Gaslighting Examples: What It Can Look Like in Conversations and Relationships
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Gaslighting examples are easy to oversimplify because the same sentence can appear in very different situations. “That never happened” can be a sincere memory disagreement, a lie, defensive denial, or part of a sustained pattern that makes another person doubt their own memory and perception. The phrase itself does not settle the question. The important issue is what the communication is doing over time, how it interacts with evidence and power, and whether it repeatedly positions one person as unable to know what happened.
Current research supports treating gaslighting as a recognizable form of psychological manipulation, while also showing that the construct is still being refined. A 2026 historical review in Clinical Psychology Review found that definitions have shifted substantially across psychiatry, psychology, sociology, healthcare, and public discourse. It identified a recurring modern core: the target is treated as epistemically incompetent—as someone whose perception, memory, judgment, or grasp of reality cannot be trusted. The review also emphasized that empirical research remains much smaller than the term’s cultural visibility, with qualitative and case-based work still prominent and quantitative measurement only recently expanding.
A 2025 systematic review of gaslighting in gender-based violence likewise found inconsistent definitions and frequent conflation with broader manipulation. That matters for an examples article. A useful example should show the reality-undermining feature of gaslighting rather than simply attaching the label to any hurtful, dishonest, invalidating, controlling, or defensive behavior.
Gaslighting is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis, and “gaslighter” is not a clinical diagnosis. This article therefore describes behaviors and interaction patterns. It does not diagnose a person from a quotation, checklist, argument, personality trait, or relationship story.
What Makes an Example a Gaslighting Example?
The clearest contemporary psychological model centers on attacks against a person’s ability to know reality. In the theoretical framework developed by Klein, Wood, and Bartz, gaslighting becomes possible because people normally rely on trusted others to help interpret shared events, verify self-views, and make sense of ambiguous situations. In a gaslighting dynamic, that ordinary epistemic trust can be used against the target.
For practical purposes, a strong gaslighting example usually contains three elements together. First, there is a claim about reality: what happened, what was said, what was agreed to, what evidence means, or whether a perception is trustworthy. Second, the other person does more than disagree; they undermine the target’s capacity to know, remember, interpret, or judge. Third, the interaction functions as part of a pattern or a wider relationship dynamic rather than standing alone as one ordinary mistake, misunderstanding, or conflict.
Recent measurement work supports this emphasis. The Gaslighting Relationship Exposure Inventory, tested in Israeli and U.S. community samples, includes repeated partner behaviors such as denying things the target remembers, making the target question memory, and insisting that the target misunderstands or distorts situations. The measure was strongly associated with psychological abuse but only weakly associated with several other forms of intimate partner violence, supporting the idea that gaslighting overlaps with psychological abuse without being interchangeable with every abusive or unconstructive behavior.
Gaslighting Examples in Conversations
Repeated denial plus an attack on memory
Imagine that two people agree by text that one will pick the other up at 6:00 p.m. The pickup happens at 8:00. When the delay is raised, the response is: “We never said six. You do this all the time—you remember conversations that never happened.” When the text thread is shown, the response changes to: “You must be reading it wrong. I’m worried about how confused you’ve been lately.”
The late arrival is not what makes this example gaslighting. The reality-undermining sequence is the important part: denying the agreement, attacking the other person’s memory, then treating contradictory evidence as further proof that the person cannot interpret reality. A single mistaken recollection would not establish that pattern. Repetition and the treatment of evidence matter.
Rewriting an agreement after the fact
Two partners decide that neither will make a major purchase from a shared account without discussing it first. One later spends a large amount and says, “That was never our agreement. You said I could spend what I wanted. You keep inventing rules and then blaming me for breaking them.” Notes from the earlier conversation are dismissed as “your version of things.”
This could begin as ordinary defensiveness or dishonesty. It becomes more recognizably gaslighting when the repeated response is not merely “I disagree about what we decided,” but “your memory and interpretation are fundamentally unreliable,” especially when records or consistent prior evidence are repeatedly neutralized rather than considered.
Turning evidence into evidence of unreliability
A person saves messages because prior conversations have repeatedly been denied. When they show the messages, the response is: “The fact that you keep screenshots proves how obsessive and unstable you are. A normal person wouldn’t need evidence.” The content of the messages is never addressed. Instead, the act of checking reality is reframed as proof that the person cannot be trusted to interpret reality.
This is a particularly important pattern because documentation does not automatically end gaslighting. In some dynamics, evidence is incorporated into the reality-undermining story: the target is portrayed as paranoid for keeping records, manipulative for asking for clarification, or irrational for wanting consistency.
Using an emotional reaction to discredit the original event
After weeks of contradictory explanations, one partner becomes visibly upset and says, “I know what I heard.” The response is: “Look at you. This is exactly what I mean. You’re hysterical. You can’t even have a normal conversation, so how could anyone trust your version of what happened?”
Calling someone “too emotional” can be invalidating without being gaslighting. The gaslighting feature appears when the emotional reaction is used as a reason to erase or disqualify the person’s factual claim. The conversation shifts from “What happened?” to “Your reaction proves you are incapable of knowing what happened.”
Creating a false social consensus
A friend says, “Everyone in the group thinks you’re imagining this. They all told me you twist things.” When the person checks privately, the others deny saying that. The friend responds, “Of course they’re denying it to you—they don’t want to set you off.” Whatever the person learns is absorbed into the same conclusion: their reading of the social situation cannot be trusted.
Invoking other people is not automatically gaslighting. People sometimes accurately report group feedback. The pattern becomes more concerning when social consensus is fabricated, distorted, or made impossible to verify and is repeatedly used to isolate someone from independent reality checks. This can overlap with triangulation or coercive control, but those are separate constructs.
Changing the record, then denying that it changed
A person repeatedly changes calendar entries, removes messages, or moves important items and then insists the other person is careless or forgetful. When the target notices a pattern, the response is, “You’re losing things again. You’ve always had a terrible memory.” Later, even corroborating evidence is dismissed as another sign of confusion.
This resembles the classic cultural image of gaslighting because the manipulation concerns observable reality itself. Yet even here, one missing object is not proof. People misplace things, apps sync incorrectly, and memories fail. The relevant pattern is deliberate or repeated reality distortion combined with pressure to distrust one’s own cognition.
Gaslighting Examples in Romantic Relationships
Romantic relationships are the best-studied interpersonal context. A 2023 qualitative study of 65 adults who self-identified as having experienced gaslighting in romantic relationships described gaslighting within relationships that often contained both affectionate and abusive behavior over time. Participants reported diminished sense of self and mistrust, although the study was a self-selected qualitative sample and cannot establish prevalence or diagnose any individual relationship.
The argument that keeps changing shape
During a recurring conflict, one partner first says, “I never told you I was going there.” When a message shows that they did, the response becomes, “You knew I was joking.” When earlier context shows it was presented seriously, the response changes again: “You always take everything literally because you don’t understand people.” The specific explanation moves each time, but the endpoint remains fixed: the other person is portrayed as cognitively defective.
Changing an explanation can simply reflect poor memory, embarrassment, or defensive reasoning. In a gaslighting pattern, however, each contradiction is used to deepen the target’s self-doubt rather than to revise the speaker’s own account.
The private insult that becomes a story about instability
One partner makes a cutting remark in private. Later, when it is discussed, they say, “I never said that. You hear attacks everywhere because you’re insecure.” If the target refers to similar past incidents, the partner replies, “This is why no one can talk to you—you create a whole reality where everyone is against you.”
The insult itself may be emotional mistreatment. What makes the gaslighting component distinctive is the attack on the target’s ability to perceive speech and social meaning. The conversation is no longer only about whether the remark was cruel; it becomes an argument that the target cannot reliably know what was said at all.
Concern used to remove decision-making authority
A partner repeatedly contradicts prior financial conversations and then says, “You’ve been so confused lately that I should probably handle the accounts. You keep remembering things wrong.” If this is paired with restricting access to money, monitoring spending, or isolating the other person from information, the situation may also involve coercive control. Gaslighting can be one tactic inside a broader pattern, but it is not a synonym for coercive control.
A sociological account by Paige Sweet emphasizes that gaslighting can operate through power differences and social stereotypes, especially when a target’s credibility is already easier to undermine. This perspective is particularly relevant when accusations of irrationality, instability, or incompetence draw force from gender, race, sexuality, disability, immigration status, or institutional authority. It should be understood as one influential framework within a literature that remains interdisciplinary.
Gaslighting Examples in Families and Friendships
A parent repeatedly erases a shared event
An adult child describes a specific childhood incident. A parent answers, “That never happened. You’ve always had an overactive imagination.” Months later, when another relative remembers the incident, the parent says, “They only agree with you because you pressured them. You have always rewritten this family’s history.”
Family members can genuinely remember the same event differently, especially events from years ago. A memory mismatch is not gaslighting by itself. The stronger gaslighting example is a recurring pattern in which one person not only disagrees about the event but repeatedly attacks the other person’s general capacity to remember and interpret family reality, often while discounting any corroboration.
A friendship where exclusion is made unreal
A person notices that a friend repeatedly tells them gatherings were canceled, while photos later show that the gatherings happened. The friend says, “You must have misunderstood. Nobody is excluding you. You’re just seeing rejection everywhere.” When the pattern is raised again, the friend insists that the photos are from different dates and says the person is becoming “obsessed.”
Exclusion, dishonesty, and social cruelty can occur without gaslighting. The gaslighting element lies in the repeated effort to destabilize the person’s confidence in what they can observe and infer from consistent evidence.
Gaslighting Examples at Work
Workplace research is newer than relationship research. In a 2023 scale-development study involving 679 employees across three samples, researchers developed a 12-item Gaslighting at Work Questionnaire focused on supervisor–subordinate relationships. The field is still comparatively young, so workplace labels should be used with care.
A manager tells an employee on Monday that a report is due Friday. On Thursday, the manager says, “I clearly told you Wednesday. This keeps happening because you don’t listen.” A written project message shows Friday. The manager responds, “You’re misreading the thread. I’m concerned that you can’t follow basic instructions,” and later tells colleagues that the employee has memory problems. If this kind of sequence repeats, it is more consistent with gaslighting than a one-time deadline misunderstanding.
A second example is a supervisor who privately gives one instruction, publicly denies giving it, and uses the discrepancy to portray the employee as unreliable. This can overlap with bullying, retaliation, performance manipulation, or organizational abuse. Those concepts have different definitions and, where employment rights or harassment law is relevant, legal standards depend on jurisdiction. A psychological label should never substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal advice.
What About “Medical Gaslighting”?
Healthcare deserves extra conceptual caution. A 2024 narrative review noted that “medical gaslighting” is widely used but poorly standardized and proposed medical invalidation as a broader concept that can include experiences of dismissal without assuming a clinician is intentionally trying to destabilize a patient’s reality.
For example, a patient reports recurring pain and is told, “Your tests are normal, so your symptoms cannot be real.” That response may be dismissive, clinically mistaken, biased, or invalidating. It does not automatically prove interpersonal gaslighting. The term fits more closely when a pattern goes beyond diagnostic disagreement and repeatedly attacks the patient’s credibility or capacity to know their own experience in ways that distort the record or exploit authority.
Medical uncertainty is real, tests have limits, symptoms can have multiple explanations, and clinicians can disagree in good faith. The safest conceptual approach is to separate disagreement about diagnosis from invalidation, negligence, bias, communication failure, and deliberate reality manipulation rather than collapsing them into one label.
Gaslighting Phrases: Why Context Changes the Meaning
Common public examples include statements such as “That never happened,” “You’re imagining things,” “You always remember things wrong,” or “It’s all in your head.” The National Domestic Violence Hotline describes patterns such as countering a person’s memory, blocking or diverting, withholding, and trivializing in abusive relationships. These examples are useful for recognizing possible tactics, but a sentence still has to be interpreted in context.
“I never said that” may be a lie, a genuine memory error, or gaslighting. “You’re too sensitive” may be invalidation, defensiveness, contempt, or part of gaslighting. “Everyone agrees with me” may be a truthful report, social pressure, triangulation, or a fabricated consensus used to undermine reality. The phrase is evidence about the interaction; it is not a diagnosis of the interaction.
A stronger question is: What happens when the other person encounters disagreement or evidence? Do they acknowledge uncertainty? Can their account change in response to facts? Is the conversation still about the event, or does it repeatedly become a case against your ability to know anything reliably? Gaslighting becomes more plausible when the second pattern is persistent.
Examples That Are Often Called Gaslighting but May Be Something Else
Online use of “gaslighting” is broader than the most defensible scientific core. The 2026 historical review explicitly distinguishes gaslighting from reasonable disagreement, lying, coercive control, abuse, intimate partner violence, and conformity. The distinctions below therefore matter even when several behaviors occur in the same relationship.
Disagreement
Two people can remember an argument differently. One says the conversation felt hostile; the other says it felt tense but not hostile. They may each be interpreting the same event through different perspectives. Disagreement becomes closer to gaslighting when one person repeatedly turns the disagreement into proof that the other person is incapable of perceiving or remembering reality.
Lying
A lie is a false statement. Gaslighting can involve lying, but its distinctive target is the other person’s confidence in their own reality-testing. “I did not send that message” may be a lie. “I did not send that message, and the fact you believe you saw it proves your memory is failing” adds the epistemic attack characteristic of gaslighting. For the dedicated differential, see Gaslighting vs Lying: When Dishonesty Becomes Reality Manipulation.
Emotional invalidation
Invalidation dismisses, minimizes, or rejects another person’s feelings or experience. “You have no reason to be upset” can be invalidating. It becomes more specifically gaslighting when the person’s feeling is used to discredit their ability to know what happened: “You are upset because you invent things; your emotions prove your memory is wrong.”
Projection and blame shifting
Projection generally refers to attributing one’s own unwanted feelings, motives, or traits to someone else. Blame shifting moves responsibility away from oneself and onto another person. Either can appear alongside gaslighting, but neither requires an attack on the target’s ability to know reality. A person can shift blame while openly agreeing about the facts.
Guilt tripping
Guilt tripping tries to influence behavior through guilt. “After everything I do for you, you should come with me” is manipulative pressure, but it is not automatically gaslighting. If the tactic also rewrites events and attacks memory—“I have never pressured you; you only think that because you are ungrateful and confused”—the interaction may include both guilt induction and gaslighting.
DARVO
DARVO means deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. It describes a response to confrontation in which a person denies wrongdoing, attacks the confronter’s credibility, and portrays themselves as the victim. Experimental work by Harsey and Freyd found that DARVO framing can influence observers’ judgments in a fictional sexual-assault scenario. DARVO and gaslighting can overlap—especially where credibility is attacked—but they are not synonyms. DARVO is organized around reversing accountability; gaslighting is organized around undermining reality and epistemic confidence.
Silent treatment
Silence, withdrawal, stonewalling, taking a break, and punitive silent treatment are different phenomena. A person can stop responding without trying to alter someone else’s sense of reality. Conversely, silence can be combined with gaslighting—for example, if a person later insists that a days-long withdrawal never occurred and portrays the other person as delusional for remembering it.
Love bombing and triangulation
Intense affection, rapid idealization, or overwhelming attention are often described as love bombing, while triangulation involves bringing a third person into a relational dynamic in ways that may create pressure, rivalry, or indirect communication. Neither is inherently gaslighting. They become relevant here only when they are used together with reality-undermining behavior, such as fabricated third-party claims designed to make someone distrust their own social perception.
Coercive control
Coercive control is a broader pattern of domination that can include isolation, monitoring, restriction, threats, deprivation, and control over everyday life. Gaslighting may be one tactic within such a pattern, but someone can experience gaslighting without the full pattern of coercive control, and coercive control can occur without gaslighting. In a coercive or abusive situation, communication technique alone is not a safety plan. For the broader control pattern, see Coercive Control: Patterns of Domination, Isolation, Monitoring, and Restriction.
A Closer Look at Ambiguous Examples
The hardest cases are not dramatic ones. They are interactions where multiple explanations remain possible. Scientific caution is especially useful here because certainty about another person’s motive is often unavailable.
“You’re too sensitive”
By itself, “you’re too sensitive” is usually better described as invalidation, criticism, or defensiveness. It becomes closer to gaslighting when sensitivity is repeatedly invoked to disqualify perception: “You think I insulted you only because you are too sensitive; I never said anything like that, and your reaction proves you cannot judge what people mean.” The reality claim and the attack on interpretive competence are what change the example.
“You’re remembering it wrong”
People do remember things differently, and memory is reconstructive. A respectful response can acknowledge uncertainty: “I remember it differently; can we check the messages?” Gaslighting is more consistent with a rigid, repeated asymmetry: one person’s memory is always treated as authoritative while the other person’s memory is pathologized, even when external evidence supports it.
“That’s not what I meant”
Clarifying intent is ordinary communication. A person can genuinely believe they were misunderstood. The interaction becomes more concerning when “you misunderstood” is used systematically to erase plain statements, avoid every contradiction, and build a broader story that the other person cannot understand language, motives, or social reality.
“Everyone thinks you’re the problem”
This could be honest feedback, an exaggeration, triangulation, social intimidation, or gaslighting. The key question is whether “everyone” is being used as unverifiable authority to destroy confidence in one’s own perception. If every attempt to check the claim is reinterpreted as proof of instability, the structure is more consistent with gaslighting.
Does Gaslighting Have to Be Intentional?
The literature does not fully agree on whether conscious intent is essential. Some definitions emphasize strategic manipulation, while other work allows for behavior that may be goal-directed without being fully conscious. The 2024 GREI validation paper explicitly notes this possibility, and the 2026 historical review identifies disagreement across conceptualizations.
For an examples page, the safest conclusion is that motive should not be inferred from a single exchange. You can describe a repeated reality-undermining pattern without claiming access to another person’s internal intention. Whether a person consciously planned the behavior is a separate question from what the interaction repeatedly does.
Why Repetition and Relationship Context Matter
A one-time contradiction rarely carries the same psychological force as a recurring pattern from someone whose judgment matters to you or who holds social, relational, professional, or institutional power. Theoretical work on gaslighting emphasizes epistemic trust: people routinely depend on close others and trusted authorities to help construct a shared picture of reality. That dependence is normal social cognition, not evidence of gullibility.
The small but growing empirical literature is consistent with the importance of relationship context. In the 2023 qualitative romantic-relationship study, participants described prolonged combinations of affection and abusive behavior rather than isolated phrases. In the 2024 GREI studies, gaslighting exposure was measured as recurring partner behavior rather than a single statement.
This is also why a checklist can mislead. If someone has said three phrases commonly associated with gaslighting, that does not mathematically establish gaslighting. Conversely, a harmful gaslighting pattern might use calm, plausible language rather than stereotyped phrases. Function, repetition, credibility attacks, evidence handling, and power context are more informative than matching words.
Possible Effects When the Pattern Is Sustained
Research on effects is still developing, but several studies report associations with self-doubt, diminished sense of self, mistrust, depression, and poorer relationship quality. The qualitative study by Klein, Li, and Wood linked self-reported gaslighting experiences with diminished sense of self and mistrust of others, while the GREI validation research found associations between gaslighting exposure, depression, and lower relationship quality even after accounting for other forms of intimate partner violence.
These findings do not mean that every person exposed to gaslighting develops a mental health disorder, nor do they allow a reader to infer gaslighting from symptoms in reverse. Anxiety, confusion, self-doubt, sleep problems, depression, and trauma symptoms have many possible causes. Effects are evidence about a person’s experience, not a diagnostic fingerprint of another person’s behavior.
What to Do If These Examples Feel Familiar
Start with description rather than diagnosis. Write down what happened in concrete terms: what was said, what the available evidence shows, what changed across retellings, and whether your ability to remember or interpret events is repeatedly attacked. If keeping records could increase danger in a controlling relationship, do not treat documentation as a universal recommendation. Safety comes first.
A trusted outside perspective can help because gaslighting specifically concerns confidence in reality-testing. That may be a friend, family member, therapist, advocate, union representative, or another appropriate professional depending on the context. The goal is not to build a courtroom case out of every disagreement. It is to regain access to independent information and to notice patterns that are hard to see from inside a confusing relationship.
If the situation includes threats, stalking, isolation, financial restriction, violence, or other forms of coercive control, communication advice and boundary scripts are not substitutes for safety planning. A local domestic-abuse service can help assess options. In the United States, the National Domestic Violence Hotline provides confidential support and safety-planning resources. Elsewhere, use an equivalent local service or emergency resource appropriate to your country.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a clear example of gaslighting?
A clear example is a repeated sequence in which a person denies an event that can be reasonably established, then insists the other person’s memory or perception is defective, and continues to reinterpret contradictory evidence as proof that the target cannot trust themselves. The key is the reality-undermining pattern, not one particular phrase.
Is “I never said that” gaslighting?
Not by itself. It can reflect honest memory disagreement, denial, or lying. It is closer to gaslighting when false denial is repeated and paired with attacks on the other person’s ability to remember, understand, or know what happened.
Is “you’re too sensitive” gaslighting?
The phrase alone is usually better classified as invalidation or criticism. It can participate in gaslighting when sensitivity is used to erase reality—for example, when someone argues that your emotional response proves the event you remember did not happen or cannot be interpreted accurately.
Can gaslighting happen without an obvious lie?
Yes, depending on the definition being used. Gaslighting can involve selective framing, repeated reinterpretation, false social consensus, or attacks on epistemic competence that do not hinge on one easily isolated lie. The research literature still debates boundaries, so it is better to describe the observable pattern than to stretch the label around every manipulative interaction.
Can two people gaslight each other?
Two people can both lie, invalidate, manipulate, or distort events, and reciprocal harmful dynamics are possible. But labeling a relationship “mutual gaslighting” from the fact that both parties disagree is too broad. The concept is most useful when it identifies a pattern of reality-undermining behavior rather than becoming a synonym for high-conflict communication.
Does gaslighting only happen in romantic relationships?
No. Research and theory discuss family, friendship, workplace, healthcare, and institutional settings as well as romantic relationships. Evidence maturity differs by context: romantic relationships have received more direct empirical attention, while areas such as workplace and medical gaslighting are newer and still developing conceptual and measurement standards.
Is gaslighting always abuse?
Many contemporary researchers conceptualize sustained gaslighting as a form of psychological abuse, particularly when it is used to gain control, evade accountability, or degrade another person’s confidence in reality. At the same time, scientific definitions vary, intention remains debated, and the term should not be inferred from one communication error. Describing the pattern precisely is more informative than relying on the label alone.
Is gaslighting a mental health diagnosis?
No. Gaslighting is a behavioral and relational concept, not a DSM or ICD diagnosis. Experiencing gaslighting also does not by itself establish any mental health disorder. Clinical diagnosis requires assessment of the person’s symptoms, history, duration, impairment, differential explanations, and relevant diagnostic criteria.
The Most Useful Way to Read Gaslighting Examples
A useful example does more than sound cruel. It shows how another person’s access to reality is being altered: memories are repeatedly denied, evidence is neutralized, interpretations are pathologized, or social feedback is manipulated until the target is pressured to treat their own mind as the least trustworthy source in the room.
The same words can occur outside gaslighting. People forget, misunderstand, disagree, defend themselves badly, invalidate feelings, lie, project, shift blame, or communicate carelessly. The scientific value of the gaslighting concept comes from keeping it narrower than “someone said something unfair.” Its distinctive focus is sustained interference with epistemic confidence—the ability to trust one’s own perception, memory, judgment, and understanding of shared reality.
That narrower use also matches the direction of the strongest recent scholarship. The 2026 historical review calls for clearer differentiation from neighboring constructs, while the 2025 systematic review documents how easily gaslighting becomes conflated with broader manipulation. Good examples should make those boundaries easier to see, not harder.
Related Articles
References
Adair, J. (2025). Defining gaslighting in gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251344316
Fuss, A., Jagielski, C. H., & Taft, T. (2024). We didn’t start the fire…or did we?—A narrative review of medical gaslighting and introduction to medical invalidation. Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 9, 73. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh-24-26
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., 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
Kukreja, P., & Pandey, J. (2023). Workplace gaslighting: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1099485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1099485
National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). What is gaslighting? https://www.thehotline.org/resources/what-is-gaslighting/
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843
Tager-Shafrir, T., Szepsenwol, O., Dvir, M., & Zamir, O. (2024). The gaslighting relationship exposure inventory: Reliability and validity in two cultures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(10), 3123–3146. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241266942