The mediating role of gaslighting as a psychological violence between self-silencing and psychological distress

Abstract

Forming close relationships, a crucial developmental task during young adulthood, is considered to play a significant role in individuals’ mood disorder. Individuals who self-silence themselves to maintain relationships and avoid relational conflict experience psychological distress over time. Individuals who sacrifice themselves to maintain relationships are also thought to be susceptible to gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation. Self-silencing, which prioritizes the partner’s wishes, and gaslighting, which is characterized as an insidious form of bullying that links individuals to question their own thoughts, perceptions, and feelings during the relationship process, are thought to impact an individual’s mental health. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between self-silencing, gaslighting, and psychological distress, as well as examine the mediating role of gaslighting. The participants of the study consisted of 333 women, aged between 20 and 40, who involved in a romantic relationship. Personal information form, silencing the self scale, gaslighting relationship exposure inventory, and depression, anxiety, stress scale-21 were utilized to participants. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between the study variables. Regression-based mediation analysis was conducted to test the mediation of gaslighting in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress. Gaslighting exposure partially mediates the direct effect of self-silencing on psychological distress. Higher self-silencing is associated with increased gaslighting exposure, which in turn is linked to higher levels of psychological distress. The current study emphasized that the psychological impact of high self-silencing on individuals in romantic relationships operates through cognitive and emotional processes. In particular, the experience of gaslighting exposure plays a role in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress.

Introduction

Establishing intimate relationships during young adulthood is an important psychosocial developmental task¹. With the increase in the proportion of romantic relationships during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood, it is known that these relationships are experienced both more frequently and for longer periods during young adulthood². During this period, romantic relationships take a central place in young people’s lives, as they construct a sense of identity around the idea that "We are what we love"³. At times, this may be associated with individuals to overlook negative aspects of their romantic relationships in an effort to preserve them. In fact, they may silence their own voices by not sharing their true thoughts and feelings with anyone in an effort to avoid conflict in these central relationships⁴. In this context, self-silencing refers to putting one’s own needs aside, neglecting personal expectations, and adjusting the relationship based on the partner’s needs in order to sustain intimacy⁵. According to the Self-Silencing Theory, which was developed based on studies with women, those who hold cognitive schemas related to forming and maintaining close relationships are more likely to experience depression as a result of these schemas. In other words, by silencing their thoughts, feelings, and emotions, women are unable to express themselves, become alienated from their true selves, and experience a sense of self-loss. As this condition persists, the suppressed emotions may turn into anger and stress, ultimately leading to depression⁶. Thus, it can be said that the individual experiences negative emotions as a result of their own choices.

In addition to an individual’s choices and internal processes, others can also contribute to the negative emotions an individual experiences. Deliberate negative actions by others towards individuals are typically referred to as bullying⁷. In its broadest sense, bullying is defined as the intentional and repeated infliction of harm by one person on another whom they perceive as weaker, either psychologically or physically⁸. Since bullying is fundamentally driven by a need to exert power over the other, this need can, over time, become a tool for controlling a partner in romantic relationships⁹. Therefore, when bullying is considered within the context of intimate relationships, it is known that bullying in romantic relationships involves causing harm to the partner either directly (through physical or verbal assaults) or indirectly (through manipulative behavior)¹⁰. Since self-silencing women are known to prioritize their partner’s needs over their own desires and expectations without any physical bullying involved⁴, it can be suggested that these women may be more susceptible to emotional manipulation by their partners, which is considered a form of indirect bullying. According to the Self-Silencing Theory, women excessively sacrifice themselves to maintain their relationships, becoming alienated from their true selves and sacrificing themselves to their partner’s demands⁵. This, in turn, may create a foundation for the belief that their already alienated emotions, thoughts, and feelings are false or invalid, making them vulnerable to gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation where a person is convinced that their perceptions, reactions, and beliefs are unfounded¹¹. Therefore, self-silencing may have an impact on susceptibility to gaslighting. Moreover, considering studies that demonstrate the relationship between gaslighting and mental illnesses^12,13, it is thought that gaslighting has a predictive relationship with depression, anxiety, and stress (DAS/psychological distress). Within this framework, it is hypothesized that self-silencing among young women will have both a direct effect on psychological distress and an indirect effect mediated through gaslighting. This study was planned to examine the relationship between self-silencing, gaslighting, and psychological distress, as well as to explore the mediating role of gaslighting.

Association between self‑silencing and depression, anxiety, and stress

Introduced into the psychology literature by Jack⁶, the Self-Silencing Theory was developed based on the experiences of women in clinical settings. As a relational process, the primary goal of self-silencing is to avoid conflict within close relationships and, in doing so, to strive for the continuation of the relationship⁵. In this process, women become so focused on maintaining the relationship that they ignore their own needs and desires stemming from their partners or life itself, and become alienated from themselves⁴. In this context, the self-silencing theory includes four sub-dimensions as divided self, externalized self-perception, silencing the self, and care as self-sacrifice. Of these, divided self refers to the internal split that occurs as women construct a false self in their intimate relationships. Externalized self-perception describes evaluating oneself based on societal standards imposed by gender roles, culture, and media rather than personal beliefs and perspectives. Silencing the self means suppressing self-expression due to the perception of separation or conflict as a threat. Finally, care as self-sacrifice is consistently prioritizing the desires and expectations of others over one’s own^6,14.

Developed based on the experiences of women diagnosed with depression, the self-silencing theory suggests that women often suppress their voices in close relationships in order to preserve them¹⁵. This pattern may render them vulnerable to mental health disorders. Considering that depressed women tend to engage in self-silencing, and that self-silencing itself can contribute to the development of depression^16,17, it can be argued that the relationship between depression and self-silencing is bidirectional. Furthermore, grounded in a socio-cognitive perspective, the self-silencing theory offers important insights into how cultural expectations and relational dynamics contribute to women’s vulnerability to depression and other disorders¹⁸.

During the transition to adulthood, individuals are not only expected to form intimate or romantic relationships but also to continue the development of autonomy and identity gained during adolescence, make career choices, and develop a personal worldview^19,20. Due to the multiple developmental tasks that must be fulfilled across different domains, the transition to adulthood is often considered a period characterized by agents that generate anxiety and stress²¹. On the other hand, failure to reach the targeted educational level or encountering negative experiences in the workplace during this period can also contribute to depression²². Therefore, life events encountered during this period can be considered key determinants of individuals’ mental health. However, given that the psychosocial crisis of this developmental stage is “intimacy vs. isolation”¹, intimate relationships are also believed to have a significant impact on depression, anxiety, and stress.

When women suppress their voices in intimate relationships in line with dysfunctional cognitive schemas, they become more vulnerable to depression⁶. Furthermore, the fear that expressing one’s own desires might lead to the end of the relationship contributes to the development of anxiety. Moreover, to satisfy their need for approval, individuals often try to conform to socially accepted ideals. The situation increases stress and makes them more susceptible to both psychological and physiological disorders²³. In the relevant literature, the relationship between self-silencing and depression has been studied more extensively^16,24–26, whereas the associations between self-silencing and anxiety²⁷ or stress²⁸ have received relatively limited attention. Although there are similar studies examining the effect of self-silencing on psychological distress (namely depression, anxiety, and stress) it is noteworthy that some of these studies focus on adolescents²⁹, others target emerging adults in their twenties¹⁷, and some involve heterogeneous samples including both men and women³⁰. The present study aims to examine the predictive relationship with self-silencing on depression, anxiety, and stress among women in young adulthood, specifically those in their 20 s and 30 s.

Gaslighting as a mediator

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation involving deception, misdirection, and contradiction that leads an individual to question their beliefs, perceptions, feelings, and mental health³¹. In other words, the term refers to manipulating someone in such a way as to cause them to doubt their own experiences, feelings, thoughts, and reasoning. Thus, the individual cannot be sure of what they have experienced or the facts³². Moreover, gaslighting can be understood as a strategic form of communication that causes others to question their perceptions of reality³³. The term “gaslighting” comes from Gas Light, a play written by Hamilton in the 1940s, which was later adapted into a film. In the story, an abusive husband attempts to convince his wife that she is mentally unwell and should be institutionalized. Following this narrative, the concept of gaslighting evolved to describe efforts to persuade someone that they are mentally ill and to have them committed to a psychiatric institution through false claims³⁴.

The concept of gaslighting is increasingly used today in the contexts of social media³⁵, the workplace³⁶, mental health³⁷, and romantic relationships³⁸. Systematic review studies conducted using various databases have shown that gaslighting is experienced across a range of domains, including politics, healthcare, and romantic or social relationships³⁹. The gaslighting process, particularly prevalent in romantic partner relationships⁴⁰, typically begins with subtle distortions of reality, continues with the victim’s decreasing awareness, and follows a cyclical pattern reinforced by increasing confusion⁴¹. In this context, the perpetrator’s goal is to plant seeds of doubt in the victim’s mind within the relational dynamic⁴². In romantic relationships, a man who engages in gaslighting often attempts to normalize his own misconduct. For instance, a man who cheats on his wife may justify his actions by blaming her, claiming that she was no longer attractive or engaging. This kind of manipulation can show a predictive relationship with significant psychological harm in the victim, including the development of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety⁴³.

Relationships in which gaslighting occurs usually begin with a “love bombardment” phase, characterized by intense affection, extravagant gifts, and overly charming behavior⁴⁴. Over time, the gaslighting victim becomes gradually entrapped in the relationship through various forms of abuse and coercion. During this process, the victim’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings may be subtly manipulated, leading to experiences of bullying. Bullying in close relationships can manifest in both indirect forms (e.g., emotional manipulation) and direct forms, including verbal or physical assaults¹⁰. While direct bullying inflicts immediate harm on victims, gaslighting involves a more subtle goals such as gaining control over the victim and force them to accept a dynamic of obedience and submission⁴⁵. For this reason, gaslighting can be classified as a form of indirect bullying. Although the gaslighter may employ certain tactics commonly associated with bullying, the manipulative nature of the behavior is often subtle and does not draw overt attention to the victim⁴⁶. Therefore, gaslighting (defined by psychological manipulation) can be understood as an insidious form of bullying that links to target to question their perceptions and thoughts over time⁴⁷.

What distinguishes gaslighting from other forms of abuse, direct bullying, or verbal and physical aggression is the perpetrator’s effort to gain the victim’s consent. Gaslighters do not only aim to control their partners; they also strive to make them surrender to them⁴⁸. Throughout the gaslighting process, the victim often feels insecure and do not fully understand what they are experiencing. As the manipulation continues, the victim develops dependency on the relationship and eventually submit to the gaslighter’s authority³². At this point, women who silence themselves can become ideal targets for gaslighters. In silencing themselves, these women often suppress their own needs and desires, prioritizing their partner to the point of self-sacrifice. When they deviate from this pattern, they tend to experience intense confusion and guilt. For such individuals, maintaining the relationship seems possible only through complete compliance with their partner’s preferences⁵. In this context, it can be said that women who silence themselves are more vulnerable to gaslighting. On the other hand, gaslighting also makes individuals more susceptible to depression, anxiety, and mental confusion³⁸.

Women exposed to gaslighting may not fully recognize the extent of the violence they experience in intimate relationships or may be unaware that what they are experiencing constitutes abuse. This is often due to the perpetrator’s strong persuasive abilities, which can lead the victim to lose touch with reality and blame herself. Women struggling with feelings of guilt, denial, and anger try to escape paranoid thoughts. This emotional exhaustion leads to a depressive mood⁴⁹. When a partial awareness of the gaslighting emerges, the victim begins to feel hypervigilant in an attempt to avoid further exposure to manipulation. Increased awareness leads to questioning of who is in control, which can lead to anxiety³⁷. Gaslighting is also known to create cognitive dissonance⁵⁰, which is commonly associated with stress⁵¹. Therefore, gaslighting can be considered a psychological stressor. In this context, it can be suggested that self-silencing may contribute to vulnerability to gaslighting, and that gaslighting, in turn, may have a predictive relationship on psychological distress. A recent systematic review on gaslighting revealed that while research on gaslighting remains limited, it has been increasing in recent years. However, no quantitative or qualitative studies directly focusing on gaslighting victims in Turkey have been identified³⁹. Given the personal and professional problems it can be associated with, raising awareness of gaslighting bullying is highly important⁴⁶. In this context, the present study aims to examine the relationship between self-silencing, gaslighting, and psychological distress among young adult women. It has been suggested that gaslighting may play a mediating role in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress. Thus, we think that the investigation of gaslighting in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress in the study will contribute to the relevant literature.

The present study

Self-silencing, stemming from a person’s postponement of their own desires and needs, generally involves an individual orientation⁶. Therefore, while most studies on self-silencing address variables such as self-neglect⁵² and self-criticism⁵³, there are a limited number of studies that address situations where the other is also an agent, such as violence and bullying⁵⁴. Previous studies have generally focused on the relationship between self-silencing, which is a result of the individual’s own will and aims such as avoiding conflict and securing the relationship, and mental health^17,24. However, examining self-silencing at the micro level and its relationship with mental health or psychological distress may be insufficient to explain this relationship in the context of social relationships. In particular, it may be limited in explaining the impact of self-silencing on mental health in romantic relationships, where it leads to violence or manipulation by the partner. In this context, considering gaslighting, which is evaluated as a form of psychological violence in close relationships, together with self-silencing and psychological distress may contribute to the literature.

On the other hand, there are a limited number of studies examining the relationship between gaslighting exposure and self-silencing⁵⁵ and psychological distress⁵⁶. Unlike other studies, the present study examined the predictive relationship of self-silencing on psychological distress through gaslighting exposure. In addition, since this study was conducted during young adulthood, considered a critical period in close relationships, both self-silencing (internal) and emotional manipulation (external) by the partner in women during this period can provide profound insights into explaining psychological distress. Based on the theoretical explanations presented, the present study aims to analyze how gaslighting exposure, as a mediator, works together in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress. In this context, we formed our hypotheses as follows:

H1

Self-silencing is a significant predictor of psychological distress.

H2

Gaslighting has a mediating role in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress.

Method

Research design

This study is a correlational type of cross-sectional quantitative research addressing the variables of gaslighting exposure, self-silencing, and psychological distress. In the research, the ‘convenience sampling’ method was used and attention was paid to whether or not there was a romantic relationship in line with the purposes of the study. Convenience sampling is a type of sampling used in processes where random or non-random sampling is hard. The fact that participants are readily available for the study through this sampling method can be considered a negative aspect of this method. To prevent this, it may be functional to conduct the study several more times with similar participants⁵⁷.

Participants

Because gaslighting and self-silencing are concept generally assessed in intimate relationships, the study was conducted on individuals currently in romantic relationship experience. The participants in the study were selected using a convenient sampling method. Convenient sampling is a sampling method that helps prevent loss of time, fund, and labor^57,58. Participants of the study consisted of 333 women in Türkiye, aged 20–40 years (M = 24.17, SD = 5.69). Among the participants, 221 (66.4%) were university students, and 112 (33.6%) were university graduates. Regarding their economic status, 175 participants (52.6%) reported being in the family low-income group, 109 (32.7%) in the family middle-income group, and 49 (14.7%) in the family high-income group. The sample size of the study was determined through power analysis. For this purpose, an a priori analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 software⁵⁹. Considering two predictor variables, a significance level of 0.05, a power level (1-β) of 0.95, and a medium effect size, the minimum required sample size for regression analysis was calculated to be 107⁶⁰. Therefore, the final sample of 333 participants can be considered sufficient and statistically robust for the purposes of this study.

Data collection tools

Personal ınformation form

Developed by the researchers, this form includes questions regarding participants’ age, educational status, economic status, and romantic relationship status.

Silencing the self scale (STSS)

The Silencing the Self Scale (STSS), developed by Jack⁶, is designed to assess the extent to which women suppress their thoughts, emotions, and feelings in intimate relationships. The scale consists of four sub-dimensions with 31 items (e.g., 'In a romantic relationship, my responsibility is to make the other person happy’). These sub-dimensions are listed as Divided-Self (7 items), Care as Self-sacrifice (9 items), Silencing the Self (9 items), and Externalized Self-perception (6 items). The scores obtained on the 5-point Likert-type scale range from 31 to 155 (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). The reliability of the scale was calculated for three different sample groups: battered women in shelters, pregnant women, and undergraduate women. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of each sample group were calculated, respectively; 0.83, 0.79, and 0.75 for the externalized self-perception; 0.81, 0.60, and 0.65 for the care as self-sacrifice; 0.90, 0.81, and 0.78 for the silencing the self; 0.78, 0.83, and 0.74 for the divided-self; 0.94, 0.89, and 0.86 for the total scale¹⁴. The Turkish adaptation of the scale was conducted by Demir Kaya and Kaya¹⁷ and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients was determined as 0.77 for externalized self-perception, 0.80 for care as self-sacrifice, 0.82 for silencing the self, 0.73 for divided self, and 0.90 for the total scale. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to validate the structure of the Silencing the Self Scale, and the factor loadings were found to be between 0.42 and 0.76. Furthermore, the fit index values obtained from the model showed that the scale’s fit was quite good (χ² = 1305.98, df = 370, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.086, and RMSEA = 0.087). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were determined 0.91 for the total of the scale.

Gaslighting relationship exposure ınventory (GREI)

The inventory was developed by Tager-Shafrir et al.⁶¹ to assess individuals’ exposure to gaslighting by a romantic partner. The inventory consists of 11 items (e.g., 'My partner makes me doubt what I say’), and responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always). On the scale where scores can be given between 11 and 55, higher scores indicate a higher level of exposure to gaslighting behaviors. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the original scale was 0.96, indicating high reliability⁶¹. The Turkish adaptation of the scale was carried out by Demir Kaya and Kaya⁶² for use with young individuals. As a result of the reliability analyses, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was reported as α = 0.94, and the split-half reliability was 0.92⁶². In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to validate the structure of the Gaslighting Relationship Exposure Inventory. The factor loadings ranged from 0.72 to 0.90. Furthermore, the fit index values obtained from the model indicated that the scale’s fit was quite good (χ² = 135.08, df = 41, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.026, and RMSEA = 0.083). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.95.

Depression anxiety stress scale-21 (DASS-21)

The DASS-21, used to identify psychological distress, was developed by Lovibond and Lovibond⁶³ as a shorter version of the original DASS-42, in order to provide a more time-efficient assessment. The item selection process involved choosing the highest-loading items from each dimension of the DASS-42⁶⁴. The scale consists of three dimensions (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress) each comprising 7 items (e.g., 'I have noticed I can’t experience any positive emotions’). The DASS-21, scored between 0 and 63, is a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always). Reliability and validity studies have demonstrated that the DASS-21 has high internal consistency and strong discriminant validity^65,66. In a study conducted by Antony et al.⁶⁷ with both clinical and non-clinical participants, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability coefficients were 0.94 for depression dimension, 0.87 for anxiety dimension, and 0.91 stress dimension. In the Turkish adaptation study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were reported as 0.85 for depression, 0.80 for anxiety, and 0.77 for stress⁶⁸. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis applied to validate the structure of DAS revealed factor loadings ranging from 0.54 to 0.83. Furthermore, the fit index values obtained from the model indicated that the scale’s fit was quite good (χ² = 582.79, df = 186, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.066, and RMSEA = 0.070). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were determined as 0.84 for the depression, 0.83 for the anxiety, and 0.80 for the stress. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.92.

Data analysis

In the current study, preliminary analyses were first conducted on the data, including examinations of outliers, linearity, and normality. Outlier analysis, based on standardized scores, indicated that all values were within the range of −3– + 3, suggesting the absence of outliers in the dataset⁶⁹. Since the skewness and kurtosis values related to the characteristics of a normal distribution were determined to be between −2 and + 2, it can be said that the data have a normal distribution⁷⁰. The validity of the measurement instruments was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and their reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency tests. The estimation of the CFA model was performed using the robust diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) method, which is recommended for ordinal data and whose test statistics are corrected for mean and variance^71–77. Multiple fit indices were considered to evaluate the model’s fit to the data. Fit indices were considered acceptable when CFI and NFI values were above 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR values were below 0.10^78,79.

Before proceeding to the regression-based mediation analysis used to test the study’s hypotheses, the assumptions of regression analysis were evaluated. The Durbin-Watson coefficient used to test the independence of error terms was 1.96, which is within the desired range (between 1 and 3)⁸⁰. As a result of multicollinearity evaluated with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance values, the assumption of multicollinearity was met because VIF values were less than 0.5 and tolerance values were less than 0.20⁸¹. Furthermore, the presence of multivariate outliers was assessed using Cook’s D. The calculated Cook’s D values in the model did not exceed 1.0, indicating that this assumption was also satisfied⁸². Multivariate normality was assessed using Mahalanobis distances, and it was observed that the data showed a linear distribution against chi-square percentiles. Therefore, the assumption of multivariate normality was met⁸³. For the statistical analyses, SPSS 21.0 was used. In testing the mediation model, PROCESS Macro Model 4 was employed. To test the significance of the mediation effect, the bootstrapping method recommended by Hayes⁸⁴ was employed. In this method, 10,000 bootstrap resamples were generated with a 95% confidence interval, and the significance of the indirect effect was determined by whether the bias-corrected confidence interval included zero⁸⁵. A significant indirect effect is considered evidence of a successful mediation⁸⁶. In such cases, the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable may either become non-significant or remain significant. If the direct effect becomes non-significant, this indicates full mediation. If the direct effect remains significant, it suggests partial mediation⁸⁶. In addition, in interpreting the standardized regression coefficient β, effect sizes between 0.10 and 0.29 are interpreted as small, between 0.30 and 0.49 as medium, and 0.50 or greater as large^87,88. In interpreting the R² value, which is one of the explanatory results of the model, 0.02 is interpreted as low, 0.13 as medium, and 0.26 as high⁸⁷.

Data collection process

Firstly, the permissions obtained from the researchers who adapted the Turkish versions for the scales to be used in the study. Then ethics committee approval was obtained from the university where the researchers of the current study work in Türkiye with Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee document number E-77040475-000-2500281577 and dated 27.08.2025. Data were collected from university students face-to-face, and from out-of-school young women via both in-person and online interviews, with each participant’s consent. The dataset was made available to university students during class hours, and to out-of-school participants via online form via social media or at the researcher’s office as part of a research announcement. In this process, participants were presented with an informed consent form and voluntary participation in the study was ensured. Participants were specifically asked whether they had any romantic relationships, and then their relationship status was specifically assessed. In this context, in the current study, inclusion criteria included being between 20 and 40 years of age, having a romantic relationship, and willing to participate voluntarily. Participants completed the data collection form in approximately 15 min.

Findings

This section first presents the descriptive values of the gaslighting exposure, self-silencing, and psychological distress variables obtained within the scope of the research, and the correlation results between these variables. Subsequently, the mediating results of gaslighting exposure in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress are given.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Before testing mediation hypotheses of the study, descriptive statistics were assessed. Pearson correlation analysis was then conducted to calculate the relationships between the variables, and the results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean scores and correlations for gaslighting exposure, self-silencing, and psychological distress variables.

Variable	1	2	3
1. Gaslighting exposure	1
2. Self-silencing	0.43**	1
3. Psychological distress	0.40**	0.54**	1
Mean	25.05	73.35	21.71
SD	10.58	18.58	10.09
Skewness	0.62	0.14	0.21
Kurtosis	−0.33	−0.04	0.03

**p < 0.01.

The results revealed that gaslighting exposure was positively and significantly correlated with self-silencing (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), and psychological distress (r = 0.40, p < 0.001). Additionally, self-silencing was also found to be positively and significantly correlated with psychological distress (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). To test the mediation hypotheses of the study, a non-parametric bootstrapping method was employed. The results are presented below in order.

Mediation results

In the study, self-silencing was found to be moderate positive and statistically significant predictor of both psychological distress (β = 0.45, t = 8.99, p < 0.001) and gaslighting exposure (β = 0.43, t = 8.63, p < 0.001). In addition, gaslighting exposure significantly and small positively predicted psychological distress (β = 0.21, t = 4.14, p < 0.001). When examining the standardized indirect effects, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval did not include zero, indicating that the indirect effect of self-silencing on psychological distress via gaslighting exposure was statistically significant (ab = 0.09, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.04, 0.14]). This means that a one-unit increase in self-silencing may show a predictive relationship with a 0.09-unit increase in psychological distress, mediated by gaslighting exposure. As a result, in the tested mediation model, the direct effect of self-silencing on psychological distress was found to be statistically significant (β = 0.45, t = 8.99, p < 0.001), indicating that gaslighting exposure partially mediates this relationship. The mediation analysis revealed that the proportion of variance explained by the psychological distress variable was also high (R² = 0.33).

The mediation model illustrating the role of gaslighting exposure in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Prediction of psychological distress by self-silencing through the mediation of gaslighting exposure.

In conclusion, gaslighting exposure was found to mediate the relationships between self-silencing and psychological distress. The findings regarding the mediating role of gaslighting exposure in the associations between self-silencing and psychological distress are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Direct and indirect effects of self-silencing on psychological distress via exposure to gaslighting.

Dependent variable: psychological distress
Independent variable: self-silencing	B	SE	β	t	p
Self-silencing to gaslighting exposure	0.24	0.03	0.43	8.63	< .001
Gaslighting exposure to psychological distress	0.20	0.05	0.21	4.14	< .001
Total effect of self-silencing	0.30	0.03	0.54	11.64	< .001
Direct effect of self-silencing	0.24	0.03	0.45	8.99	< .001
	F(2, 330) = 79.65, R2 = 0.33, p < .001
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Self-silencing to psychological distress via gaslighting exposure	Effect	SE	Lower		Upper
	0.09	0.03	0.04		0.14

Statistical significance indicated in bold. CI = 95% percentile bootstrap confidence interval. Bootstrapping process was confirmed with 10,000 bootstrap samples.

Discussion

In the current study, the relationships between self-silencing and used to identify psychological distress were investigated and it was found that gaslighting played mediating role in the relationship between self-silencing and used to identify psychological distress. It was statistically supported that women’s self-silencing in intimate relationships may increase their exposure to gaslighting which might increase their used to identify psychological distress levels.

According to result obtained from the study, hypothesis 1 is confirmed. Self-silencing was a significant predictor of used to identify psychological distress. Thus, self-silencing may an important factor in increasing used to identify psychological distress. Women silencing themselves in an effort to avoid losing their partners can be linked to self-alienation, fears that expressing their true thoughts or emotions may end the relationship, and striving to conform to an idealized image of femininity to gain others’ approval. These patterns are linked to increased levels of depression, anxiety, and stress^14,23,27. In a study by Whisman et al.⁸⁹, a causal relationship was identified between relationship distress and depression, with relational problems found to be a risk factor for depressive symptoms. Similarly, Davoodi et al.¹⁶ found that women who suppress their voices and engage in self-sacrificing behaviors within intimate relationships reported higher levels of depressive symptoms. Recent literature also supports these findings, showing significant associations between self-silencing and depression^53,90, as well as self-silencing and psychological distress⁹¹, aligning with the current study’s results.

Another finding in the study was that gaslighting has a mediating role in the relationship between self silencing and used to identify psychological distress, and this finding confirms the hypothesis 2. The finding suggests that self-silencing explain the variance in used to identify psychological distress directly and indirectly through gaslighting. In self-silencing theory, Jack and Dill¹⁴ argued that women frequently place themselves in the background within intimate relationships, allowing the relational dynamics to be controlled by their partners. In this process, women surrender their sense of self-integrity, avoid conflict at all costs, and even consent to things they do not truly want. Ultimately sacrificing themselves for the relationship. Similarly, women exposed to gaslighting are found to relinquish control in the relationship and submit to their partner’s direction³². A recent study by Wang et al.⁹² identified a significant relationship between love addiction and the acceptability of gaslighting in romantic relationships. Since maintaining the relationship becomes the primary goal in self-silencing, individuals may ignore their own needs and develop excessive attachment to the relational process itself. Supporting this, a systematic review on gaslighting by Akdeniz and Cihan³⁹ found that partner dependency is a key factor contributing to gaslighting. On the other hand, a study by Maryam and Nasreen⁹³ revealed that exposure to gaslighting significantly increases psychological distress. Ciabatti et al.⁹⁴ explain this situation as the negative impact of gaslighting through lack of self-compassion and lack of social support. In sum, the predictive relationship of self-silencing on gaslighting, and the subsequent impact of gaslighting on used to identify psychological distress, are consistent with existing literature.

When the relevant literature is examined, in a study by Christensen and Evans-Murray⁴⁶, gaslighting is described as forming a common pattern of bullying behaviors and has been associated with escalating conflicts. In the context of romantic relationships, gaslighting accounts for approximately 54% of psychological aggression experienced by individuals exposed to partner bullying⁹⁵. Given that bullying related to gaslighting may manifest in different forms³⁶, it can be argued that gaslighting has emerged as a prominent form of indirect bullying today. The ability to resist this bullying can vary from culture to culture. For example, in collectivist cultures where the relational self and task based perspective are dominant, especially in romantic relationships, not submitting to the guidance of one’s partner may be considered a negative situation⁹⁶. In cultures with an autonomous-relational self, such as Turkey, it can be assumed that the individual is relatively resistant to manipulative guidance. This situation can contribute to well-being. For example, in a study conducted by Güleç and Özbay⁹⁷ on Turkish women, it was observed that not submitting to and resisting gaslighting increased life satisfaction. Therefore, resisting manipulation by bullies can be related to mental health. Garrick and Buck⁹⁸ also found that gaslighting is used by bullies as a manipulative tactic to weaken their victims. In this process, bullies contribute to the development of negative emotional states in the self-perception of victims⁹⁹. Therefore, emotions can be considered a critical agent in the experiences of women in these dynamics. A review of the literature on women’s emotional processes indicates that emotion regulation plays a mediating role in the relationship between self-silencing and psychological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, and stress)^100,101. Furthermore, it is known that all agents involved in bullying (e.g., victims, perpetrators, and bystanders) may experience difficulties in emotion regulation as a result of the process¹⁰². Given that individuals suppressing or having difficulty expressing their emotions is linked to relational problems¹⁰³, it can be said that being exposed to gaslighting in close relationships may also be related to experiencing psychological distress. Therefore, the current findings can be interpreted as consistent with previous research in this field.

Limitations and recommendations

There are also some limitations in the current study. Firstly, the study was quantitative research. Since the theory of self-silencing has been shaped based on women’s narratives^14,104, and gaslighting has also been explored primarily through narrative-based studies¹⁰⁵, future research could investigate the relationship between self-silencing, gaslighting, and psychological distress using qualitative research designs. Secondly, this study was conducted using a cross-sectional design. To examine whether women’s suppression of their own voice, exposure to emotional abuse, and subsequent mental health problems vary over time in romantic relationships, longitudinal studies are recommended. Third, it is documented that individuals in late adulthood often experience psychological difficulties, particularly depression¹⁰⁶. Therefore, to identify variables associated with this phenomenon and to better understand the agents contributing to general distress during late adulthood, future studies could explore the relational dynamics experienced by individuals in this life stage. Fourth, the majority of emerging adults in the current study consisted of university students. Considering that emerging adulthood covering individuals in their 20 s and 30 s also includes non-university individuals¹⁰⁷, it is recommended that future studies broaden the sample to enhance generalizability. Furthermore, educational status (i.e., being enrolled in university or not) could be considered as a control variable in future research involving young adult women. Finally, the data for this study were collected from a city located in the eastern region of Türkiye, where collectivist cultural characteristics are particularly dominant. Since experiences of self-silencing and gaslighting are known to be linked by cultural factors, future studies could aim to include participants from different cultural backgrounds to form a more heterogeneous sample and better capture cultural variability in these dynamics. In addition, since the participants in the current study were young adults in Türkiye, the findings are based on a specific cultural sample. Therefore, participants may be influenced by potential social desirability by exhibiting behaviors that conform to social norms and presenting themselves as more reasonable than they are. To generalize the results to other cultural contexts and to be independent of cultural expectations, research could be conducted in different cultures using similar variables.

Author contributions

Concept-E.A., M.D.K.; Design-M.D.K.; Supervision-M.D.K.; Resources-E.A.; Data Collection and/or Processing-E.A., M.D.K; Analysis and/or Interpretation- E.A., M.D.K.; Literature Search- E.A., M.D.K.; Writing Manuscript-E.A., M.D.K.; Critical Review- M.D.K. Author read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data availability

Data is available for submission if requested.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Erzurum Atatürk University, Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (E-77040475-000-2500281577). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to inclusion in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trial number: not applicable.