Is it coercive control? / GAS / GAS-3

GAS-3

Blame reversal (DARVO)

Definition

When confronted, the abuser Denies the behavior, Attacks the target's credibility or character, and Reverses Target and Offender blame so that the abuser becomes the injured party and the target is labeled the aggressor.

How it operates

Confrontation met with counter-accusation, offense-taking, and claims that the target is the true aggressor.

Function

Protect the abuser's image, preserve control, and silence disclosure.

Harm

Increased target self-blame, reduced survivor credibility in the eyes of observers, and heightened distress after attempts to set boundaries or seek help.

Why this is coercive control

Genuine expressions of feeling hurt that do not invert responsibility for the abusive pattern. The conduct here protects the abuser's image, preserves control, and silences disclosure.

Constructed example

After everything I put up with from you, YOU'RE accusing ME? I should be the one recording these conversations," or "You always play the victim; you have a victim mentality.

Fictitious. Written to illustrate the behavior. Not a case.

Freyd 1997; Sweet 2019.

Also in GAS

Literature this family is drawn from

  • Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851-875.
  • Forensic linguistic evidence of psychological abuse and discursive manipulation in cyberstalking cases. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (2026).

Literature map

Identifying a behavior described here does not establish a pattern of behavior and does not establish coercive control. A tactic is not a regime. The instrument consolidates peer-reviewed literature so a reader can check when in doubt. The instrument is not a coding manual. Carlton Research does not provide the instrument as a weapon.

© 2026 Carisa Carlton.

How to cite

Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: GAS-3. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/gas-3. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.