Picture this: you’re investigating a complaint when the respondent flips the script. They deny any wrongdoing, attack the complainant’s credibility, and insist that they are the real victim. Suddenly, what seemed straightforward becomes murky. Even experienced investigators can find themselves distracted from the allegations they set out to examine and struggling to separate fact from deflection.
I first encountered this dynamic during a seminar on trauma-informed investigations. The presenter described a pattern that felt immediately familiar: a person confronted with allegations denies the conduct, attacks the accuser, and then portrays themselves as the one who has been wronged. As the discussion unfolded, I found myself thinking about investigations I had conducted over the years where this exact sequence had played out. It was one of those moments when a concept suddenly gave a name to something I had observed but never fully understood.
That concept is DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim, and Offender. Psychologist Jennifer Freyd coined the term to describe a common response to allegations of wrongdoing.1 According to Freyd, DARVO is more than a reflexive act of self-defence. It is a strategy that can distort perceptions, create confusion, and shift attention away from the original allegations.
Once I learned about DARVO, I started seeing it everywhere—not just in workplace investigations, but in public discourse as well.2 Whether it appears in politics, personal relationships, or organizational disputes, the pattern is remarkably consistent. More importantly, it can be remarkably effective.
The reason DARVO matters is simple: it works.
A skilled practitioner can redirect scrutiny, muddy the issues, and influence how others interpret a conflict. In investigative settings, where credibility assessments often play a significant role, a DARVO response can divert attention from the conduct being investigated and place the complainant under the microscope instead.
For investigators, the risk is obvious. If you fail to recognize the tactic, you may end up evaluating the complainant’s perceived shortcomings rather than examining the conduct that triggered the complaint in the first place.
DARVO typically unfolds in three stages.
The respondent flatly rejects the allegation, often before there has been any meaningful discussion of their evidence.
“That never happened.”
The objective is straightforward: establish doubt immediately and avoid engaging with the substance of the allegation.
The focus then shifts from the conduct in question to the person raising the concern.
“She’s lying.”
“This is politically motivated.”
Rather than responding to the allegation, the respondent attacks the complainant’s motives, character, competence, or credibility.
Finally, the respondent reframes themselves as the injured party.
“I’m the one being targeted here.”
“This is a witch hunt.”
The respondent becomes the victim, and the complainant becomes the aggressor. This reversal can be particularly persuasive because it appeals to an investigator’s desire to remain fair, objective, and open-minded.
DARVO succeeds because it exploits common assumptions about credibility.
A respondent who appears calm, articulate, and self-assured is often viewed more favourably than a complainant who appears upset, anxious, angry, or uncertain. Yet those reactions may be entirely consistent with how individuals respond to stressful or traumatic experiences.
Investigators who place too much weight on demeanour risk confusing confidence with credibility and performance with truth.
DARVO can also have a significant impact on complainants. Being denied, attacked, and blamed for raising concerns can cause individuals to question their own experiences and perceptions. In some cases, they begin to wonder whether they were mistaken, overreacted, or somehow provoked the conduct themselves. That psychological impact can affect their ability to participate effectively in the investigative process.
DARVO can emerge in almost any workplace investigation.
Different facts. Same playbook.
DARVO does not prove an allegation is true. Not every denial is manipulative, and not every claim of unfair treatment is a reversal tactic.
However, it is a pattern worth recognizing.
Watch for:
When these indicators appear together, investigators should proceed with particular care and keep their focus firmly on the evidence.
The best defence against DARVO is a thorough, impartial, and evidence-based investigation.
Document statements carefully. Establish clear evidentiary timelines. Seek corroborating evidence wherever possible. Ask neutral questions and resist attempts to be drawn into competing narratives about personalities, motives, or office politics.
Most importantly, keep returning to the same question: What evidence supports the allegation, and what evidence contradicts it?
DARVO may be persuasive at first glance; however, it becomes much less effective when tested against objective evidence.
One of the things I enjoy most about investigative work is discovering concepts that explain the patterns that I have been seeing in my own investigations. DARVO is one of those concepts.
It is more than an academic theory. It is a practical framework that can help investigators recognize when an interview has shifted from fact-finding to narrative control.
The most credible person in an investigation is not necessarily the most confident, the most articulate, or the most convincing. The most credible person is the one whose account is supported by the available evidence.
DARVO reminds us that credibility can be manufactured, victimhood can be performed, and first impressions can be misleading. An investigator’s job is not to determine who tells the better story. It is to determine which story is supported by the evidence.
Recognize the pattern. Follow the evidence. Stay focused on the allegation.
