Gaslighting in Friendships: Signs, Examples, and What to Do
Updated: 3 days ago
Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.
Gaslighting in friendships is a repeated pattern in which one friend undermines another person’s confidence in their own memory, perception, judgment, or grasp of what happened. It can occur in close friendships, long-standing social circles, online friendships, and friend groups. What makes the concept useful is not the presence of one hurtful sentence or one disputed memory. The important question is whether interactions repeatedly move in the same direction: your account of reality becomes less trustworthy, the other person’s account becomes harder to question, and the imbalance benefits them by reducing accountability or increasing control.
The scientific literature on gaslighting has expanded quickly, but it is still developing. A 2026 historical review in Clinical Psychology Review defines gaslighting as psychological manipulation that causes a person to doubt their sense of reality and notes both areas of consensus and continuing disagreement about the construct. That matters here because the internet often uses “gaslighting” much more broadly than researchers do.
Gaslighting is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis, and “gaslighter” is not a clinical diagnosis for a person. A friend can lie, remember an event differently, become defensive, minimize your feelings, behave selfishly, or communicate badly without the interaction meeting a useful definition of gaslighting. The strongest signal is a sustained pattern of reality-undermining behavior, especially when it becomes increasingly difficult for you to trust your own account while the friend gains room to avoid responsibility, dictate the narrative, or shape what other people believe.
This article focuses specifically on gaslighting in friendships. It explains what the term can mean in this setting, what research actually supports, what friendship-specific patterns can look like, how gaslighting differs from ordinary conflict and neighboring concepts, and what you can do if a friendship is repeatedly eroding your self-trust.
What Does Gaslighting in a Friendship Mean?
A useful contemporary definition centers on epistemic trust: trust in your own ability to know what you saw, heard, remembered, felt, or reasonably inferred. In a 2026 theoretical framework, Klein, Wood, and Bartz propose that close relationships can give another person unusual influence over this kind of self-trust because close others help us interpret shared events, confirm memories, and shape our understanding of ourselves. The framework is theoretical rather than proof of one universal mechanism, but it helps explain why manipulation from a trusted friend can be especially disorienting.
In a friendship, gaslighting may involve repeated denials of shared events, confident reinterpretations of your motives or memory, selective use of group consensus, or insistence that the real problem is your supposed unreliability. The pattern can be subtle because friends routinely correct each other, disagree, tease, remember things differently, and give candid feedback. Those ordinary interactions become more concerning when correction stops being reciprocal and starts functioning as a standing hierarchy: one person is treated as the reliable narrator and the other as chronically confused, irrational, dramatic, or incapable of knowing what happened.
Direct research on gaslighting specifically inside friendships remains limited. That limitation should be stated plainly. Much of the gaslighting literature has focused on romantic relationships, gender-based violence, psychiatry, workplaces, and broader social contexts. A 2025 mixed-methods systematic review found that definitions are often inconsistent and that gaslighting is frequently conflated with broader manipulation. The friendship-specific evidence base is therefore much thinner than popular search language can make it appear.
At the same time, serious victimization in friendships is not hypothetical. A 2023 study of 316 emerging adults developed a Friendship Victimization Scale that included relational and verbal victimization as well as coercive and controlling behaviors. The study was not a gaslighting study, so it cannot tell us how common gaslighting is among friends. It does show that coercive and controlling behavior can occur within friendships and deserves to be studied as a relationship context in its own right.
What the Evidence Says About Friendship, Memory, and Reality-Checking
Friendship matters psychologically because close friends can become important sources of support, identity confirmation, perspective, and shared memory. A systematic review of adult friendship research found that friendship quality and social connection are generally associated with wellbeing, while also documenting substantial gaps in the literature. A relationship that normally functions as a source of orientation can therefore become unusually destabilizing when reality-checking turns one-sided.
The most directly relevant experimental evidence comes from a 2025 study of partner-led memory challenges in close relationships that included both friends and romantic couples. Participants were pressured by a close partner to adopt a different recollection of shared events. The pressure increased acceptance of misinformation and reduced recall confidence. This does not demonstrate that every memory disagreement is gaslighting, and a laboratory memory-conformity paradigm is not the same thing as a sustained abusive friendship. It does provide direct evidence that challenges from a close relationship partner can influence what people later report remembering.
That finding fits a much broader memory literature showing that human memory is socially influenced. For example, experimental research on socially induced false memories shows that interaction with other people can alter later memory reports. This is exactly why a disagreement about memory cannot, by itself, prove gaslighting. People can sincerely remember the same event differently. The relevant distinction is between ordinary fallible memory and a repeated interpersonal pattern that exploits uncertainty to undermine one person’s standing as a knower.
The practical implication is important: certainty is not the test. A person experiencing manipulation may sometimes misremember details, and a friend who behaves manipulatively may sometimes remember accurately. Gaslighting is better evaluated as a pattern of interaction than as a courtroom contest in which one disputed sentence must establish who is right.
Signs of a Gaslighting Pattern in a Friendship
No checklist can diagnose a friendship or establish another person’s motives. The following signs are more useful when they recur, cluster together, and consistently move the relationship toward one person’s self-doubt and the other person’s narrative control.
1. Disputed events repeatedly become proof that your memory is generally unreliable
A normal disagreement stays close to the event: “I remember that differently.” A gaslighting pattern can become global: “You never remember anything correctly,” “You always invent conversations,” or “Everyone knows your memory is terrible.” The shift matters. Instead of negotiating one uncertain detail, the interaction constructs a durable story that you are an unreliable witness to your own life.
2. The friend denies or rewrites events most strongly when accountability is at stake
Pay attention to function. Reality disputes are more concerning when they repeatedly appear after you raise a specific hurt, broken promise, disclosure, boundary violation, or contradiction. The conversation moves from what happened to whether you are competent to say what happened at all. That shift can make accountability structurally impossible.
3. Your emotional reaction is used as evidence that your perception must be wrong
Feeling hurt, angry, anxious, or overwhelmed does not establish that your interpretation is correct. It also does not make your perception invalid. In a gaslighting dynamic, the emotion itself may be turned into disqualification: because you are upset, you are said to be irrational; because you are anxious, your memory is dismissed; because you cried, the friend claims your account cannot be trusted. This is different from calmly disagreeing with your interpretation while still treating you as a credible participant in the conversation.
4. The friend’s version changes, but your questioning is framed as the problem
One day the event never happened. Later it happened, but you misunderstood it. Later still it happened exactly as you remember, but it was “obviously a joke.” Any one of these explanations could be true in a messy interaction. A recurring sequence of incompatible explanations becomes more significant when each new version preserves the same conclusion: the friend remains beyond accountability and your questioning becomes the supposed defect.
5. Mutual friends are used as an authority over your own experience
Friend groups create opportunities for social corroboration, but group agreement is not infallible. A friend may appeal to others — “Ask anyone; everyone thinks you’re imagining this” — or selectively retell events to establish a dominant group narrative. This is not automatically gaslighting, and involving other people can sometimes be a healthy attempt to resolve uncertainty. It becomes concerning when social consensus is repeatedly weaponized to make you distrust your own perception or fear social exclusion if you disagree.
6. Screenshots, texts, or prior messages are treated asymmetrically
Digital communication can sometimes help clarify what was said, but records do not eliminate interpretation. In a manipulative pattern, your evidence may be dismissed as irrelevant while selectively cropped messages, deleted context, or old statements are treated as decisive when they support the friend’s account. The key sign is not possession of screenshots; it is a one-sided rule for what counts as evidence.
7. You increasingly rely on the same friend to tell you what is real
Over time, repeated reality challenges can produce a paradox: the person undermining your confidence becomes the person you consult to decide whether your reactions, memories, or judgments are reasonable. The 2026 theoretical framework describes this kind of dependence as part of the possible cycle through which epistemic leverage grows. In a healthy friendship, perspective-taking expands your judgment. In a harmful pattern, it can narrow your confidence until you feel unable to evaluate ordinary situations without the other person’s approval.
8. Repair becomes impossible because only one person is allowed to be a credible narrator
Healthy conflict can include disagreement, defensiveness, imperfect apologies, and unresolved differences. It still leaves room for both people to contribute to the account of what happened. A gaslighting pattern often blocks that reciprocity. If every conflict ends with the same premise — that your memory, motives, emotions, or perception are inherently defective — there is no shared basis for repair.
Examples of Gaslighting in Friendships
Examples are most useful when they show a pattern and context. A single phrase can be rude, dismissive, defensive, or inaccurate without being gaslighting.
Example 1: The broken confidence
You tell a close friend something private and ask them not to share it. Days later, a mutual friend references the information. When you ask what happened, your friend first says you never told them it was confidential. You point out that you remember explicitly asking. They then insist you have a habit of “inventing rules after the fact,” bring up unrelated occasions when you forgot details, and conclude that your memory cannot be trusted. If this same structure repeats whenever you raise a breach of trust, the issue is larger than one disputed sentence: your alleged unreliability is being used to neutralize accountability.
Example 2: The group-chat rewrite
A friend posts a cutting comment about you in a group chat, then deletes it. When you address it privately, they say it never existed. Later they say you took an innocent joke literally. Then they tell the group you are accusing them of things because you are “spiraling again.” A deleted message does not by itself prove a gaslighting pattern. The concerning feature is the repeated movement from denial to reinterpretation to a broader campaign against your credibility.
Example 3: The perpetual misunderstanding
Whenever you tell a friend that something they did hurt you, the conversation ends with a lesson about your supposed inability to understand social situations. They rarely discuss the original behavior. Instead, every incident becomes new evidence that you are “too sensitive,” “confused,” or “bad at reading people.” Emotional invalidation alone is not identical to gaslighting. It becomes closer to gaslighting when the invalidation systematically attacks your ability to know what occurred and is used to replace the original issue.
Example 4: The shifting plan
You and a friend agree to meet at 6:00. They arrive at 7:00 and insist the plan was always 7:00. A scheduling mix-up is ordinary life. If you later find the 6:00 message and your friend says, “Fine, but you knew I meant 7:00,” that can still be defensiveness. If similar incidents accumulate and the friend repeatedly insists that records, recollection, and context matter only when they support their version, while telling you that you are chronically confused, the larger pattern becomes more informative.
Example 5: The social-history revision
A friendship deteriorates, and one person begins telling mutual friends that you were always unstable, jealous, or unreliable. Past events are retold so that every conflict appears to have had the same cause: you. This may involve gossip, blame shifting, reputation management, or relational aggression rather than gaslighting. It becomes gaslighting when the same narrative is repeatedly fed back to you as proof that your own recollection of the friendship cannot be trusted and that you should surrender your interpretation to the group’s constructed version.
What Gaslighting Is Not
The term loses usefulness when it becomes a synonym for every difficult interaction. Scientific reviews have specifically identified conflation with neighboring constructs as a problem. The distinctions below protect the meaning of the concept and reduce unnecessary pathologizing.
Gaslighting vs. disagreement
Disagreement means two people hold different views, interpretations, or memories. Both can be sincere. A friend saying, “I saw it differently,” is not gaslighting. The interaction becomes more concerning when disagreement repeatedly turns into an attack on your general capacity to perceive or remember reality, especially in a way that preserves the other person’s power or removes accountability.
Gaslighting vs. lying
Lying is intentionally stating something false. Gaslighting can involve lies, but a lie does not necessarily aim to make you distrust your own perception. Someone can lie to conceal what they did while leaving your cognitive competence untouched. Gaslighting is narrower: the manipulation is organized around destabilizing your confidence in knowing.
Gaslighting vs. emotional invalidation
Invalidation dismisses or minimizes another person’s feelings or experience. “You’re overreacting” can be invalidating. It is not automatically gaslighting. The boundary is crossed more clearly when invalidation is used to argue that your emotions prove you cannot accurately perceive what happened, and this becomes a repeated relationship pattern.
Gaslighting vs. blame shifting
Blame shifting redirects responsibility: “I only yelled because you provoked me.” It can coexist with gaslighting, but it is a distinct tactic. Gaslighting specifically attacks confidence in reality, memory, or judgment. A person can shift blame without trying to make you doubt what happened.
Gaslighting vs. guilt tripping
Guilt tripping uses guilt to influence behavior: “If you cared about me, you would do this.” That is manipulation, but it is not necessarily reality manipulation. A friendship can contain guilt-based pressure without gaslighting.
Gaslighting vs. projection
Projection generally refers to attributing one’s own unwanted feelings, motives, or traits to someone else. Calling you selfish while behaving selfishly may be projection, hypocrisy, accusation, or something else. It becomes a gaslighting issue only if the pattern is also used to destabilize your confidence in your own perception of events.
Gaslighting vs. DARVO
DARVO — deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender — describes a response pattern that can occur after a person is confronted with wrongdoing. It may overlap with gaslighting, but the concepts have different owners and mechanisms. A DARVO response can include reality distortion, yet not every denial, attack, or reversal is gaslighting.
Gaslighting vs. silent treatment
The silent treatment involves withdrawing communication, often in a punitive or controlling way. It can be harmful, but silence is not the same process as manipulating someone into doubting reality. A temporary pause to regulate emotion is also not the silent treatment simply because one person stops talking for a while.
Gaslighting vs. coercive control
Coercive control is a broader pattern of domination that can involve monitoring, isolation, restriction, intimidation, financial control, threats, and other behaviors. Gaslighting can be one component of a coercive pattern, but the terms are not interchangeable. Friendship dynamics can contain controlling behavior, yet legal definitions of coercive control vary by jurisdiction and are often written around specific relationship categories.
Why Gaslighting Can Be Especially Confusing Between Friends
Friendship is often voluntary, informal, and less publicly structured than marriage, family, employment, or healthcare. That informality can make harmful dynamics harder to name. There may be no obvious rulebook for what one friend “owes” another, and a person can dismiss concerns by saying the relationship is being taken too seriously. Yet psychologically important friendships can involve years of shared history, intimate disclosure, social identity, mutual networks, and practical dependence.
Research on adult friendship emphasizes that friendship quality is meaningfully connected with wellbeing. In a 2023 systematic review of 38 studies, friendship quality and socializing were among the friendship variables associated with wellbeing. This does not mean a difficult friendship automatically harms mental health, and it does not establish effects specific to gaslighting. It does help explain why deterioration in a close friendship can matter deeply rather than being “just friendship drama.”
A friend may also occupy several roles at once: confidant, witness to your history, member of your social group, source of advice, roommate, collaborator, or connection to other relationships. The more domains one relationship spans, the more opportunities there are for one person’s account to become socially influential. That is a plausible mechanism, not a diagnosis of manipulation.
Possible Effects of Repeated Gaslighting in a Friendship
The most characteristic effect is erosion of self-trust. You may start replaying conversations, checking messages compulsively, asking other people to verify ordinary events, apologizing before you know whether you did anything wrong, or hesitating to raise concerns because you expect the discussion to end with your credibility on trial.
Evidence about consequences comes mainly from settings other than friendship. In a qualitative study of 65 people who self-identified as having experienced gaslighting in romantic relationships, participants described diminished sense of self and mistrust of others, among other outcomes. Because that study involved romantic relationships and a self-selected sample, those findings should not be treated as a prevalence estimate or automatically generalized to friendships.
The 2025 close-relationship memory experiment adds a narrower cognitive finding: pressure from friends or romantic partners increased misinformation acceptance and reduced recall confidence. Together, these studies make self-doubt and disrupted trust plausible consequences of repeated reality manipulation, while still leaving major unanswered questions about prevalence, duration, individual differences, and friendship-specific recovery.
Some people also experience anxiety, shame, social withdrawal, difficulty making decisions, or fear of being seen as dramatic or unstable. Those experiences are real, but they are not unique markers of gaslighting and can arise from many forms of relationship stress. If symptoms become persistent or interfere with daily functioning, a qualified mental health professional can help assess the symptoms themselves without requiring you to prove a label for the friendship first.
What to Do If You Think a Friend Is Gaslighting You
The most useful response is usually to move away from proving a label and toward observing behavior, protecting your self-trust, and deciding what conditions you require for continued contact. You do not need certainty about another person’s motives to respond to a pattern that is harming you.
Start with specific events rather than a global accusation
Write down one or two concrete incidents in plain language: what was agreed, what was later denied, what evidence exists, and what happened when you tried to clarify it. “On Tuesday we agreed not to share this; on Friday you said no agreement existed” is easier to evaluate than “You always gaslight me.” Specificity also reduces the chance that ordinary conflict gets mislabeled.
Keep records when they are useful, not as a full-time investigation
Messages, dates, and brief contemporaneous notes can help you orient yourself when a pattern repeatedly leaves you confused. The goal is not to build an endless prosecution file or to make perfect memory a condition of self-respect. Documentation is useful when it reduces confusion and helps you see patterns; it becomes less useful when checking and rechecking consumes your attention.
Reality-check with someone outside the immediate conflict
A trusted person, therapist, counselor, or other neutral support can help separate observable events from interpretations. Give them the specific interaction rather than only the label. Outside perspective is especially useful when the friend group itself is part of the dispute.
Use a boundary around the interaction, not a debate about your sanity
A boundary can focus on what you will do: “I’m willing to discuss what happened, but I’m not continuing a conversation where my mental stability is used to dismiss the issue.” Another version is: “We remember this differently. I’m not going to keep arguing about whether I’m capable of remembering anything at all.” The purpose is not to deliver a perfect script that changes the other person. It is to define the conditions under which you will remain in the conversation.
Watch what happens after a clear request for repair
Friendships survive plenty of bad moments when both people can revise, apologize, clarify, and change behavior. A useful question is whether the relationship becomes more reciprocal after you name a problem. Does the friend make room for uncertainty? Can they acknowledge your account without surrendering their own? Do agreements become more reliable? Or does every attempt at repair produce a stronger attack on your credibility? The response to repair often tells you more than the original argument.
Reduce dependence if one person has become your only reality-check
Re-expand your informational world. Reconnect with other friends, family, colleagues, communities, or professional support where appropriate. Make routine decisions without seeking the same friend’s permission. Maintain private access to your own accounts and communications. These steps are not proof that the friendship is abusive; they restore perspective and reduce one person’s monopoly over interpretation.
Change the friendship if the pattern does not change
A friendship does not have to meet a legal or diagnostic threshold before you reduce contact. Options range from limiting vulnerable disclosures, moving interactions to group settings, taking a structured break, ending one-on-one contact, or ending the friendship. The relevant question is whether the relationship can function without requiring you to surrender basic self-trust.
Seek professional support for persistent effects
Therapy can be useful when the main problem has become chronic self-doubt, anxiety, shame, intrusive rumination, difficulty trusting others, or difficulty deciding what happened. A clinician can work with those symptoms and relational patterns without diagnosing your friend or requiring certainty about the word “gaslighting.”
Communication Advice Is Not Safety Planning
Most difficult friendships do not require a safety plan. Some relationships, however, include threats, stalking, intimidation, blackmail, nonconsensual sharing of private information, physical violence, persistent harassment, or attempts to control access to housing, money, work, or other relationships. In those situations, a better communication script is not a sufficient intervention.
If you are dealing with credible threats, stalking, violence, or another immediate safety concern, prioritize practical safety: preserve important evidence where lawful, secure accounts and devices, tell trusted people what is happening, consider local victim-support resources, and contact emergency services when there is immediate danger. Legal definitions and available protective measures differ by jurisdiction, so local professional advice matters.
The same distinction applies to boundaries. Boundaries can clarify your choices and reduce exposure, but they do not cause a coercive person to become safe. If setting a boundary predictably produces escalation, plan around the escalation rather than assuming that firmer wording will solve it.
Can a Friendship Recover After Gaslighting?
Sometimes. Recovery requires more than the targeted person becoming better at arguing their case. A friendship has a chance to repair when the pattern itself changes: reality disputes become specific rather than global attacks on credibility; both people can tolerate uncertainty; the friend who caused harm can acknowledge behavior without immediately reversing blame; agreements become observable and consistent; and the relationship no longer depends on one person being the permanent authority on what is real.
Repair is less plausible when every attempt to discuss the pattern becomes further evidence that you are unstable, vindictive, oversensitive, or incapable of remembering. A friendship cannot become epistemically mutual while one person’s credibility is structurally disqualified.
Ending a friendship can also carry grief, guilt, loneliness, and social consequences, especially when mutual friends are involved. Those costs do not prove that leaving was wrong, just as staying does not prove the relationship is healthy. The decision is usually clearer when you evaluate the repeated pattern, its impact, the friend’s response to repair, and your practical safety rather than trying to reach perfect certainty about the label.
Scientific Status: What We Know, What Is Preliminary, and What Remains Unclear
Established evidence: Human memory is reconstructive and socially influenced; close others can affect memory reports; harmful and controlling behavior can occur within friendships; and gaslighting is now recognized in the academic literature as a form of psychological manipulation centered on destabilizing confidence in reality.
Preliminary evidence: Experimental work has begun testing gaslighting-relevant memory challenges in close relationships that include friends, but the field is young. Friendship victimization measures also capture coercive and controlling behavior, yet they do not establish the prevalence of gaslighting as a distinct friendship phenomenon.
Plausible interpretation: A trusted friend may have greater “epistemic leverage” because closeness gives their judgments special weight. This mechanism is theoretically well motivated and consistent with social-cognitive research, but the current framework should not be treated as a settled causal model for every case.
Contested or unsettled: Researchers still debate the exact boundaries of gaslighting, how much intentionality the definition requires, which tactics are central versus optional, and how the concept should be measured across contexts. Search-language definitions are often broader than scientific definitions.
Popular terminology: Labels such as “toxic friend,” “narcissistic gaslighting,” and many social-media checklists are not clinical diagnoses. They may help people describe experiences, but they should not be used to infer a personality disorder or motive from a small number of interactions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a friend gaslight you?
Yes. Contemporary theory treats gaslighting as a close-relationship phenomenon rather than something restricted to romantic partners, and a 2025 experimental study included friends as well as couples. Direct friendship-specific field research is still limited, so claims about prevalence or a unique “friendship gaslighting profile” would go beyond the evidence.
Is “you’re too sensitive” always gaslighting?
No. It can be dismissive or invalidating, but a phrase alone does not establish gaslighting. The phrase becomes more relevant when it is part of a repeated pattern used to discredit your perception, erase specific events, or establish that your emotional reactions make you incapable of knowing what happened.
Is lying the same as gaslighting?
No. Lying is broader. A lie can conceal information without making you doubt your own cognitive competence. Gaslighting is more specifically organized around destabilizing confidence in memory, perception, judgment, or reality.
What if my friend genuinely remembers it differently?
That is possible and common. Memory-conformity research shows that recollections are fallible and socially influenced. Look at how the disagreement is handled. A sincere memory difference can leave room for uncertainty: “We remember this differently.” A gaslighting pattern repeatedly converts uncertainty into a hierarchy in which only one person is allowed to be credible.
Can gaslighting be unintentional?
Intent is one of the contested boundaries in the literature. Some definitions emphasize deliberate manipulation; others focus more heavily on the interactional pattern and its epistemic effects. From the outside, intent is often difficult to establish. For practical decisions, you can evaluate the repeated behavior, its impact, and whether it changes after clear feedback without claiming certainty about motive.
Is gaslighting a form of emotional manipulation?
Gaslighting is generally treated as a form of psychological or emotional manipulation, but manipulation is the broader category. Guilt tripping, strategic flattery, pressure, deception, and other influence tactics can be manipulative without specifically undermining a person’s sense of reality.
Does being gaslighted mean I have trauma or an attachment problem?
No. Experiencing gaslighting does not by itself establish a trauma disorder, attachment style, personality trait, or childhood history. Those are separate questions that require their own evidence. Likewise, your boundaries, attachment pattern, or people-pleasing tendencies do not explain why another person engages in manipulative or coercive behavior.
Should I confront a friend who is gaslighting me?
Confrontation is an option, not a requirement. In a lower-risk situation, a specific conversation about observable behavior may clarify whether repair is possible. If there are threats, stalking, intimidation, retaliation, or other safety concerns, prioritize safety planning and support over direct confrontation.
Do I need proof before I distance myself?
No. You can change a friendship because the repeated interaction is harmful, exhausting, or incompatible with your needs. You do not need a diagnosis, courtroom-level proof, or the other person’s agreement with your interpretation to reduce contact.
How can I rebuild trust in my own judgment?
Use multiple sources of orientation rather than one person: contemporaneous notes when useful, trusted outside perspectives, ordinary independent decision-making, and professional support if self-doubt has become persistent. The goal is not to become certain about every memory. It is to restore the ability to tolerate uncertainty without automatically surrendering your judgment to someone else.
The Bottom Line
Gaslighting in friendships is best understood as a repeated reality-undermining relationship pattern, not a label for every lie, invalidating remark, disagreement, or memory mismatch. Friendship can create the trust and shared history that make another person’s perspective unusually influential. That influence is normally mutual and healthy. It becomes harmful when it is repeatedly used to make one person less able to trust their own perception while the other gains freedom from accountability or greater control over the shared narrative.
The science is moving quickly, but friendship-specific gaslighting research is still limited. The strongest approach is therefore both precise and practical: track patterns rather than isolated phrases, distinguish gaslighting from neighboring behaviors, use outside perspective and records where helpful, set boundaries around observable conduct, and treat safety problems as safety problems rather than communication failures.
Related Articles
References
Adair, J. (2025). Defining gaslighting in gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251344316
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
Dryburgh, N. S. J., Martin-Storey, A., Craig, W. M., & Dirks, M. A. (2023). The development and preliminary validation of a measure of victimization within the friendships of emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(7), 2204–2226. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221142631
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
Pezirkianidis, C., Galanaki, E., Raftopoulou, G., Moraitou, D., & Stalikas, A. (2023). Adult friendship and wellbeing: A systematic review with practical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1059057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1059057
Wagner, U., Schlechter, P., & Echterhoff, G. (2022). Socially induced false memories in the absence of misinformation. Scientific Reports, 12, 7725. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11749-w