Understanding DARVO
Have you ever tried to tell someone that their behavior hurt you, and then find yourself defending your memory, intentions, or character?
Maybe you shared a concern starting with, “What happened wasn’t okay with me.” A few minutes later, the conversation had somehow become about how cruel, unstable, controlling, or abusive you supposedly were for bringing it up.
This kind of reversal can leave a person feeling confused, guilty, and unsure of their own perspective. One name for this type of reversal is called, DARVO.
What Does DARVO Mean?
DARVO stands for:
Deny the behavior
Attack the person confronting it
Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender
The term describes a response that some people use when confronted about harmful behavior or even a concern or complaint their partner may have (remember a concern or complaint is different than criticism or contempt/ see blog on The 4 Horsemen of the Apocolyse). Instead of the person of engaging with the concern, the person denies what happened, attacks the credibility or character of the person raising it, and then positions themselves as the person who has been harmed.
For example:
Person A says to B, “I feel hurt & scared when you yell.”
Person B days, “I didn’t yell at you. You are always exaggerating and trying to make me look like a terrible person. I’m the one who has to walk on eggshells around you.”
The original concern, yelling, is no longer being discussed. The person A who raised the concern is now defending their memory, motives, and character, while person B being confronted has taken the position of the injured party. Sounds exhausting, right?
Who Developed the Concept of DARVO?
Psychologist and researcher Jennifer J. Freyd introduced the term DARVO in a 1997 article titled Violations of Power, Adaptive Blindness, and Betrayal Trauma Theory. Freyd developed the concept through her work on betrayal trauma, interpersonal violence, abuse, and the ways individuals or institutions may respond when someone attempts to hold them accountable.
The concept initially emerged largely from research involving sexual abuse and interpersonal violence, and DARVO may also appear in families, intimate relationships, workplaces, organizations, legal systems, and other situations involving power and accountability. I’d say politically this is happening a lot on the macro level a lot. Freyd uses the term institutional DARVO when an institution participates in denying harm, attacking the person reporting it, and positioning the institution as the injured party.
DARVO is a description of a behavioral pattern, and not a mental health disorder.
What DARVO Can Look Like
The three components do not always appear in a perfectly organized sequence, and may overlap or happen rapidly.
1. Denial
The person rejects the behavior, its meaning, or its impact.
Denial might sound like: “That never happened”; “I never said that”; “You misunderstood me”; “It wasn’t a big deal”; “I was only joking”; “You are remembering it wrong.”
Sometimes the denial focuses on whether the event occurred (i.e. pattern of denying events, gaslighting). Other times, the person acknowledges part of the behavior but denies that it was harmful.
2. Attack
The focus shifts from the behavior being discussed to the credibility, personality, motives, or past behavior of the person raising the concern.
The attack might sound like: “You’re too sensitive”; “You always create drama”; “You’re trying to control me”; “You’re unstable”; “Everyone knows you exaggerate”; “You’re only saying this to punish me.”
The person raising the concern is placed on the defensive. Instead of discussing what happened, they may begin trying to prove that they are reasonable, trustworthy, or well-intentioned; essentially defending their character.
3. Reversing Victim and Offender
Then the person being confronted presents themselves as the true victim and portrays the other person as the aggressor.
This might sound like: “You’re attacking me”; “You’re emotionally abusing me by bringing this up”; “I can never do anything right around you”; “You’re trying to ruin my reputation”; “I’m the one who should be afraid of you.”
It is possible for both people in a relationship to have legitimate feelings, concerns, and grievances. The reversal becomes particularly concerning when it is used to avoid addressing the original behavior altogether.
Why Does DARVO Happen?
It is not always possible to know what is happening internally for another person. DARVO may be deliberate in some situations and more automatic or habitual in others.
Rather than assuming a person’s exact motivation, it can be helpful to look at what the response accomplishes.
DARVO can function to:
Avoid accountability or consequences
Protect a threatened self-image
Escape feelings such as shame, guilt, or vulnerability
Regain control of the conversation
Intimidate or silence the person raising the concern
Undermine that person’s credibility with others
Create enough confusion that the original issue is abandoned
Once the conversation shifts from “Did this behavior cause harm?” to “Which one of us is the bad person?” meaningful accountability becomes much more difficult. Research supports the idea that DARVO can create confusion and self-blame. A 2017 study found that greater exposure to DARVO during confrontations was associated with greater self-blame in the people who raised the concerns. It may also influence witnesses. In experimental research, observers exposed to a DARVO response viewed the person reporting harm as less believable, more responsible, and more abusive. They also viewed the person using DARVO as less responsible and less abusive. However, educating observers about DARVO reduced some of these effects.
This helps explain why the pattern can feel so destabilizing. The person using DARVO is not merely disagreeing with an accusation. The entire frame of the conversation is being changed.
Is Every Defensive Response DARVO?
No.
People sometimes become defensive, remember events differently, express their own hurt, or disagree with how another person interprets an interaction. A person who is falsely accused may also strongly deny an allegation.
DARVO should not be used as automatic proof that the original allegation is true. Freyd specifically cautions that DARVO may raise concerns but cannot, by itself, establish what happened previously. The response occurring in the present can still be evaluated as harmful without treating it as proof of the original event.
A healthier disagreement might sound like:
“I remember that situation differently, but I want to understand what you experienced.”
Or:
“I disagree with part of what you’re saying. I also recognize that I became defensive and raised my voice.”
Or:
“I have concerns about some of your behavior too, but I want to respond to what you brought up before we move to those.”
The difference is not whether someone agrees with every accusation. The difference is whether they can remain engaged with the original concern without attacking, discrediting, or completely reversing responsibility.
What To Do When DARVO Is Happening?
1. Return to the Original Behavior/Concern
Try to keep the conversation anchored to the original issue.
You might say:
“We can discuss your concerns about me separately. Right now, I am asking us to address what happened when you yelled.”
Or:
“Whether you think I am sensitive does not answer my concern about the comment you made.”
2. Avoid Defending Every Accusation
DARVO can create an almost irresistible urge to correct every distortion and prove that you are not selfish, controlling, dramatic, dishonest, or abusive. Responding to every accusation may pull the conversation further away from the original concern. You can decline to participate in a character trial. i.e. “I’m willing to discuss specific behaviors. I’m not willing to continue a conversation based on insults or global accusations about my character.”
3. Pause the Conversation
Accountability is unlikely to occur while someone is attacking, threatening, shouting, or repeatedly reversing the issue. Gnerally their nervous system is in fight/flight. So, you can try setting a boundary. “This conversation is no longer productive. I’m going to pause it and revisit it when we can discuss the original concern without personal attacks.”
Taking space is not the same as withholding communication as punishment (stonewalling). A healthy pause includes a clear boundary and, when appropriate and safe, some indication of whether the conversation will be revisited.
4. Write Down What Happened
After a confusing interaction, document the original concern, what each person said, and how the conversation changed.
This is not necessarily about building a case against someone. Writing can help you maintain clarity when an interaction has left you questioning your memory or perspective.
In workplace, legal, co-parenting, or institutional situations, written communication may also create a clearer record than repeated verbal conversations.
5. Seek a Grounded Outside Perspective
Talk with someone capable of holding nuance rather than automatically taking sides. This might be a trusted friend, therapist, advocate, supervisor, attorney, or another appropriate professional.
A helpful person will help you examine specific behaviors, patterns, power differences, accountability, and safety.
6. Pay Attention to the Pattern
One defensive conversation does not necessarily define an entire relationship. Repeated patterns matter.
Consider what happens over time:
Can concerns eventually be discussed?
Can the person acknowledge any impact?
Can they apologize without immediately blaming you?
Do they show curiosity about your experience?
Does behavior change?
Are you increasingly afraid to raise concerns due to fear of (Attack/ Reverse victim offender)?
Do conversations regularly end with you apologizing for bringing up something that hurt you?
Accountability is not measured only by what someone says during a conflict. It is also reflected in whether their behavior changes afterward.
7. Prioritize Safety Over Resolution
When there is intimidation, coercion, stalking, threats, physical violence, financial control, or fear of retaliation, confronting the person may not be safe or productive.
You do not have to convince someone that they are using DARVO. Naming the pattern privately, seeking support, and making decisions based on your safety may be more useful than trying to obtain agreement from the person engaging in it.
Support:
Emotional and psychological abuse are valid reasons to contact a domestic-violence service, even when there has been no physical violence and even when someone is unsure whether their experience “counts.” Advocates can listen without judgment, help identify patterns, discuss options, develop a personalized safety plan, and connect the caller with counseling, legal advocacy, support groups, or other local resources. Calling does not obligate someone to report the abuse, end the relationship, or enter a shelter.
Helpmate - Asheville & Buncombe County: Confidential 24-hour hotline:828-254-0516
Helpmate supports people whose partners are critical, threatening, controlling, or emotionally or psychologically abusive. Its advocates provide emotional support, safety planning, referrals, counseling, court advocacy, and other free services. Shelter is only one of the available options; someone does not need to be seeking shelter to call.
Love Is Respect primarily supports teens, young adults, and their loved ones:
Call 1-866-331-9474
Text LOVEIS to 22522
Use its online chat
Advocates are available 24/7 for confidential discussions about unhealthy or abusive relationships.
StrongHearts Native Helpline serves American Indian and Alaska Native people affected by domestic or sexual violence:
Call or text 1-844-762-8483
Online chat is also available
Services are confidential and available 24/7.
Moving From Reversal to Accountability
Healthy accountability does not require perfect memory, immediate agreement, or endless self-blame. It requires enough emotional capacity to remain curious about another person’s experience and to examine one’s own behavior without retaliating against the person who raised the original concern.
A person practicing accountability might say:
“That is difficult for me to hear, and I notice that I want to defend myself. I still want to understand.”
Recognizing DARVO can help us step out of circular arguments and return to the questions that matter:
What happened? What impact did it have? What responsibility belongs to each person? What would meaningful repair or protection look like now?
Naming the pattern does not answer every question about a relationship or conflict. It can, however, provide language for a deeply confusing experience, and sometimes having language is the first step toward regaining clarity.
