Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0378475418302763
Manuscript_ab70a732c007f1c147f867211f856df8

A Dynamical Systems Approach to Triadic Reciprocal Deter-

minism of Social Cognitive Theory
Mauro Lo Schiavo
Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’Ingegneria, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
Roma, Italy

Barbara Prinari1
Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado Colorado Springs
1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA

Ikuko Saito
Mathematics and English Division, Pikes Peak Community College,
11195 Highway 83, Colorado Springs, CO 80921, USA

Kotaro Shoji
Trauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs
1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA

Charles C. Benight
Trauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs
Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs
1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA

Abstract

A deterministic dynamical systems approach is proposed to model the interplay among an in-
dividual’s behavior, personal factors, and environmental challenges, in the framework of triadic
reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory. The equilibria of the system are numerically
identified, and their stability analyzed, for seven scenarios corresponding to specific choices of
the system parameters. An interpretation of the system dynamics in the neighborhood of the
observed equilibria from the point of view of social cognitive theory is proposed. This approach
may be beneficial in understanding human adaptation to environmental challenges such as trau-
matic events and significant daily stressors. Results provide the mathematical groundwork for
future research that will involve numerical simulations for tuning the model parameters so as
to best fit the experimental data available.

1 Introduction

Triadic reciprocal determinism (TRD) is often utilized as a conceptual and analytical model in
studies using social cognitive theory (SCT) as a theoretical framework, representing bidirectional
relationships among an individual’s behavior, personal factors, and the environment. TRD describes
how a person regulates relative to changing environmental circumstances in order to gain desired
1 Email address for correspondence: bprinari@uccs.edu

1
© 2018 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
outcomes [1]. In SCT, coping self-efficacy is a key self-regulatory cognition driving the percep-
tion/belief in one’s capability to manage environmental demands and effectively enact coping be-
haviors [2]. Previous research has demonstrated that coping self-efficacy (CSE) plays a central role
in the psychological feedback system for human adaptation to challenging and uncertain situations
such as a terrorist attack [3], natural disasters [4,5], and motor vehicle accidents [6]. Many studies
identified CSE as a protective factor and predictor for critical behavioral outcomes [7–9]. These
studies have employed statistical models to establish person-environment relationship, behavior-
environment relationship, and person-behavior relationship. Although the statistical models are
useful in identifying factors affecting behavioral outcomes and a causal relationship involving dis-
crete time points, they do not allow a description of these variables as they influence each other
and evolve over time. In spite of its obvious importance, very little research so far has attempted
to operationalize the dynamical aspects of TRD, and a solid mathematical framework to describe
how the variables in TRD evolve over time and influence each other is lacking. The focus of this
paper is to help fill this void by proposing a dynamical systems approach to model the interplay
among an individual’s behavior, personal factors, and the environment, in order to gain a better un-
derstanding of human adaptation to environmental challenges such as traumatic events and daily
stressors.
Early investigations aimed at quantifying (and thus predicting) human behavior within a precise
mathematical framework using methods that traditionally pertained to statistical physics can be
traced back to the early 1980’s, with the work of Galam and collaborators [10]. Over the years,
the topics covered by the broad field now known as “sociophysics” have multiplied, and nowa-
days they address a vast number of different problems including: population dynamics, epidemic
spreading, terrorism, voting, coalition formation, opinion dynamics, etc [11–23]. The idea that
social psychological phenomena might be profitably viewed specifically as dynamical systems as
their point of departure has been suggested since the late 1990’s (see, for instance, [24–28] just
to mention a few). However, the majority of the applications of nonlinear dynamical systems to
theory and research in the behavioral sciences has only started solidifying in the last 10-15 years
(for a review, see, for instance, [29]), and the potentialities of using dynamical systems to model
social psychological phenomena are now starting to be more fully exploited. Some examples can
be found in the recent analyses of minority influence in opinion dynamics [30–37], as well as in
the contributions on chaotic dynamics in groups applied to organization theory [38–40]. New
computational methods for dynamical social psychology are also being actively developed, and the
interest in computational social psychology is burgeoning, as testified by a number of very recent
monographs on the subject [41–44].
In this work we propose a deterministic dynamical systems approach to model TRD. As mentioned
above, triadic reciprocal determinism is conceptualized as involving three components: personal
factors, behavioral factors, and environmental factors, which influence and affect each other as
the individual attempts to promote desired outcomes and reduce undesirable ones [1]. It is worth
pointing out that “determinism” in Bandura’s acceptation of TRD refers to the assumption that a
person’s behavior both influences and is influenced by personal factors and the social environment,
as opposed to a behavioristic perspective in which the individual’s behavior is solely controlled
by the environment. On the other hand, mathematically speaking, “deterministic” referred to a
dynamical system accounts for the fact that the output of the model is fully determined by the
parameter values and the initial conditions, and no randomness or stochasticity is considered.

2
It is important to note that the three components (personal, behavioral and environmental factors)
do not all necessarily have the same weight in TRD. Also, the strength of each factor in the triadic
system may change in time due to alterations in environmental conditions, behavioral effectiveness,
and self-regulatory processes. For example, an extreme environment such as a traumatic event
might have a stronger impact in TRD than a personal factor (e.g., self-appraisals) in the recovery
process. In another situation where environmental cues are more muted, personal factors such as
CSE play a strong causal role in predicting behaviors [2].
Previous studies that examined TRD from a statistical point of view, although not directly related to
stress or trauma, have employed a recursive model using a longitudinal cross-lagged panel design
or a cross-sectional design [45–47]. Although these studies can test a triadic reciprocal relation-
ship, their limitation is that they do not examine such a relationship at one time point. Similarly,
cross-sectional studies are limited in that they do not test a triadic reciprocal relationship that
evolves over time. Other studies included a reciprocal relationship between two components (e.g.,
self-efficacy and an outcome behavior [48]). These studies have offered limited empirical support
for TRD. Even if a nonrecursive statistical model can be tested, it is often limited to a linear recip-
rocal relationship among the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. As a matter of fact,
research and theory testing in the mathematical investigation of SCT are currently dominated by
static models that rely on linear statistics. Latent growth curve models [49] and multilevel anal-
yses [50] are two examples of such common static longitudinal models that involve time as an
implicit component. These static models are beneficial for investigating changes in one or more
dependent variables over a discretized time scale, but the dependent variables are not explicitly
considered as functions of time. These static models utilize time as a proxy for the actual mech-
anisms underlying change in the dependent variables [51], and they cannot capture nonlinear
dynamic processes such as shifts in functioning from one state to another, or variable interdepen-
dence and reciprocity. On the other hand, dynamical systems modeling offers a natural approach
to describe changes of and an interactive process among several variables in a system evolving over
time, and as such we believe it can provide useful insight into the theoretical framework of TRD
and SCT.
Brown, Sokal and Friedman [52, 53] provided a list of prerequisites for valid application of a
dynamical systems approach in the social sciences. TRD has all of these prerequisites, suggesting
that the deterministic dynamical systems approach might provide important insights in research
using a theoretical framework of SCT. The first condition is founded upon the principle that the
dependent variables are treated as continuous instead of discrete, and display a continuous change
over time. TRD assumes that each constituent in the system produces continuous effects on the
other components [1]. In fact, this simply means that the unit of the chosen time variable should be
much smaller than the time scale that is meaningful in the analyzed events. A second requirement
is an explanation for why the variables can be assumed to evolve over time without significant
influences from other factors that are not in the system. TRD is an inclusive model that involves
a cognitive process, a behavior, and an environment around a person, which uniquely proposes
that these three factors have reciprocal relationships. From a mathematical perspective, one is
then simply assuming a “closed system”, i.e., making the reasonable simplifying assumption that
other external factors (e.g., autonomic biological reactions) play a lesser role and can, therefore,
be neglected. A third condition requires the assumption that the variables change deterministically.
Longitudinal studies applying SCT and TRD in different settings showed indirect evidence of the

3
deterministic nature of TRD by strong longitudinal predictive relationships among these variables
[46–48], thus making TRD an ideal candidate in the social sciences theories for the deterministic
dynamical system approach proposed in this work.
A nonlinear dynamical systems approach may offer new and unique insight into how trauma adap-
tation may occur, as shown in [54] in which a cusp catastrophe model in trauma was tested in motor
vehicle accident survivors. Our main goal in this paper is to develop the mathematical framework to
model the interplay among an individuals behavior, personal factors, and the environment in situa-
tions in which the individual experiences a significant stressful event, via a deterministic dynamical
systems approach. Because TRD depicts how the person, environment, and behavior interact over
time, this approach can be beneficial in understanding human adaptation to environmental chal-
lenges such as traumatic events and daily stressors. This constitutes the mathematical groundwork
for future research that will involve numerical simulations for tuning the model parameters in or-
der to best the experimental data. Of course given the complexity of interacting factors one expects
that events might produce effects probabilistically, rather than deterministically. In this respect,
introducing some white noise randomness in the model parameters, or considering the dynamical
variables as stochastic variables, is also a natural direction for future investigations.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the dynamical system and discuss the
properties of the equations. In Section 3 the equilibria of the system are numerically identified,
and their stability analyzed, for seven scenarios corresponding to specific choices of the system
parameters. The dynamics of the system for initial conditions close to equilibrium is also presented,
and a possible interpretation of the dynamics from the point of view of social cognitive theory is
proposed. Section 4 is devoted to some concluding remarks. In the Appendix we consider special
reductions of the nonlinear dynamical system for which the equilibria can be found analytically,
and we discuss their properties.

2 Development of a deterministic dynamical systems model

Bandura [1] argued that psychological functioning involves a continuous, reciprocal interaction
among three major components: personal (or cognitive) factors, behavioral factors, and environ-
mental factors. The present study aims at modeling the relationship of these three elements by
means of a set of coupled differential equations. In the development of these differential equa-
tions, we considered a situation in which a person experiences a traumatic or very stressful event.
When the person encounters post-traumatic challenges (E), he/she appraises the situation and as a
result generates a self-appraisal of coping capabilities (i.e., coping self-efficacy, CSE) (P) to manage
environmental demands, which in turn activates a feedback mechanism leading to a behavioral out-
come (B) such as post-traumatic distress or depressed affect. We assume that these outcomes are
the collection of negative behaviors (i.e., symptoms) such as trouble sleeping and loss of interests in
activities that were previously enjoyable. The behavior is, in turn, fed back to the environment and
the person. Posttraumatic challenges are traumatic environmental conditions continuously chang-
ing over time. For example, in a case of a woman who has been raped, the recovery environment
is based on her social and relational environment as she attempts to recover [55, 56].
In this work, the following coupled system of differential equations:

Ṗ = αP − βB − γE + ψP2 − δBE (2.1a)

4
 Ḃ = βB − αP + γE + θB2 − ε| E| P (2.1b)
Ė = ζ + γE − αP + βB − ηP| B| (2.1c)

is proposed for the first time as a model of TRD. P, B, E are considered functions of time t, and ˙ de-
notes differentiation with respect to t. The above system accounts for the experimentally observed
nature of the interplay and interactions among the variables P, B, E [3, 45–48, 57, 58], and specif-
ically as follows. Coping self-efficacy appraisals (P) decline as the impact of the post-traumatic
challenges (E) and the interactive effect of a negative behavior (B) increase. The parameter α > 0
in the model measures the effectiveness of coping. The negative behavior is reduced when coping
self-efficacy appraisals increase, and it increases when the impact of post-traumatic challenges is
high. The impact of the negative behavior and the post-traumatic challenges is dependent on the
perception of those elements (parameters β > 0 and γ > 0, respectively). The parameter δ ≥ 0
measures the perception of the interactive effect of the negative behavior and the post-traumatic
challenges. The interactive effect of coping self-efficacy appraisals and the post-traumatic chal-
lenges depends on how the person perceives the post-traumatic challenges through self-appraisals
(e.g., challenging, threatening, manageable; parameter ε ≥ 0). The impact of post-traumatic chal-
lenges is reduced when coping self-efficacy appraisals increase and the negative behavior decreases.
The parameter ζ > 0 represents an environmental challenge or threat that is not related to one’s
perception. The interactive effect of coping self-efficacy appraisals and the negative behavior on
the impact of post-traumatic challenges depends on how a person appraises the negative behavior
through coping self-efficacy appraisals (parameter η ≥ 0). The parameters ψ and θ are introduced
to provide a saturation effect in the positive (or negative) feedback of coping self-efficacy and be-
havior upon themselves. [Note that in Section 2.1 it is shown that if ψ = θ = 0 then the system
cannot have any asymptotically stable equilibrium, suggesting their role to be quite relevant as
parameters in the model.] All parameters are assumed to be time-independent, and, as specified
above, all except ψ and θ are assumed to be non-negative.
In this work the dynamical variables P, B, E : t ∈ R+ → P(t), B(t), E(t) ∈ R are assumed to
be continuous and differentiable functions of t ∈ R+ ranging over all the reals. One could re-
strict the range to some interval, say, P(t), B(t), E(t) ∈ [− M, M] for all t ∈ R+ , or even different
intervals [− M j , M j ] with j = 1, 2, 3 for the different dynamical variables, and then map the inter-
vals to [−1, 1] once the scales in the problem have been suitably determined. Negative values for
E(t) correspond to a benign or supportive environment (as opposed to environmental challenges or
threats for E(t) > 0), and similarly for P(t) (with P(t) < 0 corresponding to a negative coping
self-efficacy, which can be thought of as various levels of learned helplessness), and for B(t) (with
B(t) < 0 in this case corresponding to positive behavioral outcomes, as opposed to post-traumatic
distress or depressed affect for B(t) > 0). One can then introduce a critical time T > 0 such that
| P(t)|, | B(t)|, | E(t)| ≤ M for all t ∈ [0, T ], and restrict the analysis to t ∈ [0, T ], assuming that
for t > T the differential equations (2.1) might cease to accurately describe the system dynamics.
While this might seem a severe limitation from a mathematical point of view, one should keep in
mind that the proper scales in the system can only be determined by comparison with experimen-
tal data (which we plan to address in a forthcoming work); and that by a suitable rescaling of
the dependent variables the time scale can make T large enough (say, T being several years, or
even comparable to an individual’s life-span) to guarantee that the model remain reasonable for all
times that are meaningful for practical purposes. Conversely, one could a priori restrict t ∈ [0, T ]
where T > 0 is chosen according to the experiment, the time scale being then determined by the

5
comparison with the experimental data, and the other dynamical variables and coefficients in the
system subsequently rescaled accordingly. The present work is a mathematical investigation of the
newly proposed system (2.1); in particular, the main goals are to identify the system equilibria in
a number of prototypical scenarios (i.e., choices for the coefficients in (2.1)), to determine their
stability, and to study the evolution of the dynamical variables with initial conditions close to each
equilibrium. Therefore, in the following we will consider P(t), B(t), E(t) ∈ R and implicitly assume
that t ∈ [0, T ] where T > 0 is large enough compared to the typical time scales in a trauma recovery
process, or in dealing with daily stressors.
First of all, note that the linear system associated to (2.1) (obtained by setting all the coefficients
of the nonlinear terms to zero) can be solved explicitly, and it gives:
αPl (0) − βPl (0) − γEl (0)
 
γζ
Pl (t) = − e(α+ β+γ)t (2.2a)
α+β+γ ( α + β + γ )2
γζ γζ ( β + γ) Pl (0) + βBl (0) + γEl (0)
+ t+ +
α+β+γ ( α + β + γ )2 α+β+γ
Bl (t) = − Pl (t) + Pl (0) + Bl (0) (2.2b)
El (t) = − Pl (t) + ζt + Pl (0) + El (0) (2.2c)
where Pl (0), Bl (0), El (0) are the initial conditions for the corresponding variables. It is clear then
that since α, β, γ are assumed to be positive (and this is intrinsic in the nature of the dynamical
variables P, B, E and their reciprocal interplay), the asymptotic behavior of the solutions of the
associated linear system as t → +∞ is such that either Pl (t) → +∞ and Bl (t), El (t) → −∞ (if the
initial conditions and the equation parameters are such that the coefficient in square brackets is
positive), or vice-versa Pl (t) → −∞ and Bl (t), El (t) → +∞ (if said coefficient is negative). In the
special case when the coefficient in square brackets is zero, namely, if αPl (0) + βBl (0) + γEl (0) =
γζ/(α + β + γ) > 0, then Pl (t) → +∞ and Bl (t), El (t) → −∞ linearly in t as t → +∞. Note that
even with arbitrary choices of the off-diagonal coefficients of the linearized system, any equilibrium
of the system would still be asymptotically unstable, as the asymptotic stability of equilibria for the
linearized system only depends on the sign of α + β + γ (see Section 2.1). As mentioned above,
one can restrict t ∈ [0, T ] so that the dynamical variables remain bounded. Nonetheless, regardless
of the initial conditions and of the choice of the other parameters, the asymptotic behavior of the
linearized system is an exponential growth, which might be considered as an underlying feature
of the model. And the two possible asymptotic states of the associated linear system correspond
to either a situation in which high coping self-efficacy pairs with an environment that is perceived
as completely benign or supportive, and a highly positive behavior (a state that we can refer to as
well-being, or contentment); or to one in which complete inability to cope (which we can refer to
as helplessness) is associated with the perception of unbearable environmental threats and heavy
depressed affect.

2.1 Properties of the equations

To analyze stability in the model, we first identified the equilibrium points, which are computed by
setting the right-hand sides of equations (2.1) to zero and solving the resulting system of equations
(2.3) for P, B, E:
αP − βB − γE + ψP2 − δBE = 0 (2.3a)

6
 βB − αP + γE + θB2 − ε| E| P = 0 (2.3b)
ζ + γE − αP + βB − ηP| B| = 0 . (2.3c)

Each equilibrium point is obviously specified by the corresponding values ( Po , Bo , Eo ) of the dy-
namical variables for which the above system is satisfied. Then, the Jacobian matrix associated to
the dynamical system at each equilibrium is computed. The system of differential equations is sta-
ble around a given equilibrium point when all eigenvalues of the associated Jacobian matrix have
negative real parts.
Eqs. (2.3) provide a nonlinear algebraic system for P, B, and E, whose solutions crucially depend on
whether ζ = 0 [homogeneous dynamical system], or ζ 6= 0 [non-homogeneous dynamical system].
In the first case, the system always has the “canonical” equilibrium at ( Po , Bo , Eo ) = (0, 0, 0). If, on
the other hand, ζ 6= 0, which is the case of interest in the present investigation, then ( Po , Bo , Eo ) =
(0, 0, 0) is not an equilibrium for the system, and the equilibria should be determined as the real
solutions of the above system. In general, the solution of the system requires finding the real roots
of a polynomial of ninth degree, which cannot be determined analytically for arbitrary values of
the coefficients.
The Jacobian matrix associated to the dynamical system (2.1) depends on the dynamical variables:
at a given equilibrium ( Po , Bo , Eo ) one has
 
α + 2ψPo − β − δEo −γ − δBo
Jo =  −α − ε| Eo | β + 2θBo γ − ε(sgnEo ) Po  (2.4)
−α − η | Bo | β − η (sgnBo ) Po γ

and the stability of the dynamical system around this equilibrium is determined by the eigenvalues
of the matrix Jo , i.e., by the solutions of:
 
α + 2ψPo − λ − β − δEo −γ − δBo
det( Jo − λI ) = det  −α − ε| Eo | β + 2θBo − λ γ − ε(sgnEo ) Po  = 0
−α − η | Bo | β − η (sgnBo ) Po γ−λ

The eigenvalues and the stability of the system are contingent on the equilibrium points and param-
eters. A stable system shows that trajectories sufficiently close to the equilibrium either converge
to the equilibrium, which in this case is called an attractor, or move around the equilibrium but
without departing from it. In an unstable system, some trajectories around the equilibrium diverge
from the equilibrium. This type of the equilibrium is sometimes called a repeller.
The characteristic polynomial for the eigenvalues at has the form:

λ3 + aλ2 + bλ + c = 0

where
a = −(α + β + γ + 2ψPo + 2θBo ) (2.5)
and the coefficients b and c have lengthy but explicit expressions in terms of the system parameters
and the equilibrium point ( Po , Bo , Eo );

b = (γ + β + 2θBo )(α + 2ψPo ) − (γ − ε(sgnEo ) Po )( β − η (sgnBo ) Po )

+γ( β + 2θBo ) − ( β + ε| Eo |)( β + δEo ) − (γ + δBo )(α + η | Bo |)

7
 c = −γ(α + 2ψPo )( β + 2θBo ) + (α + 2ψPo )(γ − ε(sgnEo ) Po )( β − η (sgnBo ) Po )
+γ( β + δEo )(α + ε| Eo |) − ( β + δEo )(γ − ε(sgnEo ) Po )(α + η | Bo |)
−(γ + δBo )(α + ε| Eo |)( β − η (sgnBo ) Po ) + (γ + δBo )(α + η | Bo |)( β + 2θBo )
An equilibrium is asymptotically stable if all its eigenvalues have negative real part, and the nec-
essary and sufficient condition for this to happen is given by the so called Routh-Hurwitz criteria
(see, for instance, [68]), namely:
a > 0, c > 0, ab > c , (2.6)
Since α, β, γ are all assumed to be positive, it is then clear that a necessary condition for any
equilibrium to be stable (coming from a > 0) is that
2ψPo + 2θBo < −(α + β + γ) < 0 , (2.7)
which then proves that no stable equilibria exist unless ψ2 + θ 2 6= 0.
The model (2.1) embeds different recognizable kinds of dynamics and nonlinearities: for instance,
setting ψ = θ = δ = ε = η = 0 gives a linear model whose solutions have been discussed above; by
setting γ = δ = ε = η = 0 a quasi-logistic dynamical system appears; choosing ζ = 0 or ζ 6= 0, i.e.,
excluding or including environmental challenges or threats that are not related to the individual’s
perception, gives a homogeneous or a non-homogenous system, etc. Several simplified models can
be obtained by restricting one or more of the parameters to zero, and we have explicitly considered
all the models one can obtain when 2 out of the 5 nonlinear parameters are set to zero, while the
other 7 parameters are left arbitrary. These reductions are discussed in the Appendix, where we
show that for each of them the equilibria are found as the real roots of a polynomial of degree less
than or equal to 4, in which case one has analytical tools to exploit to identify the number and the
nature of the real equilibria of the dynamical system. This analysis is important not only because,
unlike the full system, in these cases the equilibria can be found almost completely analytically,
but also in light of the fact that when any of the nonlinear parameters is zero one can expect a
bifurcation to occur: the degree of the polynomial whose real roots correspond to the equilibria,
in general, will decrease, thus suggesting a singular perturbation would be required in order to
determine estimates of the roots when the nonlinear parameter is small, but nonzero. On the other
hand, the analysis in the following section shows that the richness in the dynamics of the full model,
and, in particular, the existence of stable or reliably unstable (i.e., practically stable) equilibria is
not present in any of the reduced systems.
After analyzing a large number of numerical simulations of the dynamical system, we have iden-
tified seven prototypical scenarios for the dynamical system. Table 1 displays the choices of pa-
rameters for each of these scenarios. Note that the parameters are assumed to be dimensionless
values.
In Sec. 3 we will consider the full system (2.1) in each of the scenarios with the parameters given
in Table 1, discuss the equilibria and their stability, and analyze the dynamics corresponding to
initial conditions close to each of the equilibria. An interpretation of the system dynamics in the
neighborhood of the observed equilibria from the point of view of social cognitive theory will also
be proposed.
In order to validate our specific interest in stable or practically stable equilibria, we point out that
in the stress literature several concepts are similar to that of a stable equilibrium. For example,

8
 Table 1: Parameters used in the simulations
Parameters
Scenario α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ψ
1a 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.05 1.0 -0.1
1b 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.04 1.0 -0.01
1c 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.05 1.0 -0.01
2 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 5.0 -0.1
3 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.1 -0.1
4 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.0 0.1 -0.01
5 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.1 0.0 0.1 -0.01

homeostasis refers to maintaining key regulated physiological variables related to stress reactions
within an acceptable range [59–61]. These key variables include stress hormones, blood pressure,
glucose, and heart rate, just to name a few. Traumatic experiences often increase or decrease these
variables beyond the acceptable range. These variables remaining outside of the acceptable range
is associated with psychological disorders such as PTSD [62]. Self-regulation is a similar concept
related to stress reactions [63]. Humans are self-guided agents that consciously and unconsciously
bring the psychological and physiological states back to the baseline levels. For example, animals
including humans habituate themselves to similar repeated stimulus [64, 65]. This habituation
is often related to the post-trauma recovery [66, 67]. A common feature of these concepts is that
there are psychological and physiological baseline levels. When the psychological and physiological
states deviate from the baseline levels, returning to the baseline levels is a key for trauma recovery.
Therefore, we expect that the analysis of the system dynamics in the neighborhood of stable or
practically stable equilibria can provide valuable insight into human adaptation to environmental
challenges or threats.

3 Equilibria, stability and dynamics

The (real) equilibria are numerically computed for each scenario (with parameters given in Ta-
ble 1), and their stability is determined based on the Jacobian matrix at equilibrium.

3.1 Scenario 1

This scenario has been divided into three subcases (1a, 1b, 1c) because, in spite of the small
differences in the parameters (cf. Table 1), the system exhibits significantly different equilibria and
behavior in the three subcases. In scenario 1a the system has five real equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for
j = 1, . . . , 5:

P1 = 0.2898 , B1 = 0.0972 , E1 = 0.0986

P2 = 18.3920 , B2 = −10.3130 , E2 = 209.9310
P3 = 0.2969 , B3 = −0.0991 , E3 = 0.1462 (3.1)
P4 = −0.3476 , B4 = 0.0716 , E4 = −0.5868
P5 = −0.3299 , B5 = −0.0781 , E5 = −0.5325

9
 {0.2753, 0.0923, 0.0936} {17.4724, - 9.7973, 199.4350} {0.2821, - 0.0942, 0.1389}
2 200 0.3

50 100 150 150 0.2

-2
100 0.1
0.3

-4 0.2

0.1
50
10 20 30 40 50
-6 10 20 30 40 50

- 0.1
50 100 150 0.1

{- 0.3302, 0.0680, - 0.5575} {- 0.3068, - 0.0742, - 0.5059}

50 100 150 50 100 150
- 10
- 10
- 20

- 30 - 20
0.5

- 40 10 20 30 40 50 0.5

- 30
- 0.5

- 50 - 1.0
10 20 30 40 50
- 1.5
- 0.5

- 60 - 40 - 1.0

Figure 1: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 1a for initial conditions
close to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 5 respectively as in Eq. (3.1). The initial
conditions are specified on each graph. The smaller graph is a zoom of the larger one over the first
50 time units of the evolution.

All equilibria except ( P2 , B2 , E2 ) are unstable. The dynamical variables for initial conditions close
to the asymptotically stable equilibrium (Fig. 1, top middle panel) are, as expected, practically
constant. The large positive values for P2 and E2 , and the negative value for B2 indicate a state that
we can refer to as resistence, in which the individual is in control of the situation, in spite of the
existing or perceived environmental threats.
As to the unstable equilibria, the dynamics is very similar for initial conditions close to the three
equilibria corresponding to j = 1, 4, 5. In all three cases one can observe in Fig. 1(top left and
bottom panels) a situation in which, regardless of the different initial conditions, the asymptotic
state indicates no perception of any environmental challenge (E saturates towards large negative
values), while P and B have more or less the same asymptotic values P(180) ∼ −1.59 and B(180) ∼
−2.49, and a similar dynamics (initial increase of P and decrease of B and later decrease of P and
stabilization of B, in both cases towards negative asymptotic values). We will refer to this situation,
which recurs in various scenarios, as threat dispersion; in some scenarios the threat dispersion is
accompanied by positive values of P( T ) (residual confidence), in other scenarios by negative values
of P( T ) (residual self-doubt).
For initial conditions close to the third equilibrium (Fig. 1, top right panel), an initial positive value
of P(0) and absence of negative behavior (B(0) < 0) are not sufficient to overcome an increasing
environmental challenge, and the asymptotic state corresponds to what we referred to as learned
helplessness.
In scenario 1b the system has three real equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 3:

P1 = 2.3753 , B1 = 0.3699 , E1 = 1.0218

P2 = 10.5662 , B2 = −3.2444 , E2 = 37.3252 (3.2)
P3 = 2.6111 , B3 = −0.4246 , E3 = 1.6050

10
 {2.2566, 0.3514, 0.9707} {10.0379, - 3.0822, 35.4590} {2.4805, - 0.4034, 1.5248}
40 4
50 100 150

P(180)=-1.63464 30 3
- 50
B(180)=-2.49941
20 2
4

- 100 3

1
2

1
10
10 20 30 40 50

- 150 -1

50 100 150 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 2: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 1b for initial conditions
close to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1 (left), j = 2 (center) and j = 3 (right) re-
spectively, as given in Eq. (3.2). The initial conditions are specified on each graph. As before, the
smaller graph is a zoom of the larger one over the first 50 time units of the evolution.

All equilibria are unstable, and for all of them both Pj and Ej are positive. For initial conditions close
to the first equilibrium, ( P1 , B1 , E1 ) (Fig. 2, left panel), one has again the prototypical threat disper-
sion discussed in Scenario 1a. At the end of the integration period, P(t) and B(t) maintain finite
and relatively small values, specifically P(180) = −1.63664 and B(180) = −2.49941, close to the
corresponding values in Scenario 1a. The behavior around the second equilibrium (Fig. 2, middle
panel) is quite interesting and unusual, and could be labeled as resilience: in spite of the existing
environmental threat, the system evolves with slightly out-of-phase oscillations in all three vari-
ables, with an increase in E followed by a corresponding increase in P as the individual’s adaptive
response, to which in turn follows a decrease in the perceived threat E, and so on and so forth. The
values of B are subject to similar out-of-phase oscillations. While slowly increasing in amplitude,
the values of the dynamical variables remain fairly close to the initial conditions for a very large
time. Note that this is the equilibrium that in the other scenarios results as being asymptotically
stable; in this case it is unstable, but arguably a very reliable instability. Finally, in the vicinity of the
third equilibrium (Fig. 2, right panel), the behavior is again illustrative of the asymptotic state that
we labeled as learned helplessness, in which an initial positive value of P(0) and absence of negative
behavior (B(0) < 0) are not sufficient to overcome an increasing environmental challenge.
In scenario 1c the system has three real equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 3:

P1 = 2.4022 , B1 = 0.2992 , E1 = 1.0612

P2 = 20.0938 , B2 = −4.0057 , E2 = 99.3843 (3.3)
P3 = 2.6155 , B3 = −0.3134 , E3 = 1.4977

As noted before, scenarios 1b and 1c only differ for the values of ε and η. In both scenarios
there are three equilibria, and for all equilibria again Pj > 0 and Ej > 0. The behavior in the
vicinity of the first equilibrium seems to characterize a resilient group, while the third equilibrium
is similar to the corresponding one in Scenario 1b, which we labelled as learned helplessness. The
second equilibrium is asymptotically stable (Fig. 3, middle panel), and the behavior of the system
is characterized by pronounced initial oscillations of all three variables, this time with decreasing
amplitudes, which then lock into the equilibrium values in the asymptotic state that we labeled as
resistance.

11
 {2.2821, 0.2843, 1.0082} {19.0891, - 3.8054, 94.4151} {2.4847, - 0.2977, 1.4228}
2.5 100
4
2.0 80

1.5 3
60

1.0 40 2

0.5
20 1

10 20 30 40 50
50 100 150 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 3: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 1c for initial conditions
close to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1 (left), j = 2 (center) and j = 3 (right) respec-
tively, as given in Eq. (3.3). The initial conditions are specified on each graph.

3.2 Scenario 2

In this scenario the system has three equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 3:

P1 = 0.5218 , B1 = 0.0930 , E1 = 0.7055

P2 = 8.2429 , B2 = −2.8952 , E2 = 129.19 (3.4)
P3 = 0.5538 , B3 = −0.1037 , E3 = 1.1526

Again, all equilibria have Pj > 0 and Ej > 0. The second equilibrium is asymptotically stable,
with the typical behavior observed before, while the other two are unstable. The behavior in the
vicinity of the first equilibrium (Fig. 4, left panel), seems to characterize an adaptive response to the
environmental challenge, leading to a learned mastery: in spite of high post-traumatic challenges
and an initial negative behavior, a positive initial coping self-efficacy appraisal is such that the
system evolves so as to rapidly decrease E and B and increase P. Note that, even after a long
time all three variables maintain finite and relatively small values (P(180) = 0.993049, B(180) =
−0.279578, E(180) = −6.45218). The third equilibrium also shows a remarkably reliable instability
(cf. Fig. 4, right panel), since the values of P and B hardly change over a long time, while E
decreases although remaining finite and relatively close to the initial value as well (P(180) =
0.594899, B(180) = −0.104004, E(180) = 0.594899). Unlike the first equilibrium, in this case the
environment continues to be perceived as challenging, although it does not affect the individual’s
behavior and coping self-efficacy, a state that we can refer to as habituation.

{0.4954, 0.0898, 0.6684} {7.1876, - 2.6086, 109.2810} {0.5264, - 0.1010, 1.1038}

1.0 120
1.0
0.5 100
0.8
80
50 100 150 0.6
- 0.5 60
0.4 P(180)=0.594899
- 1.0 40 B(180)=-0.104004
P(180)=0.993049 0.2 E(180)=0.825839
B(180)=-0.279578 20
- 1.5
E(180)=-6.45218
- 2.0 50 100 150
50 100 150

Figure 4: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 2 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1 (left), j = 2 (center) and j = 3 (right) respectively, as
given by Eq. (3.4). The initial conditions are specified on each graph.

12
 {1.5559, - 1.5559, 20.4379} {1.6378, - 1.6378, 21.5136} {1.7197, - 1.7197, 22.5893}
20 20
20

15 15
15

10 10
10

5 5
5

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

{0.7051, - 0.7051, 2.7580}

{0.6379, - 0.6379, 2.4953} {0.6715, - 0.6715, 2.6267}
3
2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0
2
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
1

0.5 0.5

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

- 0.5 - 0.5

Figure 5: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 3 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1 (top three panels) and j = 2 (bottom three panels),
as given by Eq. (3.5). The initial conditions are specified on each graph, and they are chosen close
to the equilibrium (left and right plots), and equal to the equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

3.3 Scenario 3

In this scenario the system has five equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 5:

P1 = 1.6378 , B1 = −1.6378 , E1 = 21.514

P2 = 0.6715 , B2 = −0.6715 , E2 = 2.6267
P3 = 0.5727 , B3 = 0.5820 , E3 = 0.0931 (3.5)
P4 = −0.4537 , B4 = −0.4537 , E4 = −8.7516
P5 = −0.4789 , B5 = −0.4141 , E5 = −8.9301

Only the equilibrium for j = 1 is asymptotically stable, while the other ones are all unstable. Note,
however, that the equilibrium corresponding to j = 2 (in which moderate post-traumatic challenges
are coupled with initially positive P and a mildly positive behavior) also shows a remarkably re-
liable instability, since the values of P, B, E almost hardly change over a long time. In Fig. 5 the
time evolution for initial conditions close to the equilibrium ones is compared for both the stable
equilibrium (j = 1, top panels) and the last equilibrium (j = 2, bottom panels). Fig. 6 portraits the
time evolution of the dynamical variables in Scenario 3 for initial conditions close to the last three
equilibria in Eq. (3.5). The equilibrium corresponding to j = 3 (left plot in Fig. 6) is similar to the
first one discussed for Scenario 3 (learnad mastery), while the other two are hardly distinguishable
from each other, and correspond to absence of any environmental challenge.

13
 {0.5440, 0.5529, 0.0884} {- 0.4310 , - 0.4310 , - 8.3140 } {- 0.4550 , - 0.3934 , - 8.4836 }

20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120

-2 -2
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-4 -4
-1
-6 -6

-2 -8 -8

- 10 - 10
-3
- 12 - 12

-4 - 14 - 14

Figure 6: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 3 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 3 (left), j = 4 (center) and j = 5 (right) respectively, as
given by Eq. (3.5). The initial conditions are specified on each graph.

3.4 Scenario 4

In Scenario 4 the system has again three equilibria ( Pj , Bj , Ej ) for j = 1, . . . , 3:

P1 = 8.1295 , B1 = −2.8258 , E1 = 2.987

P2 = 3.7661 , B2 = −1.2700 , E2 = 0.808 (3.6)
P3 = 6.8240 , B3 = 2.3650 , E3 = −2.3901

All equilibria have Pj > 0, but in this case there are equilibria with both signs for Bj and Ej (except
with both Bj > 0 and Ej > 0). The first equilibrium is asymptotically stable, while the other two are
unstable. Figs. 7-9 show the system dynamics in a neighborhood of each equilibrium, with initial
conditions which are, in each case, chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots) and exactly
equal to the equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

{7.7230, - 2.6845, 2.8378} {8.1295, - 2.8258, 2.9872} {8.5360, - 2.9671, 3.1365}

8
8 8

6
6 6

4 4
4

2 2
2

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

-2 -2
-2

Figure 7: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 4 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( P1 , B1 , E1 ), as given by Eq. (3.6). The initial conditions are specified on
each graph, and they are chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots), and equal to the
equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

As usual, the dynamical variables around the stable equilibrium j = 1 in Eq. (3.6) are practically
constant (cf Fig. 7). It is also worth noticing that the values of P, B, E corresponding to this equilib-
rium are significantly smaller than the ones that characterize the stable equilibria in all the other
scenarios. Interestingly, in a neighborhood of the second equilibrium (j = 2 in Eq. (3.6), and

14
 {3.7661, - 1.2700, 0.8080} {3.9544, - 1.3335, 0.8484}
{3.6719 , - 1.2383 , 0.7878 }
10
3

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

5 2

1 -5

100 200 300 400 500 600

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
- 10
P(150)=-2.56171
5 P(600)=8.1318 -1 B(150)=-1.05199
B(600)=-2.82675 E(150)=-269.715
E(600)=2.98865

Figure 8: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 4 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( P2 , B2 , E2 ), as given by Eq. (3.6). The initial conditions are specified on
each graph, and they are chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots), and equal to the
equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

{7.1652 , 2.4832 , - 2.5096 }

{6.8240, 2.3650, - 2.3901}
{6.4828, 2.2467, - 2.2706} 20
6
5

4 10
10 20 30 40 50

-5
2

- 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

10 20 30 40 50
- 15
- 10
-2
- 20

Figure 9: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue) in Scenario 4 for initial conditions close
to the equilibrium values ( P3 , B3 , E3 ), as given by Eq. (3.6). The initial conditions are specified on
each graph, and they are chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots), and equal to the
equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

Fig. 8), one can observe a transition from an unstable equilibrium to the stable one. When the ini-
tial conditions are chosen slightly smaller than the equilibrium coordinates for j = 2, the dynamical
variables evolve as shown in the left panel of Fig. 8: P and E initially increase and B decreases,
but eventually P and E decrease and B increases towards the stable equilibrium corresponding to
j = 1, with limiting values P(600) = 8.1318, B(600) = −2.82675 and E(600) = 2.98865 also given
in the figure. On the other hand, when the initial conditions are chosen slightly larger than the
equilibrium coordinates for j = 2 (Fig. 8, right panel), all three dynamical variables decrease; E
eventually becomes negative and continues to decrease without bound, while P and B start oscil-
lating around some negative values that could be considered as a lower dimensional equilibrium
for P and B only, when E saturates towards large negative values (the threat dispersion observed in
various other scenarios, with the additional feature of rapid oscillations of P and B towards their
asymptotic values P( T ) and B( T )).
A somewhat similar behavior is exhibited around the third equilibrium with initial conditions
slightly to the “left” of the equilibrium. In this case, however, the dynamics is much faster (one
starts seeing oscillations already around t = 20 in the left plot in Fig. 9), and the variables diverge

15
 {2.6420, 1.0948, 0.3736} {2.7810, 1.1524, 0.3932} {2.9201 , 1.2100 , 0.4129 }

2.5
6
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

- 10 2.0
4

- 20 1.5
2
1.0
- 30

0.5 5 10 15 20
- 40

-2
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Figure 10: Time evolution of P (green), B (red) and E (blue)in Scenario 5 for initial conditions
close to the equilibrium value ( P1 , B1 , E1 ) given by Eq. (3.7). The initial conditions are specified on
each graph, and they are chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots), and equal to the
equilibrium coordinates (central plot).

quickly when the initial conditions are chosen as slightly larger than the equilibrium coordinates,
which is why the dynamics in the third panel in Fig. 9 is only plotted up to t = 15.

3.5 Scenario 5

In Scenario 5 the system has only one equilibrium:

P1 = 2.7810 , B1 = 1.1524 , E1 = 0.3932 , (3.7)

which is unstable. Fig. 10 shows the system dynamics in a neighborhood of each equilibrium, with
initial conditions which are, in each case, chosen close to the equilibrium (left and right plots) and
exactly equal to the equilibrium coordinates (central plot).
The behavior to the left of the equilibrium exhibits the same asymptotic threat dispersion with os-
cillating P, B discussed in Scenario 4. However, the variables diverge quickly with initial conditions
slightly larger than the equilibrium coordinates (which is why the dynamics in the third panel is
only plotted up to t = 20), and suddenly and rapidly approach helplessness, a situation that can be
referred to as a negative self-regulation shift [54].

4 Concluding remarks

In this work we have developed a deterministic dynamical systems model to describe the interplay
among an individuals behavior, personal factors, and the environment, in the framework of triadic
reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory. After analyzing a large number of numerical
simulations of the dynamical system, we have identified seven prototypical scenarios for the dy-
namical system. For each of these seven scenarios, we have numerically computed the equilibria of
the system and analyzed their stability. The dynamics of the system for initial conditions close to
equilibrium has also been presented, and a possible interpretation of the dynamics from the point of
view of social cognitive theory proposed. In five out of the seven scenarios considered in this work,
the system exhibits a stable equilibrium, with the dynamical variables characterizing resistance.
The study has also indicated that some of the unstable equilibria manifest a “reliable” instability,
for which the values of the dynamical variables remain remarkably close to the initial conditions

16
for a very long time, when the latter are chosen to be close enough to the equilibrium coordinates.
Some of the scenarios (Scenarios 1a, 1c and 3) present features that seem to characterize a re-
silient group, where, in spite of high post-traumatic challenges and an initial negative behavior,
a positive initial coping self-efficacy appraisal ensures that the system evolves so as to rapidly de-
crease the behavioral factors and the perception of the environmental threats. In other scenarios
the dynamics in the neighborhood of the equilibria describe situations that we have labelled from
a social cognitive theory perspective as learned helplessness, habituation, mastery, threat dispersion.
The transition from an unstable equilibrium to a stable one has also been observed (Scenario 4), as
well as a an example of sudden negative self-regulatory shift (Scenario 5).
The proposed approach, which can be beneficial in understanding human adaptation to environ-
mental threats or challenges, such as traumatic events and daily stressors, constitutes the mathe-
matical groundwork for future research that will involve numerical simulations for the tuning of
the model parameters so as to best fit the experimental data available.

Acknowledgements

BP gratefully acknowledges support for this work from the National Science Foundation under
grant DMS-1614601.

A System reductions

In order to gain some insight on the equilibria, one can consider special reductions of the nonlinear
dynamical system corresponding to 2 out of the 9 nonlinear parameters being set to zero. There are
10 possible choices, and below we will discuss each one of them in details, specifying which of the 2
nonlinear parameters are being set to zero, while the other 7 parameters are left arbitrary. We show
that for each of these reductions the equilibria are found as the real roots of a polynomial of degree
less than or equal to 4, and in many cases the roots can be found analytically. We then analyze
each of these reductions in the specific scenarios given in Table 1, and discuss the corresponding
equilibria and their stability.

A.1 Subcase 1: ε = η = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

θB2 = ζ , ψP2 − δBE + ζ = 0 , −αP + βB + γE + ζ = 0

The first equation requires θ > 0, otherwise the system has no equilibria. In this case, we find
r r !
ζ 1 ζ
B=± , E= αP − ζ ∓ β (1.1a)
θ γ θ
r r !
2 αδ ζ βδ δ ζ
ψP ∓ P+ζ 1+ ± =0 (1.1b)
γ θ γθ γ θ

17
A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of equilibria is that the discriminant of the
above quadratic equation be nonnegative, i.e.
r !
α2 δ2 ζ βδ δ ζ
∆ = 2 − 4ψζ 1 + ± ≥0
γ θ γθ γ θ

Obviously, if the inequality is satisfied for the + sign, it will also be true for the − sign, although
the converse in general might not hold of course.
The equilibria and the system dynamics have been analyzed numerically by examining all 8 sce-
narios in Table 1 with pairs of values for ε and η such that ε = ε o , ε o × 10−1 , ε o × 10−4 , ε o × 10−7 , 0
where ε o is the value in Table 1 for each scenario, and similarly for η. The numerical investigation
showed that the values of the equilibria and the dynamics remain essentially unchanged for all
the choices for ε; on the other hand, the equilibria and the dynamics depend on the choice of η,
and in particular the smaller the value of η, the larger the values for the coordinates of the stable
equilibrium coordinates (with the stable equilibrium disappearing when η = ηo × 10−7 and η = 0).
This study shows that at least when η 6= 0 one could actually neglect ε, and study the simplified
system with ε = 0.

A.2 Subcase 2: δ = η = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

ψP2 + ζ = 0 , θB2 − ε| E| P = ζ , −αP + βB + γE + ζ = 0

The first equation implies ψ < 0, otherwise the system has no equilibria. Then one obtains
s s
ζ α ζ β ζ
P=± , E=± − B− (1.2a)
|ψ| γ |ψ| γ γ
s s
εβ ζ αεζ εζ ζ
θB2 ± σ B−ζ−σ ±σ =0 (1.2b)
γ |ψ| γ|ψ| γ |ψ|

where σ = sgn( E). For each choice of the signs for P and σ, a necessary and sufficient condition
for the existence of equilibria is
s !
β2 ε2 ζ αεζ εζ ζ
∆= 2 + 4θ ζ + σ ±σ ≥0
γ |ψ| γ|ψ| γ |ψ|

in which case after determining the solutions for B, consistency with the second of (1.2a) must be
checked as far as the sign of E is concerned.
The equilibria and the system dynamics have been analyzed numerically by examining all 8 sce-
narios in Table 1 with pairs of values for δ and η such that δ = δo , δo × 10−1 , δo × 10−4 , δo × 10−7 , 0
where δo is the value in Table 1 for each scenario, and similarly for η. Unlike the previous subcase,
here the numerical investigation showed that at least qualitatively δ and η influence the system and
its dynamics on equal footing. In particular, for almost all the scenarios the values of all equilibria

18
except one (the one that in many cases is stable) exhibit small changes when δ and η are reduced by
one order of magnitude, and then remain practically unchanged as the values of the parameters are
further reduced. The corresponding dynamics also remain similar, with few exceptions where the
instabilities seem to be developing quicker than for the values in Table 1. In all scenarios the smaller
the values of δ and η, the larger the values for the coordinates of the stable equilibrium coordinates
(with the stable equilibrium generally disappearing when either δ = δo × 10−7 or η = ηo × 10−7 .
A couple of notable differences are detected in Scenario 4 (where in one of the equilibria the sign
of Ej changes from positive to negative), and in Scenario 6 (where a second, unstable equilibrium
appears) even as the parameters are reduced by only one order of magnitude. The latter is clearly
due to the change in δ, since in this scenario η = 0. This analysis seem to warrant in general one
needs to keep both δ and η.

A.3 Subcase 3: ε = δ = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

ψP2 + θB2 = 0 , ψP2 − η | B| P + ζ = 0 , αP − βB − γE + ψP2 = 0

The first equation requires ψθ < 0, otherwise the system has no equilibria. Under this assumption,
the first two equations yield
r r !
ψ ψ
| B| = − | P| , ση − − ψ P2 = ζ
θ θ

where in the second equation σ = sgn( P). When ψ < 0 and θ > 0 one then obtains a positive
solution for P
s
ζ
P+ = p (1.3a)
η |ψ|/θ + |ψ|

as well as a negative one

s
ζ
P− = − p provided |ψ|θ > η 2 (1.3b)
|ψ| − η ψ/|θ |

Corresponding to each of them, there are two values of B, with opposite signs, and two values for
E:
r r !
|ψ| α β |ψ| ψζ 1
B=± P, E= ∓ P+ p (1.3c)
θ γ γ θ γ |ψ| + ση |ψ|/θ

If, on the other hand, ψ > 0 and θ < 0 the quadratic equation for P has only one positive solution
s
ζ
P= p provided ψ|θ | < η 2 (1.4a)
η ψ/|θ | − ψ

19
Correspondingly, there are two values of B, with opposite signs, and two values for E:
s s !
ψ α β ψ ψζ 1
B=± P, E= ∓ P+ (1.4b)
|θ | γ γ |θ |
p
γ η |ψ|/θ − ψ

In all cases, the equilibria with ψP + θB < 0 can be stable, those for which ψP + θB ≥ 0 are
necessarily unstable.

A.4 Case 4: η = θ = 0

In this case (2.3) can be reduced to

ζ + ψP2 − δBE = 0 , | E| P = −ζ/ε

αP − βB − γE = ζ

Note that the second equation now implies that all equilibria necessarily have P < 0, and it gives

ζ α ζγ −1 ζ
E = ∓ P −1 , B = P± P − (1.5a)
ε β βε β
2 2
 
αδζ δζ δγζ
ψP4 + ζ ± P2 ∓ P+ =0 (1.5b)
βε βε βε2

Equation (1.5b) is a depressed (lacking the cubic term) quartic polynomial in P, which can have
up to four real solutions (distinct or, possibly, repeated) or a combination of two real and two com-
plex conjugate solutions, or four complex conjugate solutions. Although not necessarily practical, a
depressed quartic can be reduced to a cubic, and explicit solutions found by means of Cardano’s for-
mulas. Solutions of (1.5b) depend on the parameters of the system, and only the negative real zeros
of the quartic polynomial are relevant. Once such negative real solutions for P are determined, so-
lutions for E and B can be determined using (1.5a). Note that the equilibria corresponding to the
+ in (1.5b) would have P < 0, E > 0 and B < 0, while the equilibria corresponding to the − in
(1.5b) would have P < 0, E < 0, but the sign of B is not fixed. Finally, note that if ψ < 0 then all
equilibria would be unstable, while for ψ > 0 there could be stable equilibria.

A.5 Subcase 5: ε = θ = 0

The system (2.3) for the equilibria in this case can be reduced to

ψP2 = δBE , ηP| B| = ζ , βB − αP + γE = 0

The second equation implies that for all equilibria P > 0 (and consequently one can have stability
only for ψ < 0). If we denote again σ2 = sgn( B), then we obtain

ζ α βζ −1
B = σ2 P−1 , E= P − σ2 P
η γ γη
αδζ 2 βδζ 2
P4 − σ2 P + =0
γηψ γη 2 ψ

20
The roots of the quartic equation can be found explicitly by quadrature, and clearly the existence
and sign of the real roots depends on the sign of ψ as well as on σ2 . In particular, if ψ > 0 there is
no real solution if σ2 = −1, and if σ2 = +1 then a necessary condition for the existence of at least
one real equilibrium (necessarily unstable) is that

α2 δ
0<ψ≤ (1.6)
4βγ

If the above condition holds, there are two real equilibria with P > 0 (one if the equality holds)
given by v
u " r #
u αδζ 4βγψ
P± = t 1± 1− 2 (1.7a)
2γηψ α δ

Correspondingly, one has

ζ α βζ −1
B± = P± , E± = P± − P (1.7b)
η γ γη ±
If, on the other hand, ψ < 0, then both choices for σ2 are admissible, for any choice of the parame-
ters. One has again two real equilibria with P > 0 given by
v "r #
u
u αδζ 4βγ | ψ |
P± = t 1+ ±1 (1.8a)
2γη |ψ| α2 δ

and correspondingly
ζ α βζ −1
B± = ± P± , E± = P± ∓ P (1.8b)
η γ γη ±
In this case both equilibria can potentially be stable; for the first one P and B are both positive, and
for the second one P is positive and B is negative.

A.6 Subcase 6: ε = ψ = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

B(θB − δE) = 0 , B(δE + (sgnB)ηP) = ζ

δ2
 
βδ
αP = + γ E + E2
θ θ

B = 0 is not consistent with the second equation above, then necessarily B = (δ/θ ) E. This implies
that θB always has the same sign as E, and since a necessary condition for stability is that θB < 0,
we anticipate that solutions with E > 0 cannot be stable. If, as before, we denote σ2 = sgn( B), we
then find
δ2
 
δ 1 βδ
B = E, P= + γ E + E2 (1.9a)
θ α θ αθ
θ αζθ 2
E3 + 2 (σ2 αδη + βδ + γ) E2 + σ2 3 = 0 (1.9b)
δ ηδ

21
Again, the problem reduces to solving the cubic (with the linear term missing) for E for each choice
of the sign for σ2 , and then determine the corresponding values for P, and for B, the latter consistent
with the choice for the sign. The discriminant of the equation in this case is given by

αζθ 4
 
αζ θ
∆ = σ2 6 −27σ2 − 4 (σ2 αδη + βδ + γ)3
ηδ η δ
If σ2 = +1 and θ > 0 then obviously ∆ < 0 and the cubic equation has only one real zero, which
will provide an equilibrium (necessarily unstable) for the system provided such zero is positive. If
σ2 = +1 and θ < 0, one will need to restrict to the real and negative solutions of the cubic, and
they could be stable.

A.7 Subcase 7: δ = ψ = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

θB2 = ε| E| P , ηP| B| = ζ
αP − βB − γE = 0

The second equation implies P > 0 and B 6= 0; moreover, from the first one it follows that θ > 0
[for θ < 0 the system does not have any equilibrium]. Then we can solve for B and E in terms of P
and then plug into the third equation to get:

ζ −1 θζ 2 −3
| B| = P , | E| = P (1.10a)
η εη 2
βζ 2 γζ 2 θ
P4 − σ2 P − σ1 =0 (1.10b)
αη αεη 2
where as usual σ1 = sgn( E) and σ2 = sgn( B). The quartic equation can be solved by quadratures:
obviously if σ1 = σ2 = −1 it does not have any real solutions. For the other choices of the signs the
positive solutions for P and the corresponding values for B and E are given by:
v " s #
u
u βζ 4αγθ
Po = t 1+ 1+ (1.11a)
2αη εβ2
ζ −1 θζ 2 −3
Bo = P , Eo = P (1.11b)
η o εη 2 o

v " s #
u
u βζ 4αγθ
P± = t ±1 + 1 + (1.12a)
2αη εβ2
ζ θζ 2 −3
B± = − P±−1 , E± = P (1.12b)
η εη 2 ±
and, provided θ is such that
β2 ε
0<θ≤ ,
4αγ

22
also
v " s #
u
u βζ 4αγθ
P± = t 1± 1− (1.13a)
2αη εβ2
ζ −1 θζ 2 −3
B± = P , E± = − P (1.13b)
η ± εη 2 ±

A.8 Subcase 8: η = ψ = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

δBE = ζ , θB2 − ε| E| p − ζ = 0 , αP − βB − γE = ζ
The first equation implies BE > 0, and then solving for E and P in terms of B and plugging into the
third equation yields:
ζ −1 ζ β γζ −1
E= B , P = + B+ B (1.14a)
δ α α αδ
εζ 2 γεζ 2
 
ζ βε
B4 − 1+σ B2 − σ B−σ 2 = 0 (1.14b)
θ αδ αδθ αδ θ
where σ = sgn( E) ≡ sgn( B). Then the equilibria are given by the real positive roots (if any) of the
depressed quartic for B when σ = +1, and the real negative roots when σ = −1. In both cases, the
corresponding values for E and P are given by (1.14a), and it should be noted that B, E all have
the same sign. Then, if θ > 0 the only possible stable equilibria correspond to σ = −1 and have
B, E < 0, while if θ < 0 the only possible stable equilibria correspond to σ = 1 and have P, B, E > 0.

A.9 Subcase 9: δ = θ = 0

In this case the system (2.3) can be reduced to

ψP2 = ε| E| P , ζ − ηP| B| + ψP2 = 0
αP − βB − γE + ψP2 = 0
Clearly the first equation implies ψP ≥ 0; also, one can easily check that P 6= 0 if ζ > 0. Keeping
this into account, we find
ζ ψ ψ
| B | = P −1 + P , | E| = P (1.15a)
η η ε
[note that we need ζP−1 + ψP ≥ 0] and if, as before, we denote σ1 = sgn( E) and σ2 = sgn( B), the
last equation in the system yields
 
3 α β γ βζ
P + − σ2 − σ1 P2 − σ2 =0 (1.15b)
ψ η ε ψη
The latter is a monic cubic with the linear term missing, for which the discriminant takes on a
particularly simple form
βζ α β γ
∆ = d(−4b3 − 27d) , d = −σ2 , b= − σ2 − σ1
ψη ψ η ε

23
If ∆ > 0 the cubic has three real roots, and if ∆ < 0 the cubic has only one real root [if ∆ = 0
there are multiple roots]. For each of the four choices for the signs of σ1 and σ2 , one would have
to choose the real roots of the above cubic with the same sign as ψ, and the values for E and B
given by (1.15), consistent with the choices for the signs. As specified above, all equilibria would
be unstable because ψP > 0.

A.10 Subcase 10: ψ = θ = 0

This is essentially the same case (with the improvement of the absolute values and proper choices
of signs for the coefficients of the nonlinear terms) as the one we originally considered. Because
ψ = θ = 0, all equilibria are necessarily going to be unstable (cf (2.7)).
Adding the first and second equation, and the first and third equation in the system (2.3) yields:

E(−δB − ε(sgnE) P) = 0
B(δE + η (sgnB) P) = ζ

Then it is clear that one can have equilibria with E = 0. In this case, the last equation implies
P > 0, and solving the system gives a single equilibrium
s s
ζβ ζα
Po = , Bo = , Eo = 0 (1.16)
ηα ηβ

Note that for this equilibrium both Po and Bo are positive. If, on the other hand, E 6= 0, then one
can check that PB 6= 0 as well [following from ζ > 0]. It is convenient to define

σ1 = sgn( E) , σ2 = sgn( B)

and
ε ζ η
B = −σ1 P , E = −σ1 P−1 − σ2 P (1.17a)
 δ ε δ
εη εβ γη γζ
σ1 σ2 P3 − α + σ1 + σ2 P2 + ζP − σ1 =0 (1.17b)
δ δ δ ε

Then it is clear that for all 4 possible choices of sign combinations for σ1 and σ2 , one will have
to solve the above cubic (which always has at least one and up to three real roots, depending on
the sign of its discriminant), and then compute the values for E and B which are consistent with
the chosen sign combinations. More precisely, if σ1 σ2 > 0, then in both cases one has to choose
the negative real roots for the cubic (if any), and correspondingly obtain solutions with Po < 0,
sgn( Eo ) = σ1 and sgn( Bo ) = σ2 [obviously Eo and Bo will have the samep sign]. If instead σ1 σ2 < 0,
then one can choose either the real roots of the cubic such that | Po | > ζδ/(εη ).

A.11 Subcase 11: δ = ε = η = 0

It is worth also looking at this reduction in which all the nonlinear terms that involve products of
two of the dynamical variables are absent (in a sense, this avoids any of the problems that rise

24
with the products). In this case the equilibria can all be found explicitly. Specifically, a necessary
conditions for the existence of real equilibria is that ψ < 0 and θ < 0. If this holds, then one has
q q
Pσ1 = σ1 ζ/|ψ| , Bσ2 = σ2 ζ/|θ | (1.18)
q q
α β
E = σ1 ζ/|ψ| − σ2 ζ/|θ | − ζ (1.19)
γ γ

with σj = ± for j = 1, 2. So there are exactly four equilibria in this case, one for each of the two
choices of sign.

References
1. A. Bandura, “The self system in reciprocal determinism”, American Psychologist 33(3), 334–358 (1978)
2. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Henry Holt (New York, 1977)
3. A. J. Smith, A. A. Abeyta, M. Hughes, and R. T. Jones, “Persistent grief in the aftermath of mass vio-
lence: The predictive roles of posttraumatic stress symptoms, self-efficacy, and disrupted worldview”,
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 7(2), 179–186 (2015)
4. C.C. Benight and M. Harper, “Coping self-efficacy perceptions as a mediator between acute stress re-
sponse and long-term distress following natural disasters”, Journal of Traumatic Stress 15(3), 177–186
(2000)
5. C. Guerra, P. Cumsille, and M. Martinez, “Post-traumatic stress symptoms in adolescents exposed to
an earthquake: Association with self-efficacy, perceived magnitude, and fear”, International Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology 14(3), 202–207 (2014)
6. R. Cieslak, C.C. Benight, A. Luszczynska, and M. Laudenslager, “Longitudinal relationships between self-
efficacy, post-traumatic distress and salivary cortisol among motor vehicle accident survivors”, Stress and
Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 27 (3), e261–e268 (2011)
7. C.C. Benight, R. Freyaldenhoven, J. Hughes, J. Ruiz, T. Zoschke, and W. Lovallo, “Coping self-efficacy
and psychological distress following the Oklahoma city bombing”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology
30(7), 1331–1344 (2000)
8. C.C. Benight, R. Cieslak, I. Molton, and L. Johnson, Self-evaluative appraisals of coping capability and
posttraumatic distress following motor vehicle accidents, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
76(4), 677–685 (2008)
9. A. Luszczynska, C.C. Benight, and R. Cieslak, “Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective
trauma: A systematic review”, European Psychologist 14(1), 51–62 (2009)
10. S. Galam, Y. Gefen and Y. Shapir, “Sociophysics: A mean behavior model for the process of strike”, Math.
J. of Sociology 9, 1–13 (1982)
11. S. Galam, “Majority rule, hierarchical structures and democratic totalitarism: a statistical approach”, J.
of Math. Psychology 30, 426–434 (1986)
12. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes
in groups”, Euro. J. of Social Psy. 21, 49–74 (1991)
13. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: II. Conformity and power”,
Euro. J. of Social Psy. 24 481–495 (1994)
14. S. Galam and S. Moscovici, “Towards a theory of collective phenomena: III. Conflicts and forms of
power”, Euro. J. of Social Psy. 25, 217–229 (1995)

25
15. L. Arlotti, N. Bellomo, K. Latrach, “From the Jager and Segel model to kinetic population dynamics:
Nonlinear evolution problems and applications”, Math. Comput. Modelling 30, 15–40 (1999)
16. G.I. Bischi, C. Mammana, and L. Gardini, “Multistability and cyclic attractors in duopoly games”, Chaos,
Solitons and Fractals 11, 543-564 (2000)
17. B. Carbonaro, N. Serra, “Towards mathematical models in Psychology: A stochastic description of hu-
man feelings”, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 12, 1463–1498 (2002)
18. S. Galam, “Spontaneous Coalition Forming. Why Some Are Stable?”, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence. 5th International Conference on Cellular Automata for Research and Industry, Springer-Verlag
Heidelberg, 1–9 Volume 2493 (2002)
19. M. Lo Schiavo, “The modelling of political dynamics by generalized kinetic (Boltzmann) models”, Math.
Comput. Modelling 37, 261–281 (2003)
20. M. Lo Schiavo, “Kinetic modelling and electoral competition”, Math. Comput. Modelling 42, 1463–1486
(2005)
21. N. Bellomo, B. Carbonaro, “On the modelling complex sociopsychological systems with some reasoning
about Kate, Jules and Jim”, Differential Equations Nonlin. Mech., Article ID 86816 (2006)
22. S. Galam, “Sociophysics: a review of Galam models”, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. C 19, 409–440 (2008)
23. S. Galam, Sociophysics - A Physicists’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena, Springer-Verlag (New
York, 2012)
24. J. Goldstein, “Social Psychology and Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory”, Psychological Inquiry 8(2)
(1997)
25. G.M. Burlinagme and C.A. Hope, “Dynamical Systems Theory and Social Psychology: The Promises and
Pitfalls”, Psychological Inquiry 8(2), 104–110 (1997)
26. R.R. Vallacher and A. Nowak, “The emergence of dynamical social psychology”, Psychol. Inq. 4, 73–99
(1997)
27. A. Nowak and R.R. Vallacher, Dynamical Social Psychology, Guilford (New York, 1998)
28. R.R. Vallacher, S.J. Read, and A. Nowak (eds.), “The dynamical perspective in social psychology”, Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6(special issue), 264–273 (2002)
29. S.J. Guastello, R.A.M. Gregson (Eds.), Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the behavioral sciences
using real data, CRC Press (Boca Raton, FL, 2011)
30. S. Galam, “Minority Opinion Spreading in Random Geometry”, Eur. Phys. J. B 25 Rapid Note, 403–406
(2002)
31. S. Galam, “The dynamics of minority opinion in democratic debate”, Physica A 336, 56–62 (2004)
32. S. Galam, “Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms: A unifying frame”, Europhys. Lett. 70, 705–711
(2005)
33. C. Borghesi and S. Galam, “Chaotic, staggered, and polarized dynamics in opinion forming: The con-
trarian effect”, Phys. Rev. E 73 066118 (1–9) (2006)
34. S. Galam, “Opinion dynamics, minority spreading and heterogeneous beliefs”, Econophysics and So-
ciophysics: Trends and Perspectives, Chap.13, Wiley-VCH Verlag, B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti, A.
Chatterjee (Eds.) (2006)
35. W. D. Crano, V. Seyranian, “Majority and minority influence”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass
1, 572–589 (2007)
36. U. Merlone, D. Radi, “Reaching consensus on rumors”, Physica A: Stat. Mech. App. 406, 260–271 (2014)
37. U. Merlone, D. Radi and A. Romano, “Minority influence in opinion spreading” Proc. 2015 Winter Sim-
ulation Conference, L. Yilmaz, W. K. V. Chan, I. Moon, T. M. K. Roeder, C. Macal, and M. D. Rossetti, eds.
(2015)

26
38. A. Dal Forno, U. Merlone, “Incentives in supervised teams: An experimental and computational ap-
proach”, J. Social. Complexity 3, 37-52 (2007)
39. A. Dal Forno, U. Merlone, “Chaotic Dynamics in Organization Theory”, In: Bischi G., Chiarella C., Sushko
I. (eds) Global Analysis of Dynamic Models in Economics and Finance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
(2013)
40. A. Dal Forno, U. Merlone, “Complex dynamics in supervised work groups”, Comm. Nonlin. Sci. Num.
Simul. 18, 1805–1821 (2013)
41. R. Boero, Behavioral Computational Social Science, Wiley (West Sussex, UK, 2015)
42. M. Alvarez, Computational Social Science, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, 2016)
43. R.R. Vallacher, S.J. Read and A. Nowak (Eds), Computational social psychology Routledge (New York,
2017)
44. S. Farrell and S. Lewandowsky, Computational Modeling of Cognition and Behavior, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press (Cambridge, 2018)
45. M. Frese, H. Garst, and D. Fay, “Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work char-
acteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model”, Journal of
Applied Psychology 92(4), 1084–1102 (2007)
46. R. Rasit, S. Hamjah, S. Tibek, F. Sham, M. Ashaari, M. Samsudin, and A. Ismail, “Educating film audience
through social cognitive theory reciprocal model”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174, 1234–
1241 (2015)
47. J. Wardell and J. Read, “Alcohol expectancies, perceived norms, and drinking behavior among college
students: Examining the reciprocal determinism hypothesis”, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27(1),
191–196 (2013)
48. T. Williams and K. Williams, “Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in
33 nations”, Journal of Educational Psychology 102(2), 4530–466 (2010)
49. S. Blozis, Y. Cho, and S. Xu, “Review of latent curve models: A structural equation perspective”, Socio-
logical Methods and Research 39(2), 297–302 (2010)
50. J. Hox, Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.), Routledge/Taylor & Francis (New
York, 2010)
51. M. Voelkle, J. Oud, E. Davidov, and P. Schmidt, “An sem approach to continuous time modeling of panel
data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia”, Psychological Methods 17(2), 176–192 (2012)
52. C. Brown, Differential equations: A modeling approach, Sage (Thousand Oaks, CA, 2007)
53. N. Brown, A. Sokal, and H. Friedman, “The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity
ratio”, American Psychologist 68(9), 801–813 (2013)
54. C. C. Benight, K. Shoji, and D.L. Delahanty, “Self-Regulation Shift-Theory: A Dynamic Systems Approach
to Traumatic Stress”, Journal of Traumatc Stress 30, 333–342 (2017)
55. H.L. Littleton, “The impact of social support and negative disclosure reactions on sexual assault victims:
A cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Trauma and Dissociation 11(2), 210–227
(2010)
56. H.L. Littleton, A. E. Grills-Taquechel, D. K. Axsom, K. Bye, and K. S. Buck, “Prior sexual trauma and ad-
justment following the Virginia Tech campus shootings: Examination of the mediating role of schemas”,
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 4(6), 579–586 (2012)
57. J.E. Lambert, C.C. Benight, T. Wong, and L.E. Johnson, “Cognitive bias in the interpretation of phys-
iological sensations, coping self-efficacy, and psychological distress after intimate partner violence”,
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 5(5), 494–500 (2013)

27
58. L. Blackburn and G. P. Owens, “The effect of self efficacy and meaning in life on posttraumatic stress
disorder and depression severity among veterans”, Journal of Clinical Psychology 71(3), 219–228 (2015)
59. E.O. Johnson, T.C. Kamilaris, G.P. Chrousos, P.W. Gold, “Mechanisms of stress: A dynamic overview of
hormonal and behavioral homeostasis”, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 16, 115–130 (1992)
60. T.G. Buchman, “The community of the self”, Nature 420, 246–251 (2002)
61. R. Chovatiya, R. Medzhitov, “Stress, inflammation, and defense of homeostasis”, Molecular Cell 54(2),
281–288 (2014)
62. I.A.E. Bicanic, R. M. Postma, G. Sinnema, C. De Roos, M. Olff, F. Van Wesel, E. M. Van de Putte,
“Salivary cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate in adolescent rape victims with post traumatic
stress disorder”, Psychoneuroendocrinology 38(3), 408–415 (2013)
63. C. S. Carver, M. F. Scheier, “Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clini-
cal, and health psychology”, Psychological bulletin 92(1), 111-135 (1982)
64. R. Sladky, A. Höflich, J. Atanelov, C. Kraus, P. Baldinger, C. Windischberger, “Increased neural habitu-
ation in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex in social anxiety disorder revealed by fMRI”, Plos One
7(11), e50050 (2012)
65. P. Duits, D. C. Cath, S. Lissek, J. J. Hox, A. O. Hamm, I. M. Engelhard, M. A. Hout, J. M. P. Van den Baas,
“Updated meta-analysis of classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders”, Depression and Anxiety
32(4), 239-253 (2015)
66. M. S. Weinberg, D. C. Johnson, A. P. Bhatt, R. L. Spencer, “Medial prefrontal cortex activity can disrupt
the expression of stress response habituation”, “Neuroscience”, 168(3), 744-756 (2010)
67. J. S. Stevens, Y. J. Kim, I. R. Galatzer-Levy, R. Reddy, T. D. Ely, C. B. Nemeroff, K. J. Ressler, “Amygdala
reactivity and anterior cingulate habituation predict posttraumatic stress disorder symptom mainte-
nance after acute civilian trauma”, Biological Psychiatry, Mechanisms of Fear Consolidation and Extinction
81(12), 1023-1029 (2017)
68. M. Gopal, Control Systems: Principles and Design, 2nd Ed., Tata McGraw-Hill Education (New Delhi,
2002)

28