Editing Democratic peace theory (section)

===Other explanations===
Many studies supporting the theory have controlled for many possible alternative causes of the peace. Examples of factors controlled for are geographic distance, geographic contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability. These studies have often found very different results depending on methodology and included variables, which has caused criticism. DPT does not state democracy is the only thing affecting the risk of military conflict. Many of the mentioned studies have found that other factors are also important.{{sfn|Ray|1998}}{{sfn|Ray|2005}}{{sfn|Oneal|Russett|2004}}

Several studies have also controlled for the possibility of reverse causality from peace to democracy. For example, one study supports the theory of simultaneous causation, finding that dyads involved in wars are likely to experience a decrease in joint democracy, which in turn increases the probability of further war. So they argue that disputes between democratizing or democratic states should be resolved externally at a very early stage, in order to stabilize the system.{{sfn|Reuveny|Li|2003}} Another study finds that peace does not spread democracy, but spreading democracy is likely to spread peace. A different kind of reverse causation lies in the suggestion that impending war could destroy or decrease democracy, because the preparation for war might include political restrictions, which may be the cause for the findings of democratic peace.{{sfn|Reiter|2001}} However, this hypothesis has been statistically tested in a study whose authors find, depending on the definition of the pre-war period, no such effect or a very slight one. So, they find this explanation unlikely.{{sfn|Mousseau|Shi|1999}} This explanation would predict a monadic effect, although weaker than the dyadic one.{{dubious|date=January 2016}}

Weart argues that the peacefulness appears and disappears rapidly when democracy appears and disappears. This in his view makes it unlikely that variables that change more slowly are the explanation.{{sfn|Weart|1998}} Weart, however, has been criticized for not offering any quantitative analysis supporting his claims.{{sfn|Ray|2000}}

Wars tend very strongly to be between neighboring states. Gleditsch showed that the average distance between democracies is about 8000 miles, the same as the average distance between all states. He believes that the effect of distance in preventing war, modified by the democratic peace, explains the incidence of war as fully as it can be explained.{{sfn|Gleditsch|1995}}

A 2020 study in ''International Organization'' found that it was not democracy per se that reduces the prospects for conflict, but whether women's suffrage was ensured. The study argued, "women's more pacific preferences generate a dyadic democratic peace (i.e., between democracies), as well as a monadic peace."{{sfn|Barnhart|Trager|Saunders|Dafoe|2020}}

According to [[Azar Gat]]'s ''War in Human Civilization'', there are several related and independent factors that contribute to democratic societies being more peaceful than other forms of governments:{{sfn|Gat|2006}}
#Wealth and comfort: Increased prosperity in democratic societies has been associated with peace because civilians are less willing to endure hardship of war and military service due to a more luxurious life at home than in pre-modern times. Increased wealth has worked to decrease war through comfort.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=597–598}}
#Metropolitan service society: The majority of army recruits come from the countryside or factory workers. Many believe that these types of people are suited for war. But as technology progressed the army turned more towards advanced services in information that rely more on computerized data which urbanized people are recruited more for this service.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=600–602}}
#Sexual revolution: The availability of sex due to the pill and women joining the labor market could be another factor that has led to less enthusiasm for men to go to war. Young men are more reluctant leave behind the pleasures of life for the rigors and chastity of the army.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=603–604}}
#Fewer young males: There is greater life expectancy which leads to fewer young males. Young males are the most aggressive and the ones that join the army the most. With fewer younger males in developed societies could help explain more pacificity.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=604–605}}
#Fewer children per family (lower [[fertility rate]]): During pre modern times it was always hard for families to lose a child but in modern times it has become more difficult due to more families having only one or two children. It has become even harder for parents to risk the loss of a child in war. However, Gat recognizes that this argument is a difficult one because during pre modern times the life expectancy was not high for children and bigger families were necessary.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=605–606}}
#Women's franchise: Women are less overtly aggressive than men. Therefore, women are less inclined to serious violence and do not support it as much as men do. In liberal democracies women have been able to influence the government by getting elected. Electing more women could have an effect on whether liberal democracies take a more aggressive approach on certain issues.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=606–607}}
#Nuclear weapons: Nuclear weapons could be the reason for not having a great power war. Many believe that a nuclear war would result in [[mutually assured destruction]] (MAD) which means that both countries involved in a nuclear war have the ability to strike the other until both sides are wiped out. This results in countries not wanting to strike the other for fear of being wiped out.{{sfn|Gat|2006|pp=608–609}}