Villainizing the Victim
- Rohini Kamakoti
- Apr 27
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 28
Villainizing the Victim: Exploring Cognitive Dissonance and DARVO
Roles such as "victim" and "villain" are often shaped by perception and circumstance. While many of us may find ourselves cast in either role at different points in life, one of the most challenging experiences I had to face was being unjustly labeled as the villain despite being the victim.
Why does this happen? What motivates people to shift blame and assign roles in this way?
This article explores the psychological processes driving these behaviors, focusing on victim blaming, DARVO, and cognitive dissonance - what they are and how they manifest.
Victim blaming:
According to the Google AI, ‘Victim blaming occurs when a person or group places blame on the victim for the harm they experienced, rather than on the perpetrator or the system that allowed the harm to occur.’
For example, imagine blaming a rape survivor for how she was dressed ("She was asking for it with the way she was dressed.") or holding a wife responsible for her husband's infidelity ("She didn’t take care of him, no wonder he was looking outside. She deserved it."). Not only do these statements dismiss the injustice they endured, but it also implies that the survivors somehow deserved the harm that was done to them. In these cases, the focus shifts from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s behavior, often disregarding the real issue at hand: the harm caused by the individual who committed the offense.
Instead of focusing on the actions of the perpetrator, let’s shift our attention to the mindset of those who engage in victim blaming, as well as those who indirectly contribute to the harm inflicted on the victim through their support or participation in the perpetrator’s actions.
DARVO:
DARVO, an acronym for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, was first conceptualized by Dr. Jennifer Freyd in 1997 as part of her research on Betrayal Trauma Theory.
DARVO is used by the perpetrator/s to deflect blame and accountability for their actions that have caused harm to the victim. Let’s look at how this could be applied to a group of people who engage in victim blaming in support of the perpetrator.
Deny: The individual or group may reject responsibility for their actions, outright denying any wrongdoing. In some instances, they might acknowledge that an event took place but minimize its impact, asserting that it wasn’t as serious as portrayed and that no real harm was done. For example, those who supported the perpetrator during the event might argue, "It wasn’t as bad as it’s being made out to be, and no one was really hurt."
Attack: Attacking the credibility of the victim by painting them in negative light and saying that the victim is being untruthful and/or has ulterior motives. For example, the group might focus on the narrative that "the scorned wife is just angry and seeking revenge—she must be lying."
Reverse Victim and offender: Trying to convince others that they are the victim, and that the victim is the guilty one and flipping the narrative so that the victim becomes the villain. For example: The group may claim they are being unfairly accused (for supporting or participating in the event that caused harm to the victim,) and then turn the tables by suggesting that the victim is fabricating accusations to mask their own wrongdoings. This tactic not only shifts the blame, but it also enables the group to maintain a more favorable image, all while inflicting further emotional and psychological harm on the victim who is already suffering.
These tactics not only distort reality, but they also create an environment where the victim is silenced, and the perpetrators walk away unscathed.
Now that we have established a foundational understanding of DARVO, let us examine the underlying thought processes of individuals who employ this tactic. This leads us to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance:
Everyone holds core values and beliefs, and typically, their behaviors align with these principles. However, when one's actions conflict with these core values and beliefs, it creates a sense of dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort experienced when there is an inconsistency between one's core values and their actions, or when holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. It also reflects an inconsistency between one's moral & ethical standards and their behavior.
When cognitive dissonance occurs, individuals often attempt to reduce the discomfort by rationalizing their actions or shifting blame onto the victim. One way to reduce the discomfort of engaging in harmful behavior is by convincing themselves that their actions were justified.
For example, let’s say someone stands by a family member or friend who’s being unjust to someone. They might justify it by saying, ‘Well, it’s not that bad,’ even though deep down they know the behavior isn’t acceptable. This helps them feel better about supporting that person, despite the moral conflict. And also because acknowledging the harm would force them to confront the uncomfortable reality that their family member/friend is in the wrong.
Here’s a detailed explanation for clarity:
An individual or group may have supported or participated in an event that harmed the victim.
The discrepancy between their actions and their moral and ethical values leads to cognitive dissonance.
They attempt to ease this discomfort/dissonance by justifying/rationalizing their own decisions and behaviors.
This justification often involves vilifying the victim to reduce their own feelings of guilt. This is where DARVO comes into play.
Rather than acknowledging the victim’s reaction (also known as reactive abuse) as a natural response to mistreatment, they blame the victim for how the victim reacted to the event.
This process of justification enables them to alleviate their discomfort and resolve their cognitive dissonance, allowing them to carry on with their lives without guilt.
This pattern allows them to avoid any accountability and escape responsibility for their actions, i.e. supporting and participating in the harmful event.
The Impact of Victim Blaming and Victim Villainization:
· When blame is placed on survivors for the injustices they have experienced or their responses to those injustices, it invalidates their experiences, fostering self-doubt and a profound sense of isolation.
· This behavior amplifies the harm by inflicting additional trauma on top of the original incident, further exacerbating the survivor's emotional and psychological distress.
· Victim blaming often leads survivors to internalize the blame, resulting in feelings of shame and guilt. These emotions can, in turn, contribute to the development of anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges.
· Moreover, victim blaming frequently results in social isolation. Friends and family may become reluctant to believe or support the survivor, leaving them without crucial emotional and social resources.
Victim blaming doesn’t just hurt—it undermines the survivor's experience. Until we shift the focus to holding perpetrators accountable, we’re perpetuating a cycle of trauma, shame, and silence. Survivors need our support, not our judgment.
Citations:
Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility? - Sarah Harsey & Jennifer Freyd
Additional resources:
this is so true!