“Young Brains Are Less Reactive to Danger: How Is Risk Perceived by the Brain?”

Many incidents show that when we are faced with danger, our reaction is not automatic. Sometimes we flee immediately; at other times, we remain frozen. The explanation lies in the brain, specifically in three key structures: the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the prefrontal cortex.

The amygdala is the brain’s fear center. It detects threats, generates emotion, and prepares the body to react: a faster heartbeat, quicker breathing, and a surge of adrenaline. However, it does not assess danger objectively; it is activated only when a stimulus disrupts expectations of safety or evokes memories of previous traumatic experiences.

Working alongside the amygdala is the hippocampus, which interprets context. It tells the brain whether what is happening aligns with what we expect or whether it represents a real threat.

In a familiar or seemingly safe environment, even potentially dangerous signals may be ignored. In other words, the perception of danger depends on where we are and what we expect.

The prefrontal cortex coordinates decision-making and rational responses. In adolescents, however, it is still developing. This means that even when the amygdala registers fear and the hippocampus evaluates the context, translating this information into effective action can be slow or inadequate.

Further complicating the picture is the crowd effect.

When many people share the same emotional state, individual perception merges with that of the group, creating a kind of collective mind.

In social psychology, this phenomenon is known as the collective mind or, in cultural terms, the “Egregore”: the group shapes the emotions and actions of individuals. In this state, ambiguous signals are interpreted according to the prevailing atmosphere—whether it is one of joy or panic.

We have all recently seen on television the images of flames spreading across the ceiling of a venue and young people attempting to put them out.

Many have asked: why didn’t they run away immediately? Why didn’t they react at once? While it is impossible to provide definitive answers—since no objective reaction can be assumed without being immersed in the same situation—it is nevertheless possible to offer an interpretation of the young people’s responses through the lens of neuroscience.

The adolescents’ amygdala did not perceive the situation as immediately threatening, because signals such as sparks, heat, and music were consistent with a festive setting. The hippocampus interpreted the scene as part of the evening’s experience—“everything is normal”—and finally, the prefrontal cortex, still immature, was unable to rapidly translate fear and contextual information into concrete action.

Added to this was the crowd effect—the evening’s “Egregore”—which reinforced a sense of safety.

The young people were not irresponsible or reckless; they were immersed in an emotionally coherent context, unable to transform instinct and perception into an immediate decision.

Understanding how the human brain functions in the face of danger does not mean justifying everything. It means recognizing biological and psychological limits, and building safer environments, clearer procedures, and effective emergency education.

The tragedy of Crans-Montana shows how the collective mind, together with underlying brain mechanisms, can help explain what at first glance appears inexplicable.

Luciano Bassani