Why your tendency to 'take the high road' might actually be a sign of self-abandonment.
3 Reasons Why 'Being The Bigger Person' Isn't Always The Healthiest Response
What's often praised as emotional maturity can, in some cases, be a survival strategy learned in unsafe environments.
By Mark Travers, Ph.D. | Last Updated:
Many people pride themselves on their unwavering ability to "be the bigger person." If someone else goes low, they refuse to go lower. And even when they have every reason to complain, confront or make a fuss, they keep their cool and roll with the punches instead. This often looks admirable from an outsider's perspective. It might seem as though they just have impressive levels of emotional maturity and self-control, or that they simply have moral high ground.
Their friends likely describe them as "unbothered," "easygoing" or "uncommonly patient." But, unbeknownst to many, this behavior isn't always a reflection of sheer serenity. For some, the compulsion to always be the bigger person actually isn't a conscious choice at all. Instead, it can emerge as a survival strategy shaped by past trauma. Here are three ways this pattern can emerge as a trauma response.
1. Fawning As A Trauma Response
When we think about trauma responses, most of us are familiar with the classic trio: fight, flight and freeze. Trauma or prolonged adversity can activate any of these fear-based reactions, depending on what our nervous system thinks has the best chance of keeping us safe in the moment. However, there's also a lesser-known fourth response that falls under this list of reactions: fawning.
As 2022 research published in BMC Psychology explains, fight, flight and freeze are relatively self-explanatory. The fight response mobilizes us to confront danger aggressively, whereas the flight response urges us to escape and save ourselves. The freeze response can best be compared to an opossum playing dead: we shut down, physically and mentally, in the desperate hope that the threat will pass us without detection.
Fawning, on the other hand, is a more submissive response. Instead of confronting or fleeing danger, individuals become markedly passive instead, often in an attempt to prevent conflict altogether. As such, fawning falls somewhere between flight and freeze; the body remains engaged, but only to placate its aggressor.
For people who learned early on that conflict is often followed by punishment, withdrawal of love or emotional chaos, fawning almost always feels like the safest option. If they stay agreeable, calm and "understanding" enough, then, in their minds, they should be able to reduce the perceived risk of escalation. And for many, it works.
Should it frequently prove useful, this response can become automatic in time. This means that even a minor disagreement may trigger the same nervous system response as more serious past threats. Their body reacts before their mind gets the chance to evaluate whether the situation actually warrants submission in the first place.
In this sense, "being the bigger person" is an extension of the unconscious logic that, if they don't react, if they stay kind and if they absorb the discomfort quietly, then nothing bad will happen. Their emotional restraint is actually just a fear-driven form of self-preservation.
2. Chronic Guilt As A Trauma Response
Perhaps the most common pathway through which "being the bigger person" can morph into a trauma response is chronic guilt, which is a common emotional response following trauma or prolonged adversity. According to 2022 research published in Psychological Medicine, trauma-related guilt is closely linked to the development and maintenance of many post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Often, this is because some individuals who have overcome trauma will grapple with feeling responsible for what happened to them, despite the fact that these are things that were never truly within their control. They may blame themselves for others' emotions, outcomes they couldn't influence or for simply existing in a way that takes up space. Over time, and without support or therapy, this trauma-related guilt begets a persistent sense of being "too much" or "a burden."
For individuals far gone, being assertive can feel almost as though it's the morally wrong thing to do, even if it's necessary; it might even feel dangerous. Anger may be interpreted as selfishness. Boundaries may feel like punishments inflicted on others. Expressing hurt can trigger intense shame, as though voicing needs automatically harms those around them.
As a result, they may default to being the bigger person in situations where anger, disappointment or protest would be entirely reasonable. Others may assume that they're swallowing their feelings simply because they don't have any, but, in reality, they likely have more than anyone could possibly imagine. They simply bottle them up in the hopes that it will temporarily stop the guilt.
Their inner voice often urges them not to make a big deal of things because"other people have it worse," "maybe I deserve this," or "I don't want to upset anyone." So, they stay agreeable and forgiving in an attempt to offset their perceived moral debt. And in doing so, they mentally prove, both to others and themselves, that they're not a problem.
3. Compliance As A Trauma Response
Compliance and appeasement are also deeply rooted trauma responses, particularly for individuals whose trauma stems from situations where escape was impossible.
A classic review published in the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry highlights appeasement as one of the most relevant defense mechanisms in social survival contexts. This is especially true for individuals who lack power, status or autonomy: children in toxic households, victims of domestic abuse without the means to leave or individuals subjected to captivity or coercive control.
In these situations, the nervous system is very quick to learn that neither avoidance nor aggression is a viable option. Leaving may be physically impossible or psychologically unsafe. Fighting back (both emotionally and physically) may also risk provoking either retaliation or further harm. In turn, since both of these options are off the table, compliance may seem like the most adaptive strategy available — if not the only one.
By appeasing authority figures, anticipating others' needs and minimizing any risk of disharmony, they simultaneously increase their chances of survival. The cost of constantly needing to rely on this strategy, however, often emerges later.
Even well after the original danger or source of their trauma has passed, their nervous system may continue to operate on the assumption that compliance is still necessary. In turn, they may still feel the inexplicable compulsion to say yes to others automatically, to accommodate unreasonable demands or to be the peacekeeper during conflicts, all at their own expense.
In adulthood, this can manifest as an exaggerated commitment to being the bigger person. They may feel the weight of responsibility for ensuring everyone else's happiness and comfort, regardless of how it might infringe on their boundaries. The unconscious motivation behind this behavior is usually learned: if they don't do whatever they can to keep everyone comfortable, something bad will happen.
Trauma can undermine your sense of safety in everyday relationships. Take this science-backed test to see how secure you truly feel: Psychological Safety Scale
From hyper-vigilance to resilience, trauma leaves its mark. Your Guardian Animal Test results might uncover the instincts that carried you through.