Questions to reflect on
- Why do I suddenly start doubting my own memory after certain conversations?
- Why do I keep thinking: “Maybe it really is me”?
- When is a difference in memory just a difference of opinion, and when does it become gaslighting?
- Is lying automatically gaslighting?
- Why can someone who denies something with complete confidence make me doubt myself?
- Can gaslighting also happen at work, within families, or in groups?
- How can I better separate facts, memories, and interpretations?
What is gaslighting?
The American Psychological Association defines gaslighting as manipulating someone in such a way that they begin to doubt their own perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events. The term originally comes from the 1938 play Gas Light and later film adaptations, in which a man repeatedly deceives his wife until she starts doubting her own perception.
A commonly used core idea is therefore:
I perceive something
or remember something
↓
the other person denies,
minimizes, or
distorts it repeatedly
↓
I begin to trust
my own judgment less
and lessGaslighting therefore goes beyond simply:
“We remember this differently.”
It refers to a pattern in which someone’s trust in their own ability to know what they have seen, heard, felt, or experienced is undermined.
That is why philosopher Kate Abramson describes gaslighting as more than just disagreeing with someone. The defining feature is that the other person eventually starts to take their own ability to judge events less seriously.
Gaslighting is not a psychiatric diagnosis
Gaslighting is not a separate psychiatric disorder.
It is a term for a certain kind of relational or social manipulation.
There is also still no fully uniform scientific definition. A systematic review from 2025 concluded that in research the term is often used differently and is sometimes too easily mixed up with manipulation in general.
That is why caution with the label is important.
Not:
“You disagree with me”
=
“You are gaslighting me”but rather to look into:
What exactly is happening?
Is it happening repeatedly?
Is my perception or sense of reason being undermined?
Is there a power or dependency relationship involved?
What are the verifiable facts?
A difference of opinion is not gaslighting
Two people can genuinely remember something differently.
That is completely normal.
Human memory does not work like a video recording. Research on memory shows that memories are reconstructive and susceptible to influence. Later information can become part of how someone remembers an event.
That is why two honest people can say:
“I thought you said that.”
and:
“I really remember it differently.”
without either person manipulating the other.
DIFFERENCE IN MEMORY
“I remember it
differently from you”
≠
automatically
gaslightingPrecisely because memory is fallible, a difference in recollection by itself is not enough to draw strong conclusions about the other person’s intent.
How is gaslighting different from simply being wrong?
Compare these situations.
Situation 1 – honest disagreement
“I really thought we had arranged to meet on Wednesday.”
“I think it was Thursday. Shall we look at our messages?”
Here there is room for checking.
Situation 2 – denial
“No, I never said that.”
That may be incorrect, but one denial is still not proof of gaslighting.
Situation 3 – possible gaslighting pattern
“I never said that. You keep making things up. This always happens with you. Your memory is worthless. I honestly don’t know why I still discuss anything with you.”
If there are then messages that show exactly what is being denied, but the same pattern keeps recurring, a different picture emerges.
DIFFERENCE
“We remember
it differently”
DENIAL
“I didn’t
say that”
GASLIGHTING PATTERN
“That didn’t happen
+
you make things up
+
you can’t trust your own
perception”The difference is therefore not only in who is factually right.
It is also about what happens to the other person’s trust in themselves.
Is lying the same as gaslighting?
No.
Someone may lie in order to:
get money,
hide something,
avoid punishment,
make themselves look better,
without trying to make you doubt your own perception.
Gaslighting is more specific.
LYING
“This did not happen”
to hide something
GASLIGHTING
“This did not happen
and the fact that you think it did
proves there is something
wrong with your perception”Gaslighting can therefore include lying, but not every lie is gaslighting.
Must gaslighting always be intentional?
Definitions differ slightly here.
In everyday language and much theoretical literature, gaslighting is described as manipulation. That suggests deliberate behavior. The APA likewise uses the verb manipulate.
But in real relationships, intent is difficult to prove.
A 2026 systematic review of gaslighting in the workplace therefore concluded that conscious intent cannot always be established and treated intentionality as a feature that does not have to be demonstrable in every case.
For your knowledge base, I would therefore make this distinction:
BEHAVIOR
What does someone do?
PATTERN
How often does this happen?
EFFECT
What happens to
my trust in
my own perception?
INTENTION
What did the other person want?
→ that last question
is sometimes difficult
to answer with certaintySo you do not need to be able to read someone’s mind to take harmful behavior seriously.
At the same time, you should not present uncertainty about intent as proven malice.
Example from a relationship
Suppose your partner writes during an argument:
“If you do this one more time, I’m leaving.”
A week later, you discuss that message.
Your partner says:
“I never said that.”
You show the message.
The response is:
“You’re taking it out of context. Anyone would understand I didn’t mean it like that. You always make drama. Your memory and interpretation just aren’t right.”
A month later, something similar happens.
Then again after that.
Over time, before a conversation, you may think:
“Maybe I should just say nothing. I can never be sure anymore whether my memory is right.”
Event
↓
denial
↓
evidence is
minimized
↓
“you are the problem”
↓
increasing
self-doubtThat pattern is much closer to what the literature means by gaslighting than one argument about exactly who said what.
Why can this have so much impact?
People do not determine reality entirely on their own.
We constantly use other people as sources of information.
That is normal.
If someone we trust says:
“No, that is not at all how it happened.”
we take that seriously.
It gets more complicated when that person is:
a partner,
a parent,
a supervisor,
a doctor,
a religious leader,
or someone we depend on socially or emotionally.
Sociologist Paige Sweet emphasizes in her research on gaslighting that such processes can become especially powerful within relationships marked by power imbalances and dependence. Her analysis of intimate partner violence shows how social position and relational power can be used to undermine someone’s reality.
I trust you
+
you have a lot of
significance or power
+
you repeatedly deny
my experience
↓
“Maybe I really
can’t trust
myself”That explains why the same sentence from a stranger can have less impact than from someone who is very important to you.
Why is “you’re too sensitive” not automatically gaslighting?
Sentences like:
You’re exaggerating.
You’re too sensitive.
That didn’t happen.
You misunderstood it.
You always make drama.
can be part of gaslighting.
But one such statement is not automatically gaslighting.
Maybe someone genuinely thinks your reaction is out of proportion.
Maybe he misunderstood you.
Maybe he is defending himself.
Maybe you remember it differently.
The pattern and the context matter.
One unpleasant remark
≠
automatically
gaslighting
Repeated undermining
of your perception
+
self-doubt
+
relational power
↓
much more relevantThis helps prevent the term from becoming a synonym for “someone disagrees with me.”
Gaslighting and memory: both people can be mistaken
This is an important nuance.
Those who study gaslighting can fall into the opposite trap:
“I remember it, so my memory must be exactly right.”
That is too strong as well.
Research by Elizabeth Loftus and others has convincingly shown that human memory is malleable. Suggestive information can distort memories, and people can even report memories very convincingly that do not fully match what actually happened.
That is why this schema is useful:
My memory
can be fallible
and
the other person may try
to undermine my
memory
Both are possibleSo the solution is not:
“Always trust your memory alone.”
but rather:
“Use independent information whenever possible.”
Distinguish between fact, memory, and interpretation
Suppose an argument breaks out after a conversation.
You can distinguish three layers.
FACT
The message says:
“I’m not coming.”
MEMORY
“I remember that
you sounded angry.”
INTERPRETATION
“You wanted to hurt me
on purpose.”The first can often be checked.
The second is your memory of the experience.
The third is a conclusion about motive.
Many conflicts become confusing because these three layers get mixed together.
For example:
“I know you wanted to humiliate me.”
is often harder to prove than:
“You said, in front of the others: ‘You apparently don’t understand this.’”
The more specifically you can go back to behavior and verifiable information, the less dependent you become on debates about intent.
Gaslighting can make you more dependent on the other person
When someone trusts themselves less and less, an odd situation can arise:
I doubt
myself
↓
I ask you
what really happened
↓
you increasingly decide
which version is correct
↓
I trust myself
even lessAbramson describes precisely this erosion of a person’s position as a reliable evaluator of their own experience as a central aspect of gaslighting.
The result can be that someone asks more and more often:
Am I crazy?
Am I imagining this?
Was it really that bad?
Maybe I really am too sensitive.
A systematic review on gaslighting in gender-based violence describes, among the possible consequences, disruption of trust in perception and memory, emotional problems, and social isolation.
Gaslighting can also happen at work
The term is now also being studied outside intimate relationships.
A 2026 academic review, for example, examined workplace gaslighting and describes recurring patterns such as minimizing and undermining in employment relationships. The authors stress that research in this area is still relatively young and that there is not yet a fully established definition.
An employee might say, for example:
“Last week you said this deadline was Friday.”
A manager replies:
“I never said that. You often misunderstand instructions.”
Once that may simply be an honest difference in memory.
When emails exist that support the employee and the same manager repeatedly denies demonstrable agreements and portrays the employee as unreliable, the pattern becomes more relevant.
How can this happen within tight-knit groups?
Within close religious, political, professional, or social groups, different versions of events can emerge.
Members may think:
“That never happened like that.”
Former members may say:
“That is absolutely how it was taught to us.”
Critics may accuse an organization of rewriting the past.
The organization may feel that critics are misrepresenting changes or statements.
The word gaslighting is then quickly used.
But a disagreement about history or doctrine is not yet proof of gaslighting.
Disagreement about
what was taught before
≠
automatic
gaslightingFirst, the concrete facts must be examined.
How can this be recognizable around Jehovah’s Witnesses?
This distinction is especially useful with Jehovah’s Witnesses because the organization itself acknowledges that some beliefs have changed over time.
JW.org explicitly says that beliefs have been adjusted as the organization’s understanding of the Bible became clearer. The organization also states that such changes are recorded under Beliefs Clarified / Clarified Beliefs.
A change in teaching is therefore, in itself, not gaslighting.
For example:
BEFORE
a different explanation
↓
LATER
a new explanation
≠
automatic
gaslightingA more careful inquiry begins with:
What actually appeared in the old publication?
What does the current publication say?
Is the change acknowledged?
How is it explained?
That provides verifiable information.
Gaslighting only becomes a more relevant term when there is also a recurring pattern in which someone’s reliable perception or memory is undermined, for example by repeatedly denying verifiable information while at the same time convincing the person that their own judgment is flawed.
That is a much more specific claim than:
“The doctrine changed, so this is gaslighting.”
Former members and critics can also misuse the term
The same critical standard should apply on both sides.
A former member might, for example, say to a current Witness:
“You don’t even know what you yourself experienced, because you’ve been indoctrinated.”
That is not automatically gaslighting, but it can still needlessly discredit someone’s own perspective.
A critic can also be mistaken about what was actually published in the past.
That is why the rule should always be:
No conclusion
based on:
“My group says this”
but investigate:
What is the source?
What does it say?
Which version existed when?The term gaslighting should not become a weapon that one group uses to easily explain why the other group does not understand its own experience.
Changing your mind is not gaslighting
People are allowed to change their minds.
Organizations are allowed to change policy.
Religions are allowed to revise their interpretations.
Scientists are allowed to revise earlier conclusions.
Earlier:
“I think A”
Later:
“I think B”
≠
gaslightingIt only becomes problematic when someone, for example, claims:
“I never said A.”
while clear evidence of A is available, and this is part of a broader pattern in which the other person is portrayed as unreliable, confused, or irrational.
Even then, it is wiser to describe the behavior first before claiming certainty about motive.
You can also make yourself doubt yourself without anyone gaslighting you
Not every bout of self-doubt after a conversation is caused by gaslighting.
You may be:
uncertain,
conflict-avoidant,
very tired,
afraid of rejection,
prone to authority,
or you may genuinely no longer remember exactly what was said.
That is why:
“After conversations, I start doubting myself.”
is an important experience, but by itself not proof of what the other person is doing.
My self-doubt
is real information
but not yet
proof of the causeThat distinction prevents both minimization and premature labels.
What can you do if you no longer know what to believe?
First try to make the discussion less dependent on memory.
Write down important agreements.
Save relevant messages.
Confirm important arrangements, for example with:
“Just to be sure: so we agreed that…”
Not to keep collecting evidence against someone, but to reduce ambiguity.
In a recurring conflict, a simple overview can help:
WHAT HAPPENED?
concrete event
WHAT CAN BE VERIFIED?
messages
emails
calendar
documents
WHAT DO I REMEMBER?
my memory
WHAT DOES THE OTHER PERSON SAY?
their memory
WHAT IS INTERPRETATION?
conclusions about
intentionsThat can remove a surprising amount of confusion.
Seek independent information
When one person or group keeps becoming the only source that determines what really happened, a second source can help.
That could be, for example:
an original publication,
an email,
a medical record,
a contract,
a witness,
a reliable expert,
or someone who is not directly a party to the conflict.
That does not mean a third person is automatically right.
It gives you more than one point of information.
Not just:
your version
versus
my version
but also:
what can we
independently
verify?Look for patterns rather than isolated sentences
A practical distinction:
ONE-OFF
“I remember it differently”
→ possibly normal
REPEATED
“I never said that”
while evidence shows
otherwise
+
“you’re crazy”
“you’re making everything up”
“your memory is wrong”
→ pattern worth
investigating seriouslyThe term becomes much more precise when you look at repetition, power, behavior, and consequences instead of one sentence from one argument.
How does someone respond when evidence appears?
This can be informative.
Suppose two people remember something differently and then find an old message.
One possible response is:
“You’re right. I remembered it wrong.”
That leaves room for correction.
Another response is:
“Yes, it does say that, but you’re misunderstanding it because you always misunderstand everything.”
One such response still doesn’t prove everything.
But when facts keep shifting the moment earlier claims are disproven, it may be wise to look more closely at the pattern.
New information
↓
Can I adjust
my version?
or
does it always have to
be your perception
that is wrong?Gaslighting and responsibility
This distinction is important too.
Suppose someone says:
“I did that because you made me angry.”
That can be an explanation of their emotion.
But it can also shift responsibility.
A more accurate formulation is:
“I became angry because of what happened, and I chose to respond that way.”
Gaslighting, blame shifting, and DARVO can occur side by side in some harmful relationships, but they are not the same concepts.
That is why each concept deserves its own explanation.
What can you do with this?
Don’t start right away with the question:
“Is this person a gaslighter?”
That immediately turns a pattern into an identity.
Instead, start with:
“What is happening between us?”
Then ask:
What specific event is in dispute?
Which facts can be verified?
Is there really evidence for my memory or the other person’s?
Can the other person acknowledge that they may be mistaken?
Can I acknowledge myself that my memory is fallible?
Does this undermining happen regularly?
Am I increasingly being portrayed as irrational, too sensitive, or unreliable?
Do I feel that I am becoming more and more dependent on the other person to determine what is “real”?
Is there a power imbalance that makes it difficult to push back?
In cases of structural psychological abuse or an unsafe relationship, professional help may be appropriate. If there is also threat, violence, or coercion, safety is more important than trying to win the argument on the merits.
Questions to reflect on
Is this a single difference in memory, or do I see a recurring pattern?
Which facts can I independently verify?
Am I distinguishing between my memory and my interpretation of someone’s intention?
Can the other person ever say: “You’re right, I remembered it wrong”?
Can I do that myself?
Is a concrete disagreement repeatedly being turned into a judgment about my sanity or reliability?
Do I come away from conversations feeling better informed, or mostly more confused?
Have I started collecting more and more evidence because I no longer trust my own memory?
Do I have trustworthy people outside the conflict with whom I can discuss my experience?
Am I perhaps using the word gaslighting for behavior that is actually lying, disagreement, defensiveness, or a difference in memory?
And perhaps the most important:
What do I know?
What do I remember?
What do I interpret?
And what can I
independently
verify?Summary
Gaslighting is a specific form of manipulative influence in which someone’s trust in their own perception, memory, or ability to understand events is undermined. Scientific definitions still differ somewhat, but repeated manipulation, self-doubt, and power dynamics are important themes in the literature.
Not every conflict is gaslighting.
Not every lie is gaslighting.
Not every change of mind is gaslighting.
And not every difference in memory is gaslighting.
DISAGREEMENT
“We see this differently”
MEMORY MISTAKE
“One of us remembers
it wrong”
LYING
“I know what happened
but I say something else”
GASLIGHTING
a pattern in which
your trust in
your own reality
is underminedBecause memory is genuinely fallible, verifiable facts, original sources, and patterns over time matter.
Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, simply changing a belief is not proof of gaslighting; the organization itself acknowledges that its interpretations have been adjusted in some respects and keeps overviews of those changes.
A useful core question is therefore not:
“Who calls whom a gaslighter?”
but:
Are facts
investigated fairly?
May I take my own
experience seriously?
And can both the other person
and I adjust our version
when the evidence calls for it?Sources and further reading
American Psychological Association – Gaslight. Describes gaslighting as manipulating someone so that they begin to doubt their own perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events, and also explains the origin of the term in Gas Light.
Kate Abramson (2014), Turning Up the Lights on Gaslighting, Philosophical Perspectives, 28, 1–30. An influential analysis that distinguishes gaslighting from simply ignoring or contradicting someone; its focus is on undermining a person’s confidence in themselves as an evaluator of their own experience.
Paige L. Sweet (2019), The Sociology of Gaslighting, American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. An analysis of gaslighting in intimate partner violence, with special attention to relational power, social inequality, and the undermining of a person’s sense of reality.
Jewels Adair (2025/2026), Defining Gaslighting in Gender-Based Violence: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. A systematic review of interdisciplinary research. It describes gaslighting as a specific erosion of perception, reality, and memory, and emphasizes repeated manipulation, power, and possible effects on self-confidence and relationships.
Neha Popat & Jatin Pandey (2026), Workplace Gaslighting: A Construct for Organizational Research, Frontiers in Psychology, 17. A review showing that the concept is also being studied in the workplace, but that definitions are still developing. The authors emphasize that intentionality in concrete cases cannot always be demonstrated.
Elizabeth F. Loftus (2005), Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-Year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory. On the misinformation effect and the malleability of human memory; important for understanding why a difference in recollection is not, by itself, proof of gaslighting.
Elizabeth F. Loftus (2017), Eavesdropping on Memory. On decades of research into the changeable and reconstructive nature of memory.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Why Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Changed Some of Their Beliefs? Official JW.org explanation in which the organization acknowledges that beliefs have been adjusted and says it publishes such changes.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Beliefs Clarified / Clarification of Our Beliefs. Official reference to overviews in which adjustments in Bible understanding can be found by year or topic.
