This article presents two evolutionary models that may explain relationships between war and socialization of children: the "environmentally contingent reproductive strategy" (ECRS) model put forward by Draper and Harpending (1982), and a model put forward by Carol and Melvin Ember. Results do not provide support for the hypotheses involving father-infant sleeping proximity derived from the ECRS model. The authors also find some inconsistencies with their own model.

This article presents two evolutionary models that may explain relationships between war and socialization of children: the "environmentally contingent reproductive strategy" (ECRS) model put forward by Draper and Harpending (1982), and a model put forward by Carol and Melvin Ember. Results do not provide support for the hypotheses involving father-infant sleeping proximity derived from the ECRS model. The authors also find some inconsistencies with their own model.

This article presents two evolutionary models that may explain relationships between war and socialization of children: the "environmentally contingent reproductive strategy" (ECRS) model put forward by Draper and Harpending (1982), and a model put forward by Carol and Melvin Ember. Results do not provide support for the hypotheses involving father-infant sleeping proximity derived from the ECRS model. The authors also find some inconsistencies with their own model.

This article presents two evolutionary models that may explain relationships between war and socialization of children: the "environmentally contingent reproductive strategy" (ECRS) model put forward by Draper and Harpending (1982), and a model put forward by Carol and Melvin Ember. Results do not provide support for the hypotheses involving father-infant sleeping proximity derived from the ECRS model. The authors also find some inconsistencies with their own model.

This article presents two evolutionary models that may explain relationships between war and socialization of children: the "environmentally contingent reproductive strategy" (ECRS) model put forward by Draper and Harpending (1982), and a model put forward by Carol and Melvin Ember. Results do not provide support for the hypotheses involving father-infant sleeping proximity derived from the ECRS model. The authors also find some inconsistencies with their own model.

This paper supports Beatrice B. Whiting's (1965) sex-identity conflict hypothesis which suggests a relationship between males' early identification with their mothers and male violence. Authors find that, in addition to socialization aggression, frequency of homicide/assault is significantly related to father-infant sleeping distance, particularly when residence is not matrilocal and/or warfare is more than occasional.

This paper reviews the results of the author's cross-cultural studies of war and aggression and their implications for prehistory.

This study explores several correlates of interpersonal violence. Multiple regression analysis suggests that socialization for aggression in boys in late childhood is the strongest predictor of higher rates of homicide and assault. Path analysis suggests that socialization for aggression is a consequence, not a cause, of war.

This article tests various explainations for corporal punishment of children, including social complexity, a societal culture of violence, and whether help in child rearing is available. Analysis suggests that corporal punishment may be a parent's way to prepare children for societal power inequality.

This article tests various explainations for corporal punishment of children, including social complexity, a societal culture of violence, and whether help in child rearing is available. Analysis suggests that corporal punishment may be a parent's way to prepare children for societal power inequality.