This thought of “us against them”, may come from the outlook that the hostages and the captor are in close proximity in an extremely emotionally-charged situation, such as bank and jewelry store robberies.
Case studies presented by De Fabrique, Van Hasselt, and colleagues (2007) put the hostages and the captors in close physical proximity, maintaining a substantial amount of interpersonal contact. Researchers looked at this mentality in a more literal sense. That mentality paired with a distorted cognitive schema can influence the emergence of Stockholm Syndrome.ĭe Fabrique, Van Hasselt, and colleagues (2007) entertained the idea of an “us against them” mentality in the development of Stockholm Syndrome, where the captor and the hostages would serve as the in-group, and the authorities would fill the role of the out-group. A social influence that can be a key player in this syndrome is an “us versus them”, or in-group and out-group mentality. There are social and cognitive influences that can play a role in the development of Stockholm Syndrome. Moreover, they typically do not show positive feelings towards the captor. Hostages may express anger or other negative feelings toward authorities more frequently. According to an FBI database which contains data pertaining to about 4,700 reported federal, state, and local hostage/barricade situations, 73% of hostages do not show signs of Stockholm Syndrome upon rescue (De Fabrique, Romano, et al., 2007). It is thought that Stockholm Syndrome develops as part of the hostages’ defense mechanism to allow them to express sympathy with the captor, which consequently leads to an acceptance of the situation and, in turn, restraining the challenge and/or aggression to escape the situation and aggressor (Obeid & Hallit, 2018). Although Stockholm Syndrome is hard to define, experts have agreed upon three characteristics that must be displayed in victims of hostage situations: (1) hostages have positive feelings towards their captors, (2) hostages have negative feelings, such as fear, distrust, or anger, toward authorities, and (3) captors display positive feelings towards hostages (De Fabrique, Romano, et al., 2007 De Fabrique, Van Hasselt, et al., 2007 Obeid & Hallit, 2018). For example, Stockholm Syndrome cannot truly exist if a coach kidnaps or holds one or more of their players hostage, as there is already an established relationship between the two parties. Some believe the length of time passed plays a role in the formation of the bond others believe for Stockholm Syndrome to truly exist, there must be no previous relationship between the hostage and the captor (De Fabrique, Van Hasselt, et al., 2007, Obeid & Hallit, 2018). Stockholm Syndrome is difficult for experts to define and explain.
This bond may seem irrational due to the severity of the situation being endured by the hostage(s) (De Fabrique, Romano, et al., 2007 Namnyak et al., 2008 Obeid & Hallit, 2018). Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where a positive bond between the hostage(s) and the captor occurs.
0 kommentar(er)
