People who are more likely to die seem to care less about the future

Two studies of individuals who had purchased life insurance found that those assigned higher mortality risk ratings by insurers tended to be more focused on the present and less concerned about the future. These individuals were less likely to follow what researchers call a “slow life strategy,” were more inclined toward short-term mating, and tended to be more impulsive, less conscientious, and less likely to consider future consequences. The findings were published in Evolution and Human Behavior.

Mortality risk refers to the likelihood that a person will die within a given time frame due to factors such as age, medical conditions, lifestyle behaviors, and environmental exposures. Public health researchers use such data to track population trends and guide interventions. In the context of life insurance, mortality risk is a core factor used to set premiums and coverage levels. Insurance companies use medical exams, family history, and other personal data to estimate this risk and assign applicants to actuarial categories that reflect their relative likelihood of dying.

In this new research, psychologists Aaron W. Lukaszewski and Joseph H. Manson proposed that insurance-based mortality risk ratings could serve as a scientifically valid measure of an individual’s objective risk of death. Drawing on evolutionary psychology, they predicted that people with higher mortality risk would show behavioral traits reflecting a shorter time horizon. From an evolutionary perspective, investing in long-term goals may only be adaptive when individuals can reasonably expect to survive to enjoy the benefits. When the future is uncertain or potentially short, prioritizing immediate rewards may be more advantageous.

The first study involved 273 U.S. residents recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. All participants had purchased an individual life insurance policy within the previous five years and reported the underwriting risk rating assigned to them. They completed questionnaires assessing impulsivity, prosociality, and industriousness using the Life History Rating Form, as well as items from the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory that assessed preferences for long- versus short-term mating.

In this framework, low impulsivity, high prosociality, and high industriousness are considered indicators of a “slow life strategy,” which reflects a long-term, future-oriented pattern of development. This contrasts with a “fast life strategy,” characterized by impulsivity, short-term focus, and higher mating effort, particularly in unpredictable or harsh environments.

The second study included 402 U.S. residents recruited mainly through the platform Prolific. All participants had purchased an individual life insurance policy in the previous 10 years and had undergone a paramedical exam as part of the underwriting process. Participants completed a broader set of questionnaires that measured mating and parenting effort, short-term mating orientation, consideration of future consequences, risk propensity, impulsiveness, aggression, conscientiousness, and childhood environmental conditions.

Participants’ mortality risk was categorized based on their life insurance underwriting classifications. These classifications, which were consistent across insurance companies, were grouped into low, medium, or high risk categories for analysis. Researchers controlled for factors such as age, sex, and tobacco use.

The results from both studies supported the central hypothesis. Individuals with higher insurance-based mortality risk were more likely to exhibit traits linked to a fast life strategy. These traits included higher impulsiveness, lower conscientiousness, and less concern for future consequences. In the first study, higher mortality risk was also associated with a stronger orientation toward short-term mating, although this effect was not consistently observed in the second study.

The researchers also measured participants’ self-estimated mortality risk—how soon they thought they would die compared to others, and at what age they expected to die. These subjective estimates did not correlate with the actuarial risk ratings. However, they were independently associated with similar behavioral traits, as well as with indicators of harsh or chaotic childhood environments. This suggests that people’s perceptions of their own life expectancy may be shaped more by past experiences and subjective beliefs than by the medical and biometric data used by insurers.

“The most consistent finding across two studies was that measures of mortality risk associated with personality traits related to present-future tradeoffs, most credibly impulsivity, concern for future consequences, and conscientiousness,” the authors wrote. “As such, our findings provide the most actuarially sound evidence to date in support of the adaptationist prediction that personality traits related to time horizon are calibrated during ontogeny in response to an individual’s risk of death.”

The findings suggest that people with higher mortality risk may adopt a psychological orientation that prioritizes immediate rewards and de-emphasizes future planning. This has implications for understanding decision-making, goal-setting, and health-related behaviors, particularly in individuals facing greater health or environmental risks.

However, it is important to note that the research is correlational. The design does not allow for conclusions about causality—whether higher mortality risk causes present-focused thinking, or whether certain personality traits influence behaviors that raise mortality risk. Additionally, while insurance-based mortality ratings are actuarially grounded, the proprietary nature of underwriting algorithms means that researchers cannot be entirely certain which variables contribute most to a person’s rating.

The paper, “People who are more likely to die care less about the future: Life insurance risk ratings predict personality,” was authored by Aaron W. Lukaszewski and Joseph H. Manson.