Error Management Theory
- PDF / 123,558 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 504.567 x 720 pts Page_size
- 112 Downloads / 222 Views
Error Management Theory Shaunna N. Souve and Joseph A. Camilleri Westfield State University, Westfield, MA, USA
Definition Error management theory is a middle-level evolutionary theory that explains cognitive biases. Error management theory (EMT), proposed by Haselton and Buss (2000), explains the evolution of cognitive biases. EMT suggests that certain psychological mechanisms, such as the ones that help form decisions, evolved because they had a reproductive advantage (Haselton and Buss 2000). One such mechanism is a proneness to make either a false positive (see “▶ False Positive” entry) or a false negative (see “▶ False Negative” entry) in judgments when the outcome is uncertain. A false positive (also called a Type I Error) is when you identify something as true when it is false, such as perceiving a situation as dangerous when it is not, whereas a false negative (also called a Type II Error) is when you identify something as false when it is true, such as perceiving a situation as safe when it is dangerous (Haselton and Buss 2000). Adaptive biases for these errors may have been useful in ancestral situations. For example, there would be greater costs in mistaking dangerous situations as not dangerous than mistaking safe situations as not
safe. We are biased toward the error that maximizes benefits while minimizing costs (Haselton and Buss 2000). Haselton and Buss (2000) used EMT to explain women’s underestimation of men’s commitment levels (called the “▶ Commitment Skepticism Bias”, see entry) and men’s overperception of women’s sexual intent (called the “▶ Sexual Overperception Bias”, see entry). The commitment skepticism bias suggests women possess “intention-reading” adaptations that function to underestimate a potential mate’s commitment level, to avoid the cost of independently raising offspring, for example. Since women’s minimal obligatory parental investment is higher than that of men’s, it would be costly to believe a mating partner has a long-term commitment to the relationship when they do not (false positive) than to believe a mating partner does not have a long-term commitment to the relationship when they do (false negative). To test this hypothesis, Haselton and Buss (2000) compared cross-sex perceptions of commitment intent, with same-sex perceptions of commitment intent, and found that women’s ratings of men’s commitment avoidance was greater than men’s self-reported measures. A second study tested the default model hypothesis, which suggests that men use their own sexual desire to gauge women’s sexual intent, resulting in men’s overestimation of women’s sexual intent (Haselton and Buss 2000). Since men’s minimal obligatory parental
© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2020 T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2082-1
2
investment is lower than that of women’s, it would be costly to miss possible matin
Data Loading...
