This view of reality could not continue, in Fairbairns theory, if the four captives were able to access the fear, terror and, indeed, rage assumed to be held in their Antilibidinal Ego-Rejecting Object structures. The depth of their fear and rage at being abused, would clash with their split-off, opposite view of the hidden “goodness” in the captors. As mentioned, the splitting defense allows the user to see others as if they are two different people. This offers a second possible reason that the terrifying memories of events remain dissociated (in the Antilibidinal Ego-Rejecting Object structures in the unconscious). If one or more of the captives were able to experience these feelings directly (including the impotent rage), during the six days when they were held captive in the presence of the captors, they might have been killed for being disruptive and threatening. This ultimate terror, of being killed for experiencing the fear/rage and humiliation that is assumed to have been dissociated into the unconscious, may be the motivation that promotes the libidinal egos view of the two captors to continue, and simultaneously avoiding the enormously toxic memories of their six days in captivity. Thus, Fairbairns model offers a sound psychological explanation for attachment to abusers (Celani, 1995). Possible evolutionary explanations
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.
Conversely, the rejecting internalized parent (who is an internalization of the original parent)  holds its ground and endlessly argues that the child was deserving of their condemnation. This dialogue continues in the unconscious, as described in the following quote by Odgen (2010)Neither the rejecting object nor the internal saboteur (the antilibidinal ego) is willing or able to think about, much less relinquish, that tie. In fact, there is no desire on the part of either to change. The power of that bond is impossible to overestimate. The rejecting object and the internal saboteur are determined to nurse their feelings of having been deeply wronged, cheated, humiliated, betrayed, exploited, treated unfairly, discriminated against, and so on. The mistreatment at the hands of the other is felt to be unforgivable. An apology is forever expected by each, but never offered by either (Odgen, 2010, p. 109).The “tie” that Odgen mentions is the emotional investment that each part-ego, or part-object structure, has in fighting with the other. The combination of the libidinal egos tie to finding love in the elusive and ever-shifting exciting object, and the equally motivated antilibidinal egos desire to force the rejecting object to apologize and see his/her value as a human being constitute what Fairbairn called "The Attachment to the Bad Object". The "Bad Object" is a parent or other significant caretaker who has failed the child, but is still cherished by the libidinal ego and fought against by the antilibidinal ego.