In their proposed PASTOR (positive appraisal style theory of resilience) framework, Kalisch et al. present a transdiagnostic model of resilience. This model is extremely timely, and I applaud the authors' efforts at unifying the existing literature and recommending a path forward for future research on resilience. Although there are several specific claims made in their article, I will focus specifically on one aspect of the PASTOR model: positive reappraisal. The authors claim that positive appraisal style is the sole mediating resilience mechanism. Further, they claim that in highly stressful situations where initial positive appraisals are difficult, positive reappraisal (changing one's appraisal to experience less negative emotion) constitutes one key aspect of positive appraisal style. They conclude that “positive reappraisal ability is therefore an inherent aspect of positive appraisal style as the one mediating resilience mechanism” (sect. 4.2.5, para. 6).

The idea that positive reappraisal is a key aspect of resilience is consistent with decades of research on emotion regulation, which has consistently documented the positive effects of reappraisal. For example, higher levels of reappraisal use have been associated with less depression, less anxiety, more social support, and more positive affect (Aldao et al. Reference Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema and Schweizer2010; Gross & John Reference Gross and John2003). In the context of high stress, individuals high in reappraisal ability reported lower levels of depressive symptoms (Troy et al. Reference Troy, Wilhelm, Shallcross and Mauss2010). This body of work supports Kalisch et al.'s argument that the ability to use positive reappraisal when one is stressed may be one key mechanism contributing to resilience.

The argument that changing one's appraisal is the sole mechanism that causes resilience in all highly stressful situations seems too simplistic, however. Several theoretical models emphasize the idea that no process is universally adaptive in all contexts (Endler Reference Endler1975; Lazarus Reference Lazarus1993a; Mischel Reference Mischel1968). Instead, these perspectives suggest that we can only understand the utility of a process if we consider the specific context in which it is used. For example, consider an individual who is highly stressed because he is in danger of losing his job due to impending layoffs. Here, the use of reappraisal to try to down-regulate his negative emotions is likely to promote resilience. He can focus on how the job loss may provide an unexpected opportunity to explore a new career path. He may also remind himself of how highly qualified he is for a range of other jobs and so will likely find another job soon. Hence, in a largely uncontrollable context (he likely cannot do much to prevent the layoff), changing one's appraisals is likely to help the individual control one of the only things he can: his emotional response.

Importantly, however, reappraisal may not be useful in a controllable stressful context. For example, if a person is in danger of losing his job because of poor performance at work, changing his appraisal so he feels less negative may ironically impede resilience. If the situation causing stress is controllable, he should take direct action to change the situation (e.g., work harder). To the degree that a realistic negative appraisal of the situation (i.e., “this is a really bad situation, and if I don't do something to fix this soon, it will get much worse”) motivates direct action, maintaining negative emotion may help promote resilience. Hence, the use of positive reappraisal to decrease negative emotions in this context may prevent rather than promote resilience because feeling better about a controllable situation may prevent the individual from taking the direct action that is needed to decrease the effects of the stressor.

Indeed, recent work from my colleagues and me supports this hypothesis (Troy et al. Reference Troy, Shallcross and Mauss2013). We found that in the context of relatively uncontrollable stress, reappraisal ability was associated with less depression. In the context of relatively controllable stress, however, reappraisal ability was associated with more depression. These results support the idea that reappraisal ability may be a critical component of resilience, but only in some contexts. In the case of controllable stress, maintaining a negative appraisal of a situation may help lead to resilience, whereas using reappraisal to change one's emotions may impede resilience or even harm the individual. This argument is in line with functionalist accounts of negative emotion, which emphasize the idea that negative emotions can be useful because they can motivate us to take appropriate action when needed (Parrot Reference Parrott, Barrett and Salovey2002). Therefore, although Kalisch and colleagues argue that resilience is characterized by limiting negative emotion using reappraisal, in some contexts maintaining or even increasing negative emotion may be the most resilient course.

Although our research focused on just one aspect of context – controllability – it is likely that there are many other important contextual variables that moderate the effects of reappraisal on resilience. For example, Sheppes and Gross' (Reference Sheppes and Gross2011) process-specific timing model suggests that the emotional intensity of stressful situations also may moderate the effects of reappraisal, with reappraisal being least effective in the most intense contexts. Research on other emotion-regulation strategies (e.g., distraction, acceptance) also has shown positive links to resilience (Shallcross et al. Reference Shallcross, Troy, Boland and Mauss2010; Sheppes & Gross Reference Sheppes and Gross2011). Together, these findings are consistent with a growing body of research that highlights the importance of context in resilience (Aldao Reference Aldao2013). These models of emotion regulation emphasize the idea that resilience is characterized by the flexible use of many different emotion-regulation strategies depending on contextual demands (Bonanno et al. Reference Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal and Coifman2004; Kashdan & Rottenberg Reference Kashdan and Rottenberg2010) and psychopathology may be characterized by the inflexible, context-inappropriate use of emotion regulation (Bonanno & Burton Reference Bonanno and Burton2013).

Overall then, although it seems clear that reappraisal is one important mechanism that contributes to resilience, it is unlikely that it is the sole mechanism that causes resilience in all stressful contexts. Indeed, in some contexts, reappraisal might constitute a risk factor for negative outcomes. Moving forward, it seems that the best approach to elucidating the transdiagnostic mechanisms of resilience would involve examining multiple regulatory processes across a diversity of contexts, rather than focusing all of our scientific attention on just one process.