Keeping Junk Science Out of the Courtroom: Part Two – The Problem with DARVO

In recent years, the term DARVO—an acronym for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—has become a fixture in discussions of narcissism, abuse dynamics, and trauma-informed responses. Originally conceptualized by Dr. Jennifer Freyd, a psychologist and researcher at the University of Oregon, DARVO describes a pattern in which a perpetrator of harm denies the behavior, attacks the accuser, and then positions themselves as the true victim. Freyd introduced this concept in the context of institutional betrayal and sexual violence, suggesting that DARVO responses are not only common but also psychologically harmful to survivors.

Over time, DARVO has been extended—informally—into explanations of behavior in intimate partner violence, narcissistic abuse, and even courtroom testimony. Some clinicians and advocates use DARVO as a shorthand to describe what they see in emotionally manipulative or controlling relationships. It’s become a common term in therapy rooms, pop psychology books, and especially on social media platforms. But its widespread use does not equate to empirical validation or legal admissibility.

Is There Peer-Reviewed Support for DARVO?

While Freyd and colleagues have published conceptual and qualitative work on DARVO, the body of empirical evidence remains small and methodologically limited. Some peer-reviewed studies have attempted to examine DARVO-like responses in controlled environments—often involving university students or online simulations—and have provided some preliminary support for its existence as a perceived interpersonal dynamic.

For instance, Harsey, Zurbriggen, and Freyd (2017) explored how DARVO responses from perpetrators of sexual violence might affect victims’ self-blame and perceptions of credibility. Their findings suggested that observers do indeed recognize DARVO as a tactic and that it can contribute to increased victim self-blame. However, these results are context-specific and do not establish DARVO as a measurable forensic construct.

There are no standardized diagnostic criteria for DARVO, no validated assessment tools, and no known error rates for identifying it. Most importantly, there is no consensus among psychologists that DARVO is specific, reliable, or generalizable outside of highly specific contexts. It remains a theoretical lens, not a scientifically accepted psychological principle.

DARVO Fails the Daubert Standard

Under the Daubert standard, expert testimony must be:

1. Testable and tested

2. Peer-reviewed and published

3. Known or potential error rate

4. Standards controlling its operation

5. Generally accepted in the relevant scientific community

DARVO fails on nearly every one of these criteria. While it has been published in peer-reviewed journals, it has not been operationalized in a way that meets the requirements for forensic application. There are no accepted standards for identifying DARVO behavior, no way to test for it reliably, and no demonstrated error rate.

Simply put, DARVO is not a scientifically accepted construct for forensic purposes. It is a theory—not a tool—and theories do not belong in expert testimony unless they are grounded in replicable, validated science.

Popular ≠ Proven

The rise of DARVO’s popularity on TikTok, Instagram, and psychology influencer blogs has led many to assume that it is a clinically accepted principle. But popularity does not equal scientific validity. What is intuitive or emotionally compelling in a therapeutic or social justice context may be entirely inappropriate in a legal one.

When courts allow experts to introduce speculative theories as fact—especially those drawn from pop psychology—they risk distorting the very foundation of justice. Psychological concepts must be evidence-based, not trend-driven.

The Ethical Responsibility of Forensic Experts

As forensic psychologists, we have a duty to hold the line between what is therapeutic and what is forensic. Our role is not to offer compelling narratives based on emerging or fashionable ideas, but to provide objective, scientifically grounded opinions that meet the standards of evidence.

Using DARVO in court—whether explicitly or implicitly—blurs that line. It introduces a narrative structure that is emotionally persuasive but scientifically unsubstantiated. Worse, it may unduly influence jurors or judges by appealing to what “feels” true rather than what is demonstrably supported by empirical data.

Final Thoughts

The courtroom is not a platform for therapeutic storytelling. It is a place where evidence matters, standards are enforced, and scientific credibility must be earned—not assumed. Until DARVO is supported by validated research, standardized measures, and broader scientific consensus, it has no place in forensic evaluation or testimony.

We must remain vigilant against the creep of junk science into our legal system. As forensic experts, we are not just witnesses—we are gatekeepers of the integrity of psychological science in the courtroom.

References

Freyd, J. J. (1997). Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 22–32.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1320777