Polyvagal Theory

Appeasement: replacing Stockholm syndrome as a definition of a survival strategy

Rebecca Bailey a,CONTACT, Jaycee Dugard a, Stefanie F Smith a, Stephen W Porges b,c

Author information

Article notes

Copyright and License information

PMCID: PMC9858395 PMID: 37052112

ABSTRACT

Background: Stockholm syndrome or traumatic bonding (Painter & Dutton, Patterns of emotional bonding in battered women: Traumatic bonding. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(4), 363–375, 1985) has been used in mainstream culture, legal, and some clinical settings to describe a hypothetical phenomenon of trauma survivors developing powerful emotional attachments to their abuser. It has frequently been used to explain the reported ‘positive bond’ between some kidnap victims and their captor's, although scarce empirical research has supported this assertion. It has been used in various situations where interpersonal violence and mind control are reported and where clear power differentials exist, such as in child sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, human trafficking, and hostage situation scenarios.

Objective: We propose replacing Stockholm syndrome with ‘appeasement,’ a term that can be explained through a biopsychological model (i.e. Polyvagal Theory) to describe how survivors may appear emotionally connected with their perpetrators to effectively adapt to life-threatening situations by calming the perpetrator.

Conclusion: We believe the term appeasement will demystify the reported survivor experiences and will, in the eyes of the public, victims, and survivors, provide a science-based explanation for their narratives of survival that may initially appear to be contradictory. By understanding the potent reflexive neurobiological survival mechanisms embedded in appeasement, individuals and families can operationalise their survival from a perspective that supports resilience, a healthy long-term recovery, and normalises their coping responses as survival techniques.

KEYWORDS: Stockholm syndrome, appeasement, survival, resilience, polyvagal theory

HIGHLIGHTS

Changing and redefining how victims are viewed and portrayed in mainstream media.

Appeasement emphasises the asymmetry and adaptive strategy used to regulate and calm the captor, thus minimising potential injury and abuse.

Stockholm syndrome does not reflect the survivor’s experience nor does it acknowledge the negative impact that the label has on the survivor.

1. Critique of Stockholm syndrome

Words can carry strong messages about intentionality, motivation, and healing. Consider the recent awareness around the use of victim versus survivor. Some people choose to use the word victim when describing life-threatening traumatic experiences, while others prefer the word survivor, warrior, or victor. What is important is that individuals who have experienced these traumas have a voice in how they refer to themselves and that the words we use accurately reflect their lived experiences.

One particularly problematic term for survivors of kidnapping, as well as trafficking, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse is ‘Stockholm syndrome’. Stockholm syndrome was originally proposed when trying to explain why some survivors of hostage-type situations do not, to the outside observer, appear to react to their situation with fight or flight, and furthermore seem to sympathise with their perpetrator as supposedly evidenced by lack of cooperation with police, and expression of understanding or lack of expression of hostility toward their perpetrator. The term has since been used in other traumatic situations in which there are power imbalances such as kidnapping, and abusive relationships. The word Stockholm syndrome postulates a positive emotional relationship between victims and abusers that developed because of the trauma (Jülich, 2005). This term persists despite several critiques.

First, Stockholm syndrome has been interpreted to assume that there is a relationship between perpetrator and victim that reflects mutual care and affection between them, but that mutuality does not exist in cases of abduction, abuse, and perceived life threat (Graham et al., 1988). Furthermore, Stockholm syndrome attempts to explain survival from captivity as a formula derived from the perpetrator or observer's perspective (Namnyak et al., 2008). The variables include: the perceived threat to survival; the belief the threat will be carried out; the captive perceives some small kindness from the captor; and the hostage experiences the perceived inability to escape. Each of these perspectives requires a level of conscious processing that contradicts what occurs physiologically during a terror state. These conceptual difficulties with Stockholm syndrome may explain why a review of the professional literature on survival techniques utilised during violent crimes (Jordan, 2013) demonstrates a lack of validated criteria for Stockholm syndrome as a psychiatric diagnosis along with a limited empirical research base (Geisler et al., 2013). The concept's origin in the media rather than research or clinical practice and its application to various crimes, ages, and interpersonal contexts raise questions about its meaning, validity, and continued relevance to theory building and research (Namnyak et al., 2008).

Although past theorists have suggested that the concept of Stockholm syndrome may help normalise survivors’ behaviour (Graham et al., 1988), it can be argued that the term does not reflect survivor experience, a critique not yet reported in the professional literature. A more accurate term would be ‘appeasement’ because the word and overall description of appeasement emphasise the asymmetry in the relationship and the adaptive strategy to regulate and calm the captor, thus minimising potential injury and abuse to the victim (Treisman, 2004).

Using the Polyvagal Theory’s (Porges, 2011) assertion of the fundamental drive to internalise a sense of safety through sociality (Porges, 2022), we propose that the term appeasement may be operationally defined to more accurately describe a powerful instinctual strategy to survive and thrive regardless of the circumstances that can be separated from the concept of mutual affection and bonding with the perpetrator. This perspective can be applied to a variety of populations where the power differential and basic survival needs perpetuate abuse and victimisation regardless of the previous relationship with the perpetrator.

2. A brief history of appeasement as a response to threat

Cantor and Price (2007) introduced the concept of appeasement, proposing that it is a natural mammalian response to entrapment or confinement. They suggested that appeasement could contribute to a better understanding of PTSD, Stockholm syndrome, and hostage dynamics. They proposed a step in articulating the normalisation of a shutdown process and suggested implications for further understanding of victim dynamics. From their perspective, appeasement was a pacification and submission response. Since appeasement may serve to de-escalate a situation, it was suggested that the resulting pacification could contribute to survival. Although we reject the definition of Stockholm syndrome, Cantor and Prices’ appeasement concept helps operationalise dynamics present in circumstances where a victim perceives and experiences threat to physical and psychological survival, especially when there is social isolation.

However, the Cantor and Price formulation of appeasement misses the two-way functional interaction, with the beneficial neurobiological impact of co-regulation, between perpetrator and victim that is better understood in defining appeasement through the Polyvagal Theory. The Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 2004, 2021, 2022) suggests that when faced with a life threat the foundational survival circuits originating in the brainstem, which regulate bodily organs via the autonomic nervous system, take over moving the nervous system into a defensive state that supplants intentional behaviour and social interactions. This process is observed as a variation of the cascade of fight/flight/freeze and potentially collapse and shutdown. This defensive cascade is dependent on autonomic states that functionally divert neural activity from higher brain structure resulting in reducing problem-solving capacity, limiting cognitive processing, and displacing intentionality and authentic forms of sociality with defensive strategies. Basic survival needs can determine and impact an individual’s definition of life threat. For example, a parent facing housing and food insecurity can experience a lack of resources as a life threat. Social connection to the perpetrator may be experienced as a type of lifeline.