Psychometric Development and Validation of Gaslighting
Psychometric Development and Validation of Gaslighting
Psychometric Development and Validation of Gaslighting
PAGE 4 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE j VOL. 16 NO. 1 2023, pp. 4-18, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-4902 DOI 10.1108/IJHRH-12-2020-0119
not psychometrically valid or cannot be generalized to a wider population. The present established scale
is an effort to construct an instrument that can be used worldwide.
Keywords Mental health, Gaslighting, Victims, Manipulation, Interpersonal relationships abuse,
Emotional and psychological abuse, Velicer’s minimum average partial method
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Research on psychological and emotional abuse of adult women have significantly increased
in recent years (Follingstad, 2011; Marshall, 1999; Rogers and Follingstad, 2014). A particular
type of covert abuse that has garnered much attention out of other types is gaslighting
(Marshall, 1999; Rogers and Follingstad, 2014; Saif et al., 2021). Gaslighting is an increasingly
pervasive term usually used to describe the mind-manipulating strategies of abusive people,
in both politics and interpersonal relationships (Sweet, 2019; Toqeer et al., 2021). Gaslighting
in the psychological domain is explained as a type of psychological manipulation that
develops doubt in the targeted individual or a group by making them question their own
rationality, memory and perception. It uses use of constant misdirection, denial, lying and
contradiction to destabilize and delegitimize the victim’s belief (Dorpat, 1994; Petric, 2018).
However, till now there is a scarcity of empirical research on such types of psychological and
emotional abuse due to the lack of a reliable and valid instrument (Hightower, 2018). Due to
the broadness of the spectrum of gaslighting the present study aims to focus only on the
development of a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument which can measure the
construct of gaslighting empirically in an interpersonal relationship context.
Typically, gaslighting involves a mental abuser or a group of abusers (gas-lighter), a victim or
a group of victims (gas-lighter) and constant mental abuse (gaslighting) (Weintraub, 2021).
Gaslighting can be consciously or unconsciously and is mostly conducted on a covert level
such that the emotional abuse do not feel overtly abusive (Dorpat, 2013). From this, it can be
discerned that gaslighting can be committed by any peer, relative, partner or colleague and
can be especially detrimental when the perpetrator is someone in a position of power (Simon,
2011). Researchers have suggested several possible linked traits which makes a person more
susceptible to become a victim of gaslighting such as Simon (2010) notes that traits that can
contribute to vulnerability for covert emotional abuse may include over-conscientiousness,
neuroticism, low self-confidence, inexperience, emotional dependency and over-
intellectualization (pp. 140–141). Similarly, Stout (2005) and Stern (2007) suggested a
conscious bound mind, extreme self-doubt, needing the approval of the gas-lighter and the
desire to reduce conflict as vulnerable traits to become a victim of gaslighting.
The Intimate Partner Surveillance Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements by
the center for disease control and prevention are updated with the addition of a definition for
gaslighting and being labelled as a form of psychological aggression (Breiding et al.,
2015). Moreover, due to this attention and popularity of the concept Gaslighting in the UK in
2015 was even made an official part of criminal domestic violence law and up till then more
than 300 people have been charged (Mikhailova, 2018). Nevertheless, despite the
recognition gaslighting has gained as an abusive power tactic, sociologists have ignored it
for long leaving it for the psychologists to study (Sweet, 2019). However, even in the
psychological domain most work done on gaslighting is qualitative rather than quantitative.
Even when there is an abundance of evidence which suggests that emotional and
psychological abuse might be more damaging than physical abuse and has long-lasting
effects (Ali et al., 1999; Hayes and Jeffries, 2015; Lachkar, 2001). The most superlative data
currently available suggests that gaslighting is a distressingly common part of domestic
violence. The data was from a survey of 2,500 hotlines callers about their experiences of
intimidation, conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline (Mistral, 2011).
Although these findings did provide justification for the prevalence of gaslighting, such
methods fall short in helping to understand the underlying causes of such abusive acts and
Research methodology
Research method
Approval for this study was obtained from the Foundation University Rawalpindi Campus
Research Ethics Committee of the psychology department, in collaboration with the
National Institute of Psychology (N.I.P), Pakistan.
Questionnaire development
In questionnaire development, the knot theory of mind by Petric (2018) was used which
explains gaslighting as a powerful form of manipulation causing emotional and mental
abuse which can lead to the formation of many knots of negative emotions and thoughts in
an individual’s mind which can then further lead to permanent damage to the victim’s
emotional and cognitive health (Petric, 2018). For additional perspective in relation to the
gaslighting and the associated feelings and thinking of the victims of gaslighting focus
groups were conducted. The sample consisted of a group of domestic violence victims and
was conducted at an NGO during a support group discussion session, which led the
FIML
Missing Data Treatment
Outliers Treatment
Sqr root Transformation
Internal Consistency
Reliability Alpha Coefficient
Results
The results for the current study include descriptive relating to the demographical data
collected along with the mean values of the data. The other analysis included alpha
reliability, EFA and Velicer’s MAP method as follows.
Table 1 revealed the Item Total correlation of items generated during the pilot study. The
values of the corrected item-total correlation were all positive indicating that all the items
should be retained. As seen in the table, the corrected item-total correlation ranged
between 0.32 and 0.7, suggesting the items of the scale to be reliable and can be retained.
Table 2 constitutes the socio-demographic information of the participants of the current
study. The results include the mean, standard deviation, range, skewness and kurtosis of
the secondary variables, such as age, education occupation, marriage status and family
system. The age range selected for the current study was from 18 to 40 (M = 23.38, S.D =
4.03). Other descriptive involved education (M = 2.56, S.D = 0.789), occupation (M = 1.58,
S.D = 0.495), family system (M = 1.35, S.D = 0.478) and marital status (M = 1.61, S.D =
0.489). All the skewness and kurtosis were within normal Ranges 2 and 3, respectively, as
well.
Table 3 highlights the results of the test of normality for the present data set and includes
the values of the Shapiro-Wilk test which displayed a significance value of 0.381 higher than
p > 0.05, suggesting the data to be normally distributed. Additionally, Figure 2 presents a
histogram which also indicates towards the normalcy of the data with the majority of the
data falling in the middle of the graph with the mean value of 42.01 (Table 4).
VGQ1 39.1375 0.673 0.937 – 0.695 0.569 0.516 0.617 0.569 0.459 0.434 0.547 0.312 0.306 0.517 0.479 0.502 0.447
VGQ2 39.0625 0.673 0.937 0.623 0.371 0.464 0.649 0.510 0.584 0.431 0.417 0.412 0.451 0.485 0.485 0.408
VGQ3 39.1000 0.648 0.938 0.545 0.496 0.519 0.480 0.569 0.386 0.380 0.384 0.430 0.443 0.488 0.412
VGQ4 39.2000 0.561 0.940 0.523 0.496 0.423 0.399 0.345 0.375 0.377 0.344 0.384 0.351 0.440
VGQ5 39.2500 0.645 0.937 0.575 0.553 0.371 0.610 0.337 0.418 0.490 0.366 0.415 0.470
The table suggests the values of factor loadings for the present scale based on the squared
partial correlation and 4th power, respectively. The smallest average squared partial
correlation suggested by the MAP analysis was 0.0348 and the smallest average 4th power
partial correlation was 0.0031 both of which suggested two component structures for the
present scale.
Table 5 reveals the EFA factor loadings performed using Maximum Likelihood Analysis
extraction with a high Kaiser-Meyers-Olkin (0.908), the value which suggested that
correlations were enough to create separate and reliable factors with Bartlett’s test of
sphericity x 2 (df) = 811.43 (105), at p < 0.01, all of which signified suitability of data for FA.
Figure 2 Histogram for testing normality of the present study data (N = 150)
14 1.00 1.00
13 0.476 0.3428
12 0.292 0.1727
11 0.207 0.0962
10 0.155 0.0520
9 0.122 0.0328
8 0.097 0.0244
7 0.077 0.0170
6 0.063 0.0128
5 0.056 0.0081
4 0.044 0.0047
3 0.039 0.0036
2 0.035 0.0031
1 0.037 0.0031
0 0.276 0.0872
1 VGQ15 1–5 2.8(1.072) 0.096 0.684 You often find yourself questioning your own sanity 0.913
because of their words
2 VGQ11 1–5 2.75(0.974) 0.063 0.768 Their positive actions do not complement their 0.838
degrading words
3 VGQ13 1–5 2.75(1.013) 0.075 0.762 You feel unsure of your decision-making abilities 0.784
because of their disagreement
4 VGQ12 1–5 2.7(1.107) 0.510 0.543 They accused you of lying and manipulation when 0.766
in reality they are the ones doing it
5 VGQ10 1–5 2.76(1.07) 0.366 0.359 You often find them denying things even when 0.751
there is proof
6 VGQ8 1–5 2.8(1.13) 0.082 0.777 You often feel that you have to defend your reality 0.643
from them
7 VGQ7 1–5 2.83(1.1) 0.053 0.946 They assign motives to your actions that are 0.619
opposite to your intentions
8 VGQ14 1–5 2.58(1.09) 0.437 0.490 You find yourself questioning your beliefs and 0.599
opinions because of their opposition
9 VGQ9 1–5 2.81(1.092) 0.384 0.486 They make you believe that nobody can be trusted 0.575
except them
10 VGQ6 1–5 2.93(0.991) 0.327 0.453 They act in a way that contradict their statements 0.430 0.430
11 VGQ1 1–5 2.88(1.084) 0.052 0.752 You constantly change your words or thoughts 0.933
before speaking
12 VGQ2 1–5 2.95(1.135) 0.166 0.841 Your point of view is dismissed or said to be 0.789
“wrong” completely
13 VGQ3 1–5 2.91(1.193) 0.173 0.879 You get accused for “overreacting” when you try to 0.681
explain your feelings
14 VGQ5 1–5 2.76(1.034) 0.144 0.684 Most interactions leave you feeling small or 0.611
ashamed of yourself
15 VGQ4 1–5 2.81(1.181) 0.233 0.732 You apologize without knowing what you did wrong 0.513
Eigenvalues 8.26 1.32
% of 55.08 8.79
variance
Cumulative 55.08 63.87
variance
Notes: M = mean, S.D = standard deviation, S = skewness, K = kurtosis; factor 1 = personal freedom; factor 2 = equal rights; factor
3 = women empowerment-related fears
Table 6 Alpha reliability and inter-item correlation of scale and subscales (N = 150)
Variables No. of items Mean Std. deviation a 1 2 3
Initially, 15 items of VSQ were proposed based on their eigenvalues more of more than 1
(Cattell, 1966). However, item no 6 was rejected as the item was double loading. While 2
factors that were created included factor 1 as peer disagreement containing Items 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; and factor 2 relating to the loss of self-trust consisting of Items 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5. The input of seven subject specialists: 3 were university Professors and the
other 4 of them were PhD scholars; was used for the purpose of establishing content validity
for the present instrument (Figure 3).
Table 6 shows the correlation between the whole scale and three of its subscales as
suggested by EFA. The table suggests a highly significant correlation between the main
scale and its subscales with r = 0.955 and 0.871, respectively. The currently achieved
Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the overall instrument was a = 0.934 which is above the
acceptable ranges suggesting high reliability of the scale. Additionally, the alpha reliability
for the subscale was a = 0.927 and a = 0.854, respectively.
Table 7 shows the derived two factors suggested by EFA along with their remaining items.
Discussion
Gaslighting is a very serious issue and requires attention especially in a patriarchal country
where the male population mostly dominate women as this kind of abuse is covert in nature
and can damage the victim emotionally and psychologically leaving a long-lasting effect (Ali
et al., 1999; Hayes and Jeffries, 2015; Lachkar, 2001). Pakistan due to a male dominant
country also have several instances of domestic violence cases against women and several
research studies indicates towards the presence of emotional and psychological abuse in
women (Ali et al., 2015; Bhattacharya, 2014; Khurram, 2017; Murshid and Critelli, 2020;
Rashid et al., 2021; Zakar et al., 2013). However, due to the scarcity of a valid instrument to
1 Peer disagreement 15 You often find yourself questioning your own sanity because
of their words
13 Their positive actions do not complement their degrading
words
11 You feel unsure of your decision-making abilities because of
their disagreement
12 They accused you of lying and manipulation when in reality
they are the ones doing it
10 You often find them denying things even when there is proof
8 You often feel that you have to defend your reality from them
7 They assign motives to your actions that are opposite to your
intentions
14 You find yourself questioning your beliefs and opinions
because of their opposition
9 They make you believe that nobody can be trusted except
them
2 Loss of self-trust 1 You constantly change your words or thoughts before
speaking
2 Your point of view is dismissed or said to be “wrong”
completely
3 You get accused for “overreacting” when you try to explain
your feelings
5 Most interactions leave you feeling small or ashamed of
yourself
4 You apologize without knowing what you did wrong
Conclusion
The aim of the present study was the development of a reliable and valid instrument which
can measure the severity of gaslighting in victims of it. The study was successful in
achieving its goal. The instrument can be used in several settings, such as those of criminal
justice, clinical and research, to further the knowledge and understanding of the concept of
gaslighting and its prevalence in various groups and countries. Additionally, the tool can be
beneficial as it can help in identifying possible relationships with other variables more
efficiently and can be used on larger samples which were not mostly possible before.
References
Ali, P.A., Naylor, P.B., Croot, E. and O’Cathain, A. (2015), “Intimate partner violence in Pakistan: a
systematic review”, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 299-315.
Ali, A., Toner, B.B. and Oatley, K. (1999), “Emotional abuse as a precipitating factor for depression in
women”, Journal of Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1300/J135v01n04_01.
Anderson, K.L. (2005), “Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research”, Sex Roles, Vol. 52
Nos 11/12, pp. 853-865, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4204-x.
Bhattacharya, S. (2014), “Status of women in Pakistan”, Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 179-211, available at: http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/history/PDF-FILES/7v51_No1_14.pdf
Breiding, M.J., Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Black, M.C. and Mahendra, R. (2015), “Intimate partner violence
surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements”, National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pp. 1-164, available at: www.pubmedcentral.
nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2943729&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
Briggs, N.E. and MacCallum, R.C. (2003), “Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood
and ordinary least squares estimation”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 25-56, doi:
10.1207/S15327906MBR3801_2.
Cattell, R.B. (1966), “The scree test for the number of factors”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 245-276, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
Cousineau, D. and Chartier, S. (2010), “Outliers detection and treatment: a review”, International Journal
of Psychological Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 58-67, doi: 10.21500/20112084.844.
Dorpat, T. (1994), “On the double whammy and gaslighting”, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 91-96.
Dorpat, T.L. (2013), Crimes of Punishment: America’s Culture of Violence, Vol. 53 No. 9, Algora Publishing.
Dutton, M.A. and Goodman, L.A. (2005), “Coercion in intimate partner violence: toward a new
conceptualization”, Sex Roles, Vol. 52 Nos 11/12, pp. 743-756, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6.
Field, A. (2017), “Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition”, Statistics,
Vol. 58, Sage.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T. and Turner, M.G. (2015), “The sexual victimization of college women”, Sexual
Violence on Campus: Overview, Issues and Actions, pp. 38-65, doi: 10.4135/9781452229454.n22.
Gorsuch, T. (2009), “Dual mode unit for short range, high rate and long range, lower rate data
communications”, In US Patent 7,616,970. Google Patents, available at: www.google.com/patents/
US7616970
Hafsa, S., Aqeel, M. and Shuja, K.H. (2021), “The moderating role of emotional intelligence between Inter-
Parental conflicts and loneliness in male and female adolescents”, Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 38-48, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/5
Hightower, E. (2018), “An exploratory study of personality factors related to psychological abuse and
gaslighting”, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 79
No. 8-B(E), William James College, available at: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=
reference&D=psyc14&NEWS=N&AN=2018-26097-157
Khurram, E. (2017), Factors that contribute to the violence against women: a study from Karachi,
Pakistan, pp. 1-77.
Kline, R. (2013), “Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis”, Applied Quantitative Analysis in
Education and the Social Sciences. American Psychological Association, doi: 10.4324/9780203108550
Marshall, L.L. (1992), “Development of the severity of violence against women scales”, Journal of Family
Violence, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 103-121.
Marshall, L.L. (1999), “Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low-income women”,
Violence and Victims, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-88, doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.69.
Meyer-Arendt, J.R. and Blaker, J.W. (1973), “Introduction to classical and modern optics”, American
Journal of Physics, Vol. 41 No. 1, doi: 10.1119/1.1987159, ERIC.
Mikhailova, A. (2018), Theresa May Pledges to Tighten the Law on ‘Gaslighting’Abuse, The Telegraph.
Misago, J.P., Freemantle, I. and Landau, L.B. (2015), Protection from Xenophobia: An Evaluation of
UNHCR’s Regional Office for Southern Africa’s Xenophobia Related Programmes, University of
Witwatersrand, ACMS.
Mistral, W. (2011), “Mental health and substance use”, British Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 17
No. 7, pp. 298-301, doi: 10.12968/bjhc.2011.17.7.298.
Murphy, C.M., Hoover, S.A. and Taft, C. (1999), The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse:
Factor Structure and Subscale Validity, Toronto, Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy.
Murshid, N.S. and Critelli, F.M. (2020), “Empowerment and intimate partner violence in Pakistan: results
from a nationally representative survey”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 854-875,
doi: 10.1177/0886260517690873.
Myhill, A. (2015), “Measuring coercive control: what can We learn from national population surveys?”,
Violence against Women, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 355-375, doi: 10.1177/1077801214568032.
Petric, D. (2018), The Knot Theory of Mind (Issue September, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30838.86082.
Rashid, A., Aqeel, M., Malik, D.B. and Salim, D.S. (2021), “The prevalence of psychiatric disorders in
breast cancer patients; a Cross-Sectional study of breast cancer patients experience in Pakistan”,
Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 1-7, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/
index.php/psychology/article/view/1
Raubenheimer, J. (2004), “An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 59-64, doi: 10.4102/sajip.v30i4.168.
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. and Comrey, A.L. (2000), “Factor analysis and scale revision”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 287.
Rogers, M.J. and Follingstad, D.R. (2014), “Women’s exposure to psychological abuse: does that
experience predict mental health outcomes?”, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 595-611, doi:
10.1007/s10896-014-9621-6.
Ross, J.M. (2012), “Self-reported fear in partner violent relationships: findings on gender differences from
two samples”, Psychology of Violence, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 58-74, doi: 10.1037/a0026285.
Saif, J., Rohail, D.I. and Aqeel, M. (2021), “Quality of life, coping strategies, and psychological distress in
women with primary and secondary infertility; a mediating model”, Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-17, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/psychology/article/view/6
Sarfraz, R., Aqeel, M., Lactao, D.J. and Khan, D.S. (2021), “Coping strategies, pain severity, pain anxiety,
depression, positive and negative affect in osteoarthritis patients; a mediating and moderating model”,
Nature-Nurture Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 18-28, available at: https://thenaturenurture.
org/index.php/psychology/article/view/8
Shepard, M.F. and Campbell, J.A. (1992), “The abusive behavior inventory: a measure of psychological
and physical abuse”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 291-305.
Shuja, K.H., Aqeel, M. and Khan, K.R. (2020a), “Psychometric development and validation of attitude
rating scale towards women empowerment: across male and female university population in Pakistan”,
International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, Vol. 13 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/IJHRH-12-2019-0090.
Simon, G.K. (2010), In Sheep’s Clothing : understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, Tantor
Media, Incorporated.
Simon, G. (2011), “Gaslighting as a manipulation tactic: what it is, who does it, and why”, Counselling
Resources, available at: https://counsellingresource.com/features/2011/11/08/gaslighting/
Stern, R. (2007), The GASLIGHT EFFECT How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulations Other
People Use to Control Your Life, Harmony.
Stout, M. (2005), “The sociopath next door : the ruthless versus the rest of us”, Harmony, available at:
http://translibri.com/pdf/Sociopath_Sample.pdf
Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L. and Warren, W.L. (2003), “The conflict tactics scales handbook: Revised
conflict tactics scales (CTS2)”, CTS: Parent-Child Version (CTSPC), Los Angeles, CA, Western
Psychological Services.
Sullivan, C.M. and Bybee, D.I. (1999), “Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women
with abusive partners”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, p. 43.
Sweet, P.L. (2019), “The sociology of gaslighting”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 84 No. 5,
pp. 851-875, doi: 10.1177/0003122419874843.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2001), Using Multivariate Statisitcs, pp. 72-80, Boston.
Tabri, N. and Elliott, C.M. (2012), “Principles and practice of structural equation modeling”, Canadian
Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 59, doi: 10.15353/cgjsc-rcessc.v1i1.25.
Toqeer, S., Aqeel, M., Shuja, K.H., Bibi, D.A. and Abbas, D.J. (2021), “Attachment styles, Facebook
addiction, dissociation and alexithymia in university students; a mediational model”, Nature-Nurture
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1 SE, pp. 28-37, available at: https://thenaturenurture.org/index.php/
psychology/article/view/2
Velicer, W.F., Eaton, C.A. and Fava, J.L. (2000), “Construct explication through factor or component
analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors
or components”, Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment, pp. 41-71, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-
4397-8_3.
Velicer, W.F. and Fava, J.L. (1998), “Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 231-251, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231.
Vieira, V.A. (2011), “Experimental designs using ANOVA”, Revista de Administração Contemporânea,
Vol. 15 No. 2, Thomson/Brooks/Cole Belmont, CA, doi: 10.1590/s1415-65552011000200016
Weintraub, P. (2021), “What gaslighting does in exploiting trust, therapy can repair”, Aeon Essays,
available at: https://aeon.co/essays/what-gaslighting-does-in-exploiting-trust-therapy-can-repair
Zakar, R., Zakar, M.Z. and Kraemer, A. (2013), “Men’s beliefs and attitudes toward intimate partner
violence against women in Pakistan”, Violence against Women, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 246-268, doi: 10.1177/
1077801213478028.
Corresponding author
Kanwar Hamza Shuja can be contacted at: rockyjin999666@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com