22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Civil War and Social Cohesion: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Nepal : CIVIL WAR AND SOCIAL COHESION

      , ,
      American Journal of Political Science
      Wiley-Blackwell

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Multiple Inference and Gender Differences in the Effects of Early Intervention: A Reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Yes, but what's the mechanism? (don't expect an easy answer).

            Psychologists increasingly recommend experimental analysis of mediation. This is a step in the right direction because mediation analyses based on nonexperimental data are likely to be biased and because experiments, in principle, provide a sound basis for causal inference. But even experiments cannot overcome certain threats to inference that arise chiefly or exclusively in the context of mediation analysis-threats that have received little attention in psychology. The authors describe 3 of these threats and suggest ways to improve the exposition and design of mediation tests. Their conclusion is that inference about mediators is far more difficult than previous research suggests and is best tackled by an experimental research program that is specifically designed to address the challenges of mediation analysis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The coevolution of parochial altruism and war.

              Altruism-benefiting fellow group members at a cost to oneself-and parochialism-hostility toward individuals not of one's own ethnic, racial, or other group-are common human behaviors. The intersection of the two-which we term "parochial altruism"-is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because altruistic or parochial behavior reduces one's payoffs by comparison to what one would gain by eschewing these behaviors. But parochial altruism could have evolved if parochialism promoted intergroup hostilities and the combination of altruism and parochialism contributed to success in these conflicts. Our game-theoretic analysis and agent-based simulations show that under conditions likely to have been experienced by late Pleistocene and early Holocene humans, neither parochialism nor altruism would have been viable singly, but by promoting group conflict, they could have evolved jointly.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Political Science
                American Journal of Political Science
                Wiley-Blackwell
                00925853
                July 2014
                July 2014
                : 58
                : 3
                : 604-619
                Article
                10.1111/ajps.12067
                c02bafc2-89a6-405d-8346-04d81f3f0024
                © 2014

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article