We collect 1,021 estimates from 92 studies that use the consumption Euler equation to measure relative risk aversion and that disentangle it from intertemporal substitution. We show that calibrations of risk aversion are typically larger than estimates thereof. Moreover, reported estimates are typically larger than the underlying risk aversion because of publication bias. After correction for the bias, the literature suggests a mean risk aversion of 1 in economics and 2--7 in finance contexts. The reported estimates are systematically driven by the characteristics of data (frequency, dimension, country, stockholding) and utility (functional form, treatment of durables). To obtain these results we use nonlinear techniques to correct for publication bias and Bayesian model averaging techniques to account for model uncertainty.

The intertemporal substitution (Frisch) elasticity of labor supply governs the predictions of real business cycle models and models of taxation. We show that, for the extensive margin elasticity, two biases conspire to systematically produce large positive estimates when the elasticity is in fact zero. Among 723 estimates in 36 studies, the mean reported elasticity is 0.5. One half of that number is due to publication bias: larger estimates are reported preferentially. The other half is due to identification bias: studies with less exogenous time variation in wages report larger elasticities. Net of the biases, the literature implies a zero mean elasticity and, with 95% confidence, is inconsistent with calibrations above 0.25. To derive these results we collect 23 variables that reflect the context in which the elasticity was obtained, use nonlinear techniques to correct for publication bias, and employ Bayesian and frequentist model averaging to address model uncertainty.