Freyd, J. (1996) | References | Narcissus and the Child

What This Research Found

Jennifer Freyd's Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse introduced a theory that fundamentally changed how researchers and clinicians understand memory for abuse. The book addresses a question that had puzzled trauma researchers: why do survivors of childhood abuse often fail to remember their abuse, or remember it only partially or much later in life? Freyd's answer integrates cognitive psychology, attachment theory, and trauma research into a coherent framework with profound implications for survivors, clinicians, and institutions.

The core insight: betrayal predicts forgetting. Freyd proposes that the degree to which a traumatic event represents betrayal by a trusted, needed other predicts how that event will be processed and remembered. Trauma perpetrated by strangers is processed differently from trauma perpetrated by caregivers. When a child is abused by the very person they depend on for survival, full awareness of the abuse would threaten the attachment relationship essential for the child's continued survival. The psyche resolves this impossible equation through what Freyd calls "betrayal blindness"—a form of motivated unawareness that allows the child to maintain the necessary attachment while the abuse continues.

Betrayal blindness is adaptive, not pathological. Unlike repression (a Freudian concept involving active suppression of threatening material), betrayal blindness reflects the priority of attachment over accurate threat detection. From an evolutionary perspective, a young child cannot survive without a caregiver. If the caregiver is abusive, the child's survival depends on maintaining that relationship, which may require not knowing about the abuse. The blindness isn't denial or weakness—it's the psyche's solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem. Children who develop betrayal blindness aren't damaged; they're adapting to circumstances that require adaptation for survival.

The mechanism involves attention and encoding, not just retrieval. Freyd's cognitive psychology background led her to examine the mechanisms underlying betrayal blindness. Rather than memories being formed and then suppressed, betrayal trauma may not be fully encoded in the first place. Attention may be diverted from betrayal-relevant information during the event itself. This explains why some survivors have no memory of abuse: not because memories were formed and then lost, but because the normal encoding process was disrupted by the imperative to maintain attachment.

Betrayal trauma predicts specific outcomes. Research testing the theory has found that betrayal trauma (abuse by caregivers) predicts higher levels of dissociation, more fragmented memories, greater difficulty recognising the abuse as abuse, and different patterns of disclosure compared to non-betrayal trauma. Survivors of betrayal trauma are more likely to maintain positive feelings toward their abusers, more likely to return to harmful relationships, and more likely to blame themselves for the abuse—a pattern that often manifests as chronic shame and self-blame. These aren't signs of dysfunction—they're the expected results of trauma that occurred in a context of dependency.

How This Research Is Used in the Book

Freyd's betrayal trauma theory appears in Narcissus and the Child to explain the psychological adaptations children must make when their primary caregiver is also their primary threat. In Chapter 12: The Unseen Child, the theory illuminates why children of narcissistic parents often cannot see or name what is happening to them:

"Freyd's betrayal trauma theory speaks directly to this dynamic. When trauma is perpetrated by someone the child depends on for survival, the psyche must perform extreme adaptations to maintain attachment. The child cannot fight or flee, so they fragment their awareness, simultaneously knowing and not knowing about the abuse. Freyd calls this 'betrayal blindness'—inability to fully perceive or acknowledge trauma that allows the child to maintain necessary attachment."

This citation supports the book's argument that children of narcissists face an impossible psychological bind: they need their parent for survival, yet that parent is the source of harm. The child's confusion, their defence of the parent, their inability to articulate what's wrong—these aren't failures of perception but successful adaptations to an impossible situation.

In Chapter 16: The Gaslit Self, Freyd's work provides theoretical foundation for understanding why gaslighting is so effective in intimate relationships:

"Dr Jennifer Freyd's betrayal trauma theory (positing that remaining unaware of abuse serves social utility when the perpetrator is a caregiver upon whom one depends) explained why victims doubt their own perceptions when betrayed by trusted intimates."

The book also draws on Freyd's later work on DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) in Chapter 20: Field Guide to help survivors recognise when they're being manipulated:

"Being accused of being the narcissist is disorienting—especially after years of gaslighting. This reversal has a name: DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), coined by psychologist Jennifer Freyd."

Together, these citations use Freyd's research to validate survivors' experiences of confusion, fragmented memory, and difficulty recognising abuse—while providing tools (like recognising DARVO) for navigating relationships with narcissistic individuals.

Why This Matters for Survivors

If you experienced abuse by a narcissistic parent or partner, Freyd's research offers profound validation of experiences that may have made you doubt yourself.

Your confusion was a survival skill. The inability to see clearly what was happening—to name the narcissistic abuse, to recognise the patterns, to hold onto your own perceptions—wasn't a failure on your part. When the person harming you was also the person you depended on for love, safety, or survival, full awareness of their betrayal would have threatened a relationship you couldn't afford to lose. Your psyche protected you by limiting what you could see. Betrayal blindness kept you attached to someone you needed, even when that attachment was costing you everything else.

Your memories are valid, even if they're fragmented. Betrayal trauma theory doesn't suggest your memories are unreliable—it explains why they might be incomplete, emerge slowly, or feel confusing. Research shows that trauma memories, including recovered memories, are generally as accurate as continuous memories. The fragmentation, the pieces that don't quite connect, the sense of knowing and not knowing simultaneously—these are characteristic of betrayal trauma, not signs that you're making things up. Your memories are telling you something important: the abuse was perpetrated by someone you deeply depended on.

The trauma bond makes biological sense. If you've struggled to understand why you kept returning to someone who hurt you, why you defended them to others, why part of you still loves them despite everything—Freyd's theory explains it. Your attachment system was doing exactly what attachment systems do: maintaining connection to a caregiver, even a harmful one, because that connection is what survival depends on. You weren't stupid, weak, or masochistic. Your nervous system was prioritising attachment over threat detection because, developmentally, attachment IS survival.

You can rebuild trust in your own perceptions. One of betrayal trauma's most insidious effects is teaching you not to trust yourself. When you had to not know what you knew, your relationship with your own perceptions was damaged. Recovery involves gradually reconnecting with your capacity to perceive accurately—to know what you know, feel what you feel, and trust your own experience. This happens slowly, in the context of safe relationships where your perceptions are validated rather than distorted. The betrayal blindness that once protected you can lift when you no longer need it for survival.

Clinical Implications

For psychiatrists, psychologists, and trauma-informed healthcare providers, Freyd's betrayal trauma theory has direct implications for assessment, treatment planning, and therapeutic approach.

Assess the relational context of trauma, not just trauma type. Standard trauma assessments often focus on what happened (type, severity, duration) without adequately capturing who perpetrated the trauma and the victim's relationship to that person. Freyd's research demonstrates that relational context fundamentally shapes trauma processing. Two clients with similar abuse histories may present very differently if one was abused by a stranger and the other by a primary caregiver. The betrayal dimension—the degree of trust and dependency—should inform case conceptualisation and treatment planning.

Expect unawareness and partial awareness. Clients with betrayal trauma histories may not initially present with clear trauma narratives. They may minimise, defend their abusers, have significant memory gaps, or oscillate between knowing and not knowing. This isn't resistance or denial in the traditional sense—it's characteristic of betrayal trauma. Clinicians should create conditions where awareness can emerge safely rather than pushing for disclosure. The client's current unawareness likely served a protective function; awareness can emerge when the client has sufficient support to tolerate it.

Address attachment alongside trauma. Because betrayal trauma damages both safety (like all trauma) and attachment (specifically), treatment must address both dimensions. Trauma-focused interventions that don't address attachment wounds may help with PTSD symptoms while leaving relationship difficulties unchanged. Attachment-focused interventions that don't address trauma may improve relational functioning while leaving trauma symptoms untreated. Integrative approaches that address both—perhaps attachment-focused therapy combined with trauma processing, or approaches like EMDR that process both relational and event memories—may produce better outcomes.

Validate the adaptive function of betrayal blindness. Clients often feel ashamed of not seeing the abuse sooner, of defending their abuser, of staying so long. Clinicians can normalise these responses by explaining betrayal blindness as an adaptation, not a pathology. The client's psyche was solving an impossible problem with the tools available. This reframe often reduces shame and self-blame, creating space for the genuine grief work of acknowledging what happened.

Consider dissociative symptoms carefully. Betrayal trauma predicts higher levels of dissociation than non-betrayal trauma. Clinicians should assess for dissociative symptoms (not just PTSD symptoms) and adjust treatment accordingly. Standard trauma processing protocols may need modification for highly dissociative clients. Stabilisation and grounding skills become particularly important, helping clients expand their window of tolerance. The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) and similar measures can help quantify dissociation severity.

Recognise institutional betrayal in treatment settings. Healthcare systems can perpetrate institutional betrayal when they fail to respond appropriately to disclosures, blame victims, protect perpetrators, or create unsafe reporting environments. Clinicians working within institutions should be aware of how institutional responses may compound individual trauma. A client who was abused by a priest and then had their disclosure minimised by church authorities experienced both individual betrayal and institutional betrayal—both must be addressed.

Broader Implications

Freyd's work extends beyond individual therapy to illuminate patterns across families, institutions, and society—helping explain why abuse persists and what might prevent it.

The Intergenerational Transmission of Dysfunction

Betrayal blindness may transmit across generations through multiple pathways, contributing to intergenerational trauma. A parent who experienced betrayal trauma and developed betrayal blindness may fail to perceive danger to their own children from abusive partners, family members, or others. The blindness that once protected them now leaves their children vulnerable. Additionally, parents with unprocessed betrayal trauma may recreate familiar dynamics, unconsciously selecting partners or behaving in ways that replicate their childhood environment. Understanding these mechanisms doesn't blame survivors—it identifies intervention points. Treating a parent's betrayal trauma may protect their children by restoring the parent's capacity to perceive and respond to danger.

Relationship Patterns and Revictimisation

Research shows that survivors of childhood betrayal trauma are at elevated risk for revictimisation in adult relationships. Freyd's theory helps explain why: if your attachment system learned that close relationships involve betrayal, you may normalise red flags that others would recognise. If betrayal blindness became your default, you may not perceive exploitation even when others clearly do. Recovery involves developing the capacity for reality testing—the ability to perceive relationships accurately, including perceiving danger. This often requires experiencing safe relationships that demonstrate alternatives to what was normalised.

Institutional Betrayal and Institutional Courage

Freyd's subsequent work on institutional betrayal has profound implications for how organisations respond to misconduct. When universities mishandle sexual assault reports, when churches cover up clergy abuse, when militaries discourage reporting—they perpetrate institutional betrayal that compounds individual trauma, often through coercive control dynamics that silence victims. Survivors of institutional betrayal show worse mental health outcomes than survivors without this additional betrayal layer. Freyd has proposed "institutional courage" as the antidote: institutions that prioritise accountability over reputation, that believe and support those who report harm, that examine their own complicity in enabling misconduct. Research suggests institutional courage improves reporting rates, survivor outcomes, and ultimately organisational health.

Legal and Policy Considerations

Betrayal trauma theory has influenced legal understanding of victim behaviour. Courts and juries often struggle to understand why victims didn't report immediately, why they returned to abusers, why their memories are fragmented, why they maintained positive feelings toward perpetrators. These behaviours, which seem to contradict "real" victimhood to uninformed observers, are precisely what betrayal trauma theory predicts. Expert testimony on betrayal trauma dynamics has been admitted in various legal contexts to help fact-finders understand victim behaviour. Additionally, understanding institutional betrayal has influenced policy regarding mandatory reporting, institutional response protocols, and survivor support services.

Workplace Dynamics and Professional Betrayal

The betrayal framework extends to professional relationships where power imbalances create dependency. Employees depend on employers for livelihood; students depend on teachers for grades and recommendations; patients depend on healthcare providers for treatment. When these relationships involve exploitation, the betrayal dimension amplifies the harm. Workplaces can perpetrate institutional betrayal through inadequate harassment policies, retaliation against reporters, or prioritising the accused over the accuser. Understanding betrayal trauma helps explain why employees often don't report harassment: reporting threatens a relationship (with the employer) they depend on, activating dynamics similar to childhood betrayal trauma.

Implications for Child Protection

Betrayal trauma theory has direct implications for child protection. Children are the most dependent population, making their betrayal trauma particularly severe. Systems designed to protect children—foster care, child protective services, family courts—can perpetrate additional institutional betrayal through poor placements, failure to believe children, reunification with abusive parents, or inadequate support. Understanding that children may not disclose abuse by caregivers (because disclosure threatens essential attachment) should inform interviewing protocols, assessment procedures, and court practices. The absence of disclosure cannot be taken as evidence abuse didn't occur.

Limitations and Considerations

Freyd's work, while influential, requires contextual understanding and has generated ongoing scholarly debate.

The "memory wars" context. Betrayal trauma theory emerged during contentious debates about recovered memories of abuse. Some critics worried the theory would be used to validate all recovered memories uncritically, while others engaged in DARVO-like tactics, accusing researchers who studied abuse memories of creating false memories in vulnerable patients. Freyd has consistently emphasised that the theory explains why memory for betrayal trauma operates differently—not that all recovered memories are accurate. The theory is agnostic about individual memory accuracy while explaining population-level patterns. Clinicians should neither dismiss recovered memories nor accept them uncritically, but should understand them in context.

Mechanism questions remain. While betrayal trauma theory has strong empirical support for its predictions (betrayal trauma predicts more dissociation, different memory patterns, etc.), the precise cognitive mechanisms remain debated. Whether betrayal blindness involves attention, encoding, retrieval, or some combination continues to be investigated. The clinical and practical implications hold regardless of the exact mechanism.

Individual variation is substantial. Not everyone who experiences betrayal trauma develops betrayal blindness or has fragmented memories. Protective factors—other safe attachment figures, earlier age at separation from the perpetrator, strong social support—moderate outcomes. The theory describes population tendencies, not universal laws. Clinicians should assess individual presentations rather than assuming all betrayal trauma survivors will present identically.

Cultural considerations. Most betrayal trauma research has been conducted in Western, English-speaking populations. How betrayal and dependency operate cross-culturally, how collectivist versus individualist orientations affect betrayal trauma processing, and how different cultural contexts shape disclosure and memory remain under-researched. Clinicians working with diverse populations should consider cultural factors in applying the theory.

Historical Context

Betrayal Trauma appeared in 1996 during a period of intense controversy in trauma psychology. The "memory wars" of the early 1990s pitted clinicians and researchers who believed that traumatic memories could be dissociated and later recovered against those who believed that recovered memories were often the product of suggestive therapeutic techniques. High-profile cases of recovered memories leading to criminal prosecutions—some later recanted—fueled public and professional debate.

Freyd's theory offered something different from either extreme. Rather than arguing that all recovered memories were accurate or that they were all false, she proposed a theoretical framework explaining why memory for betrayal trauma might operate differently than other memory. Her cognitive psychology training led her to examine mechanisms (attention, encoding, retrieval) rather than simply taking positions on memory accuracy.

The book built on several intellectual traditions. Attachment theory (Bowlby, Ainsworth) provided the framework for understanding why maintaining attachment relationships is a survival imperative. Cognitive psychology provided tools for analysing memory processes. Trauma research, particularly on dissociation, provided clinical observations requiring explanation. Freyd synthesised these into a coherent theory with testable predictions.

Subsequent research has largely supported the theory's predictions. Studies have found that betrayal trauma (abuse by caregivers) predicts more dissociation, different memory characteristics, and different disclosure patterns than non-betrayal trauma. These patterns are particularly pronounced in survivors who developed Complex PTSD from prolonged childhood abuse. Freyd's extension of the theory to institutional betrayal has been empirically validated and has influenced policy across multiple sectors.

The theory's influence extends beyond academia. Freyd's concept of DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), introduced in a 1997 paper, has entered popular discourse as a way to understand perpetrator responses to accusations—a dynamic often seen alongside projection and other defence mechanisms. Her work on institutional betrayal has influenced how universities, the military, religious organisations, and other institutions approach misconduct reporting and response.

Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse

APA Citation