This review is an update of Naroll's (1970) &dquo;What Have We Learned From Cross-Cultural Surveys?&dquo; Both the scope and purpose of this review are the same as the earlier one-to summarize what we have learned about human behavior from holocultural studies. By holocultural study I mean a study whose purpose is either to test or to derive a theory by means of mathematical analysis of data drawn from a sample of primitive societies representing three or more geographical regions of the world-studies like Murdock's (1949) Social Structure, Swanson's (1968) The Birth of the Gods, and Rohner's (1975) They Love Me, They Love Me Not. A second purpose of this review is to encourage more holocultural research. I try to do so in two ways. First, by pointing out topics such as the treatment of women that have been relatively neglected in holocultural research, and second, by singling out conflicting theories, especially where the conflict can only be resolved by rigorous, cross-cultural research.There are two key differences between this review and Naroll's earlier one. First, Naroll reviewed the 150 or so holocultural studies published prior to 1970. Here I review those same 150 as well as the 120 studies published since then. Second, Naroll emphasized studies of kinship and evolution, while paying less attention to studies of social problems and child rearing. Here I do the reverse. I carefully consider all holocultural studies of social problems and child rearing, whether Naroll reviewed them or not. But, largely because of space limitations, I gloss over the materials on evolution and kinship already included in Naroll, while looking more carefully at studies published since 1970.