Effects of Gaslighting: Self-Doubt, Anxiety, Trust, and Mental Health
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Gaslighting can leave a person unsure not only about what happened, but about whether they are capable of knowing what happened. That distinction is central to its psychological impact. Contemporary research increasingly describes gaslighting as a repeated form of manipulation that destabilizes confidence in one's perceptions, memories, interpretations, or judgment. When that process persists, self-doubt can spread into anxiety, difficulty making decisions, reduced agency, mistrust of other people, emotional distress, and broader mental-health problems.
The evidence base has expanded rapidly, but it is still less mature and less standardized than the popular literature suggests. A 2026 historical review in Clinical Psychology Review found major shifts in how gaslighting has been conceptualized across psychiatry and psychology and emphasized continuing disagreement about its boundaries. A 2026 interdisciplinary review of 56 years of gaslighting research likewise found a fragmented literature with inconsistent definitions and measures. A mixed-methods systematic review of gaslighting in gender-based violence identified recurring survivor outcomes including disruption to perception and memory, self-doubt, emotional distress, and social isolation.
Gaslighting is not an official DSM or ICD diagnosis, and "gaslighter" is not a clinical diagnosis for a person. It is a behavioral and relational construct. One disagreement, one memory error, one lie, one invalidating remark, or one changed opinion does not by itself establish gaslighting. The effects discussed here are most relevant to repeated patterns in which manipulation systematically pressures someone to distrust their own access to reality.
For the core definition, signs, examples, and differential boundaries, see What Is Gaslighting? Meaning, Signs, Examples, and What It Is Not.
What the Current Evidence Actually Supports
The strongest conclusion is not that gaslighting produces one fixed syndrome. The evidence supports a cluster of possible cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, and mental-health effects whose strength varies by outcome and study design. Some effects have direct gaslighting-specific evidence. Others are supported mainly by the broader literature on psychological intimate partner violence or coercive control. These evidence bases overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Direct gaslighting research now includes qualitative studies, systematic reviews, cross-sectional quantitative studies, scale-development research, and a preregistered experiment on partner-led memory challenges. For example, a qualitative study of 65 adults who self-identified as having experienced gaslighting in romantic relationships found reports of diminished sense of self and mistrust of others. A 2025 preregistered study of partner-led memory challenges found increased acceptance of misinformation and reduced confidence in targeted recollections. A 2026 cross-context study developing the Gaslighting Behavior Experience Questionnaire found reported gaslighting exposure associated with lower well-being, lower self-esteem, and anxiety. A 2026 study of 567 adults found greater reported gaslighting exposure associated with lower general trust in other people.
Several limitations recur. Much of the quantitative literature is cross-sectional, which means exposure and outcome are measured at the same time. That can establish association but not a clean causal sequence. Qualitative studies can identify recurring lived experiences but cannot estimate prevalence or population effect sizes. Laboratory paradigms can isolate cognitive mechanisms but cannot ethically reproduce the duration, power imbalance, fear, dependency, or cumulative abuse of real-world gaslighting. Even systematic reviews inherit the definitional inconsistencies of the studies they synthesize.
For readers, the practical implication is simple: the psychological effects can be real and serious without pretending that the science is more settled than it is. The most accurate account distinguishes established associations, emerging direct evidence, plausible mechanisms, and claims that remain unproven.
Self-Doubt and the Erosion of Self-Trust
Self-doubt is the effect most closely tied to the construct itself. Gaslighting is not merely disagreement about reality. It is a pattern that pushes a person toward a more global conclusion: that their own ability to perceive, remember, interpret, or judge reality is defective.
A disagreement normally leaves open the possibility that either person may be mistaken. Gaslighting reorganizes that uncertainty around one person. The target is repeatedly positioned as too confused, too emotional, too forgetful, too irrational, or otherwise unreliable to interpret events. Over time, the question can shift from "Which of us remembers this conversation correctly?" to "Can I trust myself at all?"
The current theoretical framework proposed by Klein, Wood, and Bartz describes a possible mechanism using ordinary social cognition. Close relationships normally help people verify self-views and interpret ambiguous experiences. A trusted person's perspective carries informational weight. The authors propose that gaslighting exploits this ordinary reliance, giving a close other what they call epistemic leverage. This is a theoretical model intended to generate testable hypotheses; it is not proof that every gaslighting relationship follows the same cognitive pathway.
The lived experience of reduced self-trust may appear in ordinary decisions long before a person describes it in clinical language. Someone may reread messages repeatedly, ask multiple people whether a conversation was inappropriate, avoid making decisions without reassurance, record events mainly to confirm that they happened, or routinely preface accurate observations with "maybe I'm imagining it." None of these behaviors proves gaslighting. In the context of repeated reality-undermining manipulation, however, they can reflect a relocation of uncertainty from the disputed event to the self.
The systematic review by Adair found self-doubt or loss of confidence among the most commonly discussed psychological outcomes in the gender-based-violence literature it synthesized. That finding is important because it converges with qualitative work and current theory, while still reflecting the limitations of an interdisciplinary literature that has not always used consistent definitions.
Memory Confidence: What Gaslighting Can Affect and What It Has Not Been Shown to Do
Popular descriptions sometimes say gaslighting "destroys memory" or causes someone to "lose their memory." The evidence supports a narrower and more defensible claim. Social pressure and misinformation from a close person can influence what someone later reports remembering and can reduce confidence in specific recollections. Current research does not show that gaslighting causes a generalized neurological memory disorder or permanent loss of memory capacity.
In the 2025 Memory study by Darke, Paterson, and van Golde, friends and romantic couples recalled shared autobiographical events. One member of each pair was instructed to introduce altered details and persist in persuading the other person that the altered account was correct. Participants incorporated some of the misinformation into later recall, omitted some challenged details, became less specific in some descriptions, and showed reduced confidence for targeted memories.
The study also produced findings that guard against simplistic claims. Participants did not show an immediate generalized collapse in self-trust; self-rated memory trust actually increased after the discussion, and measures of self-esteem and mood moved in unexpected positive directions. The authors emphasized that a laboratory interaction cannot reproduce the repeated, emotionally abusive dynamics of real-world gaslighting. Their results provide evidence for memory conformity and event-specific uncertainty under partner pressure, not for instant global psychological deterioration.
This distinction matters because normal human memory is reconstructive. People in healthy relationships can sincerely remember the same event differently. Attention, stress, later information, expectations, and discussion can all alter recollection. A memory discrepancy is therefore not evidence of gaslighting, and being wrong about one detail does not make a person globally unreliable.
Anxiety and Hypervigilant Uncertainty
Anxiety is one of the most frequently reported mental-health correlates of gaslighting. Direct evidence is accumulating. The 2026 cross-context GBEQ study reported associations between gaslighting exposure and anxiety, as well as lower self-esteem and well-being. A 2026 Scientific Reports study of women in romantic relationships also found gaslighting statistically linked with depression, anxiety, and stress within a broader model involving self-silencing. These studies are informative but cross-sectional; they do not prove that gaslighting alone caused the symptoms.
A later 2026 Scientific Reports study of Turkish young adults found greater gaslighting exposure associated with lower mental well-being, lower resilience, less cognitive reappraisal, and greater expressive suppression. Its mediation analysis suggested possible pathways through emotion regulation and resilience. Because the design was observational and cross-sectional, mediation here is statistical rather than proof of a temporal causal mechanism.
There is also a psychologically plausible route from repeated reality-undermining interactions to chronic uncertainty. If a person learns that ordinary observations may be denied, ridiculed, reframed, or used against them, they may begin monitoring conversations, rehearsing explanations, checking evidence, anticipating contradiction, or avoiding statements they cannot immediately prove. In an abusive context, this can resemble hypervigilant attention to interpersonal threat. The exact pathway has not yet been established as a universal gaslighting mechanism.
Anxiety itself is nonspecific. Feeling anxious around someone does not prove they are gaslighting you, and experiencing gaslighting does not automatically mean you have an anxiety disorder. A clinical diagnosis depends on symptom pattern, duration, severity, impairment, and alternative explanations.
Lower Self-Esteem, Reduced Agency, and a Diminished Sense of Self
Gaslighting can move beyond confidence in isolated memories and affect how a person evaluates their own competence and legitimacy. Repeated messages that one's perceptions are defective can generalize into broader doubts: "I cannot judge people well," "I always overreact," "I cannot make decisions," or "I need someone else to tell me what is real."
The qualitative study by Klein, Li, and Wood found a diminished sense of self among participants who described gaslighting in romantic relationships. The study also documented that affectionate behavior could coexist with abusive behavior. That is psychologically important. Harmful relational patterns do not have to be continuously hostile; periods of warmth, closeness, or reassurance can coexist with destabilizing manipulation and may complicate how the relationship is interpreted.
Emerging quantitative evidence points in the same general direction. The GBEQ validation study found greater reported exposure associated with lower self-esteem and lower well-being. Theoretical accounts also emphasize loss of agency as a potential downstream effect: if a person increasingly treats another individual's interpretation as more authoritative than their own, independent decision-making can become harder.
These findings must not be reversed into victim-blaming explanations. Low self-esteem, anxious attachment, people-pleasing tendencies, a history of childhood adversity, or weak boundaries may shape how a person experiences relationships, but none of them explains why another person engages in coercive or manipulative behavior. The presence of gaslighting does not justify diagnosing the target's personality, attachment style, trauma history, or boundary skills.
Trust in Other People and Future Relationships
For the relationship-specific pattern, including signs and response options, see Gaslighting in Relationships: Signs, Examples, Effects, and How to Respond.
Gaslighting can damage interpersonal trust beyond the original relationship. When a trusted person repeatedly denies shared events or attacks another person's credibility, the lesson learned may generalize: closeness itself can begin to feel epistemically risky.
The strongest direct quantitative evidence currently comes from a 2026 Journal of Interpersonal Violence study by Ne'eman-Haviv. In a convenience sample of 567 adults, higher reported gaslighting exposure was associated with lower generalized trust in other people. Social support statistically mediated part of that association. The study's cross-sectional design cannot demonstrate that gaslighting first reduced support and then caused mistrust in that exact sequence, but it supports the idea that the effects can be social as well as intrapersonal.
The qualitative romantic-relationship study also identified mistrust of others among reported consequences. Together, these findings suggest that recovery of trust is not simply a matter of deciding to "trust again." Trust is partly built through repeated predictions about whether other people will respond consistently, respect evidence, tolerate disagreement, and acknowledge mistakes.
After gaslighting, some people may seek unusually high certainty before relying on another person, ask for repeated reassurance, remain guarded during disclosure, or interpret ambiguity as potential manipulation. Those responses can be understandable adaptations to prior experience, but they can also become costly if they persist across safe relationships. The research does not support treating such mistrust as permanent.
Depression, Distress, and Emotional Exhaustion
Depressive symptoms and broader psychological distress appear repeatedly in the literature, although direct gaslighting-specific causal evidence remains limited. The 2026 Scientific Reports study by Aras and Demir-Kaya found gaslighting exposure associated with depression, anxiety, and stress scores. The 2026 study of mental well-being likewise found a moderate negative association between gaslighting exposure and well-being.
The broader psychological-abuse literature is more established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 194 studies on psychological intimate partner violence found substantial associations with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. The authors also rated certainty as limited by common methodological problems, including cross-sectional designs, inconsistent terminology, and sampling limitations. This literature supports taking sustained psychological abuse seriously, but it should not be misrepresented as gaslighting-specific evidence.
Emotional exhaustion can also occur without meeting criteria for a mental disorder. Continually defending one's recollection, reconstructing conversations, searching for proof, anticipating contradiction, or trying to resolve disputes that never become resolvable consumes attention and emotional energy. Some people withdraw from conflict, stop raising concerns, or narrow their behavior simply because the cognitive cost of engagement becomes too high.
Trauma-Related Symptoms and PTSD: Related Evidence, Not a One-Step Conclusion
People exposed to sustained gaslighting, especially within a broader abusive or coercive relationship, may report intrusive recollections, avoidance, sleep disruption, fear, heightened threat monitoring, or other trauma-related symptoms. Those experiences are clinically important. They still need to be distinguished from a PTSD diagnosis.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of coercive control found moderate associations with PTSD and depression. A separate meta-analysis of psychological intimate partner violence also found associations with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. These findings concern broader exposure categories that may include gaslighting but cannot be reduced to gaslighting alone.
Accordingly, the statement "gaslighting causes PTSD" is too broad. Gaslighting can occur within traumatic and coercive environments, and some people exposed to those environments may develop PTSD. Diagnosis depends on the full exposure history and symptom pattern. Distress after gaslighting can also be severe without fitting a trauma-related disorder.
Claims about complex PTSD require additional restraint. The coercive-control meta-analysis found only one eligible study reporting complex PTSD, which was insufficient for a meta-analysis. Current evidence therefore does not support presenting complex PTSD as an established or inevitable consequence of gaslighting.
Confusion and Difficulty Making Decisions
Confusion is a recurring outcome in gaslighting research and reviews. It makes sense at a basic cognitive level: when two accounts of a shared event conflict, uncertainty increases. In healthy disagreement, uncertainty can be negotiated through evidence, mutual fallibility, and revision. In gaslighting, the conflict is repeatedly organized around the supposed unreliability of one person's mind.
Decision-making can become harder when self-trust is repeatedly undermined. Making a decision requires accepting that one's interpretation of available evidence is good enough to act on. If a person has learned to regard their own judgment as inherently suspect, ordinary choices may become dependent on external confirmation.
The theoretical framework on gaslighting places loss of agency at the center of the proposed process, while qualitative research documents a diminished sense of self. Direct longitudinal studies measuring decision-making impairment over time are still limited. Decision difficulty is therefore best described as a plausible and commonly reported effect rather than a universal, quantified consequence.
Social Withdrawal and Isolation
Isolation can be both an accompanying tactic and a consequence. In some abusive relationships, access to friends, relatives, coworkers, money, transportation, healthcare, or communication is actively restricted or made costly. In other cases, the person experiencing gaslighting withdraws because explaining the relationship feels confusing, because they expect not to be believed, or because they have become unsure of their own account.
The systematic review of gaslighting in gender-based violence identified social isolation and relational challenges among recurring survivor outcomes. The 2026 trust study also found social support statistically linked to the relationship between gaslighting exposure and generalized mistrust.
Gaslighting and isolation should not be collapsed into one concept. Isolation is not required for every gaslighting pattern, and isolation can occur in coercive control without gaslighting. Their interaction matters because independent social contact can provide alternative interpretations, emotional support, and reality checks that a closed relationship lacks.
Why the Effects Can Continue After the Manipulation Stops
Ending contact does not instantly reverse a learned pattern of self-doubt. If someone has repeatedly practiced checking their perception against one dominant person, suppressing objections, assuming that uncertainty means they are wrong, or waiting for permission to trust their own judgment, those habits can continue after the original relationship changes.
The qualitative romantic-relationship study found participants describing recovery through separation from the person who had gaslighted them, healthier relationships, and meaningful activities that helped restore a sense of self. Qualitative evidence cannot tell us how long recovery should take or which intervention is optimal, but it supports the possibility that effects persist beyond the immediate interaction.
Persistence does not imply permanence. Self-trust is responsive to new experience. Relationships in which disagreement does not lead to punishment, opportunities to make decisions independently, accurate external records when appropriate, and psychological support can all provide corrective experiences. Gaslighting-specific treatment trials remain sparse, so no single recovery method should be presented as scientifically established for everyone.
For the separate recovery intent, including rebuilding self-trust and relationship trust, see Recovering From Gaslighting: Rebuilding Self-Trust and Relationship Trust.
Gaslighting Does Not Mean Lying, Invalidation, or Every Form of Manipulation
Conceptual boundaries matter because the word becomes less useful if it absorbs every painful interaction. The 2026 historical review explicitly distinguishes gaslighting from reasonable disagreement, lying, coercive control, abuse, intimate partner violence, and conformity. The interdisciplinary review likewise emphasizes definitional fragmentation and the need for clearer boundaries.
Lying can be part of gaslighting, but many lies do not aim to destabilize another person's trust in their own reality. Invalidation can dismiss or minimize a person's feelings or experience without necessarily trying to make them distrust their perception. Projection, blame shifting, guilt tripping, DARVO, love bombing, triangulation, and silent treatment are also distinct patterns. They can coexist with gaslighting, but they should not be used as synonyms for it.
Coercive control is broader still. It describes a pattern of domination that can include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, restriction of resources, threats, and multiple psychological tactics. Gaslighting may operate inside that pattern by weakening self-trust, but coercive control has its own conceptual and safety implications.
What the Effects of Gaslighting Do Not Prove
Feeling anxious does not prove that someone is gaslighting you. Anxiety has many possible causes.
Remembering an event incorrectly does not prove that you are unreliable, and another person remembering it differently does not prove manipulation. Memory disagreement is normal.
One lie, one denial, one insensitive comment, or one invalidating interaction does not establish a gaslighting pattern. Pattern, context, power, and the attempt to undermine epistemic confidence matter.
Self-doubt after a difficult relationship is psychologically meaningful, but it is not by itself a diagnosis. Neither gaslighting exposure nor its effects automatically establish anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, PTSD, complex PTSD, or any personality disorder.
Being affected by gaslighting does not show that a person is weak, gullible, codependent, anxiously attached, traumatized in childhood, or unable to set boundaries. Current theory proposes that gaslighting can exploit normal social-cognitive processes by which people use trusted others to interpret shared reality.
Experiencing gaslighting also does not establish that the other person has narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or any other clinical condition. A behavioral pattern can be described without diagnosing the person who engages in it.
When the Effects Become Clinically Important
If the immediate question is what to do in an ongoing pattern, How to Respond to Gaslighting: Boundaries, Documentation, Safety, and Support separates communication, documentation, boundaries, support, and safety planning.
Psychological effects deserve professional attention when they persist, intensify, or interfere with daily functioning. Relevant problems may include pervasive anxiety, depressive symptoms, marked sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, persistent fear, intrusive memories, avoidance, major loss of confidence, functional impairment at work or school, or difficulty maintaining relationships.
A licensed mental-health professional can assess those symptoms without requiring you to prove that another person is "a gaslighter." Clinical care can focus on what you are experiencing, how it affects your functioning, what other explanations need consideration, and what support fits your situation.
If gaslighting occurs alongside threats, stalking, physical violence, sexual coercion, financial restriction, monitoring, confinement, intimidation, or other coercive behavior, communication advice and safety planning belong to different categories. No boundary script, perfect wording, or assertiveness technique can guarantee that a person using coercive behavior will stop. In such situations, support from a domestic-abuse service, trusted professional, or appropriate local emergency resource may be more important than improving the argument.
Documentation can sometimes help restore confidence in what happened, but it should be used only when safe. In controlling relationships, private notes, devices, cloud accounts, location history, or messages may be monitored. A strategy that is useful in one relationship can create risk in another.
Rebuilding Confidence in Your Own Experience
The evidence for gaslighting-specific recovery techniques is still limited, so practical guidance should avoid pretending there is one validated protocol. A useful goal is not to become perfectly certain or infallible. Human perception and memory remain imperfect. Healthy self-trust means being able to revise a belief when evidence changes without assuming that uncertainty proves you are incapable of knowing anything.
One practical distinction is to separate facts, interpretations, and feelings. "The message was sent at 8:14 p.m." is a factual claim that may be checked. "You ignored me because you wanted to punish me" is an interpretation of motive. "I felt dismissed when you did not respond" describes an internal experience. Another person can disagree with an interpretation, but disagreement does not erase the existence of the feeling.
Another useful process is widening the evidence base. When safe, contemporaneous notes, neutral records, trusted people, or professional consultation can provide reference points outside a manipulative relationship. The purpose is not endless reassurance-seeking. It is to restore a more balanced way of evaluating evidence after one person's interpretation has become disproportionately dominant.
Therapy can address anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, shame, impaired self-trust, and relationship difficulties. The treatment target should be the person's actual symptoms and needs, not a speculative diagnosis of the other person. Where abuse or coercive control is ongoing, psychological treatment and communication work should be integrated with safety considerations rather than substituted for them.
Common Questions About the Effects of Gaslighting
Can gaslighting cause anxiety?
Gaslighting exposure is associated with anxiety in emerging direct studies, including the 2026 GBEQ study and 2026 research on psychological distress. Broader research on psychological intimate partner violence also finds associations with anxiety. These findings do not prove that gaslighting alone causes an anxiety disorder in every person.
Can gaslighting cause depression?
Direct cross-sectional studies report associations between gaslighting exposure and depressive symptoms or lower well-being. The broader psychological-abuse literature also links psychological IPV and coercive control with depression. Depression has many possible causes, so an individual diagnosis cannot be inferred from gaslighting exposure alone.
Can gaslighting cause PTSD?
Gaslighting can occur within psychologically abusive or coercive relationships, and people exposed to those environments may develop PTSD symptoms or meet criteria for PTSD. Meta-analyses of psychological IPV and coercive control find associations with PTSD. Those findings concern broader exposure categories and cannot be attributed specifically to gaslighting alone.
Can gaslighting affect memory?
Yes, in a limited and specific sense supported by experimental evidence. A 2025 partner-pressure study found greater acceptance of misinformation and reduced confidence in targeted autobiographical recollections. Current evidence does not show that gaslighting causes global brain damage, dementia, or a permanent neurological memory disorder.
Does gaslighting damage the brain?
There is no established gaslighting-specific evidence showing that exposure causes a distinct form of brain damage. Chronic stress and trauma are associated with biological and cognitive changes in other research areas, but transferring those findings directly to gaslighting would overstate the evidence. The supported claim is that gaslighting can affect psychological functioning, self-trust, and memory confidence; a specific brain-injury claim has not been established.
Why do people second-guess themselves after gaslighting?
Repeated challenges to perception can shift uncertainty from one event to the person's confidence in their own judgment. Current theory describes this in terms of epistemic reliance and shared reality in close relationships. The mechanism is plausible and increasingly testable, but researchers are still establishing how it develops across time and contexts.
Can gaslighting lower self-esteem?
Emerging evidence supports an association. The 2026 cross-context study linked greater reported exposure with lower self-esteem and well-being, while qualitative work has documented a diminished sense of self. These designs do not establish an inevitable effect or a universal causal pathway.
Can gaslighting make it difficult to trust future partners?
Yes. Qualitative research reports mistrust of others, and a 2026 quantitative study found greater gaslighting exposure associated with lower generalized trust. The research does not suggest mistrust is permanent; later relationships can provide different evidence about safety, consistency, and credibility.
How long do the effects of gaslighting last?
There is no scientifically established recovery timeline. Duration may vary with the length and intensity of the pattern, whether other abuse was present, current safety, social support, prior mental health, and subsequent experiences. Research supports the possibility of effects continuing after a relationship ends, but not a fixed timetable.
Can one incident have psychological effects even if it is not gaslighting?
Yes. A single lie, betrayal, humiliation, denial, or invalidating interaction can be distressing or harmful. The point of preserving the gaslighting boundary is not to minimize isolated harm; it is to describe the specific pattern accurately.
Can gaslighting be unintentional?
The literature does not use one consistent intent requirement. Some definitions emphasize deliberate manipulation, while other scholarly accounts allow patterns whose effects and dynamics matter even when explicit malicious intent cannot be established. Intent remains a debated conceptual boundary, which is why behavior, repetition, context, power, and impact should be considered separately.
Does being affected by gaslighting mean someone is psychologically weak?
No. Theoretical work emphasizes ordinary human processes: people naturally rely on trusted others to verify shared reality, interpret ambiguity, and regulate uncertainty. Those social mechanisms are normal features of close relationships. Gaslighting can exploit them.
Can therapy help with the effects of gaslighting?
Therapy can address the symptoms and functional problems that may follow psychological abuse, including anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, shame, impaired self-trust, and relationship difficulties. Gaslighting-specific treatment trials remain limited, so there is no single protocol that should be presented as uniquely established for gaslighting.
Related Articles
References
Adair, J. (2026). Defining gaslighting in gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 27(4), 1409–1424. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251344316
Aras, E., & Demir-Kaya, M. (2026). The mediating role of gaslighting as a psychological violence between self-silencing and psychological distress. Scientific Reports, 16, 12364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47134-0
Dapperger, E., & Renner, K.-H. (2026). Cross-context gaslighting and the role of victim personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 253, 113623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113623
Darke, L., Paterson, H., & van Golde, C. (2025). Gaslighting and memory: The effects of partner-led challenges on recall and self-perception. Memory, 33(7), 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2533253
Demir Kaya, M., Venkatachalam, K., Cho, J., et al. (2026). Emotion regulation and resilience in the relationship between gaslighting and mental well-being among Turkish young adults. Scientific Reports, 16, 21830. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-54746-z
Dokkedahl, S. B., Kirubakaran, R., Bech-Hansen, D., Kristensen, T. R., & Elklit, A. (2022). The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Systematic Reviews, 11, 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02025-z
Kincaid, P. A., & Stalion, S. C. O. (2026). An interdisciplinary review of the gaslighting literature and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.70103
Klein, W., Li, S., & Wood, S. (2023). A qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 30(4), 1316–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12510
Klein, W., Wood, S., & Bartz, J. A. (2026). A theoretical framework for studying the phenomenon of gaslighting. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 30(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251342291
Klein, W., Wood, S., Forget, A.-A., & Bartz, J. A. (2026). 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
Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O'Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2024). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972
Ne'eman-Haviv, V. (2026). From gaslighting to mistrust in others: A serial mediation model of social support and self-care. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605261438085