The Trauma-Bonded Citizen

Stockholm Syndrome in the cultural psyche.

Originally posted (June 27, 2025) Psychology Today

Trauma bonding is a type of attachment rooted in abuse. It is a well-documented psychological phenomenon where an abused person forms a powerful emotional connection to their abuser via cyclical periods of alternating mistreatment and kindness, or idealization and devaluation (Dutton & Painter, 1981). In this paradoxical attachment, the victim develops a strong sense of loyalty and affection to their abuser, despite ongoing abuse, making it difficult to leave the relationship. Trauma bonding is often compared to Stockholm Syndrome, a colloquial term describing the experiences of kidnapping victims or hostages’ bonding with their captors (Kuleshnyk, 1984).

Trauma-bonded attachment reflects a complex emotional response. The felt connection does not arise from mutual respect or love, but from dependency, fear, manipulation, and intermittent reinforcement. Trauma bonding acts as a coping mechanism to reduce the distress of the abuse, by creating a sense of control for the victim. Research illustrates that trauma bonds arise under key conditions, including power differentials, intermittent maltreatment, manipulation, and when escape feels unimaginable (Dutton & Painter, 1981). These bonds thrive in environments of narcissistic abuse, especially in the presence of three interconnected traits, or the Dark Triad: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Further, individuals may suppress or minimize awareness of abuse in order to preserve the attachment, especially when they rely on the relationship for survival or a sense of belonging (Freyd, 1996). Over time, the abused person may come to identify with their abuser, rationalizing their behavior and internalizing blame, thus reinforcing the bond and making it harder to sever.

To better understand the hook of trauma bonding, consider the neurobiology underlying the trauma dynamic and reward pathways (Izaki, Verbeke, Vrticka & Ein-Dor, 2024). Under chronic stress, especially under conditions of intermittent abuse and manipulation, a biochemical cocktail of cortisol, dopamine, and oxytocin hormones biologically reinforce the attachment. These neurochemical processes create a powerful feedback loop, wherein the abuser becomes both the source of fear and the perceived source of safety. Victims may become hyper-attuned to their abuser’s moods, behaviors, and expectations and prioritize the abuser’s needs above their own to maintain the relationship and avoid further harm.

Trauma bonding dynamics can also be observed at the sociopolitical level. Indeed, psychologists have analyzed narcissist-led movements, through the lens of trauma bonding. In such scenarios, where citizens form trauma bonds with abusive or narcissistic political leaders, these environments have been characterized as intrinsically toxic, cult-like, and harmful to followers (Vaknin, 2025). Under regimes where authoritarian or populist tactics are prevalent, betrayal, intimidation and false reassurance operate at a societal level.

The trauma-bonded citizen becomes entangled, loyal to a dangerous leader or movement, not in spite of the abuse, but because the leadership exploits existential fears and offers intermittent psychological rewards such as national pride, economic promises, or symbolic protection against hyperbolic threats. The leader may foster citizen dependency by undermining primary sources of trust and stability, such as scientific expertise, the press, the judiciary, or democratic institutions. This dependency is further deepened by the vilification of dissent and a rhetoric of fear and crises, both real and manufactured, that justify authoritarian control and create a climate of uncertainty and fear (Cinar & Kose, 2025). In this situation, people may justify harm done by their government, excuse authoritarian overreach, and dismiss evidence of systemic abuse to manage their helplessness and avoid cognitive dissonance.

In this context, trauma bonding can become a cultural expression, resembling a kind of collective Stockholm Syndrome. When political leaders tap into unresolved collective trauma, such as economic instability, cultural displacement, or historical grievances, they can create the emotional preconditions for trauma bonding (Muldoon, et al, 2021). Partisan promises, nationalistic appeals, populism, and charismatic promises of security act as intermittent rewards to reinforce the bond. Concurrently, dissenting voices are invalidated or punished, intensifying the perception that safety lies only within the abusive structure. They thus become both the protector and punisher, providing belongingness while threatening abandonment and promising prosperity while stoking fear. In both personal and cultural trauma bonds, the individual tends to reject or minimize injury, vilify critics, and remain emotionally entangled with a regime that erodes their rights and well-being. Loyalty becomes about survival, identity and conformity; dismissive of science, disconfirming evidence and critical thinking (Cinar & Kose (2025). Scapegoating and dehumanizing marginalized populations becomes a self-protective tactic to preclude having to question the abusive structure itself (Azmeh & Baert, 2024).

Understanding the trauma bond at a cultural level is pivotal for developing strategies for civic resilience. We know there are psychological traits that make individuals more susceptible to dominant, punitive leaders, such as submission to authority, aggression toward outgroups, and conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1996). Further, there are emotional mechanisms that significantly increase the acceptance of autocratic leadership, including creating and ‘us vs. them’ dynamic, heightening existential threats and painting themselves as the sole solution to social issues (Lammers and Baldwin, 2020). Finally, Linz (2000) demonstrated that authoritarianism thrives in contexts of disorientation, offering citizens a sense of certainty and identity in exchange for obedience.

Breaking trauma bonds requires a disruption of the intermittent reinforcement cycle and then restoration of individual agency and perspective. Survivors of interpersonal trauma require support, validation, and education to break free. Beyond intellectual persuasion, trauma-bonded citizens also require psychological and relational support to disentangle from charismatic authoritarianism. This may include debunking misinformation and conspiracy theories, nurturing dialogue skills, and building critical thinking capacities. This is a tall order in this age of misinformation, deep fakes, and AI, and where social media incentivizes antagonism and moral outrage (Rathje, Van Bavel & van der Linden, 2021). Research points the way, showing that changing public discourse and media promotion of warm political interactions significantly reduces outgroup animosity (Koetke, Conrique & Schumann 2023).

Healing partisan divides and addressing trauma bonding to authoritarianism require a multi-faceted approach. Leaders can reinforce trust by constantly stressing that they support democracy and by recognizing that this is a value shared across the political spectrum (Voelkel, et al., 2024). Lawmakers can defend the rule of law and facilitate citizen engagement and opportunities for respectful dialogue and debate. Political fragmentation erodes trust, and hinders the ability to respond authentically. Citizens can reclaim their sense of agency through actions that engender collective healing processes and empathically restore connection between all of a nation's people. Only by naming the trauma dynamic can we begin to dismantle it and help trauma-bonded citizens find their way back to relationships of consent, dignity, and shared power.

References

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cinar, K. & Kose, T. (2025). Populism Versus Science in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 37, 1, edae063, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae063

Azmeh, Z. & Baert, P. (2024). ‘Trauma work’ as hindrance to political praxis during democratisation movements. Theories and Society, 53, 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-023-09540-5

Dutton, D. G. & Painter, S. L. (1981). Traumatic bonding: The development of emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse. Victimology, 6, 1-4, 139–155.

Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Izaki, A., Verbeke, W.J.M.I., Vrticka, P. & Tsachi Ein-Dor (2024). A narrative on the neurobiological roots of attachment-system functioning. Commun Psychol 2, 96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00147-9

Koetke, J., Conrique, B. G., & Schumann, K. (2023). Bridging the Divide: The Effect of Individuating Information on Attitudes Toward Political Outgroup Members. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 11, 2, 534-554. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8217

Kuleshnyk, I. (1984). The Stockholm syndrome: Toward an understanding. Social Action & the Law, 10, 2, 37–42.

Lammers, J., & Baldwin, M. (2020). Power and perceived threat in the acceptance of authoritarianism. Nature Communications, 11, 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19690-2

Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Muldoon, O.T., Lowe, R.D., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T. & Haslam, S.A. (2021). Personal and Political: Post-Traumatic Stress Through the Lens of Social Identity, Power, and Politics.

Polit Psychol. 42, 3, 501-533. doi: 10.1111/pops.12709. Epub 2020 Dec 13. PMID: 34219849; PMCID: PMC8247337.

Paulhus, D. L. & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.

Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Psychological and Cognitive Science, 118, 26. e2024292118

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118

Vankin, S. (2025). Narcissistic and Psychopathic Leaders. Ann Psychiatry Treatment, 9, 1, 007-010. Available from: 10.17352/apt.000065

Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., et al. (2024). Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. Science, 386, 6719. DOI: 10.1126/science.adh4764