We postulate that the cascade ''Freeze-Flight-Fight-Fright-Flag-Faint'' is a coherent sequence of six fear responses that escalate as a function of defense possibilities and proximity to danger during life-threat. The actual sequence of trauma-related response dispositions acted out in an extremely dangerous situation therefore depends on the appraisal of the threat by the organism in relation to her/his own power to act (e.g., age and gender) as well as the perceived characteristics of threat and perpetrator. These reaction patterns provide optimal adaption for particular stages of imminence. Subsequent to the traumatic threats, portions of the experience may be replayed. The actual individual cascade of defense stages a survivor has gone through during the traumatic event will repeat itself every time the fear network, which has evolved peritraumatically, is activated again (i.e., through internal or external triggers or, e.g., during exposure therapy).When a parasympathetically dominated ''shut-down'' was the prominent peri-traumatic response during the traumatic incident, comparable dissociative responses may dominate responding to subsequently experienced threat and may also reappear when the traumatic memory is reactivated. Repeated experience of traumatic stress forms a fear network that can become pathologically detached from contextual cues such as time and location of the danger, a condition which manifests itself as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intrusions, for example, can therefore be understood as repetitive displays of fragments of the event, which would then, depending on the dominant physiological response during the threat, elicit a corresponding combination of hyperarousal and dissociation. We suggest that trauma treatment must therefore differentiate between patients on two dimensions: those with peritraumatic sympathetic activation versus those who went down the whole defense cascade, which leads to parasympathetic dominance during the trauma and a corresponding replay of physiological and dissociative responding, when reminded. The differential management of dissociative stages (''fright'' and ''faint'') has important treatment implications. A coherent mental structure requires organized and intercon-nected representations of salient external and internal events, including sensory perceptions, affective and behavioral responding, and the conscious implications of a given con-text in terms of meaning (Marmar, Weiss, & Metzler, 1998; Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, Steele, & Brown, 2004; Schauer, Neuner, & Elbert, 2005). Experience of overwhelming threat may interfere with the process of integrating active elements of sensation, emotion, and cognition into the particular declarative memory of the event and thus result in disorders of the trauma spectrum (Brewin, 2001; Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Ehlers & Clark, 2000; Elbert, Rockstroh, Kolassa, Schauer, & Neuner, 2006; Schauer et al., 2005; Van der Kolk, McFarlane, & Weisaeth, 1996). When later confronted with trauma reminders, survivors typically ''replay'' their original response of the traumatic event (e.g., Keane, Zimering, & Caddell, 1985). When a parasym-pathetically dominated ''shut-down'' was the prominent peritraumatic response to the traumatic incident, comparable dissociative responses may dominate responding to subse-quently experienced threat and may also reappear when the traumatic memory is reactivated, such as during script-driven imagery (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1998) or trauma-focused treatment (Schauer & Elbert, 2008). Strong dissociative reactions that may even include fainting obvi-ously prevent the success of therapeutic measures that attempt to integrate the trauma memory into the autobio-graphic narrative and hence pose a serious obstacle to suc-cessful treatment of disorders of the trauma spectrum. Instead of trauma-focused therapy, these patients therefore typically receive skill-training, for example, how to identify and avoid potential triggers that induce detachment or how to end dissociative responding once it has been triggered. Current clinical practice adds to a varying degree elements from dialectic behavior therapy (Hunter et al., 2005; Linehan, 1993). Unfortunately, these strategies are not sufficient rem-edies for patients with trauma-related dissociative symptoms (Dyer, Priebe, Steil, Krüger, & Bohus, 2009) and clinical tri-als have identified dissociative symptoms as predictive for a negative treatment outcome (Spitzer, Barnow, Freyberger, & Grabe, 2007). This is not surprising, since dissociation pre-vents emotional processing and learning (Ebner-Priemer et al., 2009) due to the ''shut-down'' symptomatology typi-cally characteristic of dissociative states (Simeon, Guralnik, Knutelska, Yehuda, & Schmeidler, 2003, p. 93). The current concept of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) does not distinguish whether the reminder of the traumatic experiences results in a fight-flight alarm response