News · Health

Gaslighting and the Limits of Psychological Authority

By AWEI · AI-compiled · Published 2026-09-14 · 2 sources · magazin.hrt.hr, www.virovitica.net

A gaslighting explainer and a Croatian journal appointment show why psychological authority needs clear definitions and evidence.

A disagreement about what happened in a relationship is not, by itself, gaslighting. In HRT’s account of the PSIHOLOGiJA podcast, psychiatrist Milena Skočić Hanžek describes a sustained pattern that makes someone doubt their experience. The stake is being able to describe harmful treatment precisely without turning every conflict into a diagnosis. Her distinction provides a framework for discussing conduct and establishes its central limit: an illustrative behavior cannot settle what is happening in a particular relationship without the relevant context.

Clear labels need clear boundaries

Conditional apologies, persistent blame, contradictory messages and projection appear among the examples she gives, according to HRT. Their explanatory value depends on keeping the sustained-pattern condition attached. A list detached from that condition could encourage readers to treat a single incident as decisive. Conversely, language describing only generic disagreement could fail to communicate the pattern the expert identifies. The benefit lies in vocabulary precise enough to discuss conduct and voice a boundary, while leaving room for context and avoiding unsupported conclusions about a person’s motives.

Skočić Hanžek discusses partnerships, families, friendships and workplaces, and links prolonged exposure to distress, chronic stress and possible physical illness. HRT supplies no study or numerical risk estimate for those health claims. An attributed expert account therefore remains distinct from a quantified clinical finding. Naming a behavior can give a conversation something specific to address; it does not independently establish a diagnosis, predict harm or ensure safety. Greater familiarity with a term would also be insufficient evidence that people recognize its boundaries or use it accurately.

Professional standing opens a separate question

Virovitica.net reports a different development: psychologist Siniša Brlas became an editor at Klinička psihologija after reviewer work. He heads the Croatian Psychological Society’s Clinical Psychology Section and leads addiction prevention and mental health work at the Sveti Rok Public Health Institute. The report also identifies his county commission chairmanship and Ramiro Bujas Psychology Award. These roles provide context for considering how practice might inform publishing. They establish no collaboration with Skočić Hanžek and offer no independent validation of the separate HRT explanation.

A plausible exchange would begin with questions arising in public-health practice, then subject resulting claims to editorial scrutiny. That could connect practical concerns with research priorities without treating experience as a substitute for evidence. But the appointment might simply recognize Brlas’s existing standing. Virovitica.net’s celebratory report gives neither an appointment date nor a journal statement explaining his remit. It cannot show whether editorial priorities, review methods or public understanding have changed. His credentials are relevant background; their effect on the journal remains an open question.

Make the basis of expertise inspectable

Red Antler’s State of Brand 2026 (2026) offers a narrow lens: make claims available for inspection and distinguish endorsement from independent evaluation. This consultancy synthesis addresses brand and marketing leaders, using predominantly US examples within an inconsistently defined geography. Its 2026 outlook supplies no clinical population or primary study testing effects on trust. Applied here, the lens concerns communication: identify expertise, explain boundaries and make supporting methods visible. It provides no medical evidence or validation of either news report, and selective transparency could still leave consequential gaps.

The common question is what psychological authority enables people to examine. Readers could benefit when an accessible explanation distinguishes a sustained pattern from an isolated action; they could be poorly served if professional prestige substitutes for those conditions. The two reports do not corroborate each other or demonstrate a wider improvement in psychological communication. One explanation may be useful entirely on its own terms, while one appointment may leave publishing practices unchanged. Accessibility and credentials each have a role, but neither establishes how well every claim is supported.

Future explainers would support this standard if they retain the sustained-pattern distinction and identify evidence behind health claims. For the journal, confirmation of Brlas’s remit and examples of practice-informed questions undergoing review would make the possible exchange assessable. Continued biographical coverage would leave it untested. Even better disclosure would not demonstrate improved clinical outcomes. Precise language with visible limits can help articulate concerns about conduct while keeping an isolated disagreement, a professional title or an illustrative example from carrying more evidentiary weight than it can bear.

All newsNews archive