Do I Have Stockholm Syndrome Quiz
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- My permission is sought and my refusal is respected.
- I have received an unexpected request, but the person accepted my answer.
- The person repeatedly pressures me or makes affection depend on providing sexual material.
- They created, kept, shared, or used sexual material without permission, or threatened to do so.
- A disagreement may follow, but I do not anticipate physical intimidation or harm.
- I expect raised voices, aggressive gestures, or invasive closeness that makes me uneasy.
- I expect damage to belongings, blocked movement, or dangerous behavior around me.
- They have threatened or inflicted physical harm on me, themselves, another person, or an animal to control me.
- Conflict has not involved physical intimidation or aggressive contact.
- They moved into my space or used an intimidating posture that made me back away.
- They struck walls, broke objects, drove dangerously, or used nearby violence to frighten me.
- They hit, kicked, choked, restrained, assaulted, or otherwise physically injured me.
Do I Have Stockholm Syndrome Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
Fear, dependence, or attachment can affect how someone views a harmful relationship, and the questionnaire helps name what they notice. The Do I Have Stockholm Syndrome Quiz focuses on patterns that may be difficult to name. Together, the themes give this Stockholm syndrome quiz a way to organize coercion, harm, isolation, dependence, and attachment after frightening events. Results can highlight experiences worth discussing and may indicate when seeking support or safety planning deserves consideration.
What This Assessment Explores
The questions examine how control, fear, dependence, and reassurance after harm shape a person’s view of a close relationship. They address attachment, self-blame, isolation, physical intimidation, sexual pressure, impaired consent, restricted movement, and attempts to leave or set limits. Together, these Stockholm syndrome questions organize situations that can be hard to compare across memory and emotion.
These are the three result dimensions and bands:
- Emotional Control and Protective Attachment (0-15) reflects attachment, isolation, self-blame, and dependence; bands are No indicators endorsed (0), Concern present (1-2), and Action warranted (3-15).
- Physical Threat and Constraint (0-15) reflects intimidation, assault, restraint, and restricted movement; bands are No indicator endorsed (0), Concern present (1-2), and Action warranted (3-15).
- Sexual Boundary Violations (0-15) reflects pressure, impaired consent, forced contact, and retaliation; bands are No items endorsed (0), Concern present (1-2), and Action warranted (3-15).
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item presents four ordered response options, moving from no apparent concern to serious red flags. Items cover sexual consent, physical intimidation, blocked exits, access to essentials, isolation, dependence, and reactions to concern or kindness. Answers are summarized across three dimensions; the ranges do not reveal a point-by-point scoring rule. A single red-flag response warrants action regardless of the total; a zero result means only that no indicator was endorsed in the answers and does not establish safety.
The methodology is conceptually consistent with the Stockholm Syndrome Scale, a published scale examining Stockholm syndrome reactions in abusive dating relationships. It also aligns with Dutton and Painter’s work on traumatic bonding, while Hegarty, Bush, and Sheehan provide a multidimensional abuse-measurement context. This questionnaire is not an adaptation of those instruments; it is an original online self-reflection tool with unstandardized, unvalidated displayed bands.
Unvalidated bands do not establish a diagnosis, predict danger, or determine legal responsibility; self-report is also shaped by current fear, loyalty, memory, normalization of harm, and self-awareness. Interpret results with the concrete events and support available.
- Graham, Dee L. R., Edna I. Rawlings, Kim Ihms, Diane Latimer, Janet Foliano, Alicia Thompson, Kelly Suttman, Mary Farrington, and Rachel Hacker. (1995). A scale for identifying “Stockholm syndrome” reactions in young dating women: Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Violence and Victims, 10(1), 3-22. 10.1891/0886-6708.10.1.3
- Dutton, Donald G., and Susan Painter. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105-120. 10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105
- Hegarty, Kelsey, Robert A. Baruch Bush, and Mary C. Sheehan. (2005). The composite abuse scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 529-547. 10.1891/0886-6708.2005.20.5.529