Illuminating Gaslighting: A Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Review of Gaslighting Literature

With the recent introduction of coercive control laws in the UK in 2015 (Serious Crime Act, 2015) and Australia in 2022 (Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act, 2022), non-physical patterns of abuse have received increasing attention both within research and among the broader community. While the criminalization of intimate partner violence (IPV) has historically focused on physical forms of abuse (McMahon & McGorrery, 2016), there has been an increase in interest in the role of covert and insidious forms of violence, such as emotional and psychological abuse.

Coercive control can be defined as a pattern of behaviour that is designed to exert power over an individual (AIHW, 2024). This includes a wide range of tactics that control individuals through intimidation, humiliation, and isolation (Katz, 2015; Stark, 2007). An Australian parliamentary inquiry into family and domestic violence found that victim-survivors often describe coercive control as ‘the worst form of abuse they experience and can have more immediate and ongoing impacts than physical forms of violence’ (Wallace, 2021). Further, the Australian Death Review Team found in New South Wales, 99% of Domestic Violence homicides between 2008 and 2016 were preceded by coercive control (Ward, 2021). Therefore, not only does coercive control have the capacity to inflict long-lasting trauma, but it also acts as a strong predictor of future physical abuse (Myhill & Hohl, 2019). It is thus an important endeavor to identify and establish coercive patterns of behaviour, as this may lead to better identification of at-risk victims, less chance of re-abuse, and faster court cases (Klein, 2009).

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse that has had a stark increase in public discourse, within a short period of time. Most notably, gaslighting was voted ‘word of the year’ in the Merriam Websters Dictionary in 2022. Gaslighting can be defined as a tactic of psychological manipulation in which an individual attempts to control their intimate partner by convincing them that their thoughts, beliefs, and memories are groundless, or ‘crazy’ (Abramson, 2014). While the term has peaked in popularity over the past few years, gaslighting’ originated from the titular 1938 play ‘Gas Light’. In this play, a husband intentionally convinces his wife that she is losing her mind by convincing her that real changes to her physical surroundings, such as moving objects and illumination of the gas lights, are not happening. The goal of this manipulation was to convince the wife that she requires institutionalization, so the husband could have unfettered access to her fortune (Hamilton, 1939).

Since the inception of the term, gaslighting has been used in numerous contexts, ranging from interpersonal relationships to cults (Dorpat, 1996). There is some initial evidence that gaslighting may play a considerable role in the experience of IPV. In the United States, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) undertook a survey of 2,875 individuals experiencing intimate partner violence (Warshaw et al., 2014). When asked “Has your partner or ex-partner ever called you “crazy” or accused you of being “crazy”?”, 85.7% of respondents answered positively. Further, 73.8% of respondents said that they believed their partner had deliberately done things to make them feel like they were going crazy, and 50.2% said that their partner had threatened to tell the authorities that they were ‘crazy’ to prevent them from accessing services such as protective orders.

Despite a recent surge in specific research on gaslighting, gaslighting theory remains relatively underdeveloped and excluded from broad models of IPV. Even so, elements of gaslighting have been present in IPV research for many years. Concepts such as ‘surreality’, ‘unreality’, ‘dismissive incomprehension’, ‘crazy making’, or ‘narcissistic flip’ have been discussed in prior studies (Ferraro, 2006; Williamson, 2010; Cull, 2019; Hayes & Jeffries, 2016; Korobov, 2020). In general, there is recognition of the important role that psychological tactics which challenge and warp reality play in patterns of abuse. For instance, the Duluth Power and Control Wheel identifies controlling behaviours such as minimizing, denial, and blame, which has a large overlap with typical gaslighting tactics (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Hailes, 2022).

As Hailes, (2022) argued in a review of coercive control theory and gaslighting, the relationship between gaslighting and direct coercion varies depending on the definition and the details of individual cases. Hailes, (2022) noted that gaslighting may serve as a direct tactic of coercion within intimate relationships, however, it can also be used with the intention of enacting harm instead of control. This harm may wear a person down over time, increasing their vulnerability to coercive control (Hailes, 2022; Dutton & Goodman, 2005). Further research into the role of gaslighting in coercive control is critical, given the potential for these behaviours to be included in existing and upcoming legislation targeting coercive control. Regardless of whether gaslighting is conceptualized as a form of coercive control, or as a pattern of abuse alongside coercive control, it plays an important role in contributing to the cumulative negative impacts of IPV.

Even with the increase in gaslighting studies in recent years, the definition and operationalisation of gaslighting has remained inconsistent and unclear. For instance, there is inconsistency in whether gaslighting is described as an intentional act (e.g., Abramson, 2014; Roberts & Andrews, 2013), a repeated act (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021; Graves & Samp, 2021), or whether outcomes, such as self-doubt, are necessary for gaslighting to have occurred (e.g., Hailes, 2022; Catapang Podosky, 2021). These are important points of contention in the literature, as they have significant implications for the definition and operationalisation of gaslighting within a legal and policy standpoint. This ambiguity may partially stem from the irregular and slow advancements in gaslighting research. It may also, however, be attributed to the lack of interdisciplinary communication of research concepts and findings. For instance, while individual authors may have specific views on what gaslighting entails, they do not necessarily agree with or reference other researchers within or across their disciplines. Although the first case studies emerged from psychiatry (i.e., Barton & Whitehead, 1969; Smith & Sinanan, 1972), the term has transcended disciplinary boundaries, as it has been applied within the domains of psychodynamics, individual differences, philosophy, and sociology (e.g., Hightower, 2017; March et al., 2023; Sodoma, 2022; Sweet, 2019). While there have been important theoretical and empirical developments within these disciplines, to date the most cited literature remains Stern’s self-help book ‘The Gaslight Effect’ from 2007.

In order for future research to establish a coherent framework by which to understand the phenomenon of gaslighting, the current paper aims to conduct a comprehensive review of existing approaches towards gaslighting across disciplines, commencing with a historical overview of the topic and subsequent conceptual advancements. Particularly, it is important to establish the discrepancies that emerge from its interdisciplinary application and assess the implications for future use of gaslighting in research and policy. As a note on terminology, while this review utilizes the term ‘victim-survivor’ when referring to individuals who are currently or have previously experienced IPV, it will use the term ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ when discussing theoretical gaslighting, to maintain conceptual clarity (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021; March et al., 2023).

The first investigation into gaslighting was published by Barton and Whitehead in the 1969 edition of the Lancet. Barton and Whitehead took inspiration from the play ‘The Gas Light’ and noted the lack of representation of this plot within the medical literature. The article consisted of three case studies that demonstrated attempts to admit an individual to hospital under false accusations of mental health disturbances. The first two cases involved male victims, where wives admitted their husbands under claims of aggression or alcoholism, as a means to divorce. The third case involved a staff member of a nursing home providing an elderly woman with medication to cause incontinence, so as to remove her from the home into a hospital. In all three cases, the focus of the gaslighting was on removing the individual from the household, to provide a solution to interpersonal problems or for personal gain. The target of the manipulation in these cases were the hospital staff, and surrounding friends and family. While each case briefly mentions some taunting of the victim by the family, such as telling them they are ‘mad’ and should be in hospital, the victims did not present with, or develop notable symptoms of “physical or mental disease” (Barton & Whitehead, 1969, p1258).

In response to the Barton and Whitehead (1969) paper, Smith and Sinanan (1972) introduced cases where the situation extended beyond direct admission to psychiatric hospitals. The women in their case studies were first admitted into the general hospital with physical health presentations. In both cases the husbands exaggerated their wives’ illnesses and falsified information which led to psychiatric teams being called in. As with the Barton and Whitehead (1969) study, attempts to convince the wife they were losing their mind were minimal and secondary to attempts to convince the hospital staff. Smith and Sinanan (1972) noted that the cases stood in contrast to the play, in which the wife was driven to believe that she was ‘going mad’ which, in turn, strengthened the case to have her admitted. A later case study reported by Lund and Gardiner (1977) was more closely aligned to the play because the elderly patient developed paranoid psychosis induced by hospital staff. While in the previous cases, families worked to invoke the perception of insanity with an otherwise healthy individual, in this case the victim had a history of psychosis which was known to those involved. Lund and Gardiner (1977) used this case to argue for the importance of remaining critical when provided with ‘seemingly impartial’ mental health history from concerned relatives.

Up until this point, gaslighting case studies framed gaslighting as malicious and intentional behaviour used to rid a family of unwanted individuals. In 1987 Cawthra, O’Brian, and Hassanyeh introduced a more complex case, in which the motivation for the gaslighting was not as direct or malicious. The case involved a daughter, who pretended to be the ghost of her mother’s late husband. The young woman used the authority of the husband’s ghost to ask for things that she herself did not feel she have the authority to request, such as the right to move out of home. It wasn’t until after the daughter moved out that the mother began to experience distress regarding the sudden disappearance of her late husband’s ghost. Upon being interviewed by the hospital, the girl quickly revealed the truth about her manipulation and its unintended consequences.

Cawthra et al., (1987) were the first to describe a case where gaslighting did not have the goal of hospitalizing the victim. Gass and Nichols (1988), and Calef and Weinshel (1981) also extended the concept of gaslighting to a more general form of manipulation within relationships. within relationships. Gass and Nichols (1988) were particularly interested in common behaviours that men enact within relationships, when they are involved in extramarital affairs. They acknowledged that gaslighting may not always start as a malicious attempt to drive someone mad, but rather, to avoid accountability. They noted common lying and distortion behaviours they observed among cheating husbands which, regardless of intention, challenged the perceptions and reality of their wives. Further, they noted the role of male therapists in enabling and reinforcing gaslighting, through mislabeling women’s reactions to this deception as insecurity or jealousy.

This more general interpretation of gaslighting was reflected in case studies reported by Calef and Weinshel (1981). In these, the similarity between the gaslighting literature and contemporary literature on schizophrenia was noted. While gaslighting literature at the time had focused on convincing hospital staff of a patient’s “insanity”, schizophrenia studies had independently investigated the phenomenon whereby patients with schizophrenia “externalize their psychosis” in an attempt to drive those around them psychotic (e.g., Laing, 1960; Searles, 1965). Calef and Weinshel (1981) investigated the relationship between these two fields and argued for a broader view of gaslighting, whereby the aim of the gaslighting may be to genuinely drive the victim of gaslighting ‘crazy’. Their conception of gaslighting included a large spectrum of behaviours and responses, not limited to psychosis. They believed that gaslighting was more ubiquitous across society than had previously been acknowledged, alluding to modern practices in the media such as ‘subliminal perception advertising’.

The concept of gaslighting, at this point, evolved beyond describing wrongful hospital admissions and transformed into a broader and more ambiguous phenomenon that encompassed ‘normal’ relationships and interactions. This broad perspective was the impetus for Dorpat’s (1996) book which investigated gaslighting in psychotherapy. Dorpat viewed gaslighting as a fundamental technique of communication and manipulation, conscious or unconscious, across broad contexts ranging from romantic relationships to propaganda and cults. As Dorpat argued, gaslighting is used extensively because it is an effective tool to exert control over an individual. Dorpat was particularly interested in the way in which therapists can unintentionally gaslight, due to the power and control that psychotherapists have over their patients. Dorpat (1996) along with other authors who studies the phenomenon of gaslighting through a psychodynamic lens (i.e., Cawthra et al., 1987; Calef & Weinshel, 1981) contributed to a psychodynamic framing of gaslighting that has continued to persist in the current literature.

Beginning with Calef and Weinshel (1981), gaslighting researchers began to express interest in the role of intrapsychic mechanisms within the gaslighting process. Specifically, viewing gaslighting as a phenomenon whereby both parties are (consciously or not) complicit in the process. While both Dorpat (1996) and Calef and Weinshel (1981) noted that there are many individual defense mechanisms at play in gaslighting (e.g., projection and denial), they were particularly interested in the explanatory power of ‘projective identification’. Projective identification, a term originated by Klein (1946), defined a process whereby an individual projects unwanted parts of the self onto a target who, in turn, identifies with this content. As Calef and Weinshel (1981) argued, this process can be similar to gaslighting, that is, a gaslighter projects some of their unwanted ‘psychic content’ onto another person, and pressures them to accept and identify with that content (Dorpat, 1996). This concept has continued to be a popular theoretical lens for viewing gaslighting and has been used across gaslighting articles since 1981 (e.g., Calef & Weinshel, 1981; Hightower, 2017; Graves & Samps,2021). A history of the term, and its application to gaslighting can be found in Hightower’s (2017) thesis.

The term, however, has not been without controversy. As with ‘gaslighting’, ‘projective identification’ can be interpreted in many ways and its extensive usage across different literatures has diminished clarity and explanatory power (Braddock, 2018). Even within the limited gaslighting literature, there are competing interpretations. Abramson (2014) drew issue with the use of projective identification to understand gaslighting, as gaslighters often project ideas onto their victims that are not limited to the gaslighter’s specific anxieties, and which can impact the victim beyond the topic being projected. However, Calef and Weinshel (1981) noted that the gaslighting process is complex, and involves an interplay of different psychic apparatus, and levels of consciousness. Projective identification, through their account, can be viewed as just one mechanism by which gaslighting is enacted.

Abramson (2014) argued that one of the key theoretical benefits of projective identification is that it suggests, in a general sense, that an individual can relieve their anxiety by forcing the external reality to change in order to suit it. In other words, convincing others that the victim is ‘unhinged’ is not enough, rather the perpetrator must actually ‘unhinge’ the victim to alleviate their anxieties. Regardless of where researchers sit on the use of psychodynamic theory as a lens for explaining gaslighting, it appears to have shifted the focus of gaslighting research from family behavioural patterns to a focus on individuals and their internal processes.

The Gaslight Effect by Stern (2007) is a popular self-help book for individuals in emotionally abusive relationships and remains the most cited gaslighting literature to this day. The book draws from cases and reflections that the author collected throughout her career as a psychotherapist. Stern (2007) focused primarily on the dual role that the target and perpetrator play in gaslighting. The gaslighting interaction was framed as a ‘tango’ in which both participants must be willing in order for the manipulation to be successful. This willingness, while not always conscious, was theorized to be driven by individual traits and motivations. Thus, gaslighting includes a victim who must be willing to change their point of view in order to attain the approval of their partner, and a partner who is determined to always be right. Through this conception of gaslighting, Stern (2007) created a typology of perpetrators, and the traits of people who are likely to be victimized by them. The perpetrator typology included three types: the ‘glamour’ gaslighter, the ‘good guy’ gaslighter, and the ‘intimidator’ gaslighter. These three types were differentiated by their motives and common tactics. However, it was noted that perpetrators can constantly switch between these types, and victims themselves can sometimes become the perpetrators. The victims, on the other hand, were characterized as having common beliefs and values such as needing to be understood, wanting to preserve the relationship, worrying about not being good enough, or high levels of empathy. Stern argued that gaslighting plays on these desires or anxieties and motivates individuals to justify and accept their partner’s behaviours.

Despite the frequency with which Stern’s (2007) victim traits are cited, there is a relative lack of empirical evidence that specific individuals are more or less vulnerable to gaslighting. In one empirical study, inspired by Stern’s ‘it takes two to tango’ conception of gaslighting, Hightower (2017) endeavored to find evidence for traits that may leave individuals vulnerable to victimization. She argued that certain descriptors were common across case studies (e.g., anxiety, low self-esteem). Citing psychodynamic theory, Hightower focused on the traits of high sensory processing, intolerance for uncertainty, and neuroticism. She disseminated an online questionnaire that utilized the ‘Are You Being Gaslighted?’ quiz taken from Stern’s (2007) book, alongside validated measures of psychological abuse and the three hypothesized traits. While the author did note that the results of the study were ultimately underpowered, there was some evidence that these three traits were correlated with Stern’s (2007) measurement of gaslighting.

This investigation into vulnerability traits was continued by Miano et al. (2021) in their online survey of young Italian students. Miano et al. (2021) aimed to identify the ‘dysfunctional personality domains’ of abusers and victim-survivors by providing an online questionnaire that also utilized the ‘Are You Being Gaslighted?’ quiz from Stern (2007), as well as her three ‘gaslighter typology’ quizzes. The online questionnaire was provided to self-identified victim-survivors of gaslighting, and the perpetrator data was gathered by asking the victim-survivors to act as an informant and respond on behalf of their abuser. The responses to these scales were measured against victim-survivor and informant responses to the DSM-5 personality inventory. The study reported that both the victim-survivors and the perpetrators exhibited traits such as psychoticism and disinhibition. Further, certain traits were differentially associated with Stern’s gaslighter typology (e.g., disinhibition was more associated with ‘good guy’ gaslighters), or the type of gaslighting that someone may fall victim to (e.g., victim-survivors high on psychoticism were more likely to be victimized by intimidator gaslighters). The results indicated that victim-survivor and perpetrator traits can be differently associated with approaches to gaslighting relationships, and specifically, the three typologies from Stern’s (2007) book.

A major limitation of the Miano et al. (2021) study was its inability to distinguish between traits that preceded a relationship and those that result from abusive dynamics (see Dutton, 2000). Although Miano et al. (2021) acknowledged this issue, the study still concluded that gaslighting victim-survivor traits serve as relationship precursors. While Miano et al. undertook a significant initial step in examining perpetrator traits, a further limitation of the study was the use of victim-survivor informant reports on behalf of perpetrators. This limitation does, however, highlight the importance and potential challenges in identifying and researching perpetrators of gaslighting firsthand.

March et al. (2023) aimed to address this limitation by investigating the relationship between acceptance of gaslighting behaviour, and the dark tetrad personality traits (i.e., narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism). The study did not interview people who are known perpetrators of gaslighting but measured a general population sample and their predisposition towards perpetration through how ‘acceptable’ the respondents rated gaslighting behaviours on an ‘acceptance of gaslighting’ scale. This scale was based on Stern’s (2007) “Am I being Gaslighted” quiz and a review of the literature. The study found that individuals who found gaslighting more acceptable rated higher on dark tetrad traits such as sadism and machiavellianism. It was, thus, concluded that gaslighting perpetration is intentional and manipulative in its motivation. It was unclear, however, which elements of the literature were used to modify Stern’s scale. The items from the scale used by March et al. (2023) appear to heavily draw on a manipulative conception of gaslighting (e.g., Person A lies to Person B just to see if Person B will believe them; Person A says anything to Person B if it means that they will get their way). It is therefore not surprising that this scale correlated with the dark tetrad, as the manipulative motivations and behaviours described in the items are reminiscent of the dark tetrad. The study’s conclusion that gaslighting is intentional and manipulative, therefore may be premature as other motivations for gaslighting were not investigated or included. In spite of the difficulty, future research would benefit from gaining insight into the motivation behind gaslighting perpetration, such as through a more open investigation involving individuals known to perpetrate gaslighting in IPV.

Intriguingly, a constant feature in all studies of individual differences and gaslighting, is the use of Stern’s (2007) ‘Am I Being Gaslighted?’ quiz. As discussed in the studies above, this quiz has been used to measure both victimization (i.e., outcomes of gaslighting) and perpetration (i.e., tactics and behaviours of gaslighting). Despite its ubiquity, the 20-item quiz has no established psychometric properties. It was included at the beginning of the Stern (2007) self-help book as a tool to encourage reflection from individuals who believe they may be experiencing emotional abuse. The scale was not designed to directly measure gaslighting, nor be utilized as a validated measure in research (see Boateng et al., 2018). Quiz items describe a variety of factors including some that are not directly related to gaslighting (e.g., you feel hopeless and joyless). Stern’s use of the three gaslighter archetypes, that is the ‘good guy’ (e.g., appears to be kind and attentive, but is consistently undermining), ‘glamour’ (e.g., intermittent demonstrations of over-the-top affection and coldness) and ‘intimidator’ (e.g., using intimidation to coerce and force agreement) were similarly developed through observation, and not empirically tested. Despite this, her quizzes which describe common behaviours from these three archetypes, have also been used in gaslighting perpetration research (i.e., Miano et al., 2021; Li & Samp, 2023). It is not surprising, therefore, that research that utilizes the three archetypes has found inconsistent and mixed results, especially given Stern (2007) herself argues that these archetypes are fluid and subject to change across context.

It is important to establish a strong theoretical basis for gaslighting measures, grounded in the experiences of victims-survivors and gaslighting perpetrators. Further, basing these measures on a consistent definition of gaslighting is particularly important if researchers aim to draw robust and reliable conclusions across studies. To date, this kind of research has rarely been conducted. Bhatti et al. (2021) is one of the first studies which endeavored to establish a validated tool to measure the severity of gaslighting, amongst victim-survivors. Bhatti et al., utilized a focus group of eight female victim-survivors of gaslighting as a basis for developing a scale of victim experience. The scale was developed through thematic analysis of the focus group interview, and then reviewed by a panel of psychologists. The scale established two factors that underlie the experience of being gaslit, peer disagreement (i.e., experiences of being challenged by peers) and loss of self-trust. While this study provided an important step in the right direction by including victim-survivors in the development of gaslighting tools, the development process of this scale was opaque and did not appear to be strongly rooted in gaslighting literature (Hailes, 2022).

An important theoretical dilemma that exists in the individual differences approach to gaslighting is that it is based on the assumption that victimization in gaslighting stems from the victim-survivor’s ‘dysfunctional personality domains’ (Miano et al., 2021). However, given the gaslighting literature is still in its early stages, and lacks consistency in its definition, there is insufficient evidence to justify this assumption. In fact, the few gaslighting studies that are grounded in the lived experiences of victim-survivors focus more upon the vulnerabilities that are created through interpersonal, social-cultural, and structural factors (e.g., power differences, gender roles, institutional vulnerabilities), rather than focusing upon personality traits that may cause vulnerability (i.e., Sweet, 2019; Hailes, 2022; Klein et al., 2023). While contemporary psychology research on gaslighting beyond personality traits is limited, some initial studies have suggested associations between gaslighting victimization, power disparities (Graves and Samp, 2021), and emotional leverage (Badouk Epstein 2018). Therefore, understanding the coercive and controlling role of gaslighting within relationships may hold more clinical and practical relevance than focusing on individual traits that cause vulnerability.

Given the recent surge in the popularity of the term gaslighting, scholars across a variety of disciplines have begun exploring its capacity to provide insights into social-cultural phenomena. Interest in applying gaslighting to the context of broader social structures is understandable, given that gaslighting incorporates subtle control tactics aimed at silencing resistance (Davis & Ernst, 2019). This can be seen as reminiscent of structural silencing, such as the repression of minority voices and promotion of dominant narratives. Gaslighting has been applied to a wide berth of institutions ranging from medical institutions (Field-Springer et al. 2022), workplaces (e.g., Rodrigues et al., 2021), mass media (Tobias & Joseph, 2020), and politics (Sinha, 2020). While there is great explanatory power in gaslighting within these contexts, Ruiz (2020) warned against the overuse of the traditional interpersonal conception of gaslighting to understand issues of cultural and structural inequalities. By placing the focus on interpersonal abuse within individual cases, the broader structural inequalities that enable this ongoing abuse of specific populations may go unexamined. As such, scholars have endeavored to create gaslighting adjacent terms which consider the role of broader structures in the process of oppression, such as Racial Gaslighting (Davis & Ernst, 2019), Cultural Gaslighting (Ruiz 2020), and Structural Gaslighting (Berenstain, 2020).

Davis and Ernst (2019) coined the term ‘Racial Gaslighting’ to describe “the political, social, economic and cultural process that perpetuates and normalizes a white supremacist reality through pathologizing those who resist” (p. 761). While reviewing case studies of police brutality and racial profiling by the Hamilton police department in Ontario, Canada, as well as the local media, Tobias and Joseph (2020) observed that the discourse surrounding these cases often framed the issues as individual-level problems, as opposed to acknowledging the historical and social issues underlying them. While the prolonged effects of gaslighting exhausts marginalized groups by undermining and overlooking their voices, Tobias and Joseph argue that its effectiveness lies in people’s unawareness of the process. Rodrigues et al. (2021) reviewed the experiences of women of colour in the academic workplace through focus groups. They found that the participants often felt isolated at work due to the lack of representation of women of colour in academia. Participants in these groups identified instances of gaslighting when colleagues would dismiss and minimize their experiences of bias or discrimination. The isolation from other women of colour intensified the psychological impact of the discrimination, further contributing to the internalization of gaslighting. However, access to social support played a crucial role in contextualizing the gaslighting and discerning the patterns through which sexism and racism was being enacted.

Much like the original psychiatry case studies, the impact of racial gaslighting extends beyond the specific individual or group featured in the gaslighting narrative. As in Barton and Whitehead’s (1969) case studies where the gaslighting narrative centered around a family member, the aim was to manipulate the perspective of the hospital staff. Racial gaslighting isn’t intended solely for the impact on the minority groups it affects, rather, it can be directed at a broader audience. In a case study analyzed by Roberts and Andrews (2013), gaslighting was targeting the discourse surrounding African American teachers in the United States. Through reviewing the historical circumstances that led to the shortage of African American teachers in the current day, they identified a predominant cultural narrative which wrongly placed blame on black communities. While African American teachers suffer the consequences of this narrative, Roberts and Andrews (2013) argued that, paradoxically, white Americans are the targets of the gaslighting. The teachers in this case were casualties, in an effort to win favor with the target audience i.e., the white American voters.

Social-cultural gaslighting can manifest in deliberate and targeted campaigns, as observed in the case studies of Racial Gaslighting. It has also, however, been argued to occur in everyday interactions enacted through prevailing social norms and values. Berenstain (2020) contended that structural gaslighting occurs when individuals, intentionally or not, invoke the dominant narratives that underly oppression. This phenomenon can occur in heteronormative narratives and interactions with allies, as highlighted by a hypothetical case study described by McKinnon (2019). McKinnon emphasised how individuals often profess allyship but retract their support when confronted with the need to challenge their pre-existing belief. For example, making comments such as ‘I’m sure you just misheard him’, in response to individuals describing experiences of discrimination. Riggs and Bartholomaeus (2018) reflected on this discrepancy when reviewing their experiences providing therapy to parents with transgender children. They noted a disconnect between the verbal support the parents provided their children, and their actions which often undermined the child’s identity. These actions may involve seeking a diagnosis to validate the child’s gender identity or placing their emotional burden on the child. Wozolek (2018) further explored these dynamics within the schooling system. They observed classroom behaviours that undermined the experiences of transgender children, such as expecting transgender people to open their lives and identities for debate, or conflating being transgender with a ‘mental health problem’. While the behaviours of the individuals in these cases may not be intended to gaslight, Wozolek (2018) argued that they are driven by a broader social cultural narrative that is, in itself, deliberate.

Tobias and Joseph (2020) argued that tactics like gaslighting exert the most control when they remain invisible to the victims. Introducing terms that can describe and identify this systematic form of abuse provides tools of resistance for the individuals it aims to control. Denying reality and replacing it with preferred narratives is a common strategy of oppression, and thus it is important to develop frameworks for understanding these tactics and their role in control and manipulation of populations on a broader scale. Sweet (2019), however, saw the importance of separating interpersonal definitions of gaslighting, and broader descriptions of reality manipulation such as ‘political gaslighting’. Sinah (2020) defined political gaslighting as “trafficking in dubious or outright false information about matters of public significance by a politician or political apparatus when the speaker knows or should reasonably know that the information is likely to be incorrect, and the audience has a reasonable basis for doubting the speaker’s claims” (p.1092). The audience must be placed in a dilemma between believing and not believing the speaker, for it to merit the term ‘political gaslighting’. Sweet (2019) contended that the public possesses too much power to be gaslit. According to Sweet (2019) gaslighting requires power-differentials that bind the victim to the gaslighter and an inability to push counter-narratives. However, these political tactics clearly draw influence from gaslighting strategies, underscoring their capacity to disempower individuals through framing their voices and narratives as irrational. While psychology studies often attribute gaslighting to individual traits that influence susceptibility (e.g., Hightower, 2017), sociologists and philosophers argue against viewing gaslighting as a strategy that exists within a vacuum (Abramson, 2014; Sweet, 2019). Rather, they stress the importance of considering how gaslighting capitalizes on broader structures of power and inequality.

The relationship between gaslighting and gender has been the subject of debate within the literature. Therapists, Sarkis (2018) and Stern (2007), reflecting on their experience providing counselling, noted that gaslighting is a tactic with the potential to be used by, or weaponized against individuals of any gender identity. While the original case studies of gaslighting included a mixture of male and female victims and perpetrators, theories of gaslighting within the context of intimate partner violence have become increasingly gendered (e.g., Abramson, 2014). There have been some initial investigations into rates of gaslighting amongst women experiencing IPV (Warshaw et al., 2014) and men’s experience of gaslighting among other psychological forms of abuse (Bates, 2020). However, to date there are no prevalence studies of gaslighting disaggregated by gender. This makes it difficult to conclude if women or men are experiencing gaslighting at higher rates, or if it is, indeed, equally utilized across gender identity. While Miano et al. (2021) has been cited for their initial attempts to identify gender or age differences in gaslighting in their individual differences study, their sample consisted only of young adults and an even mix of male and female self-identified gaslighting victim-survivors. Due to these sample limitations, it is not possible to draw strong conclusions about rates of gaslighting perpetration or victimization across the broader population.

The gendered perpetration of psychological abuse is a complex research area, with an array of debates and mixed findings. While there has been evidence to suggest that psychological abuse is perpetrated equally across genders (Renner & Whitney, 2010), the use of psychological abuse against female victim-survivors often results in more severe outcomes (Karakurt & Silver, 2013). Even so, it is important to consider methodological limitations in researching male victim-survivors of violence (e.g., underreporting, a general female victim-survivor focus) and how these may impact upon our current understanding of psychological outcomes of abuse. When considering the impact of psychological abuse on victim outcomes, sociological researchers have emphasised the importance of considering the ecological and structural inequalities that enable and underly these tactics. While it is the case that Stern (2007) and Sarkis (2018) acknowledged the potential of gaslighting to be weaponized by any gender, they also saw a higher rate of female victim-survivors of gaslighting in their practices and these female clients experienced more detrimental impacts compared to their male counterparts. Sweet (2019) has been openly critical of existing psychological approaches of gaslighting. Specifically, their inability to account for the macro-level inequalities which have direct impacts upon the tactics of abuse enacted within interpersonal relationships. In order to address this, she undertook a sociological approach to gaslighting, and its relationships to broader structures of power.

To better understand the mechanisms and processes through which gaslighting is enacted, Sweet (2019) conducted interviews with forty-eight survivors of domestic violence. Through these interviews, Sweet identified two key impacts that gender and intersecting inequalities had on a victim-survivor experience of gaslighting. The first of this is the ability to weaponise gender-based stereotypes (e.g., the hysterical woman and the rational man), which is further enforced through the ‘institutional vulnerabilities’ that women experience. These ‘institutional vulnerabilities’ are driven by inequality in the way women are perceived and treated in institutions, such as immigration, police, courts, mental health services. For instance, Sweet (2019) described interviews in which women’s experience of domestic abuse were reinforced through immigration services, as they rely upon sexual relationships in order to retain legal status within the country.

Sweet (2019) argued that the ability to leverage gender norms and stereotypes leaves women disproportionately vulnerable to gaslighting. There are forms of leverage that are more easily accessible by men, which can be used against women, such as the ability to dismiss an individual as ‘crazy’ or ‘hysterical’. Historically, the dismissal of women as hysterical, highly emotional, or out of control was seen across a wide range of institutions ranging from the medical industry to the justice system (Metzl, 2003; Douglas, 2012). For example, a study by Maserejian et al. (2009) found that women who experienced the same cardiac arrest symptoms as men were twice as likely (31.3%) to be misdiagnosed as experiencing a mental health condition.

The use of these gendered norms and stereotypes to coerce women was addressed in Abramson’s (2014) influential philosophical review of gaslighting. Abramson argued that while gaslighting is not inherently sexist, it relies upon internalized sexist norms to be effective. This could take place through more tangible inequalities such as traditional gender roles within relationships, which place women in a subordinate position to their male partner. It can also take place through less direct avenues, such as women’s relationship with self-doubt and their capacity as ‘knowers’. This is not to say that men cannot experience power differentials that position their knowledge as subordinate to their abuser (e.g., boss-employee relations).

The role of power and ‘outsideness’ in an individuals’ capacity to generate knowledge has been investigated and reviewed by feminist researchers for decades. Portnow (1996) conducted interviews with men and women about their experiences of self-trust and found that women, or men who experienced life as an ‘outsider’, would find it increasingly dangerous or difficult to stand by their knowledge if it went against the social norms. They would develop what Portnow called ‘dispositional doubt’, in which they would forfeit their identity and capacity for generating knowledge, in exchange for entrance into the community. Stern (2007) noted that she had observed an increase in gaslighting clientele in recent years and argued that this may be reflective of backlash against the changing roles of women within the community, as they attempt to gain more independence and removal from traditional roles.

Sarkis (2018) argued that the discreditation of women by men goes both ways in its capacity to harm. That is, we are less likely to hear of female perpetrators of gaslighting as their attempts at abuse, and their impact upon men, are not taken as seriously as they should be. Despite this, Sweet (2019) and Abramson (2014) argued that the leverage that men often have over their female counterparts make women more likely to be victimized then men. Sweet (2019) observed instances where male perpetrators relied upon their access to ‘rationality’ and stereotypes of female irrationality to persuade police not to take their partners complaints seriously. In turn, these institutional vulnerabilities isolate women and prevents them from accessing or relying upon institutional supports. These findings have been replicated through recent interviews with victim-survivors of psychological abuse (Hailes, 2022), in which women continue to emphasize the role that stereotypes and intersecting inequalities (i.e., gender, race, health, and immigration status) play in their experience of gaslighting. Further, there has been evidence that while women may enact abusive tactics towards their male partners, men are less likely to change their behaviour or be intimidated by these tactics (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021; Ross, 2012). In Gass and Nichols’ (1988) original case studies, they asserted that provided societal double standards, dependencies, and variations in the upbringing of men and women persist, we should anticipate that women will endure more severe consequences in relationships and continue to be treated unfairly by professionals and supporting institutions.

There have been a few philosophical analyses of gaslighting, and the social function that it plays in conversation. Catapang Podosky (2021) was interested in the way in which gaslighting can be used to cause someone to question their reality. The analysis conceptualized two types of gaslighting, with differing impacts upon victims’ perception of self. First-order gaslighting described speech acts which cause an individual to question whether they have accurately applied a concept to a specific situation e.g., ‘in this instance, that behaviour does not constitute sexual assault’. Second order gaslighting, on the other hand, was used to describe speech acts which cause an individual to question their ability to understand the concept at all e.g., ‘that is too trivial to be considered sexual assault’. Catapang Podosky argued that while first order gaslighting is common and well understood, second order gaslighting was more impactful. The key purpose of this more severe form of gaslighting speech acts is to deprive someone from their right to participate in conversations about what constitutes a concept or shared experience. The ongoing impact of this denial is to impart to someone that they are unable to trust their own conceptual judgement, and therefore must rely on external validation. Cull (2019) emphasised that these speech acts extend beyond the immediate impact on the victim’s self-perception, as they often serve a broader social function. Cull described a tactic often used within gaslighting known as ‘dismissive incomprehension’, in which the perpetrator will suggest that the statements of the victim are ignorant, and not worth consideration. This act is usually done with three effects in mind, to reduce the victim’s credibility in the eyes of an audience, to silence the victim, and to pathologize the victim and the argument they represent (Cull, 2019). The significance of these philosophical analyses is in their ability to emphasize that, intentionally or not, these speech acts convey a message to the victim, and a broader audience, about the victim’s right to participate in the negotiation of shared reality.

Epistemic injustice is a term that has been increasingly used within the philosophy and psychology gaslighting literature to understand the function and impact of gaslighting acts. Fricker (2007) conceptualized epistemic injustice, in its most general form as “a wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower” (p.1). Fricker was interested in drawing attention to the injustice that may exist in the way we convey knowledge to others, and the way it may impact upon how others make sense of their reality. When reflecting upon the social functions that gaslighting speech acts perform (i.e., denying an individual’s capacity to participate in knowledge creation), it is understandable how epistemic injustice has become a frequently utilized concept for understanding the social and moral wrongs that gaslighting creates. Most frequently, however, gaslighting has been used in relation to a specific form of epistemic injustice called ‘testimonial injustice’. Fricker (2007) conceptualized testimonial injustice as occurring when “prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word” (p.1). That is, prejudice towards the social group of that speaker causes their testimony to be taken less seriously. Although, within the limited research on gaslighting, philosophers have had differing opinions on the extent to which gaslighting and testimonial injustice are related, as some have discussed testimonial injustice as a related term to gaslighting (e.g., Abramson, 2014; Sodoma, 2022) while others have described gaslighting as a specific type of testimonial injustice (McKinnon, 2017).

A point of tension within this debate is the extent to which gaslighting is seen as a reflection of prejudice towards an individual’s identity or group membership. McKinnon (2019) argued that the relationship between gaslighting and testimonial injustice was less direct than identity prejudice against the victim. McKinnon (2019) argued that the credibility deficit in victims was created indirectly, through perpetrators putting too much credence on their own perception, especially when confronted with information that goes against their background beliefs. Sodoma (2022) noted that philosophical approaches to gaslighting can often blur boundaries between gaslighting and other injustices. Sodoma argued that gaslighting and testimonial injustice had a key difference, in that gaslighting is often done intentionally, and independently, of any genuine evaluation of the victim’s cognitive capacity. Testimonial injustice, on the other hand, is based on a faulty assessment of another person’s abilities, driven by bias against that individual’s social group. Although, it would be possible to imagine a situation in which a perpetrator is less aware of the motivations behind their behaviour, at which point the delineation between these two concepts would blur. Further, McKinnon (2019) notes that less visible structural patterns that cause credibility deficits could play a large role in a perpetrator’s credibility evaluation of a victim, such as the impact of gender and race. Stark (2019) distinguished between what she labelled ‘epistemic gaslighting’, which is more reflective of testimonial injustice (i.e., unintentional, targets specific social groups, requires social power over another), and ‘manipulative gaslighting’ (i.e., intentional, can be used on anyone, uses leverage to convince another). This distinction between intentional manipulative acts of gaslighting, and epistemic discrediting of groups of people has caused further confusion and debate in the field.

Stark’s (2019) conception of manipulative gaslighting is more in line with Abramson’s (2014) review of gaslighting, gender, and the leverage that is used against women to enable the tactics’ efficacy. Both philosophical perspectives place manipulation and control at the center of the social interaction between the victim and perpetrator, where threat and leverage are used to force an individual to concede their perspective. Spear (2020), however, argued that while manipulation may be involved in gaslighting, it is important not to underestimate the role of epistemic factors. The goal of gaslighting, through Spear’s conception, is to destroy the victim’s credibility and capacity to issue challenges to the perpetrator. It is not enough to convince an audience that the victim is uncredible, or silence the victim through threats, for it to be considered gaslighting. The victim must come to discredit their own epistemic abilities. Spear (2020) argued that in order to achieve this goal, the victim must be given a primarily epistemic reason to lose trust in their judgment. This can be enacted, at least in part, through leveraging the victim’s trust in their partner as an epistemic peer. Epistemic factors such as trust, and relative authority may cause someone to put more credence in their partner’s challenges. When perpetrators introduce false or misleading information, this may create an epistemic dilemma where the victim is forced to choose between their beliefs and those of their trusted partner.

Particularly in the context of intimate relationships, there are elements of emotional investment which may motivate victims to entertain these epistemic challenges. The control, threat, and leverage identified by Abramson (2014) and Stark (2019) may then exacerbate this epistemic dilemma as the manipulative pressure may prevent victims from properly assessing the credibility and misleading evidence put towards them by their partner (Spear 2023). This can be particularly pertinent when the gaslighting targets less tangible domains, such as an individual’s emotional reactions, e.g., ‘you’re overreacting’ (Sodoma, 2022). An important contribution of these philosophical investigations into gaslighting is that they draw attention to the way in which gaslighting coopts and coerces, through relying upon and disrupting social norms. As it is impossible for individuals to see the world as it is, without the bias of interpretation, we often disagree with one another and are put in positions where we must negotiate and co-create a shared reality (Williams, 2021). In fact, many philosophical and social psychology concepts rely upon this fact that humans can exploit unspoken social expectations to achieve outcomes (e.g., relational schemas, Baldwin, 1992; politeness theory, Locher & Watts, 2005). Roberts and Andrews (2013) argued for the importance that shared narratives play in identity formation. Through repetition and exposure to consistent narratives, they quickly become a reified and shared reality. It is important to acknowledge the coercive power that gaslighting has beyond its ability to leverage and threaten consequences, or an individual’s vulnerability towards self-distrust. Gaslighting may breech social contracts and expectations and coerce partners into positions where they need to re-evaluate their concept of reality or concede.

While disciplines have approached gaslighting with differing focus and framing, one thing that has remained relatively constant across the literature are descriptions and theories of individual level tactics that are applied within gaslighting. A comprehensive model of gaslighting behaviours has not yet been established, although current efforts are underway to address this gap in the literature and have been pre-registered on Open Science Framework (see Darke et al., 2023). In the meantime, it is possible to discern broad categories of behaviours theorized throughout the current literature. Such broad categories include attempts to manipulate reality, denial/dismissiveness, behavioural inconsistency, isolation, inclusion of others in the manipulation, and utilizing other abusive behaviours in combination with the gaslighting specific behaviours.

Manipulation of Reality

The first, and most paradigmatic gaslighting behaviour is an attempt to manipulate reality through verbal and physical actions. This has been identified consistently across the literature through specific tactics such as lying (Gass & Nichols, 1988), questioning perceptions, thoughts, reactions, or memories (Bhatti et al., 2021) or manipulating the environment to contribute to a sense of confusion and unreality (Hailes, 2022). All these behaviours achieve the broader goal of causing an individual to feel ‘crazy’ and unable to rely upon their own thoughts and feelings (Hayes & Jeffries, 2015).

Denial

A related behaviour is denial, which achieves a similar goal of driving a wedge between a victim and their autonomy to make judgements about reality. Denial tactics could include refusing to acknowledge facts even when presented with evidence (Sarkis, 2018), or dismissive proclamations in place of discussion, such as ‘that’s crazy’ (Abramson, 2014). This also includes minimizing tactics (e.g., ‘you’re overreacting’) or remaining deliberately vague (Simon, 2010).

The tactics of lying, denying, dismissing, and minimizing are frequently described as used in the service of avoiding accountability or shifting the responsibility of the perpetrator’s actions onto the victim, i.e., ‘there is nothing wrong with my behaviour, your reaction is out of proportion’ (Klein et al., 2023; Williams, 2021). The arguments of responsibility, combined with the repetition of lying and denying behaviours, contribute to a sense of confusion and uncertainty (Ahern, 2018).

Inconsistency of Behaviour

Hayes and Jeffries (2015) reflected upon their experiences of psychological abuse and noted that gaslighting exists on a spectrum from outrageous lies and obvious manipulation to more subtle lies interspersed with moments of truth. This inconsistency can exist across couples, or within the same couple. As Sarkis (2018) noted, the goal of gaslighting is to keep the target off kilter and unsure of what to expect. This inconsistency of lies and truth, or love and abuse contribute to the broader state of confusion that gaslighting ultimately creates. Moreover, gaslighting frequently occurs in conjunction with other forms of physical and verbal abuse, contributing to an overarching sense of distorted reality. This has been described as including coercive behaviour such as verbal and emotional abuse (Klein et al., 2023), leveraging practical consequences (Abramson, 2014), physical threat and violence (Sarkis, 2018), sexual abuse (Hailes, 2022) and institutional abuse (Sweet, 2019). While the line between gaslighting and other forms of abuse can at times be murky, it is well documented that gaslighting often exists in concert with, and relies upon, other forms of abuse to remain impactful.

Isolation

The original case studies of gaslighting involved external forms of isolation in which family members were institutionalized, removed from friends and family. This concept of isolation has followed through to modern conceptions of gaslighting, through a range of direct and indirect avenues. Isolation may involve the perpetrator coercing the victim into spending less time with their friends and family in order to prevent them from receiving support or outside perspectives that may corroborate the victim’s perspective (Klein et al., 2023; Sodoma, 2022; Hailes, 2022). It can also take form through other forms of coercive control, such as institutional abuse, in which institutions such as child protective services or police, are used to isolate victims from their support networks (Sweet, 2019). Isolation may not always be enacted through separating victims from their support networks, it has also been documented that isolation can be achieved through coopting and including support networks in supporting the perpetrator’s gaslighting attempts (Hailes, 2022). Multiple individuals can be party to the gaslighting, knowingly or unknowingly, further isolating victims from outside perspectives that may contradict the gaslighting narratives (Sodoma, 2022). Further, the impact of gaslighting can create cyclical responses in which individuals become exhausted and disengaged from social networks, further limiting exposure to counter-narratives and support (Stern, 2007).

Coercion

In the past few years, there has been increasing discussion around the connection between gaslighting and coercion. Gaslighting has been argued to often present itself as a regular conflict or disagreement between partners that needs to be resolved to restore peace and stability within the relationship (Stern, 2007). As discussed earlier, conflict may become gaslighting through the investments that both parties have in the relationship (Graves & Samp, 2021). As Abramson (2014) argued, gaslighting leverages the victim’s love and empathy for their partner to manipulate them into engaging with the partner and to continue attempting to pursue mutual agreement. Stern (2007) considered the potential of gaslighting tactics to leverage individuals’ values and expectations for coercive purposes. Stern described the progression of gaslighting as ‘insidious’, in which both parties may not be fully conscious of the abusive nature of their relationship. The abuse may target the victim’s deepest fears, or weaponise the victim’s innate desire to be loved and understood by their partner. Stern argued that, provided the victim still desires approval or understanding from their abuser, they will remain vulnerable to the gaslighting. Given that gaslighting is frequently a subtle and insidious process, whereby perpetrators may manipulate the conflict to appear as if they care for their partner, or oscillate between abusive behaviour and affection, it’s unsurprising that victims continue to pursue mutual understanding with their partner, when the gaslighting is presented as resolvable conflicts. The desire to resolve this conflict is made more pertinent through the co-occurrence of other abusive behaviours that may trap people within these relationships, such as leveraging economic dependency or evoking the resources and time that have already been invested into the relationship (Abramson, 2014).

Resulting Self-Doubt

The creation of self-doubt may play a large role in the ongoing impact of gaslighting. As gaslighting may target a wide range of domains (i.e., emotions, memories, thoughts, perceptions; Hailes, 2022; Klein et al., 2023), it may become increasingly difficult to check in with oneself for validation (Sodoma, 2022). The cognitive dissonance that exists between the victim’s experiences and what they are told, in combination with coercion and the victim’s desire to resolve this dissonance, has been argued to lead to confusion and self-doubt (Hailes, 2022; Ahern, 2018). Stern (2007) noted that the experience of self-doubt can vary across victims, with some only experiencing self-doubt in one domain and others in multiple. Hailes (2022) corroborated this in interviews with gaslighting victim-survivors, as the experience of self-doubt varied greatly between individuals and even within individuals. Abramson (2014) conceptualized the most severe outcome of gaslighting to be the destruction of self, where the victim’s identity has been erased and therefore provides no basis of which to build self-trust and self-esteem. Hailes (2022) did note variability in victim-survivor self-esteem after the relationship. Some victim-survivors did report long-term impacts on self-trust, however she noted that many of the interviewees were able to rebuild identity and self-trust long-term after separating from their abuser (Hailes, 2022). It is not possible, however, due to the lack of prevalence and large-scale studies into gaslighting, to fully conceive of the rate of recovery from gaslighting, or the key factors that may play a role in this variability.

Building a Model of Gaslighting

There have been three studies which have made early attempts to model gaslighting relationships, through surveying victim-survivors (Sweet, 2019; Hailes, 2022; Klein et al., 2023). The models that have come from victim-survivors have put strong emphasis on the ecology in which gaslighting takes place, and the tactics which rely upon or weaponise the ecology. The first of these models was created by Sweet (2019), who developed a situational map of gaslighting, through interviews with domestic violence survivors and domestic violence professionals. Sweet created a map that emphasised the complex interaction between gender and intersection inequalities, gaslighting tactics, and institutional vulnerabilities. The situational map painted an ecological view of the environment and enabling factors that deny women access to social support and institutional help, as well as weaponise women’s fear of being perceived as uncredible. Following from this, Hailes (2022) also interviewed domestic violence survivors and created a two-part model of gaslighting that emphasised the tactics used against the victim (i.e., questioning, and challenging) and the response from the victim (i.e., self-doubt). Hailes discussed further a range of ecological influences (e.g., personal history, education, social support, gender), that were described by the interviewees as key to their experience.

Klein et al. (2023) have also attempted to model the process of gaslighting, and empirically test prior theories by surveying 65 victim-survivors online with a short answer questionnaire. Their results highlighted many unaddressed aspects of gaslighting (e.g., motivation for perpetrator, progression of gaslighting and relationship dynamics, long term recovery). However, there are a few methodological limitations which may impact the strength of the findings. The sample was small for an online written questionnaire covering such a broad and complex phenomenon as gaslighting, limiting its representativeness (see Braun 2021). Further, despite the study being described as using grounded theory did not undertake an iterative process (i.e., questions were progressively formulated on participant feedback, with iterative movement between interviews and analysis until saturation was reached) which is required for an analysis to be categorised as a grounded theory (see Watling et al., 2017). Grounded theory may be a worthwhile endeavour for future research as the regular consultancy involved in this approach appropriately involves and grounds research in the victim-survivor experience (Foley et al., 2021).

Overall, the current models have focused on different elements of gaslighting using small samples, i.e., Sweet’s sociological account (2019), Hailes (2022) two-part model, and Kelin, Li, and Wood’s (2023) focus on relationship dynamics and outcomes. Future models of gaslighting would benefit from establishing the aspects of these prior models across victim-survivors from a wider variety of backgrounds. Through establishing research that is grounded in the victim-survivor experience, it is possible to contribute more meaningfully towards academic, policy, and public awareness of gaslighting, and how to disrupt and break its cycle.

Until recently, gaslighting has remained an obscure term, applied inconsistently across the literature, such as being described as a form of family abuse for personal or material gain (e.g., Barton & Whitehead, 1969), a dysfunctional interpersonal script or intimate partner dynamic (e.g., Stern, 2007; Graves & Samp, 2021), and an expression of structural power and silencing of specific groups (e.g., Sweet, 2019; Berenstain, 2020). The evolution of literature from individual difference theories to acknowledgement of the role of structural factors and power on gaslighting provides impetus to think more clearly about the mechanisms and driving forces of this phenomenon, particularly as a form of control and intimate partner violence (e.g., Hailes, 2022; Bhatti et al., 2021). While it is encouraging to see the dramatic increase in gaslighting research across the past few years, it is important that understanding of gaslighting is driven by, and grounded in the experiences and needs of those impacted by it. The first way that this can be achieved is through intentional and consistent labelling of gaslighting behaviours. Burnett (2020), in a review of women’s experiences of covert abusive tactics, argued that the ability to leave an abusive relationship often relies upon being able to label the abuse. Further, as gaslighting has been argued to often centers around shifting blame onto victims (Ahern, 2018), labelling abuse can have an important role in clarifying and reducing the self-blame that victim-survivors often experience (Hayes & Jeffries, 2013). It is apparent that the term ‘gaslighting’ has helped many people find meaning and understanding in their experiences, as it has had a large grassroots movement in domestic violence support groups (e.g., Kippert 2021). Therefore, it is important for research to remain up to date with the concerns and focus of victim-survivors, advocates, and professionals who deal with gaslighting first-hard.

An important first step that gaslighting research must take is to establish a clear definition that tackles some of the inconsistencies that commonly emerge across research and accounts of gaslighting. For instance, the current research is inconsistent as to how conscious or intentional these manipulative behaviours must be before they are considered gaslighting. Issues around intentionality have significant implications for the potential of gaslighting to be introduced into existing laws surrounding coercive control or psychological abuse (Shkara, 2024; Follingstad, 2007). This also applies to inconsistencies in the types of behaviors that are considered gaslighting (e.g., lying to hospital staff, Barton & Whitehead, 1969; expressing public dismissal of someone’s opinions, Cull, 2019), or whether gaslighting can occur once, or must be a repeated behaviour (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021; Graves & Samp, 2021), and importantly, whether a survivor must experience specific outcomes for gaslighting to have occurred (e.g., Hailes, 2022). With the contradictory state of the current literature, it is not possible to firmly state the extent to which these factors are essential to the definition of gaslighting, particularly as there is so little empirical research in the area. There are some works underway currently which will begin to empirically and theoretically challenge these factors, and establish clearer functional definitions of gaslighting (e.g., Darke et al., 2023). Establishing clear and consistent definitions of gaslighting and identifying common experiences and enabling factors across broader demographics will go a long way in providing meaningful education and procedures in identifying and understanding this form of abuse.

One of the particularly contentious differences in the gaslighting literature is the focus within psychology upon personality or individual differences. While psychology can play an important role in establishing evidence-based research into gaslighting, foundational questions of the field need to be established prior to efforts to answer nuanced questions. For instance, prior to drawing inferences concerning how individual differences underpin vulnerability towards gaslighting, we need to establish a reliable and theoretically sound measure of gaslighting itself.

Psychological research must be undertaken cautiously and responsibly to avoid inferences based on faulty assumptions of why gaslighting impacts individuals differently. Future gaslighting measures should be based on the existing gaslighting literature across disciplines, and they need to be transparent regarding the assumptions underpinning scale development. This is particularly important as the conclusions that are drawn from these studies may easily lay blame on the ‘dysfunction’ of the victim-survivor as an individual (e.g., Miano et al., 2021). While psychology studies have had a disproportionate focus on victim-survivor traits, this is not reflective of the key contributing factors identified by victim-survivors in interview and survey studies (e.g., Hailes, 2022; Sweet, 2019; Klein et al., 2023). Victim-survivors continue to identify boarder structures of power, leverage, and social norms/expectations as key to vulnerability to gaslighting tactics. Through continuing to focus on individual traits, research and practice run the risk of overlooking the important role of power and social norms in enabling this abuse. Moving forward, it is crucial for psychology research to consider what the practical benefits are of researching individual differences while more basic questions surrounding concept clarification remain to be answered.

Moving forward, there is a need to prioritize empirical studies grounded in the experiences of victim-survivors, while understanding gaslighting through its function and outcome. This will not only enhance potential supports for victim-survivors, but also offer insight to policy and practice changes in addressing psychological abuse. Guerin and de Oliverira (2017) advocated for understanding abuse through its function, as they argue that this approach creates more practical support for victim-survivors. That is, identifying the tactics, purpose, and outcomes of abuse is more likely to assist people in recognizing the variety of ways in which abuse may be enacted. Since the writing of this review, it is promising to see future research has been pre-registered in this important area (e.g., Klein et al., 2024). Improved research into gaslighting behaviours, function, and outcomes will have significant implications for practitioners and policy makers. For instance, it has the potential to improve recognition and identification of this often-invisible form of abuse in clients, inform tailored interventions that target the mechanisms and outcomes of gaslighting, assist in integrating gaslighting as a form of psychological abuse into existing legal frameworks, and inform public awareness campaigns. Researching gaslighting as a coercive tactic that is intertwined with broader structures of power may also offer more practical avenues for policy and practice changes, as it can elucidate forms of disadvantage that enable this abuse and must be addressed if future interventions are to be effective.