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

An acronym for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender, from research on how people respond to being held accountable. The originating researcher and her own definition are named and cited in the text below.

Whose definition this is

The one-line summary above is ours. The definition it compresses comes from a named source, quoted in full and linked below — where the two differ, the source is what counts. Everything else on this page that states a fact is sourced.

DARVO is the shape a conversation takes when raising something becomes the offence. The term comes from the psychologist Jennifer J. Freyd, who uses it for a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing — particularly sexual offenders — may show when they are held accountable: deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. [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.

What the research actually found

DARVO began as a concept rather than a measurement, and the empirical work came later. That work includes a 2017 peer-reviewed open-access paper, Perpetrator Responses to Victim Confrontation: DARVO and Victim Self-Blame, by Harsey, Zurbriggen and Freyd. [2] Quoted on Freyd's own page, it reported that DARVO was commonly used by the individuals who were confronted in the situations studied. [3]

The finding most worth knowing is the one about self-blame, because it describes something you might currently be feeling. Higher levels of exposure to DARVO during a confrontation were associated with increased perceptions of self-blame among the people doing the confronting. [4] The authors put the significance plainly: studying DARVO helps explain how perpetrators are able to enforce victims' silence through the mechanism of self-blame. [5]

Two things need saying about how far that goes. It is an association rather than a demonstrated cause, and it is one study — it is not established that DARVO produces self-blame, only that more of the one went with more of the other. And the framing assumes an actual perpetrator, which is the question a bystander cannot answer.

What it is legitimately good for is this: if you raised something and came away convinced you were the problem, that reaction is documented, and the authors' own reading is that it is the mechanism by which silence gets enforced. That is worth knowing even though it settles nothing about who was right.

When it is an institution doing it

Freyd also names an institutional form: DARVO committed by an institution, or with institutional complicity — her example is police charging rape victims with lying. [6]

That matters here because the online version rarely stays purely online. A report is dismissed, a complaint is turned back on the person who made it, an employer treats raising something as the misconduct. The shape is the same and the power behind it is not, which is why the advice below — return to the specific, once — is about preserving a record rather than winning an exchange.

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.

  • Keeping a record →

    Writing down what happened, when it happened and who saw it — a practice borrowed from guidance about stalking and harassment, not tested for the ordinary tactics documented elsewhere on this site.

  • Don't feed the trolls →

    Declining to reply, so that provocation produces no reaction and no audience. The most repeated advice on the internet, and among the least examined.

Others at this level

  • Sealioning — Relentless, superficially polite demands for evidence that exhaust the target while preserving the appearance of good faith.
  • Concern trolling — Opposing something while posing as a worried supporter of it, so the objection arrives pre-shielded from challenge.
  • Whataboutism — Deflecting a criticism by raising a different alleged wrong instead of answering the one raised.
  • Gish gallop — Burying an opponent under more claims than can be answered in the time available, so unanswered reads as unanswerable.
  • Motte-and-bailey — Advancing a strong contentious claim, then retreating to a modest defensible one when challenged, then returning.
  • Conversational gaslighting — Denying what was plainly said or done until the other person doubts their own recollection.

Sources

Last checked . Each quote below is verified against an archived copy of its source every time the site is built.

  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. darvo stands for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender."”
  2. [2] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “in a 2017 peer-reviewed open-access research study, perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: darvo and victim self-blame , harsey, zurbriggen, & freyd reported that”
  3. [3] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “darvo was commonly used by individuals who were confronted”
  4. [4] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “higher levels of exposure to darvo during a confrontation were associated with increased perceptions of self-blame among the confronters”
  5. [5] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “exploring darvo aids in understanding how perpetrators are able to enforce victims' silence through the mechanism of self-blame”
  6. [6] Jennifer J. Freyd. What is DARVO?, University of Oregon (1997) [archived]
    “institutional darvo occurs when the darvo is committed by an institution (or with institutional complicity) as when police charge rape victims with lying”