“Humans have a 'fight or flight' response, but not a 'freeze' response.”

The idea that humans react to danger solely with a "fight or flight" response has become deeply ingrained in popular understanding. This concept was famously described by physiologist Walter Bradford Cannon in the early 20th century, becoming a cornerstone of stress research. However, initial studies often had a limited scope, sometimes even excluding female subjects whose stress responses might present differently. This early emphasis contributed to a narrow view of our complex survival mechanisms.

In reality, scientific understanding has evolved to include the "freeze" response as a fundamental and equally valid survival strategy. This passive defense mechanism activates when an organism perceives an overwhelming threat from which neither fighting nor fleeing seems possible. Evolutionarily, freezing can allow an individual to avoid detection by a predator (Review), akin to "playing dead," or to assess the threat. Physiologically, it's attentive immobility, often with a drop in heart rate and muscle tension, preparing the body for subsequent action. Brain regions like the amygdala and periaqueductal gray orchestrate this intricate reaction.

The misconception that freeze is not a human response often stems from its less overt nature compared to the active aggression of fight or the clear movement of flight. Unlike these more noticeable reactions, freezing can be quiet, internal, and easily overlooked by observers, or even by the individual experiencing it. The widespread use of the phrase "fight or flight" in everyday language further reinforces the idea of only two primary options, hindering recognition of the equally vital "freeze" response.