Skip to content
Don't Feed the TrollsGet help

DARVO

Also written: deny attack reverse victim and offender

Deny the behaviour, attack the person raising it, and recast yourself as the real victim of their raising it.

Escalation:
Sophisticated / covert
Type:
Rhetorical

Where the term comes from

Coined by Jennifer J. Freyd, Professor Emerit of Psychology at the University of Oregon, in her work on institutional betrayal and responses to being held accountable. The acronym stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

DARVO is the shape a conversation takes when raising something becomes the offence.

[1]

What it looks like in an online argument

It is easier to recognise as a sequence than as a single message:

  1. Deny — it did not happen, or not like that, or it was a joke
  2. Attack — you are obsessive, dishonest, unstable, or running a vendetta
  3. Reverse victim and offender — you are the one harassing them, and they are being persecuted for something trivial

By step three the original conduct has left the conversation entirely, and the question in front of any audience is whether you have behaved acceptably.

Why it is effective

It exploits the fact that onlookers usually arrive late. Someone joining at step three sees a person being publicly accused, defending themselves, and describing distress. That reads as sympathetic, and reconstructing what actually started it takes effort nobody watching is obliged to make.

It also creates a genuine cost to continuing. Pressing the point now looks like piling on, so the cheapest option for you is to drop it — which is the outcome the pattern produces.

A caution worth taking seriously

This is one of the easiest concepts on this site to misuse.

The three components — denial, counter-accusation, claiming to be wronged — are also exactly what an innocent person does when accused of something they did not do. There is no way to tell the two apart from the structure alone, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling certainty that does not exist.

So it is a lens for understanding why a conversation has become unwinnable, not a test for who is lying. Announcing "that's DARVO" mid-argument is both unfalsifiable and, to a bystander, indistinguishable from the pattern itself.

What to do

Return to the specific, once: what was said, when, and where the record is. Specifics resist reframing in a way that characterisations do not.

Then accept that the conversation is unlikely to resolve. The audience — not the person — is who the specifics were for, and repeating them past that point achieves nothing except making the exchange longer.

Not the same as

Denying something you did not do
People wrongly accused also deny, feel attacked, and describe themselves as the injured party — because they are. DARVO describes a pattern, and a pattern is not evidence about who is telling the truth in any given case.
A robust defence
Answering a charge forcefully is not DARVO. The reversal is the marker: the subject stops being the original conduct and becomes the harm done by mentioning it.

Responding at this level

Recognition matters more than response. The tell is the pattern across a conversation, never any single message, and the honest advice is to judge the exchange rather than the sentence.

Others at this level

  • Sealioning — Relentless, superficially polite demands for evidence that exhaust the target while preserving the appearance of good faith.
  • Whataboutism — Deflecting a criticism by raising a different alleged wrong instead of answering the one raised.
  • Conversational gaslighting — Denying what was plainly said or done until the other person doubts their own recollection.

Sources

  1. [1] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “darvo refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior”