The 6 Sly Ways of the Gaslighter

It seems that everyone has heard the term “gaslighting” by now, given its rapid ascent in popularity. For some reason, the idea has caught on with the general public, even leading to the term being chosen in 2022 as a Merriam-Webster Dictionary “word of the year.” Why all of this fuss?

Sometimes, all it takes is for a phenomenon to get a name for it to be recognized for what it is. In the case of gaslighting, it’s undoubtedly the case that the behavior has gone on for millennia. Anyone trying to pretend that something that happened didn’t is likely to try to rewrite history to make the bad event disappear in the mind of whoever was affected by it. Sometimes, people do this to get out of trouble, but, sometimes, people do it to avoid admitting it to themselves. And, sometimes, in more problematic situations, gaslighting is used as a form of emotional manipulation. It’s this use of gaslighting that has now become woven into common parlance.

Gaslighting and Control

According to University of Sydney’s Lillian Darke and colleagues (2025), gaslighting applies to more than simple tweaking of the past. It does have that more ominous meaning, making it a form of psychological abuse. Lest you think this is an exaggeration, Darke et al. note that it is more than a means of emotional control, causing the type of harm that can “wear a person down over time, increasing their vulnerability to coercive control.”

As compelling as this argument is, there remains considerable ambiguity in the definition of gaslighting. Some of the problems involve determining whether it is intentional and repetitive and whether, thinking of the victim, it is “necessary for gaslighting to have occurred.” These issues become reflected in research, whose progress has been stymied by definitional issues as well as by a tendency for investigators not to draw upon existing studies before embarking on their own.

Major Landmarks in Gaslighting’s History

Much of the early work on gaslighting took the form of case studies in which a perpetrator tries to drive the victim to question their sanity if not require psychiatric hospitalization. Eventually, the emphasis shifted to a “broader and more ambiguous phenomenon that encompassed ‘normal’ relationships and interactions.”

It didn’t take long in this process for the psychodynamic view to become a prevailing lens for understanding the motivation of both perpetrator and victim in that “both parties are (consciously or not) complicit in the process.” Referring to the process by the term “projective identification,” this would imply that the perpetrator projects unwanted parts of the self onto the other, who then comes to identify with this representation.

The next shift in the literature involved a focus on individual differences, suggesting that there’s a typology of gaslighters: the “glamour” type, the “good guy,” and the “intimidator.” Victims, for their part, were identified as having such traits as needing to be understood, wanting to be good enough, and having a high degree of empathy. Both of these approaches fit in the “It takes two to tango” idea that for a gaslighter to succeed, the person being gaslit has to have some type of vulnerability.

Somewhat later, and perhaps predictably, the “dark tetrad” entered into the equation. Now you have someone whose psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and Machiavellianism lead to gaslighting as part of a larger behavior pattern. As informative as this approach was, Darke et al. conclude that it nevertheless only accounts for manipulative, intentional gaslighting. Remember that, according to psychodynamic theory, there’s a heavy dose of unconscious motivations in both parties in some forms of gaslighting.

Most recently, gaslighting has taken on a social and cultural interpretation in which the behavior is seen as an attempt to quash resistance in institutions ranging from “medical institutions, workplaces, mass media, and politics.” However, writers who prefer to reserve the term for interpersonal relationships suggest that there be, instead, “gaslighting-adjacent” terms such as “cultural gaslighting.”

Going even beyond this extension, there are philosophical analyses of gaslighting and “the social function it plays in conversation.” In its extreme form, gaslighting used in this way prevents the victim from feeling entitled to their own point of view or even understanding of “shared reality.” You might get into a legitimate argument with someone, only to be told that you’re “overreacting.”

Boiling It Down Into Gaslighting’s 6 Components

This insightful and comprehensive analysis of the attempts within various disciplines to provide an understanding of gaslighting may leave you wondering whether anyone will ever agree on what the phenomenon is or why it exists. You’ll be glad to know, then, that the U. Sydney team did settle on six basic concepts that help to organize the existing literature and provide a framework for future work. It is these six qualities, they conclude, that constitute gaslighting:

1. Manipulation of reality: These tactics include lying; questioning perceptions, thoughts, reactions, or memories; or manipulating the environment to create confusion.
2. Denial: Refusing to acknowledge facts, even when there is evidence to the contrary, dismissing, and minimizing; this shifts responsibility from perpetrator to victim.
3. Inconsistency of behavior: Keeping the target “off kilter” by making them unsure of what to expect… “lies or truth, or love and abuse.”
4. Isolation: Coercing the victim to spend less time with family and friends, therefore cutting off other sources of support and views of reality.
5. Coercion: Making the target feel that it’s necessary to come to a resolution to “restore peace and stability within the relationship.” The abuse plays on the target’s fear of being left or abandoned.
6. Creating self-doubt: For gaslighting to work, the victim must feel put off-guard enough to wonder about their own self-worth, if not having their self-worth crumble completely.

As you read through these six components, you can now trace each to its roots in previous attempts to conceptualize the process of gaslighting. With such serious consequences as “destruction” of sense of self, you can also see how this behavior can qualify as a form of abuse. Furthermore, as the authors note, future research needs to be grounded in the experiences of victims-survivors. Finally, gaslighting can be “intertwined with” broader social structures, suggesting the importance of looking beyond individual differences or intrapsychic processes.

To sum up, gaslighting is a complex interpersonal behavior that still requires greater empirical attention. For now, understanding these complexities, both in its nature and history, can provide the next steps toward successful interventions.