Stockholm Syndrome Is Not a Diagnosis: Rethinking Hostage Reactions and Appeasement

Stockholm syndrome, the label often used to describe hostages forming positive feelings toward captors, is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis. This Conversation article traces its origins at the Norrmalmstorg siege, examines why the term persists, and argues that survivor behavior may be rational strategies for staying safe rather than pathology. It also connects hostage negotiation practices to survivor behavior and suggests reframing the concept as appeasement rather than a syndrome.

• Hostage survival strategies can resemble negotiation tactics used by police
• Stockholm syndrome has never been recognized as a formal diagnosis
• Some researchers advocate replacing the term with “appeasement” to capture the protective function of the behavior
• Implications for police, courts, and clinicians who may interpret actions through a pathology lens

Overview

The Conversation article by Amy Grubb revisits the Stockholm syndrome narrative, beginning with the famous 1973 Kreditbanken siege in Stockholm where hostages developed unexpectedly positive feelings toward their captors. It explains how the term originated from psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who described the hostages' responses during the crisis after advising police. The piece emphasizes that while the phrase “Stockholm syndrome” is widely used in media and public discourse, it has never been formally recognized as a psychiatric diagnosis in major manuals.

Stockholm syndrome origins and terminology

Bejerot coined “Norrmalmstorg syndrome” to describe the hostage takers' influence on hostages, a label that later became internationally known as Stockholm syndrome. The article notes that Bejerot never interviewed any hostages, which has fueled ongoing debates about the accuracy and usefulness of the term. It explains how the syndrome came to symbolize a paradoxical attachment under extreme threat, and why its diagnostic status remains contested within psychiatry and psychology.

Not a diagnosis, but a survival strategy

The author argues that the apparent bond between victim and perpetrator can be a rational, adaptive response to danger. By staying calm, appeasing captors, or maintaining a relationship with the threat in order to minimize harm, hostages may increase their immediate safety and access to resources. The piece compares these behaviors to the strategies used by police negotiators, who seek to build trust and influence over a captor’s behavior by establishing rapport. This parallel highlights how similar communication dynamics can emerge in extreme situations, regardless of whether a clinical syndrome is present.

Forms and consequences of the response

Grubb cites research describing several behaviors that accompany the hostage response: choosing not to escape when given the chance, hostility toward rescuers, heightened significance given to small acts of kindness from captors, and a tendency to follow orders to please the captor. The piece emphasizes that labeling such behaviors as a syndrome risks pathologizing what may be a protective mechanism designed to reduce immediate risk of harm, rather than indicating a mental illness.

Shifting the frame from syndrome to appeasement

One proposed reframe is to replace the term with “appeasement,” reflecting the motive to calm a dangerous person in a life-threatening scenario. This framing suggests a rational calculus—calming a captor can lower the chance of violence and improve the victim’s safety. The article posits that adopting this language could alter how survivors are understood by police, courts, and clinicians and prevent misinterpretation of survivors’ behavior as irrational or pathological.

Implications for policy and practice

The piece concludes by arguing that Bejerot’s term has outlived its usefulness and that continuing to rely on a syndrome label may divert attention from the real circumstances that produced the behavior. It calls for a shift in research, clinical practice, and legal interpretation to focus on survival strategies and threat dynamics rather than categorizing responses as a pathological syndrome. Grubb notes that this approach could improve support for survivors and shape more informed, trauma-sensitive responses from law enforcement and the judicial system.

Conclusion

More than half a century after the original crisis, Stockholm syndrome remains a widely discussed concept, but not a recognized medical diagnosis. The Conversation article argues for reframing hostages’ responses as rational survival strategies within extreme situations and encourages researchers and practitioners to move away from the stigma of pathology toward a clearer understanding of risk, threat, and protective behavior.