Talk:Stockholm syndrome/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe

I agree, is it even a real syndrome or has someone just made it up? Madeline xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Debresser. There is no good reason to merge them. The fact that they are opposites is irrelevant. Myopia and Hyperopia (near and far-sightedness) are also opposites, but they have their own pages on Wikipedia. If Stockholm and Lima syndrome are merged, it would not conform to the rest of Wikipedia which has a separate page for each distinct topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siming.guo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like merging only begins to make sense because of the length of the Lima syndrome article, so a better response would be to extend it. - mw.t.floyd ----

Debresser's point is valid. The Stockholm Syndrome and the Lima Syndrome are - if not antonyms - at least the reverse of each other. They should remain distinct. Saintbrendan

Support/Agree: Should be merged, too small an article to sustain by itself and would also make Stockholm Syndrome longer as well. --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these articles should not be merged. They are somewhat related, but the important factor is, to my opinion, that the Stockholm Syndrome is a something that affects people NOT in control of the situation (the victims), whereas the Lima Syndrome refers to decisions made by those who ARE in control (athe agressors). September 29, 2009, Dranoel, Dranoel sverige (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the Korean translation of Lima Syndrome relevant? Is there a reason the Korean is given and not the Japanese? 68.7.44.152 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the only sources that could be found were Korean. If better ones turn up, there's no problem with foreign language sources.

_complex

23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone is vandalizing this page. You can see this where it reads "according to the faggots" 24.110.211.4 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Belle (from Beauty & the Beast) was given as an example of somebody who suffered Stockholm Syndrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.212 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone added "Apple Inc." as a See Also link. Maybe I'm unaware of a connection these articles have? Mentioning it just in case, to see what you all think. Macgyver89 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently read an AP article that claimed that the phrase 'Stockholm Syndrome' was coined by Dr. Frank Ochberg. The Wikipedia page claims that it was coined by Nils Bejerot. I just wanted to bring this to your attention; I'll let the experts determine the truth.

[1]

Euler010 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this removal, it doesn't seem appropriate to have this information in the article.

If the Helsinki Syndrome page is going to be redirected to the Stockholm Syndrome page, then shouldn't there be an explanation somewhere on the page as to why that happens? Also, I think it would be interesting to have a bit of an explanation about the newscaster who accidentally called Stockholm Syndrome Helsinki Syndrome and the confusion that results today because of it. Shelshula (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what Helsinki syndrome is, ever heard of it. I've a ref saying it's the same as SS, I'll put that in.

_complex

23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a newscaster, whose name escapes me at the moment but was reporting on the Olympics at the time, referred to it as "Helsinki Syndrome" somehow causing the misnomer to spread crazily. Examples of it being propagated can be found in the Original "Die Hard" movie and the TV series "Babylon 5." Really hope someone can add this to the main article as it could help kick the, "Helsinki habit."

The fact that 'Helsinki Syndrome' redirects to here warrants an explanation of Helsinki Syndrome in this article. I've added this to the article, please improve it if you deem necessary. Zarcadia (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Helsinki Syndrome still redirects here, but the words don't show up in the article. That seems like a serious deficiency. You can include The X-Files in media that say "Helsinki syndrome" and mean "Stockholm syndrome". I guess someone just removed Zarcadia's addition without looking here? 88.113.226.197 (talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Added Helsinki syndrome to the article, with a couple of literature references (the first reference cited cites the error in Die Hard, the second in "The Encyclopedia of Bad Taste").Olli Niemitalo (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What a crock, I specificically came looking for infomation about people making the mistake of replacing Stockhome with Helsinki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.70.158 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be simpler to regard the newsman's mistake as a "semantic error:" when struggling to remember the name he hit upon a word of similar meaning ("a Scandinavian capital") rather than similar sound (he might have said "Stockport syndrome" if he lived nearby). NRPanikker (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The "Lima syndrome" section doesn't appear quite accurate, specifically the sentence "Within a few days, the abductors had set free all but one of the hostages, including the most valuable ones, due to sympathy".

• The MRTA hostage-takers kept not one but 72 hostages, including a Supreme Court judge, the foreign minister, and the president's brother. [2][3] (email me if you want copies of those Economist articles)
• It's not at all clear from the sources that the other hostages were released due to "sympathy". It's just as likely the herd was trimmed for sheer logistical simplicity, 72 would be enough people to feed and send to the bathroom one at a time. Source #6 (the gbooks one) reports that the MRTA guerrills bonded with the remaining hostages, not the ones who were initially released. Source #7 (Inter Press Service) is hidden behind Highbeam's "free trial but give us your credit-card number anyway" barrier, so I haven't examined it fully.

I'm not sure how to address this, but I don't think the section is correct as written. Franamax (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I found the source edit for the "all but one" statement and reverted it. My other concerns remain. Franamax (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, the original "syndrome" seems to have no real play within the social sciences, suggesting it's simply a neologism made up by the press. I'd happily just delete it but then Lima syndrome redirects here with no text to discuss it. You've my support to trim it back to only the text that is firmly and reliably sourced.

_complex

20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with this - what's the notability policy for neologisms on WP these days? Delete if unsupported. Reading the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, it's clear there were plenty of people left at the end of the crisis, as they're now the only source of evidence against the security forces. That said, you still get about 1300 google hits if you take wikipedia out of the search string. You see Franamax, this is the quality of commentary you get if I'm prised away from architecture......google hits indeed! --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That said, it is a sufficiently pervasive neologism as to have been taken up in passing, with some healthy scepticism in this fine publication - but then, they get the date wrong in a trademark <ahem> typo.--Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The syndrome has also been explained in evolutionary terms. Historically

I've found a paper [4] by Keith Henson pointing to some evolutionary psych rationale. It would be better to have secondary sources, however. Yakushima (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

More sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Traumatic entrapment, appeasement and complex post-traumatic stress disorder: evolutionary perspectives of hostage reactions, domestic abuse and the Stockholm syndrome.

"In hunter-gatherers women have been remarkably frequently kidnapped by opposing tribes, with little likelihood of rescue. From an evolutionary perspective defiance in such circumstances carries the prospect of death and the non-transmission of such defiant genetic traits. Defection by way of submission may promote genetic survival. This has been described as 'capture-bonding' (Henson, 2002). Thus the transmission of genes for appeasement may have been facilitated."

• The Social Complexity of Immigration and Diversity

"About 1980 John Tooby, then in graduate school, discussed the concept of capture-bonding with various other students--reportedly reaching the same conclusion as the author about its evolutionary origin and widespread effects on humans and human societies. (Personal communication with Leda Cosmides.) Astonishingly, neither he nor anyone else known to the author has published on the subject." ಠ_ಠ

• Human Chemistry (Volume Two)

"Capture-bonding theories are used to explain various relationships, such as kidnapping or tribe takeover, in which a person seems to be 'caught' unhealthily or abnormally in a bond, even when given many chances to escape. The general explanation is that a sort of reverse-psychological mechanism or perspective develops in which, after a traumatic event, the captive person willing desires or stays in the bond. In abnormal psychology, battered women syndrome, where a woman stays bonded to a man who beats her is an example of an activated capture-bond. In evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding is understood as an evolved response to inter-tribe 'capture' and takeover, which has been a prominent feature of human existence during the last few million years, such as infanticide, which occurs frequently in the animal kingdom."

• Psychology Behind Ragging © Harsh Agarwal, 2010

"According to evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding, or social reorientation after capture, was an essential survival feature for millions of years. The captives who reoriented survived, and those who did not form social bonds with captors were killed. Psychologists say that anyone can become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome if the certain conditions are met: (i) Perceived threat to survival (ii) The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor (iii) Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor (iv) Perceived inability to escape. And it is said that it takes as little as 3-4 days for this psychology to take hold of the victim."

It's kinda shameful that the blatantly obvious evolutionary origin of this well-documented psychological mechanism isn't even mentioned. Does anyone actually argue in favor of the ridiculous (albeit creatively so) Freudian explanation anymore?!? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up historical instances of raptio in a section about evolutionary psychology could be a problem. As the references make clear, capture-bonding theory involves circumstances over millions of years, not "several generations." On one hand, this confusion could reinforce misconceptions about the timeframe of human evolution, i.e. that human traits have evolved as a result of recent historical events. On the other hand, it could lead to prejudice against the idea by associating it with pseudo-anthropology. Rexodus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How much support for this theory is there? I ask because evolutionary psychology seems to have a rather poor reputation among evolutionary biologists. The problem being that evolutionary explanations get given for things without providing evidence that a) they actually are genetically/biologically controlled rather than cultural, and b) that the selection pressures proposed actually occur. (For example, the evolutionary benefit of Stockholm Syndrome requires that a) resistance/passivity is genetically inherited, and b) people who attempt to resist capture are less likely to reproduce than those who don't. Not to mention that these passivity genes will also be passed on to the male descendents of the captives and captivators, not just the females). Now, it isn't the place of Wikipedia - or this talk page - to argue about whether this theory is correct or reasonable, but we should make sure we are not giving undue weight to a non-notable opinion. Iapetus (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC) If the kidnapper explains his motives and reasoning to a hostage, who then evaluates his view on the situation based on this new information, turning loyal to the kidnapper may in fact be rational. Is such behavior explained in the science and if so, is such loyality also considered Stockholm syndrome? It would be nice if this was discussed in the article, assuming of course that there is any reliable research on it to refer to. Tronic2 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section that should cover it.Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to say the same thing, nothing based in any science or anything that should necessary be added to the page, I'm not a psychologist, just a discussion and opinion. It seems that the syndrome is considered an irrational reaction, surely a more likely reason would be that the kidnapper has no ill intentions. For instance a bank robber could well just be trying to get by and has no wish to harm anybody. I don't think it is irrational to sympathise and see his point of view, especially is he has some good reasons for being in the situation he is in. I'm sure a lot of kidnappings have higher purposes, in political situations it's often not the hostage that is the real victim, but the kidnapper who has been forced to retaliate by taking hostages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.16.147 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Were Nazis after WW2 who came to disagree with Nazi ideology suffering from Stockholm syndrome? Surely there must be something out there which can be put in to show the questionability of this syndrome. Zoltan'smaster (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a mother figure protecting her child from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor. Possibly, hostages’ motivation to live outweighs their impulse to hate the person who created their dilemma."

is directly plagiarized from: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2007/july2007/july2007leb.htm#page10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.212 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that -- except for the final paragraph, the entire section was plagiarized from that source. I've turned it into one big block quote. Obviously, the entire thing should be rewritten, and should use more than just that one source. Yakushima (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article, but the movie Ruthless People included both Stockholm syndrome AND Lima syndrome in its plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.208.201 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could do with consistency over whether 'syndrome' is capitalised i.e. Stockholm Syndrome or Stockholm syndrome; the latter is used in the article title and intro but the former in most other examples.

I was critical of the explanations here, but I didn't anonymously blank the section. I don't known who "203.51.185.147" is. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article needs to expand more on Lima Syndrome. Also, there needs to be more examples of Stockholm Syndrome.--Ewoodruff13 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• One very notable case is when Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates in the Aegean Sea. "When the pirates thought to demand a ransom of twenty talents of silver, he insisted they ask for fifty. After the ransom was paid, Caesar raised a fleet, pursued and captured the pirates, and imprisoned them. He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity—a promise the pirates had taken as a joke. As a sign of leniency, he first had their throats cut." Maelstromlusby (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should also include in the article how battered wives, children of child abuse, and rape victims can also suffer from this syndrome.

Dallascowboys8aikman (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 18 September 2011

Edit [5] seems pretty clear to me that it's not NPOV, and pretty hostile at that. The IP user who posted it undid my reversion because "it's fact, not opinion." Since I really don't want to get into an edit war, I'm going to talk on the talk page about this before I revert again. I'm confident enough that I'll revert in a day or two if there's no disagreement. Writ Keeper (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Stockholm syndrome.

Here are a few official sources that mention capture bonding:

• Traumatic entrapment, appeasement and complex post-traumatic stress disorder: evolutionary perspectives of hostage reactions, domestic abuse and the Stockholm syndrome. PDF

"In hunter-gatherers women have been remarkably frequently kidnapped by opposing tribes, with little likelihood of rescue. From an evolutionary perspective defiance in such circumstances carries the prospect of death and the non-transmission of such defiant genetic traits. Defection by way of submission may promote genetic survival. This has been described as 'capture-bonding' (Henson, 2002). Thus the transmission of genes for appeasement may have been facilitated."

• Becoming a Sadomasochist: Integrating Self and Other in Ethnographic Analysis (Mirror: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wchriste/357/Newmahr.pdf)

"On an emotional level, I found my response both unexpected and bizarre. I would not have been surprised to feel anger, catharsis, resentment, victimization, turmoil of one sort or another, all of which I had been prepared to explore in a participant-observation study of SM. I did not expect gratitude to be a salient and profound part of my experience. My first impulse was to pathologize my response; was this, I wondered, something similar to “capture-bonding,” the psychological explanation for Stockholm syndrome? Knowing little about Stockholm syndrome, but doubting that a forty-minute consensual flogging scene would have produced it, I moved beyond the discourse of pathology."

• Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects.

"In the aggregate, memes constitute human culture. Most are useful. But a whole class of memes (cults, ideologies, etc.) have no obvious replication drivers. Why are some humans highly susceptible to such memes? Evolutionary psychology is required to answer this question. Two major evolved psychological mechanisms emerge from the past to make us susceptible to cults. Capture-bonding exemplified by Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome is one."

• The Social Complexity of Immigration and Diversity

"About 1980 John Tooby, then in graduate school, discussed the concept of capture-bonding with various other students--reportedly reaching the same conclusion as the author about its evolutionary origin and widespread effects on humans and human societies. (Personal communication with Leda Cosmides.) Astonishingly, neither he nor anyone else known to the author has published on the subject." ಠ_ಠ

• Psychology Behind Ragging © Harsh Agarwal, 2010

"According to evolutionary psychology, capture-bonding, or social reorientation after capture, was an essential survival feature for millions of years. The captives who reoriented survived, and those who did not form social bonds with captors were killed. Psychologists say that anyone can become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome if the certain conditions are met: (i) Perceived threat to survival (ii) The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor (iii) Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor (iv) Perceived inability to escape. And it is said that it takes as little as 3-4 days for this psychology to take hold of the victim."

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that a concept is mentioned in sources does not establish notability - sources have to be about the concept, not just mention it in passing as all of these sources do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

At least this means you've figured out the difference between capture bonding and Stockholm syndrome. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference - that still doesn't mean that capture bonding isn't better discussed at the stockholm syndrome page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussing capture bonding in

the appendix because it gets enough coverage in appendicitis. Do you get it or do I need to come up with more catchy analogies? Slartibartfastibast (talk

) 15:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a funny analogy. The reason it doesn't work is that the appendix actually exists and isn't just some fictive mental module invented by evolutionary psychologists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you're saying the human mind is not the product of evolution? I need to establish the degree to which your worldview deviates from reality before I attempt to argue further. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtLXGQu-OF4 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's sad that this article isn't able to cover such important background aspects as Sweden's history, politics, culture and frequently prevalent national traits of attitude in the Swedish people, which I believe constitute vital ingredients as to how this thing happened (attitudes not unusual at all in Sweden) and became world famous for the first time (this clearly).

I wish I had reliable sources to quote, and if I find any I will expand the article a bit.

Briefly, a look at Sweden's judicial system gives one a vital clue. Decade after decade, Swedes generally-politically support extreme tolerance toward criminals. The kingdom's penal policies have got to be some of the most lenient in the world. If getting away with cold-blooded murder means 4-7 years in and out (on leave) of a relatively comfortable institution, that's what's available in Sweden. The hostages all knew that their captors would be off the hook in a relatively short time (which also happened); why not support them and/or be quiet rather than have them showing up angry on your doorstep?

Additionally almost every Swede, living in a country where the population long has suffered under strong, authoritative government discipline and almost unconscionably high taxes, as well as determinative group pressure from a media and opinion elite that basically rules any and all personal individuality out, has a secret desire to rebel against authority and legality. This began during past centuries when tyranny over the people by the (then) unusually rigorous

The attitude you describe is omnipresent in western society. It is not particular to Sweden or even Scandinavia. It might be stronger in Sweden than, for example Spain (I am not commenting on the situation in Spain, it's a hypothetical example), but it is not distinct. My bet is that the attitude you describe is common to human nature and is not just part of some european mindset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote most of the material on capture bonding, in fact it was taken from my user page without even asking me about it.

Stockholm syndrome is *one* example of activating the evolved psychological mechanism humans have for such situations, but it's not the only one.

If it is going to be mentioned at all on Wikipedia, it should get its own page so other examples of the mechanism being activated (BDSM, battered wife, hazing, and military basic training) can reference the page.

Pointing those pages here is a level error.

Keith Henson (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems this article discusses multiple topics, and that Stockholm syndrome is only a subtopic. Traumatic bonding (which redirects here and is bolded as if a synonym), would seem the encompassing term, and a better title. ENeville (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. "Stockholm syndrome" gets 2 550 000 results on Google, "traumatic bonding" gets 17 300. It seems obvious that the first term is the one widely used, not the second one - even though it might be more accurate. Lova Falk talk 07:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, "Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture–bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training and fraternity bonding by hazing". Although the kuro5hin source on evolutionary psychology sources that fraternity bonding by hazing is an example, our definition reads: "[...]capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express [...]". Our definition uses the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin as a source, where the definition given is wider than ours, but still rather narrow: "[...] Stockholm syndrome as a psychological response of a hostage or an individual in a similar situation in which the more dominant person has the power to put the victim’s life in danger." Later, the bulleting simplifies and speaks of victims simply as hostages just like our definition does. Military training doesn't fit our definition, and it is IMHO a stretch to fit it in the FBI's definition. But I find fraternity bonding by hazing not qualified at all as an example of Stockholm syndrome, with our definition of even the FBI's. Either the example should be removed, or our definition is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chealer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 June 2013‎

115.241.56.108 posted this comment on 1 September 2013 (view all feedback).

i need some real incidents and case studies on stockholm syndrome

Any thoughts? I think that real-life examples could help improve the article, by helping to explain specific effects etc, but I have only a basic familiarity with the subject. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Traumatic bonding also redirects here, but that's also different, as that usually involves a willing or at least unaware participant from the very outset (i.e. a wife or offspring). Even if traumatic bonding is not a separate article, it should at least be a subsection of this article. BigSteve (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonding among victims

Finally, isn't there a specific other concept that refers to the bonding among the victims of such situations (i.e. the hostages/beaten children, etc)? BigSteve (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Stockholm syndrome is sometimes erroneously referred to as Helsinki syndrome."

Helsinki syndrome is not a misnomer. The root of Icelandic Helsinki is helsi, which means "captivity". The suffix /-ki/ means "place"; thus, "captivity place". Shinju (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you say about the underlying meaning of The word "Helsinki" is true, (although I would note that

talk

) 22:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that Helsinki is Finnish, not Icelandic.Sjö (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence under the economics section is confusing and is unclear with its use of inserting additional information with commas into the sentence. Perhaps a rewording of the sentence may make it better?

Though the original citation is broken/missing and I can't find it so I don't exactly know what the sentence should be.

is paywalled, and should be removed. The verifiable (non-paywalled) content on the site doesn't verify the claim posted. Wikipedia is not a non-free resource, therefore the citations should not be paywalled. 2602:306:C455:DF80:696B:26DB:3AEA:E1F (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but part of Wikipedia's utility is that it allows people access to information that might otherwise be inaccessible due to paywalls. So we don't automatically reject non-free sources (

WP:PAYWALL). But if you can find a freely available source that verifies the same information, it could be a valuable replacement or addition to the existing source. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs}

) 04:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Either way the Twain quotes are worth a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.234.35 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this guy seems to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was actually there first, but can only supply a published reference in Hebrew (from 2009) (-:109.160.234.35 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha, why not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to incorporate it into the article, but here's the reference: Mark Twain, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer [Hebrew], translated and annotated by Yaniv Farkas. Tel Aviv: Aryeh Nir Publishers, 2009. p. 264, note 8. 109.160.234.35 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a film reference that also predates the terminology. Just because something was not formally named does not mean that it did not exist before the etiology became scientifically described. Nodekeeper (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

But doesn't it seem that something as big as Stockholm syndrome would have been mentioned by someone somewhere? For instance, both kidnapping and psychology were huge in 20's and 30's, nobody came up with it then? No Greek or Roman ever mentions it, and they should have had examples everywhere, and any number of writers would have mentioned it. It all smacks of repressed memories: a psychological condition that only exists in court rooms.170.173.0.16 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia editing and new to SS but it seems that Patty Hearst is a perfect example and one that people could relate to. Can someone explain why she is not mentioned in the SS article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylverShil0h (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page about Stockholm Syndrome does a good job about explaining what the syndrome is and where it comes from in terms of evolution and psychology, but what it does not address is how prevalent it really is. This syndrome explains many behaviors apparent in all kinds of abusive situations and it's important that regular people, not just those in law enforcement, understand how to identify it when they see it and take proper action to counteract the syndrome.

Akiss001 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Amanda KissoonAkiss001 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your addition and edited the section header according to

wp:editorializing. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk

) 07:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind having that movie in the section, in fact I think it's a welcome change to the overweight on current popular culture. However, I think the section is bloated and needs some cleanup per

WP:POPCULTURE. There really should be secondary sources and something more than just a list of examples (for instance how it's used to introduce plot twists and some discussion about how realistic the depictions in popular culture are). The problem is finding sources, like you I've searched but I haven't found anything yet. Sjö (talk

) 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to suggest adding Homeland (TV show) to the list of Popular culture references, since its main story revolves around a case of Stockholm Syndrome, or something very similar to it. The main character is a POW which turns against his homeland and starts aiding his captors after his return to his country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.236.17 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am one of apparently many people redirected here looking for an article on Helsinki Syndrome.

The definition of Stockholm Syndrome here is what I understood it to be, but I thought Helsinki Syndrome was very different. I understood Helsinki Syndrome as people accepting and following authority just because they were designated authority even though what the ersatz authority was telling them to do was against their normal values.

I thought I had learned that it was based on an experiment in Helsinki. I don't remember what the original point of the experiment was, but volunteers were put in a prison, with some volunteers in the role of prisoners and some as guards. The guards started getting meaner and meaner, and the prisoners kept putting up with it even though any of the volunteers could leave any time. It got totally out of hand and they had to end the experiment early.

I was going to reference Helsinki Syndrome in a comment on an article about fraternity hazing, went to Wikipedia to confirm my definition, and got sent here.

Did anyone else learn a similar definition for Helsinki Syndrome back in the 1980s? PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see that last sentence in the opening section and the two sources provided? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You're thinking of the Stanford prison experiment. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DoctorKubla. That sounds like what I was thinking of. PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What's next, Reykjavík Syndrome? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The original name for the syndrome was the Kz syndrom and was introduced by Elie Wiesel after he discovered that a lot of holocaust survivors actually admired the Nazis, so he came up with the theses that if you are traumatized enough your fare resolves into admire as a survival. Eh media started calling it Stockholm syndrome after a bank robbery in Stockholm. Much later.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130527090222/http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/tmp/11009621295891804833.pdf to http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/tmp/11009621295891804833.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockholm syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515000000*/http://eugen.leitl.org/A-2000-tonne-per-day-Space-Elevator1.ppt to http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't like this line:

Being captured by neighbouring tribes was a relatively common event for women in human history, if anything like the recent history of the few remaining tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them.

It seems more likely to be a case of rape than Stockholm Syndrome. If the reference doesn't explicitly mention this specific physcological condition then I recommend removing the passage based on (

Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Thank you! Heidiwarde (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead is very informative and to the point, which is think is beneficial for the topic. It immediately introduces the topic and explains it well, but the lead doesn't necessarily provide a summary for the rest of the article. With this topic, I think too much information in the lead would be overwhelming, but it may be helpful to include small additions from your other sections into your lead.

Table of contents is clear and the sections are sufficient for the topic.

The other sections and sub-sections definitely flow and make sense. The order of your sections also makes sense and works well with the topic.

The tone of the article is definitely "encyclopedic" It does not sound opinionated/is very neutral. The language used doesn't sound informal, which I think is really important for this topic so good job with that.

Sophiahedgecock (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First published in 1994, author Dee Graham uses the Stockholm syndrome label to describe group or collective responses to trauma, rather than individual reactions.

In a technical parse, this sentence imputes that Dee Graham's first published book dates to 1994. Either that, or publication is a new form of birthing. — MaxEnt 01:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Currently it is in need of improvement. My opinion is that there are two main reasons for this:

1. Overuse of sociological perspectives for something that appears to be a mental health or law enforcement concept, and

2. An evolutionary psychology section that is poorly connected to the actual subject of the article.

These serve to cause:

3. An article which doesn't sufficiently discuss its' own topic, and does so in a manner that is inconvenient.

For 1., there are the following sub-issues: 1a. Most importantly, the sole citation for several sections and subsections comes from a single research paper, "Stockholm Syndrome as a Vernacular Resource." It appears as [4] in the citations list. This is an article in a sociological journal exploring the impact of the use of the term "Stockholm Syndrome," at least as far as I can tell since I'm not a paid subscriber to the journal and only have access to the abstract. From what I am able to gather, the article investigates the expansion of the use of the term "Stockholm Syndrome" to increasingly many types of situations; whether or not these situations are actual instances of Stockholm Syndrome is unclear.

It is the sole citation provided for the following sections:

       - "Symptoms and Behaviors"
       - "Famous instances"
       - "As a coping mechanism"
       - "Relevant literature" (NONE of the relevant literature is itself actually cited, only this journal article)
       - "Professional studies"

This is the major issue I have with the article related to overuse of sociological sources. It could be addressed by removing or shrinking the information that comes exclusively from this one source, but some of it is probably worth mentioning. I think it would be better, therefore, to flesh out the sections that are only based on this source with information from other sources - preferably sources discussing Stockholm Syndrome as a condition rather than as a rhetorical device.

1b. Related to the use of a research paper addressing a specific question about the use of the term "Stockholm Syndrome" as the sole source for the "professional studies section," the professional studies section doesn't give the overview of professional studies into Stockholm Syndrome that I would expect from a thorough article on the topic. The studies mentioned exclusively deal with the question the research paper that is cited was investigating, which is (as far as I can tell) tangential to Stockholm Syndrome itself and may be more about misuse of the term. There is no discussion of professional studies by psychologists into Stockholm Syndrome as an actual 'condition,' or of professional studies into the rate of occurrence, or anything else related to actual Stockholm Syndrome (not even any mention in this section of studies investigating whether or not it's a real condition at all!), but if such studies exist they are arguably more important to mention. This could obviously be fixed in the same fashion as the previous issue because it stems from the same problem.

1c. A source, "Crisis Narratives And Masculinist Protection," from a political science journal, is used as a citation in several places to support claims related to the relative prevalence of Stockholm Syndrome and methods of treatment. This, similar to citation [4], is a journal article in what I assume is a peer-reviewed journal that isn't actually about the treatment of Stockholm Syndrome or the relative prevalence of it. The article doesn't seem to be the best source to use for these claims because they are not the actual topic of its' investigation. The statement that "It is believed that women are especially subject to develop the condition" is the more concerning one to me because it is unclear who believes this - is it the opinion of medical or law enforcement personnel based on an assessment of supposed cases of Stockholm Syndrome, or is the opinion of 'laymen' based on their (mis)conceptions?

My guess is the article cites other resources that would be worth investigating for use in sections on recovery and relative prevalence, but my opinion is that it, together with the above-mentioned "Stockholm Syndrome as a Vernacular Resource," should be used primarily in a section on "Use of the term."

2. Somewhat related to 1c, there is a discussion of evolutionary psychology that poorly connects to the actual topic of the article. "Crisis Narratives And Masculinist Protection" actually states in the abstract (again, all I could access) that captor-bonding is another term for Stockholm Syndrome. The Wikipedia article does not actually state this, which is a problem because about half of the "Attachment patterns" section seems to be discussing "capture-bonding" but never makes any assertion that it is discussing Stockholm Syndrome.

The "Attachment patterns" section currently is tagged as 'original research' and it certainly seems to me as though it is. "Crisis Narratives And Masculinist Protection" may assert that captor-bonding is another word for Stockholm Syndrome, but, again, that doesn't seem to be the subject of that paper's investigation. It doesn't seem to me as though any of the anthropological research cited in the "Attachment patterns" section makes the claim that the general psychological patterns they discuss are related to the specific condition of Stockholm Syndrome.

Which brings me to problem number 3 - for an article on Stockholm Syndrome, there really isn't much discussion of Stockholm Syndrome at all. There's a fair amount on the possible misuse of the term and sociological questions relating to that. There's a section on the anthropology of human captivity and the psychology of captives in general that appears to synthesize from the cited sources a conclusion related to Stockholm Syndrome that might not be in any cited source. But there is very little related to what I hoped to learn about Stockholm Syndrome from the article. The information on history is useful but there is only a cursory and poorly-cited discussion of whether or not it's a real condition, what causes it (ignoring the original research, which is what anyone reading this should do), how frequently it occurs, how it impacts the victims and their captors, and how it is treated. Most discussion of these issues is in one or two sentences per topic scattered haphazardly across the article. There are other topics the article doesn't mention at all but I think a good start to improving it would be reorganizing the way information is presented and increasing the variety of sources so that it more effectively conveys information on the areas I mentioned, while retaining the information on the social phenomenon of "Stockholm Syndrome" the term and removing original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C702:774:F8D9:C5A5:56F7:7AFD (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The general consensus, as discussed in the controversies section on the 2017 Disney remake, is that the text does not fulfill the general requirements for Stockholm syndrome. Snaperkids (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

This psychologist recently said in an interview that [t]he whole idea of Stockholm syndrome has actually been debunked in the literature. The problem is that the interview I just linked is part of a comedy sketch and she said other things that were clearly tongue-in-cheek, making me reluctant to take her at her word even for the things she appears to be offering a sincere professional statement on. Anyone have any better sources addressing this? The article's section on the DSM appears to be hinting at something like this, but it's worded in such a way that it could go either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I undid the edit that deleted this entire section with a single edit, because it is much too important in understanding how Stockholm Syndrome has been perceived in the culture at large. While references should be added how/when/where they can be found, just because they are not given does not mean there is automatic permission to delete the entire section. Instead, improve the article by finding references. Also, iirc some of these did have references to them at some point. Nodekeeper (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I was correct, an earlier version which added greatly to the article had been molested into a nasty useless list. Awful. I just reverted back to that version even if some other valid references were not included for necessary expediency. This section should be improved, not deleted. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Each entry needs a

WP:PRIMARY. Sjö (talk

) 05:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tagging. Besides, the list definitely needs trimming, even if we can source all the entries. We're not TV Tropes. Daß Wölf 04:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the newly added section because it was unsourced. I doesn't work like you can first add something and hope that someone else can find a source. This section has been filled with dubious entries before and I don't want to see it like that again. Sjö (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As this is their content's sole focus, I have moved the sections "Relevant literature" and "Professional studies" into a "Criticism" section, which I have located at the end of article content which more directly describes the syndrome itself. I have refrained from editing them down, however, there seems to me to be little in any of these sections to justify their current prominence even when appropriately included as all of both actually refer solely to a Sociological Quarterly article entitled: "Stockholm Syndrome As Vernacular Resource".
Within the "Professional studies" section, The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is not directly cited, nor is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which is referred to only to note that the syndrome is not classified. The sub-section Loving to Survive appears to refer to a novel. The authors cited: Fuselier and Dee Graham, are not authors of the Sociological Quarterly srticle and no citations or links are provided to them or their work.
Within the "Professional studies" section, the three studies included only indirectly refer to Stockholm syndrome. It is claimed here only that an "Ibarra and Kitsuse" study aimed to hold sociologists more accountable for the language and rhetoric used when making broad statements about psychological conditions, and that a "Conrad and Schneider" study evaluated the language used regarding medicalization, or creating conditions specifically for “medical and health” purposes. The study by "Robbins and Anthony" is included as apparently they had historically studied a condition similar to Stockholm syndrome.
LookingGlass (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"3.4 Victims" seems to be different from others in granularity. I feel there is no problem in moving this into "1 History", and propose to do so. The case of Elizabeth Smart meets the definition "as a survival strategy". Is it Controversy? --Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockholm syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209044509/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 to http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Stockholm syndrome is considered a "contested illness", due to many law enforcement officers' doubt about the legitimacy of the condition."

What saying has the institution "police/law enforcement" in deciding what is an illness and what not? Seriously!?! Any part of society can contest any illness if and how they like, but it's not upon them to decide what's a legit illness and what not. -178.1.119.237 (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. While it is sourced, the claim mischaracterizes what the source says; as well, there is no discussion of this in the body of the article, therefore, WP:UNDUE. Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The source uses the term "contested illness", but says that there's skepticism both within psychiatry and law enforcement. There is a whole section about criticism, where the Adorjan source is used. I don't see how this is UNDUE or unfixable mischaracterization. Sjö (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I could have sworn I searched the document, but apparently not adequately. Thanks for the correction and better wording. Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)