This began on August 23, 1973, when a man named Jan Erik Olsson stormed a branch of Kreditbanken bank in the Swedish capital, Stockholm, and held four employees hostage for six days.
The perpetrator threatened to kill the hostages and demanded a ransom of 3 million kronor from the Swedish prime minister, equivalent to approximately $2 million today. He also requested weapons and a high-speed vehicle to facilitate his unhindered departure from the country.
Swedish police waited until August 28th, then decided to storm the bank building, firing tear gas into the cash vault where the hostages were being held, along with the perpetrator, Olsson, and his accomplice, Olofsson, who had been released from prison and brought to the scene at the request of the mastermind behind the robbery and hostage situation. The two robbers surrendered after half an hour, and all the hostages were released unharmed.
What astonished everyone in this incident, which at first glance might appear to be a mere botched robbery, was that the victims sympathized with their captor, who had held them captive for nearly a week, and refused to give incriminating testimony in court. They argued with their lawyers, insisting that they harbored no ill will toward the assailant and his accomplice, and even asserting that the perpetrator and his companion had done nothing wrong to them.
Inspired by this state of conflicting emotions, psychiatrist Niels Bejerot, who had advised the police during negotiations with the perpetrator, coined a term initially named after Normalmstorg Square, where the bank is located. Due to the difficulty in pronouncing this term, "Normalstorgsindrumet," it was later replaced by "Stockholm syndrome."
Since then, Stockholm syndrome has entered the field of psychology, and it means the empathy that appears between the victim and the perpetrator after direct contact in a painful experience.
This syndrome is an unconscious, protective psychological reaction, under whose influence victims begin to feel sympathy for their "torturers" and justify their actions.
This term, coined by psychologist Beijerott in the Stockholm bank hostage incident, describes a special case in which victims forge positive relationships with their attackers and ignore their cruelty and suffering in a situation contrary to what should have been the case.
It is worth mentioning that Stockholm syndrome is not officially considered a disease or mental disorder, but rather a type of adaptive behavior that arises in a state of threat, and an unconscious way of resisting moral and physical violence.
The mechanism of Stockholm syndrome is closely linked to the instinct for self-preservation, and it is reinforced in the unconscious based on the hope that the aggressor will treat the victim leniently if she shows obedience.
The danger of this exceptional syndrome is that the person who finds himself in the position of the victim automatically acts against his own interests, which may be an obstacle to obtaining outside help.
Most people who have experienced Stockholm syndrome convince themselves that they are somehow responsible for what happened, and that they may have provoked the aggressor or unconsciously initiated the wrong signals.
Experts identify several conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome, primarily a traumatic event, whether psychological or physical, such as abuse or aggression. Other conditions include the formation of a close relationship between the abuser and the victim through regular contact, as well as the presence of compelling circumstances that prevent voluntary withdrawal from such a relationship.
Stockholm syndrome has subsequently appeared several times in crimes where victims sided with their attackers, enthusiastically defending and supporting them. This underscores the seriousness of this syndrome and its profound impact on altering the victim's consciousness, completely turning the situation in favor of the perpetrator.
