When “Credible” Isn’t Accurate: What a UVB Lamp Taught Me About Coercive Control
- Renee Spencer
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
We all know that even reliable sources can get things wrong. What’s more interesting is how they get things wrong—and what that reveals about the way we make decisions.
Last week, I had an experience that became an unexpected analogy for understanding coercive control and high control groups. Stay with me, because it starts with something very ordinary: shopping for a UVB lamp.
A Simple Decision… Or So I Thought
I was looking to purchase a UVB lamp to help manage a skin condition. As anyone who has searched for one knows, there’s a lot of variation—different price points, different claims, different “levels” of effectiveness.
So I did what many people do: I sought guidance. I turned to ChatGBT which we all know can make mistakes but it seemed like a better option than trying to work it all out by myself.
The advice I received broke down the options and highlighted key decision-making criteria—function, price, and supporting evidence. Chat GBT flagged one model as “suspect” because it relied on self-reported customer feedback rather than third-party data. It also noted that this model was on the cheaper end of the spectrum, that is $299.
Instead, a slightly more expensive version ($399) was recommended—positioned as more reliable due to its “stronger” evidence base.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Here’s the catch: they were the exact same lamp.
Same model. Same image. Same specifications.
The only difference was presentation.
One was marketed with subjective testimonials. The other appeared more credible because of how the information was framed.
Why This Matters
This is where critical thinking becomes essential.
Because just like the UVB lamp comparison, we often make decisions based not on the reality of something, but on how it is presented to us.
And that’s exactly where coercive control begins to operate.
What This Has to Do With High Control Groups
In my work, I use a 12-point rubric to assess coercive control in groups. What this experience highlighted is how easily several of these features can show up in subtle, everyday ways.
Let’s look at a few:
1. Control Over Information
High control groups don’t always start with obvious censorship. Often, they begin by curating information—presenting selective data, emphasising certain narratives, and downplaying others.
In my example, both products were identical. But the way the information was framed created a false sense of hierarchy.
2. Deception
Deception isn’t always outright lying. It can be exaggeration, omission, or presenting opinion as fact.
Nothing I encountered was technically “false”—but it led me toward an incorrect conclusion.
3. Authoritative Leadership
When something—or someone—appears authoritative, we are more likely to trust it.
Whether it’s a leader, a system, or even a tool, perceived authority can cause us to lower our guard and outsource our judgement.
The Power of Stacked Influence
Here’s the key point:
A group might have strong leadership but still allow questioning.It might promote a particular worldview without restricting access to outside ideas.
But when multiple features begin to stack—
control over information
subtle deception
authoritative positioning
thought influence
—that’s when influence shifts into coercive control.
The Real Takeaway About Coercive Control
This experience isn’t about rejecting advice or becoming cynical.
It’s about recognising how easily perception can be shaped—and why it’s so important to stay engaged in your own decision-making process.
Because something can:
look credible
sound informed
appear trustworthy
…and still be flawed.
Healthy environments—whether they’re communities, organisations, or belief systems—don’t require blind trust.
They:
invite questions
tolerate scrutiny
allow disagreement
respect your autonomy
High control environments do the opposite.
They rely on you not questioning.They rely on presentation over reality.They rely on trust without verification.
Final Thought
The lesson here is simple, but powerful:
Don’t hand over your critical thinking.
Use multiple criteria. Look for patterns. Ask questions—even when something seems credible.
Because your ability to evaluate what’s in front of you isn’t just helpful—it’s protective.
Comments