Biopsychology Evaluation
The Fight-or-Flight Response
1. Weakness: The ‘tend and befriend’ response; Taylor et al. (2000)
suggested that for females, behavioural responses to stress are more
characterised by a pattern of tend and befriend rather than fight or
flight. This involves protecting themselves and their young through
nurturing behaviours (tend) and forming alliances with other women
(befriend). This finding, explained in terms of the higher levels of the
hormone oxytocin in females, suggests that previous research has
obscured patterns and is mainly focused on males.
2. Weakness: Negative consequences of the fight-or-flight response;
the physiological responses associated with fight or flight may be
adaptive for a stress response that requires energetic behavioural
responses. However the stressors require high levels of activity. The
problem arises when the stress response is repeatedly activated. For
example, increased blood pressure can lead to physical damage in
the blood vessels and eventually heart disease. Therefore, although
cortisol may assist the body in fighting a viral infection, too much can
suppress the immune response, shutting down the process that fights
infection, increasing the likelihood of stress-related illness.
3. Weakness: Fight or flight does not tell the whole story; Gray (1988)
argues that the first phase of reaction to a threat is to avoid
confrontation. He suggests that most animals typically display the
‘freeze response’. This is when the animal is hyper-vigilant and alert
to the slightest sign of danger. The advantages of this is that humans
can then focus their attention and look for new information to make
the best response to the threat.
4. Weakness: A genetic basis to sex differences in the fight or flight
response; Lee and Harley (2012) have found evidence of a genetic
, basis for gender differences in the fight or flight. The SRY gene,
found exclusively on the male Y chromosome, directs male
development, promoting aggression and resulting in the fight or flight
response to stress. This SRY gene may prime males to respond to
stress in this way by the release of stress hormones. In contrast, the
absence of the SRY gene in females may prevent this response to
stress, leading instead to ‘tend and befriend’ behaviours.
Localisation of function
1. Weakness: Challenges to localisation: equipotentiality. Not all
researchers agree with the view that cognitive functions are localised
in the brain. A conflicting view is the equipotentiality theory. Lashley
believed that basic motor and sensory functions were localised, but
the higher mental functions were not. He claimed that intact areas of
the cortex could take over responsibility for specific cognitive
functions following injury to the area normally responsible for that
function. According to this point of view, the effects of damage to the
brain would be determined by the extent rather than the location of
the damage.
2. Weakness: Communication may be more important than localisation;
research suggests that what might be more important is how brain
areas communicate with each other, rather than which specific brain
regions control a particular cognitive function. Wernicke claimed
although different regions of the brain have specificialist functions,
they are interdependent as to work they must interact with each other.
For example, there was a case in which the loss of an ability to read
resulted from damage to the connection between the visual cortex
and Wernicke’s area. This suggests that complex behaviours such as
language, reading and movement are built up gradually as a stimulus
enters the brain, then moves through different structures before a
response is produced.
The Fight-or-Flight Response
1. Weakness: The ‘tend and befriend’ response; Taylor et al. (2000)
suggested that for females, behavioural responses to stress are more
characterised by a pattern of tend and befriend rather than fight or
flight. This involves protecting themselves and their young through
nurturing behaviours (tend) and forming alliances with other women
(befriend). This finding, explained in terms of the higher levels of the
hormone oxytocin in females, suggests that previous research has
obscured patterns and is mainly focused on males.
2. Weakness: Negative consequences of the fight-or-flight response;
the physiological responses associated with fight or flight may be
adaptive for a stress response that requires energetic behavioural
responses. However the stressors require high levels of activity. The
problem arises when the stress response is repeatedly activated. For
example, increased blood pressure can lead to physical damage in
the blood vessels and eventually heart disease. Therefore, although
cortisol may assist the body in fighting a viral infection, too much can
suppress the immune response, shutting down the process that fights
infection, increasing the likelihood of stress-related illness.
3. Weakness: Fight or flight does not tell the whole story; Gray (1988)
argues that the first phase of reaction to a threat is to avoid
confrontation. He suggests that most animals typically display the
‘freeze response’. This is when the animal is hyper-vigilant and alert
to the slightest sign of danger. The advantages of this is that humans
can then focus their attention and look for new information to make
the best response to the threat.
4. Weakness: A genetic basis to sex differences in the fight or flight
response; Lee and Harley (2012) have found evidence of a genetic
, basis for gender differences in the fight or flight. The SRY gene,
found exclusively on the male Y chromosome, directs male
development, promoting aggression and resulting in the fight or flight
response to stress. This SRY gene may prime males to respond to
stress in this way by the release of stress hormones. In contrast, the
absence of the SRY gene in females may prevent this response to
stress, leading instead to ‘tend and befriend’ behaviours.
Localisation of function
1. Weakness: Challenges to localisation: equipotentiality. Not all
researchers agree with the view that cognitive functions are localised
in the brain. A conflicting view is the equipotentiality theory. Lashley
believed that basic motor and sensory functions were localised, but
the higher mental functions were not. He claimed that intact areas of
the cortex could take over responsibility for specific cognitive
functions following injury to the area normally responsible for that
function. According to this point of view, the effects of damage to the
brain would be determined by the extent rather than the location of
the damage.
2. Weakness: Communication may be more important than localisation;
research suggests that what might be more important is how brain
areas communicate with each other, rather than which specific brain
regions control a particular cognitive function. Wernicke claimed
although different regions of the brain have specificialist functions,
they are interdependent as to work they must interact with each other.
For example, there was a case in which the loss of an ability to read
resulted from damage to the connection between the visual cortex
and Wernicke’s area. This suggests that complex behaviours such as
language, reading and movement are built up gradually as a stimulus
enters the brain, then moves through different structures before a
response is produced.
