On this page
After finishing a task, Maja messages Helena.
— Are you sure I’m doing this well enough?
— Yes. If I thought otherwise, I’d tell you.
The next day, Maja asks again. Helena assumes yesterday’s answer still applies; Maja needs another moment of certainty.
How does Empatyzer reveal the effects of constant reassurance?
Empatyzer helps you see that another reassurance only provides temporary relief. This makes it easier to understand why constant reassurance can perpetuate uncertainty rather than end it.
Features that can help:
- Your internal tensions: They help you recognise what in the situation "I told you it's fine" may trigger excessive tension and separate the current message from the reaction reinforced by previous experience.
- Talk to Em about yourself: It allows you to look at your own reaction to the "I said it was good" situation, name your assumptions and prepare a course of action before the automatic response heightens the tension.
- Tips: They help you choose the tone, level of directness and the way of expressing the expectation in a situation of "I told you it's fine" for this person, instead of using one message for everyone.
What really happened
Maja asks Helena whether her work is good enough. She receives a clear yes and genuinely feels relieved for a while. The next day brings a new moment of uncertainty and the doubt returns. Helena interprets the situation differently: if she said yesterday that the work was fine, that answer should remain valid unless something changes. In practice, they are using the same question for different purposes. Helena treats her answer as information about work quality. Maja is also using it as a way to reduce uncertainty in the moment. That is why repeating the same reassurance can help briefly without addressing the reason the question keeps returning.
What the research says
Psychology describes repeated requests for confirmation that something is safe, correct or secure even after reassurance has already been provided—often called excessive reassurance seeking. Research suggests that reassurance can reduce distress in the short term while the need for reassurance later returns (Salkovskis & Kobori, 2015; Rector et al., 2019). Much of this research comes from anxiety and OCD contexts, so it should not be used to diagnose Maja or mapped directly onto an ordinary workplace relationship. It is still a useful model because it distinguishes between information that adds new knowledge and reassurance that mainly calms uncertainty for a while.
How to handle it
Instead of answering “is it still okay?” every day, build a stable information system: clear criteria for good work, a regular time for feedback and an explicit rule for when the manager will proactively raise a problem. Maja then does not have to keep checking the emotional temperature of the relationship. Helena can say: “Unless I give you a different signal, assume the last assessment still stands.” The general rule: when the same request for confirmation returns without new information, stop relying only on repeated reassurance and create a system that lets the person recognize for themselves when the work is good enough.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Helena and Maja recognize that another “are you sure it’s okay?” does not necessarily mean Maja distrusts Helena or lacks competence. A profile may show that uncertainty is more costly for Maja, but Em should not diagnose anxiety or act as a therapist. It can instead turn repeated reassurance into objective calibration: “Let’s check three criteria. If they are met, we consider the text finished and do not reopen the question unless new information appears.” Helena stops being the only source of temporary relief, while Maja gains a standard she can return to independently. Micro-lessons help people build confidence on clear criteria and their own judgment rather than endlessly borrowing certainty from someone else.
Sources
- Paul M. Salkovskis; Osamu Kobori (2015). Reassuringly calm? Self-reported patterns of responses to reassurance seeking in obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 49(Pt B), 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.09.002 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.09.002
- Neil A. Rector; Danielle E. Katz; Lena C. Quilty; Judith M. Laposa; Kelsey Collimore; Tatjana Kay (2019). Reassurance seeking in obsessive compulsive disorder: Associations with obsessive beliefs, symptoms, and cognitive-behavioral therapy response. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 67, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102109 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102109
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.