Effect sizes and effect size benchmarks in family violence research.

Scholarly journals increasingly request that authors include effect size (ES) estimates when reporting statistical results. However, there is little guidance on how authors should interpret ESs. Consequently, some authors do not provide ES interpretations, or, when interpretations are provided, they often fail to use appropriate reference groups, using instead the ES benchmarks suggested by Cohen (1988). After discussing the most commonly used ES estimates, we describe the method used by Cohen (1962) to develop ES benchmarks (i.e., small, medium, and large) for use in power analyses and describe the limitations associated with using these benchmarks. Next, we establish general benchmarks for family violence (FV) research. That is, we followed Cohen's approach to establishing his original ES benchmarks using family violence research published in 2021 in Child Abuse & Neglect, which produced a medium ES (d = 0.354) that was smaller than Cohen's recommended medium ES (d = 0.500). Then, we examined the ESs in different subspecialty areas of FV research to provide benchmarks for contextualized FV ESs and to provide information that can be used to conduct power analyses when planning future FV research. Finally, some of the challenges to developing ES benchmarks in any scholarly discipline are discussed. For professionals who are not well informed about ESs, the present review is designed to increase their understanding of ESs and what ES benchmarks tell them (and do not tell them) with respect to understanding the meaningfulness of FV research findings.

Perpetrators', Victims', and Witnesses' Folk Explanations of Aggressive Behaviors.

Unsurprisingly, victims and perpetrators often view aggressive behaviors differently. The current study examined whether victims, perpetrators, and witnesses also explained aggressive behaviors differently. The current study included 408 participants who recalled a time when they harmed another person (i.e., perpetrator memory), when another person harmed them (i.e., victim memory), and when they witnessed an aggressive behavior (i.e., witness memory). Replicating past research, participants rated their recalled aggressive behaviors from the victim perspective as being more harmful and less justified than they did for their recalled behaviors from the perpetrator perspective. When examining their explanations for the behaviors, participants most often explained their own aggressive behaviors by referring to their mental deliberations that led to their behavior (i.e., reason explanations). In comparison, they referred to background causal factors (i.e., causal history of reasons explanations)-such as personality traits, demographic factors, cultural norms, etc.-more when explaining others' aggressive behaviors, especially when the explanation was from the victim perspective. These findings show the subtleties in how people communicate about their aggressive interactions: When communicating about their own aggressive behaviors, people use modes of explanations that portray their behaviors as sensible, and when communicating about a time when another person behaved aggressively towards them, people use modes of explanations that omit the thought processes that led to those behaviors.