Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): Effects on Perceptions of Victims and Perpetrators

Condensed Scholarly Summary based on Sarah Harsey and Jennifer Freyd. By permission from the authors.

Abstract

DARVO—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—is a documented behavioral pattern in which perpetrators of interpersonal violence deflect responsibility by denying wrongdoing, attacking the victim’s credibility, and presenting themselves as the “true” victim. Across two experimental studies with university samples, Harsey and Freyd (2020) examined the impact of DARVO on observers’ perceptions of victim and perpetrator credibility, responsibility, and abusiveness, as well as whether brief education about DARVO reduces these effects. Findings demonstrate that DARVO significantly harms victim credibility, increases victim blame, and minimizes perceptions of perpetrator abuse. A short educational intervention mitigated some of these distortions. Results highlight the urgent need for awareness of DARVO across legal, clinical, and educational settings.

Perpetrator Tactics and the DARVO Framework

DARVO was first articulated by Jennifer Freyd (1997) as a common strategy used by perpetrators when confronted about abusive behavior. The sequence typically includes:

1. Deny the wrongdoing, often minimizing harm.
2. Attack the victim’s credibility, motives, or mental health.
3. Reverse Victim and Offender, presenting the aggressor as the one harmed.

Although acknowledgment of DARVO appears frequently in clinical and legal practice, empirical study of the full sequence has been limited. Earlier work documents related tactics—such as minimization, victim-blaming, and “outrage management”²—yet few studies have examined how the composite DARVO pattern shapes observer judgments.

Prior research indicates that perpetrators frequently employ DARVO when confronted. In a survey of confrontation experiences, 72% of victims reported simultaneous denial, blame-shifting, and role reversal by the perpetrator³. These tactics are consequential because perceptions of victim credibility are central to institutional responses, including policing, prosecution, and judicial outcomes.

Perceptions of Victims and Perpetrators

Observers’ attributions of blame and credibility in cases of violence are influenced by variables such as gender⁴, race⁵, age⁶, intoxication⁷, and victim emotional expression⁸. Yet an underexamined factor is the perpetrator’s own narrative style. DARVO provides a structured way to test how offenders’ responses shape perceptions of responsibility.

Experiment 1

Methods

A 2 × 2 independent-measures design varied (1) victim/perpetrator gender and (2) presence or absence of DARVO. Participants (N = 316 university students; majority women and Caucasian) read vignettes describing physical dating violence followed by statements from the victim and the perpetrator. In DARVO conditions, perpetrator statements denied wrongdoing, attacked the victim, and reversed blame. In non-DARVO conditions, perpetrators acknowledged responsibility and expressed remorse.

Participants rated victim and perpetrator believability, responsibility, and abusiveness using 4-point Likert scales.

Results: Effects of DARVO

Across all gender conditions, DARVO significantly influenced attributions:

• Victims were seen as less believable, more responsible, and more abusive.
• Perpetrators were seen as less responsible and less abusive.
• Paradoxically, perpetrator believability also decreased under DARVO, suggesting the tactic is socially antagonistic but still effective in shifting blame.

Results: Gender Effects

• Male victims were judged more responsible and less believable than female victims.
• Male perpetrators were judged more abusive and more responsible.
• Participant gender mattered: men were significantly more likely to doubt victims and minimize perpetrator responsibility.

Experiment 2

Methods

Participants (N = 360) read a sexual-assault vignette with a DARVO-using perpetrator. Half received a short educational description of DARVO before evaluating the statements.

Dependent measures mirrored Experiment 1. Two additional items assessed whether each party should be punished or disciplined.

Results: DARVO Education Mitigates Effects

Compared to controls, participants who received DARVO education:

• Rated the victim as more believable and less abusive;
• Rated the perpetrator as less believable and more abusive;
• Were more likely to believe the perpetrator should be punished (58% vs. 43%);
• Were less likely to endorse punishment of the victim (5.4% vs. 12.6%).

Results: Prevalence of Recognizing DARVO

Among DARVO-educated participants:

• 74% correctly identified the perpetrator as using DARVO.
• 57% reported having experienced DARVO personally or in someone they knew.

Discussion

The findings provide empirical support that DARVO effectively reshapes observers’ perceptions:

• It increases skepticism toward victims,
• Inflates victim blame, and
• Reduces negative judgments of perpetrators.

Even though DARVO decreases the apparent credibility of the perpetrator, its overall effect benefits perpetrators by shifting moral judgment away from their behavior and onto the victim. This aligns with research on relational aggression⁹, which can yield social advantages despite its antisocial nature.

These findings have serious implications for systems that rely heavily on perceived credibility—especially criminal justice, school investigations, child-protection systems, and clinical assessments. DARVO can deter disclosure, distort investigators’ judgments, and reinforce myths that victims are unreliable narrators.

Importantly, the brief DARVO educational intervention in Experiment 2 demonstrates that awareness training can meaningfully reduce DARVO’s influence. Even a short definition shifted observer judgments toward more accurate, victim-protective assessments. This suggests that professional training modules—especially for police, prosecutors, therapists, educators, and judges—could help counteract common perpetrator manipulation patterns.

Limitations

• The sample consisted largely of young, university-educated, White participants; findings may not generalize to broader populations.
• DARVO was delivered through text; real-world effects may differ when perpetrators use emotional displays, authority, or social status.
• Attitudinal variables (e.g., sexism, rape-myth acceptance) were not measured but likely interact with DARVO’s effects.
• Vignettes depicted heterosexual relationships; future work should examine DARVO across diverse identities and contexts.

Conclusion

DARVO is a potent manipulative strategy that shifts blame, undermines victim credibility, and benefits perpetrators of interpersonal violence. This research offers the first experimental evidence demonstrating causal effects of DARVO on observer judgments—and the first evidence that even minimal education can reduce these distortions.

For professionals in law, psychology, and education, recognizing DARVO is essential. Incorporating DARVO-awareness into investigative protocols, therapeutic training, and institutional response systems may help safeguard victims and counteract manipulative narratives that silence them.

Selected Footnotes

1. Sarah Harsey & Jennifer J. Freyd (2020) Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility?, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29:8, 897-916, DOI:10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695
2. McDonald, P., Graham, T., & Martin, B. (2010). Outrage management in cases of sexual harassment as revealed in judicial decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(2), 165–180.
3. Harsey, S., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: DARVO and victim self-blame. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(6), 644–663.
4. Stewart, C. et al. (2012). Who gets blamed for intimate partner violence? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(18), 3739–3754.
5. George, W. H. & Martinez, L. J. (2002). Victim blaming in rape: Effects of victim and perpetrator race. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(2), 110–119.
6. Bottoms, B. L. et al. (2014). Explaining gender differences in jurors’ reactions to child sexual assault cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6), 789–812.
7. Angelone, D. J. et al. (2016). The influence of gender ideology, victim resistance, and alcohol on rape attributions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3186–3210.
8. Ask, K. (2010). Police and prosecutors’ beliefs about crime victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 1132–1149.
9. Cillessen, A. H. N. & Mayeux, L. (2004). Aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163.