Error management theory

Error Management (EM) is an extensive theory of perception and cognitive biases that was created by David Buss and Martie Haselton. The cognitive biases refer to biases and heuristics that have survived evolutionary history because they at the least held slight reproductive benefits. The premise of the theory is built around the drive to reduce or manage costly reproductive errors. According to the theory, when there are differences in the cost of errors made under conditions of uncertainty, selection favors "adaptive biases"; these adaptive biases ensure that the less costly survival or reproductive error will be committed. The theory itself is still in its early stages of development, although similar ideas have been touched on since the beginning of evolutionary psychology. The authors are currently "testing and refining" the theory.[1]

Error Management Theory asserts that evolved mind-reading agencies will be biased to produce more of one type of inferential error than another.[2]:333 These mind-reading biases have been further researched in terms of the mating world. Error management theory provides a clear explanation for the discovery that men seem to infer that women are sexually interested in them just because they smile at the men or touch them.

Type Errors

In the decision making process, when faced with uncertainty, a subject can make two possible errors: type I or type II. A type I error is a false-positive or in layman's terms, playing it safe. A fire alarm that later turns out to be a false alarm is a type I error. A type II error is a false-negative, or the siding with skepticism. Ignoring the fire alarm because it is often wrong, but it later turning out to be accurate is a type II error.[3]

Sexual Overperception Bias

Males

One of the aims of error management theory is to explain sexual overperception bias.[4] Sexual overperception occurs when a type I error is committed by an individual. Under this type error, the individual falsely concludes that the member of the opposite sex has a sexual interest in the individual.[4] Males are more likely than females to commit sexual overperception bias, as evidenced by previous research.[4] Findings have found that men "overestimate women’s sexual interest" while women tend to "underestimate men’s interest".[4] This is likely due to the fact that the reproductive costs of sexual underperception are greater for men than the risk of making false positives.[4] Men who perceive themselves as especially high in mate value are especially prone to experiencing this phenomenon. In addition, men who are also more inclined to pursue a short term mating strategy exhibit a more prominent case of sexual overperception bias.[2]:334

Manipulation

Males and females may also manipulate each other through sexual overperception. Knowing about sexual overperception, females may flirt with males to fulfill certain wants without possessing any sexual desires for the male.[2]:332 However, women are not the only sex to twist the overperception bias in their favor. Approximately "71% of men" report using manipulation to gain favors, however this was done by manipulating how emotionally invested they appeared to be.[2]:332 Contrary to the previously reported statistics, approximately "97% of women" state that they had experienced emotional manipulation by a male.[2]:332 The manipulations performed by both sexes lead to conflicts in opinions on the standings of their relationships. Common statements made by males experiencing the manipulation may include the complaint of being led on by the female.[2]:332 As for women, complaints on moving too quickly in a relationship may arise.[2]:332

Sexual Underperception

Females

Women also fall victim to misconceptions during male-female interactions. Haselton and Buss (2000) advocate that these errors primarily stem from women’s perceived desire for a committed relationship by a male counterpart.[4] Women have evolved strategies to protect themselves from deception. One of these evolved strategies is to commit the skeptical commitment bias.The Skeptical commitment bias is an error management bias in which the gender fails to infer a psychological state that is there. Error management theory proposes that in this bias, women early in the courtship underestimate the amount of relational devotion and commitment a potential mate is willing to give.[4] For example, if a male gave a female flowers during courtship the recipient tends to underestimate the extent to which the flowers signal commitment in comparison to "Objective" outside observers.[2]:334 This bias functions to decrease the costs of being sexually deceived by men who fake commitment in order to attain casual sex. In a scenario-based study, Haselton and Buss supported their postulate that women should have a bias directed at type II rather than type I errors.[4]

Contrary to the sexual overperception bias, sexual underperception is brought on by the occurrence of a false negative [or type II error].[4] Underperception is committed more often by women than men. The reasoning for this may be linked to reproductive costs.[4]

Evolutionarily speaking, sexual overperception is more costly than underperception. As stated by Haselton and Buss, in the past, women who over-perceived the commitment of a male, were more likely to end up with an unintended pregnancy, lack of a partner to raise a child with, and her own reputation at risk.[5] Whereas committing a type I error might lead to complications in the female’s life and the added responsibility of rearing a child on her own, a type II error might serve to arouse further displays of sexual attraction to help indicate intent.[5] Therefore, a type I error being committed by a woman produces greater costs than a type II error.[4] In men, the result of a type II error produces a greater reproductive cost than does a type I error.[4]

Other examples

Similar examples can also be seen in the judgment of whether a noise in the wild was a predator when it was more likely the wind—humans who assumed it was a predator were less likely to be attacked as prey over time than those who were skeptical. This is similar to the animistic fallacy.

Notes

  1. ↑ Haselton, Martie. "Error Management Theory: Overview and Significance". UCLA. Retrieved 2007-11-13.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Buss, David (2012). Evolutionary Psychology The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-01562-7.
  3. ↑ Haselton, M. G., & Buss, David. (2000) Error Management Theory: A New Perspective on Biases in Cross-Sex Mind Reading Accessed November 13, 2007
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Henningsen, David D.; Henningsen, Mary Lynn Miller (October 2010). "Testing Error Management Theory: Exploring the Commitment Skepticism Bias and the Sexual Overperception Bias". Human Communication Research 36 (4): 618–634. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01391.x.
  5. 1 2 Haselton, Martie G.; Buss, David M. (January 2000). "Error Management Theory: A New Perspective on Biases in Cross-Sex Mind Reading". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (1): 81–91. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Saturday, April 16, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.