1. SCCS and Interpersonal Violence
Anthro 174AW
© 2009 Patrick Kim /comment by Doug White

2. Original Hypothesis and Independent Variables
Hypothesis: interpersonal violence is heavily influenced by economic stability and general standard of living (This includes foodstuffs).
155. Money
203. Dependency on Gathering
204. Dependency on Hunting
205. Dependency on Fishing
206 Dependency on Animal Husbandry
207. Dependency on Agriculture
232. Intensity of Cultivation
819. Food Trade
1685. Food Scarcity

3. Result of My xUR Unrestricted Model
Violence (depvar SCCS$c666)
R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
> ccc
Fstat df pvalue
RESET
Wald on restrs
NCV
SWnormal
lagll
lagdd
In my Unrestricted model I received a few good results but they somewhat disproved my original hypothesis. However, In addition to this I also found a few surprising results. Used tab to align columns

4. Findings
Having read Carol and Melvin Ember’s article on interpersonal violence, I initially discredited my findings because it seemed to be irrelevant to what I was looking to prove. The Ember article mostly focused on the presence of interpersonal violence in war torn societies.

5. New Ideas/ Hypothesis After running my unrestricted and
restricted models I decided that the
presence of religion in society proved to
be far more significant than both war and
economic stability.

6. Restricted Model (xR results)
Violence (depvar SCCS$c666)
coef Fstat ddf pvalue VIF
(Intercept) NA
fyll negative on language
fydd distance clustering
dateobs
ecorich
superjh
moralgods
agrlateboy
> r2
R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
> ccc
Fstat df pvalue
RESET
Wald on restrs
NCV
SWnormal
lagll
lagdd
Great success!

7. Analysis of my Results for xR
After removing the insignificant
independent variables, the jurisdictional hierarchy
beyond a local community and the presence of a
high god proved to be the most significant
independent variables in the study. Although
aggression in late boyhood was mentioned in
Ember’s article the presence of higher powers
(through gods/religion or political heiarchy)
proved to be just as (if not more) significant.

8. And then…
After a few straits in deciding a definite subject matter to
invest my research in I have decided to further research
the significance of authority in causing or preventing
interpersonal violence. Although my research has led
me to believe that war is a significant factor in the
presence of interpersonal violence in a society, I feel that
the inclusion of a tightly built authority can prove to be
much more hazardous to a society’s well being. In other
words, I would like to prove that the existence of a
somewhat totalitarian figure (through religious or political
authority) is an instigator of interpersonal violence.
Added by:
DW:
But the (-) sign of moral gods and the following table show that it is actually the reverse, i.e., you have to check the direction of the effect (sign of the regression coefficient), not just the significance

9. In societies with Violence: Gods Not Active or Supportive ~ 77% compared to no violence ~ 58%
NOT YES: Active or Supportive
1| | Violence Absent
| 58% 42%
(correlation is negative)
2| | Violence
| 77% 23%
Fisher =0.17 (not significant)
Added by: DW
But the moral gods variable does have a 2SLS effect on violence