Fear, anger, the desire to break free – the feelings of a person who finds themselves in the hands of a criminal seem entirely natural. However, sometimes something paradoxical happens, when the victim begins to feel sympathy for their captor, defends them from punishment, and even worries about their fate. This phenomenon has been called Stockholm syndrome for many years.

At first glance, such behavior seems completely inexplicable. How can one feel positive emotions toward a person who deprives you of freedom and poses a threat to your life? However, under conditions of intense and prolonged stress, the human psyche works differently. If a person is constantly under threat, isolated from the outside world, and forced to remain near the one on whom their safety depends, their perception of what is happening can change significantly.

The origin of the term itself is connected to the hostage-taking in Stockholm in 1973. During a bank robbery, several employees found themselves locked up together with the criminals for several days, and after their release, some of the hostages demonstrated an unexpected emotional reaction – they expressed sympathy for their captors and did not perceive them exclusively as enemies.

This is how the name "Stockholm syndrome" came about. Subsequently, it became firmly established in the language of the mass media, cinema, and popular culture.

However, an important clarification must be made here: Stockholm syndrome is not an officially recognized psychiatric diagnosis and is not included in modern classifications of mental disorders. Therefore, it would be incorrect to use this term as a universal explanation for the behavior of a person who has survived a capture or violence.

Nevertheless, the psychological reactions that are customarily described by this concept are of considerable interest.

A captured person finds themselves in a situation where the usual mechanisms of control over their own life practically disappear. They do not know what will happen in an hour, cannot freely leave, and are forced to constantly monitor the behavior of the person on whom their life may literally depend. In such an environment, even a small display of benevolence can acquire a completely different meaning.

Let us imagine a person who expects violence but instead receives water, food, or the opportunity to rest a little. For an ordinary person, this is an insignificant everyday act. For a hostage who has lived for hours or days in anticipation of danger, it may be perceived as a very important sign: "He could have harmed me, but he did not."

This is how a kind of psychological paradox arises. The same person is simultaneously perceived as a source of danger and as a source of relative safety. Under conditions of intense stress, a person needs not only to physically survive but also to somehow explain what is happening and preserve at least a minimal sense of control. If a person is completely dependent on the aggressor, constantly perceiving them exclusively as a monster may intensify fear and helplessness. The psyche may seek a more bearable interpretation: "He is not that bad," "He understands me," "He won't touch me," "He can protect me."

This does not necessarily mean conscious self-deception. The victim may genuinely feel gratitude, sympathy, or even emotional attachment. But what is fundamentally important is the context in which these feelings arise.

Of particular significance is the alternation of threat and relief. After intense fear, the cessation of the threat is perceived as a powerful emotional relief. If the aggressor then demonstrates benevolence, the positive reaction may become even stronger.

Psychology well knows the role of unpredictable reinforcement, when positive and negative experiences alternate. Rare periods of calm against a background of constant tension can acquire disproportionately great significance. A person begins to await these moments especially intensely and to become emotionally attached to them.

Therefore, sometimes a victim may perceive a minimal display of care as something far more significant than it would be in ordinary life.

This is probably one of the most common questions: can such feelings be called love?

There is no unequivocal answer here. But calling any emotional reaction of a victim love would be incorrect. In the presence of threats, coercion, and dependence, a person's feelings cannot be fully equated with relations between free people who are in an equal position.

Moreover, far from all people who have survived a capture demonstrate such reactions. Therefore, one cannot speak of Stockholm syndrome as a natural or obligatory reaction of a victim.

The popularity of this term is largely explained by its simplicity – it allows one expression to designate a very complex behavior. However, the real psychology of a person who finds themselves in a situation of violence is far more multifaceted.

Therefore, the task of a specialist is not to quickly attach a psychological label, but to understand the specific situation and the mechanisms that keep a person in it.

Particularly cautiously should the concept of Stockholm syndrome be used in relation to domestic violence. Not every emotional dependence on an aggressor is Stockholm syndrome. It is necessary to take into account the real circumstances, the degree of threat, the forms of control, and the person's possibilities of escaping the situation.

But the most important thing lies elsewhere: explaining the behavior of a victim in no way means justifying the abuser. On the contrary, understanding the mechanisms of psychological dependence, control, and adaptation makes it possible to more effectively help people who find themselves in a situation of violence or coercion.

The psychology of Stockholm syndrome makes one reflect on one of the paradoxes of the human psyche: when freedom and the possibility of choice are limited, a person may seek a sense of safety even where the threat originates. Sometimes, for psychological survival, they need not to find an ideal protector, but to discover at least a small island of safety within the most dangerous situation itself.

Kazbek AKHMETOV,

psychologist, doctoral student

at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University