“Trauma Bond” - Let’s Unpack That

By Amanda LaMela

Scroll through TikTok or swap stories with coworkers, and you’ll hear people say, “We totally trauma-bonded.” Usually, this phrase is meant to convey, “We went through something rough together, and it made us close.” Maybe you and your sibling survived a chaotic childhood, or you and your work friend bonded over quitting a derisive boss. That kind of solidarity is powerful, but it’s not trauma bonding. It’s bonding through shared trauma.

The phrase “trauma bonding” has drifted far from its clinical roots, and that shift matters. When we misuse “trauma bonding” to describe healthy closeness in the aftermath of pain, we risk watering down a term that describes something much darker.

The Clinical Definition

Psychologist Patrick Carnes introduced the term “trauma bonding” to describe the intense, confusing attachments that form between victims and their abusers. The pattern usually involves a cycle: Abuse. Affection. Hope. Repeat. Over time, this intermittent reinforcement wires the brain to crave the abuser’s brief moments of kindness. 

Recent research into sex trafficking survivors shows just how intense these bonds can be (Casassa et al, 2024). Experts describe four defining features:

• Yearning for intensity – Survivors often equate intensity with truth. Chaotic highs (extreme sex, violence, or life-or-death situations) feel “more real” than stable relationships. This makes healthy love feel flat or “boring.”

• Power imbalance – Traffickers control basic needs (food, shelter, drugs), creating a cycle where survivors feel dependent. Intermittent kindness, like gifts, affection, or meeting needs, deepens attachment.

• Distortion of love – Survivors interpret attachment as love. Some even smile when recounting abuse, because their brain has reframed it as proof of intimacy or connection.

• Inescapability – Bonds persist for years, even after freedom. Survivors may still long for or dream about their trafficker a decade later. Providers sometimes described it as a “permanent seal.”

This phenomenon taps into survival biology. Under threat, cortisol floods our nervous system. Subsequent relief or kindness triggers dopamine and oxytocin. The body mistakes this rollercoaster for love or safety, which cements attachment. Dr. Judith L. Herman explains, “The goal of the perpetrator is to instill not only fear of death but gratitude for being allowed to live.”

Several well-known cases illustrate the harsh realities of these bonds. In 2002, Elizabeth Smart was abducted at age 14 and held captive for 9 months by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. Despite multiple “opportunities” to escape (she was even taken in public), she didn’t seek help and later expressed concern for her captors. Researchers have pointed to her case as fitting the cycle of control, fear, and distorted attachment that defines trauma bonding.

Stockholm Syndrome

If this dynamic sounds familiar, you’re probably familiar with the concept of Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome refers to a specific subtype of trauma bonding in hostage or captivity situations. Trauma bonding, in contrast, is a broader term that includes domestic violence, child abuse, cults, and other coercive relationships. The term ‘Stockholm syndrome’ was coined in 1972 after a famous case where bank hostages began sympathizing with their captors (Namnyak et al, 2008). Jan-Erik Olsson took four bank employees hostage during a failed robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. The hostages were held captive for six days, and upon their release, refused to testify against Olsson. The hostages even raised money for their captor’s defense in court. 

Words Matter

Part of the confusion comes from how language travels. ‘Stockholm syndrome’ was coined by a psychiatrist and popularized by the press. ‘Trauma bonding’ emerged in academic and clinical literature but has been absorbed into everyday talk. As a result, Stockholm syndrome is more “cinematic,” while trauma bonding has morphed into shorthand for any connection forged in hardship.

It may feel nitpicky to police language when someone jokes about “trauma bonding” with their work bestie. But precision is meaningful. For survivors trapped in real trauma bonds, the term describes a very real and dangerous cycle. If we collapse it into shorthand for “shared hardship brought us closer,” we risk trivializing their reality. 

Unlike pop-culture uses of the term, trauma bonding isn’t about solidarity. It’s about entrapment. Understanding this helps protect survivors against judgment (“Why didn’t she just leave?”) and instead normalizes trauma bonding as an adaptive survival mechanism. For those caught in cycles of abuse, it’s the difference between gallows humor and naming a lifeline.

Looking for a therapist to unpack that? Amanda LaMela and the rest of our therapists are here to help. You can book an appointment by clicking below! We look forward to working with you!

References

Casassa, K., Ploss, A., & Karandikar, S. (2024). “He Loves Me Hard and Then He Abuses Me Hard”: How Service Providers Define and Explain Trauma Bonds Among Sex Trafficking Survivors. Violence against Women, 30(5), 1354–1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231158104

Namnyak, M., Tufton, N., Szekely, R., Toal, M., Worboys, S., & Sampson, E. L. (2008). “Stockholm syndrome”: psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01112.x