2
General Theories of Trauma Bonding

Joan A. Reid and Sarah M. Gardy

Overview

As observed in Chapter 1, trauma bonding may occur in the context of a wide range of abusive and exploitative relationships, such as child sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, or kidnapping. Scholars have proposed theories to explain the perplexing responses of victims associated with trauma bonds which are formed within the context of abuse and violence. Developing and testing theories of trauma bonding shape the following: (1) an understanding of the mechanism of trauma bonding, (2) an understanding of the underlying reasoning of why these mechanisms are triggered (or not triggered), (3) the identification of which mechanism should be targeted for effective intervention, and (4) the basis for treatment evaluations to determine why an intervention was (or was not) successful (Greenberg, 2020; Nigg et al., 2002).

Most theories of trauma bonding are abuse‐specific theories, meaning they were developed to explain trauma bonding in a single abusive context. A few theories of trauma bonding are more general and have been applied across more than one type of interpersonal violence and are considered abuse‐general theories. In the chapter, we provide an overview of the abuse‐general theories of trauma bonding that have informed the current thinking. We classify abuse‐general trauma bonding theories into psychological, evolutionary, and neurobiological theories. Each theory is described in detail, and relevant empirical research is summarized. The final section of the chapter concludes with a discussion of where the theories are in agreement and disagreement and areas most urgently in need of further research.

KEY TERMS

Appeasement:

Giving people what they want to avoid them becoming angry with you or harming you. The noun appeasement comes from the verb appease, which itself comes from the French words a (“to”) and pais (“peace”) and is used to describe the satisfying of the demands of an aggressive person or group with the hopes of bringing a turbulent situation back to calm and in a way that is often harmful or exploitative. Providing a ransom to kidnappers is an example of appeasement.

Attachment:

In psychological terms, attachment is an emotional bond between two people that is intense and long‐lasting, in which each seeks relationship and belonging.

Dissociation:

In psychological terms, dissociation is a neurobiological process by which a person separates from emotions, memories, their environment, or even their identity. Traumatic events often trigger some level of dissociation during or after the event.

Survival Strategies:

When encountering life‐threatening situations, the nervous system switches into an instinctual, defensive state in order to optimize the likelihood of survival. Fight, flight, freeze, and other responses during life‐threatening events are examples of survival strategies.

Fight–Flight–Freeze–Flop–Friend response (FFFFF):

FFFFF occurs in response to a perceived danger, which triggers a stress response focused on survival. Below are the descriptions of each response according to Rape Crisis England & Wales (RCEW):

Fight Response:

Physically fighting, pushing, struggling, and fighting verbally, e.g., saying “no.”

Flight Response:

Putting distance between you and danger, including running, hiding, or backing away.

Freeze Response:

Going tense, still, and silent. Animals often freeze to avoid fights and potential further harm or to “play dead” and so avoid being seen and eaten by predators.

Flop Response:

Similar to freezing, except your muscles become loose and your body goes floppy. This is an automatic reaction that can reduce the physical pain of what is happening to you. Your mind can also shut down to protect itself.

Friend Response:

Calling for a “friend” or a bystander for help, for example, by shouting or screaming, and/or “befriending” the person who is dangerous, for example, by placating, negotiating, bribing, or pleading with them (RCEW, n.d., para. 5).

Reports from Survivors and Practitioners

Survivors, law enforcement, and service providers similarly respond when asked to discuss or describe trauma bonding. Most respond with confusion and perplexity. Below are a few comments typical of the confusion caused by the perplexing emotions and behaviors resulting from trauma bonds.

“My family thinks my abuser has some kind of voodoo powers over me because I changed so much and stopped acting like me and I could not break free from him no matter how bad it got.”

Statement by Intimate Partner Violence and Human Trafficking Survivor

“I always think of the girls (literally—they were under 17 years old) who called me afraid and yet were unwilling to inform on their pimps/traffickers because they felt like they were the only one who protected and cared for them. I never understood ….”

Statement by former FBI Special Agent

“I can’t explain it. Girls will have sex with up to seven at $150 each in one night and then still crave sex with their pimp/trafficker to get their love and affection.”

Statement by FBI Special Agent

“I must be crazy. He is my soulmate. And I know he is going to kill me.”

Statement by Intimate Partner Violence Survivor

“People [sex traffickers] who use kids like this are the

most brilliant child psychologists on the planet.”

Statement by Child Protective Services Staff

Psychological Theories of Trauma Bonding

Psychological theories are developed to explain human behavior. Psychological theories provide evidence‐based explanations of why people believe, behave, and react the way they do. Most often, psychological theories encompass factors of personality, early experiences, and interpersonal relationships. Several abuse‐general theories of trauma bonding have been developed, drawing from classical psychological theories.

Attachment Theory and Trauma Bonding Theory

Attachment theory is a foundational, psychological theory which has informed several current theories of trauma bonding. The theoretical connection which has been made between trauma bonding and attachment theory is fitting. Much of the difficulty in explaining and understanding trauma bonding arises from the victim experiencing strong attachment with the perpetrator (e.g., Herman, 1992a; Reid & Jones, 2011; Summit, 1983). Attachment theory was developed by Bowlby and Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1980) to explain child–parent attachment. In brief, attachment theory proposed that infants who most often experience responsiveness become securely attached; those who most often experience rejection become avoidant; and those infants who experience an unpredictable combination of both responsiveness and rejection become anxious and ambivalent. Another tenet of attachment theory is that these early experiences of attachment set up the child's internal working model of relational expectations. The internal working model carries the person's expectations for all attachment relationships on into the future and remains generally stable, unless altered by significant new experiences.

Attachment and abuse go hand in hand. Describing the dynamics that occur between the abuser and the victim in the face of danger and pain, van der Kolk (1989) stated, “Children in particular, seek increased attachment in the face of external danger. Pain, fear, fatigue, and loss of loved ones and protectors all evoke efforts to attract increased care … When there is no access to ordinary sources of comfort, people may turn toward their tormentors” (p. 399). All children depend on caregivers for survival and therefore cling fiercely to their caregivers whether they are kind or abusive.

In Bowlby's original work on infant attachment, it was believed that intermittent attention from a caregiver could intensify attachment (Dutton & Painter, 1993). Drawing upon this concept based in attachment theory, Dutton and Painter (1981, 1993) developed a trauma bonding theory that has not only been primarily applied to trauma bonding in the context of intimate partner violence but has also been useful in understanding trauma bonding in the context of child sex trafficking (Doychak & Raghavan, 2020; Reid, 2016). The theory postulates that two conditions are necessary for the formation of a trauma bond between the victim and the offender: (1) a marked power imbalance, in which the victim increasingly feels powerless, helpless, and vulnerable and (2) intermittent abuse that alternates with positive or neutral interactions. Dutton and Painter (1993) assert that trauma bonding or paradoxical attachment is a general learning phenomenon similar to the anxious‐avoidant pattern of attachment postulated by Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1977, 1980).

Dutton and Painter (1993) conducted a longitudinal study examining...