Fig 1.
A conceptual illustration of the Calibration and Accuracy PDs.
Note. The upper-left panel illustrates an efficient communication of severity of violence (i.e., low Calibration PD and low Accuracy PD) whereas the lower-right panel poor communication (i.e., high Calibration PD and high Accuracy PD). The upper-right panel shows poor calibration but good accuracy, whereas the lower-left panel good calibration but poor accuracy.
Fig 2.
Narrator ratings of severity of violence divided by type of violence and gender in Phase 1.
Note. F (hollow circle) stands for female and M (filled circle) for male gender, psychological violence is on the left side and physical on the right side. Bars show 95% confidence interval.
Table 1.
ANOVA tables for narrator ratings by type of violence, Phase 1.
Fig 3.
Difference score between severity ratings of violence for narrator and rater in Phase 2.
F (hollow circle) stands for female and M (filled circle) for male gender, psychological violence is on the left side and physical on the right side. Bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Table 2.
ANOVA tables for difference score between narrator and rater by type of violence, Phase 2.
Fig 4.
The severity of violence as evaluated by the raters as a function of the evaluation of the narrators for all participants (men and women) in Phase 2.
The data are divided into physical (red) and psychological (blue) violence. Each dot (N = 340) represents one narration. The straight dotted lines are fitted linear curves. The circles with solid lines represent averaged severity ratings.
Fig 5.
Difference score between severity ratings of violence for narrator and rater in Phase 3 using gender-reversed narrator stories.
F (hollow circle) stands for female and M (filled circle) for male gender, psychological violence is on the left side and physical on the right side. Bars show 95% confidence interval.
Table 3.
ANOVA tables for difference score between narrator and rater by type of violence, gender reversed narratives, Phase 3.
Table 4.
ANOVA table for rating of seriousness by type of manipulation (original, gender reversed), perceived gender of the narrator, and rater gender.
Fig 6.
Comparison of ratings of original narratives and gender-reversed narratives by perceived gender and psychological violence.
Hollow circles stand for female and filled circles for male gender, original ratings are on the left side and gender reversed on the right. Bars show 95% confidence interval.
Table 5.
ANOVA comparing ratings of narratives of psychological violence for the original version, and the gender reversed version (Phase 2 and 3).
Fig 7.
Comparison of ratings of original narratives and gender-reversed narratives by perceived gender and physical violence.
Hollow circles stand for female and filled circles for male gender, original ratings is on the left side and gender reversed on the right side. Bars show 95% confidence interval.