Why the Classic Fight-or-Flight Response Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
Why the Classic Fight-or-Flight Response Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
By James Porter
Most of us have heard of the “fight or flight” response. Coined nearly a century ago by Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon, this term describes how our bodies prepare to deal with perceived danger—by either standing our ground or running away. It’s a foundational concept in stress research and psychology. But there’s something most people don’t know about it: all of Cannon’s research, and nearly all the research that followed for decades, was conducted almost exclusively on male subjects.
Why? The answer is as frustrating as it is revealing: Female hormones—especially those involved in the menstrual cycle—were considered too complicated and “disruptive” to the consistency of the data. In short, women were often excluded from stress research simply because their biology was seen as inconvenient.
That’s where UCLA psychologist Dr. Shelley Taylor comes in.
Taylor noticed that the traditional “fight or flight” model didn’t fully explain how women, in particular, responded to stress—especially in social or caregiving settings. Along with a team of colleagues, she proposed a new model: Tend and Befriend.
Instead of defaulting to aggression or escape, Taylor found that many women respond to stress by nurturing others (“tending”) and seeking connection or social support (“befriending”). This instinct to protect children, strengthen social bonds, and reach out for help wasn't just anecdotal—it had biological underpinnings, primarily involving the hormone oxytocin, which promotes bonding and is enhanced by estrogen. In stressful situations, elevated oxytocin in women may push them toward social behaviors, not solo survival strategies.
Of course, this isn’t to say that men don’t also seek connection in times of stress. But the research revealed a more nuanced truth: stress responses are not one size fits all. Gender, environment, upbringing, and individual biology all play a role in determining how we react when life gets overwhelming.
Understanding this has major implications—not just for scientific accuracy but for how we manage stress in everyday life.
From Biology to Behavior
Let’s say you’re going through a tough time at work. If you’ve internalized the “fight or flight” model, you might assume your only options are to push through aggressively or retreat completely. But what if there’s a third way? What if calling a friend, asking for help, or simply connecting with someone who understands your situation is exactly the right move?
This is where Taylor’s research dovetails beautifully with what we now understand about resilience, support systems, and long-term stress management. People with strong social connections tend to have lower cortisol levels, better immune responses, and faster recovery from stress. In fact, one of the best buffers against chronic stress isn’t toughness or isolation—it’s relationship.
Which brings us back to an idea from my previous post on Come From Away: In times of crisis, communities that “tend and befriend” don’t just survive—they thrive. Gander, Newfoundland became a living example of this. Faced with a sudden, overwhelming influx of strangers, the residents didn’t fight, flee, or freeze. They connected. They cared. And in doing so, they helped themselves as much as they helped the stranded passengers.
So What Can We Learn From This?
As a stress management educator, I believe Shelley Taylor’s work expands the toolkit we all have for handling pressure. Here are a few lessons we can take from her research:
- Connection is a powerful coping strategy. Talking with others, even briefly, can regulate your nervous system and lower stress hormones. Don’t underestimate the value of reaching out.
- Caring for others can calm your own stress. Whether it’s checking in on a friend, walking a neighbor’s dog, or helping a co-worker, small acts of kindness help reinforce a sense of control and purpose.
- Different people react to stress differently. If someone close to you isn't responding to pressure the way you are, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. We all have different default responses—honor that diversity.
- The science is evolving. The more inclusive our research becomes, the better equipped we’ll be to handle the complexity of stress in real life. We need more studies that consider age, gender, neurodiversity, and cultural background to understand the full range of human response.
- There’s more than one right answer. Fight, flight, freeze, tend, befriend—these are all natural responses. What matters is cultivating awareness of your patterns and expanding your options.
We live in a world that often tells us to toughen up, power through, or go it alone. But Shelley Taylor’s work reminds us that there’s another way—one rooted in care, community, and connection.
And that’s not just good science. It’s good strategy for a less stressful life.
Erica Tuminski
Author