How bad is bad? Perceptual differences in the communication of severity in intimate partner violence

Accurate communication of IPV severity is crucial for appropriate evaluations in legal, custody, and relationship contexts. Mismatches in perception can lead to unfair consequences for offenders (overestimation) or victims (underestimation). This study addresses the lack of controlled research on this communication gap by developing a method to quantify perceptual differences in IPV severity. The research focuses on autobiographical accounts of physical, sexual, and psychological IPV from male and female witnesses, victims, and offenders. IPV encompasses physical, sexual, and psychological harm within intimate relationships, with significant consequences for both victims and perpetrators. Prevalence statistics show high rates of IPV globally, varying across gender and type of violence. Psychological violence, while arguably more common, poses unique challenges for communication due to its context-dependent nature and indirect effects. Perceptual differences arise from variations in information processing, influenced by cognitive biases, heuristics, and past experiences. Media portrayals and cultural norms further shape perceptions. Existing research highlights difficulties in accurately communicating and understanding IPV severity, especially for non-physical violence. Severity ratings often depend on the type of violence and the role of the narrator (victim, offender, bystander). This project aims to improve understanding of this communication gap and develop tools for mitigating perceptual differences in legal and interpersonal settings.

The literature review extensively examines the prevalence and types of IPV, highlighting the challenges in defining and measuring sexual violence. It discusses the impact of gender stereotypes on perceptions of IPV, citing studies showing that female victims and male perpetrators are perceived as more serious. The review explores the influence of cognitive biases, including rape myth acceptance (RMA), on judgments of IPV severity. Studies indicating that men exhibit higher RMA and tend to blame victims more than women are cited. The review also discusses the existing research on perceptual differences in the communication of IPV, noting the lack of a theoretical framework to explain the communication difficulties, particularly regarding psychological violence. Studies showing that the severity of violence tends to be rated differently depending on the type of violence, the role of the narrator (victim, offender, bystander), and the gender of the victim and perpetrator are referenced. These studies lay the groundwork for the current research, which aims to develop a method to quantify and analyze these perceptual differences.

This study employed a mixed-methods design with a between-group variable (self-experienced vs. communicated violence) and within-group variables (type of violence, role, participant gender, victim gender). Two phases were conducted with separate participant groups. Phase 1 involved 287 participants (72 men, 215 women) recruited through Prolific Academics who described nine scenarios of IPV they had experienced (3 as victims, 3 as offenders, 3 as bystanders for each of the 3 violence types). Narratives had to be at least 50 words. Phase 2 involved 489 participants who read and rated the severity of the narratives from Phase 1 (one narrative from each scenario). Narratives were screened for quality and adherence to specified criteria. Severity was rated on a 0-10 scale (0=not serious at all, 10=very serious). In Phase 2, participants also provided keywords and demographic information. Data analysis involved paired samples t-tests, mixed ANOVAs, and Pearson correlations. Pairing strategies varied depending on the variable being analyzed (participants, narratives, or gender). The analyses compared narrators' and recipients' ratings, examining differences across various scenarios (e.g., sexual violence offenders vs. victims) and considering interactions between type of violence, role, and gender. Demographic variables (age, education, income, relationship length) were checked for differences between phases but proved not significantly different and were not used as covariates.

The study's main findings confirmed several hypotheses related to perceptual differences in IPV communication. A general perceptual difference in calibration was found: recipients rated violence significantly higher than narrators (p<0.001). This effect was strongest for physical and sexual violence and less pronounced for psychological violence. The exception was physical violence offender narratives, where narrators rated severity higher than recipients (p<0.001). The perceptual difference in accuracy (correlation between narrator and recipient ratings) was low to moderate across scenarios, being lowest for psychological violence and offender narratives. This suggests difficulty in predicting recipient ratings from narratives, especially for psychological violence and offender accounts. As predicted, victims rated the severity higher than offenders (H3a), and bystanders rated higher than victims and offenders (H3b), supporting the hypothesis on perceptual difference in roles. The study also found a perceptual difference in gender: the discrepancy between narrator and recipient ratings was significantly larger when the victim was female than male (H4a). This was more pronounced for female raters than male raters. However, contrary to expectations, male raters rated violence more severely than female raters (H4b), particularly in scenarios involving female victims. Analyses of severity rating discrepancies between narrators and recipients revealed significant interactions between role and type of violence. This suggests that the perceptual difference in calibration differs depending on whether the narrative describes sexual, psychological, or physical violence.

The findings support the existence of systematic perceptual differences in IPV severity ratings, highlighting the need for caution in legal and other contexts when evaluating IPV based solely on communicated narratives. The consistent calibration effect, particularly for physical and sexual violence, suggests that recipients tend to overestimate severity compared to those who directly experienced the violence. The lower accuracy for psychological violence underscores the difficulty in communicating and interpreting this type of IPV. The role of gender stereotypes is evident in the higher severity ratings for female victims. The unexpected finding of male raters rating violence more severely than female raters requires further investigation. These findings have implications for legal contexts, where jurors, judges, and law enforcement personnel might be subject to these biases. The study's methodology enhances the understanding of how perceptual differences affect IPV communication, providing a framework for future research on improving accuracy and mitigating biases in IPV evaluations.

This study demonstrates significant perceptual differences in the communication of IPV severity. Recipients consistently rate violence more severely than narrators, particularly for physical and sexual violence. Accuracy in predicting recipient ratings from narratives is low, especially for psychological violence and offender narratives. Gender stereotypes influence severity ratings, with female victims often rated more severely. The findings underscore the need for caution in legal settings when interpreting IPV narratives and highlight the potential for bias. Future research could explore interventions to reduce these perceptual differences through education and training for professionals and the general public.

The study's limitations include the reliance on self-reported narratives from a specific population (heterosexual, UK residents, aged 18-45). The exclusion of some participants in Phase 1 might have introduced bias. Future studies should explore a broader range of participants and contextual factors to enhance generalizability. The study focused on identifying perceptual differences, rather than investigating underlying cognitive biases, limiting causal interpretations. The use of self-reported data is also a limitation, as it might be influenced by recall bias or social desirability.