Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 2;12:34. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00034

Table 3.

Summary of the existing studies on the DRD4 gene and risk-taking propensity.

Reference Subject pool Group size Risk-taking measures Result
Dreber et al. (2009) Undergraduate students 94 (7R+ n = 24) Experimental investment task 7R+ more risk-taking
Kuhnen and Chiao (2009) Undergraduate students 65 (7R+ n =15) Experimental investment task 7R+ more risk-taking
Carpenter et al. (2011) Mainly undergraduate students (n = 125) 140 (7R+ n = 51) Three gambling tasks—lottery choices with:

  1. Known probabilities

  2. Ambiguous probabilities

  3. Possible loss

  1. No differences

  2. 7R+ more risk-taking

  3. 7R+ more risk-taking


(p = 0.10)
Dreber et al. (2011) Bridge players 98 men (7R+ n = 16)
77 women (7R+ n = 6)

  1. Bridge risk-taking

  2. Experimental investment task

 7R+ more risk-taking only among men in both measures
Eisenegger et al. (2010) No info, mean age 23.5 (SD = 3.6) 200 (7R+ n = 42) Gambling task No differences in control (placebo administration) group
Frydman et al. (2011) Undergraduate students 90 (no info) Gambling task No differences
Dreber et al. (2012) Owners, presidents, and managers of large companies 121 (7R+ n = 17) Experimental investment task No differences
Anderson et al. (2015) Investors 149 (7R+ n = 53)

  1. Measures of equity holdings

  2. Multiple price listing

  3. Survey risk measure


(Dohmen et al., 2011)		 No significant differences