Cited by 669Resilience and Mental HealthStress Responses and CortisolNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

A conceptual framework for the neurobiological study of resilience

Kalisch, Raffael, Müller, Marianne B., Tüscher, Oliver·2015·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

The well-replicated observation that many people maintain mental health despite exposure to severe psychological or physical adversity has ignited interest in the mechanisms that protect against stress-related mental illness. Focusing on resilience rather than pathophysiology in many ways represents a paradigm shift in clinical-psychological and psychiatric research that has great potential for the development of new prevention and treatment strategies. More recently, research into resilience also arrived in the neurobiological community, posing nontrivial questions about ecological validity and translatability. Drawing on concepts and findings from transdiagnostic psychiatry, emotion research, and behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, we propose a unified theoretical framework for the neuroscientific study of general resilience mechanisms. The framework is applicable to both animal and human research and supports the design and interpretation of translational studies. The theory emphasizes the causal role of stimulus appraisal (evaluation) processes in the generation of emotional responses, including responses to potential stressors. On this basis, it posits that a positive (non-negative) appraisal style is the key mechanism that protects against the detrimental effects of stress and mediates the effects of other known resilience factors. Appraisal style is shaped by three classes of cognitive processes--positive situation classification, reappraisal, and interference inhib…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x1400082x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 331 · Cited by 669

Authors
Kalisch, R., Müller, M. B., & Tüscher, O.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
38
Pages
e92-e92
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2052241245
Cited by
669
References
331
Citations by year
2026: 75 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
resilience, stress, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, interference control, transdiagnostic psychiatry, translational research, prevention
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review