title: Functional flexibility in women's commitment-skepticism bias.
abstract: If a woman overestimates her romantic partner's commitment, the cost to her fitness-reproduction without an investing partner-can be considerable. Error Management Theory predicts that women have an evolved bias to be skeptical of men's commitment in a relationship, which reduces the likelihood of making a costly false positive error. However, because error probabilities are inversely related, this commitment-skepticism bias simultaneously increases the likelihood of missed opportunities, or false negatives. False positives when gauging a partner's commitment are the more costly error for women, but missing an opportunity to secure a genuinely high-quality mate can also be quite costly. We predicted and found that women's mating cognitions are functionally flexible, such that women do not exhibit the commitment-skepticism bias when faced with behavioral evidence that a male partner is willing to commit (Study 1). This suggests that relationship-enhancing behaviors are one contextual cue that may lessen the bias. However, not all relationship-enhancing behaviors are equally diagnostic of a person's true commitment intent. When comparing men and women's commitment thresholds, we found that women require more behavioral evidence than men do to feel certain of their partner's commitment to them (Study 2).
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Christina M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Brown
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Yevgeniy M
authors.initials: YM
authors.lastname: Olkhov
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001519:Behavior; D035841:Behavioral Research; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D008297:Male; D011287:Prejudice / Q000523:psychology; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D012725:Sexual Behavior; D012747:Sexual Partners / Q000523:psychology*; D012941:Social Responsibility
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Nov;33(11):1467-80
references.pmid: 17933743
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Feb;23(2):146-51
references.pmid: 22261567
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):339-63
references.pmid: 15582858
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Feb;98(2):281-300
references.pmid: 20085401
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Jan;78(1):81-91
references.pmid: 10653507
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5
references.pmid: 26162106
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1993 Apr;100(2):204-32
references.pmid: 8483982
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;33(7):975-88
references.pmid: 17554012
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 12;366(1583):3418-26
references.pmid: 22042918