Have you ever found yourself making excuses for someone who has clearly wronged you? Perhaps you have defended a partner who belittles you, rationalized the behaviour of a family member who manipulates you, or felt a strange sense of loyalty to a friend who consistently lets you down. If this sounds familiar, you are not alone. Many people find themselves in the perplexing and painful position of siding with, protecting, or even defending those who cause them harm. This phenomenon can feel like a betrayal of oneself, a confusing contradiction that seems to defy all logic. Yet, from a psychological perspective, this seemingly irrational behaviour is a deeply ingrained, often unconscious, survival mechanism.

This article explores the complex psychological reasons why we sometimes side with people or things that hurt us. It draws upon established psychological theories and research to explain these difficult dynamics, with the goal of offering understanding and, ultimately, a pathway to healing and healthier relationships.

The Protective Reflex of the Brain

To understand why someone might defend their abuser, it is helpful to first look at the brain’s fundamental operating system. When a person perceives a threat to their physical or psychological survival, the brain’s primal response system takes over. The limbic system, the brain’s emotion centre, becomes highly active while the prefrontal cortex, the area responsible for logic and rational decision-making, is partially shut down . This is not a conscious choice but a biological reflex designed to ensure immediate survival.

In the context of an abusive or harmful relationship, the brain is constantly on high alert. The victim becomes preoccupied with the abuser’s moods, needs, and desires, attempting to predict and avoid the next outburst . This hypervigilance is a survival strategy. The goal is to minimise the risk of further harm. This can lead to a state of emotional exhaustion where the victim feels too drained and depressed to contemplate leaving . The very energy required to plan and execute an escape is depleted by the constant effort of simply trying to survive day-to-day.

Traumatic Bonding and Stockholm Syndrome

Perhaps the most well-known framework for understanding this phenomenon is the concept of traumatic bonding, often discussed in relation to Stockholm Syndrome. The term “Stockholm Syndrome” was coined in 1973 after hostages in a Swedish bank robbery developed sympathetic feelings toward their captors, even refusing to testify against them after being freed .

While it is not an official psychiatric diagnosis, the dynamics of Stockholm syndrome provide a powerful lens through which to view abusive relationships. It refers to a psychological response where a victim develops a powerful, emotional attachment to their abuser . This bond is forged through a specific set of conditions that are often present in abusive intimate relationships, as well as in cases of child abuse, human trafficking, and even in some family or workplace dynamics.

Key Elements of Traumatic Bonding

Several core elements create and sustain a trauma bond.

1. A Real Threat to Survival: The victim must perceive a genuine threat to their physical or psychological wellbeing, and believe the abuser is capable of acting on it .

2. Isolation: The abuser often works to cut the victim off from their support network of friends and family . As psychiatrist and trauma expert Bessel Van der Kolk observed, when people have no access to other sources of comfort or protection, they may turn toward their tormentors . The abuser becomes the victim’s sole source of information, safety, and even basic needs, making them the centre of the victim’s world .

3. Perceived Kindness: The abuser does not abuse constantly. The abuse is intermittent, punctuated by small acts of kindness, affection, or normalcy. In a terrifying and chaotic environment, a simple act like being given food or not being harmed can be perceived as an exceptional and life-affirming gift . This intermittent reinforcement is incredibly powerful. The victim feels gratitude, and this gratitude, mixed with fear, is a potent catalyst for bonding. They may see the abuser not as a monster, but as a complex person who is “good” but prone to “bad” behaviour .

The Seven Stages of Trauma Bonding

The development of a trauma bond can be understood as a process with identifiable stages . While the specific details of each stage may vary, the overall trajectory follows a deeply damaging pattern.

1. Love Bombing: The relationship often begins with intense idealisation, affection, and flattery. The abuser showers the victim with attention, making them feel uniquely special and creating a powerful emotional dependency. This phase establishes a powerful, initial “high” that the victim will later long for.

2. Trust and Dependency: The victim begins to trust the abuser and becomes reliant on them for emotional and sometimes physical needs. The abuser creates a sense that they are the only one who truly understands the victim.

3. Criticism and Devaluation: The abuser’s true nature starts to emerge. They become critical, manipulative, and emotionally abusive. They may shame the victim, eroding their self-esteem. The victim, still clinging to the memory of the love-bombing phase, often blames themselves and hopes to regain the abuser’s approval.

4. Gaslighting and Manipulation: The abuser uses psychological manipulation to make the victim question their own sanity and perception of reality. This is often called “crazy-making.” The abuser will deny that the abuse happened, blame the victim for their own reactions, and claim the victim is “overreacting” or “too sensitive.” This erodes the victim’s ability to trust their own judgment .

5. Resignation and Submission: The victim, worn down by the abuse and manipulation, becomes compliant to avoid conflict. They have learned through experience that resistance is futile and often leads to worse punishment. This is a state of learned helplessness .

6. Loss of Self: The victim’s sense of identity is systematically dismantled. They have become so focused on the abuser’s needs that they have forgotten or no longer know their own. They believe they are unworthy of love and incapable of functioning without the abuser.

7. Emotional Addiction: The relationship has become an addiction. The victim is hooked on the cycle of abuse and the brief, intermittent periods of kindness that follow, which are sometimes referred to as the “honeymoon phase” . This intermittent reward is far more addictive than consistent affection. The victim, in the grip of this addiction, finds it incredibly difficult to walk away.

A Note on “Stockholm Syndrome”

Popular culture frequently uses the term Stockholm syndrome to explain why victims defend harmful people.

The concept has a weak empirical foundation.

A systematic review by Namnyak and colleagues (2008) found that Stockholm syndrome lacked clear diagnostic criteria and was supported largely by inconsistent case reports rather than a well-established clinical evidence base.

It is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis.

More specific concepts such as coercion, attachment, dependency, intermittent reinforcement, betrayal trauma and threat adaptation are usually more scientifically useful.

Learned Helplessness: When Escape Seems Impossible

Another crucial psychological concept that explains why people stay and defend the indefensible is learned helplessness. This theory was first developed by psychologist Martin Seligman in 1967. In a seminal experiment, dogs were subjected to electric shocks that they could not control. Even when later placed in a situation where escape was easy, many of the dogs did not even try. They had learned that they were powerless and that their actions were futile, so they simply gave up .

In human terms, a person who has experienced repeated abuse, especially if they grew up in an abusive environment, can internalise a similar belief: “Whatever I do, nothing will change” . This is why victims often stay in relationships that are clearly harmful. It is not that they want to be hurt, but that their cognitive system has been “taught” that escape is impossible, leaving them passive and compliant .

Cognitive Dissonance: Rationalising the Pain

The human mind craves consistency. When a person’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions are in conflict, it creates a state of psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance . For a victim of abuse, the conflict is extreme: “I love this person” versus “This person is hurting me.” These two beliefs cannot coexist comfortably.

To resolve this dissonance, the mind will often work to distort reality. The victim begins to rationalise the abuser’s behaviour to make it more acceptable. This can take many forms, but the underlying goal is to protect the relationship and, by extension, the victim’s own sense of self-worth. If the abuser is the problem, then the victim has made a terrible mistake by loving them. If the victim is the problem, then the abuser’s behaviour makes sense, and the victim can fix it.

Sunk Costs Make Leaving Psychologically Difficult

People are also influenced by previous investment. The sunk-cost effect describes the tendency to continue investing in a decision partly because substantial time, money or effort has already been spent (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

Leaving an abusive relationship is not simply a matter of breaking an emotional bond. It also means sacrificing a massive investment of time, energy, and resources.

• Emotional Investment: The victim has likely poured an immense amount of emotion, care, and worry into the relationship. There is a powerful sunk-cost fallacy at play; the feeling that one cannot “waste” all that effort by giving up now .

• Social and Financial Investment: The abuser may be the primary breadwinner, or the victim may have given up their career. There may be children involved, making the decision to leave infinitely more complex. Pride and a desire to avoid social embarrassment often keep people trapped in unhappy situations .

• Lifestyle and Intimacy Investment: The victim may be reluctant to lose their standard of living. They may also have invested a deep, personal level of intimacy, and may fear the destruction of their self-esteem or the threat of having private secrets exposed .

All these investments create a web of dependency that makes leaving seem not just emotionally difficult but practically impossible. Related research on escalation of commitment shows that people may continue investing in unsuccessful courses of action after negative outcomes, particularly when they feel personally responsible for the original decision (Staw, 1981). The defence therefore becomes self-reinforcing. The more someone has invested, the harder it may feel to reconsider.

Identity Makes Criticism Feel Personal

People do not define themselves only as individuals.

Social identity theory proposes that group memberships form part of the self-concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

We may identify strongly with:

• families
• professions
• religions
• political movements
• workplaces
• universities
• cultural groups
• communities
• public figures or fandoms

When a group becomes psychologically important, criticism of the group may feel like criticism of the self.

A person may therefore defend an organisation that has mistreated them because admitting wrongdoing threatens an important identity:

“This company gave me my career.”

“This is my family.”

“These are my people.”

“This community represents my values.”

This helps explain why insiders sometimes attack critics, whistleblowers or victims rather than addressing the behaviour being criticised. The perceived threat is not only to the group’s reputation. It is to the individual’s sense of belonging and self-definition.

System Justification: Defending the Status Quo

System justification theory proposes that people can be motivated to perceive existing social arrangements as fair, legitimate or necessary, even when those arrangements disadvantage them (Jost et al., 2004).

Believing that a system is basically fair provides predictability. The alternative can be psychologically destabilising.

Examples include:

“This is simply how the industry works.”

“You have to tolerate this when you are junior.”

“Our family has always been this way.”

“That’s just the role women are expected to play.”

“Everyone goes through this.”

Such explanations can normalise harmful or unequal conditions. Defending the system may therefore reduce uncertainty, but it can also make injustice more difficult to challenge.

A related concept is institutional betrayal. Smith and Freyd (2014) used this term to describe harm committed or enabled by institutions on which people depend. A university, workplace, religious institution or professional organisation may fail to prevent misconduct, silence complaints or prioritise reputation over members’ welfare. Victims may still defend the institution because it represents education, faith, career, community or identity. The institution can therefore be both psychologically meaningful and psychologically harmful.

Moral Disengagement Makes Harm Easier to Accept

Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement helps explain how harmful behaviour can be psychologically reframed until it seems less serious (Bandura, 1999).

Common mechanisms include:

Moral justification:
“They did it for my own good.”

Euphemistic labelling:
Cruelty becomes “tough love”.

Advantageous comparison:
“At least they never hit me.”

Minimisation:
“It was only an argument.”

Displacement of responsibility:
“They were under enormous pressure.”

Victim blaming:
“I pushed them too far.”

Language changes how behaviour is psychologically categorised. When intimidation becomes “passion”, control becomes “love” and humiliation becomes “discipline”, it becomes easier to tolerate behaviour that might otherwise be recognised as harmful.

DARVO Can Reverse the Moral Narrative

A further mechanism is DARVO:

Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

When confronted, a person may deny the behaviour, attack the person raising the issue and then portray themselves as the true victim.

For example:

• “You hurt me.”
• “I never did that.”
• “You are always exaggerating.”
• “After everything I have done for you, I cannot believe you are attacking me.”

Research by Harsey and colleagues suggests that exposure to DARVO may increase victim self-blame and can also influence observers’ perceptions of credibility and responsibility (Harsey et al., 2017; Harsey & Freyd, 2020). Repeated exposure to this pattern can undermine a person’s trust in their own interpretation.

The psychological shift may become:

“They hurt me.” to “Perhaps I am unfair.”; and eventually: “Perhaps I am the problem.”

The Perpetrator’s Perspective and The Role of the Observer

Understanding the psychology of the abuser is also important. Abusers often employ “self-defensive excuses” to justify their behaviour, shifting the blame to the victim . They will blame the victim for “making” them angry or violent, insisting that the abuse would stop if only the victim behaved differently . This tactic, combined with a deliberate attempt to normalise the abusive environment, profoundly impacts the victim’s sense of reality and self-worth .

Fascinatingly, the tendency to defend the indefensible is not limited to the victim. Third parties, such as family members, friends, or colleagues, also sometimes side with the abuser. Research suggests that this can happen when the observer identifies with the perpetrator. In cases of sexual harassment, for example, men with sexist attitudes were found to empathise more with the harasser and blame the victim more, because they could envision themselves in a similar position to the perpetrator .

Within families, this dynamic is often amplified by the threat the truth poses to the family’s reputation, resources, or stability. There can be a strong, unspoken pressure to preserve the family unit at all costs, leading to denial, minimisation, and blame being shifted onto the person who speaks the truth .

How to Recognise Defensive Rationalisation

Ask yourself:

1. Would I judge this behaviour differently if it happened to a friend?
2. Do I focus more on their intentions than on the consequences for me?
3. Do apologies result in sustained behavioural change?
4. Am I afraid of what acknowledging the problem would mean for my identity or future?
5. Have I gradually lowered my standards for acceptable behaviour?
6. Do I repeatedly compare the situation with something worse?
7. Am I defending the person because I believe the defence, or because the alternative feels unbearable?
8. What would I lose if I stopped defending them?
9. What evidence would actually persuade me to reconsider my interpretation?

The final question is especially important. If no possible evidence could change the belief, the process may no longer be objective evaluation. It may be psychological protection.

Moving From Defence to Psychological Clarity

Recognising harm does not require seeing another person as entirely bad. Human beings can hold contradictory characteristics. A parent may have sacrificed greatly for a child and also caused psychological harm. A partner may have provided affection and also behaved abusively. An institution may have provided opportunities and still failed people badly. Psychological maturity involves tolerating these complex truths. Several strategies can help.

Describe behaviour rather than explaining it

Instead of: “They were stressed.”, try “They shouted at me and called me worthless.”

Specific behaviour is easier to evaluate than interpretation.

Look at patterns

Individual apologies matter less than repeated behaviour over time.

Separate explanation from permission

Ask why something happened, but also whether it should continue.

Identify sunk costs

Past investment does not determine what should happen next.

Consider the perspective of an outsider

Ask what you would think if somebody you loved described exactly the same situation.

Preserve multiple sources of identity

People are more vulnerable to harmful systems when one relationship, group or organisation becomes their only major source of belonging or self-worth.

Seek independent perspectives

Isolation can make distorted relational norms appear normal.

How to Break Free and Find Healing

If you recognise yourself in this description, please know that your reaction is a normal, albeit painful, response to an abnormal situation. Siding with someone who hurts you is not a moral failing; it is a survival strategy your mind and body employed to protect you.

The path to healing involves several crucial steps.

1. Education and Awareness: Understanding the psychological mechanisms at play can be profoundly liberating. Learning about trauma bonds, cognitive dissonance, and learned helplessness can help you see your situation more clearly and stop blaming yourself for a response that is hardwired into your biology.

2. Seek Professional Support: One of the most effective ways to break a trauma bond is with the help of a trained therapist. Psychologists often recommend therapies like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which helps to identify and change distorted thought patterns, or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), which provides practical skills for managing extreme emotions and building healthier relationships . A therapist can provide a safe, non-judgmental space to process your experiences, rebuild your sense of self, and help you overcome learned helplessness. They can help you learn to use direct, assertive communication, and guide you through the complex emotions involved in leaving an abusive dynamic .

3. Reconnect with Your Support Network: Isolation is a key ingredient in the recipe for trauma bonding. Reaching out to old friends, trusted family members, or support groups can help break the abuser’s hold. These connections provide alternative perspectives and remind you that you are worthy of love and respect.

4. Challenge Your Own Excuses: Often, victims learn to excuse toxic behaviour. They might say things like, “They had a bad day,” or “They are just stressed.” Many people were conditioned to make these excuses in their childhood, and they carry the habit into adulthood . Try to interrupt this pattern. Ask yourself, “If a friend told me their partner did this, what would I tell them?” The answer you give to a friend is usually the same advice you need to give yourself .

5. Rediscover Yourself: Abuse often erodes a person’s sense of identity. Healing involves rebuilding that identity. Reconnect with hobbies, interests, and values that you may have neglected. Taking small steps to reclaim your autonomy can be a powerful antidote to the feeling of powerlessness.

Supporting Someone Who Keeps Defending Harm

Direct confrontation is not always effective. Statements such as: “How can you still defend them?” may increase shame and defensiveness.

A more useful approach is often to focus on observable behaviour. For example:

• “You said they threatened you. What happens when you disagree with them?”
• “You can care about someone and still recognise that their behaviour hurt you.”
• “If this happened to someone you loved, what would you want for them?”

Avoid forcing diagnostic labels. The immediate goal is not to win an argument. It is to help the person regain confidence in their own perceptions and choices. Where coercion, violence or serious psychological abuse is involved, specialist professional support may be necessary.

Conclusion

The psychology of siding with those who hurt you is complex and deeply rooted in our most fundamental survival instincts. It is not a sign of weakness but a testament to the human mind’s incredible, if sometimes damaging, ability to adapt to the most difficult circumstances. Understanding this is the first and most important step toward reclaiming your life and building healthier, more secure connections based on mutual respect and care.

People do not defend harmful individuals or systems simply because they are irrational.

They may be protecting attachment, identity, hope, belonging, self-esteem, financial security or their understanding of the past.

• Cognitive dissonance helps us minimise contradictory evidence.
• Attachment makes separation painful.
• Intermittent reinforcement sustains hope.
• Self-blame provides an illusion of control.
• Sunk costs make change feel wasteful.
• Social identity makes criticism personal.
• System justification makes unfair arrangements feel normal.
• Shame makes accepting the truth feel humiliating.

These mechanisms can explain why people sometimes defend what has harmed them. They do not make the harm acceptable.

Perhaps the most useful question is therefore not: “Why did I defend them?”; it is: “What was that defence protecting me from having to feel, lose or change?”

Understanding that answer can be the beginning of psychological clarity. You can recognise why somebody behaved as they did without excusing them. You can acknowledge love without denying harm. You can appreciate the past without sacrificing the future. And you are allowed to change your understanding when new evidence makes an old explanation impossible to sustain.

---

FAQ Questions

Why do people defend someone who hurts them?

People may defend harmful individuals because accepting the harm threatens attachment, belonging, identity, hope or self-esteem. Cognitive dissonance, self-blame and dependency may also contribute.

Why do victims defend abusive partners?

Attachment, dependency, fear, intermittent periods of affection, financial constraints and psychological adaptation may all contribute. There is no single explanation.

What is cognitive dissonance in relationships?

Cognitive dissonance occurs when conflicting beliefs create psychological discomfort, such as believing that somebody loves you while experiencing repeated harmful behaviour from them.

What is trauma bonding?

Traumatic bonding describes strong attachment that may develop in abusive relationships characterised by power imbalance and intermittent maltreatment.

Is Stockholm syndrome scientifically recognised?

Stockholm syndrome is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, and research has not established consistent diagnostic criteria. More specific psychological concepts are generally preferred.

How do I stop defending someone who hurts me?

Focus on observable patterns rather than explanations, separate intention from impact, examine whether apologies produce lasting change and consider how you would evaluate the same behaviour if it happened to somebody you cared about.

---

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0303_3
• Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2015). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Cantor, C., & Price, J. (2007). Traumatic entrapment, appeasement and complex post-traumatic stress disorder: Evolutionary perspectives of hostage reactions, domestic abuse and the Stockholm syndrome. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41(5), 377–384.
• Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105
• Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 743–756.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Finkel, E. J., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2013). Intimate partner violence. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452–474). Oxford University Press.
• Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Harvard University Press.
• Friesen, J. P., Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2015). The psychological advantage of unfalsifiability: The appeal of untestable beliefs as a defensive strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 434–451.
• Graham, D. L. R. (1994). Loving to survive: Sexual terror, men’s violence, and women’s lives. New York University Press.
• Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2020). Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender: What is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8), 897–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695
• Harsey, S. J., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: DARVO and victim self-blame. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(6), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1320777
• Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798–1809. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798
• Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
• Logan, M. H. (2018). Stockholm syndrome: Held hostage by the one you love. Violence and Gender, 5(2), 67–69.
• Namnyak, M., Tufton, N., Szekely, R., Toal, M., Worboys, S., & Sampson, E. L. (2008). “Stockholm syndrome”: Psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01112.x
• Polaschek, D. L. L., & Gannon, T. A. (2004). The implicit theories of rapists: What convicted offenders tell us. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(4), 299–314.
• Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564
• Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1981.4285694
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). The compulsion to repeat the trauma: Re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12(2), 389–411.
• Walker, L. E. A. (2016). The battered woman syndrome (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.