We depend on those we love to help us make sense of difficult experiences. A trusted partner can steady a troubled day. But when that same person repeatedly denies what happened and treats our questions as evidence that something is wrong with us, closeness becomes disorienting. The relationship we turn to for reassurance begins to undermine our confidence in what we know.

The term comes from Patrick Hamilton’s play Gas Light and its film adaptations, in which a husband manipulates his wife’s surroundings and denies her accurate observations. The story gives a name to a troubling experience: someone we trust works against our ability to trust ourselves (Klein et al., 2023).

Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse. The focus here is intimate relationships, where trust and practical dependence can make discrediting difficult to resist. Inequalities outside the relationship can add to that power (March et al., 2025; Sweet, 2019).

What Gaslighting Means in Relationships

Healthy relationships leave room for two people to have different experiences. We can disagree about an evening, acknowledge uncertainty, and still respect each other’s ability to think. Gaslighting changes the terms of that exchange. The dispute becomes an argument about whether one person is competent to understand anything at all.

In a qualitative study of 65 people who identified themselves as survivors of gaslighting in romantic relationships, Klein and colleagues described attacks on survivors’ credibility and sense of self. Their accounts help illuminate the experience, although a self-selected survey cannot establish how common gaslighting is or reveal every perpetrator’s intentions (Klein et al., 2023).

Gaslighting and Ordinary Disagreement

People forget promises, misunderstand each other, and sometimes become defensive. A mistaken recollection alone does not establish gaslighting. Nor does every lie qualify: someone may conceal a fact without trying to persuade another person that their capacity to know is defective. The distinctive concern is a recurring effort to discredit the other person’s grasp of reality (March et al., 2025).

Consider what happens when a concern is raised. Is there room to examine the event, admit uncertainty, or correct a mistake? Or does the discussion repeatedly end with one person being described as confused, unstable, or incapable of understanding? These questions help clarify a pattern; they are not a diagnostic test. A single threat or cruel act can still deserve attention without meeting a particular definition.

How Gaslighting Undermines Self Trust

We observe, interpret, and make judgments about our lives. Our interpretations are imperfect. We need feedback, and sometimes we need correction. But accepting that we can be mistaken is different from surrendering our judgment to someone who routinely dismisses it.

Being heard involves more than being allowed to speak. A listener may dismiss a woman’s account because they assume women are too emotional to judge events accurately. Miranda Fricker calls this unfair loss of credibility testimonial injustice. Her work helps explain how prejudice can make gaslighting more persuasive to other people. It does not make every mistaken judgment or disagreement an injustice (Fricker, 2007; Sweet, 2019).

The painful shift is from questioning an account to disqualifying the person offering it. The conversation becomes a demand to defend their ability to understand their own life, while the original concern goes unanswered (Sweet, 2019).

The National Domestic Violence Hotline describes gaslighting tactics that include denying events, challenging memory, diverting conversations, and minimizing feelings. Their meaning becomes clearer when we consider how they work together over time. A concern is raised, the concern is dismissed, and the person raising it becomes the supposed problem (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-d).

An Example of Gaslighting

Imagine a woman telling her partner that she is exhausted and plans to go to bed. He complains that she never wants his company, so she stays. Later, he criticizes her for sitting beside him when she said she was tired. When she mentions his earlier complaint, he denies it and says her memory cannot be trusted. This is an illustrative example, not a report from a study.

One contradictory exchange would leave much uncertain. The gaslighting concern emerges if this becomes a pattern: whichever choice she makes is treated as wrong, and her attempts to clarify what happened are repeatedly used to discredit her. The immediate issue disappears beneath the demand that she defend her own reliability. Her effort to be considerate does not make her responsible for that treatment.

The same pattern can take other forms. A promise is denied after it has shaped a partner’s plans, and the partner is told they habitually invent commitments. An insult is recast as a joke, and every attempt to explain the hurt is offered as proof of instability. These illustrative situations become gaslighting concerns when recurring discrediting makes the person’s ability to understand events the target. An unkind joke or broken promise alone does not establish that pattern.

Gaslighting and Coercive Control

Gaslighting can operate within a wider pattern of coercive control. Evan Stark’s work draws attention to how intimidation, isolation, and regulation of daily life can restrict a person’s freedom. From this perspective, we need to look beyond individual arguments to the choices a person can safely make within the relationship (Stark, 2007).

If someone discredits a partner’s judgment while also restricting friendships, employment, or access to money, it may become harder for the partner to seek an independent perspective. Gaslighting and coercive control overlap, but they describe different aspects of abuse. Gaslighting concerns attacks on a person’s confidence in knowing; coercive control concerns the broader restriction of autonomy (March et al., 2025; Stark, 2007).

When Others Reinforce the Discrediting

Paige Sweet’s research brings the wider social setting into view. Drawing on life-story interviews with 43 women recruited through domestic violence organizations, she examined how abusers used gender stereotypes and institutional vulnerabilities to undermine women’s realities. Her analysis shows why the treatment cannot always be understood as a private exchange between two people. The study offers a situated explanation of gaslighting, rather than a population estimate or a description of every relationship (Sweet, 2019).

In Sweet’s accounts, an abuser could exploit the expectation that a woman was irrational or unreliable, along with vulnerabilities involving immigration status or treatment by police and courts. A mental-health history could also be turned against her credibility. When others accept those assumptions, the person seeking help may encounter another version of the dismissal occurring at home. This can reinforce the abuse without every dismissive listener consciously coordinating with the abuser (Sweet, 2019).

Silence may tell us something about the cost of speaking. Kristie Dotson describes two ways people from oppressed groups can be silenced: listeners may refuse to take them seriously, or speakers may hold back because they expect an unsafe response. Although her work is not a study of gaslighting, it helps us ask why someone has stopped explaining. Withholding part of an experience may reflect the risks of disclosure, rather than agreement with the person causing harm (Dotson, 2011).

Gaslighting and Narcissism

Gaslighting is a behavior pattern, not a personality diagnosis. March and colleagues found associations between several socially aversive traits and greater acceptance of gaslighting tactics. The study measured how acceptable participants found the tactics, rather than their actual use of gaslighting. Its findings do not establish that everyone who gaslights has narcissistic personality disorder (March et al., 2025).

We do not need to settle a partner’s diagnosis before taking harmful behavior seriously. Repeated denial, humiliation, and restrictions on freedom can be evaluated through their pattern and consequences. Speculating about an unseen defect in the other person can distract us from the treatment occurring in front of us.

The Emotional Effects of Gaslighting

Home should offer somewhere to set down the burdens of a demanding day. When ordinary conversations become contests over what is real, that refuge can disappear. A person may begin rehearsing explanations before speaking or looking for reassurance about decisions they once made with confidence. These examples illustrate how exhausting sustained uncertainty can feel.

In the accounts analyzed by Klein and colleagues, survivors described diminished self-confidence and difficulty trusting others. These retrospective accounts illuminate the experience without establishing that everyone responds in the same way (Klein et al., 2023).

Research on coercive control offers a broader view of the emotional harm. Lohmann and colleagues reviewed 68 studies and combined results from 45 of them. People reporting more coercive control also tended to report more severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. The combined studies measured control and symptoms at the same time, so they cannot establish cause and effect. They also cannot tell us how much harm comes from gaslighting specifically (Lohmann et al., 2024).

Distress in an abusive relationship does not prove the abuser’s claims about the survivor. Someone can need support for anxiety, depression, or a previous mental-health condition and still accurately recognize mistreatment. Care should help them examine their experiences without automatically discounting their perspective.

Why Leaving Can Be Difficult

From outside a relationship, departure may seem obvious. From within it, housing, money, children, and fear can make choices far more constrained. Rusbult and Martz’s shelter-based study found that economic alternatives and relationship investments were related to commitment and subsequent stay or leave behavior. Their findings help explain dependence without treating continued attachment as consent to abuse (Rusbult & Martz, 1995).

People also hold memories of tenderness alongside painful experiences. It can be difficult to reconcile the person who offered comfort with the person who now denies the hurt. Recognizing this conflict does not require us to dismiss every good moment. It requires us to consider the relationship as a whole, including what happens when care and accountability are needed.

The responsibility for abuse belongs to the person using it. Staying does not demonstrate a failure to understand boundaries, and leaving does not require perfect confidence. Practical support can widen someone’s options. Pressure to make an immediate decision may overlook the dangers and obligations they are already managing (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-b, n.d.-c).

Protecting Clarity and Seeking Support

Protecting our individuality matters. We need room to retain our own observations and to make choices about our lives. When control is present, however, protecting that room may require careful planning. Confrontation, a firmer tone, or a more detailed explanation cannot guarantee another person’s cooperation (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-b; Stark, 2007).

Find an Independent Perspective

A trusted person outside the relationship may help us examine specific events without the pressure to adopt the controlling person’s explanation. A therapist familiar with abuse or a domestic violence advocate can offer additional support. The National Domestic Violence Hotline provides individualized safety-planning assistance for people considering their options (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-b).

Useful support leaves room for uncertainty. We may remember one part clearly and another part imperfectly. We may still care for the person causing harm. Having those mixed experiences does not disqualify us from help or oblige us to resolve every question before seeking it.

Couples counseling also requires careful assessment when abuse is present. Keilholtz and Spencer’s clinical review emphasizes that couples therapy is not recommended for intimate terrorism, a pattern of violence used to intimidate and control a partner. Joint communication exercises should not be assumed appropriate when someone fears retaliation for speaking honestly (Keilholtz & Spencer, 2022).

Let Safety Guide Boundaries

Relationship boundaries clarify what contact we are willing or able to have. They cannot force another person to respect a limit. When resistance may bring retaliation, the next step should be considered in the context of safety, available resources, and support. Planning may be useful while staying, preparing to leave, or after separation (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-b).

Use Records Only When Safe

A private record of events may help organize recollection, but its safety matters. Notes, messages, and searches can be discovered through shared devices or accounts. The Hotline warns that device use can be monitored and browsing history cannot be completely erased. Consider discussing safer ways to seek help or keep information with an advocate before creating a record that could increase danger (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-a).

Supporting Someone Without Taking Over

When someone describes confusing or frightening treatment, we can listen without making them prove every detail before offering care. Ask what help they want, and consider practical needs such as transport, housing, or company at an appointment. Support should preserve their choices rather than make continued care conditional on an immediate decision. The National Domestic Violence Hotline emphasizes respecting survivors’ decisions and continuing support through the difficult choices they face (Herman, 1992; National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-c).

Taking an account seriously leaves room to ask questions respectfully. It also means recognizing that our preferred solution may not fit the other person’s circumstances. A person who has repeatedly been told what their experience must mean needs space to speak in their own words.

For readers in the United States, the National Domestic Violence Hotline offers support at 800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting START to 88788, or through its website. Consider whether the device or account used to make contact is private. Readers elsewhere can seek a local domestic abuse service. If there is immediate danger, contact local emergency services when safe to do so (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).

Rebuilding Self Trust After Gaslighting

Protection from further discrediting and recovery of confidence are related tasks. Judith Herman’s clinical account of trauma recovery emphasizes restoring the survivor’s choices and supporting autonomy. This broader framework offers a direction for thinking about recovery from gaslighting, without prescribing a fixed course (Herman, 1992).

Self-trust need not mean certainty about every recollection. We can acknowledge uncertainty and still take harmful treatment seriously. Sperber and colleagues use epistemic vigilance to describe how we judge what other people tell us. Applied here, that idea suggests making room for our own judgment while remaining able to learn from people whose responses deserve confidence (Sperber et al., 2010).

In everyday life, that may mean choosing how to spend an afternoon or expressing a preference without having its meaning rewritten. These examples illustrate opportunities to exercise choice. A supportive relationship can allow uncertainty and correction without humiliation (Herman, 1992).

Some survivors in Klein and colleagues’ study described healthier relationships and meaningful activities as part of recovery. Their accounts offer possibilities, rather than a timetable. Confidence may return unevenly. Practical safety, supportive connections, and appropriate care can remain important even when someone has begun to feel more like themselves (Herman, 1992; Klein et al., 2023).

Associated Concepts

• Emotional Abuse: Psychologically harmful treatment that may include humiliation, intimidation, or control. Gaslighting specifically attacks confidence in perception and judgment (March et al., 2025).
• Coercive Control: A wider pattern of domination that restricts autonomy and everyday choices. Gaslighting may contribute to this pattern (Stark, 2007; Sweet, 2019).
• Relationship Boundaries: Limits on contact and participation that protect autonomy and well-being. In abusive relationships, their use must take safety and available support into account.
• Epistemic Vigilance: The processes we use to evaluate information from others and decide what deserves trust. The concept helps distinguish openness to learning from automatic deference (Sperber et al., 2010).
• Epistemic Injustice: Harm done to someone in their capacity to know and communicate their experience. Prejudice can unfairly undermine a person’s credibility, reinforcing the discrediting that occurs in gaslighting.
• Autonomy in Relationships: The freedom to express preferences, exercise judgment, and make choices within a relationship. Gaslighting can undermine this freedom by encouraging someone to defer repeatedly to another person’s interpretation of events.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Love asks us to make room for another person’s experience. It should also leave room for our own. We can listen carefully, acknowledge mistakes, and revise an interpretation without accepting that our voice has no standing in the relationship.

When closeness repeatedly erodes self-trust, the answer is not to become endlessly more accommodating. Attention can turn toward the treatment we are receiving, the support we can reach, and the choices that may become possible. A quieter life may take time and practical help to build. We deserve relationships in which a question can be asked without putting our right to know ourselves on trial.

References

Dotson, Kristie (2011). Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257. DOI: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001. ISBN: 9780198237907.
(Return to Main Text)

Herman, Judith Lewis (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Basic Books.
(Return to Main Text)

Keilholtz, Brooke M.; Spencer, Chelsea M. (2022). Couples Therapy and Intimate Partner Violence: Considerations, Assessment, and Treatment Modalities. Practice Innovations, 7(2), 124–137. DOI: 10.1037/pri0000176.
(Return to Main Text)

Klein, Willis; Li, Sherry; Wood, Suzanne (2023). A Qualitative Analysis of Gaslighting in Romantic Relationships. Personal Relationships, 30(4), 1316–1340. DOI: 10.1111/pere.12510.
(Return to Main Text)

Lohmann, Susanne; Cowlishaw, Sean; Ney, Luke; O’Donnell, Meaghan; Felmingham, Kim (2024). The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. DOI: 10.1177/15248380231162972.
(Return to Main Text)

March, Evita; Kay, Cameron S.; Dinić, Bojana M.; Wagstaff, Danielle; Grabovac, Beáta; Jonason, Peter K. (2025). “It’s All in Your Head”: Personality Traits and Gaslighting Tactics in Intimate Relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 40(2), 259–268. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-023-00582-y.
(Return to Main Text)

National Domestic Violence Hotline (n.d.-a). Internet Safety. Accessed October 21, 2026.
(Return to Main Text)

National Domestic Violence Hotline (n.d.-b). Plan for Safety. Accessed October 21, 2026.
(Return to Main Text)

National Domestic Violence Hotline (n.d.-c). Ways to Support a Domestic Violence Survivor. Accessed October 21, 2026.
(Return to Main Text)

National Domestic Violence Hotline (n.d.-d). What Is Gaslighting. Accessed October 21, 2026.
(Return to Main Text)

Rusbult, Caryl E.; Martz, John M. (1995). Remaining in an Abusive Relationship: An Investment Model Analysis of Nonvoluntary Dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558–571. DOI: 10.1177/0146167295216002.
(Return to Main Text)

Sperber, Dan; Clément, Fabrice; Heintz, Christophe; Mascaro, Olivier; Mercier, Hugo; Origgi, Gloria; Wilson, Deirdre (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Stark, Evan (2007). Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195154276. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195154276.001.0001.
(Return to Main Text)

Sweet, Paige L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843.
(Return to Main Text)