I joked to my sister one day that I predicted the death of
the stock market in about 20 years. With
padded playgrounds, car booster seats and all the other regulations and
mandatory protections for our children, upon reaching adulthood they will have
no concept of risk. Who will be around
to buy stocks or participate in other risk/reward financial transactions? My sister who works at a school set me
straight. She informed me that the
opposite was true from her observations.
The kids on the playground now take more risks than we did growing up,
hanging from one knee instead of two for example, taking advantage of, or in
some cases, negating the advantage of the added padding.
In the parlance of psychology, it’s called risk homeostasis.
Risk homeostasis is a controversial theory that the safer an
individual feels, the more chances he is inclined to take in order to return to
what he considers an acceptable level of risk.
There are many examples both for and against this theory. A classic one comes from Sweden. When they changed from driving on the left side
of the road to driving on the right there was a 40% drop in accidents due to
the extra caution exercised as drivers got used to the new feel of maneuvering
the car. A few years later, this feeling
of caution stemming from the unfamiliar orientation wore off and the accident
rate returned to its former level.
Several other interesting examples are listed in this Wikipedia summary.
It is a controversial theory, which may not apply in all
cases, but it's interesting to consider some possible behaviors where it
might. If parents today expect the world
to take over for them with built-in safeguards, their complacency might
backfire. As they spend more at the
grocery store, avoiding genetically modified food, indulging their love affair
with organics and all natural products, does that make it more likely the kids
will become fast food junkies when not supervised? Does the problem of teens (and others) texting and driving
relate to efforts to make automobiles safer and safer? Do the actions of “helicopter” parents coming
to the rescue of their children lead to expectations of a false sense of security
resulting in situations like this one where a mother sued because her
19-year-old died from an overdose of an energy drink? Surely part of parental responsibility
consists of an appropriate mix of protection and teaching children that behavior has
consequences. This balancing act, which
Bill Cosby calls “some kind of judgment” or “taking back the house,” seems to
make sense with or without a controversial psychological theory.
I guess a prediction of the death of the stock market was
off base, but a call for better parenting and a bias toward moderation is always a
good reminder.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment