Data from: People who are more likely to die care less about the future: Life insurance risk ratings predict personality
Data files
Apr 18, 2025 version files 64.51 KB
-
Lukaszewski-Manson-R-code.txt
2.25 KB
-
Lukaszewski-Manson-Study-1-R.csv
9.33 KB
-
Lukaszewski-Manson-Study-2-R.csv
46.62 KB
-
README.md
6.30 KB
Abstract
Adaptationist models predict that individuals at higher risk of death will be calibrated to prioritize immediate over future benefits. However, operationalizing individual mortality risk in empirical studies has proven challenging. We introduce and explore a novel method of operationalizing individual mortality risk: Using the risk ratings assigned by actuaries to purchasers of individual life insurance policies. Participants, who had recently gone through underwriting as part of the insurance application process, completed self-report instruments to assess personality traits related to present-future tradeoffs and a putative fast-slow continuum of life history strategy. Study 1 (n = 270) found that insurance-based mortality risk associated negatively with a measure of slow life strategy and positively with a measure of short-term mating orientation. Study 2 (n = 402), which was preregistered, found that insurance-based mortality risk associated positively with impulsivity and negatively with conscientiousness and consideration of future consequences. Self-estimated mortality risk did not track insurance-based mortality risk, but was independently correlated with the same personality traits. We discuss the potential of insurance-based mortality risk estimates in behavioral research and the significance of these findings for adaptationist models of individual differences.
Data were collected from two U.S. online participant samples (N = 270 and N = 402), screened to include only individuals who had purchased individual life insurance policies within the past five years. In both data sets, participants were asked for the risk ratings they had been assigned by the insurance company, and to complete self-report instruments measuring constructs relevant to psychometric life history (especially the present-future trade-off). In the second data set, participants were also asked to indicate their self-estimated lifespan, and were asked to complete three instruments measuring recalled childhood environmental harshness. R code used to analyze the data is also provided.
Description of the Data and file structure
Lukaszewski-Manson-Study-1-R.csv
Key to column headings
female: 1 = yes
age_bin: (1 = younger than 25 years, 2 = 25-29, 3 = 30-34, 4 = 35-39, 5 = 40-44, 6 = 45-49, 7 = 50-54, 8 = 55-59, 9 = 60-64, 10 = 65-69, 11 = 70-74, 12 = 75 and older)
income (current household income): (1 = Less than $5,000, 2 = $5,000 - $9,999, 3 = $10,000 - $14,999, 4 = $15,000 - $19,999, 5 = $20,000 - $29,999, 6 = $30,000 - $39,999, 7 = $40,000 - $49,999, 8 = $50,000 - $59,999, 9 = $60,000 - $74,999, 10 = $75,000 - $99,999, 11 = $100,000 - $149,999, 12 = $150,000 or more)
race: (1 = American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 = Asian, 3 = Native-Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 4 = Black, 5 = White, Non-Hispanic, 6 = Hispanic, 7 = Multi-Racial, 8 = Other)
policy amount (in U.S. dollars)
original risk code: 0 = Select Preferred (or equivalent), 1 = Preferred (or equivalent), 2 = Standard (non-tobacco), 3 = Preferred Tobacco, 4 = Tobacco, 5 = Substandard (non-tobacco), 6 = Substandard (tobacco)
lhrf (Life history rating scale): 8-point scale anchored by 1 = “Extremely NOT descriptive of me” and 8 = “Extremely descriptive of me.”
soi (Sociosexual orientation inventory): 8-point scale anchored by 1 = “Extremely NOT descriptive of me” and 8 = “Extremely descriptive of me.”
Mortality risk estimates from life insurance policies predict individual differences in human behavioral traits
Joseph H. Manson
Aaron W. Lukaszewski
Lukaszewski-Manson-Study-2-R.csv
Key to column headings
female: 1 = yes
age_bin: (1 = younger than 25 years, 2 = 25-29, 3 = 30-34, 4 = 35-39, 5 = 40-44, 6 = 45-49, 7 = 50-54, 8 = 55-59, 9 = 60-64, 10 = 65-69, 11 = 70-74, 12 = 75 and older)
income (current household income): (1 = Less than $5,000, 2 = $5,000 - $9,999, 3 = $10,000 - $14,999, 4 = $15,000 - $19,999, 5 = $20,000 - $29,999, 6 = $30,000 - $39,999, 7 = $40,000 - $49,999, 8 = $50,000 - $59,999, 9 = $60,000 - $74,999, 10 = $75,000 - $99,999, 11 = $100,000 - $149,999, 12 = $150,000 or more)
race: (1 = American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 = Asian, 3 = Native-Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, 4 = Black, 5 = White, Non-Hispanic, 6 = Hispanic, 7 = Multi-Racial, 8 = Other)
policy amount (in U.S. dollars)
risk rating: directly from participant’s policy declarations page
original risk code: 0 = Select Preferred (or equivalent), 1 = Preferred (or equivalent), 2 = Standard (non-tobacco), 3 = Preferred Tobacco, 4 = Tobacco, 5 = Substandard (non-tobacco), 6 = Substandard (tobacco)
smoker: 1 = yes.
collapsed risk code: For non-smokers, codes 0 and 1 were low risk, code 2 was medium risk, and code 5 was high risk. All smokers were coded as high risk.
rel_age_death: “Compared to other people of your age, how soon do you think you are going to die?” 7-point scale anchored by 1 = “Not very soon” and 7 = “Very soon”
abs_age_death: “Realistically, what age do you think you’ll be when you die? Please enter in numeric format (e.g. 85)”
For all the scales listed below, entries show the mean score across items.
mating effort: 7-point scale anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”
parenting effort: 7-point scale anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”
stmo (Short-term mating orientation): 7-point scale anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”
hex_con (HEXACO conscientiousness): 6-point scale anchored by 1 = “very inaccurate” and 6 = “very accurate”
cfc (Concern for future consequences): 5-point scale anchored by 1 = “extremely uncharacteristic” and 5 = “extremely characteristic”
grips (General risk propensity scale): 5-point scale anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”
impulse atten (Attention subscale of the Abbreviated Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS)): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “rarely/never” and 4 = almost always/always”
impulse motor (Motor subscale of the Abbreviated Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS)): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “rarely/never” and 4 = almost always/always”
impulse nonplan (Non-planning subscale of the Abbreviated Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS)): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “rarely/never” and 4 = almost always/always”
impulse_all: mean of the three ABIS subscales
aggress (Agression questionnaire): 6-point scale anchored by 1 = “Extremely uncharacteristic of me” and 6 = “Extremely characteristic of me”
csi_neighbor: (Neighborhood disorder subscale of the City Stress Inventory (CSI)): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “never/none” and 4 = “often/most”
csi_violence: (Exposure to violence subscale of the City Stress Inventory (CSI)): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “never/none” and 4 = “often/most”
csi_all: mean of the two CSI subscales
rfq (Risky families questionnaire): 5-point scale anchored by 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “very often”
ksf_parents (Relationships with parents subscale of the K-SF-42): 4-point scale anchored by 1 = “not at all” and 4 = “a lot”
The R Code used in analyses is in the file: Lukaszewski-Manson-R-code
Sharing/access Information
This is the only publicly available source of these data and R code.
Human subjects data
We have received explicit consent from our participants to publish the de-identified data in the public domain.
We have de-identified the data by removing all individually identifying information (IP addresses, and for the six in-person participants in Study 2, their names) from data files before uploading them.