Psychological Flexibility vs Resilience: Similarities and Differences

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Psychological flexibility and resilience: the essential distinction

Psychological flexibility and resilience describe related dimensions of adaptive functioning. Psychological flexibility refers to the capacity to adjust responses to internal experiences and external circumstances in ways that fit changing demands and support meaningful goals. Resilience refers to relatively favorable adaptation in the context of significant stress or adversity, whether studied as a dynamic process, an observed trajectory, or a collection of protective resources. Flexibility can contribute to resilience, while resilience encompasses the outcomes and conditions of adaptation across time. These definitions establish the relationship between the constructs and the reason they should be measured separately. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010); Southwick et al. (2014).

A person may respond flexibly to a disagreement, a new opportunity, or an unexpected change in plans without facing the substantial adversity that makes resilience a meaningful construct. Another may preserve everyday functioning during serious hardship through community support, secure housing, professional care, and reliable relationships despite difficulty changing certain habits. This contrast shows why the two concepts overlap while answering different scientific questions.

The comparison is relevant in health psychology, psychological intervention research, developmental science, trauma research, work psychology, and public health. In ordinary language, both are sometimes described as mental strength or adaptability. A scientific account identifies the particular processes, challenges, and outcomes involved rather than treating strength as a single stable quality.

What psychological flexibility means

Psychological flexibility concerns context-sensitive behavioral adaptation. A flexible response considers what is happening, what goals matter, which options are available, and whether the current course of action continues to fit the situation. It may include adjusting attention, reconsidering interpretations, accepting an unavoidable emotion, shifting a behavioral strategy, or persisting in meaningful action despite discomfort. Its value depends on the circumstances and consequences of the response. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010).

In the acceptance-and-commitment literature, psychological flexibility is commonly described through acceptance, cognitive defusion, present-moment awareness, self-as-context, values, and committed action. Acceptance concerns willingness to experience thoughts and feelings while deciding what to do. Cognitive defusion concerns relating to thoughts as mental events rather than automatically treating them as commands. Values supply a direction for behavior, and committed action refers to pursuing meaningful goals over time. These processes form a conceptual research framework. Evaluating a psychological process and evaluating a full clinical treatment protocol are separate empirical tasks.

The wider literature also uses psychological flexibility to describe adaptation across social situations, emotional demands, changing goals, and environmental conditions. Consequently, researchers should state whether a study uses a broad adaptive-capacity definition, an ACT-derived model, or a particular questionnaire. Different operationalizations cannot automatically be combined into a single score or mechanism.

Choosing, sustaining, and revising a response

Flexibility involves more than changing behavior frequently. A person preparing for an important examination may need to sustain attention despite discomfort. A person confronted with new evidence may need to revise an explanation. A person facing an uncontrollable loss may need to stop pursuing an impossible solution and seek support. In each example, the appropriate response emerges from a relationship among circumstances, capabilities, goals, and consequences.

Regulatory flexibility research offers a useful framework. Bonanno and Burton identify context sensitivity, access to a repertoire of coping and emotion-regulation responses, and responsiveness to feedback. Their model challenges the assumption that any strategy is beneficial or harmful regardless of the situation. A strategy's category alone does not determine its value. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Persistent commitment may also express flexibility. Continuity in relationships, values, and worthwhile goals provides direction for deciding when to change methods. The relevant question is whether the person can sustain or revise behavior as the situation requires.

What resilience means

Psychological resilience refers to adaptation in relation to adversity. Outcome-oriented researchers may identify relatively stable functioning following a potentially traumatic event or a favorable trajectory after significant difficulty. Process-oriented approaches investigate how protective factors interact with stressors over time. Trait-oriented approaches assess characteristics or perceived capacities believed to support successful coping. Each approach has a place in the literature, but they measure different aspects of resilience. Bonanno (2004); Southwick et al. (2014).

The presence of an identifiable challenge is central to outcome-based resilience research. High well-being without a relevant adversity measure demonstrates well-being, but does not by itself document resilience in the face of adversity. Similarly, a strong self-reported belief in one's capacity to handle future stress is a potentially useful predictor, not direct evidence of future adaptation.

Resilience may involve maintained functioning, gradual recovery, changing patterns of adjustment, and different domain-specific outcomes. Bonanno distinguished resilient trajectories characterized by relatively stable functioning from recovery trajectories involving greater initial disruption followed by improvement. The distinction describes trajectories rather than a ranking of human character. Bonanno (2004).

Individual resources and the environment

Resilience emerges through interactions among personal behavior, social relationships, physical health, financial conditions, safety, healthcare, institutions, and community resources. Access to reliable shelter, treatment, supportive relationships, and meaningful opportunity can fundamentally change what adaptation is possible. The same psychological skill may have different consequences under secure circumstances and continuing danger.

Southwick and colleagues' interdisciplinary review emphasized diversity in definitions and multiple levels of influence, including biological, psychological, social, and cultural processes. These findings support specifying the actual adversity, adaptive outcome, timeframe, and available resources whenever resilience is studied. Southwick et al. (2014).

The defining differences

The primary question in psychological-flexibility research is how people respond to changing internal and external demands while pursuing appropriate goals. The primary question in resilience research is how people function and adapt in relation to meaningful adversity.

Their units of analysis differ. Flexibility can be investigated as a momentary choice, a repeated pattern of action, or an individual difference. Resilience can be investigated as a protective process, a statistical relationship involving adversity and outcomes, or an observed longitudinal trajectory. Flexibility can be one component within a broader resilience model, but resilience cannot be inferred merely from a person's willingness to experience discomfort.

The constructs also differ in how adversity enters the definition. Flexibility is relevant in neutral and positive contexts, including learning a language, renegotiating a goal, or adjusting to a rewarding new relationship. Resilience is most interpretable when research specifies a substantial challenge and relevant subsequent functioning.

The practical emphasis differs accordingly. A flexibility-oriented question asks whether a person has workable response options and can revise action in light of feedback. A resilience-oriented question also examines the actual course of adaptation, the exposure involved, and the protective conditions supporting the person over time.

Where flexibility and resilience overlap

Both literatures investigate adaptive functioning, coping, emotion regulation, behavioral choice, appraisal of situations, and adjustment to changing demands. Both recognize that favorable functioning can coexist with unpleasant emotional experiences. Neither concept implies permanent happiness, emotional numbness, or the ability to endure every circumstance without support.

A flexible person may acknowledge intense anxiety while making a necessary decision. A person following a resilient adaptation trajectory may experience painful memories and periods of sadness while maintaining relationships, responsibilities, and access to care. Subjective distress, behavioral effectiveness, social functioning, and long-term adaptation are related but distinct outcomes.

A central shared challenge is context. Suppressing an emotional expression, using distraction, seeking support, leaving an unsafe situation, or persisting with a demanding task can have different meanings under different conditions. Regulatory flexibility theory warns against assigning a permanent value to strategies independently of goals, circumstances, and feedback. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

How psychological flexibility may contribute to resilience

Psychological flexibility provides plausible pathways to adaptive functioning under adversity. Recognizing changing conditions can help a person identify feasible options. A broader repertoire of coping responses can make it easier to choose an appropriate action. Willingness to experience unavoidable feelings may support meaningful behavior, while responsiveness to feedback can guide adjustments when conditions change.

For example, a person facing a major employment disruption may acknowledge worry, investigate available resources, revise plans, seek assistance, and continue purposeful activities. Flexibility refers to the quality and adaptability of those responses. Resilience concerns subsequent adjustment under the substantial challenge, including outcomes shaped by economic security, available work, social protection, and health.

During bereavement, psychological flexibility might include allowing grief, accepting help, shifting expectations, and handling responsibilities when possible. Resilience research would assess the longer-term pattern of functioning in relation to the loss and its context. Different trajectories can occur, and the presence of grief should not be treated as evidence that adaptation has failed.

These examples establish a coherent theoretical connection. Demonstrating that flexibility causes resilience requires more than correlation: studies must investigate temporal relationships, overlapping questionnaire content, alternative explanations, exposure severity, and protective environmental factors.

A direct 2024 comparison of both constructs

Jo, Pyo, Hwang, Seung, and Yang directly compared psychological flexibility and resilience in a 2024 study involving 1,059 participants from a Korean community sample. Participants completed self-report measures of flexibility, resilience, and mental health. The investigators analyzed networks of six psychological-flexibility and ten resilience components and used relative-weight analyses to examine flexibility components while accounting statistically for resilience scores. Jo et al. (2024).

The network analysis identified associations that bridged the constructs. Flexibility components labeled 'Leaving thoughts be,' 'Steady self,' 'Awareness of value,' and 'Being engaged' contributed to the connections, with 'Steady self' showing the highest estimated bridge strength. The relative contributions of flexibility processes differed according to the mental-health outcome considered. These results support the view that the constructs are connected while retaining distinguishable components.

The interpretation is bounded by the study design. The data were cross-sectional, self-reported, and collected from a specific population. Bridge centrality reflects associations in an estimated network, and relative weights reflect contributions in a statistical model. Neither method establishes that one component causes resilience or independently produces a clinical outcome.

The study is especially valuable because it treats the comparison as an empirical question. Future research can extend this work through repeated measurements, observed adversity, diverse samples, independent functioning indicators, and experimental tests of proposed mechanisms.

What longitudinal resilience research establishes

Resilience involves changes in exposure, resources, and functioning over time. Wolke and colleagues' systematic review of 193 longitudinal psychosocial studies included 805,660 participants and documented substantial variation in resilience definitions and analytic methods. Most studies did not explicitly classify resilience as a trait, outcome, or process, and most used variable-centered analyses. Wolke et al. (2025).

These findings demonstrate the methodological importance of distinguishing perceived coping ability from observed adaptation. A resilience questionnaire can identify perceived capacities, but it cannot alone establish a functioning trajectory after a specified challenge. Conversely, longitudinal observations of maintained functioning may be influenced by social and material resources inadequately represented by individual questionnaires.

Longitudinal designs support stronger temporal inference than single-timepoint correlations when exposures and outcomes are appropriately measured. They still face unmeasured confounding, variable follow-up intervals, and differences in adversity severity. The review documents heterogeneity and methodological weaknesses; it does not identify a universal psychological process sufficient to explain resilience across populations.

Psychological flexibility, regulatory flexibility, and cognitive flexibility

Psychological flexibility concerns context-sensitive action, including responses to internal experiences and meaningful aims. Regulatory flexibility concerns recognizing contextual demands, choosing from available coping or emotion-regulation strategies, and modifying responses based on feedback. Cognitive flexibility is commonly investigated through mental-set shifting, task switching, or related executive-function capacities.

The constructs may support one another, but their measurements are not interchangeable. Good performance on a laboratory switching task does not automatically demonstrate values-guided behavior under interpersonal distress. Likewise, flexible acceptance of unwanted feelings does not necessarily predict a person's score on an executive-function task.

Resilience occupies another analytical level. Observed adaptation after adversity may reflect flexible response selection and cognitive capacities together with resources, exposure patterns, developmental history, and opportunities. No single flexibility measure can substitute for the adversity-and-outcome assessment needed to study resilience.

Acceptance, avoidance, and changing situations

Acceptance can be a flexible response to unavoidable internal experiences. It means that distress can be acknowledged while decisions continue to consider goals, safety, and circumstances. Acceptance may coexist with active efforts to change difficult conditions, seek medical care, or obtain protection.

Experiential avoidance describes attempts to escape or control unwanted private experiences, such as distressing thoughts or feelings. An avoidance response can be useful when it protects a person from immediate harm or reduces overload. A persistent pattern becomes problematic when it repeatedly prevents meaningful action despite the availability of safer or more workable alternatives.

Resilience is compatible with seeking support, changing environments, and avoiding danger. It does not require unrestricted exposure to fear or rigid persistence through harmful conditions. When a person is threatened, leaving danger can be a highly adaptive response. Both literatures therefore require contextual interpretation.

Is emotional suppression evidence of low flexibility?

Expressive suppression changes what others see, whereas suppression of experience concerns what a person attempts to feel or avoid feeling. A temporary decision to conceal emotion may fit a specific professional, cultural, interpersonal, or safety context. Its implications depend on function, consequences, and alternatives.

A permanent rule demanding emotional concealment may restrict relationships and help seeking. A permanent rule demanding complete emotional disclosure can also become contextually inappropriate. Flexibility concerns the capacity to respond to particular demands rather than adherence to one emotional technique. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Can flexibility exist without resilience?

Yes. Psychological flexibility can be expressed in ordinary decisions without a meaningful adversity exposure. Someone may adjust a learning strategy, acknowledge frustration, and pursue a value-consistent goal, demonstrating flexible responding without providing evidence about a resilience trajectory.

A person may also respond flexibly during severe adversity and nevertheless experience substantial disruption. Major injury, repeated danger, extreme losses, or limited resources can overwhelm functioning even when coping decisions are thoughtful. This outcome cannot be interpreted as proof of personal inflexibility.

The converse is also possible. A person may maintain favorable functioning through a particular challenge with the help of protective relationships and stable conditions while showing rigidity in other areas of life. Resilience is linked to a specified context and outcome, not a comprehensive claim about personality.

Measuring psychological flexibility

Researchers use instruments associated with different theoretical definitions. The Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI) was developed in work investigating the pursuit of valued goals in the presence of distress. Its multidimensional framework offers one approach to studying psychological flexibility, including how behavior relates to unwanted experiences. Kashdan et al. (2020).

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) is widely used in studies of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Its discriminant validity has attracted criticism because scores can overlap considerably with general psychological distress. This matters when investigators interpret a change in AAQ-II score as evidence that one specific psychological mechanism has changed. Tyndall et al. (2019).

Questionnaires describe responses to their particular items. A more complete evaluation of flexibility may combine self-report measures with observations, repeated contextual assessments, functional analysis of behavior, and measures of goal-directed action. The meaning of an overall score depends on the instrument and the population for which it has been validated.

Measuring resilience

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) is a widely studied self-report instrument assessing resilience-related characteristics and coping perceptions. Its original validation examined reliability and related psychological outcomes in community and clinical samples. A higher score should be interpreted as a measurement result for that questionnaire rather than proof of observed adaptation across a later adverse event. Connor and Davidson (2003).

Outcome-oriented resilience research often needs identified adversity exposure, baseline or comparison information, repeated outcomes, and a specified period of observation. Social functioning, work, relationships, health, and symptoms may follow different trajectories. Researchers need to explain which outcome represents favorable adaptation in the context being studied.

Measuring both flexibility and resilience through similar self-report items at one time point creates a risk of shared response biases and construct overlap. Stronger studies combine distinct indicators, repeated observations, and independent assessments where practical.

Do these scales diagnose mental disorders?

Psychological flexibility and resilience are research constructs, and emotion dysregulation is a descriptive construct rather than a standalone clinical diagnosis. AAQ-II, PPFI, CD-RISC, ERQ, and DERS are not stand-alone diagnostic tests for psychiatric disorders. Their scores do not determine a person's future reaction to trauma or whether clinical care is required. Formal assessment considers symptoms, duration, impairment, context, safety, and appropriate diagnostic criteria.

How flexible behavior develops

Flexibility-related skills can be practiced in the context of learning, relationships, and daily decisions. Examples include noticing an emotion without automatically acting on it, identifying available choices, considering what matters, choosing a workable response, and reviewing the results. A person can practice asking for help, reconsidering an interpretation, and returning to a valued activity after an interruption.

Such exercises illustrate the processes under discussion. Their effects on clinical symptoms or long-term adaptation depend on the specific intervention, participants, and evidence. Improvement in a self-report score does not by itself establish prevention of illness or the capacity to remain functional through every possible adversity.

Flexibility also develops through access to education, supportive relationships, predictable environments, and opportunities to learn from feedback. A person's repertoire cannot be assessed meaningfully without considering the options actually available.

What helps resilience develop?

Resilience research examines a broader landscape of protective processes. Supportive relationships, safe settings, adequate material resources, access to care, opportunities for meaningful participation, and individual coping capacities can all contribute to adaptation. Their contribution depends on the type of adversity and how outcomes are defined. Southwick et al. (2014); Wolke et al. (2025).

Psychological flexibility may contribute by helping people adapt strategies and pursue appropriate goals, but some of the most effective resilience-supporting changes occur outside individual psychology. Reducing preventable exposure to harm, expanding social support, and ensuring access to needed services can materially change an adaptive trajectory.

An English article focused specifically on stress-related protective resources is available at Stress Resilience: Protective Factors and Skills. Its subject intersects with the present comparison but addresses a different canonical search question.

Does therapy increase flexibility or resilience?

Psychotherapeutic interventions may incorporate acceptance, behavioral change, emotional skills, or values-related work. The scientific evidence for an entire intervention's clinical effects must be distinguished from evidence that a specific measured process changes or mediates those effects. A reduction in symptoms following therapy does not by itself establish that psychological flexibility was the unique causal mechanism.

Similarly, interventions that increase questionnaire-based resilience scores do not automatically prove long-term protection from all forms of adversity. Intervention studies vary in population, comparator, duration, follow-up, construct definition, and outcome. Clinical efficacy for ACT, DBT, and other treatment protocols is a separate topic from the present scientific comparison.

Psychological education and everyday skills may support reflection and problem solving. When a person experiences serious functional impairment, psychosis, mania, suicidal risk, or self-harm, appropriate professional assessment and safety-focused care take priority over generic self-guided exercises.

Social context and the limits of individual adaptation

The same situation can place different demands on people with different access to money, safety, mobility, housing, healthcare, and supportive relationships. An emphasis on internal adaptability becomes scientifically incomplete when structural conditions determine which responses are possible.

Someone may be highly capable of recognizing circumstances and changing plans while nevertheless experiencing harmful outcomes under continuing danger. Another person may maintain stable functioning because reliable support reduces the impact of adversity. These realities are compatible with psychological theories of flexibility and resilience.

Research benefits from evaluating the environment as part of the adaptive system. This approach can clarify the role of policy, prevention, community infrastructure, family relationships, and access to professional support alongside individual behavior.

Personality, development, and cultural meaning

Individuals vary in temperament, emotional reactivity, habits, developmental history, executive functioning, social expectations, and available resources. These differences can influence how psychological flexibility appears and how adaptation proceeds under adversity. Neither construct should be reduced to a fixed personality label.

Culture may shape acceptable emotional expression, support seeking, valued goals, and the meaning assigned to coping practices. Developmental stage influences the behavioral repertoire and degree of independence available to a person. Research that transfers one measure across populations must examine validity rather than assume identical meanings.

Neuroticism, a personality-related tendency associated with negative emotionality, is a related but distinct topic. The live English article Neuroticism and Resilience: Vulnerability, Recovery, and Context addresses how temperament-related vulnerability interacts with recovery and context.

What stronger causal research would require

To evaluate whether flexibility predicts resilience beyond shared influences, researchers could measure flexibility and resources before or early in a defined adversity exposure, record changing circumstances, and assess relevant outcomes repeatedly over time. They would need to separate exposure severity from adaptation and establish clear definitions of what constitutes successful functioning.

Experimental studies could evaluate whether interventions targeting specified flexibility processes actually change those processes and whether the changes precede meaningful adaptation outcomes. Appropriate comparison conditions, follow-up intervals, independent outcome measures, and analysis of alternative mechanisms are essential.

Cross-cultural replication and attention to material conditions would test the generalizability of findings. Distinct instruments and behavioral observations would reduce the risk that apparent overlap merely reflects shared questionnaire wording or momentary psychological distress.

Practical scenarios that clarify the concepts

A student revises a study plan after discovering that a familiar approach is ineffective. This illustrates flexibility because the response changes in light of feedback and educational goals. Calling the event resilience would require a sufficiently significant adversity context and evidence about adaptation.

A household experiences displacement following a disaster. Flexibility may be evident in accepting help, changing routines, choosing safer options, and adjusting expectations. Resilience concerns the subsequent course of functioning in relation to the displacement, alongside resources such as shelter, support networks, legal protections, and access to care.

A person recovering from serious illness changes daily activities while sustaining valued relationships. Flexibility may be expressed in adaptive planning and willingness to experience uncertainty. Resilience may be investigated through broader adjustment under health-related adversity and the support available throughout recovery.

In each scenario, context determines what counts as effective action. Examples illustrate distinctions, not promises that applying any one technique will produce a favorable outcome.

Evidence strength and unresolved questions

Established conceptual work supports a distinction between psychological flexibility as context-sensitive adaptation and resilience as adaptation relative to adversity. Review literature documents several theoretical traditions, overlapping mechanisms, and the importance of contextual assessment. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010); Southwick et al. (2014).

Direct empirical comparisons are informative but limited. The 2024 network study supports associations and distinguishable components within one cross-sectional sample. It cannot determine temporal causality, and its conclusions depend on the chosen measures. Jo et al. (2024).

Longitudinal resilience research is extensive but methodologically heterogeneous. The 2025 review documents inconsistent operationalizations and highlights the challenge of comparing trait, process, and outcome accounts. Wolke et al. (2025).

Open questions concern which flexibility components best predict functioning after particular stressors, whether causal effects generalize across populations, how environmental constraints moderate those effects, and which measures distinguish process change from nonspecific distress improvement. These uncertainties follow from the methods and definitions of the studies rather than from a lack of conceptual coherence.

Frequently asked questions

Is psychological flexibility a type of resilience?

Psychological flexibility is a potentially important adaptive process that may contribute to resilience. Resilience refers to adaptation in relation to significant adversity, so the constructs address different scientific questions and cannot be used as synonyms.

Can someone be resilient but psychologically inflexible?

A person can show favorable adaptation to a particular challenge while displaying rigid behavior in some other contexts. Protective resources, established routines, supportive relationships, and a good fit between circumstances and existing habits may help account for the outcome.

Can someone be flexible and still struggle after trauma?

Yes. Serious adversity can disrupt functioning even when a person makes context-sensitive decisions and seeks appropriate support. A difficult outcome does not by itself demonstrate an inflexible response.

Which is more important for mental health?

Neither construct has a universal priority independent of the research question and context. Their statistical associations may differ across outcomes, and resilience includes protective factors beyond individual psychological processes. Jo et al. (2024).

Does resilience mean avoiding emotional distress?

Resilience may coexist with grief, anxiety, anger, and periods of difficulty. The relevant scientific outcomes concern adaptation in relation to adversity, not the permanent absence of uncomfortable feelings.

Is flexibility the same as optimism?

Optimism concerns expectations about future outcomes. Psychological flexibility concerns the capacity to adjust behavior to the situation and meaningful goals, including when expectations are uncertain or unfavorable.

Does changing strategies often prove greater flexibility?

Changing strategies is useful when feedback and circumstances justify it. Persistence may be appropriate for long-term goals. Regulatory flexibility concerns sensitivity to context, available options, and response to feedback. Bonanno and Burton (2013).

Can a questionnaire show how resilient someone will be?

A questionnaire can assess perceptions and characteristics related to resilience. It cannot predict every response to future adversity or substitute for evidence about actual adaptation over time. Connor and Davidson (2003).

Conclusion

Psychological flexibility is the capacity to respond to changing circumstances and internal experiences in a context-sensitive, goal-consistent manner. Resilience concerns adaptation under adversity, including the outcomes and protective processes through which functioning is maintained or regained. Flexibility can be one contributor to resilience, while resilient outcomes also depend on exposure, relationships, available resources, health, and time.

Scientific comparison requires clearly defined constructs, appropriately matched measures, and attention to context. Direct comparative research demonstrates empirical connections and distinguishable components; systematic longitudinal research emphasizes the need to define adversity and adaptation explicitly. The resulting account of adaptive functioning integrates what people do with the conditions in which their lives unfold.

Related Articles

Stress Resilience: Protective Factors and Skills — Protective resources, contextual factors, and skills relevant to adaptation under stress.

Neuroticism and Resilience: Vulnerability, Recovery, and Context — The relationship between personality-related vulnerability, adaptive trajectories, and circumstances.

Psychological Flexibility: Definition, Processes, and Evidence — Explains the construct of psychological flexibility, its relation to changing circumstances and valued action, and the evidence from contextual behavioral science.

Psychological Inflexibility: Meaning, Patterns, and Mental Health — Explores rigid patterns of responding to thoughts and feelings, the role of experiential avoidance, and the limitations of current measures.

Experiential Avoidance: Meaning, Examples, and Psychological Costs — Distinguishes short-term protective avoidance from persistent avoidance that constrains meaningful activities and psychological adjustment.

How to Develop Psychological Flexibility in Everyday Life — Presents a practical, evidence-informed structure for awareness, values, acceptance, and flexible action across everyday challenges.

References

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20.

Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116.

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.

Jo, D., Pyo, S., Hwang, Y., Seung, Y., & Yang, E. (2024). What makes us strong: Conceptual and functional comparisons of psychological flexibility and resilience. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 33, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100798.

Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Doorley, J. D., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). Understanding psychological flexibility: A multimethod exploration of pursuing valued goals despite the presence of distress. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000834.

Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001.

Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 25338. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338.

Tyndall, I., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Whelan, R., Roche, B., & Dawson, D. L. (2019). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.09.005.

Wolke, D., Zhou, Y., Liu, Y., Eves, R., Mendonça, M., & Twilhaar, E. S. (2025). A systematic review of conceptualizations and statistical methods in longitudinal studies of resilience. Nature Mental Health, 3, 1088–1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00479-3.