Editing Risk aversion (section)

==Public understanding and risk in social activities==
In the real world, many government agencies, e.g. [[Health and Safety Executive]], are fundamentally risk-averse in their mandate. This often means that they demand (with the power of legal enforcement) that risks be minimized, even at the cost of losing the utility of the risky activity.
It is important to consider the [[opportunity cost]] when mitigating a risk; the cost of not taking the risky action. Writing laws focused on the risk without the balance of the utility may misrepresent society's goals. The public understanding of risk, which influences political decisions, is an area which has recently been recognised as deserving focus. In 2007 [[Cambridge University]] initiated the [[Winton Professorship of the Public Understanding of Risk]], a role described as outreach rather than traditional academic research by the holder, [[David Spiegelhalter]].<ref>{{cite journal|journal=CAM – the Cambridge Alumni Magazine |publisher=The University of Cambridge Development Office |volume=58 | date=2009|url=http://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/uploads/File/CAM58/CAM58.pdf |page=3 |title=Don's Diary |first=David |last=Spiegelhalter |url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309004415/http://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/uploads/File/CAM58/CAM58.pdf |archive-date=March 9, 2013 }}</ref>

===Children===
Children's services such as [[school]]s and [[playground]]s have become the focus of much risk-averse planning, meaning that children are often prevented from benefiting from activities that they would otherwise have had. Many playgrounds have been fitted with impact-absorbing matting surfaces. However, these are only designed to save children from death in the case of direct falls on their heads and do not achieve their main goals.<ref>{{cite book|title=No fear: Growing up in a Risk Averse society|first=Tim|last=Gill|year=2007|publisher=Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation|page=81|isbn=9781903080085|url=http://www.gulbenkian.org.uk/media/item/1266/223/No-fear-19.12.07.pdf#page=28|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306114126/http://gulbenkian.org.uk/media/item/1266/223/No-fear-19.12.07.pdf#page=28|archive-date=2009-03-06}}</ref> They are expensive, meaning that less resources are available to benefit users in other ways (such as building a playground closer to the child's home, reducing the risk of a road traffic accident on the way to it), and—some argue—children may attempt more dangerous acts, with confidence in the artificial surface. Shiela Sage, an early years school advisor, observes "Children who are only ever kept in very safe places, are not the ones who are able to solve problems for themselves. Children need to have a certain amount of risk taking ... so they'll know how to get out of situations."<ref>{{cite video |title=Early Years – The Outdoor Environment |publisher=Teachers TV |date=10 January 2006 |url=http://www.teachers.tv/video/214 |people=Sue Durant, Sheila Sage}}</ref>{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}}

===Game shows and investments===
One experimental study with student-subject playing the game of the TV show [[Deal or No Deal]] finds that people are more risk averse in the limelight than in the anonymity of a typical behavioral laboratory. In the laboratory treatments, subjects made decisions in a standard, computerized laboratory setting as typically employed in behavioral experiments. In the limelight treatments, subjects made their choices in a simulated game show environment, which included a live audience, a game show host, and video cameras.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Baltussen |first1=Guido |last2=van den Assem |first2=Martijn J. |last3=van Dolder |first3=Dennie |title=Risky Choice in the Limelight |journal=Review of Economics and Statistics |date=May 2016 |volume=98 |issue=2 |pages=318–332 |doi=10.1162/REST_a_00505 |ssrn=2057134 |s2cid=57561510 |url=http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30841/ }}</ref> In line with this, studies on investor behavior find that investors trade more and more speculatively after switching from phone-based to online trading<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barber |first1=Brad M |last2=Odean |first2=Terrance |title=The Internet and the Investor |journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives |date=1 February 2001 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=41–54 |doi=10.1257/jep.15.1.41 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1= Barber|first1= Brad |last2= Odean |first2= Terrance |title=Online Investors: Do the Slow Die First? |journal=[[Review of Financial Studies]] |volume=15 |issue=2 |year=2002 |pages=455–488 |doi=10.1093/rfs/15.2.455 |citeseerx=10.1.1.46.6569 }}</ref> and that investors tend to keep their core investments with traditional brokers and use a small fraction of their wealth to speculate online.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Konana |first1=Prabhudev |last2=Balasubramanian |first2=Sridhar |title=The Social–Economic–Psychological model of technology adoption and usage: an application to online investing |journal=Decision Support Systems |date=May 2005 |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=505–524 |doi=10.1016/j.dss.2003.12.003 }}</ref>