Intimate partner aggression - What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000)

Jacquelyn W. White, Paige Hall Smith, Mary P Koss, Aurelio J Figueredo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

114 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis. and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)690-696
Number of pages7
JournalPsychological Bulletin
Volume126
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aggression
Meta-Analysis
Violence
Databases
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Intimate partner aggression - What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). / White, Jacquelyn W.; Smith, Paige Hall; Koss, Mary P; Figueredo, Aurelio J.

In: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, 09.2000, p. 690-696.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dbed0280bf99489ea02eb8474743f769,
title = "Intimate partner aggression - What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000)",
abstract = "This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis. and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.",
author = "White, {Jacquelyn W.} and Smith, {Paige Hall} and Koss, {Mary P} and Figueredo, {Aurelio J}",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "690--696",
journal = "Psychological Bulletin",
issn = "0033-2909",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intimate partner aggression - What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000)

AU - White, Jacquelyn W.

AU - Smith, Paige Hall

AU - Koss, Mary P

AU - Figueredo, Aurelio J

PY - 2000/9

Y1 - 2000/9

N2 - This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis. and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.

AB - This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis. and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034263469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034263469&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10989618

AN - SCOPUS:0034263469

VL - 126

SP - 690

EP - 696

JO - Psychological Bulletin

JF - Psychological Bulletin

SN - 0033-2909

IS - 5

ER -