For my Criminology course under the instruction of the wonderful Alexis Aronowitz in Spring 2008, I wrote an essay on the Stockholm Syndrome, reviewing the peculiar behaviors of people that had been taken hostage, and were showing affection towards their captors. I was very drawn to the subject, as I had read “Ik was twaalf en fietste naar school” by Sabine Dardenne, who was captured and taken hostage for 80 days in the dark basement of Marc Dutroux, and who, during her rescue, asked whether her capturer would be okay. For both the essay and the presentation on the so-called Stockholm Syndrome I received A+’s and recently a version was published in the Lustrum edition of UC’s academic magazine Eidos.
As is stated on University College’s website, “Eidos is the academic magazine of UCU. It reflects the academic diversity of students by presenting papers written for courses in all departments. Papers published in Eidos are selected by a six-member Editorial Board on account of their originality, academic profundity and relevance to readers other than students of a particular discipline; Eidos brings together those essays that excel in resembling the perfect essay. The magazine also includes a photo project that sheds new light on and complements the papers in the issue. From ancient religious statements via rites of passage to the future of continents and countries, Eidos unites chalk and cheese in the one Form of academic learning.”
So, I’m proud to share my first official academic publication with you!
Otto, I. (2009) Stockholm Syndrome: A remarkable phenomenon occurring in hostage takings. Eidos, 8, 33-39.
__________________________________________________________________
Please, credit appropriately and leave a comment here when referring to my paper.
__________________________________________________________________
You can find the published essay below:
Stockholm Syndrome: A remarkable phenomenon occurring in hostage takings Written by Iris Otto
Introduction
August 23, 1973, is a memorable day in criminological history as Janne Olsson walked into Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden. He had just been released from prison and was still on probation, yet this did not prevent him from starting the famous Normalmstorg robbery by shooting two police officers and taking four employees hostage in a vault. He strapped dynamite to the victims and demanded that his old cellmate Clark Olofsson be brought in to accompany him. The authorities granted this request; however, they did not allow the two hostage takers to leave the bank with the hostages. This led to a six-day siege with the police making several attempts to rescue the hostages, which was eventually accomplished through a gas attack. Janne Olsson received a ten-year sentence, but Clark Olofsson was exonerated after he claimed that he had not helped Olsson, but, on the contrary, had tried to save the hostages by keeping the situation under control.
The stunning observation after the rescue was that the hostages showed more sympathy for their captors than for the police. They publicly condemned their own rescue and set up a fund to pay for the trial of their captors. The former hostages continue to claim that they had been frightened and that due to police action their lives were endangered during the hostage taking. Two of them had even become close friends with their captors. The psychologist and criminologist Nils Bejerot, who helped the law enforcement institutions during the negotiations at the time, coined the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ to describe this phenomenon.
Since the Norrmalmstorg robbery, several events have occurred in which similar behavior was observed. The phenomenon caught the interest of several professionals, as well as the attention of the media, of which the latter started to use the term Stockholm Syndrome abundantly. The question arises whether Stockholm Syndrome is a valid psychiatric syndrome or merely a media term used to allow society to understand the behavior of the captive.
This paper will discuss various publications that address this subject, list the characteristics of the syndrome and describe the criteria for it to occur. Additionally, I will compare a number of case studies and look at several criminological theories proposed to describe and explain the phenomenon.
Although Graham’s postulates are generally used, lack of standardization and validation generates considerable ambiguity, leading to bias in studies and contradictory data in literature. Since its occurrence, researchers have broadened the term to the extent that even battered women who show symptoms resulting from domestic violence, or children who have been sexually abused, are labeled with Stockholm Syndrome. This does not contribute to a clear description and analysis of the phenomenon in academic literature. Namnyak also referred to this problem: “The fact that the concept of Stockholm Syndrome has been broadened to describe a variety of situations acts as a limitation, blurring the original meaning of the term which was to specifically describe the positive bond between hostage and captor”.9 I have decided to focus solely on hostage takings and kidnappings, as these fit the original definition most closely.
Description
Definition
The Oxford Dictionary defines Stockholm Syndrome as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage taking by a victim toward a captor”.10 This definition addresses the main characteristics of the phenomenon: a positive bond formed by the victim towards his captor even though there is a threat to life. The FBI formulates the definition slightly more detailed and describes Stockholm Syndrome as “a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein a positive bond between hostage and captor occurs that appears irrational in the light of the frightening ordeal endured by the victims”.1
Characteristics
Several professionals have tried to describe Stockholm Syndrome and determine its features. Although the condition is not defined by compassion alone,1 this element is required. The FBI has established three characteristics apparent in individuals in situations resulting in Stockholm Syndrome:
1. The victim has positive feelings for the captor
2. The victim shows fear, distrust, and anger towards the authorities
3. The captor displays positive feelings towards the victim
The first characteristic often results from the thankfulness of the victim towards the captor for giving life by simply not taking it.1 The second develops from the victim’s feeling that the authorities can only mishandle the situation and are therefore a danger to life. Viewing the authorities as the enemy stimulates a positive bond between victim and captor and thus enforces both the first and third characteristic. Positive feelings from the captor towards the victim are seen as essential for survival of the victim. How this bonding can be encouraged and in what ways it is useful in negotiations is explained later in this paper.
It should be noted that the display of negative feelings towards law enforcement alone is not an indicator of Stockholm Syndrome, because these feelings can arise out of frustration with the pace of the negotiations.4
Requirements
Many law enforcement institutions and psychologists have proposed criteria for Stockholm Syndrome to occur, either based on case studies or on experience in the field. Former FBI special agent S.J. Romano reports from his experience that for Stockholm Syndrome to occur, “the incident must take place between strangers, and the hostage must come to fear and resent law enforcement as much as or more than the perpetrators”.1 However, much disagreement still exists and no diagnostic criteria have been validated.
A study by Namnyak et al. compared the features of several high-profile cases of victims who have been labeled with Stockholm Syndrome. The information that this study provided is listed in Table 1. Not included in this diagram is the behavior of the victim towards law enforcement. However, in many cases, the victim took a pseudo-identity while denying his own identity to the police and later refused to testify in court. One study explained that taking on a pseudo-identity is thought to enable victims to cope better with captivity, as it can psychologically separate the normal world from the captive state.14
Table 1: Overview of common features in five high-profile hostage cases. The top case refers to the four hostages in the Norrmalmstorg robbery in 1973. For all cases, victims could experience several kinds of abuse; either physical, sexual, or psychological. Victims were kept either in complete isolation or were very limited in their freedom. Victims were either psychologically or physically threatened. Positive feelings can range from refusal to testify, to showing concern about the well-being of the captor, to a deep friendship. The information displayed in this table is taken from Namnyak et al., 2008.
The study identified the following similarities:
– All victims were abducted and held hostage by someone previously unknown to them
– All victims were held in close confines and isolated from the outside world
– Almost all victims experienced some form of abuse
– All victims experienced a continuing threat to their survival
– All victims had opportunities to escape but failed to utilize them
– All victims showed sympathy for the captor, both during captivity as well as after rescue
– All victims were relatively young (aged 10 – 30)
The researchers concluded that the victims of these cases had four features in common: experiencing physical/sexual/emotional abuse, being kept in isolation or being physically restrained, having had the opportunity to escape but failed to use it, and showing sympathy for the captor. These findings strongly correlate with the criteria postulated by D. Graham in 1995, with which most law enforcement officers and psychologists nowadays agree. Graham proposed the following criteria:6
1. There exists a perceived threat to survival and a belief that the threat will be carried out
2. The captive perceives some small kindness from the captor
3. The captive experiences isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
4. The captive has a perceived inability to escape
These criteria have become the norm for ‘diagnosis’ with Stockholm Syndrome and they have been widely quoted. The FBI expands on these criteria by stating that the captor is in complete control over the victim, and thus responsible for his basic needs and life itself. In hostage negotiations, this condition can be of advantage. The government can provide food and water during the hostage taking if they get something in return from the captor; in most cases they demand the safe return of a hostage.
Furthermore, the FBI states that the captor routinely keeps information about the outside world from the hostage to keep him totally dependent. This has several implications for the behavior of the hostage. Firstly, the victim is kept in the dark about the reactions of society to what is happening. This can induce feelings of abandonment by law enforcement and family, resulting in the victim seeking identification with the captor. Secondly, mostly in cases of longer duration, the victim is prevented from knowing about the world news and the public search for the victim. This leads to feelings of isolation, and the victim feels he has no choice but to bond with the captor. Thirdly, the only perspective that is available to the victim is that of the captor, meaning that the victim cannot have perspectives of his own anymore since there is no frame of reference other than the situation he is in. The victim gets mentally involved in the captor’s problems and views, and often the victim starts helping to achieve the captor’s goals.5,13 Such behavior ultimately leads to positive bonding between victim and captor. This bonding increases the chances of survival for the victim. In the interest of self-protection, the victim can consciously display behavior enforcing such bonding, but often it is a natural defense mechanism. Namnyak: “It is speculated that this bond develops as part of the victim’s defense mechanism to allow them to sympathize with their captor, leading to an acceptance of the situation, limiting defiance or aggression toward the captor, and thus maintaining survival in an otherwise potentially high-risk scenario”.2,9
However, the belief that a threat to the victim’s life can – and will – be carried out, can have an opposite outcome. On the one hand, when the threat is directed at the law enforcement institutions, the victim understands that this threat is imposed to put pressure on the government to secure a demand and that the threat is nothing personal. When the threat is directed at the victim himself, on the other hand, it is perceived as personal, and the development of positive feelings toward the captor seems highly unlikely, especially when the latter applies force or physical abuse. “The captor threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The victim judges it safer to align with the captor, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder”.1
The notion that the victim sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness1 is the most important factor in the criteria postulated by Graham. According to the FBI, kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm Syndrome, as the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the victim. However, as we have seen, a lack of abuse may be misinterpreted as kindness, leading to the development of feelings of appreciation for this perceived generosity.1
Prevalence
Stockholm Syndrome is a rare phenomenon, notwithstanding the fact that the media have excessively described it. The Hostage Barricade Database System (HOBAS), maintained by the FBI, compiles national statistics on crisis incidents. In 2007, it contained data from over 4,700 reported federal, state and local hostage takings or barricade incidents. According to HOBAS, 73 percent of all victims do not show any signs of Stockholm Syndrome.1
Factors contributing to the development of Stockholm Syndrome
Several studies have suggested factors that are believed to play a role in the development of Stockholm Syndrome. One study states that it is an indicator of severity of the experience, linked to isolation and dehumanization.2 Another study concludes from interviews with victims that the levels of the condition increase with better quality of treatment by captors and that abuse prevents its development.12 These conclusions correspond to the importance of kindness described earlier. Case reviews conducted by Slatkin revealed that length of captivity and quantity of interaction were positively correlated with the development of Stockholm Syndrome.11
An interesting observation is that age appears to be a pivotal factor in the development of Stockholm Syndrome. As can be seen in Table 1, the victims are all relatively young, aged ten to thirty. The study by Namnyak contrasted these cases to hostage takings involving older victims. It appeared that these people did not develop such a bond with their captors.9 Another study posed a suggestion for this observation, namely that young people develop positive feelings toward the adults upon whom they are dependent for protection and provision of basic needs.8 This accords with the statement by the FBI that the captor is in complete control over the victim and therefore responsible for his life.
The psychological process
There are several theories to explain what happens in the mind of the victim enduring a hostage taking. I found three very different approaches that describe the psychological process preceding Stockholm Syndrome and explain its development. I will also touch upon the psychological implications of labeling on the victim.
The ‘stress’ explanation
Stockholm Syndrome is usually seen as an irrational reaction to an extremely stressful situation.5 Stress inhibits the accurate processing of information, meaning that the victim can be rather unaware of what is exactly happening to him. Stress appears to be especially prominent in the first stages of a hostage taking. Theories have suggested that Stockholm Syndrome is an adaptation mechanism or an attempt to identify with the captor in order to reduce stress.5
The ‘script breakdown’ explanation
A syndrome is defined as a combination of symptoms that consistently occur together to form a condition.10 Labeling the development of a positive relationship between victim and captor – as occurs in Stockholm Syndrome – a syndrome, suggests that abnormal psychological processes occur.5 The study by Namnyak identified similarities between the victims of hostage cases, but the question remains whether these are characteristic of a specific abnormality or whether these represent normal behavior under extremely stressful conditions.9 Wilson and Smith argue that the development of a positive bond results from rather normal social processes.16 Society considers it irrational because it deviates from expected behavior. Giebels explains that expected behavior is captured in scripts: schemes of events that help us to behave appropriately in certain situations.5 Scripts are based on experience, but usually one does not have experience of being a hostage. One might have expectations that do not meet reality. In a hostage situation, the victim often realizes that the captor is not a monster, while at the same time the captor begins to see the victim as a human being of flesh and blood. Wilson and Smith call this process ‘script breakdown’ and state that it eventually leads to normalized social processes,16 suggesting that the development of positive feelings is inevitable. This process can only be regarded abnormal when the bonding is not solely a function of survival, as was the case in the Norrmalmstorg robbery.15 Giebels conducted a study in which several hostage victims were interviewed. He concluded that the positive bond that develops between captor and hostage should not be regarded as some sort of “psychological artifact”, because it results from normal social processes as well as instrumental behavior in order to increase one’s survival chances.5
The ‘ego’ explanation
In his structural model of the psyche, Sigmund Freud defined three parts of the so-called psychic apparatus: the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The id is responsible for one’s basic drives and is ruled by the pleasure-pain principle. The super-ego acts as the conscience and opposes the desires of the id. The ego, according to Freud, mediates among the id, the super-ego, and the external world to find a balance between primitive drives and reality.7 Freud described the ego as the “personality core” that is responsible for providing one with defense mechanisms.1 Defense mechanisms are ways to distance oneself from unpleasant thoughts, feelings and desires, as well as to avoid hurt and disorganization.3 According to De Fabrique, Stockholm Syndrome does not result “from a conscious decision or rational choice to befriend the captor”, but instead the ego “seeks a means to achieve survival”.1 The victim is completely dependent on the captor, and in order to survive, he must not hinder him. The helpless victim starts to identify with the captor, and positive feelings are the result.
Labeling
Since psychiatry does not concern itself with absolute values and definitions, comprehensive assessment is needed to attain validated criteria for a psychiatric disorder. As Stockholm Syndrome is a rare phenomenon, it has not yet received such an assessment.9 Although Graham’s postulates are the criteria with which most professionals agree, the media use the term freely and without discipline. As mentioned in the introduction, this leads to considerable ambiguity in research and literature, but it also has other consequences. The media can disseminate unwarranted diagnoses of cases with the syndrome, boosting the public’s interest and understanding of the victim’s behavior. Labeling someone as suffering from a syndrome suggests that something is wrong with them, which may rather damage them psychologically than stimulate their recovery.5
The importance in hostage negotiations
The FBI review by De Fabrique has come up with an interesting application of Stockholm Syndrome. As positive bonding between captor and victim improves the chances of survival, this could become a strategy in solving hostage situations. Nowadays, crisis negotiators have ceased to consider the bonding that occurs in Stockholm Syndrome as detrimental to the safe return of the hostages. Despite the fact that bonding between captor and hostage leads to the victim’s aversion towards law enforcement, meaning that authorities can no longer count upon their cooperation, they encourage the development of Stockholm Syndrome.1 As far as I know, exact protocols have not been established yet, but the main goal of the procedure is the humanization of the hostage. In this ‘reverse’ Stockholm Syndrome, the victim must be displayed as a human being in the mind of the captor, as a way of stimulating the critical third characteristic that is explained earlier. However, this process is a difficult one and should be handled with care, as the captor can identify the tactic and interpret it as a trap, damaging the victim’s survival chances. An attempt to induce positive feelings of the captor towards the victim is to personalize the hostage. Once the captor is reminded of the name of the victim, he might realize that the victim is a person with a life and a family. Hopefully, this realization will discourage him in killing the victim. However, focusing exclusively on the importance of the hostage may cause the captor to feel ignored.1 Therefore, the negotiator should find a balance in addressing the captor and the victim. FBI special agent Romano: “If you want to solve the hostage’s problems, you need to solve the hostage taker’s problems”.1 This is the key for successful negotiations, and inducing Stockholm Syndrome is only one approach to peacefully resolve to crisis for all involved.
Discussion
Stockholm Syndrome derives its name from the famous Norrmalmstorg robbery in Stockholm in 1973. The psychologist Nils Bejerot had coined the term to explain the irrational behavior of the four hostages in this case: positive feelings towards the hostage takers. In several other cases similar behavior was observed, and the victims were labeled by the media as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Several theories have been proposed to explain the condition, as well as factors and criteria. The postulates of Graham – including a perceived inability to escape, isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor, a perceived threat to their survival and a belief that the threat will be carried out, and perceived kindness from the captor – have been widely accepted.
Psychological explanations for the development of the disorder include the reduction of stress, the breakdown of scripts and the activation of a defense mechanism by the ego. A psychological implication after rescue can be the labeling of the victim by the media as having a syndrome, meaning something is wrong with them. On the other hand, induction of Stockholm Syndrome could be a useful approach in hostage negotiations.
The main question addressed in this paper was whether Stockholm Syndrome is purely a fabrication by the media to aid society in understanding the behavior of hostage victims, or whether the phenomenon truly is a valid psychiatric syndrome. This question cannot be easily answered. At this point, the prevailing notion is that Stockholm Syndrome is a media construct is prevailing.
On the one hand, the media picked up the term after Nils Bejerot had coined it to explain the behavior of the hostages of the Norrmalmstorg robbery and since then several high-profile cases have been labeled with Stockholm Syndrome. Usage of the term definitely boosts media attention, but it “has been overemphasized, overanalyzed, overpsychologized, and overpublicized. Situations where Stockholm Syndrome actually occurs remain exceptions to the rule.”4 However, the media freely use the term. Labeling does make the victim’s story more accessible to the public and can allow them to understand the victim’s behavior. As Namnyak states, “the mystery of the origins of psychiatric illness holds society with fascination”9 and is likely to boost sales as well. On the other hand, there are many similarities in behavior and circumstances of the victims of several hostage or kidnap cases. Also, Graham has postulated criteria for Stockholm Syndrome to occur and these are widely adopted by law enforcement institutions and criminologists. However, these criteria have not yet been validated and therefore Stockholm Syndrome is not a verified psychiatric disorder. This is also emphasized by the fact that Stockholm Syndrome is not included in the DSM-IV and is not a recognized Medical Subject Heading.9
There is no straight answer to the question whether Stockholm Syndrome is a media construct or a psychiatric disorder. The phenomenon does have the characteristics of a syndrome, but no criteria have been validated, leaving ample scope for the media to use it to retain the public’s interest.
References
1 De Fabrique, N., Romano, S.J., Vecchi, G.M., van Hasselt, V.B. (2007). Understanding Stockholm Syndrome. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 76.
2 Favaro, A., Degortes, D., Colombo, G., et al. (2000). The effects of trauma among kidnap victims in Sardinia, Italy. Psychological Medicine, 30, 975-980.
3 Freud, S. (1960). The Ego and the Id: The Standard Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
4 Fuselier, G.D. (1999). Placing the Stockholm Syndrome in Perspective. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 22-25.
5 Giebels, E., Noelanders, S., Vervaeke, G. (2005). The Hostage Experience: Implications for Negotiation Strategies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 241-253.
6 Graham, D.L., Rawlings, E.I., Ihms, K. (1995). A Scale for Identifying ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ reactions in young dating women: factor structure, reliability and validity. Violence and Victims, 10, 3-22.
7 Gray, P. (2007). Psychology. 5th edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
8 Julich, S. (2005). ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14, 107-129.
9 Namnyak, M., Tufton, N., Szekely, R., Toal, M., Worboys, S., Sampson, E.L. (2008). ‘Stockholm Syndrome’: psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117, 4-11.
10 Oxford Dictionary. (2005). Version 1.0.2. Copyright by Apple Computer, Inc.
11 Slatkin, A.A. (1998). The ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and situational factors related to its development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3970-B.
12 Solomon, V.M. (1982). Hostage psychology and the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’: captive, captor and captivity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1269.
13 Tinklenberg, J. (1982). Coping with terrorist victimization. In F.M. Ochberg & D.A. Soskis (Eds), Victims of terrorism (pp. 59-71). Boulder, CO: Westview.
14 West, L.J., Martin, P.R. (1996). Pseudo-identity and the treatment of personality change in victims of captivity and cults. Cultic Studies Journal, 13, 125-152.
15 Wieckzorek, A. (2003). Das so genannte Stockholm-Syndrom. Kriminalpsychology, 7, 429-436.
16 Wilson M. & Smith, A. (1999). Rules and roles in terrorist hostage taking. In D. Canter & L. Alison, The social psychology of crime: Groups, teams and networks (pp. 55-76). Ashgate: Aldershot.
Please, credit appropriately and leave a comment here when referring to my paper.
Pingback: Verlinkenswertes (KW 52/09) | Criminologia
Pingback: On being (back) on UCU « road.to.life