Psychiatrists have not defined Stockholm syndrome as a mental disorder
For more than 50 years, the term "Stockholm syndrome" has been used to describe situations where a victim of kidnapping, hostage-taking, or prolonged violence begins to feel positive about the person who threatens her. However, psychiatrists have never recognized this condition as an independent mental disorder. There is no such diagnosis in international classifications, and there are very few scientific studies confirming the existence of a single syndrome.
At the same time, the behavior that is commonly associated with Stockholm syndrome is indeed observed in situations of extreme danger. Why this term appeared after a bank robbery in Sweden, what actually happens to the human psyche during the seizure and why experts suggest abandoning the concept — in the material of Izvestia.
Six days in a bank vault: how the Stockholm syndrome appeared
The history of Stockholm syndrome began on August 23, 1973. On this day, former prisoner Jan-Erik Olsson broke into the Kreditbanken bank on Norrmalmstorg Square in central Stockholm and took four employees hostage — three women and a man. He demanded 3 million Swedish kronor (27.2 million rubles at the current exchange rate), a car to escape and release Clark Olofsson from prison, who was subsequently taken to the bank.
The hostages spent six days in the vault. During this time, a relationship was formed between them and the criminals, which later seemed unusual to the public: the prisoners showed confidence in the invaders, were afraid of police actions, and after their release did not demonstrate the expected hostility towards the criminals.
The situation was monitored by psychiatrist Nils Beyerut, who advised the police. He called what was happening the Norrmalmstorg syndrome, after the name of the square where the bank was located. Later, the expression "Stockholm syndrome" became established outside of Sweden.
At the same time, the term did not arise as a result of a full-fledged clinical study: Beyerut did not conduct systematic psychiatric interviews with hostages. The name appeared as a description of people's reactions during a particular crisis, and only then began to be perceived as a designation of a separate psychological state.
This is where the main paradox of this story begins: one of the most famous terms about the human psyche arose from a single high-profile case, but later began to be used as if there was a large amount of scientific evidence behind it.
Why is Stockholm syndrome not on the list of mental disorders?
Despite the popularity of the term, it has never been included in the main international classifications of mental illness. It is not found either in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is used by psychiatrists in the United States and many other countries, or in the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization. He also lacks generally accepted diagnostic criteria: a doctor cannot determine such a condition based on an established set of symptoms.
As Medical Xpress magazine notes, the scientific basis of the phenomenon turned out to be much weaker than its reputation. In a 2007 systematic review of the journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, researchers searched for publications about Stockholm syndrome in several large medical and psychological databases. Only 12 papers were included in the final analysis. Most of them were descriptions of individual cases, rather than large-scale studies.
In addition, the authors used the term itself in different ways. In some works, it was about positive feelings towards the invader, in others — about the willingness to protect him or cooperate with him. Due to this heterogeneity, the researchers were unable to identify the universal signs of the syndrome and confirm that it was a separate mental disorder.
Therefore, the lack of a diagnosis is not due to the fact that experts deny the unusual reactions of the victims. On the contrary, such reactions are described. The question is whether it is necessary to combine them under the name of one syndrome, if there is not enough scientific evidence for this yet.
The victim may not "fall in love", but try to survive.
The most important part of modern psychological interpretation is that hostage behavior is not necessarily a manifestation of irrational attachment. In the face of an immediate threat, a person can look for ways to make the situation at least a little safer.
The abductor controls the victim's movement, access to food and water, the ability to sleep, receive medical care, and ultimately her life. Therefore, even a small reduction in the threat becomes of great importance: if the criminal gives water, allows him to rest, stops shouting or refuses threats for a while, this can be perceived as a manifestation of goodwill, although objectively the person is still in captivity.
Trying to please the aggressor or not provoke him in such circumstances can be a survival strategy. If calm conversation reduces the likelihood of violence, the victim may consciously support it. If meeting the requirements reduces the risk of punishment, the person will obey. This does not necessarily mean trust or emotional attachment.
Keith Ablow, psychiatrist and Fox News columnist
Stockholm syndrome occurs when a person is held captive by powerful kidnappers. They ally with their captors because they are afraid of death, and one of the defense mechanisms is that the person being held hostage imagines that his captor is on his side.
The researchers also point out that professional police negotiators use similar methods. During hostage-taking, they try to establish contact with the perpetrator, speak calmly and build trust. Their task is not to justify the invader, but to achieve cooperation and reduce the likelihood of violence.
A hostage can do the same thing on his own in certain circumstances. The only difference is that for a negotiator it is a professional tool, while for a prisoner it is a forced attempt to influence the person on whom his safety depends. Therefore, the victim's behavior, which seems contradictory from the outside, may have a completely understandable logic inside the situation: if the aggressor manages to remain calm, the likelihood of harm may decrease.
Why the word "syndrome" can harm the victims themselves
Another problem is that the term is able to shift attention from the actions of the perpetrator to the behavior of the victim. If a person is called a sufferer of Stockholm syndrome, there is a feeling that the main mystery is his attachment to the aggressor. But the person at this moment is in a situation of coercion and is trying to adapt to it.
Reactions to extreme events can vary greatly: one person resists, another closes in, the third tries to calm the criminal, the fourth establishes contact with him. None of these reactions by themselves indicates the presence of a mental disorder.
This is especially important after release. It may be difficult for the victim to explain to others why she behaved in a certain way during the capture. If society believes that the "real" victim must necessarily hate the perpetrator, any expressions of sympathy, fear for him or unwillingness to harm him begin to be perceived as something pathological. As a result, a person may face not only the consequences of the violence itself, but also the need to prove that his reaction was "correct."
That is why researchers suggest describing specific behavior rather than automatically labeling it as "Stockholm syndrome." For example, we can talk about compliant or appeasing behavior — an attempt to calm the aggressor and reduce the likelihood of further violence.
This is how the specialist's question itself changes. Instead of "why did the victim become attached to the perpetrator?" he may ask, "what function did this behavior serve in a particular situation?" If it helped to avoid beatings, get water or medical help, or just get through another day, it can no longer be automatically called irrational.
What can really happen after capture
The absence of Stockholm syndrome in medical classifications does not mean that hostage-taking does not leave serious psychological consequences. On the contrary, a life-threatening experience can become a traumatic event, after which a person needs professional help. After an extreme experience, post-traumatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and other mental disorders may occur. Unlike Stockholm syndrome, such conditions are well studied and have certain diagnostic criteria.
At the same time, the reaction during capture and the state after release can be completely different. A person is able to behave as calmly as possible at the moment of danger in order to save his life, and after the threat disappears, to face the consequences of what he has experienced.
Keith Ablow, commenting on the story of 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard, who was held captive for 18 years
An 11-year-old girl abducted and held against her will has little choice but to get closer to her captors. To sustain despair, grief, and rage for years would be too destructive for the human mind, so the human mind tells itself a story of safety and contentment in order to protect itself — this is the essence of Stockholm syndrome.
Therefore, it is important for specialists to assess the human condition as a whole, rather than trying to explain any unusual reaction by one universal mechanism. There may be completely different reasons behind the same outward behavior. This is especially important because the very idea of Stockholm syndrome presupposes the existence of a typical reaction to capture — as if in certain circumstances a person must necessarily become emotionally close to the aggressor. Scientific evidence does not support this conclusion.
How one Case Turned into a worldwide psychological Myth
It turns out to be an unusual situation: the term, which was born after a specific six-day hostage-taking in Stockholm, turned out to be so successful for popular culture that it survived its own scientific test. Today, Stockholm syndrome is familiar to almost everyone, although there has never been an official diagnosis with this name.
The popularity of the concept was helped by its simple explanation: the victim allegedly begins to feel sympathy for his tormentor because of the peculiarities of the psyche. This formula works well in books, movies, and journalism, but the actual behavior of people under threat is much more complex. The modern approach suggests looking at it as a possible set of defensive reactions. Their purpose may be to try to reduce the threat, establish at least minimal control over the situation and increase the chances of survival.
And this is the main paradox of Stockholm syndrome: what is commonly considered pathological attachment, in some circumstances, may be an attempt by a person to adapt to a situation in which his life depends on the behavior of another.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
