Why do researchers see cross-cultural variations in the use of mental states during moral judgements? These researchers examined the relationship between this use and kinship intensity which has previously only been used for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Rich, & Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Although their data set was fairly small, their findings outline promising avenues of future investigations and hint toward a significant negative relationship. This article also identifies additional independent variables to be investigated more in depth in the future.

Why do researchers see cross-cultural variations in the use of mental states during moral judgements? These researchers examined the relationship between this use and kinship intensity which has previously only been used for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Rich, & Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Although their data set was fairly small, their findings outline promising avenues of future investigations and hint toward a significant negative relationship. This article also identifies additional independent variables to be investigated more in depth in the future.

Why do researchers see cross-cultural variations in the use of mental states during moral judgements? These researchers examined the relationship between this use and kinship intensity which has previously only been used for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Rich, & Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Although their data set was fairly small, their findings outline promising avenues of future investigations and hint toward a significant negative relationship. This article also identifies additional independent variables to be investigated more in depth in the future.

Why do researchers see cross-cultural variations in the use of mental states during moral judgements? These researchers examined the relationship between this use and kinship intensity which has previously only been used for WEIRD (Western, Educated, Rich, & Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Although their data set was fairly small, their findings outline promising avenues of future investigations and hint toward a significant negative relationship. This article also identifies additional independent variables to be investigated more in depth in the future.

Using frequentist and Bayesian multi-level models in a sample of two international samples, the authors test whether there are significant sex differences in moral judgments across a large-scale examination of countries. They compare men and women using the five components of the Moral Foundations Theory: 1) care, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) purity. In addition, they study the differences when considering socioeconomic and gender-equality status. The results partially support the presence of significant sex differences. While care, fairness, and purity were consistently higher for women; loyalty and authority were highly variable. The study also shows that there are larger sex differences in moral judgments across more individualist, WEIRD, and gender-equal societies.

Using frequentist and Bayesian multi-level models in a sample of two international samples, the authors test whether there are significant sex differences in moral judgments across a large-scale examination of countries. They compare men and women using the five components of the Moral Foundations Theory: 1) care, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) purity. In addition, they study the differences when considering socioeconomic and gender-equality status. The results partially support the presence of significant sex differences. While care, fairness, and purity were consistently higher for women; loyalty and authority were highly variable. The study also shows that there are larger sex differences in moral judgments across more individualist, WEIRD, and gender-equal societies.

Using frequentist and Bayesian multi-level models in a sample of two international samples, the authors test whether there are significant sex differences in moral judgments across a large-scale examination of countries. They compare men and women using the five components of the Moral Foundations Theory: 1) care, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) purity. In addition, they study the differences when considering socioeconomic and gender-equality status. The results partially support the presence of significant sex differences. While care, fairness, and purity were consistently higher for women; loyalty and authority were highly variable. The study also shows that there are larger sex differences in moral judgments across more individualist, WEIRD, and gender-equal societies.

Using frequentist and Bayesian multi-level models in a sample of two international samples, the authors test whether there are significant sex differences in moral judgments across a large-scale examination of countries. They compare men and women using the five components of the Moral Foundations Theory: 1) care, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) purity. In addition, they study the differences when considering socioeconomic and gender-equality status. The results partially support the presence of significant sex differences. While care, fairness, and purity were consistently higher for women; loyalty and authority were highly variable. The study also shows that there are larger sex differences in moral judgments across more individualist, WEIRD, and gender-equal societies.

Using frequentist and Bayesian multi-level models in a sample of two international samples, the authors test whether there are significant sex differences in moral judgments across a large-scale examination of countries. They compare men and women using the five components of the Moral Foundations Theory: 1) care, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) purity. In addition, they study the differences when considering socioeconomic and gender-equality status. The results partially support the presence of significant sex differences. While care, fairness, and purity were consistently higher for women; loyalty and authority were highly variable. The study also shows that there are larger sex differences in moral judgments across more individualist, WEIRD, and gender-equal societies.

This study investigates the relationship between the strength of historic kin-based interaction networks in a region, and the strength of modern state capacity in that region. The author compares two metrics, across a global sample: firstly, the Kinship Intensity Index (KII), which is calculated by region using five variables from the Ethnographic Atlas (societies are combined by region by weighting each EA society using its population size); and secondly, the State Capacity Index (SCI), which measures the functionality of modern-day nation-states. It is found that around the world, countries whose borders have historically been home to societies with strong kin-based interaction networks tend to have a significantly weaker state capacity.