Did you ever wonder how a couple who loved each other when they got married could, “x” number of years later, treat each other so abominably during a divorce? What happened to them? Why do people, even family members, become enraged over political differences of opinion?  What is behind child abuse and domestic violence?

How do people that were once beloved become looked upon as a threatening enemy? The answer is in the brain and how it is wired to respond to a perceived threat. In all of the above examples, the brain is operating in a similar manner, i.e. the flight or fight response is being triggered. For survival purposes the amygdala, in the limbic system of our brain, is operating 24/7, even when we are asleep, to detect a possibly threatening situation. When a threat is registered by the amygdala, fear is almost instantaneously generated, activating the sympathetic nervous system resulting in the physiological changes necessary for fight or flight such as increased heart rate and blood flow, increased muscle tension, tunnel vision, dilated pupils, dry mouth, slowed digestion, and hearing loss. This process is beneficial when actual danger is imminent, as quick reflexes and response can help one avoid danger. If the fight response is mobilized, the fear converts to anger, e.g. a snarling dog.

In addition to the physiological changes, once the fight or flight response is triggered perceptual changes occur in the brain. The threat response essentially hijacks the brain leading to cognitive distortions about the person or situation and excessive rumination over the issue. The focus of attention narrows down to the source of the threat, leaving the triggered person unable to have the big picture point of view. Also, a firm certainty that one is correct, therefore the other person is wrong, develops. Without a broad perspective on the issue, a judgment on the other person’s responsibility or guilt is questionable, because under anger’s influence one is more likely to be wrong. However, the threat system functions with a better safe than sorry approach; which, again, is beneficial in the case of real danger.

Some of the examples named above involve bodily harm, making it easier to understand why the fight or flight response may be triggered. But it is not always a threat to the body that triggers a response, sometimes it is a perception that one’s well-being, financial security, empowerment, social position or freedom are threatened. For example, because one’s sense of relationship safety is destroyed by betrayal in a marriage, perception can change in which the offending spouse is dehumanized by epitaphs (“cheater, liar” etc.), therefore making it easier to attack the “nonhuman”.  Once the divorce battle commences, untrue attributes and anticipated behaviors are ascribed to the other spouse due to the cognitive distortions by each. The act of setting up a defense becomes a perceived attack by the other. This does not make them bad or crazy, it makes them human. Our brains are designed this way.

Arguing over political differences often triggers the fight or flight response because of the perceived threat to the individual’s idea of what the world needs to look like in order for him/her to be okay. Ergo, the reason why people become inflexible and unwilling to even listen or to accept that the other person’s ideas are just as valid, but based on that person’s need to see the world differently. Understanding the underlying needs helps to mitigate the threat response.

In child abuse, the perceived threat by the adult is to his/her perception of not getting necessary needs met. This is often the case when, as a child, the abusive adult did not get basic physical and emotional needs met. The terror and anger initiated by the prospect of being rejected, abused or abandoned by one’s parents as a child is repressed only to resurface when demands of taking care of a child’s needs above one’s own needs triggers that angry, scared inner state again. Once triggered, the changes that occur in the brain predispose the abusive parent to ruminate and blame the child, with the certainty of correctness.  In a primal brain response, the child becomes the perceived enemy to the parent’s well-being.

One way that EMDR therapy can help reduce aggression in relationships is to process the old, traumatic experiences, thus allowing individuals to operate in the present and not be thrown perceptually and emotionally into the past. Without the repressed material triggering the threat response, the person can make choices on thoughts and behaviors more clearly, such as taking a time-out when the demands of parenting become overwhelming or remembering all the good traits of one’s spouse.

The bilateral stimulation (BLS) of EMDR therapy is calming in and of itself. So targeting relational issues with BLS help the client see the broader picture. Often during EMDR therapy, the once-threatening person becomes perceptually less powerful than the repressed memory believed. For example, a client was repeatedly humiliated verbally by a now ex-husband. Spontaneously during the session, she went from crying to laughing when she realized that what he thought or said does not matter anymore; he was no longer a part of her life. Never again would his words haunt her and she stopped bracing for a fight just at the thought of him. In addition, innocuous behavior by her current husband is not being translated through the lens of her past husband’s abuse.

Using future targeting in EMDR therapy, the client can experience desired responses to what before seemed threatening. For example, a relative on the political fringe discussing politics at a family holiday get-together can trigger the threat response. Scheduling an EMDR therapy session before the holiday and setting up a future target of the client responding in the way he/she would want to in the real situation would give the brain experience in the new, desired behavior of staying calm. To the brain it is as if the more adaptive behavior has actually occurred, and like going down an established path in the woods the brain is now more inclined to go there. Because the brain remembers past successes the client is less likely to be drawn into an ugly political debate in the future.

In addition, the client’s innate resilience can be strengthened during resource installation using EMDR therapy. Afterward, potential threats are perceived as less threatening because the client has more confidence in being able to manage the situation due to increased awareness of his/her own innate power. When a client feels strong, others appear less threatening.

Finally, when a person feels threatened they often cannot see the forest for the trees. EMDR therapy helps them telescope outside of the forest to see the whole lay of the land. Gaining this viewpoint makes whatever is going on in the forest less immediately personal, therefore less threatening.