National University - Manila

College of Education, Arts, and Sciences

551 M.F. Jhocson St, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008

Am I the Drama? A Correlational Study Between Gaslighting

and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Among
Young Adult Men

A Research Paper Presented to the faculty of

College of Education, Arts, and Sciences
of the National University- Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Alcala, Kristine Mae D.

Gatanela, Czeina Joy R.
Nayre, Abegail P.
Rolda, Marissa S.

July 2023
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.……………………………………………………
DEDICATION………………………………………………………..............
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………... 5
Background of the Study………………………………………………....... 5
Statement of the Problem ...………………………………………….......... 7
Hypothesis………………………………………………............................. 7
Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………….... 7
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………. 12
Significance of the Study………………………………………………….. 12
Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………. 14
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………... 14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……………………... 18
Gaslighting………………………………………………………………… 18
Gaslighting in Gender………………………………………………….. 19
Microaggression………………………………………………………... 20
Two cents of Peer Disagreement……………………………………….. 21

Evidence of Peer Disagreement………………………………………... 22

Epistemic Dimension ………………………………………………….. 22
Self-trust and Relationship …………………………………………….. 23
Self-Deception …………………………………………………………. 24
Narcissistic Confabulation…………………………………………….... 24
Narcissistic Gaslighting ………………………………………………... 25
Emotional Self-Regulation………………………………………………... 26
Awareness and Understanding of Emotions…………………………… 27
Acceptance of Emotions……………………………………………….. 28
3

Ability to Engage in Goal-Directed Behavior…………………………. 28

Ability to Refrain from Impulsive Behavior…………………………... 29

Access to Emotion Regulation Perceived as Effective………………… 30

Gender and Age Differences in Emotion Regulation Strategies………. 32
Gaslighting and Emotional Self-Regulation………………………………. 33
Synthesis…………………………………………………………………... 35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………. 36
Research Design…………………………………………………………... 36
Participants and Sampling …………………………………………………... 37
Research Instruments ……………………………………………………….. 38
Data Gathering Procedure …………………………………………………... 38
Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………… 38
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………… 39
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………… 44
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………. 49
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………. 52
TABLES…………………………………………………………………………… 61
Table 1. Mean of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion……………….. 61
Table 2. Standard deviation of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion
61
Regulation………………..…………………………………………………
Table 3. Test of Significant Relationship between Gaslighting and
61
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation………………………………………...
FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….. 62
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework…………………………………………. 62
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….. 63
Appendix A. Survey Letter. ………………………………………………. 63

Appendix B. Survey Message……………………………………………... 64

Appendix C. Consent Form………………………………………………... 65

4

Appendix D. Permission Letter to use DERS……………………………... 67

Appendix E. Permission Letter to use VGQ………………………………. 68

Appendix F. Proof of Email and Permission Approved…………………… 69

Appendix G. Permission Letter to conduct the study……………………… 71
Appendix H. Gaslighting Screening Tool…………………………………. 72

Appendix I. Difficulties in Emotion Regulation (DERS-16)……………… 73

Appendix J. Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ)…………………… 74

Appendix K. Certificate of Statistician……………………………………. 75

Appendix L. Certificate of Grammarian…………………………………...
CURRICULUM VITAE…………………………………………………………..
5

Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the people and

institutions who made the completion of this research paper possible.

To our Research in Psychology Ⅰ Professor, Mr. Lloyd Toni F. Enriquez, thank

you for giving us the opportunity to show our full potential. Thank you for teaching us

comprehensively and supporting us immensely. To our Research in Psychology Ⅱ

Professor and Adviser, Ms. Dori A. Pursima, thank you for your endless patience,

invaluable advice, and guidance. Thank you for helping us throughout this study, as it

enabled us to create a noteworthy and more insightful paper. We would also like to thank

our statistician, Ms. Paulyn S. Marcos. Thank you for generously spending your time and

sharing your knowledge, which truly helped us strengthen this study. This research would

not have been accomplished without your genuine kindness and expertise.

To the College of Education, Arts, and Sciences, supported by the National

University – Manila, thank you for instilling in us the core values that shaped and honed

us to be lifelong learners, as reflected in the process of making this paper.

To our dear family and friends, thank you for the overwhelming support,

motivation, and understanding. Your ceaseless presence assured us that there are people

who believe in us and entrust us to be successful students.

Most importantly, thank you to the Almighty God. We are forever grateful to You

for being the source of our knowledge, wisdom, and strength. Your provision made this

research paper possible.

6

Dedication
This study is humbly dedicated, firstly, to the people who are psychologically

abused. This study is more than just an academic requirement, as we eagerly want to

contribute to the advancement and betterment of those who are in need of help, in

accordance with the prevention and management of psychological health conditions in

the Philippines. Secondly, to the Mental Health advocates for their tireless persuasion and

compassion for everyone amidst the fight against stigma. Thirdly, to our beloved school,

the National University – Manila, for giving us the opportunity and platform to conduct

this study. Fourthly, to the future researchers who will help and benefit at a later time.

And lastly, to the Almighty God for directing our journey and bringing us this far, and for

guiding us to where we stand now.

7

Abstract
The present study investigates the relationship between emotional manipulation,

otherwise known as gaslighting, and difficulties in emotion regulation among young adult

men. A quantitative correlation research design was utilized to identify if there is any

relationship between the variables. The data was collected using a purposive sampling

technique. The researchers administered a 3-item checklist screening tool among 18–25-

year-old young adult men who had been in a relationship that generally determined how

peer disagreement and self-trust are being tested in their relationships whether generally

determined how peer disagreement and self-trust are being tested in their relationships to

which gaslighting is possibly present. Consequently, young adult men (N=150)

participants were recognized in given conditions and they proceeded to answer the two

standardized instrument, the Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ) which consist of

14 self-report items, and the Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) which

consist of 16 self-report items, a short form of the DERS’s 36 self-report item version.

The analysis showed strong evidence (p < 0.05) against the presumption which indicates

that there is a significant relationship between gaslighting and difficulties in emotion

regulation among young adult men. The researchers concluded that the alternative

hypothesis is true between the two interrelated constructs which means that gaslightees

(victims) are associated with having emotional regulation problems. Given the result, this

study aims to reduce gender stereotypes among young adult men or mainly in men and

wants to direct the pervasiveness of the current issue.

Keywords: gaslighting, emotional/psychological manipulation, gaslighter/gaslightees,

8

emotion regulation, emotion dysregulation, behavior

9

INTRODUCTION

Young adult men as a subject of abuse are one of the neglected areas of various

research. The socially constructed idea that men and their masculinity equate to power

and status, whereat it attributes them to behave in superiority, is also the same and exact

reason expectations and rules built around them require much effort to shift into matters

that most people are uncomfortable to talk with (Rice et al., 2021). Consequently, the

norms which create stereotypes bring men into a position of being a neglected population

in relation to their psychological or emotional aspect. Though statistically proven that

women among other marginalized sectors are mostly the victims of psychological or

emotional abuse, the experience of men cannot be negated by the small percentages.

In connection with this, Sweet (2019) claimed that gaslighting is categorized as

psychological abuse deeply established from gender inequality and is heavily manifested

in romantic relationships. Robin Stern, the Psychotherapist who made the term

"gaslighting" widely known in her book The Gaslighting Effect in 2007, introduced the

occurrence called "mutual participation" between the gaslighter (the preparator) and the

gaslightee (the victim). In this context, the researchers were intrigued to carry out a study

that further understands young adult men's experiences in their previous intimate

relationships as gaslightees (victims) of gaslighting and difficulties in emotional

regulation. According to Berzenski (2019), problems in the process of building social

relationships were deeply rooted in emotional abuse, manipulation, and neglect that

victimized individuals have experienced during their early childhood, whereas, according

to a recent study, there were 5,126 adults who have experienced emotional maltreatment
10

when children. It further revealed that 33.7% had suffered from emotional abuse, 43.4%

had personally encountered emotional neglect, and 22.9% among them had undergone

both mentioned emotional maltreatment (Taillieu et al., 2016; as cited by Berzenski,

2019). On this account, it has been shown that affected individuals' understanding and

responsiveness result in poor interpersonal skills and conflicts with others. (Berzenski,

2019). Furthermore, with the root cause of relationship problems, a human being's frame

of mind and emotions could positively or negatively affect significant others. However,

negative self-representations are traceable from individualities and previous emotional

maltreatment experiences (Sung, 2014; as cited by Berzenski, 2019).

Subsequently, gaslighting as the most pervasive form of emotional manipulation

that could happen strongly internalized yet subtly noticeable, can perceptibly distract a

victim’s sense or own perception of reality. As frequently gender stereotyped, women

rather than men are those who studied with experience of oppression and abuse,

particularly in the form of domestic violence. Hence, gaslighting is anticipated to be more

prevalent with males being the gaslighters (preparators) and females as gaslightees

(victims). This study's purpose was to understand and describe the relationship between

the two interrelated constructs, gaslighting, and emotion regulation difficulties. In

addition, it aimed to aid in reducing gender stereotypes because men are humans with

emotions and could experience abuse as well. This study also wanted to direct the

pervasiveness of this current issue with eagerness to uncover outcomes that could help

young adult men to emotionally regulate themselves and potentially avoid circumstances

that may cause psychological or emotional danger to their well-being.

11
12

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study sought to determine if gaslighting affects difficulties in emotion

regulation among young adult men. Specifically, it aimed to answer the question:

1. What are the mean scores of young adult men in Gaslighting and Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation?

2. What are the standard deviation scores of young adult men in Gaslighting and

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation?

3. Is there a significant relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation among young adult men?

HYPOTHESIS

Ho: There is no significant relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation among young adult men.

Ha: There is a significant relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation among young adult men.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Emotion Regulation Theory

Emotion regulation constitutes any effort to modify any emotional experience.

According to Gross (2001), emotion regulation is concerned with three distinct

components of the emotional response, namely (1) the experiential component (i.e., the

subjective feeling of the emotion), (2) the behavioral component (i.e., behavioral
13

responses), and (3) the physiological component (i.e., responses, such as heart rate and

respiration). Emotions are inherently linked to and influence cognitive skills such as

attention, memory, executive function, decision-making, critical thinking, problem-

solving and regulation which play a key role in developing and learning. People use a

wide variety of strategies to influence their level of emotional response to a given type of

emotion. The factors that interplay with the emotional state of someone can influence

their developing and learning stage.

With that, Gross (2001) explained that response-focused strategies are the

activation of the actual emotional response when emotion is already underway.

Response-focused strategies, by comparison, refer to actions taken once an emotional

trajectory has unfolded. Strategies identified by Gross (1998, 2001) as included in

antecedent-focused emotion regulation are situation selection, which entails either

approaching or avoiding situations in anticipation of a given emotional outcome (i.e.,

avoiding visiting someone who invalidated the students' emotion); situational

modification, which entails altering the physical aspects of situations to allow for altering

an anticipated emotional outcome (i.e., avoiding sitting in the front of the lecture hall

immediately after someone invalidate the students' emotions); attentional deployment,

which entails focusing on select aspects of the situation so as to control an expected

emotional response (i.e., concentrating on what the feedback might provide insight after

expressing); and cognitive change, which entails an internalized version of situational

modification. A response-focused strategy, by comparison, is response modulation,

which entails either upregulating or down-regulating an expressive response. According

14

to Gross (1998, 2001), this strategy may also involve modification of a physiological or

experiential response. Gross also predicts that early emotion regulation strategies are

more effective than the strategies that are applied later in the process. He provides

evidence that reappraisal decreases both experiential and behavioral aspects of emotion,

while suppression only decreases behavioral aspects, but fails to reduce the emotional

experience.

The Knot Theory of Mind

The Knot Theory of Mind is a psychological theory that Domina Petric developed

in 2022 to provide a theoretical framework for knot psychotherapy. This theory is based

on practicing the balance between positive and negative emotions and thoughts, healthy

introspection, optimistic and realistic observations about life, and a healthy ideation

process. The knot theory of mind explains the several types of negative emotions,

feelings, subconscious knots, and thoughts that are not purposeful, but pathological and

disabling (Petric, 2022).

Every emotion, feeling, and thought are important in the process of healing.

Positive emotions, love especially, are the cure for psychological traumas. When the

person experiences suffering because something bad is happening, for example

gaslighting. Gaslighting is a powerful weapon of the abuser and can be very detrimental

to the victim, specifically the vulnerable ones. Gaslighting, especially when it is long-

lasting, can cause anxiety, depression, and even psychosis. Mental and emotional abuse

causes the formation of many knots of negative thoughts and emotions with cognitive and

emotional damage. Petric (2022) used the knot theory of mind to connect and explain
15

how gaslighting can be powerful as a form of manipulation causing emotional and mental

abuse. That can lead to the formation of many knots of negative emotions and thoughts in

an individual’s mind which can then further lead to permanent damage to the victim’s

emotional and cognitive health. The knot theory of mind might be helpful for the victims

of gaslighting to spread awareness and importance in society about gaslighting and to

provide high-quality legislative measures that will protect all the victims of gaslighting.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory was made by Leon Festinger in the early 50s

and focuses on how one's actions do not correlate to their own ideas, beliefs, and morals.

Cognitive Dissonance appears when a person accepts an uncomfortable state but also

vanishes when that person strives for acceptable retribution. Experiencing elevated levels

of dissonance can affect the person through pressure and motivation.

Early findings of this theory imply that people who have cognitive dissonance

have different behaviors not relating to their attitude. An example of this is people with

vices, we all know that smoking or drinking causes severe health problems overall but

most of our actions indulge in the feeling that we can smoke and drink daily. This theory

was made to establish the relationships between motivation, perception, and cognitions

from an individual, further clarifying that certain conditions need to be present for a

person to change their actions, opinions, attitude, and behavior. The cognitive dissonance

theory has been applied to many social situations and leads to original experimental

designs.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
16

This conceptual framework visually explained the relationship between victim

gaslighting and difficulties in emotion regulation among young adult men. The researcher

gathered the data on Victim Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation and used

the Pearson R Correlation Coefficient as a statistical treatment to know the relationship

between the two given variables among the selected young adult men participants.

Figure 1: Conceptual Paradigm

Difficulties in Emotion
Gaslighting
Regulation

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The primary beneficiaries of this study were the participants who will benefit

from this research. Vital results of this investigation could be highly beneficial and

significant specifically to the following:

Family Members of Gaslightees. The family, who are the most related persons

in one’s life, will be able to care for, guide, and protect them from experiences like

emotional manipulation or gaslighting and other forms psychological abuse. They will be

thoroughly aware of the experiences and effects their family members might or had to go

through. With that, they will have knowledge of how to handle situations in times like

this.

Male Victims of Psychological Abuse Group. The community will become

conscious of the experiences of men as they may share a sense of commonality with
17

them. This research spreads awareness in the community as a socially and emotionally

supportive organization on developing self-awareness and how gaslighting can affect

their thinking capabilities and decision-making.

Mental Health Advocates for Victims of Psychological Abuse. The mental

health advocates, specifically those who advocate for victims of psychological abuse, will

be able to comprehend the existing experiences of men that were affected. The result of

this research will be a piece of practical information for the advocates to advance their

movement on promoting awareness and dealing with various mental health conditions,

including emotional manipulation or gaslighting.

Academic Institutions and Administrators. The whole organization will be

knowledgeable of the existing experiences and will be able to oversee and manage the

current issues that might be present inside the institution and administration. Through this

research, academic institutions and administrators may help the whole organization to

create programs and advocacies regarding meditation, counseling, and self-expression for

people who may need it or those who have the same experiences with the mentioned

situations.

Future Researchers. The future researchers of this study are the next

investigators of what can still be observed and examined. This research covers

information involving difficulties in emotion regulation as an awareness of emotional

manipulation and abuse. The result of this research can be utilized for future discussions

on the effects of gaslighting and difficulties in emotion regulation in men.

18

SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS

This research only covered the relationship between victim gaslighting and

difficulties in emotion regulation among young adult men. The participants of the study

fall under the specific inclusion criteria: (1) Male, (2) 18-15 years old, (3) currently

single in relationship status, (4) had a past romantic relationship, and (5) passed the

screening tool.

Therefore, this research aimed to determine the relationship between gaslighting

experience and difficulties in emotional regulation among young adult men. This

research only explored and analyzed the difficulty of the participants to stabilize their

own emotional capabilities knowing their experience in gaslighting. This research

delimited the participants who were not under the criteria mentioned.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms were defined theoretically and operationally as used in the

study:

Awareness - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation;

Particularly used to measure lack of emotional awareness. This refers to the incapability

of an individual to identify and comprehend one's own emotions along with the emotions

of others. Failure to manage emotional awareness may affect relationships and may cause

challenging situations.

Clarity - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation; Particularly

used to measure lack of emotional clarity. This refers to the extent to wherein an
19

individual lacks the quality of coherence and precision in experiencing emotions. This

may lead to having a vague sense of one's emotions.

Emotion Regulation – This refers to the process of managing and controlling

one's emotions. It involves recognizing, understanding, and expressing emotions in a

healthy way. It helps individuals to respond to challenging situations in a calm and

controlled manner rather than being overwhelmed by their emotions. By regulating their

emotions effectively, individuals can cope more successfully with stress and adversity,

enhance positive emotions, and improve social functioning.

Gaslighting – This refers to psychological manipulation aimed at making

someone question their perceptions, memories, or sanity by denying facts, shifting blame,

and causing self-doubt. This can be done by an individual intending to gain control over

the victim. Gaslighting can be subtle, and if not recognized easily, this can lead to severe

and long-lasting effects on the victim's mental health and well-being.

Goals - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation; Particularly

used to measure difficulties in engaging in goal-directed behaviors. This refers to a

situation wherein an individual struggles to focus, attain, and achieve an activity while

experiencing negative emotions. Emotions such as being upset or being in distress may

be considered factors of having trouble in getting things done.

Impulsive - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation;

Particularly used to measure impulse control difficulties. This refers to a circumstance

wherein an individual can no longer possibly manage behavior while experiencing

negative emotions. Losing control of behavior may affect certain things to last for a long
20

time as it is the cause of unconsciousness and overwhelming emotions.

Non-acceptance - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation;

Particularly used to measure non-acceptance of emotional responses. This refers to the

possibility of an individual having negative tendencies to take one another's negative

emotions. The effect of withholding other individuals' emotions may affect the person

themself more than anyone.

Peer-Disagreement - One of the dimensions of gaslighting; This refers to

circumstances and conditions where two or more individuals considered experts or peers

in a particular field or subject hold differing opinions, beliefs, or judgments about

something. This disagreement could be based on differences in interpretations of

evidence, different experiences, or deferring approaches to solving a problem. It can be

challenging and potentially uncomfortable for individuals to confront and navigate peer

disagreement, mainly when the beliefs or opinions in question are deeply held or

emotionally charged.

Self-Trust - One of the dimensions of gaslighting; Particularly used to measure

loss of self-trust. This refers to an individual's disbelief in their own abilities, judgment,

and character. It encompasses distrust in one's decisions and actions, as well as the doubt

that one can handle challenges and overcome obstacles. Lost self-trust also involves

uncertainty of confidence in one's instincts and intuition and can be developed through a

lack of self-reflection, introspection, and taking responsibility for one's choices and

actions.

Strategies - One of the subscales of difficulties in emotion regulation;

21

Particularly used to measure limited access to emotion regulation strategies. This refers to

an individual lacking aptitude and belief that can regulate emotion efficiently while

experiencing negative emotions. This may affect one's state of perception about self

because of confined strategies.

22

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Gaslighting

Gaslighting is the term used by psychologists which refers to a type of

manipulation wherein the manipulator tries to get others to question their own perception,

memory, or reality which, according to the psychologist, is always a fundamental

problem. Even greater-or-lesser offenses of individuals questioning their reality can end

up in a cycle of inability to negotiate daily life with focus, a sense of well-being, a clear

mind, and can also make sound decisions. It happens in professional relationships (i.e., a

manipulative boss), personal relationships (e.g., an abusive spouse), and even in public

figures (DiGiulio, 2018). As gaslighting is also known as a type of bullying, an article

about student well-being, the activity conducted by Harris and MacNiell (2021) on

victimhood and learned helplessness on gaslighting students stated that anyone can be a

victim of gaslighting, but some can be more vulnerable.

In the film, gaslighting has been described as a form of strategy; a strategic action

that aims to manipulate the human mind, applicable in dealing with interpersonal

relationships. This term thereafter has been showered by an escalating recognition over

the past few years in which this type of abusive manipulation in both psychological and

emotional aspects of the human condition has been interlinked in the psychological

dynamics of scholars in the field of psychology (Sweet, 2019). It is a persistent and

insidious pattern of behavior that keeps individuals questioning themselves and those

around them while gradually eroding self-esteem and even identity. It was explained that

the reason people gaslight is either to gain control over others or someone is learning
23

behavior as a survival mechanism who was raised by gaslighted person/s. The goal is to

break spirits, weaken resistance, create chaos and confusion, and appear blameless in the

mind of another person (McQuillan, 2021). In a study of the association between

gaslighting behavior and personality, it was found that psychoticism, disinhibition, and

detachment were positively associated with gaslighting behaviors of the abuser.

However, psychoticism, disinhibition, and antagonism were positively associated with

gaslighting behaviors from a partner of survivors (Miano et al., 2021).

Gaslighting in Gender

Gender plays a vital role in life while beliefs about gender are different. For some,

gender comes with a stereotype that affects individuals’ behaviors, expectations, and

perceptions of others. In the sociological view, it was asserted that gaslighting is a

sociological one rather than a psychological issue. Gaslighting should be viewed as a

social injustice in gender and power dynamics in romantic relationships. The generated

theory of the study stated that gaslighting is harmful when offenders use gender-based

stereotypes, structural injustices, and institutional biases against victims to distort their

reality. These strategies are gendered because they rely on the notion that femininity and

irrationality go hand in hand (Sweet, 2019). This creates a division between men and

women even though gaslighting affects everyone, and it describes how men have a grasp

of how the needs of gaslighting work setting the conditions by their own nature alone.

These inequalities can also set the social power imbalance because victims who have

intersecting social marginalities such as gender, race, and legal statuses are dangerous

receivers of gaslighting. A study of the Experiences and Resilience of Egyptian Women

24

Victimized by Narcissistic Relationships indicated that women suffered from diverse

types of aggressive behaviors (e.g., physical, psychological, and verbal), and they tended

to doubt their rationality which is called "the gaslighting effect." Accordingly, the

women's psychological and social well-being suffered because of their relationships with

narcissists. The findings imply that for women to fully heal from the impacts of their

narcissistic relationships, they require ongoing social and emotional assistance (Shousha,

2023). Thus, indicating that gaslighting happens to women.

On the one hand, a study finding on men’s experience of domestic violence

revealed that men suffer from considerable physical and verbal harm as well as control,

manipulation, and psychological abuse from a partner. Furthermore, it was stated that

getting treatment was quite hard for them and that they frequently kept their abuse a

secret (Bates, 2017). Highlighting the serious and significant rates of intimate partner

violence that men experience, Bates (2020) revealed that men occasionally encountered a

range of aggressiveness that was harsh and hurtful, but their most lasting impressions

came from the control their female partners exercised over them. This included

gaslighting, social exclusion from family and friends, restriction of basic freedoms, and

the dread or ambiguity of dealing with the abuse daily. The findings are explored

considering men's conduct while looking for assistance as well as current policy and

practice.

Microaggression

Johnson (2021) sees gaslighting as a secondary microaggression, creating an

atmosphere for marginalized groups to be “dominated” by the people who are using these
25

psychological tactics. The article continues by looking at an in-depth perspective on the

definition of gaslighting connecting both psychological and sociological approaches to

the topic. It sees gaslighting as a singular or series of actions to anyone for the exchange

of power through manipulation (Davis & Ernst, 2019; Tobias & Joseph, 2020). And, it

has also been noted that gaslighting is used to uphold structures of white supremacy,

patriarchy, heteronormativity, and transphobia (Sweet, 2019). This article, though having

seen gaslighting as a big problem, is also a hidden thief stealing people’s images and

thoughts of themselves. The article also focuses on gaslighting being a racial motivation

for most people in that power dynamic, normalizing how others stereotype certain

minorities and groups and suggesting that this type of gaslighting has political, social,

economic, and cultural aspects that make it more known (Davis & Ernst, 2019). Most

different theories of microaggression created was gaslighting, this form of

microaggression has room to develop overtimes and has time to reach different forms of

outcomes on the health of people because not everyone tries to confront discrimination

even if it is being shoved up their faces (Brondolo et al. 2009).

Two Cents on Peer-Disagreement

Palmira (2019) discusses how peer disagreements come to be. Putting two ends of

the puzzle, the paper creates a solution for the two pieces of the peer’s engagement in

deliberative activities to discover more about their epistemic position and how the peers

are permitted to draw their own conclusion. Palmira’s puzzle is hungry for opposite

intuitions, both handling different attitudes toward people in simple restaurant situations

to how both philosophers on the same fields tend to have quarrels on the existence of life
26

labeling the former the “Conformist Intuition” (Christensen 2007, Elga 2007, Feldman

2006) and the latter “Non-conformist Intuition”. This sums up how peers must resolve

these disagreements by re-opening the questions that are relevant to their topics. The

requirement's compatibility needs some revision in their approach to their own

hypothesis. The answer is that this change in both sides' judgment connects the two

puzzles in a way where they can agree to agree while keeping their disagreements also in

check making a form of transparency to their whole situation and having peers permitted

to their own respective inclinations. The conclusion has both structures into a technical

sense of how peer disagreements usually begin but also provides how they can be

resolved.

Evidence on Peer-Disagreement

Kelly (2010) explains that peer disagreement has its own spin on how a person

will react if the evidence is clear but does not see it and vice versa. It is tackled that

picturing in a courtroom setting, or weather forecasters trying to attempt on how the skies

will clear there are numerous ideas on one evidence that could lead to opposing people’s

opinions. The study provides that a situation acknowledges symmetry in many cases,

even if their own opinions do not correlate (Feldman, 2006). Kelly (2010) has shown how

people's differences can be one-sided even when evidence is placed in the middle of the

table. They agreed on the result and were both correct. When they disagreed, each of

them arrived at the correct result equally often. Only one of them can be correct in the

current situation. And because of that peer disagreement can also be the start of

something wherein people can have debates and arguments on a singular topic which
27

makes the balance equal even though there are parties on the offense and defense.

Epistemic Dimension

Fricker (2023) has characterized epistemic injustice as a point where someone is

wronged because of their knowledge (Oxford University, 2007). And gaslighting is a

focal point creating dimensions on how it branches out to dimensions that have epistemic

injustice. For instance, self-trust is one of the mentioned dimensions gaslighting leads to

and it adds some push into the other dimensions in the sense that it has a process to go

onto another epistemic injustice. Resistance to something can cause disagreements as one

tends to persist in his or her own beliefs when dealing with a matter like self-trust, and

because of that, even the rational sense to resist being gaslighted raises some questions

about the victim's own capabilities (Pasnau, 2015). The researchers suggest that even

though gaslighting is the main source of everything in terms of epistemic injustice, other

dimensions of it can be seen and this study is creating a piece-by-piece analysis of the

dimensions that affect one another as well as coexist or lead up to. Another thing the

study weighs into is how each dimension affects some social examples and psychological

methods for the specific dimension.

Self-Trust and Relationships

A study was conducted to see the importance of trust in several types of

relationships. Mainly focusing on intimate and platonic connectivity, the study’s purpose

was determining the different trust levels on each form of relationship while focusing on

the reasons and opinions behind it. Studying is a good opener to having more studies in

these topics. 65 participants ranging from ages 18-24 were part of this study as they
28

answered surveys with multiple choice answer options. The participants chosen were

from Eastern Illinois University and based on the results, every participant believed that

trust was the key factor in making an intimate relationship work. With a 50% mark on the

participants also having experiences of infidelity or breaches of trust with their partner, it

proved that there are layers into how relationships work outside of normal connection

(Costino et al. 2010). The study states that couples have different forms of variables that

can breach trust, an example is long distance relationships (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry,

and Rubin, 2010).

Self-Deception

Joel (2019) tested whether people have become overconfident because they want

to deceive and manipulate others. Because of that, it teaches a little bit about self-

deception and how people are subjectively trying to show charisma so that they can

convince others of having superiority. A theory by Trivers (2011) suggests that self-

deception makes it easier to convince someone about one’s qualities as it has the power

to be more forward rather than conscious deception. The conclusion of this study shows

that self-deception lies in how people would try to use it for their own gain, it is a thing

that creates a drive for the person with their own cognition and their strategic advances in

the environment. When that time strikes, the person will have to express themselves

through and through so that they can manipulate others into thinking they are superior.

Narcissistic Confabulations

Confabulation is defined as a memory disorder, but it also applies to gaslighting

29

and social connectivity of how a person adapts into their relationships. It often involves

misinterpreting facts and evidence without deliberation and with no intent to deceive. In

the eyes of Dr. Sam Vaknin, his view into confabulation is not linked into what a

narcissistic person is but has forms of how a person’s character gives into themselves

more on others. An example of this is when they have self-defense into being delusional

because for them, confabulation is the reality it is meant to be (Stines, 2015).

Because of this fact, narcissists have abusive powers towards their partners in these social

or intimate relationships. Bending the truth by using confabulation and recreating past

arguments on an in-depth story as if they are victims and their partners as villains. Due to

the phenomena, their partners experience Cognitive Dissonance while producing several

types of mental problems like stress and anxiety.

Narcissistic Gaslighting

People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) used gaslighting as an

advantage to their partners, in addition to that others who are not formally diagnosed with

this disorder can also exhibit narcissistic traits and engage in gaslighting behaviors.

Narcissistic gaslighting is another form of abuse that a person with NPD may use to have

control over a situation involving others. Victims of this form of abuse often question

their own feelings, sanity, and their own decisions in life. Persons who show signs of

having NPD can branch into different things such as a form of preoccupied fantasies of

power, brilliance, success, and have a grandiose sense of self-importance. Another thing

to look for in finding out whether a person has NPD or not is to look for their needs and

whether it can go over the top on the threshold of abuse. An example of this is having
30

that power over the other person while also having a sense of them being unique to

others. With that said, this relates to gaslighting because of how people with NPD

perform with these actions. Countering and withholding are some of the thing’s

narcissists use when they talk to others no matter what the connection is, and it goes the

same way when it is a romantic relationship (Fletcher, 2023).

Emotion Regulation

Emotional self-regulation is defined as the ability to control one’s words,

thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Alarcón-Espinoza et al., 2022), the ability to reframe

challenging or disappointing experiences in positive ways, to live according to one’s core

value system, much more than simple self-policing. Self-regulation of emotional states

can stop a person from doing or saying things that might hurt others or oneself (Juby &

Whelan, 2022). Emotions can be regulated in adaptive and maladaptive strategies from

the process model of emotion regulation (Situation selection, Situation modification,

Attentional deployment, Cognitive change, and response modulation), yet people often

use maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, despite knowledge of more adaptive

strategies. Further, people normally do not regulate their emotions even thereby would be

adaptive. Emotional self-regulation involves a series of changes in emotions that enables

people to perform good concentration and consistent actions in terms of overcoming

frustrations, loss, and failures (Liew, 2020). The study believed that understanding the

influence of action readiness and orienting attention in emotion regulation would lead to
31

adaptive regulatory choices that might generate a virtuous cycle (Ghafur et al., 2018, pp.

31-35).

Awareness and Understanding of Emotions

Human beings undergo a series of interactions with others for them to fully

understand and recognize their own emotions. This ability, otherwise known as emotional

awareness, plays an integral part in an individual’s everyday living and day-to-day

interactions (Kara & Yüksel, 2022). As proposed by previous studies, low levels of

emotional awareness equate to an increased concentration of people more on their ideas,

physical sensations, and undifferentiated emotional states rather than using words like

sadness and hatred to explain their emotional reactions (Lane et al., 1990; as cited by

Kara & Yüksel, 2022). Contradictorily, elevated levels of emotional awareness indicate

that an individual has the capability to understand their own emotions as well as the

emotions of others (Lane et al., 1990; as cited by Kara & Yüksel, 2022). Emotional

experiences always vary but being able to relate to others is indeed an exceptional skill

for an individual to have. Emotional awareness contributes to the skill that answers the

reason behind the “what’s and why’s” for people to relate, understand, and harmonize

their relationship with others during social interactions (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016; as

cited by Kara & Yüksel, 2022). It answers the questions when an unfamiliar feeling

arises, and it necessitates the ability to organize their thoughts. Thus, in such instances,’

organized thinking is a good step for making an applicable reaction and response during a

changing situation (Lehrer, 2009; as cited by Kara & Yüksel, 2022). Strengthening the

emotional awareness of people can be a beneficial step to fostering positive emotion

32

regulation as it serves as a key component in eliminating catastrophic consequences (Van

Beveren, 2019; as cited by Kara & Yüksel, 2022).

Acceptance of Emotions

Cognitive emotion regulation strategies are considered a form of advanced

thinking substantial for emotional regulation processes (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2018). As

recent studies suggest, the application of cognitive emotion regulation strategies is

essential for regulating one’s emotions. Thus, such a response may only result in two

beneficial outcomes: (a) to prevent future stressful events; or (b) to form a response that

is appropriate in each situation or stressful experience (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2018).

Primarily, cognitive emotion regulation strategies can be divided into 9 specific concepts

according to previous proponents. This includes self-blame, other-blame, rumination,

catastrophizing, putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal,

acceptance, and planning (Garnefski et al., 2001; as cited by Garnefski & Kraaij, 2018).

The mentioned strategies may fall from positive and negative approaches, but both are

applicable in facing stressful life events. One of the many forms of cognitive emotion

regulation includes acceptance. According to Garnefski & Kraaij (2018), acceptance is

the idea of recognizing what you have gone through with your personal experience and

gradually reaching the point of accepting what has already happened.

Moreover, acceptance of emotion undergoes a process. A process of accepting the

situation, considering previous experience, before coming up to resigning with the

emotions itself (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2018).

Ability to Engage in Goal-directed Behavior

33

According to researchers who specialize in behavioral studies, emotions can be

viewed as an ambiguous element that separates the two aspects of human processing

namely, cognition and behavior (Moors & Fischer, 2019). Cognition, emotion, and

behavior are three completely distinct aspects but according to recent studies, cognition,

and behavior can be strongly influenced by human emotions (Anderson, 2003; as cited by

Moors & Fischer, 2019). This viewpoint by behavior researchers has paved the way for

introducing the most dominant concept of a guiding model that is persistently accepted

even now. This guiding model is also known as the dual process model. The dual process

model proposes that various processes oversee "cognitive" vs. "emotional" paths to

human behavior (Anderson, 2003; as cited by Moors & Fischer, 2019) whereby

according to these proponents, cognitive structures are composed of goal-directed

processing and emotional structures are stimulus-driven processing. Consequently, Moors

& Fischer (2019) suggested that among these two features, a process that is goal-directed

is more malleable and well capable of producing behavioral responses in different

outcome structures from a wide range of situations. Therefore, the ability to engage in

goal-directed behavior only varies on cognitive structures composing a goal-directed

processing as such structures are a great predictor of human behavior (Moors et al., 2017;

as cited by Moors & Fischer, 2019). For instance, being motivated and attentive when

there is enough time of preparation (Moors & Fischer, 2019).

Ability to Refrain from Impulsive Behavior

Ability to refrain from impulsive behavior when experiencing Negative Emotions

Impulsive behavior can be described as an unexpected response to internal or external

34

stimuli without consideration for the adverse consequences of those acts on oneself and

others (Moeller et al., 2001; as cited by Garofalo et al., 2018). It is a quick urge that can

influence a certain act of an individual as it disregards self-internalization and ideals

before showing a response to a particular situation. As asserted by Garofalo et al. (2018),

impulsivity is often interlinked with emotional dysregulation since it disregards the state

of affect and impedes the thinking processes of humans. Prior studies, however, proposed

that emotions and impulses can be regulated as well. Contrary to Garofalo et al. (2018),

the ability to refrain from such a response as being able to control or regulate impulsive

behavior is just one of the core aspects that completes the tenets of self (Tice, 2018). This

ability, otherwise known as self-regulation, is highly contemplated for achieving a

successful life, identically in achieving a life that is free from negativity. As claimed by

Tice (2018), the ability to refrain from impulsive behavior is beneficial for altering

responses and managing inner states or thought processes. It allows people to manage

impulsive behavior when experiencing negative emotions for such instances of

experiencing personal and social problems. Tice (2018) also proposed that failures that

might be encountered during the self-regulation process may be caused by dissensions in

setting self-regulatory goals. Hence, it can be assumed that the grounds for self-regulation

abilities would be to control an individual’s personal desires, thus, for them to work

toward long-term goals instead of the short-term ones due to the feeling of pressure (Tice,

2018).

Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies Perceived as Effective

According to prior studies, humans can label their emotions. Also, it has been
35

strongly argued that this is merely dependent on the seriousness of level to label: either

high or low level of emotion differentiation (Kashdan, Barrett, & McKnight, 2015; as

cited by Kalokerinos et al., 2019). But disregarding the emotional intensity or of the level

itself that had been presented, the presence of emotional differentiation can still be

considered as an important system for the facilitation of such a process of ability. Further,

it expedites emotional regulation and ability to distinguish acrimony and other negative

representations of emotions (Kashdan et al., 2015; as cited by Kalokerinos et al., 2019).

In general, the presence of such ability contributes to positivity among human’s

well-being and the ability to self-regulate. However, several theories propose that

emotion differentiation may require distinct strategies to be processed (Kalokerinos et al.,

2019). To support the idea, adaptation from strategic objective approaches were applied.

As Kalokerinos et al. (2019) proposes, this approach can evaluate two approaches that are

typically poor at lowering negative emotion such as (a) rumination; and (b) suppression)

social sharing, and three approaches that are typically helpful at doing so such as

reappraisal; (b) acceptance; and (c) diversion).

In a study of Rovenpor et al. (2013) which examined the effects of age and

control beliefs on the use of situation selection, found that individuals with high in

control beliefs emerge with age differences. Older adults who felt competent in their

emotion regulation abilities or had an intense sense of control over life in general,

approached fewer negative stimuli than younger adults with strong control beliefs. The

study of Panayiotou et al., (2021) in examining how the quality of life was affected

during the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown among college students in Cyprus revealed a
36

decrease in physical and psychological quality of life relative to pre-pandemic levels.

Difficulty accessing emotion regulation strategies, pointing to the significance of

emotional clarity and availability of a wide spectrum of strategies for coping with

distress, and difficulty describing feelings, were predictors of decline in quality of life

relative to pre-pandemic baseline. Furthermore, considering the relationship between two

strategies of emotion regulation (suppression and reappraisal), and social outcomes

(friendship satisfaction, peer victimization, and family satisfaction) in young adolescents,

it was found that greater use of reappraisal might protect against the negative social

effects of poorer mental health. On the one hand, poorer mental and social well-being

was related to ER use, especially suppression (Chervonsky & Hunt, 2018, pp. 270-282).

Gender and Age Differences in Emotion Regulation Strategies

In a review addressing the questions about gender differences in emotion

regulation strategies, the result showed that women report utilizing consistently most

emotion regulation techniques such as rumination, positive refocusing, and

catastrophizing, and were more flexible in the implementation to control emotions than

men (Goubet & Chrysikou, 2019). Greater depression and anxiety in women than in

males may be partially explained by women's propensity for ruminating, whereas men's

propensity to use alcohol as a coping mechanism is higher than women's rates of alcohol

abuse. Hence, the body of research on emotion regulation lacks crucial details on how

males control their emotions (“Emotion Regulation and Psychopathology: The Role of

Gender”)

According to a study that evaluated emotional regulation in adolescents according

37

to their age and gender, it was revealed that Children and pre-adolescents in the 9–12-

year-old group scored lower on emotional control tactics than those in the 13–16-year-old

group. When it came to using emotional regulation techniques to deal with feelings of

melancholy, anxiety, and anger as well as the general average of regulation in relation to

these emotions, girls outperformed boys. The latent variable of emotion control scores

was significantly influenced by age, but not by gender. The latent emotion control scores

revealed an interaction impact between age and gender. Girls typically scored lower than

boys when they were older and higher than boys when they were younger (Sanchis et al.,

2020).

Gaslighting and Emotional Self-Regulation

According to Riva et al. (2022), patriarchal society continues to exist for an

exceedingly long time in the Philippine context. As a direct consequence, the perspective

of society regarding the roles of men at home has significantly affected how they treated

women. This falls because there are some reported domestic violence cases (Riva et al.,

2022). Men, as considered to be more powerful than women, are more capable of

exhibiting controlling attitudes toward their partners. As Riva et al. (2022) suggest,

negative roles such as possession, controller, and abuser are indicators of emotional and

psychological mistreatment that reflect the patriarchal culture's domination and authority

over women. One strategy that men apply in such instances is their power to control their

partners. According to psychology, this strategy of controlling an individual emotionally

and psychologically is a type of manipulation, also known as gaslighting (Riva et al.,

2022). This controlling behavior arises whenever an abuser deceitfully employs

38

manipulative strategies such as making the victims feel uncertain about themselves,

having them imagine things, and making them feel crazy just by using words and

controlling attitudes (Dorpat, 1996; as cited by Riva et al., 2022). Eventually, this leads to

the inability of women to trust themselves as they lose their sense of reality (McKee &

Payne, 2013; as cited by Riva et al., 2022) resulting in a never-ending cycle of abuse in

their relationships, whether it be physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional

maltreatment (Riva et al., 2022). Riva et al. (2022) stated that this reflects the hidden

reality of women victims far from closed doors, implicating that it does not only exist in

modern Philippine culture but across many countries as well.

As Robazza & Ruiz suggests (2018), emotion is a crucial element for human

functioning. This apparent reason supports the presence of regulation in the aspect of

emotion that is subsequently creating a consequential influence on the memory,

concentration, reasoning, judgment, interpersonal connections, and behavioral reactions

of diverse individuals (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; as cited by Hays, 2017). Moreover,

being able to regulate oneself is a great indicator that there would be lesser problems in

managing emotions, particularly in such conditions of experiencing emotional

manipulation. Emotional self-regulation is composed of cognitive dimensions responsible

for bringing awareness and understanding to human emotion (Berzenski, 2019). Those

are then substantial processes that could allow individuals to accept and react to a variety

of emotions in a flexible manner. Being able to develop emotion regulation skills can

help individuals to cope with their previous experience of any kind of emotional abuse

(Berzenski, 2019), therefore, in facing inconvenient situations such as being emotionally

39

manipulated in the present day as well. Notwithstanding the beneficial results of

emotional self-regulation, present cases concerning emotional manipulation gradually

increase over time, among youths. In a general perspective, this form of manipulation can

victimize lots of individuals depending on the displayed behavior among the perpetrators,

particularly, the gaslighters. Even so, claims that fulfill the idea of being gaslighted are

solely dependent on the attitudes of manipulators and how they will satisfy their

narcissistic needs (Miano et al., 2021).

Synthesis

The aforementioned literature by DiGiulio, Sweet, and Johnson provided a basic

grasp of what is the definition of the variable, gaslighting. The two domains under this

variable, namely peer-disagreement and self-trust, were also introduced and explained by

Palmira and Kelly. They have published their papers to provide higher-order evidence of

peer disagreement and to provide a widely accepted concept regarding this variable. The

researchers Pasnau, Annisa, Tentama, Bashori, Amati, Meggiolaro, Revillini, Zaccarin,

Schwardmann, Van Der Weele, and Bernecker, provided a greater avenue of expressing

the facts about the related constructs in gaslighting at the same time, provided a great

support on the information that were apportioned in the current research. Alarcón-

Espinoza, Juby & Whelan, Ghafur, Liew also explained the context of emotional self-

regulation in a sense that it coincides with what the current research seeks to explain.

Meanwhile, authors Kara & Yüksel draw the concept of awareness and

understanding of emotions in explaining emotional reactions. They also relate this ability

to a positive emotional regulation performed by many individuals during a challenging

40

situation. In the study of Garnefski & Kraaij in emotional self-regulation, acceptance of

emotions was interconnected with the recognition of emotions by undergoing a series of

processes such as accepting the situation, considering previous experience, and finally

resigning to emotional responses. On the other hand, researchers who specialize in

behavioral studies, Moors and Fischer, reported that ability in engaging with goal

directed behavior requires processing and this involves cognitive structures that are

necessary for predicting human behavior. Another theory from researcher Tice states that

the ability to refrain from impulsive behavior is beneficial for altering responses and

modifying inner states or thought processes. Lastly, reports from Kalokerinos expressed

facts on self-regulatory processes whereas they stated that strategic approaches that are

seen to be effective are required for any type of self-regulation, even in the context of

human emotions. With this considered, Blascovich & Tomaka, Hays, and Jones, have

revealed that the presence of regulation in the aspect of emotion is subsequently creating

a consequential influence on the memory, concentration, reasoning, judgment,

interpersonal connections, and behavioral reactions of diverse individuals. The findings

of the synthesized study are highly relevant to the formulation of ideas in the present

research conducted by the researchers as it provided a universally accepted definition and

explanation of the variables that are deemed necessary in the study. By combining the

existing research on gaslighting and emotional self-regulation, the literature review

sought to obtain the knowledge necessary to provide insight into what was known and

what remained to be discovered.

41

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study utilized a quantitative correlation research design to identify the

relationship between gaslighting and emotional self-regulation, and if so, the strength and

direction of the correlation. Quantitative correlational research involves numerical

measurement of variables and investigation of whether the variables correlate and if there

is any correlation between the direction thereof and its strength. According to Hassan

(2023), the relationship of two or more variables will be thoroughly studied and

examined which may be categorized into three outcomes which are positive correlation,

negative correlation, and in some variables of interest and instances, no correlation at all.

Considering these outcomes, a positive correlation can still be weak in strength

and a negative correlation can still be strong in strength which means correlation does not

necessarily equate to causation of variables as suggested by Cherry (2022). This simply

means that two or more variables can have a relationship yet changes in one variable does

not mean changes in another.

Participants and Sampling

The primary sources of data were gathered among 150 single 18–25-year-old

males who had a past romantic relationship. The researchers used the purposive sampling

technique, a non-probability sampling technique to obtain samples where the researchers

had criteria for the participants to meet to help the researchers find the person fit to gather

the necessary data for the results of the study.

42

Research Instruments

The study utilized the following instruments to determine the relationship

between gaslighting and difficulties in emotion regulation among young adults. These

instruments helped the researchers to measure the gaslighting and difficulties in

emotional self-regulation of the eligible participants.

Screening Items

The screening tool is composed of 3 questions answerable by yes or no. The

question is formulated by using the main variable of the study which is gaslighting. The

questions are mainly supplemented by the study of Kelly in 2010 where it explains that

peer disagreement has its own spin on how a person will react if the evidence is clear and

it also stated that peer disagreement can lead to opposing people’s opinions and also by

Cosentino in 2012 on the different opinions of self-trust in relationships and how it is one

of the key factors in making connections on both platonic and intimate levels.

Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire

The Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ) is measured on a five-point Likert-

type scale, where one will denote “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” whereas the

order of the statements in the developed questionnaire will be set random (Bhatti et.al,

2021). The final version of the questionnaire consists of 14 self-reporting items

measuring the victim’s feelings, beliefs, and behaviors due to gaslighting. Velicer’s MAP

method and Maximum Likelihood FA suggested two-factor structures including peer

disagreement and loss of self-trust. Instruments displayed high alpha reliability of α =

43

0.934, with α = 0.927 and α = 0.854, for the subscales, respectively. The total possible

scores ranged between 14 and 70, with higher scores suggesting higher levels of

victimization of gaslighting in the individual.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale

This scale is a self-report tool used to gauge an individual's normal level of

emotional regulation difficulty. The DERS-16, which is based on the DERS's original 36-

item version, employs a clinically useful conceptualization of emotion regulation that was

created to be relevant to clinical applications and the development of treatments for a

wide range of psychological difficulties (Gratz, 2007; Gratz & Tull, 2010). The total

score ranges from 16-80 with higher scores indicating more difficulties with emotion

regulation. The mean score for subscales is presented (from 1-5) to allow for a

comparison of the subscale areas (given there were different numbers of questions within

each subscale) where higher scores in the subscales is indicative of more difficulties in

that area of emotion regulation. Nonacceptance of emotional responses (items 9, 10, 13) –

a tendency to have a negative secondary or non-accepting reaction to one’s own distress.

Difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior (items 3, 7, 15) – difficulties in

concentrating and/or accomplishing tasks when experiencing negative emotions. Impulse

control difficulties (items 4, 8, 11) – difficulties remaining in control of one’s behavior

when experiencing negative emotions. Limited access to emotion regulation strategies

(items 5, 6, 12, 14, 16) – the belief that there is little one can do to regulate oneself once

upset. Lack of emotional clarity (items 1, 2) – reflecting the extent to which an individual

knows and is clear about their emotions.

44

Data Gathering Procedure

Informed Consent

The survey questionnaire included the consent form, indicating the purpose of the

study, what participants will do, time required to complete the survey, the possible risks

and benefits, and the participant’s voluntary participation and their withdrawal rights and

how to contact the researchers for questions and clarifications. The form also included

items where participants indicated their demographic profile, name, age, and contact

information and if they have been in a romantic relationship, before proceeding to the

survey instruments.

Ethical Considerations

The researchers considered the following ethical considerations upon conducting

this research:

Responsibly and Integrity

Researchers immediately conduct themselves integrity and responsibly. This

included conducting their study honestly and efficiently, conforming to their ethical

obligations, and being honest. Because it encourages trust, which is a crucial component

of all productive human relationships, acting with integrity is necessary. Participants had

faith that researchers were truthful with them (such as about what the study entails), keep

their word (such as to maintain confidentiality), and establish their research in a manner
45

that maximizes benefits and minimizes hazard. The use of deception was a high priority.

Thus, conducting research that enhanced theoretical basis and benefits society can

conflict with acting honorably.

Confidentiality

Identifying and dealing with all the information that could have the potential to

influence their decision, researchers sought and recorded their consent to participate in a

study. Acknowledging people's privacy, their freedom to choose what data regarding

them is disclosed with others, is another aspect of protecting their rights and dignity. As a

result, researchers were required to keep privacy, which was a commitment not to share

participants' confidential information without that participant's consent or a valid legal

permit.

Distribution and Retrieval of Questionnaires

The researchers have done a pilot test for 5 qualified participants online, having a

mean score of 30 over the highest possible score of 70 on VGQ, while DERS-16 had a

mean score of 42 over the highest possible score of 80.

The study was conducted through an online survey using Google Forms and was

disseminated through Microsoft Teams chat and social media (e.g., messenger). The

researchers sent a message with the content of greetings, purpose, first four criteria, the

link to the consent form, and the screening tool (see appendix H, pp. 75), made by the

researchers based on the description of Gaslighting among related literature and studies,

to determine the participant’s eligibility of being gaslighted. After determining the

46

participant’s eligibility, the researchers sent another link to the participants' contact

information to measure their levels of VGQ & DERS-16. The researchers also utilized a

pen & paper survey where researchers submitted a letter conducting the study to the

professors prior to their scheduled classes to conduct the study without interrupting an

ongoing class. The data gathered was tabulated and served as the primary basis of the

information that was used throughout the study.

The researchers have sent more than 1,500 messages searching for volunteer,

qualified (male, 18-25 y/o, currently single, had a past romantic relationship) participants

in MS Teams chat & messenger to answer the screening tool, and 204 of them met the 4

criteria and completed answering the screening tool but only 131 of them meet all the

criteria. On the other hand, the researchers have distributed 25 survey forms to the

participants who met the 4 criteria during the pen & paper survey and only 19 of them

have passed the screening tool and met all the criteria set by the researchers.

Data Analysis

The researchers have utilized two statistical data analysis for analyzing the

obtained data from Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire and Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation Scale. First is the descriptive statistical test for identifying the mean and

standard deviation of the obtained scores of the participants and the inferential statistics

for determining the significant relationship between the two variables using Pearson R

correlation coefficient.

An inferential statistical test also identified as Pearson R correlation coefficient or

47

Pearson R statistical test, is a statistical test that determines the strength of variables and

to examine if there is an established relationship among the presented variables (Obilor &

Amadi, 2018). In this study, the data was analyzed through Pearson’s R Correlation as it

aimed to assess the strength and direction of a linear relationship between the two

continuous variables namely, Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire and Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation Scale. In applying this statistical treatment, the researchers

considered the following assumptions as suggested by Obilor & Amadi (2018) the basis

for measuring the two variables, primarily the interval or ratio scale, the linear connection

between the two presented variables, the absence of significant outliers or a single data

point within the data that deviates from the typical pattern, and the normal distribution of

data.
48

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Result

Table 1

Mean of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Mean

Gaslighting 51.1

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 50.5

In Table 1, the obtained mean score of the respondents on the Victim Gaslighting

Questionnaire is 51.1, while the mean score for the tool Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation Scale is 50.5. In this presentation of scores, the mean represents the scores of

the participants from each tool, the Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire and Difficulties in

Emotion Regulation Scale. From the obtained mean scores, the researchers further

implicated that the mean scores of the respondents among the two variables were

average.

Table 2

Standard deviation of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Standard Deviation

Gaslighting 9.03

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 11.2

In Table 2, the acquired standard deviation for the first variable, Gaslighting, is
49

9.03 while the standard deviation for the second variable, Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation, is 11.2. In this presentation of scores, the standard deviation represents the

discrepancies between the data obtained by the respondents. As shown in the table

presentation, both scores for the victim gaslighting questionnaire and difficulties in

emotion regulation were high, whereas it can be implied that the data is homogeneous

and that the responses of the respondents were relatively close to each other. Moreover, it

is emphasized that the respondents were visibly screened and represented the sample.

Table 3

Test of Significant Relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation

R-value p-value Decision Inference

Positive

0.261 0.001 Reject Ho Relationship;

Significant

In Table 9, the obtained R-value from the Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire and

Difficulties in Emotional Regulation is 0.261. This value indicates a positive relationship

between the two presented variables. However, the magnitude of the statistical measure

can be interpreted as weak positive relationship in consideration with the cut off score

observed by the correlation coefficient (Schober et al., 2018). Meanwhile, the acquired p-

value in this study is 0.001, whereas it can be implicated that the result of the study is

statistically significant. In consolidation, the obtained results led the researchers to the
50

decision of rejecting the null hypothesis and retaining the alternative hypothesis.

Discussion

The findings of this present study were consistent with the reasoning that the

obtained data from the standardized tool, Victims of Gaslighting Questionnaire and

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation shows a strong significance and the interpretation

indicates a positive linear relationship among the variables.

In Table 3, the analysis of data revealed that the past experiences of young adult

men upon being gaslighted in their previous romantic relationships and their difficulties

in performing emotion regulation are positively correlated. Howsoever, the magnitude or

the strength of the relationship was interpreted as a weak correlation considering that the

mean scores for both variable gaslighting and difficulties in emotion regulation were

found as average. This finding was supported by the theory of cognitive dissonance or the

process of having extreme contradictions between human attitude and behavior

(Festinger, 1962; as cited by Howard, 2022) of the gaslightees, particularly, the young

adult men in their experienced situation. The process of motivational conflicts otherwise

known as cognitive dissonance is connected with the source of emotions of humans. To

support this, a previously conducted study by Fontanari et al. (2011) claimed that

difficulties in identifying feelings or emotions require emotional spaces as well as an

extreme mental effort in order to effectively evaluate the situation and resolve the

conflicts arising in gaslightee’s mental states. Overall, the difficulties of the emotion
51

regulatory process of the respondents are relative to the emotions of cognitive dissonance

that influence the selection and evaluation of emotions. Considering that knowledge has

its natural instinct that responds to sensory input connected to most emotions.

As evidently shown in the result of the study, there is a positive linear

relationship between gaslighting and difficulties in emotion regulation even though the

strength between the two variables indicates a weak strength of the relationship. As

proposed by Podosky (2020), the act of exerting a controlling behavior of the abuser

(gaslighter) marks the cognitive and affective components of intellectual self-trust among

victims (gaslightee). However, a possible reason for obtaining an interpretation of a weak

interpretation of the relationship may be caused by several factors that affected the

responses of the gaslightees. One consideration could be, that not all cases of self-trust

inadequacy can be accounted for by cognitive factors alone. According to Podosky

(2020), responses to negative experiences and situations also account affective attitudes

of the gaslightees; another domain that impedes self-trust. In this case, the ability to

respond to a given situation may not be possibly hindered by the gaslightee’s inability to

interpret the reason for gaslighting. Nevertheless, it is due to certain feelings like anxiety,

dejection, pessimism, lack of confidence, and the demand for resolution (Jones, 2012; as

cited by Podosky, 2020) that accounts for the victim’s affective attitudes.
52

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The findings of the research were supported by a similar finding of Sweet (2019)

which explained that gaslighting takes place in an isolated dyad. In contrast, she proposes

that gaslighting draws from and exacerbates the gender-based power imbalances present

in relationships and in the larger social context. This only proved the cognitive

dissonance theory of Festinger (1957) in which he suggests that the inner drive to hold all

our attitudes and behavior in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).

In a similar study of Ben-Eliyahu and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2013) they examined

how self-regulated emotion strategies would influence students’ emotions. Results

suggested that self-regulated emotions were differentially employed based on their

preference, which consequently influences students’ emotions. In connection, the theory

emotional regulation theory of Gross (2001) specifically the emotional strategy of

attentional deployment, which entails process in which an observed behavioral change in

one individual leads to the reflexive production of the same behavior by other individuals

in proximity, with the likely outcome of converging emotionally. Furthermore, students

who heavily rely on ineffective strategies show prolonged frustration, boredom, and

confusion. These studies only prove that there are several reasons for the existence of a

weak correlational relationship between gaslighting and difficulties of emotional

regulation of young adult men.

53

Conclusion

After analyzing the data, the researchers therefore conclude that men agree that

they are being gaslighted resulting to difficulty in emotion regulation most of the time.

Hence, gaslighting has a significant relationship to young adult men's difficulty in

emotion regulation, Reject H and Retain Ha.

O

Further, it highlights the importance of reducing the culture's gender stereotyped

as women, easily labeled as gaslightees, are those who are evidently and frequently being

abused and studied in several aspects while not exploring more on men, easily labeled as

gaslighters, being psychologically abused or emotionally manipulated in relationships

relating to what Bates (2020) and Sweet (2019) have said in their study. This also

provided data between the constructs which have not been further explored, specifically

in the Philippine setting and among men, to give light and to reveal the gaslighting

experience and the difficulty in emotion regulation. This study gives rise to the emerging

construct, especially gaslighting, to be given more exploration as it is now used and

potentially being experienced by everyone in different interpersonal relationships, not

only among spouses or couples. The current research contributes to the understanding of

this complex interpersonal (peer-disagreement) and intrapersonal (self-trust) processes

and explains how this process might affect one's emotion regulation.

Limitations

The present study has limitations that could potentially be the weakness of the
54

existing discourse. The study did not explore various age brackets and different forms of

relationship status. Future studies examining the relationship between gaslighting, and

difficulties of emotional regulation might help build on the current findings by focusing

on various age brackets along with different forms of relationship status. In addition,

some necessary criteria of the participants, such as the duration of commitment from the

past romantic relationship and the period of being currently single, were not considered.

The average length of the previous romantic relationship and being single afterward

could be a factor in obtaining the results.

Recommendations

In view of the conclusion, the researchers highlighted several points which are

proposed to be addressed and improved in the future. Gaslighting as a variable could be

paired with another variable to further examine its concept, for instance, in cognitive

dissonance. Difficulty in Emotion Regulation could be explored in different contexts too

to discover the factors that affect emotion dysregulation. Furthermore, the current

researchers recommend that future researchers who want to explore gaslighting and

difficulty in emotion regulation should find more local review of related literature and

studies that could help to comprehensively obtain strong support. Also, determining the

relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulty in Emotion Regulation should be done in

a larger sample size or a specific population, particularly in a community of

psychologically or domestically abused men. Future researchers should investigate the

level of each sub-variable of Gaslighting and Difficulty in Emotion Regulation among the

chosen population. Moreover, the screening tool created by the researchers could be
55

developed as a psychological assessment, the same as Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire

(VGQ) that was originally validated and tested on female participants in Pakistan; either

norming or refining the instrument could help to develop more appropriate and applicable

tools for another gender, culture, or in widespread use. Finally, different research

approaches could be utilized to comprehensively explore the experiences of men,

statistically and practically, in leveraging further and in-depth concepts.

56

References

Aisha, A. D., Darmawan, C. T., Haya, F., Maharani, N. N., & Khalisa, N. R. (2022).

Gaslighting in Relationships and Its Damaging Impacts on Victims.

Alarcón-Espinoza, M., Sanduvete-Chaves, S., Anguera, M. T., García, P. S., & Moscoso,

S. C. (2022). Emotional Self-Regulation in Everyday Life: A Systematic Review.

Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.884756

Amati, V., Meggiolaro, S., Rivellini, G., & Zaccarin, S. (2018). Social relations and life

satisfaction: the role of friends. Genus, 74(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-

018- 0032-z

Annisa, D., Tentama, F., & Bashori, K. (2021). The role of family support and internal

locus of control in entrepreneurial intention of vocational high school students.

International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(2), 381.

https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i2.20934

Bates, E. A. (2020). “Walking on eggshells”: A qualitative examination of men’s

experiences of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinities,

21(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000203

Bates, Elizabeth (2017) Hidden victims: men and their experience of domestic violence.

In: 5th National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse: Surviving

Domestic Abuse: Experiences, Services and Solutions, 21 November 2017,

London, UK.

Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development:

Raising Gender-Aschematic Children in a Gender-Schematic Society. Signs, 8(4),

57

598–616. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173685

Bernecker, S. (2017). A Causal Theory of Mnemonic Confabulation. Frontiers in

Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01207

Berry, W. (2021, September 13). Not Every Disagreement About Reality Is Gaslighting.

Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-second-noble-

truth/202109/not-every-disagreement-about-reality-is-gaslighting

Berzenski, S. R. (2018). Distinct emotion regulation skills explain psychopathology and

problems in social relationships following childhood emotional abuse and

neglect. Development and Psychopathology, 31(02), 483–496.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579418000020

Bjureberg, J., Ljótsson, B., Tull, M. T., Hedman, E., Sahlin, H., Lundh, L.-G., Bjärehed,

J., DiLillo, D., Messman-Moore, T., Gumpert, C. H., & Gratz, K.L. (2016).

Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation Scale: The DERS-16. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral

Assessment, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9514-x

Boekaerts, M., Cascallar, E. How Far Have We Moved Toward the Integration of Theory

and Practice in Self-Regulation? Educ Psychol Rev 18, 199–210 (2006).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9013-4

Brandão, T., Matias, M., Ferreira, T., Vieira, J., Schulz, M. S., & Matos, P. M. (2020).

Attachment, emotion regulation, and well‐being in couples: Intrapersonal and

interpersonal associations. Journal of Personality, 88(4), 748-761. DOI:

10.1111/jopy.12523
58

Castillo MD, R. R. (2018, September 18). More Filipino men battered by their wives.

Lifestyle Inquirer. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from

https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/306549/filipino-men-battered-wives/

Cherry, K. (2022, April 16). The Role of Correlations in Psychology Research. Verywell

Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-correlation-2794986

Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2019). Emotion regulation, mental health, and social

Cosentino, C. (2012, April 26). Trust in Relationships: A Study to Determine the

Importance of Trust. Charleston, Illinois; Eastern Illinois University.

Demarest, A. A. (2021). What Are Google Forms? How to Use the Online Form Builder.

Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/what-is-google-

forms

DiGiulio, S. (2018). What is gaslighting? And how do you know if it’s happening to you?

NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-gaslighting-how-do-

you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social Role Theory. In SAGE Publications Ltd

eBooks (pp. 458–476). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49

Elise K., G., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2019, May 9). Emotion Regulation Flexibility: Gender

Differences in Context Sensitivity and Repertoire. Emotion Science, 10.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00935

Emotion Regulation and Psychopathology: The Role of Gender. (2012, April). Annual

Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 161-187. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-

59

clinpsy-032511-143109

Festinger, L. (2017). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. In Macat Library eBooks.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912282432

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.

Fletcher, J. (2023). How to Identify a Gaslighting Narcissist. Psych Central.

https://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissist-gaslighting

Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2016). Specificity of relations between adolescents’

cognitive emotion regulation strategies and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Cognition and Emotion, 32(7), 1401–1408.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1232698

Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., Callea, A., Popolo, R., Salvatore, G., Cavallo, F., & Dimaggio,

G. (2018). Emotion dysregulation, impulsivity, and personality disorder traits: A

community sample study. Psychiatry Research, 266, 186–192.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.067

Ghafur, R. D., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation choice: The role of

orienting attention and action readiness. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

(19), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.016

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation

and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the

difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of psychopathology and

behavioral assessment, 26(1), 41-54.

60

Goubet, E. K., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2019, April 8). Emotion Regulation Flexibility:

Gender Differences in Context Sensitivity and Repertoire. Frontiers.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00935/full

Harley, J. M., Pekrun, R., Taxer, J. L., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Emotion Regulation in

Achievement Situations: An Integrated Model. Educational Psychologist, 54(2),

106–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1587297

Harris, M. A., & Orth, U. (2020). The link between self-esteem and social relationships:

A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 119(6), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265

Harris, M., & MacNeill, N. (2021, October 29). Education Today. Education Today.

https://www.educationtoday.com.au/news-detail/Gaslighting--5449

Hassan, M. (2023, February 16). Correlational Research Design - Methods, Types.

Research Method. https://researchmethod.net/correlational-research/

Howard, V. (2022). (Gas) lighting Their Way to Coercion and Violation in Narcissistic

Abuse: An Autoethnographic Exploration. Journal of Autoethnography, 3(1), 84-

102.

Johnson, V. E., Nadal, K. L., Sissoko, D. R. G., & King, R. (2021). “It’s Not in Your

Head”: Gaslighting, ‘Splaining, Victim Blaming, and Other Harmful Reactions to

Microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(5), 1024–1036.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211011963

Kara, F. I., & Yüksel, G. (2022). Focusing on Adolescents’ Emotional Awareness:

Instrument Validation and Evaluation of a Training Program. Participatory

61

Educational Research, 9(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.91.9.4

Karaer, Y., & Akdemir, D. (2019). Parenting styles perceived social support and

emotion regulation in adolescents with internet addiction. Comprehensive

Psychiatry, 92, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.03.003

Kelly, T. J. (2010). Peer Disagreement and Higher‐Order Evidence. Oxford University

Press EBooks, 111–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso

Lennarz, H. K., Hollenstein, T., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kuntsche, E., & Granic, I.

(2018). Emotion regulation in action: Use, selection, and success of emotion

regulation in adolescents’ daily lives. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 43(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418755540

Liew, J., Erbeli, F., Nyanamba, J. M., & Li, D. (2020). Pathways to Reading

Competence: Emotional Self-regulation, Literacy Contexts, and Embodied

Learning Processes. Reading Psychology, 41(7), 633–659.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783145

Lpcc, S. S. (2015). Coping with Narcissistic Confabulators. Psych Central.

https://psychcentral.com/pro/recovery-expert/2015/12/coping-with-narcissistic-

confabulators

Miano, P., Bellomare, M., & Genova, V. G. (2021). Personality correlates of gaslighting

behaviours in young adults. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 27(3), 285–298.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2020.1850893

Monteiro, N. M., Balogun, S. K., & Oratile, K. N. (2014). Managing stress: the influence

of gender, age, and emotion regulation on coping among university students in

62

Botswana. International journal of adolescence and youth, 19(2), 153-173.

Moors, A., & Fischer, M. (2019). Demystifying the role of emotion in behaviour: toward

a goal-directed account. Cognition & Emotion, 33(1), 94–100.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1510381

Obilor, E. I., & Amadi, E. C. (2018). Test for significance of Pearson’s correlation

coefficient. International Journal of Innovative Mathematics, Statistics & Energy

Policies, Research Gate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323522779_Test_for_Significance_of_P

earson's_Correlation_Coefficient

Palmira, M. (2019). How To Solve The Puzzle Of Peer Disagreement. American

Philosophical Quarterly, 56(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/45128645

Panayiotou, G., Panteli, M., & Leonidou, C. (2021). Coping with the invisible enemy:

The role of emotion regulation and awareness in quality of life during the

COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 19, 17-27.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.11.002

Panti, L. T. (2022, July 11). Lawmaker wants Anti-VAWC law to include men, LGBTQ.

GMANetwork.com. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/837774/lawmaker-wants-

anti-vawc-law-to-include-men-lgbtq/story/

Pasnau, R. (2015). Disagreement and the value of self-trust. Philosophical Studies,

172(9), 2315–2339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0413-x

Porcalla, D. (2022, July 12). Lawmaker files bill protecting battered husband |
63

Philstar.com. Philippine Star. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from

https://www.philstar.com/nation/2022/07/12/2194790/lawmaker-files-bill-

protecting-battered-husband

Rice et al., (2018). Adolescent and Young Adult Male Mental Health: Transforming

System Failures into Proactive Models of Engagement. Journal of Adolescent

Health. Retrieved from https://www.jahonline.org/action/showPdf?pii=S1054-

139X%2817%2930407-X.

Rice et al., (2021). Gender norms and the mental health of boys and young men. The

Lancet | Public Health. Retrieved from

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2468-2667%2821%2900138-9.

Riva, C. A. R., Naidas, M. S., Flores, K. B., Agum, A. N. C., & Aclan, E. M. (2022).

Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast: Men and Their Roles in Women Want (h) ing

(s) in Colleen Hoover’s It Ends with Us. 8ISC Proceedings: Arts and Education,

1-1

Robazza, C., & Ruiz, M. C. (2018). Emotional Self-Regulation in Sport and

Performance. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.154

Robins, S. (2018). Mnemonic Confabulation. Topoi-an International Review of

Philosophy, 39(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9613-x

Rolston, A., & Lloyd-Richardson, E. (2017). What is emotion regulation and how do we

do it? The Cornell Research Program on Self-Injury and Recovery.

https://selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu/perch/resources/what-is-emotion-
64

regulationsinfo-brief.pdf

Rovenpor, D. R., Skogsberg, N. J., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2013). The choices we make:

An examination of situation selection i.n younger and older adults. NCBI.

Retrieved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3744769/

Sanchis, A., Grau, D., Reyes - Moliner, A., & Morales-Murillo, C. P. (2020, May 26).

Effects of Age and Gender in Emotion Regulation of Children and Adolescents.

Developmental Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00946

Schwardmann, P., & Van Der Weele, J. J. (2019). Deception and self-deception. Nature

Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1055–1061. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7

Sousha, N. M. (2023, February). Now, You Can Breathe: A Qualitative Study of the

Experiences and Resilience of Egyptian Women Victimized by Narcissistic

Relationships. Journal of International Women's Studies, 25(1), Article 14.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3043&context=jiws

Spear, A. D. (2019). Epistemic dimensions of gaslighting: peer-disagreement, self-trust,

and epistemic injustice. Inquiry, 66(1), 68–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2019.1610051

Stark, C. A. (2019). Gaslighting, Misogyny, and Psychological Oppression. The Monist,

102(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist

Starr, C. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2017). Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory After 34

Years: A Review of its Reach and Impact. Sex Roles, 76(9–10), 566–578.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0591-4

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5),

65

851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843

Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation

takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.80.1.53

Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2019). Emotion regulation, mental health, and social

wellbeing in a young adolescent sample: A concurrent and longitudinal

investigation. Emotion, 19(2), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000432

Whelan, C. (2022). What Is Emotional Self-Regulation and How Do You Develop It?

Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/emotional-self-regulation

Zhang, L. (2015). Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development. Elsevier EBooks,

938–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.2320
66

TABLES

Table 1

Mean of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Mean

Gaslighting 51.1

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 50.5

Table 2

Standard deviation of Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Standard Deviation

Gaslighting 9.03

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 11.2

Table 3

Test of Significant Relationship between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion

Regulation

R-value p-value Decision Inference

0.261*** <0.001 Reject Ho Significant

67

FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Difficulties in Emotion
Gaslighting
Regulation
68

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Survey Letter (Pen & Paper)

Good day!

We are 3rd-year Bachelor of Science Major in Psychology students at the National

University of Manila and currently conducting a study entitled “Am I the Drama? A
Correlational Between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotional Self-Regulation Among
Young Adult Men.” We kindly ask for your spare time in participating in this study, rest
assured that all the data gathered will be highly confidential and will be used for research
purposes only.

Note that this is voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw at any time if you decide
to do so. In line with that, this study might trigger some emotional aspects of your
relationship experience.

You can directly send a message to any one of the researchers for any questions and
clarification.

The researchers

ALCALA, KRISTINE MAE D. - [email protected]

GATANELA, CZEINA JOY R. - [email protected]

NAYRE, ABEGAIL P. - [email protected]

ROLDA, MARISSA S. - [email protected]

69

Appendix B
Survey Message (Online Survey)

Good day!

Are you a
✓ Male?
✓ 18-25 years old?
✓ Currently Single?
✓ Had a past romantic relationship?
Then we are looking for you!

We are 3rd year Bachelor of Science in Psychology students at National University -

Manila and currently conducting a study entitled “Am I The Drama? A Correlational
Study Between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Among Young Adult
Men.”

In this regard, we ask for your spare time to participate in our study. This form will take
5-10 minutes to answer and your willingness to participate in this study would be
appreciated. In return, the researchers will randomly choose 10 participants to in 50 pesos
worth of load.

The attached link is the Consent Form, Confidentiality Agreement, and Screening Form:
https://forms.gle/7TEFnPYeo6Umpwta7

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Researchers:

Alcala, Kristine Mae D. ([email protected])

Gatanela, Czeina Joy R. ([email protected])

Nayre, Abegail P. ([email protected])

Rolda, Marissa S. ([email protected])

70

Appendix C
Consent Form

Good day!

We are 3rd year Bachelor of Science Psychology students at National University - Manila
and currently conducting a study entitled “Am I The Drama? A Correlational Study
Between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Among Young Adult
Men.”

Please consider the information provided carefully before deciding whether to participate
in this research.

Purpose of the research: To determine the relationship between the two interrelated
constructs, gaslighting and difficulties in emotional regulation among young adult men. It
also aims to direct the pervasiveness of this current issue to bring awareness to the target
individuals beforehand to avoid such circumstances that may cause emotional and
psychological danger to well-being.

What you will do in this research: If the participants wish to volunteer, they will be
asked to participate in an actual face-to-face survey conducted by the researchers. In line
with this, the participants will be asked to answer two survey questionnaires namely, the
Victim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ) and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation
(DERS)

Time required: It will take 15-20mins.

Risks: The possible risk that you may encounter is the cause of discomfort or
embarrassment of answering personal questions as you may recall your sensitive
experiences about being potentially emotionally manipulated — gaslighted.

Benefits: This will be highly beneficial for both ends, the researchers and participants. In
a way, the researchers will be able to obtain the necessary data while your participation in
this study, as a respondent, will allow you to become much more aware of the existence
of this form of emotional manipulation, otherwise known as gaslighting.

Confidentiality: The responses gathered from the interview questions will be kept
confidential. Each respondent will not be recognized by their names as they will be
assigned with the use of their random numbers. To ensure the safety of the participants,
the researchers will leave an assurance that all the gathered responses from the screening
tool and research instruments will be erased or disposed of as soon as the final thesis
manuscript has been approved and graded.

Participation and withdrawal: We would like to inform you that your participation in
71

this study is completely voluntary, and you have the right to refuse to participate or
withdraw without penalty or loss of benefits to which you may otherwise be entitled. You
may withdraw by informing us, the researchers, that you no longer want to participate
without further questions to be asked.

Certificate of Consent

I confirm that I understand all the information provided above.

I will take part in this Quantitative Research conducted by Kristine Mae D. Alcala,
Czeina Joy R. Gatanela, Abegail P. Nayre, and Marissa S. Rolda entitled “Am I The
Drama? A Correlational Study Between Gaslighting and Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation Among Young Adult Men.”

 I CONSENT voluntarily to be a participant in this study.

 I DO NOT want to be a participant in this study

Signature over Printed Name: ____________________

Date: ____________________
72

Appendix D
Permission Letter to use DERS
73

Appendix E
Permission Letter to use VGQ
74

Appendix F
Proof of Email and Permission Approved
75
76

Appendix G
Permission Letter to conduct the study
77

Appendix H
Gaslighting Screening Items

Name (Optional): ________________________

Age: _________________________

Directions: Please indicate your answer by putting a check mark ✓on the options on

each statement. This section is a short test to determine if you are potentially being

gaslighted or not.

Disclaimer: You will not receive a mental health diagnosis by taking this test.

Indicators Yes No
1. I found myself feeling sorry in most situations like
owning my previous partner's fault.
2. I often took the blame for compromising with my
previous partner.
3. I felt like I experienced being emotionally
manipulated by my previous partner.
78

Appendix I
Vimctim Gaslighting Questionnaire (VGQ)

AUTHORS: Mahnoor Mahmood Bhatti, Kanwar Hamza Shuja, Muhammad Aqeel,

Zainab Bokhari, Syeda Nasreen Gulzar, Tabassum Fatima, Manahil Sama

INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the questions as honestly as possible. Using the

scale below, indicate your level of agreement or disagreement in the space which is
next to each statement.
SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree U = Undecided/Unclear
A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
SD D U A SA
1. You constantly change your words or thoughts
before speaking.
2. Your point of view is dismissed or said to be
"wrong" completely.
3. You get accused of "overreacting" when you try
to explain your feelings.
4. You apologize without knowing what you did
wrong.
5. Most interactions leave you feeling small or
ashamed of yourself.
6. They assign motives to your actions that are
opposite to your intentions.
7. You often feel that you have to defend your
reality from them.
8. They make you believe that nobody can be
trusted except them.
9. You often find them denying things even when
there is proof.
10. You feel unsure of your decision-making
abilities because of their disagreement.
11. They accused you of lying and manipulation,
when in reality they are the ones doing it.
12. Their positive actions don't compliment their
degrading words.
13. You find yourself questioning your beliefs and
opinions because of their opposition.
14. You often find yourself questioning your own
sanity because of their words.
79

Appendix J
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-16)

Instructions: Please indicate how often the following statements apply to you by
selecting the appropriate option for each item.
AN = Almost Never S = Sometimes AHT = About Half the Time
MOT = Most of the Time AA = Almost Always

AN S AHT MOT AA
1. I have difficulty making sense out
of my feelings.
2. I am confused about how I feel.
3. When I am upset, I have difficulty
getting work done.
4. When I am upset, I become out of
control.
5. When I am upset, I believe that I
will remain that way for a long time.
6. When I am upset, I believe that I’ll
end up feeling very depressed.
7. When I am upset, I have difficulty
focusing on other things.
8. When I am upset, I feel out of
control.
9. When I am upset, I feel ashamed
with myself for feeling that way.
10. When I am upset, I feel like I am
weak.
11. When I am upset, I have difficulty
controlling my behaviors.
12. When I am upset, I believe that
there is nothing I can do to make
myself feel better.
13. When I am upset, I become
irritated with myself for feeling that
way.
14. When I am upset, I start to feel
very bad about myself.
15. When I am upset, I have difficulty
thinking about anything else.
16. When I am upset, my emotions
feel overwhelming.
80

Appendix K

Certificate of Statistician
81

Appendix L

Certificate of Grammarian
82

CURRICULUM VITAE

KRISTINE MAE D. ALCALA

Address: D.Benito St., Carmona, Makati City
Contact no.: 09062531839
Email Address: [email protected]

I. PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth : December 4, 2001
Place of Birth : Bulacan City
Citizenship : Filipino
Sex : Female
Age : 21
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
Father’s Name : Alfredo L.Alcala
Mother’s Name : Edna D. Alcala

II. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Tertiary : National University - Manila
551 M.F. Jhocson St. Sampaloc, Manila,
1008, Philippines
2020 – PRESENT
Secondary : Universirty of Makati
J.P Rizal Ext. West Rembo, Makati,
1215, Philippines
2018 – 2020
: General Pio Del Pilar High School
Osias, Poblacion, Makati,
1210, Philippines
2013 – 2018
Primary : Maximo Estrella Elementary School
3251 J.Magsaysay, Carmona, Makati,
83

1207, Philippines
2007 – 2013
CURRICULUM VITAE

CZEINA JOY R. GATANELA

Dela Costa Homes V Burgos, Rodriguez, Rizal
[email protected]
09953134240

I. PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth : February 11, 2002
Place of Birth : Quezon City
Citizenship : Filipino
Sex : Female
Age : 21
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
Father’s Name : Oscar A. Gatanela
Mother’s Name : Ma. Lydania R. Gatanela

II. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : National University - Manila
551 M.F. Jhocson St. Sampaloc, Manila,
1008, Philippines
2020 - PRESENT
Secondary : Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Marikina
66 Rainbow Street 1811 Marikina, 1860,
NCR, Philippines
2018-2020
: San Jose National High School
San Jose, Rodriguez (Montalban), 1860
Rizal, Philippines
2014-2018
Primary : San Jose Elementary School
84

San Jose, Rodriguez (Montalban), 1860

Rizal, Philippines
2008-2013
CURRICULUM VITAE

ABEGAIL P. NAYRE

I. PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth :
Place of Birth :
Citizenship :
Sex :
Age :
Civil Status :
Religion :
Father’s Name :
Mother’s Name :

II. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Tertiary :
Secondary :
Primary :
85

CURRICULUM VITAE

MARISSA S. ROLDA
Bantayog St., Concepcion 1, Marikina City, 1807
[email protected]
09511128880

I. PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth : March 22, 2002
Place of Birth : San Jose, Guinobatan, Albay
Citizenship : Filipino
Sex : Female
Age : 21
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Christianity – Roman Catholic
Father’s Name : Santiago C. Rolda
Mother’s Name : Mary Jean S. Rolda

II. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Tertiary : National University - Manila
551 M.F. Jhocson St. Sampaloc, Manila,
2020 - Present
Secondary : Marcial O. Rañola Memorial School
San Francisco, Guinobatan Albay
2018 – 2020
: Marcial O. Rañola Memorial School
San Francisco, Guinobatan Albay
2014 – 2018
Primary : Bubulusan Elementary School
Bubulusan, Guinobatan, Albay
2011 – 2014
San Jose Elementary School
San Jose, Guinobatan, Albay
86

2008 – 2011