When You Confront Someone and Somehow End Up Apologizing

When a conversation about wrongdoing suddenly becomes an attack on the person who spoke up, a psychological pattern known as DARVO may be at work. Understanding the pattern can help, but biblical discernment is what equips believers to examine the facts, resist manipulation, and judge carefully before reaching conclusions.

By EEW Magazine Online Editors

A conversation about wrongdoing can sometimes leave the person who raised the concern confused, defensive, and even apologizing. Psychologists call one version of this pattern DARVO. (Getty Images/Illustration by EEW Magazine)

Rebekah had been wronged, and she had finally gotten up the courage to say so.

Before saying a word, though, she carefully rehearsed the conversation in the car, the shower, and the privacy of her room after everyone else in the house had gone to sleep.

When the moment came to say her piece, she mentally reviewed the rules she had set for herself: state the incident, keep it short, and say nothing beyond what happened.

Within minutes, the conversation shifted, and her guidelines did nothing to help steer the discussion in the right direction. Her recollection of events was questioned first, then her tone. Someone brought up something unrelated that had happened three years ago. By the end of the derailed discussion, she was the one apologizing, and she could not explain why.

Her therapist understood exactly why and taught her a new name for an old pattern: DARVO.

DARVO can leave the person who raises a concern feeling confused, blamed, and unsure of what just happened. (Getty Images/Illustration by EEW Magazine)

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd coined the term in 1997 to describe a three-part sequence: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

The person confronted denies what happened, attacks the character or memory of the one who raised the concern, and, by the end of the exchange, has recast themselves as the one who was wronged. The focus of the conversation changes from a question about behavior to a referendum on character, usually the character of the person who spoke up.

DARVO also shifts the burden of explanation away from the person accused. They no longer have to answer for the original concern. The person who raised it does.

That’s why Rebekah’s exchange is spent defending her memory, her timing, her motives, and things that have nothing to do with what she came to discuss. Each new accusation adds another question that must be answered before the original one can be revisited.

Often, that moment for redress never arrives.

RELATED: 8 faith-focused ways to discern gaslighting

Long before psychology attached an acronym to the pattern of behavior, Genesis recorded a strikingly similar sequence. Joseph refused the repeated advances of Potiphar's wife. When the refusal became final, she kept the garment he left behind. She then called out to the men of the house and told her husband a distorted version of events. Her version placed her in the role of the wronged party and Joseph in the role of the offender (Genesis 39:11-20).

Joseph, however, offered no counter-accusation. He did not mount a defense campaign. He simply went to prison knowing the hidden truth.

A 2017 study published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma introduced foundational research on DARVO. Researchers Sarah Harsey, Eileen Zurbriggen, and Jennifer Freyd surveyed people who had confronted someone over wrongdoing. Participants who reported experiencing more DARVO also reported greater self-blame following the confrontation.

The study relied on participants' own descriptions of what happened. While it did find a linkage between reported DARVO and reported self-blame, it could not determine which caused which or verify the underlying events. What the research, in essence, shows is how confronters experienced these conversations.

A follow-up series of experiments in 2020 tested and recorded the responses of outside observers. Participants read the same allegation followed by one of two responses: a plain denial or a DARVO-style reply. Those who read the DARVO response were more likely to doubt the accuser and believe the accused. When participants were told about the DARVO pattern beforehand, that effect weakened.

Freyd and other researchers have expanded the framework with fascinating results. They have gone beyond individuals to what they call institutional DARVO. This is the same three-step sequence, Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, enacted by an organization defending its reputation rather than a person defending their own conduct.

Here’s how it goes: A complaint is denied, the complainant's credibility is questioned, and the institution positions itself as the party under attack. Workplaces, churches, universities, corporations, and civic institutions have all been examined through this framework when allegations threaten the organization itself.

Though DARVO is a useful tool against manipulation, Freyd has cautioned against applying the label too broadly. DARVO requires more than a denial. Hurt feelings, a raised voice, or a hurried explanation can happen for reasons that have nothing to do with this specific pattern. An innocent person can respond defensively when wrongly accused, and that reaction alone reveals little about what actually happened.

DARVO describes a recurring sequence of behaviors. Establishing the truth of an allegation takes evidence, context, and independent judgment beyond any label. If used carelessly, the DARVO label risks replacing evidence with assumption, which is the very thing discernment exists to guard against.

Discernment is the best tool one can deploy against DARVO. It is, however, one of Scripture's most misunderstood concepts, often reduced to a spiritual hunch or an unshakable feeling. But the Bible treats discernment as a gift and a practice together.

James invites believers to ask God for wisdom, "that giveth to all men liberally" (James 1:5), and Paul lists "discerning of spirits" among the gifts the Holy Spirit distributes "as he will" (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).

Biblical discernment is the disciplined ability to distinguish truth from error through wisdom, understanding, and careful judgment. Hebrews 5:14 says mature believers have "their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

The word translated "exercised" is the Greek gymnazo, the same root that gives English the word gymnasium. The writer describes training as the kind of repetition that turns effort into reflex. The word translated "discern" is diakrisis, meaning to separate, to judge between, to distinguish one thing from another by close examination rather than a glance. Together, the verse describes senses trained by repeated use to separate what is true from what only resembles truth.

Discernment is cultivated and grows through practice. It weighs, tests, examines, and refuses to settle for appearances alone.

DARVO, a communication pattern documented in psychological research, is no match for discernment. This spiritual gift does the deeper work the acronym cannot: weighing whether an allegation is true, reading motives, and judging the condition of a person's heart. That is a work of the Spirit.

Scripture consistently calls believers to that kind of careful evaluation. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1).

Proverbs 18:17 says, "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."

Used wisely, the DARVO framework can alert someone to a shift in a conversation. But it takes discernment to ask and answer the next, most important questions. What do the facts show? What evidence supports the claim? What is the motive? What remains unknown?

Wisdom resists the pressure to reach conclusions before the evidence does.

The point is this: manipulation flourishes where careful judgment is absent. Discernment slows the conversation long enough for truth to be examined on its own merits.

Whether the setting is a family, a workplace, a church, an institution, or the public square, that discipline guards against believing too quickly, dismissing too quickly, or confusing persuasion with proof.

There is a difference between "Let's talk about what happened" and "Let's talk about what's wrong with you for bringing it up."

Discernment recognizes when that shift has taken place, then does something equally important: it follows the evidence and the details that the Holy Spirit reveals in order to get to the truth of the matter.

---

More on EEW Magazine Online: