ABSTRACT
Current thinking on the aetiology of common mental disorders is saturated with the stress-vulnerability paradigm. However, when critically inspected the definition of vulnerability is less straightforward and the use of the term less informative than its intuitive appeal suggests. The definition raises conceptual concerns, and elicits intriguing substantive questions. Despite its universally recognised significance in the aetiology and course of mental disorders, vulnerability is largely an unexplored area, with some notable exceptions. Much remains to be learned about its nature, origins and plasticity, the determinants of its change over time, and about the distal and proximal mechanisms by which it affects illness risk.
