Institutional betrayal hurts people at two distinct levels: pragmatic and psychological. Pragmatically, the US government's failure to protect its people has caused unfathomable physical pain and death. Psychologically, betrayal is toxic to the mind and body, and our government's failures add to the burden of fear, loss, loneliness, and trauma in this global health crisis. This already profound challenge is complicated by emergencies related (but not limited) to racism, police brutality, abuse of immigrants, the climate crisis, and sexual violence. Institutional betrayal is fuel for all of these intersecting issues.

We at Courage are here to educate about institutional betrayal -- and the related need for institutional courage -- in current events of all kinds. At the same time, we remain deeply committed to our primary focus on sexual violence. While sexual violence has not been making as many headlines as it was pre-pandemic, it has certainly not gone away.

For just one example, the Washington Post has published explosive new revelations of sexual harassment within a major US sports institution: the problematically named Washington Redskins. The Post found that women employees were entirely unsupported by leadership in disclosing widespread sexual harassment in the institution's corporate office. Here again, we see the two levels of harm of institutional betrayal. Pragmatically, this failure of leadership harmed the careers of women within the institution, and psychologically, it caused additional pain and distress to the very people the institution should have protected.

These two types of harm -- pragmatic and psychological -- of institutional betrayal produce a grim prospect. However, there is reason for hope: the potential for institutional courage to heal on the same two levels. In the case of the US government's response to COVID-19, institutional courage demands a commitment to uncovering and sharing the truth with citizens. A courageous leader centers the well-being of those dependent upon the institution, and especially those most vulnerable, rather than prioritizing the interests of those in power. Institutional courage requires the government and its leaders to engage in moral action, despite unpleasantness and short-term cost.

If and when the US government -- through its leaders, policies, and practices -- begins to address this historic moment with institutional courage, suffering will decrease both pragmatically and psychologically. US and global citizens will reason for hope. When institutions earn the trust and loyalty of the people who depend on them, the dynamic can change from toxic to healing.

In closing, I want to share our nonprofit's intent to meet this moment. We are currently a tiny staff with a very big ambition: to create more courageous institutions in which we all can thrive.

To do this work, we need to raise funds. I hope you will consider showing your support with a donation of any size. This fall, I look forward to telling you about a matching campaign that -- thanks to an anonymous donor -- will double the impact of each gift to Courage.

Thank you for being with us on this journey to support research and education on institutional courage.

In this issue, our spotlight is on DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender). We offer some brief historical context and examples of DARVO, the highlights from a brand-new piece of DARVO research, and a sneak peek of what's coming up on the DARVO research agenda.

Historical Context & Examples of DARVO

More than 20 years ago, Jennifer Freyd first identified DARVO as a concept. In essence, DARVO is a perpetrator strategy to deflect blame and evade punishment. Although Freyd theorized about DARVO for several decades, empirical research is relatively recent. Research by Harsey, Zurbriggen, & Freyd (2017) on DARVO suggests that DARVO is more likely to be experienced by girls and women compared to boys and men and that it is harmful to victims -- particularly in motivating self-blame, which can lead to self-silencing.

What does DARVO look like in practice? Consider this example in which the New York Times questioned President Trump about allegations by several women of sexual misconduct:

• Deny: "None of this ever took place"

• Attack: "You are a disgusting human being" (to the reporter)

• Reverse Victim and Offender: The Times was "making up the allegations to hurt [me]"

Critically, DARVO is also an institutional behavior. Institutional DARVO is present when institutions close ranks around perpetrators and discredit the truth-tellers. The institutions that shielded Larry Nassar engaged in this systemic pattern for decades:

• Deny: Institutional leaders discounted athlete allegations that Nassar was sexually abusing them, failing to investigate or take other proper action

• Attack: Institutional leaders gaslit the victims, asserting that they simply didn't understand that the sexual abuse amounted to a proper medical procedure

• Reverse Victim and Offender: Institutional leaders compelled some athletes to apologize to Nassar for "misunderstanding" his abuse of them

Insights from Brand-New DARVO Research

This summer, Jennifer Freyd (right) and her collaborator Sarah Harsey (left) published the results of several experiments. Here's a brief snapshot of the good and bad news they discovered.

In experiment #1, participants were exposed to vignettes describing an incident of interpersonal violence between dating partners, recounted as a first-person narrative from either the victim or perpetrator's perspective. The perpetrator either remorsefully acknowledged the abusive behavior, or they used DARVO to discredit the victim and deny their abuse.

The bad news: Participants who were exposed to DARVO perceived the victim to be less believable and the perpetrator as less responsible. In other words, DARVO is effective for the perpetrator.

"It seems that DARVO may not entirely convince everyone of the perpetrator's innocence -- but it doesn't have to. All it has to do is muddy the waters just enough so that the truth of what really happened seems complicated and inaccessible. Was it an assault, or simply an innocuous misinterpretation of events? When faced with this manufactured ambiguity, abuse and other wrongdoings become easy to shrug off as unfortunate and inextricable cases of he-said, she-said."

―Sarah Harsey, How Sex Perps Use Deny, Attack, And Reverse

In experiment #2, Harsey and Freyd randomly assigned some participants to leanr about DARVO before reading the same vignettes.

The good news: Compared with participants who did not learn about DARVO, the DARVO-educated participants perceived the victim as less abusive and more believable. They also rated the perpetrator as less believable.

So, what does this all mean? These results suggest that DARVO is an all-too-effective strategy to discredit victims, but that the power of DARVO can be mitigated by education.

What's Coming Up on the DARVO Research Agenda?

Numerous DARVO research projects -- led by Freyd and Courage Research Associates -- are in the pipeline.

One such effort, led by Courage Research Associate Melissa Barnes (left), will enable us to measure the use of DARVO via a short-form measure that assesses perpetrators' responses to confrontations. This instrument will help our team and other investigators to advance empirical research on DARVO.

It will be presented for the first time at the August annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. In the course of this research, the team discovered that DARVO was used in response to a variety of allegations of wrongdoing but was most associated with allegations of forced sexual contact.

In a different study led by Courage Research Associate Sarah Harsey (also to be presented at APA), study participants who were exposed to a sexual assault perpetrator’s use of DARVO rated the perpetrator as less abusive, less responsible for the sexual assault, and more believable. DARVO-exposed participants also rated the victim as more abusive and less believable. Participants were also asked to report whether they believed the victim and whether the perpetrator should be punished for their actions. Approximately 60% of DARVO-exposed participants agreed that the perpetrator should face punishment, compared to 82% of participants in the non-DARVO conditions. Moreover, 10% of DARVO-exposed participants decided the victim should be punished, compared to 1% of those in the non-DARVO conditions. This finding adds to our evidence that DARVO can be very effective for perpetrators.

We are particularly excited about an upcoming study in which we will ask participants about their own use of DARVO. We are especially interested in whether people are more likely to use DARVO when they are guilty versus innocent of misconduct. In this research, we will also be investigating personality traits such as narcissism and Machiavellianism to see if they are related to DARVO use.

Want to Learn More?

Sarah Harsey & Jennifer Freyd:
Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO): What is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility?

Sarah Harsey:
How sex perps use deny, attack, and reverse

Freyd Dynamics Lab:
What is DARVO?

Chicago Tribune: A DARVO case study:
R. Kelly's CBS meltdown has a name, says researcher: 'That's DARVO'

The Black Lives Matter movement and the power of protest
Allyson Hobbs

Long-term integrity: New nonprofit founded by UO professor takes on institutional betrayal
Eugene Weekly

Coronavirus catcalling is real. Mask or no mask, harassment is all about power.
NBC News

Feeling anxious about wearing a mask? Here are 5 ways to overcome it
Forbes

How to protect your mental health even while watching the news
Forbes

What not to say to someone who has experienced racial trauma
HuffPost

The Black Lives Matter protests are running on much more than anger
Newsweek

How to tap into your 5 senses to find peace and be present
Shape