This article investigates relationships among society size, war and conflict, preferred habitats, and belief in moralizing gods. The authors discuss morality and collective action in the face of natural disasters and competition for resources, theorizing that beliefs in moralizing gods could facilitate such cooperation.

This study examines some of the environmental and psychological predictors of warfare frequency and interpersonal aggression. Results suggest that socialization for aggression in boys is the most significant predictor of warfare. However, authors suggest that socialization for aggression may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of war.

In this article, the authors seek to reevaluate Nolan's (2003) study on the primary determinants of war. They reanalyze his hypotheses with what they claim are more robust measures and methodology. They conclude that there is only a little evidence supporting Nolan's theories, that more productive echnology and higher population density predict war, and that overall ecological-evolutionary and sociopolitical explanations of war are equally supported by empirical data.

This article investigates relationships among society size, war and conflict, preferred habitats, and belief in moralizing gods. The authors discuss morality and collective action in the face of natural disasters and competition for resources, theorizing that beliefs in moralizing gods could facilitate such cooperation.

This paper examines the relationship between moralizing gods (gods that impose moral rules or punish those who break them) and social complexity. The authors argue that previous research, which relied on the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample's "moralizing high gods" variable as a proxy measure for the presence of moralizing gods, may have underestimated the presence of moralizing gods in societies. This is because the criteria used to define "moralizing high gods" are not relevant to whether a god is moralistic or punitive. The authors argue that this leads to a false positive association between moralizing gods and social complexity, and that ethnographic evidence suggests that moralizing gods are actually more prevalent in small-scale societies than had previously been thought. Future researchers, therefore, need to be careful about making assumptions about the moralizing gods of small scale societies based on "moralizing high gods", and find other ways to identify whether moralizing gods are present.

This study examines some of the environmental and psychological predictors of warfare frequency and interpersonal aggression. Results suggest that socialization for aggression in boys is the most significant predictor of warfare. However, authors suggest that socialization for aggression may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of war.

This article identifies several methodological errors in the original study or moralizing gods by Roes and Raymond (2003) and presents new multiple regression model. Results suggest that a belief in moralizing gods is spread though cultural transmission, but it is also associated with conditions such as lower agricultural potential and lower external warfare. The authors theorize that moralizing gods have functional purposes such as bolstering property rights or maintaining social hierarchy.

This paper seeks to understand the extent to which religion has been used to legitimize political power in the past, and the extent to which that carries into contemporary institutions. The authors seek to demonstrate that there is a strong link between the stratification of societies in the past and the presence of autocracies in many of those same areas today. They make their case by putting forward, and testing, three linked theories -- first, that stratified societies are more likely to develop religions based on moralizing high gods as a means of divine legitimization, second, that the societies that used religion for legitimacy in their past are more likely to have religion embedded in their institutions today, and third, that societies that used religion for legitimacy in the past are more likely to be autocracies today.

This article investigates relationships among society size, war and conflict, preferred habitats, and belief in moralizing gods. The authors discuss morality and collective action in the face of natural disasters and competition for resources, theorizing that beliefs in moralizing gods could facilitate such cooperation.

This paper seeks to understand the extent to which religion has been used to legitimize political power in the past, and the extent to which that carries into contemporary institutions. The authors seek to demonstrate that there is a strong link between the stratification of societies in the past and the presence of autocracies in many of those same areas today. They make their case by putting forward, and testing, three linked theories -- first, that stratified societies are more likely to develop religions based on moralizing high gods as a means of divine legitimization, second, that the societies that used religion for legitimacy in their past are more likely to have religion embedded in their institutions today, and third, that societies that used religion for legitimacy in the past are more likely to be autocracies today.