You may have seen or heard this acronym before – it was first coined by the psychologist Jennifer Joy Freyd. It stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender – a method sometimes used by abusers to defend themselves against accountability. DARVO was much in the news a couple of years ago, thanks to the sensational Depp-Heard trials, in which both celebrities accused each other of domestic abuse and defamation. A quick Google search will show you raging discussions about which of them might be perpetrating DARVO on the other – there are arguments on both sides. A judge in the UK agreed with Heard, and a jury in the US agreed with Depp – so somebody, at least, seems to have been at least partially successful.

If DARVO seems confusing, it is meant to be. The entire purpose of the exercise (like the related concept of gaslighting), is to sow doubt in the minds of those who have heard an accusation of abuse, and might be inclined to believe it. Research has shown, however, that when people are educated on DARVO, they are less likely to be taken in by manipulative people on either side of an accusation.

So what can we do, when we are made aware of an accusation of abuse, especially against someone who is a well-respected leader in a community? Sadly, no organisational leadership seems to be immune nowadays – and often for good reason. Too many abusers have hid behind a veil of respectability or charisma. On the other hand, sometimes false accusations do occur. 

The first thing we can do in a situation like that is check our own reactions – our own triggers, experiences and fears are going to affect how we react. It’s important not to fall into the trap of “well, this person has always been totally fine with me, they must have been that way with everyone else”. On the other hand, everyone deserves a hearing. How does the accused see what happened? Maybe they didn’t intend what the accuser experienced – in which case maybe some education is in order.  Are they open to that possibility?

The next step is to watch for DARVO. Of course we would expect an indignant denial from someone who is unjustly accused – but what follows after? Is there an attack on the credibility of the accuser? Do we see a reversal of roles, is the accused claiming to be the victim in the situation? Is the accused willing to accept that they might have been out of line, possibly unintentionally? Is there room for a conversation?

In a they said/they said situation it’s always tricky to figure out who is telling the truth – but just being aware of the possibility of DARVO can help us make these difficult judgment calls, if we are called upon to do so.

Have you experienced this kind of situation? I’d love to hear about it if you are willing to share.