IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-08c90003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Morone

    (Università degli studi di Bari)

Abstract

In the 40's and early 50''s two decision theories were proposed and have dominated the scene of the fascinating field of decision-making. Since 1944 - when von Neumann and Morgenstern showed that if preferences are consistent with a set of axioms then it is possible to represent these preferences by the expectation of some utility function - Expected Utility theory provides 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. Since then, both models were analyzed from virtually all possible points of view and were tested against several generalizations. However, these two models should be tested against each other. This paper tries to fill this gap, investigating (using experimental data) which of these two models better approximate subjects'' preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Morone, 2008. "Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(40), pages 1-7.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-08c90003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2008/Volume3/EB-08C90003A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    2. John D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. 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.
    5. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    6. J. Tobin, 1958. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 25(2), pages 65-86.
    7. John D. Hey, 2018. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 17, pages 381-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. John Hey & Enrica Carbone, "undated". "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-54, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.
    14. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    15. Hey, John D. & Carbone, Enrica, 1995. "Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morone, Andrea, 2010. "On price data elicitation: A laboratory investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 540-545, October.
    2. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana, 2015. "Eliciting Preferences Over Risk: An Experiment," MPRA Paper 68519, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An Experimental Investigation of Alternatives to Expected Utility Using Pricing Data," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(20), pages 1-12.
    4. Biggar, Darryl R. & Hesamzadeh, Mohammad Reza, 2022. "An integrated theory of dispatch and hedging in wholesale electric power markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Fatma Lajeri-Chaherli, 2016. "On The Concavity And Quasiconcavity Properties Of ( Σ , Μ ) Utility Functions," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 287-296, April.
    6. Andrea Morone & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2012. "Are small groups Expected Utility?," Working Papers 2012/08, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    7. Zonna, Davide, 2016. "Sprechi di cibo e tentativi di riduzione. Un caso sperimentale [Avoiding food waste. A field experiment]," MPRA Paper 76097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Dolors Berga & Jose I. Silva, 2021. "Risk-Free Versus Risky Assets: Teaching a Portfolio Model with Application to the Stock Market," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 6(2), pages 76-94, October.
    9. Yumi Oum & Shmuel S. Oren, 2010. "Optimal Static Hedging of Volumetric Risk in a Competitive Wholesale Electricity Market," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 107-122, March.
    10. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:20:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ozlem Ozdemir & Andrea Morone, 2012. "Black Swan Protection: an Experimental Investigation," Working Papers 2012/12, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    12. Temerario, Tiziana, 2014. "Individual and Group Behaviour Toward Risk: A Short Survey," MPRA Paper 58079, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. A. Morone & P. Morone, 2014. "Estimating individual and group preference functionals using experimental data," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 403-422, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:40:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. John Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    5. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    7. Anna Conte & John D. Hey & Peter G. Moffatt, 2018. "Mixture models of choice under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 1, pages 3-12, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Fatma Lajeri-Chaherli, 2016. "On The Concavity And Quasiconcavity Properties Of ( Σ , Μ ) Utility Functions," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 287-296, April.
    9. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.
    10. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    11. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2013. "Which decision theory?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 40-44.
    12. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2020. "Dual choice axiom and probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 25-41, August.
    13. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    14. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    15. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2014. "The benefits of differential variance-based constraints in portfolio optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 372-381.
    16. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.
    17. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2010. "Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: why both are important for analyzing decisions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 963-986.
    18. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2014. "Stronger utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 265-286, February.
    19. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2024. "Harmonic choice model," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 49-69, February.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    21. John D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    preference functional;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-08c90003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.