Fight or Flight Versus Tend and Befriend Behavioral Response to Stress

BACKGROUND: The well-known fight-or-flight mechanism was first described in 1932 but was based on studies almost entirely of male participants. Taylor (2003) and colleagues pointed out the gender bias in research and proposed an alternative stress response theory. Early 21st-century investigations pointed to the hypothesized tend-and-befriend stress response, which was initially seen more predominantly in women (Hill, 2002).

PURPOSE: Turton and Campbell (2005) used Q-methodology to study the factors of fight, flight, tend, and befriend behavioral responses to stress among university students. A 61-item Q-sort was developed to represent typical behavioral responses to stress among university students. Results demonstrated that the behavioral responses of fight, flight, tend, and befriend could be distinguished through factor analysis. Support was generated for the theory that women tend to favor a tend-and-befriend response to stress. Our study sought to replicate Turton and Campbell’s outcomes, investigating whether a second sample expanded beyond university students would again establish factors discriminating among fight, flight, tend, and befriend.

DESIGN: A mixed-method study was conducted with a primary objective to assess stress response differences among a gender-balanced sample. We used the Q-sort and related methods established by Turton and Campbell (2005). Q-methods combine factor analysis with qualitative analysis of factor exemplars to determine meaning of how data are sorted.

METHOD: A nonrandom sample was devised via networking established by team members. In an effort to comply with the repeated admonitions in the recent stress literature to ensure gender balance in stress research, we enlisted couples or male–female pairs from families, resulting in 17 pairs (n = 34). Participants were both male and female volunteers between ages 19 and 69 yr. Participants were sought among individuals living independently and carrying out typically expected roles.

RESULTS: Data from 34 participants were analyzed using PQ Method (PQM; Peter Schmolck, Gilching, Germany) software according to Q-methodology. The Q-sort analysis identifies participants who responded similarly and creates an exemplar of typically ranked statements for that group. When using a three-factor matrix, 31 of the 34 cases clearly fit one of the factors, explaining 47% of the variance. Factor 1 described responses of 14 cases, explaining 21% of the variance among the sample, and is representative of the tend-and-befriend model of stress response by favoring social responses to stress. Factor 2 described the responses of nine cases, explaining 13% of the variance, and was the one most representative of the fight stress response. Factor 3 described eight cases, explaining 13% of the variance, and was representative of the flight stress response.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to the Taylor’s (2003) hypothesis of a strong gender difference in stress response, participants in our study who had graduate education and higher income aligned more closely with a social (tend-and-befriend) stress response, while participants with lower education and lower income more closely fit the fight-or-flight stress response patterns, regardless of gender. One might deduce that a social response to stress can be a learned behavior influenced by social norms. This conclusion leads to further questions regarding how stress responses are learned and whether these patterns can be modified to enhance adaptive response to daily challenges.

References

Hill, K. L. (2002). Promoting exercise compliance: A cognitive–behavioral approach. Women and Therapy, 25(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v25n02_06

Taylor, S. E. (2003). The tending instinct: Men, women, and the biology of relationships. New York: Henry Holt.

Turton, S., & Campbell, C. (2005). Tend and befriend versus fight or flight: Gender differences in behavioral responses to stress among university students. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 10, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9861.2005.tb00013.x