: Describing a psychological concept like Stockholm Syndrome in a non-Earth setting? I actually posted this originally over in the Psychology and Neurology SE in hopes of getting specific, helpful,

Two real-psych possibilities, Destructive Cult Syndrome and capture-bonding.

Destructive Cult Disorder.

From the wiki:

Robbins and Anthony, who had historically studied a condition similar to Stockholm syndrome, known as destructive cult disorder, observed in their 1982 study that the 1970s were rich with apprehension surrounding the potential risks of brainwashing.

Other excerpts from the wiki:

Evolutionarily speaking, research evidence exists to support the genuine scientific nature of Stockholm syndrome. Responses similar to those in human captives have been detected in some reptiles and mammals, primates in particular. [snip]
One of the "adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors", particularly females, was being abducted by another band. [snip]
Partial activation of the capture-bonding psychological trait may lie behind battered person syndrome, military basic training, fraternity hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or bondage/discipline.
Being captured by neighboring tribes was a relatively common event for women in human history, if [early humans were] anything like the recent history of the few remaining tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo, for instance), practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them.
[all bolded emphasis by Amadeus]

Your female character being held hostage for such a long time, and possibly repeatedly beaten and raped in the bargain, can activate this capture-bonding as a coping mechanism:

From a psychoanalytic lens, it can be argued that Stockholm syndrome arises strictly as a result of survival instincts. Strentz states, "the victim’s need to survive is stronger than his impulse to hate the person who has created the dilemma." A positive emotional bond between captor and captive is a "defense mechanism of the ego under stress". These sentimental feelings are not strictly for show, however. Since captives often fear that their affection will be perceived as fake, they eventually begin to believe that their positive sentiments are genuine.

When a captor exerts complete and inescapable control of their captive, and can beat and rape the captive at will, captives mentally surrender to this new reality. Then if their captor deviates from this horror with some kind of comfort (including for example not beating or raping, or extra food or a treat, or even a pillow or blanket or heat in the winter) this becomes evidence that their captor is being kind to them and caring for them, and has true affection for them.

Yes that is irrational, the captor invented the rules and administered the beatings and rapes! It is similar to the parent-child dynamic which has the same structure: Mom and Dad make up the rules, you are in trouble if you don't obey them, but then if they forgive you some transgression, it feels like they have done you a favor out of love.

The same irrationality is present in much religion: God (the Father) makes all the rules, and will punish me quite horribly if I disobey, but has the power to forgive me, for which I am expected to love Him, and respect Him, and blame my own weakness and inattention if I inadvertently commit some sin or resent this rule.

Note in all of these the rules and punishments are treated like laws of physics: A parent makes a rule about their child keeping their bed made up, then when the rule is broken, the parent says "Now I have to ground you for a day," as if they have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Another aspect of this is called propitiation, the captive will voluntarily perform acts (or volunteer for them) that they know their captor enjoys, as preemptive gifts to gain credit for forgiveness of future inadvertent transgressions. Being a good boy/girl by exceeding their master's expectations.

Such acts are a natural response (meaning not necessarily explicitly reasoned out). But they are closely related to wooing: Feeling affection for another, and doing kindnesses to win their affection back. They are not the same thing, winning their affection to avoid a beating did not usually begin with affection for the abuser, but in time the mind can mistake the latter for the former, and the captive can develop true affection for their captor and with it belief that their cause is righteous.

All of which I say to inform your story to remain plausible. It sounds plausible to me already, I like your plot. I will also say this kind of response, especially with prior training in understanding these dynamics, can often be resisted. A tough minded woman can override emotions with rationality and act the part, even over years.

---

(0)

That's a lot of double-double agent stuff - kudos to you for writing such a complicated interaction in your story.

I don't think you need any psychology-related words, honestly. What I would use is just a quick dialogue scene to describe the basic symptoms of what Group C believes is happening. Perhaps a doctor or some other authoritative figure could quickly posit this theory to other important members of Group C, getting the message across to the readers? Other members can then agree with the idea.

That way, you can describe Stockholm Syndrome without either using the existing term or creating a new term of your own, and move on with your actual story without getting tied up in medical specifics.

---

(0)