Gaslighting in Organizations: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Explorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaslighting–a form of psychological and emotional manipulation in which a perpetrator seeks to make a target doubt the validity of their perceptions or feelings–has recently garnered increased interest from the public and academia. Despite its profound implications, gaslighting remains understudied in organizational contexts. To respond to the call for a more comprehensive understanding of gaslighting in organizational settings, this symposium aims to theoretically ground gaslighting in organizations and discuss early explorations of gaslighting at work to lay the foundation for more organizational scholars to conduct relevant studies in this area. Specifically, we include three theory papers to conceptualize and delineate gaslighting in organizational settings with different emphases. The first presentation theorizes possible antecedents, outcomes, and key mechanisms for gaslighting at work. The second takes a more specific angle by integrating different theories to illustrate the gaslighting process within leader-member dyads. The third also addresses gaslighting in leader-member settings by focusing on leader-member characteristics and the toxic organizational cultures these gaslighting relationships breed. The fourth extends beyond theorizing to examine how supervisors and coworkers apply different gaslighting tactics to abuse others, while the last paper leverages an organizational perspective in the exploration of policy gaslighting. Together, these papers seek to spark a meaningful conversation among scholars and practitioners to advance our understanding of gaslighting in organizational contexts, thereby inspiring future research on this important topic. Theorizing on the Critical Antecedents and Consequences of Gaslighting in Organizations. Author: Paula Ann Kincaid; The University of Texas at Tyler All in your head? A review and framework for managerial gaslighting Author: Jonathan Hendricks; University of Nebraska-Lincoln Author: Brett H Neely; Author: Troy A. Smith; University of Oklahoma Author: XIN MENG; Rutgers University Toxic Leaders at Work: Towards a Novel NARC-Attachment Theory of Workplace Gaslighting Author: Samantha Stalion; University of North Carolina at Greensboro Differentiating between Formal and Informal Sources of Power Wielded by Perpetrators of Gaslighting Author: Mohammad Khalilinejad; University of Calgary Author: Babatunde (Tunde) Ogunfowora; University of Calgary Author: Addison Maerz; Author: Simon Lloyd D. Restubog; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ChatGPT Assisted Development and Construct Validation of the Scale for Policy Gaslighting Author: Stefan Thomas Mol; University of Amsterdam Author: Marijana Matijaš; Author: Laura Tognetti; -
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".