Kalisch and colleagues define resiliency as “an empirically observable phenomenon, namely that someone does not develop lasting mental health problems although he or she is subject to adversity” (sect. 2, para. 2). By limiting the definition of resilience to not developing mental health problems, Kalisch et al. have included only half of the picture. More-expansive definitions of resilience include individuals who are doing particularly well in the face of negative life events. For example, Tugade and Fredrickson (Reference Tugade and Frederickson2004) define resilience as “characterized by the ability to bounce back from negative emotional experiences by flexible adaptation to the changing demands of stressful experiences.” (p. 320). This definition includes mechanisms such as the experience of positive affect, nurturing social interactions, creativity, a focus on positive memories, and even physical health. Although Kalisch et al. submit some of these as resilience mechanisms, they also can be outcomes indicative of resilience. The possibility that someone may actually show increased well-being following a negative life experience is not addressed in the PASTOR definition and measurement of resiliency. Frazier et al. (Reference Frazier, Tennen, Gavian, Park, Tomich and Tashiro2009) found that 25% of participants who had experienced a traumatic event actually reported increases in life satisfaction from pre- to post-trauma. Including positive outcomes will more accurately reflect the goals of resiliency research to study individuals who are flourishing rather than struggling.
Further, some of these mechanisms, such as positive affect, should themselves be considered general mechanisms. According to Fredrickson's (Reference Fredrickson1998; Reference Fredrickson2001) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion, positive emotions are thought to facilitate recovery from negative life events by broadening people's attention (Fredrickson & Branigan Reference Fredrickson and Branigan2005), inducing more-creative thinking (Isen et al. Reference Isen, Daubman and Nowicki1987), and contributing to a broad-minded coping style (Fredrickson & Joiner Reference Fredrickson and Joiner2002). In this way, positive affect is similar to, but independent from, a positive appraisal style. Positive affect may mediate the relationship between resilience factors – such as social support, personality, coping style, and physiological variables such as vagal control (Oveis et al. Reference Oveis, Cohen, Gruber, Shiota, Haidt and Keltner2009) – and outcomes related to resiliency – such as decreased susceptibility to mental and physical illness.
Similarly, Kalisch et al. describe resilience mechanisms as those that reduce aversive motivation. Recent research suggests that appetitive motivation may be just as important a focus of resilience mechanisms. Orthogonal to aversive motivation, humans decide whether to engage in appetitive motivation separately. As one example, although finding an event aversive, someone who experiences anger may move toward and engage with it. In the context of appraisal or reappraisal processes, appetitive motivation represents an important driving force.
In some cases, rather than minimizing the averseness of a stressor through reappraisal, the reappraisal process may focus attention on certain positive aspects of the stressful experience, motivating appetitive action. For example, someone who experiences the death of a loved one may focus on reminders of the deceased in an effort to maintain a connection and call up the positive feelings associated with the loved one. O'Connor et al. (Reference O'Connor, Wellisch, Stanton, Eisenberger, Irwin and Lieberman2008) found that when individuals classified as having complicated grief (characterized by a chronic and intense sense of longing and searching for the deceased and preoccupation with thoughts of the loved one) are shown photos of their deceased loved one, neural networks associated with rewards and appetitive motivation in the nucleus accumbens are activated. This supports the idea that the coping process broadly, including appraisal and reappraisal, includes appetitive motivation in addition to simply minimizing aversion.
If we think about the role of appetitive motivation in relation to interference inhibition, we see that rather than inhibiting negative appraisals, resiliency may involve inhibiting reward processes that can undermine efforts at moving forward from a stressful experience. For individuals with complicated grief, appetitive motivation driving the desire to focus on a lost loved one interferes with their ability to accept the reality of the loss and contributes to symptoms of painful yearning and preoccupation with thoughts about the deceased. In this case, inhibition in the service of resilience necessarily involves inhibiting this reward process. What is typically thought of as a positive reward motivation can have a negative impact on recovery. Hence, in cases where an individual's reappraisal may conflict with reality, the appetitive motivation (e.g., engaging in reveries about the deceased as self-soothing) actually may result in poorer mental health outcomes (O'Connor et al. Reference O'Connor, Wellisch, Stanton, Eisenberger, Irwin and Lieberman2008).
Resilience also may depend on mechanisms outside of the individual's own appraisal. Shared meaning around the stressful experience may be determined collectively in a community or group. If an individual's positive appraisal or reappraisal is in conflict with the appraisals of the group, it likely will lead to neither mental stability nor resilience. The experience and expression of positive emotion in the context of certain traumatic events are neither always adaptive nor associated with recovery. For example, Bonanno et al. (Reference Bonanno, Colak, Keltner, Shiota, Papa, Noll, Putnam and Trickett2007) found that women who smiled when disclosing experiences of childhood sexual abuse reported higher levels of social withdrawal, illustrating the important role of context in the relationship between positive emotion following a negative life event and recovery. Similarly, Soenke et al. (under review) found that individuals described as experiencing the death of someone close and responding with a positive emotion activity were rated less favorably than those engaging in activities that directly focused on the loss.
The PASTOR model produced by Kalisch and colleagues is an excellent synthesis of the current state of knowledge on resilience, focusing on mechanisms as a common pathway to outcomes, and highlighting how neuroscience could be used to advance our knowledge in this area. Our criticism is simply that they do not go as far as they could – they fail to include positive affect as a mechanism, and they approach motivation as distinct from overcoming aversive motivation. The authors point out that interference inhibition is necessary as a mechanism; we also would add that certainstressful situations require inhibition of approach motivation and inhibition of positive appraisal, especially when they conflict with the contextual social appraisal or reappraisal of a situation. These suggestions do not undercut the PASTOR model, but extend the possible mechanisms the model should consider.
Kalisch and colleagues define resiliency as “an empirically observable phenomenon, namely that someone does not develop lasting mental health problems although he or she is subject to adversity” (sect. 2, para. 2). By limiting the definition of resilience to not developing mental health problems, Kalisch et al. have included only half of the picture. More-expansive definitions of resilience include individuals who are doing particularly well in the face of negative life events. For example, Tugade and Fredrickson (Reference Tugade and Frederickson2004) define resilience as “characterized by the ability to bounce back from negative emotional experiences by flexible adaptation to the changing demands of stressful experiences.” (p. 320). This definition includes mechanisms such as the experience of positive affect, nurturing social interactions, creativity, a focus on positive memories, and even physical health. Although Kalisch et al. submit some of these as resilience mechanisms, they also can be outcomes indicative of resilience. The possibility that someone may actually show increased well-being following a negative life experience is not addressed in the PASTOR definition and measurement of resiliency. Frazier et al. (Reference Frazier, Tennen, Gavian, Park, Tomich and Tashiro2009) found that 25% of participants who had experienced a traumatic event actually reported increases in life satisfaction from pre- to post-trauma. Including positive outcomes will more accurately reflect the goals of resiliency research to study individuals who are flourishing rather than struggling.
Further, some of these mechanisms, such as positive affect, should themselves be considered general mechanisms. According to Fredrickson's (Reference Fredrickson1998; Reference Fredrickson2001) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion, positive emotions are thought to facilitate recovery from negative life events by broadening people's attention (Fredrickson & Branigan Reference Fredrickson and Branigan2005), inducing more-creative thinking (Isen et al. Reference Isen, Daubman and Nowicki1987), and contributing to a broad-minded coping style (Fredrickson & Joiner Reference Fredrickson and Joiner2002). In this way, positive affect is similar to, but independent from, a positive appraisal style. Positive affect may mediate the relationship between resilience factors – such as social support, personality, coping style, and physiological variables such as vagal control (Oveis et al. Reference Oveis, Cohen, Gruber, Shiota, Haidt and Keltner2009) – and outcomes related to resiliency – such as decreased susceptibility to mental and physical illness.
Similarly, Kalisch et al. describe resilience mechanisms as those that reduce aversive motivation. Recent research suggests that appetitive motivation may be just as important a focus of resilience mechanisms. Orthogonal to aversive motivation, humans decide whether to engage in appetitive motivation separately. As one example, although finding an event aversive, someone who experiences anger may move toward and engage with it. In the context of appraisal or reappraisal processes, appetitive motivation represents an important driving force.
In some cases, rather than minimizing the averseness of a stressor through reappraisal, the reappraisal process may focus attention on certain positive aspects of the stressful experience, motivating appetitive action. For example, someone who experiences the death of a loved one may focus on reminders of the deceased in an effort to maintain a connection and call up the positive feelings associated with the loved one. O'Connor et al. (Reference O'Connor, Wellisch, Stanton, Eisenberger, Irwin and Lieberman2008) found that when individuals classified as having complicated grief (characterized by a chronic and intense sense of longing and searching for the deceased and preoccupation with thoughts of the loved one) are shown photos of their deceased loved one, neural networks associated with rewards and appetitive motivation in the nucleus accumbens are activated. This supports the idea that the coping process broadly, including appraisal and reappraisal, includes appetitive motivation in addition to simply minimizing aversion.
If we think about the role of appetitive motivation in relation to interference inhibition, we see that rather than inhibiting negative appraisals, resiliency may involve inhibiting reward processes that can undermine efforts at moving forward from a stressful experience. For individuals with complicated grief, appetitive motivation driving the desire to focus on a lost loved one interferes with their ability to accept the reality of the loss and contributes to symptoms of painful yearning and preoccupation with thoughts about the deceased. In this case, inhibition in the service of resilience necessarily involves inhibiting this reward process. What is typically thought of as a positive reward motivation can have a negative impact on recovery. Hence, in cases where an individual's reappraisal may conflict with reality, the appetitive motivation (e.g., engaging in reveries about the deceased as self-soothing) actually may result in poorer mental health outcomes (O'Connor et al. Reference O'Connor, Wellisch, Stanton, Eisenberger, Irwin and Lieberman2008).
Resilience also may depend on mechanisms outside of the individual's own appraisal. Shared meaning around the stressful experience may be determined collectively in a community or group. If an individual's positive appraisal or reappraisal is in conflict with the appraisals of the group, it likely will lead to neither mental stability nor resilience. The experience and expression of positive emotion in the context of certain traumatic events are neither always adaptive nor associated with recovery. For example, Bonanno et al. (Reference Bonanno, Colak, Keltner, Shiota, Papa, Noll, Putnam and Trickett2007) found that women who smiled when disclosing experiences of childhood sexual abuse reported higher levels of social withdrawal, illustrating the important role of context in the relationship between positive emotion following a negative life event and recovery. Similarly, Soenke et al. (under review) found that individuals described as experiencing the death of someone close and responding with a positive emotion activity were rated less favorably than those engaging in activities that directly focused on the loss.
The PASTOR model produced by Kalisch and colleagues is an excellent synthesis of the current state of knowledge on resilience, focusing on mechanisms as a common pathway to outcomes, and highlighting how neuroscience could be used to advance our knowledge in this area. Our criticism is simply that they do not go as far as they could – they fail to include positive affect as a mechanism, and they approach motivation as distinct from overcoming aversive motivation. The authors point out that interference inhibition is necessary as a mechanism; we also would add that certainstressful situations require inhibition of approach motivation and inhibition of positive appraisal, especially when they conflict with the contextual social appraisal or reappraisal of a situation. These suggestions do not undercut the PASTOR model, but extend the possible mechanisms the model should consider.