Effect sizes are underappreciated and often misinterpreted—the most common mistakes being to describe them in ways that are uninformative (e.g., using arbitrary standards) or misleading (e.g., squaring effect-size rs). We propose that effect sizes can be usefully evaluated by comparing them with well-understood benchmarks or by considering them in terms of concrete consequences. In that light, we conclude that when reliably estimated (a critical consideration), an effect-size rof .05 indicates an effect that is very smallfor the explanation of single events but potentially consequential in the not-very-long run, an effect-size rof .10 indicates an effect that is still smallat the level of single events but potentially more ultimately consequential, an effect-size rof .20 indicates a mediumeffect that is of some explanatory and practical use even in the short run and therefore even more important, and an effect-size rof .30 indicates a largeeffect that is potentially powerful in both the short and the long run. A very largeeffect size (r= .40 or greater) in the context of psychological research is likely to be a gross overestimate that will rarely be found in a large sample or in a replication. Our goal is to help advance the treatment of effect sizes so that rather than being numbers that are ignored, reported without interpretation, or interpreted superficially or incorrectly, they become aspects of research reports that can better inform the application and theoretical development of psychological research.