crawl/traces/simpleQA_ALL/query_1041.csv

type,startTime,endTime,query,links_found,url,content_length,content,link_idx
tavily_search,0.0,1.964651107788086,Which theory of emotion proposes the idea of the fight-or-flight response?,5.0,,,,
page_scrape,2.1514828205108643,4.219428062438965,,,https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-cannon-bard-theory,2878.0,"The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion proposed the idea of the fight or flight response. It’s leading question: When faced with a potentially dangerous scenario, what do your instincts tell you to do?
The Cannon-Bard theory states that the lower part of the brain, also called the thalamus, controls your experience of emotion. At the same time, the higher part of the brain, also called the cortex, controls the expression of emotion. It is believed that these two parts of the brain react simultaneously. This theory was proposed in the 1920s and early 1930s by Walter B. Cannon and Philip Bard. It’s also referred to as the “fight or flight” response.
## Impact of Fight or Flight on Your Health
Stress begins in your brain and your senses communicate potentialdangersto it. For example, you may see a car coming toward you or hear a sudden loud sound. The Cannon-Bard theory proposes that your amygdala processes what you see and hear, translating possible danger to the hypothalamus.
Your amygdala processes emotions. When it communicates potential danger, your brain has a stress response to stay and fight the danger or run away.
Each of these physiological responses happens so quickly that you aren’t aware at first. Instead, you’re acting instinctively. Hundreds of years ago, our instincts kept us safe. Today, we face fewer real dangers, yet our fight or flight response may still be triggered by something.
Fight or flight response adapts as your environment does. Hundreds of years ago, you may have been scared of wild animals that threatened to attack you. Instead of spending time making a logical choice based on your scenario, your brain decided for you — run, or stay and fight.
In today’s world, the fight or flight response may come in less dangerous situations. For example, your boss at work asks you to come into their office. You immediately think something is wrong, and it triggers your glands to release adrenaline. You become defensive and may feel the need to walk into the office with your guard up, ready to fight.
Alternately, pasttraumaorPTSDcan elicit a fight or flight response. Your memories are often grounded in your senses. You remember what you saw, felt, and heard at a particular time. If you see or hear something that reminds you of atraumatic experience, your brain may trigger the fight or flight response.
**Relaxation techniques.** In establishing the theory of fight or flight, concerns were raised about the amount of time your body spends under stress. The Cannon-Bard theory states that if you find yourself experiencing the symptoms of fight or flight, take a minute to calm down.
**Mental stress.** Fight or flight is great because it’s an innate survival mechanism. However, if you are constantly facing “threats” that cause you stress, it can lead to poor health outcomes. Stress can become chronic if not properly managed.
",1.0
page_scrape,2.153902292251587,2.6980667114257812,,,https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-cannon-bard-theory.html,1732.0,"* The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion differentiates between feelings associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight responses) and the parasympathetic nervous system (calm responses), and Cannon believed that sympathetic and parasympathetic responses could not happen simultaneously.
According to Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, physiological arousal and emotional experience occur simultaneously, yet independently. This theory was proposed in the 1920s and early 1930s by Walter B. Cannon and Philip Bard.
The main idea of Cannon’s approach to emotions is that people react to emotional stimuli but that two separate parts of the brain control the conscious feeling of emotion and the body’s physiological response.
### **James-Lange Theory of Emotion**
Emotions that affect the sympathetic nervous system are associated withfight or flight responses, and those that activate the parasympathetic nervous system restore the body to a state of calm (Waxenbaum, 2021). The anatomical, physiological, and metabolic differences between the emotions expressed by the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems create a difference in how people consciously label these emotions (Cannon, 1914).
### Singer’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
### Zajonc-LeDoux Theory of Emotion
The Zajonc-LeDoux theory of emotion says that emotional reactions exist separately from cognitive labels on emotional situations.
For example, as Dror (2014) emphasizes, Cannon and Britton included clear evidence of parasympathetic activation, such as contraction of the rectum and occasionally defecation, in their descriptions of the cat experiencing “sham rage” – a supposedly sympathetic, fight or flight emotion (Cannon and Britton, 1925).
",2.0
page_scrape,2.155940532684326,4.638253450393677,,,https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Sacramento_City_College/Psyc_310:_Biological_Psychology_(Keys)/14:_Emotion_and_Stress/14.02:_Theories_of_Emotion-_Fight_or_Flight_and_More,22078.0,"An important function of emotions in humans, and other animals that live in groups of any kind, is to communicate with other members of one's own species. The emotions that are particularly important to communicate to other members are those related to fear, and those related to anger. When we think of the physiological arousal associated with emotions, we often talk about the ""fight or flight"" response. These correspond nicely with the two major negative emotions - anger and fear. Multiple animal paradigm studies and human neuroscientific research, including studies with psychopathological conditions, have served to examine the nature of these emotions. Some of these theories and findings will be discussed.
## Foundation Theories of Emotion
One of the older theories about the origin of emotion is based on the most common sense interpretation of cause and effect. For example, imagine some noticeable emotional stimulus, such as encountering a hungry lion on the sidewalk. The logical cause and effect explanation suggests that seeing the lion prompts the emotion of fear, which then causes the sympathetic nervous system “fight-or-flight” response (elevated heart rate and blood pressure, increased respiration, and cellular mobilization of energy). In the 1880s, psychologist William James and physician Carl Lange independently developed a new theory about the origin of emotion.
According to the**James-Lange theory** of emotion, and contrary to a common sense understanding of the origin of emotion, the**body’s physiological changes _precede_ the onset of an emotional response**. For example, imagine encountering that same hungry lion on the sidewalk. The James-Lange theory tells us that the perception of the threat of being eaten causes the sympathetic nervous system response, and that these physiological changes trigger the onset of fear. Soon after, in the 1920s and 30s, two physiologists named Walter Cannon and his doctoral student Philip Bard criticized the James-Lange theory. In one experiment, they surgically removed the entire sympathetic nervous system from cats, destroying the nerves that regulate vascular dilation, the activity of liver enzymes, and the reaction that causes the hair standing on end. These cats were then put before a threatening aggressor. If the James-Lange theory was true, then the physiological changes should precede the emotive response. However, the cats exhibited the fear / aggression response (such as posturing, hissing, and clawing) even without an intact sympathetic nervous system. Relatedly, patients with spinal cord injuries have a similar lack of autonomic inputs to the brain, but their capacity for emotional responding is still intact.
In a second criticism, Cannon and Bard proposed that the physiological changes seen in sympathetic nervous system activity may arise for a variety of reasons, not always for emotionally salient reasons. For example, intense exercise causes strong cardiorespiratory changes; however, we do not necessarily feel a strong emotional state after this physiological perturbation. Likewise, exogenous administration of epinephrine, onset of fever, or being in cold temperatures may also trigger some physiological changes without causing a strong emotional response. Based on their evidence opposing the James-Lange theory, Cannon and Bard developed an alternative explanation for the origin of emotions. According to the**Cannon-Bard theory** of emotion, the perception of an emotionally charged stimulus prompts**simultaneous but independent activation of both the autonomic nervous system and the emotional response**.
The**reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST)** , postulated by Gray (1982, 1987), theorizes that there are two primary mechanisms that regulate and control emotions and behaviors. The**behavioral inhibition system (BIS)** reacts to punishment, non-reward, and novelty stimuli. The BIS decreases behavioral responses to avoid negative consequences. Activation of the BIS is associated with negative subjective emotions, such as anxiety, fear, sadness, and frustration. Conversely, the**behavioral activation system (BAS)** responds to reward and non-punishment stimuli. Once activated, the BAS triggers approach behaviors and is associated with the experience of positive emotions, such as excitement, happiness, and hope.
This theory has undergone many updates and revisions over the years including the addition of a third system focused on the fight-flight-freeze response and the neural mechanisms that underlie it. In addition, some evidence exists for the hemispheric specialization or**lateralization** of BAS and BIS emotional states. In general, the left hemisphere is more active during BAS emotions and behaviors, while the right is related more to BIS states (Balconi and Mazza, 2009).
## Theories of Emotional Distinctions
Can emotions be better described as** _qualitatively_** distinct, for example, as discrete “basic emotions” or “natural kinds” (Ekman et al., 1983; Izard, 1992; Panksepp, 2005) or as** _quantitatively_** distinct, for example, as points along multiple dimensions like**arousal and valence**(Russell and Barrett, 1999; Barrett and Wager, 2006)? Recent years have seen a protracted debate in the literature about how to most accurately capture the nature of emotion (Barrett et al., 2007; Izard, 2007; Panksepp, 2007; Tracy and Randles, 2011), with proposed models of emotion including not only basic emotion and dimensional models, but also those that focus upon goal-relevant appraisals of emotional stimuli (Moors et al., 2013), emotions as coping responses (Roseman, 2013), and emotions as survival circuits (LeDoux, 2012). An extended conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of these various views will not be reviewed in full here, rather, the focus will be on the basic consideration of whether different emotions (e.g., fear, anger) are best viewed as qualitatively or quantitatively distinct.
### Qualitative Ideas
Figure14.2.1: Individual emotions as they develop - first we only have basic emotions (fear, anger, disgust, contempt, joy, sadness and interest). Then self conscious (guilt, pride, embarrassment, shame, triumph) ones devleop. And then finally more cognitively complex (envy, gratitude, disappointment, regret, hope, schadenfreude, empathy, compassion) ones appear.(Copyright;Individual emotionsby U3161650,CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Models that posit emotions to be**qualitatively distinct** , such as “**basic emotion** ” models, holds that a limited number of emotions like fear, anger, and positive excitement emerge from dissociable neurophysiological processes (Ekman et al., 1983; Izard, 1992; Panksepp, 2005; Lench et al., 2011). In Figure14.2.1we see one representation of this idea that initially we have basic emotions including fear, anger, disgust, contempt, joy, sadness and interest, which then grow to include self conscious emotions (guilt, pride, embarrassment, shame, triumph) and finally cognitively complex emotions (envy, gratitude, disappointment, regret, hope, schadenfreude, empathy, compassion). These neurophysiological processes are generally linked to activity in the evolutionarily ancient subcortical structures of the midbrain, striatum, and limbic system most commonly linked to emotion (Panksepp, 2005; Vytal and Hamann, 2010). So, for example, the generation of positive excitement is linked to activation in a striatal circuit centered on dopaminergic neurons in the nucleus accumbens (Ikemoto and Panksepp, 1999), whereas the generation of fear is associated with activity in a circuit involving the periaqueductal gray, anterior and medial hypothalamus, and amygdala (LeDoux, 2000). These neuroanatomical distinctions are in line with the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory discussed above. Also, finer gradations of experience result when basic emotions are modulated or elaborated by higher-level cognitive processes controlled by the cerebral cortex, but the emergence of qualitatively distinct emotions is not dependent on these cortically-controlled processes (Panksepp, 2005).
### Quantitative Ideas
Figure14.2.2: Model showing two orthogonal dimensions of valence (on the horizonal axis) and arousal (on the vertical axis) with examples of emotions and where they might fall on the graph. For example, delight falls in the top right quadrant because it indicates high arousal and high pleasure while boredom falls in the diagonally opposite quadrant, and relaxed in the bottom right (Copyright;Psychologist Russell's model of arousal and valencebyhttp://imagine-it.org/gamessurvey/, licensedCC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Models that posit emotions to be**quantitatively distinct** hold that emotions like fear, anger, and happiness are best described as**points on one or more core dimensions**. Core dimensions typically proposed to distinguish among emotions are physiological arousal or activation (low—high) and valence (bad—good) (Bradley et al., 2001). [Some have proposed a withdrawal—approach dimension as a substitute or supplement to the valence axis (Wager et al., 2003; Christie and Friedman, 2004; van Honk and Schutter, 2006)]. As shown in figure14.2.2, arranged orthogonally, these dimensions form a circumplex upon which emotions can be plotted and quantitatively compared (Barrett and Russell, 1999; Russell and Barrett, 1999; Colibazzi et al., 2010). Positive excitement is plotted as high in arousal and positive in valence, and sadness is low in arousal and negative in valence. Fear is typically plotted as high arousal and strongly negative, as is anger (Russell and Barrett, 1999). Further distinctions among emotions are thought to reflect differences in cognitive construals of the events surrounding the basic changes in arousal and valence. Thus, whether an individual experiences anger or fear (which are similar in terms of arousal or valence) may be shaped by interpretations of neurophysiological changes in valence and arousal in light of the eliciting stimulus and the individual's idiosyncratic stores of semantic knowledge, memories, and behavioral responses that shape the subjectively experienced state (Russell, 2003). Under this view, distinctions among experienced emotional states are highly dependent on these cognitively complex processes, which are subserved by a distributed network of regions of the cerebral cortex (Lindquist et al., 2012).
These models generate distinct predictions to the question of whether a disorder or lesion could result in a single emotion being disabled without affecting the experience of other emotions. The discrete emotions view would argue that a disorder or lesion that resulted in dysfunction in the specific structures subserving a particular emotion could affect the experience of one emotion while leaving others intact. In contrast, the dimensional view would require either that other emotions that are dimensionally similar to the affected emotion also be affected, or that deficits in a particular emotion would reflect dysfunction in cortically-driven higher-level cognitive processes.
The case of psychopathy lends clear support to notion that fear is qualitatively distinct from other emotions. In psychopathy, the bulk of the clinical and empirical evidence points toward the conclusion that fear responding is uniquely disabled, with other high-arousal (positive excitement, anger) and negatively valenced (anger, disgust) emotions remaining intact. The dimensional view cannot easily explain why in psychopaths the high arousal, negatively valenced state of anger is easily (perhaps too easily) generated, whereas the high arousal, negatively valenced state of fear is not. The problem cannot lie in a failure to fully engage neurocognitive systems underlying either the arousal or valence dimension, because psychopaths experience other high-arousal emotions (positive excitement) as well as other negatively valenced emotions (disgust). It also cannot result from some difficulty arising at the interaction of these axes, because anger and fear are highly similar in terms of both dimensions. Models that substitute a withdrawal—approach axis for a negative—positive axis are no more successful; the two most strongly withdrawal-linked emotions are disgust and fear, and there is no evidence for disgust-based impairments in psychopathy. Individuals with psychopathy also fail to recognize and therefore have no empathic response to others’ fear.
On the whole, the empirical data support the idea that the amygdala, along with its efferent projections, is an essential structure for the generation of conditioned fear responses, which account for the majority of experienced fear (Davis, 1992, 1997). Extensive early evidence demonstrated that the amygdala plays a crucial role in the creation of conditioned fear in rodents. For example, lesions to the amygdala prevent rats from developing a conditioned fear response, like freezing in response to a stimulus that predicts shock (Blanchard and Blanchard, 1972). Later studies clarified the roles of the various subnuclei of the amygdala, demonstrating that the lateral nucleus is primarily involved in the acquisition of the fear response whereas the central nucleus is involved in both the acquisition and the expression of conditioned fear responses (Davis, 1992; Wilensky et al., 2006). The amygdala's many efferent projections coordinate autonomic and behavioral responses to fear eliciting stimuli. Projections from the central nucleus of the amygdala to the lateral hypothalamus are involved in activating autonomic sympathetic nervous system responses, and projections to the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray direct the expression of behavior responses, such as defensive freezing (Davis, 1992; LeDoux, 2012). The amygdala's central role in coordinated fear responding can be demonstrated by electrical stimulation studies showing that complex patterns of behavioral and autonomic changes associated with fear responses result from stimulation of the relevant regions of the amygdala (Davis, 1992). Heavy reliance on animal models is justified in the study of fear responding and the amygdala given how strongly conserved the amygdala nuclei involved in responding to conditioned threats are across species ranging from reptiles to birds to rodents to primates (LeDoux, 2012).
Neumann et al. (2010) hypothesize that aggressive behaviors, that are of two basic types - reactive and proactive, are mediated by anxiety-based neurological bases. Based on animal models, they suggest the following: ""Male aggression is necessary for the acquisition and maintenance of nutrition, territory, and mating partners. Species-specific rules have to be strictly obeyed to guarantee effective and harmless communication. Thus, adaptive offensive aggression is comprised primarily of harmless threat behaviors allowing the opponent to escape or to switch to submissive behaviors in order to avoid direct physical confrontation. In rodents, such signs of offensive aggression include piloerection (intimidation of the opponent by larger appearance) and lateral threat (arched back and exposure of the flank). In case of an offensive attack, less vulnerable body parts of the opponent, such as those covered with muscles and a thick layer of skin, are targeted to avoid serious injuries (Blanchard and Blanchard, 1977 ; Blanchard et al., 2003 ). While offensive aggression is usually expressed during a fight for territory or exclusive mating, defensive aggression is mainly displayed in life-threatening situations and is linked to increased fear (Blanchard and Blanchard, 1981 ). As opposed to offensive aggression, defensive aggression is less or not signaled in advance, and attack targets include more vulnerable body parts (such as the head, belly, and genitals) (Blanchard and Blanchard, 1977 ; Blanchard et al., 2003 )."" The resident-intruder animal paradigms have been used to measure these ideas (see Figure14.2.3).
They also claim: ""Anxiety may be interpreted as an emotional anticipation of an aversive situation and is reflected by species-specific behavioural fear responses to stressful and threatening stimuli characteristic for individual trait anxiety. Fear is not seen as basal state (as is anxiety), but as a complex behavioural response, such as startle or freezing. Further, in addition to factors which determine innate (trait) anxiety, several environmental or pharmacological factors may interact with the genetic background and determine the individual level of state anxiety and the final behavioural phenotype. Emotionality, often used as synonym for anxiety as well as fearfulness, may be seen in a broader sense, comprising both trait and state anxiety and stimulus-related fear. Emotionality is one of the major components underlying the ability of an organism to assess stressful stimuli and scenarios, and to adequately cope with them."" (Neumann et al., 2010)
Palumbo, Mariotti, Ioffreda and Pellegrini (2018) conclude that epigenetics is shedding a new light on the fine interaction between _nature_ and _nurture_ , by providing a novel tool to understand the molecular events that underlie the relationship among genes, brain, environment and behavior. Altogether, the results of the studies that we briefly discussed in the present article, clearly indicate that, when it comes to (human) behavior,_nature_ and _nurture_ are not to be regarded as two distinct and separate factors, contrary to the alternating predominance of either one that has been proposed in different historic phases (Levitt, 2013; Moore, 2016). Indeed, distinct genetic backgrounds differentially modulate the individual susceptibility to the environment and at the same time various environmental conditions differentially affect gene expression, in an intimate and fascinating manner that scientists have now begun to disentangle. The findings from this research pave the way to a novel approach to the understanding of human behavior, with important implications also for social sciences, including philosophy, ethics and law.
Various models of emotion have been debated in the field of Psychology almost from it's beginnings. The James/Lang, Cannon/Bard, Reinforcement Sensitivity, and Qualitative/Quantitative models each play a role in the explanation of the variety of emotions and associated physiological responses that humans experience. The example of anger and fear highlight the qualitatively distinct basic emotions. While these are primarily negative, they serve very important survival functions. They appear to have clear genetic and biological bases and suggest that similar conclusions can be made for other basic emotions given the necessary research support.
* Balconi, M., & Mazza, G. (2009). Brain oscillations and BIS/BAS (behavioral inhibition/activation system) effects on processing masked emotional cues. ERS/ERD and coherence measures of alpha band._International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology_ ,_74_(2), 158–165.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.08.006
* Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., Bliss-Moreau, E., Duncan, S., Gendron, M., Mize, J., et al. (2007). Of mice and men: natural kinds of emotions in the mammalian brain? A response to Panksepp and Izard. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2, 297–312. doi: 10.1126/science.7652558
* Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., and Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion 1, 276–298.https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276
* Christie, I. C., and Friedman, B. H. (2004). Autonomic specificity of discrete emotion and dimensions of affective space: a multivariate approach. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 51, 143–153.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.08.002
* Colibazzi, T., Posner, J., Wang, Z., Gorman, D., Gerber, A., Yu, S., et al. (2010). Neural systems subserving valence and arousal during the experience of induced emotions. Emotion 10, 377–389.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018484
* Izard, C. E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2, 260–280.
* LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 155–184.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.155
* LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73, 653–676.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004
* Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., and Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: a meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations. Psychol. Bull. 137, 834–855.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024244
* Panksepp, J. (2005). Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious. Cogn. 14, 30–80.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004
* Roseman, I. (2013). Appraisal in the emotion system: coherence in strategies for coping. Emot. Rev. 5, 141–149.
* Russell, J. A., and Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 805–819.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805
* van Honk, J., and Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2006). From affective valence to motivational direction The frontal asymmetry of emotion revised. Psychol. Sci. 17, 963–965.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01813.x
Foundation Theories of Emotion - James/Lang & Cannon/Bard: Adapted by Alan Keys fromOpen Neuroscience Initiative, Austin Lim, Depaul University;CC BY-NC-SA4.0
Foundation Theories of Emotion - Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory: Adapted by Alan Keys from Xu et al. (2021) The Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System Scales: Measurement Invariance Across Gender in Chinese University Students._Front. Psychol._ 12:681753. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.681753;CC BY 4.0
Whatcan we learn about emotions by studying psychopathyby Abigail Marsh, inFrontiers in Human NeurosciencelicensedCC BY 3.0
",3.0
page_scrape,5.7823708057403564,6.938630819320679,,,https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-cannon-bard-theory#1-1,2878.0,"The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion proposed the idea of the fight or flight response. It’s leading question: When faced with a potentially dangerous scenario, what do your instincts tell you to do?
The Cannon-Bard theory states that the lower part of the brain, also called the thalamus, controls your experience of emotion. At the same time, the higher part of the brain, also called the cortex, controls the expression of emotion. It is believed that these two parts of the brain react simultaneously. This theory was proposed in the 1920s and early 1930s by Walter B. Cannon and Philip Bard. It’s also referred to as the “fight or flight” response.
## Impact of Fight or Flight on Your Health
Stress begins in your brain and your senses communicate potentialdangersto it. For example, you may see a car coming toward you or hear a sudden loud sound. The Cannon-Bard theory proposes that your amygdala processes what you see and hear, translating possible danger to the hypothalamus.
Your amygdala processes emotions. When it communicates potential danger, your brain has a stress response to stay and fight the danger or run away.
Each of these physiological responses happens so quickly that you aren’t aware at first. Instead, you’re acting instinctively. Hundreds of years ago, our instincts kept us safe. Today, we face fewer real dangers, yet our fight or flight response may still be triggered by something.
Fight or flight response adapts as your environment does. Hundreds of years ago, you may have been scared of wild animals that threatened to attack you. Instead of spending time making a logical choice based on your scenario, your brain decided for you — run, or stay and fight.
In today’s world, the fight or flight response may come in less dangerous situations. For example, your boss at work asks you to come into their office. You immediately think something is wrong, and it triggers your glands to release adrenaline. You become defensive and may feel the need to walk into the office with your guard up, ready to fight.
Alternately, pasttraumaorPTSDcan elicit a fight or flight response. Your memories are often grounded in your senses. You remember what you saw, felt, and heard at a particular time. If you see or hear something that reminds you of atraumatic experience, your brain may trigger the fight or flight response.
**Relaxation techniques.** In establishing the theory of fight or flight, concerns were raised about the amount of time your body spends under stress. The Cannon-Bard theory states that if you find yourself experiencing the symptoms of fight or flight, take a minute to calm down.
**Mental stress.** Fight or flight is great because it’s an innate survival mechanism. However, if you are constantly facing “threats” that cause you stress, it can lead to poor health outcomes. Stress can become chronic if not properly managed.
",1.0
page_scrape,5.883314371109009,7.932382345199585,,,https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-cannon-bard-theory#1-2,2878.0,"The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion proposed the idea of the fight or flight response. It’s leading question: When faced with a potentially dangerous scenario, what do your instincts tell you to do?
The Cannon-Bard theory states that the lower part of the brain, also called the thalamus, controls your experience of emotion. At the same time, the higher part of the brain, also called the cortex, controls the expression of emotion. It is believed that these two parts of the brain react simultaneously. This theory was proposed in the 1920s and early 1930s by Walter B. Cannon and Philip Bard. It’s also referred to as the “fight or flight” response.
## Impact of Fight or Flight on Your Health
Stress begins in your brain and your senses communicate potentialdangersto it. For example, you may see a car coming toward you or hear a sudden loud sound. The Cannon-Bard theory proposes that your amygdala processes what you see and hear, translating possible danger to the hypothalamus.
Your amygdala processes emotions. When it communicates potential danger, your brain has a stress response to stay and fight the danger or run away.
Each of these physiological responses happens so quickly that you aren’t aware at first. Instead, you’re acting instinctively. Hundreds of years ago, our instincts kept us safe. Today, we face fewer real dangers, yet our fight or flight response may still be triggered by something.
Fight or flight response adapts as your environment does. Hundreds of years ago, you may have been scared of wild animals that threatened to attack you. Instead of spending time making a logical choice based on your scenario, your brain decided for you — run, or stay and fight.
In today’s world, the fight or flight response may come in less dangerous situations. For example, your boss at work asks you to come into their office. You immediately think something is wrong, and it triggers your glands to release adrenaline. You become defensive and may feel the need to walk into the office with your guard up, ready to fight.
Alternately, pasttraumaorPTSDcan elicit a fight or flight response. Your memories are often grounded in your senses. You remember what you saw, felt, and heard at a particular time. If you see or hear something that reminds you of atraumatic experience, your brain may trigger the fight or flight response.
**Relaxation techniques.** In establishing the theory of fight or flight, concerns were raised about the amount of time your body spends under stress. The Cannon-Bard theory states that if you find yourself experiencing the symptoms of fight or flight, take a minute to calm down.
**Mental stress.** Fight or flight is great because it’s an innate survival mechanism. However, if you are constantly facing “threats” that cause you stress, it can lead to poor health outcomes. Stress can become chronic if not properly managed.
",1.0