Epistemic trust and gaslighting (Unit 13) Flashcards
Epistemic / Epistemology and Epistemic Features of Close Relationships
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with
questions of how we obtain knowledge.
* Greek:
-Episteme: “knowledge, understanding, or
acquaintance”
-Logos: “account, argument, or reason”
* Epistemology = The study of knowledge
The epistemic features of close relationships are the
features that impact our knowledge / beliefs (including
beliefs about ourselves)
Epistemic Features of Close
Relationships
Self-expansion
´ “[the] self-expansion model suggests that love causes our selfconcepts to expand and change as our partners bring us new
experiences and new roles, and we gradually learn things about
ourselves that we didn’t know before” (textbook, pg. 321)
Shared-Reality
´ “[Shared Reality is] the experience of sharing a set of inner states
(e.g., thoughts, feelings, or beliefs) in common with a particular
interaction partner about the world in general” (Rossignac-Milon et
al., 2021)
´ “In order to make sense of the world around them, people turn to
others to create a shared reality” (Rossignac-Milon & Higgins, 2018)
Shared-Reality and
Epistemic Trust
We tend to ‘tune’ our communications to reflect what we think our communication partners believe
´ E.g., If I know my friend is a huge Fleetwood Mac fan I might speak as though I like Fleetwood Mac more than I
actually do.
Experimental work has demonstrated that if we are motivated to form shared-reality with our communication
partner we also are more likely to personally accept these audience-tuned messages
Saying-is-believing paradigm
´ Participants are given ambivalent behavioral information
about a target person (can be interpreted in different ways).
´ Participants are asked to describe the target person to an
audience who has already formed an impression about the
target (participants are told how the audience feels).
´ Those who communicate with an audience who likes (vs.
dislikes) the target person typically describe the target more
positively.
´ Recall of the ambivalent behavioral information is aligned
with audience tuned messages … but this effect depends on
the formation / motivation for shared reality
Shared reality in intergroup communication:
Increasing the epistemic authority of an outgroup audience(Echterhoff et al., 2017)
Experiment 1a
´ German participants communicated either with a German (ingroup)
audience or a Turkish (out-group) audience about a German target
person, with the audience presumably having either a positive or a
negative attitude toward him.
Results
´ Participants tuned their messages to both in-group and out-group
audiences (regardless of whether the audience likes or dislikes the
target)
´ Recall (memory) was only biased in audience’s direction when the
audience was German
In Shared-Reality theory the intergroup memory bias from experiment 1 is
viewed as stemming from a lack of epistemic trust in the outgroup
So, the study authors tested whether increasing the epistemic authority of the
outgroup reduces the intergroup memory bias
Experiment 2
´ Had German participants communicate with a Turkish audience about a
Turkish target (increasing the audience’s epistemic authority about the
communication topic) or a German target
Results
´ Participants had higher epistemic trust in the audience
when the target belonged to the same group as the
audience
´ Participants recall matched their communications more
when the target’s group matched the audience
Experiment 3
´ This time the researchers increased the audience’s epistemic authority via
group consensus
´ This time German participants communicated about either a German or a Turkish
target with an audience of either 3 Turkish people or 3 German people
Results
´ Replicated results of previous studies
´ *Additionally, recall was influenced by audience tuned message even
when the target was German
Shared-Reality (re-cap)
We have a fundamental motivation to form shared-reality with others.
´ This motivation impacts our cognition / memory.
But the formation of shared-reality depends on (a) group membership /
identification (b) epistemic trust / authority and (c) group consensus
Experimental research has shown that this intergroup bias can be reduced if:
´ The epistemic authority of the outgroup is enhanced
´ The epistemic consensus of the outgroup is enhanced
Gaslighting
In intimate relationships our identities merge with our partner. We form a sense of epistemic trust with our partner
and engage in deeper and deeper forms of shared-reality. Epistemic trust and shared-reality exert powerful influences
on our memory and cognition.
Gaslighting in intimate relationships involves taking advantage of these features of close relationships.
´Gaslighting leads to self-contraction (opposite of self-expansion)
´Gaslighting depends on manipulating victim to accept false beliefs about the world / self
´Gaslighting leads to confusion and doubting of one’s own memories
What is Gaslighting?
´Buzzword?
´Well defined
psychological
construct?
´Emotional
Abuse?
´Psychological
Abuse?
In Fiction: 1930-1944
Patrick Hamilton’s screenplay adapted for film in 1940 and again in 1944
Gas Light / Angel
Street / Gaslight
Key plot points and themes
´ Accusations of insanity
´ Threats of institutionalization
´ Social isolation
´ Adultery
´ Quick and intense initiation of a
serious relationship (love-bombing)
The Gaslighting Phenomenon:
a cautionary tale for
psychiatrists (1969 – 1979)
On being sane in insane places
´ Participants (N= 8; healthy / “sane”
volunteers) had themselves admitted to
psychiatric wards
´ All claimed to be “hearing voices”
´ After being admitted volunteers ceased
feigning symptoms
´ institutionalized for up to 56 day
“Once a person is designated abnormal, all of his
other behaviors and characteristics are colored
by that label.”
“One tacit characteristic of psychiatric diagnosis is
that it locates the sources of aberration within the
individual and only rarely within the complex of
stimuli that surrounds him.”
Barton and Whitehead
(1969) – The Gaslighting
Phenomena
´Institutionalization on false pretense
´Gaslighting refers to attempts to
convince psychiatrists that the victim
is insane
´No discussion of the impact of this
abuse on victim’s psychological wellbeing
´Focus on tangible motivations of the
gaslighter
Psychosis imposed on another:
psychodynamic descriptions of
gaslighting (1981 – 1996)
´Some Clinical Consequences of
Introjection: Gaslighting(Calef &
Weinshel, 1981)
´ “[one person] attempts to influence
the judgment of a second individual
by causing the latter to doubt the
validity of his or her own judgment.
The motivation may be conscious,
although it is usually unconscious…
…The target becomes uncertain and
confused in regard to his or her
assessment of internal or external
perceptions and the integrity of his or
her reality testing.” (pg. 52)
Gaslighting as Projective Identification
´ The gaslighter “projects” some unwanted aspect of
themselves (e.g., incompetence, malice, laziness,
weakness, insanity) onto the victim
´ The victim accepts this projected content
´ Via their manipulation of the victim the
Gaslighter can now control this unwanted
content
Gaslighting and the double-bind
´ Double-bind: situations in which a person communicates two mutually exclusive messages about
how they want another person to behave
´ i.e., catch-22 situations
Example
´ a mother who says, “come give me a hug”, but whose
tone of voice, body language, and facial expression all
communicate that she wants to be left alone.
´ If the child gives the hug there is a physical sense that it
is unwanted – if they refuse the mother asks “don’t you
love me?”
Example 1
´‘Don’t you care about the children’
´Presupposition: You should care
about your children; it’s wrong of you
not to ‘
Example 2
´Mother: ‘Everything you do turns to shit!’
´Daughter: ‘Ouch! That’s mean! I wish
you wouldn’t say that.’
´Mother: ‘You have no sense of humor. I
was only kidding.’
´ Key differences between
psychodynamic and earlier
definitions of gaslighting
´ (1) The victim must be
convinced of their own
inability to grasp reality
´ (2) Victim’s of gaslighting
become confused
´ (3)Gaslighting can be
perpetrated consciously or
unconsciously
´ (4) Gaslighter’s motives aren’t
necessairly material or clear –
can be emotional in nature
2008: Stern’s self-help book (The Gaslight Effect) on gaslighting raises public awareness
Stern’s Gaslighting Questions
´ You ask yourself, “Am I too sensitive?” a dozen times a day
´ You often feel confused and even crazy at work
´ You’re always apologizing to your mother / father / boyfriend / boss
´ You frequently make excuses for your partner’s behaviour to your friends
and family
´ You think twice before bringing up certain seemingly innocent topics of
conversation
´ You feel as though you can’t do anything right
2014: First work of epistemologists apply epistemic injustice framework to gaslighting
2016: Various media-outlets begin describing Trump as a gaslighter, which corresponds with the surge of interest in the theme
2021-now: Gaslighting is frequently discussed in the media and increasingly studied by a variety of research-focused disciplines. Psychological research on the theme is still scant.
The Power to Gaslight (Graves & Samp,
2021)
Relationship Dependence Power
´ If you perceive yourself as having more alternatives and your partner as being more committed to the relationship you have higher dependence power
Measures
´ Commitment and perception of alternatives measured with self-report
´ Using self-report participants were also asked about whether they felt their partner used gaslighting tactics
Correlational design
´ Curvilinear relationship
between dependence
power and experiences of
gaslighting.
´ Participants who had very
low or very high power
were most likely to
experience gaslighting, but
participants in more
egalitarian relationships
were least likely to
experience gaslighting.
Gaslighting and the LGBT+ Community
Gaslighting in the context of clinical interactions with parents of transgender children (Riggs & Bartholomaeus,
2018)
´ Parents who claim to be supportive of their children’s gender transition
´ Act in ways that contradicts this supposed support
´Setting rules about where children can wear gender affirming clothing
´Asking children to hide their gender identity around grandparents
Gaslighting LGBTQ+ Individuals: Correlates of Gaslighting Experiences,
Gaslighters’ Characteristics, and Gaslighting Techniques (Li & Samp, 2023)
´ N = 365
´ Gay (45.75%), Lesbian (37.53%), and Bisexual (16.71%)
´ Cis-Gender men (40.27%) , transgender men (14.52%) , cisgender women
(32.88%), transgender women (9.32%) , and non-binary / other gender
identities (3.01%)
Measures (self-report)
´ Gaslighting
´ Identity development (dissatisfaction, uncertainty, conceal motivation,
difficulty, centrality, stigma sensitivity, identity superiority)
´ Relational power
Examples of Gaslighting tactics (Li & Samp, 2023)
´ Use of gratification and flattery to control someone
´ Displaying seemingly positive behaviors to satisfy one’s own
narcissistic needs ,while leaving their partner unsatisfied
´ Yelling, guilt-trips, withholding, and criticism
´ Feigning a lack of understanding and refusing to communicate
´ Questioning a victims’ memory incessantly
´ Changing and controlling the topic of conversation
´ Claiming to have forgotten important events and promises.
Results:
Gaslighting and sexuality
´ Gay participants experienced more gaslighting compared to Bisexual
´ No difference between Lesbian and Bisexual or Lesbian and Gay
participants
Gaslighting and identity development
´ Positive correlation with identity dissatisfaction, identity uncertainty,
difficult identity development, identity centrality, and stigma sensitivity
´ Negative correlation with identity superiority
Who perpetrates gaslighting?
´ Heterosexual, cisgender men, parents
Gaslighting was negatively associated with relational power
Personality correlates of gaslighting
behaviours in young adults (Miano et al.,
2021)
Measures
´ Dysfunctional personality domains (Personality Inventory from the
DSM)
´ Essential the Big-5 traits but ‘inverted’
´negative affectivity, as opposed to emotional stability
´detachment, as opposed to extraversion
´antagonism, as opposed to agreeableness
´disinhibition, as opposed to conscientiousness
´psychoticism, as opposed to lucidity
´ Similar measure of gaslighting as in Graves and Samp
Results
´ Gaslighters
´ Had higher levels of detachment (as opposed to extraversion),
disinhibition (as opposed to conscientiousness), and
psychoticism (as opposed to lucidity / openness)
´ Survivors
´ Had higher levels of antagonism (as opposed to agreeableness)
and psychoticism (as opposed to lucidity / openness)
Detachment was most associated with attempts to control partners
through flattery and love-bombing.
Gaslighters high in disinhibition may rely on gaslighting as a means of
attaining instant gratification.
Qualitative Analysis of Gaslighting in
Romantic Relationships (Klein et al., 2023)
Gaslighting Behaviours:
´ Most relationships started with love-bombing
´ “He said he loved me in three days, [t]hat was all a bit of a red
flag to me but [I] was also swept up by him as he’s quite
charming.”
´ “He continued to shower me with expensive gifts like jewelry,
flowers and dinners.”
´ Participants reported becoming increasingly socially isolated
´ Participants described their gaslighters as being unpredictable
´ “Arguments started for no reason switching rapidly to being
extremely affectionate and sexual.”
´ Demeaning insults, false accusations, and undue blame were
common
Consequences for survivors
´ Diminished sense of self
´ Participants experienced a contraction of their sense of self (opposite of
self-expansion)
´ “I felt very confused, worthless, unlovable and broken”
´ “I was broken. I felt like a shell of a woman. Lonely and desperate”
´ “[I] barely felt like a person anymore… …when your perception of the
truth gets warped, it’s hard to tell up from down.”
´ Guardedness and mistrust of future relationships
´ “I prefer to avoid social contact…I prefer solitary hobbies and activities
or with my immediate family.”
´ Post-Traumatic growth
´ I am a much stronger person now and know when I am being used,”
See graph of gaslighting cycle (slide 42)
