Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Stockholm syndrome motivation

Stockholm syndrome motivation:
Why do captives bond with their captors?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Scenario Figure 1. Victim of an abusive relationship Imagine you are a counsellor working with a woman who recently escaped an abusive relationship. Instead of being angry or relieved, she defends her abuser, saying, “He only did it because he was stressed,” and “He cared for me in his own way.” As you listen, you realise she has a deep emotional bond with her abuser—a phenomenon known as Stockholm syndrome. You see how trauma can distort her emotions, turning fear and dependency into sympathy and loyalty, challenging your understanding of how trauma can distort a person's perception and emotions.

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where individuals who are held captive or abused begin to develop a bond, positive feelings or empathy towards their captors or abusers. This response often emerges as a survival mechanism in situations where the victim perceives that their life is in danger, and they become emotionally dependent on their captor (Mouafo & Lontio, 2024). Although often associated with hostage situations, it can manifest in cases of kidnapping, domestic violence, cult victims, prisoners of war, sex workers and abused children (Adorjan et al., 2012). This complex and often misunderstood phenomenon challenges common understandings of human behaviour under extreme stress and coercion.

Focus questions: What is Stockholm syndrome? What psychological mechanisms drive bonds between victim and abuser? How do social and environmental factors influence these bonds? What psychological theories explain Stockholm syndrome? What controversies and alternative explanations exist surrounding Stockholm syndrome?

What is Stockholm syndrome?

Figure 2. Kreditbanken building in Stockholm, Sweden

The term “Stockholm syndrome” originated from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, known as the Norrmalmstorg robbery. During this six day ordeal, two armed criminals, Jan-Erik Olsson and Clark Olofsson, took four employees hostage in the bank vault in the Kreditbanken building (see Figure 2). Surprisingly, the hostages developed a bond with their captors, defending them after the attack and even resisting rescue efforts. This puzzling dynamic led to the coining of the term by criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot (Adorjan et al., 2012). The unusual emotional bond between the captives and captors caused great interest in why victims might develop positive feelings towards their abusers.

Prevalence and diagnosis

The prevalence of Stockholm syndrome is difficult to measure due to its complex nature and varying manifestations. Despite its severity, Stockholm syndrome is not officially recognised as a mental disorder in diagnostic manuals like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) (Kackar & Juneja, 2022). Instead, it is often discussed alongside trauma-related conditions, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or as a response to prolonged abuse or captivity (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). Due to the absence of formal diagnostic criteria and its overlap with other conditions, it is primarily described in case studies, making it challenging to assess its true prevalence.

Signs and symptoms

The scarcity of individuals who have experienced Stockholm syndrome makes it difficult to conduct studies with sufficient sample size, limiting the ability to identify trends in symptom development (Adorjan et al., 2012). Diagnosis typically involves recognising patterns of behaviour rather than a specific set of symptoms. Mental health professionals look for signs of emotional bonding, loyalty, or affection towards an abuser, combined with the victim's inability to perceive the danger they were in (see Table 1) (Namnyak et al., 2007). Often, the condition is diagnosed retrospectively, after the individual has been removed from the situation, as symptoms may not be evident while under the abuser’s influence.

Table 1.

Key criteria that researchers consider essential for understanding Stockholm syndrome.

Key criterion	Explanation
Desire to protect captor	Victim/s begin to understand, pity or protect their captors
Reasoning with captor's actions	Victim/s justify/rationalise the captor’s motives, aligning with their perspective
Belief in captor’s humanity	Victim/s focus on the captor's good qualities, minimising the harm inflicted
Positive feelings towards captor after release	Victim/s maintain sympathy for their captors even after being freed from the situation
Negative feelings towards external help	Victim/s develops negative emotions toward police, family, or friends who attempt to intervene, viewing them as unfairly judgmental of the captor
Prioritising captor’s interests over their own	Victim/s places captor's needs above their own, continuing to defend the captor after the traumatic event has ended

Quiz Which of the following is NOT a typical symptom of Stockholm syndrome? Defending the captors actions Developing trust and affection for the captor Experiencing intense hatred and anger towards the captor Difficulty in recognising the danger posed by the captor

Psychological mechanisms

The psychological mechanisms behind Stockholm syndrome are complex and rooted in the human psyche's responses to extreme stress and trauma. Trauma bonding, survival instincts, perceived kindness and learned helplessness all interplay to create this paradoxical bond.

Trauma bonding

Trauma bonding, a psychological mechanism often linked to Stockholm syndrome, occurs when victims form emotional attachments to their abusers through cycles of abuse and reconciliation. The bond is reinforced by the victim's dependency on the abuser, where intermittent periods of violence are followed by gestures of care or apology, leading to the rationalisation of the abuser’s behaviour. In situations where the victim is isolated and subjected to repeated cycles of fear and relief, these bonds can form rapidly. This pattern creates a cognitive distortion where the victim internalises the abuse and assumes responsibility for it (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). The repeated exposure to trauma combined with the abuser’s manipulation traps the victim in a state of emotional confusion, making it difficult for them to escape or see the severity of their situation (Namnyak et al., 2007). The emotional bond becomes a survival tool, as the victim believes that aligning with the abuser's needs and goals reduces the threat of further harm (Cabrera, 2023).

Survival instincts

Survival instincts are central in the development of Stockholm syndrome, as they drive the victim's psychological adaptation to extreme, life-threatening situations. When escape or resistance is not possible, the victim’s instinct for self-preservation shifts towards complying with their abuser’s demands. This instinctual reaction is rooted in the neurobiological stress response, where the body activates mechanisms to minimise harm. Victims may adopt submissive behaviours or form emotional bonds with their captors as a way to de-escalate the threat (Adorjan et al., 2012). The nervous system’s natural response to danger suggests that to avoid violence, victims may engage in appeasement, a tactic used to satisfy the abuser through cooperation (Bailey et al., 2023; Cantor & Price, 2007). This physiological response overrides rational decision-making, focusing on survival, and creating a false sense of security within a dangerous environment (Olff, 2012).

Perceived kindness

Perceived kindness plays a critical role in motivating Stockholm syndrome, as captors often mix their abuse with moments of apparent generosity or leniency, which confuses the victim and strengthens their emotional attachment. This perceived kindness shifts the victim's perspective, making them believe that the abuser is not entirely cruel, which can lead to feelings of gratitude or even affection towards the captor (Namnyak et al., 2007). For example, a partner buying jewellery or flowers, to "apologise” for a violent incident, or a kidnapper providing food and water. Such acts are interpreted as caring gestures, which the victim may exaggerate in their mind to rationalise their ongoing captivity (Kackar & Juneja, 2022). These moments distort the victim’s view of the situation by overshadowing the context of coercion and control. This creates a skewed view of the abuser and fosters feelings of loyalty and affection in the victim (Ahmad et al., 2018; Mouafo & Lontio, 2024).

Learned helplessness

Figure 3. Key elements of Seligman's learned helplessness model

Learned helplessness developed by Seligman (1972) explains why victims of abuse develop a perceived inability to escape (see Figure 3). Seligman's concept suggests that when individuals face uncontrollable and harmful circumstances repeatedly, they begin to believe their actions are powerless, leading to passive acceptance of the abuse (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). In terms of Stockholm syndrome, victims may feel that resistance or escape is futile, instead choosing to adopt submissive behaviours as a survival mechanism. This helplessness reinforces their emotional bond and dependence on the abuser, as compliance seems to offer a sense of safety. Over time, this passive acceptance further complicates the victim's emotional and psychological state, making them more emotionally bound to their abuser (Adorjan et al., 2012).

Case study Hitchhiking in California, 1977, 20-year-old Colleen Stan was picked up by Jan and Cameron Hooker. Cameron held a knife to her throat, drove to a deserted area, then sexually assaulted and abducted her. Colleen was held captive for 23 hours a day in a coffin-sized box for seven years. In 1981, Hooker allowed her to visit her family, an instance of perceived kindness. Despite the opportunity to escape, Colleen, displaying learned helplessness, returned to captivity for another three years. Her family remained unaware of the abuse.

Social and environmental factors

Stockholm syndrome develops through various situational factors in captivity. Key elements such as the duration of captivity, the frequency and nature of interactions with the captor, and the victim’s coping style shape the victim’s response to abuse. These factors are crucial in deepening emotional attachment, distorting reality, and fostering dependency on the captor.

Duration of captivity

The length of time a victim remains in captivity significantly influences the development of Stockholm syndrome, as prolonged exposure to the captor increases emotional attachment. Over time, the victim grows dependent on the captor for both physical needs and psychological security. As captivity extends, the victim’s worldview becomes distorted, normalising the abusive situation and reinforcing feelings of helplessness (Adorjan et al., 2012). This extended period allows the captor more opportunities to manipulate the victim’s emotions by alternating between cruelty and perceived kindness, making it harder for the victim to distinguish between harm and care (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). This emotional entrapment deepens the bond, complicating the victim’s ability to imagine life outside captivity, as their perception of reality is skewed by the captor's long-term control (Cabrera, 2023).

Interaction with perpetrator

The nature and frequency of interaction between victims and captors significantly shape the dynamics of Stockholm syndrome, especially concerning group dynamics and isolation. When held alone, victims are more vulnerable to emotional manipulation, due to the absence of external perspectives or support systems (Kackar & Juneja, 2022). This lack can lead them to align more closely with their captors' viewpoints and behaviours (Namnyak et al., 2007). Frequent interaction further strengthens the emotional bond, as captors become the victim’s primary source of human connection. Sustained interaction blurs the lines between adversary and protector, intensifying dependency for physical survival and emotional support (Adorjan et al., 2012).

To maintain group cohesion and reduce conflict in group situations, peer pressure may influence victims to conform to collective sympathetic attitudes toward captors. Captors can exploit group dynamics by fostering competition or favouritism, creating divisions and weakening alliances among victims. This manipulation fractures potential collective resistance, making it easier for captors to maintain control over their captives (Ahmad et al., 2018).

Coping style of victim

The victim’s coping style influences the development and maintenance of Stockholm syndrome, with certain psychological tendencies making individuals more susceptible to forming emotional bonds with their captors. Victims often adopt coping strategies such as denial, dissociation, or appeasement to mitigate the trauma of captivity (Cantor & Price, 2007). By rationalising the captor's behaviour or downplaying the severity of the abuse, victims manage their emotional distress and avoid further harm. In many cases, victims may also convince themselves that the abuse is deserved or that their compliance will lead to better treatment, which reinforces their emotional dependence (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). These coping mechanisms, while initially protective, can become entrenched, making it difficult for the victim to separate their survival instincts from genuine emotional attachment to the captor (Namnyak et al., 2007).

Figure 4. Natascha Kampusch, 2019.

Case study Snatched at 10 years old on her way to school, Natascha Kampusch (see Figure 4) was held in a windowless, concrete cell from 1998-2006. Over time, her captor, Wolfgang Přiklopil, allowed her into the house, where they spent time eating, doing housework, and watching TV. The prolonged duration of captivity, constant exposure to her captor, and the regular interactions blurred boundaries. After her escape, Přiklopil committed suicide. Upon hearing of his death, Natascha wept, spent hours with his coffin, and carried a photo of him, calling him a "poor soul, lost and misguided."

Theoretical underpinnings

Stockholm syndrome can be understood through various psychological theories, including psychoanalytic theory, polyvagal theory, attachment theory and cognitive dissonance theory. These frameworks explain how trauma, survival instincts, and early attachment patterns influence the victim's emotional response, leading them to develop feelings of loyalty toward their captors.

Psychoanalytic theory

Psychoanalytic theory developed by Freud (1923) offers a foundational explanation for Stockholm syndrome by suggesting that the emotional bond formed between captors and victims is a defence mechanism rooted in the unconscious mind. According to this theory, when faced with severe trauma or life-threatening situations, the ego, driven by a need for self-preservation, suppresses feelings of anger and hostility towards the captor and replaces them with affection or sympathy. This pathological transference, where the victim unconsciously identifies with their abuser, helps to mitigate the overwhelming fear and anxiety associated with captivity (Adorjan et al., 2012). The victim, seeking psychological survival, convinces themselves that the captor’s behaviour is justified or that they are being protected rather than harmed, which leads to an emotional attachment that complicates their ability to escape or resist (Shaughnessy et al., 2023).

Polyvagal theory

Figure 5. Diagram showing the functions of the nervous system

Polyvagal theory, developed by Porges (1995) offers a neurobiological perspective on Stockholm syndrome, focusing on victims' automatic responses to threats. The theory suggests that in life-threatening situations, the brainstem's survival circuits, which control the autonomic nervous system (see Figure 5), take over. This pushes the nervous system into a defensive state, overriding intentional behaviour and social interaction. The response often manifests as variations of fight, flight, or freeze reactions, with the "freeze" response typically involving unconscious behaviours aimed at appeasing captors (Bailey et al., 2023). During this state neural activity diverts from higher brain functions reducing cognitive processing and problem-solving abilities. Here defensive coping strategies take over. The vagus nerve, responsible for regulating heart rate and emotional responses, plays a key role in modulating fear and stress. When under threat, the victim may bond with their captor to create a sense of safety, emotionally aligning with the danger as a survival mechanism (Olff, 2012).

Attachment theory

Attachment theory developed by Bowlby (1969) emphasises the innate human need to form emotional bonds for safety and security, especially in threatening situations. In cases of captivity or abuse, victims may form attachment bonds with their captors as a survival mechanism. Relying on the captor for basic needs and protection, this attachment mirrors early bonds between a child and caregiver. The threat of harm or isolation reinforces the victim's emotional dependence on the captor, who becomes both a source of fear and safety (Kackar & Juneja, 2022). Bowlby’s theory explains that individuals who form insecure attachment styles during childhood, such as anxious or avoidant, are more likely to develop unhealthy emotional bonds in abusive relationships (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). Victims may revert to attachment patterns from childhood, seeking emotional security from their captor despite the abusive dynamics. This dependency fosters a bond where victims feel unable to detach from their captors, as the relationship fulfils their deep-seated psychological need for connection and attachment (Cabrera, 2023). This bond complicates the victim’s ability to break free, deepening their emotional entrapment.

Cognitive dissonance theory

Cognitive dissonance theory developed by Festinger (1957) explains how victims reconcile the conflicting emotions they experience during captivity. Faced with fear and abuse, victims experience dissonance between their instinctive fear of the abuser and their need to survive. To resolve this psychological discomfort, victims may adjust their beliefs and feelings to align with their situation, rationalising their captors’ actions as being less harmful or even protective. This process helps victims manage the emotional stress of their captivity, motivating them to bond with their captors as a way to maintain internal consistency between their thoughts and actions. Over time, this rationalisation strengthens the victim's emotional attachment, leading them to perceive the captor more favourably, despite the ongoing harm. By distorting reality to alleviate dissonance, victims believe that staying close to the captor is crucial for their survival.

Critiques and alternative explanations

Stockholm syndrome faces criticisms for its ethical and diagnostic issues, with concerns about its lack of scientific validity and the potential harm in labelling victims. Alternative explanations for similar behaviours, such as battered person syndrome and lima syndrome, offer other perspectives on traumatic bonding.

Validity and ethical considerations

The validity of Stockholm syndrome as a psychiatric condition is widely debated, with critics questioning its recognition as a distinct psychological disorder. Its absence from diagnostic manuals like the DSM-5 suggests it is more media-driven than scientifically validated (Namnyak et al., 2007). Common criticisms highlight the lack of formal diagnostic criteria, which creates difficulty in studying or quantifying in clinical settings. Adorjan et al. (2012) describe Stockholm syndrome as a "dubious pathology" fueled by media sensationalism rather than scientific evidence, pointing out that many diagnoses stem from media, not mental health professionals. This critique raises concerns about perpetuating stereotypes and misrepresenting trauma and victimisation.

Figure 6. Nils Bejerot, 1968

Case study Nils Bejerot (see Figure 6), the psychiatrist who conceptualised Stockholm syndrome, never spoke directly to the hostages involved in the 1973 Norrmalmstorg robbery. Despite this, he diagnosed hostage Kristin Enmark with the condition (Adorjan et al., 2012). Enmark rejected the diagnosis, questioning his understanding of her experience.

Ethical considerations also arise as labelling victims of abuse with Stockholm syndrome can pathologise their adaptive coping mechanisms. Critics argue that terms like "Stockholm syndrome", "traumatic bonding," and "learned helplessness" discredit female victims of violence by framing their trauma responses as psychological disorders rather than rational reactions (Bailey et al., 2023). This focus diverts attention from the societal structures, perpetuating gender violence and silencing victims who speak out about negative institutional responses. Suggesting that a victim's behaviours are irrational undermines their agency, ignoring actions that are often rational survival strategies in dire situations (Mouafo & Lontio, 2024).

Alternative explanations

Battered Person Syndrome - Occurs in victims of prolonged domestic violence, leading them to rationalise, accept or believe they deserve their abuse, similar to the emotional attachment seen in Stockholm syndrome (Demarest, 2009). This reinforces their bond with the abuser, making it difficult to leave. The syndrome narrows the focus of trauma bonding to intimate partner violence, where cycles of abuse foster dependency and reshape perceptions of harm and care (Shaughnessy et al., 2023).

Lima Syndrome - A reverse of Stockholm syndrome, where captors develop empathy and positive feelings toward their hostages, sometimes leading to more humane treatment or even release. This shift in emotional dynamics challenges the idea that only victims form emotional bonds, suggesting captors can also experience psychological shifts during captivity (Adorjan et al., 2012).

Quiz Which of the following is the most common challenge in researching Stockholm syndrome? Difficulty in getting ethical approval for studies from research boards Ethical concerns about studying individuals who have the syndrome Lack of funding for studies Difficulty in finding a large enough population of individuals who have experienced the syndrome

Conclusion

Stockholm syndrome challenges conventional understandings of human behaviour under extreme coercion and abuse. Driven by survival instincts, trauma bonding, and social and environmental factors, victims may form emotional attachments to their abusers as a form of psychological self-preservation. Theories like psychoanalytic, cognitive dissonance, polyvagal, and attachment theory provide a framework for understanding the motivations behind this response. Despite controversies around its classification and diagnosis, Stockholm syndrome highlights the capacity of the human mind to adapt to traumatic circumstances, revealing both resilience and vulnerability in the survival process. Understanding these dynamics fosters more ethical support for victims, shaping social responses that respect their lived experiences. By recognising the interplay of fear, power, and psychological adaptation, society can approach these situations with greater compassion and informed judgment.

See also

• Attachment theory (Book chapter, 2024)
• Cognitive behaviour therapy for emotional abuse (Book chapter, 2021)
• Domestic violence motivation (Book chapter, 2021)
• Post-traumatic stress disorder and emotion (Book chapter, 2024)
• Stockholm syndrome (Wikipedia)
• Traumatic bonding (Wikipedia)

References

Adorjan, M., Christensen, T., Kelly, B., & Pawluch, D. (2012). Stockholm syndrome as vernacular resource. The Sociological Quarterly, 53(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01241.x

Ahmad, A., Aziz, M., Anjum, G., & Mir, F.V. (2018). Intimate Partner Violence and Psychological Distress: Mediating Role of Stockholm Syndrome. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 33(2), 541-557. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329643210_Intimate_Partner_Violence_and_Psychological_Distress_Mediating_Role_of_Stockholm_Syndrome

Bailey, R., Dugard, J., Smith, S. F., & Porges, S. W. (2023). Appeasement: replacing Stockholm syndrome as a definition of a survival strategy. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2022.2161038

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Cantor, C., & Price, J. (2007). Traumatic Entrapment, Appeasement and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Evolutionary perspectives of hostage reactions, Domestic abuse and the Stockholm Syndrome. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41(5), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701261178

Demarest, R. A. (2009). The relationship between Stockholm syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder in battered women. Inquiries Journal, 1(11). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/35/the-relationship-between-stockholm-syndrome-and-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-in-battered-women

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97948-000

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. W. W. Norton & Company.

Kackar, A., & Juneja, A. (2022). Psychology in pathology: Stockholm syndrome. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 9(4). https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2204130.pdf

Mouafo, A., & Lontio, S. (2024). Stockholm syndrome and gender-related ideologies and attitudes: A psychometric assessment. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 13(3), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20241303.11

Namnyak, M., Tufton, N., Szekely, R., Toal, M., Worboys, S., & Sampson, E. L. (2007). “Stockholm syndrome”: psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01112.x

Olff, M. (2012). Bonding after trauma: on the role of social support and the oxytocin system in traumatic stress. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.18597

Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A Polyvagal Theory. Psychophysiology, 32(4), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb01213.x

Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23(1), 407-412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.me.23.020172.002203

Shaughnessy, E. V., Simons, R. M., Simons, J. S., & Freeman, H. (2023). Risk factors for traumatic bonding and associations with PTSD symptoms: A moderated mediation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 144, 106390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.10639

External links

• Natascha Kampusch - 3.096 days (Youtube)
• People v. Hooker (1988) (FindLaw)
• Rethinking Stockholm syndrome (Youtube)
• Susceptibility and the Stockholm syndrome (University of Central Florida)