There are reasons why and how people do things, what factors provoke the reason, and how their response affects them or their environment. Often, people make decisions in various situations that may involve a certain degree of risk; hence, a risk-taking position. This situation needs an individual to examine and analyses the probability of success or failure connected with alternative habits he/she may perform to come to a decision concerning he or she will do. What’s more, several psychodynamic theories offer explanations and concise model to understand risk-taking behaviors. According to Heckle (1989) , a theory is a fact-based framework primarily for describing a phenomenon; it presents a testable idea or concept. Throughout the sphere of psychology, arguments have been proposed to explain and predict various aspects of human behavior. Although motivation theory and the theory of cognitive development have weaknesses, I think they offer an understandable explanation of social risk-taking behaviors.
The theory of motivation describes risk-taking behaviors; which makes it appropriate for the topic. According to the definition of Maslow (1943) , motivation is the process which guides, initiates, and consequently maintains particular goal-oriented behaviors. As such, the theory posits that extrinsic motivators like sexual urges, monetary incentives or punishments may undermine or build up inherent enthusiasm; depending on the situation, Elliot et al.,2017) . Typically, a motivated individual is one who enthusiastically tries to accomplishing something. The theory of motivation relates to human risk-taking behaviors in a significant measure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Risk taking is the tendency of a person to engage in certain activities that may have potential reward or damage. As such, risk-taking behaviors can make someone creative and explorative, and this may consequently result in benefits that were formerly unreachable. However, risk-taking can be dangerous to the physical health and mental health of the person in an event where the risk is not adequately assessed. Most importantly, it is the motivation that comes before the execution of a particular risk. The reward cued by the brain motivates an individual to take a chance ( Elliot et al., 2017) . As such, I think the theory of motivation is appropriate for the topic.
Besides, the theory of cognition development relates to human risk-taking behavior. People may make risky decisions in certain situations; this may require the person to examine the chances of succeeding or failing with changing behavior he/she may make and settle on a specific decision. On the other hand, cognitive development is the systematic construction of the thinking process, remembering, decision making, and problem-solving sequentially from childhood through puberty to adulthood. At one point, it was believed that infants could not reason or to form complex notions, and they gained the ability to learn a language ( Elliot et al., 2017) . Currently, it is believed that infants are very much aware of their environment, and they are fascinated in exploration from the time of their birth. After birth, infants begin to learn dynamically; they gather, sort, and process information about their environments using and develop discernment and thinking skills.
Furthermore, the relationship identified between risk-taking behaviors and personality variables in children has commonly been small but significant. For instance, girls with high hopes of succeeding and equally high fear of failing take moderate risks than girls low on their dimension (Kagan, 1966). Also, in a group of mentally disabled children and kids at puberty, those who seek reward took more intermediate risks as compared to those who avoided punishments. Form the above examples is apparent that cognitive development is related to risk-taking behavior.
In as much and the two theories have a close relationship with human risk-taking behavior, they have a difference in the degrees of strength. The method of cognitive development is stronger than the motivation theory because it offers a better understanding of the topic. From the definition, motivation theories are the process which guides, initiates, and consequently maintains particular goal-oriented behaviors. On the other side, cognitive development referrers to the way an individual discern, reason, and gain an understanding of his/her environment by interacting with learned and genetic people.
Form the difference; a motivated person may as well be influenced by cognitive development. About cognitive development, it is projected that mental processes direct risk-taking behaviors; precisely intelligence level, which leads to knowledgeable and competent risk-taking choices (Piaget, 1964). In as much as one may be motivated to take a risk, he/she may reason or discern the effects of his/her intended actions and withdraw or change approach; which means that the theory of cognitive development theory is stronger than the motivation theory because it offers a better explanation of risk-taking behavior. Motivation does not recognize cultural and individual differences.
Several psychological research grounded in risk cognitive developments theory and motivation theory aid in the understanding of risk-taking behaviors. To begin with, the measuring of cognitive development by Matching Familiar Figure (MFF) appeared pertinent to risk-taking in infants (Kagan, 1966). Reflective children tend to respond more slowly and scan unconventional stimuli more regularly before acting in a task situation as compared to impulsive children. According to Kagan and Kogan(1970), impulsive children respond quicker and examine fewer alternative that reflective kids. From the example; it is apparent that similar style of response is evident in risk-taking. Therefore, it was predicted that impulsive kids would take more risks as compared to reflective kids.
The research prediction was tested in the current study. This was done by providing a similar environment for sixty-fourth-grade kids; that is, thirty boys and thirty girls attending a public school in Atlanta, Georgia. Every child was white and from a middle-class home. Moreover, every child was administered Kagan’s (1966) MFF plus toggle switch Risk Taking Task. On this task, the children of each sex performed the two tasks with an adult female experimenter and one half with an adult male experimenter. The MFF measures the tendency of a child to have a repulsive or a reflective cognitive style. Classically, on this task, a child looks at one standard stimulus line drawn and must point to its exact match from among six options. Furthermore, he is cored for response latency and several errors on every 12 trials ( Piaget, 1964) . As such, a child who is below that median on errors is considered impulsive while a child who is way above the average on response time and way below the average on errors is deemed to be reflective. This is one of the cultural aspects that aid in understanding risks taking behaviors concerning cognitive development.
As it is apparent from the arguments provided having some weaknesses, the theory of motivation and connection development theory offers a coherent understanding of risk-taking behaviors. The method of motivation states extrinsic motivators may undermine or build up inherent enthusiasm. On the other hand, the technique of cognitive development relates risk-taking behavior with the systematic construction thinking process, remembering, decision making, and problem-solving. More importantly, several psychological types of research provide a firm ground that explains how the two theories relate to risk-taking behaviors.
References
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application . Guilford Publications.
Heckel, R. V., Allen, S. S., Andrews, L., Roeder, G., Ryba, P., & Zook, W. (1989). Normative data on the Kagan Matching Familiar Figures test for adult male incarcerates. Journal of clinical psychology , 45 (1), 155-160.
Kagan, J. (1965). Impulsive and reflective children: Significance of conceptual tempo. Learning and the educational process. Chicago: Rand McNally , 133 , 16l.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 (4), 370.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of research in science teaching , 2 (3), 176-186.
