Teens and Risk-Taking
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 11/22/2006 at 1:47 PM
In "Go Ahead, I Dare You," Newsweek columnist Wray Herbert presents new scientific research on why teenagers do stupid things. A study by psychologists Valerie Reyna and Frank Farley published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest revealed that when asked seemingly inane questions like, "Is it a good thing to set your hair on fire?" teens actually had to mull over the question before they answered. Wray writes:
It has long been assumed (and taught) that teenagers do stupid things because they can't think very far into the future and therefore can't fathom harm or death. But according to Reyna and Farley's review of the scientific literature, there is no evidence for the “myth of immortality." Indeed, they demonstrate that if anything teenagers overestimate the risks of such things as drunk driving and unprotected sex. They just do them anyway. Why? Because they have weighed the risks and weighed the benefits and made a cold calculation that the benefits outweigh the risks. That benefit may be immediate pleasure, as with drugs and sugary foods, or the emotional connectedness that comes with fitting in.
Supplying teens with more information about risks, therefore, is not likely to change risky behavior.
Indeed, such interventions could backfire, since most adolescents already overestimate perils of risky behavior. So, for example, trying to teach teenagers to "drink responsibly" is probably an unwise strategy, since it plays right into their immature habit of overthinking everything. It would make more sense, in light of the new research, to enforce drinking ages and restrict teenage driving and otherwise eliminate opportunities for risk.
Perhaps we give teens too much responsibility by providing them with so much information about risky behaviors — such as drug use, sex and alcohol — and expecting them to make wise decisions. The better option would be to keep them out of high-risk situations altogether. Adults need to provide more actual boundaries. When I was a teen, my parents did not allow me to go somewhere alone with a guy. I understood that rule and could follow it. I never arrived in a sexually tempting situation where I had to weigh the risks against the benefits. Considering some teens actually have to think about whether it's a good idea to set their hair on fire, I'm thankful for that.
1. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:53 PM on Nov 23:
1
I don't know why teens (or anyone for that matter) do some of the things they do. I agree that most are aware of the risks but choose to ignore them or don't consider it in the "heat of the moment". It may be rebellion, social pressure, or just plain curiosity.
I would disagree with Suzanne though that we give them too much responsibility. I believe we give them too little. The problem is teenagers want to be able to make important decisions on their own, but are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. They want to own/drive a vehicle but expect mom and dad to pay for the insurance. They want to hang out with their friends but don't want to commit to any curfews.
Parental boundries are a good thing, but taken too far can sometimes backfire creating a "forbidden fruit" mentality. This is often observed when a teen raised in a "Christian" enviornment goes off to a secular school and realizing there is no one looking over his/her shoulder tries all the things he wasn't supposed to at home.
Of course each situation is different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to parenting. Still, I hold by the mantra that if one wishes to be treated like a mature adult, one has to act like one and accept the entire package that comes with it. Perhaps teens would take these big risks less often if they were allowed to experience the consequences of lesser ones.
2. Leah said the following at 10:54 PM on Nov 23:
2
I have to disagree with Mike when he said "This is often observed when a teen raised in a "Christian" enviornment goes off to a secular school and realizing there is no one looking over his/her shoulder tries all the things he wasn't supposed to at home."
Having graduated from high school in 2004, I have recent experience of being a Christian in a secular school, not to mention, I had many friends in both Christian and secular schools.
From what I heard, Christians at secular schools were no more likely to go wayward than those in Christian schools. In fact, during my high school career, I saw one of my non-Christian friends from school become a Christian, and two who were raised in church (and who went to secular schools) become Christians. As for those who went to Christian schools, I saw a number carry on in healthy Christian living, and a number completely drift away from the church. In fact, I saw more christian school students drift away than secular school students.
It's my theory that kids in secular schools are put in an environment where they need to learn to defend their faith. If they have parents, peers or church family that have taught them thoroughly, they are well equipped- being put in an environment where they learn to put that into practice is beneficial.
Kids in christian schools (not all, mind you) aren't put in that situation as much. They don't learn to defend their faith and their faith weakens. They see hypocrites around them- people who, in a Christian environment, are supposed to be "Christians" but aren't.
Not saying Christian schools are bad. They can provide good support and education for Christians. But at the same time, I don't think kids who go to those schools are any less rebellious, any stronger in their faith than their counterparts who are in secular schools.
3. Ame said the following at 1:25 AM on Nov 24:
3
This makes great sense - for all ages of children. There seems to be an unspoken assumption that, "they're gonna be exposed to it anyway, it might as well be in my home." And the choices for what kids watch on TV and the activities they're involved in and the clothes they wear and the friends they're allowed to play with, from very young elementary ages, is so loosely handled.
I've been told by a mom who has let her kids watch R rated movies since very young elementary that my girls are "young" for their ages. I think I finally figured out that she means they are "sheltered." And I want to say, "YES! They are sheltered because that is my job to shelter them for that which they are too immature to handle!"
Uninformed? No. My nine-year-old and I have had quite a few conversations about sex already, and I had the opportunity to be the first person to even mention the word to her!
I've talked to my kids a lot about drinking and drugs b/c my Oldest has an anaphalactic allergy to fire ants - if she's drunk or high and gets bit, she could die b/c she's unable to get the help she needs. My Youngest has special needs for which she takes some pretty serious meds - mixed with drugs or alcohol could kill her. I want these truths ingrained into them before they hit puberty.
But they do not need to watch sexually explicit media of any kind. They do not need to watch media showing them how to do drugs of any kind. They do not need to be around friends who know that stuff and have no boundaries placed on what they watch or hear or know. And having girls, I would never allow them to be in another person's home if the mother is not present and/or if their friend has older brothers. Sure, I get the, "But Mom!!!" But you know what? It's God I have to answer to, not them or their friends; and I tell them such.
It is a hard world out there for kids of all ages. There is a huge difference between being appropriately informed and exposed. And I agree about setting firm boundaries. It really is difficult, but I agree it is so imparative.
4. Ame said the following at 1:47 AM on Nov 24:
4
Just read Mike's comment. Yes, children of all ages are not taught that authority comes with responsibility and all choices have consequences. I try to make consequences - both good and bad -extremely poignant at 6 1/2 and 9 years old b/c I know that these consequences really don't cost them anything. In a few years their consequences will be harsh and life-changing.
5. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:15 AM on Nov 25:
5
Thanks for the reply Leah. Just to clarify things, I'm not trying to imply that raising a child in a Christian or non-Christian school will result in a wayward undergraduate. Nor am I suggesting that we expose kids to all the realities of a fallen world without discretion. I for one would not let my children (if I had any) attend R or PG-13 even rated movies without investigating it first.
What I am saying is that teenagers are probably in the most social-pressured enviornment than any other time in their lives. And as Dr. Dobson has written many times, this pressure to "fit in" can override one's sense of right and wrong. If teens are taught in the home that they shouldn't do X simply because "it's not right" it's not likely to have much of an impact.
A more effective impact would be to first have a loving and accepting environment in the home so as to alleviate any possible resentment. Then to lay down some expectations and ground rules (with consequences for not following them). Finally, to allow the young adults to make some choices for themselves with the understanding of the responsibilities.
But not being a parent myself I don't know how this works in practice. I could certainly be wrong in this approach.