S - Stockholm syndrome

Recognizable questions

- Why can someone develop positive feelings for the person they depend on or who threatens them?

- Is Stockholm syndrome an official psychiatric diagnosis?

- Does loyalty to someone who behaves harmfully automatically mean someone has Stockholm syndrome?

- Why do people sometimes defend someone they are also afraid of?

- Can you use the term for partner relationships, families, or religious groups?

- Which concepts are sometimes more accurate than Stockholm syndrome?

- Why is it important to describe concrete behavior and dependence instead of quickly slapping on a label?

What is Stockholm syndrome?

Stockholm syndrome is a well-known but scientifically disputed term for situations in which someone in a position of threat or strong dependence develops positive feelings, loyalty, or sympathy toward the person exerting control.
The term is mainly associated with hostage-taking and kidnapping.
It is not a separate psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM or ICD, and there are no generally accepted diagnostic criteria.

threat or
strong dependence
        ↓
victim is partly dependent on
the same person for
safety
        ↓
possible:
loyalty
sympathy
protection
or attachment

That pattern can occur, but that does not yet mean there is one clearly defined psychological ‘syndrome’.

Where does the term come from?

The name arose after a bank robbery and hostage situation in Stockholm in 1973. Some hostages seemed afterward to show more sympathy for their captors than outsiders expected and were critical of the authorities’ actions.
From that, the concept Stockholm syndrome later emerged.
The term became very well known in the media, films, and pop psychology. Scientifically, the picture is much less clear. Researchers have pointed out that the original event does not by itself prove that a separate syndrome exists.

Is it an official diagnosis?

No.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

well-known popular term
        ↓
not a separate
DSM diagnosis
        ↓
no universally
accepted criteria

That does not mean the reactions described are impossible. People can develop complex feelings toward someone they depend on in threatening circumstances.
It does mean caution is needed with statements such as:
‘This person has Stockholm syndrome.’

Why can someone have positive feelings for someone who is also threatening?

People in extreme dependence are not only trying to survive physically. They are also constantly trying to understand:
What keeps me safe? What increases my chances? How predictable is this person?
When the person causing the threat also gives food, offers protection, speaks kindly, or temporarily reduces the threat, that can become psychologically very significant.

threat
   ↓
great dependence
   ↓
small sign of
kindness or safety
   ↓
strong relief
   ↓
positive meaning
may increase

That does not have to be a conscious strategy. It can also arise from ordinary human processes such as dependence, stress, attachment, meaning-making, and the search for predictability.

A kind moment can feel much bigger under threat

A glass of water is normally just a glass of water.
When someone is completely dependent on the person who determines whether they get food, rest, or safety, the same gesture can be experienced very differently.

NORMAL SITUATION

kind gesture
= pleasant


EXTREME DEPENDENCE

kind gesture
= possible sign
of safety

That is why you cannot always judge behavior in an extreme power imbalance as if both people were completely free and equal.

But is this really one syndrome?

That is exactly where the scientific criticism lies.
There is no convincing evidence that all people who show such reactions have the same psychological mechanism.
In the same circumstances, one person may feel attached, another may become angry, a third may mainly comply to stay safe, and a fourth may have mixed feelings.

the same threatening situation

        ↓

not everyone
reacts the same way

That is why researchers prefer to speak cautiously about coping responses, dependence, power, threat, and behavior rather than automatically about one syndrome.

Complying is not the same as sympathy

An important distinction:
Someone can act friendly toward a threatening person because that seems like the safest strategy.
That does not necessarily mean:
‘I truly think this person is good.’

friendly behavior
        ≠
free sympathy

cooperating
        ≠
agreeing

not running away
        ≠
wanting to stay

In situations involving threats, conclusions should therefore be drawn carefully when they are based solely on observable behavior.

Why does someone sometimes defend the other person?

There can be different reasons for that.
For example, someone may genuinely see positive qualities in the other person. They may also fear escalation, feel dependent, distrust outsiders, or believe that no one truly understands the situation.
In addition, conflicting feelings can exist side by side:

‘I’m afraid of him’

        and

‘He has also been kind
to me’

        and

‘I don’t want
others to hurt him’

Human relationships do not have to make complete psychological sense or feel entirely straightforward.

Is Stockholm syndrome the same as trauma bonding?

No.
The terms are often used interchangeably, but they come from different contexts.
Traumatic bonding is used for strong emotional ties that can develop in relationships where abuse, power imbalance, and alternating periods of negative and positive treatment occur.
Trauma bonding is also not a separate psychiatric diagnosis, but there is research into attachment and dependency within abusive relationships.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

historically mainly:
hostage-taking / kidnapping


TRAUMATIC BONDING

studied mainly in:
abusive or
misusing relationships

So one concept should not automatically be used for the other.

And coercive control?

Coercive control refers to a pattern in which someone limits another person’s autonomy through, for example, intimidation, isolation, threats, surveillance, financial control, or rules.
That concept describes mainly behavior and power relationships, rather than assuming what is psychologically going on in the victim’s mind.
For that reason, it can be more precise in some situations.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

label for an
assumed reaction


COERCIVE CONTROL

description of
concrete patterns
of power and control

Here too, the rule is: first examine what is actually happening before applying a label.

Is the term suitable for religious groups?

Usually not as a general description.
It would be too simplistic to say:
‘Jehovah’s Witnesses remain loyal to their community because they have Stockholm syndrome.’
That label explains far too little.
People can be connected to a religious community for all kinds of reasons:

• sincere religious belief;

• family and friendships;

• identity;

• meaning and purpose;

• habits;

• hope;

• social connectedness;

• belief that the community represents God’s will.
  Loyalty to a group is not, in itself, proof of psychopathology.

Why can such a label even be misleading?

When you immediately call a complex religious or social situation Stockholm syndrome, a conclusion may be built in from the start:

‘He remains loyal’
        ↓
‘so he is psychologically
bound to his oppressor’

But perhaps that person says:
‘I truly believe this.’
That deserves serious investigation rather than automatic reinterpretation.
Psychology can examine how social influence, identity, dependency, and group loyalty work, but without evidence it cannot determine that someone’s faith is merely the result of a syndrome.

Which concepts may fit religious groups better?

Depending on exactly what you want to examine, more specific concepts are often available.

Why do I feel
connected to the group?
→ social identity

Why do I remain loyal?
→ group loyalty

Why is leaving difficult?
→ dependency
   social consequences
   loss

Why do I adjust my
behavior?
→ social influence

Why do I experience
little freedom of choice?
→ power, dependency
   or coercive control
   if that is actually at play

By naming the specific mechanism, the analysis becomes more accurate and neutral.

The same applies to former members

Restraint is important with former members as well.
Someone may later say:
‘Now I understand my former loyalty as Stockholm syndrome.’
That can be a personal way of describing an experience, but it still does not make the term a scientific diagnosis.
Another former member may describe the same period instead as:
‘I sincerely believed it at the time.’
Both personal experiences deserve space.

First describe what is really happening

Instead of:
‘This is Stockholm syndrome.’
you can ask:

Is there a threat?

Is there dependency?

Can someone leave?

What happens
when there is resistance?

Is there violence?

Is there isolation?

What real
freedom of choice exists?

This makes it visible what is actually going on without immediately using a controversial diagnostic-type label.

When can professional assessment be important?

In cases of actual hostage-taking, violence, abuse, stalking, serious threats, or coercive control, a popular psychological term is less important than safety and professional assessment.
The priority then is not:
‘What syndrome is this?’
but:
‘How safe is this person, and what help is needed?’

Questions to think about

• What concrete form of threat, power, or dependency is present?

• Is there really violence, hostage-taking, or a serious restriction of freedom?

• Am I perhaps interpreting visible cooperation too quickly as voluntary loyalty?

• Can someone be both afraid and emotionally attached at the same time?

• Am I using a label when I could actually describe concrete behavior?

• Would a concept like social identity, group loyalty, dependency, or coercive control fit better?

• What changes in my understanding when I first ask how the person themselves experiences their situation?

Summary

Stockholm syndrome is a well-known term for situations in which someone seems to develop positive feelings or loyalty toward someone who is simultaneously exerting threat or strong control.
Scientifically, however, the concept is controversial.

well-known term
      ↓
no official diagnosis
      ↓
no fixed criteria
      ↓
no evidence for
one universal syndrome

Complex behavior under threat can arise through various processes: dependency, stress, coping, attachment, seeking safety, and power relations.
For religious communities, it is therefore usually too simplistic to simply call loyalty Stockholm syndrome.
A better question is:
What is actually happening — what dependency, threat, connectedness, and freedom of choice are truly present?

Sources and further reading

Mohammed Namnyak et al. – ‘Stockholm Syndrome’: Psychiatric Diagnosis or Urban Myth?, 2008. A critical academic discussion of the history, definitions, and limited empirical basis of Stockholm syndrome.
Dee L. R. Graham et al. – A Scale for Identifying “Stockholm Syndrome” Reactions in Young Dating Women: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity, 1995. Research into reactions associated with the concept, especially within dependent relationships.
Donald G. Dutton & Susan Painter – Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory, 1993. Research into strong emotional bonds within abusive relationships and the role of power imbalance and alternating treatment.
Evan Stark – Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life, 2007. An influential work on patterns of control, dependency, and restriction of autonomy within intimate relationships.
Henri Tajfel & John Turner – An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict, 1979. A foundation of social identity theory and relevant for understanding loyalty and connectedness with groups without automatically treating them as psychopathology.

Also read

Group loyalty – Why connectedness to a group sometimes persists despite doubt or criticism.
Social identity – How a group can become part of the image someone has of themselves.
Group identity – Why the feeling of ‘we’ can be so psychologically powerful.
Social influence – How other people influence our beliefs, feelings, and choices.
BITE model – An analytical framework for influence on behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions.
Attachment – How human connectedness and dependency arise and change.
Safety – Why threat and dependency can influence behavior and choices.