In this article, the authors explore cultural variables that they propose contribute to the maintenance of peace in non-warring societies. These variables are compared in 16 peaceful systems (as coded by the authors from anthropological and historical data) and in 30 warring societies taken from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS). Findings associate more peaceful cultures with peace systems, and non-peaceful cultures with warring societies.

In this article, the authors explore cultural variables that they propose contribute to the maintenance of peace in non-warring societies. These variables are compared in 16 peaceful systems (as coded by the authors from anthropological and historical data) and in 30 warring societies taken from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS). Findings associate more peaceful cultures with peace systems, and non-peaceful cultures with warring societies.

In this article, the authors explore cultural variables that they propose contribute to the maintenance of peace in non-warring societies. These variables are compared in 16 peaceful systems (as coded by the authors from anthropological and historical data) and in 30 warring societies taken from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS). Findings associate more peaceful cultures with peace systems, and non-peaceful cultures with warring societies.

This paper seeks to understand how the conflict resolution strategies of indigenous and non-indigenous groups differ in their efficacy. The authors suggest that indigenous methods of conflict resolution are more effective than non-indigenous methods by demonstrating that subjects from the Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) associated with indigenous conflict management (ICM) will co-occur less frequently with OCM terms related to conflict than subjects related to non-ICM. They tested this by selecting OCM subjects that they felt best represented ICM, non-ICM, and instances of conflict and using chi-square tests to show how often these subjects co-occurred. They subsequently split up the "conflict" variable into four forms of conflict in order to show whether any of these forms might be more frequently found associated with ICM or non-ICM subjects. The results showed that conflict subjects were more likely to co-occur with non-ICM subjects, and that sociocultural/interpersonal conflicts were more likely to be associated with ICM subjects, whereas political conflicts were more likely to be associated with non-ICM subjects.

This paper seeks to understand how the conflict resolution strategies of indigenous and non-indigenous groups differ in their efficacy. The authors suggest that indigenous methods of conflict resolution are more effective than non-indigenous methods by demonstrating that subjects from the Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) associated with indigenous conflict management (ICM) will co-occur less frequently with OCM terms related to conflict than subjects related to non-ICM. They tested this by selecting OCM subjects that they felt best represented ICM, non-ICM, and instances of conflict and using chi-square tests to show how often these subjects co-occurred. They subsequently split up the "conflict" variable into four forms of conflict in order to show whether any of these forms might be more frequently found associated with ICM or non-ICM subjects. The results showed that conflict subjects were more likely to co-occur with non-ICM subjects, and that sociocultural/interpersonal conflicts were more likely to be associated with ICM subjects, whereas political conflicts were more likely to be associated with non-ICM subjects.

This paper seeks to understand how the conflict resolution strategies of indigenous and non-indigenous groups differ in their efficacy. The authors suggest that indigenous methods of conflict resolution are more effective than non-indigenous methods by demonstrating that subjects from the Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) associated with indigenous conflict management (ICM) will co-occur less frequently with OCM terms related to conflict than subjects related to non-ICM. They tested this by selecting OCM subjects that they felt best represented ICM, non-ICM, and instances of conflict and using chi-square tests to show how often these subjects co-occurred. They subsequently split up the "conflict" variable into four forms of conflict in order to show whether any of these forms might be more frequently found associated with ICM or non-ICM subjects. The results showed that conflict subjects were more likely to co-occur with non-ICM subjects, and that sociocultural/interpersonal conflicts were more likely to be associated with ICM subjects, whereas political conflicts were more likely to be associated with non-ICM subjects.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.