Last week I put on a hostage/abduction seminar for my students. This wasn’t a “sensational” seminar that looked at terrorist type situations, such as being a passenger on a hijacked plane, but one that looked at less “spectacular” situations e.g., incidents where an estranged partner who has been denied access rights (by the courts) to their children after the relationship ended, engages in a kidnapping or a “siege” situation; one where they barricade themselves and their ex and children members in their home etc. When the FBI first set up their HNU (Hostage Negotiation Unit), they designed it for dealing with terrorists, and bank robbers whose heist had gone wrong etc. What they soon found out, was that they weren’t dealing with organized individuals and groups who had a clear set of demands (the release of prisoners, a demand for a get-away vehicle etc.), but rather confused and desperate individuals who had somehow concluded that taking a hostage(s) was the only avenue open to them. Oftentimes, they didn’t have specific goals, or understand, if they did, how taking a hostage(s) would help them achieve them. This meant that many hostage situations were the result of some form of frustration, with negotiators having to assist the hostage taker in understanding why they decided to engage in such an action. In this article I want to use the phenomenon of “Stockholm Syndrome” to look at some of the different things that individuals who are taken hostage may experience.

                Perhaps the most notable thing about Stockholm Syndrome, is that it isn’t found in the DSM-5 (The American Psychiatric Association’s, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), or the ICD (the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) i.e., there is no accepted diagnostic criteria concerning it. In fact, there are many in the psychological/psychiatric community who don’t believe Stockholm Syndrome, was/is replicable outside of the incident which resulted in the coining of the term i.e., the 1973, eight-day bank siege in Stockholm, which saw the four hostages, bond and form positive relationships with their captors. There are those that see certain variables in that situation being so specific, that they are unlikely to be replicated in other incidents, meaning that Stockholm Syndrome (coined by criminologist/psychiatrist, Nils Bejerot) can explain what happened in this particular incident but not in others i.e., it is unscientific. Those who are skeptical about it will point to its rarity e.g., even if the idea of Stockholm Syndrome is defined simply as captives becoming sympathetic to/with their captors, this very rarely happens. One explanation for this is that anything akin to Stockholm Syndrome takes a degree of time to develop, and only a few hostage situations go beyond a few days. Relationships take time to form, and the general speed at which most incidents are resolved means that there simply isn’t the time for all parties to even begin to start forming them. In the initial hours of an incident the roles of captive and captor are very clear, and usually well maintained. Both parties are finding their feet and need to maintain these roles to survive. It takes time for captors to relax and let their guard down somewhat. In a prolonged incident it may be simply down to boredom that all parties start to open up, and social bonds can be formed. If Stockholm Syndrome does exist then it is a much more specific, rather than general, phenomenon.

                This doesn’t mean that those doubting the existence of Stockholm Syndrome don’t recognize that captives and captors in hostage situations, or indeed other traumatic situations can’t bond. When humans are threatened we do exhibit attachment behaviors i.e., we look for others either remote or in-person to help us. George Floyd as he was dying called for his mother, as did Daunte Wright. When we recognize that we are unable to control and/or solve an extreme, desperate, and traumatic situation we naturally look for others to do it for us. Sometimes, the only people to “attach” to are those who have power in the situation i.e., the captors. These are the individuals who have the power to make the uncertainty go away. Acts, such as providing food may be attributed to the captors rather than the authorities (who actually provided it), as they ultimately are in the position to deny it. This “bond” however can go both ways, and captors can begin to see themselves as having responsibilities of care towards those they have taken hostage, changing the way that they initially saw them as “objects”, to seeing them as people/individuals. This ultimately can result in a hostage’s survival, as they are no longer seen as purely expendable objects that can be used to obtain a goal. Jan-Erik Olsson, who was the leader of the hostage takers in the 1973 incident in Stockholm, said of the captives, “It was the hostages’ fault…they did everything I told them to do. If they hadn’t, I might not be here now. Why didn’t any of them attack me? They made it hard to kill. They made us go on living day after day, like goats in that filth. There was nothing to do but get to know each other.”

                Whilst any hostage situation is going to be traumatic at some point it seems that “humanizing” yourself is a good survival strategy. This is probably not something that should be initially attempted when captors are stressed and haven’t yet got control of the situation, however if the incident progresses, presenting yourself as a person rather than an object may result in better treatment, and possibly less trauma after the event is over. It is always worth reminding ourselves that statistically, most hostage scenarios end peacefully without anyone harmed, and so a careful evaluation as to whether fighting back or attempting to escape once captive should be undertaken rather than being seen as the default response. This doesn’t necessarily hold true if an abduction phase precedes it, as this may in fact represent the best time and opportunity to make an escape.