<p>Stigler and Becker's argument is methodological, not philosophical. They do not try to convince us that preferences are indeed identical across individuals and invariant across time as a matter of reality (the "Rocky Mountains" metaphor is an "<em>as if</em> " approach).</p>

<p>Their point is that any outcome can be rationalized by assuming that "it was preferences that made it so", since "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum", and also they are unobservable.  But then, we could "explain everything" in this way, and so explain nothing.</p>

<p>Their goal is to defend in terms of <em>useful modelling</em> the other extreme: assume immovable preferences and try to find explanations for the observed outcomes based on observable, quantifiable concepts, like prices. I believe the following passage from the first page of the paper summarizes the approach</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"On the traditional view, an explanation of economic phenomena that reaches a difference in tastes between people or times is the terminus
  of the argument: <strong>the problem is abandoned</strong> at this point to whoever
  studies and explains tastes (psychologists? anthropologists?
  phrenologists'? sociobiologists?). On our preferred interpretation,
  one never reaches this impasse: the economist continues to search for
  differences in prices or incomes to explain any differences or changes
  in behavior. <strong>The choice between these two views of the role of tastes
  in economic theory must ultimately be made on the basis of their
  comparative analytical productivities</strong>.</em>"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Bold my emphasis.  </p>

<p>So the question of the OP appears to be mistargeted: people's tastes may very well change over time, and I don't think that Stigler and Becker would deny that. 
The question is, can we arrive at more useful economic models by assuming changing tastes, compared to the models where tastes are fixed (while avoiding the "explain everything and so explain nothing" trap)? But this would be a whole research program, not some rigorous argument in a paper.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T18:45:32.050Z
2016-12-07T19:28:32.390Z
2016-12-07T19:28:32.390Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>In their seminal paper <em><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1807222?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">De Gustibus non est Disputandum</a></em>, Stigler and Becker (1977) surveyed four classes of phenomena widely believed to be inconsistent with the stability of tastes: addiction, habitual behavior, advertising, and fashions, and in each case offered an alternative explanation. </p>

<p>All these explanations are based on the assumption that <strong>individual tastes are stable over time</strong>. They compare tastes to the Rocky Mountains: "both are there, will be there next year, too, and are the same to all men.” </p>

<p><strong>Question</strong>: I am wondering if the assumption that individual's tastes do not change over time has been rigorously challenged. And how?</p>

<hr>

<p><em>Note</em>: I added rigorously because their argument is subtle and very persuasive. For example, the role of experience and addiction can be explained with stable preferences. As a consumer gains experience with a good, it becomes easier to use. Thus the cost of using it goes down as use goes up, resulting in higher marginal profit. As the marginal utility diminishes with usage, equilibrium is reached when the diminishing marginal utility gains match the reduction in cost obtained by increases usage.</p>

<hr>

<p><em>Update</em>: I found a nice related survey on <a href="http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/1998JEL.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Endogenous Preferences</a> by Samuel Bowles.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T08:41:54.883Z
Is the assumption that what is time-invariant is the **aggregate** of individuals' tastes, or each individual's tastes? I assume the former.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T08:48:15.273Z
@EnergyNumbers as far as I understand they argue that each individual's tastes is stable over time.
emeryville
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T08:49:10.040Z
@EnergyNumbers it seems tat you don't appreciate fancy titles ;-)!
emeryville
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T08:55:17.437Z
I liked the fancy title very much. But the site convention is for English-language titles.  It seems peculiar to me that anyone would assume that an individual's tastes are stable over time. I mean, maybe a 110-year old and a 1-year old both like a diet of fruit mushed together with tuna, but not so much in the years in between.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T09:12:17.067Z
I was also puzzled by this age effect. But their explanation accounts for the fact that consumption may differ according to age with no change in the individual's taste. However relative prices change (see p. 6 and 7 [here](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/syllabi/Econ811JournalArticles/StiglerBeckerAER.pdf)
emeryville
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T10:46:27.547Z
I'm not sure you can rigorously do this -- it's not really clear to me what preferences being 'stable over time' really means formally. Note that in the standard model of consumer choice, a good consumed now is different from the 'same' good consumed later. That is, if I prefer one apple to one orange right now, and I prefer one orange to one apple later, it's not clear to me that that says my preferences changed over time. My preferences are the same; an apple/orange now is a different good from an apple/orange later.
Theoretical Economist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T10:47:10.047Z
That being said, it's entirely possible (even likely) that someone cleverer than me has worked this out!
Theoretical Economist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T12:42:08.443Z
Honestly, the paper is a pseudoscience for today standard (we never lack of paper that deems obsolete by new evidence and studies). It is the early attempt of someone study the economy in year 1977 try to play the roles of year 2016 neurologist.
mootmoot
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T12:53:17.337Z
The roles of dopamine (as confirm by today science that cause the addiction) is still a field that need lots of studies. Most interesting part is, human can change perception on stuff  and "acquire" a different "taste".   Even without stepping into the field of neurology,  one can spot the flaw on the 1977 paper methodology, i.e. lack of double blind test and sampling.
mootmoot
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-07T17:04:11.720Z
I must agree with @TheoreticalEconomist .
Under the assumptions of general equilibrium theory and such, preferences are not defined merely on a "good" per se, but on commodities, which have an element of time in them. 

Like the above example, an orange today and an orange tomorrow are considered as two separate commodities.
Walrasian Auctioneer
<microeconomics><reference-request><preferences>
Has the assumption that individuals' tastes do not change over time been rigorously challenged?
emeryville
# Has the assumption that individuals' tastes do not change over time been rigorously challenged?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-12-07)

In their seminal paper *[De Gustibus non est Disputandum](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1807222?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)*, Stigler and Becker (1977) surveyed four classes of phenomena widely believed to be inconsistent with the stability of tastes: addiction, habitual behavior, advertising, and fashions, and in each case offered an alternative explanation.

All these explanations are based on the assumption that **individual tastes are stable over time**. They compare tastes to the Rocky Mountains: "both are there, will be there next year, too, and are the same to all men.”

**Question**: I am wondering if the assumption that individual's tastes do not change over time has been rigorously challenged. And how?

---

*Note*: I added rigorously because their argument is subtle and very persuasive. For example, the role of experience and addiction can be explained with stable preferences. As a consumer gains experience with a good, it becomes easier to use. Thus the cost of using it goes down as use goes up, resulting in higher marginal profit. As the marginal utility diminishes with usage, equilibrium is reached when the diminishing marginal utility gains match the reduction in cost obtained by increases usage.

---

*Update*: I found a nice related survey on [Endogenous Preferences](http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/1998JEL.pdf) by Samuel Bowles.

**Tags:** microeconomics, reference-request, preferences
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Is the assumption that what is time-invariant is the **aggregate** of individuals' tastes, or each individual's tastes? I assume the former.  
> **username_0**: @EnergyNumbers as far as I understand they argue that each individual's tastes is stable over time.  
> **username_0**: @EnergyNumbers it seems tat you don't appreciate fancy titles ;-)!  
> **username_1**: I liked the fancy title very much. But the site convention is for English-language titles.  It seems peculiar to me that anyone would assume that an individual's tastes are stable over time. I mean, maybe a 110-year old and a 1-year old both like a diet of fruit mushed together with tuna, but not so much in the years in between.  
> **username_0**: I was also puzzled by this age effect. But their explanation accounts for the fact that consumption may differ according to age with no change in the individual's taste. However relative prices change (see p. 6 and 7 [here](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/syllabi/Econ811JournalArticles/StiglerBeckerAER.pdf)  
> **username_2**: I'm not sure you can rigorously do this -- it's not really clear to me what preferences being 'stable over time' really means formally. Note that in the standard model of consumer choice, a good consumed now is different from the 'same' good consumed later. That is, if I prefer one apple to one orange right now, and I prefer one orange to one apple later, it's not clear to me that that says my preferences changed over time. My preferences are the same; an apple/orange now is a different good from an apple/orange later.  
> **username_2**: That being said, it's entirely possible (even likely) that someone cleverer than me has worked this out!  
> **username_3**: Honestly, the paper is a pseudoscience for today standard (we never lack of paper that deems obsolete by new evidence and studies). It is the early attempt of someone study the economy in year 1977 try to play the roles of year 2016 neurologist.  
> **username_3**: The roles of dopamine (as confirm by today science that cause the addiction) is still a field that need lots of studies. Most interesting part is, human can change perception on stuff  and "acquire" a different "taste".   Even without stepping into the field of neurology,  one can spot the flaw on the 1977 paper methodology, i.e. lack of double blind test and sampling.  
> **username_4**: I must agree with @TheoreticalEconomist . Under the assumptions of general equilibrium theory and such, preferences are not defined merely on a "good" per se, but on commodities, which have an element of time in them.   Like the above example, an orange today and an orange tomorrow are considered as two separate commodities.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-12-07. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

Stigler and Becker's argument is methodological, not philosophical. They do not try to convince us that preferences are indeed identical across individuals and invariant across time as a matter of reality (the "Rocky Mountains" metaphor is an "*as if* " approach).

Their point is that any outcome can be rationalized by assuming that "it was preferences that made it so", since "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum", and also they are unobservable. But then, we could "explain everything" in this way, and so explain nothing.

Their goal is to defend in terms of *useful modelling* the other extreme: assume immovable preferences and try to find explanations for the observed outcomes based on observable, quantifiable concepts, like prices. I believe the following passage from the first page of the paper summarizes the approach

> *"On the traditional view, an explanation of economic phenomena that reaches a difference in tastes between people or times is the terminus
> of the argument: **the problem is abandoned** at this point to whoever
> studies and explains tastes (psychologists? anthropologists?
> phrenologists'? sociobiologists?). On our preferred interpretation,
> one never reaches this impasse: the economist continues to search for
> differences in prices or incomes to explain any differences or changes
> in behavior. **The choice between these two views of the role of tastes
> in economic theory must ultimately be made on the basis of their
> comparative analytical productivities**.*"

Bold my emphasis.

So the question of the OP appears to be mistargeted: people's tastes may very well change over time, and I don't think that Stigler and Becker would deny that.
The question is, can we arrive at more useful economic models by assuming changing tastes, compared to the models where tastes are fixed (while avoiding the "explain everything and so explain nothing" trap)? But this would be a whole research program, not some rigorous argument in a paper.


---

