No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Careful operationalization and assessment are critical for advancing the study of the neurobiology of resilience1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2015
Abstract
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.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
Footnotes
Parts of this commentary were written as an employee of the U.S. Government and such parts are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Target article
A conceptual framework for the neurobiological study of resilience
Related commentaries (35)
Adding network approaches to a neurobiological framework of resilience
Animals can tell us more
Appreciating methodological complexity and integrating neurobiological perspectives to advance the science of resilience
Are positive appraisals always adaptive?
Beyond resilience: Positive mental health and the nature of cognitive processes involved in positive appraisals
Broadening the definition of resilience and “reappraising” the use of appetitive motivation
Careful operationalization and assessment are critical for advancing the study of the neurobiology of resilience1
Cognitive trade-offs and the costs of resilience
Do we know how stressed we are?
Does a positive appraisal style work in all stressful situations and for all individuals?
Heterogeneity of cognitive-neurobiological determinants of resilience
Integration of negative experiences: A neuropsychological framework for human resilience
Knowledge and resilience
Personality science, resilience, and posttraumatic growth
Phenotypic programming as a distal cause of resilience
Positive appraisal style: The mental immune system?1
Quantifying resilience: Theoretical or pragmatic for translational research?
Reappraisal and resilience to stress: Context must be considered
Rediscovering confidence as a mechanism and optimism as a construct
Resilience and psychiatric epidemiology: Implications for a conceptual framework
Resilience is more about being flexible than about staying positive
Resilience: Mediated by not one but many appraisal mechanisms
Resilience: The role of accurate appraisal, thresholds, and socioenvironmental factors1
Rethinking reappraisal: Insights from affective neuroscience
Social ecological complexity and resilience processes
Stability through variability: Homeostatic plasticity and psychological resilience
The challenges of forecasting resilience
The importance of not only individual, but also community and society factors in resilience in later life
The self in its social context: Why resilience needs company
The temporal dynamics of resilience: Neural recovery as a biomarker
The value of “negative” appraisals for resilience. Is positive (re)appraisal always good and negative always bad?
Toward a translational neuropsychiatry of resilience
What do we know about positive appraisals? Low cognitive cost, orbitofrontal-striatal connectivity, and only short-term bolstering of resilience
When at rest: “Event-free” active inference may give rise to implicit self-models of coping potential
“If you want to understand something, try to change it”: Social-psychological interventions to cultivate resilience
Author response
Advancing empirical resilience research