Understanding DARVO: A Critical Defense Mechanism in Modern Discourse

In today's polarized political landscape and contentious social media environments, a manipulative response pattern called DARVO has become increasingly prevalent. Understanding this tactic is essential for navigating contemporary dialogue with clarity and protecting yourself from psychological manipulation.

I had someone pull a DARVO move on me this past Saturday, on Facebook.   A woman made a post in a county wide group.  I noted right away that she is a group moderator.  I commented (first comment) to counter her narrative and promote acceptance and enjoyment of diverse languages, cultures, skin colors and faiths.  I did not directly make any accusations.  She immediately denied accountability, attacked me, made herself the victim, accused me of being the offender and then turned off comments.  However, someone else got a similar comment posted right before, so she managed to reply to that too.  But, the dialogue was shut down, giving her DARVO manipulation the final word.  The next day, she was either stripped of her moderator role or relinquished it; however, Facebook reactions have continued and it is clear that people are on the side of love, respect, acceptance and diversity.  That is progress for that group, so I am encouraged.

It is important that we all know what DARVO is and how to recognize and respond to it.

What Is DARVO?

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. This term, coined by psychologist Jennifer Freyd, describes a reaction pattern used by perpetrators when confronted with wrongdoing. The three-step process works as follows: first, the accused denies the behavior or its harm; second, they attack the person raising the concern; and third, they reverse the roles entirely, positioning themselves as the victim and the accuser as the perpetrator.

Why and How DARVO Is Used

DARVO serves multiple psychological purposes for those who employ it. It deflects accountability, shifts focus away from the original harm, and places the accuser on the defensive. In political contexts, officials might deny allegations of misconduct, attack journalists or whistleblowers as biased or politically motivated, then claim they are the victims of a "witch hunt." On social media, someone called out for harmful comments might deny the impact, attack the person who called them out as "oversensitive," then claim they're being "canceled" or "silenced."

This tactic works because it exploits our cognitive biases and our discomfort with conflict. It creates confusion about who actually suffered harm, making observers uncertain about what really happened.

How to Recognize DARVO

Watch for these red flags: immediate, categorical denial without genuine engagement with concerns; personal attacks on the credibility, motives, or character of the person raising issues; and dramatic claims of victimhood that seem disproportionate to the criticism received. The sequence matters—when all three elements appear together in response to accountability, you're likely witnessing DARVO.

In political discourse, this might sound like: "I never said that (deny), and you're taking things out of context because you hate me (attack), I'm actually the one being persecuted here (reverse)." On social media, it appears as quote-tweet attacks, accusations of bad faith, and performative claims of being "attacked" for expressing opinions.

How to Respond and React

When you encounter DARVO, stay grounded in the original concern. Don't allow the conversation to be derailed by defending yourself against attacks. Restate the specific behavior or statement in question calmly and factually. Set boundaries by refusing to engage with personal attacks while remaining open to substantive discussion.

For observers of DARVO exchanges, resist the urge to immediately take sides. Look for who is addressing the substance of concerns versus who is deflecting. Ask yourself: who raised the initial concern, and has it been genuinely addressed?

Can DARVO Be Prevented?

While you cannot prevent others from using DARVO, you can reduce its effectiveness by creating spaces that prioritize accountability. This means establishing clear community standards, documenting concerns factually, and refusing to reward deflection tactics with attention. In political contexts, this requires media literacy and supporting journalism that holds people accountable for their actual statements and actions rather than getting caught up in victimhood narratives.

Understanding DARVO empowers you to navigate difficult conversations with greater awareness, maintaining focus on substantive issues rather than becoming entangled in manipulative reversals.

The Real Harm of DARVO

DARVO inflicts genuine psychological and social damage on those who experience it. When victims of harmful behavior are met with denial, attack, and role reversal, they often experience self-doubt about their own perceptions and experiences—a form of gaslighting. This can lead to questioning whether they were wrong to speak up, creating reluctance to report future harms or defend themselves.

The attack component of DARVO can be particularly damaging in public forums and social media, where character assassination becomes part of the permanent online record. Accusers may face coordinated harassment campaigns, professional consequences, or social ostracism, effectively punishing them for attempting to establish accountability. This chilling effect silences not only the immediate target but also witnesses who see the costs of speaking up.

Perhaps most insidiously, DARVO erodes collective truth-seeking. When observers cannot distinguish between legitimate concerns and reversed narratives, communities lose their ability to address real harms. This benefits those who abuse power while abandoning those who most need support. Recognizing DARVO is therefore not just about individual self-protection—it's about preserving our collective capacity for justice and accountability.

DARVO is not limited to specific circumstances.   It can happen in social, family, workplace, online, instructional, romantic and mentor situations.  It is a common approach for narcissists and a path towards gaslighting.  It is often a tool employed in political discussions or politically charged gatherings.  The video below provides additional information, for anyone interested.

By Democracy Is Us Council Member, Joe Castagliola