This subject was discussed on another thread a few weeks ago. I had the same, and immediately pressing, decision to make. The smart folks in this group did not agree. But I feel it breaks down to how your spouse will be fixed for monthly income when the other spouse passes away.
I talked to two different financial advisers, actual three counting the one I discussed it with five years ago. Each one had a decidedly different take on what pension election options I should choose.
1. Take the single life option and cover the spouse with whole life insurance.
2. Take the lump sum and invest it somewhere else, like maybe his company...
3. Take the 100% survivor benefit
Needless to say, these experts were not much help in making my decision.
Here is what I decided to do, but haven't executed it yet.
I plotted the function for both me and my DW, Y-axis monthly payout;X-axis 100% survivor to single life. Since she is seven years younger, her line was much steeper than mine. That suggested to me that I should favor 100% survivor. I liked the idea also that this option would of course provide more income for DW if I died first. Since I have two different pensions, I'll set the larger one to 100% survivor, the smaller one to 75% survivor. Don't ask me why I decided on 75% on the smaller one, I just wanted a few more dollars up front that would not make much difference to survivor benefits.
For two healthy people about the same age with long-lived genes the answer might be different. The answer though is not in the math in my opinion. You have to look at all your other income sources and decide how well you can live with the different pension options. If you'll struggle with the 100% survivor option, then it may not be your plan. The actuaries have it all worked out so they don't favor one option over the another statistically anyway. Good luck.
Can't you see yourself in the nursing home saying, " Darn! Wish I'd spent more time at the office instead of wasting time with family and friends."