Stockholm Syndrome: Why Victims Attach to their Captors

When people are placed in a situation where they feel a loss of control for their own fate, have been abused, or generally begin to believe that their abductor or tormentor has all of the power. This often leads to them becoming sympathetic to that very person. This is a very delicate situation that is known as Stockholm syndrome. Even months after their abduction or abuse, victims display allegiance to their abusers and/or captors. This paper will not only provide an overview of this disorder, but will explore the causation and describe well-known instances where this syndrome has been publicized.

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological disorder that describes the behavior of kidnap or abuse victims who, after a certain period of time, become sympathetic to them. It occurs in the most psychologically traumatic situations, often hostage situations or kidnappings, and its effect usually do not end when the crisis ends. In most classic cases, victims continue to defend and care about their captors even after they escape captivity. Symptoms of Stockholm syndrome have been identified as being similar to the battered-spouse cases, cults, and slave/master relationships. This disorder was first coined in the early 1970’s to describe the odd behavior four bank employees had for their captors in Stockholm, Sweden. In this situation two robbers seized four bank personnel hostage for approximately 5 days. During this time period, the sufferers shared a bank vault and developed a familiarity with their imprisoners. In fact, they became emotionally attached and even went so far as to defend them after the ordeal was over. Today, people tend to categorize Stockholm syndrome as a type of psychological reaction of a captive or a person in a comparable situation where the governing person has the authority to place the victim’s life in jeopardy. Offenders intermittently use this benefit to get their victims to submit to their demands.
The exact reasoning behind this disorder is very complex. Throughout the years, renowned criminologists and psychiatrists have discovered varying factors. These factors are thought to be the origins of Stockholm syndrome. This specific condition theoretically appears when: a) captives feel that their abductor is doing them a favor by not killing them. This instantaneously allows them to see their kidnappers in a more positive light; b) the abducted persons are handled in a very compassionate way by their jailers. When kidnappers give their victims a decent living situation, the captives then start to see them in a more favorable light. Typically, captors are projected to treat their hostages quite severely. However, harsh conduct produces hatred. A gentler method ensures that the opposite effect will occur; c) the imprisoned individuals are secluded from society. This permits them see things from the standpoint of their abductors. They then start to comprehend the conditions that often have compelled the abductors to execute the crime to begin with. Consequently, the captives will attempt to assist their captor and develop sympathetic feelings toward them and their reasons for committing the crime that holds them hostage; d) the victims start to cultivate an emotional and/or physical connection with their captors. Cohabitating for several days will often affect the closeness of even two very different personalities. Oftentimes, they will begin to share their mutual interests; e) those who are kidnapped begin to cultivate the practice of satisfying their abductors. Initially, this ritual is essential to their survival. The victims are compelled to take the side of kidnappers in the hopes of being able to escape severe punishment or even death. However, at the point that it develops into a pattern, it will often continue on even after the situation that caused it is over; and/or f) those captured begin to become dependent on their kidnappers. This normally transpires when the kidnappers do not have any nearby family that they want get back to. If the kidnapper has killed these relations, then the captive will feel powerless and realize that they need the kidnapper for their food and shelter.

Similar to other psychological disorders, Stockholm syndrome has indicators or symptoms. A few of the more recognized indicators of Stockholm syndrome are the displaying of respect for the captors and struggling against any rescue efforts. Additionally, persons suffering from this syndrome are inclined to protect their abductors and do the most that they can to appease them. Some of the other customary features of Stockholm syndrome are a rejection to testify against their kidnappers along with the refusal to get away from their captors. Frequently the hostages will display anger, distrust, and fear toward the authority figures such as police officials. On the other hand, the offenders often show affirmative emotions toward their hostages as they start to view them as actual people.

Based on the FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System, comprises the data relating to more than 4,700 reported local, state, and federal hostage occurrences, 73 percent of the hostages display no indication of Stockholm syndrome. Furthermore, while captives can show adverse emotions toward police officials (often due to the frustration sustained by the length of time negotiations take), many do not cultivate this condition. One of this systems author’s, a previous FBI professional, specified that in his profession, with over 30 years in the field, he seldom observed behavior that indicated that Stockholm syndrome would become a recognized disorder. He stated, “I’ve seen the reluctance on the part of some hostages who refuse to come out without the hostage taker less than a handful of times.” His reasoning relies on the estimate that almost 96 percent of captive circumstances in the America are domestic; comprised of people with a subsisting affiliation; and involve attempted suicide, domestic violence, and suicide. He alleges that in order for Stockholm syndrome to transpire, the event has to happen amongst strangers, and the victim has to begin to fear and dislike officers of the law a considerable amount or even more than their assailants.

Completely understanding Stockholm syndrome necessitates a comprehension of the actual progression that forecasts its development. It is important to note that this disorder does not ensue from a cognizant choice or a sensible decision to befriend a kidnapper. Looking at it from a psychological viewpoint, the ego, defined by Sigmund Freud as the “personality core,” is accountable for a person’s defense mechanisms (methods used for victims to shield or disassociate themselves from while continuing to be knowingly ignorant of hostile feelings, desires, and thoughts) while also helping the victims to evade pain and incompetence. In these types of hostage instances, the healthy ego looks for a way to survive. In several of the circumstances where Stockholm syndrome has happened, the victim is placed in a position where the abductor has exposed virtually every type of independence they had and secured jurisdiction of the captive’s life, along with their basic survival requirements. Several experts believe that the victim will often revert to, conceivably, a state of infancy; the hostage has to show distress by crying for sustenance, exist in an unhealthy state of dependence, and remain quiet. Contrastingly, the kidnapper may begin to take on the role of a mother figure (shielding her children from a dangerous world, to include that of the lethal weapons that the police utilize. At this point, the hostage may start to fight for their survival, while congruently depending on and relating to their kidnapper. It is likely that the victims’ desire to live overshadows their instinct to hate those that initially generated their predicament.

Crisis negotiators do not consider the attachment that happens amongst the kidnapper and those that have been kidnapped to be vital within criminal cases of Stockholm syndrome. They support its progression simply because it increases the odds of the captives’ life, regardless of the reality that this sometimes alleviates law enforcement of the ability to count on the aid of hostages regarding their freedom or later in indicting the abductors. Therefore, those functioning as crisis negotiators have to recognize how the disorder develops, along with ways to stimulate the psychological progression, consequently expanding the probability of a positive conclusion. Understanding how Stockholm syndrome progresses require a comprehension of the mentality of the hostage. Captives have to focus on living through the situation, which necessitates the evasion of straightforward, truthful responses to negative handling. They have to develop exceedingly attuned to the desires and disapproving responses of their abductors. Therefore, captives become more worried about the captors feelings than their own. Victims are urged to cultivate psychological qualities that are attractive to their kidnappers, such as an incapability to decide, think, or act; absence of creativity; and dependence. The victim aggressively formulates tactics for staying alive, including embracing the kidnapper’s viewpoint; trepidation toward any intrusion by law enforcement; consideration of the perpetrator’s desires; affection (and terror) of the captor; and denial. Captives are devastatingly appreciative to their kidnapper’s for allowing them to live and tend to concentrate on the captors acts of humanity, rather than on their cruelty.

There have been several occurrences where Stockholm syndrome was located in kidnapped people. Here are a few of the more popular cases where indicators of Stockholm syndrome had been noticeably detectable. The first is that of heiress Patty Hearst, kidnapped in 1974 by a political group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. Patty was secured in a closet and brutally abused for long periods of time. After her release she became a member of the SLA, altered her name, got engaged to another member of the outfit, and was eventually caught committing a bank robbery with the group. Yet, after being arrested by the police and returned to her family, she overturned her previous positive statements about the SLA. As an alternative of protecting the outfit and considering the police officials to be contemptuous, Patty dissociated herself from the SLA and denounced their actions. Another occurred in 1998. A ten year old girl, Natascha Kampusch, was kidnapped in Austria. She was reunited with her family in 2006 after escaping her careless abductor. Based on Natascha’s personal account, she was secluded for eight years by being secured in a make-shift cell. Regardless of this, she continuously talked about her captor and cast him in a positive light. The year 2002 brought the abduction of Elizabeth Smart. This 14-year-old girl was taken from her bed, but returned to her family after being gone 9 months. After hearing her story, however, police officials were confused. Based on her Ms. Smart’s account, she was not exactly a hostage. In actuality, she went to parties, walked around in public, and even went so far as to decline to disclose her real identity when she was initially accosted by law enforcement. Psychologists have since concluded that she had the ability to escape long before she did and that she would have done so if she had not begun to associate herself with her abductor.

To break it down a bit further, in the most basic, generalized way, the Stockholm syndrome practice, as perceived in a hostage situation, appears somewhat like this: 1) in the midst of an extraordinarily stressful and traumatic occurrence, one may discover themself held hostage by another person threatening to execute them if he/she defies the captor in any way. The person might be abused (sexually, verbally and/or physically) and having problems thinking clearly. According to the kidnapper, freedom is not a choice. Their family could end up dead alongside them. The only option for surviving is to be obedient; 2) as time continues, simple compliance on its own may begin to account for (the abductor is distress just as the hostage is, and any type of alteration in their temperament can signify detrimental penalties to the one held captive. Determining the reasoning behind this change in the captor’s demeanor will allow the captive to escape those triggers and develops into an important survival skill; 3) a small show of humanity by the kidnapper, which may simply be that they have not killed the victim yet, puts the captor in the position of being viewed as the hostage’s protector. In the distressing, dangerous conditions that the hostage finds themself, the smallest deed (or the unexpected lack of violence) presents a indication of friendship in a normally hostile situation and the victim begins to rely heavily on their abductor; 4) the kidnapper gradually appears to be less threatening (more like an method of survival and defense than that of danger). The victim experiences something often called a type of self-delusion. In order to endure physically and psychologically (to diminish the stress of it all) the captive begins to honestly trust that the kidnapper is their friend, and that he/she will not hurt them, in fact they are able to assist one another in an effort to change their predicament." Law officials begin to look less like allies and more like the perpetrators. They plan to hurt those seen as the captive’s protectors even if this same person is the source of the danger they are in. This stems from the victim becoming enveloped in their own self-delusion.

There are a variety of similarities between brainwashing and Stockholm syndrome. In fact, the two are directly associated and considered to be “effects of abnormal power relationships”. In the case of the aforementioned Patty Hearst, experts have eluded to brainwashing and Stockholm syndrome both being possible reasons behind her and brainwashing as potential reasons for her subsequent exploits. Based on her story change after being arrested, it seems more plausible that Patty was not a victim of Stockholm syndrome or brainwashing techniques, but a simply succession of conscious decisions created to safeguard her survival.

While many experts consider encouraging the development of Stockholm syndrome to increase hostage survival difficult, crisis negotiators can attempt to humanize the captive in the mind of the perpetrator, thereby stimulating the emergence of the critical, third characteristic in the hostage taker—positive feelings toward the captive. To this end, determining the number of people involved, as well as their names, is paramount. Another way negotiators can attempt to personalize the hostage is to ask the subject to pass on a personal message to the victim (e.g., “Tell Mark that his children love him very much and will be there to meet him when he comes out.”). This type of dialogue reminds the perpetrator of the hostage’s name and that the victim is a real person with a family. It also inserts a suggestibility statement (“when he comes out”) that implies a peaceful resolution. Trying to initiate Stockholm syndrome in the perpetrator involves a delicate blend of personalizing captives without overhauling them. “Most hostage takers want it to be all about them. If the negotiator asks too many questions about the hostages, he may begin to feel ignored and discounted. If you want to solve the hostage’s problems, you need to solve the hostage taker’s problems.”13 To strike the balance necessary for successful negotiations, asking about the welfare of the captor first, and the captive later, is key. Using those simple strategies may assist in formulating a bond between the victim and perpetrator. That being said, law enforcement personnel must be aware that although they are attempting to maintain the “balancing act” of increasing rapport with the hostage taker and influencing the safety of the hostages, the ultimate goal is to peacefully resolve the crisis for all involved. If achieving that result involves manipulating hostage takers’ belief that the focus remains on them, then negotiators must be willing to understand the rationale behind the maneuver and learn the skills necessary to employ it.

The subject of Stockholm syndrome, fueled, in part, by a number of high-profile cases, has generated a lot of discussion and opinions. Many people find the phenomenon as difficult to understand as it is fascinating. Although, at first, this psychological process may appear complex and uncontrollable, further exploration with those experienced in the area of crisis negotiation revealed that the condition and its effects can serve as a useful tool in successful outcomes. In understanding the basis behind the mental state and behavior of both the hostage taker and the captive, law enforcement agencies can place Stockholm syndrome in the appropriate perspective and see it as a catalyst in improving the training of hostage negotiators and encouraging peaceful resolutions.