There is a version of this story you have probably already read. Your favorite fictional character has kidnapped you. They may seem brooding, damaged, and dangerous, but their occasional small acts of kindness, like tucking a blanket around you or sliding food through the door, make you wonder if you might understand them in a way others don’t.
This is the fantasy behind countless Wattpad tales, the dark-romance logic that made many kidnapper movies a hit. We consume these stories and tell ourselves it is harmless fiction, a guilty pleasure, even. But the fantasy rests on a psychological concept that has shaped courts, therapy, and news for fifty years. The only problem? It was never real science to begin with.
In August 1973 Jan-Erik Olsson stormed the Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, triggering a 130-hour crisis. Armed with a submachine gun, Olsson took four bank employees hostage and demanded the release of his friend, Clark Olofsson. During the six-day siege, a strange dynamic emerged within the vault. Olsson performed acts of benevolence. By the end of the standoff, victims protected their captors during surrender and expressed deep fear of authorities. This event gave birth to the term Stockholm Syndrome, a concept that has dominated pop culture for half a century. But the decades-old explanation is less clinical science than a tactical fiction that hides institutional failures.
Although common in media, Stockholm Syndrome is not a formal diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. Unlike established conditions like PTSD that have undergone rigorous vetting, this syndrome remains debated with very little medical proof. Researchers found only a few relevant studies, mostly individual case stories rather than proper scientific experiments. With no consensus on symptoms or causes, it lacks reliable diagnostic standards, and therefore holds little recognition in professional psychiatry. This lack of medical recognition invites scrutiny of how researchers coined the term and whom it served.
Swedish psychiatrist and police consultant Nils Bejerot coined the term while advising authorities during the 1973 robbery. Known for his rigid zero-tolerance perspectives on crime, Bejerot used a television broadcast shortly after the crisis to pathologize the hostages’ sympathy for the criminals. However, he never conducted a single clinical interview or professional evaluation of the hostages before diagnosing them.
His use of the syndrome served a vital tactical and political function for the Swedish state. By calling victims brainwashed or irrational, Bejerot neutralized their public criticism of police and Prime Minister Olof Palme. Kristin Enmark condemned authorities, and the syndrome let officials dismiss her testimony as the product of a fractured mind. This was most evident during her desperate telephone call to the Prime Minister from within the vault.
“I’m not the least bit afraid of Clark and the other guy, I’m afraid of the police. Do you understand? I trust them completely.”
Enmark’s plea shows her actions were a rational response to a state that prioritized reputation over her survival.
Re-evaluating the hostages’ behavior as survival rather than pathology further undermines the syndrome label. Kristin Enmark has spent decades rejecting the idea that she was a victim of a psychological disorder, arguing instead that her rapport with the captors was a pragmatic survival strategy.
The police made critical errors: they misidentified the robber and sent a 16-year-old into the bank, prompting Olsson to open fire and become more agitated. In that moment, the police were the primary existential threat. Aligning with the captors was a rational choice to prevent further violence. Society prefers labeling survivors confused rather than admitting authorities failed to prioritize public safety.
The media mythologizes Stockholm Syndrome as common and inevitable, but the data disagrees. The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System has tracked more than 1’200 incidents and found that positive emotional bonds between victims and captors are extremely rare, occurring in around 8% of cases. When researchers exclude cases where victims are simply frustrated with law enforcement, the number drops to approximately 5%.
Since the syndrome is so rare, the few real cases need better explanations than just saying people were “brainwashed”. The real answer lies in how our brains and nervous systems actually work.
Modern science is shifting away from the term “Stockholm Syndrome” and toward the idea of the fawn response, explained by Polyvagal Theory. When the brain senses a threat it cannot escape and fight-or-flight isn’t possible, it goes into a primitive survival mode and may try to reduce danger by engaging socially with the threat. Small acts of kindness can trigger dopamine and oxytocin, forming a trauma-bonding loop. Often this becomes a deliberate tactic: a perpetrator uses occasional affection to secure compliance. This reaction is not a sign of weakness but a survival strategy when the abuser is the only source of comfort.
Medias have also applied this label in a significantly gendered way to discredit the agency of women. Psychologist Dee Graham argued that what we call a syndrome is actually a normal response to the abnormal conditions of patriarchal or captive environments. Graham identified four conditions for this bonding: perceived threat to survival, small kindnesses the brain reads as salvation, isolation from other perspectives, and a sense of being unable to escape. Graham argued femininity is a survival strategy: appeasing more powerful figures to avoid harm.
Moving away from the pathologizing label of Stockholm Syndrome ultimately changes the way we support survivors of extreme trauma. When we stop treating their behavior as mental illness and instead see it as a way to defuse a threat, we can appreciate the resilience needed in a dangerous situation. The Norrmalmstorg robbery shows that what looks irrational is often a pragmatic strategy for survival.
So, is our diagnosis culture simply a way to avoid holding power and the state accountable for the dangerous environments they create?
Stockholm syndrome has long been a widely discussed topic, especially in fiction. I always felt there was more to it, so I dove deeper into what it actually is since it was never covered in my psychology classes. Below you’ll find the sources I used.
Birthplace of the Stockholm Syndrome – Henrik Johansson
50 years on, the enduring myth of Stockholm Syndrome
Appeasement: replacing Stockholm syndrome as a definition of a survival strategy – Rebecca Bailey, Jaycee Dugard, Stefanie F Smith, Stephen W Porges
Stockholm Syndrome: A Critical Examination – Keith Robert Head
Stockholm Syndrome as Vernacular Resource – Michael Adorjan, Tony Christensen, Benjamin Kelly, Dorothy Pawluch
Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror and Women’s Lives – Dee L. Graham, Edna I. Rawlings, Roberta K. Rigsby.
Leave a Reply