Blame Shifting: What It Is, Examples, and How It Differs From Gaslighting
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Blame shifting is the redirection of responsibility away from one’s own action, decision, omission, or contribution and toward another person, circumstance, or target. In everyday conflict it often appears when a question about one behavior is answered by making somebody else’s behavior the main explanation, fault, or problem. The central issue is responsibility: what happened, who did what, and whether each person can acknowledge their own part without making that acknowledgment disappear inside a counteraccusation.
The phrase is widely used in relationship advice and online mental-health language, but it is better treated as a descriptive behavior pattern than as a diagnosis or a single standardized clinical construct. Scientific research more often studies overlapping processes under terms such as externalization of blame, blaming attributions, denial, minimization, justification, defensiveness, self-serving attribution, or DARVO. That distinction matters because the popular label can sound more precise than the evidence actually is.
Blame shifting can be manipulative, especially when it is repeated or used instrumentally to evade accountability, discredit another person, or maintain control. It can also occur as a defensive reaction without a clearly planned strategy. A 2024 systematic review of denial, minimization, justification, and blaming in intimate partner abuse found that these processes can serve several functions, including protecting self-image and being used instrumentally to achieve goals. The evidence therefore does not support a rule that every blame shift has one motive.
Blame shifting is also not the same thing as gaslighting. Blame shifting asks, in effect, “Who is responsible?” Gaslighting concerns the destabilization of another person’s confidence in their perception, memory, interpretation, or sense of reality. The two can overlap in the same exchange, but one does not automatically establish the other.
What Is Blame Shifting?
A useful working definition is: blame shifting occurs when responsibility for a person’s own behavior is redirected onto someone or something else in a way that reduces, replaces, or avoids examination of that person’s contribution. The redirection may target a partner, coworker, family member, institution, circumstance, emotional state, or even the person who raised the concern.
The definition needs one important limit. Disagreement about responsibility is not automatically blame shifting. Real events often have multiple causes. Two people can contribute to an argument, a workplace failure can reflect both individual mistakes and poor systems, and a relationship conflict can involve genuine harm on both sides. The question is not whether another person’s behavior is relevant. The question is whether context is being used to understand responsibility more accurately or to make one person’s responsibility vanish.
Compare two responses. “I should not have shouted. I was overwhelmed, but shouting was still my choice. I also want to talk later about what happened before that.” This accepts responsibility and then adds context. “I shouted because you made me; if you had not pushed me, none of this would have happened.” This transfers ownership of the shouting to the other person. The second response may contain a real complaint about the other person, but the complaint is functioning as a substitute for accountability.
This is why blame shifting is most useful as a pattern description, not as a personality label. The same outward behavior can arise in very different contexts: momentary defensiveness, fear of consequences, shame, a habit of externalizing failure, adversarial conflict, deliberate manipulation, or a broader abusive dynamic. A single sentence cannot reliably identify which explanation applies.
What Blame Shifting Can Look Like
Blame shifting is easiest to recognize by following the movement of responsibility through a conversation. What was the original issue? Was that issue addressed? Did the discussion become an examination of somebody else before the original behavior was acknowledged? Does this happen occasionally under stress, or is it the regular endpoint of accountability conversations?
The reaction becomes the cause
One common pattern treats the other person’s reaction as the cause of the original behavior. You say, “You insulted me in front of our friends,” and the response is, “I only said that because you were being difficult all night.” The other person’s behavior may deserve its own discussion, yet it does not erase the speaker’s responsibility for the insult.
A counteraccusation replaces the original issue
You raise a missed commitment, and the response immediately becomes a list of your previous mistakes: “What about the time you forgot my appointment?” This can be a valid issue if it is genuinely unresolved, but timing matters. When every concern is converted into a competing prosecution of the person who raised it, accountability never settles anywhere long enough to be examined.
Tone becomes the whole case
A person may respond to the substance of a concern by making the concern’s delivery the only subject: “I cannot believe you would speak to me like that.” Tone can matter. Hostility, contempt, threats, and shouting can be legitimate problems. Blame shifting occurs when criticism of delivery is used to make the original behavior disappear rather than allowing both issues to be addressed separately.
Feelings are treated as somebody else’s responsibility
Statements such as “You made me angry, so what happened is on you” can convert an internal state into a transfer of agency. Other people influence emotion, sometimes powerfully. They can provoke, disappoint, frighten, frustrate, or hurt us. Influence does not mean that another person literally owns our later choices. Mature accountability can hold both facts at once: “I was angry about what you did, and I am responsible for how I acted while angry.”
A system problem becomes one person’s fault
Blame shifting also occurs outside intimate relationships. A manager may attribute a missed deadline entirely to one employee while ignoring contradictory instructions, inadequate staffing, or their own delayed approvals. A team member may blame “poor communication” without acknowledging that they failed to send required information. In these cases, the same boundary applies: accurate explanation distributes responsibility according to evidence; blame shifting distributes it according to self-protection or convenience.
A shared conflict is rewritten as one-sided responsibility
Sometimes both people contributed to a problem. Blame shifting can occur when one person acknowledges only the other person’s contribution and treats their own role as merely a reaction. Shared responsibility is not the same as equal responsibility. One person may have contributed more, or one behavior may be much more serious. The goal is not to force a fifty-fifty split but to keep each action attached to the person who performed it.
What Is Not Blame Shifting?
The label becomes unreliable when it is applied to any statement about context, causality, or another person’s behavior. Explaining why something happened is not automatically an excuse. Pointing out another person’s contribution is not automatically deflection. Correcting a false accusation is not avoidance of accountability. Refusing responsibility for something one did not do is not blame shifting.
A person can also be wrong about causality without manipulating anyone. Human memory is imperfect, conflict narrows attention, and people often interpret the same interaction differently. If two people disagree over who interrupted first, whether a request was clear, or how a decision was made, the existence of disagreement does not by itself reveal a tactic.
Relationship science also cautions against simplistic rules about conflict communication. A review by Overall and McNulty emphasized that the effects of direct versus cooperative communication depend on the problem and context. Directly naming a serious problem can sometimes be useful; soothing or validating communication can sometimes fail to address a problem that needs change. The relevant question is whether the conversation can return to specific actions, evidence, responsibility, and repair.
Why Do People Shift Blame? What the Evidence Supports
There is no single scientifically established cause of blame shifting. The search-language term covers several processes that research usually studies separately. The strongest explanation therefore uses levels of evidence rather than assigning one hidden motive.
Self-protective attribution is an established psychological tendency
People do not always explain success and failure neutrally. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 69 studies involving 10,515 athletes found a self-serving pattern in organized sport: participants tended to attribute success more internally and failure more externally, although effects varied and the authors reported heterogeneity and some publication bias. This does not prove that relationship blame shifting is the same process. It does show that self-protective attribution is a measurable psychological phenomenon rather than merely an internet concept.
Defensiveness can redirect attention
The APA Dictionary of Psychology defines defensiveness as sensitivity to criticism or comments about deficiencies accompanied by countering or denying criticism. Defensiveness is broader than blame shifting: someone can become quiet, minimize, rationalize, joke, counterattack, or deny without assigning blame elsewhere. But countering criticism by making the critic responsible is one route by which defensiveness can become blame shifting.
Shame and externalization of blame are linked in some research
A four-sample study by Stuewig and colleagues found an indirect relationship between shame-proneness and aggression through externalization of blame, particularly when aggression was self-reported; guilt-proneness showed a different pattern. This is evidence for one possible pathway, not a universal explanation. It does not justify inferring that a person who shifts blame is secretly ashamed, nor does it show that shame inevitably causes blame shifting.
In abusive contexts, blaming may function strategically as well as defensively
The systematic review by Smyth, Teicher, and Wilde synthesized 31 papers on denial, minimization, justification, and blaming among heterosexual men who had committed intimate partner abuse. The authors concluded that these processes had complex functions: they could facilitate abusive behavior, protect identity and self-esteem, or be used instrumentally to achieve goals. This evidence is specific to an abuse-related literature and should not be generalized to every couple conflict.
Earlier primary research also found associations between partner-blaming attributions and self-reported intimate aggression in a university dating sample. The Scott and Straus study is useful as evidence that blaming attributions can be relevant in harmful relationship dynamics, but its sample and correlational design do not make it a diagnostic test for abuse.
Blame Shifting vs. Gaslighting: What Is the Difference?
Blame shifting and gaslighting are often collapsed into the same idea online. Keeping them separate makes both concepts more useful.
A 2026 historical review of gaslighting describes gaslighting as psychological manipulation that causes a person to doubt their sense of reality and notes both points of consensus and tension in the literature. A complementary theoretical framework by Klein, Wood, and Bartz focuses on how gaslighting can develop over time and undermine reality confidence and agency. This is a different target from ordinary responsibility deflection.
In blame shifting, the contested question is responsibility: “This happened because of you,” “You caused my reaction,” or “Your mistake is the real issue.” In gaslighting, the contested question is the reliability of the other person’s perception, memory, interpretation, or reality: “That never happened,” “You are imagining it,” or a broader pattern that makes the person distrust their own ability to know what is happening.
The two can occur together. Imagine someone is confronted about a hurtful action and responds, “I never did that. You always invent things, and this entire argument exists because you are unstable.” The denial and attack on reality confidence may be gaslighting-related, while the transfer of responsibility for the conflict may also be blame shifting. The fact that the tactics can coexist does not make them synonyms.
They can also occur separately. “I missed the deadline because you distracted me” can be blame shifting without any attempt to make the other person doubt their memory or reality. Conversely, a person can repeatedly distort another person’s recollection without explicitly assigning responsibility for a separate wrongdoing.
Gaslighting is not established by one disagreement, one memory error, one lie, or one poorly phrased argument. Current scholarship treats it as a pattern of psychological manipulation with a reality-undermining function. Calling every blame shift “gaslighting” makes it harder to identify what is actually happening.
Blame Shifting vs. DARVO
DARVO stands for deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. In an experimental study by Harsey and Freyd involving 230 undergraduate participants who read fictional sexual-assault scenarios, exposure to DARVO reduced perceived perpetrator responsibility and credibility costs shifted toward the victim. DARVO therefore has a more specific structure than generic blame shifting.
Blame shifting may appear inside DARVO, particularly in the reversal stage, but a blame shift does not need to contain denial, an attack on credibility, or a reversal of victim and offender roles. If someone says, “I forgot because you never remind me properly,” responsibility has been redirected, but the full DARVO sequence is not present.
This distinction matters because DARVO has a specific research history and should not become a catch-all term for any defensive reply. The same rule applies in reverse: not every act of blame shifting should be escalated into an abuse label without evidence about the wider pattern and context.
Blame Shifting vs. Defensiveness, Projection, Guilt Tripping, and Invalidation
Defensiveness
Defensiveness is the broader reaction to perceived criticism or threat. It may involve explaining, denying, countering, withdrawing, minimizing, or attacking. Blame shifting is one possible defensive move: responsibility is redirected to someone else. A defensive person can still eventually take responsibility; a recurring blame-shifting pattern is more specifically about where responsibility lands.
Projection
Projection is a psychodynamic concept involving the attribution of one’s own unacceptable or unwanted feelings, impulses, or characteristics to someone else. Blame shifting is about responsibility. The two can overlap, but they ask different questions. “You are the angry one” may reflect a projection-like attribution; “I only screamed because you made me” is a responsibility shift. Neither example, standing alone, proves a stable psychological mechanism.
Guilt tripping
Guilt tripping uses guilt, obligation, indebtedness, or anticipated disapproval to influence behavior. Blame shifting can make someone feel guilty, but guilt is not the defining mechanism. A person can shift responsibility without trying to extract compliance, and a person can use guilt pressure without denying their own responsibility.
Invalidation
Invalidation dismisses, minimizes, rejects, or fails to recognize another person’s feelings or experience. A blame shift may include invalidation, such as “You are only upset because you are oversensitive,” but the constructs remain different. Someone can invalidate a feeling while accepting factual responsibility, or shift blame while fully acknowledging that the other person is upset.
Lying
Lying concerns knowingly presenting false information. Blame shifting concerns responsibility. A person can lie in order to shift blame, but blame can also be redirected using true facts selected or framed to avoid accountability. Conversely, a lie may have nothing to do with assigning fault.
Demand-withdraw conflict
A recurring pattern in which one person presses for discussion while the other withdraws has its own relationship-science literature. It can feel like avoidance or responsibility evasion, but it should not automatically be interpreted as manipulation. See Demand-Withdraw Pattern in Relationships: Why One Partner Pushes and the Other Pulls Away for that distinct interaction pattern.
Is Blame Shifting Manipulation?
Sometimes. The term manipulation implies influence that is covert, deceptive, coercive, or strategically arranged to shape another person’s behavior or interpretation. A blame shift can serve that function: redirecting fault may pressure the other person to apologize, drop a complaint, accept consequences that do not belong to them, or stop raising concerns.
But motive should not be invented. A person can reflexively become defensive without consciously planning to manipulate. The more reliable assessment is pattern-based: What repeatedly happens after a concern is raised? Does responsibility become impossible to discuss? Are facts distorted? Is the other person punished for raising issues? Does the same person consistently claim agency for successes but assign responsibility for failures elsewhere? Does the interaction create fear or constrain the other person’s choices?
Intent and impact are separate questions. A pattern can be harmful even when the person using it describes the behavior as automatic. At the same time, harm does not by itself prove a hidden intention. This distinction keeps the analysis behavior-focused rather than turning psychoeducation into mind reading.
When Blame Shifting Appears in Abusive or Coercive Relationships
Blame shifting can be part of psychological abuse, but the label should be based on the wider pattern rather than one argument. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines psychological aggression in intimate partner violence as verbal or nonverbal communication intended to harm a partner mentally or emotionally or to exert control. Blaming can become especially concerning when it occurs alongside intimidation, isolation, threats, monitoring, stalking, sexual coercion, physical violence, financial restriction, or retaliation for asserting autonomy.
A critical review of attributions for intimate partner violence found that perpetrators and victims reported multiple perceived reasons for violent behavior, including anger, control, retaliation, self-defense, jealousy, and other explanations, while also emphasizing methodological limitations. This literature shows why explanations offered inside an abusive relationship should not automatically be accepted as causal facts.
In a coercive situation, communication scripts are not a safety plan. A sentence such as “Let’s stay with the original issue” may be useful in an ordinary conflict and unsafe in a situation where challenging the other person triggers threats or violence. If there is fear, stalking, physical danger, sexual coercion, escalating threats, weapon access, forced confinement, or retaliation for seeking help, priorities shift toward safety, confidential support, local services, and professional advice appropriate to the person’s location.
No article can determine from a short description whether a relationship is abusive. The useful distinction is between identifying a behavior and assessing a broader pattern of power, control, fear, and harm.
How Blame Shifting Can Affect Conflict and Relationships
The immediate effect of blame shifting is often conversational: the original issue stops being examined. Over time, repeated redirection can make repair difficult because the people involved cannot agree on which actions belong to whom. One person may begin overexplaining, collecting evidence, apologizing to restore peace, or avoiding concerns entirely; the other may become increasingly accustomed to accountability conversations ending elsewhere.
Relationship research does not establish a single causal pathway from blame shifting to a specific mental-health outcome. It does show that feeling understood matters during conflict. Across seven studies, Gordon and Chen found that perceived understanding buffered the negative association between conflict and relationship satisfaction. Chronic responsibility redirection can interfere with that kind of mutual understanding because the conversation becomes organized around self-defense rather than comprehension and repair.
The pattern can also distort learning. Accountability gives useful information: what action produced a problem, what should change, and what repair is needed. If every failure is attributed outward, the person has less reason to update their own behavior. If the other person accepts too much responsibility, they may attempt to solve a problem they do not control.
That does not mean every tense argument predicts relational deterioration. People sometimes become defensive, cool down, and return with a more accurate account. The clinically and relationally relevant question is whether responsibility can eventually be discussed and whether repair remains possible.
How to Respond to Blame Shifting in a Non-Abusive Conflict
The goal is not to win a philosophical argument about who is “the blame shifter.” The goal is to keep responsibility attached to observable behavior while leaving room for more than one issue to be true.
Keep the original issue specific
Instead of debating character, name one event or behavior: “I am asking about the message that was sent after we agreed not to send it.” Specificity reduces the number of exits from the conversation. It also makes it easier to acknowledge legitimate contextual information without losing the original question.
Separate issues rather than merging them
If the other person raises a real complaint, you do not have to deny it in order to keep the first issue visible. A useful structure is: “I am willing to talk about my part. I want to finish this question first, then we can take the second issue separately.” This avoids the false choice between accepting all blame and refusing any criticism.
Distinguish explanation from ownership
Ask whether the explanation still leaves the behavior owned by the person who did it. “I was stressed” explains context. “Stress made me do it, so I am not responsible” transfers agency. The same distinction applies to provocation, alcohol, exhaustion, workload, family history, attachment fears, or any other context. Context can matter without functioning as a complete exemption from responsibility.
Do not defend every side accusation in real time
A blame-shifting exchange can generate ten new accusations for every original question. Answering each one may move the conversation farther from the issue. In a safe relationship or workplace, it can be more effective to note the new topic and return to it later: “I heard that concern. Let’s write it down and address it after we finish the deadline question.”
Use records when the stakes are factual and high
In workplaces, shared projects, finances, healthcare, or other high-stakes settings, contemporaneous records can reduce arguments over responsibility. Confirm decisions in writing, keep version histories, document dates, and distinguish observed facts from interpretations. Documentation is a clarity tool, not a substitute for legal or professional advice.
Watch what happens after the conversation
A single defensive response is less informative than what follows. Does the person return later, acknowledge a part, correct the record, apologize, or change behavior? Or does every concern end in counteraccusation, punishment, reality distortion, or fear? Patterns over time are usually more meaningful than isolated phrases.
How to Recognize Blame Shifting in Yourself
The concept is most useful when it can be applied inward as well as outward. A person may sincerely believe they are “just explaining” while repeatedly moving responsibility away from themselves. Self-checking does not require accepting blame for everything; it requires separating one’s own contribution from the rest of the system.
Useful questions include: Did I answer the actual concern before explaining the other person’s behavior? Did I say what I did in concrete terms? Am I using a true fact about the other person to avoid naming my own action? Would I describe the same event differently if the roles were reversed? Am I treating my emotion as evidence that somebody else controlled my behavior? Can I acknowledge my part without adding “but” in the same sentence?
One of the clearest shifts is from “You made me do X” to “I did X after Y happened.” The second form preserves context while keeping agency visible. That change in grammar does not solve every conflict, but it often reveals whether an explanation is functioning as context or as an escape from responsibility.
What Accountability Sounds Like Instead
Accountability is not self-condemnation. It is accurate ownership. It can be partial, proportionate, and specific. A person can say, “I made that decision,” without saying, “Everything is my fault.” They can say, “My behavior hurt you,” without agreeing with every interpretation of the event. They can say, “I was reacting to something real,” while still taking responsibility for the form their reaction took.
A practical accountability sequence is: name the behavior, acknowledge its effect where reasonably clear, explain relevant context without converting it into an excuse, identify what responsibility belongs to you, and state what you will do differently. If the other person also contributed, that can be addressed as a separate layer rather than used to erase the first one.
For example: “I sent the message after we agreed I would wait. That was my decision. I felt pressured by the deadline, but I should have checked with you. Next time I will confirm before sending. I also want to discuss how late changes are handled, because that contributed to the pressure.” This preserves multiple truths without moving one person’s action into somebody else’s ownership.
Common Myths About Blame Shifting
“If someone blames you, they are gaslighting you.”
No. Blaming and gaslighting can overlap, but gaslighting involves a reality-undermining pattern. A responsibility dispute, even an unfair one, does not automatically establish gaslighting.
“Blame shifting always means narcissism.”
No. A behavior is not a diagnosis. The American Psychiatric Association’s overview of narcissistic personality disorder describes NPD as a pervasive, persistent pattern involving multiple features across contexts. Blame shifting may occur in people with many different personalities and in people with no personality disorder. It cannot be used on its own to diagnose NPD.
“If both people contributed, talking about the other person’s role is blame shifting.”
No. Shared responsibility is common. What matters is whether each person can identify their own contribution without using the other person’s contribution as a cancellation device.
“If blame shifting is unintentional, it does not matter.”
Automatic defensiveness can still derail accountability and harm communication. Intent may matter ethically and clinically, but impact and repetition also matter. A useful response can focus on the observable pattern even when motive is uncertain.
“The person who feels guilty must be responsible.”
Guilt is an emotion, not a forensic finding. People can feel guilty for events they did not cause, especially when responsibility is ambiguous or relational pressure is high. Conversely, a person can feel little guilt and still be responsible for an action. Responsibility should be tied to evidence, decisions, and behavior rather than to who feels worse.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is blame shifting in simple terms?
Blame shifting means moving responsibility for your own behavior or contribution onto someone or something else so that your part receives less scrutiny or disappears from the discussion.
Is blame shifting the same as gaslighting?
No. Blame shifting redirects responsibility. Gaslighting undermines another person’s confidence in their perception, memory, interpretation, or sense of reality. They can occur together, but neither term should be used as a synonym for the other.
Is blame shifting a form of manipulation?
It can be. Repeated blame shifting may be used to pressure another person, evade consequences, preserve control, or end accountability. It can also emerge from defensiveness without a clearly deliberate strategy. The pattern and function provide more information than assuming motive from one exchange.
Can blame shifting be unintentional?
Yes. Defensive habits and self-protective attributions can operate quickly and without a carefully planned intention. That does not make the behavior harmless, and it does not prove that every blame shift is unconscious. Intent usually cannot be determined from a single phrase.
Is blame shifting emotional abuse?
A single blame shift does not establish emotional abuse. In a repeated pattern that includes intimidation, punishment, coercive control, reality distortion, threats, isolation, or systematic transfer of responsibility, blaming can be one component of psychological abuse. Assessment depends on the broader context, pattern, power dynamics, and safety.
Why do some people blame others for everything?
There is no single answer. Research supports self-protective attributional tendencies, links between externalization of blame and other emotional processes in some samples, and strategic uses of denial or blaming in some abusive contexts. Individual motives still require case-specific evidence rather than a generic label.
What if the other person really did contribute to what happened?
Then their contribution can be addressed. Accountability is not a zero-sum contest. One person’s responsibility does not require the other person to be innocent of every mistake, and another person’s mistake does not erase the first person’s action.
How should I respond when someone shifts blame?
In a safe context, return to the specific behavior, separate multiple issues, acknowledge any genuine contribution of your own, and ask that the original issue be completed before moving to another. In a coercive or dangerous context, prioritize safety and outside support rather than relying on communication technique.
The Bottom Line
Blame shifting is best understood as a responsibility pattern: responsibility moves away from a person’s own action and lands elsewhere before that action is adequately acknowledged. It can be a moment of defensiveness, a repeated conflict habit, a manipulative tactic, or one component of a larger abusive pattern. The behavior alone does not reveal a diagnosis or a single motive.
The most reliable distinctions are concrete. Ask what the original issue was, whether responsibility for that issue was addressed, whether additional concerns were used as context or as replacement, whether the pattern repeats, and whether the interaction includes fear, control, punishment, or reality distortion. Those questions preserve nuance without making ordinary conflict invisible and without minimizing patterns that are genuinely harmful.
Related Articles
References
Allen, M. S., Robson, D. A., Martin, L. J., & Laborde, S. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of self-serving attribution biases in the competitive context of organized sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219893995
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). What Is Narcissistic Personality Disorder? https://www.psychiatry.org/News-room/APA-Blogs/What-Is-Narcissistic-Personality-Disorder
American Psychological Association. (2018). Defensiveness. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/defensiveness
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). About Intimate Partner Violence. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from? Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000039
Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2023). The influence of Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender and insincere apologies on perceptions of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(17–18), 9985–10008. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231169751
Klein, W., Wood, S., Forget, A.-A., & Bartz, J. A. (2026a). A historical review of gaslighting: Tracing changing conceptualizations within psychiatry and psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 126, 102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102742
Klein, W., Wood, S., & Bartz, J. A. (2026b). A theoretical framework for studying the phenomenon of gaslighting. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 30(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251342291
Neal, A. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2017). Perpetrators’ and victims’ attributions for IPV: A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(3), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603551
Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002
Scott, K., & Straus, M. (2007). Denial, minimization, partner blaming, and intimate aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(7), 851–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507301227
Smyth, M. R., Teicher, S., & Wilde, D. J. (2024). How does denial, minimization, justifying, and blaming operate in intimate partner abuse committed by men: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 1853–1870. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231196108
Stuewig, J., Tangney, J. P., Heigel, C., Harty, L., & McCloskey, L. (2010). Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.005