What Is Gaslighting? Meaning, Signs, Examples, and What It Is Not
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
What gaslighting means
Gaslighting is a pattern of psychological manipulation that undermines a person’s confidence in their own perception, memory, judgment, or understanding of events. The central feature is not simply that one person says something false. It is that the interaction repeatedly pushes another person toward the conclusion that their own mind is not a reliable source of information about what is happening.
The American Psychological Association’s Dictionary of Psychology defines “gaslight” as manipulating another person into doubting their perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events. A 2026 historical review in Clinical Psychology Review similarly identifies gaslighting as a form of psychological manipulation that can erode a person’s sense of reality and agency. Across definitions, the recurring idea is an attack on epistemic confidence: confidence in one’s ability to know, remember, interpret, and describe one’s own experience.
This is why the word should be used more narrowly than “bad behavior,” “dishonesty,” or “a toxic argument.” Someone can lie without gaslighting. Someone can be dismissive without gaslighting. Two people can remember an event differently without either person gaslighting the other. Gaslighting becomes the more accurate concept when a pattern of distortion, denial, contradiction, or credibility-undermining is used in a way that makes one person increasingly distrust their own reality-testing.
Gaslighting can occur in romantic relationships, families, friendships, workplaces, healthcare, and institutional settings. The details differ across contexts, and researchers still disagree about some boundaries of the concept. That uncertainty is part of the scientific picture and helps explain why careful definitions matter.
The scientific status of gaslighting
Gaslighting is a psychological and relational construct, not a mental disorder. It is not a diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11, and there is no clinical diagnosis called “gaslighter.” The DSM-5-TR is the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of recognized mental disorders, while the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 provides an international classification and diagnostic framework. Gaslighting describes behavior, interaction, and in some contexts abuse; it does not diagnose the person using that behavior.
The research base is also newer and less standardized than the popularity of the word can make it seem. The 2026 Clinical Psychology Review historical review found rapid growth in gaslighting scholarship but also substantial variation in how researchers define and study it. A 2025 interdisciplinary review in the Journal of Family Violence likewise found inconsistencies over whether gaslighting must be intentional, repeated, successful in producing self-doubt, or embedded in a particular power structure.
That means several claims often presented online as settled facts remain more complicated. Researchers do not yet have one universally accepted definition, one universally validated measure across contexts, or enough longitudinal evidence to establish a single causal pathway. There is meaningful qualitative, theoretical, sociological, clinical, and emerging quantitative evidence, but the construct is still being refined.
A useful evidence-based approach is therefore to identify the core phenomenon clearly while keeping contested edges visible. The strongest common denominator is reality-undermining manipulation: behavior that challenges another person’s credibility as a knower of their own experience and, especially when repeated, can make them increasingly dependent on someone else’s version of reality.
Where the term comes from
The term comes from Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 play Gas Light and its later film adaptations. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife while denying changes she correctly notices in their environment, including the dimming of gas lights. The plot became a metaphor for deliberately making someone doubt their own perceptions and sanity. The origin and later expansion of the term are documented in both the APA Dictionary of Psychology and the 2026 historical review.
Early psychiatric uses of “gaslighting” were narrower than contemporary usage. As the historical review documents, mid-20th-century case reports often involved attempts to portray someone as mentally ill or to secure psychiatric hospitalization under false pretenses. Over later decades, the concept expanded into psychotherapy, intimate relationships, sociology, philosophy, workplace research, healthcare, and popular culture.
That history matters because modern usage now spans several partly overlapping ideas. Some scholars emphasize deliberate deception. Some emphasize psychological abuse. Some emphasize the erosion of a person’s status as a credible interpreter of their own experience. Sociological work emphasizes how existing inequalities and institutional credibility can amplify the effect. Contemporary research is trying to clarify which of these features are essential and which describe particular forms of gaslighting.
How gaslighting can work
Gaslighting is often effective because people do not construct reality in isolation. We routinely use other people as sources of information: we compare memories, ask whether our interpretation seems reasonable, and rely on trusted people to help us understand ambiguous events. Close relationships can carry especially high informational weight.
A 2026 social-cognitive framework proposed by Klein, Wood, and Bartz describes this as epistemic leverage. Close others can matter disproportionately to how we verify our self-views and our understanding of events. The model draws on shared reality, self-verification, social cognition, and prediction processes to explain how ordinary mechanisms of interpersonal trust might become channels through which gaslighting works. It is a theoretical framework rather than proof that every case follows the same mechanism.
The pattern can begin with disputes that appear ordinary: who said what, what a promise meant, whether an event happened, whether a reaction was reasonable. The difference develops when the interaction shifts from a dispute about an event to a repeated attack on the other person’s capacity to perceive or remember accurately. “I remember it differently” leaves room for two imperfect perspectives. “You never remember anything correctly, so your version cannot be trusted” moves toward undermining the person as a source of knowledge.
Repetition can matter because the target is repeatedly asked to resolve a conflict between internal evidence and a socially important person’s confident alternative account. If the other person also controls information, recruits allies, selectively presents evidence, isolates the target, or alternates affection with destabilizing behavior, it can become harder to maintain confidence in one’s own interpretation. Research does not establish that all of these features are necessary, but they recur across gaslighting literature.
Memory itself is not a video recording. A 2024 systematic review of the misinformation effect describes episodic memory as reconstructive and susceptible to distortion from post-event misinformation. That fact does not mean ordinary memory errors are gaslighting, and it does not mean a person who doubts a memory has been manipulated. It does help explain why repeated confident contradictions from a trusted source can be psychologically consequential and why disagreements about memory require more care than “one person remembers correctly, therefore the other must be lying.”
Signs of a gaslighting pattern
No single phrase proves gaslighting. The more informative question is what the interaction repeatedly does to reality, credibility, and self-trust.
A pattern becomes more consistent with gaslighting when events are repeatedly denied or rewritten despite available evidence; when the focus shifts from the disputed event to claims that you are fundamentally confused, irrational, unstable, “too sensitive,” or unable to remember accurately; when evidence that contradicts the other person’s account is dismissed rather than engaged; when standards change so that no amount of clarification can resolve the dispute; when your emotional reaction is used as supposed proof that your perception is unreliable; when other people are recruited to discredit your account; or when you increasingly feel that you must ask the same person who destabilizes you to tell you what is real.
Changes in the target can also be relevant, but they are not diagnostic. People who describe gaslighting sometimes report chronic second-guessing, confusion after conversations, repeated checking of messages or records, apologizing for events they remain unsure about, becoming hesitant to make decisions, or feeling that their own interpretation carries less weight than the other person’s. These experiences can occur for many reasons, so they should be interpreted in context.
The clearest indicator is usually not a specific sentence. It is the relationship between repeated behavior and a progressive erosion of confidence in one’s own ability to know what happened.
Examples of gaslighting
Consider a couple who agreed in writing that a major purchase would be postponed. Later, one partner makes the purchase, deletes the message thread they control, and repeatedly insists that no agreement ever existed. When the other partner finds a screenshot, the response is not “I forgot” or “I changed my mind.” Instead, the partner says the screenshot is being misread, claims the other person is “always confused,” and uses that alleged confusion to dismiss future recollections. The important feature is the repeated conversion of a factual dispute into evidence that the other person cannot trust their own memory.
In another example, a supervisor gives an employee contradictory instructions, then denies the earlier instruction and tells colleagues that the employee is unreliable and “imagines” being given tasks that were never assigned. If this becomes a sustained pattern that undermines the employee’s confidence and credibility, it may fit emerging workplace gaslighting concepts. A 2023 scale-development study across three employee samples totaling 679 participants is one sign that workplace gaslighting is becoming operationalized in research, although the evidence base remains much smaller than the broader literature on workplace mistreatment.
A family example might involve a parent repeatedly denying hurtful episodes that occurred, insisting that the adult child has always been “dramatic,” and using the child’s distress as evidence that the memories themselves are untrustworthy. A single parent-child disagreement about the past is not enough. The gaslighting interpretation becomes stronger when the pattern repeatedly attacks the person’s ability to know their own experience.
Healthcare requires additional precision. “Medical gaslighting” is widely used in patient discourse and increasingly studied, but a 2024 narrative review found the term poorly defined and emphasized the need to distinguish it from medical invalidation and other breakdowns in care. A clinician disagreeing with a patient’s self-diagnosis is not automatically gaslighting. Repeatedly dismissing or distorting a patient’s lived experience in ways that make the patient doubt the legitimacy of their own symptoms is closer to how the emerging literature uses the term.
These examples illustrate a principle rather than a checklist: the defining issue is not the surface wording but the systematic undermining of a person’s confidence in their own perception or understanding of reality.
What gaslighting is not
Gaslighting is often overextended to cover nearly every painful interaction. Keeping the boundaries clear makes the term more useful.
Gaslighting is not the same as lying
A lie is a false statement made deceptively. Gaslighting can include lying, but lying alone does not necessarily target the other person’s confidence in their own reality-testing.
Someone who says, “I did not eat the last piece of cake,” when they did, is lying. If they repeatedly alter evidence, insist you hallucinated seeing them eat it, tell you your memory is defective, and use that supposed defect to invalidate other events, the pattern moves toward gaslighting.
The distinction is functional. Ordinary deception aims to make you believe a false proposition. Gaslighting characteristically aims at, or functions through, making your own capacity to know seem unreliable.
Gaslighting is not ordinary disagreement
People disagree about facts, motives, tone, fairness, and meaning. Two sincere people can leave the same conversation with different interpretations. Neither has to be manipulating the other.
Healthy disagreement can be intense. It can include defensiveness and mistakes. What keeps it distinct from gaslighting is the possibility of mutual reality-testing: both people can consider evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, revise an account, and accept that the other person has an independent perspective.
Calling disagreement “gaslighting” simply because someone rejects your interpretation makes the term too broad to distinguish manipulation from conflict.
Gaslighting is not the same as invalidation
Invalidation occurs when someone dismisses, minimizes, rejects, or fails to recognize another person’s feelings or experience. It can be painful and harmful. It can also appear inside gaslighting.
But invalidation does not always target reality-testing. “You should not be upset about that” invalidates an emotion. “That event never happened, and the fact that you think it did proves you cannot trust your mind” targets perception and memory more directly. In practice, the two can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Gaslighting is not projection, blame shifting, guilt tripping, DARVO, love bombing, triangulation, or silent treatment
These terms describe different interpersonal processes.
Projection generally refers to attributing one’s own unwanted feelings, motives, or qualities to someone else. Blame shifting relocates responsibility. Guilt tripping uses guilt or obligation as pressure. DARVO refers to a response pattern of denying wrongdoing, attacking the accuser, and reversing victim and offender roles; experimental research has shown that DARVO can alter observers’ judgments of credibility and responsibility. Love bombing refers to intense attention or affection that may, in some contexts, function manipulatively. Triangulation involves a third person or relationship in a conflict or relational system. Silent treatment involves withdrawal of communication and can range from an unhealthy interaction to punishment or control.
Any of these can coexist with gaslighting. None automatically equals gaslighting. For example, a person may blame-shift by saying “This argument is your fault” without trying to make you doubt that the argument happened. A person may use silent treatment as punishment without denying your perception of events. Conversely, a gaslighting pattern may use blame shifting, invalidation, or recruited third parties as supporting tactics.
For a closer look at withdrawal and control in a specific relationship context, see Silent Treatment in Marriage: What It Is, Why It Happens, and When Silence Becomes Harmful.
Gaslighting is not the same as coercive control
Coercive control is a broader pattern of domination that can include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, restriction, financial control, threats, and other behaviors. Gaslighting may be one tactic within coercive control, but the concepts are not identical. The interdisciplinary gaslighting review specifically notes that the relationship between gaslighting and coercive control depends partly on how each construct is defined.
This distinction matters for safety. A person can experience reality-undermining manipulation without a full coercive-control pattern, and a person can experience coercive control without gaslighting being the central tactic. When restriction, threats, stalking, surveillance, physical or sexual violence, financial control, or fear are present, the safety problem is larger than communication.
Gaslighting is not a personality disorder
Gaslighting behavior does not establish narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, or any other diagnosis. People sometimes use “narcissistic gaslighting” as popular search language, but diagnosing a personality disorder requires a clinical assessment against formal diagnostic criteria. A manipulative behavior cannot substitute for that assessment.
It is more accurate to describe observable behavior and its pattern than to infer a disorder from conflict stories, social-media examples, or a few statements.
Gaslighting and psychological manipulation
Psychological manipulation is the broader category. The APA Dictionary of Psychology defines manipulation as behavior designed to exploit, control, or otherwise influence others to one’s advantage. Gaslighting is one possible form of manipulation, distinguished by its focus on undermining another person’s confidence in perception, memory, judgment, or understanding of reality.
That relationship is important for search-language precision. Not all manipulation is gaslighting. Someone can manipulate through guilt, reward, threat, strategic affection, omission, social pressure, or deception without attacking the target’s trust in their own mind. Gaslighting is best treated as a more specific construct inside the wider field of psychological manipulation.
Does gaslighting have to be intentional?
This is one of the unsettled boundaries in the literature.
Classic and many contemporary definitions emphasize deliberate manipulation. The original Gas Light story is intentional, and philosophical accounts such as Kate Abramson’s influential 2014 analysis place substantial weight on a gaslighter’s aims and attitudes. Some clinical and popular uses also assume a purposeful attempt to gain control or avoid accountability.
Other scholarship is less restrictive. The 2025 interdisciplinary review and the 2026 historical review note that researchers have not agreed on whether intent is required. Some formulations focus more on the repeated pattern and its reality-undermining function, recognizing that people can defensively deny, rewrite, or invalidate without a fully articulated plan to destabilize another person.
For practical interpretation, intent should not be treated as something an observer can read directly from behavior. A person may deny intent while acting strategically; another may genuinely misunderstand events; another may use habitual defensive behavior without thinking through its consequences. The evidence often cannot resolve private motives.
The most precise approach is to separate three questions: What behavior occurred? Did it form a repeated pattern that undermined another person’s confidence in their own reality? What evidence exists about intent? Those questions can have different answers.
For the dedicated evidence review of this boundary, see Can Gaslighting Be Unintentional? Intent, Impact, and the Limits of the Label.
Where gaslighting can occur
Romantic relationships are the best-known context and one of the most studied. In a qualitative study of 65 adults who self-identified as having experienced gaslighting in romantic relationships, participants described relationships containing both affectionate and abusive behavior, and reported diminished sense of self and mistrust among the consequences. The study is valuable because it gives detailed survivor accounts, but its self-selected sample and qualitative design do not provide prevalence estimates or establish that all gaslighting follows the same trajectory.
Family relationships can create similar credibility dynamics because family members share long histories, memories, and roles. Statements about “what you have always been like” can carry particular weight when they come from parents, siblings, or other close relatives. Again, family conflict and contradictory memories are common; the relevant question is whether a repeated pattern systematically undermines one person’s authority over their own experience.
Workplace research is emerging. The 2023 Gaslighting at Work Questionnaire study developed a 12-item measure across three employee samples totaling 679 participants and proposed dimensions involving trivialization and affliction. This is evidence that researchers are beginning to operationalize workplace gaslighting, not proof that every unfair supervisor interaction constitutes it.
Healthcare is another rapidly growing area. Reviews of medical gaslighting describe real concerns around dismissal, invalidation, bias, and power, while also emphasizing that the construct is poorly standardized. Diagnostic uncertainty, a missed diagnosis, a rushed appointment, or a clinician disagreeing with a patient can be harmful without necessarily meeting a narrower gaslighting definition.
Institutional and structural accounts extend the concept beyond one-on-one relationships. Paige Sweet’s sociological analysis argues that gaslighting can become more powerful when a person can mobilize social stereotypes, inequalities, or institutional credibility against another person. This perspective is especially influential in discussions of gender and intimate partner violence. It is a sociological theory grounded in power relations, not a claim that every case of gaslighting is caused by the same social structure.
Effects and risks
For a dedicated evidence review of self-doubt, anxiety, trust, memory confidence, and mental-health outcomes, see Effects of Gaslighting: Self-Doubt, Anxiety, Trust, and Mental Health.
Gaslighting-specific outcome research remains limited, so precision matters when discussing mental health effects.
The 2023 qualitative romantic-relationship study reported diminished sense of self, mistrust of others, and in some participants post-traumatic growth after the relationship. A mixed-methods systematic review of gaslighting in gender-based violence identified recurring reported outcomes including disruptions to confidence in perception and memory, emotional distress, and social isolation. These findings strengthen the case that reality-undermining manipulation can have serious psychological consequences, but much of the evidence remains qualitative or context-specific.
Broader research on psychological intimate partner violence provides a larger evidence base for mental health risk. A systematic review and meta-analysis covering 194 studies found psychological violence associated with PTSD, depression, and anxiety, although the authors rated the certainty of the meta-analytic evidence as low and highlighted methodological limitations. Those findings should not be converted into the stronger claim that gaslighting by itself causes a particular disorder. Gaslighting can occur as one component of psychological abuse, and broader abuse research cannot isolate its unique causal effect.
The practical risk is therefore best described at two levels. At the interaction level, gaslighting can erode self-trust, make conflict harder to evaluate, and increase dependence on the other person’s account. When it occurs inside a wider abusive or coercively controlling relationship, the risks can also include isolation, fear, restricted autonomy, and exposure to other forms of abuse.
Why someone might use gaslighting
There is no single scientifically established “gaslighter personality.”
Gaslighting can serve different interpersonal functions. It may help someone avoid accountability, preserve a preferred self-image, maintain control, conceal behavior, discredit another person, protect status, or dominate the interpretation of a conflict. In some situations it may be deliberate and strategic; in others it may emerge through entrenched defensive habits. Structural accounts add another possibility: a person or institution may have more power to define whose account is treated as credible.
These functions are not diagnoses and should not be reverse-engineered into personality claims. Research on gaslighting is not strong enough to say that a particular diagnosis, attachment style, childhood history, or personality trait explains the behavior in a given individual.
The same principle applies to the person experiencing gaslighting. Anxious attachment, people pleasing, trauma history, neurodivergence, or difficulty with boundaries should not be treated as the reason another person manipulates them. Such factors may shape how any relationship is experienced or navigated, but responsibility for manipulative behavior remains with the person using it.
How to evaluate whether a pattern is gaslighting
Start with observable events rather than labels. What was said or done? What evidence exists? Is the dispute about one event, or is there a repeated pattern? Does the other person sometimes acknowledge mistakes and uncertainty, or does every contradiction become proof that your mind cannot be trusted?
Then examine the level at which the conflict operates. “I remember the meeting differently” is a claim about an event. “You are incapable of remembering meetings accurately, so your account never counts” is a claim about your capacity to know. Repeated movement from the first level to the second is more characteristic of gaslighting.
Look at what happens when independent evidence appears. In ordinary disagreement, evidence can narrow uncertainty. In a reality-undermining pattern, evidence may be dismissed, reinterpreted, attacked, or converted into another reason you are supposedly confused. The goal is not to prove that your memory is infallible; nobody’s is. The question is whether both people are participating in a shared process of reality-testing.
Notice whether your access to other perspectives is being reduced. Isolation is not required for gaslighting, but the ability to compare accounts with trusted people, records, or professionals can matter when one person’s version has become disproportionately powerful.
Finally, avoid making the label carry more certainty than the evidence. You can recognize that repeated interactions are destabilizing, deceptive, controlling, or unsafe even when you cannot determine the other person’s private intent or whether every researcher would apply the word gaslighting.
How to respond to possible gaslighting
The appropriate response depends on context, power, and safety.
When the situation is not coercive or dangerous, grounding the discussion in specific events can be more useful than arguing over labels. Written agreements, contemporaneous notes, calendars, messages, or other records can help clarify what happened. Outside perspectives from trusted people or a qualified mental health professional can also help restore independent reality-testing.
Documentation should be used thoughtfully. In an ordinary conflict, a written record can reduce confusion. In an abusive or surveilled relationship, storing notes, screenshots, or messages can create risk if the other person monitors devices or accounts. The National Domestic Violence Hotline’s documentation guidance recommends considering how evidence is stored and whether an abusive partner may have access to devices or accounts.
It can also help to separate validation from factual certainty. You do not need perfect recall of every sentence to know that a recurring interaction leaves you frightened, confused, humiliated, or unable to participate on equal terms. At the same time, feeling confused after an argument is not by itself proof of gaslighting. The purpose of careful documentation and outside perspective is to improve clarity, not to build a case around a label from the start.
Therapy can be useful for rebuilding self-trust, processing abuse, or evaluating relational patterns, but therapy should not be presented as a technique for making an abusive person stop. Couples or family work can be inappropriate when one person is coercive, violent, retaliatory, or uses the therapeutic setting to intensify control. In those situations, specialized domestic-abuse support and individualized safety planning take priority over communication exercises.
When safety changes the response
Gaslighting can exist inside relationships that also involve threats, stalking, surveillance, sexual coercion, physical violence, financial restriction, intimidation, or other forms of coercive control. When those features are present, the main question is no longer “What is the perfect sentence to say back?” It is how to increase safety and access support.
A boundary script cannot neutralize a coercive pattern by itself. Confronting an abusive person, announcing documentation, changing passwords, or attempting to leave can sometimes change risk. Safety planning is therefore individualized. The National Domestic Violence Hotline describes a safety plan as a practical plan for improving safety while experiencing abuse, preparing to leave, or after leaving, and its internet-safety guidance warns that internet and device activity can be monitored.
If you are in immediate danger, contact emergency services in your location. If you are not in immediate danger but are concerned about abuse or coercive control, a local domestic-violence service, advocate, healthcare professional, or other qualified support can help you assess options in your jurisdiction. Laws and available protections differ, so legal claims about gaslighting or coercive control should always be checked locally.
What research can and cannot tell us
The evidence supports treating gaslighting as a meaningful form of psychological manipulation centered on undermining another person’s confidence in their own reality. It also supports taking seriously the power of close relationships, social credibility, and repeated reality distortion.
The evidence does not support a universal “gaslighter profile,” a diagnostic checklist for identifying a perpetrator, or a claim that a particular phrase proves abuse. It does not justify diagnosing narcissistic personality disorder, psychopathy, trauma, or an attachment style from gaslighting behavior. It does not establish a single motive or mechanism across romantic, family, workplace, healthcare, and institutional contexts.
The construct itself is still developing. The most recent historical review and interdisciplinary review repeatedly call for clearer operational definitions, stronger measures, more diverse samples, longitudinal research, and better separation of gaslighting from neighboring forms of psychological abuse and manipulation.
That scientific limitation is useful. It directs attention toward what can be observed: repeated distortion, attacks on credibility, erosion of self-trust, the handling of evidence, the distribution of power, and the broader safety context.
FAQ
What is gaslighting in simple terms?
Gaslighting is a pattern of manipulation that makes another person doubt their own perception, memory, judgment, or understanding of what is happening. The core issue is not simply deception; it is the undermining of the person’s confidence in their ability to know their own reality.
Is a single lie gaslighting?
Usually, no. A single lie is deception. Gaslighting is better understood as a pattern in which deception, denial, contradiction, or other tactics are used to undermine another person’s trust in their own perception or memory. Researchers disagree about exactly how much repetition is required, but equating every lie with gaslighting makes the concept too broad.
Is gaslighting the same as manipulation?
No. Manipulation is the broader category. Gaslighting is a more specific form of psychological manipulation focused on destabilizing trust in one’s perception, memory, judgment, or reality-testing.
Is disagreement gaslighting?
No. Disagreement, including disagreement about what happened, is normal. It becomes more consistent with gaslighting when there is a repeated pattern of reality distortion and attacks on the other person’s credibility or capacity to know, especially when evidence cannot resolve the dispute because the target’s very ability to interpret evidence is continually undermined.
Is invalidating someone’s feelings gaslighting?
Not automatically. Invalidation dismisses or minimizes someone’s feelings or experience. It can be harmful and can be part of gaslighting, but gaslighting more specifically involves undermining the person’s confidence in their understanding of reality.
Does gaslighting have to be intentional?
The literature does not fully agree. Some definitions require deliberate manipulation; others focus more on repeated reality-undermining behavior and its function or effects. It is often useful to describe the behavior and pattern separately from claims about private intent.
Can gaslighting happen outside romantic relationships?
Yes. Research and scholarly discussion address gaslighting in family, workplace, healthcare, institutional, and other interpersonal settings. The evidence is uneven across contexts, so conclusions from romantic-partner studies should not automatically be generalized to every setting.
Is gaslighting a mental illness?
No. Gaslighting is not a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. It is a term for a form of behavior or relational dynamic. A person who uses gaslighting behavior cannot be diagnosed with a mental disorder from that behavior alone.
Can someone accidentally make me doubt my memory without gaslighting me?
Yes. Human memory is fallible, people miscommunicate, and sincere disagreements happen. One person can confidently remember something incorrectly without manipulating anyone. The gaslighting concept becomes more relevant when reality-undermining behavior forms a repeated pattern that attacks the other person’s confidence in their own capacity to know.
Can gaslighting affect mental health?
It can be associated with significant distress, self-doubt, mistrust, and loss of agency, especially when embedded in psychological abuse. Gaslighting-specific causal research is still limited. Broader psychological intimate partner violence is associated with PTSD, depression, and anxiety, but those findings should not be attributed uniquely to gaslighting.
What should I do if I think I am being gaslit?
Focus first on concrete events, patterns, evidence, independent perspectives, and safety. Written records can help in some situations, but documentation can create risk if a controlling person monitors devices or accounts. If the situation includes fear, threats, stalking, surveillance, coercive control, or violence, specialized safety planning is more important than trying to find the perfect confrontation or boundary script.
Related Articles
References
Abramson, K. (2014). Turning up the lights on gaslighting. Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12046
Adair, J. (2025). Defining gaslighting in gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251344316
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What is the DSM? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-the-dsm
American Psychological Association. (2023). Gaslight. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/gaslight
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Manipulation. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/manipulation
Brassil, M., O’Mahony, C., & Greene, C. M. (2024). Do cognitive abilities reduce eyewitness susceptibility to the misinformation effect? A systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(6), 2410–2436. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02512-5
Darke, L., Paterson, H., & van Golde, C. (2025). Illuminating gaslighting: A comprehensive interdisciplinary review of gaslighting literature. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-025-00805-4
Dokkedahl, S. B., Kirubakaran, R., Bech-Hansen, D., Kristensen, T. R., & Elklit, A. (2022). The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Systematic Reviews, 11, 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02025-z
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.). Documenting abuse. https://www.thehotline.org/resources/documenting-abuse/
National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Internet safety. https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/internet-safety/
National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Plan for safety. https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/
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