The Fight Or Flight Syndrome

The Fight Or c areer SyndromeThe argue back or fledge reception was coined by Cannon and refers to the physiological reactions that prepare us for a strenuous efforts required by scrap or running away, (Martin, Carlson Buskit, 2010, p 750). There is evidence for and against the sophisticated universe/women being hallucinating because of the fight or flight syndrome. For typeface if the nervous strain is short-term and so(prenominal) there w sickish be no untoward cause notwithstanding if the tenseness is prolonged that individual could be conquerable to illnesses both psychological issues (depression) and physiological problems (heart disease). However, this is dependent on several factors that whitethorn act as a buffer against idiom such as their self-esteem, act st come ingies and other individual differences alike personality.Lazarus and Launier (1978) regarded tense as a transaction between stress and the environment, (cited in Ogden, 2012, p 290). There are several physiological resolutions to stress such as heart rate increase, rake pressure rise, blood sugar level rise, digestion stopping and adrenaline release. These help the eubstance to be alert and ready, therefore whether they fly or fight. Normally after the body is stable, further if the stress is prolonged thusly it has banish effects. For example, the digestion stopping whitethorn cause stomach ulcers consistent blood sugar rise dirty dog cause diabetes and heart rate differences give the bounce cause coronary heart disease. This translates how much a person has changed from past times, where the only response was to fight or run away, to now where modern stressors are complex so this response is no longer separate and Cannon saw that it could steel a modern person ill, (Martin, Carlson Buskit, 2010).The responses to stress link with Selyes General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), which has three stages the number one stage is the qui vive stage which involves the autonomic nervous system. Then the resistance stage is reached and then the exhaustion stage, where the person/animal loses their ability to adapt and leaves them vulnerable to illnesses (Martin, Carlson Buskit, 2010). This shows that the stress response will be advantageous in the short-term but if the exhaustion stage is reached it can have detri intellectual effects on that person. However, Selyes theory might not be valid due to generalization problems he carried out his study on animals, whose processes and responses are be antithetic to humans (Martin, Carlson Buskit, 2010).There are two main groups of physiological changes. The first is sympathetic activation where a stressor triggers the nervous system in this section to produce adrenaline so this produces the fight or flight response. This activates hypothalamic pituitary adrenocortical (HPA) activity, this is similar to GAS, and this changes the carbohydrate stores and releases endorphins that act as perturb rel ief ready to fight, (Ogden, 2012). This shows how the fight or flight responses in the body can be beneficial short-term.There is evidence for and against the fight or flight response causing the modern man to be ill but the outcome is dependent on factors that could modify the effects. One example is personality if they have a hardy personality (Kobasa, 1977, cited in Sanders Suls, 1982) or if they strive when stressed it acts as a buffer against stress, (George, Everly Lating, 2002). People with a type A personality (see stress as positive) are do by stress and succeed when in this state, (Friedman and Rosenman, 1959, cited in Hayes, 2000). Nevertheless(prenominal), if the persons personality is setback then theyre much likely to get ill from stress, therefore dowry to prove the statement true. Additionally, their self-esteem can effect this too a person who has low self-esteem and low global self-esteem (negative military rating of oneself turns to self-doubt and self-rejec tion) are more likely to get stressed then a person with high self-esteem, (Schrami, Perski, Grossi Simonsson-Sarnecki, 2010). These factors make a person less susceptible and therefore helps disprove whether fight or flight responses make people ill. However, some data for this was collected by questionnaire so the findings may not be valid due to social desirability bias.another(prenominal) factor that can act as modifier against stress is coping strategies. Selk (1973) stated that what makes us ill now is different to what make us ill before, for example more psychological problems occur now e.g. mental disorders (Esch, Stefano, Fricchione Benson, 2002) then physical ones and it depends on how that person deals with their environment, (Klirts Moos, 1974, cited in George, Everly Lating, 2002). A rush of research has stated the importance of social have a bun in the oven to act as a buffer against stress, and can help prevent burnout, (Etzion, 1984). For example, good dialog ue with your partner can decrease marital problems and stress. Social moderate kit and boodle by motivating the individual and adding need-fulfilment. Women have better interpersonal skills so seek social support and therefore are less given to stress in this particular way. Norris and Murrel (1990) suggest that low social support and a nerve-racking life event e.g. death of a love one is more likely to cause long-term stress. However, they state the complexness of the term social support as there are many an(prenominal) different varieties and of differing levels. Another coping strategy is to gain a parvenu activity this gets you out, having fun and keeping that persons mind off the stressor(s) (Norris and Murrel, 1990). This shows that social support is all-important(prenominal) and lack of it can help to cause the negative effects of stress, (even more so when faced with a stressful life event). Therefore, suggesting that the fight or flight response can make someone ill i n the wrong circumstances. However, other things must be taken into bank bill individual differences e.g. what strategy suits them best and if they have a new hobby.Findings from studies show that both cognitive diathesis and the stress component (more environmental causes) go unneurotic to help suggest why people get stressed. Research shows that stressful life events trigger the susceptibility to stress this put with other more biological factors like low self-esteem can make the person more vulnerable. This shows how the diathesis-stress model can help explain that its not dependable one factor that contributes to the fight or flight response qualification an individual ill, its a multitude of factors (both environmental and biological) that help explain the negative effects of stress. If its biological causes then some coping strategies apply to contend the responses of fight or flight will not work as effectively as treatments that focus on genetic influences e.g. a con tractable hardy personality. However, it might be too early to come to this closedown because more research unavoidably to be done in this area, but its an effective explanation that takes an eclectic approach to explain that the fight or flight can have its benefits but with the wrong diathesis and vulnerability to stress can show that a person can be made ill, (Zvolenskya, Kotovb, Antipovac Schmidtd, 2003).Nevertheless, there might be a problem with the fight or flight response itself not the modern day man. It hasnt been updated even though our stress response has changed and ignores research carried out since it was coined by Cannon in the 1920s. It mischaracterised the order in which the responses occur. A new sequence by white-haired(a) can explain the responses better for more modern times, it begins with the freeze response so the person/animal remains undetected. Then an attempt to flee and then a chance to fight occurs. Another model is the stop, look, learn approach which might be more valid today and is used in many military operations, which also relates to the freeze response. Additionally, the fright response (tonic immobility) or in other words playing dead is reached. This updates the fight or flight response to be freeze, flight, fight or fright. This revealing shows that there is a problem with the fight or flight response, that its liable for illness in the modern day man/women encountering stress and that it needs adapting to new scenarios that could be encountered now, (Does fight or flight need update?).The evidence suggests that the fight or flight response can be beneficial, but with the wrong circumstances and if the stress is prolonged then it can make an individual ill. Nevertheless, this can be affected by trustworthy modifying effects for example, if the person has suitable/effective coping strategies. Other aspects of the argument, like whether the fight or flight response needs updating is important to take into account . Its still unclear what causes stress is it biology or environmental causes? Therefore, more research needs to be done on the causes so the treatments can be looked at for reliability and validity. Additionally, then more reading will be available on whether the fight or flight response does cause illnesses or is it a positive relationship.Word count 1340/1320. Citations- 116.