科学界普遍承认，在科学期刊上发表阴性结果几乎是不可能的。“我们什么也没发现”比证明假设明显正确要难推销得多。无效果的发现往往要么被推给低知名度期刊，要么作为未发表的实验室传闻被搁置一旁。
It's widely acknowledged that it's nearly impossible to publish negative results in scientific journals. "We didn't see anything" is a much harder sell than finding that a hypothesis is clearly right. Findings of no effect tend to either be shuffled off to low-profile journals or left behind as unpublished lab lore.
然而，高知名度期刊《自然》本周做出了一个显著的例外，发表了一项研究，告诉我们一直在用来试图测量一种关键情绪能力的一系列方法，似乎并没有在测量同一件事。这些结果意味着，我们没有一个好的方法来衡量一个概念的影响，而该概念是治疗中一种关键方法的基础。
The high-profile journal Nature, however, made a notable exception this week, publishing a study that tells us that a bunch of methods we have been using to try to measure a key emotional ability don't seem to be measuring the same thing. The results mean that we don't have a good way to measure the impact of a concept that is the basis of a key method in therapy.
最成功的治疗形式之一是认知行为疗法，简称CBT。部分原因在于，CBT基于让人们退后一步并进行“认知重评”。这要求人们思考一个导致负面情绪反应的情境，并找到重新诠释它的方法，使其对他们的影响减小。参与这一过程的能力已被证实与情绪韧性有关。
One of the most successful forms of therapy is cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT. In part, CBT is based on getting people to step back and engage in "cognitive reappraisal." This requires people to think over a situation that has caused a negative emotional response and find ways to reinterpret it so that it has less impact on them. The ability to engage in this process has been linked to emotional resilience.