Preprints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

The Impact of Workplace Gaslighting on Mental Health and Professional Life of Actors

Submitted:

28 September 2026

Posted:

29 September 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between workplace gaslighting and actors’ mental health and professional life in Greece. METHOD We carried out a cross-sectional study in Greece and collected data through an online survey conducted from April 2026 to July 2026. The questionnaire was developed using Google Forms and distributed via social media platforms, including actors groups on Facebook and Instagram. We employed a convenience sample of actors in our study. We used the Gaslighting at Work Scale (GWS) to measure levels of workplace gaslighting among our actors. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-4, the single item job burnout scale, and the single item turnover intention scale to measure anxiety, depression, job burnout, and turnover intention, respectively. RESULTS The study population included 512 actors. Among them, 56.1% were females and 43.9% were males. Mean age of actors was 36.1 years. In our sample, 77.1% (n=395) experienced high levels of workplace gaslighting. After adjustment for gender, age, and work experience we found a positive association between score on the GWS and anxiety (b = 0.793, 95% CI = 0.639 to 0.948, p<0.001), and depression (b = 0.873, 95% CI = 0.711 to 1.035, p<0.001). In other words, actors who experienced higher levels of gaslighting behaviors from their supervisors had also more anxiety and depressive symptoms. After eliminating confounding factors, we found a positive association between score on the GWS and job burnout (b = 0.853, 95% CI = 0.576 to 1.130, p<0.001). Moreover, we found a positive association between score on the GWS and turnover intention (b = 0.725, 95% CI = 0.569 to 0.881, p<0.001). In other words, workplace gaslighting increased levels of job burnout and turnover intention among our actors. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggested that actors who experience higher levels of gaslighting behaviors from their supervisors have also more anxiety and depressive symptoms. Moreover, workplace gaslighting increases levels of job burnout and turnover intention.
Keywords: 
workplace gaslighting
;  
actors
;  
Gaslighting at Work Scale
;  
anxiety
;  
depression
;  
job burnout
;  
turnover intention
Subject: 
Social Sciences  -   Psychology

Introduction

Workplace gaslighting has recently emerged as an important form of psychologically harmful behavior within organizational settings. Although gaslighting was initially examined predominantly in the context of intimate and interpersonal relationships, increasing scholarly attention has been directed toward its occurrence in workplaces, particularly within hierarchical supervisor–subordinate relationships. Workplace gaslighting refers to patterns of behavior through which employees’ perceptions, experiences, memories, judgments, or decisions are denied, distorted, trivialized, or manipulated, potentially undermining their confidence in their own perceptions and professional judgment. Unlike an isolated interpersonal disagreement, workplace gaslighting may involve repeated behaviors that progressively erode an employee’s self-trust and reinforce dependence on a more powerful individual. Recent conceptual and psychometric research has established workplace gaslighting as a distinct organizational phenomenon and has identified loss of self-trust and abuse of power as important dimensions of the construct.[1,2,3,4,5,6]
The emergence of workplace gaslighting as an occupational health concern is consistent with a broader literature demonstrating that adverse psychosocial working conditions can adversely affect employees’ mental health. A systematic meta-review of 37 review studies identified high job demands, low job control, effort–reward imbalance, low relational and procedural justice, role stress, workplace bullying, and low social support as important work-related risk factors for common mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.[7] Similarly, a systematic review of epidemiological evidence reported an association between adverse psychosocial factors at work and the subsequent development of depression.[8] Workplace bullying provides an additional relevant framework, as meta-analytic evidence indicates positive associations between exposure to bullying and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress-related psychological complaints, with longitudinal findings suggesting that the relationship may be bidirectional.[9] These findings suggest that harmful interpersonal experiences within the workplace may constitute important occupational determinants of psychological well-being.
Workplace gaslighting may be particularly detrimental because it can simultaneously affect employees’ psychological resources, perceived control, and confidence in their professional competence. Such characteristics are compatible with established occupational stress frameworks. According to the Job Demands–Resources model, working conditions can be broadly conceptualized as job demands and job resources, with excessive demands contributing to exhaustion and insufficient resources contributing to disengagement and burnout.[10] Evidence further indicates that job demands are positively associated with burnout, whereas job resources are generally associated with more favorable occupational outcomes.[11] Similarly, a meta-analysis of burnout demonstrated that higher job demands, lower resources, and less adaptive organizational attitudes are associated with greater burnout.[12] From this perspective, workplace gaslighting may represent a particularly harmful interpersonal job demand because employees must continuously manage uncertainty, self-doubt, interpersonal tension, and power asymmetry while attempting to perform their professional responsibilities.
These considerations may be particularly relevant to actors. Acting is a distinctive occupation characterized by intense performance expectations, continuous professional evaluation, emotional exposure, interpersonal dependence, competition, and, in many cases, precarious employment conditions. A systematic review of occupational demands among performing artists found that organizational, social, and emotional demands were associated with poorer well-being, whereas social support and performance-related resources were associated with more favorable well-being.[13] A systematic review focusing specifically on live theater actors similarly identified actors as an occupational group exposed to substantial physical, health, and socioeconomic challenges.[14] Thus, the occupational environment in which actors work may be particularly important for understanding their psychological well-being.
Research focusing specifically on actors further emphasizes the importance of interpersonal and organizational factors. In a qualitative study of professional Australian actors, environmental factors influencing psychological well-being included power, interpersonal relationships, lifestyle, and precariousness, while actors also described difficulties related to autonomy, environmental mastery, self-criticism, and psychological well-being.[15] More broadly, performance anxiety has been identified as an important issue among performing artists, and systematic review evidence indicates that anxiety is a significant concern within professional performance contexts.[16] Recent qualitative research among professional Norwegian actors has further highlighted the socially embedded nature of performance anxiety and its consequences for everyday professional work.[17] These findings indicate that actors’ mental health cannot be considered independently of their professional and interpersonal environment.
Despite growing interest in workplace gaslighting, empirical evidence concerning its occupational consequences remains limited. The development and validation of the Gaslighting at Work Scale (GWS) provided an important methodological basis for investigating this phenomenon and demonstrated associations between workplace gaslighting and indicators of mental health and occupational functioning.[18] Subsequent studies among Greek employees and nurses have reported positive associations between workplace gaslighting and anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as adverse occupational outcomes such as burnout, turnover intention, quiet quitting, and reduced work engagement.[19,20,21,22,23,24] These findings are consistent with the broader literature on workplace mistreatment, in which bullying and incivility have been associated with poorer psychological health and stronger intentions to leave employment.[25,26] Nevertheless, evidence concerning actors remains particularly scarce, and it is not known whether workplace gaslighting is similarly associated with mental health and professional outcomes in this occupational group.
Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the association between workplace gaslighting and mental health and professional life among actors in Greece. Specifically, we investigated whether higher levels of workplace gaslighting were associated with greater symptoms of anxiety and depression, higher levels of job burnout, and stronger turnover intention. By simultaneously examining psychological and occupational outcomes, the study seeks to extend the emerging workplace gaslighting literature to the acting profession and to provide evidence regarding the potential occupational health implications of harmful supervisory behaviors among actors.

Methods

Study Design

We carried out a cross-sectional study in Greece and collected data through an online survey conducted from April 2026 to July 2026. The questionnaire was developed using Google Forms and distributed via social media platforms, including actors groups on Facebook and Instagram. In addition, invitations containing the survey link were sent directly to actors through LinkedIn messaging. As a result, a convenience sampling approach was employed. Participants were eligible if they: (1) were practicing as actors the time that study was conducted, (2) worked in a subordinate rather than a managerial or supervisory role, (3) had at least one year of professional experience, and (4) provided informed consent to participate. The study was designed and reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.[27]
The statistical models included one independent variable (i.e., workplace gaslighting) and three potential confounding variables: gender, age, and years of work experience. Based on an anticipated effect size of 0.03 for the relationship between workplace gaslighting and the study outcomes (anxiety, depression, turnover intention, and job burnout), a statistical power of 95%, and a significance level of 5%, the required sample size was calculated to be 436 actors. Sample size estimation was performed using G*Power software version 3.1.9.2.

Measurements

Workplace gaslighting was assessed using the Gaslighting at Work Scale (GWS).[18,28] The GWS is an 11-item instrument designed to evaluate gaslighting behaviors exhibited by supervisors in the workplace. Sample items include: “In the last six months, your supervisor denies saying things that you remember him/her saying,” “In the last six months, your supervisor lies to you,” and “In the last six months, your supervisor makes you depend on him/her for making decisions about your work.” The scale comprises two dimensions: loss of self-trust (five items) and abuse of power (six items). Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Overall GWS scores are calculated as the mean of all item responses, while subscale scores are derived by averaging the corresponding items. Consequently, both the total scale and subscale scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater exposure to workplace gaslighting behaviors by supervisors. The validated Greek version of the GWS was used in the present study.[18,28] Internal consistency was excellent, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.922 for the overall scale. The subscales also demonstrated high reliability, yielding Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.873 for loss of self-trust and 0.873 for abuse of power.
To assess anxiety and depression levels in our sample, we employed the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4).[29] This tool comprises four items: two for anxiety and two for depression. Responses are recorded on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The scores for both anxiety and depression scales span from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. We utilized the validated Greek version of the PHQ-4.[30] In our study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the “anxiety” and “depression” factors were 0.751 and 0.786, respectively.
We used the single-item burnout measure to estimate job burnout in our sample.[31] This item registers values from 0 to 10. Higher values indicate a higher level of job burnout. We used the valid Greek version of the scale.[32]
We used a valid six-point Likert scale to measure turnover intention among our actors. We asked actors “How often have you seriously considered leaving your current job?” and answers were on a scale from 1 (rarely) to 6 (extremely often).[33]

Ethical Issues

We conducted our study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.[34] Moreover, the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Nursing, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens approved our study protocol (approval number; 08, September 24, 2025). We collected our data on an anonymous and voluntary basis. We informed participants about the aim and the design of our study, and they gave their informed consent.

Statistical Analysis

We present categorical variables as numbers and percentages. Also, we use mean, standard deviation (SD), median, interquartile range, minimum value, and maximum value to present continuous variables. We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Q-Q plots to examine the distribution of continuous variables. We found that continuous variables followed normal distribution. Workplace gaslighting was the independent variable, while anxiety, depression, turnover intention, and job burnout were the dependent variables. Moreover, we considered demographic variables (gender, age, and work experience) as potential confounding factors. Thus, we performed simple and multivariable linear regression analysis to identify the association between workplace gaslighting, anxiety, depression, turnover intention, and job burnout. First, we performed simple linear regression analysis, and then we constructed a final multivariable model by eliminating confounders to estimate the independent effect of gaslighting on anxiety, depression, turnover intention, and job burnout. We present unadjusted and adjusted coefficients beta, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. We used the IBM SPSS 28.0 (IBM Corp. Released 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) for the analysis.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics of the study sample are shown in Table 1. The study population included 512 actors. Among them, 56.1% were females and 43.9% were males. Mean age of actors was 36.1 years (SD; 8.1) with a median age of 35 years (interquartile range; 9), a minimum value of 22 years, and a maximum value of 69 years. Mean work experience was 10.6 years (SD; 8.1) with a median of 10 years (interquartile range; 9), a minimum value of 1 year, and a maximum value of 50 years.

Study Scales

Descriptive statistics for the study scales are shown in Table 2. Mean score on GWS was 2.81 (SD; 0.79), while on factors “loss of self-trust” and “abuse of power” was 2.43 and 3.12, respectively. Moreover, abuse of power was more frequent than loss of self-trust in our sample. In our sample, 77.1% (n=395) experienced high levels of workplace gaslighting. Mean score on anxiety and depression was 2.89 and 2.76, respectively. Among actors, 48.4% (n=248) experienced high levels of anxiety, and 42.8% (n=219) experienced high levels of depression. Moreover, 38.5% (n=197) expressed their intention to leave their job. Also, mean job burnout was 6.49 (SD; 2.55) indicating moderate to high levels of job burnout.

Association Between Workplace Gaslighting, Anxiety and Depression

We found that workplace gaslighting increases anxiety and depressive symptoms in our actors (Table 3). After adjustment for gender, age, and work experience we found a positive association between score on the GWS and anxiety (b = 0.793, 95% CI = 0.639 to 0.948, p<0.001), and depression (b = 0.873, 95% CI = 0.711 to 1.035, p<0.001). In other words, actors who experienced higher levels of gaslighting behaviors from their supervisors had also more anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Association Between Workplace Gaslighting, Job Burnout and Turnover Intention

Table 4 shows the results from the linear regression analysis with job burnout and turnover intention as the dependent variables. After eliminating confounding factors, we found a positive association between score on the GWS and job burnout (b = 0.853, 95% CI = 0.576 to 1.130, p<0.001). Moreover, we found a positive association between score on the GWS and turnover intention (b = 0.725, 95% CI = 0.569 to 0.881, p<0.001). In other words, workplace gaslighting increased levels of job burnout and turnover intention among our actors.

Discussion

The present study examined the association between workplace gaslighting and mental health and professional outcomes among actors in Greece. The findings demonstrate consistent positive associations between workplace gaslighting and all four examined outcomes. After adjustment for gender, age, and work experience, higher GWS scores were significantly associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms, higher job burnout, and stronger turnover intention. These findings extend the emerging literature on workplace gaslighting to the acting profession and suggest that harmful supervisory behaviors may represent an important psychosocial occupational exposure for actors.
A particularly notable finding was the high level of workplace gaslighting reported by participants. In the present sample, 77.1% of actors experienced high levels of workplace gaslighting, while the mean GWS score was 2.81. Moreover, the mean score for abuse of power was higher than that for loss of self-trust. This pattern may be relevant to the structure of professional relationships within the acting profession. Actors may depend substantially on directors, producers, casting personnel, or other supervisors for professional opportunities, role allocation, evaluation, and continued employment. Such hierarchical relationships may create conditions in which power-related behaviors have particularly important consequences. The GWS was specifically developed to capture supervisor behaviors that undermine subordinates’ self-trust and involve abuse of power. The predominance of the abuse-of-power dimension in our sample therefore warrants further investigation, particularly in relation to the organizational structures and power dynamics of performing arts environments.
The significant association between workplace gaslighting and anxiety is consistent with both the emerging gaslighting literature and the broader occupational mental health literature. In the present study, higher exposure to gaslighting was associated with higher anxiety symptoms. Similarly, workplace gaslighting was significantly associated with depressive symptoms. These findings are consistent with a recent study among Greek employees, in which higher workplace gaslighting scores were significantly associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms.[22] Comparable associations were also reported among Greek nurses, with higher GWS scores associated with both anxiety-like and depressive-like symptoms.[19] The consistency of these findings across different occupational populations suggests that the potential psychological consequences of workplace gaslighting may extend beyond a particular professional group.
The present findings are also compatible with broader evidence concerning harmful psychosocial working conditions. Harvey et al., in a systematic meta-review, identified workplace bullying, low relational justice, low procedural justice, high job demands, and low social support as work-related risk factors for common mental health problems.[7] Similarly, a meta-analysis of workplace bullying found positive associations with depression, anxiety, and stress-related psychological complaints, while longitudinal evidence suggested that poor mental health may also increase subsequent exposure to workplace bullying.[9] Importantly, these findings suggest that relationships between adverse workplace experiences and mental health may be complex and potentially bidirectional. Accordingly, although the associations observed in our study are substantial, the cross-sectional design does not permit conclusions regarding whether workplace gaslighting precedes psychological symptoms, whether psychological distress influences perceptions of workplace interactions, or whether both processes operate simultaneously.
Workplace gaslighting was also significantly associated with job burnout. This finding is consistent with occupational stress theories and previous empirical research. The Job Demands–Resources model proposes that excessive job demands can progressively deplete employees’ psychological and energetic resources, contributing to exhaustion and burnout.[10] Evidence similarly demonstrates positive associations between job demands and burnout and between job resources and more favorable occupational outcomes.[11] In the context of gaslighting, repeated exposure to denial, manipulation, undermining, and abuse of power may constitute an additional interpersonal demand requiring continuous emotional and cognitive effort. Employees may need to repeatedly reassess their perceptions, defend their decisions, or manage uncertainty regarding interactions with supervisors. Such processes could plausibly contribute to psychological exhaustion, although longitudinal research is required to test this interpretation.
The association between gaslighting and burnout is also consistent with the limited empirical evidence specifically addressing workplace gaslighting. Moisoglou et al. found a significant association between workplace gaslighting and job burnout among Greek nurses.[24] The present findings extend this evidence to actors, suggesting that the relationship may not be restricted to healthcare environments. Nevertheless, the occupational context remains important. Performing artists are exposed to organizational, social, emotional, and interpersonal demands that may influence well-being.[13] Actors may therefore experience gaslighting within an already demanding occupational environment. The combination of performance pressure, professional evaluation, interpersonal dependency, and employment uncertainty may reduce the psychological resources available to cope with additional harmful workplace experiences.
The association between workplace gaslighting and turnover intention represents another important finding. Higher GWS scores were significantly associated with stronger turnover intention. This finding is consistent with research on other forms of workplace mistreatment. A meta-analytic review demonstrated a positive relationship between workplace incivility and employees’ turnover intentions, with the association observed across different sources of incivility.[25] More recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 studies found that workplace bullying was positively associated with turnover intention, including evidence from prospective studies.[26] Furthermore, burnout itself has been associated with turnover intention in meta-analytic research, indicating that occupational exhaustion may represent one pathway linking adverse working conditions to employees’ intentions to leave.[35] The present results are therefore compatible with a broader occupational literature in which harmful interpersonal environments and psychological strain are associated with withdrawal-related outcomes.
The relationship between workplace gaslighting and turnover intention may be particularly meaningful in the acting profession. Actors frequently work within competitive and project-based environments, and professional opportunities may depend on relationships with individuals who possess considerable decision-making authority. The qualitative literature on Australian actors has highlighted power, interpersonal relationships, and precariousness as important environmental factors affecting psychological well-being.[15] If actors perceive their professional environment as psychologically unsafe or persistently invalidating, they may consider leaving a particular production, organization, or professional setting. Importantly, turnover intention should not necessarily be interpreted as an intention to leave the acting profession altogether; rather, the present measure reflects consideration of leaving the current job. This distinction is important when interpreting the occupational implications of the findings.
The findings also have implications for organizational practice. Workplace gaslighting should not be regarded solely as an interpersonal disagreement between individual actors and supervisors. Rather, it may represent a psychosocial workplace exposure with potential implications for mental health and occupational functioning. Organizations and production companies employing actors could consider developing explicit policies regarding psychologically harmful supervisory behaviors, confidential mechanisms for reporting concerns, and training for individuals occupying positions of authority. Organizational processes that promote respectful communication, transparency, psychological safety, and fair treatment may also be relevant. Organizational justice is particularly important because evidence indicates that perceptions of fair treatment are associated with important organizational and employee outcomes.[36] In performing arts environments, such strategies may be especially valuable because actors may have limited power relative to directors, producers, or other decision-makers.
This study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, its cross-sectional design prevents the establishment of causal relationships among workplace gaslighting, anxiety, depression, job burnout and turnover intention. Second, the use of convenience sampling may have introduced selection bias, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Consequently, future research should employ random sampling techniques and recruit more representative actors populations. Furthermore, as the study was conducted within a European context, additional investigations across diverse countries and cultural environments are necessary to determine whether these associations persist in different settings. Third, while multivariable analyses were performed to control for several potential confounding factors, other variables may also have influenced the observed relationships. Future studies should incorporate a broader range of confounders to strengthen the validity of the findings. Finally, validated instruments were used to assess actors’ mental health and work-related experiences. Nevertheless, the reliance on self-reported measures may have introduced information bias, which should be considered when interpreting the results.
Future studies should therefore employ longitudinal designs to examine whether workplace gaslighting precedes changes in anxiety, depression, burnout, and turnover intention. It would also be valuable to investigate potential mediating mechanisms, such as loss of self-trust, psychological distress, emotional exhaustion, reduced organizational trust, and perceived lack of control. Potential protective factors, including social support, organizational justice, psychological safety, autonomy, and supportive leadership, should also be examined. Comparative studies across countries and different performing arts environments could determine whether the associations observed in Greece are consistent across cultural and organizational contexts. In addition, qualitative research could provide greater insight into how actors conceptualize gaslighting, how they distinguish it from ordinary professional criticism, and how they respond to perceived abuse of power.
In conclusion, higher levels of workplace gaslighting were significantly associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms, higher job burnout, and stronger turnover intention among actors in Greece. These findings extend the emerging workplace gaslighting literature to a professional group characterized by distinctive interpersonal, emotional, and occupational demands. Although the cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions, the consistent associations across both mental health and professional outcomes indicate that workplace gaslighting warrants further investigation as a potentially important psychosocial occupational exposure among actors. Longitudinal and cross-cultural research is needed to clarify causal pathways and to identify organizational strategies capable of preventing and addressing psychologically harmful supervisory behaviors in the performing arts.

Funding

none.

Acknowledgments

none.

Conflicts of interest

none.

References

  1. KUKREJA P, PANDEY J. Workplace gaslighting: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a scale. Front Psychol 2023, 14:1099485. [CrossRef]
  2. KLEIN W, LI S, WOOD S. A qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships. Pers Relat 2023, 30:1316–1340. [CrossRef]
  3. BUI THT, NGUYEN TNN, HOANG MA, TRAN TTH. Exploring gaslighting experience and authenticity in romantic relationships among Vietnamese Young adults. Int J Adv Counselling 2026, 48: 8. [CrossRef]
  4. FRASER S. The toxic power dynamics of gaslighting in medicine. Can Fam Physician 2021, 67: 367–368. [CrossRef]
  5. GILLIE G, BOKEK-COHEN Y. Gaslighting of inpatients—A threat to nursing care and a violation of relational autonomy. Nurs Ethics 2025, 32: 2257–2269. [CrossRef]
  6. MOISOGLOU I, KATSIROUMPA A, KATSAPI A, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, GALANIS P. Poor Nurses’ work environment increases quiet quitting and reduces work engagement: A Cross-Sectional Study in Greece. Nurs Reps 2025, 15:19. [CrossRef]
  7. HARVEY SB, MODINI M, JOYCE S, MILLIGAN-SAVILLE JS, TAN L, MYKLETUN A ET AL. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup Environ Med 2017, 74:301–310. [CrossRef]
  8. BONDE JPE. Psychosocial factors at work and risk of depression: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. Occup Environ Med 2008, 65:438–445. [CrossRef]
  9. VERKUIL B, ATASAYI S, MOLENDIJK ML. Workplace bullying and mental health: A meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLoS ONE 2015, 10:e0135225. [CrossRef]
  10. DEMEROUTI E, BAKKER AB, NACHREINER F, SCHAUFELI WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:499–512.
  11. CRAWFORD ER, LEPINE JA, RICH BL. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J Appl Psychol 2010, 95:834–848. [CrossRef]
  12. ALARCON GM. A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. J Vocat Behav 2011, 79:549–562. [CrossRef]
  13. WILLIS S, NEIL R, MELLICK MC, WASLEY D. The relationship between occupational demands and well-being of performing artists: A systematic review. Front Psychol 2019, 10:393. [CrossRef]
  14. MARTIN E, BATTAGLINI C. Health status of live theater actors: A systematic literature review. Med Probl Perform Artists 2019, 34:108–117. [CrossRef]
  15. ROBB AE, DUE C, VENNING A. Exploring psychological wellbeing in a sample of Australian actors. Aust Psychol 2018, 53:77–86. [CrossRef]
  16. NIERING M, MONSBERGER T, SEIFERT J, MUEHLBAUER T. Effects of psychological interventions on performance anxiety in performing artists and athletes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Behav Sci 2023, 13:910. [CrossRef]
  17. SØRENSEN KL, HALD N, OLSEN RM, ØRJASÆRTER KB. Hidden struggles: professional Norwegian actors’ experiences with performance anxiety and its consequences in their daily work. Front Psychol 2026, 17:1803171. [CrossRef]
  18. KATSIROUMPA A, MOISOGLOU I, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, TSIACHRI M, KOLISIATI A, GALANIS P. The gaslighting at work scale: Development and initial validation. J Workplace Behav Health 2025, 41:642-664. [CrossRef]
  19. KATSIROUMPA A, MOISOGLOU I, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, GALLOS P, REKLEITI M, GALANIS P ET AL. Association between workplace gaslighting, mental health and work life in nurses: a cross-sectional study in Greece. AIMS Public Health 2026, 13:573–588. [CrossRef]
  20. MOISOGLOU I, KATSIROUMPA A, PAPATHANASIOU IV, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, YFANTIS A, KATSAPI A ET AL. Association between workplace gaslighting and perceived quality of care, patient safety and quiet quitting: A cross-sectional study among nurses in Greece. Healthcare 2026, 14:450.
  21. KYRIAKATIS G, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, KATSIROUMPA A, MOISOGLOU I, GALANI O, TSIACHRI M ET AL. Workplace gaslighting is associated with workers job burnout and turnover intention in Greece. Int J Caring Sci 2026, 19:51–59.
  22. MOISOGLOU I, KATSIROUMPA A, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, MANGOULIA P, TSIACHRI M, KOINIS A ET AL. Workplace gaslighting: Implications for employees’ mental health and work life in Greece. Healthcare 2025, 13:3255. [CrossRef]
  23. MOISOGLOU I, KATSIROUMPA A, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, PAPATHANASIOU IV, PRASINI I, REKLEITI M ET AL. Resilience protects nurses from workplace gaslighting and quiet quitting, and improves their work engagement: A cross-sectional study in Greece. Healthcare 2025, 13:2064. [CrossRef]
  24. MOISOGLOU I, KATSIROUMPA A, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, PAPATHANASIOU IV, KATSAPI A, PRASINI I ET AL. Workplace gaslighting is associated with nurses’ job burnout and turnover intention in Greece. Healthcare 2025, 13:1574. [CrossRef]
  25. NAMIN BH, ØGAARD T, RØISLIEN J. Workplace incivility and turnover intention in organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021, 19:25. [CrossRef]
  26. SUN S, CHEN H, HE Y, YU F, YANG Y, CHEN H ET AL. Workplace bullying and turnover intentions among workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2025, 25:2394. [CrossRef]
  27. VON ELM E, ALTMAN DG, EGGER M, POCOCK SJ, GØTZSCHE PC, VANDENBROUCKE JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:344–349. [CrossRef]
  28. KATSIROUMPA A, MOISOGLOU I, TSIACHRI M, LAMPRAKOPOULOU K, GALANI O, TSAKALAKI A ET AL. Gaslighting at work scale: Determination of an optimal cut-off point. Int J Caring Sci 2025, 18:614–621.
  29. KROENKE K, SPITZER RL, WILLIAMS JBW, LOWE B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009, 50:613–621.
  30. KAREKLA M, PILIPENKO N, FELDMAN J. Patient Health Questionnaire: Greek language validation and subscale factor structure. Comp Psychiatry 2012, 53:1217–1226. [CrossRef]
  31. HANSEN V, PIT S. The Single Item Burnout Measure is a psychometrically sound screening tool for occupational burnout. Health Scope 2016, 5:e32164.
  32. GALANIS P, KATSIROUMPA A, VRAKA I, SISKOU O, KONSTANTAKOPOULOU O, KATSOULAS T ET AL. The single item burnout measure is a reliable and valid tool to measure occupational burnout. Arch Hellen Med 2024, 41:245–250.
  33. SPECTOR P, DWYER DJ, JEX SM. Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. J Appl Psychol 1988, 73:11–19. [CrossRef]
  34. WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA 2013, 310:2191.
  35. ÖZKAN AH. The effect of burnout and its dimensions on turnover intention among nurses: A meta-analytic review. J Nursing Management 2022, 30:660–669.
  36. COLQUITT JA, CONLON DE, WESSON MJ, PORTER COLH, NG KY. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:425–445. [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample (N=512).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample (N=512).
Characteristics N %
Gender    
 Males 222 43.9
 Females 284 56.1
Age (years)a 36.1 8.1
Work experience (years)a 10.6 8.1
a mean, standard deviation.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the study scales (N=512).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the study scales (N=512).
Scale Mean Standard deviation Median Interquartile range Minimum value Maximum value
Gaslighting at Work Scale 2.81 0.79 2.86 1.18 1 5
 Loss of self-trust 2.43 0.81 2.40 1.20 1 5
 Abuse of power 3.12 0.86 3.17 1.17 1 5
Patient Health Questionnaire-4 5.22 2.91 5.00 4.00 0 12
 Anxiety 2.71 1.52 2.00 2.00 0 6
 Depression 2.51 1.62 2.00 1.00 0 6
Turnover intention 3.27 1.49 3.00 2.00 1 6
Job burnout 6.49 2.55 7.00 3.00 0 10
Table 3. Linear regression models with anxiety and depression as the dependent variables (N=512).
Table 3. Linear regression models with anxiety and depression as the dependent variables (N=512).
Dependent variable
Independent variable 		Univariate models Multivariable modela
Unadjusted coefficient beta 95% CI for beta P-value Adjusted coefficient beta 95% CI for beta P-value
Anxietyb            
 Score on GWS 0.821 0.668 to 0.974 <0.001 0.793 0.639 to 0.948 <0.001
Depressionc            
Score on GWS 0.910 0.750 to 1.071 <0.001 0.873 0.711 to 1.035 <0.001
a Multivariable models are adjusted for gender, age, and work experience. b R2 for the multivariable model = 20.0%, p-value for ANOVA < 0.001. c R2 for the multivariable model = 21.1%, p-value for ANOVA < 0.001. CI: confidence interval; GWS: Gaslighting at Work Scale.
Table 4. Linear regression models with job burnout and turnover intention as the dependent variables (N=512).
Table 4. Linear regression models with job burnout and turnover intention as the dependent variables (N=512).
Dependent variable
Independent variable 		Univariate models Multivariable modela
Unadjusted coefficient beta 95% CI for beta P-value Adjusted coefficient beta 95% CI for beta P-value
Job burnoutb            
 Score on GWS 0.900 0.629 to 1.171 <0.001 0.853 0.576 to 1.130 <0.001
Turnover intentionc            
Score on GWS 0.731 0.580 to 0.883 <0.001 0.725 0.569 to 0.881 <0.001
a Multivariable models are adjusted for gender, age, and work experience. b R2 for the multivariable model = 7.6%, p-value for ANOVA < 0.001. c R2 for the multivariable model = 13.9%, p-value for ANOVA < 0.001. CI: confidence interval; GWS: Gaslighting at Work Scale.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.