Societies within peace systems avoid war and build positive intergroup relationships
VerifiedAdded on 2024/06/24
|9
|9591
|403
AI Summary
This study examines the factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of peace systems, defined as clusters of neighboring societies that do not engage in war with each other. The research compares a sample of peace systems with a randomly derived comparison group of non-peace systems, analyzing eight hypothesized peace-related factors. The findings demonstrate that peace systems exhibit significantly higher levels of overarching common identity, positive social interconnectedness, interdependence, non-warring values and norms, non-warring myths, rituals, and symbols, and peace leadership compared to non-peace systems. The study also employs a machine learning technique to assess the relative importance of these factors, revealing that non-warring norms, rituals, and values are the most significant contributors to a peace system outcome. The results have policy implications for promoting and sustaining peace, cohesion, and cooperation among neighboring societies in various social contexts, including among nations.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
ARTICLE
Societies within peace systems avoid war and
positive intergroup relationships
Douglas P.Fry 1✉, Geneviève Souillac1, Larry Liebovitch2, Peter T.Coleman3, Kane Agan4,
Elliot Nicholson-Cox4, DaniMason4, Frank Palma Gomez2 & Susie Strauss4
A comparative anthropologicalperspective reveals not only that some human societies do
not engage in war,but also that peacefulsocial systems exist.Peace systems are defined as
clusters of neighbouring societies that do not make war with each other.The mere existence
of peace systems is importantbecause itdemonstrates thatcreating peacefulintergroup
relationships is possible whether the social units are tribal societies, nations, or actors within
a regionalsystem.Peace systems have received scant scientific attention despite holding
potentially useful knowledge and principles about how to successfully cooperate to keep the
peace.Thus,the mechanisms through which peace systems maintain peacefulrelationships
are largely unknown. It is also unknown to what degree peace systems may differ from other
types of socialsystems.This study shows that certain factors hypothesised to contribute to
intergroup peace are more developed within peace systems than elsewhere.A sample
consisting of peace systems scored significantly higher than a comparison group regarding
overarching common identity;positive socialinterconnectedness;interdependence;non-
warring values and norms;non-warring myths,rituals,and symbols;and peace leadership.
Additionally,a machine learning analysis found non-warring norms,rituals,and values to
have the greatest relative importance for a peace system outcome. These results have policy
implications forhow to promote and sustain peace,cohesion,and cooperation among
neighbouring societies in various socialcontexts,including among nations.For example,the
purposefulpromotion of peace system features may facilitate the internationalcooperation
necessary to address interwoven globalchallenges such as globalpandemics,oceanic pol-
lution,loss of biodiversity,nuclear proliferation,and climate change.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 OPEN
1University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA.2City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.3Columbia University, New York, NY,
USA.4 University of Alabama at Birmingham,Birmingham,AL, USA. ✉email:dpfry@uncg.edu
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 1
1234567890():,;
Societies within peace systems avoid war and
positive intergroup relationships
Douglas P.Fry 1✉, Geneviève Souillac1, Larry Liebovitch2, Peter T.Coleman3, Kane Agan4,
Elliot Nicholson-Cox4, DaniMason4, Frank Palma Gomez2 & Susie Strauss4
A comparative anthropologicalperspective reveals not only that some human societies do
not engage in war,but also that peacefulsocial systems exist.Peace systems are defined as
clusters of neighbouring societies that do not make war with each other.The mere existence
of peace systems is importantbecause itdemonstrates thatcreating peacefulintergroup
relationships is possible whether the social units are tribal societies, nations, or actors within
a regionalsystem.Peace systems have received scant scientific attention despite holding
potentially useful knowledge and principles about how to successfully cooperate to keep the
peace.Thus,the mechanisms through which peace systems maintain peacefulrelationships
are largely unknown. It is also unknown to what degree peace systems may differ from other
types of socialsystems.This study shows that certain factors hypothesised to contribute to
intergroup peace are more developed within peace systems than elsewhere.A sample
consisting of peace systems scored significantly higher than a comparison group regarding
overarching common identity;positive socialinterconnectedness;interdependence;non-
warring values and norms;non-warring myths,rituals,and symbols;and peace leadership.
Additionally,a machine learning analysis found non-warring norms,rituals,and values to
have the greatest relative importance for a peace system outcome. These results have policy
implications forhow to promote and sustain peace,cohesion,and cooperation among
neighbouring societies in various socialcontexts,including among nations.For example,the
purposefulpromotion of peace system features may facilitate the internationalcooperation
necessary to address interwoven globalchallenges such as globalpandemics,oceanic pol-
lution,loss of biodiversity,nuclear proliferation,and climate change.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 OPEN
1University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA.2City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.3Columbia University, New York, NY,
USA.4 University of Alabama at Birmingham,Birmingham,AL, USA. ✉email:dpfry@uncg.edu
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 1
1234567890():,;
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Introduction
A recurring assumption is that allsocieties engage in war
(Wilson,2001;Wright,1942).However,anthropological
data show that this is not the case (Fry,2006;Montagu,
1978; Sponsel, 2018; Souillac and Fry, 2014, 2015). In some cases,
non-warring societies are organised into peace systems, defined as
clusters of neighbouring societies that do not make war with each
other, and sometimes not at all (Fry, 2006; 2012; Souillac and Fry,
2015).An ethnographically comparative view suggests that over
time reciprocal prosocial relationships develop and link the non-
warring societies within a larger common socialsystem wherein
cooperation and unity prevailand waramong themembers
simply becomes unfathomable.For example,the Nordic Nations
have notwarred among each other for over 200 years as they
developed “the conceptof socialpeace based on a culture of
conflict resolution and societalsolidarity” (Archer,2003:p. 16).
Over time, the Nordic nations evolved a propensity for peace and
strengthened non-warring values thatfavour negotiation,coop-
eration,and the rule of law.Many times,wars could have been
fought, but were not, such as when Norway gained independence
from Sweden in 1905 without firing a shot or during a dispute
between Finland and Sweden over the Åland Islands (see Fig.1).
The Nordic nations set-up overarching institutions such as the
Nordic Council to address common concerns, and an overarching
Nordic identity emerged (Archer,2003).
We propose that gaining an understanding of how peace sys-
tems develop and how they function without war holds important
implicationsfor promoting positive,cooperativeinter-societal
relationships in a variety of other social contexts, including within
regionaland globalspheres.Compared to scientific advances in
many areas,we know surprisingly little aboutthe overarching
dynamics and principles through which human societies build
and maintain peacefulrelations.Therefore,we sought to explore
how societies operating within non-warring peace systems sustain
peace.We tested whether certain factors hypothesised to con-
tribute to intergroup peace were in fact more developed within
peace systemsthan elsewhere.The research also employed a
machine learning technique called Random Forest to assess the
relative importance of the hypothesised peace variables.Investi-
gating which processes recur across socially disparate,and geo-
graphically diverse,non-warring systems may contribute both to
basicknowledgeand to practicalapplicationsfor facilitating
peaceful relationships among societies. A scientific understan
of how societies within peace systems cooperatively and pros
cially interact in the absence ofwar has policy implications for
promotingthe collaboration necessaryto meetoverarching
challengessuch as climatechangeor pandemicswithin an
interdependent globalsystem.
Anthropology shows that peace systems can be found in dif
ferentparts ofthe world and at various levels ofsocialorgani-
sation.Anthropologicaland historicaldescriptionsof non-
warringsocialsystemsincludeAustralian Aboriginesof the
GreatWestern Desert,mobileforagersof Canada’sLabrador
Peninsula, tribes of Brazil’s Upper Xingu River basin, the Iroqu
Confederacy,the Swiss cantons that unified into Switzerland in
1848,and the United States since 1865,among others (Dennis,
1993;Fry,2006,2009,2012;Gregor,1994;Hendrickson,2003;
Parent,2011;Souillac and Fry,2015).When speaking ofpeace
systemsas lacking warfare,we are defining waras “relatively
impersonallethalaggression between communities,” a definition
of intergroup violence that applies across social types from ba
and tribes to kingdoms and nations (Fry,2006:p. 91).
A consideration of the theoreticalliterature and ethnographic
descriptionssuggeststhat variousfactorscontributeto inter-
societalpeace (Archer,2003;Cronin,1999;Fry, 2012;Nowak
et al., 2012; Parent, 2011; Rubin et al., 1994; Souillac, 2020).
are archaeologicalindicationsof peacesystemsin prehistory
(Ferguson,2013;Fry,2012;Haas,1999) and ethnographic and
historicaldescriptionsof non-warring socialsystems,but the
peacesystem concepthas only recently taken shape.Gregor
(1994) applied the term peace system to ten neighbouring tri
representing fourdifferentlanguagegroups,from theUpper
Xingu River region of Brazil wherein “the politically autonomo
tribes actsomewhatlike linguistically distinctand residentially
separate ethnic groups within a larger socialframework of com-
mon institutionsand values”(Gregor,1994:p. 244).Gregor
(1990,1994) proposed thatthe interdependentrelationships in
trade among the tribes,the patterns of intermarriage,participa-
tion in common rituals and ceremonies,and the strong anti-war
values taught to each new generation combine to keep this sy
self-sustaining.
Fry (2009,2012)expanded the peace system constructcon-
ceptually and geographically beyond the UpperXingu case by
providing descriptionsof the IroquoisConfederacy,Aboriginal
Australia,and the European Union as additionalpeace systems.
For example,prior to the formation of the Iroquois Confederacy,
the originalfive member tribes,the Seneca,Cayuga,Onondaga,
Oneida,and Mohawk,werelocked into chronicwarring and
feuding (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).The Iroquoian
peoples developed a new overarching identity in addition to t
tribal identities, which they expressed metaphorically as five
familiesliving in harmony in the same longhouse (see Fig.2;
Fenton,1998).They expanded the tried-and-true institutions of
the village council and tribal council to create the new higher-
institution,the Councilof Chiefs,as an intertribalmechanism of
governance and conflictmanagementbased on discussion and
consensus (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998).Peace values and norms
werereinforced bynarratives,symbols,and rituals,such as
through the legend ofthe Peacemaker bringing tranquility and
unity to the five tribes and the enactment of unifying condole
rites (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).Are such features
generally found in peace systems?
Peace system hypotheses
We hypothesise multiple contributors to peace (Fry, 2012; No
et al.,2012;Souillac,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015).Drawing on
Fig. 1 The five Nordic Nations, Norden, have not engaged in war with one
another since 1815.A dispute between Finland and Sweden over the
strategically located Åland Islands was resolved through mediation.The
Åland Islands remain a demilitarised and neutralarea.Reproduced with
permission of Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights
reserved.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
2 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
A recurring assumption is that allsocieties engage in war
(Wilson,2001;Wright,1942).However,anthropological
data show that this is not the case (Fry,2006;Montagu,
1978; Sponsel, 2018; Souillac and Fry, 2014, 2015). In some cases,
non-warring societies are organised into peace systems, defined as
clusters of neighbouring societies that do not make war with each
other, and sometimes not at all (Fry, 2006; 2012; Souillac and Fry,
2015).An ethnographically comparative view suggests that over
time reciprocal prosocial relationships develop and link the non-
warring societies within a larger common socialsystem wherein
cooperation and unity prevailand waramong themembers
simply becomes unfathomable.For example,the Nordic Nations
have notwarred among each other for over 200 years as they
developed “the conceptof socialpeace based on a culture of
conflict resolution and societalsolidarity” (Archer,2003:p. 16).
Over time, the Nordic nations evolved a propensity for peace and
strengthened non-warring values thatfavour negotiation,coop-
eration,and the rule of law.Many times,wars could have been
fought, but were not, such as when Norway gained independence
from Sweden in 1905 without firing a shot or during a dispute
between Finland and Sweden over the Åland Islands (see Fig.1).
The Nordic nations set-up overarching institutions such as the
Nordic Council to address common concerns, and an overarching
Nordic identity emerged (Archer,2003).
We propose that gaining an understanding of how peace sys-
tems develop and how they function without war holds important
implicationsfor promoting positive,cooperativeinter-societal
relationships in a variety of other social contexts, including within
regionaland globalspheres.Compared to scientific advances in
many areas,we know surprisingly little aboutthe overarching
dynamics and principles through which human societies build
and maintain peacefulrelations.Therefore,we sought to explore
how societies operating within non-warring peace systems sustain
peace.We tested whether certain factors hypothesised to con-
tribute to intergroup peace were in fact more developed within
peace systemsthan elsewhere.The research also employed a
machine learning technique called Random Forest to assess the
relative importance of the hypothesised peace variables.Investi-
gating which processes recur across socially disparate,and geo-
graphically diverse,non-warring systems may contribute both to
basicknowledgeand to practicalapplicationsfor facilitating
peaceful relationships among societies. A scientific understan
of how societies within peace systems cooperatively and pros
cially interact in the absence ofwar has policy implications for
promotingthe collaboration necessaryto meetoverarching
challengessuch as climatechangeor pandemicswithin an
interdependent globalsystem.
Anthropology shows that peace systems can be found in dif
ferentparts ofthe world and at various levels ofsocialorgani-
sation.Anthropologicaland historicaldescriptionsof non-
warringsocialsystemsincludeAustralian Aboriginesof the
GreatWestern Desert,mobileforagersof Canada’sLabrador
Peninsula, tribes of Brazil’s Upper Xingu River basin, the Iroqu
Confederacy,the Swiss cantons that unified into Switzerland in
1848,and the United States since 1865,among others (Dennis,
1993;Fry,2006,2009,2012;Gregor,1994;Hendrickson,2003;
Parent,2011;Souillac and Fry,2015).When speaking ofpeace
systemsas lacking warfare,we are defining waras “relatively
impersonallethalaggression between communities,” a definition
of intergroup violence that applies across social types from ba
and tribes to kingdoms and nations (Fry,2006:p. 91).
A consideration of the theoreticalliterature and ethnographic
descriptionssuggeststhat variousfactorscontributeto inter-
societalpeace (Archer,2003;Cronin,1999;Fry, 2012;Nowak
et al., 2012; Parent, 2011; Rubin et al., 1994; Souillac, 2020).
are archaeologicalindicationsof peacesystemsin prehistory
(Ferguson,2013;Fry,2012;Haas,1999) and ethnographic and
historicaldescriptionsof non-warring socialsystems,but the
peacesystem concepthas only recently taken shape.Gregor
(1994) applied the term peace system to ten neighbouring tri
representing fourdifferentlanguagegroups,from theUpper
Xingu River region of Brazil wherein “the politically autonomo
tribes actsomewhatlike linguistically distinctand residentially
separate ethnic groups within a larger socialframework of com-
mon institutionsand values”(Gregor,1994:p. 244).Gregor
(1990,1994) proposed thatthe interdependentrelationships in
trade among the tribes,the patterns of intermarriage,participa-
tion in common rituals and ceremonies,and the strong anti-war
values taught to each new generation combine to keep this sy
self-sustaining.
Fry (2009,2012)expanded the peace system constructcon-
ceptually and geographically beyond the UpperXingu case by
providing descriptionsof the IroquoisConfederacy,Aboriginal
Australia,and the European Union as additionalpeace systems.
For example,prior to the formation of the Iroquois Confederacy,
the originalfive member tribes,the Seneca,Cayuga,Onondaga,
Oneida,and Mohawk,werelocked into chronicwarring and
feuding (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).The Iroquoian
peoples developed a new overarching identity in addition to t
tribal identities, which they expressed metaphorically as five
familiesliving in harmony in the same longhouse (see Fig.2;
Fenton,1998).They expanded the tried-and-true institutions of
the village council and tribal council to create the new higher-
institution,the Councilof Chiefs,as an intertribalmechanism of
governance and conflictmanagementbased on discussion and
consensus (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998).Peace values and norms
werereinforced bynarratives,symbols,and rituals,such as
through the legend ofthe Peacemaker bringing tranquility and
unity to the five tribes and the enactment of unifying condole
rites (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).Are such features
generally found in peace systems?
Peace system hypotheses
We hypothesise multiple contributors to peace (Fry, 2012; No
et al.,2012;Souillac,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015).Drawing on
Fig. 1 The five Nordic Nations, Norden, have not engaged in war with one
another since 1815.A dispute between Finland and Sweden over the
strategically located Åland Islands was resolved through mediation.The
Åland Islands remain a demilitarised and neutralarea.Reproduced with
permission of Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights
reserved.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
2 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
ethnographic data from the Upper Xingu peace system (Gregor,
1990,1994;Ireland,1986),the IroquoisConfederacy (Dennis,
1993;Fenton,1998),the peaceablesocietiesof peninsular
Malaysia (Dentan,2004;Endicott,2017;Endicott and Endicott,
2008;Howell,1989),the non-warring neighbours ofthe Nilgiri
Hills in India (Rivers,1986;Walker,1986),the European Union
(Bellier and Wilson,2000;Hill, 2010;Staab,2008),and other
cases,Fry (2012)hypothesised thatmultiplefactorspromote
peacewithin dynamicpeacesystems.Theseinclude(1) an
overarching common identity in addition to local identities,(2) a
high degree ofprosocialinterconnectednessamong the social
unitswithin a system,(3) interdependenceamong the social
units,(4) core values and norms that are non-warring and peace
favouring,(5) narratives,rituals,ceremonies,and symbols that
reinforcepeacefulvalues,norms,beliefs,and conduct,(6)
superordinate institutions,(7) mechanisms for nonviolent inter-
group conflictmanagement,and (8) visionary peace leadership
(Fry,2009,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015;Souillac,2020).This list
of hypothesised peace-related factors stems both from case stu-
dies ofpeace systems and from a diverse setof socialscience
studies on intergroup conflictand peacemaking (Coleman and
Deutsch,2012;Dennis,1993;Dovidio etal., 2000;Fry, 2006;
Goldschmidt, 1994; Gregor, 1994; Parent, 2011; Rubin et al., 1994;
Schirch,2014;Souillac,2020).In this study,we compared sta-
tistically a group ofethnographically and historically described
peacesystemswith a randomlyderivedcomparison group
regarding the above peace hypotheses and also regarding several
war-related variables (e.g.,war norms and values and war lea-
dership) predicted to be less manifested within peace systems.
Methods
Samples.We soughtpeace systems in the anthropologicaland
historicalliterature to compare with a sample of non-peace sys-
tems regardingvarious featureshypothesisedto promote
dynamic peace among neighbouring social units (Fry,2012).We
were able to locate 16 well-documented examples ofpeace sys-
temsin the literature thatcomprise the experimentalsample.
Undoubtedly,additionalpeace systems exist and willbe uncov-
ered in the future.
The task offinding clusters of neighbouring societies that do
not make war with each other is complicated by the paucity of
scholarly attention that has been paid to this phenomenon. Si
our research group operationally defined peace systems for th
first time (Fry,2009,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015),there was no
catalogue,list,or database ofknown peace systems before we
began this line of research.The cases located represent different
levels of socialorganisation (e.g.,bands,tribes,nations) across a
world-wide distribution and include nearly allknown anthro-
pologicalexamplesof peace systems(Supplementary Table S1
online).
Extracting data for each peace system and comparison case
from the literature is a time-consuming process.The location of
sources,careful review of the material,and coding of each case is
labour intensive, which also limits the sample size due to prac
considerations.An implication of small sample size is that some
of the results may reflect type two errors,for example,regarding
the non-significantdifferencesfor intermarriage asa form of
interconnectedness or conflict management overall.
To derive a geographically diverse comparison group of non
peace systems,cases were randomly derived from the Standard
Cross-CulturalSample (SCCS) in order to focus on the selected
societiesand theiradjacentneighbours(Murdock and White,
1969,2006;White,1989).The SCCS represents186 cultural
provinces from around the world and various types of societie
(White,1989).The range of SCCS case numbers—that is,from 1
to 186 to represent each case number in the SCCS—was ente
as the sampling poolinto an online random number generator
(Haarh, 2020). Our target number for the comparison sample
at least 30 to balance a reasonable number ofcases against the
labour-intensive coding process for each case, and we genera
list of 33 randomly selected cases from the SCCS.Any duplicate
occurring random numbers were simply tossed outand a new
number generated to represent a novel society from the pool.
randomly generated case represented one ofthe known peace
systems, it was also eliminated and replaced by a newly gene
random number.We over-sampled by three cases with the idea
thata few ofthe key bibliographic sources mightprove to be
unavailable or only available in a non-English language.In fact,
such constraints reduced the originalrandomly derived compar-
ison cases from 33 to 30,as listed in Supplementary Table S2
online.
Procedure.A coding sheet(seeSupplementaryInformation
online) was designed for use in scoring the entire sample of 4
cases (peace systems and non-peace systems) regarding vari
hypothesisedto contributeto peacefulrelationshipsamong
neighbouring socialunits (Ember and Ember,2001).The list of
hypothesised featuresthatcontribute to the origin and main-
tenance of peace systems consisted of those features listed in
(2012),plus a new variable on visionary peace leadership.Addi-
tionally,severalvariables that focused on war were included for
comparative purposes.
For each peacesystem in the sample,we developeda
bibliography ofculturalsourcesto use forcoding.The peace
system reference citationsare included in the Supplementary
Information online asbibliographiesfor each system.For the
cases in the non-peace system comparison sample,we reviewed
the ethnographic materialranked by White (1989) in the SCCS
bibliography as principalauthority sources (PAS),meaning that
these are high-quality primary sources.We used only the PAS
listed in White’s(1989)bibliography to acquirethe relevant
information on each non-peacesystem case(Supplementary
Table S2 online).
Statisticalanalyses.Coded data were entered into a numerical
database(SupplementaryInformation online, Data file).
Fig. 2 An Iroquois village showing longhouses. The member tribes of the
Iroquois Confederacy,which lasted over 300 years,gave up warring with
one another.The revered peacemaker-prophet named Diganawidah is
reputed to have drawn an analogy between the families of a longhouse
living harmoniously under one shared roof and the tribes of the confederacy
living in unity and peace under the law.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights reserved.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 3
1990,1994;Ireland,1986),the IroquoisConfederacy (Dennis,
1993;Fenton,1998),the peaceablesocietiesof peninsular
Malaysia (Dentan,2004;Endicott,2017;Endicott and Endicott,
2008;Howell,1989),the non-warring neighbours ofthe Nilgiri
Hills in India (Rivers,1986;Walker,1986),the European Union
(Bellier and Wilson,2000;Hill, 2010;Staab,2008),and other
cases,Fry (2012)hypothesised thatmultiplefactorspromote
peacewithin dynamicpeacesystems.Theseinclude(1) an
overarching common identity in addition to local identities,(2) a
high degree ofprosocialinterconnectednessamong the social
unitswithin a system,(3) interdependenceamong the social
units,(4) core values and norms that are non-warring and peace
favouring,(5) narratives,rituals,ceremonies,and symbols that
reinforcepeacefulvalues,norms,beliefs,and conduct,(6)
superordinate institutions,(7) mechanisms for nonviolent inter-
group conflictmanagement,and (8) visionary peace leadership
(Fry,2009,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015;Souillac,2020).This list
of hypothesised peace-related factors stems both from case stu-
dies ofpeace systems and from a diverse setof socialscience
studies on intergroup conflictand peacemaking (Coleman and
Deutsch,2012;Dennis,1993;Dovidio etal., 2000;Fry, 2006;
Goldschmidt, 1994; Gregor, 1994; Parent, 2011; Rubin et al., 1994;
Schirch,2014;Souillac,2020).In this study,we compared sta-
tistically a group ofethnographically and historically described
peacesystemswith a randomlyderivedcomparison group
regarding the above peace hypotheses and also regarding several
war-related variables (e.g.,war norms and values and war lea-
dership) predicted to be less manifested within peace systems.
Methods
Samples.We soughtpeace systems in the anthropologicaland
historicalliterature to compare with a sample of non-peace sys-
tems regardingvarious featureshypothesisedto promote
dynamic peace among neighbouring social units (Fry,2012).We
were able to locate 16 well-documented examples ofpeace sys-
temsin the literature thatcomprise the experimentalsample.
Undoubtedly,additionalpeace systems exist and willbe uncov-
ered in the future.
The task offinding clusters of neighbouring societies that do
not make war with each other is complicated by the paucity of
scholarly attention that has been paid to this phenomenon. Si
our research group operationally defined peace systems for th
first time (Fry,2009,2012;Souillac and Fry,2015),there was no
catalogue,list,or database ofknown peace systems before we
began this line of research.The cases located represent different
levels of socialorganisation (e.g.,bands,tribes,nations) across a
world-wide distribution and include nearly allknown anthro-
pologicalexamplesof peace systems(Supplementary Table S1
online).
Extracting data for each peace system and comparison case
from the literature is a time-consuming process.The location of
sources,careful review of the material,and coding of each case is
labour intensive, which also limits the sample size due to prac
considerations.An implication of small sample size is that some
of the results may reflect type two errors,for example,regarding
the non-significantdifferencesfor intermarriage asa form of
interconnectedness or conflict management overall.
To derive a geographically diverse comparison group of non
peace systems,cases were randomly derived from the Standard
Cross-CulturalSample (SCCS) in order to focus on the selected
societiesand theiradjacentneighbours(Murdock and White,
1969,2006;White,1989).The SCCS represents186 cultural
provinces from around the world and various types of societie
(White,1989).The range of SCCS case numbers—that is,from 1
to 186 to represent each case number in the SCCS—was ente
as the sampling poolinto an online random number generator
(Haarh, 2020). Our target number for the comparison sample
at least 30 to balance a reasonable number ofcases against the
labour-intensive coding process for each case, and we genera
list of 33 randomly selected cases from the SCCS.Any duplicate
occurring random numbers were simply tossed outand a new
number generated to represent a novel society from the pool.
randomly generated case represented one ofthe known peace
systems, it was also eliminated and replaced by a newly gene
random number.We over-sampled by three cases with the idea
thata few ofthe key bibliographic sources mightprove to be
unavailable or only available in a non-English language.In fact,
such constraints reduced the originalrandomly derived compar-
ison cases from 33 to 30,as listed in Supplementary Table S2
online.
Procedure.A coding sheet(seeSupplementaryInformation
online) was designed for use in scoring the entire sample of 4
cases (peace systems and non-peace systems) regarding vari
hypothesisedto contributeto peacefulrelationshipsamong
neighbouring socialunits (Ember and Ember,2001).The list of
hypothesised featuresthatcontribute to the origin and main-
tenance of peace systems consisted of those features listed in
(2012),plus a new variable on visionary peace leadership.Addi-
tionally,severalvariables that focused on war were included for
comparative purposes.
For each peacesystem in the sample,we developeda
bibliography ofculturalsourcesto use forcoding.The peace
system reference citationsare included in the Supplementary
Information online asbibliographiesfor each system.For the
cases in the non-peace system comparison sample,we reviewed
the ethnographic materialranked by White (1989) in the SCCS
bibliography as principalauthority sources (PAS),meaning that
these are high-quality primary sources.We used only the PAS
listed in White’s(1989)bibliography to acquirethe relevant
information on each non-peacesystem case(Supplementary
Table S2 online).
Statisticalanalyses.Coded data were entered into a numerical
database(SupplementaryInformation online, Data file).
Fig. 2 An Iroquois village showing longhouses. The member tribes of the
Iroquois Confederacy,which lasted over 300 years,gave up warring with
one another.The revered peacemaker-prophet named Diganawidah is
reputed to have drawn an analogy between the families of a longhouse
living harmoniously under one shared roof and the tribes of the confederacy
living in unity and peace under the law.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights reserved.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 3
Correlations and Mann–Whitney U-tests were run using IBM’s
StatisticalPackage for the SocialSciences (SPSS),version 26.0
(IBM, 2019).Since correlationsinvolveordinalvariablesand
smallgroup sizes,the reported p-values are for Kendall’s Tau
statistic.Since normality could not be assumed for the variables
in this relatively smallsample,Mann–Whitney U-testswere
considered more appropriate (and conservative) than Student’s
t-tests for comparing the two sub-samples.Missing values were
replaced by mean values in SPSS.
The data science classification algorithm called Random Forest
was used to assessthe relativeimportanceof variables
hypothesisedto contributeto peace.Random Forestis a
supervisedmachinelearningmethodthat can be used to
determinethe relativeimportanceof differentvariablesin
reaching a classification decision,in this case to separate peace
systems from non-peaceful systems (Raschka and Mirjalili,2017;
Yiu, 2019).During a training phase,Random Forest constructs
many individualdecision trees.The processusesa randomly
selected subset of the data and variables to construct this “random
forest” of decision trees. The using of different subsets of the data
and different variables to generate individualtrees increases the
variation among trees in the ensemble.The prediction from the
individualdecision treesare then pooled formaking a final
predictionabout the relativeimportanceof variables.The
combined decision treesconstituting thisRandom Foresthas
the capacityto makemore accuratepredictionsthan any
individualdecision tree alone.The procedure also ensures that
the final Random Forest does not overfit the original training set.
We used theRandom Forestclassifierfrom the scikit-learn
python library (Pedregosa etal.,2011) with the parameter that
specifies the number of the decision trees,“n estimators,” set to
2000 and the initial random seed set to “random_state=42.” After
the classifierwastrained,we used the“feature_importances”
attribute to extractthe importance score for each peace-related
variable,which allows the ranking ofthe variables as to their
relative importance for a peace system outcome.We applied the
machine learning analysis to allthe peace-related variables that
showedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthe two
samples by Mann–Whitney U-tests and included one additional
variable that showed only a non-significant trend in the predicted
direction,overarching governance,to have atleastone variable
represented in the analysisfor each ofthe eighthypothesised
peace system features.
Results
We firstran correlation analyses across the entire sample and
found many significantcorrelationsamong the eightfeatures
hypothesised to be elements of dynamic peace systems (Table 1).
All significantcorrelationsamong peace-related variableswere
positive.Common overarching identity and interconnectedness
werepositively correlated with allseven otherpeacesystem
variables.On the other hand,all significant correlations between
peace variables and war variables were negative.We found some
of the strongest negative correlations between peace norms and
values,peace myths,rituals,and symbols,and peace leadership,
on the one hand,and war norms and values,war myths,rituals,
and symbols,and war leadership on the other.Finally,with the
partial exception of ethnocentrism, war features were found to be
positively correlated with each other.
To address whether the features hypothesised to be important
elements ofpeace systems were manifested to a greater extent
within peace systems than within non-peace systems, we ran two-
sample Mann–Whitney U-tests (Table 2).Inaccordance with six-
out-of-eightof the main predictions,the peace system sample
scored significantly higher than the non-peace system sample for
overarchingidentity; positive interconnectedness;inter-
dependence;non-warring values and norms;non-warring myths,
rituals,and symbols;and peace leadership.The two variables
superordinate institutions and nonviolentconflictmanagement
overallwere notsignificantly differentbetween the samples.By
contrast,non-peace systems scored significantly higher for war
ring values and norms;war myths,rituals,and symbols;and war
leadership.Ethnocentrism was not significantly different betwee
the samples.
We also performed a more granular analysis (Table 3).When
four measuresof prosocialinterconnectedness(intermarriage,
trade, politics, and positive history) were analysed separately
economicand historicalinterconnectednessweresignificantly
greaterin peace systems than in non-peace systems,although
intermarriageapproached significance.All threesubtypesof
interdependence (security,ecological,and economic)were sig-
nificantly greater in the peace system sample than in the com
parison sample,with economicinterdependencebeing highly
significant.When non-warring values and non-warring norms
weredisaggregated forseparateanalysis,both variableswere
found to be significantly more pronounced in peace systems t
in non-peace systems.Finally,when we analysed the three sub-
elements of non-warring myths,rituals,and symbols separately,
peace rituals and symbols turned out to be significantly differ
between the two samples,but peace myths were not.
To address the question of which hypothesised variables we
relatively more important contributors to peace, we employed
machine learning technique called Random Forest. We found
the mostimportantcontributing factor to a peace system out-
come was the existence of non-warring norms,followed in order
of decreasing importance by non-warring rituals,non-warring
values, security interdependence, and so forth (Table 4). Thus, the
Random Forestanalysisprovided amethod forranking the
relative importance of the peace-related variables for leading
peacesystem outcomeas opposedto a non-peacesystem
outcome.
Discussion
Peace systems research challenges the assumption thatsocieties
everywhereare inclined to makewar with theirneighbours.
Science-based understanding ofhow peace systems emerge and
are maintained may have implications for creating and promo
peace and cooperation in variouscontexts,whetherwithin a
nation,among nations,regionally,or globally (Coleman and
Deutsch,2012;Fry,2012).Our findings demonstrate that peace
systems,definedbehaviourallyas clustersof neighbouring
societies that do not make war on each other, differ on a varie
dimensions from societies that are not part of such social syst
We found most of the main hypothesised peace contributors t
present to a greater degree in peace systems than in a rando
selected comparison sample across various levels of socialcom-
plexity.This suggests there are recurring features that can con
tributeto the developmentand maintenanceof non-warring
relationships among societies.Consequently,an analysis of peace
systems may offer transferable insights abouthow to promote
prosocial,cooperative inter-societalrelations at various levels of
socialorganisation.
When the eight peace-related hypotheses were partitioned
more granular predictions,differences between the peace systems
and the comparison sample were significantfor economic and
positivehistoricalinterconnectionsbut not for intermarriage
and politicalinterconnections.Both non-warringnormsand
non-warring values were significant,as were peace rituals and
symbols. Peace rituals and symbols may reflect and reinforce
values and norms (Dennis,1993;Gregor,1994;Schirch,2014).
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
4 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
StatisticalPackage for the SocialSciences (SPSS),version 26.0
(IBM, 2019).Since correlationsinvolveordinalvariablesand
smallgroup sizes,the reported p-values are for Kendall’s Tau
statistic.Since normality could not be assumed for the variables
in this relatively smallsample,Mann–Whitney U-testswere
considered more appropriate (and conservative) than Student’s
t-tests for comparing the two sub-samples.Missing values were
replaced by mean values in SPSS.
The data science classification algorithm called Random Forest
was used to assessthe relativeimportanceof variables
hypothesisedto contributeto peace.Random Forestis a
supervisedmachinelearningmethodthat can be used to
determinethe relativeimportanceof differentvariablesin
reaching a classification decision,in this case to separate peace
systems from non-peaceful systems (Raschka and Mirjalili,2017;
Yiu, 2019).During a training phase,Random Forest constructs
many individualdecision trees.The processusesa randomly
selected subset of the data and variables to construct this “random
forest” of decision trees. The using of different subsets of the data
and different variables to generate individualtrees increases the
variation among trees in the ensemble.The prediction from the
individualdecision treesare then pooled formaking a final
predictionabout the relativeimportanceof variables.The
combined decision treesconstituting thisRandom Foresthas
the capacityto makemore accuratepredictionsthan any
individualdecision tree alone.The procedure also ensures that
the final Random Forest does not overfit the original training set.
We used theRandom Forestclassifierfrom the scikit-learn
python library (Pedregosa etal.,2011) with the parameter that
specifies the number of the decision trees,“n estimators,” set to
2000 and the initial random seed set to “random_state=42.” After
the classifierwastrained,we used the“feature_importances”
attribute to extractthe importance score for each peace-related
variable,which allows the ranking ofthe variables as to their
relative importance for a peace system outcome.We applied the
machine learning analysis to allthe peace-related variables that
showedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthe two
samples by Mann–Whitney U-tests and included one additional
variable that showed only a non-significant trend in the predicted
direction,overarching governance,to have atleastone variable
represented in the analysisfor each ofthe eighthypothesised
peace system features.
Results
We firstran correlation analyses across the entire sample and
found many significantcorrelationsamong the eightfeatures
hypothesised to be elements of dynamic peace systems (Table 1).
All significantcorrelationsamong peace-related variableswere
positive.Common overarching identity and interconnectedness
werepositively correlated with allseven otherpeacesystem
variables.On the other hand,all significant correlations between
peace variables and war variables were negative.We found some
of the strongest negative correlations between peace norms and
values,peace myths,rituals,and symbols,and peace leadership,
on the one hand,and war norms and values,war myths,rituals,
and symbols,and war leadership on the other.Finally,with the
partial exception of ethnocentrism, war features were found to be
positively correlated with each other.
To address whether the features hypothesised to be important
elements ofpeace systems were manifested to a greater extent
within peace systems than within non-peace systems, we ran two-
sample Mann–Whitney U-tests (Table 2).Inaccordance with six-
out-of-eightof the main predictions,the peace system sample
scored significantly higher than the non-peace system sample for
overarchingidentity; positive interconnectedness;inter-
dependence;non-warring values and norms;non-warring myths,
rituals,and symbols;and peace leadership.The two variables
superordinate institutions and nonviolentconflictmanagement
overallwere notsignificantly differentbetween the samples.By
contrast,non-peace systems scored significantly higher for war
ring values and norms;war myths,rituals,and symbols;and war
leadership.Ethnocentrism was not significantly different betwee
the samples.
We also performed a more granular analysis (Table 3).When
four measuresof prosocialinterconnectedness(intermarriage,
trade, politics, and positive history) were analysed separately
economicand historicalinterconnectednessweresignificantly
greaterin peace systems than in non-peace systems,although
intermarriageapproached significance.All threesubtypesof
interdependence (security,ecological,and economic)were sig-
nificantly greater in the peace system sample than in the com
parison sample,with economicinterdependencebeing highly
significant.When non-warring values and non-warring norms
weredisaggregated forseparateanalysis,both variableswere
found to be significantly more pronounced in peace systems t
in non-peace systems.Finally,when we analysed the three sub-
elements of non-warring myths,rituals,and symbols separately,
peace rituals and symbols turned out to be significantly differ
between the two samples,but peace myths were not.
To address the question of which hypothesised variables we
relatively more important contributors to peace, we employed
machine learning technique called Random Forest. We found
the mostimportantcontributing factor to a peace system out-
come was the existence of non-warring norms,followed in order
of decreasing importance by non-warring rituals,non-warring
values, security interdependence, and so forth (Table 4). Thus, the
Random Forestanalysisprovided amethod forranking the
relative importance of the peace-related variables for leading
peacesystem outcomeas opposedto a non-peacesystem
outcome.
Discussion
Peace systems research challenges the assumption thatsocieties
everywhereare inclined to makewar with theirneighbours.
Science-based understanding ofhow peace systems emerge and
are maintained may have implications for creating and promo
peace and cooperation in variouscontexts,whetherwithin a
nation,among nations,regionally,or globally (Coleman and
Deutsch,2012;Fry,2012).Our findings demonstrate that peace
systems,definedbehaviourallyas clustersof neighbouring
societies that do not make war on each other, differ on a varie
dimensions from societies that are not part of such social syst
We found most of the main hypothesised peace contributors t
present to a greater degree in peace systems than in a rando
selected comparison sample across various levels of socialcom-
plexity.This suggests there are recurring features that can con
tributeto the developmentand maintenanceof non-warring
relationships among societies.Consequently,an analysis of peace
systems may offer transferable insights abouthow to promote
prosocial,cooperative inter-societalrelations at various levels of
socialorganisation.
When the eight peace-related hypotheses were partitioned
more granular predictions,differences between the peace systems
and the comparison sample were significantfor economic and
positivehistoricalinterconnectionsbut not for intermarriage
and politicalinterconnections.Both non-warringnormsand
non-warring values were significant,as were peace rituals and
symbols. Peace rituals and symbols may reflect and reinforce
values and norms (Dennis,1993;Gregor,1994;Schirch,2014).
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
4 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
For example,rituals and symbols of peace are manifested in the
Iroquois legend of Deganawidah,the visionary peacemaker who
unified the tribes and symbolically buried their weapons of war
under the great tree of peace (Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).
Non-warring norms and values stand out as having the highest
mean scores across the peace-related variables within peace sys-
tems. Non-warring norms and values are evident, for example, in
the Upper Xingu view that aggression is immoral (Gregor,1994;
Ireland,1986),the Malaysian Orang Aslipeoples emphasis on
nonviolentsocialisation ofchildren (Dentan,2004;Endicott,
2017;Howell,1989),the Nordic valueplaced on consensus
decision-making and peacebuilding (Archer,2003),and so forth
(Fry,2006;Souillac and Fry,2014,2015).
No significant difference between the groups was found for
the hypothesespertaining to superordinateinstitutionsand
conflictmanagementgenerally.However,the superordinate
institutions hypothesis may apply primarily atmore complex
levelsof socialorganisation,as contrasted with bandsand
tribes,and wasnot detectable in thissocially heterogeneous
sample(see SupplementaryTable S1 online). This topic
deserves further investigation.
Turning to war variables,predictably,peace systems exhibited
significantly weaker warring values and norms;warring myths,
rituals,and symbols;and war leadership than found in the non-
peacesystem sample.Although negativelycorrelated,peace-
related and war-related variablesare not mutually exclusive;
Table 1 Correlations among peace-related and war-related variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Peace-related
1.Overarching Identity 1 0.361a 0.265c 0.288c 0.288c 0.298c 0.290c 0.094 −0.251c −0.204 −0.056 −0.172
2. Interconnected-ness 1 0.489a 0.367a 0.360a 0.363b 0.345a 0.353b −0.300b −0.220c −0.235c −0.176
3. Interdependence 1 0.222c 0.182 0.418a 0.314b 0.357b −0.159 −0.140 −0.123 −0.066
4. Non-warring values and norms 1 0.434a 0.078 0.105 0.372b −0.204 −0.568a −0.572a −0.433a
5. Non-warring myths,rituals,and
symbols
1 0.168 0.193 0.341b −0.305b −0.470a −0.350b −0.373b
6. Superordinate institutions 1 0.694a 0.214 −0.046 0.059 0.015 −0.029
7. Conflict management 1 0.283c −0.169 −0.048 −0.146 −0.207
8. Peace leadership 1 −0.231 0.212 −0.335b −0.296c
War-related
9. Ethnocentrism 1 0.255c 0.176 0.167
10.Warring values and norms 1 0.492a 0.492a
11.War myths,rituals,and symbols 1 0.369b
12.War leadership 1
All correlations are based on N = 46.
Since correlations involve ordinalvariables,the p-values are for Kendall’s Tau statistic.
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.001 level(two-tailed).
bCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level(two-tailed).
cCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level(two-tailed).
Table 2 Peace systems and non-peace systems compared regarding the primary peace-related and war-related variables
Variables Peace systems
(n = 16)
Non-peace systems
(n = 30)
Significance
Mean SD Mean SD
Peace-related
Overarching Identitya 3.06 0.792 2.25 0.745 p = 0.003
Interconnectednessa 3.03 0.496 2.49 0.524 p = 0.000
Interdependencea 3.01 0.642 2.33 0.603 p = 0.003
Non-warring values & normsa 3.67 0.590 2.84 0.611 p = 0.000
Non-warring myths,rituals,& symbolsb 2.99 0.698 2.50 0.305 p = 0.004
Superordinate institutionsa 2.91 1.39 2.47 0.708 p = 0.064 ns
Conflict managementa (All types together) 2.78 0.467 2.55 0.193 p = 0.093 ns
Peace leadershipa 3.05 0.903 2.61 0.551 p = 0.019
War-related
Ethnocentrisma 2.36 0.546 2.73 0.611 p = 0.082 ns
Warring values & normsa 1.93 1.036 2.97 0.547 p = 0.002
War myths,rituals,& symbolsb 2.03 0.622 2.54 0.413 p = 0.003
War leadershipa 2.59 0.789 3.12 0.545 p = 0.041
All p-values are for two-sample Mann–Whitney U-tests,two-tailed.
aFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = weak;3 = moderate;and 4 = strong.
bFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = few;3 = some;and 4 = many.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 5
Iroquois legend of Deganawidah,the visionary peacemaker who
unified the tribes and symbolically buried their weapons of war
under the great tree of peace (Fenton,1998;Fry,2012).
Non-warring norms and values stand out as having the highest
mean scores across the peace-related variables within peace sys-
tems. Non-warring norms and values are evident, for example, in
the Upper Xingu view that aggression is immoral (Gregor,1994;
Ireland,1986),the Malaysian Orang Aslipeoples emphasis on
nonviolentsocialisation ofchildren (Dentan,2004;Endicott,
2017;Howell,1989),the Nordic valueplaced on consensus
decision-making and peacebuilding (Archer,2003),and so forth
(Fry,2006;Souillac and Fry,2014,2015).
No significant difference between the groups was found for
the hypothesespertaining to superordinateinstitutionsand
conflictmanagementgenerally.However,the superordinate
institutions hypothesis may apply primarily atmore complex
levelsof socialorganisation,as contrasted with bandsand
tribes,and wasnot detectable in thissocially heterogeneous
sample(see SupplementaryTable S1 online). This topic
deserves further investigation.
Turning to war variables,predictably,peace systems exhibited
significantly weaker warring values and norms;warring myths,
rituals,and symbols;and war leadership than found in the non-
peacesystem sample.Although negativelycorrelated,peace-
related and war-related variablesare not mutually exclusive;
Table 1 Correlations among peace-related and war-related variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Peace-related
1.Overarching Identity 1 0.361a 0.265c 0.288c 0.288c 0.298c 0.290c 0.094 −0.251c −0.204 −0.056 −0.172
2. Interconnected-ness 1 0.489a 0.367a 0.360a 0.363b 0.345a 0.353b −0.300b −0.220c −0.235c −0.176
3. Interdependence 1 0.222c 0.182 0.418a 0.314b 0.357b −0.159 −0.140 −0.123 −0.066
4. Non-warring values and norms 1 0.434a 0.078 0.105 0.372b −0.204 −0.568a −0.572a −0.433a
5. Non-warring myths,rituals,and
symbols
1 0.168 0.193 0.341b −0.305b −0.470a −0.350b −0.373b
6. Superordinate institutions 1 0.694a 0.214 −0.046 0.059 0.015 −0.029
7. Conflict management 1 0.283c −0.169 −0.048 −0.146 −0.207
8. Peace leadership 1 −0.231 0.212 −0.335b −0.296c
War-related
9. Ethnocentrism 1 0.255c 0.176 0.167
10.Warring values and norms 1 0.492a 0.492a
11.War myths,rituals,and symbols 1 0.369b
12.War leadership 1
All correlations are based on N = 46.
Since correlations involve ordinalvariables,the p-values are for Kendall’s Tau statistic.
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.001 level(two-tailed).
bCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level(two-tailed).
cCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level(two-tailed).
Table 2 Peace systems and non-peace systems compared regarding the primary peace-related and war-related variables
Variables Peace systems
(n = 16)
Non-peace systems
(n = 30)
Significance
Mean SD Mean SD
Peace-related
Overarching Identitya 3.06 0.792 2.25 0.745 p = 0.003
Interconnectednessa 3.03 0.496 2.49 0.524 p = 0.000
Interdependencea 3.01 0.642 2.33 0.603 p = 0.003
Non-warring values & normsa 3.67 0.590 2.84 0.611 p = 0.000
Non-warring myths,rituals,& symbolsb 2.99 0.698 2.50 0.305 p = 0.004
Superordinate institutionsa 2.91 1.39 2.47 0.708 p = 0.064 ns
Conflict managementa (All types together) 2.78 0.467 2.55 0.193 p = 0.093 ns
Peace leadershipa 3.05 0.903 2.61 0.551 p = 0.019
War-related
Ethnocentrisma 2.36 0.546 2.73 0.611 p = 0.082 ns
Warring values & normsa 1.93 1.036 2.97 0.547 p = 0.002
War myths,rituals,& symbolsb 2.03 0.622 2.54 0.413 p = 0.003
War leadershipa 2.59 0.789 3.12 0.545 p = 0.041
All p-values are for two-sample Mann–Whitney U-tests,two-tailed.
aFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = weak;3 = moderate;and 4 = strong.
bFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = few;3 = some;and 4 = many.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 5
various degrees of peace and war leadership, for example, may co-
exist (Fenton,1998;Goldschmidt,1994).However,the findings
show that peace systems more strongly exhibit peace norms and
values than war norms and values,whereas the opposite is the
case for the comparison group.
The eight main peace-related variables exhibited a high degree
of positivecorrelationwith each other.From the sources
describing peacesystems,the bundling ofpeaceattributesis
expressed in many ways.For instance,allusion to rituals,over-
arching institutions,peace leadership,interconnectedness,and
security interdependence appear in this passage on the Iroquois:
“Initiating new rituals and practices, and inventing new social and
politicalinstitutions,the prophetDeganawidah and those who
followed his teachings found ways to assure domestic concord, to
extend harmony within longhouses,lineages,and clans to wider
domains,and to confrontthe ever-presentthreats to stability,
reason,and peace” (Dennis,1993:p. 77).Overarching identity,
such as belonging to “one country,” being kin,or becoming “one
people,”recurin descriptionsof peacesystems(seeFig. 3).
Correspondingly,Dovidio et al. (2000)reportpsychological
findings that overarching identity helps to diminish hostility a
prejudice as it also augments positive attitudes and cooperati
among socialunits.In sum, the main peace-related variables
tended to correlate positively with each other.This parallels the
structuralanalysis of positive and negative factors by Liebovitch
et al. (2019) who found three groupings ofvariables,with one
being comprised of peace-related variables similar to those co
sideredin the currentstudy (i.e., sharedidentity,inter-
connectedness,a positivehistoryof relationships,prosocial
norms, transcendent or caring values, peace symbols, govern
Table 3 Peace systems and non-peace systems compared regarding the subcomponents of interconnectedness,
interdependence,non-warring values and norms,and peace myths,peace rituals,and peace symbols.
Variable Peace systems
(n = 16)
Non-peace system
(n = 30)
Significance
Mean SD Mean SD
Interconnectedness
Marriagea 2.72 0.806 2.27 0.766 0.060 ns
Economica 3.47 0.719 2.73 0.905 0.002
Politicala 2.64 1.183 2.26 0.616 0.691 ns
Historicala 3.30 0.612 2.71 0.659 0.000
Interdependence
Securitya 2.84 1.363 2.32 0.737 0.050
Ecologicala 2.91 0.917 2.28 0.727 0.028
Economica 3.27 0.739 2.38 0.739 0.002
Non-warring values & norms
Valuesa 3.64 0.710 2.92 0.753 0.001
Normsa 3.70 0.584 2.75 0.726 0.000
Non-warring myths,rituals,& symbols
Peace mythsb 2.76 0.965 2.40 0.453 0.077 ns
Peace ritualsb 3.02 0.764 2.32 0.522 0.000
Peace symbolsb 3.21 0.598 2.77 0.351 0.006
p-values are for two-sample Mann–Whitney U-tests,two-tailed.
aFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = weak;3 = moderate;and 4 = strong.
bFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = few;3 = some;and 4 = many.
Table 4 Random forest machine learning assessment of
peace-related variables as to their relative importance for a
peace system outcome.
Peace-related variable Random forest
importance score
Non-warring norms 0.213
Non-warring rituals 0.110
Non-warring values 0.095
Security interdependence 0.094
Superordinate institutions 0.080
Economic interdependence 0.077
Positive historicalInterconnectedness 0.074
Peace leadership 0.053
Economic interconnectedness 0.052
Overarching identity 0.050
Ecologicalinterdependence 0.046
Peace symbols 0.029
Conflict management (specifically via
intergroup moots,councils,or meetings)
0.028
Fig.3 Polish and European Union flags fly side-by-side in Warsaw,
symbolising the dual national and supranational identities within the
European peace system. The development of an overarching socio-politic
identity is a notable feature of peace systems. Reproduced with permissio
of Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights reserved.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
6 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
exist (Fenton,1998;Goldschmidt,1994).However,the findings
show that peace systems more strongly exhibit peace norms and
values than war norms and values,whereas the opposite is the
case for the comparison group.
The eight main peace-related variables exhibited a high degree
of positivecorrelationwith each other.From the sources
describing peacesystems,the bundling ofpeaceattributesis
expressed in many ways.For instance,allusion to rituals,over-
arching institutions,peace leadership,interconnectedness,and
security interdependence appear in this passage on the Iroquois:
“Initiating new rituals and practices, and inventing new social and
politicalinstitutions,the prophetDeganawidah and those who
followed his teachings found ways to assure domestic concord, to
extend harmony within longhouses,lineages,and clans to wider
domains,and to confrontthe ever-presentthreats to stability,
reason,and peace” (Dennis,1993:p. 77).Overarching identity,
such as belonging to “one country,” being kin,or becoming “one
people,”recurin descriptionsof peacesystems(seeFig. 3).
Correspondingly,Dovidio et al. (2000)reportpsychological
findings that overarching identity helps to diminish hostility a
prejudice as it also augments positive attitudes and cooperati
among socialunits.In sum, the main peace-related variables
tended to correlate positively with each other.This parallels the
structuralanalysis of positive and negative factors by Liebovitch
et al. (2019) who found three groupings ofvariables,with one
being comprised of peace-related variables similar to those co
sideredin the currentstudy (i.e., sharedidentity,inter-
connectedness,a positivehistoryof relationships,prosocial
norms, transcendent or caring values, peace symbols, govern
Table 3 Peace systems and non-peace systems compared regarding the subcomponents of interconnectedness,
interdependence,non-warring values and norms,and peace myths,peace rituals,and peace symbols.
Variable Peace systems
(n = 16)
Non-peace system
(n = 30)
Significance
Mean SD Mean SD
Interconnectedness
Marriagea 2.72 0.806 2.27 0.766 0.060 ns
Economica 3.47 0.719 2.73 0.905 0.002
Politicala 2.64 1.183 2.26 0.616 0.691 ns
Historicala 3.30 0.612 2.71 0.659 0.000
Interdependence
Securitya 2.84 1.363 2.32 0.737 0.050
Ecologicala 2.91 0.917 2.28 0.727 0.028
Economica 3.27 0.739 2.38 0.739 0.002
Non-warring values & norms
Valuesa 3.64 0.710 2.92 0.753 0.001
Normsa 3.70 0.584 2.75 0.726 0.000
Non-warring myths,rituals,& symbols
Peace mythsb 2.76 0.965 2.40 0.453 0.077 ns
Peace ritualsb 3.02 0.764 2.32 0.522 0.000
Peace symbolsb 3.21 0.598 2.77 0.351 0.006
p-values are for two-sample Mann–Whitney U-tests,two-tailed.
aFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = weak;3 = moderate;and 4 = strong.
bFor these variables,the codes are 1 = none;2 = few;3 = some;and 4 = many.
Table 4 Random forest machine learning assessment of
peace-related variables as to their relative importance for a
peace system outcome.
Peace-related variable Random forest
importance score
Non-warring norms 0.213
Non-warring rituals 0.110
Non-warring values 0.095
Security interdependence 0.094
Superordinate institutions 0.080
Economic interdependence 0.077
Positive historicalInterconnectedness 0.074
Peace leadership 0.053
Economic interconnectedness 0.052
Overarching identity 0.050
Ecologicalinterdependence 0.046
Peace symbols 0.029
Conflict management (specifically via
intergroup moots,councils,or meetings)
0.028
Fig.3 Polish and European Union flags fly side-by-side in Warsaw,
symbolising the dual national and supranational identities within the
European peace system. The development of an overarching socio-politic
identity is a notable feature of peace systems. Reproduced with permissio
of Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,all rights reserved.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
6 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
and peace leaders, and additionally, peace education, peace vision,
positive reciprocity,and positive goals).
With the partial exception of ethnocentrism, war variables also
positively correlated with one another. All significant correlations
between peace and war variables were negative, with peace versus
war values and norms showing a very a strong negative correla-
tion. Additionally,peacesystemstend to havesignificantly
strongerpeace valuesand norms,whereasnon-peace systems
tend to have significantly stronger war values and norms.
Perhaps, once established, either war or peace orientations may
stabiliseamongneighbouringsocieties.However,over time
conditions ofwar among neighbours can be transformed into
non-warring relationships, such as among the Swiss cantons after
Switzerland was formed,Italian states and kingdoms after uni-
fication,or the tribes of Iroquoia after the creation of their con-
federacy (Archer,2003;Fry, 2006;Sponsel,2018).The Nordic
countries transitioned “from a region rife with warfare to an area
whose conflicts are ‘non-wars’embracing diplomatic solutions”
(Archer,2003:p. 8).
An important topic for future research would be the investi-
gation ofwhich features found in peace systems have been key
driversof transformationsovertime from warto peace.The
collection of longitudinaldata,when available,on the nature of
historicaltransformationswould be necessary to addressthis
topic.Some peace systems such as the ten Upper Xingu peoples,
the Montagnais-Naskapi-EastMain Cree,the Malaysian Orang
Asli, and the Nigiri Plateau tribes were already in operation when
early ethnographic information was gathered,so the historical
roots of the non-warringintergroup relationsprobablywill
remain obscure.However,historicaland ethnohistoricaldata do
existfor some cases such as the formation ofSwitzerland,the
United States,and the Iroquois confederacy.The findings of this
study lead to severalprovisionalobservations thatare ripe for
further historicalinvestigation.
First,it seems thata sense ofoverarching identity develops
gradually over time,becoming,as found in our study,a main-
taining feature of peace systems but not necessarily an early driver
of peace.For example,it took time for an overarching Italian
identity to emerge following unification (Cronin, 1999). Likewise,
at the time of the US Constitutional Convention, people perceived
themselvesfirst-and-foremostas New Yorkers,North Car-
olinians, Virginians, and so on, not members of the United States
as a whole (Hendrickson,2003;Parent,2011).This overarching
US identity developed over time.
Second,our research suggests that security interdependence
often drives historicaltransformations toward unity,coopera-
tion,and peace.Parent (2011:p. 91) succinctly concludes that
“Switzerland is a country because foreign threats forged it into
one”.Concerns about Austrian domination drove Italian inte-
gration (Cronin,1999).Hendrickson (2003) makes a convin-
cing casethat concernsover externalthreatscontributed
substantially to the “peace pact” among the original13 United
States.As GeorgeWashington remarked,if Georgia,“with
powerful tribes of Indians in its rear, & the Spanish on its flank,
do not incline to embrace a strong generalGovernment,there
must,I should think,be either wickedness,or insanity in their
conduct” (Washington quoted in Parent,2011:p. 45).In fact,
Georgia was one of the first states to ratify the US Constitution.
In sum,when the history is known,a recurring theme is that a
common externalthreatis one factorthatcan facilitate the
formation of a peace system.This leads us to raise the question
by analogy whether common threats to humanity such as cli-
mate change,ecologicalcollapse,or globalpandemicscould
spur among globalneighbours the type ofunity,cooperation,
and peacefulpractices thatare the hallmark ofpeace systems
existing at other sociallevels (see Fig.4).
Third, anotherfactorthatmay give initialimpetusto the
developmentof a peace system is visionary peace-focused lea-
dership. Such leadership was clearly present at the founding o
United States among the Federalists as they pointed out the p
of anarchy and the benefits ofunification (Hendrickson,2003;
Parent,2011).The legendary peacemaker of the Iroquois,Dega-
nawidah,advocated a new vision with peace and unity at its co
and voiced the explicit goalof replacing chronic warfare with a
confederation,the League of Peace.In a similar vein and driven
by a vision ofabolishing future wars in Europe,Jean Monnet
(1978) and his colleagues conceptualised a new order with ce
tralised,supranationalinstitutions.Like Deganawidah,the peace
leadership ofMonnetand his contemporarieswascriticalin
promoting a transformation in thinking and acting thatsuc-
cessfully turned a continent away from war (Fry,2012).Monnet
not only gave the people and politicians ofEurope a vision of
peace,but also provided a plan on how to achieve the socio-
Fig. 4 A wounded planet is conveyed by Sphere within Sphere by Arnaldo
Pomodoro,1996, just outside the United Nations Headquarters in New
York. Extant peace systems demonstrate the human capacities to create
non-warring socialsystems and to solve common challenges through
collaboration.An understanding of peace systems holds promise for
facilitating cooperation and solidarity in addressing globalpandemics,
climate change,and ecosystem collapse.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,allrights reserved.
Fig. 5 Jean Monnet (1888–1979), avid promoter of European integration,
epitomises the type of visionary peace leadership sometimes seen in
peace systems that can unify hostile neighbours and guide them on a
new path away from the scourge of war.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,allrights reserved.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 7
positive reciprocity,and positive goals).
With the partial exception of ethnocentrism, war variables also
positively correlated with one another. All significant correlations
between peace and war variables were negative, with peace versus
war values and norms showing a very a strong negative correla-
tion. Additionally,peacesystemstend to havesignificantly
strongerpeace valuesand norms,whereasnon-peace systems
tend to have significantly stronger war values and norms.
Perhaps, once established, either war or peace orientations may
stabiliseamongneighbouringsocieties.However,over time
conditions ofwar among neighbours can be transformed into
non-warring relationships, such as among the Swiss cantons after
Switzerland was formed,Italian states and kingdoms after uni-
fication,or the tribes of Iroquoia after the creation of their con-
federacy (Archer,2003;Fry, 2006;Sponsel,2018).The Nordic
countries transitioned “from a region rife with warfare to an area
whose conflicts are ‘non-wars’embracing diplomatic solutions”
(Archer,2003:p. 8).
An important topic for future research would be the investi-
gation ofwhich features found in peace systems have been key
driversof transformationsovertime from warto peace.The
collection of longitudinaldata,when available,on the nature of
historicaltransformationswould be necessary to addressthis
topic.Some peace systems such as the ten Upper Xingu peoples,
the Montagnais-Naskapi-EastMain Cree,the Malaysian Orang
Asli, and the Nigiri Plateau tribes were already in operation when
early ethnographic information was gathered,so the historical
roots of the non-warringintergroup relationsprobablywill
remain obscure.However,historicaland ethnohistoricaldata do
existfor some cases such as the formation ofSwitzerland,the
United States,and the Iroquois confederacy.The findings of this
study lead to severalprovisionalobservations thatare ripe for
further historicalinvestigation.
First,it seems thata sense ofoverarching identity develops
gradually over time,becoming,as found in our study,a main-
taining feature of peace systems but not necessarily an early driver
of peace.For example,it took time for an overarching Italian
identity to emerge following unification (Cronin, 1999). Likewise,
at the time of the US Constitutional Convention, people perceived
themselvesfirst-and-foremostas New Yorkers,North Car-
olinians, Virginians, and so on, not members of the United States
as a whole (Hendrickson,2003;Parent,2011).This overarching
US identity developed over time.
Second,our research suggests that security interdependence
often drives historicaltransformations toward unity,coopera-
tion,and peace.Parent (2011:p. 91) succinctly concludes that
“Switzerland is a country because foreign threats forged it into
one”.Concerns about Austrian domination drove Italian inte-
gration (Cronin,1999).Hendrickson (2003) makes a convin-
cing casethat concernsover externalthreatscontributed
substantially to the “peace pact” among the original13 United
States.As GeorgeWashington remarked,if Georgia,“with
powerful tribes of Indians in its rear, & the Spanish on its flank,
do not incline to embrace a strong generalGovernment,there
must,I should think,be either wickedness,or insanity in their
conduct” (Washington quoted in Parent,2011:p. 45).In fact,
Georgia was one of the first states to ratify the US Constitution.
In sum,when the history is known,a recurring theme is that a
common externalthreatis one factorthatcan facilitate the
formation of a peace system.This leads us to raise the question
by analogy whether common threats to humanity such as cli-
mate change,ecologicalcollapse,or globalpandemicscould
spur among globalneighbours the type ofunity,cooperation,
and peacefulpractices thatare the hallmark ofpeace systems
existing at other sociallevels (see Fig.4).
Third, anotherfactorthatmay give initialimpetusto the
developmentof a peace system is visionary peace-focused lea-
dership. Such leadership was clearly present at the founding o
United States among the Federalists as they pointed out the p
of anarchy and the benefits ofunification (Hendrickson,2003;
Parent,2011).The legendary peacemaker of the Iroquois,Dega-
nawidah,advocated a new vision with peace and unity at its co
and voiced the explicit goalof replacing chronic warfare with a
confederation,the League of Peace.In a similar vein and driven
by a vision ofabolishing future wars in Europe,Jean Monnet
(1978) and his colleagues conceptualised a new order with ce
tralised,supranationalinstitutions.Like Deganawidah,the peace
leadership ofMonnetand his contemporarieswascriticalin
promoting a transformation in thinking and acting thatsuc-
cessfully turned a continent away from war (Fry,2012).Monnet
not only gave the people and politicians ofEurope a vision of
peace,but also provided a plan on how to achieve the socio-
Fig. 4 A wounded planet is conveyed by Sphere within Sphere by Arnaldo
Pomodoro,1996, just outside the United Nations Headquarters in New
York. Extant peace systems demonstrate the human capacities to create
non-warring socialsystems and to solve common challenges through
collaboration.An understanding of peace systems holds promise for
facilitating cooperation and solidarity in addressing globalpandemics,
climate change,and ecosystem collapse.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,allrights reserved.
Fig. 5 Jean Monnet (1888–1979), avid promoter of European integration,
epitomises the type of visionary peace leadership sometimes seen in
peace systems that can unify hostile neighbours and guide them on a
new path away from the scourge of war.Reproduced with permission of
Douglas P.Fry;copyright © Douglas P.Fry,allrights reserved.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 7
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
politicaltransformation from war to peace,which segues to our
next observation (see Fig.5).
We found that economic relationships and interdependencies
existto a greaterdegree in peace systemsthan in non-peace
systems.Is economic interdependence an initialcontributor to
peace or does it come later as a reflection of established peace?
Whereas a systematic assessment of this question deserves further
historical research,the only clear case in our sample of economic
interdependence being purposefully promoted in the name of
peace is by the architects of the European Union.The European
founders strove to make the economies ofEuropean countries
progressively more integrated (Monnet,1978).The firstmajor
step was the formation of the supranationalEuropean Coaland
SteelCommunity,followed by the Common Market,and ulti-
mately by ahost of integrated economicmeasuresand EU
institutions. As a provisional generalisation however, it seems that
economic interdependence more typically flourishes after peace
systems come into being,rather than being intentionally devel-
oped at the onset as a path to peace.For example,prior to the
formation ofthe IroquoisConfederacy,economicexchange
among the warring groups was nil. Archaeology shows how trade
among the member societies increased over time once the Great
League of Peace was established.Regarding Italy,“politicalinte-
gration preceded economicintegration”(Cronin,1999:p. 76,
emphasis in original).Similarly,prior to unification there was
minimalcommercialactivity and no common currency among
the original13 US colonies-turned-states (Hendrickson,2003).
Indeed,afterunification economic interdependence developed
over time.
We raise three policy implications.First,our findings suggest
thatmultiple factors are importantin the dynamics ofcreating
and maintaining peacefulsocialsystems.Therefore,rather than
looking for a single path, it may be more effective to take a multi-
pronged approach to enhancingpositive, collaborative
relationships.
Second,non-warring norms and values deserve specialmen-
tion because they are among the highest scoring of allthe peace
variables and correspondingly have high levels of importance for
a peace system outcome as assessed by machine learning. Counter
to presumptionsthat materialfactorspredominate,peace-
orientedvaluesand normativeprinciplesmay be critically
importantin the developmentof non-warring,prosocialinter-
group relations.
Non-warring norms and values can become so established that
war within the system becomes inconceivable.For example,the
historically warring Swisscantons,or belligerentItalian king-
doms, after they were amalgamated in the 1800s into Switzerland
and Italy,respectively,came to perceive themselvesas unified
non-warring members of a common national society. Similarly, if
disputing water rights, it is understood that Colorado and Kansas
will meetin the courtroom rather than on the battlefield (Fry,
2006).Among the Nordic countries,Dutch provinces,and Iro-
quoian tribes,the war option became unthinkable as nonviolent
normsevolved to govern transborderrelations(Archer,2003;
Souillac,2012,2020).
Leaders may promote new norms and values that disavow war
and promote peace.The Iroquois adopted peace as a core value,
as chiefsdedicated themselvesto “righteousness,justice,and
peace”(Dennis,1993:p. 87).They literally referred to their
confederacy as the GreatPeace orthe League ofPeace.They
promoted norms in the League of Peace that emphasised respect
for others,restraint against expressing hostility,consensus-based
decision-making,and the promotion of the common good over
solely parochial interests (Dennis,1993).To reinforce values and
norms for peace and unity, the meetings of the Intertribal Council
alwaysbegan with a recitation ofthe epic legend ofhow the
prophet-peacemaker,Deganawidah,and his followers established
the Great Peace (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998).
In sum,values and norms constitute the principles and rules
that circumscribe acceptable social action (Schirch, 2014; Sou
2012,2020).Leaderscan promotein word and deed—and
societies can codify in laws and institutions—peace-promoting
anti-war values and norms.Non-warring values and norms can
be enhanced and supported through cultural narratives,symbols,
and ritualswhilealso being builtinto institutionsand legal
structures. In the words of Jean Monnet (1978: pp. 304–5, 384
creating peace,“Nothing ispossible withoutmen;nothing is
lasting withoutinstitutions.…The life ofinstitutions is longer
than that of men:if they are well built,they can accumulate and
hand on the wisdom to succeeding generations.”
Third,architects of peace may find it most profitable to focu
on peace-related factors that are both important and changea
(Souillac,2012,2020).Whereasa positivehistoryof inter-
connectedness—found via machine learning to be moderately
important in peace systems—cannot be changed as the past h
passed, interconnectedness in various other realms, such as t
can be augmented through deliberateeconomicpolicies.As
mentioned,an explicitstrategyof economicintegration was
employedduring European unification (Fry,2012;Monnet,
1978),and economic exchange also appears in other peace sys
tems such as the tribalsocieties ofthe NilgiriPlateau and the
UpperXingu Riverbasin (Gregor,1994;Rivers,1986).Over-
arching institutionscan be created,often by applying known
mechanisms of dispute resolution or decision-making at highe
transborderlevels.Finally, returningto historicalinter-
connectedness, narratives about past relationships also may b
contextualised to promotepeacein the presentand future
(Souillac,2012,2020).
The promotion of peacefulinteraction among societies is not
merely valuable in-and-of-itself,but also can facilitate the regio-
nal and globalcooperation necessary to addresschallengesto
human survivaland well-being thatspan borders.The United
NationsSecretary-General,António Guterres,emphasisesthe
need for internationalcooperation to address such globalchal-
lenges as climate change and pandemics (Guterres,2020).The
nurturing of non-warring social systems may be corequisite w
the international cooperation needed to address such interwo
global challenges as pandemics, species loss, nuclear prolifera
and climate change.The developmentof regionaland global
peace systems offers potentialfor addressing common transbor-
der challenges.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included
this published article in the Supplementary Information online
data file.
Received:2 August 2020;Accepted:7 December 2020;
References
Archer C (2003) Introduction.In: Archer C,Joenniemi P (eds) The Nordic peace.
Ashgate,Hampshire,UK, pp.1–23
Bellier I,Wilson T (2000)An anthropology ofthe European Union:building,
imagining and experiencing the new Europe.Berg,Oxford,UK
Coleman PT,Deutsch M (eds) (2012) Psychologicalcomponents ofsustainable
peace.Springer,New York,NY
Cronin B (1999)Community underanarchy.Columbia University Press,New
York,NY
Dennis M (1993) Cultivating a landscape of peace. Cornell University Press, Ith
NY
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
8 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
next observation (see Fig.5).
We found that economic relationships and interdependencies
existto a greaterdegree in peace systemsthan in non-peace
systems.Is economic interdependence an initialcontributor to
peace or does it come later as a reflection of established peace?
Whereas a systematic assessment of this question deserves further
historical research,the only clear case in our sample of economic
interdependence being purposefully promoted in the name of
peace is by the architects of the European Union.The European
founders strove to make the economies ofEuropean countries
progressively more integrated (Monnet,1978).The firstmajor
step was the formation of the supranationalEuropean Coaland
SteelCommunity,followed by the Common Market,and ulti-
mately by ahost of integrated economicmeasuresand EU
institutions. As a provisional generalisation however, it seems that
economic interdependence more typically flourishes after peace
systems come into being,rather than being intentionally devel-
oped at the onset as a path to peace.For example,prior to the
formation ofthe IroquoisConfederacy,economicexchange
among the warring groups was nil. Archaeology shows how trade
among the member societies increased over time once the Great
League of Peace was established.Regarding Italy,“politicalinte-
gration preceded economicintegration”(Cronin,1999:p. 76,
emphasis in original).Similarly,prior to unification there was
minimalcommercialactivity and no common currency among
the original13 US colonies-turned-states (Hendrickson,2003).
Indeed,afterunification economic interdependence developed
over time.
We raise three policy implications.First,our findings suggest
thatmultiple factors are importantin the dynamics ofcreating
and maintaining peacefulsocialsystems.Therefore,rather than
looking for a single path, it may be more effective to take a multi-
pronged approach to enhancingpositive, collaborative
relationships.
Second,non-warring norms and values deserve specialmen-
tion because they are among the highest scoring of allthe peace
variables and correspondingly have high levels of importance for
a peace system outcome as assessed by machine learning. Counter
to presumptionsthat materialfactorspredominate,peace-
orientedvaluesand normativeprinciplesmay be critically
importantin the developmentof non-warring,prosocialinter-
group relations.
Non-warring norms and values can become so established that
war within the system becomes inconceivable.For example,the
historically warring Swisscantons,or belligerentItalian king-
doms, after they were amalgamated in the 1800s into Switzerland
and Italy,respectively,came to perceive themselvesas unified
non-warring members of a common national society. Similarly, if
disputing water rights, it is understood that Colorado and Kansas
will meetin the courtroom rather than on the battlefield (Fry,
2006).Among the Nordic countries,Dutch provinces,and Iro-
quoian tribes,the war option became unthinkable as nonviolent
normsevolved to govern transborderrelations(Archer,2003;
Souillac,2012,2020).
Leaders may promote new norms and values that disavow war
and promote peace.The Iroquois adopted peace as a core value,
as chiefsdedicated themselvesto “righteousness,justice,and
peace”(Dennis,1993:p. 87).They literally referred to their
confederacy as the GreatPeace orthe League ofPeace.They
promoted norms in the League of Peace that emphasised respect
for others,restraint against expressing hostility,consensus-based
decision-making,and the promotion of the common good over
solely parochial interests (Dennis,1993).To reinforce values and
norms for peace and unity, the meetings of the Intertribal Council
alwaysbegan with a recitation ofthe epic legend ofhow the
prophet-peacemaker,Deganawidah,and his followers established
the Great Peace (Dennis,1993;Fenton,1998).
In sum,values and norms constitute the principles and rules
that circumscribe acceptable social action (Schirch, 2014; Sou
2012,2020).Leaderscan promotein word and deed—and
societies can codify in laws and institutions—peace-promoting
anti-war values and norms.Non-warring values and norms can
be enhanced and supported through cultural narratives,symbols,
and ritualswhilealso being builtinto institutionsand legal
structures. In the words of Jean Monnet (1978: pp. 304–5, 384
creating peace,“Nothing ispossible withoutmen;nothing is
lasting withoutinstitutions.…The life ofinstitutions is longer
than that of men:if they are well built,they can accumulate and
hand on the wisdom to succeeding generations.”
Third,architects of peace may find it most profitable to focu
on peace-related factors that are both important and changea
(Souillac,2012,2020).Whereasa positivehistoryof inter-
connectedness—found via machine learning to be moderately
important in peace systems—cannot be changed as the past h
passed, interconnectedness in various other realms, such as t
can be augmented through deliberateeconomicpolicies.As
mentioned,an explicitstrategyof economicintegration was
employedduring European unification (Fry,2012;Monnet,
1978),and economic exchange also appears in other peace sys
tems such as the tribalsocieties ofthe NilgiriPlateau and the
UpperXingu Riverbasin (Gregor,1994;Rivers,1986).Over-
arching institutionscan be created,often by applying known
mechanisms of dispute resolution or decision-making at highe
transborderlevels.Finally, returningto historicalinter-
connectedness, narratives about past relationships also may b
contextualised to promotepeacein the presentand future
(Souillac,2012,2020).
The promotion of peacefulinteraction among societies is not
merely valuable in-and-of-itself,but also can facilitate the regio-
nal and globalcooperation necessary to addresschallengesto
human survivaland well-being thatspan borders.The United
NationsSecretary-General,António Guterres,emphasisesthe
need for internationalcooperation to address such globalchal-
lenges as climate change and pandemics (Guterres,2020).The
nurturing of non-warring social systems may be corequisite w
the international cooperation needed to address such interwo
global challenges as pandemics, species loss, nuclear prolifera
and climate change.The developmentof regionaland global
peace systems offers potentialfor addressing common transbor-
der challenges.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included
this published article in the Supplementary Information online
data file.
Received:2 August 2020;Accepted:7 December 2020;
References
Archer C (2003) Introduction.In: Archer C,Joenniemi P (eds) The Nordic peace.
Ashgate,Hampshire,UK, pp.1–23
Bellier I,Wilson T (2000)An anthropology ofthe European Union:building,
imagining and experiencing the new Europe.Berg,Oxford,UK
Coleman PT,Deutsch M (eds) (2012) Psychologicalcomponents ofsustainable
peace.Springer,New York,NY
Cronin B (1999)Community underanarchy.Columbia University Press,New
York,NY
Dennis M (1993) Cultivating a landscape of peace. Cornell University Press, Ith
NY
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
8 H U M A N I T I E S A N D S O C I A L S C I E N C E S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S |(2021)8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8
Dentan R (2004) Cautious,alert,polite,and elusive:the Semaiof CentralPenin-
sular Malaysia. In: Kemp G, Fry DP (eds) Keeping the peace. Routledge, New
York,NY, pp.167–184
Dovidio J, Gaertner S, Kafati G (2000) Group identity and intergroup relations: the
common in-group identity model.Adv Group Process 17:1–35
Ember C,Ember M (2001) Cross-culturalresearch methods.Alta Mira,Lanham,
MD
Endicott KM (2017) Peaceful sociality: the causes of nonviolence among the Orang
Asli of Malaysia. In: Ziegler Remme JH, Sillander K (eds) Human nature and
sociallife.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp.97–109
Endicott KM,Endicott KL (2008) The headman was a woman.Waveland,Long
Grove,IL
Fenton W (1998) The great law of the longhouse.University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman,OK
Ferguson RB (2013) The prehistory of war and peace in Europe and the Near East.
In: Fry DP (ed) War,peace,and human nature.Oxford University Press,
Oxford,pp.191–240
Fry DP (2006) The human potentialfor peace.Oxford University Press,Oxford
Fry DP (2009) Anthropologicalinsights for creating nonwarring socialsystems.J
Aggress Confl Peace Res 1:4–15
Fry DP (2012) Life without war.Science 336:879–884
Goldschmidt W (1994) Peacemaking and the institutions of peace in tribal society.
In: SponselLE, Gregor T (eds) The anthropology of peace and nonviolence.
Rienner,Boulder,CO, pp.109–131
Gregor T (1990) Uneasy peace:intertribalrelations in Brazil’s Upper Xingu.In:
Haas J(ed)The anthropology ofwar.Cambridge University Press,Cam-
bridge,pp.105–124
Gregor T (1994) Symbols and rituals of peace in Brazil’s Upper Xingu. In:Sponsel
LE, GregorT eds The anthropology ofpeace and nonviolence.Rienner,
Boulder,CO, pp.241–257
Guterres A (2020)Globalcooperation mustadaptto meetbiggestthreatsince
Second World War, Secretary-General says on International Day, as COVID-
19 transcends borders.United Nations,Secretary-General,Statements and
Messages,April 23, availableat: https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/
sgsm20058.doc.htm
Haarh M (2020) Random number generator.Available at:https://www.random.
org/
Haas J (1999) The origins of war and ethnic violence.In: Carman J,Harding A
(eds) Ancient warfare.Sutton,Gloucestershire,UK, pp.11–24
Hendrickson D (2003) Peace pact.University of Kansas,Lawrence
Hill S (2010) Europe’s promise.University of California Press,Berkeley
HowellS (1989) ‘To be angry is not to be human,but to be fearfulis’:Chewong
concepts ofhuman nature.In: HowellS, Willis R (eds) Societies atpeace.
Routledge,London,pp.45–59
IBM (2019) SPSS,version 26.0,released 13 May
Ireland E (1986)Cerebralsavage:the whiteman assymbolof clevernessand
savagery in Waurá myth.In: Hill J (ed) Rethinking history and myth.Uni-
versity of Illinois Press,Urbana,pp.158–173
Liebovitch LS,Coleman PT,BechhoferA, Colon C, Donahue J,Eisenbach C,
Guzmán-Vargas L,Jacobs D,Khan A,Li C, Maksumov D,Mucia J,Persaud
M, SalimiM, Schweiger L,Wang,Q (2019) Complexity analysis of sustain-
able peace:mathematicalmodels and data science measurements.N J Phys
21:073022
Monnet J (1978) Memoirs,trans by Mayne,R. Double Day,Garden City,NY
Montagu A (ed) (1978) Learning non-aggression. Oxford University Press,Oxford
Murdock G, White D (1969) Standard cross-cultural sample.Ethnology 8:329–369
Murdock G,White D (2006) Standard cross-culturalsample:online edition.UC
Irvine, Social Dynamics and Complexity, Irvine, CA, https://escholarship.org/
uc/item/62c5c02n#main Available online at
Nowak A, Bui-Wrzosinska L, Vallacher R, Coleman PT (2012) Sustainable peace: a
dynamicalsystems perspective.In: Coleman PT,Deutsch M (eds) Psycho-
logicalcomponents of sustainable peace.Springer,New York,NY
Parent J (2011) Uniting states.Oxford University Press,Oxford
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M,
Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D,
Brucher M,Perrot M,Duchesnay É (2011) Scikit-learn:machine learning in
python J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830. http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/papers/v12/
pedregosa11a.htmlAvailable online
Raschka S, Mirjalili V (2017) Python machine learning: machine learning and deep
learning with Python,scikit-learn,and TensorFlow,3rd edn.Packt,Bir-
mingham,UK
Rivers W (1986) The Todas.Rawat,Jaipur,India [originally published,1906]
Rubin J,Pruitt D,Kim S (1994) Socialconflict:escalation,stalemate,and settle-
ment,2nd edn.McGraw-Hill,New York,NY
Schirch L (2014) Ritualand symbolin peacebuilding.Kumarian,Boulder,CO
Souillac G (2012) A study in transborder ethics:justice,citizenship,and civility.
Lang,Brussels
Souillac G (2020) Peace as integration:the modern era.In: Edsforth WR (ed) A
culturalhistory ofpeace,1920-Present,vol 6. Bloomberg,London,pp.
163–180
Souillac G,Fry DP (2014) Indigenous lessons for conflict resolution.In: Coleman
PT, Deutsch M, Marcus E eds The handbook of conflict resolution theory an
practice.Jossey-Bass,San Francisco,CA, pp.604–622
Souillac G,Fry DP (2015) The philosophicalanthropology ofinterculturality:a
vehicle for creating inclusive identities and positive peace.Thémata,Revista
de Filosofía 52:31–39
SponselLE (2018)One anthropologist’sanswerto Glenn D Paige’squestion
challenging peace studies.J Peace Educ 15:267–287
Staab A (2008) The European Union explained.Indiana University Press,Bloo-
mington,IN
Walker A (1986) The Toda of South India.Hundustan,Delhi,India
White D (1989) Focused ethnographic bibliography:standard cross-culturalsam-
ple.Behav Sci Res 23:1–145
Wilson E (2001) On human nature.In: Barash DP (ed.) Understanding violence.
Allyn and Bacon,Boston
Wright Q (1942) A study of war.University of Chicago Press,Chicago
Yiu T (2019) Understanding random forest: how the algorithm works and why i
so effective.TowardsData Science,June 12. Availableonline:https://
towardsdatascience.com/understanding-random-forest-58381e0602d2
Acknowledgements
We thank Benjamin Maddox,David Gilchrist,and Michelle Bird for facilitating the
project in various ways and Dr. Jeff Labban for analytical consultation and advice.Some
of the ethnographic data collected through the NationalScience Foundation research
grant “A Cross-CulturalStudy of Conflict Prevention,Resolution,and Reconciliation”
(0313670),PI Douglas P.Fry,were used in this project.The Advanced Consortium on
Cooperation,Conflict,and Complexity (AC4) at Columbia University,directed by Peter
T. Coleman,provided funding to hire research assistants,as did the University of Ala-
bama at Birmingham through start-up funds for Douglas P.Fry.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additionalinformation
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41
020-00692-8.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.P.F.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
published maps and institutionalaffiliations.
Open AccessThis articleis licensed undera CreativeCommons
Attribution 4.0InternationalLicense,which permitsuse, sharing,
adaptation,distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea
Commons license,and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party
materialin this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license,unless
indicated otherwise in a creditline to the material.If materialis notincluded in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statut
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
the copyright holder.To view a copy ofthis license,visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2021
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 9
sular Malaysia. In: Kemp G, Fry DP (eds) Keeping the peace. Routledge, New
York,NY, pp.167–184
Dovidio J, Gaertner S, Kafati G (2000) Group identity and intergroup relations: the
common in-group identity model.Adv Group Process 17:1–35
Ember C,Ember M (2001) Cross-culturalresearch methods.Alta Mira,Lanham,
MD
Endicott KM (2017) Peaceful sociality: the causes of nonviolence among the Orang
Asli of Malaysia. In: Ziegler Remme JH, Sillander K (eds) Human nature and
sociallife.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp.97–109
Endicott KM,Endicott KL (2008) The headman was a woman.Waveland,Long
Grove,IL
Fenton W (1998) The great law of the longhouse.University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman,OK
Ferguson RB (2013) The prehistory of war and peace in Europe and the Near East.
In: Fry DP (ed) War,peace,and human nature.Oxford University Press,
Oxford,pp.191–240
Fry DP (2006) The human potentialfor peace.Oxford University Press,Oxford
Fry DP (2009) Anthropologicalinsights for creating nonwarring socialsystems.J
Aggress Confl Peace Res 1:4–15
Fry DP (2012) Life without war.Science 336:879–884
Goldschmidt W (1994) Peacemaking and the institutions of peace in tribal society.
In: SponselLE, Gregor T (eds) The anthropology of peace and nonviolence.
Rienner,Boulder,CO, pp.109–131
Gregor T (1990) Uneasy peace:intertribalrelations in Brazil’s Upper Xingu.In:
Haas J(ed)The anthropology ofwar.Cambridge University Press,Cam-
bridge,pp.105–124
Gregor T (1994) Symbols and rituals of peace in Brazil’s Upper Xingu. In:Sponsel
LE, GregorT eds The anthropology ofpeace and nonviolence.Rienner,
Boulder,CO, pp.241–257
Guterres A (2020)Globalcooperation mustadaptto meetbiggestthreatsince
Second World War, Secretary-General says on International Day, as COVID-
19 transcends borders.United Nations,Secretary-General,Statements and
Messages,April 23, availableat: https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/
sgsm20058.doc.htm
Haarh M (2020) Random number generator.Available at:https://www.random.
org/
Haas J (1999) The origins of war and ethnic violence.In: Carman J,Harding A
(eds) Ancient warfare.Sutton,Gloucestershire,UK, pp.11–24
Hendrickson D (2003) Peace pact.University of Kansas,Lawrence
Hill S (2010) Europe’s promise.University of California Press,Berkeley
HowellS (1989) ‘To be angry is not to be human,but to be fearfulis’:Chewong
concepts ofhuman nature.In: HowellS, Willis R (eds) Societies atpeace.
Routledge,London,pp.45–59
IBM (2019) SPSS,version 26.0,released 13 May
Ireland E (1986)Cerebralsavage:the whiteman assymbolof clevernessand
savagery in Waurá myth.In: Hill J (ed) Rethinking history and myth.Uni-
versity of Illinois Press,Urbana,pp.158–173
Liebovitch LS,Coleman PT,BechhoferA, Colon C, Donahue J,Eisenbach C,
Guzmán-Vargas L,Jacobs D,Khan A,Li C, Maksumov D,Mucia J,Persaud
M, SalimiM, Schweiger L,Wang,Q (2019) Complexity analysis of sustain-
able peace:mathematicalmodels and data science measurements.N J Phys
21:073022
Monnet J (1978) Memoirs,trans by Mayne,R. Double Day,Garden City,NY
Montagu A (ed) (1978) Learning non-aggression. Oxford University Press,Oxford
Murdock G, White D (1969) Standard cross-cultural sample.Ethnology 8:329–369
Murdock G,White D (2006) Standard cross-culturalsample:online edition.UC
Irvine, Social Dynamics and Complexity, Irvine, CA, https://escholarship.org/
uc/item/62c5c02n#main Available online at
Nowak A, Bui-Wrzosinska L, Vallacher R, Coleman PT (2012) Sustainable peace: a
dynamicalsystems perspective.In: Coleman PT,Deutsch M (eds) Psycho-
logicalcomponents of sustainable peace.Springer,New York,NY
Parent J (2011) Uniting states.Oxford University Press,Oxford
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M,
Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D,
Brucher M,Perrot M,Duchesnay É (2011) Scikit-learn:machine learning in
python J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830. http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/papers/v12/
pedregosa11a.htmlAvailable online
Raschka S, Mirjalili V (2017) Python machine learning: machine learning and deep
learning with Python,scikit-learn,and TensorFlow,3rd edn.Packt,Bir-
mingham,UK
Rivers W (1986) The Todas.Rawat,Jaipur,India [originally published,1906]
Rubin J,Pruitt D,Kim S (1994) Socialconflict:escalation,stalemate,and settle-
ment,2nd edn.McGraw-Hill,New York,NY
Schirch L (2014) Ritualand symbolin peacebuilding.Kumarian,Boulder,CO
Souillac G (2012) A study in transborder ethics:justice,citizenship,and civility.
Lang,Brussels
Souillac G (2020) Peace as integration:the modern era.In: Edsforth WR (ed) A
culturalhistory ofpeace,1920-Present,vol 6. Bloomberg,London,pp.
163–180
Souillac G,Fry DP (2014) Indigenous lessons for conflict resolution.In: Coleman
PT, Deutsch M, Marcus E eds The handbook of conflict resolution theory an
practice.Jossey-Bass,San Francisco,CA, pp.604–622
Souillac G,Fry DP (2015) The philosophicalanthropology ofinterculturality:a
vehicle for creating inclusive identities and positive peace.Thémata,Revista
de Filosofía 52:31–39
SponselLE (2018)One anthropologist’sanswerto Glenn D Paige’squestion
challenging peace studies.J Peace Educ 15:267–287
Staab A (2008) The European Union explained.Indiana University Press,Bloo-
mington,IN
Walker A (1986) The Toda of South India.Hundustan,Delhi,India
White D (1989) Focused ethnographic bibliography:standard cross-culturalsam-
ple.Behav Sci Res 23:1–145
Wilson E (2001) On human nature.In: Barash DP (ed.) Understanding violence.
Allyn and Bacon,Boston
Wright Q (1942) A study of war.University of Chicago Press,Chicago
Yiu T (2019) Understanding random forest: how the algorithm works and why i
so effective.TowardsData Science,June 12. Availableonline:https://
towardsdatascience.com/understanding-random-forest-58381e0602d2
Acknowledgements
We thank Benjamin Maddox,David Gilchrist,and Michelle Bird for facilitating the
project in various ways and Dr. Jeff Labban for analytical consultation and advice.Some
of the ethnographic data collected through the NationalScience Foundation research
grant “A Cross-CulturalStudy of Conflict Prevention,Resolution,and Reconciliation”
(0313670),PI Douglas P.Fry,were used in this project.The Advanced Consortium on
Cooperation,Conflict,and Complexity (AC4) at Columbia University,directed by Peter
T. Coleman,provided funding to hire research assistants,as did the University of Ala-
bama at Birmingham through start-up funds for Douglas P.Fry.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additionalinformation
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41
020-00692-8.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.P.F.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
published maps and institutionalaffiliations.
Open AccessThis articleis licensed undera CreativeCommons
Attribution 4.0InternationalLicense,which permitsuse, sharing,
adaptation,distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea
Commons license,and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party
materialin this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license,unless
indicated otherwise in a creditline to the material.If materialis notincluded in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statut
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
the copyright holder.To view a copy ofthis license,visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2021
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS |(2021) 8:17| https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00692-8 9
1 out of 9
![[object Object]](/_next/image/?url=%2F_next%2Fstatic%2Fmedia%2Flogo.6d15ce61.png&w=640&q=75){kind=small}
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.