The evolution of error: error management, cognitive constraints, and adaptive decision-making biases
Abstract
Counterintuitively, biases in behavior or cognition can improve decision making. Under conditions of uncertainty and asymmetric costs of 'false-positive' and 'false-negative' errors, biases can lead to mistakes in one direction but - in so doing - steer us away from more costly mistakes in the other direction. For example, we sometimes think sticks are snakes (which is harmless), but rarely that snakes are sticks (which can be deadly). We suggest that 'error management' biases: (i) have been independently identified by multiple interdisciplinary studies, suggesting the phenomenon is robust across domains, disciplines, and methodologies; (ii) represent a general feature of life, with common sources of variation; and (iii) offer an explanation, in error management theory (EMT), for the evolution of cognitive biases as the best way to manage errors under cognitive and evolutionary constraints.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evolutionary explanations of psychological traits can create new perspectives that may allow developing means to reduce the traits' potential negative effects.
“They can create new perspectives on these traits that may allow developing means to reduce the traits' potential negative effects (Roberts et al. 2012;Johnson et al. 2013).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Johnson et al. 2013
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814 · see citing works
Higgins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775 · see citing works
Sharot, T. (2011) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030 · Cited by 1,187 · see citing works
Natural selection and the regulation of defenses
Nesse, R. M. (2005) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.002 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Adaptive rationality: an evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias
Haselton, M. G., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D. A., Galperin, A., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Moore, T. (2009) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.733 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038455 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
The Ugly Truth About Ourselves and Our Robot Creations: The Problem of Bias and Social Inequity
Howard, A., & Borenstein, J. (2018) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9975-2 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Timmons, A. C., Duong, J. B., Simo Fiallo, N., Lee, T., Vo, H. P. Q., Ahle, M. W., Comer, J. S., Brewer, L. C., Frazier, S. L., & Chaspari, T. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221134490 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Americans misperceive racial economic equality
Kraus, M. W., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1707719114 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Bell, V., Raihani, N., & Wilkinson, S. (2021) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702620951553 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The Cultural Evolution of Epistemic Practices
Hong, Z., & Henrich, J. (2021) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-021-09408-6 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Aubert‐Teillaud, B., Bran, A., & Vaidis, D. C. (2023) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2981 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
A neuro‐behavioural model of neophobia
Dorfman, A., Subach, A., & Scharf, I. (2026) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1002/brv.70151
- Authors
- Johnson, D. D. P., Blumstein, D. T., Fowler, J. H., & Haselton, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Haselton, Martie G.
- Venue
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 474-481
- ISSN
- 0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119857439
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- error management theory, cognitive biases, adaptive decision-making, false positives and false negatives, evolutionary origins of cognition, cognitive limitations, decision making under uncertainty, evolutionary psychology
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Behavior, Behavior, Animal, Decision Making, Humans, Uncertainty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
