Stockholm Syndrome

Written by Nurul Jannah

1 July 2018

Have you heard of the term Stockholm Syndrome? Well I am sure you have heard of it – maybe from a television series or the movies. However, do you know how the term came about? It is actually based on a bank robbery that happened in Stockholm, Sweden. On 23 August 1973, a prisoner by the name of Jan-Erik Olsson went into a bank, Sveriges Kreditbanken, with the intent to rob it. He took four bank employees as hostages. The hostage situation lasted for about 131 hours. The hostages were held in the bank vault and eventually, that became their safe haven. One of the demands that Olsson made was that his ex-cellmate, Clark Olofsson, was to be brought to him. As time passed and the hostages were treated kindly by their captors, they begin to fear the police more. The vault had become their world and they became against those who were going to infiltrate it, which was the police at that point. After it was all over, the hostages shouted promises of visitations and letters of communication to their captors who were being brought away. When counselled by psychologists, they were also confused about their lack of hatred towards their captors. When they were asked to testify against their captors in court, some of the hostages actually refused to do so, adding that the robbers were protecting them from the police. Hence, this kind of positive bond that hostages build with their captors is dubbed as Stockholm Syndrome. So what factors actually do contribute to the development of Stockholm Syndrome? First is face-to-face contact. Constant interaction between the captors and the hostages may result in a bond forming – whether it is sympathy for the hostages or understanding towards the captors. Of course, constant interaction alone does not imply that the hostage will be able to evoke feelings of sympathy from the captors, but it can help elevate their chances of survival. On the other hand, to ensure that each and every member of the group stays loyal to their cause, leaders would implement a shift system when it comes to the subordinates who are guarding the hostages. The next factor would be the timing of violence. This refers to the frequency of violent activity occurring throughout the entire incident. If a hostage provoked the captors and was given a punishment, other hostages would be blaming that hostage for causing disturbance to the situation; especially since it might jeopardise the safety of others in the process. However, if random acts of violence are acted upon the hostages for no apparent reason, there is a smaller chance of Stockholm syndrome developing as the hostages would not develop an understanding for the captors’ cause. Third, is language. Since language barriers prevent ease of communication between captors and hostages, it is unlikely that the captors will come to humanize the hostages, nor will the hostages be able to sympathise with the captors’ cause. Hence, there is a low chance of developing Stockholm syndrome if there is a language barrier. Fourth, is sophistication of the individual. This is in reference to an individual and their knowledge of how to gain the sympathy of the opposite side. Having the knowledge of the factors to aid the development of Stockholm syndrome would be a huge advantage that can turn the situation to their favour. However, those who are targets of kidnapping have yet to go through training as they do not find it necessary. Fifth, is cultural value structure. This simply means that people who are charismatic and exhibit a strong standing of who they are and their beliefs can influence others, over time of course. This is especially advantageous when the hostage is a politician, someone who on a daily basis has the job of persuading his/her citizens. Guards tend to be low ranking subordinates and followers, making them easier to influence. Hostages can then influence their guards into thinking how their position are not very much different as both of them are not allowed to act on their own discretion. Sixth, pre-existing stereotypes. Any type of positive identification is impossible if the individual already has pre-existing beliefs or notions in regards to the opposite group. Lastly is time. Time is a double-edged sword when it comes to hostage-taking situation. This is due to the multitude of factors that could cause the hostage-captor interaction to take an uncalculated turn, making it difficult to predict the end result. Another possibility is that either side can end up proving the preexisting stereotypes and further aggravate the situation. There are many real life cases that are famous for stockholm syndrome other than the first incident mentioned. One example would be Natascha Kampusch. She was 10 years old when she got kidnapped. You can read more online but something to take note of is the interaction between her and her captor. Over time, her captor slowly gave small little bits of “freedom”, meaning she was allowed to leave her cell for small periods of time then longer and finally, her captor brought her on vacations in public. I still find it mind boggling that another human is able to bend the will of others, by somewhat brainwashing them into believing there is no escape and that they do not want to escape from captivity.