The Sociology of Gaslighting

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

American Sociological Review

2019, Vol. 84(5) 851 –875

Association 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843

journals.sagepub.com/home/asr

George Cukor’s 1944 film Gaslight

tells the

story of Paula (Ingrid Bergman) and her new

husband Gregory (Charles Boyer), who sets

about the task of isolating her and making her

believe she is insane. His eponymous tactic is

to dim and brighten the gaslights and then

insist she is imagining it. Gregory aims to

undermine Paula’s sense of self and everyday

life, to confuse and distort her reality such

that she must accept his imposed reality in

place of her own.

Today, gaslighting is an increasingly ubiqui-

tous term used to describe the mind-manipulating

strategies of abusive people, in both politics

and interpersonal relationships. Dozens of

online checklists instruct readers on the “warn-

ing signs” of gaslighting in their intimate rela-

tionships. A second edition of Robin Stern’s

bestselling 2007 book The Gaslight Effect was

released in 2018, and the new version considers

how psychological manipulation dominates the

“post-truth” political era. The Guardian’s Ariel

Leve wrote an article in 2017 titled, “Trump is

Gaslighting America.” Psychotherapist Steph-

anie Sarkis, whose popular book Gaslighting

came out in 2018, makes a similar argument.

Gaslighting was even made an official part of

criminal domestic violence law in the United

Kingdom in 2015, and more than 300 people

have since been charged with the offense

(Mikhailova 2018).

Despite its growing recognition as an abu-

sive power tactic, sociologists have ignored

874843ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419874843American Sociological ReviewSweet

research-article2019

Harvard University

Corresponding Author:

Paige L. Sweet, Harvard University, 1730

Cambridge Street, CGIS S410, Cambridge, MA

02138

Email: [email protected]

The Sociology of Gaslighting

Paige L. Sweet

Abstract

Gaslighting—a type of psychological abuse aimed at making victims seem or feel “crazy,”

creating a “surreal” interpersonal environment—has captured public attention. Despite the

popularity of the term, sociologists have ignored gaslighting, leaving it to be theorized by

psychologists. However, this article argues that gaslighting is primarily a sociological rather

than a psychological phenomenon. Gaslighting should be understood as rooted in social

inequalities, including gender, and executed in power-laden intimate relationships. The theory

developed here argues that gaslighting is consequential when perpetrators mobilize gender-

based stereotypes and structural and institutional inequalities against victims to manipulate

their realities. Using domestic violence as a strategic case study to identify the mechanisms

via which gaslighting operates, I reveal how abusers mobilize gendered stereotypes; structural

vulnerabilities related to race, nationality, and sexuality; and institutional inequalities

against victims to erode their realities. These tactics are gendered in that they rely on the

association of femininity with irrationality. Gaslighting offers an opportunity for sociologists

to theorize under-recognized, gendered forms of power and their mobilization in interpersonal

relationships.

Keywords

gaslighting, domestic violence, gender, sexuality, intersectionality

852 American Sociological Review 84(5)

gaslighting, leaving it for psychologists to

study. This, I argue, is a mistake. Gaslighting

is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Engag-

ing in abusive mental manipulation certainly

involves psychological dynamics, but scholars

have thus far disregarded the social character-

istics that actually give gaslighting its power.

Specifically, gaslighting is effective when it is

rooted in social inequalities, especially gender

and sexuality, and executed in power-laden

intimate relationships. When perpetrators

mobilize gender-based stereotypes, structural

inequalities, and institutional vulnerabilities

against victims with whom they are in an inti-

mate relationship, gaslighting becomes not

only effective, but devastating.

This article develops a sociological theory

of gaslighting using in-depth analysis of life

story interviews with women attending

domestic violence support groups. I define

gaslighting as a set of attempts to create a

“surreal” (Ferraro 2006) social environment

by making the other in an intimate relation-

ship seem or feel “crazy.” I argue that gas-

lighting tactics become consequential when

abusers mobilize macro-level inequalities

related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality,

and class against an intimate other. By conse-

quential, I mean that such tactics damage

victims’ sense of reality, autonomy, mobility,

identity, and social supports.

Unlike psychological approaches to gas-

lighting, a sociological theory of gaslighting

must show how macro-level social inequali-

ties are transformed into micro-level strate-

gies of abuse. Decades of research reveal that

no form of abuse can be extracted from social

context: anyone can use manipulative tactics

against anyone else, but such actions only

transform victims’ lives—becoming abusive

(Stark 2010)—when they are embedded in

relations of power. The theoretical framework

offered here has two layers.

First, gaslighting works when deployed in

power-unequal intimate relationships, creating

an environment of “surreality.” Second, gas-

lighting works when perpetrators mobilize

gender-based stereotypes, intersecting inequali-

ties, and institutional vulnerabilities against

victims. This second point is critical because

women do not typically have the cultural, eco-

nomic, and political capital necessary to gas-

light men—gaslighting is therefore a gendered

phenomenon. In fact, whether or not it is exer-

cised by a male-bodied person against a female-

bodied person, gaslighting tactics construct

victims in terms of feminized irrationality.

Recent survey data suggest that gaslight-

ing is common in domestic violence situa-

tions, preventing women from accessing

resources (Warshaw et al. 2014). As my anal-

ysis shows, gaslighting can amplify the dan-

gers already present in abused women’s lives.

Gaslighting can also prevent domestic vio-

lence victims from accessing institutional

resources that would help them escape the

abuse. Indeed, the very institutions set up to

help victims can become part of the gaslight-

ing process. Gaslighting should be of interest

to sociologists, then, because domestic vio-

lence is widespread and gaslighting is a core

feature of intimate abuse.

Yet, the importance of gaslighting for soci-

ologists extends well beyond the case of

domestic violence: first, gaslighting occurs in

other types of interpersonal relationships, cre-

ating and exacerbating power imbalances;

second, accepting purely psychological

approaches to gaslighting risks the prolifera-

tion of context-free analyses; and finally, gas-

lighting exposes how the association of

women with irrationality exacerbates existing

gender and sexual inequalities. A theory of

gaslighting therefore offers an opportunity for

sociologists to identify and analyze under-

recognized, gendered forms of power and

their mobilization in interpersonal relation-

ships across a range of situations.

TOWARD A SOCIOLOGICAL

THEORY OF GASLIGHTING

Psychological Accounts of

Gaslighting

Despite the recent journalistic use of gaslight-

ing to name Trump’s political strategy, gas-

lighting is traditionally understood as an

interpersonal, psychological dynamic. In fact,

psychotherapists popularized the term.

Sweet 853

Barton and Whitehead are thought to have

coined “gaslighting” in a 1969 Lancet paper

that analyzed involuntary hospitalization as a

form of abuse.

The term then appeared a

handful of times in the psychotherapeutic lit-

erature during the 1970s and 1980s (Calef

and Weinshel 1981; Gass and Nichols 1988;

Smith and Sinanan 1972). However, “gas-

lighting” seems to have fallen out of use until

psychotherapist Robin Stern popularized it in

her 2007 book, which holds that gaslighting is

a phenomenon of “mutual participation”

between “gaslighter” (perpetrator) and “gas-

lightee” (victim). She writes, “The first step is

to become aware of your own role in gaslight-

ing, the ways in which your own behavior,

desires, and fantasies may be leading you to

idealize your gaslighter and seek his approval”

(Stern [2007] 2018:xxvii).

Although Stern claims that gaslighting is

gender-neutral, nearly all her case studies

involve a heterosexual male partner as gas-

lighter and a woman as gaslightee. Stern

places responsibility on the “gaslightee” to

fix or get out of the relationship. Psychologi-

cal uses of gaslighting like Stern’s highlight

the importance of intimate relationships in

gaslighting, but they ignore the gender-based

structural conditions that make gaslighting

possible, and they fail to locate gaslighting as

a common feature of domestic violence.

IPV Literature and Allusions to

Gaslighting

In contrast, the intimate partner violence (IPV)

literature does not regularly use the term “gas-

lighting,” yet it offers extensive evidence that

gaslighting is gendered and is common in

abusive relationships. Gaslighting emerges as

a sense of “surreality,” confusion, and distor-

tion systematically experienced by victims.

For example, Ferraro (2006:73) describes

what she calls “surreality,” showing how

abusers “spin tales” that violate victims’ sense

of reality, distorting their perceptions of every-

thing from minor details of everyday life to

their partners’ entire biographies. Williamson

(2010:1418) describes domestic violence as

“unreality,” because abusers consistently

attempt to determine the boundaries of vic-

tims’ realities. Johnson (2008:9) writes, “It’s

her crazy behavior . . . that requires him to

control her . . . she’s [really] the abusive part-

ner. She’s so out of touch with reality that

maybe she should get some help.” Dobash and

Dobash’s (1979:105) landmark study refer-

ences abusers’ consistent construction of

women as “exaggerating” and making up the

violence; abusers in their study even invented

tales of wives’ infidelities and tried to con-

vince their wives the stories were true. Accord-

ing to Richie (2012:43), these manipulations

create a “hostile social environment” that feels

disorienting. In short, although IPV scholars

do not theorize these “crazy-making” tactics

as a specific phenomenon, they clearly recog-

nize them as endemic to abuse.

This overview indicates that gaslighting is

ubiquitous but under-theorized as a distinct

phenomenon in IPV research. The IPV litera-

ture overwhelmingly situates “crazy-making”

tactics within the broader context of “intimate

terrorism” (Johnson 2006, 2008),

“coercive

control” (Stark 2007), and psychological

abuse.

Physical violence is part of establish-

ing control, scholars note, but so are tactics

such as emotional abuse, humiliation, and

isolation (Anderson 2008, 2010; Dutton,

Goodman, and Bennett 1999; Giordano et al.

2016; Hardesty et al. 2015; Johnson, Leone,

and Xu 2014; Kimmel 2002; Myhill 2015;

Reed et al. 2010; Stark and Hester 2019;

Tanha et al. 2010). Psychological abuse exerts

control by micro-regulating victims’ everyday

lives, self-concepts, and sense of reality

(Hardesty et al. 2015; Murphy and Hoover

1999; Myhill 2017; Piipsa 2002). IPV research

further shows that psychological control tac-

tics are used more commonly and effectively

by men against women (Hester et al. 2017;

Kelly and Westmarland 2016; Myhill 2015;

Tanha et al. 2010),

and that in the long term,

psychological abuse affects victims more neg-

atively than does physical abuse (Anderson

2009; Dutton and Goodman 2005; Ferraro

2006; Hester et al. 2017; Murphy and Hoover

1999; O’Leary 1999; Strauchler et al. 2004).

However, gaslighting is not yet understood

as distinct from other types of psychological

854 American Sociological Review 84(5)

abuse, such as humiliation. This is a signifi-

cant oversight, as there is growing consensus

that it is necessary to parse types of abuse and

their socio-structural conditions (Myhill

2015; Stark 2010). As Johnson (2008:3)

writes, researchers should “take apart” the

dynamics of abuse to understand the “web”

that entraps women. As my data suggest,

when abusers successfully make victims feel

“crazy,” victims become especially vulnera-

ble to institutional abuse and less likely to

rely on institutional supports. As such, I argue

that we need to parse “gaslighting” as a spe-

cific type of psychological abuse in order to

understand the social dynamics that make

gaslighting effective, as well as the conse-

quences it engenders.

The best quantitative data available pro-

vide evidence that gaslighting is a startlingly

common feature of domestic violence. A sur-

vey conducted by the National Domestic Vio-

lence Hotline (NDVH) in 2014 asked 2,500

hotline callers about their experiences of coer-

cion (Warshaw et al. 2014). Respondents were

adult women who had experienced domestic

violence, called the hotline, and agreed to

participate in the survey. In response to the

question, “Do you think your partner or ex-

partner has ever deliberately done things to

make you feel like you are going crazy or los-

ing your mind,” 73.8 percent answered posi-

tively. And in response to the question, “Has

your partner or ex-partner ever threatened to

report to authorities that you are ‘crazy’ to

keep you from getting something you want or

need,” just over 50 percent of callers answered

“yes.” The descriptive results of this survey

are staggering: nearly three-quarters of this

sample of victims experienced gaslighting,

and over half identified gaslighting as an

obstacle to accessing support.

These data provide justification for the

present study, but these methods fall short

because they fail to help us understand abu-

sive acts by their ability to coerce (Dutton and

Goodman 2005). This failure is important

because although women may use abusive

tactics against male partners, men are less

likely to be afraid of women and less likely to

change their behavior in response (Anderson

2005; Ross 2012). In other words, fear,

entrapment, and isolation are gendered out-

comes (Anderson 2009; Dutton and Good-

man 2005; Myhill 2015).

The IPV literature provides preliminary

evidence that gaslighting is a common feature

of controlling and coercive relationships, but

it has not examined this specific style of psy-

chological abuse or theorized its social condi-

tions of possibility. We must therefore extend

beyond the IPV literature to develop a socio-

logical theory of gaslighting. After all, gas-

lighting is not only found in cases of domestic

violence: gaslighting has captured public

attention because it occurs in various kinds of

relationships and because it refers to gen-

dered cultural dynamics.

Gender Stereotypes and Intimate

Relationships

Understanding gaslighting sociologically

requires placing this phenomenon in its cul-

tural, structural, and institutional contexts.

Gender inequality is a condition of possibility

for gaslighting: it deprives women of the

social power that would allow them to define

men’s realities in this way (Anderson 2010;

Richie 1996; Stark 2007).

This is not to say

men never experience abuse or abusive tac-

tics, but rather that gender inequality makes

women more likely to be victimized than men

(U.S. Department of Justice 2016).

Decades of social scientific research indi-

cate that all forms of abuse between adults are

more commonly used by men against women

(CDC 2015; Kimmel 2002). In this sense,

theorizing intimate violence requires attention

to gender as structure, in addition to gender as

an individual-level variable (Anderson 2005;

Connell 1987; Martin 2004; Risman 2004).

Gendered and sexual stereotypes, structural

exclusions, and institutional discrimination

create the conditions for violence (Anderson

2005; Armstrong, Gleckman-Krut, and John-

son 2018; Richie 2012; Saguy 2003; Stark

2007). Even when violence is not used by a

male-bodied person against a female-bodied

person, scholars have shown that perpetrators

feminize victims in order to execute intimate

Sweet 855

forms of violence against them (Connell 1995;

Kimmel 2004; Pascoe 2011). But how does

gender matter for gaslighting specifically?

Answering this question requires paying

attention to what gaslighting does: it system-

atically constructs victims as “crazy” and

destabilizes their realities. The ability to lev-

erage an accusation of “crazy” is gendered.

The idea that women are overly emotional,

irrational, and not in control of their emotions

has a long history. Labeling women “crazy” is

a key feature of the gender system, especially

via institutions such as medicine and law

(Barker 2009; Douglas 2012; Ehrenreich and

English 1973; Figert 1996; Smart 1989).

Female victims of violence have long been

portrayed as irrational in court and other legal

settings, labeled with conditions such as “bat-

tered women’s syndrome” (Ferraro 2003; Roth-

enberg 2002). Schur (1984) argues that women’s

behavior is presumed to lack reason, casting

femininity itself as deviant. Metzl (2003) shows

how women represent lack of reason and ration-

ality in medical history. Kempner (2014) finds

that the medical construction of women as hys-

terical continues to allow experts to treat wom-

en’s pain as illegitimate. The history of the

psy- sciences also reflects this association of

femininity with irrationality and childishness

(Shields 2007). As Littlejohn (2013:847) writes,

“Men have historically been seen as rational

beings with the ability to control their emotions,

but women’s emotion has been seen as ‘danger-

ously unregulated.’”

McKim (2008:309) finds that in addiction

programs, women’s selves are constructed as

“profoundly deficient and irrational” com-

pared to men’s. Women are thought to be

overly emotional in various spheres of social

life, including the workplace (Blum and

Stracuzzi 2004; Connell 1995; Martin 2003).

Lack of intellectual control is also racialized

and classed: claims to rational, conscious

emotions are therefore claims to status and

power (Shields 2007).

Still, the idea that women lack rationality

may seem like an outdated trope. After all,

women in the United States have made sig-

nificant gains in education and labor market

participation, and gender role stereotypes

have become less rigid (Adams and Bettis

2003; Randles 2018). Yet, a central paradox

in the sociology of gender is that although

women as a group have gained mobility, gen-

der inequality in intimate relationships per-

sists (England 2010; Ridgeway and Correll

2004; Scarborough and Risman 2017; Scar-

borough, Sin, and Risman 2019). Sociologists

have found that romantic relationships are the

arena in which traditional gender ideologies

are upheld most strongly (Dalessandro and

Wilkins 2017; England 2010; Lamont 2014).

The literature on the “stalled” gender revolu-

tion thus suggests that intimate relationships

are precisely the place to look for the ongoing

animation of traditional ideologies that cast

women as emotionally untethered.

Indeed, evidence from non-abusive hetero-

sexual relationships indicates that women are

regularly constructed as irrational and overly

emotional. Young people express a desire for

gender equality in romantic relationships, but

stereotypes persist about men as autonomous

and in control versus emotionally unstable

and dependent women (Dalessandro and

Wilkins 2017; Ezzel 2012; Lamont 2014).

Women report fear of seeming excessively

emotional in intimate relationships with men,

and they experience a lack of power over the

trajectory of those relationships as a result

(Lamont 2014). Traditional gender ideolo-

gies, especially those around emotionality,

are thus “remarkably resilient” in romantic

relationships (Lamont 2014:190).

What we know about the micro-dynamics

of abusive heterosexual relationships also

provides evidence for the persistent associa-

tion of femininity with irrationality. Micro-

regulations of feminine performance (e.g.,

clothing) are key to coercive control (Ander-

son 2009). Abusers regulate women’s bodies

by controlling access to birth control and

abortion (Barber et al. 2018; Miller et al.

2010). Research with male perpetrators fur-

ther shows that abusive men hold traditional

gender role ideologies (Anderson and Umber-

son 2001; Yamawaki, Ostenson, and Brown

2009) and tend to construct their female part-

ners as unreasonable (Schrock, McCabe, and

Vaccaro 2017).

856 American Sociological Review 84(5)

Anderson and Umberson (2001) find that

male perpetrators describe their partners as

ridiculous, overwrought, and silly. Women in

abusive relationships report being encouraged

by their abusers to think of themselves as “stu-

pid” and “crazy” (Enander 2010). Williamson

(2010) recounts the story of an abuser who

broke his wife’s arm on their honeymoon and

then told friends and family that she was

walking drunkenly in high heels when she fell

and injured herself. Feminine performance

(clothing) and carelessness (drinking) became

his weapons as he successfully drew on the

association of femininity with irrationality to

“flip” the story. The dynamics of abuse func-

tion, at least in part, through ideologies that

associate femininity with irrationality.

Thus, gender stereotypes, in addition to

material gender inequalities, must be made

central to any understanding of gaslighting.

Research suggests intimate relationships are an

especially salient place in which to find enact-

ments of traditional gender stereotypes, espe-

cially around women’s excessive emotionality.

But these stereotypes are not mobilized in iso-

lation from other social factors. I turn to the

literature on intersecting forms of structural

and institutional inequality to build toward a

socially situated explanation of gaslighting.

Intersectional and Institutional

Inequalities

Intersectional scholarship reveals that racial

discrimination, immigration policy, and poverty

shape the dynamics of abuse and its effects

(Ferraro 2006; Menjívar 2011; Miller 2008;

Richie 1996; Sokoloff and Dupont 2005).

“Everywoman” is not equally likely to be

abused (Richie 2000, 2012). Rather, intersecting

inequalities make women of color, poor women,

immigrant women, and disabled women more

vulnerable to abuse (Menjívar 2011; Miller

2008; Richie 2012). Race, class, and immigrant

status are critical for understanding the intersec-

tional context in which abuse differentially

shapes victims’ lives.

Institutions such as police, housing pro-

grams, universities, and workplaces also

affect how inequalities translate into intimate

harm. Gendered and racialized patterns of

discrimination and exclusion are institutional-

ized (Armstrong, Hamilton, and Sweeney

2006; Brush 2011; Desmond and Valdez

2012; McLaughlin, Uggen, and Blackstone

2012); “gender is present in the processes,

practices, images and ideologies, and distri-

butions of power” in all kinds of institutions

(Acker 1992:567). Universities are gendered

institutions allowing for “party rape” to occur

(Armstrong et al. 2006). High schools rein-

force ideologies allowing masculinity to be

accomplished via the denigration of feminin-

ity (Pascoe 2011). Gendered stereotypes are

built into penal institutions, law, medicine,

and the workplace, marking masculinity as

rational and femininity as its opposite (Britton

1997; Henriksen 2017). Gender-based vulner-

abilities and patterns of discrimination

become both naturalized and stalwart in insti-

tutions. This calls for analyzing how women’s

lack of credibility in powerful institutions is

mobilized in gaslighting dynamics.

In summary, gender stereotypes, intersect-

ing inequalities, and institutional discrimina-

tion create unequal conditions in intimate

relationships. The association of femininity

with irrationality, alongside intersecting ine-

qualities, is built into interpersonal relation-

ships and social institutions, generating

gender-based vulnerabilities to abuse. A soci-

ological theory of gaslighting must therefore

account for the following: gender-based ste-

reotypes, intersecting forms of structural vul-

nerability, and institutional inequalities.

A Sociological Theory of Gaslighting

Psychological theories suggest that gaslight-

ing takes place in an isolated dyad. In con-

trast, I propose that gaslighting draws from

and exacerbates the gender-based power

imbalances present in intimate relationships

and in the larger social context. I expand on

these two dimensions of gaslighting in what

follows.

Part 1: Gaslighting is consequential when ex-

ecuted in unequal intimate relationships,

creating an environment of “surreality.”

Sweet 857

Stern (2018) and others have found that gas-

lighting depends on some level of intimacy

between perpetrator and victim. This is to be

expected, because intimacy or an institutional

relationship binds victim and perpetrator,

such that she cannot simply dismiss his gas-

lighting efforts. Indeed, surveys indicate all

forms of gender-based violence are more

common when there is an intimate relation-

ship between victim and perpetrator (WHO

2017). The IPV literature further shows that

gaslighting creates an environment of “surre-

ality” for victims. Joining these insights, a

sociological theory of gaslighting must

explain how surreality is created and main-

tained in power-laden intimate relationships. I

distinguish gaslighting from other forms of

psychological abuse by showing how it sys-

tematically constructs victims as “crazy” and

irrational—particularly by relying on stereo-

types about femininity.

Part 2: Gaslighting is consequential when

abusers mobilize gender-based stereotypes,

intersecting inequalities, and institutional

vulnerabilities against victims.

Gaslighting could not exist without inequities

in the distribution of social, political, and

economic power. The grooves of social

inequality and cultural stereotyping provide

footing for gaslighting strategies. Specifi-

cally, gaslighting is gendered due to the asso-

ciation of femininity with irrationality, which

makes women more vulnerable to this form

of abuse. The findings of this study reveal

that the effects of gaslighting are more dra-

matic for women on the margins, who may

experience increased institutional surveil-

lance and lack of institutional credibility.

DATA AND METHODS

Gaslighting is a feature of power-laden inti-

mate relationships, so I use domestic violence

as a strategic case to develop a theory of gas-

lighting. Because of its invisibility, it would

be difficult to conduct interviews about gas-

lighting without using a more identifiable

phenomenon (i.e., domestic violence) as an

access point. I investigated this phenomenon

through 18 months of fieldwork, including

archival research on feminist activism, in-

depth interviews and participant observation

with domestic violence professionals (N =

55), and life story interviews with survivors

of domestic violence (N = 43). This article

relies on the interviews with domestic vio-

lence survivors, although its themes are also

informed by the professional interviews.

In the analysis, I marshal life story inter-

views to uncover the mechanisms and trace

the processes (see Small 2009:22) via which

gaslighting operates. My interview methodol-

ogy is well-suited to the development of a

rich, situated explanation of gaslighting

because in-depth interviews help uncover the

mechanisms buried in complex social phe-

nomena. Life story interviews are especially

useful for contextualizing gaslighting in the

macro context of women’s lives, as the details

of life stories illuminate how large-scale

forces shape and impinge on practices (Abu-

Lughod 1991). Additionally, rather than

imposing a framework, life story interviews

allow for experiences to emerge on interview-

ees’ own terms (Atkinson 2007; O’Connell

Davidson and Layder 1994). This method

thus helps expose forms of abuse that may be

unnamable for victims themselves.

To conduct life story interviews with sur-

vivors of domestic violence, I met women in

domestic violence support groups. I recruited

women at four groups in Chicago and sur-

rounding areas. All participating support

groups were located in feminist-founded,

nonprofit domestic violence organizations.

had access to groups as a longtime volunteer

and a state-certified domestic violence advo-

cate myself. Support group leaders either

handed out information about my research or

asked me to attend their groups to describe

my project. Members were eligible to partici-

pate if they had experienced domestic vio-

lence, identified as a woman, and were over

18 years old. An interpreter accompanied me

to Spanish-speaking groups and interviews,

otherwise I conducted interviews alone.

858 American Sociological Review 84(5)

I interviewed 43 women for this study over

a 12-month period; 12 women were inter-

viewed two to four times. I interviewed 33

women in English and 10 in Spanish along-

side an interpreter. Women chose the time and

location of their interviews, which typically

lasted between two and four hours and usu-

ally took place in women’s homes or in a

domestic violence agency. Because they

attended support groups, all the women I

interviewed were accustomed to talking about

domestic violence. Nonetheless, I attempted

to mitigate emotional risk by breaking the

interview into two parts. First, I asked open-

ended questions such as, “Tell me about your-

self.” During the second part of the interview,

I asked a pre-arranged set of questions about

women’s experiences in institutions, about

their own interpretations of violence, and

about their experiences of “crazy-making.”

The gaslighting question was phrased in the

following way: “Some women have told me

that their partners called them ‘crazy’ or did

things to make them feel ‘crazy.’ Did you

experience that?” All but three of the 43

women I interviewed reported that their abus-

ers called them “crazy.” All 43 women

described some degree of gaslighting, espe-

cially their abuser “flipping” stories or events

to make them seem like “the crazy one.”

All interviews were digitally recorded and

transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were stripped

of names and other identifying information.

Women were offered a small monetary incen-

tive for participation, per Institutional Review

Board guidelines. Of the 43 women who par-

ticipated, all but two identified a male partner

as their primary abuser.

Table 1 provides a

descriptive overview of the women inter-

viewed. Income is approximated by the way

women described “getting by” at the time of

the interview.

Despite the women’s diverse

backgrounds, all described “crazy-making.”

However, the specific ways abusers mobilized

gender stereotypes and institutions depended

on factors such as race and nationality.

I used coding and mapping techniques to

analyze the data. Coding is the link between

the data and the conceptual scheme and

involves two stages: initial coding (discovery

of concepts through intensive reading) and

focused coding (synthesizing across themes)

(Charmaz 1983). After multiple readings of

the 1,825 single-spaced pages of transcribed

interviews, I wrote a memo about each wom-

an’s life story. This memo-writing process

allowed me to preserve the interview as a

whole piece of data. Following memo-writing,

I developed codes to connect across memos.

This research aims to develop a conceptual

explanation rather than generalize to a popu-

lation; as such, memo-writing and coding are

useful in this case-based causal analysis

(Headworth 2019). Drawing the codes

together, I then “mapped” connections using

Clarke’s (2005) “situated analysis.” Clarke

(2005:176) calls for developing situational

“maps” to move toward a relational analysis

that connects macro and micro elements, put-

ting the “situation of all the data together.”

Following this approach, I drew a map of

“micro” gaslighting tactics alongside larger

forces in women’s lives. I connected the ele-

ments of the map by drawing lines between

them, organizing the map into analytic cate-

gories. Figure 1 presents the situational map

for gaslighting.

While this figure is intended as a visualiza-

tion of my coding schema rather than as a

theoretical model, it is useful for understand-

ing how gaslighting tactics rely on stereo-

types (gendered, racialized, and sexual) and

institutional settings. The diagram is hierar-

chical, such that the “tactics” are made pos-

sible as a result of stereotypes and the

mobilization of those stereotypes in powerful

institutional settings. “Stereotypes” and

“institutional settings” operate as background

contexts for the success of these gaslighting

tactics in manipulating women’s realities.

To ensure validity, I triangulated my

schema with my other data sources and with

extant literature. This schema syncs with my

knowledge as a participant and researcher in

the field, having spent many years as a hotline

advocate, shelter volunteer, and participant

observer. I also discussed findings with pro-

fessionals in the field. Domestic violence

Sweet 859

professionals talked to me regularly about the

need for more research on gaslighting (inter-

views with Judy 7.9.15; Michelle 9.30.15;

Caroline 12.8.15; Marie 3.16.16; Lucy

1.30.15). In general, professionals felt vexed

by problems with identifying, prosecuting,

and therapeutically responding to gaslighting.

I attended two trainings for domestic violence

therapists in which victims’ experiences of

confusion, micro-regulation, and unreality

were major themes (field notes 12.16.15;

2.19–2.21.16). Both workshops focused on

developing therapeutic techniques to help

women overcome the sense of unreality that

characterizes abusive relationships. I do not

discuss my interviews with professionals in

the present analysis, but these interviews pro-

vide a justificatory frame for the project, vali-

dating my contention that gaslighting is an

independently significant feature of abuse.

Because the women I interviewed were

recruited from domestic violence organiza-

tions, they had all experienced intense forms of

control and coercion in their relationships,

which may have affected my results. However,

my sample allows me to illuminate diverse

structural contexts for gaslighting, its rooted-

ness in gender stereotypes, and its control-

ling consequences. I am limited in my

capacity to explicate mechanisms of gas-

lighting by differentiating within my sample,

because all the women I interviewed

Table 1. Survivor Demographics, N = 43

N % N %

Race Immigrant Status

White 13 30% U.S.-born 27 63%

Black/African American 11 26% Documented immigrant 4 9%

Latina 17 40% Undocumented (during abuse) 12 28%

Arab 1 2%

South Asian 1 2% Duration of Relationship

Less than 1 year 1 2%

Family Class Background 1 to 3 years 0 0%

Poor or working class 29 67% 4 to 6 years 4 9%

Middle class 14 33% 7 to 9 years 8 19%

10+ years 16 37%

Primary Means of “Getting By” Ongoing 4 9%

Paid work only (full- or part-time) 6 14% N/A or unknown 3 7%

Child support 11 26% Multiple of different length 7 16%

Disability or other combined

public assistance

18 42%

No income/family support 8 19% Housing Situation

Rental 24 56%

Education Owns home 7 16%

Less than high school 13 30% Section 8 rental 4 9%

High school degree 11 26% With family 6 14%

Some college or vocational 11 26% Housing program 2 5%

College degree 8 19%

Mean age 41

Number of Children

0 6 14%

1 6 14%

2 13 30%

3 12 28%

4+ 6 14%

Has children under 6 years old 13 30%

860 American Sociological Review 84(5)

described “crazy-making.” Nonetheless, I

show how women differ across institutional

vulnerabilities: undocumented women experi-

ence gaslighting in the context of immigration,

whereas black women’s abusers are more

likely to use gaslighting in the context of

police and courts.

“CRAZY BITCH”: GENDER

AND GASLIGHTING

Gaslighting tactics yoke together physical and

verbal incidents of abuse into an overall sense

of lost reality and confusion. These tactics are

effective when mobilized as part of a larger

pattern of gender-based power and control.

Speaking to the overriding sense of surreality

created in their relationships, the women in

this study described their abusers “twisting”

reality (Hope 2.4.16), “flipping the script”

(Susan 10.6.16), creating a feeling of the “Twi-

light Zone” (Julie 2.16.16), “manipulating,”

“messing with,” and “controlling” their minds

(interviews with Alma 7.13.15; Kathy 3.1.16;

L.L. 7.28.15), and “changing the facts” (Mar-

tha 3.1.16). Adriana described her relationship

as “circles and circles” in which she did not

know which way was up or down (interview

Figure 1. Situational Map of Gaslighting

Sweet 861

7.29.15). Across racial and socioeconomic

backgrounds, women identified a hostile atmo-

sphere of confusion and distortion. This atmo-

sphere was gendered in the sense that “crazy”

was associated with the epithet “bitch,” with

motherhood, and with women’s bodies.

When I asked women about their partners’

abusive tactics, they often described being

called a “crazy bitch.” This phrase came up so

frequently, I began to think of it as the literal

discourse of gaslighting. In gaslighting dynam-

ics, the idea that women are saturated with

emotion and incapable of reason is mobilized

into a pattern of insults that chip away at

women’s realities. For example, Britney, a

30-year-old black woman, told me her abuser

loved spinning the webs of a debate, especially

when it left her feeling diminished. If she

showed emotion during arguments, he called

her “crazy”—incapable of providing a legiti-

mate counter-argument. Any show of emotion

from Britney was immediately pathologized

and she was rendered overwrought, her hus-

band the holder of “reason.” This affected

Britney’s desire to stand up for herself as she

began questioning her “mental state”:

Britney: God forbid I lose my cool—“She’s

crazy, she’s crazy.”

Author: He would call you crazy?

Britney: [nodding] “She’s crazy, she’s crazy.”

(interview 1.26.16)

These tactics culminated in a violent event in

which Britney’s abuser beat her and held her

underwater in a bathtub, insisting all the while

that he was simply trying to “calm her down.”

This consistent construction of women as

“crazy” ranged from private arguments to pub-

lic campaigns. Simone referred to her abuser’s

sustained attempt to delegitimize her as “the

crazy narrative” (interview 8.31.15). After she

left him, he attacked her sanity relentlessly dur-

ing divorce and child custody proceedings, even

using old mental health records against her:

Simone: He said all sorts of terrible things

about me in the divorce papers . . . like I had

orgies at the house, which isn’t true. I am

not that way at all. [long pause]

Author: He was trying to discredit you?

Simone: Yeah. Like, that I’m absolutely crazy

and I can’t be around the kids. It was terri-

ble. [He would say] that adulterous women

run in my family. . . . He would say, “Be a

mother.” Because he would always be say-

ing that I’m not a good enough mother.

(interview 8.31.15)

Simone’s ex-husband hacked into her social

media accounts during the divorce and cre-

ated public posts that made her appear unsta-

ble. He also accessed her bank accounts and

moved money around randomly, intentionally

using tactics that evaded police attention. He

then cited these examples to friends and fam-

ily, insisting she could not be trusted with the

children. His covert efforts left her feeling she

could not identify what was real anymore.

Simone’s abuser embedded his attacks on her

sanity in attacks on her sexuality and mother-

hood, claiming she had “orgies” and was not

fit to be a mother. Simone had recently come

out as bisexual, suggesting that he sought to

mobilize a stigmatized sexual identity against

her to make her seem unstable. These gas-

lighting strategies played on Simone’s exist-

ing social vulnerabilities: her supposed

failings as a mother and deviant sexuality

became her abuser’s weapons to make her

seem “crazy.”

Women often described how their abusers

associated their actions and statements with

the idea that women are “crazy,” “careless,”

and emotionally unregulated. Ebony’s partner

would steal her money and then tell her she

was “careless” about finances and had lost it

herself (interview 7.6.15). Adriana’s boy-

friend hid her phone and then told her she had

lost it, in a dual effort to confuse her and

prevent her from communicating with others

(interview 7.29.15). Jenn described her ex-

boyfriend as a “chameleon” who made up

small stories to confuse her, like lying about

what color shirt he had worn the day before to

make her feel disoriented (interview 2.18.16).

Luz told me, “He was so astute. When things

happened, he would turn it around and make

it seem like something else was going on”

(interview 9.10.15). When Jaylene’s boy-

friend pushed her, he also yelled at her, say-

ing, “Look what you made me do . . . you’re

862 American Sociological Review 84(5)

crazy” (interview 7.27.15). Emily described

her ex-husband stealing her keys so she could

not leave the house and then insisting she had

lost them “again” (interview 10.26.15).

As these examples indicate, men’s efforts

to make women feel “crazy” involved small

strategies of control and confusion. Each

example deals with the theme of irrationality,

and all were used by male partners in conjunc-

tion with the “crazy” label, often alongside the

term “bitch.” Men used masculinity—which

gave them access to “rationality”—to associ-

ate their partners with lack of reason, a femi-

nine quality. As Emily explained, the result is

that “you go to actually believing that you’re

ugly, worthless, you ain’t going to do nothing

but have a bunch of babies” (interview

10.26.15). For Emily, the effects of gaslight-

ing were gendered and racialized: her fear of

losing respectability as a black woman—being

worthless for having “a bunch of babies”—

was exacerbated by her abuser’s attempts to

make her seem careless (i.e., hiding her keys

and making her late to work).

As Emily’s quotation shows, women expe-

rienced gendered accusations of insanity in

the context of related vulnerabilities also

being mobilized against them, especially

around motherhood. Nevaeh’s abuser testi-

fied in court that she was “unstable” and

“depressed,” using diagnostic language to

label her an unfit mother. Her abuser’s accu-

sations that she was “crazy” followed her

through years of child custody proceedings

(interview 2.26.16). Like Simone’s abuser,

Nevaeh’s partner used assumptions of exces-

sively feminine emotionality—he cited exam-

ples of Nevaeh crying—in an effort to

undermine her credibility as a mother: “He

denied everything [about the violence] and

made it seem like I . . . created these thoughts

in my head” (interview 7.6.15). Nevaeh

described feeling so exhausted by his manip-

ulations that she eventually came to ask her-

self if she was in fact “crazy.”

Embodiment was also key to abusers’ use

of gender-based stereotypes to make women

feel “crazy.” When Carla was pregnant, her

boyfriend told her she was “crazy” and

“ridiculous” for having morning sickness,

insisting that her symptoms were not real, she

was inventing them for attention, and she

would never be a good mother (interview

12.14.15). Carla’s abuser cast her body as out

of control, suggesting an excessive and dis-

reputable femininity. Luisa’s abuser also cast

her body as pathologically feminine. He

forced her to take his anti-depressant pills,

insisting she needed them because of “wom-

en’s issues”: “He used to give me small pills.

He was saying because I have menstruation.

He was blaming it on me, every time I wanted

to end the relationship, he was saying it’s

because I have [an imbalance] in my hor-

mones” (interview 8.26.15). Luisa’s boy-

friend relied on the idea that women are

inherently unstable to perpetuate her depend-

ence on him and undermine her reality. In this

way, gaslighting tactics draw on the associa-

tion of femininity with irrationality specifi-

cally via motherhood and embodiment.

The women I interviewed learned to take

extreme measures to avoid gaslighting, dem-

onstrating that this form of abuse may put

women at elevated risk of physical violence.

Susan, a 32-year-old black woman, explained:

“You feel like it’s actually witches out here. It

will get to the point that you feel like that.

Like, did this person hypnotize me or drug

me? . . . I had a self before I got with him. . . .

I made more decisions and I knew myself. [It]

got to the point that I wanted him to hit me, to

get it over with. . . . Cause the worst part was

messing with my head” (interview 10.22.15).

Several women I interviewed explained that

they preferred physical to psychological

abuse, and they would sometimes provoke

physical violence to avoid “crazy-making”

(Maria S. 7.28.15; Luz 9.10.15). Maria S.

believed physical violence would validate

that her experiences were genuinely abusive:

“[Physical abuse] would be more compatible

with reality” (interview 7.28.15).

This evidence shows that gaslighting is

linked to insidious patterns of control, in

which women are denied mobility, access to

their social networks, and institutional help.

For example, Susan described her ex’s

Sweet 863

gaslighting tactics in terms of “flipping the

script,” meaning he would transform stories

and events to make it seem like she was the

aggressor. These strategies were effective

when used alongside a range of other tactics:

he told the children she was “crazy,” followed

Susan when she left the house, monitored her

phone calls and text messages, and called her

friends to check up on her. He would then

insist she had jealousy problems. Susan sug-

gested that gaslighting causes one’s sense of

reality to become haunted by inexplicable

distortions. She told me several times that

“domestic violence comes with a lot of confu-

sion” (interview 10.6.15). She slowly came to

believe his manipulations as he cut her off

from loved ones. He even took scissors to her

home phone lines so she could not call the

police. Gaslighting was part of an overall

coercive and controlling context for Susan—it

was effective because it cast her as noncredi-

ble and unstable, leaving her isolated and dis-

oriented. Susan’s abuser relied on stereotypes

about women as excessively emotional—

crazed about love—to execute this control.

By drawing from and reinforcing the asso-

ciation of femininity with emotionality and

irrationality, abusers’ gaslighting tactics make

motherhood, embodiment, and reason itself

into sites of confusion. These tactics often

plunge women into a sense of lost reality,

worsening their entrapment and isolation. The

feeling of “twilight zone” created in these

relationships depends on the effective mobili-

zation of gendered stereotypes in an unequal

intimate context.

SEXUALITY AND

GASLIGHTING

Gaslighting efforts are further embedded in

the gendered (and racialized) social organiza-

tion of sexuality. For the women I inter-

viewed, attacks on sexual respectability were

a regular part of intimate abuse, rooted in the

association of female sexuality with devious-

ness, danger, and threat. These attacks became

part of gaslighting, establishing a hostile envi-

ronment of surreality. For example, Rosa, a

41-year-old Latina woman, described how her

ex-husband would invent tales of her infideli-

ties and try to convince her they were true:

He’d make things up that didn’t happen.

Sometimes he’d tell me things like, “A

cousin saw you at X place and that you were

with someone.” Things like that. I’d get

upset and tell him, “Bring him. Bring him to

my face and we’ll see if it’s true. I didn’t do

anything and wasn’t at such place.” But

he’d make things up. . . . He’d say that I was

crazy and all that. . . . I told him that I wasn’t

crazy, that he was the crazy one. Obviously,

he would start everything and then make me

feel [like I started it]. . . . Sometimes I did

feel confused. (interview 2.12.16)

Rosa’s ex-husband tried to convince her she

was cheating on him, a constant accusation

that obsessed him. He used these stories to

justify following Rosa when she left the house

and beating her physically when she came

home. Rosa regularly had to defend herself

against his version of events, which was also a

defense of her own sexual respectability.

The women I interviewed often had to

defend their sexual reputations against their

abusers’ outrageous accusations. Cultural

ideas about women’s dangerous, unruly

sexuality—especially stereotypes surround-

ing black and Latina women’s “bad girl”

sexuality (Garcia 2012)—underlie attempts to

unmake their realities. Jaylene, a 23-year-old

Latina woman, explained that her partner

constantly calls her a “ho” and insists she

needs psychiatric help. He pressures her to

drink alcohol and then calls her names (e.g.,

“slut”) when he thinks she has drunk too

much (interview 7.27.15). Jaylene’s boy-

friend embeds his accusations that she is

“crazy” in attacks on her sexuality and in

attempts to make her seem out of control by

forcing alcohol on her. He invents stories

about her continued interest in ex-boyfriends,

stories against which Jaylene is forced to

defend herself to avoid violence. Throughout

our interview, Jaylene insisted, “I’m not the

crazy one” (interview 7.27.15).

864 American Sociological Review 84(5)

Fabiola explained the relationship between

sexuality, “crazy”-making, and gender very

clearly: “Every man has a different way to

make the girl feel like she’s crazy or she’s the

bad one” (interview 7.24.15). Being a “bad”

sexual subject and being “crazy” are closely

linked in the power dynamics Fabiola laid

out. Assumptions about women’s dangerous

sexuality undergird abusers’ attempts to con-

struct their victims as unstable. For example,

Fabiola’s partner regularly called her “nasty”

and “sick” after they had sex. He accused her

of not loving him if she did not sleep with

him, and when she did, he denigrated her

sexuality. This created a situation in which

Fabiola—who described herself as a proudly

“sexual person”—could not rely on her sex-

ual identity to ground her reality, because it

was constantly used as a weapon against her.

Fabiola’s sense that she was “bad” was

amplified by the fact that she had immigrated to

the United States to be with her boyfriend: “He

said, ‘You are crazy. No one loves you. You are

here with me. You don’t have anyone else

here’” (interview 7.10.15). Because Fabiola

was isolated from others who could have

offered her a different narrative about the rela-

tionship, her boyfriend’s attempts to undermine

her sanity and sexual identity were more effec-

tive. When Fabiola tried to leave her boyfriend,

he threatened to “prove” she was crazy in court

so she would lose custody of their daughter and

face deportation. Similarly, Maria S.’s ex-hus-

band asked for sex and then told her she was

too sexually forward, that she did not know

how to behave properly as a wife “in this coun-

try” (interview 7.28.15). Maria S.’s partner

constructed her as a sexual deviant and cultural

outsider simultaneously, attempting to make

her feel sexually and culturally disoriented.

These tactics were possible because of Maria

S.’s gender-based vulnerability to stereotypes

about her sexuality and nationality.

Structural vulnerabilities—gender, nation-

ality, sexuality—create the terrain upon which

gaslighting tactics become successful. The

invisibility of this form of abuse amplifies

those tactics. Adriana, a 22-year-old Latina

woman, struggled to define her experiences as

“violence” because her boyfriend used invisi-

ble strategies such as pathologizing her sexu-

ality, making up stories about her infidelities,

and following her. Adriana’s boyfriend

instructed his friends to keep an eye on Adri-

ana while she was at school, and he would

later accuse her of sneaking away with other

men whenever his friends lost sight of her. He

peppered her with questions each night on the

phone about who she had been with, keeping

her awake so she was too exhausted to leave

for school in the morning. She was expected

to call him as soon as she woke up to ensure

she was still at home and to get approval of

her clothing. Despite this surveillance, he

insisted Adriana had been sleeping around.

Adriana’s abuser linked accusations of infidel-

ity directly to accusations that her memory

was untrustworthy and to tactics that kept her

exhausted and disoriented.

Abusers frequently defined women’s sexu-

ality as reckless, devious, and in need of

masculine control. Mariposa, a 46-year-old

Latina woman, told me her partner convinced

himself that he “saw” her have sex with other

men at her job, even though he had never

been to her workplace (interview 7.7.15).

Margaret’s husband convinced her she was

attracting too much attention by dressing up,

doing her hair, and wearing make-up (inter-

view 7.24.15). She began to believe his sto-

ries about men leering at her, so she started

wearing sweatshirts and overeating—in her

words, she stopped “taking care” of herself to

appease his suspicions. Carla’s husband also

preferred it if she “looked messy” when he

came home from work, otherwise, “he started

telling me that . . . I’d surely been prostitut-

ing” (interview 12.14.15). Carla’s husband

tried to convince her she was sleeping with

men in the neighborhood, pointing to men on

the street, asking her to identify which ones

were waiting for her. He called her a “prosti-

tute” for having an IUD (intrauterine device,

a form of birth control) and forced her to have

it removed. His sexual gaslighting strategies

inhibited Carla’s mobility—she began to stay

home all the time, refusing to go out because

she feared the stories he might invent.

Sweet 865

Gaslighting tactics force women to shut

down sexual expression, to hide themselves in

the home, away from their preferred perfor-

mances of femininity. In part, making up sto-

ries of infidelity is about chipping away at

women’s sense of reality via attacks on their

sexual identities, keeping them trapped in the

exhausting cycle of refuting the abuser’s con-

structed reality. Sexual gaslighting is key to

understanding how gender sets the foundations

for and consequences of gaslighting: because

women’s sexuality is already a site of vulner-

ability—subject to gender-based stereotyp-

ing—it easily becomes a feature of gaslighting.

In the examples provided here, being a cultural

“outsider” amplified the harm of these tactics.

Gaslighting works by mobilizing stereotypes

of female sexuality into assaults on women’s

realities, creating a surreal environment that

limits their autonomy and mobility.

INSTITUTIONAL

VULNERABILITIES AND

GASLIGHTING

Gaslighting strategies that draw on women’s

institutional vulnerabilities are especially

effective at keeping women isolated and

entrapped: abusers manipulate women’s fear

of and lack of credibility in institutions to

make them seem “crazy” and to control them

further. These institutional vulnerabilities

depend on gender, sexual, and racial inequali-

ties, which are built into the way women are

“read” and treated in institutional settings.

Institutions widely perceived as “helpful” for

victims therefore often become a feature of

gaslighting, because abusers use women’s fear

and lack of credibility against them in such

settings. I focus on immigration, police/courts,

and mental health systems because these were

the institutions women most frequently identi-

fied as exacerbating gaslighting. For undocu-

mented women, abusers used threats and

made-up stories about the immigration system

to amplify surreality and insecurity; black

women were more likely to experience gas-

lighting in the context of police and courts,

where they experienced diminished credibility

and stereotypes of aggressiveness; and for

women who needed or used mental health ser-

vices, abusers mobilized the stigma of mental

health to make them seem like “the crazy one.”

Immigration System

Maria L., who is undocumented, lived in con-

stant fear that if she left her abuser, he would

turn her over to immigration authorities. He

tied these threats to her supposed mental

instability: “[He said] that he was going to

take me to a mental institution, that I was

crazy. He made me feel like I wasn’t a per-

son” (interview 12.9.15). Abusers commonly

use threats of deportation against undocu-

mented women (Menjívar and Salcido 2002;

Raj and Silverman 2002; Villalón 2010), but

in Maria L.’s case those threats were linked to

attempts to undermine her sanity. Maria’s

abuser kept her in a state of insecurity by

making her feel she was “insane” and that

immigration authorities would deport her

because of it. Undocumented women experi-

enced gaslighting in the context of the immi-

gration system: their abusers made up stories

about them being surveilled and tracked, yet

their abusers were the ones actually executing

this type of surveillance. As a result, these

women felt insecure and “watched,” causing

them to question their own sanity and curtail-

ing their efforts to leave.

Abusers’ use of the immigration system is

connected to sexuality, since undocumented

women are often reliant on sexual relation-

ships to secure or retain legal status. This

sense of displacement and helplessness ampli-

fies surreality. Fabiola’s abuser told her that

no one else would want her because she was

“just a Mexican” (interview 7.24.15). He used

this “insult” to insist that no one would believe

her about the abuse, and he said he was

allowed to treat her this way because he was a

U.S. citizen. Liz’s husband insisted no one

would want her because she was undocu-

mented (interview 12.4.15), and he convinced

her he had cancer so she would stay with him,

inventing doctors’ appointments and faking

866 American Sociological Review 84(5)

illness from chemotherapy. Because Liz was

afraid of being tracked via the healthcare sys-

tem, she was too isolated to figure out his lies.

For both women, these were not just insults,

but attempts to make them feel displaced:

their abusers sought to normalize their abuse

and manipulations by constructing Fabiola

and Liz as outsiders. Maria L., Liz, and Fabi-

ola were already in precarious legal situations,

so their abusers’ “crazy-making” tactics took

on the flavor of their vulnerabilities in the

immigration system. All were dependent on

sexual relationships to remain in the country,

trapping them at the intersection of gaslight-

ing and legal precarity.

Made-up stories about Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) patrols also

appeared regularly in interviews with undocu-

mented women. Delma’s husband invented

stories about immigration authorities looking

for her in the neighborhood. She therefore

“closed” herself in the house because she was

exhausted by his attempts to disorient her

(interview 2.26.16). When Rubi tried to flee to

another state with her children, her husband

told her he had sent ICE after her (interview

3.2.16). She was forced to return. Her husband

also insisted she was a witch who had hired a

shaman to keep him trapped in their marriage,

although it was he who was following her and

keeping her trapped in the home (interview

3.2.16). Rubi’s husband used the threat of ICE

to keep her under his control, and he “flipped”

reality—using tales of the feminine supernatural—

to insist she was the one who would not let go

of the relationship.

The immigration system becomes a fea-

ture of gaslighting when abusers use women’s

precarious legal status to amplify surreality,

making women feel insecure and surveilled.

Accusations that women are “crazy” are more

dangerous for undocumented women, who

have reasons to fear the immigration system.

Undocumented women were genuinely fear-

ful of immigration authorities, fear that their

abusers mobilized against them to make them

feel “watched.” The threat of surveillance and

deportation thereby sharpened the blade of

“crazy-making” efforts.

Police and Courts

Susan described an incident when she called

the police after her boyfriend assaulted her:

“The police talked to me. Then [my boyfriend

said to me], ‘You know I wasn’t doing that,

you know that. Did you hear me? Are you

blanking out? What’s wrong?’ [speaks in a

fake concerned voice] He’d make eye motions

with me, like, are you going crazy?” (interview

10.22.15). As Susan tried to tell the police

what happened, her abuser interceded to make

it seem as if she were making up the story, as

if she were having delusions and was too

unstable to understand what had happened.

Susan’s credibility with the police was already

in jeopardy because she had called them so

many times: “It got to the point where the

police didn’t believe me because I kept going

back. Like, 15th time it happened and they was

called, they were like . . . you’re the problem”

(interview 10.22.15). Susan’s abuser used this

lack of credibility and police abandonment

against her, exacerbating her isolation.

Susan’s abuser manipulated event narra-

tives, accused her of being a “crazy bitch,”

and mobilized police mistrust of her to

unravel her social context. I found that abus-

ers used the refrain of “crazy bitch” alongside

manipulations of institutional authority to

assert that women are unreliable witnesses to

their own experiences. This insistence that

women cannot offer credible testimony is part

of the gendered core of gaslighting and is

rooted in the association of femininity with

irrationality. Women described feeling that

court officials and police were more likely to

believe men’s stories because their abusers

were skilled at “telling a good story” (Gwyn

11.3.15). Gender intersects with race and

class here, such that Susan’s social position-

ing as a poor, black woman made her excep-

tionally unreliable to police, amplifying her

lack of credibility. Susan’s abuser leveraged

institutional mistrust of her to rob her of

authorities who would corroborate her story

and protect her from future violence.

Rosalyn’s abuser also undermined her in

front of police, relying on stereotypes about

Sweet 867

black women as aggressive. Rosalyn

described an altercation on a busy street that

led to police involvement: “By the time I . . .

can [stand] up, the police are on top of me,

talking about, ‘Stop before we tase you.’ . . .

[My ex] was very charming. . . . He’s like,

‘You know she crazy. That’s my baby

momma. . . . She just mad cause we can’t get

back together’” (interview 2.12.16). Rosa-

lyn’s abuser convinced police that she was the

aggressor and they arrested her. After the

arrest, Rosalyn was forced to flee to a domes-

tic violence shelter in the suburbs.

These tactics mirrored other gaslighting

strategies Rosalyn’s abuser used: he told

friends and family on social media that she

was “crazy” and invented stories that she

was following him. Rosalyn began to believe

his version of events because he was so out-

spoken about the idea that she had lost her

mind and was desperately trying to get him

back (interview 2.12.16). Rosalyn’s abuser

damaged her institutional credibility, deny-

ing her a rightful victim status, while also

denying her empathy from friends and fam-

ily. He marked Rosalyn as a desperate,

crazed woman, relying on the association of

women’s sexuality with irrationality. These

stereotypes were especially effective when

Rosalyn’s abuser mobilized them in front of

police.

Tina, also a black woman in her 30s, pro-

vides another example of the connection

between gaslighting and powerful institu-

tions. She explained what happened when she

and her ex were arguing at the courthouse

while the child representative—an official

responsible for mediating their custody

arrangement—looked on:

I was always being called crazy. Even when

[the child representative] had me cornered

in the hallway with him, and my kids’ father

says, “I never punched you, though.” He

says that. “I never blacked your eye. I never

punched you.” And I looked at the child rep,

and I was like, “He feels like since he never

punched me in the eye or busted my lip that

it wasn’t abuse.” . . . And for [the child

representative] to not respond to that, I was

baffled. (interview 9.14.15)

Tina’s ex pulled hair out of her scalp, slammed

her against walls, strangled her, and broke her

furniture, but he believed he was “non-

violent” because Tina never had a black eye.

The abuse was so severe that he had been

prosecuted multiple times on felony charges.

Still, he insisted Tina was “crazy” and exag-

gerating. He manipulated the child represen-

tative into endorsing his version of events,

jeopardizing Tina’s custody of their children.

Tina’s abuser relied on the stereotype that

women are prone to exaggeration to under-

mine her status as victim, making her seem

“crazy” in a powerful institutional setting.

As Susan’s, Tina’s, and Rosalyn’s experi-

ences indicate, systems such as police and

courts are central to gaslighting, especially for

black women. The legal system becomes a

critical site of gaslighting when abusers gain

control of the narrative and “flip” stories and

events, drawing on stereotypes about women

as irrational, and especially about black

women as aggressive. In this way, institutional

authorities sometimes become unknowing

colluders in gaslighting tactics, setting women

up for further violence and loss of credibility.

Mental Health System

The mental health system is a key site of vul-

nerability because abusive partners regularly

interfere in healthcare decision-making

(McCloskey et al. 2007). The women I inter-

viewed frequently discussed the role of the

mental health system in exacerbating gas-

lighting. Women reported being both barred

from and forced to use mental health services—

in both cases, these tactics cast women as

“crazy,” mobilizing the stigma of mental

health use against them.

Women have solid reasons for fearing their

abusers’ constructions of them as “crazy,”

fears that typically involve losing custody of

their children or losing credibility in social

networks. Margaret described her first hus-

band’s threats to take their children away

868 American Sociological Review 84(5)

from her if she saw a therapist: “Right after I

had [my son], I felt worthless. . . . I thought I

should just go away and he should get a better

mom. So that’s when I started talking to [my

husband] about it, and he said, ‘You go [to a

therapist] and I’ll prove you’re nuts. Go

ahead’” (interview 7.24.15). Margaret’s hus-

band prevented her from getting help for what

she now refers to as postpartum depression,

using the stigma of mental health to keep her

trapped and isolated from resources.

Luisa experienced a different form of gas-

lighting through the mental health system

when her abuser forced her to see his psychia-

trist. He performed this manipulation easily

because, as a new immigrant, she was intimi-

dated by the mental health system and believed

he had the power to institutionalize her. Lui-

sa’s abuser also drugged her with anti-

psychotic medication to force her into harmful

sexual acts. Afterward, when Luisa told him

she was going to leave, he threatened to bring

her underwear to her boss to reveal what a

“whore” she was (interview 8.26.15). Luisa

felt she was the problem because she was an

immigrant and did not understand the ways of

relationships in the United States. Luisa’s

abuser combined “crazy-making” strategies

rooted in lies about the mental health system

with attacks on her sexuality and nationality

(calling her a “fucking immigrant”).

Luisa’s experiences of gaslighting were

exacerbated by her abuser’s manipulation of

her memory of events. In one early episode,

he pressured her into drinking alcohol, then

provoked her into an argument and claimed

she “went crazy” and physically assaulted

him. Luisa did not remember acting violently.

Still, he used this alleged incident against

Luisa any time she threatened to leave, telling

her he would expose her as “the real abuser”

in the relationship: she was out of control,

unreasonable, an alcoholic, and physically

abusive. As Ferraro (2006) notes, men’s

attempts to cast women as the “real” abusers

are central to establishing surreality. Luisa

experienced at least two forms of mental

health system-related gaslighting. First, her

abuser forced her to go to a psychiatrist

against her will, insisting she needed profes-

sional help and that he could institutionalize

her, using gender-based stereotypes and

immigration-related isolation against her.

Second, he tried to convince her she was

“crazy” by making up stories that cast her as

the primary abuser in the relationship, making

her fearful of seeking outside help.

Independent use of mental health services

can also provide fodder for gaslighting strate-

gies. Three of the women I interviewed were

institutionalized as an indirect result of domes-

tic violence, and all of them felt this experi-

ence worsened their abusers’ gaslighting

tactics upon release. Adriana explained, “When

I got out of the hospital, he was like, ‘I fucking

told you that you were insane! What type of

person gets locked up in a hospital? How crazy

are you!’” (interview 7.29.15). Adriana’s boy-

friend used the hospitalization to mark her as

psychologically defective, eroding her auton-

omy. He used the mental health system as

leverage to construct her as the really “crazy”

one, heightening her feelings of blame for the

environment of surreality in which she lived.

Because women already feel vulnerable and

lack autonomy when accessing residential

mental health services (Warshaw and Tinnon

2018), this experience can become a site of

further coercion in gaslighting tactics.

As these accounts show, mental health and

legal systems are sites where the harms of

gaslighting may be exacerbated. Inventing

stories about infidelities, insisting that

women are “crazy” and overly emotional,

and manipulating memories are more damag-

ing when executed in institutions where

women already experience fear, diminished

autonomy, and lack of credibility. In this

way, gaslighting exploits conditions of insti-

tutional discrimination or, in the case of

mental health, stigma related to use. Institu-

tions are transformed into sites of harm when

abusers mobilize women’s fear of and lack of

credibility in these powerful settings to make

them seem “crazy.” In this way, institutions

become part of the gaslighting routine, isolat-

ing victims from support and contributing to

surreality.

Sweet 869

EXTENDING THE CASE

My goal is not simply to reveal gaslighting as

a mechanism of control in abusive relation-

ships, but to use the case of domestic violence

to build a theoretical framework for gaslight-

ing that can be translated into other contexts.

The theory offered here posits that gaslighting

is rooted in power-laden intimate relation-

ships, creates a sense of surreality, and mobi-

lizes gender-based stereotypes, intersecting

inequalities, and institutional vulnerabilities

against victims. This theory specifies how

abstract social inequalities can be transformed

into interpersonal weapons. How could this

theoretical framework be applied to situations

outside the context of domestic violence?

We could imagine an otherwise analytically

confusing situation between an academic men-

tor, a white man in his 50s, and a graduate stu-

dent, a working-class man of color in his 20s.

The mentor does not use physical or sexual

violence, but regularly asks the student for aca-

demic labor and then denies him public credit,

asks him to share scholarly ideas and then tries

to convince the student the ideas are the men-

tor’s own, and insists the student will not suc-

ceed without him. When the student complains,

the mentor tells him he is an overly sensitive

millennial who does not understand academia.

The mentor also informs his colleagues that the

student may require a mental health leave of

absence. The student is left feeling confused

about his own ideas and about the boundaries

of intellectual sharing. He feels isolated from

potential allies, fearing that rumors about his

mental health may hurt his career. Nothing

particularly documentable has occurred, but the

student feels isolated, confused, and dimin-

ished—powerless and controlled in an impor-

tant relationship. A context of unreality has

been created for him, in a power-laden intimate

relationship, that exploits his institutional vul-

nerabilities. Like many abusers in this study,

the mentor likely has no conscious intention of

“gaslighting” the student.

Using the theoretical framework outlined in

this article, we can better understand this situ-

ation. The relationship is power-unequal and

takes place in a steeply hierarchical setting.

The student’s career status is a clear vulnera-

bility, used to establish power and discredit the

student’s complaints. Unlike in cases of

domestic violence, the hierarchical institu-

tional setting in a mentor–mentee relationship

is likely more salient than is gender. Still, the

gender of the mentor matters, and he associates

the student with feminized irrationality: the

mentor is the holder of (masculine) reason, and

the student is constructed as unreasonable and

unknowledgeable. The mentor accuses the stu-

dent of irrationality and lack of know-how,

feminizing and discrediting him. The student is

labeled “overly sensitive” because of age and

ignorant of academia, potentially because of

race and class. The student experiences “sur-

reality” because this takes place in a power

relationship and maybe this is just how mentor

relationships are supposed to work. Finally,

these gaslighting strategies become public

when the mentor constructs the student as

“crazy” to colleagues.

Using the theoretical framework outlined

here, we can avoid calling this just a “bad”

interpersonal situation. Instead, we can ana-

lyze how gaslighting dynamics are made pos-

sible and effective due to gender-based

stereotypes, intersecting inequalities, and

institutional vulnerabilities. The context of a

hierarchical institutional setting is especially

critical in this case. Gender is still relevant to

the construction of rationality here, although

less so as an individual-level variable. Over-

all, gaslighting mobilizes and worsens the

power inequalities already present in the rela-

tionship and in the institutional setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaslighting is at risk of being extracted from

its social conditions of possibility, as well as

its consequences, if it remains under-theorized

by sociologists. Building a sociological the-

ory of gaslighting, I have shown that micro

tactics of abuse are situated in macro condi-

tions of inequality. The main argument is that

gaslighting operates via the exploitation of

social vulnerabilities in unequal intimate

870 American Sociological Review 84(5)

relationships. This research contributes to the

IPV literature by parsing mechanisms of gas-

lighting and their socio-structural correlates

as part of coercive control. I identify key

social mechanisms via which gaslighting tac-

tics create “surreality”; these include associ-

ating victims’ thoughts, speech, and actions

with feminized irrationality, exploiting inter-

secting inequalities related to race and nation-

ality, and using victims’ lack of institutional

credibility against them.

Because gaslighting is gendered, I expect

it to be more common with male perpetrators

and female victims; however, gaslighting can

also work more generally by feminizing vic-

tims, as demonstrated in the mentor–mentee

thought experiment. Systematically associat-

ing another person with irrationality in a

power relationship is a gender-based strategy

that reinforces power dynamics. This article

shows how men’s relative cultural and eco-

nomic capital, combined with their access to

“rationality” and institutional credibility, set

the conditions for gaslighting. For victims

with intersecting social marginalities related

to race, ability, and legal status, these dynam-

ics are especially dangerous.

Gaslighting warrants general considera-

tion because it illuminates under-theorized

forms of social power. My goal is to under-

stand how gender inequalities translate into

the “surreal” strategies of interpersonal harm

that have so captured public attention. Extend-

ing this goal, we can see that attempts to

undermine women’s realities should be

understood as constitutive of gender as a sys-

tem. The case of gaslighting reveals the cen-

trality of the cultural association of femininity

with irrationality in perpetuating gender ine-

quality, especially in intimate relationships.

Gender scholars should consider how this

pervasive stereotype operates in gender-based

social processes more generally, shaping

women’s ability to testify to their own social

realities and to control the course of social

interactions. Whether gender is theorized as a

practice (West and Zimmerman 1987), an

institution (Martin 2004), a structure (Connell

1987; Risman 2004), or a set of relations that

operate through binary oppositions (Connell

1995; Schippers 2007), the gendered con-

struction of rationality is key to how power is

distributed in the social world. Race and sex-

uality also matter, suggesting these associa-

tions are intersectional. Denying women’s

realities and stripping them of credibility is a

long-standing feature of gender systems that

operates with force in intimate relationships.

By theorizing gaslighting as part of inequality

in this way, it becomes clearer how current

political strategies may successfully draw

from gaslighting strategies.

Still, analyses that suggest Trump is gas-

lighting America go too far. The framework

offered in this article argues that gaslighting

occurs in power-laden intimate relationships,

precisely because trust and coercive interper-

sonal strategies bind the victim to the perpe-

trator. The public has too much collective

power to experience gaslighting, such that we

can fact-check and push counter-narratives

into the public sphere. Still, it is unsurprising

that Trump and other leaders draw from gas-

lighting strategies, as they are rooted in mas-

culine power and control. Positing gaslighting

as a political strategy captures something

important: manipulating others’ sense of real-

ity amplifies power; associating others with

feminized unreasonableness is useful for

domination.

Thus, political analysts would

do well to consider how and why feminizing

one’s opponents is effective for political dom-

ination, thereby highlighting the ways politi-

cal discourses are fundamentally gendered.

Finally, this research has policy implica-

tions related to domestic violence, such that

public discourse and policies should extend

abuse prevention, education, and awareness

to gaslighting. Popular conceptualizations of

intimate abuse should go well beyond physi-

cal, verbal, and financial abuse. Women’s

stories of gaslighting suggest the invisibility

of this form of abuse makes it especially dam-

aging, cutting victims off from institutional

protections. Furthermore, attempts to address

psychological abuse presume that mental

health and legal systems are “safe” for vic-

tims. This research shows that institutions, on

the contrary, are sometimes a feature of the

abuse. Finally, the social embeddedness of

Sweet 871

gaslighting reveals that attempts to address

IPV will not be effective without considera-

tion of macro vulnerabilities. Policies to pro-

tect against gaslighting should therefore focus

on increasing women’s institutional credibil-

ity and cultural and economic capital.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Jocelyn Viterna, Claire L. Decoteau,

Jonah Stuart Brundage, Kelly Underman, Danielle Giffort,

and Anna Skarpelis for their incredible guidance on this

paper. My thanks also to the anonymous reviewers at

ASR. I am grateful to the National Center on Domestic

Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health, to the women who

shared their stories with me, and to the domestic violence

advocates who helped me understand the stakes of gas-

lighting in women’s lives.

ORCID iD

Paige L. Sweet https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9173-0396

Notes

1. Originally adapted from a 1938 play by Patrick

Hamilton.

2. Their study follows the plot of the film Gaslight:

Charles Boyer’s character aims to drive Ingrid

Bergman’s character to the point of involuntary

institutionalization so he can steal her fortune.

3. The IPV literature is riven with long-standing

debates on how best to measure violence and

whether domestic violence is a gendered phenom-

enon. Johnson’s typology (1995, 2006, 2008) seeks

to address both impasses by arguing that embattled

researchers are just studying distinct phenomena.

Thus, “intimate terrorism” refers to domestic vio-

lence as a pattern of power and control (the feminist

model), whereas “situational couple violence” refers

to the gender-equal phenomenon of couples fighting,

without control or domination. Intimate terrorism is

reflected in clinical and criminal samples, whereas

situational couple violence is found in “family con-

flict” surveys (Johnson 2008; Kimmel 2002).

4. According to Johnson (1995, 2006, 2008), the most

severe type of abuse found between partners is

“intimate terrorism”: one partner (typically male)

exercises dominance and control over the other part-

ner (typically female). Similarly, Stark (2007) uses

the term “coercive control” to refer to patterns of

gender-based oppression in abusive relationships.

5. The gendered nature of intimate terrorism is cap-

tured well in the Power and Control Wheel, a visual

representation of the feminist model of domestic

violence developed by Ellen Pence and Michael

Paymar as part of the Domestic Abuse Intervention

Project in Duluth, Minnesota in the mid-1980s. See

https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheels/ for more

information on the wheel and its adaptations.

6. Many studies find that the most injurious forms of

violence are executed by men against women, but

men still experience abuse. In same-sex relation-

ships, men report significant rates of victimization

and power imbalances worsened by issues like

poverty, although these dynamics are under-studied

(Stark and Hester 2019). Other research shows that

male victims of IPV experience significant distress

and emotional problems, but they are less likely to

be fearful of female partners and to uproot their

lives in response (Hester et al. 2017; Myhill 2017;

Ross 2012). Men also report shame and embarrass-

ment when they report IPV, as well as lack of ser-

vices (Tsui, Cheung, and Leung 2010).

7. Survey results suggest that women are assaulted,

raped, and stalked by intimate partners at a rate of at

least 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 (Black et al. 2011). Black and

Native women face higher rates of intimate partner

violence than the national average (Lacey et al. 2016).

See Garcia-Moreno and colleagues (2006) for global

statistics. See Brush (2011) for a macro-level class-

based analysis. See Purvin (2007) and Scott, London,

and Myers (2002) for how domestic violence affects

women’s economic autonomy. Finally, precarious

legal status puts immigrant women at greater risk of

violence and isolates them from institutions (Men-

jívar and Abrego 2012; Menjívar and Salcido 2002;

Raj and Silverman 2002; Villalón 2010).

8. Although recruiting women from domestic violence

support groups does not provide a representative

sample of domestic violence victims in general—

individuals who do not seek formal help remain a

practically inaccessible group for qualitative inter-

viewing—evidence suggests that recruiting from

support groups provides a relatively accurate view

of heterosexual women victims who voluntarily or

involuntarily seek formal help for “coercive con-

trol” types of domestic violence (Johnson 2006; Raj

and Silverman 2007; Stark 2007).

9. One participant identified her primary abuser as her

father and another identified her brother.

10. Socioeconomic status can be difficult to assess for

domestic violence victims because many women

fall into low-income status when they leave male

partners, or their partners interfere with their labor

force participation (Brush 2011). Of the women I

interviewed, 29 subsisted primarily on child support

and public assistance. Many of the other women

relied on cobbled-together resources from family

and nonprofit agencies. Because domestic violence

agencies offer free services and emergency shelter,

most of the women who access these agencies are

low-income or experiencing homelessness (Bell

2003; Davis 2006; Tolman and Rosen 2001).

872 American Sociological Review 84(5)

11. More information about these additional data

sources and about emergent research on gaslighting

is available upon request.

12. This is a limited sample, so additional studies will

be needed to apply this theory to the experiences of

other racial groups, LGBTQ+ victims, and victims

who do not seek formal help.

13. The framework outlined here also opens avenues

for theoretical work on the links between white

nationalism and misogyny (see Beinart 2019).

References

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. “Writing Against Culture.” Pp.

137–62 in Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the

Present, edited by R. G. Fox. Santa Fe, NM: School

of American Research Press.

Acker, Joan. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institu-

tions.” Contemporary Sociology 21(5):565–9.

Adams, Natalie, and Pamela Bettis. 2003. “Commanding

the Room in Short Skirts: Cheering as the Embodiment

of Ideal Girlhood.” Gender & Society 17(1):73–91.

Anderson, Kristin L. 2005. “Theorizing Gender in Inti-

mate Partner Violence Research.” Sex Roles 52(11–

12):853–65.

Anderson, Kristin L. 2008. “Is Partner Violence Worse

in the Context of Control?” Journal of Marriage &

Family 70(5):1157–68.

Anderson, Kristin L. 2009. “Gendering Coercive Con-

trol.” Violence Against Women 15(12):1444–57.

Anderson, Kristin L. 2010. “Conflict, Power, and Vio-

lence in Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family

72(3):726–42.

Anderson, Kristin L., and Deb Umberson. 2001. “Gen-

dering Violence: Masculinity and Power in Men’s

Accounts of Domestic Violence.” Gender and Society

15(3):358–80.

Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura Hamilton, and Brian

Sweeney. 2006. “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Mul-

tilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape.” Social

Problems 53(4):483–99.

Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and

Lanora Johnson. 2018. “Silence, Power, and Inequal-

ity: An Intersectional Approach to Sexual Violence.”

Annual Review of Sociology 44:99–122.

Atkinson, Robert. 2007. “The Life Story Interview as a

Bridge in Narrative Inquiry.” Pp. 224–46 in Hand-

book of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology,

edited by D. Jean Clandinin. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Barber, Jennifer S., Yasamin Kusunoki, Heather H.

Gatny, and Jamie Budnick. 2018. “The Dynamics of

Intimate Partner Violence and the Risk of Pregnancy

during the Transition to Adulthood.” American Socio-

logical Review 83(5):1020–47.

Barker, Kristin. 2009. The Fibromyalgia Story: Medical

Authority and Women’s Worlds of Pain. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Barton, Russell, and J. A. Whitehead. 1969. “The Gas-

Light Phenomenon.” The Lancet 293(7608):1258–60.

Beinart, Peter. 2019, January. “The New Authoritarians

Are Waging War on Women.” The Atlantic (https://

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/

authoritarian-sexism-trump-duterte/576382/).

Bell, Holly. 2003. “Cycles within Cycles: Domestic

Violence, Welfare, and Low-Wage Work.” Violence

Against Women 9(10):1245–62.

Black, Michele C., Kathleen C. Basile, Matthew J. Bre-

iding, Sharon G. Smith, Mikel L. Walters, Melissa T.

Merrick, and Mark R. Stevens. 2011. “The National

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010

Summary Report.” Atlanta, GA: National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention.

Blum, Linda M., and Nena F. Stracuzzi. 2004. “Gender

in the Prozac Nation: Popular Discourse and Produc-

tive Femininity.” Gender & Society 18(3):269–86.

Britton, Dana M. 1997. “Gendered Organizational Logic:

Policy and Practice in Men’s and Women’s Prisons.”

Gender & Society 11(6):796–818.

Brush, Lisa D. 2011. Poverty, Battered Women, and Work

in US Public Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Calef, Victor, and Edward M. Weinshel. 1981. “Some

Clinical Consequences of Introjection: Gaslighting.”

The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 50(1):44–66.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 2015. “Intimate Part-

ner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and

Recommended Data Elements.” Accessed December

2018 (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/

intimatepartnerviolence.pdf).

Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. “The Grounded Theory Method:

An Explication and Interpretation.” Pp. 109–28 in

Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Read-

ings, edited by R. Emerson. Boston: Little, Brown

and Company.

Clarke, Adele E. 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded

Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Dalessandro, Cristen, and Amy C. Wilkins. 2017.

“Blinded by Love: Women, Men, and Gendered Age

in Relationship Stories.” Gender & Society 31(1):96–

118.

Davis, Dana-Ain. 2006. Battered Black Women and

Welfare Reform: Between a Rock and a Hard Place.

Albany: SUNY Press.

Desmond, Matthew, and Nicol Valdez. 2012. “Unpolic-

ing the Urban Poor: Consequences of Third-Party

Policing for Inner-City Women.” American Socio-

logical Review 78(1):117–41.

Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell Dobash. 1979. Violence

Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy. New

York: Free Press.

Douglas, Heather. 2012. “Battered Women’s Experiences

of the Criminal Justice System: Decentering the

Law.” Feminist Legal Studies 20(2):121–34.

Sweet 873

Dutton, Mary Ann, and Lisa A. Goodman. 2005. “Coer-

cion in Intimate Partner Violence: Toward a New

Conceptualization.” Sex Roles 52(11–12):743–56.

Dutton, Mary Ann, Lisa A. Goodman, and Lauren Bennett.

1999. “Court-Involved Battered Women’s Responses

to Violence: The Role of Psychological, Physical, and

Sexual Abuse.” Violence and Victims 14(1):89–104.

Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. 1973. Com-

plaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sick-

ness. New York: The Feminist Press.

Enander, Viveka. 2010. “‘A Fool to Keep Staying’: Bat-

tered Women Labeling Themselves Stupid as an

Expression of Gendered Shame.” Violence Against

Women 16(1):5–31.

England, Paula. 2010. “The Gender Revolution: Uneven

and Stalled.” Gender & Society 24(2):149–66.

Ezzel, Matthew B. 2012. “‘I’m in Control’: Compensa-

tory Manhood in a Therapeutic Community.” Gender

& Society 26(2):190–215.

Ferraro, Kathleen J. 2003. “The Words Change but the

Melody Lingers: The Persistence of the Battered

Woman Syndrome in Criminal Cases Involving Bat-

tered Women.” Violence Against Women 9(1):110–29.

Ferraro, Kathleen J. 2006. Neither Angels nor Demons:

Women, Crime, and Victimization. Boston: Northeast-

ern University Press.

Figert, Anne E. 1996. Women and the Ownership of PMS:

The Structuring of a Psychiatric Disorder. New York:

Routledge.

Garcia, Lorena. 2012. Respect Yourself, Protect Yourself:

Latina Girls and Sexual Identity. New York: New

York University Press.

Garcia-Moreno, Claudia, Henrica AFM Jansen, Mary

Ellsberg, Lori Heise, and Charlotte H. Watts. 2006.

“Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence: Find-

ings from the WHO Multi-country Study on Wom-

en’s Health and Domestic Violence.” The Lancet

368(9543):1260–9.

Gass, Gertrude Zemon, and William C. Nichols. 1988.

“Gaslighting: A Marital Syndrome.” Contemporary

Family Therapy 10(1):3–16.

Giordano, Peggy C., Jennifer E. Copp, Monica A. Long-

more, and Wendy D. Manning. 2016. “Anger, Control,

and Intimate Partner Violence in Young Adulthood.”

Journal of Family Violence 31(1):1–13.

Hardesty, Jennifer L., Kimberly A. Crossman, Megan L.

Haselschwerdt, Marcela Raffaelli, Brian G. Ogolsky,

and Michael P. Johnson. 2015. “Toward a Standard

Approach to Operationalizing Coercive Control and

Classifying Violence Types.” Journal of Marriage

and Family 77(4):833–43.

Headworth, Spencer. 2019. “Getting to Know You:

Welfare Fraud Investigation and the Appropria-

tion of Social Ties.” American Sociological Review

84(1):171–96.

Henriksen, Ann-Karina. 2017. “Confined to Care: Girls’

Gendered Vulnerabilities in Secure Institutions.”

Gender & Society 31(5):677–98.

Hester, Marianne, Cassandra Jones, Emma Williamson,

Eldin Fahmy, and Gene Feder. 2017. “Is It Coercive

Controlling Violence? A Cross-Sectional Domestic Vio-

lence and Abuse Survey of Men Attending General Prac-

tice in England.” Psychology of Violence 7(3):417–27.

Johnson, Michael P. 1995. “Patriarchal Terrorism and

Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence

against Women.” Journal of Marriage and Family

57(2):283–94.

Johnson, Michael P. 2006. “Conflict and Control: Gender

Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence.”

Violence Against Women 12(11):1003–18.

Johnson, Michael P. 2008. A Typology of Domestic Vio-

lence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and

Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern

University Press.

Johnson, Michael P., Janel M. Leone, and Yili Xu. 2014.

“Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence

in General Surveys: Ex-Spouses Required.” Violence

Against Women 20(2):186–207.

Kelly, Liz, and Nicole Westmarland. 2016. “Naming

and Defining ‘Domestic Violence’: Lessons from

Research with Violent Men.” Feminist Review

112(1):113–27.

Kempner, Joanna. 2014. Not Tonight: Migraine and the

Politics of Gender and Health. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Kimmel, Michael S. 2002. “‘Gender Symmetry’ in

Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Method-

ological Research Review.” Violence Against Women

8(11):1332–63.

Kimmel, Michael S. 2004. “Masculinity as Homopho-

bia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of

Gender Identity.” Pp. 184–99 in Feminism & Mascu-

linities, edited by P. F. Murphy. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Lacey, Krim K., Carolyn M. West, Niki Matusko, and

James S. Jackson. 2016. “Prevalence and Factors

Associated with Severe Physical Intimate Partner

Violence among US Black Women: A Comparison of

African American and Caribbean Blacks.” Violence

Against Women 2(6):651–70.

Lamont, Ellen. 2014. “Negotiating Courtship: Recon-

ciling Egalitarian Ideals with Traditional Gender

Norms.” Gender & Society 28(2):189–211.

Leve, Ariel. 2017, March 18. “Trump Is Gaslighting

America – Here’s How to Survive.” Business Insider.

Accessed October 2018 (https://www.businessinsider

.com/trump-is-gaslighting-america-heres-how-to-

survive-2017-3).

Littlejohn, Krystale E. 2013. “It’s Those Pills That Are

Ruining Me: Gender and the Social Meanings of

Hormonal Contraceptive Side Effects.” Gender &

Society 27(6):843–63.

Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2003. “‘Said and Done’ versus

‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices, Practicing

Gender at Work.” Gender & Society 17(3):342–66.

Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. “Gender as a Social Insti-

tution.” Social Forces 82:1249–73.

McCloskey, Laura A., Corrine M. Williams, Erika

Lichter, Megan Gerber, Michael L. Ganz, and Rob-

ert Sege. 2007. “Abused Women Disclose Partner

874 American Sociological Review 84(5)

Interference with Health Care: An Unrecognized

Form of Battering.” Journal of General Internal

Medicine 22(8):1067–72.

McKim, Allison. 2008. “‘Getting Gut-Level’: Punish-

ment, Gender, and Therapeutic Governance.” Gender

& Society 22(3):303–23.

McLaughlin, Heather, Christopher Uggen, and Amy

Blackstone. 2012. “Sexual Harassment, Workplace

Authority, and the Paradox of Power.” American

Sociological Review 77(4):625–47.

Menjívar, Cecilia. 2011. Enduring Violence: Ladina

Women’s Lives in Guatemala. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Menjívar, Cecilia, and Leisy Abrego. 2012. “Legal Vio-

lence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central

American Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociol-

ogy 117(5):1380–421.

Menjívar, Cecilia, and Olivia Salcido. 2002. “Immigrant

Women and Domestic Violence: Common Experi-

ences in Different Countries.” Gender & Society

16(6):898–920.

Metzl, Jonathan. 2003. Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing

Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Mikhailova, Anna. 2018, May 23. “Theresa May Pledges

to Tighten the Law on ‘Gaslighting’ Abuse.” The

Telegraph. Accessed October 2018 (https://www

.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/23/theresa-may-

pledges-tighten-law-gaslighting-abuse/).

Miller, Elizabeth, Michele R. Decker, Heather L. McCauley,

Daniel J. Tancredi, Rebecca R. Levenson, Jeffrey Wald-

man, Phyllis Schoenwald, and Jay G. Silverman. 2010.

“Pregnancy Coercion, Intimate Partner Violence and

Unintended Pregnancy.” Contraception 81(4):316–22.

Miller, Jody. 2008. Getting Played: African American

Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence.

New York: New York University Press.

Murphy, Christopher M., and Sharon A. Hoover. 1999.

“Measuring Emotional Abuse in Dating Relation-

ships as a Multifactorial Construct.” Violence and

Victims 14(1):39–53.

Myhill, Andy. 2015. “Measuring Coercive Control: What

Can We Learn from National Population Surveys?”

Violence Against Women 21(3):355–75.

Myhill, Andy. 2017. “Measuring Domestic Violence:

Context Is Everything.” Journal of Gender-Based

Violence 1(1):33–44.

O’Connell Davidson, Julia, and Derek Layder.1994.

Methods, Sex, and Madness. London, UK: Routledge.

O’Leary, K. Daniel. 1999. “Psychological Abuse: A Vari-

able Deserving Critical Attention in Domestic Vio-

lence.” Violence and Victims 14(1):3–23.

Pascoe, C. J. 2011. Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and

Sexuality in High School. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Piipsa, Minna. 2002. “Complexity of Patterns of Violence

Against Women in Heterosexual Partnerships.” Vio-

lence Against Women 18(7):873–900.

Purvin, Diane M. 2007. “At the Crossroads and in the

Crosshairs: Social Welfare Policy and Low-Income

Women’s Vulnerability to Domestic Violence.”

Social Problems 54(2):188–210.

Raj, Anita, and Jay G. Silverman. 2002. “Violence Against

Immigrant Women: The Roles of Culture, Context,

and Legal Immigrant Status on Intimate Partner Vio-

lence.” Violence Against Women 8(3):367–98.

Raj, Anita, and Jay G. Silverman. 2007. “Domestic

Violence Help-Seeking Behaviors of South Asian

Battered Women Residing in the United States.”

International Review of Victimology 14(1):143–70.

Randles, Jennifer. 2018. “‘Manning Up’ to Be a Good

Father: Hybrid Fatherhood, Masculinity, and U.S.

Responsible Fatherhood Policy.” Gender & Society

32(4):516–39.

Reed, Elizabeth, Anita Raj, Elizabeth Miller, and Jay G.

Silverman. 2010. “Losing the ‘Gender’ in Gender-

Based Violence: The Missteps of Research on Dat-

ing and Intimate Partner Violence.” Violence Against

Women 16(3):348–54.

Richie, Beth E. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gender

Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York:

Routledge.

Richie, Beth E. 2000. “A Black Feminist Reflection on

the Antiviolence Movement.” Signs 25(4):1133–7.

Richie, Beth E. 2012. Arrested Justice: Black Women,

Violence, and America’s Prison Nation. New York:

New York University Press.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004.

“Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Per-

spective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations.”

Gender & Society 18(4):510–31.

Risman, Barbara J. 2004. “Gender as a Social Structure:

Theory Wrestling with Activism.” Gender & Society

18(4):429–51.

Ross, Jody M. 2012. “Self-Reported Fear in Partner

Violent Relationships: Findings on Gender Differ-

ences from Two Samples.” Psychology of Violence

2(1):58–74.

Rothenberg, Bess. 2002. “The Success of the Battered

Woman Syndrome: An Analysis of How Cultural

Arguments Succeed.” Sociological Forum 17(1):81–

103.

Saguy, Abigail C. 2003. What Is Sexual Harassment?

From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of California Press.

Sarkis, Stephanie. 2018. Gaslighting: Recognize Manipu-

lative and Emotionally Abusive People – and Break

Free. Boston: Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Scarborough, William J., and Barbara J. Risman. 2017.

“Changes in the Gender Structure: Inequality at the

Individual, Interactional, and Macro Dimensions.”

Sociology Compass 11(10):e12515.

Scarborough, William J., Ray Sin, and Barbara J.

Risman. 2019. “Attitudes and the Stalled Gender Rev-

olution: Egalitarianism, Traditionalism, and Ambiva-

lence from 1977 through 2016.” Gender & Society

33(2):173–200.

Schippers, Mimi. 2007. “Recovering the Feminine Other:

Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender Hegemony.”

Theory and Society 36(1):85–102.

Sweet 875

Schrock, Douglas, Janice McCabe, and Christian Vac-

caro. 2017. “Narrative Manhood Acts: Batterer Inter-

vention Program Graduates’ Tragic Relationships.”

Symbolic Interaction 41(3):384–410.

Schur, Edwin M. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant: Gen-

der, Stigma, and Social Control. New York: Random

House.

Scott, Ellen K., Andrew S. London, and Nancy A. Myers.

2002. “Dangerous Dependencies: The Intersection of

Welfare Reform and Domestic Violence.” Gender &

Society 16(6):878–97.

Shields, Stephanie A. 2007. “Passionate Men, Emotional

Women: Psychology Constructs Gender Difference

in the Late 19th Century.” History of Psychology

10(2):92–110.

Small, Mario Luis. 2009. “‘How Many Cases Do I

Need?’ On Science and the Logic of Case Selection

in Field-Based Research.” Ethnography 10(5):5–38.

Smart, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the Power of Law.

New York: Routledge.

Smith, Charles G., and Kenneth Sinanan. 1972. “The

‘Gaslight Phenomenon’ Reappears: A Modification

of the Ganser Syndrome.” British Journal of Psychia-

try 120(559):685–6.

Sokoloff, Natalie J., and Ida Dupont. 2005. “Domestic

Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gen-

der: Challenges and Contributions to Understanding

Violence Against Marginalized Women in Diverse

Communities.” Violence Against Women 11(1):38–64.

Stark, Evan. 2007. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap

Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Stark, Evan. 2010. “Do Violent Acts Equal Abuse?

Resolving the Gender Parity/Asymmetry Dilemma.”

Sex Roles 62(3–4):201–11.

Stark, Evan, and Marianne Hester. 2019. “Coercive Con-

trol: Update and Review.” Violence Against Women

25(1):81–104.

Stern, Robin. [2007] 2018. The Gaslight Effect: How to

Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others

Use to Control Your Life. New York: Harmony Books.

Strauchler, Orin, Kathy McCloskey, Kathleen Malloy,

Marilyn Sitaker, Nancy Grigsby, and Paulette Gil-

lig. 2004. “Humiliation, Manipulation, and Con-

trol: Evidence of Centrality in Domestic Violence

against an Adult Partner.” Journal of Family Violence

19(6):339–54.

Tanha, Marieh, Connie J. A. Beck, Aurelio José

Figueredo, and Chitra Raghavan. 2010. “Sex Dif-

ferences in Intimate Partner Violence and the Use of

Coercive Control as a Motivational Factor for Inti-

mate Partner Violence.” Journal of Interpersonal Vio-

lence 25(10):1836–54.

Tolman, Richard M., and Daniel Rosen. 2001. “Domes-

tic Violence in the Lives of Women Receiving Wel-

fare: Mental Health, Substance Dependence, and

Economic Well-Being.” Violence Against Women

7(2):141–58.

Tsui, Venus, Monit Cheung, and Patrick Leung. 2010.

“Help-Seeking among Male Victims of Partner

Abuse: Men’s Hard Times.” Journal of Community

Psychology 38(6):769–80.

U.S. Department of Justice. 2016. “Domestic Violence.”

Accessed May 2017 (https://www.justice.gov/ovw/

domestic-violence).

Villalón, Roberta. 2010. Violence Against Latina Immi-

grants: Citizenship, Inequality, and Community. New

York: New York University Press.

Warshaw, Carole, Eleanor Lyon, Patricia J. Bland, Heather

Phillips, and Mikisha Hooper. 2014. “Mental Health

and Substance Use Coercion Surveys: Report from

the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma,

& Mental Health and the National Domestic Violence

Hotline” (http://www.nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org/

wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NCDVTMH_NDVH_

MHSUCoercionSurveyReport_2014-2.pdf).

Warshaw, Carole, and Erin Tinnon. 2018. “Coercion

Related to Mental Health and Substance Use in the

Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Toolkit for

Screening, Assessment, and Brief Counseling in Pri-

mary Care and Behavioral Health Settings” (https://

www.sprc.org/sites/default/files/resource-program/

NCDVTMH_IPV_ScreeningMH_SA_Coercion

Toolkit2018.pdf).

West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing

Gender.” Gender & Society 1(2):125–51.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2017, November

29. “Violence Against Women.” Accessed December

2018 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/

detail/violence-against-women).

Williamson, Emma. 2010. “Living in the World of the

Domestic Violence Perpetrator: Negotiating the

Unreality of Coercive Control.” Violence Against

Women 16(12):1412–23.

Yamawaki, Niwako, Joseph Ostenson, and C. Ryan

Brown. 2009. “The Functions of Gender Role Tradi-

tionality, Ambivalent Sexism, Injury, and Frequency

of Assault on Domestic Violence Perception: A Study

between Japanese and American College Students.”

Violence Against Women 15(9):1126–42.

Paige L. Sweet is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Inequality

in America Initiative at Harvard University. Her research

focuses on gender and sexuality, the politics of health,

expert knowledge, and gender-based violence. She is cur-

rently writing a book manuscript about the pressures that

domestic violence victims face to attend therapy and

“become survivors” as a condition of receiving welfare

state services. Her work has appeared in Social Prob-

lems, Sociological Theory, and Signs: Journal of Women

in Culture & Society, among others.