Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:23:50.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reappraisal and resilience to stress: Context must be considered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2015

Allison S. Troy*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17603. atroy@fandm.eduwww.fandm.edu/allison-troy

Abstract

Kalisch et al. propose that positive reappraisal constitutes a resilience mechanism for highly stressed individuals. Both empirical and theoretical accounts suggest that this claim is too simplistic – the relationship between reappraisal and resilience depends on context. Indeed, there may be contexts in which reappraisal leads to harm, not resilience. Future research should examine multiple regulatory processes as well as context.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldao, A. (2013) The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:155–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Schweizer, S. (2010) Emotion regulation strategies and psychopathology: A meta analysis. Clinical Psychology Review 30:217–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. A. & Burton, C. L. (2013) Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:591612. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504116.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M. & Coifman, K. (2004) The importance of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science 15(7):482–87. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00705.x.Google Scholar
Endler, N. S. (1975) The case for person-situation interactions. Canadian Psychological Review 16:1221.Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. & John, O. P. (2003) Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:348–62. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.Google Scholar
Kashdan, T. B. & Rottenberg, J. (2010) Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review 30:865–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1993a) Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine 55:234–47.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and assessment. Wiley.Google Scholar
Parrott, W. G. (2002) The functional utility of negative emotions. In: The wisdom in feeling: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence. Emotions and social behavior, ed. Barrett, L. F. & Salovey, P., pp. 341–59. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Shallcross, A. J., Troy, A. S., Boland, M. & Mauss, I. B. (2010) Let it be: Accepting negative emotional experiences predicts decreased negative affect and depressive symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy 48:921–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheppes, G. & Gross, J. J. (2011) Is timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 15(4):319–31. doi: 10.1177/1088868310395778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J. & Mauss, I. B. (2013) A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science 24:2505–14. doi: 10.1177/0956797613496434.Google Scholar
Troy, A. S., Wilhelm, F. H., Shallcross, A. J. & Mauss, I. B. (2010) Seeing the silver lining: Cognitive reappraisal ability moderates the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms. Emotion 10(6):783–95. doi: 10.1037/a0020262.Google Scholar