In their seminal paper De Gustibus non est Disputandum, 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 by Samuel Bowles.