Historical

The taking of another person as a means of obtaining concessions has a long history. The Ancient Romans took hostage, for example, the sons of princes as a means of guaranteeing subservience and fulfilment of obligations of their conquered regions. In medieval times, the taking of knights hostage occurred in accordance with their ransom value. By means of their heraldic devices, the knights indicated their personal value; ‘highly prized’ knights were much less likely to be killed.

The word ‘kidnap’ derives from two etymological roots – ‘kid’ (i.e. child) and ‘nap’ (i.e. to snatch) – and was first associated with the stealing of children for deportation to the North American colonies for employment purposes.

Contemporary

There are many motives for contemporary hostage-taking. Prisoners in penal institutions may take hostages in an effort to highlight some perceived grievance and/or to obtain a change in their circumstances. Criminals, interrupted in the pursuit of another crime, may take a hostage in an effort to secure their escape from apprehension. ‘Tiger kidnapping’ refers to an event where an individual is taken hostage to induce, for example, a loved one, friend or colleague to commit a certain act such as the withdrawal of ransom money from a bank or building society. Particularly in South America, ‘express kidnapping’ is a common phenomenon. It entails the seeking of only a small ransom which the families can easily pay. Some individuals with mental illness also take hostages in response to their disturbed mood, thoughts and fears.

Most recently, we have become familiar with politically inspired hostage-taking by terrorist organisations to achieve some political end, such as the evacuation of Iraq by the Coalition Forces and by foreign workers. A feature of some of these incidents is a videotaped beheading of the hostage, and its subsequent transmission through Al Jazeera and/or the Al Arabia television channels. It is a contentious issue (and one too complex to be explored here), but some would argue that the USA, with or without the complicity of the UK, has engaged in a form of hostage-taking masked by the euphemism of ‘rendition’.

It should be noted that terrorism-inspired incidents of hostage-taking may differ from others. Hostage-taking by terrorists tends to involve well-trained and well-organised groups, and their hostages are likely to have been carefully chosen, particularly in anticipation of the likely effect that their abduction will have on others. Media involvement is nearly always a deliberately manufactured feature of such events.

These are pragmatic descriptions of motives, and Reference LipsedgeLipsedge (2004) has referred to a two-category classification. Motives can be identified as ‘instrumental’, i.e. acts which seek a specific concrete aim such as obtaining a ransom. Alternatively, they can be described as ‘expressive’, in that their primary aim is to enable the perpetrator to seek revenge and/or to express some pent up frustration, anger or other emotion. Generally, incidents which are not politically motivated tend to have a successful and safe resolution (Reference LipsedgeLipsedge 2004).

Rescue by force

The use of force to rescue hostages is a complex and sensitive matter. Attitudes have changed over time. Particularly in response to prison hostage incidents in the USA, the suppression model prevailed, and overwhelming force was used as the principal method of resolving them (Reference NeedhamNeedham 1977). However, high-profile failed rescue efforts confirm how dangerous armed intervention can be to hostages. The German authorities' attempted rescue of the Israeli wrestling team, who had been taken hostage by the Black September group at the 1972 Munich Olympics, resulted in the deaths of all hostages (Reference JonasJonas 2005). More recently, armed intervention in response to the incidents pertaining to the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow (in 2002) and to the Beslan school (in 2004) resulted in the deaths of 130 and 334 hostages respectively (Reference Speckhard and McTernanSpeckhard 2004; Reference GiduckGiduck 2005).

Successful resolution by force requires exceptional training, planning and execution, as was demonstrated by the Special Air Service (SAS), who secured the safe release of all hostages taken by the anti-Khomeini terrorists who seized the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980 (Reference Fremont-Barnes and WinnerFremont-Barnes 2009).

Negotiation

Negotiation is now widely recognised, at least in Western countries, as the first-choice intervention (Reference Soskis and van ZandtSoskis 1986). Negotiation consumes time and therefore helps to reduce the arousal levels of the perpetrators, hostages and first responders; it also enables the authorities to gather intelligence and plan a resolution strategy. In the UK, negotiating the release of a hostage is the responsibility of the police. In the case of UK nationals abducted abroad, the UK government has the responsibility to ensure their safe release. This responsibility is exercised through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London, and the UK's Embassies and High Commissions. The Hostage and Crisis Negotiation Unit of the Metropolitan Police is the unit through which UK governmental strategy is coordinated. The FCO also part-funds Reunite International (www.reunite.org), a leading UK charity which specialises in international abductions by parents. In addition, there is the national organisation pioneered by Terry Waite to provide care, advice and information for UK nationals taken hostage abroad (www.hostageuk.org).

Individual reactions

The psychological impact of being taken hostage will to some extent reflect the specific features of the event, including: its duration; whether the hostages have been physically, sexually and/or psychologically abused; whether there has been a (perceived) threat to life; whether the hostage is alone or in the company of other hostages; and the perpetrator's motives. There have been few follow-up studies which allow a clear delineation of the differential effects of different hostage circumstances. The general impression, however, is that the reactions of hostages to their plight are very similar to those displayed by adult (Reference AlexanderAlexander 2005) and child (Reference WilliamsWilliams 2007) victims of other trauma. Such reactions include those set out in Box 1.

Family reactions

This important theme cannot be discussed in detail here, but it should be noted that families' reactions may mirror those of the hostages (Reference Navia and OssaNavia 2003). In particular, they may suffer badly from the uncertainty of the situation and conflicting information from different sources, for example, employers, police family liaison officers, the media and released hostages.

High-profile cases may also involve the families in political and law enforcement conflicts and intrigues, as was the case in the kidnapping of the baby of Charles Lindbergh in 1932 (Reference GardnerGardner 2004). The pain of losing a loved one, the wavering trust in the authorities and the sense of helplessness experienced by the wife of a hostage (subsequently murdered by his captors) is movingly captured in the book A Mighty Heart (Reference PearlPearl 2003). It is vital that consideration be given to the challenges facing released hostages and their families, especially when individuals have been detained for extensive periods.

Post-incident psychopathology

Very few individuals develop frank psychopathology during, or in the immediate aftermath of, a traumatic event and it is important not to pathologise normal reactions. Although some individuals do develop genuine psychopathology and problems of post-incident adjustment, it is important that these findings do not mask typical human resilience and adaptiveness.

In terms of post-traumatic psychopathology, a review by Reference Favaro, Degortes and ColomboFavaro and colleagues (2000) of hostages abducted for ransom in Sardinia showed that just under half of them developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and just over a third showed signs of a major depression.

Severe and extended periods of detention may lead to another chronic condition, labelled ‘enduring personality change after catastrophic experience’ (World Health Organization 1992). Characteristic features (which must have lasted for at least 2 years) are:

1. • a hostile or mistrustful attitude towards the world

2. • social withdrawal

3. • feelings of emptiness or hopelessness

4. • a chronic feeling of being ‘on edge’, as if constantly threatened

5. • estrangement.

This defect state is similar to what was earlier referred to as ‘concentration camp syndrome’ (Reference EitingerEitinger 1961). The relationship between the condition and physical and psychological influences is complex (Reference BusuttilBusuttil 2008).

Psychopathology in children

Most research on hostages has been conducted on adults. For children, the effects of being abducted may be even more serious, particularly if they have been detained for over 6 months and if the event involved a breach of trust by a previously trusted figure (Reference AgopianAgopian 1984). Following the so-called ‘Chowchilla incident’ in California, involving the kidnapping of 26 children in a school bus, Reference TerrTerr (1983) reported that every child displayed symptoms similar to PTSD 4–5 years after the event. Some reactions, such as shame, pessimism and ‘death dreams’, increased over time.

Younger age and pre-existing family problems seem to make children more vulnerable to the adverse effects of being taken hostage (Reference TerrTerr 1983; Reference AgopianAgopian 1984). The effects on children may be further exacerbated by their loss of education and their need for medical care post-incident. The medical and psychiatric follow-up of abducted children must be conducted with great sensitivity. Professional follow-up always runs the risk of ‘retraumatising’ the victim, particularly when accompanied by intense media involvement.

Physical reactions

In addition to the psychological effects of being taken hostage, physical reactions must be considered, as they can be disturbing and even life-threatening to hostages. In the acute phase of an incident, such physical reactions may include faintness, nausea, incontinence, and increased heart and respiratory rates. The last reaction may be severe enough to develop into hyperventilation syndrome. Moreover, hostages may have to deal in captivity with the exacerbation of pre-existing physical conditions, such as asthma and diabetes, caused by stress and physical deprivation. New conditions may develop, occasioned by being deprived of a nutritious diet, daylight, exercise, fresh air, sleep and adequate sanitation.

Coping while in captivity

Much of our knowledge about coping as a hostage comes from individual accounts of high-profile cases, including those of Brian Keenan (Reference KeenanKeenan 1992), Terry Waite (Reference WaiteWaite 1993), Stephanie Slater (Reference Slater and LancasterSlater 1995), Natascha Kampusch (Reference Hall and LeidigHall 2006) and Peter Shaw (Reference ShawShaw 2006).

As informative and as impressive as these accounts are, it is not clear how successful these individuals' coping responses would be if employed by different individuals exposed to different or even the same situations. Nonetheless, some common strategies do appear to be helpful. Terry Waite (Reference WaiteWaite 1993) used several. First, he set himself three principles: no regrets, no false sentiment, and no self-pity. Second, he used mental arithmetic and reading (as did Natascha Kampusch) as a distraction and as a way of keeping himself mentally active. Third, he tried to impose order and self-care by doing regular and carefully self-monitored physical exercises. Fourth, by means of a form of cognitive restructuring, he sought to extract some positive gain, even during captivity, from his dreadful circumstance (4 years of being chained, beaten and held in isolation) by drafting out in his mind his autobiography. Finally, he took one day at a time.

The translation of an adverse experience into a positive one was also displayed initially by the adolescents in the hijacked aircraft, as they regarded their kidnap as an exciting event and something of an adventure. Moreover, as indicated earlier, they banded themselves into a helpful group, particularly with regard to the mothers of children (Reference JacobsenJacobsen 1973).

More work needs to be conducted before we can understand why some individuals cope better than others. In particular, we lack long-term follow-up data. However, an early follow-up by Reference StöfselStöfsel (1980) of hostages from Dutch hijacked trains revealed that there were more serious psychological symptoms among women (and the younger the woman, the worse the symptoms) than men, among those with low educational level and those who had a more extended period of captivity. In the same survey, he noted that out of 168 individuals, only 6% reported no adverse effects. From an extensive review, Reference MarkestynMarkestyn (1992) suggested that certain personality features may compromise coping as a hostage: these include passive-dependent traits, an external locus of control and a dogmatic-authoritarian manner.

Little research has gone into the adaptive value of religious belief and value systems. However, it was noted in a hostage-taking incident in Fiji that a group of abducted parliamentarians (irrespective of whether they were Christian, Hindu or Muslim) all used sacred texts to enable them to cope with the threats, intimidation and anxiety (Reference Taylor, Nailatikau and WalkeyTaylor 2002).

Stockholm syndrome

One highly publicised reaction, sometimes reported among hostages, is the so-called Stockholm syndrome, a term coined by the criminologist Nils Bejerot (Reference Cantor and PriceCantor 2007). It is questionable whether the word ‘syndrome’ is appropriate, since it implies a pathology or an attachment disorder, whereas it could be reasonably argued that the behaviour and attitudes associated with this reaction are normal in response to an abnormal event and can be adaptive. However, as the phrase is well-known we will use it here.

The term was introduced to describe the unexpected reactions of hostages both during and after an armed raid on the Sveriges Kredit Bank in Stockholm in 1973. Over a 6-day period, it was noted that the four hostages (three female) began to develop positive feelings towards their male captors and vice versa. After their release, the hostages even set up a fund to pay for their captors' legal defence fees.