在面對(duì)投資風(fēng)險(xiǎn)時(shí),，什么樣的人可以做出更好的決策,？一項(xiàng)新研究顯示，擁有“勇士基因”的人在投資游戲中往往表現(xiàn)得有勇有謀,，他們得到的游戲分?jǐn)?shù)常常好于其他人,。
美國(guó)加州理工學(xué)院等機(jī)構(gòu)的研究人員在新一期英國(guó)《皇家學(xué)會(huì)學(xué)報(bào)B》（Proceedings of the Royal Society B）上報(bào)告說(shuō)，他們邀請(qǐng)了83名年輕男子參與投資游戲,，并為每人分配了一筆“啟動(dòng)資金”,。在游戲的第一部分，受試者可以選擇既無(wú)收益也無(wú)損失的安全選項(xiàng),，也可以選擇50%幾率賺錢(qián)或賠錢(qián)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)選項(xiàng),。
此前的檢測(cè)已經(jīng)確認(rèn)，上述部分受試者的單胺氧化酶A基因（MAOA）位點(diǎn)上有L型變種,，另外一些受試者的該基因位點(diǎn)上有H型變種,。游戲結(jié)果顯示，與MAOA基因H型變種者相比,，L型變種的人更容易選擇有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的選項(xiàng),。這與以前的一些研究結(jié)果一致，由于擁有MAOA基因L型變種的人更愿意冒險(xiǎn),，因此該基因被一些研究者稱(chēng)為“勇士基因”,。
在游戲的第二部分，設(shè)計(jì)者進(jìn)行了調(diào)整,，列出了風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和獲利程度都不同的多個(gè)選項(xiàng),，從而存在從游戲中獲利的最優(yōu)策略。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),，那些擁有“勇士基因”的人不僅愿意冒險(xiǎn),，而且最終獲得的“投資”結(jié)果也更好。
研究人員卡里·弗里德曼說(shuō),，有“勇士基因”的人更傾向冒險(xiǎn),，對(duì)此過(guò)去常簡(jiǎn)單地解釋為該基因使頭腦容易沖動(dòng)，但本次研究說(shuō)明,，有“勇士基因”的人在面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)時(shí)往往能有勇有謀地做出更好的抉擇,。（生物谷Bioon.com）
生物谷推薦原文出處：
Proc. R. Soc. B doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2304
MAOA-L carriers are better at making optimal financial decisions under risk
Cary Frydman1, Colin Camerer1,2, Peter Bossaerts1,2,3 and Antonio Rangel1,2,*
Abstract
Genes can affect behaviour towards risks through at least two distinct neurocomputational mechanisms: they may affect the value assigned to different risky options, or they may affect the way in which the brain adjudicates between options based on their value. We combined methods from neuroeconomics and behavioural genetics to investigate the impact that the genes encoding for monoamine oxidase-A (MAOA), the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) and the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) have on these two computations. Consistent with previous literature, we found that carriers of the MAOA-L polymorphism were more likely to take financial risks. Our computational choice model, rooted in established decision theory, showed that MAOA-L carriers exhibited such behaviour because they are able to make better financial decisions under risk, and not because they are more impulsive. In contrast, we found no behavioural or computational differences among the 5-HTT and DRD4 polymorphisms.
