Volume 4, Issue 2: March - April, 2003

Contents Cover Story     Risky Behavior Articles     President’s Pen     Sue’s Review     Cartoon Features     Letters     News Links     Redirect

Risky Behavior by Sandra Buckley   Family members of the space shuttle Columbia’s seven crew members were all over the news after the shuttle exploded on February 1, 2003.  Most spoke of the astronauts’ joy at fulfilling their lifelong goals, and insisted that their loved ones’ memory would be honored only if the space program continued.   The brother of Laurel Clark described her feelings about her first space flight: “How blessed she felt ... how thrilling it was.”  The last message of crew member Ilan Ramon was revealed by his brother: “It was the top of his life .... he said that he was so happy that he doesn’t want to come back to Earth.”1  The wife of mission specialist Mike Anderson offered: “This is something he wanted to do .... so I was willing to support him .... of course, you never think that’s going to happen.”2  The family members’ comments were echoed in public memorials to the shuttle astronauts.  To risk, to sacrifice—even one’s own life—for what one loves and believes in is a display of the most admirable courage.  The astronauts’ countrymen should be proud of these men and women who pursued their dreams and demonstrated the concept of bravery at its finest.   On April 11, 1996, the mother of another courageous flyer who died in a crash, made a similar comment: “She went with her joy and her passion, and her life was in her hands.”3   But public sentiment toward this victim and her family members was anything but supportive.  The attempted mission was pronounced foolhardy, the family members, criminals.  Instead of praising and honoring the downed flier’s effort, public officials introduced legislation to stop others from following her example.   That’s because the daring flier was 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff, who would have become the youngest person to complete a coast-to-coast flight across America.   Jessica wasn’t the first 7-year-old to learn to pilot a plane.  As required by FAA rules for fliers younger than 16, a licensed flight instructor was at her side in the single-engine Cessna, with a dual control panel enabling the instructor to take over at any time.  But Jessica wasn’t ill-equipped to operate the plane herself.  She’d logged about 40 hours of cockpit time and had made over 50 takeoffs and landings—enough experience, if she had been 16 years old, to have qualified Jessica to apply for a private pilot’s license.4   That’s not to say that no one was to blame for the tragedy.  Just as NASA is investigating the cause of its recent disaster, plane crashes are also investigated to determine the causes.  And so many dangers were present in  Jessica’s cross-country attempt that it could reasonably have been called a foolhardy venture.  The Cessna was loaded over its weight limit with passengers and luggage.  Weather conditions were treacherous.  The flight instructor may have been pressured to overlook these hazards, to arrive on the east coast in time to be featured on a national morning news show which had been covering the story.  The plane went down in a rain storm in Colorado after encountering the condition known as wind shear.5   But instead of focusing on the information uncovered by the investigation and using it to prevent similar tragedies in the future, the media focused on the one aspect of the story that almost surely had nothing to do with the crash: Jessica’s age.  With no evidence to support the theory, commentators were quick to conclude that this plane had gone down because a seven-year-old was at the controls.  Many other small planes with adult pilots had experienced similar accidents; it’s unlikely anyone thought to blame the age of the pilot in those crashes.  Nevertheless, in this case, no matter what the investigation revealed, the age was assumed to be the problem.  End of story.   Most of the dangers in children’s lives are out of their control.  They may be born to abusive parents, or parents who live in unsafe housing or crime-ridden neighborhoods.  If they are told to ride in a car with a reckless or impaired driver, they must do as they’re told.  Being born into an impoverished family can deprive a child of food; if the family has no health insurance a child may be deprived of medical care.  Many children are forced to live in homes full of cigarette smoke.Ê   We allow children to be subjected to all of these dangers, without their consent, often against their will.  Why, then, are we so determined to keep children from so many experiences—often with far lower chances of harm to them—that they do choose?   The commonly-accepted view of adolescents as impulsive, thoughtless risk-takers is challenged by research, which finds that a sense of invulnerability is not “a reliable characteristic of adolescence” and that “adolescents are aware of the risks they take.”6   However, it would be well-nigh impossible for any study to attribute differences in youth vs. adult risk-taking behavior to  the age of the individual.  For such a comparison study to be valid, the groups being compared would have to be matched for variables other than the one being studied (i.e., age).  But it is virtually impossible to separate the trait of being under-18 from a host of situational factors that our society imposes upon people with that trait.  In order to find matched groups for comparison, one would have to find a group of adults who had always been, and still remained, in some kind of protective custody, with seriously restricted liberties.   Both adults and youth are liable to take risks while engaging in activities they enjoy or pursuing goals they believe in and care about.  But there may be some reasons why, in our society, people under 18 might be more likely than adults to engage in risky behavior.  The following four reasons for adolescent risk-taking may be considered hypotheses to be tested, if possible. 1. They have little to lose.  Adults can own property, pursue long-term relationships, come and go as they please—all benefits which could be jeopardized by behavior such as drinking, or drug use, casual sex, gambling, or committing crimes.  The main assets of minors that might be jeopardized by risky behavior are their relationships with their parents and their grades in school.  And kids with the worst home lives and the poorest grades have the least to lose, and are therefore the most likely to engage in risky behavior. 2. Opportunities for risk-taking are limited, so must always be seized.  If a forbidden liquor cabinet, always kept securely locked, is accidentally left open one day, what child would not be sorely tempted to take advantage of the rare occurrence?  Adults who may legally buy alcohol, gamble, view pornography, or indulge in other “vices” at any time would be unlikely to possess this motivation (although adults who use illegal drugs or enjoy other illegal activities might act on this principle). 3. Self-fulfilling prophecy is believed.  If a child is repeatedly told that they are bound to get into trouble if not watched every minute, they may come to accept that description of themselves, and act accordingly. 4. Risk-taking brings a new and gratifying feeling of maturity and respect.  A person who has always been thought of as incapable and inferior may find it immensely flattering to be approached to participate in “adult” activities and trusted by others to keep a secret.  A female accustomed to being seen as an innocent child may feel honored by grown men who respect at least one aspect of her maturity, even if that aspect is merely physical.  Individuals who are denied the more accepted ways of demonstrating maturity (autonomy, self-sufficiency, independence) are highly motivated to find other ways to gain respect and prove themselves worthy.   Just as we force young children to suffer the consequences of adults’ bad decisions, we may also put some adolescents in a position in which risky activities are their best choices in life.  If youth were accorded respect, rights, and alternatives, their motivation to engage in harmful activities might well decrease. 1. “Family, friends recall astronauts” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/02/shuttle.memorials/index.html>. 2. “Astronaut widows draw on faith, each other” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/26/cnna.sprj.colu.astronaut.widows/index.html>. 3. “Parents had total faith in children” <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/04/12/MN6324.DTL>. 4. “Child-pilot policy to be reviewed” <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/04/12/MN10823.DTL>. 5. “Girl’s plane was overloaded” <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/04/13/MN35572.DTL>. 6. Grisso, Thomas.  “Youth’s capacities.” In Youth on trial : a developmental perspective on juvenile justice.  Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 154.