Feeling younger than one’s chronological age (i.e., a younger subjective
age bias) has been consistently linked to better health, performance, and
extended longevity. Yet, it is not clear whether there is a “right amount”
of feeling younger that contributes to better well-being (e.g., “feeling
younger but not too young”). Thus, we tested three key hypotheses about the
adaptivity of subjective age bias across adulthood: (1) maintaining a
younger subjective age is beneficial and indicates normal, well-adjusted
well-being (positivity bias hypothesis); (2) there is an optimal margin for
subjective age bias and maintaining a small positive distortion is the most
beneficial for well-being (optimal margin hypothesis); (3) there is an
optimal margin, but it increases as people get older (shifting optimal
margin hypothesis). We used polynomial regression and response surface
analyses to model these relationships between chronological age, subjective
age, and subjective well-being on the basis of a large age-heterogeneous
sample (English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, N = 7361; 36 – 89 years). Our
results support that there is an optimal margin of subjective age bias:
people who feel moderately younger than they actually are report the
highest levels of life satisfaction, while people deviating from this
optimal margin report lower levels of life satisfaction. In addition, our
findings tentatively suggest that this optimal margin increases in older
age groups.