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

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.

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.