<p>I would not call it a mainstream concept but it was discussed in some mainstream sources. However, there's a divergence in meaning; some old Commonwealth medical/psychiatry papers mostly use it to denote having someone inappropriately committed to a mental institution... whereas the broader notion you ask about is found in more recent sources and of more marginal impact factor. Furthermore, the original British concept has been re-labeled "tertiary gain of illness" in the US.</p>

<p>First of all, the <a href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7465707" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1981 "seminal" paper</a> (by Calef and Weinshel)
you mention is in psychoanalytical journal, which would immediately give me pause as to its validity/acceptance (unless you're in France). However the Wikipedia page cites an <a href="https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/588872" rel="nofollow noreferrer">older paper by Lund &amp; Gardiner, 1977</a>, which is just a case report though, but in a mainstream psychiatry journal, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Psychiatry" rel="nofollow noreferrer">British Journal of Psychiatry</a>. Abstract:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A case of paranoid psychosis in an elderly female is reported in which recurrent episodes were apparently induced by the staff of the institution where the patient was a resident. The issues raised by this case are discussed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The actually seminal paper (cited in the previous one) is Barton &amp; Whitehead (1969) <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(69)92133-3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"The gas-light phenomenon"</a>. Lancet,i,1258-60. but this was also case report (two actually).
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Lancet</a>, as you probably know, is a mainstream medical journal (not just psychiatric).</p>

<p>Another paper in the Br. J. Psych is Smith and Sinanan, 1972, The `Gaslight Phenomenon' Reappears A Modification of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganser_syndrome" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ganser Syndrome</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.120.559.685" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.120.559.685</a> starts with:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In 1969 Barton and Whitehead reported two
  cases in which there were definite plots to
  remove an unwanted and restricting relative
  by securing admission to a mental hospital, and
  one case of an old lady admitted to a mental
  hospital following induced faecal incontinence.
  The old lady was considered a nursing home
  nuisance and she was given purgatives regularly.
  Inevitably she had some "accidents" and these
  were used as an excuse for removing her to
  hospital. They labelled such attempts 'The
  Gaslight Phenomenon', inspired by Patrick
  Hamilton's play Gaslight which was first
  produced in London in 1939 and later formed
  the basis for a film. Their survey of the
  literature uncovered few recent reports of such
  manipulations.
  Without the emphasis of Barton and White
  head's report the following cases might have
  passed unnoticed. We feel that it is time to
  stress again the presence of this phenomenon,
  and, as this report shows, it is not unique to
  psychiatric hospitals.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And they also discuss a couple of cases.</p>

<p>But nevertheless these paper have few citations, using the Google Scholar count 
30 for the 1969 one. So while it was discussed, it was seldom so. It's true that the 1981 paper seems to have more citations (57) but in my experience GS undercounts for the older papers and overcounts the newer ones.</p>

<p>Searching for the "gaslight" term in pubmed returns around 10 papers (a couple of which are clearly false positive) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslight" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslight</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslighting" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslighting</a> only 3 hits. Hence my conclusion: discussed in mainstream sources, but seldom, so not a mainstream term.</p>

<p>Also note that the sources from the Commonwealth (there is a paper from Canada as well <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7093877" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7093877</a>) use gaslight phenomenon/syndrome, while all 3 hits in pubmed for "gaslighting" are from US authors (and 2 surely are psychoanalytical, including the paper you found.) I find it a little odd that there no hits in any US psychiatry journals; perhaps US psychiatrists called the notion something else... or they did not find worthwhile discussing. Actually, one US (VA) psychiatrist, Dansak, who is citing Barton and Whitehead, proposed to call the concept... <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010440X73900382" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"tertiary gain of illness"</a> and he (unlike the British) applied a psychoanlitic lens:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>PSYCHIATRISTS recognize that their patients acquire certain gains from
  their emotional problems. The gains were originally defined by Sigmund
  Freud as the primary and secondary gains of illness.’ The primary gain is an
  intrapsychic gain which the patient obtains as a result of his symptoms, i.e..
  a defense against and a reduction of anxiety. The secondary gain is an interpersonal
  or social advantage attained by the patient as a consequence of his
  illness In each case, it is noted, the patient is the one who “benefits.”
  An intriguing variation of the problem of secondary gain is mentioned by
  Ross’ in his discussion of the “traumatic neuroses” and their relation to compensation.
  He gives an example in which “the wife of an injured breadwinner
  may have gone to work while her husband was incapacitated, contributing to the
  shift in the family equilibrium. This shift may further a regression in which he
  becomes like a child or a substitute mother in the home, dependent on his wife.
  or retaliating for her assumption of his role. The wife may then push for compensation
  to reduce her own load.” This illustration presents the notion that
  someone other than the patient may seek or achieve gains from the patient’s
  illness. In this particular example the gain would be some form of financial
  compensation that would allow the wife to stop working, hire a maid. etc.
  The author proposes that gains sought or attained from a patient’s illness by
  someone other than the patient be called the tertiary gain of illness. Furthermore,
  though the above example highlights the tertiary gain to the wife of the
  husband’s acquiring compensation for his injury, all tertiary gains are not
  financial. The following case will demonstrate another type of tertiary gain, that
  of expelling the patient from his family. </p>
  
  <p>[case details]</p>
  
  <p>In keeping with the
  frame of reference of the patient and his illness, the writer proposes to define
  this phenomenon, where someone other than the patient gains from the latter’s
  illness, as the tertiary gain of illness.  [...] Recent reports in the British literatures have discussed examples of this under the heading of the “Gaslight Phenomenon.” </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also worth noting is that the concept discussed in the medical journals is narrower than what Wikipedia proposes, and it's usually just about having someone committed to a mental institution in inappropriate circumstances. I'm not sure about psychoanalytical papers, I'm not really in a mood to read them now.</p>

<p>However the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28746802" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2017 hit on "gaslight"</a> in pubmed  (from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Advanced_Nursing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">J. Adv. Nurs.</a>) has a quite different tint:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Conduct in our nursing workplaces remains a curious contrast of overt statements
  about quality, collegiality and community accompanied too often with the opposite (Cassell
  2011, Lampman et al. 2009, MacKay et al. 2008, Twale &amp; De Luca 2008). Known as
  gaslighting (Sarkis 2017), misalignment of words with actions serves to deny or justify
  bullying and harassment in a language of legitimacy. This behavior includes verbal and non-
  verbal actions, from overt aggression to subtle but ongoing undermining via institutional
  means, including: unfair allocation of work and roles, assignment of heavier teaching loads,
  unfair performance evaluations, and denial of opportunity (Gloor 2014, Cleary et al. 2016).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it's possible the notion adopted in the US came by a different route (not the British psychiatry journals), which might explain the different connotation as well as the small number of citations for the British papers. The "Sarkis S. (2017)" reference in that 2017 paper alas is just a <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting-in-relationships" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PT blog</a>.</p>

<p>Dorpat writes in his 2007 book "Crimes of Punishment: America's Culture of Violence" (p. 179):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Like the psychoanalysts Victor Calef and Edward Weinshel, I have adapted
  a broad definition of gaslighting, one that includes not just those who are made
  psychotic by it, but a wider range of victims. [...]</p>
  
  <p>A mild and naive form of gaslighting may be carried out by psychotherapists
  and others who are unaware that they are gaslighting, and who may also be unaware of the harmful effects of what they are doing. I gave examples of psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who were gaslighting
  patients and did not realize it. [citing his older book mentioned in the other answer]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So I suppose Calef and Weinshel are responsible for broadening the notion, which might explain the number of citations they've got (57 in Google Scholar).</p>

<p>Also note that when applied to therapists this gaslighting clearly falls under <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">iatrogenesis</a>... and iatrogenesis in therapy <a href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/208/3/210" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has been discussed aplenty</a>.</p>

<p>Finally (I hope!) <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00922429?" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gass and Nichols (1988)</a> talk about gaslighting in the context of extramarital affairs:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"The worst part, Harry, is the lying."</p>
  
  <p>"I'm not lying; you're just imagining things."</p>
  
  <p>Such conversations become a vicious part of the interaction between
  some husbands and wives. The husband gaslights or distorts
  reality in an effort to convince his spouse that she is crazy, that what
  she is perceiving is not happening. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>They don't cite any other paper for their use of the term.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-08T05:13:39.013Z
That's an interesting twist - that it is a technical term that means something different.
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-08T05:29:19.437Z
@Oddthinking: yeah it's a fairly fuzzy concept. It can mean different things to different people, even in peer-reviewed publications, depending on the field of study or country.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-07T16:40:10.320Z
2018-01-07T18:38:47.107Z
2018-01-07T18:38:47.107Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>Came across <a href="https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/38264" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article 2018 by Riggs and Bartholomaeus</a> and thought of this question. Gaslighting is more common in casual parlance than in the academic literature. There is great difficulty in studying gaslighting as it is inherently relational and by definition, the individual is being manipulated by the other person. It is a very personal experience making it quite hard to objectively study so making it a very difficult to investigate scientifically. Riggs defined gaslighting -</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Gaslighting is about subtly conveying to a person that their own judgment is not to be trusted and that they are not competent, thus undermining their confidence in being able to trust their own views and experiences. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Riggs illustrates with case examples how gaslighting is an identity-related abuse and uses his experience with transgender clients to illustrate the gaslighting experiences with parents of transgender children. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>gaslighting is centrally about issues of power and control (as is true for any form of abuse), in contexts where power differentials are already significant (such as in parent–child relationships), this can exacerbate the likelihood that control techniques such as gaslighting will occur, and minimise the likelihood that they will be identified by others.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I do like the discussion about the therapeutic approaches that a clinician can take to help ameliorate the impact and validate the impact of gaslighting on the client. </p>

<p><strong>Reference:</strong> </p>

<p>Riggs, D. W., &amp; Bartholomaeus, C. (2018). <a href="https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/38264" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gaslighting in the context of clinical interactions with parents of transgender children</a>. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(4), 382–394. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1444274" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1444274</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-01T12:37:55.577Z
Thanks, Poidah. This shows a single paper that uses the term. As I said in the question, I could find references to it, but nothing that convinced me it was widely accepted as a concept. This doesn't help - especially as the authors felt the need to define the term in the limited space of an abstract; they couldn't assume their colleagues knew what it meant. See also the comments on the accepted answer.
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-01T12:44:55.877Z
I was just commenting on a single paper and I did not make any comment about how accepted it is or not. If there was a paper that surveyed therapists/psychologists, that would be a better paper. But I have not come across such a paper as yet
Poidah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-01T17:05:07.937Z
I understand. As such, this doesn't answer the question.
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-01T20:48:36.843Z
Widely accepted is a ridiculous term. It is used and this is an example of a recent publication. A survey of psychologists and therapists of different types would be a better way to go.
Poidah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-01T10:10:13.657Z
2019-09-01T10:10:13.657Z
Poidah
<p>The wikipedia article you linked to regarding the term <em>Gaslighting</em> has references to clinical and research literature.</p>

<p><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3vLaAAAAMAAJ" rel="noreferrer">Dorpat, (1996)</a> talks about the incidences of Gaslighting conducted by therapists.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them. The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=PXvhE_AD084C&amp;pg=PA129" rel="noreferrer">Jacobson &amp; Gottman, (1998)</a> talks about wife batterers.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>After their decade of research with more than 200 couples, the authors conclude that not all batterers are alike, nor is the progression of their violence always predictable. But they have found that batterers tend to fall into one of two categories, which they call "Pit Bulls" and "Cobras". Pit Bulls, men whose emotions quickly boil over, are driven by deep insecurity and an unhealthy dependence on the mates whom they abuse. Pit Bulls also tend to become stalkers, unable to let go of relationships that have ended.</p>
  
  <p>Cobras, on the other hand, are cool and methodical as they inflict pain and humiliation on their spouses or lovers (Source: <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PXvhE_AD084C" rel="noreferrer">Google Books synopsis</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the book, it says</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A tactic of emotional abuse that is common among Pit Bulls, but not Cobras, is the phenomenon known as "gaslighting."  (The term comes from the film <em>Gaslight</em>, in which Charles Boyer convinces Ingrid Bergman that she is going insane.)  We gave an example of this phenomenon with Dave and Judy, in which he blatantly denied that he was a batterer.  Gaslighting is a systematic attach on the wife's perception of reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The term has been used in articles I have read within the last few months including one by <a href="http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/" rel="noreferrer">Christine Louis de Canonville (2017)</a> who <a href="http://narcissisticbehavior.net/about-me/" rel="noreferrer">has a B.A. (Hons.) degree in Psychology</a>, and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/are-gaslighters-aware-what-they-do" rel="noreferrer">Sarkis (2017)</a> within <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com" rel="noreferrer">PsychologyToday</a>.</p>

<p>If you <a href="https://scholar.google.co.uk/" rel="noreferrer">search Google Scholar</a>, the site will return thousands of results including articles in therapy journals, so the concept of gaslighting <strong>is</strong> widely accepted in the cognitive sciences.</p>

<h2>References</h2>

<p>Dorpat, T. L. (1996). <em>Gaslighting, the Double Whammy, Interrogation, and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis</em>. New York:Jason Aronson<br>ISBN-10: 1-5682-1828-1<br>ISBN-13: 978-1-5682-1828-1</p>

<p>Jacobson, N. S. &amp; Gottman, J. M. (1998). <em>When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships</em>. New York:Simon and Schuster<br>ISBN-10: 1-4165-5133-6<br>ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-5133-1</p>

<p>Louis de Canonville, C. (2017). <em>The Effects of Gaslighting on Victims of Narcissistic Abuse</em> [Online]<br>Available at: <a href="http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/" rel="noreferrer">http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/</a></p>

<p>Sarkis, S. (2017) <em>Are Gaslighters Aware of What They Do?</em> [Online]<br>Available at:<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/are-gaslighters-aware-what-they-do" rel="noreferrer">https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/are-gaslighters-aware-what-they-do</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T16:37:14.757Z
Thank you, Chris. I have given you a +1 for your efforts in researching. However, if anything, your evidence has pushed me *away* from your conclusion. If "gaslighting" was pop-psychology pseudoscience, I would only expect to be able to find it in unreferenced articles by grads, non-peer-reviewed blogs on magazine sites, self-help books that divide people into Pit Bulls versus Cobras, and books with few citations. You don't provide any respected text books/reference books or highly cited articles from serious journals.
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T16:43:32.407Z
@Oddthinking - How about the articles in therapy journals (which are serious journals) which come up in the Google Scholar search?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T16:55:45.030Z
That's where I hold the greatest hope. When I search for "gaslighting abuse" (to get rid of references to gas-fueled lamps) I get (only) about 1,600 results. I can see a lot of those aren't peer-reviewed journals, some seem to refer to gas-lighting only in passing, but the few that are about gas-lighting, I have only limited skill in knowing which journals are serious, and which are predatory/vanity/pseudo-science.
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T17:38:20.337Z
2 examples are Gass, G. Z., & Nichols, W. C. (1988). Gaslighting: A marital syndrome. *Contemporary Family Therapy, 10(1)*, 3-16. Calef V , Weinshel EM  (1981). Some clinical consequences of introjection: gaslighting.  *The Psychoanalytic Quarterly , 50(1)*, 44-66  If you don't consider them scientific, have a look at https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/12113
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T18:01:06.267Z
Each of those have dozens of citations each, and appear to be in serious journals [again, I don't rate myself as a judge of this in this field], so yes, I think they are much better examples. Thank you. (I skimmed the text of the first, and wasn't impressed that it was based on evidence, but that's a totally separate question, and again I acknowledge my lack of expertise to be a a good judge.)
Oddthinking
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-31T13:57:27.710Z
2017-07-31T13:57:27.710Z
Chris Rogers
<p>The term "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting" rel="noreferrer">gaslighting</a>" (referring to abusive manipulation of the facts to confuse victims) is common in pop-psychology sources, and I have friends who report that their psychologists or psychiatrists use the term as some form of shorthand.</p>

<p>However, I have looked in a couple of online psychology dictionaries, and they don't define the term. </p>

<p>I have looked on this site, and it only appears once.</p>

<p>I have looked on Google Scholar. While I can find <em>some</em> references to the term - especially a "seminal" 1981 paper, <a href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7465707" rel="noreferrer"><em>Some clinical consequences of introjection: gaslighting</em></a>, there don't appear to be <em>many</em> papers referencing it, and I haven't the experience to evaluate whether they are fringe ideas or mainstream science.</p>

<p>Is gaslighting just pop psychology, or is the concept of gaslighting widely accepted in the cognitive sciences?</p>

<terminology><clinical-psychology><psychiatry>
Is "gaslighting" a mainstream concept in the cognitive sciences?
Oddthinking
# Is "gaslighting" a mainstream concept in the cognitive sciences?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-07-30)

The term "[gaslighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)" (referring to abusive manipulation of the facts to confuse victims) is common in pop-psychology sources, and I have friends who report that their psychologists or psychiatrists use the term as some form of shorthand.

However, I have looked in a couple of online psychology dictionaries, and they don't define the term.

I have looked on this site, and it only appears once.

I have looked on Google Scholar. While I can find *some* references to the term - especially a "seminal" 1981 paper, [*Some clinical consequences of introjection: gaslighting*](http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7465707), there don't appear to be *many* papers referencing it, and I haven't the experience to evaluate whether they are fringe ideas or mainstream science.

Is gaslighting just pop psychology, or is the concept of gaslighting widely accepted in the cognitive sciences?

**Tags:** terminology, clinical-psychology, psychiatry


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-07-31. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

The wikipedia article you linked to regarding the term *Gaslighting* has references to clinical and research literature.

[Dorpat, (1996)](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3vLaAAAAMAAJ) talks about the incidences of Gaslighting conducted by therapists.

> In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them. The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians.

[Jacobson & Gottman, (1998)](https://books.google.com/books?id=PXvhE_AD084C&pg=PA129) talks about wife batterers.

> After their decade of research with more than 200 couples, the authors conclude that not all batterers are alike, nor is the progression of their violence always predictable. But they have found that batterers tend to fall into one of two categories, which they call "Pit Bulls" and "Cobras". Pit Bulls, men whose emotions quickly boil over, are driven by deep insecurity and an unhealthy dependence on the mates whom they abuse. Pit Bulls also tend to become stalkers, unable to let go of relationships that have ended.
>
> Cobras, on the other hand, are cool and methodical as they inflict pain and humiliation on their spouses or lovers (Source: [Google Books synopsis](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PXvhE_AD084C))

In the book, it says

> A tactic of emotional abuse that is common among Pit Bulls, but not Cobras, is the phenomenon known as "gaslighting." (The term comes from the film *Gaslight*, in which Charles Boyer convinces Ingrid Bergman that she is going insane.) We gave an example of this phenomenon with Dave and Judy, in which he blatantly denied that he was a batterer. Gaslighting is a systematic attach on the wife's perception of reality.

The term has been used in articles I have read within the last few months including one by [Christine Louis de Canonville (2017)](http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/) who [has a B.A. (Hons.) degree in Psychology](http://narcissisticbehavior.net/about-me/), and [Sarkis (2017)](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/are-gaslighters-aware-what-they-do) within [PsychologyToday](https://www.psychologytoday.com).

If you [search Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.co.uk/), the site will return thousands of results including articles in therapy journals, so the concept of gaslighting **is** widely accepted in the cognitive sciences.

## References

Dorpat, T. L. (1996). *Gaslighting, the Double Whammy, Interrogation, and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis*. New York:Jason Aronson  
ISBN-10: 1-5682-1828-1  
ISBN-13: 978-1-5682-1828-1

Jacobson, N. S. & Gottman, J. M. (1998). *When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships*. New York:Simon and Schuster  
ISBN-10: 1-4165-5133-6  
ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-5133-1

Louis de Canonville, C. (2017). *The Effects of Gaslighting on Victims of Narcissistic Abuse* [Online]  
Available at: <http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/>

Sarkis, S. (2017) *Are Gaslighters Aware of What They Do?* [Online]  
Available at:<https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/are-gaslighters-aware-what-they-do>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you, Chris. I have given you a +1 for your efforts in researching. However, if anything, your evidence has pushed me *away* from your conclusion. If "gaslighting" was pop-psychology pseudoscience, I would only expect to be able to find it in unreferenced articles by grads, non-peer-reviewed blogs on magazine sites, self-help books that divide people into Pit Bulls versus Cobras, and books with few citations. You don't provide any respected text books/reference books or highly cited articles from serious journals.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 - How about the articles in therapy journals (which are serious journals) which come up in the Google Scholar search?  
> **username_0**: That's where I hold the greatest hope. When I search for "gaslighting abuse" (to get rid of references to gas-fueled lamps) I get (only) about 1,600 results. I can see a lot of those aren't peer-reviewed journals, some seem to refer to gas-lighting only in passing, but the few that are about gas-lighting, I have only limited skill in knowing which journals are serious, and which are predatory/vanity/pseudo-science.  
> **username_3**: 2 examples are Gass, G. Z., & Nichols, W. C. (1988). Gaslighting: A marital syndrome. *Contemporary Family Therapy, 10(1)*, 3-16. Calef V , Weinshel EM  (1981). Some clinical consequences of introjection: gaslighting.  *The Psychoanalytic Quarterly , 50(1)*, 44-66  If you don't consider them scientific, have a look at https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/12113  
> **username_0**: Each of those have dozens of citations each, and appear to be in serious journals [again, I don't rate myself as a judge of this in this field], so yes, I think they are much better examples. Thank you. (I skimmed the text of the first, and wasn't impressed that it was based on evidence, but that's a totally separate question, and again I acknowledge my lack of expertise to be a a good judge.)  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-01-07. Score: 2

I would not call it a mainstream concept but it was discussed in some mainstream sources. However, there's a divergence in meaning; some old Commonwealth medical/psychiatry papers mostly use it to denote having someone inappropriately committed to a mental institution... whereas the broader notion you ask about is found in more recent sources and of more marginal impact factor. Furthermore, the original British concept has been re-labeled "tertiary gain of illness" in the US.

First of all, the [1981 "seminal" paper](http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7465707) (by Calef and Weinshel)
you mention is in psychoanalytical journal, which would immediately give me pause as to its validity/acceptance (unless you're in France). However the Wikipedia page cites an [older paper by Lund & Gardiner, 1977](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/588872), which is just a case report though, but in a mainstream psychiatry journal, the [British Journal of Psychiatry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Psychiatry). Abstract:

> A case of paranoid psychosis in an elderly female is reported in which recurrent episodes were apparently induced by the staff of the institution where the patient was a resident. The issues raised by this case are discussed.

The actually seminal paper (cited in the previous one) is Barton & Whitehead (1969) ["The gas-light phenomenon"](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(69)92133-3). Lancet,i,1258-60. but this was also case report (two actually).
[The Lancet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet), as you probably know, is a mainstream medical journal (not just psychiatric).

Another paper in the Br. J. Psych is Smith and Sinanan, 1972, The `Gaslight Phenomenon' Reappears A Modification of the [Ganser Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganser_syndrome), <https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.120.559.685> starts with:

> In 1969 Barton and Whitehead reported two
> cases in which there were definite plots to
> remove an unwanted and restricting relative
> by securing admission to a mental hospital, and
> one case of an old lady admitted to a mental
> hospital following induced faecal incontinence.
> The old lady was considered a nursing home
> nuisance and she was given purgatives regularly.
> Inevitably she had some "accidents" and these
> were used as an excuse for removing her to
> hospital. They labelled such attempts 'The
> Gaslight Phenomenon', inspired by Patrick
> Hamilton's play Gaslight which was first
> produced in London in 1939 and later formed
> the basis for a film. Their survey of the
> literature uncovered few recent reports of such
> manipulations.
> Without the emphasis of Barton and White
> head's report the following cases might have
> passed unnoticed. We feel that it is time to
> stress again the presence of this phenomenon,
> and, as this report shows, it is not unique to
> psychiatric hospitals.

And they also discuss a couple of cases.

But nevertheless these paper have few citations, using the Google Scholar count
30 for the 1969 one. So while it was discussed, it was seldom so. It's true that the 1981 paper seems to have more citations (57) but in my experience GS undercounts for the older papers and overcounts the newer ones.

Searching for the "gaslight" term in pubmed returns around 10 papers (a couple of which are clearly false positive) <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslight> and <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gaslighting> only 3 hits. Hence my conclusion: discussed in mainstream sources, but seldom, so not a mainstream term.

Also note that the sources from the Commonwealth (there is a paper from Canada as well <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7093877>) use gaslight phenomenon/syndrome, while all 3 hits in pubmed for "gaslighting" are from US authors (and 2 surely are psychoanalytical, including the paper you found.) I find it a little odd that there no hits in any US psychiatry journals; perhaps US psychiatrists called the notion something else... or they did not find worthwhile discussing. Actually, one US (VA) psychiatrist, Dansak, who is citing Barton and Whitehead, proposed to call the concept... ["tertiary gain of illness"](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010440X73900382) and he (unlike the British) applied a psychoanlitic lens:

> PSYCHIATRISTS recognize that their patients acquire certain gains from
> their emotional problems. The gains were originally defined by Sigmund
> Freud as the primary and secondary gains of illness.’ The primary gain is an
> intrapsychic gain which the patient obtains as a result of his symptoms, i.e..
> a defense against and a reduction of anxiety. The secondary gain is an interpersonal
> or social advantage attained by the patient as a consequence of his
> illness In each case, it is noted, the patient is the one who “benefits.”
> An intriguing variation of the problem of secondary gain is mentioned by
> Ross’ in his discussion of the “traumatic neuroses” and their relation to compensation.
> He gives an example in which “the wife of an injured breadwinner
> may have gone to work while her husband was incapacitated, contributing to the
> shift in the family equilibrium. This shift may further a regression in which he
> becomes like a child or a substitute mother in the home, dependent on his wife.
> or retaliating for her assumption of his role. The wife may then push for compensation
> to reduce her own load.” This illustration presents the notion that
> someone other than the patient may seek or achieve gains from the patient’s
> illness. In this particular example the gain would be some form of financial
> compensation that would allow the wife to stop working, hire a maid. etc.
> The author proposes that gains sought or attained from a patient’s illness by
> someone other than the patient be called the tertiary gain of illness. Furthermore,
> though the above example highlights the tertiary gain to the wife of the
> husband’s acquiring compensation for his injury, all tertiary gains are not
> financial. The following case will demonstrate another type of tertiary gain, that
> of expelling the patient from his family.
>
> [case details]
>
> In keeping with the
> frame of reference of the patient and his illness, the writer proposes to define
> this phenomenon, where someone other than the patient gains from the latter’s
> illness, as the tertiary gain of illness. [...] Recent reports in the British literatures have discussed examples of this under the heading of the “Gaslight Phenomenon.”

Also worth noting is that the concept discussed in the medical journals is narrower than what Wikipedia proposes, and it's usually just about having someone committed to a mental institution in inappropriate circumstances. I'm not sure about psychoanalytical papers, I'm not really in a mood to read them now.

However the [2017 hit on "gaslight"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28746802) in pubmed (from [J. Adv. Nurs.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Advanced_Nursing)) has a quite different tint:

> Conduct in our nursing workplaces remains a curious contrast of overt statements
> about quality, collegiality and community accompanied too often with the opposite (Cassell
> 2011, Lampman et al. 2009, MacKay et al. 2008, Twale & De Luca 2008). Known as
> gaslighting (Sarkis 2017), misalignment of words with actions serves to deny or justify
> bullying and harassment in a language of legitimacy. This behavior includes verbal and non-
> verbal actions, from overt aggression to subtle but ongoing undermining via institutional
> means, including: unfair allocation of work and roles, assignment of heavier teaching loads,
> unfair performance evaluations, and denial of opportunity (Gloor 2014, Cleary et al. 2016).

So it's possible the notion adopted in the US came by a different route (not the British psychiatry journals), which might explain the different connotation as well as the small number of citations for the British papers. The "Sarkis S. (2017)" reference in that 2017 paper alas is just a [PT blog](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting-in-relationships).

Dorpat writes in his 2007 book "Crimes of Punishment: America's Culture of Violence" (p. 179):

> Like the psychoanalysts Victor Calef and Edward Weinshel, I have adapted
> a broad definition of gaslighting, one that includes not just those who are made
> psychotic by it, but a wider range of victims. [...]
>
> A mild and naive form of gaslighting may be carried out by psychotherapists
> and others who are unaware that they are gaslighting, and who may also be unaware of the harmful effects of what they are doing. I gave examples of psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who were gaslighting
> patients and did not realize it. [citing his older book mentioned in the other answer]

So I suppose Calef and Weinshel are responsible for broadening the notion, which might explain the number of citations they've got (57 in Google Scholar).

Also note that when applied to therapists this gaslighting clearly falls under [iatrogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis)... and iatrogenesis in therapy [has been discussed aplenty](http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/208/3/210).

Finally (I hope!) [Gass and Nichols (1988)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00922429?) talk about gaslighting in the context of extramarital affairs:

> "The worst part, Harry, is the lying."
>
> "I'm not lying; you're just imagining things."
>
> Such conversations become a vicious part of the interaction between
> some husbands and wives. The husband gaslights or distorts
> reality in an effort to convince his spouse that she is crazy, that what
> she is perceiving is not happening.

They don't cite any other paper for their use of the term.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That's an interesting twist - that it is a technical term that means something different.  
> **username_1**: @username_0: yeah it's a fairly fuzzy concept. It can mean different things to different people, even in peer-reviewed publications, depending on the field of study or country.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-09-01. Score: 0

Came across [this article 2018 by Riggs and Bartholomaeus](https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/38264) and thought of this question. Gaslighting is more common in casual parlance than in the academic literature. There is great difficulty in studying gaslighting as it is inherently relational and by definition, the individual is being manipulated by the other person. It is a very personal experience making it quite hard to objectively study so making it a very difficult to investigate scientifically. Riggs defined gaslighting -

> Gaslighting is about subtly conveying to a person that their own judgment is not to be trusted and that they are not competent, thus undermining their confidence in being able to trust their own views and experiences.

Riggs illustrates with case examples how gaslighting is an identity-related abuse and uses his experience with transgender clients to illustrate the gaslighting experiences with parents of transgender children.

> gaslighting is centrally about issues of power and control (as is true for any form of abuse), in contexts where power differentials are already significant (such as in parent–child relationships), this can exacerbate the likelihood that control techniques such as gaslighting will occur, and minimise the likelihood that they will be identified by others.

I do like the discussion about the therapeutic approaches that a clinician can take to help ameliorate the impact and validate the impact of gaslighting on the client.

**Reference:**

Riggs, D. W., & Bartholomaeus, C. (2018). [Gaslighting in the context of clinical interactions with parents of transgender children](https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/38264). Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(4), 382–394. <https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1444274>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, username_2. This shows a single paper that uses the term. As I said in the question, I could find references to it, but nothing that convinced me it was widely accepted as a concept. This doesn't help - especially as the authors felt the need to define the term in the limited space of an abstract; they couldn't assume their colleagues knew what it meant. See also the comments on the accepted answer.  
> **username_2**: I was just commenting on a single paper and I did not make any comment about how accepted it is or not. If there was a paper that surveyed therapists/psychologists, that would be a better paper. But I have not come across such a paper as yet  
> **username_0**: I understand. As such, this doesn't answer the question.  
> **username_2**: Widely accepted is a ridiculous term. It is used and this is an example of a recent publication. A survey of psychologists and therapists of different types would be a better way to go.  

---

