Moral judgement affects level of perceived risk

[about_average]

A really interesting study, one that I'm glad to see done because it reinforces my own perception.

I think most will recall the outrage, both from both sides, about the cited incident.

No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children
On December 20, 2014, Rafi Meitiv, age 10, and his sister Dvora, age 6, were walking home from a park about a mile from their home in Silver Spring, Maryland. A bystander saw them walking and called 911 to report, quite literally, a sighting of unaccompanied children [1]. Police picked the children up and drove them home. When their father told police that Rafi and Dvora had permission to walk home from the park, the officer asked him, “Don’t you realize how dangerous the world is? Don’t you watch TV?” The police officer called in Child Protective Services, who threatened to remove the children from their home unless their father signed a ‘safety plan’ promising never to leave the children unsupervised [2].

By letting their children walk home from the park, the Meitivs violated a parenting norm specifying that every child must be under direct adult supervision at all times. As the officer’s comments suggest, this norm seems to reflect a fear of horrific events such as children being kidnapped by strangers. But the actual risk of a teen or child being abducted by a stranger and killed or not returned is estimated at around 0.00007%, or one in 1.4 million annually—a risk so small that experts call it de minimis, meaning effectively zero [3]. Motor vehicle accidents, by contrast, are the most common cause of preventable death among children [4]. Thus, by driving the Meitiv children home (ostensibly to protect them from the risk of kidnapping), police actually exposed them to the much greater risk of being killed in a car accident.

http://www.collabra.org/article/10.1525/collabra.33/

Here's an interesting overview, much shorter, about the reasearch.
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...for-putting-kids-at-perceived-but-unreal-risk

 

[oggbashan]

Locally, children start walking to school on their own about age 8 or 9. Before that some of them walk in so-called 'walking buses' in a group escorted by adult volunteers. Some younger ones, if their route doesn't cross a major road, or crosses only at zebra crossings, take themselves to and from school.

At age 11 many of our children go to schools seven miles away. They have to make their way to and from the school bus pick up points and some have to travel on regular bus services, changing buses en route.

If they don't know how to assess risk in travelling by age 11 they have a steep learning curve to negotiate at 11.

For decades our town has had groups of foreign children ostensibly to learn English. They are put with local families but have to make their own way to and from the teaching location. Because our town doesn't have a major road running through it, it has been popular for younger children aged 11 to 14. In the summer months we can have hundreds of young foreign children wandering around the town.

One establishment specialising in French children used to give every child a bicycle even if they couldn't ride it. The sight of hundreds of French children riding bicycles on the wrong side of the road or across all of it made visiting motorists worried. The local drivers were used to it. In thirty years of operation no French cyclist was involved in an accident with another vehicle - but there were many grazed knees.

Children need to learn to assess and manage risk.

 

[Lancecastor]

My best friend and i would head out on our bicycles for the day when we were 10, often going 10-15 miles from home.

"Be home before the street lights come on" was the only Rule.

Today's 24/7 under surveillance generation will grow up with a completely different set of values around the concept of freedom.

 

[about_average]

Yeah, that's all certainly true, but I think the study of adult perceptions and the impact of moral judgements is very telling about judgement of risk concerning a lot more things that just putting children at risk.

That's the greater point.

 

[Rachel_X]

Give them all guns and teach them several forms of self defence. Then there won't be a risk of kidnapping.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I retired from the state, and one of our chores was HELP LINE DUTY to answer questions and concerns people have about kids.

Rule of Thumb: Maturity is the hard standard. If Junior is a moron, supervise him; if Sis can handle it let her. I don't recommend staying alone at night.

The most irate callers were teachers with fears for 18 year old students. 18 is adult. The state has no jurisdiction....period.

Common sense is the key.

 

[Wrong Element]

Yeah, that's all certainly true, but I think the study of adult perceptions and the impact of moral judgements is very telling about judgement of risk concerning a lot more things that just putting children at risk.

That's the greater point.

I'm not entirely sure where this started, but I think a lot of it began when people my age -- those of us who grew up in the '70s, when it became much more common for women to work outside the home even if they had young children -- started having kids themselves. It's almost as if people are saying, "Our parents left us to fend for ourselves, and the inevitable result was John Walsh's son got murdered, so we're going to go the other way -- and any parent who isn't hovering over their kids all day long like we do must suck like our folks did."

I had plenty of freedom almost by necessity, since I had four younger siblings before I was 8 years old. I wasn't exactly a hellion, but my mom wouldn't have had time to follow me around even if she had been able.

The flipside of the modern philosophy on giving kids freedom is that they get competent in basic life skills much later than they should. Arte has a job where she deals with a lot of young adults, and the inability of some of them to follow directions and manage simple tasks is mind-boggling, because they've never had to try accomplishing anything without someone older double-checking them every step of the way.

 

[oggbashan]

During WW2 in England, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides under the age of 16 were used as bicycle messengers during air raids. They were considered responsible enough to take messages accurately and to make their way in the dark while bombs were falling.

 

[hashtag45]

The police officer called in Child Protective Services, who threatened to remove the children from their home unless their father signed a ‘safety plan’ promising never to leave the children unsupervised.

Straying a bit from the topic here:

I think that the police officer did the right thing in taking the kids home and advising the parents. But calling social services - he pushed it too far, imo. In saying that, I don't blame him; that was probably expected of him, or he tried to cover his back.

It must be tougher for parents nowadays.
All the cases of child abuse or neglect that surfaced lately, the public outrage and the culture of blame caused social services and anyone involved to become defensive and over the top. Here they often call CPS over minor matters, and CPS in turn often acts defensively.

I put down this incident, as well as others to the culture of blame, more than anything else.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Straying a bit from the topic here:

I think that the police officer did the right thing in taking the kids home and advising the parents. But calling social services - he pushed it too far, imo. In saying that, I don't blame him; that was probably expected of him, or he tried to cover his back.

It must be tougher for parents nowadays.
All the cases of child abuse or neglect that surfaced lately, the public outrage and the culture of blame caused social services and anyone involved to become defensive and over the top. Here they often call CPS over minor matters, and CPS in turn often acts defensively.

I put down this incident, as well as others to the culture of blame, more than anything else.

In America we have something called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One of its provisions is known as the Equal Protection Clause. That is, the laws of the land apply to all. A child is free to walk the street without official harassment unless special circumstances exist for all pedestrians...say...a flood or volcano. That said, police may assess anyone for competency and medical fitness. If the person is unfit the police must transport the afflicted person to treatment or summons transport. Police may not legally adjudicate the world unsafe unless there is a clear and present danger.

I usta respond to such events a lot, where police officers made summary judgments about the world. I recall a case where an ill mother fainted, the police officer came, then arrested the ill mother because the small child had a soiled diaper. The officer was female, by the way. On another occasion a police officer arrested the mom after he discovered some expired hamburger in the refrigerator. Police management called me to come give an opinion. My advice was CHANGE THE DIAPER and TOSS THE MEAT IN THE GARBAGE. Common sense. I don't know why the diaper was soiled. It was fresh and I saw no rash on the childs skin. The courts tossed both charges.

About half of police are dum fucks who have no sense of what laws are for. Laws are for crises and protection of rights.

 

[about_average]

Straying a bit from the topic here:

I think that the police officer did the right thing in taking the kids home and advising the parents.

No, that's exactly the topic.

Perceived risk is often less than actual risk, but because of moral judgements we choose to worry about the perceived risk.

The officer thought the parents were being irresponsible (immoral) and put the kids at greater risk, in this case death from automobile accident, than if he'd left them to walk home.

 

[hashtag45]

1.In America we have something called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One of its provisions is known as the Equal Protection Clause. That is, the laws of the land apply to all. A child is free to walk the street without official harassment unless special circumstances exist for all pedestrians...say...a flood or volcano.

2.That said, police may assess anyone for competency and medical fitness. If the person is unfit the police must transport the afflicted person to treatment or summons transport.

Police may not legally adjudicate the world unsafe unless there is a clear and present danger.

3.I usta respond to such events a lot, where police officers made summary judgments about the world. I recall a case where an ill mother fainted, the police officer came, then arrested the ill mother because the small child had a soiled diaper. The officer was female, by the way. On another occasion a police officer arrested the mom after he discovered some expired hamburger in the refrigerator. Police management called me to come give an opinion. My advice was CHANGE THE DIAPER and TOSS THE MEAT IN THE GARBAGE. Common sense. I don't know why the diaper was soiled. It was fresh and I saw no rash on the childs skin. The courts tossed both charges.

About half of police are dum fucks who have no sense of what laws are for. Laws are for crises and protection of rights.

1.With the exception of very young kids walking alongside busy streets or intersections, or in more remote ares. That puts them in potential danger, imo.
2.Good points
3.Arrested? Wow. I never heard of such things here. But then, I heard that the US Police has become increasigly militarized. Not only logistically, but also mentality - wise.

No, that's exactly the topic.

Perceived risk is often less than actual risk, but because of moral judgements we choose to worry about the perceived risk.

The officer thought the parents were being irresponsible (immoral) and put the kids at greater risk, in this case death from automobile accident, than if he'd left them to walk home.

Maybe that would be the case for an adult, but less so for a child who's by definition more impulsive and has lesser judgment, and might try to run for it and cross the street on a whim.
So if the street was semi-busy, I'm with the officer who decided to intervene & take them in his car. Plus he had a complaint from a civilian; what was he supposed to do?

So I have no problem with the first part, but I have a problem with the fact that the officer decided to make it official by calling CPS - that's really bad.
At the most he could have advised parents and documented it & asked his colleagues to keep an eye on the situation, when they patrolled. That would've covered his own back & would have respected parents' freedom and privacy.

 

[Not Normal]

I'm not entirely sure where this started, but I think a lot of it began when people my age -- those of us who grew up in the '70s, when it became much more common for women to work outside the home even if they had young children -- started having kids themselves. It's almost as if people are saying, "Our parents left us to fend for ourselves, and the inevitable result was John Walsh's son got murdered, so we're going to go the other way -- and any parent who isn't hovering over their kids all day long like we do must suck like our folks did."

I had plenty of freedom almost by necessity, since I had four younger siblings before I was 8 years old. I wasn't exactly a hellion, but my mom wouldn't have had time to follow me around even if she had been able.

The flipside of the modern philosophy on giving kids freedom is that they get competent in basic life skills much later than they should. Arte has a job where she deals with a lot of young adults, and the inability of some of them to follow directions and manage simple tasks is mind-boggling, because they've never had to try accomplishing anything without someone older double-checking them every step of the way.

WE are, indeed, in the era of Helicopter Parents.

No, that's exactly the topic.

Perceived risk is often less than actual risk, but because of moral judgements we choose to worry about the perceived risk.

The officer thought the parents were being irresponsible (immoral) and put the kids at greater risk, in this case death from automobile accident, than if he'd left them to walk home.

So it wouldn't bother you if the parents walked with the kids to and fro?

 

[1sickbastard]

At age 6, I walked to school, about a half mile, no biggie.
We had to be home by dinner. That was not negotiable.

After dinner, if it wasn't a school night, we could stay out until dark except the older kids had a 10pm curfew.

Once my mom went back into the work force, we were expected to be able to take care of ourselves. Simple warnings like, "Don't get into the cars or go into the dwellings of strangers, because some of them will do really bad things to you," or "Don't start a fight then come home crying because you got your ass whipped," or "Don't break or steal other people's stuff," and "Be polite, courteous and remember the Golden Rule," were about all we seemed to need in the way of guidance.

Today I'm told that was the last era of "benign neglect" parenting. I'd always thought it was how kids learned how to act like grown-ups; making one's own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions.

 

[about_average]

Maybe that would be the case for an adult, but less so for a child who's by definition more impulsive and has lesser judgment, and might try to run for it and cross the street on a whim.
So if the street was semi-busy, I'm with the officer who decided to intervene & take them in his car. Plus he had a complaint from a civilian; what was he supposed to do?

It was about child abduction that the officer (and the caller) were on about.

As for the complaint, the police get complaints all the time they ignore, like people calling 911 because McDonald's is out of Chicken McNuggets.
The officer could have just asked if they were ok, or if they needed help.

The point, again, is the kids were more likely to die in a car wreck with him driving them home than they were to get abducted. The only reason for the complaint and the cop picking them up is because they thought the parents were being immoral letting their kids walk to and from the park. It had nothing to do with actual risk level.

I don't understand why that's so difficult for you to understand.

So it wouldn't bother you if the parents walked with the kids to and fro?

I don't know what the relevance of that question is. Are you trying to make a point, or what?

 

[Hard_Rom]

No, that's exactly the topic.

Perceived risk is often less than actual risk, but because of moral judgements we choose to worry about the perceived risk.

The officer thought the parents were being irresponsible (immoral) and put the kids at greater risk, in this case death from automobile accident, than if he'd left them to walk home.

The safety plan demanded by Child Services trumped the unsafe car ride. That is what caught my attention. In some way it sounds like governments have admitted they can no longer keep citizens safe on the streets. Kids can no longer do things like walk home from school or walk to local park because government can no longer ensure their safety in well populated daylit areas.

Getting Child Services called for letting kids walk home from the park!

 

[about_average]

The safety plan demanded by Child Services trumped the unsafe car ride.

Yup, of course it did, because it was put in place by people who let moral outrage trump actual facts.

Same with lots of things in society, like some of the full body scanners at airports. More likely to die of cancer because of a single scan that you are to die in a plane crashed by terrorists.
But perception makes the plane crash a bigger fear.
Though that's an odd example because the company that builds the scanners lied (immoral) about the risks.