The Reality Gap Index

High Denial (46–70)

You tend to view violent confrontation as unlikely, exaggerated, or something that happens only to others. This outlook can offer comfort, but it may also leave you underprepared if conflict becomes unavoidable. High denial can delay recognition of danger, limit attention to surroundings, and reduce motivation to learn self-protection skills. With gentle introduction to realistic – but not overwhelming – training and information, you can build more flexible and empowered responses without losing your sense of normality or optimism.

Low Denial (10–25)

You recognise that violent confrontation can occur in ordinary environments, and you are willing to face that reality without minimising it. You are more likely to pay attention to early warning cues, take advice on de-escalation seriously, and consider proactive preparation to be sensible rather than fear-based. This mindset provides a strong foundation for personal safety because awareness precedes effective action. Continued The Reality Gap training and reflection can further strengthen this realistic and grounded approach.

Moderate Denial (26–45)

You acknowledge that violence exists, but you may distance it from your own daily experience or prefer not to think about it too much. This is a common stance – it helps reduce anxiety but can interfere with recognising risk early or making good decisions under pressure. You may assume that authority figures or others will manage threats, or that “staying out of trouble” is protection enough. Developing a little more awareness, without slipping into worry or hypervigilance, can substantially increase your ability to respond effectively if a situation escalates.

How to Read Your DVCS Score

Your score sits within the full range below. This helps place your result in context and shows how different levels of denial may affect awareness and preparedness.

Very Low Self-Efficacy (20–49)

You feel highly vulnerable in the face of violent confrontation. You would likely experience high stress reactivity, low confidence in responding to threat, and may freeze, avoid, or dissociate under pressure. You may benefit most from foundational psychoeducation, somatic grounding, and trauma-informed skills initially.

Low to Moderate Self-Efficacy (50–79)

You believe you would display partial readiness across domains, but may lack confidence in either verbal boundary-setting, physical protection, or post-incident recovery. You may experience hesitation, inconsistency, or overwhelm in real-world encounters. You would benefit from targeted development in weaker subdomains.

Moderate to High Self-Efficacy (80–109)

You believe you have solid internal resources, awareness, and a basic ability to act under pressure. You may still have domain-specific vulnerabilities, but believe you demonstrate resilience and a functional capacity to navigate confrontation. You may be suited for advanced scenario-based or stress inoculation training.

High Self-Efficacy (110–124)

You feel competent across all dimensions: mental readiness, verbal defence, physical self-protection, and psychological recovery. You believe you can apply skills under duress and adjust fluidly. You may be well-positioned for training leadership roles, peer modelling, or instructor pathways.

Very High Self-Efficacy (125–140)

You believe you demonstrate exceptional psychological and physical readiness for violent confrontation. You feel habituated to pressure, fluent in adaptive strategies, and resilient to aftermath effects. You believe you possess embodied mastery, composure, and prosocial assertiveness even under threat. (Consider your RGI score below first.)

How to Read Your VC-SES Score

Your score sits within the full range below. This helps place your result in context and shows how your current level of self-efficacy may affect readiness, performance, and recovery in the face of violent confrontation.

Low Training Fidelity (17–47)

Your training appears to diverge quite a lot from real-world conditions. You may be missing key elements such as realistic pressure, emotionally meaningful scenarios, or socially believable role-play. This can limit transfer into real confrontations.

Developing Training Fidelity (48–77)

Some aspects of your training are realistic, but there are notable gaps. Strengthening scenario design, stress exposure, and decision-making under pressure could significantly increase real-world transfer.

High Training Fidelity (78–97)

Your training has strong realism across physical, psychological, and social dimensions. This should support good skill transfer—especially if paired with progressive intensity and recovery practices.

Very High Training Fidelity (98–119)

Your training appears highly aligned with real-world conditions and demands. This is a strong base for advanced scenario work, stress inoculation, and pressure-tested skill refinement.

Your Reality Gap Index (RGI)

Your RGI score is: