Risk and loss aversion are phenomena with an important influence on decision-making, especially in economic contexts. At present, it remains unclear whether both are related, as well as whether they could have an emotional origin. The objective of this review, following the PRISMA statements, is to find consistencies in the genetic bases of risk and loss aversion with the aim of understanding their nature and shedding light on the above issues. A total of 23 empirical research met the inclusion criteria and were included from PubMed and ScienceDirect. All of them reported genetic measures from human samples and studied risk and loss aversion within an economic framework. The results for risk aversion, although with many limitations, attributed mainly to their heterogeneity and the lack of control in the studies, point to the implication of multiple polymorphisms related to the regulation of the serotonergic and dopaminergic pathways. In general, studies found the highest levels of risk aversion were associated with alleles that are linked to lower (higher) sensitivity or levels of dopamine (serotonin). For loss aversion, the scarcity of results prevents us from drawing clear conclusions, although the limited evidence seems to point in the same direction as for risk aversion. Therefore, it seems that risk aversion could have a stable genetical base which, in turn, is closely linked to emotions, but more research is needed to answer whether this phenomenon is related to loss aversion, as well as if the latter could also have an emotional origin. We also provide recommendations for future studies on genetics and economic behavior.

Stress influences loss aversion, the principle that losses loom larger than gains, although the nature of this relationship is unclear. Studies show that stress reduces loss aversion; however, stress response has been only studied by means of physiological measures, but the stressor emotional impact remained unclear. Since emotions can modify stress response and increase the activity of the loss aversion neural substrates, it could be expected that an emotional stressor may produce the opposite effect, i.e. loss aversion increase. 69 participants were divided into experimental and control group. The first one was exposed to emotional stress through a 5-minutes video, and control group viewed a match-length distractor video. Physiological stress response was assessed by means of electrodermal activity (EDA), and both perceived stress, and negative affect (i.e. psychological stress response) were registered through questionnaires. Both groups performed a mixed gamble task, which allowed the extraction of loss aversion through a Bayesian-computational model. During and after video, experimental group had higher electrodermal activity, perceived stress, and negative affect than controls, suggesting that emotional stress induction was effective. However, rather than increasing, loss aversion of stressed participants was lower. These results constitute a new evidence of emotional stress influencing loss aversion and highlight that stress, regardless of its emotional impact, can reduce this phenomenon. These results should be considered when predicting risky decisions.

It is widely accepted there is the existence of negativity bias, a greater sensitivity to negative emotional stimuli compared with positive ones, but its effect on decision-making would depend on the context. In risky decisions, negativity bias could lead to non-rational choices by increasing loss aversion; yet in ambiguous decisions, it could favor reinforcement-learning and better decisions by increasing sensitivity to punishments. Nevertheless, these hypotheses have not been tested to date. Our aim was to fill this gap. Sixty-nine participants rated ambiguous emotional faces (from the NimStim set) as positive or negative to assess negativity bias. The implicit level of the bias was also obtained by tracking the mouse’s trajectories when rating faces. Then, they performed both a risky and an ambiguous decision-making task. Participants displayed negativity bias, but only at the implicit level. In addition, this bias was associated with loss aversion in risky decisions, and with greater performance through the ambiguous decisional task. These results highlight the need to contextualize biases, rather than draw general conclusions about whether they are inherently good or bad.

Loss aversion bias, whereby losses loom larger than gains, can be reduced by stress. At the same time, vigorous physical exercise is a powerful neuroendocrine stressor and heart rate variability (H...

Decision-making styles are a habit-based propensity that drive behavior and affect daily life. Rational and intuitive decision-making styles have been associated with good mental health. However, the underlying mechanisms are not clear. In the last decade, high basal levels of heart rate variability (HRV) have been proposed as an index of health and emotional control, and this could be one of the variables involved in the effects of decision making on health. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the capability of decision-making styles to predict resting HRV. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of 199 (119 women) young university students, and a resting ECG was recorded to extract frequency domain HRV variables. Subsequently, participants completed sociodemographic data and the General Decision-Making Style questionnaire (GDMS). Results showed that the intuitive style predicted high-frequency HRV, while the avoidant style predicted less low-frequency HRV. This study presents new data on the relationship between decision-making style and HRV, suggesting that the intuitive style has a cardioprotective effect, while the avoidant style is related to lower HRV, which has been associated with health vulnerability. In conclusion, this study contributes to the understanding of HRV and its potential as a biomarker for cognitive styles that may improve health.