“Humans have only a 'fight or flight' response.”

The idea that humans and animals react to danger solely with a "fight or flight" response has been a foundational concept in understanding stress for over a century. This understanding largely stems from the pioneering work of physiologist Walter Cannon in the early 1900s. Cannon described how the sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for immediate action when faced with a perceived threat, either to confront the danger or to escape it. This powerful and easily observable physiological reaction, involving a surge of hormones like adrenaline, became a widely accepted explanation for how organisms survive perilous situations.

However, scientific understanding of stress responses has evolved beyond these two active reactions. Researchers have since identified the "freeze" response, an equally instinctive survival mechanism where an individual becomes immobile or numb when confronted with overwhelming danger. This can manifest as a feeling of being stuck or paralyzed, a strategy that might help avoid detection by a predator or provide a moment to assess the threat. More recently, the "fawn" response has also been recognized, describing an attempt to appease, placate, or people-please a perceived threat in order to avoid harm, often seen in situations of interpersonal power imbalances.

The enduring popularity of the "fight or flight" model can be attributed to its simplicity and its vivid depiction of immediate, energetic reactions to danger. It provided a clear and compelling framework that resonated with common experiences of stress. While incredibly insightful for its time, this initial focus naturally overshadowed less overt or more nuanced survival strategies. Recognizing the full spectrum of responses—fight, flight, freeze, and fawn—offers a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how both humans and animals navigate perceived threats, highlighting the diverse and often involuntary ways our bodies strive for survival.