These levels should not be collapsed into one category.
Trait anxiety is a narrower dispositional construct that overlaps substantially with neuroticism. How much it overlaps depends on the instrument; the STAI-T in particular appears to capture broad negative affectivity to a considerable degree (Knowles & Olatunji, 2020).
Negative affect refers to unpleasant emotional experience or a tendency toward such experience, depending on how it is measured. It is related to neuroticism but is not identical to neuroticism, worry, or an anxiety disorder.
Psychiatric symptoms are experiences such as excessive worry, sleep disturbance, concentration problems, tension, panic, depressed mood, or intrusive thoughts. A symptom can occur without a disorder, and a personality trait cannot substitute for a clinical assessment.
Worry and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Are Related but Not Equivalent
Worry is especially central to generalized anxiety disorder, but ordinary worry and GAD are not the same. The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health describes GAD as excessive anxiety and worry that is difficult to control, occurs on most days for at least six months, and is accompanied by additional symptoms and meaningful interference with life (National Institute of Mental Health, 2025).
For the narrower neuroticism × GAD relationship, see Neuroticism and Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Worry, Vulnerability, and Risk. A high neuroticism score is not a screening cutoff for GAD, and even a high worry score is not by itself a diagnosis. Diagnosis depends on duration, controllability, associated symptoms, impairment, differential diagnosis, and clinical context.
This distinction also prevents a common reasoning error: observing that neuroticism is associated with GAD does not mean neuroticism is a mild form of GAD, and observing that worry is central to GAD does not mean every person who worries frequently has a disorder.
Worry and Rumination: Similar Process, Different Typical Focus
Worry and rumination are both forms of repetitive negative thinking. Worry is typically more future-oriented and organized around uncertainty and anticipated threat. Rumination is often more focused on past events, losses, perceived failures, causes, or consequences of distress. The distinction is useful, but research also finds substantial shared process variance (Hitchcock & Frank, 2024).
For neuroticism research, this matters because a broad disposition toward negative emotionality may express itself through more than one repetitive thinking style. A person may primarily worry, primarily ruminate, move between the two, or do neither to a clinically significant degree. Neuroticism does not prescribe one fixed cognitive pattern.
Does Neuroticism Cause Worry?
The evidence supports a robust association and some longitudinal prediction, but a simple causal sentence would overstate what is known. Several causal structures are compatible with the data: neuroticism-related threat sensitivity may increase worry; repeated worry and chronic distress may influence how people describe their own personality; shared genetic, developmental, or environmental factors may contribute to both; and overlapping item content can inflate measured associations.
The five-year adolescent study is particularly informative because neuroticism and worry predicted one another while remaining distinguishable constructs (Hale et al., 2010). That reciprocal pattern is more consistent with an interacting system than with a one-directional rule in which a single trait mechanically produces a single cognitive symptom.
Cross-sectional mediation studies can suggest candidate pathways but cannot establish their temporal order. For example, clinical models in which worry statistically mediates part of the neuroticism–anxiety relationship are useful hypotheses, yet the measurements were taken within the same design rather than experimentally assigning personality or long-term worry (Merino et al., 2016).
What Genetics and Neuroscience Add—and What They Do Not
Large genetic studies reinforce the idea that neuroticism is heterogeneous rather than a single biological switch. A genome-wide meta-analysis of 449,484 participants found that the genetic signal for neuroticism could be partly separated into “depressed affect” and “worry” subclusters (Nagel et al., 2018). This is population-level polygenic evidence. It does not mean there is a “worry gene,” that a genetic profile can diagnose high neuroticism, or that an individual's future worry can be predicted deterministically.
Neuroimaging evidence needs the same restraint. The Servaas study linked individual differences in neuroticism and state worry to patterns of brain activity during an experimental task (Servaas et al., 2014). Such findings can help generate mechanistic hypotheses, but they are group-level correlations conditioned on a particular task and sample. They are not clinical biomarkers for a person's personality, worry severity, or anxiety diagnosis.
Is Worry Always Harmful?
No. Anticipating possible problems is a normal part of planning, risk management, and preparation. Worry becomes less useful when it is repetitive without producing decisions, grossly disproportionate to the situation, difficult to control, chronically distressing, or disruptive to sleep, concentration, relationships, work, or daily functioning.
The experimental findings on trait-consistent affect regulation illustrate this complexity. Participants higher in neuroticism sometimes preferred to increase worry before demanding tasks, and the researchers interpreted this as an instrumental affect-regulation strategy (Tamir, 2005). That finding does not establish a general advantage of neuroticism or chronic worry. It shows that the function of an unpleasant state depends partly on context and goals.
When Worry Becomes Clinically Important
A personality score is not the best indicator of whether worry needs clinical attention. More informative questions are whether the worry is excessive relative to the situation, how often it occurs, whether it feels controllable, whether it persists across domains, and whether it contributes to distress or impairment. Sleep disruption, concentration problems, irritability, physical tension, avoidance, reassurance seeking, and loss of functioning can all change the clinical significance of the picture.
The broader evidence base shows that neuroticism is a transdiagnostic risk factor rather than a diagnosis. See Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor for that distinction. If worry is persistent and impairing, assessment should focus on the symptoms and their context rather than treating a Big Five score as proof of a disorder.
What a High Neuroticism Score Does—and Does Not—Tell You
A high score can indicate that, within the scoring system being used, a person reports more negative emotionality or emotional sensitivity than the relevant comparison group. It can support probabilistic expectations about average patterns, including more worry. It cannot determine what a person is worrying about, whether the worry is accurate, whether it is impairing, or whether a psychiatric disorder is present.
A percentile is also not a diagnosis. A percentile only locates a score relative to a particular normative sample. If the norm sample changes, the percentile can change even when the person's raw answers do not. Raw scores, standardized scores, T scores, percentiles, and proprietary “high/medium/low” labels therefore should never be mixed as though they were universal clinical thresholds.
The most scientifically useful interpretation is layered: first identify the instrument; then interpret the trait score within its norms; then assess worry with a worry-specific method if worry is the question; then consider current stress, symptoms, functioning, and clinical history. This preserves the distinction among personality, cognition, state emotion, symptom burden, and diagnosis.
Practical Meaning
If you score high in neuroticism and also notice frequent worry, the score can be used as a descriptive clue rather than a verdict. It may help explain why uncertain future events capture attention quickly or why negative possibilities feel difficult to dismiss. It does not imply that every concern is irrational, that your personality is pathological, or that the trait itself is a disease requiring treatment.
If the practical problem is worry, the clinically relevant target is the worry process and any associated symptoms or impairment. A 2025 meta-analysis of 55 randomized controlled trials involving 4,970 participants found that cognitive behavioral interventions reduced repetitive negative thinking compared with control conditions, with stronger effects for RNT-specific interventions (Stenzel et al., 2025). Symptom reduction and durable personality-trait change are separate outcomes: a person can become much less distressed by worry without needing to redefine their entire personality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does high neuroticism mean you worry a lot?
Higher neuroticism is associated with more worry on average, but the relationship is probabilistic. People with the same neuroticism score can differ substantially in how often they worry, what they worry about, and whether the worry causes impairment.
Why does neuroticism predict more anticipated threat?
Higher neuroticism is associated with greater sensitivity to negative outcomes, stronger negative emotional responses, and more threat-oriented appraisal. In uncertain situations, those tendencies can keep possible adverse outcomes mentally active and create more opportunities for worry.
Is worry a facet of neuroticism?
Some theories and measures place anxiety- or worry-related tendencies within the broader neuroticism domain, but a specific worry construct such as PSWQ worry remains psychometrically distinguishable from broad neuroticism. The answer therefore depends partly on the level of analysis and the instrument.
Is neuroticism the same as generalized anxiety disorder?
No. Neuroticism is a continuous personality trait. Generalized anxiety disorder is a clinical diagnosis defined by excessive, difficult-to-control worry, duration, associated symptoms, and impairment. A high trait score cannot diagnose GAD.
Is worry the same as trait anxiety?
No. Worry is a cognitive process focused on possible future negative outcomes. Trait anxiety is a broader tendency to experience anxiety. The constructs overlap, and some trait-anxiety measures also capture broad negative affectivity.
Can you have high neuroticism without excessive worry?
Yes. Neuroticism is broad and can be expressed through different combinations of anxiety, sadness, irritability, self-consciousness, emotional volatility, vulnerability to stress, or other tendencies depending on the personality model. Worry is only one possible expression.
Can worry temporarily raise a neuroticism score?
Current distress can influence how people answer self-report personality items, especially when item content overlaps with anxiety or negative affect. That does not make personality measurement meaningless; it means researchers must distinguish stable trait variance from state-related fluctuation.
Does a high PSWQ score mean high neuroticism?
Not automatically. The PSWQ measures trait-like worry, whereas neuroticism inventories assess a broader personality domain. The scores are correlated, but they are not interchangeable and should be interpreted using their own scoring systems and norms.
Is worrying useful for people high in neuroticism?
Sometimes worry can motivate preparation or increase a sense of readiness, and experimental studies show that some people high in neuroticism may deliberately choose worry before demanding tasks. Persistent or uncontrollable worry can still carry substantial costs, so usefulness depends on context, duration, and whether thinking leads to effective action.
Does neuroticism cause anxiety disorders?
Higher neuroticism is a statistical vulnerability factor for anxiety and other forms of psychopathology, but it is not a sufficient cause and does not determine an individual's outcome. Disorders emerge from multiple interacting biological, psychological, developmental, and social influences.
Related Articles
References
Altungy, P., Liébana, S., Navarro-McCarthy, A., et al. (2025). What Lies Beyond Personality Traits? The Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty, Anxiety Sensitivity, and Metacognition. Psicothema, 37(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.06
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2
Hale, W. W., III, Klimstra, T. A., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Is the generalized anxiety disorder symptom of worry just another form of neuroticism? A 5-year longitudinal study of adolescents from the general population. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 71(7), 942–948. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.09m05506blu
Hitchcock, P. F., & Frank, M. J. (2024). From tripping and falling to ruminating and worrying: A meta-control account of repetitive negative thinking. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 56, 101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101356
Knowles, K. A., & Olatunji, B. O. (2020). Specificity of trait anxiety in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Clinical Psychology Review, 82, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101928
Merino, H., Senra, C., & Ferreiro, F. (2016). Are worry and rumination specific pathways linking neuroticism and symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and mixed anxiety-depressive disorder? PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0156169. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156169
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
Muris, P., Roelofs, J., Rassin, E., Franken, I., & Mayer, B. (2005). Mediating effects of rumination and worry on the links between neuroticism, anxiety and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.005
Nagel, M., Jansen, P. R., Stringer, S., et al. (2018). Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. Nature Genetics, 50, 920–927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0151-7
National Institute of Mental Health. (2025). Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/generalized-anxiety-disorder-gad
Newman, M. G., Llera, S. J., Erickson, T. M., Przeworski, A., & Castonguay, L. G. (2013). Worry and generalized anxiety disorder: A review and theoretical synthesis of evidence on nature, etiology, mechanisms, and treatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185544
Servaas, M. N., Riese, H., Ormel, J., & Aleman, A. (2014). The neural correlates of worry in association with individual differences in neuroticism. Human Brain Mapping, 35(9), 4303–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22476
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Stenzel, K. L., Keller, J., Kirchner, L., Rief, W., & Berg, M. (2025). Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating repetitive negative thinking, rumination, and worry: A transdiagnostic meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 55, e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000017
Tamir, M. (2005). Don't worry, be happy? Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.449
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., & Kotov, R. (2022). Classification and assessment of fear and anxiety in personality and psychopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 142, 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104878