Psychology of risk-taking
A new survey suggests that "not all risk is created equal," meaning that just because someone engages in one risky behavior doesn't mean that they're risk-takers in other aspects of their life. The University of Michigan researchers surveyed people's willingness to engage in behaviors like exposing yourself to chemicals that might lead to birth defects for a high-paying job, engaging in unprotected sex, chasing a bear out of your wilderness campsite area while banging pots and pans, and many other activities. The aim was to look at behaviors in the context of evolutionary psychology and biology. (Of course, what people say they would do and what they actually would do at the moment may differ.) According to the study, men are more likely to engage in riskier behavior than women. And just because someone likes to skydive doesn't mean that he or she would risk standing up to a dick boss. The research was published in the current issue of the scientific journal Evolutionary Psychology. From a press release:
People surveyed for the study were least likely to take fertility risks, and most likely to take risks related to social status in one's group -- like standing up to one's boss. In all domains, men were significantly more risk taking than women. During human evolution, men competed for social status and resources in order to attract mates. Thus, this pattern is not surprising, (research scientist Daniel) Kruger said.Link to press release, Link to PDF of scientific paper.
The risks that threaten fertility function differently than the others, Kruger said. Other types of risk have a possible benefit in terms of survival and reproduction. But with fertility risks, there is just a threat to reproduction. They can only cause harm in the evolutionary sense since they would only hurt our ability to procreate.
"Those were types of risks that weren't attractive to other people, those risks were the least likely to be taken, and people saw those risks as unattractive in a potential mate," Kruger said.
the latest
latest episodes
It's amazing how people are reluctant to take a fertility risk, but they don't mind driving to work on a motorcycle, for which the fatality risk is just under 2%. That's 1/50 deaths, folks!
I won't even start to bitch about people who don't wear helmets.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. If you want to make orphans of your children, more power to you!
Risk assessment is pretty interesting, though. It largely has to do with the immediate effects (or perceived effects) of the lifestyle change.
Gee, don't women also have to attract mates and compete for social status? I guess we're all just passive sperm-receivers, prizes to be won by enterprising males, no personal agency or goals of our own. It's 2007, not 1957 - academics should know better than to make these out-moded, moth-eaten, simplistic "interpretations."
Plus, as the post notes, this study only suggests that men are more likely to *report* risk-taking behavior. Which may - or may not - indicate that they are actually more likely to take risks.
the evolutionary argument is laughable.
With respect to social risks (standing up to the boss), the punishment for failure is higher for people with less social power (women are seen as 'bitches' while men are 'assertive').
With respect to material risks, people who have dependents or fewer resources with which to recuperate have every reason to be more risk-averse.
In neither case is an evolutionary explanation for gender differences more convincing than the fact that genders are positioned differently w/r/t social power or resources at the time of the study.
I'm scared about the new fonts and layout, but I'm delirious to be commenting at Boing Boing! What does this say about my risk-taking nature?
Isn't cannabis meant to knacker your nads? Just a thought.
Can you please do something about the size of the fonts?
Site redesigns are inevitable, but not being able to adjust the size of a main font in any web site is inexcuseable.
I'm a bit skeptical of evolutionary psychology. It makes for great news stories, but is it real science?
I'm glad you mentioned the distinction between self-reporting and observed behavior once, but it would be nice if you had phrased the article in terms like "men are more likely to say that they'll take risks."
As for fertility risks from common behaviors, I'm pretty sure that tight jeans and the dye in Mountain Dew are a greater risk to male fertility than THC.
SO funny to me that it took this long to understand not all risks are equal. I'll ride my motorcycle to a poker game, but I won't smoke crack before I ride home.
Schneier just commented on a related topic:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/perceptions_of.html
I don't think humans being terrible at assessing risk and probability is news to many.
Least risky behavior of scientific investigation: surveys.
Of course, posting anonymously makes me a coward. I cry now.
@Owl:
Something like 2% of reported motorcycle *accidents* are fatal, not 2% of all riders are killed. That would in fact be insane.
See http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/motorcycle-accident-statistics.htm
(The real stat was 69.33 out of every 100,000 in 2004)
> Can you please do something about the size
> of the fonts?
>
> Site redesigns are inevitable, but not
> being able to adjust the size of a main
> font in any web site is inexcuseable.
Though the font seems to be smaller than default, it's also showing slightly larger here for quotes (the old quotes font size on Boing Boing was ridiculously small)... but Ctrl + Pluskey works on Firefox, so I'm not sure exactly what problem you mention...
"It's amazing how people are reluctant to take a fertility risk, but they don't mind driving to work on a motorcycle, for which the fatality risk is just under 2%. That's 1/50 deaths, folks!"
That's why I drive a scooter instead of a motorcycle! Not only is it safer on the road, but the dork vibe means 'm less likely to face fertility risk...
cn smn rpst ths rtcl n nw fnt plz ty
Anon @12:58:
"Site redesigns are inevitable, but not being able to adjust the size of a main font in any web site is inexcuseable."
Font size adjusting is working just fine for me here. It might help the site's designers if you told them what browser you're using that it doesn't work for.
Anon @1:47:
"can someone repost this article in a new font plz ty"
Have you considered using a user stylesheet?
woah. where did we dig up this 2% mortality for motorcyclists?!
"Overall, motorcycle mortality rates per 100,000 population declined from 1.6 in 1983 to 0.9 in 1993 and then increased to 1.2 in 2003."
-http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-6.htm
By my math (admittedly not the greatest) that is a
.012% mortality, no?
i know several hundred bikers, and only a few of them are dead...
Sounds like they found what they were looking to find …
Contemporary economists (American, anyway) believe all behaviour is selfish … Evolutionary psychologists believe all behaviour is related to reproductive strategies … Yawn … There is far more under the sun than either discipline limits its attention to.
P.S. Still finding the new font really hard on the eyes.
Read (and understand) the actual study before you make disparaging remarks about a summary/ synopsis.
I know this is off on a tangent, but...
There's also the matter of risk homeostasis that suggests that people have an innate target level of acceptable risk which does not change. That is, often when an activity is made safer, the participants are emboldened to behave more aggressively. The net effect can be that the activity is no more safe than before - and sometimes less so. Safety initiatives only shuffle risk around rather than reduce it.
Consider how we're completely unfazed about zipping down the highway at 80-90 m.p.h. because of the false sense of security afforded by automotive safety advances like 3-point restraints, airbags, ABS, crumple-zones, & such. These safety innovations may make our driving habits more risky, not less. And there's definitely support for the argument of risk compensation when you look at the attitudes & driving habits of SUV-owners...
Maybe this is a little off on a tangent, but...
There's also the matter of risk homeostasis that suggests that people have an innate target level of acceptable risk which does not change. That is, often when an activity is made safer, the participants are emboldened to behave more aggressively. The net effect can be that the activity is no more safe than before - and sometimes less so. Safety initiatives only shuffle risk around rather than reduce it.
Consider how we're completely unfazed about zipping down the highway at 80-90 m.p.h. because of the false sense of security afforded by automotive safety advances like 3-point restraints, airbags, ABS, crumple-zones, & such. These safety innovations may make our driving habits more risky, not less. And there's definitely support for the argument of risk compensation when you look at the attitudes & driving habits of SUV-owners...
The No Squint extension for Firefox can be set to remember a good font size for each site.