Jennifer Freyd, PhD, a professor emerit of psychology at the University of Oregon in Eugene, is internationally acclaimed for her research on sexual harassment and trauma, with a particular focus on betrayal trauma and institutional betrayal. In her most recent role as founder and president of the Center for Institutional Courage, Freyd and her team employ data-driven recommendations to guide institutions to act with courage, accountability, and transparency.
Your research introduced the now widely recognized concept of “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender” (DARVO). How can psychologists help reduce the harms of DARVO?
DARVO is a tactic that people use to deflect blame when held accountable for wrongdoing. First, they deny the allegation, then attack the person accusing them, typically by questioning their credibility. The most insidious part is reversing victim and offender, where they adopt the victim role and say, “You’re harming me with what you’re saying,” “You’re ruining my reputation,” or “You’re harming my family.” The person making the allegation is put into the offender role. One of the most important findings from our research is that when bystanders [who have no prior knowledge of DARVO] observe DARVO being used, they tend to be swayed by it. They start to doubt the person who brought up the accusation, who is very often the true victim. However, when educated in advance about DARVO, bystanders are not as swayed by it. Knowing how to recognize it helps diminish its power to influence and harm the people it is used to target, who tend to blame themselves and have more mental health symptoms like PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. We all have a huge responsibility to prevent that from happening and protect people from its effects.
Institutional betrayal can occur in any workplace or institution, from universities and health care systems to the military and corporations. How can psychologists respond?
Institutional betrayal hurts people and alienates them from the institution they’re dependent on, or they may feel that they have to be in a kind of fog. I refer to this as “betrayal blindness,” where they don’t let themselves really see the betrayal, whether it’s interpersonal or institutional. They do that because once you fully see the betrayal, it’s really hard to not take action. Once fully aware of a betrayal, the usual reaction is to confront or withdraw. That can be a great response if you are empowered and have a choice of where to work, shop, or who to be in a relationship with. But if you are disempowered, confronting or withdrawing might only make things worse. You don’t really have any other options. You stay in that institution [or store, or relationship], but by doing so, you’re shutting yourself down in part. One thing clinicians can sometimes do is help people see the options for having a different job or something to break the pattern of mistreatment. It’s a kind of trauma for people, so trauma treatment may generalize somewhat to institutional betrayal, but in some ways it’s specifically different too.
You’ve also developed the concept of institutional courage. What are some practical steps organizations can take to move from betrayal to courage, and how can psychologists lead or advocate for these changes within their own institutions?
My current passion is helping institutions do better. Many people who hold power in institutions are well intentioned but engage in institutional betrayal because they don’t understand the harm they’re causing. It’s exciting to think that we could help institutions commit to behave morally and transparently and to seek truth even if it causes discomfort and short-term distress. Institutions can then also teach people about institutional betrayal and how victims react to mistreatment, reducing some of the harm that comes from ignorance. We have identified 12 steps for institutional courage, such as “cherish the whistleblowers” and “educate the community.” Institutions should reward whistleblowers by acknowledging them and partnering with them to figure out how to fix the institution. The use of anonymous surveys on a regular basis is another proactive step to find out what’s really going on instead of waiting for people to come forward.
In your view, how does moral injury intersect with institutional betrayal, particularly for individuals who once trusted the systems that harmed them?
Think of moral injury and institutional betrayal as existing on a Venn diagram—they overlap. Moral injury occurs when you realize you’ve been a part of a system or action that goes against your values and morality. Jonathan Shay wrote about this powerfully in a book called Achilles in Vietnam. The Vietnam War created moral injury for many soldiers and other people in the military because they were doing terrible things such as killing civilians. Shay argued this moral injury could just enrage people—that’s one extreme version. But when you experience moral injury because an institution forced or incentivized you to act in a way that’s inconsistent with your values, then you’ve got both [moral injury and institutional betrayal] going on. It may be doubly harmful.
What emerging areas of research or intervention do you believe hold the most promise for addressing systemic patterns of betrayal and rebuilding trust at both individual and societal levels?
The intervention that I’m most excited about involves instituting the 12 steps of institutional courage. We have published two peer-reviewed studies that show how these steps benefit the people who are dependent on the institutions, such as employees and students—even if they have had bad experiences with the institution in the past. For example, when people who had been sexually harassed or mistreated experience institutional courage instead of betrayal, it really helped buffer against the bad stuff. Institutions don’t have to be perfect. People are very eager to like or even love their institutions and tend to really respond well when an institution takes sincere steps toward doing better and being more courageous and moral.
