A Concept Analysis of Trauma Coercive Bonding in the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

Trauma Bonding Perspectives From Service Providers and Survivors of Sex Trafficking: A Scoping Review

“…Trauma bonding was defined in 10 of the reviewed studies (Contreras et al, 2017; Hardy et al, 2013; Hom & Woods, 2013; Hopper, 2017; J. Jordan et al, 2013; Lopez & Minassians, 2018; Mehlman-Orozco, 2017; Raghavan & Doychak, 2015; Reid, 2016; Sanchez et al, 2019). Examples of these definitions included “the invisible strong emotional tie that develops between two individuals, where one person frequently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses or intimidates the other person” (Hopper, 2017, as cited in Sanchez et al, 2019, p. 49), “a dynamic, cyclical state in which victims form a powerful emotional attachment to their abuse partners” (Raghavan & Doychak, 2015, p. 583), “a paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which a positive bond between hostage and captor occurs” (Annitto, 2011, as cited in Lopez & Minassians, 2018, p. 264), and “a form of coercive control in which the perpetrator instills in the victim fear as well as gratitude for being allowed to live” (U.S.…”

“…Two studies used the terminology “trauma coercive bonding” or “trauma coercive attachment” in place of “trauma bonding” in sex trafficking survivors (Raghavan & Doychak, 2015; Sanchez et al, 2019). Raghavan and Doychak (2015) proposed that “trauma bonding” be reframed as “trauma-coerced bonding” to more adequately reflect the abusive dynamics between a trafficked individual and the trafficker, where the bond is conceptualized as “a traumatic response to a terrifying chronic stressor rather than as a dysfunctional attachment that reflects masochism, weakness, or social vulnerability in the victim” (p. 584).…”

“…Raghavan and Doychak (2015) proposed that “trauma bonding” be reframed as “trauma-coerced bonding” to more adequately reflect the abusive dynamics between a trafficked individual and the trafficker, where the bond is conceptualized as “a traumatic response to a terrifying chronic stressor rather than as a dysfunctional attachment that reflects masochism, weakness, or social vulnerability in the victim” (p. 584). While Raghavan and Doychak argued for the substitution of terminology to foreground the complex consequences of chronic interpersonal trauma, Sanchez et al (2019) argued for a theoretical distinction between trauma-coerced bonding and trauma bonding, particularly for juvenile victims of sex trafficking, based on research that trauma bonding in sex trafficking may be more complex than in other forms of victimization (e.g., Hopper, 2017). They noted that with trauma bonding of incest or domestic violence victims (e.g., Adorjan et al, 2012) or Stockholm syndrome (Cantor & Price, 2007), a bi-directionality or reciprocity of sentiment exists where the abusers or captors develop positive feelings for the victims they abuse, even mislabeling their abuse as “love” (Sanchez et al, 2019).…”

“…While Raghavan and Doychak argued for the substitution of terminology to foreground the complex consequences of chronic interpersonal trauma, Sanchez et al (2019) argued for a theoretical distinction between trauma-coerced bonding and trauma bonding, particularly for juvenile victims of sex trafficking, based on research that trauma bonding in sex trafficking may be more complex than in other forms of victimization (e.g., Hopper, 2017). They noted that with trauma bonding of incest or domestic violence victims (e.g., Adorjan et al, 2012) or Stockholm syndrome (Cantor & Price, 2007), a bi-directionality or reciprocity of sentiment exists where the abusers or captors develop positive feelings for the victims they abuse, even mislabeling their abuse as "love" (Sanchez et al, 2019). They contrasted this with the "coercive" unidirectional bonding between traffickers and trafficked individuals that is deliberately cultivated for the purpose of profit without affection for the victim.…”

“…The paradox of the trauma bond is extremely significant to the sex trafficking survivor for three reasons as follows: (a) the victim’s attachment to the perpetrator makes it difficult for them to leave the abusive situation for safety or to leave permanently (Baldwin et al, 2015; Reid et al, 2013); (b) the victim’s attachment to the perpetrator motivates them to protect the perpetrator from legal repercussions such as prosecution for trafficking (Clawson & Grace, 2007; Nichols, 2016); this protection of the perpetrator often extends to moral responsibility as well, where the victim self-blames for the perpetrator’s abusive acts or labels these acts as loving, rational, or kind despite them being injurious to themselves (Jülich, 2005); and (c) the victim experiences diminished trust in outsiders or formal systems of help or protection (such as social services or the police) often due to internalizing the abuser’s perceptions of these systems and a sense of guilt (Sanchez et al, 2019). The very nature of the trauma bond perpetuates the survivor’s physical, mental, and emotional exploitation at the hands of a trafficker.…”