Extracting implicit theories about the risk of coercive control in romantic relationships

People readily make attributions about the likely behavior of others, based on very limited information. We exploited this tendency to assess people's sensitivity to personological and social‐circumstantial evidence of risk of coercive control in romantic relationships, by unobtrusively varying information about a fictitious couple in a between‐groups design and asking viewers to make predictions about the feelings and behavior of the three characters–a man, his girlfriend, and his sister. Key features of the story were systematically altered to elicit attributions of the man's aggressive and jealous inclinations to see if people are sensitive to the psychological link between sexually proprietary inclinations and risk of violence. The story manipulations were effective in eliciting attributions of the man's aggressive inclinations, of the woman's polyandrous inclinations, and of the man's likely jealousy. As expected, people predicted that an aggressive and jealous man would be likely to use violence and other controlling actions against his girlfriend.     

PERSUASIVE REASONING AND DEFECTIVE ACTION1

The idea that the operations of the mind are carried out discursively, even linguistically, has won wide acceptance among contemporary Thomists. What has not been explored, however, is the role of persuasion in motivating the actions of the intellect and will. This paper explores the possibility that some form of persuasive discourse is employed by the mind to move the intellect and will to precipitate action. Drawing on essentialism as a foundational ontology, I offer a prefatory theory of persuasive reasoning –‘natural rhetoric’– to explain how it is that we persuade ourselves (and others) to do things, including things that are defective.