I will begin with a positive appraisal by saying that the target article by Kalisch et al. has many features that I applaud: strong arguments for a transdiagnostic and quantitative analysis, clear and straightforward terminology, a plea for measures beyond self-report, and last but not least, the boldness to posit a unified general theory of resilience, applicable for humans and animals alike. In contrast to Kalisch et al., however, I will argue that it seems unlikely that one specific emotion-regulation strategy – namely, a positive (non-negative) appraisal style – would be the key to resilience (i.e., the only mediator of it). Evolution has shaped several coping mechanisms, all of which show some benefits and some shortcomings depending on the context. I will illustrate this main argument by discussing studies that stem from the psychology of (human) emotion regulation and by focusing on cognitive reappraisal, the second class of cognitive processes that shape appraisal style specified by Kalisch et al.

Without a doubt, cognitive reappraisal shows reliable positive effects on subjective, behavioral, and physiological outcomes in most situations, whether instructed (Gross Reference Gross1998), spontaneously chosen (Egloff et al. Reference Egloff, Schmukle, Burns and Schwerdtfeger2006), or assessed as a personality disposition (Gross & John Reference Gross and John2003). There are circumstances, however, where reappraisal is less adaptive or even maladaptive, therefore calling into question its unconditional link to resilience. I will elaborate on two situational boundary conditions (intensity of stress and controllability), cultural moderators, and whether enhanced memory for the situation might be maladaptive when dealing with effects of traumatic experiences.

Regarding the intensity of the stressor, Sheppes et al. (Reference Sheppes, Catran and Meiran2009) and Sheppes and Meiran (Reference Sheppes and Meiran2008) showed in a series of studies that cognitive reappraisal was less successful (as compared with distraction) in terms of physiological and cognitive indicators of the stress response during the regulation of sadness in situations of high emotional intensity. Specifically, reappraisal was associated with increased skin conductance and decreased finger temperature (indicating increased sympathetic activation; Sheppes et al. Reference Sheppes, Catran and Meiran2009) and stronger Stroop interference (indicating an expenditure of self-control resources; Sheppes & Meiran Reference Sheppes and Meiran2008). By contrast, reappraisal was adaptive in low-intensity situations, especially when implemented early in the emotion-regulation process. Thus, it might be more adaptive to cognitively and emotionally “block” high-intensity stressors than to reappraise them. Consequently, individuals prefer to choose distraction over reappraisal in these situations (Sheppes et al. Reference Sheppes, Scheibe, Suri and Gross2011).

Troy et al. (Reference Troy, Shallcross and Mauss2013) showed that controllability of the stressor constitutes another moderator of the relation between reappraisal and the success of the regulation effort: For individuals facing uncontrollable stress in their daily lives, higher cognitive-reappraisal ability – as assessed during an independent experiment using subjective and objective (non–self-report) indicators – was associated with fewer depressive symptoms, whereas persons facing controllable stress showed a positive correlation between cognitive-reappraisal ability and depression. Hence, it seems that reappraisal is maladaptive when stressors can be controlled (i.e., when the situation can be modified by means of active coping), therefore calling into question the “unconditional” link between reappraisal and resilience. Perhaps as a consequence of these moderator effects of both intensity and controllability of the stressor, individuals surprisingly rarely chose cognitive reappraisal as an emotion-regulation strategy when they were free to do so (Suri et al. Reference Suri, Whittaker and Gross2014).

Culture might constitute another moderator of the effectiveness of particular emotion-regulation strategies. For example, Butler et al. (Reference Butler, Lee and Gross2007; Reference Butler, Lee and Gross2009) observed that emotional suppression – a strategy that is usually associated with negative social consequences (Butler et al. Reference Butler, Egloff, Wilhelm, Smith, Erickson and Gross2003) – was an adaptive regulation strategy for Asian American participants as compared with European American participants. As culture and cultural values (e.g., independence vs. interdependence) are differentially associated with the frequency and intensity of the use of reappraisal and suppression, and the relationships between these emotion-regulation strategies and adjustment differ across countries and cultures (Matsumoto et al. Reference Matsumoto, Yoo and Nakagawa2008), a universal and exclusive reappraisal-adjustment link as posited by Kalisch et al. also seems unlikely from this perspective.

Another issue that calls into question the unconditional and exclusive link from reappraisal to health stems from the finding that cognitive reappraisal – as compared with emotional suppression and distraction – enhances memory for the situation (Egloff et al. Reference Egloff, Schmukle, Burns and Schwerdtfeger2006; Richards & Gross Reference Richards and Gross2000; Sheppes & Meiran Reference Sheppes and Meiran2008). This effect of reappraisal is considered beneficial in everyday situations because it may enhance the predictability of future similar moderately stressful encounters. When one has been confronted with potentially traumatic stressors, however, the memory-enhancing effect of reappraisal might be maladaptive at least for some individuals because it may contribute to the consolidation of fear memory that, in turn, may lead to posttraumatic stress disorder (Kearns et al. Reference Kearns, Ressler, Zatzick and Rothbaum2012).

As a logical consequence of all these considerations, a flexible implementation of different emotion-regulation strategies dependent on person characteristics and situational demands should lead to optimal coping with both daily hassles and traumatic experiences. In the coping and emotion-regulation literature, this capability is termed coping flexibility (Cheng Reference Cheng2001), regulatory flexibility (Bonanno & Burton Reference Bonanno and Burton2013), or psychological flexibility (Kashdan & Rottenberg Reference Kashdan and Rottenberg2010). For intellectual honesty, I would like to add that a recent meta-analysis, however, showed only small to moderate coping flexibility effect sizes (Cheng et al. Reference Cheng, Lau and Chan2014) that were comparable to those of reappraisal in another meta-analysis (Webb et al. Reference Webb, Miles and Sheeran2012). Therefore, much theoretical and empirical work has to be done to demonstrate that coping flexibility is the most adaptive way of dealing with stressors in everyday life.

Taken together, any particular emotion-regulation strategy is not adaptive or maladaptive per se – its adaptiveness depends on several contextual factors. As a consequence, it seems unlikely that a positive (non-negative) appraisal style always will have positive consequences and is the only mediator of resilience.