Cultural evolution is not independent of linguistic evolution and social aspects of language use.

The bifocal stance theory (BST) focuses on cultural evolution without alluding to associated processes in linguistic evolution and language use. The authors briefly comment on language acquisition but leave underexplored the applicability of BST to linguistic evolution, to changes of language representations, and to possible consequences for constructing social identity, based on, for example, collective resilience processes within language communities.

Were we stressed or was it just me - and does it even matter? Efforts to disentangle individual and collective resilience within real and imagined stressors.

Although resilience is a multi-level process, research largely focuses on the individual and little is known about how resilience may distinctly present at the group level. Even less is known about subjective conceptualizations of resilience at either level. Therefore, two studies sought to better understand how individuals conceptualize resilience both as an individual and as a group. Study 1 (N = 123) experimentally manipulated whether participants reported on either individual or group-based responses to real stressors and analysed their qualitative responses. For individual responses, subjective resilience featured active coping most prominently, whereas social support was the focus for group-based responses. As these differences might be attributable to the different stressors people remembered in either condition, Study 2 (N = 171) held a hypothetical stressor (i.e., natural disaster) constant. As expected, resilience at the group level emphasized maintaining group cohesion. Surprisingly, the group condition also reported increased likelihood to engage in blame, denial, and behavioural disengagement. Contrary to expectations, participants in the individual condition reported stronger desire to seek out new groups. The combined findings are discussed within the framework of resilience and social identity and highlight the necessity of accounting for multiple levels and subjective conceptualizations of resilience.