Table 6. Comparison of correlations coefficients between defensive behaviors and scenario characteristics obtained in 4 studies.

Comparison between Blanchard [2], Perkins and Corr [22], and Shuhama [21] reproduced from Blanchard [4]. The first 3 studies (3 leftmost columns) used Blanchard’s original 12 physically threatening scenarios and report male (top) and female (bottom) correlation values separately. In the present study (4 rightmost columns), the 20 physical scenarios included 11 of the original physically threatening scenarios, along with 4 natural disaster and 5 animal scenarios. For the 9 psychological scenarios, one to two comparable defensive response options are reported. V.C. = verbal confrontation. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, n.s. = not significant with p<0.05; p-values not reported in Shuhama et al. [21].

Defensive behavior/factor	Blanchard (Hawaii)	Perkins & Corr (Wales)	Shuhama (Brazil)	Original (USA)	Animal; Natural (USA)	Physical (USA)	Psychological (USA)
Risk assessment/ ambiguity	0.89**	0.89**	0.91	0.93***	0.08	0.62**	0.13 (plan)
	0.86**	0.85**	0.88
Flight/ ambiguity	-0.50	-0.56	-0.69	-0.50	0.73*	-0.20	-0.48 (hide)
	-0.63	-0.59*	-0.61				-0.13 (avoid)
Defensive attack/ ambiguity	-0.53	-0.54	n.s.	-0.42	-0.50	-0.23	0.41 (V.C.)
	-0.23	-0.44	n.s.
Flight/ escapability	0.10	0.12	n.s.	0.35	0.81**	0.33	0.66 (hide)
	0.04	0.10	n.s.				0.23 (avoid)
Defensive attack/ escapability	-0.76*	-0.87**	-0.76	-0.67*	-0.60*	-0.30	-0.38 (V.C.)
	-0.65*	-0.89**	n.s.
Defensive attack/distance	-0.59*	-0.62*	n.s.	-0.47*	-0.71*	-0.43	-0.72* (negotiate)
	-0.64*	-0.69*	-0.69
Hiding/hiding place	0.59*	0.33	0.61	0.81**	0.44	0.29	0.84** (hide)
	0.63*	0.30	0.59