This article contains copyrighted images. Many of the images on this Site are purchased from stock agencies or provided by other resources that make them copyright protected. Those images will be marked as copyright protected with the name of the copyright holder. Our use does not convey any rights to others to use the same material. Those wishing to use copyright protected material must contact the copyright holder directly.
Fight or Flight and Beyond:
Understanding Myriad Scientific Responses to Trauma
“Does everyone agree that there is no right way for a victim to respond to a sexual assault?”
You have likely heard this voir dire question during panel selection and then saw the potential members confidently respond in the affirmative. But what does this question actually mean and what bias is this eliciting from the members? The heart of the question is about how the members would assess the credibility of a victim’s testimony if that victim had engaged in behavior that some would deem “counterintuitive” or inconsistent with victimization. More subliminally, it is asking members what they know about trauma responses, whether their knowledge is consistent with the science, and if they expect specific trauma responses, like fight or flight, in order to find someone guilty of a sexual offense.
Viewing a victim’s response from a narrow, fight or flight perspective may hinder the fair and effective administration of justice
Viewing a victim’s response from a narrow, fight or flight perspective may hinder the fair and effective administration of justice because that terminology alone does not account for the entirety of a person’s response. Instead, using terms like “survival mode” and “habits and reflex” can help explain the nuance and complexity of trauma responses. Changing the language around victims’ responses to crime is helpful not only during voir dire but this change of phrase can also signal to a victim that there is no expected response to violent crimes, thereby minimizing self-blame and encouraging reporting. Changing the terminology and understanding of victims’ responses to crime can also arm law enforcement and legal professionals with up-to-date science that can educate and empower everyone involved with the military justice system, fortifying the process at every stage.
Dangers of Only Using Fight/Flight to Analyze Victims’ Responses to Trauma
The danger of misinformation, stigmatization, or misunderstanding victims’ responses to trauma is multifold. It could encourage victim blaming for a certain response to trauma. This victim blaming can breed self-doubt and could ultimately prevent someone from reporting out of a fear that somebody might not believe them simply because of how they responded to a crime. For example, sexual assault victims who experience physical sexual arousal during a nonconsensual sexual encounter report feeling that their bodies betrayed them.[1] Victims might then delay or decline to report based on feelings of shame, betrayal, or fear of lack of acceptance for what occurred.[2] If someone does report a crime, but the recipients of the information do not expect a person’s reaction to the assault or question whether it is backed by science, they might perceive the victim as less credible. This could potentially lead to not prosecuting appropriate cases or not securing convictions at trial. Stakeholders at each stage of the military justice system can benefit from learning and applying scientifically backed information on trauma responses at each stage of a case.
Stakeholders at each stage of the military justice system can benefit from learning and applying scientifically backed information on trauma responses
The Origins of “Fight or Flight”
Harvard physiologist, Walter Cannon, is credited with originating the term “fight or flight” in the early 1900s to describe the body’s physical internal reactions to stress, not to describe someone’s external behaviors.[3] For example, during “fight” the body's sympathetic nervous system is activated which can cause rapid breathing and heightened heart rate and blood pressure.[4] The body is physically preparing to react to the perceived threat. However, many people incorrectly assume that “fight” also encompasses the succeeding action (i.e., charging, punching, or pushing).[5] In addition to this misconception, most people assume that fighting back, fleeing, or freezing are the most common human responses given their popularity and wide usage in professional settings.[6]
Fight or Flight Evolved to Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fawn
Eventually, “fight, flight, or freeze” became a mainstream paradigm for describing acute human responses to a threat.[7] Freeze, or tonic immobility, was widely studied in the animal kingdom before its induction into the vernacular of human threat responses.[8] Now, it is widely understood that “a high percentage of rape victims feel paralyzed and unable to act despite no loss of consciousness during the assault.”[9]
Figure 1: Four Trauma Responses
Recently, the term “fawn” was added to fight, flight, or freeze as another acute response to stress or trauma.[10] Fawning involves pleasing another to avoid conflict.[11] For example, a child who has experienced persistent abuse at the hands of their parent might learn over time that they must take care of their parent to avoid violent outbursts.[12] The child knows that they can appease their parent by completing household chores rather than asking their parent to, for instance, cook them dinner as a form of parental care. The child’s premature independence is an attempt to appease their parent and, hopefully, mitigate the potential for future abuse or conflict.
While these four reactions of fight, flight, freeze, or fawn are commonly discussed as human reactions to a threat, they do not encompass the entirety of human behavior in the face of danger, particularly not during sexual assault or domestic violence.[13] Instead, it is more accurate and scientifically sound to think of the human response to a threat as being in survival mode which then produces survival reflexes and habits.[14]
Survival Mode as a Trauma Response
“Survival mode” can accurately describe how a victim responds to trauma. Survival mode is seen as a term elsewhere in society, too— businesses, gamers, and scientists alike use the term survival mode to indicate, genuinely or hyperbolically, that the only objective of a given situation is to make it out alive. For business owners, that might mean aiming to make just enough profit to cover expenses to avoid shut down. Gamers can enter an immersive survival mode where resources are scarce, challenges are gargantuan, and the only objective is to stay alive.[15] Meanwhile, the scientific community uses the term to describe a state in which the nervous system is dysregulated due to prolonged stress intended to protect a person from danger.[16]
This state of survival mode can include fight, flight, or freeze, but may include other external behaviors as well. In short, the prefrontal cortex, the logical part of the brain, shuts down and the defense circuitry takes over placing the body in survival mode.[17] When this happens, for example, a person in survival mode could lose the ability to logically think through alternative options like running away to avoid further domestic abuse or shouting for help while being sexually assaulted. Simply put, survival mode captures the brain’s response to a traumatic event, but that term alone falls short of explaining the entirety of a person’s response. The terms survival reflexes and habits can be used to accurately and holistically describe a person’s physiological and behavioral response to prolonged stress.[18]
Survival mode captures the brain’s response to a traumatic event, but that term alone falls short of explaining the entirety of a person’s response
Reflexes as a Trauma Response
When faced with a threat, survival reflexes are automatically triggered in the brain and can include freezing, tonic immobility, collapsed immobility, or disassociation. Freezing is an “inhibition of movement” that generally lasts for a couple of seconds at the onset of an attack or danger which allows for the person to receive information and then respond.[19] Tonic immobility is when the body enters “reversible profound immobility, analgesia, and relative unresponsiveness to external stimuli” or, in other words, a state of temporary paralysis.[20] This response can appears in the animals under attack – the prey will enter a state of tonic immobility when unable to fight off the predator which may cause the predator to release the prey.[21] Collapsed immobility, a variant of tonic immobility, is when it might appear that someone has passed out or fainted because muscles go limp and the person loses consciousness.[22] Finally, dissociation is when a person disconnects from their thoughts, feelings, sensations, and behaviors.[23] A dissociative response can feel like an out of body experience for the victim.[24]
Habits as a Trauma Response
In addition to physiological reflexes to trauma, a person may also respond to danger with a habit-informed trauma response. Habits include behaviors developed through social conditioning or learned responses to aggression or dominance in the past.[25]
Sample Case: Terral
The victim in Terral, a Navy O-1, displayed various survival reflexes and habitual responses when Appellant, a Navy O-4, sexually assaulted her in his vehicle after he convinced her to go to the movies with him while docked at port.
After the movies and on the way back to port, Appellant made verbal advances on the victim and stopped for water and condoms at a gas station.[26] Then, Appellant started driving away from the port, and the Victim testified at trial that she became afraid at this point.[27] Appellant proceeded to touch her genital area without her consent multiple times.[28] The victim testified that “when he did this at first she ‘froze’” and then later pulled his hand away.[29] Appellant continued to touch her genital area and kissed her breasts and face.[30] The victim explained that she briefly kissed back but that she didn’t know why.[31] Eventually, the victim pretended to be asleep to stop his advances, and he eventually drove back to the port.[32]
On appeal, Appellant asserted that the finding for wrongful sexual contact was both legally and factually insufficient arguing that the victim lacked credibility at trial, that her account of the sexual assault was “unfeasible,” and that her testimony failed to demonstrate her willingness to engage in sexual contact.[33] Ultimately, the Court was convinced of Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By drawing some inferences, the victim’s response to this situation exemplifies a microcosm of some of the trauma responses discussed herein.[34] When Appellant drove in the opposite direction of port and she initially started to feel scared, one can assume that could have been the moment where her brain went into survival mode—when instinct sets in and rational thinking becomes less available.[35] Then, as soon as the first unwanted touching begins, her survival reflex, freeze, inhibits her movement temporarily while she gathered information to formulate a response.[36] She then responded verbally and physically by pulling Appellant’s hand from her genitals to no avail.[37] Finally, she feigned sleep to put an end to the assault—demonstrating a fawning response.[38]
It is not clear that her evolution of her response to the assault was a learned habit based on past experience; however, it appears that the victim learned over the course of the assault that submission and avoidance would be the clearest path to safety. However, one could argue that her response at large could have been a product of social conditioning. As a brand-new military officer, respect for superior officers, deference, and compliance are core tenants of training. This conditioning might have subliminally informed her response and could help explain to the finder of fact why she didn’t physically fight Appellant off or why she momentarily kissed back. Whether it was out of fear or a sense of dutiful submission, her responses to Appellant’s advances are explicable.
Habits include behaviors developed through social conditioning or learned responses to aggression or dominance in the past
Child Sexual Assault: Learned Helplessness
More generally, habitual responses can be examined in child sexual assault (CSA) victims who are 2.5 to 3 times more likely to be assaulted as adults than those who have not suffered child sexual abuse.[39] The precise reason for this statistic is nuanced and widely undetermined. However, Peterson and Seligman offered the “learned helplessness perspective” which suggests that CSA victims “develop an internal, stable, and global attribution style” or that they caused the abuse and that the abuse will continue indefinitely.[40] These “attributions promote a specific response style characterized by acquiescence to subsequent aggressors.”[41] In other words, learned helplessness is a state in which a person does not believe they control or change a situation based on past trauma.[42] Learned helplessness could also present in repetitive domestic violence situations where a victim stays with the offender, rather than calling the police, or leaving, because they have “learned” that response over time.[43] It is their personal shortcut to safety based on past experience.
Changing Perspectives on Victim Responses Can Change a Case
It is not easy to systematically effectuate a change of a common colloquial phrase like “fight or flight,” nor would that cure unconscious bias that persists around how victims respond to sexual assault and domestic violence. Still, integrating this research regarding the varying trauma responses into military justice practice at all stages of a case can help litigators, law enforcement, panel members, and even victims better understand why they may have responded the way they did.
First, consider a victim interview with law enforcement or trial counsel before charging, where someone reported that during a sexual assault, they felt “frozen” or like they were not able to say no. With the understanding of “survival mode” and “habits and reflexes” it’s easier to appreciate that the trauma might have caused their defense circuitry to take over or that they entered a state of tonic immobility. However, the goal should not be to diagnose someone during the interview, but rather to use trauma-informed interview techniques to better understand the victim’s experience of the crime – what they felt, thought, heard, or saw. In this example, a person might follow up by asking the victim about biological changes in how they were feeling, body temperature, pain, or numbness to better understand if “survival mode” or a reflexive behavior, like tonic immobility, was automatically triggered.
Additionally, an interviewer will want to understand the victim’s habitual responses to trauma, and this may pose more of a challenge as they may require more tactfully explained background as to the reasoning for the questions. For example, an interviewer who asks a victim directly, “Why didn’t you just say no or call out for help?” or “Were you sexually assaulted before? If so, how did you respond?” may not be met with a fruitful response because questions of that type can be perceived as accusatory in nature without context. It could just be a matter of framing those questions, explaining why it is helpful for an interviewer to understand the victim as an individual because everyone’s reaction will be different based on their physiological reaction, societal influence on their behaviors, or responses learned from past trauma. After that foundation is laid, it becomes easier to nonconfrontationally and empathically ask questions that may help inform this victim’s habits either about their upbringing, whether they have ever acted similarly in the face of danger, or if they have ever witnessed similar offenses as a child that subconsciously informed their response.
The goal should not be to diagnose someone during the interview, but rather to use trauma-informed interview techniques to better understand the victim’s experience
In repeat domestic violence cases, habitual learned responses might become more pronounced. It is not uncommon for victims to stay in abusive relationships due to dependency on the offender, sympathy for the offender, or a feeling of guilt for the violence taking place.[44] Further, offenders can influence victim behavior through intimidation, love, and persuasion.[45] A victim of persistent violence by their partner might learn that fighting back only aggravates the offender more, so acquiescence is a safer response.[46] In sum, if law enforcement agents ask tactful interview questions laced in scientific research on trauma responses, it may encourage more open, vulnerable, and candid responses instead of risking the victim clam-up because they feel judgment or shame during the interview. The more information the interviewer gets, the better-informed prosecutors can be when deciding whether to prefer charges, ultimately deciding if a case should see the four walls of a courtroom.
Also consider aspects of the pre-disposition review stage of a case where trial counsel is sifting through copious amounts of interviews, witness statements, and investigative reports. Generally, trial counsel will clinically scrutinize the evidence to determine if the elements of a crime are met, first trying to grasp the “plot” or the events of a case (i.e., where did the sexual assault take place, what specific sexual acts were involved, who was present). However, it is equally critical to understand the people involved by reviewing the case with an eye toward getting to know the offender and the victim. Doing so will help to identify patterns of behavior on the part of both parties. It could help better explain the victim’s habitual or reflexive behaviors after the reported crime. This information can not only help the prosecutors decide whether a case should go to trial but can help inform trial strategy. As litigators are preparing for trial, they can confer with an expert consultant, dissect litigation risk and opposing theories based on the science, and ultimately formulate the best way to present the case with a footing in science.
Finally, the most significant hurdle for trial counsel will be to help a panel unlearn common misconceptions about fight or flight. Trial counsel can use voir dire as the first juncture to discover any biases a panel member may have regarding a victim’s response to trauma and potential responses. Effective group voir dire could open the door for a deeper discussion about trauma responses during individual voir dire, where counsel can ascertain if the member expects the victim’s behavior to fit neatly into one bucket in order for them to be able to hold an offender accountable by voting “guilty.” In addition to “Does everyone agree that there is no right way for a victim to respond to a sexual assault?,” consider other questions to explore potential biases regarding trauma responses.
- Do you think that fight or flight are the only responses a victim may have in response to the trauma of being sexually assaulted?
- Does anyone believe that fight or flight are the most likely responses to trauma?
- When faced with danger, the body can enter survival mode, meaning the logical part of the brain goes offline, triggering survival reflexes and habits. Does everyone understand that is possible?
- Does everyone agree that, in survival mode, a person might be unable to think logically through the best way to escape the offender; or,
- Does everyone agree that those survival habits and reflexes might look different for everyone; or,
- Does everyone agree that a person can develop a survival habit over time if they are repeatedly faced with the same threat; or,
- Does everyone agree that one survival habit could be to remain quiet and apologize to avoid further abuse?
Ultimately, these questions can enable the trial team to appropriately assess panel members’ potential biases using a full spectrum approach regarding victims’ responses to trauma, they can better understand if a panel member has an inelastic position that a victim must respond to a sexual assault a certain way to vote guilty. Expanding the spectrum of possible victims’ responses to trauma from just fight or flight can spur trial team conversations about overall strategy and whether it is necessary to call an expert witness to further educate members on victim behavior or “assists jurors in disabusing themselves of widely held misconceptions.”[47]
Continued education on empirically proven trauma responses can only serve to strengthen the military justice system at all levels. It could empower victims to report, furnish more information to assist with prosecutorial decisions, and allow panel members to make educated verdicts at trial. Finally, education can continue to dismantle preconceived notions and misinformation that there is a “right” or “expected” way for a person to respond in the face of danger.
About the Author
Captain Katelyn Deeds
(B.S., International Business, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; J.D., Drexel University, Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is a Victims’ Counsel assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.
Edited by: Major Allison Gish
Layout by: Thomasa Huffstutler
Endnotes
[1] United States v. Racion, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156210 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022); Hyun Shin, Michael Salter,
Betrayal by my body: survivor experiences of sexual arousal and psychological pleasure during sexual violence, 6
Policy Press 581 (Feb. 22, 2022).
[2] United States v. Lips, 22 M.J. 679 (A.F.C.M.R. 1986).
[3] See Cannon Walter Bradford,
Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage: An Account of Recent Researches into the Function of Emotional Excitement (2d ed, 1953) (ebook).
[7] Irena Milosevic, Randi E. McCabe,
Phobia: The Psychology of Irrational Fear 179-180 (2015) (e-book); Michael S. Goligorsky,
The Concept of Cellular “Fight-or-Flight” Reaction to Stress, 280 Am. J. Physiology F551 (2001); Brianna Chu et al.,
Physiology, Stress Reaction,
National Library of Medicine (2024).
[8] Norman Schmidt, J Anthony Richey, Michael Zvolensky, Jon Maner,
Exploring Human Freeze Responses to a Threat Stressor, National Library of Medicine (2007).
[22] Kasi Kozlowska, Peter Walker, Loyola McLean, Pascal Carrive,
Fear and the Defense Cascade: Clinical Implications and Management,
National Library of Medicine (Jul. 8, 2015).
[23] Stacey M. Boyer, Jennifer E. Caplan, Lisa K. Edwards
, Trauma-Related Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders,
National Library of Medicine (May 31, 2022).
[25] Kim Lonsway, Director of Research, End Violence Against Women International, Presentation at the End Violence Against Women International Conference, Understanding How Trauma Impacts Behavior and Memory: Implications for Victim Interviewing (Apr 1, 2024).
[39] Brian P. Marx, Jennifer M. Heidt, and Sari D. Gold,
Perceived Uncontrollability and Unpredictability, Self-Regulation, and Sexual Revictimization, 9
Rev. of Gen. Psych. 67 (2005).
[44] United States v. Walls, 2013 CCA LEXIS 685 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. July 29, 2013).
[46] United States v. Silvernail, 2021 CCA LEXIS 427 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2021).
[47] United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392, 398 (C.A.A.F. 1993).