DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
DARVO is a well-documented pattern that can appear when individuals or institutions are confronted with criticism, especially when that criticism raises ethical or welfare concerns.
The sequence is simple:
Deny the problem
Attack the person raising it
Reverse the roles of victim and offender
No one engages directly with the issue. The focus changes to discrediting the critic, and reframing the situation.
The original question might be:
“Does this method cause harm, or carry unnecessary risk?”
But the conversation changes to:
whether the concern was expressed the “right” way
whether it was fair to bring it up
whether asking the question “creates division”
Nothing about the original question has been resolved… But suddenly the conversation is no longer about the potential harm. It’s about the person who spoke up.
What It Looks Like in Dog Training Conversations
When concerns are raised about aversive methods (using fear, pain, or intimidation) in dog training, DARVO shows up in some pretty predictable ways:
Deny
“There’s no evidence these tools cause harm.”
“Used correctly, this doesn’t hurt the dog.”
“This is being exaggerated.”
Attack
“You’re just trying to shame other trainers.”
“This is why people hate the force-free community.”
“You’re spreading misinformation.”
Reverse Victim and Offender
“We’re the ones being bullied.”
“This kind of criticism is toxic.”
“You’re harming the industry by being so divisive.”
DARVO works because it redirects attention.
Instead of asking whether a method is harmful, or even necessary, the conversation becomes about whether the criticism is “too harsh” or “causing division”.
That creates confusion, especially for casual observers.
It can make a well-supported concern look like a personal dispute.
It can make the person raising the issue appear aggressive, and generate sympathy for the person or group whose methods are being criticized – regardless of the underlying facts.
Why It Matters Here
The methods we use every day directly affect the welfare of the companion animals we love.
When attention is redirected away from possible harm being caused by training methods, that’s how outdated and harmful methods remain normalized.
Scientific concerns and evidence get sidelined, ethical lines get blurry… and holding those in positions of power accountable is seen as “hostile”.
All of this makes it harder for the public to distinguish between a disagreement about tone, and a real concern about harm being done.
Of course, not every disagreement follows this pattern. People may feel criticized, misunderstood, or defensive for many valid reasons. And people who participate in DARVO-like dynamics aren’t always doing so intentionally.
The point is not to assign motive.
The point is to help you recognize a common pattern that pops up and shifts attention away from the actual issue, and toward the person raising it.
The next time you notice the focus being changed from “Is this harmful?” to “Why are you saying this?”, you’ll know what you’re dealing with – and how to keep the conversation on track.