Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Research published in the International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy has looked at the concept of “fight-or-flight”, a behavioral theory that was first proposed by American physiologist Walter Bradford Cannon in 1915. The idea is also called “hyperarousal” or the “acute stress response” and is an animal’s physiological reaction to threats and is a survival response to that threat.

Vidar Top, Carl Åberg, and Ole Boe of the University of South-Eastern Norway, have focused on fight-or-flight in the context of human conflict. They have undertaken a comprehensive literature review and carried out a comparative concept analysis to develop a unified understanding of how people react under pressure.
The fight-or-flight concept has underpinned our understanding of animal behavior and our own actions for more than a century. The concept has also evolved in that time and been applied to many different situations from one on one interactions, conflicts in the workplace, and at the international level.
The team points out that despite extensive research, there remain inconsistencies and competing arguments about how emotions like anger and fear affect our behavior. In order to address these inconsistencies, the team has analyzed various word pairs related to the fight-or-flight response, finding that the terms “violence” and “silence” are common reference points that can encapsulate much of the behavior associated with fight-or-flight. This, the team suggests, might unify diverse research perspectives and so could help with cross-disciplinary collaboration.
One of the study’s insights is the redefinition of silence. We might have conventionally perceived silence as a passive behavior. However, in some contexts, silence is very much a proactive stance, often a deliberate tactic to withhold information from an aggressor. Silence might thus be a non-verbal form of violence, presenting as passive-aggressive behavior.

Silence may therefore have a much more active role in workplace dynamics, for instance, where it might be used to navigate office politics or ostracize colleagues.
Conversely, the study also redefines the term “violence” to include aggressive communication tactics. This kind of non-physical action is often used by leaders to gain support or intimidate opponents.
There are more subtle power plays and emotional undercurrents in human interactions than the simplistic “fight-or-flight” might suggest. In other words, by expanding the definitions of violence and silence in this way, the researchers have moved the theory beyond a binary paradigm and revealed a more complex picture of how we respond to conflict.
Such new understanding might help in conflict management and so allow us to foster innovation, strengthen relationships at all levels, and enhance decision-making.

More information:
Vidar Top et al, Revisiting Walter Bradford Cannon’s 100-year-old fight-or-flight concept, International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy (2024). DOI: 10.1504/IJMCP.2024.139807. www.inderscience.com/info/inar … cle.php?artid=139807

Citation:
New study reevaluates the fight-or-flight concept in the context of human conflict (2024, July 9)
retrieved 9 July 2024
from https://phys.org/news/2024-07-reevaluates-flight-concept-context-human.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.