Learned Helplessness versus Stockholm Syndrome

Today, a member of my list posted an excerpt from Randi Kreger’s new book about why people stay in abusive relationships. Randi mentioned Stockholm Syndrome as a possible reason. I am currently writing a new edition of my book When Hope is No Enough. I cover the concept of Stockholm Syndrome and why I think it doesn’t apply BPD/Non-BP relationships. Here is an unedited excerpt from my second edition about this subject:

Learned Helplessness and PTSD

Another concept that is new to this edition is the idea of learned helplessness and PTSD as Non-BP’s. Personally, I think this concept applies to both people with BPD and those who loved them. Not so long ago I was reading a “Non-BPD Staying” book (one that, as this book does, encourages the acquisition of certain skills to live with a BP). This book mentioned the idea of “Stockholm Syndrome” sometimes occurs within the Non-BP’s mind. Stockholm Syndrome is a condition in which a person who is abducted begins to feel sympathy for and identify with his or her abductor(s). It was coined following a six-day hostage crisis in 1973 in Stockholm, Sweden in which the captors began to feel emotionally attached to their abductors. This other “Non-BP” book likens the state of the mind of a Non-BP to those captors; that is, the abused person (the Non-BP) begins to develop an emotional attachment to the BP because of this dynamic. Stockholm Syndrome has also been used in the context of a weaker abused person (such as a child) bonding to a more powerful abuser. While it is not a professionally recognized diagnosis, several high-profile abduction and abuse cases have mentioned the syndrome in the popular press, including the high-profile case of Patty Hearst. I believe that application of Stockholm Syndrome to a BPD/Non-BP relationship is inaccurate in almost every case. While there may be certain cases in which this dynamic exists, of all of the individuals that I have met in person and online, I have yet to see any that could be properly described as Stockholm Syndrome.

One problem in my mind with the application of this label is that it creates a defined abuser/abused polar relationship and discounts the real affection one may have for the (supposed) love one in your life. Mistreatment certainly goes both way in any relationship and in the case of a BP/Non-BP relationship, that mistreatment can arise to the level of abuse. I don’t, however, think it can arise to the level of abductor, captor or terrorist on either part. It may feel that way at times, but relationships go through many changes during the course of months and years and to say that the overriding factor contributing to the relationship is only and solely one of abuse and mistreatment, that would indicate (to me at least) that the relationship is not based on love and one which might likely be better off terminated. However, if you are this person’s parent or child, it may not be possible to terminate such as relationship. Instead, you have to find ways to break the cycle of abuse. It is difficult, no doubt. Stockholm Syndrome is, in my mind, an extreme form of co-dependency.

[amazonshowcase_aae6001f3f5766bb5a55f3fb147c3088]

A more useful concept is that of learned helplessness. One of the major differences between Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness is that the former is psychodynamic or psychoanalytic (through attachment and/or object relationship explanations) and the later is behavioral. Before I began to research BPD and the “plight” of the Non-BP, I was never much of a behaviorist. Once I started to understand what actually worked with BPD, I have warmed up to the idea of behavioral therapies in general and to DBT specifically (because it is something of a hybrid approach to acceptance and change, whereas CBT is typical places more emphasis on change). There are several differences between the idea of learned helplessness and Stockholm Syndrome. First, I need to define learned helplessness such that you understand the concept and why it may apply to you (or your BP loved one).

Learned helplessness is a state in which a person (or an animal, which is a major difference because it operates at a lower brain level than does the psychoanalytic-derived object relations model that explains Stockholm Syndrome) discovers that no behavior can counteract the pain and suffering that that person is feeling. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on learned helplessness:

Learned helplessness is a psychological condition in which a human being or an animal has learned to act or behave helpless in a particular situation, even when it has the power to change its unpleasant or even harmful circumstance. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation (Seligman, 1975).

The idea of learned helplessness is derived from a behavioral experiment in by Seligman and Maier in 1967. These researchers took dogs and placed them in experimental conditions in which one group of dogs could stop shocks coming from a grid beneath their feet by pressing a lever. In other words, pressing the lever was the behavior that allowed them to escape pain. These dogs learned to press the level repeatedly to escape the suffering induced by the electric shocks. Another group of dogs also had the grid and the lever, but in their case pressing the lever did nothing to alleviate the painful shocks. The shocks did not increase or decrease by behaving in any particular fashion. The lever did nothing to stop the pain they were feeling. These dogs learned that they were completely helpless to lessen their pain. Eventually, these dogs merely “laid down on the gird” and accepted the shocks without attempting a behavior which might remove the shocks. This reaction is the essence of learned helplessness. If a person learns that no matter what they try nothing works to alleviate their pain, they eventually give up on trying and “lay down on the grid.”

I believe this idea better describes the dynamic between any other person (including the BP/Non-BP relationship) than does Stockholm Syndrome. I say this because unlike Stockholm Syndrome in which one party is deemed the abuser and the other the abused, learned helplessness is about pain avoidance – either on the BP or Non-BP side. If what you try, over and over, doesn’t work to alleviate pain, then you eventually learn that the pain is unavoidable and you “lie down on the grid” and accept the pain as unavoidable – or you go nuclear and terminate the relationship or commit suicide. If everything you do, even if you try the diametrically opposed action to the previous action and that doesn’t work, results in suffering and equal pain, eventually you are going to learn that you are helpless to the pain – this is what learned helplessness is all about. I don’t think this concept is only about the Non-BP (which the idea of Stockholm Syndrome assumes – that is, there is one abuser and one abused, which in a loving relationship seem ridiculous to me. I mean, after all, we are talking about “loved ones” and families are we not?), No, the idea of learned helplessness cuts both ways because both parties are using ineffective methods to remove pain and both parties end up banging their head up against to wall of ineffectiveness. If nothing works, despair rules and the only solution is to accept your fate and “lay down on the grid.”

The way out of learned helplessness is a reconditioning of one’s behavior in which the pain can be removed. That is another difference in the idea of Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness. The mechanics of Stockholm Syndrome are impossible to counteract (I suppose it’s years of psychoanalytic therapy or other ideas that this “Non-BP” book purports), while the mechanics of learned helplessness are difficult, yet possible, to counteract. What one has to do to counteract the condition of learned helplessness is find a behavior or technique that is not helpless. One has to find a technique or behavior that one can practice and be effective to alleviate the suffering of the condition in which one is currently helpless.

The reason that I included this section on learned helplessness in this section of the book is two-fold. While I have yet to talk about the tools to counteract this and other relationship issues that can arise from an ineffective BP/Non-BP relationship (I do that later in the book), I just wrote about conditioned behavior and I am about to write about emotional memory. Conditioned behavior and learned helplessness can happen in both humans and in animals. These two concepts are interrelated. I’m not sure about emotional memory and if it applies to animals. However, if whatever you try to reduce your pain doesn’t work, you eventually learn that nothing works – that is the state of learned helplessness. Within the framework of the BPD dynamic, if you find that your reactions and behaviors are ineffectual, these reactions and behaviors are ineffective at reducing your suffering and at fostering a calmer relationship. So, learned helplessness is related to conditioned behavior and learned helplessness can grow out of the BPD dynamic if you continue to perpetuate ineffective behavior.

Unlike Stockholm Syndrome, learned helplessness is born out of trust. Stockholm Syndrome is born out of abuse and/or hostage-taking. Your loved one is not (however it may feel at times) a kidnapper, terrorist or, intentionally, an abuser. They (and you) are trying to get needs met. The relationship generally is born out of trust and presumed love, whether romantic, familiar or friendly (or a combination of each). The basic premise of the nature of the relationship is a significant difference between Stockholm Syndrome and learned helplessness. It is not just the nature of the concepts academically (one is psychodynamic, the other behavioral), it is the foundation for the relationship that is divergent. The dogs in the learned helplessness experiments essentially trusted and relied upon their “owners” – they needed food and shelter provide by the experimenters (which in a way makes their case more tragic). In the case of Stockholm Syndrome, the initial state between subject and object is adversarial. The abusers or abductors are part of the initial part in the equation, as are the abused and the abducted. There is a clear perpetuator and a clear victim, but in my mind, no such clear lines between these categories exist in a BPD/Non-BP relationship. Certainly, Non-BP’s do feel embattled and, at times, overwhelmed, but, upon reflection, so do BP’s. Both groups are behaving in ways that are ineffective and ineffectual for reducing pain, for increasing understanding and for maintaining calm in the relationship.

One of the keys to understanding learned helplessness is to understand that no effective behavior can be found to escape pain. While BP’s might resort to “extreme” behavior to reduce their pain (such as cutting, risk-taking behavior, drug taking and others) Non-BP’s may be less likely to do so. I say “may be” less likely because I suspect that alcoholism and other such behavioral adaptations might be more prevalent in Non-BP’s than in the general population because these are behavioral adaptations that act on the pain directly, yet these adaptations are ineffective and may create other interpersonal and personal consequences. It is possible that (as in the dogs) there is no behavioral adaptation that has any effective impact on the suffering. You feel stuck and there’s no way out. That, in effect, requires that you “lie down on the grid” and accept your punishment. The trust and presumed love you felt in the beginning of the relationship is exposed as ineffective, and you feel trapped in pain. I think this is a mild form of PTSD. The point is, if you can’t do anything to get you out of pain, you’re stuck, helpless and hopeless. I called this book When Hope is Not Enough for a reason, and here’s where my intentions become clear: you can’t hope for a better and more effective solution when everything you have tried thus far doesn’t relieve the suffering and pain you feel. You stop pressing or depressing any lever because neither state relieves the pain; thus, you’re stuck in pain and suffering. However, unlike Stockholm Syndrome, I can offer you a way out of learned helplessness. The way out is through the application of tools that you can apply to the BPD dynamic that can break you out of hopelessness. And unlike psychodynamic explanations, which can take years, this escape window can take much less time. All one has to do is dedicate oneself and practice.

This form of PTSD or learned helplessness hurts and feels as if you are trapped in a cage of conditioned behavior. Yet, if you learn and apply the tools in this book, you can change the BPD dynamic and take your life back. My point is to try and introduce a new dynamic in which you can open the escape window. I have seen in this work in my life and, possibly more importantly, in the lives of the people on my list. There’s hope, but real hope only comes through the application of skills that can escape learned helplessness and PTSD forever.