People display a remarkable capacity for bouncing back from negative life events. To be sure, tragedy, threats, and other adverse conditions may give rise to considerable emotional upheaval. In most cases, however, the emotional impact of such events endures only for a limited period of time, after which well-being returns to baseline (Brickman et al. Reference Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman1978; Luhmann et al. Reference Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid and Lucas2012; Lyubomirsky Reference Lyubomirsky and Folkman2011). Such positive adaptation in the face of significant adversity is widely referred to as resilience (Luthar et al. Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000; Masten et al. Reference Masten, Best and Garmezy1990).

From the 1970s onward, resilience has become the focus of a growing number of scientific investigations (for an overview, see the recent volume by Kent et al. Reference Kent, Davis and Reich2014). Originally, researchers sought to locate resilience factors, variables that statistically predict resilient outcomes. Among the most widely studied resilience factors have been personality traits such as hardiness (e.g., Maddi Reference Maddi2013) and social support (e.g., King et al. Reference King, King, Fairbank, Keane and Adams1998). In more recent years, however, attention has shifted toward underlying mechanisms; that is, the question of just how resilience factors allow people to achieve resilient outcomes. For example, some researchers have tried to link resilience to neuroendocrine functioning (Russo et al. Reference Russo, Murrough, Han, Charney and Nestler2012), whereas other researchers have related resilience to dynamic shifts in affective processing (Schwager & Rothermund Reference Schwager, Rothermund, Kent, Davis and Reich2014b).

Building on and extending the trend toward more-mechanistic theories, Kalisch et al. propose a new conceptual framework that bridges basic and applied research on resilience. One of their most important innovations is their systematic elaboration of general resilience mechanisms and dysfunctions in these mechanisms that are not restricted to specific forms of disorders. Such a transdiagnostic approach makes eminent theoretical sense, given the high overlap that exists at functional, behavioral, and neurobiological levels between disorders that are treated as categorically different by current diagnostic systems. A transdiagnostic approach therefore holds the key to a unified understanding of resilience research and its clinical applications.

Chief among the global resilience mechanisms that Kalisch et al. distinguish is a positive (or non-negative) appraisal style, which the authors regard as “the key mechanism that protects against the detrimental effects of stress and mediates the effects of other known resilience factors” (Abstract). From this perspective, resilience is first and foremost a matter of staying positive in the face of adversity. Being biased toward positive outcomes is not always beneficial, however. First, positivity biases may lead people to close their eyes to real dangers, leading to inaccurate beliefs that may have severely negative consequences (e.g., Colvin et al. Reference Colvin, Block and Funder1995). Second, positivity biases may set up people for unnecessary disappointments, in cases when negative feedback is inevitable (Norem Reference Norem2001). Third and last, positivity biases may promote intense positive emotional states that are inherently volatile (Diener et al. Reference Diener, Colvin, Pavot and Allman1991) and pose a physiological burden (Pressman & Cohen Reference Pressman and Cohen2005).

In view of these considerations, we suggest that psychological adaptation is best served by maintaining a steady emotional balance. If this view is valid, then people's ability to stay positive in the face of adversity may not be driven by a general positivity bias. Instead, it may be part of a broader tendency to respond to negative and positive emotional events with an opposite tendency in affective processing. We refer to this dynamic mechanism as the counter-regulation principle (Rothermund Reference Rothermund2003; Reference Rothermund2011; Rothermund et al. Reference Rothermund, Voss and Wentura2008). Counter-regulation leads affective processing to become automatically biased toward information that is contrary in valence to the current context or affective-motivational state of the person. In negative contexts, counter-regulation activates positive states; in positive contexts, however, counter-regulation activates negative states. We regard counter-regulation as a vital psychological mechanism that allows people to maintain a balanced receptiveness to positive and negative information. As such, counter-regulation should foster resilience (Schwager & Rothermund Reference Schwager, Rothermund, Kent, Davis and Reich2014b).

On the basis of the counter-regulation principle, we would expect people's attention to become directed toward information that is opposite in valence to anticipated or experienced positive and negative outcomes. This prediction is supported indirectly by many studies showing that positive and negative events tend to have only short-term consequences for people's emotional states (e.g., Brickman et al. Reference Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman1978; Gilbert et al. Reference Gilbert, Lieberman, Morewedge and Wilson2004; Taylor Reference Taylor1991). Importantly, controlled experimental studies have confirmed the existence of attentional biases in the opposite direction to people's current emotional-motivational states (Derryberry Reference Derryberry1993; Rothermund et al. Reference Rothermund, Voss and Wentura2008; Tugade & Frederickson Reference Tugade and Frederickson2004).

Counter-regulation not only activates positive appraisals in negative contexts, but counter-regulation also activates negative appraisals in positive contexts (Rothermund Reference Rothermund2003; Rothermund et al. Reference Rothermund, Voss and Wentura2008; Reference Rothermund, Gast and Wentura2011; Schwager & Rothermund Reference Schwager and Rothermund2013a; Reference Schwager and Rothermund2013b; Reference Schwager and Rothermund2014a). Moreover, consistent with the resilience-promoting function of counter-regulation, various studies have shown that counter-regulation tendencies are most pronounced among people with resilient personality traits (e.g., Koole & Fockenberg Reference Koole and Fockenberg2011; Koole & Jostmann Reference Koole and Jostmann2004; see also Koole et al. Reference Koole, Jostmann and Baumann2012). Conversely, emotional inertia represents a risk factor for the emergence of psychopathological symptoms (Kuppens et al. Reference Kuppens, Allen and Sheeber2010; Reference Kuppens, Sheeber, Yap, Whittle, Simmons and Allen2012). Adaptive responding to life events therefore presumes that people are able to recruit not just positive emotions, but a wide range of positive and negative emotional responses. This emotional variability implies that people are able to change and counteract emotional states before these states become chronic.

Taken together, we suggest that resilient coping is not merely a matter of maintaining a positive outlook on life. Rather, resilient coping involves a more context-sensitive approach, which increases the salience of either positive or negative information depending on currently activated motivational or emotional states. Resilience is traditionally defined as an adaptive response toward adverse events. The counter-regulation mechanism that underlies resilience, however, is not restricted to negative events. Instead, counter-regulation represents a more general way of responding to emotionally extreme events, regardless of whether such events are positive or negative. Counter-regulation thus helps to prevent rigidity or extremity in emotional functioning. In short, resilience is more about being flexible than about staying positive.