Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Gaslighting is a covert form of psychological manipulation that undermines an individual’s confidence in their perceptions, thoughts, and memories, often by labelling them as irrational or ‘crazy.’ Public awareness of gaslighting has surged in recent years, making it a common topic in media and popular culture. However, empirical research has lagged behind, leaving gaps in understanding how the public perceives and defines this form of abuse. Addressing public understanding of covert abuse is critical for improving early recognition by victims, bystanders, and front-line services, as well as encouraging support-seeking behaviours. This study examined public perceptions of gaslighting by presenting 595 university students with vignettes manipulating key contested components: repetition, intention, and victim outcomes. Participants assessed the vignettes on seriousness, acceptability, likelihood of intervention, and whether they classified the behaviour as gaslighting. They also provided definitions of gaslighting and completed a gaslighting acceptance scale. Findings indicate that while students generally recognise gaslighting as emotional abuse, ambiguities remain in its definition and identification. These results underscore the need for educational campaigns to clarify gaslighting’s patterns and severity. Targeted initiatives, particularly in schools and community settings, could foster cultural change, enhance bystander intervention, and reduce the prevalence of covert abusive behaviours.

Keywords

Coercive control gaslighting intimate partner violence public awareness

Introduction

Gaslighting in intimate partner violence

Psychological abuse has long been recognised as a core element of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), often described by victim-survivors as more damaging than physical violence due to its enduring effects on self-perception and autonomy (Follingstad et al., 1990; Johnson, 2008). Gaslighting refers to a specific pattern of psychological manipulation in which an individual seeks to undermine their partner’s confidence in their own thoughts, beliefs, and memories, often labelling them ‘crazy’ or irrational (Abramson, 2014). Despite the term’s growing prominence in public discourse (Medaris, 2024), gaslighting remains under-theorised and inconsistently defined within IPV research.

Existing IPV models, such as the Duluth Power and Control Wheel (Pence & Paymar, 1993), Coercive Control (Stark, 2007), and Intimate Terrorism (Johnson, 2008), address related tactics (e.g., emotional manipulation, minimising, denying, and blame-shifting), but often treat these behaviours as interchangeable tools within a broader strategy of control. In contrast, gaslighting refers to a distinctive mechanism that directly targets perception, memory, and self-trust (Abramson, 2014; Bhatti et al., 2021; Hailes, 2022). Rather than aiming to control behaviour, gaslighting destabilises a persons’ internal sense of reality, which can have uniquely harmful, disorientating, and isolating effects (Hailes & Goodman, 2023). Outside of IPV, other models share conceptual similarities with gaslighting tactics. One such model is DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender; Harsey & Freyd, 2020), a manipulation strategy often discussed in the context of sexual assault allegations. DARVO involves a perpetrator denying harm, attacking the victim’s credibility, and positioning themselves as the victim. While distinct from gaslighting, DARVO illustrates how strategies of blame-shifting and victim discreditation recur across various forms of gendered violence.

The unique impact of gaslighting behaviours has been recognised in the limited research that has been done. For example, Sackett and Saunders (1999) found that the item “how often does your partner suggest you’re crazy or stupid” (p. 13), a clear example of gaslighting, was rated as the most severe form of psychological abuse and the strongest predictor of psychological harm. Similarly, in the only known survey explicitly measuring the prevalence of gaslighting in IPV, over 85% of victim-survivors reported experiencing gaslighting tactics (Warshaw et al., 2014).

This distinction is not merely semantic. As Johnson (2008) argued in relation to Intimate Terrorism, IPV interventions must take into account specific types and tactics of abuse to be effective. Indeed, a recent New South Wales (NSW) Joint Selection Committee on Coercive Control (Easteal, 2021) emphasised that gaslighting plays a central role in IPV by eroding self-trust and reinforcing other forms of abuse. This direct impact on self-perception has practical implications for victim-survivors’ mental health, help-seeking behaviours, and credibility within legal systems (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Hailes & Goodman, 2023; Sweet, 2019). Treating gaslighting as a distinct tactic of IPV is essential for developing effective and targeted interventions.

Public discourse and conceptual creep

While some pioneering research has begun exploring the unique dynamics and harms of gaslighting within IPV (e.g., Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Hailes & Goodman, 2023; Sweet, 2019), a significant gap remains in understanding public perceptions of this insidious and damaging form of abuse. Meanwhile, public discourse about gaslighting appears to have taken on a life of its own, expanding beyond IPV contexts and permeating popular culture and platforms such as social media and reality television (e.g., Porter & Standing, 2020). This reflects a broader trend known as ‘conceptual creep’ (Haslam, 2016), in which terms describing negative human experiences become increasingly broad, eventually losing descriptive power as they pathologise both normal and abnormal behaviour. Although the widespread use of the term ‘gaslighting’ does have benefits, as it raises awareness of covert abuse tactics, the overuse of the term, coupled with insufficient educational initiatives, risks misapplication and misunderstanding (Medaris, 2024).

The disconnect between academic knowledge, lived experience of IPV victim-survivors, and public awareness has profound implications for addressing gaslighting effectively. Recent studies (e.g., Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Hailes & Goodman, 2023) have advanced current knowledge by aligning academic perspectives with victim-survivor experiences, thus providing stronger foundation for research, law, and policy that accurately reflect the realities of gaslighting within IPV. Understanding the term’s usage in public discourse is a crucial next step, as public awareness plays a critical role in early detection, intervention, and reducing stigma associated with IPV (e.g., Simmons et al., 2011).

For example, a survey of UK citizens found that while there was good general awareness of abuse, many struggled to recognise specific instances of abuse as they occurred (Sivarajasingam et al., 2022). Similarly, in Australia, community awareness of IPV has increased significantly in recent years, however, several forms of abuse such as coercive control or emotional abuse are still less readily identified as abusive behaviours by the broader public (Coumarelos et al., 2021). In response to this, the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce (2021) has advocated for improved education on everyday coercive and disrespectful behaviours contributing to IPV, particularly within schools and early education settings. Young adults are particularly important to focus on, as they are overrepresented as victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) (Cunningham & Anderson, 2022).

The term ‘gaslighting’ is frequently used in public discourse to describe a wide range of behaviours, including lying or simple disagreement (e.g., DiGiulio, 2018; Kippert, 2021), and its misuse and overgeneralisation reflects a substantial lack of clarity and understanding about its meaning. Even amongst academics, there is not a consistent agreed upon definition (Darke, Paterson, & van Golde, 2025). Although there is general consensus that gaslighting involves manipulation and reality distortion (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021), key definitional components remain contested. Scholars differ on whether repetition, intention, outcome, power dynamics, or connections to other forms of abuse, are essential elements of gaslighting (e.g., Berenstain, 2020; Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Graves & Samp, 2021; Hailes, 2022).

Practical implications of definitional ambiguity

How gaslighting is defined and communicated influences not only theoretical models of IPV but also public understanding and the potential of legal recourse for victim-survivors. For example, the legal system often requires proof of intent to classify an act as abusive. This is particularly evident in the NSW coercive control laws, where the presence of intent is a key determining factor in whether coercive control has occurred (Department of Communities and Justice, 2024). However, the question of whether coercive and controlling behaviours, such as gaslighting, can occur unintentionally complicates its integration into existing legal frameworks. While some scholars argue that gaslighting can be both conscious and unconscious (e.g., Dorpat, 1996), others contend that intentionality is necessary (e.g., Berenstain, 2020).

Similarly, the role of repetition and victim outcome is an important consideration in defining gaslighting. Whether gaslighting requires a repeated pattern of behaviour or can occur in a single instance directly affects how it is identified and whether it aligns with local legal frameworks. While some legal systems account for sustained patterns of coercive behaviour, many mandate evidence of a severe and isolated instance of abuse (Stark, 2012). Similarly, the necessity of an identifiable outcome for gaslighting to be recognised as abuse is debated in the literature. As some scholars argue that specific outcomes are essential for a behaviour to classify as gaslighting (e.g., Hailes, 2022), it raises important questions about the threshold of harm required before an individual is entitled to legal action. Additional elements, such as intimacy, isolation, power imbalance, and gaslighting’s connection to other forms of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical), though less central to legal and policy definitions, are also crucial to consider in terms of how they reinforce and enable gaslighting so as to develop effective prevention and response strategies (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Hailes & Goodman, 2023).

To establish clearer conceptual boundaries around behaviours considered to constitute gaslighting by those most familiar with it, Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, and van Golde (2025) conducted a study surveying victim-survivors and support service providers. Key components identified included manipulative behaviour, victim outcomes, intention, repetition, subsidiary abuse tactics, and the context in which gaslighting occurs, such as within relationships characterised by intimacy and power imbalance. While all these components were acknowledged as relevant to defining gaslighting, their relative importance varied depending upon the context and severity of the situation. Importantly, while intention was recognised as a contributing factor, there was no consensus among respondents on whether it was essential, suggesting that the pattern of manipulation may be more important than intent alone. Similarly, while specific outcomes (e.g., self-doubt or confusion) are commonly associated with repeated gaslighting, they may not always be necessary to identify the behaviour, particularly if the actions are severe and repetitive (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025). This flexible, context-sensitive approach provided a more comprehensive and representative understanding of gaslighting in IPV, as described by participants in the study. However, it is yet to be established if these nuanced conceptions of gaslighting are reflected in broader public discourse.

The present study

Building on these findings, the present study aimed to investigate the attitudes of young adult students towards gaslighting and examine how closely these align with the definitions articulated by victim-survivors in Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, and van Golde (2025). The research was guided by the central question: what characteristics do young adults use to determine whether gaslighting has occurred, specifically, (a) the behavioural features that influence recognition of gaslighting, (b) the criteria individuals use to define gaslighting.

In the current study, participants were asked to read vignettes manipulating three commonly discussed elements identified in prior literature (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025) i.e., repetition, intention, and victim outcome (i.e., response). While perspectives on the outcomes of gaslighting are varied and sometimes contested, the vignettes specifically focus on the victim’s internal and external response (i.e., belief/agreement vs. disbelief/disagreement) as this reflects a core feature of gaslighting, self-doubt (Hailes & Goodman, 2023).

By varying their inclusion in written vignettes, the current study evaluated how these components impacted participants’ judgements of the seriousness and acceptability of the behaviour, the need to intervene, and how strongly they perceived gaslighting to have taken place. Then, participants were asked to define gaslighting by selecting behaviours from a list that included common components (manipulative behaviour, self-doubt outcome, intention, and repetition), less common ones (i.e., isolation, power dynamics, intimacy, other forms of abuse), and irrelevant ones (i.e., healthy listening, supportive relationships, mutual respect).

For the recognition of gaslighting in vignettes, given the reported frequency that intention, repetition, and victim response are included in both academic discussions and public discourse (Darke, Paterson, & van Golde, 2025), it was hypothesised that:

(H1) scenarios including these three elements would lead to higher recognition of gaslighting, and;

(H2) these components would result in higher ratings of seriousness of the behaviour, a greater perceived need for intervention, and lower ratings of acceptability.

For the definitions of gaslighting, assuming that participant definitions are aligned with the attitudes of victim-survivors in Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, and van Golde (2025), it was hypothesised that:

(H3) participants would most frequently select definitional components that are central to the victim-survivor definitions, such as manipulative behaviour, self-doubt outcome, and repetition.

(H4) As ‘intention’ was found to be controversial in Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, and van Golde (2025) and divided victim-survivor definitions, this component was predicted to be selected by approximately half the participants.

(H5) Subsidiary elements including intimacy, isolation, power imbalance, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and physical intimidation are less commonly included in literature definitions of gaslighting and played faciliatory roles to the experience of gaslighting as described by victim-survivors. Consequently, these elements were hypothesised to be selected less frequently.

Method

Transparency and openness

This study was preregistered and is available on Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/286wj.¹ Further, all data and research materials are available at https://osf.io/q8jxs/.

Participants and recruitment

A total of 918 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Sydney completed the study as part of their coursework, however only those who met the inclusion criteria were analysed. The inclusion criteria required participants to be over 18, fluent in English, and to have provided consent for their data to be used in publications. Additionally, participants were required to pass attention checks, assessed through comprehension questions related to vignettes included in the study. These criteria led to the exclusion of 323 students (306 failed attention checks; 10 did not provide consent; 7 were under the age of 18). The demographic characteristics of the final sample of 595 students are depicted in Table 1. As can be seen, the sample was predominately women and young. Region of birth was highly diverse, but the data was collected in Australia. More detailed demographic breakdown including ethnicity is provided in the supplemental materials on OSF.

Table 1.

Demographics of participant sample.

Characteristics	n	%	M	SD
Gender	Women	443	74.5
	Men	147	24.7
	Non-Binary	5	0.8
Age				19.6	4.0
Region of birth	Australia	373	62.7
	Asia	160	27.0
	Europe	26	4.4
	Africa	9	1.5
	New Zealand	8	1.3
	Middle East	8	1.3
	North America	8	1.3
	South America	3	0.5

Design

This study consisted of two tasks: experimental vignettes and defining gaslighting. The vignette task utilised a 2 (repetition) × 2 (intention) × 2 (victim response) between subject design, resulting in eight experimental conditions. The dependent variables were ratings on acceptability, seriousness, need to intervene, and whether it is gaslighting. Participants (n = 595), were randomly allocated to one of the eight conditions, as outlined in Table 4. The definition task was presented only to participants who indicated familiarity with the term ‘gaslighting’ (n = 569) and was presented after the vignette task to avoid priming.

Materials and procedure

Ethics for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. 2023/385). Participation in the study was compulsory as part of coursework requirements; and students were told the study was about their opinions concerning appropriate behaviour within a relationship. Consent for data release was optional and obtained after the experiment. All participants received a link to a Qualtrics survey, which included three stages: demographics, vignettes, definitions (only given to those who reported knowing what gaslighting meant). The full questionnaire is available in the supplemental materials. The vignettes used in this study were fictional and developed specifically for the purpose of this research. Prior to data collection, they were piloted with a small sample (n = 13) to assess the clarity of the scenarios, accompanying questions, and overall questionnaire structure. No issues were identified during piloting, and participants reported that the materials were clear and easy to follow, so no modifications were made.

Vignette task

Participants were instructed to pay careful attention to the details of the story, as they would be quizzed on it afterwards. Participants were shown a short, written vignette that described an interaction between a fictional couple, ‘Tom and Jennifer’. In all vignettes Tom and Jennifer are in the kitchen cooking dinner, where they have a short conversation culminating in Tom saying that he would take the chicken out of the oven once it was ready. While Jennifer is setting the table, the chicken burns. An argument occurs over who is responsible. The eight vignette conditions differed across two levels of the three variables: intention, repetition, and victim response (see vignette variations in Table 2, and full examples of vignette in supplemental material). These conditions differed in whether the behaviour was intentional (i.e., whether Tom knew he was responsible or not), repeated (i.e., whether this behaviour happened frequently, or it was the first time), and victim response (i.e., whether Jennifer believed Tom, or whether she disbelieved him). Having read the vignette, participants completed comprehension questions to assess their attention and understanding of the vignette. Then they were asked to rate how acceptable they found the interaction, how serious, and whether they would feel the need to intervene if they had witnessed it. These ratings were made on a 6-point Likert scale. For example, one ranged between ‘not serious at all’ and ‘very serious’. Participants were also prompted to provide a free-response term that they believed best described the interaction in the vignette.

Table 2.

Variations in vignettes across conditions.

Variable	Variable level	Vignette alternatives
Repetition	Repeated	This isn’t the first time that this type of argument has happened. Jennifer feels as if she has been accused of making these kinds of mistakes all the time, although she doesn’t always remember making them
Repetition	Once	This kind of thing has never happened before. Tom and Jennifer are usually on the same page and rarely get into arguments
Intention	Intentional	Tom knows that he told Jennifer not to worry about the chicken, but he is feeling angry and embarrassed for forgetting
Intention	Not intentional	Tom swears that he remembers tasking Jennifer with overseeing the chicken
Victim response	Agrees	She thought she remembered being told not to worry about the chicken, but she figures she must have been mistaken. She figures that since Tom was so sure and she’s clearly been so forgetful recently, it’s likely that it was her fault. “I’m so sorry, Tom, I’m just so forgetful. I can’t believe I’ve ruined our anniversary dinner”
Victim response	Disagrees	Jennifer is quite confused because she definitely remembers being told not to worry about the chicken. “What are you talking about Tom, you said you were going to take the chicken out of the oven”. “No, I didn’t, you just forgot as per usual” huffs Tom, as he throws the rest of the half-finished food into the bin. Jennifer bites her tongue and pauses to think

After completion of these scales, participants were asked ‘Do you know what gaslighting is?’. Those who responded ‘yes’ then proceeded to the Gaslighting definition task.

Gaslighting definition task

Participants who responded yes when asked if they knew what gaslighting is, were presented with a list of statements describing gaslighting components, including common definitional components, controversial ones, and some unrelated components to assess their attention. Participants were instructed to select all components that they believed were necessary for defining gaslighting (see Table 3 for the list of components).

Table 3.

Gaslighting definition components supplied to participants.

Label	Description
Manipulative behaviour	Person A challenges Person B’s ability to perceive reality
Self-doubt outcome	Person B begins to question their ability to perceive reality
Intention	Person A’s behaviour towards Person B is intentional (i.e., intentionally causes Person B to question reality)
Repetition	Person A’s behaviour towards Person B is a pattern (i.e., repeated behaviour)
Isolation	Person A attempts to isolate Person B from other people and sources of information
Power	Person A has some form of power (e.g., authority, financial, status) over Person B
Intimacy	Person A and Person B are close to one another (e.g., partner, friend, family)
Verbal abuse	Person A makes comments that are hurtful to Person B
Emotional abuse	Person A uses emotional manipulation to hurt Person B
Physical intimidation	Person A uses physical intimidation to hurt Person B
Healthy listening	Person A actively listens to Person B’s concerns
Supportive relationship	Person B feels confident and supported in the relationship
Mutual affection	Person A and Person B feel mutual affection
Other	Other (please specify)

Note. Definitional components were presented in the order depicted in this table.

Following this, participants were presented with a broad definition of gaslighting: “Gaslighting can be broadly defined as a tactic of psychological manipulation in which an individual attempts to control their partner by convincing them that they do not have the ability to think, remember, and reason for themselves”. They were then asked whether they believed gaslighting had occurred in the vignette, again using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Results

A sensitivity analysis conducted using G*Power revealed that with 595 participants and 8 independent groups, the minimum detectable effect size at 80% power (α = .05) was f = 0.16. Thus, the study was adequately powered to detect small-to-medium group differences.

Recognition of gaslighting

The following section addresses the behavioural features that influence the recognition of gaslighting in the vignettes. Table 4 summarises the 3 different variables (repetition, intention, victim response) manipulated in the vignette task and the sample size associated with each condition.

Table 4.

Allocation of participants to eight conditions, varying across two levels of three variables; repetition (repeated, once), intention (intentional, not intentional), victim response (victim agrees, victim disagrees).

Condition	Repetition	Intention	Victim response	n
1	Repeated	Intentional	Victim agrees	86
2	Once	Intentional	Victim agrees	85
3	Repeated	Not intentional	Victim agrees	90
4	Once	Not intentional	Victim agrees	79
5	Repeated	Intentional	Victim disagrees	61
6	Once	Intentional	Victim disagrees	72
7	Repeated	Not intentional	Victim disagrees	72
8	Once	Not intentional	Victim disagrees	69

To examine the effects of the different vignette conditions, a separate 2 (repetition) × 2 (intention) × 2 (victim response) ANOVA was conducted for each of the four outcome scales (acceptability, seriousness, likelihood to intervene, and whether the vignette is gaslighting). Mean scores for each of these outcomes across the different conditions are depicted in Table 5. The full ANOVA outputs for all four tests are available on OSF, including F-values, p-values, degrees of freedom, and effect sizes for all main effects and interactions.

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics of Vignette Outcomes Scales Across Conditions i.e., Mean (SD).

Condition	Acceptability	Seriousness	Intervene	Gaslighting
Repeated	1.76 (0.97)	4.54 (1.06)	4.74 (1.19)	5.40 (0.93)
Once	2.06 (0.96)	4.17 (1.08)	4.73 (1.23)	5.14 (1.10)
Intentional	1.74 (0.92)	4.44 (1.08)	4.74 (1.30)	5.39 (1.00)
Not intentional	2.07 (1.03)	4.27 (1.09)	4.73 (1.11)	5.15 (1.03)
Victim agrees	1.83 (1.00)	4.43 (1.10)	4.78 (1.22)	5.35 (1.02)
Victim disagrees	2.01 (0.99)	4.26 (1.06)	4.68 (1.19)	5.17 (1.02)
Total mean	1.91 (0.99)	4.35 (1.08)	4.74 (1.21)	5.27 (1.02)
Total mode	1.00	5.00	6.00	6.00

Note. All four measures are on a likert scale ranging from 1–6.

Acceptability

The ANOVA revealed significant main effects. As hypothesised (H2), vignettes in which the behaviour was repeated were rated as significantly less acceptable (M = 1.76) than those where the behaviour was a one-off (M = 2.06), F (1,586) = 15.56, p < .001, η² = 0.03. Similarly, intentional behaviour was rated as less acceptable (M = 1.74) than unintentional behaviour (M = 2.07), F (1,586) = 17.50, p < .001, η² = 0.03. Additionally, instances where the victim agreed with the gaslighter were rated as less acceptable (M = 1.83) than those where the victim disagreed (M = 2.01), F (1,586) = 4.09, p = .044, η² = 0.01. No significant interactions were found (all p values >.05).

Seriousness

The ANOVA revealed significant main effects. As hypothesised (H2), vignettes in which the behaviour was repeated were rated as significantly more serious (M = 4.54) than those where the behaviour was a one-off (M = 4.17), F (1,586) = 20.40, p < .001, η² = 0.03. Similarly, intentional behaviour was rated as more serious (M = 4.44) than unintentional behaviour (M = 4.27), F (1,586) = 5.01, p = .026, η² = 0.01. However, contrary to H2, victim responses and interactions were not found to be significant (p values >.05)

Likelihood of intervening

Contrary the hypothesis (H2), the ANOVA found no significant main effects or interactions for this outcome measure (all p values >.05).

Whether gaslighting occurred

The ANOVA revealed significant main effects. As hypothesised (H1), vignettes in which the behaviour was repeated were rated more strongly as gaslighting (M = 5.40) than those where the behaviour was a one-off (M = 5.14), F (1,586) = 10.33, p = .001, η² = 0.02. Similarly, intentional behaviour was rated more strongly as gaslighting (M = 5.39) than unintentional behaviour (M = 5.15), F (1,586) = 9.43, p = .002, η² = 0.02. Additionally, instances where the victim agreed with the gaslighter were rated more strongly as gaslighting (M = 5.35) than those where the victim disagreed (M = 5.17), F (1,586) = 4.01, p = .044, η² = 0.01. No significant interactions were found (all p values >.05)

Exploratory correlations, adjusted using the Bonferroni correction, were conducted to examine the effects of age and gender on ratings across the four scales (acceptability, seriousness, likelihood to intervene, and ‘is it gaslighting’). After controlling for multiple comparisons, no significant correlations were found between age, gender, and the outcome scales (i.e., p > .0125).

It should be noted that, despite finding significant effects of the different behaviours on outcome scales, the effect sizes for all four ANOVAs were consistently small. One possible explanation is the reduced variability in the data, which may be due to ceiling and floor effects in the measures. Specifically, participants often selected the highest (or lowest) score on the Likert scales, limiting the range of responses (see Table 5). This restricted variability may have contributed to the smaller observed effect sizes.

Terminology generated by participants

Of the 595 respondents shown the vignettes, 522 indicated they could think of a term to describe the behaviour in the story. The frequency of terms mentioned are depicted in Table 6. As shown, gaslighting was the most commonly provided term, even before participants were introduced to the concept of gaslighting later in the survey.

Table 6.

Terms provided by participants to describe behaviour in vignettes.

Term	Count	% Of total
Gaslighting	339	63.0
Manipulation	56	10.4
Blame shifting/false accusations	33	6.1
Verbal abuse	13	2.4
Projecting	12	2.2
Other	85	15.8

Note. Total count exceeds 522 because some respondents provided multiple terms.

Note. Full list of terms in the ‘other’ category included in supplemental material.

Definitions of gaslighting

The following section addresses the criteria participants used to define gaslighting. Nearly all participants who completed the definitions task (n = 569) avoided selecting irrelevant definitional components (i.e., healthy listening, supportive relationship, mutual affection), demonstrating a high level of attention to the task. However, 20 participants selected irrelevant components, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the concept of gaslighting. As a result, these participants were excluded from the definitions analysis, resulting in a final sample of 549. The irrelevant definition components (i.e., healthy listening, supportive relationship, mutual affection) were removed from further analysis and the remaining components were tallied for frequency of selection (see Figure 1). The ‘Other’ component was also removed, as no participants selected this option. Further, even though the definitional components were presented in a fixed order (see Table 3) there was no apparent effect of order on elements chosen as indicated by the frequency of selection depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Frequency of definition Components Selected by Participants (n = 549). Note. Frequency was compared using a two-tailed binomial test. Significant results are indicated with an asterisk: *p < .005, **p < .001.

A series of two-tailed binomial tests were conducted on the remaining 10 components to determine whether the majority of respondents selected (or did not select) each component, i.e., the proportion of respondents was significantly greater than 50% (see results in Figure 1). To control for type I error due to multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied to the critical alpha level, i.e., .05/10 = 0.005.

As hypothesised in H3, the majority of participants selected Manipulative Behaviour, Self-Doubt Outcome as necessary aspects of gaslighting. However, contrary to H3, Repetition did not meet the threshold and did not differ significantly from 50%, showing participants were divided on Repetition.

Contrary to H4, Intention was selected by a majority of participants rather than the predicted 50/50 division.

As hypothesised in H5, Intimacy, Verbal Abuse, and Physical Intimidation were not selected by the majority of participants, suggesting these less essential. However, contrary to H5, Emotional Abuse was selected by the majority of participants as necessary to a definition. Further, contrary to H5, Isolation and Power Imbalance did not differ significantly from 50% despite being predicted to be chosen less frequently.

As the definitional components were provided to the participants after they had been shown the vignettes, correlations were conducted to check whether the condition participants were assigned to influenced their selection of definitional components. A weak positive correlation was found between participants in the repetition condition and the selection of repetition in the definition, r (595) = .15, p < .001. There was also a weak positive correlation between participants in the repetition condition and the selection of power imbalance in the definition, r (595) = .12, p = .007. No other definition components and vignette conditions were found to be correlated.

To explore whether gender influenced the inclusion of these factors, we conducted Bonferroni corrected Chi Squared tests for each. We found that for five of the nine factors reached significance, where women were more inclined to include these in their definitions than men (Emotional abuse, χ² (549) = 16.80, p <. 001; Verbal abuse, χ² (549) = 13.50, p = .001; Repetition, χ² (549) = 14.80, p < .001; Power imbalance, χ² (549) = 12.90, p = .002; Physical intimidation, χ² (549) = 7.06, p = .029).

A similar series of exploratory Bonferroni corrected binomial logistical regressions revealed no effect of age on any factor.

Discussion

Public attitudes play a pivotal role in fostering cultural change towards covert forms of IPV (Sivarajasingam et al., 2022; Webster et al., 2018). Although gaslighting has become a widely discussed term, there is limited knowledge about public attitudes and perceptions regarding its role in IPV. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics that young adults use to determine whether gaslighting has occurred through two paradigms, firstly a gaslighting recognition task and secondly a definition task.

Recognition of gaslighting

It was found that vignettes where the behaviour was repeated, intentional, and resulted in characteristic outcomes (i.e., self-doubt) were rated more strongly as gaslighting compared to those where the behaviour was a one-off, unintentional, or met with resistance. The victim’s outcome had the smallest effect on gaslight identification. Notably, all effects were relatively small, and all vignettes, even those lacking these components were largely rated as gaslighting or manipulation.

Ratings of the behaviours in the vignettes as acceptable, serious or requiring intervention led to somewhat differing patterns. When the vignette included repetition, intentional behaviour, or an outcome where the victim reacted by agreeing and experiencing self-doubt, participants rated it as less acceptable. However, as indicated by effect size, the influence of victim response on acceptability was relatively small. Repetition and intention also slightly increased the seriousness rating, although intention only impacted minimally, and the victim’s outcome had no impact. Thus, it appears that, while repetition remains central to the recognition and perceptions of gaslighting, participants may not consider the victim’s response essential to determining the behaviour’s acceptability or seriousness. Additionally, the fact that intention played a moderate role in acceptability, but had little impact on seriousness suggests that participants may perceive intentional gaslighting actions as less morally acceptable but view the behaviour as serious regardless of the perpetrator’s intent.

Contrary to predictions, none of the vignette conditions impacted participants’ likelihood to intervene. However, it is important to note that all the vignettes received high ratings for likelihood of intervening regardless of the context. This does align with bystander intervention literature which suggests that people feel more confident intervening in cases where there is low risk of physical violence, such as what was described in the vignettes (Fischer et al., 2011). Therefore, these results could indicate that participants felt equally prepared to intervene in any instance of gaslighting, regardless of severity as measured by recognition, seriousness, or acceptability, as the vignettes were perceived as low risk. Another consideration is the potential for social desirability bias in responses, as participants may be more inclined to report higher likelihood of intervening due to societal expectations, even though this may not necessarily reflect their real-world behaviour (Grimm, 2010). Additionally, while the vignette was intentionally set in a private setting to isolate the effects of specific behaviours on intervention decisions, it is possible that the context itself (e.g., a private dinner) may have influenced participants’ likelihood to intervene. Without further probing questions, the motivations behind these ratings remain unclear.

Overall, these results suggest that while participants acknowledge repetition, intention, and victim response as relevant factors in recognising gaslighting, these elements do not have strong effects and do not prevent participants from identifying gaslighting in vignettes where these factors are absent. The small effect sizes observed may partially be due to measurement limitations, as responses remained on the most extreme end of the scale across conditions. However, it could also indicate that participants hold strong views on gaslighting across all vignettes, regardless of any nuance in the story. The participants may view all vignettes as serious examples of gaslighting, with only minor variations in perceived severity. Such an inclusive view of gaslighting could also explain the lack of variation in the participants’ likelihood to intervene, as all vignettes are seen as gaslighting thus requiring intervention.

Definitions of gaslighting

When asked to define necessary components of gaslighting, participants most often identified manipulative behaviour (i.e., challenging someone’s ability to perceive reality), self-doubt outcome (i.e., questioning one’s ability to perceive reality), intention, and emotional abuse as key. The inclusion of manipulative behaviour and self-doubt outcome was as expected (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025), suggesting that both groups view gaslighting as a dynamic involving attempts to manipulate a person’s perception of reality, and the doubt and confusion that results. This diverges from definitions that focus on the manipulative behaviour alone (e.g., Berenstain, 2020) and is somewhat inconsistent with the IPV literature, where there is debate over whether the act of gaslighting is more central than its consequences (e.g., Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025; Hailes, 2022). The participants’ strong endorsement of intention contrasts with the controversial role of intention in prior literature (e.g., Abramson, 2014; Dorpat, 1996), and the more flexible view of intention within the victim-survivor samples. It does, however, align with support service providers’ perspectives which also emphasised the deliberate nature of gaslighting (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025).

The emphasis on emotional abuse was unexpected as this was predicted to be relatively subsidiary factor, referencing acts of emotional abuse outside of gaslighting. In hindsight, it is likely that participants selected this item as they viewed gaslighting itself as a form of emotional abuse. Categorising gaslighting specifically as ‘emotional abuse’ is common within prior literature (e.g., Sodoma, 2022) although, there is debate as to whether it is best described as a psychological, emotional, or coercive form of abuse (e.g. Graves & Samp, 2021; Hailes, 2022). Our data suggests that the majority of participants viewed gaslighting as emotional abuse.

As predicted, verbal abuse and physical intimidation were selected infrequently, consistent with them being considered subsidiary aspects of gaslighting in victim-survivor definitions (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025). What is unclear, is whether participants viewed these components as less central to the definition of gaslighting or did not see their relevance at all. In IPV contexts, multiple forms of abuse, including verbal and physical intimidation, often play an important role in reinforcing gaslighting. The participants may not have associated these forms of abuse as strongly with gaslighting, either because they are unaware of this connection or because they do not consider them necessary for inclusion in the definition. Alternatively, since the task did not require participants to define gaslighting exclusively within intimate partner contexts, their responses may reflect a broader understanding that can also apply to non-intimate relationships. This broader view may also help explain the unexpectedly low selection of intimacy. Intimacy was among the least frequently selected components, suggesting that participants do not necessarily view gaslighting as tied to intimate settings, diverging from conventional understandings. This more detached view may be influenced by the vagueness of how the term is used in popular culture (e.g., Verdier, 2019), or by the growing attention to gaslighting in non-traditional contexts, such as in the workplace or healthcare (e.g., Fraser, 2021).

Participants were divided as to whether repetition, power imbalance, and isolation were important features of gaslighting. Repetition is a key element of gaslighting in both victim-survivor definitions and prior literature (e.g., Bhatti et al., 2021). It is notable, then, that only half of the participant sample included it in their definitions. This may reflect the overuse or misuse of the term in public discourse, where gaslighting is sometimes applied loosely to one-off instances of dishonesty or miscommunication (e.g., Chrisp, 2022). Further, there was a trend observed in which women were more likely than men to include defintional components that describe the coercive patterns of behaviour inherent to gaslighting in IPV (i.e., emotional and verbal abuse, physical intimidation, power imbalances, and repetition). While it is not possible to determine the precise driving factors behind this finding, it appears that the women participants place greater emphasis on the underlying dynamics involved in psychological abuse. This could potentially be attributed to the higher prevalence of coercive control experienced by young women (Cunningham & Anderson, 2022).

Interestingly, participants who encountered repetition in the vignettes were more likely to incorporate both repetition and power imbalance into their definitions. This priming effect suggests a perceived connection between the two, with repetition potentially emphasizing the controlling dynamics inherent to gaslighting. Even so, power imbalance was also selected independently, indicating that some public conceptions of gaslighting remain closely tied to abuses of power. Another surprising finding was that isolation was selected as frequently as repetition and power imbalances. This is particularly notable if participants were defining gaslighting outside of an IPV context, as isolation is particularly relevant to intimate relationships and control. Its inclusion may reflect a broadening public understanding of coercive and controlling behaviours, with isolation recognised as a manipulative tool that can be used in both intimate and non-intimate contexts (e.g., Kukreja & Pandey, 2023).

Overall, the participants’ selections of gaslighting components suggest a broad and evolving understanding of the term, one that may be influenced by both popular discourse and may change depending on context. The emphasis on outcome, intention, and emotional abuse presents an image of a highly manipulative and deliberate conception of gaslighting, and one that can occur in single instances across varied contexts. It appears that appreciation of the contextual factors that enable gaslighting, such as repetition, power, abuse, isolation, and intimacy is less stable within the participant sample. These findings suggest that gaslighting was not viewed as a form of intimate partner violence, but rather as a more flexible and widespread form of manipulation.

Definition versus recognition

When comparing responses of participants to explicit definitions of gaslighting and the recognition of gaslighting in the vignettes, some interesting and unexpected differences emerged. Responses to both tasks suggested that repetition and intention were important. Repetition significantly increased recognition of gaslighting in the vignettes although only half the participants felt it was central to a definition. It is not particularly surprising that manipulative behaviour, when repeated, is more strongly associated with gaslighting, as frequency and duration have been argued to play a key role in the recognition of psychological abuse (Follingstad & DeHart, 2000). Still, the reluctance to include repetition in the definition, and the fact that participants were more likely to include it after witnessing repetition in the vignettes, may suggest that there is a disconnect between how the public conceptually views gaslighting and how they recognise it in context. Intention was also a frequently selected component in participant definitions, and intentional acts in the vignettes were more readily identified as gaslighting. Even so, non-intentional vignettes in which the perpetrator clearly did not realise that they themselves had remembered the event wrong were still rated highly as instances of gaslighting.

The role of victim outcomes notably differed between definitions and recognition. Self-doubt outcome, i.e. whether a victim is effectively ‘gaslit’ and experiences the intended effects of the manipulation was considered by participants to be one of the defining characteristics of gaslighting, second only to the manipulative behaviour itself. However, when included in the vignettes, victim response (i.e., experiencing self-doubt) had the lowest impact suggesting that, in context, participants view the manipulative behaviour itself as the key factor.

These discrepancies bring to question what accounts for the gap between the conceptual beliefs and recognition of gaslighting behaviours. One potential explanation is that the students hold a vague and flexible definition of gaslighting, one that can apply across various contexts and behaviours. As noted earlier, the term “gaslighting” has been used in ways that don’t always align with its traditional meaning, sometimes even diverging entirely from its original concept (Li & Samp, 2023). The definitional components most widely chosen by participants were manipulative behaviour, self-doubt outcome, intention, and the fact that it is emotionally abusive. These elements may be characteristic when considering gaslighting to be a broad behaviour that could occur in any context including one-off non-intentional miscommunication. While it is not necessarily always a negative thing that participants can adapt the definition to suit different contexts, it can also create a conceptual vagueness and conceptual creep that prevents it from being useful (Haslam, 2016; Medaris, 2024). A tendency to over-recognise gaslighting could potentially lead to misunderstandings about its severity and impact, as well as make it harder to identify and address genuine cases of abuse effectively.

Practical implications

Improving public knowledge of covert abusive behaviours, like gaslighting, is essential for fostering better recognition among victims and bystanders and increasing identification of warning signs within health and legal settings (Ellison, 2019; Webster et al., 2018). This is especially pressing in light of the recent introduction of coercive control laws in New South Wales, Australia (Department of Communities and Justice, 2024) and other jurisdictions around the world, where public awareness can empower individuals to better identify and report these covert and coercive behaviours, dispel harmful myths and misunderstandings that may hinder help-seeking behaviours or lead to misconceptions in legal settings, such as among jurors (Ellison, 2019; Webster et al., 2018). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US advocate for multi-faceted approaches to domestic violence interventions that address various sectors, including individual attitudes, peer relationships, community advocacy, and policy changes (CDCP, 2024). Moreover, to achieve lasting attitude shifts, campaigns should be implemented over several years, tailored to specific behaviours and communities, and developed in consultation with the target population (Sivarajasingam et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2017).

In Australia, current domestic violence campaigns have faced criticism for failing to educate the public about more insidious forms of abuse and manipulation (Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, 2021). Further, by focusing primarily on helping victims recognise abuse and seek support, these campaigns may inadvertently place the burden on victims, rather than addressing the roles of perpetrators and societal attitudes that enable domestic violence (Webster et al., 2018). Campaigns that emphasise understanding manipulative and coercive behaviours, particularly how perpetrators can manipulate not just victims but also their communities, could more effectively hold perpetrators accountable and encourage a broader cultural shift that views domestic violence as a societal problem (Meyer, 2018).

Addressing societal norms and attitudes towards IPV is necessary to reduce both tolerance and perpetration of abuse (Martín-Fernández et al., 2018). This study goes some way to reveal the beliefs and attitudes held by young adults concerning gaslighting. As the term is pervasive in public discourse, it is unsurprising that most study participants were familiar with it. However, they presented a view of gaslighting that is broad, flexible, and transcends intimate contexts. While this broad understanding may indicate that there is awareness about the use of gaslighting in settings such as the workplace or amongst peers, it could also dilute the perceived severity of gaslighting in IPV.

To improve public awareness, campaigns should target both individual and community attitudes using a multi-level approach, as outlined by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). These campaigns could include introducing educational programs in schools and tailored campaigns for specific communities, using real-life examples to highlight the warning signs, patterns, and facilitators of gaslighting. A key feature of gaslighting, as experienced by victim-survivors (Darke, Paterson, Dhillon, & van Golde, 2025), is repeated manipulation over time, often alongside subsidiary behaviours such as isolation, verbal and physical abuse, and coercive control, all which reinforce the manipulation. Incorporating these real-world examples into educational campaigns can help refocus public definitions, clarify its boundaries, and improve understanding of its severity.

A significant aspect of participants’ definitions of gaslighting was the belief that it is intentional. While this aligns with the recent NSW coercive control laws, this focus on intent may not be the most effective for community recognition of gaslighting. Gaslighting often obscures intent for both victims and bystanders, suggesting that campaigns may be more effective if the emphasis remains on patterns of behaviour rather than intent. This approach would provide actionable cues that help individuals recognise gaslighting in various contexts.

Limitations and future directions

While this study provided insight into how students define and recognise gaslighting, it utilised a convenience sample, and therefore the findings may not represent the broader population. Students may be more familiar with the concept, especially since the term is frequently encountered in online spaces which tend to skew toward younger audiences. Additionally, rates of IPV are disproportionately high amongst this demographic (AIHW, 2024). However, we did not ask participants if they had personal experiences with IPV or gaslighting, which could have influenced their results. Despite this, given the high rates of IPV among young adults, understanding their views on psychological abuse remains important.

The role of gender in awareness and attitude towards psychological abuse also remains unclear, as there was only small gender-based differences observed in this study The findings, however, suggests that future research efforts may benefit from exploring potential gaps in understanding of coercive and psychological abuse in men. A further limitation of the study is that we did not collect information on intersecting demographic factors that may influence perceptions of abuse (e.g., sexual orientation, cisgender identity, disability status), and future research should address this.

This study’s use of a vignette design presents some limitations, primarily due to the lack of realism in presenting a single fictional story and then measuring variables such as intervention likelihood and perceived seriousness. This method may lead to overconfidence in participants’ willingness to intervene, or heightened certainty that gaslighting has occurred given their access to written descriptions of the characters’ thought processes. Further, it was not assessed whether the participants found the vignettes realistic or convincing. More realistic investigations using videos or in person confederates could better simulate the subtle behaviours typical in a gaslighting cases. It would also be valuable to explore if it is possible to improve identification and bystander action in these more realistic cases.

Additionally, questions arose from participants’ responses that warrant further investigation. For instance, it would be valuable to include open ended questions to probe why participants included or excluded certain elements in their gaslighting definition, and how they differentiated between gaslighting and general lying or manipulation. Future studies could present vignettes without any gaslighting behaviours to assess whether participants overapply the term in unrelated situations, and whether education could reduce this effect. Lastly, as this study involved a relatively large sample, even small effects were statistically significant. Consequently, replication of these findings in other studies will increase confidence in their veracity. Overall, much remains to be understood about public attitudes towards this covert form of abuse and the effectiveness of education campaigns designed to address it.

Conclusion

This study explored the complexities of public understanding and recognition of gaslighting as a form of IPV, highlighting the ways in which the term’s widespread use both facilitates awareness as well as reduces conceptual clarity. The findings indicate that while students’ attitudes show a positive trend towards condemning gaslighting and its role as a form of emotional abuse, there are ambiguities in how the term is defined and recognised in context. These gaps underscore the need for educational campaigns and initiatives that not only raise awareness about the seriousness of gaslighting but also clarify its boundaries, patterns, and facilitating factors. A multi-level, targeted approach to public education could enable individuals to better identify gaslighting in various settings and improve the chances of bystander intervention. Targeted efforts in school and community campaigns that address more covert and subtle forms of abuse may help promote a cultural shift that reduces the prevalence and acceptance of these behaviours.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Supplemental Material for Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses by Lillian Darke, Helen Paterson and Celine van Golde in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Public perceptions of gaslighting: Understanding definitions, recognition, and responses

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices,the authors have provided the following information: This research was pre-registered. The aspect of the research that was pre-registered was the analysis plan. The registration,data,and materials used in the research are available on Open Science Framework and can be obtained at

or by emailing ldar9477@uni.sydney.edu.au

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. 2023/385) on June 29,2023.

ORCID iDs

Lillian Darke

Helen Paterson

Celine van Golde

Data Availability Statement

Preregistration and available supporting data: Preregistration,data,and materials are available on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/286wj [Registration];

[Data and Materials]

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Abramson

(2014). Turning up the lights on gaslighting. Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12046

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare . (2024). Family, domestic and sexual violence: Intimate partner violence. [Australian Government]. https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/intimate-partner-violence

Berenstain

(2020). White feminist gaslighting. Hypatia, 35(4), 733–758. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2020.31

Bhatti

M. M.

Shuja

K. H.

Aqeel

Bokhari

Gulzar

S. N.

Fatima

Sama

(2021). Psychometric development and validation of victim gaslighting questionnaire (VGQ): Across female sample from Pakistan. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-12-2020-0119

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2024). About violence prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violence-prevention/about/index.html

Chrisp

(2022). Bringing Adam collard back to Love Island sends a dangerous message. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/love-island-adam-collard-gaslighting-b2121296.html

Coumarelos

Weeks

Bernstein

Roberts

Honey

Minter

Carlisle

(2021). Attitudes matter: The 2021 national community attitudes towards violence against women survey (NCAS), findings for Australia. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS).

Cunningham

Anderson

K. L.

(2022). Union status, union dissolution, and intimate partner violence: Investigating Johnson’s typology among heterosexual dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Journal of Family Violence, 39(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00448-9

Darke

Paterson

Dhillon

van Golde

(2025). Defining gaslighting in intimate partner violence: Insights from victim survivors and support service providers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000461

10.

Darke

Paterson

van Golde

(2025). Illuminating gaslighting: A comprehensive interdisciplinary review of gaslighting literature. Journal of Family Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-025-00805-4

11.

Department of Communities and Justice . (2024). Criminalising coercive control in NSW. NSW Government. https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/children-and-families/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/police--legal-help-and-the-law/criminalising-coercive-control-in-nsw.html

12.

DiGiulio

(2018, July 24). What is gaslighting? And how do you know if it’s happening to you? Better by Today. https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-gaslighting-how-do-you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866

13.

Dorpat

T. L.

(1996). Gaslighting, the double whammy, interrogation, and other methods of covert control in psychotherapy and analysis . J. Aronson.

14.

Easteal

(2021). Submission to the NSW joint select committee inquiry into coercive control in domestic relationships. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/70081/Submission_-_2.pdf

15.

Ellison

(2019). Credibility in context: Jury education and intimate partner rape. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718807225

16.

Fischer

Krueger

J. I.

Greitemeyer

Vogrincic

Kastenmüller

Frey

Heene

Wicher

Kainbacher

(2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304

17.

Follingstad

D. R.

DeHart

D. D.

(2000). Defining psychological abuse of husbands toward wives: Contexts, behaviors, and typologies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(9), 891–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015009001

18.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rutledge

L. L.

Berg

B. J.

Hause

E. S.

Polek

D. S.

(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00978514

19.

Fraser

(2021). The toxic power dynamics of gaslighting in medicine. Canadian Family Physician, 67(5), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6705367

20.

Graves

C. G.

Samp

J. A.

(2021). The power to gaslight. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(11), 3378–3386. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211026975

21.

Grimm

(2010). Social desirability bias. In Sheth

Malhotra

(Eds.), Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (1st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057

22.

Hailes

(2022). “They’re out to take away your sanity”: An ecological investigation of gaslighting in intimate partner violence [Dissertation]. Boston College.

23.

Hailes

H. P.

Goodman

L. A.

(2023). “They’re out to take away your sanity”: A qualitative investigation of gaslighting in intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 40(2), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00652-1

24.

Harsey

Freyd

J. J.

(2020). Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO): What is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8), 897–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695

25.

Haslam

(2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2016.1082418

26.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.

27.

Kippert

(2021 October 20). A guide to gaslighting. DomesticShelters.org. https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/ending-domestic-violence/a-guide-to-gaslighting.

28.

Kukreja

Pandey

(2023). Workplace gaslighting: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1), Article 1099485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1099485

29.

Samp

J. A.

(2023). Gaslighting LGBTQ+ individuals: Correlates of gaslighting experiences, gaslighters’ characteristics, and gaslighting techniques. Communication Studies, 74(4), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2023.2209605

30.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2018). Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW Scale. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2018a18

31.

Medaris

(2024). Seven of the most frequently misused psychological terms. Monitor on Psychology, 55(6), 21. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/09/therapy-misspeak.

32.

Meyer

(2018). After a deadly month for domestic violence, the message doesn’t appear to be getting through. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/after-a-deadly-month-for-domestic-violence-the-message-doesnt-appear-to-be-getting-through-105568

33.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer Pub. Co.

34.

Porter

Standing

(2020). Love Island and relationship education. Frontiers in Sociology, 4(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00079

35.

Sackett

L. A.

Saunders

D. G.

(1999). The impact of different forms of psychological abuse on battered women. Violence & Victims, 14(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.105

36.

Simmons

C. A.

Farrar

Frazer

Thompson

M. J.

(2011). From the voices of women: Facilitating survivor access to IPV services. Violence Against Women, 17(10), 1226–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211424476

37.

Sivarajasingam

Webber

Riboli-Sasco

Alaa

El-Osta

(2022). Investigating public awareness, prevailing attitudes and perceptions towards domestic violence and abuse in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 2042. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14426-9

38.

Sodoma

K. A.

(2022). Emotional gaslighting and affective empathy. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 30(3), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2022.2121894

39.

Stanley

Ellis

Farrelly

Hollinghurst

Bailey

Downe

(2017). “What matters to someone who matters to me”: Using media campaigns with young people to prevent interpersonal violence and abuse. Health Expectations, 20(4), 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12495

40.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

41.

Stark

(2012). Looking beyond domestic violence: Policing coercive control. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332586.2012.725016

42.

Sweet

P. L.

(2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

43.

Verdier

(2019). Love Island has a gaslighting problem – Yet again. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jul/05/love-island-has-a-gaslighting-problem-yet-again

44.

Warshaw

Lyon

Bland

P. J.

Phillips

Hooper

(2014). Mental health and substance use coercion surveys: Report from the national center on domestic violence, trauma & mental health and the national domestic violence hotline. https://ncdvtmh.org/resource/mental-health-and-substance-use-coercion-surveys-report/

45.

Webster

Diemer

Honey

Mannix

Mickle

Morgan

Parkes

Politoff

V. M.

Powell

Stubbs

Ward

(2018). Australians’ attitudes to violence against women and gender equality: Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS). Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS).

46.

Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce . (2021). Hear her voice: Report 1, volume 1. https://www.womenstaskforce.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/700600/volume-1-exectutive-summary-and-introduction.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.11 MB

0.64 MB

0.33 MB

0.12 MB

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.22 MB