We evaluate the temporal stability of risk preferences using a remarkable data set that combines sociodemographic information from the Danish Civil Registry with information on risk attitudes from a longitudinal field experiment. Our econometric model accounts for endogenous sample selection and attrition processes that may confound inferences about temporal stability. Our experimental design builds in randomization on the incentives for participation that facilitates empirical identification of the model. In general, we find evidence consistent with temporal stability after correcting for the effects of selection and attrition. When neglected, these effects change our inferences in an economically and statistically significant manner.

We provide evidence that choices over small-stakes bets are consistent with assumptions of some payoff calibration paradoxes. We then exploit the existence of detailed information on individual wealth of our experimental subjects in Denmark and directly estimate risk attitudes and the degree of asset integration. We discover that behavior is consistent with partial, rather than full, asset integration. The implied risk attitudes from estimating these specifications indicate risk premiums and certainty equivalents that are a priori plausible. This theory and evidence suggest one constructive solution to payoff calibration paradoxes.