Comparison of Mean-Variance theory and Expected-Utility theory through a Laboratory Experiment
In the 40’s and early 50’ two decision theories were proposed and have since dominated the scene of the fascinating field of decision-making. In 1944 – when von Neumann and Morgenstern showed that if preferences are consistent with a set of axioms then it is possible to represent these preference by the expectation of some utility function – Expected Utility theory provide a natural way to establish “measurable utility”. In the early 50’s Markowitz introduced the Mean-Variance theory that is the basis of modern portfolio selection theory. Even if both models were analyzed from virtually all possible point of view; although they were tested against several generalizations; even though they seams to be the most attractive theories of decision making, they were never testes gains each other. This paper will try to fill this gap. It investigates, using experimental data, which of these two models represent a better approximation of subjects’ preferences.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
- J. Tobin, 1958.
"Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 65-86.
- James Tobin, 1956. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 14, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- John Hey & Enrica Carbone, "undated". "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
- Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.
- Hey, John D., 1995. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 633-640, April.
- Hey, John D. & Carbone, Enrica, 1995. "Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, February.
- Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
- John Hey, 2001. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 5-54, June.
- John Hey, "undated". "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," Discussion Papers 99/28, Department of Economics, University of York.
- William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
- Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-54, October.
- Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim & Markowitz, Harry M, 1984. " Mean-Variance versus Direct Utility Maximization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(1), pages 47-61, March.
- Levy, H & Markowtiz, H M, 1979. "Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 308-317, June.
- Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)