In contrast to the PASTOR model by Kalisch et al. we point to the potential negative long-term effects of positive (re)appraisals of events for resilience. This perspective posits that emotional reactions to events provide important guidelines as to which events, environments, or social relations should be sought out and which ones should be avoided in the future.

Kalisch et al. argue that appraisal and reappraisal are key mechanisms promoting resilience; however, experimental findings seem to contradict this simplistic view. We argue that a deeper look at affective neuroscience may provide complementary and stronger evidence on how emotional reactivity and emotion regulation may affect resilience.

In their target article, Kalisch and colleagues advocate a paradigm shift in research on stress-related mental disorders away from vulnerability factors and toward determinants of resilience. We endorse this shift but argue that their focus on “appraisal style” as the ultimate path to resilience may be too narrow. We illustrate this point by examining recent literature on the role of corticosteroids in resilience.

In their target article, Kalisch et al. explicate an appraisal-based model to explain how people bounce back from stress. We posit that for their model, it is crucial to understand the begin-state φ (the “self”) – a state that is shaped by early social thermoregulation and through the social network.

PASTOR represents an innovative development in the study of resilience. This commentary highlights how PASTOR can help both clarify critical questions in and benefit from engaging with new research in personality science on behavioral flexibility across situations in addition to stability over time, and also clarify the relationship between resilience and posttraumatic growth.

Kalisch et al. discuss the causal process underlying stress in terms of a multidimensional goal-appraisal process, but there are several mechanisms at various levels of the brain that use different types of information to guide behavior. Depending on the mechanism, the characteristics of the process are different. Hence, both research and prevention must deal with appraisal in mechanism-specific ways.

The authors' definition of resilience is too narrow and essentially defines resilience as the absence of psychopathology. Consequently, it is not clear how quantitatively defined resilience differs from quantitatively defined psychopathology according to the authors' definition. We believe the conceptual model would be improved by a broader definition of resilience. There is also a significant need for improved measures of stressor load.

Kalisch and colleagues identify several routes to a better understanding of mechanisms underlying resilience and highlight the need to integrate findings from neuroscience and animal learning. We argue that appreciating methodological complexity and integrating neurobiological perspectives will advance the science of resilience and ultimately help improve the lives of those exposed to stress and adversity.

Kalisch et al. propose a positive appraisal style as the key mechanism that underlies resilience. The present authors suggest that flexibility in emotion processing is more conducive to resilience than a general positivity bias. People may achieve emotional flexibility through counter-regulation – a dynamic processing bias toward positive stimuli in negative contexts and negative stimuli in positive contexts.

Kalisch et al. regard a positive appraisal style as the mechanism for promoting resilience. I argue that knowledge can enhance resilience without affecting appraisal style. Furthermore, the relationship between positive appraisals and resilience ought to be mediated by knowledge and is not monotonic. Finally, I raise some questions about how appraisals fit into the dual-process model of the mind.

In their paper, Kalisch et al. make an important attempt to create a unifying theoretical framework for the neuroscientific study of general resilience mechanisms. We suggest that such attempts can benefit tremendously by incorporating the recently emerging network approaches that enable the characterization of complex brain network architecture and dynamics, in both health and disease.

Instead of converging to one, all-embracing resilience mechanism – that is, positive appraisal style – we encourage complementary research strategies, exploring both vulnerabilities and resilience factors, much like the biomedical sciences combine insights from pathophysiology and immunology. Furthermore, we argue that research with a strong focus on one central resilience mechanism may overlook or undervalue other processes that can aid in maintaining mental health.

The authors provide an original and integrative framework for understanding the complex array of factors that contribute to resilience. Their faith in the uniform benefits of positive appraisals neglects the potential costs of overly positive appraisals, however. As a result, their theory may have difficulty capturing the complexity of appraisal's role in determining resilience.

Kalisch and colleagues highlight coping potential (CP) as a principle resilience mechanism during event engagement. We complement this discussion by exploring generative implicit CP self-models, arguably emerging during “resting-state,” subsequent and prior to events. Resting-state affords a propitious environment for Bayesian learning, wherein appraisals/reappraisals may update active inferential CP self-models, which then mediate appraisal style organization and resilience factor valuation.

During early childhood, individuals with high sensitivity to early programming adjust their phenotype in a way that is expected to be adaptive in their later environment. These adaptations are hypothesized to result in resilience in environments that match the early environment. As appraisal style is a putative target of adaptive programming, early experiences could be a distal cause of resilience.

We propose that the fundamental mechanism underlying resilience is the integration of novel or negative experiences into internal schemata. This process requires a switch from reactive to predictive control modes, from the brain's salience network to the default mode network. Reappraisal, among other mechanisms, is suggested to facilitate this process.

From a behavioural biologist's point of view, we argue: (1) The study of resilience in animals should not be restricted to neuronal mechanisms. Rather, questions of ontogeny, function, and evolution also should be addressed to achieve a comprehensive understanding. (2) Implementing new paradigms from animal welfare research in studies of resilience would allow an assessment of appraisal styles in animals.

According to Kalisch et al., adopting a cognitive positive appraisal style promotes internal bodily homeostasis and acts as a safeguard against the detrimental effects of stress. Here we will discuss results from recent noninvasive brain stimulation studies in humans to illustrate that homeostatic plasticity provides a neural mechanistic account for the positive appraisal style theory of resilience.

Quantifying resilience allows for several testable hypotheses, such as that resilience is equal to the number of mental health problems given a known quantity of stressor load. The proposed model lends itself well to prospective studies with data collection pre- and post-adversity; however, prestressor assessments are not always available. Challenges remain for adapting quantifying resilience to animal research, even if the idea of its translation value is significant.

Neuropsychiatry integrates neuroscience and clinical pathophysiology of the human brain-mind interface. Kalisch et al. provide an important advance with a clear, quantitative, unified neuropsychiatric model of resilience, a crucial adaptive response to adversity. They highlight positive appraisal style, describing underlying neural circuitry and mechanisms. This provides a foundation for the development of biomarkers and targeted therapeutics across the range of neuropsychiatric disorders.