The Biological Imperative: From Natural Recovery to Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment—An Ethological and Evolutionary Perspective
Introduction
Psychological trauma is among the most prevalent and costly public health problems the world faces. Approximately 80% of people in the United States experience at least one traumatic event in their lifetime (Breslau et al., 1998; Kessler et al., 1995), with figures for many other countries comparable or higher. Natural disasters alone displace an estimated 24 million people annually (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2023), and armed conflicts expose tens of millions more. The economic cost runs into hundreds of billions of dollars each year. These estimates capture only the extreme end of a spectrum that extends to the ordinary adversities of daily life—the accidents, losses, and chronic stressors that can produce mental health problems as readily as catastrophic events do.
Yet the overwhelming majority receive no help. The World Health Organization estimates that in low‑ and middle‑income countries, more than 75% of people with mental health conditions receive no treatment, and even in wealthy nations, waiting lists often stretch for months. The psychological treatments dominating clinical guidelines are lengthy, expensive, and require highly trained specialists. They are not designed for delivery at scale—in mass disasters, refugee camps, or anywhere the professional infrastructure is thin. This gap is widening
Addressing trauma on this scale calls for interventions that meet several criteria simultaneously: they must be theoretically sound, proven effective, brief, easy to train therapists in, practicable across cultures, and suitable for dissemination beyond professional therapists—through lay people, self‑help tools, and mass media. Current evidence‑based trauma treatments meet, at most, two or three of these requirements. None meets them all.
In the aftermath of the 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey, a treatment was developed that meets all six of these requirements. Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment (CFBT) focuses exclusively on avoidance behaviors and employs only self‑exposure to feared situations in the natural environment, without cognitive restructuring or any other anxiety‑reduction techniques. It was first tested in a series of four studies with earthquake survivors (Başoğlu et al., 2003a, 2005, 2007). Post‑disaster circumstances necessitated delivering the treatment in a single session, as regular attendance was often not feasible. Improvement rates of 80–90%, sustained at long‑term follow‑up despite ongoing aftershocks, substantially exceeded expectations, raising the question of how such remarkable recovery could occur after a single session. These findings were at odds with the prevailing view that recovery requires the reduction or elimination of anxiety, typically through cognitive restructuring, emotional processing, or habituation. CFBT, however, involved none of those procedures.
This question has driven my work ever since. If a single treatment session can produce outcomes that at least match those of far more intensive therapies, what does this reveal about the nature of recovery and what does this imply for psychotherapies in general? And if recovery can be initiated in a single session, the treatment is, in effect, self‑administered and therefore disseminable widely, at minimal cost, without the bottleneck of specialist availability. In the context of the global burden of trauma, that possibility is not merely a clinical convenience but a fundamental change in what is achievable.
This article addresses these questions by tracing the evolution, evidence base, and broader implications of CFBT. It draws on a research program spanning four decades and involving more than 15,000 survivors of earthquakes, war, and torture. The work is organized around two hypotheses, first articulated in an analysis of the parallels between animal responses to inescapable shock and human responses to torture (Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992): that loss of perceived control during traumatic experiences is the primary determinant of traumatic stress, and that regaining a sense of control reverses this process, leading to recovery and resilience. Although much of our research has been published elsewhere, this article is the first to review the implications of our findings from a broader perspective, drawing on relevant evidence from learning theory, ethology, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience. The central argument is that recovery from psychological trauma is a biological default. The mechanism of recovery is not the extinction of fear but the restoration of perceived control—a phylogenetically ancient mechanism, conserved across species and supported by endogenous neurochemical systems, that operates through behavioral re‑engagement with the feared environment.
The article proceeds in four parts. Part I traces the research program from which CFBT emerged, beginning with interviews with torture survivors in the 1980s and moving chronologically through studies of torture, war, earthquake, and armed conflicts leading to asylum seeking. A chronological account of this process is provided to help the reader to understand better how the study hypotheses emerged, how they were tested, how each study raised new questions that led to the next study, and how work with one type of trauma informed further work on a different trauma. Part II examines the biological foundations of this process, drawing on ethology, affective neuroscience, and the principle that the drive for control is the master imperative of life—a principle that follows from Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Part III critiques the prevailing anxiety‑reduction paradigm and presents the case for control enhancement as the mechanism of recovery. Part IV considers the broader implications for other psychotherapies, for public health, and for the socio‑political and philosophical questions raised by a shift from anxiety reduction to control enhancement.
Throughout this article, I distinguish between three related terms. Exposure refers broadly to any confrontation with feared stimuli, whether therapist‑directed, self‑initiated, or incidental. Self‑exposure denotes the deliberate, self‑initiated confrontation with feared situations aimed at restoring a sense of control—the active ingredient in CFBT and one pathway to natural recovery. Re‑engagement describes the broader ethological pattern, observed across species, of resuming functional activity in a previously threatening environment. Re‑engagement can take the form of deliberate self‑exposure or can be driven by changing life circumstances or competing survival imperatives. In all cases, the mechanism of recovery is the same: contact with the feared stimulus restores the organism’s sense of control, whether or not that contact was deliberately sought.
Part I: The Research Program — From Torture to Earthquakes
The research program described in this part of the article did not begin with a pre‑existing theory. It began with a series of observations that, over four decades, compelled a fundamental reconsideration of how traumatic stress develops and how recovery occurs. The framework was not designed in advance and tested against data; it emerged from the evidence, piece by piece, as each study revealed findings that the prevailing understanding could not easily accommodate. To trace that emergence is to understand why control, rather than anxiety reduction, became the organizing principle of the treatment that ultimately took shape. This understanding began with our work with torture survivors, detailed below.
Phase 1: Torture Survivors (1980s–1990s)
In the early 1980s, the applicability of findings from inescapable shock experiments in animals to extreme human experience remained largely unexplored. The animal literature had demonstrated that exposure to uncontrollable and unpredictable shocks produced a distinct constellation of deficits—termed learned helplessness—characterized by motivational, associative, and emotional impairments, whereas exposure to equivalent but controllable shocks did not (Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967; Maier & Seligman, 1976). Although the relevance of this work to human anxiety and depression had been noted, systematic evidence linking uncontrollable stress to post‑traumatic reactions was absent. To address this gap, a series of in‑depth interviews was conducted with torture survivors in Turkey following the 1980 military coup, which had led to the detention and torture of large numbers of people, predominantly political activists. The aim was to understand what survivors had experienced and how they had coped. These interviews revealed a picture of human resilience under conditions of extreme, deliberately imposed uncontrollable stress that had no precedent in experimental psychology literature.
Exercise of control over torture
The interviews yielded a detailed account of the strategies that survivors employed. These examples are presented here not for their dramatic quality, but because they convey, more precisely than abstract definitions can, what control means in the context of torture. Torture is the best example for this purpose, because it can be defined in learning theory terms as “exposure to unpredictable and uncontrollable stressors under the physical control of others, the cumulative impact of which poses an increased risk for helplessness and hopelessness responses and associated traumatic stress reactions” (Başoğlu, 2017). It is clear from this psychological formulation that the concept of control is central to the definition of torture. As such, among all stressful human experiences, it is the experience one that provides the closest analogue to inescapable shock experiments in animals. In addition, the definition of torture is not limited to the individual acts of the perpetrators; it also extends to the cumulative effects of the contextual features of the setting in which it occurs. It is therefore difficult to understand what control is without recourse to the context of the setting. A detailed account of survivors’ is therefore provided below.
During the early phases of detention, uncertainty about the risk, timing, and nature of torture was itself a major source of stress. Survivors sought to reduce this uncertainty through every available channel. They attempted to contact other detainees to determine what the authorities wanted, who else had been arrested, and if any sensitive information was revealed under interrogation. Special codes of communication were developed to smuggle messages via other inmates or bribed wardens. When communication was impossible, simply knocking on a neighbor’s wall conveyed the message “I am alive” and helped counteract the psychological effects of isolation. Prisoners in solitary confinement followed structured daily programs of activities and mental exercises to preserve a domain of control over their own behavior. One survivor described how his senses became acutely tuned to the torturers’ responses during blindfolded interrogation, allowing him to reconstruct a mental map of the environment and anticipate when and from which direction blows might come.
During torture itself, coping operated on multiple levels. At the psychophysiological level, depersonalization, derealization, and stress‑induced analgesia provided some protection against overwhelming pain. Survivors reported that after the initial shock of electrical torture, a numbness set in — likely mediated by endogenous opioid release — and the experience, though excruciating, became survivable. At the behavioral level, survivors used whatever defensive body movements were available, however ineffective, reporting that even futile resistance helped preserve a sense of control. When electrical torture was applied, some focused on controlling their vocal responses — refusing to scream — as a way of denying the torturers the satisfaction of a visible reaction. Others deliberately shifted attention away from the pain and toward the torturers’ behavior, monitoring them for signs of frustration. One survivor reported that he could turn the torturers’ frustration on and off at will through his behavioral responses during torture, an experience that transformed the power dynamic by giving the detainee a measure of control over the perpetrator’s emotional state. Some engaged in deliberate acts of disobedience. One female survivor, while hanging naked from the ceiling, urinated forcefully while the torturers were making jokes among themselves— an act she perceived as spoiling the torturers’ fun.
Sham executions and prolonged threats of death were among the most distressing forms of torture. Some survivors coped by accepting the possibility of death in advance, a form of cognitive preparation that reduced the terror of the threat. By shifting from “Will I survive?” to “How will I face death?”, they replaced an uncontrollable uncertainty with a cognitive frame they could manage. Torture frequently involved profound humiliation — stripping the detainee naked, inserting a baton into the anus, near‑drowning in a bucket of vomit and feces, verbal abuse, and attacks on political, religious, and personal values. Survivors countered these assaults on their dignity by reframing the humiliation as a reflection of the torturers’ depravity rather than their own worthlessness. Those with strong political or religious convictions drew on these to maintain a sense of moral superiority over their captors. The cognitive shift from “I am degraded” to “They are degraded by their own actions” preserved self‑esteem and denied the torturers the psychological victory they sought.
The dread of waiting to be taken from the cell for interrogation or torture was often reported to be worse than the torture itself. Some used this knowledge to reframe the onset of torture as a relief. Once the session began, the uncertainty was resolved, and the survivor could focus on coping rather than waiting. Being forced to witness others being tortured — friends, relatives, or strangers — was often described as more distressing than being tortured oneself. Some survivors coped by silently communicating solidarity with the person being tortured— catching their eye, making a small gesture — to convey that they were not alone and that their suffering was witnessed. This act of connection, however small, reduced the helplessness of both the observer and the observed.
During the imprisonment phase, the restoration of predictability and social support became critical. Daily beatings and other oppressive measures became predictable features of prison life, and prisoners learned to cope with them, often using humor and collective action to transform the experience. One survivor described how a group of thirty inmates, ordered to line up and count during inspections, devised a rota so that a different person each day would be the last person in the line and deliberately disobey orders to attract the punishment of the day, thereby sparing others from random beatings. The beatings, called humorously “beating of the last,” were predictable and shared and became a joke that enhanced group solidarity rather than a source of distress. Humor served a protective function. When prisoners shared their torture experiences, the absurd or darkly comic aspects of their stories often became a source of shared amusement, reinforcing group cohesion. Collective hunger strikes served a similar function. They attracted national and international media attention, put pressure on prison authorities, and reinforced the prisoners’ sense of shared agency. Hunger strikes were perceived as one of the most effective ways of making an impact when all other avenues were foreclosed.
During the post‑imprisonment phase, acceptance by comrades was critical. A supportive environment allowed survivors to reappraise their experience. A torture experience was viewed as a litmus test of strength, integrity, and commitment to the cause. Those who had passed this test often enjoyed prestige and credibility in later political life, which facilitated cognitive change and the restoration of self‑esteem. The story of one survivor was particularly illustrative in this regard. He was suspended by the wrists, bound behind his back—a position of excruciating pain that can cause permanent nerve damage. He reframed the experience as an opportunity to break the record for tolerance among his comrades. When he learned he had endured it for seventeen minutes, he realized with great pride that he had broken that record. Upon his release, he was hailed as a hero by his comrades.
Political activity directed against the regime responsible for human rights violations provided an outlet for suppressed anger and a means of transforming the helplessness of the torture experience into effective action. One survivor was told during electrical torture to her genitals that she would never be able to have children. She waited anxiously until she eventually conceived and delivered a healthy baby. When the child was born, she raised her fingers in a victory sign and said, “The victory is mine.” It was this response that would later inspire the metaphor of victory in the rationale of CFBT.
Across all phases of the torture experience, the common theme was unmistakable: survivors were not passive recipients of inescapable stress but active agents who, even under conditions of extreme constraint and life‑threatening danger, sought to restore predictability, exercise choice, and maintain a sense of control over their internal states and external circumstances. This observation — that the drive for control persists even when objective control is virtually eliminated — was the starting point for everything that followed.
The 1992 formulation
The interviews with torture survivors were followed by a collaboration with Susan Mineka, a leading learning theorist in the United States, to examine the parallels between animal responses to inescapable shocks and human experience under torture. This work produced a theoretical article (Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992) advancing two hypotheses: that loss of perceived control during traumatic experiences is the primary determinant of traumatic stress, and that regaining a sense of control reverses this process. The article argued that survivors’ coping behaviors were best understood as attempts to maintain or restore control under conditions designed to eliminate it. These two hypotheses—untested at the time, but grounded in converging lines of animal and human evidence—became the organizing principles of the research program that followed.”
Testing the first hypothesis
The first hypothesis was tested in a controlled study of 55 tortured political activists in Turkey (Başoğlu et al., 1994a, 1994b). These individuals had been subjected to an average of 291 exposures to 23 different forms of torture, yet the rates of current PTSD (18%) and major depression (2%) were remarkably low. These findings suggested that the resilience acquired through militant political activism conferred protection against traumatic stress. A second study of 34 individuals with no history of political involvement who had been tortured for other reasons (Başoğlu et al., 1997) found substantially higher rates of PTSD (58%) and depression (24%), despite much less severe torture. A comparison of the two groups identified psychological preparedness for torture—assessed by a scale measuring prior political activity, commitment to a cause or political group, prior training in stoicism, and the predictability of arrest—as the strongest predictor of long‑term psychological outcome. Those who were psychologically prepared experienced less loss of control and less distress during torture and developed less traumatic stress afterward, even though the physical severity of what they had endured was greater.
These findings supported the first hypothesis. They also raised a question that the second hypothesis was designed to address: if loss of control is the mechanism of harm, can the restoration of control be the mechanism of recovery? Before that question could be tested directly in treatment studies, converging evidence from a different clinical population — patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia — provided an unexpected clue.
Convergent evidence from panic disorder and agoraphobia
While the torture studies were underway, a separate line of work we were conducting in the United Kingdom produced findings that bore directly on the relationship between fear reduction and recovery. A randomized controlled trial of panic disorder and agoraphobia treated with alprazolam and exposure (Marks et al., 1993) identified four subgroups based on treatment response: no improvement in panics or avoidance, improvement in avoidance but not in panics, improvement in panics but not in avoidance, and improvement in both. The existence of the second subgroup—patients whose avoidance improved while their panic attacks persisted—was particularly revealing. It demonstrated that individuals could resume long‑avoided activities, function more fully in daily life, and rate themselves as globally improved, all without a corresponding reduction in fear or panics. Moreover, more patients in this subgroup rated themselves as improved than did those in the third subgroup, whose panic had diminished but whose avoidance persisted (Başoğlu et al., 1994c). The sense of control, as reflected in the willingness to confront feared situations, was more closely associated with recovery than was fear reduction itself.
A prospective analysis based on the same trial reinforced this point. At week 8, before the drug withdrawal phase, patients completed an attributions questionnaire. Those who attributed their improvement to medication—that is, to an external agent rather than to personal effort—were significantly more likely to relapse, to experience more severe withdrawal symptoms, and to lose their treatment gains when the drug was tapered (Başoğlu et al., 1994d). This pattern held for both alprazolam and placebo patients. Notably, among patients who received both alprazolam and exposure, exposure did not prevent the return of phobic avoidance if they attributed their improvement to the medication. Pharmacological anxiolysis, by attenuating the fear experienced during exposure, appeared to undermine the mechanism through which exposure produces durable recovery. When anxiety reduction was attributed to an external agent, individuals did not revise their representation of their own capacity to cope. They learned that they could cope only under a specific pharmacological condition. When the same anxiety reduction was attributed to personal effort, the gains persisted.
Although these findings related to a different diagnostic group, their implications for the treatment of traumatic stress were clear. If recovery could occur without fear reduction, and if fear reduction without a sense of personal control proved fragile, then the active therapeutic ingredient was not the elimination of fear but the restoration of perceived control. Together with the evidence from torture survivors that loss of control was the primary determinant of traumatic stress, this critical insight motivated the shift from habituation to control enhancement that would eventually give rise to CFBT.
Phase 2: Earthquake and War Survivors (1999–2005)
Then came the 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey. This event provided an opportunity to test the twin hypotheses in a very different context: a natural disaster that was not designed to induce helplessness, yet shared the critical features of uncontrollability and unpredictability. An earthquake is sudden, unpredictable, and, for the duration of the tremor, virtually uncontrollable. It also created conditions—hundreds of aftershocks over more than a year, widespread destruction, mass displacement—that allow the study of traumatic stress on a population scale. The observations and data collected during this period confirmed and extended the learning theory model and directly shaped the treatment that would later be formalized as CFBT.
The nature of earthquake trauma
The initial major shock struck at 3 a.m. with a magnitude 7.4 and lasted 45 seconds. Common stressors included violent tremors, building collapses, entrapment under rubble, grotesque scenes, and loss of close ones. Contrary to the common perception of earthquakes as single traumatic events, the disaster involved a prolonged trauma period. More than 2,000 aftershocks were registered over a period of one year (Ito et al., 2002), occurring unpredictably and sustaining perceptions of threat.
The initial shock was intensely frightening for reasons central to the uncontrollability hypothesis. A moving physical environment—walls, furniture, the ground itself—lies outside ordinary human experience, and the sudden loss of a stable spatial reference is profoundly disorienting. This may account for the finding that 74% of survivors reported re‑experiencing symptoms in the early aftermath, particularly flashbacks involving visual images of the tremors (Başoğlu et al., 2001). Auditory stimuli compounded the distress: a rumbling noise from underground and the sound of moving structures amplified the sense of an alien, uncontrollable threat. When tremors are sufficiently violent, postural control fails, making it difficult to stand, walk, or take self‑protective action. In a survey of 280 survivors from the epicenter region (Şalcıoğlu, 2004), the most common responses during the earthquake were attempts to reach close ones (39%), attempts to leave the building (38%), and freezing or panic (38%); only 16% were able to seek a safe place, and 21% passively waited for the tremors to end. The majority therefore could not execute the recommended protective behavior. Overall, 76% of survivors reported severe or very severe fear, and 40% reported marked to total loss of control, with a significant correlation between the two (r = .27, p < .001), confirming that fear intensity was closely tied to perceived uncontrollability.
The intensity and persistence of this fear can be understood in evolutionary terms. Earthquakes have been a recurrent selection pressure throughout mammalian evolutionary history. Non‑human primates respond to seismic events with increased restlessness, freezing, and rapid movement to higher canopy—behaviors closely resembling their responses to approaching predators (Snarr, 2005). Kirschvink (2000) has argued that the timescale and recurrence rate of seismic events have been sufficient for natural selection to favor organisms capable of detecting and responding to seismic cues. From the perspective of preparedness theory (Seligman, 1971; Öhman & Mineka, 2001), ground shaking constitutes a survival threat for which rapid defensive mobilization is adaptive. The earthquake tremor, in this view, is a stimulus that the organism’s defensive architecture has been shaped to detect and react to with particular intensity. This does not imply that earthquake fear is innate—it is acquired through direct experience or observation—but it does imply that such fear is acquired rapidly, is resistant to extinction, and generalizes broadly to associated cues. The pervasive, enduring fear observed in survivors is consistent with this account.”
Uncontrollability and unpredictability as determinants of traumatic stress
Five field surveys involving over 4,000 survivors identified fear during the initial shock as the strongest predictor of PTSD and depression, outweighing all other trauma exposure variables (Başoğlu et al., 2002, 2004; Livanou et al., 2002; Şalcıoğlu et al., 2003, 2007). Fear of the tremors themselves—not the devastating consequences—was most strongly associated with chronic PTSD. Aftershocks, though less intense, occurred unpredictably and sustained chronic hypervigilance. In the Şalcıoğlu (2004) study, 60% of survivors reported a decrease in fear, associated with increased sense of control over aftershocks and predicted by prior experience of earthquake‑like shaking—a finding that mirrors stress immunization in animals. The 2000 Hella earthquakes in Iceland (magnitude 6.6, no casualties) provided a near‑experimental confirmation: 60% reported fear and helplessness, 24% developed PTSD, and no unexposed controls did (Bodvarsdottir & Elklit, 2004). The absence of devastation isolates the tremor experience—unpredictable and uncontrollable—as sufficient to produce traumatic stress. Importantly, the Salcioglu (2004) study also found that trauma‑induced disruptions of beliefs about safety, justice, or trust showed no association with PTSD; loss of control over fear of ongoing threat was the strongest predictor. This suggests that the organism’s defensive response is triggered by the direct, unmediated experience of uncontrollability, not by appraisal of danger.
Cognitive and behavioral responses to ongoing threat
The aftermath was marked by a pervasive search for safety. Millions followed seismology programs, sought expert building assessments, and cross‑checked construction years. Those without reassuring information created their own: some estimated how their house would collapse and slept in the safer half; others timed their exit speed. Survivors also relied extensively on safety signals, treating certain cues as danger signs and their absence as safety—exactly as Seligman’s safety‑signal theory (1968) predicts. Persistent rumors of an earthquake on a specific date spread repeatedly; each time the date passed, a new rumor emerged, transforming an unpredictable threat into a predictable one. These spontaneous behaviors mirror post‑encounter risk assessment across species (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1989; Eilam, 2005) and demonstrate that principles of predictability established in animal laboratories operate at the scale of human populations (Badia, Harsh & Abbott, 1979).
Fatalistic and religious thinking also increased. Expressions like “If death is fated to happen, it will happen” and the Islamic concept of tawakkul (trust in God’s will) reflected attempts to delegate control over the uncontrollable. Survey data suggested that fatalistic thinking was more common among those with greater trauma exposure or more severe PTSD, suggesting it may be a secondary response (Şalcıoğlu, 2004). Even if it did not directly reduce fear, such thinking may have encouraged risk‑taking and reduced avoidance, creating opportunities for learning control. Delegating control to a higher power, even without altering the external world, restores a subjective sense of order. The survivors who told themselves “If it is fated, it will happen” were doing what the organism always does when objective control is impossible.
The most direct behavioral consequence was pervasive avoidance. Across five surveys, 41–70% of survivors avoided an average of 7–11 situations (Başoğlu et al., 2002, 2004; Livanou et al., 2002; Şalcıoğlu et al., 2003, 2007), including entering buildings, staying alone, and other daily activities; many families maintained a nighttime watch. Avoidance extended to trauma reminders such as the room in which the earthquake was experienced, rubble, and idiosyncratic cues like the clothes worn or the particular brand of the toothpaste used at the exact time of the earthquake. Critically, avoidance was the strongest predictor of relocation: 58% of shelter residents had a safe home but remained displaced by fear, and in regression analyses, it was the strongest predictor of PTSD and depression, reflecting the close coupling of avoidance and low perceived control (Şalcıoğlu, 2004). From an ethological perspective, avoidance is adaptive immediately after threat but becomes maladaptive when it persists, as captured by the foraging–predation risk trade‑off (Lima & Dill, 1990; Siepielski et al., 2016). Media coverage further aggravated fear: 51% of survivors who had not experienced the televised events reported a marked to very much increase in anticipatory fear after watching TV coverage, associated with more severe avoidance. This is consistent with observational fear acquisition (Mineka & Öhman, 2002; Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006), a phylogenetically ancient capacity demonstrated in monkeys (Cook & Mineka, 1989, 1990). The television broadcasts were effectively a mass observational conditioning procedure.
Natural recovery through re‑engagement
Natural recovery among earthquake survivors could be best examined by repeated epidemiological studies or prospective studies specifically designed for this purpose. Neither was possible in post‑disaster circumstances. Available evidence in this regard came from observations of this process in many individual cases and from the Şalcıoğlu (2004) study, conducted on average 21 months after the earthquake. In this study, 60% of survivors reported an increased sense of control over aftershocks and decreased fear, which was predicted by prior exposure to earthquake‑like shaking, such as that experienced by sailors or people living close to railway bridges (Şalcıoğlu, 2004). This mirrors stress immunization in animals, where prior controllable stress generalizes across stressor types (Williams & Maier, 1977). This insight later inspired the development of earthquake simulator treatment.
In the same study, 156 survivors whose houses were undamaged had relocated to shelters out of fear. They resettled in their homes after a mean of 126 days; 67% cited the hardship of shelter life, and only 4% reported having lost their fear before returning. Resettlement, therefore, occurred not because fear had diminished but in spite of it. Early risk‑taking was common: among 80 survivors who initially avoided their home, 94% entered within the first month to retrieve essential items, and the latency to do so was unrelated to the intensity of fear experienced during the initial shock—the strongest predictor of PTSD (Şalcıoğlu, 2004). The graduated pattern of re‑engagement—brief visits followed by longer stays—mirrors post‑encounter risk assessment observed across species (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1989).
Individual case observations suggested that once survivors began visiting their homes, contact with the feared environment restored their sense of control. Some survivors discovered the benefits of exposure unintentionally and subsequently applied it deliberately (Başoğlu et al., 2011). A further study indicated that resettlement was associated with a reduction in PTSD symptoms (Şalcıoğlu et al., 2007). These findings suggested that behavioral re‑engagement with the feared environment—whether intentional or unintentional—can lead to natural recovery. They also raised a further critical question: could an intervention that simply encouraged re‑engagement initiate recovery in those who failed to recover on their own? The treatment studies that follow were designed to answer that question.”
The treatment studies
The observations of natural recovery suggested that avoidance is the central obstacle to recovery and that behavioral re‑engagement is the path around it. If this were true, an intervention that did nothing more than encourage survivors to confront feared situations should be sufficient. That proposition led to the development of CFBT. In its simplest form, a therapist identifies feared situations, explains why avoidance sustains fear, reframes the survivor’s experience by explaining that fear is the ‘enemy,’ avoidance is ‘surrender,’ and reclaiming control over life is ‘victory,’ describes the treatment and its rationale, instills hope by noting that the chances of recovery are very high, and, once agreement is reached, gives instructions for self‑exposure. The latter consists mainly of not avoiding feared situations as they are encountered in daily life; instructions for exposure to specific feared situations are reserved for cases that require a more structured approach. When motivation is an issue, the survivor is told: ‘You need to decide whether you want to fight your anxiety and take control over your life or surrender to your anxiety or fear and continue to suffer.’ For those who had been tortured, the message is sharper still: ‘By avoiding, you are also surrendering to those responsible for what you have been through. This is why they did what they did to you.’ Delivering such a rationale requires persuasive skill, but resistance does not require cognitive restructuring; presenting the survivor with a choice between recovery and living one’s life in fear and suffering is often sufficient. The rationale offers no promise that fear will diminish—only that control over life can be restored. Once the survivor decides to act, the therapist’s role is largely complete; the rest is self‑exposure, carried out at the survivor’s own pace.
The first study was an open trial involving 231 earthquake survivors with PTSD, initiated eight months after the earthquake while aftershocks were still occurring (Başoğlu et al., 2003a). The study was not originally conceived as research; it was undertaken as part of routine treatment delivery to survivors in the disaster region. Treatment was delivered by nine therapists who had no prior experience in psychotherapy, having been trained for the purposes of service delivery. All outcome measures were self‑rated. Treatment was flexible—sessions were discontinued upon improvement—to determine the minimum number required for clinically significant improvement
A survival analysis showed that the probability of improvement was 76% after one session, 88% after two, and 100% after four (mean 1.7 sessions). Improvement occurred in all PTSD and depressive symptoms and extended to functional impairment. Only one survivor failed to maintain improvement at 3–9 month follow‑up despite ongoing aftershocks, demonstrating the durability of recovery achieved through a control‑enhancing intervention. The study examined a wide range of potential predictors—age, sex, education, trauma severity, material loss, past psychiatric history, past trauma history, and baseline illness severity—none of which predicted outcome. The sole predictor was compliance with treatment. All survivors who complied with self‑exposure improved.
The open trial had shown that a single session could produce durable recovery, but it left an important question unanswered: would the same result hold if survivors had no further contact with the therapist at all? This was critical for two reasons. First, the post‑disaster conditions that made regular attendance difficult for many survivors also made any form of follow‑up uncertain. Second, the longer‑term aim was a treatment brief enough to be disseminated on a large scale; if a single session without follow‑up proved effective, the path to such dissemination would be clear. A randomized controlled trial was designed to address this question directly.
The trial involved 59 participants with chronic PTSD who received a single 60‑minute session and no further contact (Başoğlu et al., 2005). Self‑rated global improvement rates reached 80% at week 12 and 83% at 1–2‑year follow‑up, with a 59% reduction in PTSD symptoms and a 69% reduction in fear and avoidance. As in the open trial, only one survivor relapsed during follow‑up despite ongoing aftershocks. Depression also improved, consistent with the view that helplessness constitutes a common pathway to both PTSD and depression. Importantly, this study provided the first evidence that behavioral avoidance was the earliest symptom to change, with all other PTSD symptoms—including cognitive ones—improving subsequently at later follow‑ups (Şalcıoğlu et al., 2007). By week 24, improvement in 12 of 17 PTSD symptoms was associated with reduced avoidance. Reduced avoidance thus drove overall improvement and led to cognitive change, pointing to increased sense of control as the central mechanism of recovery.
The RCT had demonstrated that avoidance reduction drove recovery and that control enhancement was the mechanism. But a practical question remained: could the treatment’s impact be strengthened for the minority of survivors who failed to initiate self‑exposure on their own? If the mechanism was control, then giving survivors a direct experience of control over the very stimulus they feared—the tremor itself—might overcome this barrier. Several observations pointed toward this possibility. The fear of tremors was the single strongest predictor of PTSD, and the Şalcıoğlu (2004) study had found that prior experience with earthquake‑like shaking—among sailors or those living near railway bridges—was associated with greater sense of control over aftershocks. Field observations reinforced this line of thinking. During aftershocks, survivors would rush out of their tents in panic and run aimlessly, unable to explain their fear. On one occasion, a container shelter on wheels began shaking in the wind, and people threw themselves out in terror, fully aware that it was not an earthquake. Such reactions reflected the conditioning power of the tremors themselves—conditioned fears that resist cognitive control and are best addressed by exposure to the unconditioned stimulus. These converging observations led to the development of earthquake simulator treatment.
A pilot study tested this proposition. Ten survivors underwent a single session of exposure to simulated tremors, with no self‑exposure instructions given afterward, so that the independent effect of exposure to the unconditioned stimulus on control and avoidance could be observed (Başoğlu et al., 2003b). At three‑month follow‑up, avoidance had reduced by 66%, PTSD by 71%, and depression by 66%; eight of the ten survivors were markedly improved. This confirmed that exposure to the unconditioned stimulus alone enhanced sense of control and reduced avoidance, justifying the addition of such exposure to CFBT. A subsequent randomized controlled trial tested the combined approach in 31 survivors with chronic PTSD, who received a single session of CFBT plus simulator exposure (Başoğlu et al., 2007). Clinically significant improvement reached 92% at week 24 and was maintained at 1–2‑year follow‑up, with a 79% reduction in PTSD, compared with 59% for self‑exposure alone. Increases on a Sense of Control Scale correlated strongly with reductions in PTSD. Of the 13 survivors later exposed to a real earthquake, 11 reported markedly less fear and loss of control than they had experienced before treatment—an immunization effect that parallels the animal literature on controllable stress (Williams & Maier, 1977).
These results carried a direct implication for self‑help delivery. The post‑disaster circumstances that had necessitated an extremely brief treatment also raised a further question: if a single session sufficed for most survivors, could the therapist be removed entirely? If the active ingredient was behavioral re‑engagement rather than therapist input, it should be possible to deliver the treatment without a therapist. This proposition was examined in a series of self‑help studies. Eight multiple‑baseline single‑case experiments showed that a self‑help manual, given after one brief contact, produced a 60% reduction in PTSD and global improvement in seven of eight cases—comparable to therapist‑delivered CFBT (Başoğlu et al., 2009). Although a small pilot study, it supported the hypothesis that clinically significant recovery could occur without therapist involvement. An additional study delivered the manual to 84 homes with no therapist contact; among those who read it and complied, 86% improved significantly. Even without encouragement, nearly one in four recipients recovered—a figure that would rise substantially with media support in a large‑scale program. The manual was subsequently used to help more than a thousand survivors during fieldwork, with no adverse effects or complications. A three‑stage dissemination model was therefore developed: manual alone (~25% recovery), a single group session for non‑responders, and up to three further sessions for the remainder. The estimated cost per case for therapist time in this outreach program was 0.47 USD.
The war survivor study
While the earthquake studies were underway, the hypotheses were tested in a different trauma context. A multi‑site research program in Bosnia‑Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia examined 1,358 survivors of combat, internal displacement, refugee status, aerial bombardment, and torture (Başoğlu et al., 2005). This study also examined the effects of war trauma on beliefs about self, others, and the world and their contribution to PTSD and depression. Relative to controls, survivors exhibited stronger emotional responses to impunity—including anger, rage, distress, loss of meaning in life, demoralization, desire for revenge, a sense of injustice, helplessness, pessimism, fear, and loss of control over life—as well as greater fear and loss of control over life, reduced belief in the benevolence of people, greater loss of meaning in the war cause, stronger faith in God, and higher rates of PTSD and depression. Fear and loss of control associated with perceived threat from those held responsible for the trauma was the strongest predictor of PTSD and depression; the associations with emotional responses to impunity and other cognitive variables were substantially weaker or not significant. Further analyses within the subgroup of 279 torture survivors revealed similar findings and also demonstrated that psychological torture can be as traumatic as physical torture (Başoğlu et al., 2007). When this sample was pooled with the earlier Turkish sample of torture survivors, the perceived severity of torture was associated with psychological forms of torture characterized by greater uncontrollability, but not with physical torture (Başoğlu, 2009). War‑related captivity emerged as the strongest predictor of PTSD, consistent with the fact that tortured war survivors were held under conditions that induced greater helplessness than those faced by the Turkish survivors. These findings provided further support for the central role of uncontrollability in traumatic stress across different types of war trauma.
Phase 3: Asylum Seekers (2010s Onward)
The most recent phase of the research examined full‑course CFBT among asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa, many of whom had experienced torture (32 %) or sexual violence (37 %) (Başoğlu, 2022). Of the 80 individuals referred, 60 completed treatment. A multiple‑baseline design in 25 cases ruled out non‑specific factors: no improvement occurred between the two pre‑treatment assessments. The mean baseline CAPS scores were higher than those in the two earthquake RCTs (85 vs. 68 and 63), all falling in the extremely severe range. Despite this, full‑course CFBT, delivered over a mean of six sessions, yielded a 93 % improvement rate, an 82 % reduction in PTSD, and 97 % of cases were nearly asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic (Başoğlu, 2022). Although the asylum seekers improved earlier in treatment than did the earthquake survivors, the improvement trajectories in all three studies converged at six‑month follow‑up, suggesting that gains from a single session, although slower to emerge, ultimately reach the same endpoint. This implied that treatment could have been discontinued earlier, once sufficient control had been restored, raising the prospect that most cases might require no more than one to three sessions.
How do these results compare with those of other treatments? Because only two of our studies included a control group, comparison was possible only on response rates. The only meta‑analysis reporting response rates for evidence‑based treatments (Bradley et al., 2005) provided a basis for comparison. CFBT response rates were 88 % for earthquake survivors (pooled across four studies) and 93 % for war and torture survivors, compared with 47–60 % for CBT, exposure, and EMDR. It is worth noting that more recent meta‑analyses have not demonstrated improved efficacy for these treatments (Cusack et al., 2016; Turrini et al., 2019).
Over four decades, more than thirty studies involving approximately 15,000 survivors have tested and supported the twin hypotheses across torture, earthquake, and war trauma. The evidence converges on a single conclusion: the severity and chronicity of traumatic stress are determined by the unpredictability and uncontrollability of the stressor, and recovery appears to be driven by the restoration of perceived control.
The Mechanism of Recovery: Control Enhancement vs. Habituation
The evidence reviewed thus far converges on a single conclusion: recovery is driven by the restoration of perceived control, not by the reduction of fear. If this is correct, the prevailing anxiety‑reduction paradigm requires reexamination. Meta‑analytic studies show that CBT achieves modest improvement rates of around 50% (Bradley et al., 2005; Cusack et al., 2016; Watts et al., 2013). Dismantling studies consistently find that cognitive restructuring adds no meaningful benefit over purely behavioral techniques (Jacobson et al., 1996; Foa et al., 1999; Marks et al., 1998; Paunovic & Öst, 2001). The third‑wave therapies shifted the focus from changing thought content to altering the individual’s relationship to their thoughts—a different type of cognitive change—yet meta‑analytic evidence does not show them to be superior to standard CBT (Hofmann et al., 2021; Gloster et al., 2020). In both cases, the cognitive component is not the active ingredient.
A further limitation concerns ongoing threat environments. Habituation‑based treatments can be delivered, but the continued recurrence of the unconditioned stimulus—aftershocks, ongoing violence—counteracts the therapeutic effects of habituation, because the UCS continues to trigger the very fear responses the treatment seeks to reduce. Habituation‑based approaches lack a mechanism for transforming UCS into a therapeutic tool. The control‑enhancement framework, by contrast, can utilize exposure to UCS, turning ongoing threat from an obstacle into an opportunity—which is why CFBT was effective despite ongoing aftershocks.
CFBT thus addresses a limitation inherent in the anxiety‑reduction paradigm. Available evidence suggests that it is at least as effective as CBT—as expected for a purely behavioral treatment. What needs explaining is its ability to achieve such improvement in a single session. The answer lies in its mechanism of action: most exposure‑based treatments rely on habituation. Habituation—the waning of a defensive response on repeated stimulation—is a universal phenomenon, present across the phylogenetic scale from invertebrates to humans (Marks, 1987). The traditional exposure model, grounded in this principle, held that exposure should continue until substantial anxiety reduction occurs (Foa & Kozak, 1986). A comprehensive review, however, found no conclusive evidence linking treatment outcome to within‑session fear reduction (Craske et al., 2008). This is consistent with the control‑enhancement model: recovery depends on the attribution of improvement to personal effort, not on the mere reduction of fear. Habituation can occur without any increase in sense of control—for example, when fear reduction is attributed to medication rather than to personal effort (Başoğlu et al., 1994d; Powers et al., 2008). The role of sense of control in maintaining long‑term improvement has also been demonstrated in PTSD patients treated with exposure, cognitive restructuring, and their combination (Livanou et al., 2002).
Further evidence for control enhancement as the mechanism of recovery comes from the finding that fear reduction and increased sense of control are partially independent. In the earthquake survivor study, 76% reported intense fear but only 40% lost total control (Şalcıoğlu, 2004). Resilient political activists experienced as much anxiety as less resilient survivors during torture, yet did not lose control. Conversely, we have observed torture survivors who reported no fear reduction during their first exposure session but a dramatic increase in sense of control. As noted earlier, in the alprazolam and exposure study, those whose avoidance improved without panic reduction were more likely to rate themselves as globally improved than those whose panic diminished without reduced avoidance (Başoğlu et al., 1994c). Earlier work on phobic patients further showed that improvement can occur without complete fear reduction and that complete fear reduction does not prevent relapse (Emmelkamp & Mersch, 1982; Rachman et al., 1986, 1987; Rachman & Lopatka, 1988). Fear reduction is neither necessary nor sufficient for recovery.
If fear and control are partially independent, the target of treatment should not be fear but avoidance—the behavioral expression of low perceived control. When a person deliberately confronts a feared situation, they are exercising control; the act itself is sufficient. This is why a treatment that does nothing more than motivate re‑engagement can have such rapid effects. As noted earlier, eight of ten survivors in the simulator pilot spontaneously conducted self‑exposure after a single session. Reduced avoidance is the behavioral signature of restored control.
One might object that control is merely a consequence of fear reduction. But experimental work shows that loss of control produces fear and its restoration reduces it (Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992; Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006); within‑session fear reduction does not predict outcome; and the independence of fear and control reviewed above makes it difficult to sustain the reverse‑causality argument. If control were merely a consequence of fear reduction, one would not see improvement in avoidance without fear reduction, nor fear reduction without improved avoidance. The roads to recovery may be many. But the destination is control.
If gaining control over stressors is the mechanism of recovery, then experiences of control should build an enduring capacity to exercise control over future threats—what we term resilience. Examples of how this capacity manifests itself in real life experiences of torture or earthquake survivors were provided earlier in this article. The following section examines how resilience is built in various natural environments through processes that can only be explained by the control-enhancement model.
Resilience Building in Natural Environments
In our studies with torture survivors, we defined resilience as “the capacity to exert sufficient control over stressful events by employing cognitive and/or behavioral strategies to either prevent the stressor, or, if unavoidable, take reasonable steps to protect oneself from its harmful effects, use strategies to reduce associated distress, or simply endure or tolerate it without losing control” (Başoğlu et al., 1994a, 1994b, 1997). The evidence from our studies reviewed in this article provides empirical support for this definition. This naturalistic understanding of resilience is also supported by many examples of resilience‑building outside any therapeutic context.
Some culturally evolved examples of resilience‑building appear in religious and spiritual traditions. Buddhist monastic training involves prolonged meditation under austere conditions—little food, minimal sleep, physical discomfort—aimed not at eliminating suffering but at developing equanimity. A study of tortured Tibetan monks found that those with experience of these resilience‑building practices had lower traumatic stress rates than those without such training (Holtz, 1998). In the Mevlevi order of Islamic Sufism, initiates undergo a 40‑day solitary confinement, “çile,” enduring deprivation through prayer and spiritual reflection. The purpose is spiritual maturation—building control over the distress caused by deprivation of basic human needs.
In military contexts, training simulates combat stressors—fatigue, pain, noise, confinement—in graduated doses, enabling soldiers to function under extreme duress. The most striking example is the SERE program (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape), which exposes personnel to procedures that almost border on real torture—stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation, simulated drowning—to inoculate them against the psychological impact of captivity and interrogation. Similar evidence comes from populations engaged in political activism. As described in Phase 1, tortured political activists with psychological preparedness for captivity showed substantially lower rates of PTSD than non‑activists who had experienced less severe torture.
The same principle may also operate through unintentional exposure. Environments with more frequent and varied uncontrollable stressors might paradoxically build resilience, provided individuals find effective ways of coping. The WHO World Mental Health surveys have consistently found lower PTSD prevalence in low‑ and middle‑income countries despite comparable or higher trauma exposure (Kessler et al., 2017)—a finding consistent with this hypothesis, though the mechanism has not been directly tested.
What unites these examples is a common mechanism: controlled exposure to threat builds the capacity to function in the presence of fear. The goal is enhanced control, not the elimination of distress. This principle is not a discovery of modern clinical science. Human beings have recognized and cultivated it for centuries. CFBT is simply a systematized expression of it.
CFBT and Self-Efficacy: Convergence and Divergence
The evidence reviewed thus far points to perceived control as the central mechanism of recovery, inviting comparison with Bandura’s theory of self‑efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997). The two frameworks share substantial ground: both reject fear reduction as the primary goal, identify direct behavioral experience as the most potent source of change, converge on the finding that improvement can occur without fear reduction, and hold that durable gains depend on attributing improvement to personal effort rather than external agents (Başoğlu et al., 1994d). Both also imply that cognitive interventions are not the essential ingredient of effective treatment (Jacobson et al., 1996; Foa et al., 1999).
Despite this convergence, the two frameworks differ in important ways. First, the direction of causality is reversed. In Bandura’s formulation, self‑efficacy causes behavioral change; people act because they believe they can. In the present framework, behavioral change—the act of self‑exposure—produces the sense of control. Cognitive change follows rather than precedes behavioral change (Foa et al., 1999; Livanou et al., 2002; Şalcıoğlu et al., 2007), and survivors who recover through self‑exposure often do so because circumstances compelled re‑engagement, not because they first developed a belief in their capacity to cope (Başoğlu et al., 2011). The behavioral act is primary.
Second, self‑efficacy is a cognitive construct denoting a belief about one’s capability, whereas perceived control is grounded in ethology, learning theory, and affective neuroscience, encompassing the organism’s evolved capacity to detect and respond to uncontrollability. Self‑efficacy can be understood as one cognitive manifestation of a more fundamental biological process. This is why control enhancement generalizes broadly: what changes is not a context‑bound belief but the organism’s underlying sense of its own capacity to cope. Third, self‑efficacy theory describes that control beliefs matter; the present framework provides an evolutionary account of why they matter, grounded in the principle that the drive for control is the master imperative of life.
These differences carry clinical consequences. If recovery depends on acquiring a belief about one’s capability, cognitive interventions should facilitate recovery; the evidence does not support this (Foa et al., 1999; Marks et al., 1998; Paunovic & Öst, 2001). If recovery depends on the behavioral discovery that control is possible, the clinical task is not to change beliefs but to create the conditions in which the organism makes that discovery through its own actions. This is what CFBT does.
Part II: The Biological Foundations of Control and Recovery
The research program described in Part I converged on a consistent finding: recovery from traumatic stress is driven not by the extinction of fear but by the restoration of perceived control, and a treatment that does nothing more than remove the obstacle of avoidance can achieve recovery in the vast majority of cases, even in a single session. These findings raise a deeper question. Why does control matter so much? Why is its loss the primary determinant of traumatic stress, and why is its restoration sufficient for recovery? The answers, I will argue, lie not in the clinic but in the evolutionary history of the organism. This part of the article examines the biological foundations of control—the ethological, evolutionary, and neurochemical evidence that the drive for control is not a learned preference or a cultural value but the master imperative of life, shaped by natural selection across millions of generations.
The Master Imperative: Control as the Evolutionary Organizing Principle of Life
The research program described in Part I converged on a consistent finding: recovery from traumatic stress is driven not by the extinction of fear but by the restoration of perceived control, and a treatment that removes the obstacle of avoidance can achieve recovery in a single session. Why does control matter so much? The answer, I will argue, lies not in the clinic but in the evolutionary history of the organism. This part of the article examines the ethological, evolutionary, and neurochemical evidence that the drive for control is not a learned preference but the master imperative of life.
The Master Imperative: Control as the Evolutionary Organizing Principle of Life
The research program described in Part I converged on a consistent finding: recovery from traumatic stress is driven not by the extinction of fear but by the restoration of perceived control. These findings raise a deeper question. Why does control matter so much? Why is its loss the primary determinant of traumatic stress, and why is its restoration sufficient for recovery? The answer, I will argue, lies not in the clinic but in the evolutionary history of the organism. This section presents the conceptual and neurobiological evidence that the drive for control is not a learned preference or a cultural value but the master imperative of life—a principle that follows from Darwin’s theory of natural selection and that is instantiated in identifiable neural circuits.
Control over Life
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection provides the foundation for everything argued in this article (Darwin, 1859). Natural selection does not select for happiness or tranquility; it selects for survival and reproduction. Darwin described this process as the “struggle for existence”—the competition among organisms for limited resources. But the struggle for existence describes the condition, not the capacity that determines who survives it. That capacity, I argue, is control. By control over life I mean the ability of an organism to influence its environment and internal states in ways that promote survival, reproductive success, and psychological well-being. To find food, avoid predators, secure mates, protect offspring, navigate social hierarchies, and respond to illness and injury—all require the organism to influence the world. Control is not one motivation among many; it is the master imperative. It can be exercised through behavior, cognition, emotion, or physiology. It can be objective—an actual effect on the world—or subjective—a perceived ability, even if illusory. Both forms matter for survival, and both are the product of evolution. Without control, no species could survive.
This is not an abstraction. It is a biological fact. A bacterium moves from a noxious chemical; a plant turns toward sunlight; a fish alters its foraging under predation threat; a rodent repeats a behavior that terminates an aversive stimulus. These are expressions of a single imperative: to exert control over the conditions that affect survival. What distinguishes humans is not the presence of this drive but the complexity of the cognitive and behavioral repertoire through which it is expressed. Our capacity for abstract thought, long‑term planning, and cumulative culture vastly extends the range of strategies we can deploy in the service of control, but the fundamental drive is shared with every organism that has ever lived.
I consider the drive for control in two interrelated domains. The first is control over life—the drive to maintain and extend the conditions necessary for physical and psychological well‑being across the lifespan. The second is control over stressors—the capacity to influence particular threatening events. Control over stressors is one specific, vital expression of the broader project of securing control over life.
Consider the arc of a human life. The infant cries to summon the caregiver. The child attends school for future economic and social control. The adult seeks employment, relationships, and family—each extending the capacity to manage life’s demands. When illness strikes, the organism seeks treatment; when existential questions arise, it turns to religion, philosophy, or science for coherence. Even pleasure, leisure, and art can be understood as strategies for sustaining psychological equilibrium. The forms vary across cultures, but the functional objective is universal.
Is it possible to think of any human experience—any goal‑directed behavior, any emotional response, any social or cultural practice—that does not, in some way, serve the implicit aim of maintaining or restoring control over physical and psychological well‑being? Why do people save money? To protect against future uncertainty. Why pursue status? Because social standing confers access to resources and protection. Why seek love and belonging? Because attachment bonds provide safety and regulate distress. Why strive for meaning? Because a coherent narrative restores order in the face of chaos. The examples multiply in every direction.
What of apparent exceptions? Suicide, in many cases, is not a surrender of control but a final assertion of it—a decision to determine the terms of one’s own death when all other avenues for avoiding suffering have been foreclosed. The hunger striker exercises the only powerful form of agency left. Reckless risk‑taking often reflects a calculation in which the rewards of mastery outweigh the physical risk. Startle responses and spinal reflexes are not goal‑directed; they are pre‑programmed defensive hardware that enhance survival when deliberation would be too slow—the drive for control in its most ancient, automatic form. Even dissociation during extreme trauma can be understood as a last‑resort protective response, mediated by endogenous opioids, that allows the organism to survive an inescapable experience (Panksepp, 1998).
Religion and spiritual belief address the most fundamental challenge to the drive for control: the existence of events that are profoundly consequential yet utterly beyond human influence—death, natural disasters, the randomness of fortune. They impose meaning on chaos, reframing uncontrollable events as part of a purposeful order—divine will, karmic law, cosmic justice. Fatalistic thinking and the Islamic concept of tawakkul (trust in God’s will) represent such cognitive strategies: the individual delegates control over the uncontrollable to a higher power, restoring a perception of control by proxy and psychological equilibrium. This is not merely a philosophical observation; it is supported by neurobiological and social evidence. The human brain processes social exclusion and existential threat through the same neural circuitry that registers physical pain (Eisenberger, 2012b; Eisenberger et al., 2003), and religious identification buffers against this distress (Burris et al., 2011). The high‑cost ritual behaviors of religious communities foster solidarity and mutual obligation (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003), and religious moral frameworks augment self‑regulation, helping individuals avoid the antisocial behaviors that lead to social rejection (McCullough & Baumeister, 2009). When objective control is impossible, subjective control—even if illusory—is the organism’s default response. This is why religious and spiritual beliefs are so resistant to challenge: they are not merely intellectual propositions but tools for maintaining control over the psychological conditions necessary for survival. To attack a person’s faith is to threaten a fundamental mechanism of psychological equilibrium.
The examples considered thus far arise from a deficit: the organism has lost control and acts to restore it. This is the reactive mode of the master imperative. But the drive for control also operates proactively—in surplus, for its own sake. Why does the child build a tower and knock it down, the artist create a form that did not exist, the scientist pursue a discovery with no material gain? These are acts of extension, not restoration. The experience of agency is not merely a means to survival; it is a fundamental biological satisfaction. The brain’s dopamine‑mediated reward systems respond to the anticipation and achievement of control (Schultz, 1998). Efficacy is its own reward.
The evolutionary logic is straightforward. An organism that seeks control only when it has lost it is at a disadvantage compared to one that extends and consolidates control even when conditions are adequate. The proactive drive anticipates future threats and builds competencies that increase the probability of survival. The computer virus creator, the retired scientist who continues to write, the mountaineer who climbs without ropes—these are not restoring lost control. They are exercising the drive for agency because agency is what the organism does when it is functioning as it evolved to function. The seeking does not end when immediate threats have been managed.
The same drive that leads individuals to reclaim their lives after trauma also operates at larger scales. If control is the master imperative, then competition for control—over territory, resources, ideology—is a predictable consequence. Wars, conquest, and exploitation are not exceptions to the theory; they are expressions of it. Natural selection shaped organisms to seek control, and that seeking has no inherent moral direction. It can build or destroy, cooperate or dominate. The human capacity for cruelty and the human capacity for resilience spring from the same biological root. This article focuses on one consequence—the trauma that results when control is violently stripped away—but the framework’s ability to account for the darkest chapters of human history demonstrates its explanatory reach.
Aggression, in this framework, is not a separate drive or a pathological deviation. It is one of the most direct expressions of the drive for control—an evolved behavioral strategy for securing resources, defending territory, establishing dominance, and eliminating threats. Across species, aggressive behavior is triggered by challenges to the organism’s control over its environment or social position. In humans, the same neural and endocrine systems that mediate the pursuit of control also mediate aggression, and the dopamine‑mediated reward of successful aggression confirms its function as a control strategy. Aggression is not an exception to the drive for control; it is one of its clearest manifestations.
Sadism and masochism provide a particularly instructive illustration of how the drive for control may manifest in apparently contradictory forms. Sadism can be understood as the exercise of control through domination; the sadist’s agency is confirmed by the victim’s helplessness. Masochism appears to seek the opposite—submission, pain, surrender—but what is sought may not be genuine helplessness: the situation is chosen, bounded, and can be stopped. Both acts trigger sexual arousal, which might seem to introduce a separate motivational system, but the neural circuits involved suggest a deeper unity. The dopamine system that makes the exercise of control rewarding (Schultz, 1998) also mediates sexual desire (Pfaus, 2009); the endogenous opioid system involved in analgesia under uncontrollable stress (Panksepp, 1998) is also implicated in sexual pleasure and bonding. This suggests that these are not separate systems but may be different expressions of a common motivational architecture, with control as the more fundamental process. From this perspective, it is possible that both sadism and masochism activate control‑reward circuitry—dopamine‑ and opioid‑mediated—which, because of neural overlap, also activates sexual arousal. What is being pursued, in this view, is control; sexual arousal may be both a component and a consequence of that pursuit. Both could thus be understood as expressions of the same drive—one through domination, the other through the mastery of fear and vulnerability.
Altruism presents a similar challenge. Why would an organism sacrifice its own resources, safety, or even its life for the benefit of others? Such behavior appears to relinquish control rather than exercise it. Yet evolutionary biology has long recognized that behaviors that seem altruistic may promote the survival of genes shared with kin (Hamilton, 1964) or build reciprocal relationships that enhance long‑term fitness (Trivers, 1971). In the animal world, this is vividly illustrated by the alarm calls of vervet monkeys, which warn conspecifics of predators despite increased risk to the caller (Seyfarth et al., 1980), and by the sentinel behavior of meerkats, which stand guard while the group forages (Clutton‑Brock et al., 1999). From the present perspective, such behaviors can be understood as investments in control over one’s social environment. The parent who sacrifices for a child may secure the survival of genetic relatives; the individual who helps a neighbor may build a network of mutual obligation that provides future security. Even the soldier who falls on a grenade may be acting, in part, to protect comrades whose survival is essential to the group—and with it the values and identity the soldier seeks to preserve.
It is also possible that an additional mechanism is at work. Organisms across many species respond with distress to signals of distress in conspecifics (Mineka & Öhman, 2002; Panksepp, 1998). In humans, witnessing the suffering of others—whether directly or through media—may elicit an aversive emotional response. Helping the suffering person could reduce this distress in the helper, suggesting that the act may serve a dual function: it may restore a sense of control over the external situation while also alleviating internal distress triggered by empathy. The neural systems that appear to make altruism feel rewarding—the dopamine‑mediated sense of efficacy, the opioid‑mediated warmth of social connection—are the same systems that make any exercise of control rewarding. Altruism, in this framework, is not necessarily an exception to the drive for control; it may be an expression of the same drive, operating through a different strategy.
It might be argued that this stretches the concept of control beyond its natural meaning. The vervet monkey that emits an alarm call, the person who donates to a distant cause—these behaviors do not involve conscious deliberation, and to call them “control” could seem to blur the distinction between automatic response and deliberate agency. The objection is understandable, but it may rest on a conflation of two different levels of analysis: control as a conscious experience versus control as an evolved function. The conscious experience of agency—”I did that”—is one manifestation of the drive for control, but it is likely not the only one. Natural selection does not appear to require conscious intent; it requires only that the behavior, however automatic, promotes the organism’s ability to influence the conditions that affect its survival and well-being. This suggests that the drive for control may operate at multiple levels, from the most reflexive to the most deliberative. The conscious act of confronting a feared situation and the automatic urge to help a suffering stranger could thus be understood as expressions of the same underlying imperative, differing only in the cognitive architecture through which they are expressed.
A related concern is that a theory which traces all behavior—from altruism to atrocity—to the same evolved imperative could be seen as normalizing harmful conduct by framing it as “natural.” If sadism, exploitation, and violence are expressions of the drive for control, does this appear to place them on the same moral footing as resilience and recovery? It is important to clarify what the theory does and does not imply. The drive for control is a descriptive concept, not a normative one. It seeks to explain why humans are capable of cruelty, but it does not justify cruelty. To explain is not to excuse. The drive for control appears to operate across species; what may distinguish humans is the capacity for moral reasoning—a cognitive function that allows us to distinguish right from wrong and to regulate behavior accordingly. This capacity is arguably not a departure from evolution but a product of it: as cognitive complexity increased, organisms may have evolved the ability to reflect on their own impulses and to choose among them, giving rise to genuine agency and moral responsibility (Dennett, 2003). As Kohlberg (1981) and others have argued, moral development involves the progressive construction of principles that enable individuals and societies to manage competing interests and to limit destructive behavior. This capacity is not merely abstract; it appears to be instantiated in the neural architecture of the human brain. The prefrontal cortex is thought to exert top‑down regulation over the amygdala and other subcortical circuits that mediate fear, aggression, impulsive control‑seeking, and sexual drives (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). Laws, social contracts, and ethical systems can be understood as sophisticated expressions of the drive for control—not over the physical environment, but over the social environment, and specifically over the destructive forms of control‑seeking that threaten collective survival. They may be the products of shared intentionality and collective norms that evolved to manage group living, a process that transformed primate sociality into human morality (Tomasello, 2016). Natural selection may have shaped organisms to seek control; it also appears to have shaped, in humans, the capacity to reflect on that seeking and to constrain it.
A further possible objection is that the framework could be seen as implicitly deterministic. If all goal‑directed behavior is driven by the master imperative, does this imply that human beings are merely executing an evolved program, with no genuine capacity for choice? This objection may misunderstand the nature of the drive for control. An evolved imperative does not appear to prescribe specific actions; it may set a general goal—the exercise of control—while leaving the means open to variation, learning, and deliberation (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). The same drive could lead a person to confront a phobia, write a symphony, or commit a crime. Which path is taken likely depends on an individual’s history, circumstances, and cognitive processes, including the uniquely human capacity to reflect on one’s own impulses and to choose among them. This capacity for reflective choice may itself be a product of evolution, not a violation of it (Dennett, 2003). To suggest that the drive for control underlies all behavior is to describe the motivational architecture of the organism, not to claim that every action is predetermined. The organism may be inclined, not compelled. The framework can thus be understood as compatibilist: it holds that human behavior is shaped by an evolved imperative while also recognizing that humans possess the capacity to direct that imperative in ways that reflect their values, their reasoning, and their circumstances.
The master imperative thus appears to operate across the full spectrum of human experience. In its reactive mode, it drives recovery from trauma, resilience against stress, and the countless daily acts through which people manage the threats that confront them. In its proactive mode, it drives creativity, ambition, exploration, and the pursuit of mastery in every domain of human endeavor. The two modes may not be separate drives; they can be understood as expressions of a single underlying principle, shaped by millions of years of selection, that operates whenever the organism acts upon the world. The drive for control may not be a learned preference, a cultural value, or a personality trait. It could be understood as the organizing principle of life itself—what natural selection has shaped, across millions of generations, because organisms that failed to exert control over their environment did not survive to reproduce.
This principle transforms our understanding of recovery from trauma. If the drive for control is the master imperative, then recovery may not be something that must be achieved through an external therapeutic agent. It could be the default operation of the organism. When control is lost, the organism may seek to restore it. When control is regained, equilibrium appears to follow. The spontaneous re‑engagement observed in earthquake survivors, the cautious return to foraging after a predator has departed, the torture survivor’s refusal to scream, the baby’s cry, the student’s study, the worker’s labor, the lover’s embrace—all of these can be understood as expressions of the same underlying process. The organism, by its very nature, seems to strive to re‑establish the conditions under which it can survive and flourish.
The anomaly, from this perspective, is not natural recovery. The anomaly is chronic PTSD—a condition in which the organism’s fundamental drive for control appears to have been blocked. What blocks it, as the evidence reviewed in Part I suggests, is avoidance. Avoidance prevents the organism from doing what it seems designed to do: to engage with the environment, to discover through direct experience that control is possible, and to restore the equilibrium that threat has disrupted. The task of treatment may therefore not be to heal but to remove the obstacle. Once the obstacle is removed, recovery appears to follow—not because the clinician has intervened, but because the organism, obeying the oldest and deepest imperative of life, has resumed its natural course.
If the drive for control is the master imperative of life—if it is not a metaphor but a biological fact—then it must have identifiable neural substrates. The next section examines the evidence that the drive for control is instantiated in identifiable brain circuits—circuits that detect the exercise of control, make it rewarding, and organize the organism’s response to its loss.
The Neurobiology of the Drive for Control
A comprehensive account of the neural basis of control is beyond the scope of this article. The more limited aim of this section is to show that existing neuroscientific knowledge identifies circuits that appear consistent with the drive for control—circuits that are phylogenetically ancient and broadly conserved. A growing body of evidence suggests that such circuits exist and play a central role in regulating behavior.
The dopamine system provides some of the most direct evidence. Dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra project to the nucleus accumbens, dorsal striatum, and prefrontal cortex, forming a network that codes the anticipation and achievement of reward. Schultz and colleagues demonstrated that these neurons fire in response to the prediction of reward, and their firing rate encodes the discrepancy between expected and actual outcomes (Schultz, 1998; Schultz et al., 1997). When an action produces a better‑than‑expected outcome, dopamine firing increases; when it produces a worse‑than‑expected outcome, firing decreases. This can be understood as a control detection system: it appears to signal whether the organism’s actions are producing the intended effects—the neural currency through which the brain may register that “I did that, and it worked.”
For the present framework, the implications are clear. An organism whose dopamine system responds to the successful exercise of control may be one for which the mere act of producing an intended effect is rewarding, independent of any further benefit. Gambling provides a particularly instructive illustration. Slot machines deliver rewards on a variable reinforcement schedule—occasional, unpredictable wins interspersed with losses—which produces the most persistent dopamine response (Fiorillo et al., 2003). Near‑misses, which are objectively losses, also trigger dopamine release (Clark et al., 2009). The gambler continues to play not because of the net outcome, which is usually negative, but likely because the unpredictable exercise of control—or the illusion of it—is itself neurochemically rewarding. The dopamine surge may reinforce the behavior even when the consequences are harmful. The proactive behaviors discussed earlier—the child building a tower, the scientist pursuing a discovery, the mountaineer climbing without ropes—appear to engage this same dopamine‑mediated reward circuit. The subjective experience of agency may thus be the phenomenological correlate of this neural process.
The prefrontal cortex is thought to support the cognitive architecture necessary for goal‑directed control. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been implicated in planning, working memory, and the selection of actions based on anticipated outcomes. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex appears to integrate information about the value of outcomes and to guide decision‑making. Together, these regions may enable the organism to formulate goals, anticipate consequences, and adjust behavior when outcomes deviate from expectations. They can be understood as neural substrates of the “control over life” domain—the capacity to plan, predict, and shape one’s circumstances over extended time horizons.
The anterior cingulate cortex appears to play a complementary role, detecting discrepancies between expected and actual control. It is activated by errors, the omission of expected rewards, and situations requiring increased cognitive effort—signaling when a current strategy may not be working and a change in behavior might be needed. The decision to persist in avoidance or to re‑engage with a feared environment involves the kind of effort–reward trade‑off that this region seems specialized to process.
When control efforts fail repeatedly—when the organism is exposed to uncontrollable, unpredictable stressors—the neural architecture appears to shift from active to passive coping. This transition, known as the defensive cascade, is thought to involve a movement from prefrontal‑amygdala circuits, which support active, goal‑directed responses, to amygdala‑periaqueductal gray circuits, which mediate freezing, tonic immobility, and ultimately dissociative collapse (Fanselow, 1994; Keay & Bandler, 2001). The periaqueductal gray, a phylogenetically ancient midbrain structure, organizes defensive behaviors across species. Its activation has been associated with the helplessness and immobility that characterize extreme traumatic stress. Rich in opioid receptors, its activation during uncontrollable stress may trigger endogenous opioid release, producing the analgesia and numbing that many survivors describe.
This transition is not necessarily pathological. It appears to be an evolutionarily conserved survival strategy: when fight or flight is impossible, freezing and immobility may be the only options. The problem arises when the defensive cascade fails to complete—when the organism remains stuck in a passive state long after the threat has passed. This may be the neurobiological analogue of what was described in Part I as interrupted recovery. The treatment evidence suggests that when avoidance is overcome, the neural circuitry of active coping may be reactivated, and recovery appears to follow.
The broad outlines of such a system are discernible. The drive for control appears to be instantiated in neural circuits that detect the exercise of control, make it rewarding, and organize responses to its loss. These circuits are not unique to humans; they are present in rodents, non‑human primates, and across social mammals. They are phylogenetically ancient and broadly conserved—consistent with the evolutionary framework advanced in this article.
Natural Recovery: The Ethological and Evolutionary Evidence
If control is the master imperative, the capacity to restore it after loss should be visible not only in the clinic but throughout the natural world. The preceding sections suggest that the drive for control may be the default operation of the organism, grounded in evolutionary logic and identifiable neural circuitry. This section presents ethological evidence that this drive appears to operate spontaneously after threat, and that the behavioral mechanism involved—re‑engagement with the feared environment—is phylogenetically ancient and broadly conserved.
The Foraging–Survival Trade-off
Within the ethological literature, avoidance of threat is widely recognized as adaptive when threat is genuine and proximate. However, avoidance is not a biologically unconditional good. Organisms for which avoidance becomes the dominant response to threat may pay substantial fitness costs, and under extreme conditions excessive avoidance can become incompatible with survival. This tension is formalized in the ecological concept of the foraging–predation risk trade‑off: prey organisms must perpetually balance the imperative of avoiding predators against the equally vital imperative of acquiring resources (Lima & Dill, 1990). This trade‑off has been documented across a wide range of taxa. Fish under persistent predatory threat reduce foraging, resulting in decreased growth and depleted energy stores (Siepielski et al., 2016). Kangaroo rats alter the timing and location of foraging under elevated risk, incurring energetic penalties (Kotler et al., 1994). In redshanks (Tringa totanus), when starvation risk forces individuals into high‑predation zones, approach behavior becomes adaptive, and those most capable of resuming normal foraging in a risky environment show superior survival (Sansom et al., 2009).”
Research on predator avoidance has formalized this logic in terms of the costs of anti‑predator behavior. Time spent hiding or hypervigilant necessarily displaces time for foraging, mate seeking, and other fitness‑enhancing activities (Lind & Cresswell, 2005). Organisms that persist in avoidance beyond the period of genuine threat may incur measurable fitness penalties (Siepielski et al., 2016). The evolutionary implication is that natural selection appears to favor calibrated risk‑taking—allowing the organism to re‑engage with its environment as soon as conditions allow—and that avoidance persisting beyond threat can be understood as maladaptive.
This principle extends well beyond predator–prey contexts. Songbirds exposed to simulated predator attacks reduce singing and shift to safer perches; those that fail to resume normal vocalization after the threat passes suffer reduced territory defense and mate attraction (Cresswell, 2008). In social mammals, heightened vigilance and withdrawal from group activities after predation events reduce access to cooperative hunting and coalitionary support (Cheney & Seyfarth, 2007). Rats exposed to cat odor show prolonged hiding, but those that resume exploration sooner restore normal feeding and weight gain more rapidly (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1989; Dielenberg & McGregor, 2001). Stickleback fish from high‑predation environments that fail to adjust their anti‑predator behavior when moved to safer conditions suffer reduced growth and fecundity (Bell & Sih, 2007). In field crickets, persistent hiding after predator cues are removed delays mating and reduces reproductive success (Hedrick & Kortet, 2006). Across vertebrate and invertebrate taxa, the pattern is consistent: anti‑predator behavior appears adaptive only when calibrated to actual threat. When it persists beyond its adaptive window, it can become a liability.
This has direct implications for the understanding of PTSD. A person with chronic PTSD who avoids trauma‑associated stimuli and the full range of activities necessary for productive functioning is, in biological terms, exhibiting a pattern of avoidance that has become incompatible with adaptive functioning. The defensive system, calibrated for acute emergency, consumes resources and constrains behaviors that the organism’s broader survival requires. This is the evolutionary tension visible in the earthquake survivors who remained in shelters despite having safe homes: their avoidance, initially protective, appears to have become maladaptive. The cost–benefit calculus that eventually drove them to return—the cold, the crowding, the disruption of work and family life—is arguably the same calculus that drives a fish to forage in riskier waters when hunger outweighs vigilance. The behavioral mechanism may be identical across species because the evolutionary problem is the same.
The story of an earthquake survivor I met during our fieldwork highlights this process. A few months after the major shock, an elderly man approached me, saying if he could ask me a question. His house was undamaged, but he had relocated to a shelter out of fear. The shelter conditions had become intolerable, and he had decided to return home—initially for short periods, as an exercise to overcome his fear. His question was: ‘Would this harm me in any way psychologically?’ I replied, ‘Not at all. That is the right thing to do.’ He thanked me, turned around and left. I never saw him again, but I am confident that he went home and recovered. It was clear that he had already made the decision to face his fears before he spoke to me. The cost–benefit calculus had shifted; my role was limited to removing a final obstacle—the worry that confronting his fear might cause harm. This was the briefest single‑session CFBT I have ever delivered.
A similar process occurred during our first randomized controlled trial. Four survivors assigned to the waitlist condition showed substantial improvement during the eight‑week waiting period, before any treatment had been delivered. When asked what had led to their improvement, they said that the baseline questionnaire—which simply listed the situations they feared and avoided—had been enough to make them realize that we considered avoidance a problem. They decided to stop avoiding, and they began confronting their fears on their own. As with the elderly man, the shift in the cost–benefit calculus had occurred before any therapeutic intervention took place.”
These two stories illustrate a common point. In both cases, the perceived costs of fear and avoidance appear to have created a powerful drive toward recovery—a psychological state that could be termed preparedness for recovery. Just as organisms are biologically prepared to rapidly acquire fear of survival‑relevant stimuli (Seligman, 1971; Öhman & Mineka, 2001), they may also be prepared to seize opportunities for regaining control when the costs of avoidance become prohibitive. This state may be characteristic of settings involving prolonged, repetitive exposure to uncontrollable and unpredictable stressors, where fear and avoidance become so pervasive and debilitating that survivors desperately seek a way out. When the solution is presented—or discovered by accident or common sense—they readily act on it. This phenomenon may help explain the results of our treatment studies: the high response rates, the low drop‑out, and the fact that even a single session, a questionnaire, or a single sentence of reassurance can be sufficient to trigger recovery.
The Defensive Cascade and Interrupted Recovery
When neither fight nor flight succeeds, the organism does not simply return to baseline. A third, phylogenetically ancient response pattern is activated: the immobility or freeze response, characterized by behavioral suppression, attenuated motor output, and a paradoxical analgesia that may reflect evolved preparation for predatory capture (Fanselow, 1994). In non‑human animals, this freeze response is typically transient; upon removal of the threat, spontaneous motor discharge—trembling, shaking, vigorous movement—appears to complete the interrupted defensive sequence and restore autonomic equilibrium (Levine, 1997).
In humans, however, the completion of this sequence is not guaranteed. The cognitive and linguistic capacities that distinguish our species—abstract self‑reflection, anticipatory modeling of future threat, narrative reconstruction of the past—may also enable the organism to sustain the internal representation of trauma long after the threat has passed. From this perspective, PTSD may represent a condition of interrupted recovery: the threat has passed, but the defensive response has not been completed, and the organism’s biology continues to respond as though the emergency were ongoing. The hyperarousal, intrusive re‑experiencing, and pervasive avoidance that characterize PTSD can thus be understood not as aberrant processes but as predictable consequences of an adaptive system denied its normal resolution.
Conditioning plays a central role in sustaining this state. The traumatic event constitutes an unconditioned stimulus (US) that triggers fear and defensive activation. Stimuli present during the trauma—environmental, somatic, social—may become conditioned stimuli (CS) that subsequently elicit fear even in the absence of genuine threat (Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006; Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992). This can transform the post‑traumatic environment into a landscape in which formerly neutral cues systematically trigger defensive responses. The resulting avoidance is adaptive in the short term, but in the longer term it appears to be the central mechanism maintaining PTSD and impeding natural recovery.
The disability that avoidance causes—occupational impairment, social withdrawal, loss of meaningful activities—may itself exacerbate helplessness. As avoidance progressively narrows the survivor’s behavioral repertoire, the resulting loss of function can deepen uncontrollability. Helplessness, reinforced by accumulating evidence of incapacity, can give way to hopelessness and depression (Alloy et al., 1990). What begins as a defensive adaptation may become a self‑reinforcing cycle: avoidance produces disability, disability deepens helplessness, and helplessness strengthens the conviction that action is futile, sustaining avoidance. Breaking this cycle appears to require not the elimination of fear but the restoration of a sense that action can produce meaningful outcomes—which is precisely the mechanism that CFBT targets. This is also why the treatment rationale is designed to counter helplessness and hopelessness. The evidence reviewed in Part I suggests that this mechanism drives recovery.
Post-Encounter Risk Assessment Across Species
I If chronic PTSD is maintained by avoidance, natural recovery should be driven by the opposite tendency: the spontaneous resumption of approach behavior after threat. This is what the ethological literature documents. Many prey species, following a predatory encounter, do not permanently withdraw from the environment. Rather, they exhibit post‑encounter risk assessment—a pattern of cautious but active re‑engagement that appears to update threat representations and restore behavioral competence in the formerly dangerous location (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1989; Eilam, 2005). As described in Part I, this spontaneous risk‑taking mirrors the abandonment of avoidance behaviors that initiates natural recovery in human trauma survivors.
The capacity to update threat representations through re‑exposure to feared stimuli has been demonstrated across a wide range of species, from insects to mammals (Bouton, 2004; Rescorla, 2001). This is not passive forgetting but an active, neurobiologically mediated learning process that requires behavioral contact with the feared stimulus. In natural settings, this contact occurs through the organism’s spontaneous exploratory tendencies—tendencies likely under strong selection pressure, because organisms that fail to update threat representations in changing environments may be at a significant disadvantage (Fanselow & Lester, 1988).
This ethological evidence has been largely overlooked in the clinical literature. The spontaneous re‑engagement behaviors observed in earthquake survivors—graduated return to homes, deliberate confrontation of feared cues, self‑initiated exposure—may not be exceptional acts of courage. They can be understood as the human expression of a phylogenetically ancient behavioral pattern. The survivor who enters a feared building for a few minutes, then hours, then a full day, appears to be doing what a rodent does when it cautiously re‑emerges from its burrow after a predator has passed: determining, through direct experience, whether the environment is safe enough, and restoring the sense of control that threat disrupted.
This ethological perspective may also illuminate why CFBT is effective under ongoing threat. In traditional exposure treatments, ongoing threat is a contraindication because extinction cannot occur when the unconditioned stimulus continues to recur. If the mechanism of recovery is not extinction but the restoration of control through behavioral re‑engagement, ongoing threat may not be an obstacle but an opportunity. Each aftershock, each reminder, becomes a chance to test and strengthen control. The low relapse rates and immunization effects observed in our earthquake studies appear to attest to this resilience‑building process. The organism may not need the threat to disappear; it may need to discover that the threat can be tolerated and that control can be maintained in its presence. This is precisely the discovery that post‑encounter risk assessment appears to enable across species, and that CFBT is designed to facilitate in humans.
Preparedness in Fear Acquisition
Preparedness theory holds that organisms are biologically prepared to rapidly acquire fear of stimuli that posed recurrent survival threats in ancestral environments (Seligman, 1971; Öhman & Mineka, 2001). Fear conditioned to evolutionarily relevant stimuli—snakes, heights, confined spaces—is acquired more rapidly and is more resistant to extinction than fear to arbitrary stimuli. Preparedness also extends to observational learning: naïve monkeys who observe a conspecific displaying fear toward a snake rapidly acquire that fear, but not when observing fear toward an arbitrary object (Cook & Mineka, 1989, 1990). This suggests that neural circuitry underlying fear acquisition may have been shaped by natural selection to prioritize evolutionarily recurrent threats
“Preparedness theory might seem to pose a problem for natural recovery: if certain fears are acquired with exceptional rapidity and are especially resistant to extinction, how can recovery occur? The answer may lie in the distinction between extinction and control enhancement. Prepared fears are resistant to extinction through repeated exposure, but natural recovery, as argued throughout this article, does not appear to depend on extinction. It appears to depend on the restoration of perceived control through behavioral re‑engagement. A fear resistant to extinction may be fully responsive to control. Preparedness may explain the tenacity of certain fears; it does not imply that the organism lacks the means to overcome them. The very persistence of prepared fears across evolutionary time may have favored a mechanism—control enhancement—that operates regardless.”
Evidence from stress immunization supports this. In the animal literature, prior experience with controllable stress confers resistance to subsequent uncontrollable stress, even across different stressor types (Seligman & Maier, 1967; Williams & Maier, 1977). As described in Part I, earthquake survivors with prior experience of earthquake‑like shaking—sailors, people living near railway bridges—showed less fear and greater sense of control over aftershocks. Stress immunization, in other words, may be understood as control enhancement operating proactively, building resilience even against fears resistant to extinction.”
Epidemiological evidence further supports the claim that recovery is the biological default. Across a range of traumatic event types, the proportion of exposed individuals who develop chronic PTSD typically ranges from approximately 20 to 40 percent (Kessler et al., 1995; Breslau et al., 1998). Meta-analytic data show that PTSD rates decline from approximately 28 percent at one month post-trauma to 17 percent at 12 months (Diamond et al., 2022), with particularly high remission rates when baseline assessment occurs within the first five months (Morina et al., 2014). The majority of trauma-exposed individuals do not develop chronic PTSD, and many of those who develop acute symptoms recover without formal treatment. This pattern is difficult to explain if recovery depends on the extinction of prepared fears through deliberate therapeutic intervention. It is readily explained if recovery is the default operation of an organism equipped with an endogenous mechanism for restoring control.
The Neurochemical Foundations of Natural Recovery
If the behavioral capacity for recovery from threat is phylogenetically conserved, there may also be an endogenous neurochemical system that supports it. Such a system would need to be activated by the same stimuli that trigger defensive responses and to promote restoration of equilibrium once the threat has passed. A substantial body of evidence in affective neuroscience suggests that the endogenous opioid and oxytocin systems serve these functions, operating across physical and social domains of pain.
The shared neural substrates of social and physical pain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and periaqueductal gray—have been reviewed in detail elsewhere (Eisenberger, 2012a; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Less often emphasized is that these shared substrates may also entail shared mechanisms of alleviation. Panksepp (1998) proposed that the capacity to experience social pain evolved from the pre‑existing capacity for physical pain, with the social attachment system utilizing the same opioid‑mediated circuits that originally served physical pain relief. Endogenous opioids, known for their role in physical analgesia, also reduce separation distress in infant animals and social distress in adults (Herman & Panksepp, 1978; Panksepp et al., 1978). Opioid receptor antagonists increase distress vocalizations, suggesting that the endogenous opioid system tonically regulates social comfort. The organism, in this view, appears to possess a built‑in chemistry for social soothing.
Oxytocin appears to play a complementary role. Best known for lactation and mother–infant bonding, it also reduces pain sensitivity and separation distress across mammalian species (Insel & Winslow, 1991; Ågren et al., 1995). Gentle physical touch may elevate oxytocin levels and reduce both physical pain and the neural response to social exclusion (Eisenberger et al., 2011). The same neurochemical that bonds mother to infant, released by physical contact, also appears to dampen the pain of threat and isolation.
The evolutionary implication is that the organism may not be a passive recipient of painful stimuli. It appears to be equipped with an endogenous pharmacology that actively counteracts threat‑induced distress, whether physical or social. This neurochemical recovery system is not unique to humans; it is present in rodents, non‑human primates, and across social mammals. It appears to be phylogenetically ancient and broadly conserved—consistent with the evolutionary framework advanced in this article.
This neurochemical perspective may also illuminate the mechanism through which behavioral re‑engagement restores a sense of control. When a survivor deliberately confronts a feared situation, the act of enduring the experience is not merely cognitive or behavioral; it may also be neurochemical. Successful coping with threat appears to activate the same endogenous opioid and oxytocin systems that mediate comfort upon reunion and relief after pain. The subjective sense of control that follows successful self‑exposure could thus be the phenomenological correlate of a neurochemical process conserved over millions of years to restore equilibrium after stress.
From this standpoint, natural recovery may not be merely a behavioral process supported by evolutionary logic; it could also be a physiological process built into the organism’s neurochemistry. CFBT and other effective behavioral interventions might therefore be understood as external catalysts that activate an internal, pharmacologically mediated recovery system. The organism appears to possess the chemistry of recovery. The task of treatment may be to create the conditions—through behavioral re‑engagement—that trigger its release.
The biological, ethological, and neurochemical evidence reviewed in Part II converges on a single principle: the drive for control is the master imperative of life, and the organism is equipped with endogenous mechanisms for restoring it when it has been lost. The clinical evidence reviewed in Part I demonstrated that CFBT works by engaging these very mechanisms. What remains is to consider what this framework implies—for other psychotherapies, for public health, and for some broader questions about human nature, agency, and the organization of mental health care.
Part III: Implications
The first section that follows concerns what the control‑focused framework means for other psychotherapies, including how treatment is designed and delivered. The second examines the public health implications—the prospects for dissemination, the structural barriers that limit access to care, and the issues raised for global mental health. The third considers the social, political, and philosophical implications of shifting from an anxiety-reduction paradigm to an empowerment strategy that places agency at the center of the therapeutic enterprise.
Implications for Other Psychotherapies
It may be useful to clarify further an important feature of CFBT that distinguishes it from CBT. It would not be accurate to claim that it involves no cognitive intervention. Anything a therapist says has cognitive effects, considering that humans process all incoming information through cognitive mechanisms. The difference lies in the nature and purpose of that intervention. CBT aims to reduce anxiety by challenging and modifying dysfunctional beliefs, with exposure exercises serving as ‘experiments’ to test the validity of those beliefs. CFBT does none of this. It offers a single, brief reframing at the outset—presenting anxiety as the enemy, avoidance as surrender, and reclaiming control as victory—designed not to reduce anxiety but to motivate the behavioral engagement that restores control. The mechanism of recovery is the action itself, not any cognitive change that might precede it.
The evidence reviewed thus far suggests that control enhancement may be more than just one therapeutic mechanism among many. It could be the common pathway through which effective treatments produce change. Exposure may work not simply by reducing fear, but by providing repeated opportunities to discover that control over the feared situation is possible. Cognitive restructuring may work by altering the individual’s appraisal of their capacity to cope. Social support may facilitate recovery by restoring a sense that one is not helpless. Even the act of seeking help from a therapist—often dismissed as a ‘non‑specific’ factor in recovery—can itself increase a person’s sense of control over the problem. This may help explain why the most widely used evidence‑based psychotherapies show largely similar outcomes.
If control enhancement is the common pathway, then a treatment designed from the outset to target it directly has a distinct advantage. Every clinical decision is guided by a single question: what can be done to maximize this person’s sense of control over the stressor, or over their life more broadly? This question opens a wider range of therapeutic possibilities than exposure alone. Any strategy that strengthens the individual’s perceived capacity to exert control over stressors is relevant. Thus, the treatment is not limited to a prescribed set of techniques; it is organized around a principle, and the principle generates the techniques. In contrast, when a treatment is solely designed to reduce anxiety, whatever impact it might have on perceived control is likely to be coincidental, incomplete, and unstable.
The treatment rationale matters equally. As described earlier, the CFBT rationale reframes the choice as one between agency and continued helplessness, offering no promise of fear reduction. Presenting the rationale through metaphors—fear as the enemy, avoidance as surrender, control as victory—counteracts helplessness and hopelessness and strengthens motivation. A treatment aimed at anxiety reduction does not have the same motivating effect. After all, there are easier ways of reducing fear than confronting it—avoidance, reliance on safety signals, anxiolytics. Furthermore, when anxiety does not decrease during exposure, as can happen, this may feel like failure and undermine motivation. Even when anxiety does diminish, the improvement may be attributed to contextual features—the supermarket was less crowded today—rather than to personal effort. A control‑focused approach circumvents this problem by making success contingent on lasting reversal of avoidance, regardless of fear. This may help explain why dropout rates from CFBT are substantially lower than those reported for traditional exposure treatments. When recovery is presented not as passively enduring distress but as an active struggle to reclaim control over one’s life, confronting feared situations becomes an act of empowerment rather than an ordeal to be tolerated.
Helping someone realize that their “catastrophic” expectations of danger are unrealistic—the work of cognitive restructuring—does not necessarily make them more resilient, because such a realization implies nothing about their capacity to tolerate and control anxiety in situations involving ongoing realistic threats to safety. In those situations, which are common in the aftermath of mass trauma events, a treatment that aims for anxiety reduction may struggle to achieve even its own goal, let alone enhance control. The person who has learned that a particular situation is safe has not learned that they can cope when safety is not guaranteed. That deeper learning requires a different kind of experience: confronting the feared stimulus, tolerating the distress it evokes, and discovering that control is possible even when safety is not. This has important implications for choice of treatment in regions of the world where long periods of repeated exposure to traumatic events are a frequent occurrence.
This distinction—between learning that a situation is safe and learning that one can cope when safety is not guaranteed—has been recognized, at least in part, within the broader field. Craske and colleagues (2008) have argued for a shift from fear reduction to fear toleration as the primary goal of exposure therapy. Barlow (2002) has acknowledged the role of increased sense of control in treatment outcome. These are significant developments, but they stop short of a full paradigm shift. Acknowledging the importance of control is not the same as making it the organizing principle of treatment. That is what CFBT does.
The implications also extend to the procedures that accompany exposure-based treatments. Components such as homework tasks, weekly monitoring, verbal reinforcement, and diary keeping are not always necessary; they can be reserved for severe cases or compliance problems. In CFBT, the primary instruction is simply not to avoid feared situations in daily life—giving priority to the situations that disrupt routines most and thereby speeding recovery. Specific exposure exercises are reserved for situations that contribute most to helplessness, which are not necessarily the most anxiety‑provoking. Low‑intensity stressors may achieve a significant impact on sense of control. Repeated, lengthy sessions until fear subsides may be unnecessary; exposure can be terminated when the person feels in control. The effectiveness of live exposure alone raises questions about the need for imaginal exposure and other techniques commonly included in CBT protocols. Live exposure appears more potent, triggering more vivid and wider‑ranging trauma memories and involving both past reminders and future threat cues. It may also provide direct behavioral evidence of control, whereas imaginal exposure may reduce distress without necessarily increasing the sense of control that comes from reduced avoidance. Better results may therefore be obtained—with considerable savings in therapist time and effort—by prioritizing live exposure and reserving additional therapist involvement for cases that have difficulty initiating self‑exposure.
In summary, the claim is not that other therapies never enhance control. It is that they do so indirectly and without the consistency that a deliberate focus makes possible. CFBT isolates that active ingredient and delivers it in its most concentrated form. If the evidence reviewed here is correct, the result is a treatment that is briefer, more disseminable, and more potent—achieving in one or two sessions what other treatments achieve in many more, with greater durability.
Implications for Public Health
The mental healthcare model developed for earthquake survivors suggests that an effective intervention for traumatic stress can be delivered at scale, at minimal cost, and with little reliance on specialists. A largely self‑help approach may be the only viable option when mass trauma overwhelms professional resources. Treatment can also be delivered by lay therapists; during our fieldwork, many recovered survivors acted as lay therapists, transferring knowledge and assisting others with self‑exposure. Treatment dissemination through mass media—television, radio, newspapers, and social media—is another prospect worth exploring. Educational programs demonstrating how treatment works, involving popular media personalities, community leaders, or religious figures, could reach large audiences. The discourse of CFBT—which presents avoidance as surrender and regaining control as victory—is similar to the discourse used by political and military leaders throughout history to move people to act despite danger. Such campaigns might not only reduce fear‑related traumatic stress and prevent chronic stress reactions but also psychologically prepare people against similar events in the future.
The model also has implications for the pre‑disaster phase. In earthquake‑prone countries, the period before the next earthquake is also the period after the previous one. Disseminating treatment knowledge widely—to the public, media organizations, primary and secondary healthcare facilities, schools, workplaces, and disaster relief agencies—could increase psychological preparedness. In the case of earthquakes, the earthquake simulator is a potentially useful tool for building resilience in advance, selectively targeting those at highest risk. Mobile simulators could deliver the intervention to large numbers of people in at‑risk regions.
These considerations apply not only to developing countries but also to industrialized nations. Earthquakes have the potential to cause extensive conditioned fear responses and related traumatic stress problems even in the absence of mass devastation, as studies of earthquakes in the United States (McMillen et al., 2000), Greece (Livanou et al., 2005), Australia (Carr et al., 1997), and Iceland (Bodvarsdottir & Elklit, 2004) have shown. Prevalence rates based on DSM diagnostic criteria are likely to underestimate the true extent of the mental health problems in the community, because many people with sub‑threshold PTSD and prominent fear‑related stress problems also need care. Furthermore, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (1999) has noted that tragedies of comparable scale to the 1999 Marmara earthquake are possible in the United States.
Another issue concerns the focus of interventions. Current guidelines often promote multi‑level interventions without a sharp focus on traumatic stress as the causal process. The World Health Organization has recommended making basic mental health services broadly available in post‑disaster settings, arguing that PTSD is only one among a range of comorbid disorders and not the main concern of many survivors (van Ommeren et al., 2005; World Health Organization, 2003). This view may overlook the critical distinction between PTSD as a diagnostic category and traumatic stress as a mediating process that leads to a wide range of mental and physical health outcomes. A trauma‑focused approach, as conceptualized here, targets traumatic stress—and therefore its likely health consequences—rather than PTSD as a symptom constellation. The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that such an approach produces generalized improvement, restores functional ability, and enhances resilience. Whether PTSD is the ‘main’ outcome appears irrelevant to the question of what must be done to reverse the effects of traumatic stress.
The cross‑cultural validity of PTSD has also been debated, with some arguing that it is a Western concept with limited applicability elsewhere. The present framework suggests that this debate, however, may not serve a useful purpose. Fear and traumatic stress responses to uncontrollable, unpredictable stressors appear to be universal—cutting across not only cultures but species. Whether such responses are labelled PTSD or given another name is irrelevant to treatment; the important question is what can be done to reverse the traumatic stress process. The evidence reviewed here suggests that interventions designed to enhance control are likely to have similar effects across diverse cultural contexts.
“In many developing countries, antidepressants are prescribed as first‑line treatment for mass trauma survivors. The literature shows that drug‑placebo differences in PTSD are modest—around 10% for both PTSD and depression (Brady et al., 2000; Davidson et al., 2001; Van der Kolk et al., 1994; Martenyi et al., 2002)—and discontinuation is associated with relapse (Davidson et al., 2001; Martenyi et al., 2002; Rapaport et al., 2002). Our work suggests that antidepressants add no benefit when combined with CFBT (Başoğlu et al., 2003). Given these findings, their use as a first‑line intervention is difficult to justify.
The mental healthcare model described here represents only a beginning. The manuals need to be adapted for other traumas and tested. Mass media dissemination remains to be empirically confirmed. Whether the model extends to anxiety disorders beyond trauma is an open question, but promising evidence suggests that panic disorder and agoraphobia can also be treated in a single session (Mitsopoulou et al., 2019). The work, though incomplete, raises the prospect of self‑administered treatments for conditions previously thought to require multi‑session, therapist‑delivered care.
To conclude, the evidence reviewed here suggests that the fundamental obstacle to reaching large numbers of trauma survivors is not financial or logistical but conceptual—the assumption, embedded in the anxiety‑reduction paradigm, that recovery always requires a therapist‑delivered, multi‑session intervention. If recovery is the biological default and control restoration is the mechanism, effective care may be deliverable in ways previously thought inconceivable. The public health implications of this shift are substantial.
Socio-Political and Philosophical Implications
A therapeutic paradigm carries assumptions about human nature and the source of distress. The anxiety‑reduction paradigm aligned with the economic and institutional arrangements in which it flourished—managed care, manualized treatment, a pharmaceutical industry invested in symptom management (Dalal, 2018; Whitaker, 2010). Its cognitive component, with its focus on correcting ‘irrational’ thoughts, fit comfortably with a neoliberal ideology that locates distress within the individual rather than in social conditions (Mills, 2014; Metzl & Hansen, 2014). If the problem is faulty cognition, the solution is individual correction, not social change.
The implications of this paradigm for Western societies have been examined by various authors. Socially, it medicalizes normal distress, turning fear and anxiety—often rational responses to real threats—into symptoms to be eliminated (Horwitz & Wakefield, 2007). This fosters dependency on mental health services and pharmaceutical treatments (Conrad, 2007). It also individualizes suffering: if anxiety is a disorder within the person, the solution is individual treatment, not social change (Mills, 2014), deflecting attention from the conditions—inequality, insecurity, isolation—that generate anxiety (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Politically, the paradigm privatizes distress, absolving the state and market of responsibility for the conditions that produce it. The pharmaceutical industry and the professional class that administers psychological treatments benefit directly (Whitaker, 2010; Moncrieff, 2008). The paradigm is conservative: it treats the individual’s response to conditions rather than the conditions themselves, producing citizens who manage symptoms rather than challenge circumstances. Philosophically, it assumes that anxiety is an undesirable state to be eliminated rather than a potentially adaptive response. This equates well‑being or happiness with the absence of distress. It also assumes that the therapist knows what constitutes “irrational” fear and has the authority to correct it, placing the therapist in a position of epistemic authority over the patient’s experience.
CFBT is fundamentally different: it is an empowerment strategy. Empowerment is not a political program, but it has political consequences. It locates the problem not in the individual’s thoughts but in the environment that leads to loss of control and in the avoidance that sustains it. Attributing distress to faulty cognition leaves the environment untouched—social conditions, political realities, economic arrangements remain invisible and unchallenged. An empowerment strategy, by contrast, carries a different message: that the environment can be acted upon, not merely adapted to. It restores not just a sense of control but the capacity to influence the conditions of one’s life. This is why such a strategy is inherently at odds with any status quo that depends on passivity. A person who has learned that action restores control is less likely to accept circumstances that are objectively unacceptable.
The link between individual helplessness and collective passivity also deserves attention. If uncontrollable stress produces helplessness and withdrawal, the mechanism that sustains avoidance in the traumatized individual may, when scaled to a population, sustain collective passivity in the face of injustice. Helplessness has been correlated with political apathy (Papadatou‑Pastou, 2005). Conversely, the restoration of control appears to reverse this process. Studies of democratic movements in repressive states have identified ‘fear abatement’ as a necessary mechanism in oppositional mobilization (Johnston, 2012). Accounts of uprisings describe ‘losing your fear’ as a prerequisite for mass participation. Research on crowd behavior shows that protest participation empowers individuals, creating a feedback loop in which action increases agency and agency fuels further action (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2009). Group‑based control theory suggests that social change can restore a sense of control through collective identity (Fritsche et al., 2017, 2022). These findings suggest that the same mechanism operating in CFBT—restoration of control through action—may also operate at the collective level. As an empowerment strategy, CFBT does not prescribe protest or revolt; it simply returns the capacity to act. What people do with that capacity is their choice. But the capacity itself—the ability to choose action over passivity—is liberating. In a world where fear has long been used as an instrument of social control, a strategy that restores agency is inherently aligned with human freedom and other basic human rights.
The contrast is sharpest with some “third wave” therapies that come packaged with a pragmatist philosophical outlook. The concept of ‘accept life as it is,’ when extended to human rights violations, oppression, or injustice, risks becoming an instrument of pacification. Teaching people to accept what is morally unacceptable is not a neutral clinical act; it is a political act that endorses the status quo. CFBT rests on no prior philosophical doctrine. It derives from empirical observation and clinical evidence, and it asks the patient to adopt no worldview—only to confront what they fear, discover that they can control or tolerate it, and take responsibility for their own recovery. The strategy does not tell people how to live; it restores their capacity to decide.
The problems arising from the anxiety‑reduction paradigm are not confined to Western societies; they are most visible when the paradigm is exported to the developing world. The global spread of psychotherapies originating from the Western world has been part of a broader flow of knowledge from the global North to the global South, reinforcing intellectual dependency. The export of these psychotherapies has been criticized as a form of intellectual colonialism that imposes individualistic frameworks at odds with collectivist values and indigenous healing traditions (Summerfield, 2004, 2012). The concept of “global mental health” has been challenged as a neo‑colonial enterprise that medicalizes suffering while ignoring the social and political conditions that produce it (Mills, 2014). Moreover, the treatments dominating clinical guidelines in high‑income countries require specialists and infrastructure absent in much of the world. The pharmaceutical industry’s expansion further entrenches this model (Whitaker, 2010; Moncrieff, 2008).
CFBT offers a different model—one that is not only clinical but also structural. It is based on a theoretical paradigm that applies across cultures and across species. Because it can be self‑administered, it does not require the professional infrastructure absent in low‑resource settings; it builds local capacity rather than dependency. As an empowerment strategy, it aligns with the needs of communities disempowered not only by trauma but by the political and economic conditions that produced or aggravated it. In this sense, CFBT is not merely a clinical alternative to the anxiety‑reduction paradigm but a practical response to the structural inequalities that the paradigm perpetuates.
In a broader sense, CFBT represents more than a clinical innovation. It is also a reflection of rich non‑Western cultural traditions that have, for centuries, cultivated practices aimed at building mental and emotional control over distress—traditions that Western societies, confronting a growing burden of stress‑related conditions, have increasingly sought to understand. The incorporation of meditation into Western psychotherapies, for example, reflects this search, although the resulting treatments have not proven decisively superior to existing approaches. CFBT demonstrates that such knowledge, when sharpened into a focused, empirically grounded method, can be effectively applied in psychotherapy. It stands as a rare example of how the cultural heritage of the non‑Western world—a heritage that extends thousands of years into history—can inform solutions to problems that are now global in scope.
Limitations and Future Directions
The generalizability of findings from our research program reviewed in Part I needs to be addressed. Findings from numerous phenomenological studies and field surveys, which altogether involved thousands of survivors of different types of trauma in different cultural settings and our observations of both individual and collective cognitive and behavioral responses to trauma all converged in supporting our twin hypotheses. Our findings in this regard can be considered sufficiently robust and consistent with available ethological, evolutionary, and neurobiological evidence.
The most compelling argument arising from the twin hypotheses is that if loss of control over uncontrollable stressors leads to helplessness, regaining perceived control over such stressors should reverse it. Our work has shown that this is possible in humans through a wide range of coping strategies operating on behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and physiological levels, as illustrated in Part I. If evolution has equipped organisms with an innate capacity to recover through control over the environment, and if this capacity can be harnessed in a simple intervention, further research exploring a control‑focused approach across a much broader range of psychological problems is likely to prove fruitful. Our four decades of work, still far from complete, have brought our knowledge only this far; much more remains to be done.
The evidence for natural recovery, while compelling, is necessarily indirect. Although epidemiological studies have documented declining rates of PTSD over time and identified factors associated with chronicity (Brewin et al., 2000; Ozer et al., 2003; Diamond et al., 2022; Morina et al., 2014), the specific mechanisms that drive natural recovery—particularly the role of restored perceived control through re‑engagement with feared situations—have received little direct empirical attention. No prospective study can definitively isolate the role of incidental or deliberate exposure in natural recovery, because recovery unfolds over months or years amid countless life events that might trigger re‑engagement. The evidence reviewed here therefore comes from multiple independent disciplines—epidemiology, ethology, learning theory, clinical trials, and four decades of field observation—each contributing a piece of a larger picture. The nature of this evidence is not unlike the basis on which Darwin’s theory of evolution was built: multiple independent lines of evidence, none sufficient alone, together pointed toward a testable explanation. The evidence for natural recovery from trauma does the same.
While the evidence reviewed in this article suggests that natural recovery from trauma is the biological default, we do not yet have a definitive answer to the question of why it fails to occur in some individuals. It is possible that in some cases, helplessness and hopelessness responses are so severe that the survivor’s motivational capacity to initiate or endure re-engagement is compromised beyond what spontaneous recovery mechanisms can overcome. When anxiety and depression reach levels that are themselves disabling, the organism may be unable to generate the behavioral activation necessary to test its own capacity for control. This is consistent with the finding that two out of ten survivors in our first randomized controlled study of single-session CFBT (Başoğlu et al., 2005) failed to carry out exposure on their own. Baseline severity of traumatic stress reactions was a significant predictor of less improvement. However, when the full-course treatment (a variant of CFBT involving four sessions) was delivered by a therapist (Başoğlu et al., 2003a) or when a single treatment session also involved 45 minutes of exposure to simulated earthquake tremors (Başoğlu et al., 2007), pre-treatment illness severity did not predict outcome. In the 2003a study, when survivors stayed in treatment beyond the first session and complied with treatment, they all improved. From a clinical perspective, these findings suggest that some degree of therapist intervention—even if brief—may be required to initiate the recovery process in a minority of cases. More importantly, they also provide indirect support for the natural recovery process: recovery appears to be achievable in almost all cases once the behavioral obstacle of avoidance is overcome. Further research exploring the factors that impede or facilitate natural recovery process would be valuable in this regard.
Although the core mechanism leading to recovery has been observed across the diverse cultural contexts in which we have worked, the specific forms that avoidance and re-engagement take may be shaped by cultural norms, beliefs, and practices. The underlying process appears to be universal, but further cross-cultural research would be valuable in understanding the culture-specific manifestations of avoidance, control, and recovery.
The theoretical argument advanced in this article—that the drive for control is the master imperative of life, and that its restoration is the mechanism of recovery—is not limited to trauma. If the theory is correct, it should apply to any condition in which helplessness anxiety and avoidance play a central role, including the full spectrum of anxiety disorders, among others. It might be argued that the clinical evidence for CFBT currently comes from trauma populations and therefore direct testing in other anxiety disorders is needed. While this argument cannot be refuted, it is also worth bearing in mind that the grounds for extrapolating our findings to other conditions are not weak. Most importantly, the findings from our treatment studies need to be evaluated in the broader context of our entire work reviewed in this article, starting with the twin hypotheses arising from experimental work with animals. Uncontrollability and unpredictability are features of all stressors and, not surprisingly, the underlying neural circuitry of anxiety and fear is substantially shared across disorders. Furthermore, the transdiagnostic direction of the field increasingly recognizes common mechanisms across diagnostic categories. While there are not many studies that examined the role of control in anxiety disorders, the few that did point to the important role sense of control plays in panic disorder and agoraphobia (Sanderson et al., 1989; Başoğlu et al., 1994c, 1994d).
Finally, a further limitation concerns the philosophical framework itself. The argument that the drive for control is the master imperative of life is not a direct empirical finding but a synthesis of converging lines of evidence—from evolutionary theory, ethology, neuroscience, and clinical research. Darwin did not use the language of control, and the proposition that natural selection operates through the differential capacity for control is a logical extension of his work rather than a statement he made. The breadth of the claim—that control explains all goal-directed behavior—is supported by the evidence reviewed in this article, but that evidence is necessarily indirect. The framework’s strength lies in its explanatory coherence: its ability to account for a wide range of phenomena, from altruism to atrocity, without internal contradiction. Whether other frameworks can account for the same evidence equally well is a question the present article does not adjudicate. The framework is offered as the most parsimonious synthesis of the available evidence, not as the only possible one.
Conclusion: The Evolutionary Mandate of Recovery
In this article, I have argued that recovery from psychological trauma is the biological default, driven not by the extinction of fear but by the restoration of perceived control. This argument rests on converging lines of evidence: the centrality of uncontrollability and unpredictability in traumatic stress, supported by animal and human studies across trauma types; the ethological record of spontaneous re‑engagement after threat across species; the endogenous opioid and oxytocin systems that restore equilibrium; a brief, control‑focused intervention that achieves recovery in a single session; and the same mechanism operating in military training, ascetic traditions, and the preparation of activists facing torture. At its foundation, the argument rests on a principle inscribed by natural selection into every living organism: survival depends on the capacity to exert control. Control is not merely a clinical construct but the master imperative of life. The drive to restore it when lost is not a therapeutic discovery; it is the default operation of the organism, visible across species and in every goal‑directed human endeavor.
This represents a paradigm shift. The prevailing anxiety‑reduction model has produced treatments that are lengthy, costly, difficult to disseminate, and modest in outcome. The control‑focused framework identifies avoidance—not anxiety—as the central obstacle. It targets the restoration of agency rather than the reduction of anxiety, achieving in one or two sessions what other treatments achieve in many more. It does not require highly trained specialists or ongoing therapist contact in most cases; it can be delivered through a printed manual, community health workers, and potentially through mass media. It empowers rather than pacifies.
This article has brought together lines of evidence that have largely remained separate—the ethological study of the defensive cascade and foraging–survival trade‑off, the learning theory of controllability, the affective neuroscience of social and physical pain, and the clinical observation of natural recovery. What I have sought to provide is a unified framework placing these observations within a single evolutionary logic. The core proposition is that recovery from traumatic stress is the biological default, driven by the restoration of perceived control rather than the extinction of fear, and that CFBT works by removing the behavioral obstacle that prevents this endogenous recovery program from operating.
The logic of this article leads from clinical observations to an evolutionary principle, and from that principle to a unified account of goal‑directed behavior—from the trauma survivor’s spontaneous re‑engagement, through the foraging–survival trade‑off and the neurobiology of control, to the manifestations of that drive in war, altruism, and moral reasoning. At each step, the argument is constrained by evidence, but it inevitably raises questions beyond that evidence. If the drive for control explains all goal‑directed behavior, it must also explain the search for meaning. A detailed philosophical discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but if the framework leads logically to these questions, a brief comment is warranted.
Why do we search for meaning? The present framework suggests an answer: the search for meaning may be the drive for control operating at its highest level of abstraction. A meaningless world is unpredictable, incoherent, uncontrollable. Meaning restores order. Religious faith, philosophy, science, and art can all be understood as expressions of this imperative, directed toward the challenge of making sense of our existence.
If the search for meaning is indeed the drive for control operating at the highest level, this raises a further question. If every aspect of human existence—even meaning‑making—is an expression of this drive, what else could constitute meaning other than the process of gaining control and what it brings? Is meaning simply the subjective experience of agency exercised over time? The present framework suggests that it may be. The infant who cries and is soothed, the survivor who reclaims a home, the scientist who pursues a discovery, the artist who creates a form—each may be engaged in the same project: imposing order on disorder. They are not finding meaning; they are making it, through the exercise of the drive that has shaped all of life.
If this is so, there may be no single meaning of life that applies universally. Meaning would not be a fixed destination but an individual creation, shaped by each person’s expectations and the agency they have been able to exercise at any given stage of their existence. What makes a life feel meaningful to one—raising a child, building a business, pursuing a truth, surviving an ordeal—may leave another untouched. The common element is not the content of the goal but the exercise of control in its pursuit. Meaning, in this view, is not discovered but constructed, from the specific hopes, relationships, and projects that give shape to an individual life. This is why meaning varies—not because the drive for control varies, but because the circumstances and opportunities through which it is expressed are unique to each person.
This is not to claim that the ancient question has been answered. The framework advanced here offers a way of understanding why the question exists, why it matters, and what form an answer might take. Whether the exercise of agency over a lifetime constitutes a meaningful life is not a question science can settle. But the evidence reviewed in this article suggests that it may be the only answer consistent with what we know about what we are.
References
Alloy, L., Kelly, K., Mineka, S., & Clements, C. (1990). Comorbidity in anxiety and depressive disorders: A helplessness/hopelessness perspective. In J. D. Maser & C. R. Cloninger (Eds.), Comorbidity of mood and anxiety disorders (pp. 499–543). American Psychiatric Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, *84*(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self‑efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Başoğlu, M. (2009). A multivariate contextual analysis of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatments: Implications for an evidence‑based definition of torture. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, *79*(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015681
Başoğlu, M. (2022). Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment: A brief intervention for survivors of war and torture. Torture Journal, *32*(1‑2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v32i1-2.131322
Başoğlu, M., Kılıç, C., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Livanou, M. (2004). Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression in earthquake survivors in Turkey: An epidemiological study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, *17*(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTS.0000022619.31615.e8
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., Crnobarić, C., Frančišković, T., Suljić, E., Đurić, D., & Vranešić, M. (2005). Psychiatric and cognitive effects of war in former Yugoslavia—Association of lack of redress for trauma and posttraumatic stress reactions. Journal of the American Medical Association, *294*(5), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.5.580
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2003). A single session with an earthquake simulator for traumatic stress in earthquake survivors. American Journal of Psychiatry, *160*(4), 788–790. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.4.788
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Kalender, D. (2003). A brief behavioural treatment of chronic post‑traumatic stress disorder in earthquake survivors: Results from an open clinical trial. Psychological Medicine, *33*(4), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291703007360
Başoğlu, M., Marks, I. M., Kılıç, C., Brewin, C. R., & Swinson, R. P. (1994). Alprazolam and exposure for panic disorder with agoraphobia: Attribution of improvement to medication predicts subsequent relapse. British Journal of Psychiatry, *164*(5), 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.164.5.652
Başoğlu, M., Marks, I. M., Kılıç, C., Noshirvani, H., & O’Sullivan, G. (1994). Relationship of panic, anticipatory anxiety, agoraphobia and global improvement in panic disorder with agoraphobia treated with alprazolam and exposure. British Journal of Psychiatry, *164*(5), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.164.5.647
Başoğlu, M., & Mineka, S. (1992). The role of uncontrollable and unpredictable stress in post‑traumatic stress responses in torture survivors. In M. Başoğlu (Ed.), Torture and its consequences: Current treatment approaches (pp. 182–225). Cambridge University Press.
Başoğlu, M., Mineka, S., Paker, M., Aker, T., Livanou, M., & Gök, S. (1997). Psychological preparedness for trauma as a protective factor in survivors of torture. Psychological Medicine, *27*(6), 1421–1433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291797005329
Başoğlu, M., Paker, M., Özmen, E., Taşdemir, O., & Şahin, D. (1994). Factors related to long‑term traumatic stress responses in survivors of torture in Turkey. Journal of the American Medical Association, *272*(5), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520050037027
Başoğlu, M., Paker, M., Paker, O., Özmen, E., Marks, I., İncesu, C., Şahin, D., & Sarımurat, N. (1994). Psychological effects of torture: A comparison of tortured with nontortured political activists in Turkey. American Journal of Psychiatry, *151*(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.1.76
Başoğlu, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2011). A mental healthcare model for mass trauma survivors: Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment of earthquake, war, and torture trauma. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978413
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Livanou, M. (2002). Traumatic stress responses in earthquake survivors in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, *15*(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016241826589
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Livanou, M. (2007). A randomized controlled study of single‑session behavioural treatment of earthquake‑related post‑traumatic stress disorder using an earthquake simulator. Psychological Medicine, *37*(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706009123
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Livanou, M. (2009). Single‑case experimental studies of a self‑help manual for traumatic stress in earthquake survivors. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, *40*(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.04.001
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., Livanou, M., Kalender, D., & Acar, G. (2005). Single‑session behavioral treatment of earthquake‑related posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized waiting list controlled trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, *18*(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20011
Bell, A. M., & Sih, A. (2007). Exposure to predation generates personality in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ecology Letters, *10*(9), 828–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01081.x
Blake, D. D., Weathers, F. W., Nagy, L. M., Kaloupek, D. G., Charney, D. S., & Keane, T. M. (1995). Clinician‑Administered PTSD Scale for DSM‑IV: Current and lifetime diagnostic version. National Center for PTSD.
Blanchard, R. J., & Blanchard, D. C. (1989). Attack and defense in rodents as ethoexperimental models for the study of emotion. Progress in Neuro‑Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, *13*(Suppl. 1), S3–S14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-5846(89)90105-5
Bodvarsdottir, I., & Elklit, A. (2004). Psychological reactions in Icelandic earthquake survivors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, *45*(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00373.x
Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, *11*(5), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804
Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A multidimensional meta‑analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, *162*(2), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.214
Breslau, N., Kessler, R. C., Chilcoat, H. D., Schultz, L. R., Davis, G. C., & Andreski, P. (1998). Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community: The 1996 Detroit Area Survey of Trauma. Archives of General Psychiatry, *55*(7), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.7.626
Burris, C. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Schimel, J. (2011). Buffering the pain of exclusion: Religious identification as a social safety net. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, *50*(2), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01573.x
Carr, V. J., Lewin, T. J., Webster, R. A., Kenardy, J. A., Hazell, P. L., & Carter, G. L. (1997). Psychosocial sequelae of the 1989 Newcastle earthquake: II. Exposure and morbidity profiles during the first 2 years post‑disaster. Psychological Medicine, *27*(1), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291796004278
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2007). Baboon metaphysics: The evolution of a social mind. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226102429.001.0001
Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley‑Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near‑misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win‑related brain circuitry. Neuron, *61*(3), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031
Clutton‑Brock, T. H., O’Riain, M. J., Brotherton, P. N. M., Gaynor, D., Kansky, R., Griffin, A. S., & Manser, M. (1999). Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science, *284*(5420), 1640–1644. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5420.1640
Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1989). Observational conditioning of fear to fear‑relevant versus fear‑irrelevant stimuli in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, *98*(4), 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.98.4.448
Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, *16*(4), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.16.4.372
Craske, M. G., Kircanski, K., Zelikowsky, M., Mystkowski, J., Chowdhury, N., & Baker, A. (2008). Optimizing inhibitory learning during exposure therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *46*(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.10.003
Cresswell, W. (2008). Non‑lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis, *150*(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00793.x
Cusack, K., Jonas, D. E., Forneris, C. A., Wines, C., Sonis, J., Middleton, J. C., Feltner, C., Brownley, K. A., Rae Olmsted, K., Greenblatt, A., Weil, A., & Gaynes, B. N. (2016). Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, *43*, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray.
Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom Evolves. Viking.
Diamond, P. R., Airdrie, J. N., Hiller, R., Fraser, A., Hiscox, L. V., Hamilton‑Giachritsis, C., & Halligan, S. L. (2022). Change in prevalence of post‑traumatic stress disorder in the two years following trauma: A meta‑analytic study. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, *13*(1), Article 2066456. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2022.2066456
Dielenberg, R. A., & McGregor, I. S. (2001). Defensive behavior in rats towards predatory odors: A review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, *25*(7‑8), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00044-6
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The intergroup dynamics of collective empowerment: Substantiating the social identity model of crowd behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, *2*(4), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024005
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, *65*(4), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01622.x
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *38*(4), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0
Eilam, D. (2005). Die hard: A blend of freezing and fleeing as a dynamic defense—Implications for the control of defensive behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, *29*(8), 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.027
Eisenberger, N. I. (2012a). The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, *74*(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182464dd1
Eisenberger, N. I. (2012b). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, *13*(6), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3231
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, *302*(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
Eisenberger, N. I., Master, S. L., Inagaki, T. K., Taylor, S. E., Shirinyan, D., Lieberman, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal‑related neural region and reduce pain experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, *108*(28), 11721–11726. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108239108
Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Mersch, P. P. (1982). Cognition and exposure in vivo in the treatment of agoraphobia: Short‑term and delayed effects. Cognitive Therapy and Research, *6*(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01185728
Fanselow, M. S. (1994). Neural organization of the defensive behavior system responsible for fear. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, *1*(4), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210947
Fanselow, M. S., & Lester, L. S. (1988). A functional behavioristic approach to aversively motivated behavior: Predatory imminence as a determinant of the topography of defensive behavior. In R. C. Bolles & M. D. Beecher (Eds.), Evolution and learning (pp. 185–212). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fiorillo, C. D., Tobler, P. N., & Schultz, W. (2003). Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science, *299*(5614), 1898–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077349
Foa, E. B., Dancu, C. V., Hembree, E. A., Jaycox, L. H., Meadows, E. A., & Street, G. P. (1999). A comparison of exposure therapy, stress inoculation training, and their combination for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder in female assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, *67*(2), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.2.194
Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, *99*(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20
Foa, E. B., & Rauch, S. A. M. (2004). Cognitive changes during prolonged exposure versus prolonged exposure plus cognitive restructuring in female assault survivors with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, *72*(5), 879–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.879
Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2022). Collective reactions to social threat: A group‑based control model. European Review of Social Psychology, *33*(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1961069
Fritsche, I., Moya, M., Bukowski, M., Jugert, P., de Lemus, S., Decker, O., Valor‑Segura, I., & Navarro‑Carrillo, G. (2017). The Great Recession and group‑based control: Converting personal helplessness into social class in‑group trust and collective action. Journal of Social Issues, *73*(1), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12207
Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020). The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta‑analyses. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, *18*, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.08.009
Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, *7*(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
Herman, B. H., & Panksepp, J. (1978). Effects of morphine and naloxone on separation distress and approach attachment: Evidence for opiate mediation of social affect. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, *9*(2), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(78)90167-3
Hofmann, S. G., Curtiss, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2021). Beyond linear mediation: Toward a more integrative understanding of treatment mechanisms. Clinical Psychology Review, *89*, Article 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102085
Holtz, T. (1998). Refugee trauma versus torture trauma: A retrospective controlled cohort study of Tibetan refugees. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, *186*(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199801000-00005
Insel, T. R., & Winslow, J. T. (1991). Central oxytocin administration reduces isolation‑induced distress vocalizations in infant rats. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, *38*(1), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(91)90616-C
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2023). Global report on internal displacement 2023. https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2023/
Ito, A., Ucer, B., Baris, S., Nakamura, A., Honkura, Y., Kono, T., Hori, S., Hasegawa, A., Pektas, R., & Isikara, A. M. (2002). Aftershock Activity of the 1999 Izmit, Turkey, Earthquake Revealed from Microearthquake Observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 418‑427.
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., Gortner, E. T., & Prince, S. E. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive‑behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, *64*(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.2.295
Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, *52*(12), 1048–1060. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012
Kessler, R. C., Aguilar‑Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Benjet, C., Bromet, E. J., Cardoso, G., Degenhardt, L., de Girolamo, G., Dinolova, R. V., Ferry, F., Florescu, S., Gureje, O., Haro, J. M., Huang, Y., Karam, E. G., Kawakami, N., Lee, S., Lépine, J.‑P., Levinson, D., … Koenen, K. C. (2017). Trauma and PTSD in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, *8*(sup5), Article 1353383. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1353383
Kirschvink, J. L. (2000). Earthquake prediction by animals: Evolution and sensory perception. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, *90*(2), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S., & Mitchell, W. A. (1994). The role of predation in shaping the behaviour, morphology and community organisation of desert rodents. Australian Journal of Zoology, *42*(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9940449
Lima, S. L., & Dill, L. M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, *68*(4), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-092
Lind, J., & Cresswell, W. (2005). Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Behavioral Ecology, *16*(5), 945–956. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari075
Livanou, M., Başoğlu, M., Marks, I. M., De Silva, P., Noshirvani, H., Lovell, K., & Thrasher, S. (2002). Beliefs, sense of control and treatment outcome in post‑traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Medicine, *32*(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170100470X
Livanou, M., Kasvikis, Y., Başoğlu, M., Mytskidou, P., Sotiropoulou, V., Spanea, E., Económou, M., & Voutsa, N. (2005). Earthquake‑related psychological distress and associated factors 4 years after the Parnitha earthquake in Greece. European Psychiatry, *20*(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2004.09.024
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, *131*(2), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, *105*(1), 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3
Maier, S. F., & Watkins, L. R. (2005). Stressor controllability and learned helplessness: The roles of the dorsal raphe nucleus, serotonin, and corticotropin‑releasing factor. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, *29*(4‑5), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.021
Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears, phobias, and rituals. Oxford University Press.
Marks, I. M. (2002). The maturing of therapy: Some brief psychotherapies help anxiety/depressive disorders but mechanisms of action are unclear. British Journal of Psychiatry, *180*(3), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.3.200
Marks, I. M., Lovell, K., Noshirvani, H., & Livanou, M. (1998). Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder by exposure and/or cognitive restructuring—A controlled study. Archives of General Psychiatry, *55*(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.55.4.317
Marks, I. M., Swinson, R. P., Başoğlu, M., Kuch, K., Noshirvani, H., O’Sullivan, G., Lelliott, P., Kirby, M., & Şengün, S. (1993). Alprazolam and exposure alone and combined in panic disorder with agoraphobia: A controlled study in London and Toronto. British Journal of Psychiatry, *162*(6), 776–787. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.162.6.776
McCullough, M. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Observations on the evolution, psychology, and psychopathology of the religious life. Psychological Bulletin, *135*(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014213
McMillen, C. J., North, C. S., & Smith, E. M. (2000). What parts of PTSD are normal: Intrusion, avoidance, or arousal? Data from the Northridge, California, earthquake. Journal of Traumatic Stress, *13*(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007768832446
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. Pergamon Press.
Mineka, S., Mystkowski, J. L., Hladek, D., & Rodriguez, B. I. (1999). The effects of changing contexts on return of fear following exposure treatment for spider fear. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, *67*(4), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.599
Mineka, S., & Öhman, A. (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry, *52*(10), 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01669-4
Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders—It’s not what you thought it was. American Psychologist, *61*(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.10
Mitsopoulou, T., Kasvikis, Y., Koumantanou, L., Giaglis, G., Skapinakis, P., & Mavreas, V. (2019). Manualized single‑session behavior treatment with self‑help manual for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Psychotherapy Research, *29*(6), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2019.1663956
Morina, N., Wicherts, J. M., Lobbrecht, J., & Priebe, S. (2014). Remission from post‑traumatic stress disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of long term outcome studies. Clinical Psychology Review, *34*(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.02.004
Mystkowski, J. L., Craske, M. G., & Echiverri, A. M. (2002). Treatment context and return of fear in spider phobia. Behavior Therapy, *33*(3), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80035-1
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, *9*(5), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, *108*(3), 483–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483
Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, *63*(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024166
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J., Herman, B., Conner, R., Bishop, P., & Scott, J. P. (1978). The biology of social attachments: Opiates alleviate separation distress. Biological Psychiatry, *13*(5), 607–618.
Paunovic, N., & Öst, L.‑G. (2001). Cognitive‑behavior therapy vs exposure therapy in the treatment of PTSD in refugees. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *39*(10), 1183–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00093-0
Powers, M. B., Whitley, D., Telch, M. J., Smits, J. A. J., & Bystritsky, A. (2008). The effect of attributional processes concerning medication taking on return of fear. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, *76*(3), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.478
Rachman, S., Craske, M., Tallman, K., & Solyom, C. (1986). Does escape behavior strengthen agoraphobic avoidance? A replication. Behavior Therapy, *17*(4), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(86)80069-7
Rachman, S., & Lopatka, C. (1988). Return of fear: Underlearning and overlearning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *26*(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(88)90108-8
Rachman, S., Robinson, S., & Lopatka, C. (1987). Is incomplete fear‑reduction followed by a return of fear? Behaviour Research and Therapy, *25*(1), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(87)90117-3
Rescorla, R. A. (2001). Experimental extinction. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 119–154). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rodriguez, B. I., Craske, M. G., Mineka, S., & Hladek, D. (1999). Context‑specificity of relapse: Effects of therapist and environmental context on return of fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *37*(9), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00196-9
Sosis, R., & Alcorta, C. (2003). Signaling, solidarity, and the evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology, *12*(6), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10120
Şalcıoğlu, E. (2004). The effect of beliefs, attribution of responsibility, redress and compensation on posttraumatic stress disorder in earthquake survivors in Turkey [Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London]. King’s College London.
Şalcıoğlu, E., Başoğlu, M., & Livanou, M. (2003). Long‑term psychological outcome for non‑treatment‑seeking earthquake survivors in Turkey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, *191*(3), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NMD.0000054933.23633.0C
Şalcıoğlu, E., Başoğlu, M., & Livanou, M. (2007). Effects of live exposure on symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: The role of reduced behavioral avoidance in improvement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, *45*(10), 2268–2279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.04.012
Sanderson, W. C., Rapee, R. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1989). The influence of an illusion of control on panic attacks induced via inhalation of 5.5% carbon dioxide‑enriched air. Archives of General Psychiatry, *46*(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1989.01810020059010
Sansom, A., Lind, J., & Cresswell, W. (2009). Individual behavior and survival: The roles of personality and anti‑predator behaviour in the survival of wintering redshanks. Journal of Animal Ecology, *78*(4), 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01546.x
Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, *80*(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, *275*(5306), 1593–1599. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593
Seligman, M. E. P. (1968). Chronic fear produced by unpredictable shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, *66*(2), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026355
Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, *2*(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(71)80064-3
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, *74*(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024514
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, *210*(4471), 801–803. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7433999
Siepielski, A. M., Fallon, C., & Boersma, K. (2016). Predator olfactory cues generate indirect costs for prey via behaviorally mediated effects on growth. Oecologia, *182*(4), 977–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3722-2
Snarr, K. A. (2005). Seismic activity response as observed in mantled howlers (Alouatta palliata), Cuero y Salado Wildlife Refuge, Honduras. Primates, *46*(4), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-005-0134-z
Summerfield, D. (2004). Cross‑cultural perspectives on the medicalization of human suffering. In G. M. Rosen (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder: Issues and controversies (pp. 233–245). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713570.ch12
Summerfield, D. (2012). Afterword: Against “global mental health.” Transcultural Psychiatry, *49*(3‑4), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461512454701
Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, *46*(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
Van Tongeren, D. R., DeWall, C. N., Hardy, S. A., & Schwadel, P. (2021). No longer religious, but still spending money religiously: The religious residue hypothesis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, *31*(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1771523
Williams, J. L., & Maier, S. F. (1977). Transsituational immunization and therapy of learned helplessness in the rat. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, *3*(3), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.3.3.240
Winell, M. (2011). Leaving the fold: A guide for former fundamentalists and others leaving their religion. Apocryphile Press.
