1. Introduction

Emotional abuse is a form of psychological abuse that in cludes manipulation, verbal abuse, and criticism; it is of ten reciprocal and it may occur both in adult relationships and in adolescents’ dating relationships (Banister et al., 2003). Since emerging adults tend to experience casual dating and occasional relationships, they could be consid ered a group at a high risk of psychological violence and gaslighting, a type of abuse that is intended to psychologi cally subjugate another individual in different ways, such as by assaulting, denying and/or minimizing the other per son. Gaslighting is a form of psychological violence char acterized by manipulative and controlling behaviors in tended to alter one’s own partner’s thoughts, perceptions, actions, and affects (Stern, 2007). The aim of the current study is to analyze the correlation between gaslighting be haviors and abuser’s personality traits, in order to identify personality risk factors within a romantic relationship.

1.1 Emerging Adults and Intimate Partner Violence

Even if there are no shared specific characteristics with regard to demographic status (some individuals live with their parents, others live with peers or partners, some change their accommodation frequently), it is possible to state that emerging adults range from 18 to 25 years old (Arnett, 2000). Several implications arise from re search studies on emerging adults. As Arnett (2000) has argued, (a) emerging adulthood is characterized by frequent changes in interpersonal relationships, one’s professional life, and other important areas of life; (b) emerging adults consider themselves as no longer ado lescent but not yet as young adults able to accept full responsibility, to decide autonomously, and to be finan cially independent; (c) given that during emerging adult hood, social and personal roles are not stable, meaning ful identity explorations can occur.

Emerging adults highly involved in a couple relation ship may have to deal with relational difficulties and chal lenges that could increase the odds of dysfunctional be haviours such as aggressive behaviour towards the part ner (Johnson et al., 2015). Intimate partner violence (IPV) consists of a large range of violent behaviours, in cluding physical, sexual, and psychological violence per petrated by one romantic partner against the other. IPV represents a severe risk factor to which girls and boys as well as men and women are exposed; nevertheless, IPV seems to be particularly dangerous for individuals from adolescence to young adulthood (Baker & Stith, 2008).

In the context of psychological aggression, both open and covert aggression are associated with negative out comes, but hidden psychological violence is harder to identify and to report. gaslighting is a peculiar type of vi olence characterized by manipulation strategies intended to control and alter the partner’s sensations, thoughts, actions, affective state, and even self-perception and reali ty-testing (Calef & Weinshel, 1981).

According to Stern (2007), gaslighting is more insid ious at its very early stage, because at the beginning of psychological violence it is usually very hard to identify signs of emotional abuse; the more the relationship is re cent, the more gaslighting behaviours could be hidden. Given that emerging adults tend to experience casual dat ing and occasional relationships, they could be considered as a high-risk group for gaslighting: the more frequently they begin a new relationship, the more they can be ex posed to gaslighting. An effective protective factor is rep resented by the capacity to recognize a violent partner and to promptly interrupt a dysfunctional relationship.

1.2 Gaslighting Behaviours as a Form of Psychologi cal Abuse

Gaslighting is manipulative behaviour that includes acts whose purpose is to control and alter the partner’s sensa tions, thoughts, actions, affective state, self-perception, and reality-testing (Calef & Weinshel, 1981). As Stern (2007) has posited, gaslighting could be seen as a gender neutral form of violence in which an abuser, who is iden tified as the gaslighter, tries to control his/her romantic partner, who is identified as the gaslightee.

Gaslighting consists of a wide range of behaviours that victimize and intimidate a partner within a couple relationship; as a form of psychological abuse, it causes social and emotional distress, confusion, increasing self doubt, diminished self-esteem, anxiety, depression and, in extremely rare cases, it may elicit symptoms of psy chosis; those who have a partner who acts as a gaslighter suffer due to negative remarks, surveillance, controlling behaviours, and threats of violence (Barter, 2011) that compromise their self-esteem.

Stern (2007) distinguishes three different categories of gaslighter: glamour, good-guy, and intimidator. The glamour gaslighter tends to control his/her partner through flattery and pandering and makes him/her feel special. Concurrently, the gaslightee often neglects dysfunctional behaviours of the glamour partner and these entrap the gaslightee in a distorted reality that the survivor accepts. The good-guy gaslighter’s behaviours are directed at satis fying his/her narcissistic needs and preserving his/her pos itive self-image; apparently, he/she seems to be interested in the victim’s well- being, but instead it is through supp ort and encouragement that he/she exercises his/her control. The intimidator gaslighter, to conclude, expresses his/her aggression in a direct form, addressing harsh, reiterated and frequent criticisms and disapproval to the gaslightee.

1.3 Personality traits associated with gaslighting

With regard to individual precursors of psychological vi olence and gaslighting behaviours, various factors have been identified, and these include hostility, anger (Bowen, 2011a), emotional dysregulation (Teten et al., 2008), dis sociative defence mechanisms (Moskowitz, 2004), and a poor reflective function (Bateman & Fonagy, 2008).

Furthermore, based on the pivotal article by Hamberger and Hastings (1986), there is wide agreement regarding the association between IPV behaviours and personal ity traits (South et al., 2008): impulsivity (Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004), lack of empathy (Ehrensaft et al., 2006), detachment (Hamberger et al., 2000), antag onism, disinhibition, negative affectivity (Kasowski & Anderson, 2019), and psychopathy (Shaffer et al., 2021) are positively associated with violent aggression within romantic relationships. Looking at the three clusters of personality disorders, cluster A (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal) and cluster B (borderline, narcissistic, anti social, histrionic) seem to have a stronger correlation to IPV than cluster C (dependent, avoidant, obsessive compulsive) (Ehrensaft et al., 2006).

The alternative model for personality disorders de scribed (Krueger et al., 2011) in section III of DSM-5 (APA, 2013) may be very valuable to understanding the psycho logical reasons for aggressive conduct and gaslighting.

A previous study (Miano et al., 2021) has identified an association between the three categories of gaslighting (glamour, good-guy and intimidator) and specific dysfunc tional personality trait domains identified in accordance with the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disor ders, such as detachment, disinhibition, and psychoticism.

1.4 Research Hypotheses on gaslighting and Personality

The present study aims to improve understanding of personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in or der to shed light on vulnerability factors. Based on literature data, we hypothesized that three categories of gaslighting have a positive association with specific dysfunctional traits. In particular:

• H₁: Glamour gaslighting is positively associated with the following nine personality facets of gaslighters, as re ported by their partners: anxiousness, separation inse curity, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, ma nipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, perceptual dysregulation.

• H₂: Good-guy gaslighting is positively associated with the following eight personality facets of gaslighters, as reported by their partners: anxiousness, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, manipulativeness, de ceitfulness, impulsivity, perceptual dysregulation.

• H₃: Intimidator gaslighting is positively associated with the following seven personality facets of gaslighters, as reported by their partners: separation insecurity, with drawal, anhedonia, impulsivity, distractibility, eccentric ity, perceptual dysregulation.

Therefore, assuming that there is a significant asso ciation between specific dysfunctional personality traits and gaslighting behaviours, the purpose of this study is to test these assumptions and to determine if these per sonality traits are positively associated with an increased probability of manifestation of gaslighting behaviours.

2. Method

2.1 Participants

Our sample was composed of 177 Italian emerging adults aged 19-26 years at the time of the exam (mean age = 21.88 years and SD = 1.75 years), enrolled at the Univer sity of Palermo, of which 49.2% were male and 50.8% fe male. All participants affirmed their voluntary participa tion; none of them received any form of incentive, whether direct or indirect. The Institutional Review Board of the University of Palermo, Italy, granted approval for the present study (protocol codes 150965-2023, 159061 2023, and 163786-2023, dated 26 October 2023). The study was conducted in adherence to the ethical treat ment guidelines outlined by the Italian Association of Psy chology (2015). The participants exhibited a response rate of 99.4%, and questionnaires were deemed incom plete if more than 10% of the items in any given scale were left unanswered. In adherence to this exclusion criterion, we excluded 23 individuals from our study sample.

The sample was composed of 149 (84.2%) bachelor’s degree students, and 28 (15.8%) master’s degree stu dents. As for their social economic status, 11 partici pants (6.2%) reported a very good economic condition, 51 (28.8%) a good economic condition, 96 (54.2%) an av erage economic condition, 16 (9%) a poor economic con dition, and 3 participants (1.7%) reported a very poor economic condition.

2.2 Measures

Personality traits were analysed through a dimensional approach to personality disorders rather than a categor ical perspective, which can be found in the third sec tion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA, 2013). This approach, based on an alternative model for personality disorders (Krueger et al., 2011), was used because we thought it would be the most useful for understanding gaslighting relationships.

In this model, personality disorders are defined in terms of two key criteria: the first criterion (A) con cerns personality functioning and focuses on the impair ment of self-functioning (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal functioning (empathy and intimacy); the second criterion (B) evaluates pathological personality traits, which are organised into five domains.

Gaslighter personality traits were assessed using the Italian version (Fossati & Borroni, 2015) of the Person ality Inventory for DSM-5-Informant Form-Adult (PID- 5-IRF; Markon et al., 2013), which consists of 218 items scored on a 4-point Likert scale, where 0 signifies ‘Very False’ or ‘Often False’, 1 stands for ‘Mostly False’, 2 represents ‘Mostly True’, and 3 denotes ‘Very True’ or ‘Often True’. This measure assesses 25 dysfunctional per sonality facets, organized hierarchically into five broader domains (negative affectivity, as opposed to emotional stability; detachment, as opposed to extraversion; an tagonism, as opposed to agreeableness; disinhibition, as opposed to conscientiousness; psychoticism, as opposed to lucidity). Within each domain, three specific dysfunc tional traits are identified and called facets. In the nega tive affectivity domain, in opposition to emotional stabil ity, they are: emotional lability (e.g., item 18: ‘changes in emotion for no good reason’), anxiousness (e.g., item 95: ‘is very nervous about the future’), separation in security (e.g., item 126: ‘fears being alone in life more than anything else’). In the second domain, detachment as opposed to extraversion, the facets are: withdrawal (e.g., item 145: ‘is not interested in making friends’), anhedonia (e.g., item 187: ‘rarely gets enthusiastic about anything’), intimacy avoidance (e.g., item 201: ‘prefers being alone to having a close romantic partner’).

In the third domain, antagonism as opposed to agree ableness, the facets are: manipulativeness (e.g., item 217: ‘finds it is easy to take advantage of others’), de ceitfulness (e.g., item 53: ‘often makes up things about themselves to help them get what they want’), grandios ity (e.g., item 113: ‘thinks they are better than almost everyone else’). In the fourth domain, disinhibition as opposed to conscientiousness, they are: irresponsibility (e.g., item 170: ‘has skipped town to avoid responsibili ties’), impulsivity (e.g., item 4: ‘acts totally on impulse’), distractibility (e.g., item 68: ‘can’t achieve goals because other things capture their attention’). Finally, in the last domain, psychoticism as opposed to lucidity, they are: unusual beliefs & experiences (e.g., item 94: ‘thinks they have unusual abilities (like sometimes knowing ex actly what someone is thinking)’), eccentricity (e.g., item 21: ‘often says things that are odd or strange’), percep tual dysregulation (e.g., item 77: ‘often seems to see things as unfamiliar or strange’). For the purpose of this study, gaslighter personality traits were evaluated by their partners, who thus acted as informants. In this study, the PID-5-IRF showed good internal consistency: Cronbach’s Alpha for all domains was .98.

Gaslighting behaviours were assessed using a 25-item questionnaire, based on the three categories of gaslight ing identified by Stern (2007): glamour, good-guy and intimidator. The original yes/no questions were rephrased into statements to allow answers on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 signifies ‘Strongly Disagree’, 2 stands for ‘Disagree’, 3 represents ‘Neither Agree nor Disagree’, 4 means ‘Agree’, and 5 denotes ‘Strongly Agree’. The questionnaire therefore consists of three subscales: (a) the glamour gaslighting subscale (11 items) evaluates the gaslighting behaviours characterized by the idealiza tion of the relationship through exaggerated flattery and compliments (e.g., item 9: ‘sometimes you feel that your partner has a whole repertoire of romantic ideas that don’t necessarily fit your moods, your tastes or history together’); (b) the good-guy gaslighting subscale, which consist of 7 items, focuses on relationships in which the gaslighter offers help and support in order to increase his/her own self-esteem and not out of empathy (e.g., item 18: ‘your partner asks you about your day, listens attentively and responds sympathetically, yet somehow, you end most such conversations feeling worse than be fore’); (c) the intimidator gaslighting subscale, which consists of 7 items, helps to identify gaslighters charac terized by contempt, denigration or psychological pun ishment (e.g., item 19: ‘your partner denigrates you or treats you with contempt both in front of others and when you are alone’). Although the gaslighting behav ior scale has not yet been formally validated in Italy, our preliminary studies have shown high internal relia bility. Overall, this 25-item scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha was .83). Specifically, for the three types of gaslighting (Glamour, Good-guy, and Intimidator), our preliminary analysis shows values of Cronbach’s Alpha of .67, .72, and .83, respectively. These preliminary results suggest that the scale may be applicable to the Italian context. However, further vali dation study is underway to confirm these findings.

Furthermore, in accordance with our hypotheses, we evaluated the internal consistency of the facets we use to assess the association between the three types of gaslight ing. Specifically, the facets of anxiousness, separation insecurity, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and per ceptual dysregulation demonstrate a good degree of re liability in relation to Glamour gaslighting (Cronbach’s Alpha .89). As for the facets of anxiousness, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, manipulativeness, de ceitfulness, impulsivity, and perceptual dysregulation, these also show a high degree of reliability in measuring Good-guy gaslighting (Cronbach’s Alpha .91). Finally, with regard to our third hypothesis, which refers to In- timidator gaslighting, we measured the internal consis tency of the facets of separation insecurity, withdrawal, anhedonia, impulsivity, distractibility, eccentricity, and perceptual dysregulation. In this case too, the values of Cronbach’s Alpha show satisfactory results in terms of reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha .87).

2.3 Data Analysis

In many applications, linear regression models are widely used to analyse relations among variables. Such an ap proach is not appropriate when the response variable is bounded since values fitted from a linear regression model can exceed lower and upper bounds of the response vari able. Furthermore, bounded measures are typically asym metric and inferences based on the normality assumption can be misleading (Ferrari & Cribari-Neto, 2004).

The analysis presented here is related to our previous work on gaslighting behaviour (Miano et al., 2021), but here our attention was focused on the relationship be tween the different types of gaslighting behaviour (our response variables) and personality facets. Instead of the PID-IRF domains, in this study we decided to consider the facets in order to evaluate in detail how specific personality traits (inside domains) can influence gaslighting behaviours. As in our previous work, the response variables (i.e. glamour gaslighting, good-guy gaslighting, and intimidator gaslighting) are defined in a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Thus, a classical lin ear model is not appropriate. To overcome this limit, we applied a beta regression model for bounded responses, using the statistical software R3.5.1, mapping the Likert scale into the open interval (0,1) as showed in (Smithson & Verkuilen, 2006) and (Miano et al., 2021).

3. Results

In order to test the research hypothesis, the association between dysfunctional personality traits and gaslighting behaviours was assessed. In particular, whit the aim of determining if glamour gaslighting, good-guy gaslight ing, and intimidator gaslighting are associated with per sonality facets such as anxiousness, separation insecu rity, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, ma nipulativeness, deceitfulness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, distractibility, eccentricity, and perceptual dysregulation, a beta regression model was applied.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 present the outcomes of the es timated models, elucidating the associations between the explanatory variables (rows in Tables) and distinct gaslighting types.

In scrutinizing the results delineated in Table 1, fo cusing on glamour gaslighting, a negative coefficient for anxiousness (-.19) suggests a potential link between anxiety and reduced instances of glamour gaslighting. Negative coefficients for separation insecurity -.2), anhedonia (-.15), impulsivity (-.1), and withdrawal (-.04) imply these factors diminishing the likelihood of engag ing in glamour gaslighting behaviors. Conversely, the positive coefficient associated with intimacy avoidance (.23) indicates an inclination towards participating in glamour gaslighting for individuals marked by higher lev els of intimacy avoidance. The negative coefficients for manipulativeness (-.07) and impulsivity suggest a po tential inverse relationship, hinting that higher manipu lativeness may be associated with lower levels of glamour gaslighting. In contrast, the positive coefficient linked to irresponsibility (.28) emphasizes the role of accountabil ity in shaping gaslighting dynamics.

Turning attention to Table 2, the negative coefficient for anxiousness (-.22) suggests a potential inverse rela tionship, indicating that individuals with heightened anx iety may exhibit a reduced inclination towards embody ing the traits associated with the good-guy gaslighter. Similarly, negative coefficients for withdrawal (-.37) and anhedonia (-.45) signify a negative correlation, suggest ing that tendencies toward withdrawal and a reduced ca pacity for pleasure are linked to a decreased likelihood of aligning with the characteristics of a good-guy gaslighter. Conversely, the positive coefficient for intimacy avoid ance (.49) suggests that a higher degree of intimacy avoid ance is associated with an increased likelihood of express ing traits associated with the good-guy profile. The pos itive coefficient for manipulativeness (.16) indicates a modest association, suggesting that higher levels of ma nipulativeness may be linked to the good-guy gaslighter profile. In contrast, the negative coefficients for deceitful ness (-.05) and impulsivity (-.12) suggest that higher levels of these facets are correlated with a reduced like lihood of aligning with the good-guy gaslighter. Lastly, the positive coefficient for perceptual dysregulation (.04) implies a positive association between perceptual dysreg- ulation and the good-guy profile.

Table 1
Coefficients for the Glamour gaslighting estimated models. Coefficients with p value <.10

Glamour gaslighting Coefficients
Intercept	.44
Anxiousness	-.19
Separation Insecurity	-.2
Withdrawal	-.04
Anhedonia	-.15
Intimacy Avoidance	.23
Manipulativeness	-.07
Irresponsibility	.28
Impulsivity	-.1
Perceptual Dysregulation	.01

Table 2
Coefficients for the Good guy gaslighting estimated models. Coefficients with p value <.10

Glamour gaslighting Coefficients
Intercept	.96
Anxiousness	-.22
Withdrawal	-.37
Anhedonia	-.45
Intimacy Avoidance	.49
Manipulativeness	.16
Irresponsibility	-.05
Impulsivity	-.12
Perceptual Dysregulation	.04

Analyzing the coefficients from Table 3, which out lines the traits associated with the intimidator gaslighter type, the slight positive coefficient for separation insecu rity (.04) suggests a subtle association, indicating that higher levels of separation insecurity may be linked to the intimidator characteristics. Similarly, the positive coefficient for withdrawal (.06) suggests that withdrawal tendencies may contribute, albeit modestly, to the intimidator gaslighter type. Contrastingly, the negative coefficient for anhedonia (-1.07) indicates a robust negative correlation. This suggests that individuals with a re duced capacity for pleasure are strongly associated with the manifestation of the intimidator behavioral profile. The negative coefficient for impulsivity (-.18) suggests a potential inverse relationship, implying that higher levels of impulsivity may be linked to lower instances of the intimidator gaslighting type. The positive coeffi cient for distractibility (.41) suggests that higher levels of distractibility may be associated with higher levels of the intimidator gaslighter. On the other hand, the neg ative coefficient for eccentricity (-.06) implies a modest negative association, suggesting that higher levels of ec centricity might be linked to lower levels of the intimidator gaslighting type. Finally, the negative coefficient for perceptual dysregulation (-.18) suggests a potential negative relationship, indicating that individuals with higher perceptual dysregulation may exhibit lower lev els of the intimidator gaslighting type.

Table 3
Coefficients for the intimidator gaslighting esti mated models. Coefficients with p value <.10

Intimidator gaslighting Coefficients
Intercept	1.7
Separation Insecurity	.04
Withdrawal	.06
Anhedonia	-1.07
Impulsivity	-.18
Distractibility	.41
Eccentricity	-.06
Perceptual Dysregulation	-.18

4. Discussion

The main aim of our study was to investigate the associ ation between gaslighting and dysfunctional personality in abusers (or gaslighters). In particular, some facets of the PID-5-IRF (Markon et al., 2013) were examined in relation to the three types of gaslighting -the glam our, the good-guy and the intimidator types-, since even if gaslighting behaviours share certain manipula tive behaviours, some differences among the three can be identified (Stern, 2007).

It should be noted that differently from a previous study (Miano et al, 2021), we considered facets, instead of domains, of PID-5-IRF in order to specify more accu rately how personality may affect violent behaviours.

With regard to glamour gaslighting, it was hypothe sized that it would be positively associated with 9 per sonality trait facets (anxiousness, separation insecurity, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, manipula tiveness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, perceptual dysregulation). On the basis of previous data, these facets were chosen because the glamour gaslighter is described as an individual who mistreats his/her partner and does not understand why he/she feels hurt and complains about their relationship. Our hypothesis was only partially confirmed and, of the 9 facets, only intimacy avoidance, irresponsibility, and perceptual dysregulation showed a positive association with glamour gaslighting. These positive associations are consistent with the personality of the glamour gaslighter (Stern, 2007) who is, indeed, only apparently affectionate and devoted, while it might seem that he/she loves his/her partner, he/she does not really care about him/her: intimacy is only a fagade and on a deeper level -partially unconscious, it may be expected-, he/she rejects intimacy because it would in crease his/her vulnerability and would lead him/her to feel more insecure.

Likewise, irresponsibility is described as having a ten dency to consistently disregard obligations; individuals with a high level of irresponsibility show a severe lack of respect for agreements and promises and are prone to fail to honor their commitments (APA, 2013). Irresponsibil ity is consistent with the glamour gaslighter portrait, as someone who is narcissistically self-centered: he/she has a lack of empathy and does not take into consideration the effects of his/her own behaviours on others (Mager et al., 2014). Another positive association concerns the perceptual dysregulation facet and glamour gaslighting. This association can be explained by referring to a severe form of an archaic defence mechanism like dissociation: individuals who behave as gaslighter often react as if they were trying to keep some painful psychic content out of their consciousness. Gaslighters can use dissociation to ignore and to remain unaware of their own behaviours or, in turn, of their negative effects on their partner (Miano et al, 2021; Stern, 2007; Yang & Mulvey, 2012) who might even be blamed for their own psychological dis comfort (Korobov, 2020). As Hamberger et al. (2000) have already underlined these personality characteristics seem to be associated to detachment from interpersonal relationships and to schizoid traits.

In our analyses of the association between 8 facets (anxiousness, withdrawal, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, impulsivity, perceptual dysregulation) and good-guy gaslighting, two strong as sociations were found: a positive one and a negative one. The association between anhedonia and good-guy gaslight ing is negative, such that the less an individual has a ca pacity for enjoyment, and the less he/she demonstrates he/she is ready to experience, to take interest in and to feel pleasure in life (APA, 2013), the more it is likely that he/she will behave as a good-guy gaslighter. It could be argued that the low level of anhedonia is the reverse of the interpersonal attitude that characterizes this type of gaslighter; indeed, the good-guy gaslighter is prone to consider his/her partner as a means to obtain narcissis tic rewards (Stern, 2007) whereas high levels of anhedonia seem to be related to low narcissistic satisfaction and likewise to a high level of covert narcissism, characterized by a sense of entitlement united with hypersensitivity to a perceived ego threat (Ryan et al., 2008). A positive association was found, however, between intimacy avoid ance and good-guy gaslighting behaviours. This associa tion brings together both the glamour and the good-guy gaslighting types for the same reason: each of these two types of gaslighter is only apparently attached to his/her partner and is rather afraid of intimacy, since closeness and intimacy raise his/her sense of insecurity and frailty (Dowgwillo et al., 2016; Stern, 2007).

Moreover, two other positive associations were found: both manipulativeness and perceptual dysregulation are positively associated with good-guy gaslighting. With regard to the perceptual dysregulation facet, just as in the proposal made for glamour gaslighting, the use of dissociation as a defence mechanism would explain how a good-guy gaslighter does not usually recognize his/her detrimental behaviour and tends to deny its con sequences (Yang & Mulvey, 2012). The positive associ ation between manipulativeness and good-guy gaslight ing could be linked to the most distinctive aspect of the good-guy gaslighter: he/she is able to conceal his/her violent behaviour (Back et al., 2010). The good-guy gaslighter manipulates his/her partner through subter fuge and disguised forms of control; he/she appears to be seductive, glib, and ingratiating only in order to do things his/her own way (APA, 2013). It should be noted that manipulativeness could be an unconscious disposition that, due to a dysfunctional pattern of de fence mechanisms, remains unknown to those who enact manipulative behaviours; of course, this denial worsens the abusive dynamic since the gaslighter is unaware of his/her behaviours and the less he/she recognizes them, the less he/she will be likely to change them (Henning & Holdford, 2006; Scott & Straus, 2007).

As already noted by various authors, the good-guy gaslighter seems to have some similarities with narcissis tic and paranoid traits: due to an incapability to be em pathic and a tendency to interpret events as threatening they seem to be associated with IPV (Yang & Mulvey, 2012), through suspiciousness, hostility, and controlling behaviours (Ehrensaft et al., 2006).

In relation to the third type of gaslighting, 7 facets (separation insecurity, withdrawal, anhedonia, impulsivity, distractibility, eccentricity, perceptual dysregulation) were analysed with regard to the intimidator gaslighting. We found two associations to be strong in absolute val ues: intimidator gaslighting is negatively associated with anhedonia and positively associated with distractibility. These two crucial data points are consistent with the general description of the intimidator gaslighter as some one who is openly aggressive and sharply critical towards his/her partner; within an intimidator gaslighting rela tionship, violent behaviours include contempt, denigra tion, threats or psychological punishment, which are usu ally implemented unexpectedly and incoherently (Plouffe et al., 2020; Stern, 2007). In this regard, distractibility, which is a difficulty in concentrating on a task and in maintaining a goal-focused behaviour (APA, 2013), could explain the suddenness of intimidator gaslighting behaviours (Brem et al., 2019) and, consequently, the re lated sense of hopelessness in gaslightees. Moreover, an other positive association concerns the relation between both separation insecurity and withdrawal, on one hand, and key aspects of intimidator gaslighting behaviours, on the other hand. Even if separation insecurity and with drawal may seem opposed to each other, they could in stead be expressions ofa narcissistic vulnerability, a sense of unbearable loneliness, a terrible fear of being rejected (Baumeister et al., 2000).

On the other side, as already suggested in regard to the good-guy gaslighting type, high levels of anhe- donia are consistent with a low capacity for enjoyment, low narcissistic satisfaction, and covert narcissism (APA, 2013; Ryan et al., 2008; Stern, 2007); negative affects, such as rage and misery, are, indeed, usually related to intimidator gaslighting (Rhodewalt et al., 1998) and are not at all associated with a search for narcissistic re ward. Contrary to both glamour and good-guy gaslight ing, perceptual dysregulation is negatively associated with intimidator gaslighting; this data is in line with the clear thinking (Plouffe et al., 2020) that underlies intimidator gaslighting behaviour.

This behaviour, even if it is unpredictable and bru tal, is usually controlled and planned (Stern, 2007) just as has been confirmed by a negative association between impulsivity and intimidator gaslighting. Impulsivity is defined as acting on the spur of immediate stimuli, with out planning and any consideration of the consequences (APA, 2013). These data are consistent with those re ported in previous literature: marked impulsivity and in stability of interpersonal relationships (Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004), such as inadequate control of im pulsive behaviours (White & Widom, 2003), seem to be related to antisocial and bordeline traits.

5. Conclusion

Psychological violence is a form of IPV aggression wide spread throughout the world (Morgan & Gilchrist, 2010; Yakubovich et al., 2018); in turn, gaslighting behaviours can be considered as a form of psychological violence that can occur within various interpersonal contexts, such as couple (Sweet, 2019) or psychotherapeutic re lationships (Tormoen, 2019). Gaslighters manipulate their partner in order to control them and to alter their affective and mental states, as well as their self-percep tion (Calef & Weinshel, 1981). According to different au thors (Bowen, 2011b; DeCuyper et al., 2018; Ehrensaft et al., 2006; Hamberger & Hastings, 1986; Smith et al., 2020) different personality traits are associated with the tendency to be psychologically, physically, and sexually aggressive. Gunderson and Sabo (1993), for instance, have pointed out that individuals with borderline traits are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence and, subsequently, to PTSD (Kuijpers et al., 2010). With regard to personality trait domains, according to the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders, some gaslightee trait domains appear to be associated with ex posure to gaslighting (Miano et al., 2021). High levels of impulsiveness and sensation-seeking characterize dis- inhibition (APA, 2013), which indeed seems to be associ ated with all three categories of experienced gaslighting (glamour, good-guy, and intimidator gaslighting) and may result in an incapacity to avoid dangerous inter personal environments (Stoel et al., 2006). Likewise, gaslightee antagonism is positively associated with both glamour and good-guy gaslighting, through a narcissis tic albeit dysfunctional and harmful form of gratifica tion that they receive from their gaslighting partners (Ménard & Pincus, 2014; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2008) who are used to flattering them (Stern, 2007).

Lastly, gaslightee psychoticism is related to intim- idator gaslighting due to a severe lack of mentalization processes, which may hamper critical judgment (LaM otte & Murphy, 2017; Moskowitz, 2004).

Nevertheless, it bears noting that dysfunctional per sonality traits are not sufficient to explain aggressive behaviours, and thus individuals with dysfunctional per sonality traits generally do not necessarily behave in a violent way.

From a clinical perspective, some results could pro vide useful indications for therapeutic practice and pre vention programmes. The recognition of dysfunctional traits in potential abusers may help to reduce the likeli hood of violent behaviours within intimate relationships (Kasowski & Anderson, 2019). An approach focused on protective and risk factors could help prevent violent re lationships: vulnerable girls and boys, as well as men and women, could benefit from early identification of dysfunctional relational characteristics (Krahé & Van- wesenbeeck, 2015).

In particular, our data have shown that three facets in particular -separation insecurity, irresponsibility, and distractibility- maybe seen as severe risk factors for gaslighting; early assessment of these traits could help minimize vulnerability to gaslighting behaviours. It should be noted that preventive measures for IPV are protec tive not only for potential survivors, but also for poten tial abusers; actually, the ability to help an individual to avoid aggressive conduct towards an intimate partner is no less important than helping an individual to defend himself/herself (Lu et al., 2019). Potential abusers who are able to find a functional way to be in an intimate relationship succeed in both protecting themselves and their partner (Smith et al., 2015).

Some limitations of this study should be underlined. One concerns the low heterogeneity of the sample; greater variability with regard to age, gender, and socioeconomic status should be attained. Future research should anal yse other psychological and social precursors of gaslight ing behaviours with regard to more diverse samples. An other limitation concerns the research methodology since other meaningful variables, such as couple relationship characteristics (Smith et al., 2020), individual variables (Brem et al., 2019), and cultural and social features (Sweet, 2019) could be considered in order to formulate a more precise description of gaslighting predictors. More over, our study has not analysed outcomes related to ex posure to gaslighting, so that future studies may investi gate outcome variables, such as attachment, self-esteem or psychological distress.

It should be noted that, given that our question naires were only completed by those who had suffered gaslighting from a partner, our study did not take into consideration the potential abuser experience; it should be mentioned though that other studies have used the same type of sampling (Fowler & Westen, 2011; Walsh et al., 2010). Likewise, personality traits of individuals who have suffered from psychological violence should be considered, as was done in previous studies (Miano et al., 2021; Shen & Kusunoki, 2019); future research may address this deficiency. Nonetheless, this study is one of the few that evaluates the association between dys functional personality traits and gaslighting as a specific form of psychological violence.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.x00diagnosticclassification

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? De coding the narcissismpopularity link at zero ac quaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016338

Baker, C. R., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 17, 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770802344836

Banister, E. M., Jakubec, S. L., & Stein, J. A. (2003). “Like, What Am I Supposed to Do?”: Adoles cent Girls’ Health Concerns in Their Dating Relationships. CJNR: Canadian Journal of Nurs ing Research, 35(2), 16-33.

Barter, C. (2011). A Thoroughly Gendered Affair: Teen age Partner Violence and Exploitation. In C. Barter & D. Berridge (Eds.), Children Behav ing Badly? Peer Violence Between Children and Young People (pp. 103-120). Hoboken, John Wi ley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470976586.ch8

Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2008). 8-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disor der: Mentalization-based treatment versus treat ment as usual. The American Journal of Psychi atry, 165(5), 631-638.

Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psy chological Science, 9(1), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00053

Bowen, E. (2011a). An overview of partner violence risk assessment and the potential role of female vic tim risk appraisals. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.007

Bowen, E. (2011b). The rehabilitation of partner-violent men. Wiley Blackwell

Brem, M. J., Khaddouma, A., Elmquist, J., Florimbio, A. R., Shorey, R. C., & Stuart, G. L. (2019). Re lationships Among Dispositional Mindfulness, Dis tress Tolerance, and Women’s Dating Violence Perpetration: A Path Analysis. Journal of in terpersonal violence, 34(14), 2996-3016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516664317

Calef, V., & Weinshel, E. M. (1981). Some clinical con sequences of introjection: Gaslighting. Psycho analytic Quarterly, 50(1), 44-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21674086.1981.11926942

DeCuyper, M., Gistelinck, F., Vergauwe, J., Pancorbo, G., & Fruyt, F. (2018). Personality pathology and relationship satisfaction in dating and mar ried couples. Personality Disorders, 9, 81-92. https://doi.org/10%20.1037/per0000219

Dowgwillo, E. A., Ménard, K. S., Krueger, R. F., & Pin cus, A. L. (2016). DSM-5 pathological personal ity traits and intimate partner violence among male and female college students. Violence and Victims, 31, 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-14-00109

Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.474

Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta Regression for Modelling Raters and Proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266476042000214501

Fossati, A., & Borroni, S. (2015). Inventario di personal- ita per il DSM-5 - Versione per la fonte esterna (PID-5-IRF)- Adulto. Raffaello Cortina Editore

Fowler, K. A., & Westen, D. (2011). Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Jour nal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 607-639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365853

Gunderson, J. G., & Sabo, A. N. (1993). The phenomeno logical and conceptual interface between border line personality disorder and PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 19-27.

Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Person ality correlates of men who abuse partners: A cross-validation study. Journal of Family Vio lence, 1(4), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00978276

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., & Gottlieb, M. (2000). Predictors of Treatment Dropout from a Spouse Abuse Abatement Program. Behavior Modifica tion, 24(4), 528-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500244003

Henning, K., & Holdford, R. (2006). Minimization, De nial, and Victim Blaming by Batterers: How Much Does the Truth Matter? Criminal Jus tice and Behavior, 33(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805282322

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Ty pologies of men who are maritally violent: Sci entific and clinical implications. Journal of in terpersonal violence, 19(12), 1369-1389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269693

Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). The Age-IPV Curve: Changes in the Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z

Kasowski, A. E., & Anderson, J. L. (2019). The asso ciation between sexually aggressive cognitions and pathological personality traits in men. Vi olence Against Women, 26(12-13), 1636-1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219873436

Korobov, N. (2020). A discursive psychological approach to deflection in romantic couples’ everyday ar guments. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000161

Krahé, B., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2015). Mapping an agenda for the study of youth sexual aggres sion in europe: Assessment, principles of good practice, and the multilevel analysis of risk fac tors. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(2), 161 176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2015.1066885

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2011). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inven tory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(09), 1879-1890. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711002674

Kuijpers, K. F., Knaap, L. M., Winkel, F. W., Pem berton, A., & Baldry, A. C. (2010). Borderline traits and symptoms of post-traumatic stress in a sample of female victims of intimate part ner violence. Stress and Health, 27( 3), 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1331

LaMotte, A. D., & Murphy, C. M. (2017). Trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and disso ciative experiences during men’s intimate part ner violence perpetration. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(5), 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000205

Lu, Y., Shorey, R. C., Greeley, C. S., & Temple, J. R. (2019). Childhood physical abuse and physical dating violence in young adulthood: The me diating role of adverse mental health. Journal of clinical psychology, 75(10), 1916-1929. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22827

Mager, K. L., Bresin, K., & Verona, E. (2014). Gender, psychopathy factors, and intimate partner violence. Personality Disorders, 5, 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1037/per000007A

Markon, K. E., Quilty, L. C., Bagby, R. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). The development and psychome tric properties of an informant-report form of the pid-5. Assessment, 20(3), 370-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486513

Ménard, K. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2014). Child maltreat ment, personality pathology, and stalking vic timization among male and female college stu dents. Violence and Victims, 29(2), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00098r1

Miano, P., Bellomare, M., & Genova, V. G. (2021). Person ality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 27(3), 285 298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2020.1850893

Morgan, W., & Gilchrist, E. (2010). Risk assessment with intimate partner sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16(3), 361-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.502976

Moskowitz, A. (2004). Dissociation and violence: A re view of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(1), 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003259321

Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Echeburúa, E., & Martinez, M. (2008). Personality disorder symptoms in women as a result of chronic intimate male partner vi olence. Journal of Family Violence, 23(7), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9180-9

Plouffe, R. A., Wilson, C. A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2020). The role of dark personality traits in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Per spectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 41(6), 3481-3500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00871-5

Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Nar cissism, self-knowledge organization, and emo tional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self- esteem and affect. Personality and So cial Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298241006

Ryan, K. M., Weikel, K., & Sprechini, G. (2008). Gender differences in narcissism and courtship violence in dating couples. Sex Roles: A Journal of Re search, 58(11-12), 802-813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9403-9

Scott, K., & Straus, M. (2007). Denial, Minimization, Partner Blaming, and Intimate Aggression in Dating Partners. Journal of Interpersonal Vio lence, 22(7), 851-871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507301227

Shaffer, C. S., Gatner, D. T., McCuish, E., Douglas, K. S., & Viljoen, J. L. (2021). The role of psy chopathic features and developmental risk fac tors in trajectories of physical intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 11(6), 549-558. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000313

Shen, S., & Kusunoki, Y. (2019). Intimate Partner Vio lence and Psychological Distress Among Emerg ing Adult Women: A Bidirectional Relationship. Journal of women’s health, 28(8), 1060-1067. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7405

Smith, C. A., Greenman, S. J., Thornberry, T. P., Henry, K. L., & Ireland, T. O. (2015). Adolescent Risk for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. Pre vention science: the official journal of the So ciety for Prevention Research, 16(6), 862-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0560-0

Smith, M. S., Jarnecke, A. M., & South, S. C. (2020). Pathological personality, relationship satisfaction, and intimate partner aggression: Analyses using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, FifthEdition, alternative model of personality disorder traits. Personality disorders, 11(6), 398-408. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000399

Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psycho logical Methods, 11(1), 54-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54

South, S. C., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2008). Personality disorder symptoms and marital func tioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy chology, 76(5), 769-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013346

Stern, R. (2007). The Gaslight Effect: how to spot and survive the hidden manipulations other people use to control your life. Morgan road books.

Stoel, R. D., Geus, E. J. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (2006). Genetic analysis of sensation seeking with an extended twin design. Behavior Genetics, 36(2), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-005-9028-5

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. Amer ican Sociological Review, 84(5), 851-875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

Teten, A. L., Miller, L. A., Bailey, S. D., Dunn, N. J., & Kent, T. A. (2008). Empathic deficits and alexithymia in trauma-related impulsive aggression. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(6), 823832. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.843

Tormoen, M. (2019). Gaslighting: How Pathological La bels Can Harm Psychotherapy Clients. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167819864258

Walsh, Z., Swogger, M. T., O’Connor, B. P., Chatav Schonbrun, Y., Shea, M. T., & Stuart, G. L. (2010). Subtypes of partner violence perpetra tors among male and female psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(3), 563 574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019858

White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostil ity and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29(4), 332-345. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10074

Yakubovich, A. R., Stockl, H., Murray, J., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Steinert, J. I., Glavin, C. E. Y., & Humphreys, D. K. (2018). Risk and protec tive factors for intimate partner violence against women: Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective-longitudinal studies. American Jour nal of Public Health, 108(7), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304428

Yang, S., & Mulvey, E. P. (2012). Violence risk: Re defining variables from the first-person perspec tive. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 17(3), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.02.001

Notes

Author notes

^*Corresponding author: Paola Miano. paola.miano@unipa.it