Why Quick-Fix Resilience Doesn’t Work was written by Bruce Daisley and posted on PsychologyToday.com on September 27, 2022. He says that “peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that quick-fix resilience courses are ineffective.” “I was struck by the amount of people who informed me that the resilience training they were sent to didn’t work,” the author of a book on resilience writes. He asserts that he analyzed the pertinent available facts to support his impression, notably quoting Jesse Singal’s The Quick Fix from 2021.

Singal and Daisley did not even come close to fully “reviewing the published evidence” on resilience training, which, as they point out, is heavily influenced by my work. Instead, they only cite a few dubious, tiny, and outdated studies. However, they completely neglected to examine the four more recent, much larger

Resilient training and interventions from positive psychology meta-analyses. Or perhaps they did, but simply decided not to inform the readers about them.

Let’s examine first at evidence:

Positive psychology techniques’ effectiveness (PPIs)

Daisley and Singal only mention a few pieces of opposing views to their readers. They forget to mention the countless controlled trials demonstrating the effectiveness of PPIs. Thankfully, there is a methodology assessing all of the relevant papers collectively.

The most comprehensive meta-analysis of PPIs was published in the International Journal of Positive Psychology in 2020. A evaluation of 347 research covering more than 72,000 individuals from clinical and non-clinical groups in 41 countries was completed by Carr et al. in 2020. PPIs with an average of 10 sessions spread over six weeks and provided in a variety of circumstances and forms were evaluated for their effect sizes.

Just after the test, PPIs demonstrated significant “small” to “medium” effects on well-being (g = 0.39), strengths (g = 0.46), quality of life (g = 0.48), depression (g = 0.39), anxiety (g = 0.62), and stress (g = 0.58). Gains continued to be seen after three months of observation.

The terms “small,” “medium,” and “big” to describe effect sizes may not be known to the lay reader. A population’s overall standard deviation divided by the mean difference among two populations obtains an effect size. In therapy, effects are frequently “slight” or “medium”: When “mid” effects appear, researchers rejoice because “big” impacts of drugs or psychotherapy are quite unusual. These studies’ effect sizes on prevention are “modest” (rarely “medium”) or, more generally, nonexistent. In order to keep out emotional problems, a “small” effect size is not an offense. The utmost consequence that can be anticipated, it is good.

Daisley and Singal neglect to inform readers about three response, recent meta-analyses that show the benefits of resilience training in addition to the unmentioned 2020 meta-analysis:

A thorough meta-analysis by Ma, Zhang, Huang, and Cui was published in the Journal of Aspd in 2020. After analyzing 38 controlled studies with 24,135 participants, they discovered that these interventions were successful. The mean effect size was substantial at post-intervention, and subgroup analyses showed that programs with and without homework, programmes given to both universal and targeted populations, and programs run by educators all had produce an overall positive impact. 6 months after the program’s implementation, the average effect size is still here, and subgroup analyses confirmed significant influence sizes for the targeted programs.

Programs based on the Penn Resiliency Program, programs requiring homework, and programs overseen by trained interventionists.

Similar to this, 30 randomly chosen studies that met Ahlen, Lenhard, & Ghaderi’s (2015) meta-stringent analysis’s inclusion criteria—namely, peer-reviewed, randomized, or cluster-randomized trials of universal interventions for anxiety and depressive symptoms in school-aged children—were presented in The Journal of Primary Prevention. As examined at the immediate post-test, there were “modest,” but meaningful, impacts for anxiety and depressed symptoms. Effects were considerably bigger than zero for depressing but not panic symptoms at follow-up, which ranged 3 to 48 months.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published a meta-analysis by Dray, Bowman, et al. (2017) that examined 49 papers. Resilience-focused therapies lowered depressive symptoms in all studies more successfully than controls.

Soldiers who exhibited the least amount of catastrophic thinking were 25% less likely to experience PTSD than those who exhibited the most catastrophic thinking. Soldiers with high levels of catastrophic thinking and intense combat were 274% more likely to experience PTSD than those with low levels of both. This highlights a key strategy for preventing PTSD: keep overanalysts out of stressful situations like battle. PPIs primarily aim to reduce catastrophization, and this study showed that doing so would hopefully prevent PTSD.

Lester, Stewart, Vie, et al. (2021) aimed to forecast boldness and exceptional work performance over a four-year timeframe. Low negative affect (NA), strong optimism, and high improved mood (PA) were the initial measurements made by the researchers. Each of these elements predicted honors for excellence in performance and awards of

 This demonstrated that three of the resilience variables that PPIs target are important, adjustable predictors of exceptional army job performance and battlefield bravery.

Resilience programs do not work, contrary to what Daisley and Singal assert. Interventions based on positive psychology are quite successful. Numerous studies have shown that PPIs for the prevention of anxiety and depression and resilience training are effective. In both adults and children, this research consistently demonstrates declines in stress, anxiety, and depression as well as gains in wellbeing. These conclusions are the result of numerous research using very large sample sizes in a variety of contexts, including the military. In conclusion, there is an abundance of current, scientifically sound research that supports the advantages of resilience training and positive psychology interventions.