From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series of articles on
Unoffical psychoanalysis symbol


The subject may use:


Many contemporary psychoanalysts treat denial as the first stage of a coping cycle. When an unwelcome change occurs, a trauma of some sort, the first impulse to disbelieve begins the process of coping. That denial, in a healthy mind, slowly rises to greater consciousness. Gradually becoming a subconscious pressure, just beneath the surface of overt awareness, the mechanism of coping then involves repression, while the person accumulates the emotional resources to fully face the trauma. Once faced, the person deals with the trauma in a stage alternately called acceptance or enlightenment, depending on the scope of the issue and the therapist's school of thought. After this stage, once sufficiently dealt with, or dealt with for the time being, the trauma must sink away from total conscious awareness again. Left metaphorically upon a back burner or put away in a cupboard, the process of sublimation involves a balance of neither quite forgetting nor quite remembering. This allows the trauma to re-emerge in consciousness if it involves an ongoing process such as a protracted illness. Or sublimation may begin the full resolution process, where the trauma finally sinks away into eventual forgetfulness. Occasionally this entire cycle has been referred to in modern parlance as denial, often confusing the full cycle with only one stage in the cycle.

Unlike some other defense mechanisms postulated by psychoanalytic theory (for instance, repression), the general existence of denial is fairly easy to verify, even for non-specialists. On the other hand, denial is one of the most controversial defense mechanisms, since it can be easily used to create unfalsifiable theories: anything the subject says or does that appears to disprove the interpreter's theory is explained, not as evidence that the interpreter's theory is wrong, but as the subject's being "in denial". However, researchers note that in some cases of corroborated child sexual abuse, the victims sometimes make a series of partial confessions and recantations as they struggle with their own denial and the denial of abusers or family members. Use of denial theory in a legal setting therefore must be carefully regulated and experts' credentials verified. "Formulaic guilt" simply by "being a denier" has been castigated by English judges and academics.The main objection is that denial theory is founded on the premise that that which the supposed denier is denying is truth. This usurps the judge (and/or jury) as triers of fact [4]

The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs, where the abandonment or reversal of denial forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps. The ability to deny or minimize is an essential part of what enables an addict to continue his or her behavior despite evidence that—to an outsider—appears overwhelming. This is cited as one of the reasons that compulsion is seldom effective in treating addiction—the habit of denial remains.

When a family intervention is conducted to help a person engaged in self-destructive behavior such as alcohol or drug abuse to accept help for his problem, denial is sometimes reduced or eliminated altogether. This is not always necessary, however, for the intervention to be successful in having the person accept help.

Understanding and avoiding denial is also important in the treatment of various diseases. The American Heart Association cites denial as a principal reason that treatment of a heart attack is delayed. Because the symptoms are so varied, and often have other potential explanations, the opportunity exists for the patient to deny the emergency, often with fatal consequences. It is common for patients to delay mammograms or other tests because of a fear of cancer, even though this is clearly maladaptive. It is the responsibility of the care team, and of the nursing staff in particular, to train at-risk patients to avoid this behavior.


Denial of fact[edit]


Denial of responsibility[edit]

This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:


For example:


Denial of impact[edit]

Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

Denial of cycle[edit]


Denial of denial[edit]




DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender. This may involve gaslighting and victim blaming.

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:

...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.[6]

Recognizing denial[edit]

In politicized instances of denial such as climate change denial, AIDS/HIV denialism, Holocaust denial or denial of the Holodomor, research is necessary to establish the "truth". It is only on that basis that one can confirm the presence of denial or denialism. That research can only plausibly be carried out by experts. Those wishing to expose denialism must therefore refer to the opinions of experts. Denialism often involves questioning the expertise of self-declared experts, considering their possible bias, or considering the possible inherent bias of the system in which they work. For example one may question the objectivity of the peer-review system according to which academic research is accepted for publication in leading academic journals.

Even in this case, it is possible to recognize denial by an objective criterion based on Freud's original theory. Denial is associated with the defence mechanism of psychological repression of emotion. These emotions are released when the denial is identified or challenged. The emotion is then repressed again (it seems to disappear) and the topic is not discussed unless there is another challenge. In this way, the topic becomes taboo. This is an unusual behavioral pattern: normally, when a question is so important that people get emotional about it, those same people continue to discuss it until it is resolved or there is some progress toward a solution. The emotion motivates the search for a solution.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., "Denial"
  2. ^ "Defenses". Retrieved 2008-03-11. 
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1997 draft addition, Denial: in psychoanalysis, suppression (usually unconscious) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, especially as "in denial" (chiefly U.S.).
  4. ^ London, Kamala; Bruck, Maggie; Ceci, Stephen J.; Shuman, Daniel W. (2005). "Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell?". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11 (1): 194–226. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.194. 
  5. ^ See Jeremy Griffith (2003). A Species in Denial. FHA Publishing & Communications Pty Ltd. p. 528. ISBN 978-1-74129-001-1. 
  6. ^ Freyd, J.J. (February 1997). "II. Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory" (PDF). Feminism & Psychology 7 (1): 22–32. doi:10.1177/0959353597071004.