Why We Think We’ll Live Forever

Why It Matters

Because framing life‑expectancy data influences how people prioritize health and financial goals, organizations can design communications that drive more proactive, long‑term decision‑making.

Key Takeaways

• Framing life expectancy as years left triggers goal prioritization.
• Older adults perceive time-left framing as shorter, increasing urgency.
• Healthy life expectancy shows same framing effect as total lifespan.
• Combined age and years-left cues still favor years-left for mid‑life.
• Policy tools should consider framing to influence health and retirement decisions.

Summary

The Y podcast episode explores how the way life expectancy numbers are presented—either as an age target or as remaining years—shapes individuals’ perception of time and subsequent behavior.

Researchers led by David Faro found that when participants see “33 more years” instead of “age 83,” they focus on unfinished goals, experience a sense of limited time, and report shorter subjective life spans. The effect holds for both total and healthy life expectancy, and is strongest for people over 40, while younger respondents treat the age frame as more natural.

Faro recounts his own experience with a BBC calculator: at 50, the “83” figure felt neutral, but “33 more years” sparked a mental bucket list of writing a book, traveling, and learning piano. Experiments with mixed framing showed that older adults still gravitated toward the years‑left cue, whereas younger adults aligned with the age cue.

The findings suggest that insurers, pension planners, and public‑health apps can nudge long‑term planning by choosing the appropriate frame. Emphasizing remaining years may motivate mid‑life workers to prioritize health interventions, retirement savings, or skill acquisition, while a simple age target may be less effective for younger audiences.

Original Description

Professor David Faro joins Katie Pisa on The Why Podcast to explore a deceptively simple question: why does the way we think about how long we have left to live change how we live today?

Drawing on his latest research, David explains how life expectancy can be framed in two ways, as an age we might reach or as the time we have left. While the numbers are identical, the impact is not. Seeing life as a finite amount of time prompts people to think differently about goals, priorities and trade offs.

The conversation explores how this shift in perspective shapes everything from health decisions to life planning. When time is framed as limited, people begin to weigh what will realistically fit into their future, often bringing forward choices they might otherwise delay.

Three key themes emerge from the discussion:

- The way life expectancy is framed changes how long life feels, with time left framing making the future feel shorter and more immediate than age based framing

- Thinking in terms of time left triggers “mental bucket listing”, prompting people to prioritise goals, weigh trade offs and reconsider how they spend their time

- Small changes in how information is presented can influence behaviour, with time left framing increasing engagement with health tools and preventative actions

For individuals and organisations alike, the episode offers a powerful insight: how we describe time shapes how we use it. Becoming more aware of these frames can lead to more deliberate choices about health, work and the experiences that matter most.

Discover more about David and his research: https://www.london.edu/faculty-and-research/faculty-profiles/f/faro-d

For more thought leadership and business insights from London Business School faculty and alumni, visit ⁠⁠⁠https://www.london.edu/think

Sign up to receive a curated selection of articles, podcasts and films direct to your inbox twice a month at https://www.london.edu/think?entry=true#subscribeScreen

Follow us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠

https://x.com/LBS

https://www.linkedin.com/school/london-business-school/

https://www.facebook.com/LondonBusinessSchool