Gaslighting vs Lying: When Dishonesty Becomes Reality Manipulation
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Lying and gaslighting can happen in the same conversation, but they describe different psychological acts. A lie is fundamentally about deception: someone presents something as true while believing it to be false, typically with the aim that another person accept it. Gaslighting is more specific. It is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person’s confidence in their own perception, memory, judgment, or grasp of reality is undermined. The most useful distinction is therefore not simply whether a statement is false. It is what the deception is doing to the other person’s ability to know what is happening.
The distinction matters because the word gaslighting is now used far more broadly than the scientific literature supports. The 2026 historical review of gaslighting research found both substantial growth in attention to the concept and continuing disagreement about its exact boundaries. The review nevertheless identifies a core theme across modern accounts: gaslighting attacks a target’s epistemic standing — their confidence that they can perceive, remember, interpret, and form reasonable beliefs about reality.
That means every gaslighting episode may contain deception, denial, distortion, or misleading communication, while every lie is not gaslighting. A person can lie to avoid embarrassment, obtain money, conceal an affair, protect a surprise, exaggerate status, or escape consequences without trying to make another person distrust their own mind. Dishonesty becomes gaslighting when the manipulation is organized around eroding the other person’s confidence in what they know, remember, perceive, or are entitled to conclude.
Gaslighting vs lying: the shortest accurate answer
A lie asks, in effect, “Can I get you to believe this false claim?” Gaslighting asks something more destabilizing: “Can I get you to distrust your own ability to tell what is true?” The first primarily targets a belief. The second targets the person’s confidence in themselves as a knower.
This distinction closely matches the contemporary research literature. In their qualitative study of 65 adults who self-identified as having experienced gaslighting in romantic relationships, Klein, Li, and Wood described gaslighting as an attempt to convince a person that they are not a trustworthy “epistemic agent.” In practical language, the manipulation does not stop at “that did not happen.” It tends toward “you cannot trust yourself to know whether it happened.”
A lie can be isolated. Gaslighting is usually understood as a pattern or process unfolding over time.
A lie aims to make a falsehood believable. Gaslighting aims to make the target’s own perception, memory, judgment, or interpretation feel unreliable.
Gaslighting often uses lies, but it can also use selective truth, denial, contradiction, ridicule, reframing, or attacks on credibility.
A mistaken memory, sincere disagreement, change of opinion, or ordinary communication failure is not automatically a lie and is not automatically gaslighting.
A single sentence can be one tactic within a gaslighting pattern, but an isolated phrase is weak evidence for labeling an entire person or relationship.
What is lying?
Lying has been studied across philosophy, linguistics, communication, and psychology, and there is no single definition accepted without debate. A widely used core definition treats a lie as a statement made by someone who believes the statement is false and intends another person to accept it as true. The Annual Review of Linguistics review by Jörg Meibauer explains why the concept is more complicated than “saying something false”: theories of lying differ over assertion, intention, misleading implications, partial truths, and whether an intention to deceive is always required.
A false statement is not automatically a lie
Suppose two people remember an argument differently. One says it happened on Tuesday; the other sincerely remembers Thursday. At least one memory is inaccurate, but an inaccurate memory is not necessarily a lie. Lying ordinarily requires some relationship between the speaker’s belief and the deceptive presentation of what they say. People can be mistaken, confused, forgetful, overconfident, poorly informed, or working from different evidence.
This is one reason that accusations of lying should not be based merely on contradiction. Human memory is reconstructive, details can be lost, and people often become more confident in interpretations than the available evidence warrants. A factual discrepancy tells you that accounts differ. It does not, by itself, tell you why they differ.
Deception is broader than lying
Someone can deceive without making a straightforward false assertion. They may omit a crucial fact, answer a different question, use technically true wording that creates a false impression, exploit an ambiguity, or allow another person to reach a mistaken conclusion that benefits them. These behaviors may be dishonest or manipulative, but whether they count as “lying” depends on the definition being used. For the gaslighting comparison, the important point is that reality manipulation does not require every individual sentence to be literally false.
People are not reliable human lie detectors
It is also important not to turn this distinction into a hunt for body-language clues. A major meta-analysis of 206 documents involving 24,483 judges found average lie-versus-truth judgment accuracy of about 54% when people made unaided real-time judgments. Research on deception therefore gives little support to confident claims such as “they looked away, so they were lying” or “their voice changed, so I know they were gaslighting.” Observable contradictions and patterns are more informative than folk lie-detection rules.
What is gaslighting?
Gaslighting is a psychological and social construct describing manipulation that destabilizes a person’s trust in their own experience of reality. The 2026 Clinical Psychology Review historical review defines it as psychological manipulation that causes a target to doubt their sense of reality, often with losses of agency and emotional stability. The same review emphasizes that definitions have changed substantially across decades and that the empirical literature remains smaller than the enormous popular interest in the term.
A recent theoretical framework in Personality and Social Psychology Review likewise describes gaslighting as a process that unfolds over time and proposes that ordinary social-cognitive mechanisms can become instruments of reality destabilization in unusual relational conditions. Close relationships can carry special epistemic weight because people normally use trusted others to check interpretations, memories, and self-views. A manipulative person can exploit that ordinary dependence on shared reality.
Gaslighting is not a psychiatric diagnosis. The American Psychiatric Association describes DSM-5-TR as an official classification of recognized mental disorders, while the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 clinical manual provides diagnostic requirements for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Gaslighting is used as a description of behavior, manipulation, relationship dynamics, and abuse in parts of the literature; it is not a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 disorder. Calling someone “a gaslighter” is therefore not a clinical diagnosis.
The central target is epistemic confidence
The clearest conceptual boundary between gaslighting and ordinary lying is the target of the manipulation. If I lie about where I spent fifty dollars, my immediate goal may be to conceal my spending. If I repeatedly deny the transaction, alter the story, insist that you routinely invent financial problems, tell you that your memory is defective, and reinterpret your evidence as proof that you are unstable, the manipulation has moved beyond concealment. Your capacity to know what happened has become part of what is being attacked.
Researchers often describe this as undermining epistemic competence or epistemic agency. These terms sound technical, but they refer to an ordinary human capacity: trusting that you can use perception, memory, evidence, reasoning, and testimony to form beliefs about your own life. Gaslighting becomes especially destabilizing when the target starts treating the manipulator’s version of events as more credible than their own direct experience even when independent evidence supports them.
Does gaslighting have to be intentional?
This is one of the genuine disputes in the literature. Some definitions make deliberate manipulation central. Other accounts focus more strongly on the pattern and epistemic effect, allowing that a person may reproduce gaslighting dynamics while sincerely believing some of the claims they make. The 2026 historical review explicitly discusses the possibility that someone can undermine another person’s sense of reality with a statement they themselves believe — for example, through a deeply held stereotype — while noting that this raises controversy about intent.
That disagreement has an important consequence for the lying comparison. Under many standard definitions, a speaker who sincerely believes a false statement is not lying. Yet sincere belief does not automatically make a communication psychologically harmless, and it does not by itself settle whether a broader pattern should be described as gaslighting. The most defensible approach is to describe the observable behavior and pattern first, then be cautious about claims concerning hidden intent.
When does a lie become gaslighting?
There is no laboratory threshold at which a certain number of lies mathematically turns into gaslighting. The boundary is functional and relational. A lie becomes part of gaslighting when deception is used within a pattern that attacks the other person’s confidence in their own access to reality.
Four questions are especially useful. First, what is the deception trying to accomplish? Concealing a fact is different from making the other person distrust their own ability to know the fact. Second, what happens when evidence appears? Ordinary liars may continue denying, confess, change stories, or evade. Gaslighting patterns often recruit the evidence itself into the attack: screenshots are called fabricated, witnesses are said to be biased, the target’s memory is portrayed as defective, or the target is told that needing evidence proves they are irrational.
Third, does the interaction repeatedly move from the disputed event to the target’s mental reliability? Statements such as “you always imagine things,” “your memory is useless,” or “everyone knows you are unstable” are not automatically gaslighting in isolation, but they show the relevant direction of attack when repeatedly used to defeat reality-based concerns. Fourth, does the pattern create epistemic dependence — a situation in which the target increasingly feels they need the other person to tell them what really happened, what their own motives were, or whether their reactions are legitimate?
These criteria are more informative than asking whether the person told a lie at least once. Repetition alone is also insufficient: a habitual liar can tell many lies without systematically undermining another person’s self-trust. The distinctive feature is the organization of deception around reality control.
Examples: lying, gaslighting, and the gray area between them
Example 1: a lie to avoid consequences
A partner spends money from a joint account and says, “I didn’t buy anything today,” although they know they did. That is a lie if they believe the statement is false and want it accepted as true. It may be selfish, harmful, financially consequential, or part of a wider pattern of dishonesty. By itself, it does not establish gaslighting because it does not yet target the other person’s ability to trust their own mind.
Example 2: denial that turns into reality manipulation
Now imagine the partner is shown the bank transaction and responds, “That charge is not mine. You read statements wrong all the time. Last month you imagined another charge too. I’m worried about how confused you’ve become.” Later, when the purchase is independently confirmed, they insist the confirmation is unreliable and say the questioning itself proves the other person is paranoid. The deception is now doing more than hiding a purchase. It is being used to discredit the target’s capacity to interpret evidence.
One exchange still cannot reveal the entire relationship history, but the mechanism is recognizably closer to gaslighting: the factual dispute is converted into a campaign against the target’s epistemic competence.
Example 3: two people remember the same event differently
Two friends disagree about whether a comment was made before or after dinner. Both are confident; neither has documentation; both may be reconstructing an imperfect memory. This is a disagreement. It is not automatically lying because sincere memory error is possible, and it is not automatically gaslighting because neither person has necessarily tried to make the other distrust their own general capacity to perceive or remember reality.
The distinction remains even if one person becomes irritated or says, “That is not how I remember it.” Disagreement can be unpleasant, rigid, dismissive, or unfair without becoming gaslighting. The term gains precision when it is reserved for the epistemic manipulation pattern.
Example 4: technically true words used to create a false reality
A manager says, “I never promised you the promotion in writing,” after repeatedly making verbal assurances and encouraging an employee to rely on them. The sentence may be literally true. Whether the broader conduct is deceptive depends on the facts. If the manager then insists the employee invented every prior conversation, portrays contemporaneous notes as evidence of obsession, and repeatedly attacks the employee’s memory whenever the issue is raised, the relevant concern shifts from a narrow truth-value question to systematic reality manipulation.
This illustrates why gaslighting and lying cannot be treated as synonyms. Gaslighting can operate through implication, selective framing, denial of context, and attacks on credibility even when a particular sentence is technically accurate.
Example 5: repeated fabrication without epistemic attack
A person repeatedly invents stories about their job, income, travels, and accomplishments. The pattern may amount to chronic dishonesty. Yet if the aim is self-enhancement and the person does not systematically undermine anyone else’s perception or memory, “gaslighting” adds little explanatory value. Frequency of lying is not the same dimension as reality manipulation.
Example 6: a sincerely believed but reality-undermining claim
Suppose someone genuinely believes a stereotype that a certain partner, employee, patient, or family member is “too emotional to know what really happened.” They may sincerely repeat that judgment whenever the person reports mistreatment. Under many definitions of lying, sincere belief means the statement is not a lie. Some gaslighting scholarship nevertheless argues that a pattern can still function as reality-undermining manipulation, especially when social stereotypes are used to strip the target of credibility. Other definitions would require stronger evidence of intention. This is an area where the scientific literature has not reached complete agreement.
Gaslighting is not the same as disagreement, invalidation, projection, or blame shifting
Search language often collapses several relationship concepts into one. That makes the word gaslighting feel intuitive while making it less precise. The constructs can overlap in real interactions, but they answer different questions.
Disagreement concerns incompatible beliefs or interpretations. Two people can disagree sharply without either lying or manipulating reality. Invalidation concerns dismissing, minimizing, or rejecting another person’s feelings or experience. An invalidating response can be hurtful and can appear within gaslighting, but telling someone “I don’t think that reaction fits the situation” is not by itself proof of gaslighting.
Blame shifting moves responsibility away from the person whose behavior is being questioned. Projection, in its broad everyday use, attributes one’s own unwanted motives or qualities to someone else. Guilt tripping uses guilt to influence behavior. DARVO refers to a specific response pattern of denying wrongdoing, attacking the accuser, and reversing victim and offender roles. Love bombing, triangulation, and silent treatment describe still other interpersonal patterns. None is interchangeable with gaslighting, even though several can be combined in manipulative relationships.
Coercive control is broader again. It describes an ongoing pattern of domination that can involve isolation, surveillance, intimidation, economic control, threats, regulation of daily life, and psychological tactics. Gaslighting can function inside coercive control, but one is not a synonym for the other. The distinction is clinically and practically important because an abusive control pattern cannot be solved merely by finding a better sentence, winning an argument, or becoming more assertive.
Why gaslighting can be more destabilizing than an ordinary lie
Ordinary deception threatens trust in the speaker. Gaslighting can threaten trust in the self. If you discover that someone lied about where they were, you may conclude that the person is unreliable. In a gaslighting pattern, the manipulation pushes toward a different conclusion: “Maybe I am the unreliable one. Maybe I cannot remember correctly. Maybe I cannot interpret evidence. Maybe I need this person to tell me what is real.”
The 2023 qualitative study of romantic-relationship gaslighting linked self-reported experiences with a diminished sense of self and mistrust of others. The study is valuable because it directly examined people describing gaslighting, but its design also limits what can be concluded: the sample was small, participants self-identified as survivors, and the study was qualitative rather than a prevalence or causal study. The findings therefore illuminate patterns and lived consequences without establishing how common gaslighting is or proving a universal sequence of effects.
Sociological work has also emphasized that gaslighting may draw power from social structures rather than only from private conversation. Paige Sweet’s 2019 analysis argues that gendered stereotypes and institutional inequalities can become tools for discrediting a target. This perspective helps explain why a false claim can become especially powerful when other people, organizations, or cultural assumptions repeatedly reinforce the same credibility hierarchy.
Why people may struggle to tell lying from gaslighting in real time
Human communication normally depends on a substantial presumption of honesty. Truth-default theory proposes that people generally accept communication as honest unless something triggers suspicion. That tendency is socially useful: everyday conversation would be nearly impossible if every sentence required forensic verification. It also creates vulnerability when a trusted person repeatedly exploits the expectation that communication is broadly sincere.
Gaslighting adds a second difficulty. Once the dispute becomes partly about whether you can trust your own perception, every attempt to check reality can itself be reinterpreted. Taking notes may be called obsessive. Asking another person may be called disloyal. Revisiting a message may be described as proof that you “cannot let things go.” The target is not simply deciding whether one statement is true; they are negotiating who is allowed to define the reliability of the evidence.
That is why confidence alone is a poor guide. A deceptive person can sound calm and certain. A truthful person can sound anxious, fragmented, or unsure, especially in a high-conflict conversation. The deception-judgment meta-analysis showing only modest unaided accuracy is a useful reminder that demeanor should not be treated as a diagnostic instrument.
How to evaluate the pattern without diagnosing the person
When you are trying to decide whether something is “just a lie” or gaslighting, it is usually more useful to analyze the interaction than to assign a personality label. The following questions keep attention on observable evidence:
What exactly is disputed: a fact, a memory, an interpretation, a feeling, a motive, or my general ability to know what happened?
Is there independent evidence, and how does each person respond when that evidence appears?
Does the other person merely defend their version, or do they repeatedly attack my memory, perception, sanity, intelligence, or credibility as a way of defeating the evidence?
Is this an isolated incident, a recurring communication problem, a pattern of dishonesty, or a broader pattern of control?
Do I increasingly feel dependent on the other person to tell me what I saw, meant, remembered, or should believe?
Could ordinary explanations — memory error, ambiguity, different information, emotional escalation, or misunderstanding — plausibly account for this event?
Are there signs of coercion, intimidation, isolation, threats, retaliation, or other abuse that make the safety context more important than the label?
No single answer diagnoses gaslighting. The value of these questions is that they separate claims that can be checked from assumptions about motive. A pattern can be harmful before you know exactly what psychological label best describes it.
What if the person admits lying but denies gaslighting?
An admission of lying answers one question: at least one deceptive statement occurred. It does not automatically answer whether a gaslighting pattern exists. Look at what happened around the lie. Was the deception simply concealed? Was it repeated after evidence appeared? Were you told that your perception, memory, or reasoning was defective because you noticed it? Were other people recruited to discredit you? Did the person systematically reframe your attempts to verify facts as proof that you were unstable or irrational?
The label should follow the pattern rather than substitute for examining it. Someone can confess to a serious lie without having gaslighted another person. Someone can also participate in reality-undermining manipulation through methods that are not reducible to literal false statements. The categories overlap, but neither contains the other completely.
Can gaslighting happen without lying?
Yes, under some contemporary definitions, although this is one of the boundaries on which scholars disagree. The 2026 historical review notes that gaslighting frequently involves lying but is not simply lying. Reality manipulation can rely on selective facts, insinuation, credibility attacks, decontextualized truths, changing standards of evidence, or sincerely believed stereotypes. If the speaker genuinely believes a claim, many definitions of lying would exclude it; whether the broader behavior still qualifies as gaslighting depends on how strongly a definition weights intent, pattern, power, and epistemic effect.
This is a good example of why popular certainty often runs ahead of scientific consensus. A useful evidence-based article should not pretend that researchers have settled every edge case. The construct is increasingly studied, but direct empirical gaslighting research is still developing and remains much smaller than the broader literatures on deception, intimate partner abuse, coercive control, memory, and interpersonal influence.
Does one lie or one denial count as gaslighting?
Usually, the strongest scientific formulations describe gaslighting as a process that develops over time. A single statement can certainly be manipulative, deceptive, invalidating, or even a gaslighting tactic within an already established pattern. But moving from one denial to the global conclusion “this person is a gaslighter” goes beyond what the isolated event can establish.
Context matters. If a person says, “I never said that,” they might be lying, forgetting, interpreting their earlier words differently, or attempting to manipulate the other person. The sentence does not reveal which explanation is correct. Repeated interactions, independent evidence, changes in the story, attacks on the other person’s credibility, and the broader power dynamic provide more information.
Practical implications: respond to evidence and safety, not just the label
In an ordinary conflict, clarifying the concrete issue may be enough: identify the disputed fact, compare records or messages if appropriate, acknowledge uncertainty, and separate factual disagreement from emotional impact. If one person lied, the practical question becomes whether trust can be repaired and whether accountability follows. A communication problem can sometimes improve through clearer expectations and honest correction.
A coercive or abusive pattern is different. If reality manipulation occurs alongside intimidation, threats, stalking, financial control, isolation, retaliation, or fear, communication technique is no longer the central problem. A perfectly phrased boundary cannot by itself make coercive behavior safe. In that context, the priority shifts toward support, documentation when safe, professional guidance, and situation-specific safety planning rather than proving the label in an argument.
You also do not need courtroom-level certainty about another person’s hidden intention before taking your own confusion or distress seriously. It is legitimate to notice, “This interaction repeatedly leaves me doubting facts I can independently verify,” or “When I raise evidence, the conversation turns into an attack on my sanity.” Describing what is happening precisely is often more useful than trying to read a person’s mind.
Scientific limits: what the evidence can and cannot tell us
Gaslighting has a long cultural history and a rapidly growing academic literature, but the evidence base is uneven. The 2026 historical review found relatively few empirical studies compared with the concept’s popularity, with qualitative and case-study approaches especially prominent. Quantitative work is expanding, including context-specific measurement efforts, but the field has not reached the degree of standardization seen for many established clinical constructs.
That limitation matters when interpreting online checklists. A list of common phrases can illustrate tactics, but phrases do not function like diagnostic criteria. “You’re overreacting,” “that never happened,” “you’re too sensitive,” or “you remember everything wrong” can appear in gaslighting; they can also occur in ordinary conflict, defensiveness, poor communication, memory disagreement, or other forms of manipulation. Meaning comes from pattern, context, evidence, power, and function.
The same caution applies to causal stories. Experiencing gaslighting does not prove that a person has a particular attachment style, childhood trauma history, personality disorder, or cognitive vulnerability. Likewise, another person’s manipulation should not be explained away by the target’s people pleasing, anxiety, attachment pattern, or boundaries. Those may shape how someone experiences or responds to a relationship, but they do not establish why another person behaves coercively or deceptively.
Frequently asked questions
Is gaslighting just another word for lying?
No. Gaslighting frequently involves lying, but its defining concern is broader reality manipulation: undermining another person’s confidence in their own perception, memory, judgment, or ability to form reliable beliefs. A lie can occur without that epistemic attack.
Is every lie a form of gaslighting?
No. People lie for many reasons, including concealment, self-protection, impression management, financial gain, avoidance of consequences, or prosocial motives. A lie becomes relevant to gaslighting when it is used within a pattern that destabilizes the target’s trust in their own grasp of reality.
Can someone gaslight you while telling the truth?
Potentially. A person can use a technically true statement selectively, omit decisive context, or use a sincerely believed judgment to undermine another person’s credibility. Whether such cases qualify as gaslighting depends partly on the definition used, especially because scholars disagree about how much conscious manipulative intent is required.
If someone remembers an event differently from me, are they gaslighting me?
Not on that basis alone. Memory disagreement is common and can occur without deception. Gaslighting becomes a more plausible description when there is a broader pattern of manipulating evidence and attacking your capacity to perceive, remember, or reason, particularly when those attacks repeatedly serve to defeat legitimate concerns.
Does a gaslighter know they are gaslighting?
The literature does not support one universal answer. Some definitions emphasize deliberate manipulation; other accounts allow patterns shaped by sincerely held beliefs, stereotypes, defensiveness, or learned interaction styles. Because intent is difficult to observe directly, behavioral description is usually more reliable than confident mind-reading.
Is gaslighting a mental illness or diagnosis?
No. Gaslighting is a term for a form or pattern of psychological manipulation and relationship behavior. It is not a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 mental disorder. A person should not be clinically diagnosed as “a gaslighter” from a story, a quiz, or an isolated sentence.
How do I know whether I am being lied to or gaslighted?
Start with the narrowest claim you can verify. Ask what fact is disputed, what evidence exists, whether the other person’s account changes, and whether the interaction repeatedly shifts from the evidence to attacks on your memory, perception, or sanity. Do not rely on eye contact, nervousness, confidence, or other supposed lie-detection cues. If coercion, intimidation, or abuse is present, safety considerations matter more than winning the terminology debate.
Can gaslighting happen at work, in families, or in healthcare?
Yes, the term is used in research and professional discussion across intimate, family, workplace, institutional, and healthcare contexts. The evidence base is not equally developed in every setting, and the legal or organizational implications differ by context and jurisdiction. The core conceptual question remains whether the interaction systematically undermines a person’s credibility and confidence in their access to reality, rather than merely involving disagreement or error.
The bottom line
The cleanest distinction is this: lying manipulates what another person believes; gaslighting manipulates their confidence in how they know. A lie says, “Believe my false version.” Gaslighting moves toward, “Do not trust your own version — or your ability to form one.”
That boundary is not perfectly sharp in every case, and current scholarship still debates intention and edge cases. Yet it is precise enough to prevent the term from swallowing ordinary dishonesty, memory errors, conflict, invalidation, and disagreement. Gaslighting can contain lies. Lying can be one of its tools. What makes gaslighting distinctive is the repeated use of interpersonal influence to destabilize another person’s epistemic confidence and make reality itself easier to control.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022–2026). DSM-5-TR: About the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
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. (2026a). 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. (2026b). 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
Levine, T. R. (2022). Truth-default theory and the psychology of lying and deception detection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101380
Meibauer, J. (2018). The linguistics of lying. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045634
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263