And as we noted earlier, the cross-cultural studies

of James Prescott found a very strong correlation between negative child-rearing

practices, sexual repression and social violence. In fact, Prescott noted that these

correlations went further, and that societies with these three characteristics were

also likely to have class stratification, bride price, slavery and high gods concerned

with human morality.

Perhaps inevitably, anthropologists have attempted to explain these

correlations in terms of each other. For example, Ember and Ember suggest that

the correlation between sexual restrictiveness and social stratification is due to the

fact that “as social inequality increases and various groups of peoples have

differential wealth, parents become more concerned with preventing their children

from marrying ‘beneath them.

--- I'm not sure I understand what the author means by "explain these correlations in terms of each other"?
Do you understand what it means to explain A in terms of B? That's an explanation of A by using facts and principles already known about B.

For example, a thing may feel hotter than another because its molecules are moving faster. We can explain heat in terms of molecular motion.

When things are explained in terms of each other, A is explained in terms of B, and B is explained in terms of A. (This can only be done for two things that are quite closely related, of course.)

Helpful explanations CJ. Thanks!