Recent interdisciplinary scholarship portrays gaslighting as a sophisticated form of psychological abuse characterised by manipulation of perception, erosion of self-trust, and power asymmetry within relationships. Systematic reviews (e.g., Akdeniz & Cıhan, 2024; Darke, Paterson & van Golde, 2025) highlight its core components: denial of reality, trivialisation of emotions, strategic contradiction, and projection. Empirical studies demonstrate associations between gaslighting and anxiety, depression, diminished self-esteem, and trauma-related symptoms (Imtiaz, Javed & Qureshi, 2025; Salcioglu & Cankardas, 2026). Measurement tools such as the Gaslighting in Relationships Scale (GRS) reflect growing efforts to operationalise the construct (Hailes et al., 2025).
Beyond intimate partnerships, research extends to organisational and societal contexts (Erzikova et al., 2025), suggesting that gaslighting functions as a broader strategic communication tactic. Legal and criminological analyses emphasise its relevance in cases of coercive control (Dickson, Ireland & Birch, 2023; Knapp, 2019). Clinical and humanistic perspectives warn that mislabelling victims can compound harm (Tormoen, 2025). Together, these sources present gaslighting as a pervasive, measurable, and psychologically damaging phenomenon demanding public awareness.
1.0 Gaslighting: When Reality Is Quietly Rewritten
The term gaslighting has moved from classic cinema into everyday conversation, yet its meaning is often diluted. Originating from the 1944 film Gaslight, in which a husband manipulates his wife into doubting her sanity, the concept now describes a pattern of deliberate psychological manipulation intended to make someone question their memory, perception and judgement.
At its heart, gaslighting is about control through confusion.
2.0 What Is Gaslighting?
Contemporary psychological scholarship defines gaslighting as a sustained pattern of behaviours designed to destabilise a person’s sense of reality (Darke, Paterson & van Golde, 2025). Unlike a simple lie or disagreement, gaslighting involves systematic denial, contradiction, and emotional invalidation.
For example, imagine a partner who repeatedly says:
- “I never said that — you’re imagining things.”
- “You’re too sensitive.”
- “Everyone agrees with me — you’re overreacting.”
Over time, the targeted individual may begin to think: Perhaps I am too sensitive. Perhaps my memory is unreliable. This gradual internalisation is what makes gaslighting uniquely corrosive.
According to Dickson, Ireland and Birch (2023), gaslighting operates as a tool of interpersonal violence, reinforcing power imbalances and dependency. It rarely appears in isolation; rather, it co-occurs with other forms of emotional abuse.
3.0 Psychological Mechanisms: How Gaslighting Works
Gaslighting succeeds because it exploits normal psychological processes. Humans rely on social validation to confirm their experiences. When a trusted person persistently challenges one’s perceptions, cognitive dissonance arises. To reduce this discomfort, individuals may adjust their beliefs about themselves rather than confront the manipulator.
Research into psychological violence in intimate relationships indicates that gaslighting is associated with heightened stress responses and adverse mental health outcomes (Salcioglu & Cankardas, 2026). Victims frequently report:
- Chronic self-doubt
- Anxiety and hypervigilance
- Depressive symptoms
- Reduced self-esteem
- Difficulty making decisions
Imtiaz, Javed and Qureshi (2025) found significant predictive relationships between experiences of gaslighting and poorer mental well-being among young adults in romantic relationships. The cumulative effect is a gradual erosion of autonomy.
4.0 Recognising the Signs
The development of the Gaslighting in Relationships Scale (GRS) (Hailes et al., 2025) marks an important step in identifying specific behaviours. Common indicators include:
- Persistent denial of previous statements or actions
- Dismissing emotions as irrational
- Rewriting shared history
- Isolating the person from alternative viewpoints
- Suggesting the victim is “unstable” or “confused”
These behaviours create what scholars describe as a distorted epistemic environment — a situation in which the victim cannot reliably interpret events (Klein, Wood & Bartz, 2025).
5.0 Gaslighting and Personality Dynamics
Some researchers explore links between gaslighting and pathological narcissism. Akis and Ozturk (2021) suggest that individuals with pronounced narcissistic traits may be more prone to manipulative strategies that protect their self-image. However, it is important not to reduce gaslighting to personality pathology alone. Structural factors — including gender norms and power hierarchies — also play crucial roles.
Legal scholarship underscores this dimension. Knapp (2019) argues that gaslighting frequently appears in cases of coercive control, particularly in domestic abuse prosecutions. Here, manipulation is not random but strategically employed to undermine credibility.
6.0 Beyond Romantic Relationships
Although most visible in intimate partnerships, gaslighting extends beyond them. Organisational research introduces the idea of institutional or organisational gaslighting, where leaders or institutions dismiss legitimate concerns, rewrite events, or portray whistle-blowers as unstable (Erzikova et al., 2025).
Consider a workplace scenario: An employee raises concerns about discrimination. Management responds by suggesting the employee has “misinterpreted” routine feedback and is “overly emotional”. If colleagues echo this narrative, the employee may question their interpretation of events.
Such dynamics illustrate that gaslighting can function as a broader strategic communication risk, undermining trust in organisations.
7.0 Clinical Implications
From a therapeutic standpoint, recognising gaslighting is crucial. Tormoen (2025) cautions that mental health professionals must avoid inadvertently reinforcing gaslighting dynamics by pathologising clients’ distress without exploring relational contexts. Labelling a survivor as “paranoid” without investigating patterns of manipulation may replicate the very invalidation they experienced.
Therapeutic recovery often involves:
- Rebuilding self-trust
- Validating lived experience
- Strengthening support networks
- Developing assertive communication skills
Self-help literature, such as Sarkis (2018), emphasises practical strategies for identifying manipulative patterns and setting boundaries. While not academic texts, such works reflect increasing public engagement with the concept.
8.0 Cultural and Social Dimensions
Gaslighting also intersects with social power. Marginalised groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to having their experiences dismissed. The phenomenon aligns with what some theorists describe as epistemic injustice — the undermining of someone’s credibility as a knower.
This broader framing moves gaslighting from a purely interpersonal issue to a societal concern, particularly in contexts of misinformation and public discourse.
9.0 Why Awareness Matters
Gaslighting is not simply about disagreement or poor communication. It is about intentional destabilisation. Its danger lies in its subtlety. Unlike physical abuse, there may be no visible marks. Instead, the damage appears internally — as confusion, diminished confidence, and isolation.
Public education plays a preventive role. By naming behaviours, individuals gain conceptual tools to resist manipulation. Measurement scales (Hailes et al., 2025) and interdisciplinary reviews (Darke, Paterson & van Golde, 2025) demonstrate that gaslighting is no longer merely a cultural buzzword but a subject of rigorous study.
In everyday life, recognising gaslighting may begin with a simple internal question: Do I consistently feel confused, diminished, or “at fault” after interactions with this person?
If so, the issue may not be oversensitivity — but a pattern of reality distortion.
References
Akdeniz, B. & Cıhan, H. (2024) ‘Gaslighting and interpersonal relationships: Systematic review’, Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/pgy/article/1281632.
Akis, A.D. & Ozturk, E. (2021) ‘Pathological narcissism: a comprehensive evaluation from the perspective of emotional abuse and gaslighting’, Artuklu Human and Social Science Journal. Available at: https://scholar.archive.org.
Darke, L., Paterson, H. & van Golde, C. (2025) ‘Illuminating gaslighting: A comprehensive interdisciplinary review of gaslighting literature’, Journal of Family Violence. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896-025-00805-4.
Dickson, P., Ireland, J.L. & Birch, P. (2023) ‘Gaslighting and its application to interpersonal violence’, Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice. Available at: https://www.emerald.com.
Erzikova, E., Bowen, S., Ivanitskaya, L. & Kee, K. (2025) ‘Beyond interpersonal abuse: Conceptualizing organisational gaslighting as a strategic communication risk’, Mediascapes. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net.
Hailes, H.P., Goodman, L.A. & Zhang, E. (2025) ‘Development and validation of the Gaslighting in Relationships Scale (GRS)’, Journal of Family Violence. Available at: https://link.springer.com.
Imtiaz, A., Javed, A. & Qureshi, A. (2025) ‘Gaslighting, emotional abuse, and mental health in adults’ romantic relationships’, Journal of Health, Wellness and Research. Available at: https://jhwcr.com.
Knapp, D.R. (2019) ‘Fanning the flames: Gaslighting as a tactic of psychological abuse and criminal prosecution’, Albany Law Review. Available at: https://www.albanylawreview.org.
Salcioglu, E. & Cankardas, S. (2026) ‘Psychological violence in intimate relationships: Stressor interactions and psychological outcomes’, Current Psychology. Available at: https://link.springer.com.
Sarkis, S. (2018) Gaslighting: How to Recognise Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People – and Break Free. London: Hachette UK.
Tormoen, M. (2025) ‘Gaslighting: How pathological labels can harm psychotherapy clients’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com.
