I just ran into the findings recently reported in a LiveScience article:

…a new study finds teens spend more time weighing risk than adults and in fact often overestimate the odds of a bad outcome. But the desire for acceptance among peers wins out in the decision-making process of a young mind.

Cornell University researcher Valerie Reyna and Frank Farley of Temple University conducted a review of scientific studies on the topics.

Compared to adults, teens take about 170 milliseconds more weighing the pros and cons of engaging in high-risk behavior, the researchers conclude. Adults scarcely think about risk, perhaps because they think they recognize risk intuitively. Teens, on the other hand, take time to mull the risk vs. benefit equation.

My guess is that the difference is relative to experience. I suspect that if you measure the risk aptitude of someone who has been through a number of experiences directly related to that risk, then you will find they spend less time thinking about it than someone new and more “open” to persuasion. I see that as different from “scarcely thinking about risk”, but rather becoming a proficient (perhaps even intuitive) thinker. In other words, when comparing white-belts to black-belts in martial arts, does it help us to say white-belts think more and black-belts less? Are white-belts more susceptible to “pressure”, particularly in groups, about how to react to risks? Of course, but can someone find an inverse law that says how susceptible we are to influence relative to wisdom or some other form of experience? Maybe that’s the conclusion of the actual study. Hard to tell from the article alone.