Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41947949›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

Workplace gaslighting: a construct for organizational research.

Neha Popat, Jatin Pandey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Neha PopatIndian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India.
Jatin PandeyIndian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scholarly interest in gaslighting research has surged across various domains, particularly after it was named the word of the year in 2022. Despite growing research on the topic of gaslighting, the literature on workplace gaslighting remains limited, hindering the establishment of a clear, definitive concept. We review current scholarship on gaslighting through a systematic literature review and analyze definitions across various disciplines. The thematic analysis of definitions was used to delineate the attributes of the gaslighting phenomenon into necessary and contingent. We conceptualize that workplace gaslighting phenomenon comprises of necessary gaslighting behaviors by gaslighters and contingent experience of gaslighting by gaslightees. Gaslighting behaviors have necessary attributes of: (a) trivialization, i.e., minimizing employees' work and non-work-related concerns and (b) affliction potential, i.e., ability to cause pain, distress, suffering or negative outcome. The experience of gaslighting can escalate to distortion of reality/confusion/self-doubt which is contingent upon perceived power imbalance. Due to the pervasive and covert nature of the construct proving of intention is not always possible, hence intentionality is considered contingent. Based on our findings, we propose a definition of workplace gaslighting and suggest areas for future research.

Indexed as

afflictionbeing gaslitdeviant behaviormistreatmentself-doubttrivializationworkplace gaslighting

Identifiers

PMID41947949
PMCPMC13050691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.