Norms and the Boy Who Cried Wolf

I am currently writing about rules for patterns of use of goods and services produced for resource protection. These rules determine priorities for equipment, response and other important components of resource protection in cases where there are too many incidents competing for the goods and services. A practical example is the percent of unfilled requests for aircraft to fight wildfire through the federal ROSS system (details here).

In thinking about this I was reminded of the rules about how we decide to send an ambulance to an emergency. If one person decides that a situation warrants an ambulance, EMT, police officer, or fire fighter they call 911 and most likely, based on the information provided to dispatch, there will be a response.

Why is this interesting? Because in most major metropolitan areas, these services are paid for by mandatory taxation, and those that pay for the service have no say in how these resources are dispatched. If someone wants a service, they call for it, and we pay for it (or at the very least subsidize it). They can make that call unilaterally. No other person in an equivalent position can call off the ambulance. Why is this OK? Of course we all want to be able to get assistance when we want it without someone else keeping it from happening. This is an important part of the discussion. This does not keep people from abusing the system. There are many ways that we attempt to make people pay for these services rather than making everyone bear the burden, but if you call an ambulance and are not taken to a hospital you are not billed for the call. These costs are still borne by everyone.

This is where the "Boy who Cried Wolf" comes in. This story propagates a norm that reinforces appropriate behavior when calling for assistance. In the story, a boy cries "Wolf" when there is not one, either for attention or to mess with the townsfolk. There is no emergency, but people run to assist when the hear the call. There is no wolf, and the townsfolk are upset with the boy for wasting their time and energy. This happens at least one or two more times, with a call for help resulting in a collective effort to help the boy. The boy gets pleasure from the response and the townsfolk get annoyed. Then one day the boy stumbles upon a wolf and is truly in danger. He cries "Wolf!!" but is cries go unheeded. The townsfolk believe him to be faking. He ends up dead, and the moral of the story is to only call for help when it is needed.

This is a very prominent tale in the US, with the statement "don't cry wolf" a regular part of our language. It has a specific meaning to us about the consequences of calling for help when it is not needed. It is a dire take, with a child losing a life. The story reflects a norm in our society about how we should behave.

It is very possible that this norm reinforces behavior when calling for emergency services. We know not to call 911 unless it is truly needed. Services will be spent that could otherwise be used productively. We don't need to actually revoke access to services to communicate the costs of misuse of the system. The story does it for itself.

My intention is to include this scenario and discussion in my next class about norms and behavior. I think it provides a rich opportunity to discuss the role of norms in behavior and cooperation that most people in the US are familiar with.