SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62

Genetics of Risk-Taking Behavior: Current Knowledge, Challenges and Future Directions

Risk Alma Davranişinin Genetiği: Güncel Bilgiler, Zorluklar ve Geleceğe Yönelik Öneriler

Nilay ATEŞYAKAR
Elif Aysimi DUMAN
Pages
718–738
Publication Date
2021-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering the characteristics and results of these studies, we then discuss the limitations and challenges in research with suggestions for future directions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Our daily decisions reflect continuous assessments of risk that highly varies from one individual to the other.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We first examine candidate gene association studies, followed by genome-wide association and gene-environment interaction studies utilizing different measures of risk-taking to illustrate the progress in the field.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering the characteristics and results of these studies, we then discuss the limitations and challenges in research with suggestions for future directions.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:risk alma davranışı · finansal risk alma · davranışsal ekonomi

Abstract

Our daily decisions reflect continuous assessments of risk that highly varies from one individual to the other. Research on the underlying mechanisms of individual differences in risk-taking behavior emphasizes changes in neural and physiological pathways that is in part due to the activation of different neurotransmitter systems. Consequently, genetic variations in these systems were the primary target of studies investigating the genetic underpinnings of risk-taking behavior. The aim of this review is to give an overview of our current knowledge related to genetic variations in these systems and economic risk-taking behavior. We first examine candidate gene association studies, followed by genome-wide association and gene-environment interaction studies utilizing different measures of risk-taking to illustrate the progress in the field. Considering the characteristics and results of these studies, we then discuss the limitations and challenges in research with suggestions for future directions.

Özet

Günlük kararlarımız, bir kişiden diğerine oldukça değişen ve süregelen risk değerlendirmelerimizi yansıtır. Risk-alma davranışındaki bireysel farklılıkların altında yatan mekanizmaları araştıran çalışmalar, kısmen farklı nörotransmitter sistemlerinin aktivasyonuyla ilişkili sinirsel ve fizyolojik yolaklardaki değişikliklerin önemini vurgulamaktadır. O nedenle, risk-alma davranışının genetik dayanaklarıyla ilgili araştırmaların öncelikli hedefi, bu sistemlerdeki genetik farklılıklar olmuştur. Bu derlemenin amacı, bu sistemlerdeki genetik farklılıklar ve ekonomik risk-alma davranışı ile ilgili güncel bilgilerimize genel bir bakış sunmaktır. Alandaki gelişimi göstermek için öncelikle farklı risk-alma ölçümleri kullanan aday gen ilişkilendirme çalışmalarının bulguları, sonrasında da genom boyu ilişkilendirme ve gen-çevre etkileşimi çalışmalarının bulguları incelenecektir. Son olarak, bu araştırmaların özellikleri ve sonuçları göz önünde bulundurularak, araştırmalardaki sınırlamalar ve zorluklar tartışılacak ve gelecek araştırmalar için öneriler sunulacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATEŞYAKAR, N., DUMAN, E. A. (2021). Genetics of Risk-Taking Behavior: Current Knowledge, Challenges and Future Directions. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62, 718–738. https://ajindex.com/articles/422160

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Amstadter, Ananda B., Laura MacPherson, Frances Wang, Annie Banducci, Elizabeth K. Reynolds, Marc N. Potenza, Joel Gelernter, and C. W. Lejuez. 2012. “The Relationship between Risk-Taking Propensity and the COMT Val158Met Polymorphism among Early Adolescents as a Function of Sex.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 46 (7): 940–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.371.
  2. Anderson, Anders, Anna Dreber, and Roine Vestman. 2015. “Risk Taking, Behavioral Biases and Genes: Results from 149 Active Investors.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 6: 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.04.002.
  3. Armbruster, D., A. Mueller, D. A. Moser, K. P. Lesch, B. Brocke, and C. Kirschbaum. 2009. “Interaction Effect of D4 Dopamine Receptor Gene and Serotonin Transporter Promoter Polymorphism on the Cortisol Stress Response.” Behavioral Neuroscience 123 (6): 1288–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017615.
  4. Barnea, Amir, Henrik Cronqvist, and Stephan Siegel. 2010. “Nature or Nurture: What Determines Investor Behavior?” Journal of Financial Economics 98 (3): 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.08.001.
  5. Beauchamp, Jonathan P., David Cesarini, and Magnus Johannesson. 2017. “The Psychometric and Empirical Properties of Measures of Risk Preferences.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 54 (3): 203–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-017-9261-3.
  6. Beauchamp, Jonathan P., David Cesarini, Magnus Johannesson, Matthijsj H.M. Van Der Loos, Philipp D. Koellinger, J. F.Groenen Patrick, James H. Fowler, J. Niels Rosenquist, A. Roy Thurik, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2011. “Molecular Genetics and Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25 (4): 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.57.
  7. Benjamin, Daniel J., David Cesarini, Christopher F. Chabris, Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, Vilmundur Gunason, Tamara B. Harris, et al. 2012. “The Promises and Pitfalls of Genoeconomics.” Annual Review of Economics 4: 627–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110939.
  8. Brand, Matthias, Kirsten Labudda, and Hans J. Markowitsch. 2006. “Neuropsychological Correlates of Decision-Making in Ambiguous and Risky Situations.” Neural Networks 19 (8): 1266–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.001.
  9. Buelow, Melissa T., and Amber L. Blaine. 2015. “The Assessment of Risky Decision Making: A Factor Analysis of Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task.” Psychological Assessment 27 (3): 777–85.
  10. Bush, William S., and Jason H. Moore. 2012. “Ch