Gaslighting and the Collapse of Reality – A Psychological War on Perception
- Brainz Magazine
- 23 hours ago
- 5 min read
Viviana Meloni is the Director of Inside Out multilingual Psychological Therapy, a private principal psychologist, HCPC registered, chartered member of the British Psychological Society, EMDR UK member, with recognition for her clinical leadership, and author of specialist trainings in trauma, emotional dysregulation, and personality disorders. She also holds a Senior Leader Psychologist role in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom at SLaM, a globally recognized leader in mental health research. Moreover, she is reviewing institutional partnerships in the United Arab Emirates.
There are manipulations that deceive, and there are manipulations that dismantle. Ordinary manipulation seeks to change behaviour, gaslighting seeks to rewrite perception itself. Manipulation says, “Do this for me.” Gaslighting whispers, “You can’t trust what you see.” The difference is existential. Manipulation exploits emotion to achieve an outcome, and gaslighting corrodes cognition to achieve control. It is the psychological equivalent of a virus that invades not the body but the epistemic immune system, the mechanisms through which we verify truth. When repeated over time, it transforms certainty into hesitation and autonomy into dependency. The victim begins to doubt not only the perpetrator but themselves. Did I overreact? Did it happen that way? In the silence that follows, reality itself starts to disintegrate.
The brain betrayed: Neuropsychology of doubt
Psychologically, gaslighting functions as a collapse of epistemic trust, the ability to rely on one’s own mind as a reliable source of knowledge. It attacks three core domains, perception, memory, and emotion. Each denial (“that never happened”), reversal (“you started it”), or minimisation (“you’re imagining things”) forces the brain into cognitive dissonance, a conflict between internal evidence and external contradiction. Neuropsychologically, this produces chronic activation of the limbic system, particularly the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex, regions attuned to error detection and social threat. Over time, heightened cortisol and dopaminergic dysregulation erode prefrontal efficiency, impairing working memory and decision confidence. The result is epistemic fatigue. The brain learns that certainty is dangerous, that doubt is safer. The individual begins to internalise the gaslighter’s narrative, converting imposed distortions into self-generated ones. It is not merely psychological abuse, it is neurological conditioning.
Gaslighting and love: The betrayal of attachment
Gaslighting in intimate partnerships profoundly disrupts attachment security. From a psychological perspective, repeated invalidation and emotional distortion can shift individuals from secure or anxious preoccupied attachment toward disorganized patterns, creating chronic relational ambivalence and hypervigilance. Neuropsychologically, this persistent relational stress recruits the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis, increasing cortisol secretion, while repeated cognitive emotional conflicts weaken prefrontal limbic connectivity, which is essential for decision-making, emotional regulation, and reality testing. The consequences are multifaceted, heightened anxiety, emotional dysregulation, depressive symptoms, impaired social cognition, and difficulties in forming subsequent healthy attachments. Victims may also develop metacognitive deficits, doubting their own memory, intuition, and judgment, which perpetuates cycles of vulnerability. Clinically, understanding gaslighting through the lens of attachment and neuropsychology allows for interventions that target both emotional security and cognitive restoration, supporting recovery of autonomy, self-efficacy, and relational trust.
Workplace gaslighting: The silent erosion of professional identity and the invisible sabotage of mind and performance
Workplace gaslighting is a subtle but devastating form of professional abuse in which authority figures or colleagues systematically manipulate reality, deny events, or undermine an employee’s perceptions and decisions. Unlike overt bullying, it attacks the cognitive and emotional foundations of professional identity, creating persistent self-doubt, anxiety, and epistemic confusion. Psychologically, victims often internalize blame, develop hypervigilance, and experience chronic stress that mirrors trauma responses. Neuropsychologically, sustained exposure to these manipulations engages the HPA axis, increasing cortisol levels while diminishing prefrontal cortex efficiency, which is critical for decision-making, executive functioning, and reality testing. The consequences ripple across organizational structures, diminished creativity, impaired collaboration, reduced productivity, and increased turnover. Clinically and organizationally, interventions must combine trauma-informed leadership, structured accountability, and individual cognitive restoration to repair epistemic trust, restore autonomy, and protect both employee well-being and organizational integrity. Recognizing workplace gaslighting as a cognitive emotional hazard reframes it from minor office politics to a profound psychological and neurobiological threat.
The clinical challenge: Recalibrating epistemic trust in the abused mind
Clinically, this mechanism distinguishes gaslighting from other manipulations or lies. Manipulation, even when unethical, leaves the target’s cognitive framework intact. The person knows they are being persuaded, flattered, or coerced. Gaslighting, in contrast, implodes the framework itself. It replaces self-reflection with self-suspicion. In therapy, victims rarely arrive saying, “I was gaslighted.” They arrive saying, “I think something’s wrong with me.” The damage lies in the meta-cognition, the awareness of thinking, rather than in specific memories. Evidence shows that long-term gaslighting correlates with symptoms of complex trauma, depression, and derealisation, mirroring neurobiological patterns of chronic abuse. Treatment requires a re-establishment of epistemic confidence, helping the individual rebuild trust in perception, relearn to anchor in sensory evidence, and differentiate internalised voices from authentic cognition. Recovery is not just emotional repair but the reassembly of a coherent mental map.
In the broader cultural landscape, gaslighting transcends the personal and becomes systemic, manifesting in propaganda, institutions, and digital spaces where repetition and authority manufacture doubt. The same neural pathways that enable empathy and learning can be hijacked by persistent contradiction and emotional disorientation. Society, too, can suffer epistemic fatigue. To study gaslighting is to study the fragility of human cognition under power. It is to recognise that the mind’s greatest strength, its openness to correction and connection, is also its greatest vulnerability. Manipulation bends choice, gaslighting bends reality. And when reality bends too far, the mind begins to fracture in its attempt to stay whole.
Visit my website for more info!
Read more from Viviana Meloni
Viviana Meloni, Private Chartered Principal Psychologist
Viviana Meloni is the founder and the clinical Director of Inside Out Multilingual Psychological Therapy, a London-based private psychology consultancy across popular locations including Kensington, Wimbledon, Chiswick, West Hampstead, and Canary Wharf. Viviana Meloni provides psychological consultations, assessments, formulations, and treatment in English, Italian, Spanish, and her company’s extensive network enables multilingual collaborations and liaison with Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Punjabi, and Russian languages. She firmly believes that in every challenge lies an opportunity to grow, heal, and inspire.
References:
Abramson, K. (2014). Turning up the lights on gaslighting. Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1), 1–30.
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875.
Klein, W., Wood, S., & Bartz, J. A. (2025). A theoretical framework for studying the phenomenon of gaslighting. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Haggard, E., & Stockdale, L. (2023). Gaslighting, epistemic trust, and trauma: A clinical synthesis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse.
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017). Epistemic trust and the developmental significance of social communication. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4(9).
Klein, W., Li, S., & Wood, S. (2023). A qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 30(4), 1316‑1340.
Christie, R., & Tiffany, S. (2022). Attachment disruption and neuropsychological effects of relational trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 23(5), 567‑583.
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875.
Leduc, J., & Proulx, S. (2021). Neuropsychological consequences of chronic relational manipulation: Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(4), 445–463.
Abramson, C. M. (2014). Psychological abuse and the manipulation of reality: Gaslighting. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(3), 225–234.
Dorpat, T. L. (1994). Gaslighting, the double whammy, interrogation, and other methods of covert control in psychotherapy and analysis. Jason Aronson.
Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A. (2016). The effects of maltreatment on brain structure, function, and connectivity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(10), 652–666.
Sweet, P. L., & Lang, C. (2023). Defining gaslighting in gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(5–6), NP2089–NP2113.
Yousefi, N. et al. (2025). Decoding workplace gaslighting: Validation of the Gaslighting Workplace Scale. BMC Nursing, 24(1), 312.
Wright, T., & Schneider, J. (2025). Gaslighting experience, psychological health, and well-being: The role of self-compassion and social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 39727018.
Frampton, R. J., & Lang, C. (2024). Epistemic resilience: Restoring trust in perception after coercive control. Journal of Psychological Therapy and Research, 48(2), 133–147.
