What Is Forward-Focused Coping, and Why Does Research Point to It as the Best Strategy for Living Through an Ongoing War?

When the threat hasn't ended, processing the trauma isn't always the right move yet. Research on continuous traumatic stress points to something different: staying oriented toward your goals, routines, and future.

The Short Answer

If you're living through an ongoing war, or any situation where the danger hasn't actually passed, you may have been told to "process what's happening" or "sit with your feelings" about it. For once-off trauma, that advice makes sense. For ongoing trauma, the research says something different.

Forward-focused coping, a strategy centered on maintaining routines, pursuing goals, generating positive thoughts, and staying connected to others rather than processing traumatic material, has emerged across a wide body of research as the most protective coping approach specifically when the stressor is still active (Samuelson et al., 2021; Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). During weeks four to six of an active war in Israel, forward-focused coping, not trauma-focused coping, and not even a flexible mix of both, was the strongest predictor of lower continuous traumatic stress symptoms (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025).

This isn't the same as avoidance, and it isn't about pretending things are fine. It's a specific, well-defined coping strategy with a growing evidence base, and understanding what it actually involves, and doesn't involve, makes a real difference in how you use it.

Key Takeaways

• Forward-focused coping means maintaining goals, routines, and positive engagement with life, rather than processing the traumatic content of an ongoing threat.

• It is not the same as avoidance or suppression. Research consistently separates it from those constructs and links it to better, not worse, outcomes.

• During ongoing stress like war, forward-focused coping outperforms trauma-focused coping and even flexible combinations of both, a genuine reversal of what's typically recommended for past, resolved trauma.

• Not every component of forward-focused coping is equally protective. Goal pursuit, positive emotion generation, and social engagement show the strongest evidence, while pure future orientation and temporary disengagement show more time-limited effects.

• Head-to-head, forward-focused coping outperforms avoidance and emotion-focused coping by a wide margin, and it outperforms problem-focused coping specifically because it doesn't require the stressor to be solvable, which war rarely is.

• The strategy is context-dependent. Once a threat genuinely ends, the evidence shifts back toward needing both forward-focused and trauma-focused coping in flexible combination.

• 
  

The Problem: Why the Usual Trauma Advice Doesn't Fit an Ongoing War

Here's something that trips a lot of people up, and it's worth naming directly: most trauma advice assumes the traumatic event is over. Process the memory. Talk through what happened. Work toward integration and acceptance. That's sound guidance after a single, completed traumatic event.

But if you're living through an active war, there's no completed event yet to process. The threat is ongoing, the losses may still be accumulating, and the future remains genuinely uncertain. Research on continuous traumatic stress makes this point plainly: when stressors are unrelenting and discrete traumatic events are difficult to even identify as separate incidents, trauma-focused coping, meaning effortful processing of what's happening, may be impractical and resource-depleting, precisely because the threat hasn't ended (Samuelson et al., 2021).

I want to be honest about how disorienting this can feel. A lot of people under ongoing threat quietly assume that if they're not actively processing or talking through what's happening, they must be avoiding it, suppressing it, or doing something wrong. That assumption is understandable, but the research doesn't support it. There's a meaningful difference between avoiding your experience and choosing, deliberately, to orient toward the parts of your life you can still direct.

What Forward-Focused Coping Actually Is

Before going further, it helps to know exactly what this strategy involves, because the term gets used loosely sometimes, and the research is specific about it.

Forward-focused coping comes from the Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma scale, known as PACT, which was originally built to measure two distinct coping abilities: the capacity to process trauma directly (trauma focus) and the capacity to maintain forward momentum in daily life despite the trauma (forward focus) (Bonanno et al., 2011). The forward focus subscale itself is made up of twelve distinct strategies, including maintaining previous goals and plans, caring for others, reducing painful emotions, using humor and amusement, and staying composed (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Huang et al., 2022).

In plain terms, forward-focused coping looks like continuing to show up for your responsibilities, keeping commitments to people who depend on you, deliberately generating moments of positive feeling, staying connected socially, and keeping your attention oriented toward what you're working toward rather than constantly returning to the threat itself.

This is functionally different from just "staying busy" or "distracting yourself" in a vague sense. It's specific, active, goal-directed engagement with life, not escape from it.

Why This Isn't the Same as Avoidance

This is probably the most important distinction in the entire body of research, so it's worth spending real time on it.

Avoidance and disengagement coping are consistently linked to worse mental health outcomes across the literature. Forward-focused coping is consistently linked to better outcomes. These are not the same thing, even though they can look superficially similar from the outside (Compas et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2011).

The functional difference comes down to engagement versus withdrawal. Avoidance means escaping a stressor and the emotions tied to it, withdrawing from your own internal experience or from your life more broadly. Forward-focused coping means actively engaging with your goals, your relationships, and your future, while simply not making trauma processing the center of that engagement right now (Di Nota et al., 2021). One researcher's framing captures this well: positive distraction, which induces genuine positive emotion, is adaptive, while avoidance, which merely escapes threat without generating anything positive, correlates with worse outcomes (Waugh et al., 2020).

Emotional suppression, another construct people sometimes confuse with this, involves actively inhibiting the expression of emotion when you're emotionally aroused. That's linked to worse symptoms too. Forward-focused coping doesn't ask you to suppress what you feel. It asks you to also generate positive activity and engagement alongside whatever you're feeling (Boemo et al., 2022; Compas et al., 2017).

It's also worth distinguishing this from a few other concepts people sometimes reach for. Positive reappraisal reframes the meaning of what's happening to change how it feels emotionally. Forward-focused coping doesn't reinterpret the event at all. It simply redirects attention toward future-oriented activity instead (Wang & Yin, 2023). Meaning-focused coping involves reconstructing your core beliefs and finding deeper significance in what you're going through. Forward-focused coping doesn't require that kind of existential processing. It maintains your existing goals without needing you to make sense of the trauma first (Nisiraiou et al., 2025). And resilience itself is the outcome of successfully coping, whereas forward-focused coping is one specific process you can use to get there (Troy et al., 2022).

The Evidence: Why This Strategy Wins Out During Ongoing Threat

The research on this has grown substantially, and it converges from some genuinely different populations and contexts.

During active war, it's the single strongest predictor of lower distress. In a study conducted during weeks four to six of an active war in Israel, forward-focused coping outperformed both trauma-focused coping and a flexible combination of the two as a predictor of lower continuous traumatic stress response levels. The strongest protection came when high forward-focused coping combined with high system justification, meaning a general belief that the surrounding societal structures were functioning fairly (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). Media exposure mattered here too: people consuming more than six hours of war-related media daily showed greater symptoms, while the level of direct personal exposure to danger, on its own, didn't predict symptom severity nearly as strongly (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025).

The framework has expanded far beyond its original context. What started as research on political violence has broadened into a general framework for understanding ongoing adversity, now validated across adolescents exposed to interpersonal violence in Lithuania, women facing gender-based violence in Indian slums, Ukrainian military personnel, Israeli children exposed to rocket shelling, and parents of medically complex children facing repeated medical trauma (Truskauskaitė et al., 2025; Potluri & Patel, 2021; Avramchuk et al., 2026; Rachamim et al., 2025; Dewan et al., 2022). Across all of these different populations, the same basic pattern holds: sustained, unresolved threat calls for a different coping approach than a single past event does.

Combat veterans without PTSD report using it more. Among U.S. combat veterans, those without PTSD self-reported significantly more ability to engage in forward-focused coping than those who developed PTSD, and the Forward Focus scale improved researchers' ability to predict PTSD severity beyond what combat exposure alone could explain (Bartholomew et al., 2017).

It shows up in long-term resilience, not just short-term coping. Vietnamese war survivors who maintained long-term resilience decades later described sustaining a forward-focused mindset, gratitude, and acceptance of uncertainty, reinforced by family and community support, as central to how they got through and stayed well afterward (Hamm et al., 2026).

It matters intergenerationally too. Among adolescents navigating both COVID-19 and war displacement, parental forward-focused coping predicted lower anxiety and depression in their children, both at the time and later on, suggesting this coping style is something children pick up from the adults around them (Li et al., 2022).

It's not just adaptive, it's specifically well-suited to situations you can't control. Forward-focused coping appears particularly valuable precisely because it doesn't require resolving or controlling the stressor itself. It sustains functioning regardless of whether the threat resolves on any particular timeline, which is exactly the situation people living through ongoing war find themselves in (Huang et al., 2022).

How Forward-Focused Coping Stacks Up Against the Alternatives

It's one thing to say forward-focused coping helps. It's a stronger claim to say it's the most effective option available, so it's worth putting it directly against the other strategies people commonly reach for during war, using the research that's actually compared them head to head.

Against trauma-focused and flexible coping, forward-focused coping wins outright. In the study conducted during weeks four to six of an active war in Israel, forward-focused coping significantly predicted lower continuous traumatic stress response levels, while trauma-focused coping and even a flexible mix of both did not (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). That's a genuinely notable finding, because flexible coping, using both approaches as the situation calls for, is usually considered the gold standard in trauma research. During ongoing war specifically, it wasn't. Forward focus alone outperformed it.

Against problem-focused coping, the picture is more nuanced, and that nuance matters. Problem-focused coping, taking direct action to change the stressor itself, does show real benefits during war. It was positively associated with resilience during the initial weeks of the Iron Swords war, and Ukrainian refugees using active, problem-focused strategies scored lowest on mental health screenings (Saar-Ashkenazy et al., 2024; Długosz, 2023). Task-focused coping among displaced older adults in Darfur was similarly linked to lower distress (Musa & Hamid, 2025). But here's the catch: problem-focused strategies like planning can become counterproductive specifically in chaotic wartime conditions where the stressor is fundamentally uncontrollable (Nabulsi et al., 2026). You can't problem-solve your way out of a war. Forward-focused coping doesn't have that ceiling, because it was never designed to fix the stressor. It's designed to sustain you regardless of whether the stressor is fixable at all.

Against self-distraction, forward-focused coping absorbs and extends what already works. Self-distraction, one of the twelve specific strategies inside the forward focus subscale, shows its own independent evidence. Among Ukrainians in the first month of the 2022 war, self-distraction was negatively associated with anxiety, depression, and insomnia (Xu et al., 2023). Palestinian mental health professionals who used self-distraction were less susceptible to depression, and displaced Chechens described keeping busy as genuinely helpful for coping with trauma (Nabulsi et al., 2026; Xu et al., 2023). This isn't a competing strategy so much as a piece of forward-focused coping showing its value on its own.

Against avoidance, the gap is the widest of all. This is the comparison that matters most, because people sometimes worry that forward-focused coping is just avoidance with better branding. The data says otherwise, clearly. Avoidant coping is the strongest predictor of psychological distress across populations in Ukraine, Poland, and Taiwan exposed to the same war (Chudzicka-Czupała et al., 2023). Disengaged coping partially explains the link between war exposure and acute stress symptoms among Israelis (Sowan & Baziliansky, 2024). Forward-focused coping and avoidant coping point in opposite directions on every outcome measured. One protects. The other predicts the worst outcomes recorded in this entire body of research.

Against emotion-focused coping, forward focus holds up better over time. Emotion-focused coping, managing your emotional reaction without necessarily engaging with goals or action, tends to provide short-term relief, but researchers describe it as more prominent early on and less useful as a conflict continues, becoming less adaptive over the longer stretches of an ongoing war (Hamama et al., 2024).

And underneath most of these findings sits a resource question worth naming honestly. Forward-focused coping works because it sustains goal-directed activity when trauma processing isn't yet feasible, but its protective power depends on still having access to real resources: a functioning sense of self-efficacy, and genuine social support (Schwarzer, 2024; Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). Hope and general well-being have themselves emerged as some of the strongest predictors of resilience in wartime populations, even outperforming risk factors like distress or perceived threat level (Kimhi et al., 2023). This matters because it means forward-focused coping isn't a substitute for support. It works best alongside it, not instead of it.

Put together, this is a genuinely strong case. Against the two approaches most people default to under threat, avoidance and pure emotional coping, forward-focused coping wins clearly and by a wide margin. Against the strategy it's most often confused with, trauma processing, it wins specifically because the war hasn't ended yet. Against problem-focused coping, its advantage is that it doesn't depend on the stressor actually being solvable. The evidence doesn't just support forward-focused coping as one good option among several. It supports it as the most consistently effective approach available for the specific situation of living through something that hasn't ended.

Not All Parts of This Strategy Are Equally Powerful

This is where the research gets genuinely useful, because forward-focused coping isn't one single thing. It's a bundle of twelve related strategies, and they don't all pull equal weight.

Goal pursuit and routine maintenance show the strongest, most consistent protection. Active coping, planning, and maintaining commitment to existing goals and daily routines form the functional core of this whole approach. Adolescents who maintained a regular schedule and kept up with daily responsibilities during lockdown showed significantly better protection against emotional distress than those who didn't (Chen et al., 2022). Active coping and planning also function as bridge points connecting general coping ability to actual resilience outcomes (Nisiraiou et al., 2025).

Positive emotion generation works through its own distinct pathway. This isn't the same as simple distraction. Positive distraction specifically induces genuine positive affect, not just a shift in attention away from threat, and that distinction is what makes it adaptive rather than avoidant (Waugh et al., 2020). Interventions that train acceptance and mindfulness skills have been shown to experimentally increase daily positive affect, which suggests this is something you can deliberately build, not just something that either happens to you or doesn't (Lindsay et al., 2018).

Social engagement amplifies everything else. Perceived social support moderates the relationship between forward-focused coping and symptom severity, meaning people who combine high forward-focused coping with strong social support show the lowest symptom levels of all (Kowalchyk et al., 2023). Caring for others, one of the twelve specific strategies in the forward focus subscale, isn't incidental here. It's doing real protective work.

Pure future orientation and temporary disengagement show more limited, time-bound effects. Future-oriented activity protects against distress in the short term, but its long-term effects are less robust (Chen et al., 2022). Similarly, temporarily setting aside trauma-related material appears protective early in bereavement specifically, but that protection doesn't necessarily hold up over the long haul (Huang et al., 2022). This matters practically: leaning entirely on "just thinking about the future" without also maintaining goals, generating real positive emotion, and staying socially connected is a thinner, less durable version of the strategy.

This Isn't About Ignoring the War. It's About Where You Put Your Attention When Processing Isn't Yet Possible

I think there's a genuine misunderstanding baked into how people often hear "forward-focused coping," and it's worth addressing directly.

It can sound, at first, like the advice is to ignore what's happening, to distract yourself into denial, or to minimize a genuinely dangerous and painful situation. That's not what the research describes at all.

Here's a more accurate way to think about it: when a threat is still active, your mind doesn't yet have a complete, bounded event to process. There's no full story with a beginning and an end. Trauma processing, the kind that works well after a single incident, requires exactly that kind of completed narrative to work with. Ongoing war doesn't offer one yet. So trying to force processing onto an unfinished, still-unfolding experience isn't just difficult, it can actively deplete resources you need for the more immediate task of functioning day to day (Samuelson et al., 2021).

Forward-focused coping isn't denial. It's a recognition that the timing for deep processing hasn't arrived yet, and that in the meantime, your energy is better spent maintaining the structures, relationships, and goals that will still matter once it has. This isn't running from your experience. It's choosing where your limited attention and energy go while genuinely difficult, unresolved circumstances continue.

There's also something worth naming about system justification here, because it's a nuance easy to miss. The research found that forward-focused coping combined with a belief that surrounding institutions were functioning fairly predicted the very lowest distress levels (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). That doesn't mean you have to force yourself to believe everything is fine or handled well if you genuinely don't feel that way. It suggests that some degree of trust in the broader structures around you, alongside your own forward momentum, adds an extra layer of protection, when that trust is genuinely available to you.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Protect your routines, even in small, imperfect ways. This doesn't mean pretending life is normal. It means keeping whatever structure is actually available to you, regular meals, consistent sleep and wake times where possible, ordinary responsibilities you can still carry out. Routine maintenance shows some of the strongest protective evidence of any component in this strategy (Chen et al., 2022).

Keep your goals, even if the timeline has to shift. You don't need to abandon what you were working toward just because circumstances have changed. Adjusting the timeline while keeping the goal itself alive is different from giving it up entirely, and the research specifically credits goal maintenance, not goal achievement, as the protective factor (Nisiraiou et al., 2025).

Deliberately generate positive emotion, not as denial, but as a genuine coping tool. This might be humor, moments of amusement, connecting over something unrelated to the war, or simply noticing something good in an otherwise hard day. This is an active skill, not something you either naturally have or don't (Lindsay et al., 2018).

Stay socially connected, and let yourself care for others. Both giving and receiving social connection show up as protective. Caring for someone else, even in a small way, is one of the twelve specific forward-focus strategies with real evidence behind it (Kowalchyk et al., 2023).

Limit high-volume exposure to threat-related media. People consuming more than six hours a day of war-related media showed higher distress, independent of their actual level of direct exposure to danger (Harwood-Gross et al., 2025). Staying informed matters, but there's a point where more exposure adds distress without adding useful information.

Be cautious about forcing trauma processing before you're ready, or before the threat has actually passed. If you find that talking through or reliving what's happening feels depleting rather than clarifying right now, that's not a failure. It may simply be the wrong tool for this particular moment.

Know that this strategy will likely need to shift once the threat genuinely ends. Forward-focused coping is specifically suited to ongoing, unresolved stress. Once a war or crisis actually concludes, the evidence shifts back toward needing a flexible combination of both forward-focused and trauma-focused coping, the kind of integration work that helps process what happened now that there's something complete to process (Huang et al., 2022; Troy et al., 2017).

Frequently Asked Questions

Is forward-focused coping the same thing as avoidance or denial? No. Avoidance means escaping a stressor and its emotions, and it's linked to worse outcomes. Forward-focused coping means actively engaging with goals, relationships, and positive experience while the threat is ongoing, and research consistently links it to better outcomes than avoidance (Di Nota et al., 2021; Waugh et al., 2020).

Why doesn't trauma processing work well during an active war? Trauma processing generally requires a completed, bounded event to work through. During an active, ongoing war, there's no finished narrative yet, and forcing that kind of processing prematurely can be resource-depleting rather than helpful (Samuelson et al., 2021).

Which parts of forward-focused coping matter most? Goal pursuit and routine maintenance, positive emotion generation, and social engagement show the strongest, most consistent evidence. Pure future orientation and temporary disengagement from trauma-related material show more modest, time-limited protection (Huang et al., 2022; Kowalchyk et al., 2023).

Should I stop using forward-focused coping once the war ends? Not entirely, but the balance should shift. Once a threat genuinely resolves, research supports a flexible combination of forward-focused and trauma-focused coping, allowing space to process what happened rather than relying solely on forward momentum (Huang et al., 2022; Troy et al., 2017).

Can children pick up forward-focused coping from their parents? Yes. Research on adolescents navigating both the pandemic and war displacement found that parental forward-focused coping predicted lower anxiety and depression in their children, both immediately and over time, suggesting this style of coping is modeled and transmitted (Li et al., 2022).

If you're living through a war right now, or any situation where the danger hasn't actually resolved, the pressure to "deal with it" through deep processing may be exactly the wrong instruction for this exact moment. The research is clear that a different approach, staying oriented toward your goals, your relationships, and moments of genuine positive experience, is what actually protects people while the threat continues.

This isn't about pretending the war isn't happening. It's about recognizing that your attention is a limited, valuable resource, and choosing, deliberately, to spend it on the parts of your life that are still yours to direct.

You don't have to make sense of an unfinished story yet. You just have to keep living your part of it.

About The Author

Esther Adams is a researcher, Doctor of Psychology, published scholar, best selling author, and practitioner of Strides To Solutions a trauma-informed psychotherapy private practice. Her work examines how trauma and chronic stress affect the nervous system, the body, emotional patterns, and relationships. Through her writing, she translates psychological research into accessible, practical tools for understanding survival responses, strengthening emotional regulation, and developing safer, healthier connections with oneself and others.

References

Chudzicka-Czupała, A., Hapon, N., Man, R., Li, D.-J., Żywiołek-Szeja, M., Karamushka, L., Grabowski, D., Paliga, M., McIntyre, R., Chiang, S.-K., Pudełek, B., Chen, Y.-L., & Yen, C. (2023). Associations between coping strategies and psychological distress among people living in Ukraine, Poland, and Taiwan during the initial stage of the 2022 War in Ukraine. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2022.2163129

Długosz, P. (2023). War trauma and strategies for coping with stress among Ukrainian refugees staying in Poland. Journal of Migration and Health, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100196

Hamama, L., Sarid, O., & Hamama-Raz, Y. (2024). Psychological Distress, Resources, and Coping Strategies Among Evacuees and Non-Evacuees From an Armed Conflict Zone: A Network Analysis. Stress and Health, 41. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3525

Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H., & Adini, B. (2023). Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053940

Musa, S. A., & Hamid, A. A. R. M. (2025). The impact of Sudan armed conflict and coping strategies on the mental health of the older adult internally displaced persons in Darfur camps. BMC Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02214-6

Nabulsi, M., Ahmead, M., & Sharif, N. E. (2026). Determinants of anxiety and depression and their association with coping strategies in health professionals in war and conflict-afflicted areas. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1728734

Saar-Ashkenazy, R., Ben-Yaakov, O., Guez, J., & Bergman, Y. (2024). Resilience and Loss During the Iron-Swords War: The Importance of Coping Strategies. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 31, 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2024.2423065

Schwarzer, R. (2024). Stress, resilience, and coping resources in the context of war, terror, and migration. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101393

Sowan, W., & Baziliansky, S. (2024). Acute Stress Symptoms, Intolerance of Uncertainty and Coping Strategies in Reaction to the October 7 War. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(3), e3021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.3021

Xu, W., Pavlova, I., Chen, X., Petrytsa, P., Graf-Vlachy, L., & Zhang, S. X. (2023). Mental health symptoms and coping strategies among Ukrainians during the Russia-Ukraine war in March 2022. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 69, 957-966. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640221143919

Avramchuk, O., Mykolaychuk, M., Zavada, T., Demydiuk, V., Goral, A., & Senyk, O. (2026). Understanding the clinical profile of Continuous Traumatic Stress Responses: insights from the adaptation of the Continuous Traumatic Stress Response Scale (CTSR) in Ukrainian military personnel. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2026.2646757

Bartholomew, T. T., Badura-Brack, A., Leak, G., Hearley, A. R., & McDermott, T. J. (2017). Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma Among U.S. Combat Veterans. Military Psychology, 29, 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000150

Boemo, T., Nieto, I., Vázquez, C., & Sánchez-López, Á. (2022). Relations Between Emotion Regulation Strategies and Affect in Daily Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104747

Bonanno, G., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory Flexibility. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 591-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116

Bonanno, G., Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. G. (2011). Coping Flexibility and Trauma: The Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma (PACT) Scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020921

Chen, C., Li, C., Chen, M., Wang, L., Zhu, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2022). Coping and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among Chinese youth in the peak and remission periods of COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review, 143, 106690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106690

Compas, B., Jaser, S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., Williams, E. K., & Thigpen, J. (2017). Coping, Emotion Regulation and Psychopathology in Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-Analysis and Narrative Review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 939-991. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110

Dewan, T., Birnie, K., Drury, J., Jordan, I., Miller, M. A., Neville, A., Noel, M., Randhawa, A., Zadunayski, A., & Zwicker, J. D. (2022). Experiences of medical traumatic stress in parents of children with medical complexity. Child, 49, 292-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13042

Di Nota, P. D., Kasurak, E., Bahji, A., Groll, D., & Anderson, G. (2021). Coping among public safety personnel: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Stress and Health, 37, 613-630. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3039

Hamm, S., Norris, D., Toan, T. K., & Zimmer, Z. (2026). Beyond conflict: a bioecological perspective on health and resilience among North Vietnamese war survivors. Ageing and Society, 46. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x2610083x

Harwood-Gross, A., Stern, N., Lambez, B., & Aloni, R. (2025). A nation at (ongoing) war: The effect of societal and forward-focused coping on symptoms of continuous traumatic stress. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001934

Huang, S., Birk, J. L., & Bonanno, G. (2022). Looking back and moving forward: Dimensions of coping flexibility divergently predict long-term bereavement outcomes. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 36, 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2022.2099545

Kowalchyk, M., Chernoff, E., Brinkman, H. R., Brown, A. D., Pietrzak, R., & Feder, A. (2023). Perceived social support moderates the relation between forward-focused coping and PTSD symptoms in World Trade Center trauma survivors. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 159, 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.01.018

Li, Y., Huang, X., Qiu, J., Li, C., Zhu, Z., & Xu, Y. (2022). Parental psychosocial factors predicting adolescents' psychological adjustment during the surging and remission periods of COVID-19 in China. Journal of Affective Disorders, 320, 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.134

Lindsay, E. K., Chin, B., Greco, C. M., Young, S., Brown, K. W., Wright, A. G. C., Smyth, J., Burkett, D., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). How mindfulness training promotes positive emotions: Dismantling acceptance skills training in two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 944-973. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000134

Nisiraiou, A., Bozas, A., Kyrou, D., Stavrogianni, K., Vasilopoulou, M., Kalomoiris, G.-M., Tsintsifa, N., Nikitara, K., Koulierakis, G., & Karamanidou, C. (2025). Post-Traumatic Growth in Adult Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review of Psychological Factors, Predictors, and Interventions. International Journal of Psychology, 60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.70097

Potluri, S., & Patel, A. R. (2021). Using a Continuous Traumatic Stress Framework to Examine Ongoing Adversity Among Indian Women from Slums: A Mixed-Methods Exploration. Journal of Traumatic Stress. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22699

Rachamim, L., Aloni, R., Mualem-Taylor, H., Glickman, O., Goodman, A., & Laor, N. (2025). "Children of War": Examining the Associations between War Exposure, Maternal PTSD, and Continuous Traumatic Stress on Israeli Children's PTSD. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 53, 1047-1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-025-01321-1

Samuelson, K. W., Dixon, K. M., Jordan, J., Powers, T., Sonderman, S., & Brickman, S. (2021). Mental health and resilience during the coronavirus pandemic: A machine learning approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78, 821-846. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23254

Thompson, R. W., Arnkoff, D. B., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Conceptualizing Mindfulness and Acceptance as Components of Psychological Resilience to Trauma. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011416375

Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C. (2017). Cognitive Reappraisal and Acceptance: Effects on Emotion, Physiology, and Perceived Cognitive Costs. Emotion, 18, 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000371

Troy, A. S., Willroth, E. C., Shallcross, A. J., Giuliani, N., Gross, J., & Mauss, I. (2022). Psychological Resilience: An Affect-Regulation Framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 547-576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854

Truskauskaitė, I., Kvedaraitė, M., Goral, A., & Daniūnaitė, I. (2025). Living under threat: adolescents' continuous traumatic stress reactions in relation to violence exposure. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2481803

Wang, Y.-X., & Yin, B. (2023). A new understanding of the cognitive reappraisal technique: an extension based on the schema theory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1174585

Waugh, C. E., Shing, E. Z., & Furr, R. (2020). Not all disengagement coping strategies are created equal: positive distraction, but not avoidance, can be an adaptive coping strategy for chronic life stressors. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 33, 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1755820