DARVO
A new study by Durland, Harsey, and Freyd finds that trauma history is not a factor. The on the ground affect of victim blaming is, on its own, real and substantial for everyone
This study was to access perpetrator responses to confrontation. It found that both men and women were affected by the
Deny
Attack
Reverse victim and offender
Pattern
There is a table which effectively charts the various ways this is done; and was recognized by participants.
I am publishing this chart because I think it can be helpful in recognizing the pattern, but also because the pattern lives in seclusion. Deflecting and attacking happens in private and is a deterrence for the agressor to have to take responsibility.
It can be combined in groups, and used against children.
This questionnaire asked about whether the participant had been a victim of an assault, sexual assault, or pyschological assault and also there were five questions varying on how, if they confronted their aggresor, the response was delivered. Participants were asked to use the language in the chart below on a scale of one to five about if they heard something similar.
I include this for purposes of mirroring and recognition. It is important to know or relate to others in how these patterns exist. They exist because sometimes we feel like we are the only one. This study shows this is not the case.
“DARVO, an acronym that stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and
Offender roles, was first conceptualized by Freyd (1997) to describe how
perpetrators, especially those who commit sexual offenses, react when held
accountable or confronted for their behavior. Freyd observed that, in addition
to denying any wrongdoing, sex offenders attempt to undermine their victims’
credibility and generate confusion over the offenders’ culpability by levying
personal attacks against their victims. By accusing their victims of acting
unjustly, perpetrators thereby position themselves as the “real” victim”.
“Table 2. DARVO-SF items.
DARVO-LF Item # DARVO-SF ITEM Subscale Loadings
23 “Whatever you’re saying happened isn’t my fault.” DENY 0.70
58 “That never happened” DENY 0.68
72 “You’re remembering it incorrectly” DENY 0.67
7 “You’re just trying to make me look bad” ATTACK 0.74
17 “You’re acting crazy” ATTACK 0.73
44 “You’re a liar” ATTACK 0.72
61 “You’re acting delusional” ATTACK 0.72
1 “No one would believe you if you said anything about it” ATTACK 0.67
60 “You need help” ATTACK 0.67
9 “You’re just trying to manipulate me” ATTACK 0.66
6 “You regret what you did and now you’re blaming me” ATTACK 0.65
71 “I can’t believe you’re trying to make this my fault” REVERSE 0.71
38 “I’m the real victim here” REVERSE 0.70
4 “I am the one who suffered the most from it” REVERSE 0.68
33 “You’re not being fair to me” REVERSE 0.68
11 “You should be apologizing to me” REVERSE 0.66
32 “Why are you punishing me?” REVERSE 0.66
40 “You treated me worse than I ever treated you” REVERSE 0”
“DARVO during a confrontation reported higher levels of trauma symptoms not
explained by previous trauma exposure. This reflects other research that finds
unsupportive and victim-blaming responses predict worse psychological outcomes
like elevated levels of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and general trauma
symptoms (Dworkin et al., 2019; Ullman, 2021). We also predicted that participants
would report higher levels of DARVO exposure when confrontations were
about more serious incidents. Analyses revealed that DARVO exposure varied by
type of confrontation, but the only significant mean difference that emerged
between confrontation type indicated greater DARVO exposure for confrontations
about emotional and psychological mistreatment than for confrontations
about being excluded or ignored by a family member or friend. Moreover, the
effect size for this difference was small.”
The propensity to psychologically attack someone who confronts an agressor can then be recognized when a child begins to speak of hearing this language, or begins to use this language if they are under the control of an agressor. This relates to its use in coercive control of children by a person of one generation breaching the boundaries of a person of another generation against someone in their own generation, covertly. (Haley, 1977) I predict that the language used to form a bond with a child against their parent by the other parent will accuse that progressive and protective parent with similar language. If this is more commonly recognized then bystanders can take a more active role.
Coalitions deny their existence. This could be an extension to deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. Then the pattern lives inside a child and has been recognized as umetabolizable pathology forced to be held by that child. (Hart, 2025) They would learn to use this language against their parent and part of this is from being taught that they are the adult and their safer parent is a child. This reversal of role has been identified by Dr. Gruev-Vintila (DUNOD, 2024) as a condition of coercive control.
CONTACT Sarah J. Harsey, PhD sarah.harsey@osucascades.edu State University, 1500 SW Chandler Ave, Cascades, Bend, OR 97702, USA
© 2025 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
School of Psychological Science, Oregon222 M. DURLAND ET AL.
effectively reversing the roles of victim and offender