Mechanism Underlying the Impact of Anxiety on Choice Deferral from the Perspective of Process-Tracing: The Moderating Role of Task Framing

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2026.01.014

Abstract

Abstract:

From the perspective of process-tracing, this study used eye-tracking technique to explore the mechanism underlying the impact of anxiety on choice deferral, as well as the mediating effect of information processing time, and the moderating effect of task framing. The results showed that: 1) Compared to non-anxious participants, anxious participants were more likely to delay their choices. 2) Information processing time mediated the effect of anxiety on choice deferral. 3) Task framing moderated the effects of anxiety on processing time and choice deferral respectively. 4) Task framing moderated the mediating effect of processing time on the relationship between anxiety and choice deferral, which was a moderated mediation model. Specifically, under a positive framing, anxious participants were inclined to spend more processing time, so they were more likely to delay the choice, however, under a negative framing, the mediating effect of processing time was not significant.

Key words: anxiety, choice deferral, processing time, task framing, eye-tracking

摘要：

从过程追踪视角出发，运用眼动技术通过3个系列实验逐步深入探讨焦虑情绪对延迟选择的影响，及信息加工时间与任务框架在其中的中介和调节作用。结果发现：(1)焦虑影响延迟选择，即焦虑情绪组被试比非焦虑情绪组被试更倾向做出延迟选择；(2)信息加工时间在焦虑对延迟选择的影响中起部分中介作用；(3)任务框架分别调节焦虑对信息加工时间与延迟选择的影响，即在积极框架下，有焦虑情绪的被试加工时间更长、更倾向延迟选择，而在消极框架下两组被试的延迟选择偏好无显著差异；(4)任务框架调节信息加工时间在焦虑与延迟选择关系中的中介作用，表现为有调节的中介，即在积极框架下，有焦虑情绪的被试加工时间更长而使其更倾向延迟选择，在消极框架下两组被试加工时间与延迟选择偏好无显著差异，中介效应不显著。研究结果对理解焦虑情绪如何及何时影响延迟选择，以及如何依据不同任务框架调节个体的焦虑水平进而灵活做出延迟或即时决策均有一定启示。

关键词: 焦虑情绪, 延迟选择, 信息加工时间, 任务框架, 眼动

Huaiyong WANG, Tiantian XU, Qing YE. Mechanism Underlying the Impact of Anxiety on Choice Deferral from the Perspective of Process-Tracing: The Moderating Role of Task Framing[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2026, 24(1): 122-129.

王怀勇, 徐田田, 叶青. 过程追踪视角下焦虑情绪对延迟选择的影响及机制：任务框架的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2026, 24(1): 122-129.

Figures/Tables 9

References 0

	黄敏学, 王薇. 移动购物更快吗? 决策场景与思维模式的相容性. 心理学报, 2019, 51 (5): 612- 624.
	李晓明, 蒋松源. 权力对延迟选择的影响. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27 (3): 447- 452.
	李晓明, 谢佳. 偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响机制. 心理学报, 2012, 44 (12): 1641- 1650.
	林让, 杨宜苗, 夏春玉. 选择超载: 形成路径及边界条件. 财经问题研究, 2020 (9): 105- 113. DOI
	杨骏. 风险偏好、信息完整性对职业决策信息加工的影响. 心理科学, 2013, 36 (6): 1435- 1440. DOI
	杨昭宁, 顾子贝, 王杜娟, 谭旭运, 王晓明. 愤怒和悲伤情绪对助人决策的影响: 人际责任归因的作用. 心理学报, 2017, 49 (3): 393- 403. DOI
	余雯, 闫巩固, 黄志华. 决策中的过程追踪技术: 介绍与展望. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21 (4): 606- 614.
	乐为, 韩笑, 尹洪娟. 属性框架下产品感知质量差异测量: 基于眼动追踪技术. 管理工程学报, 2018, 32 (4): 88- 94. DOI
	张艳梅, 杜秀芳, 王修欣. 焦虑、建议者善意程度对个体建议采纳的影响. 心理科学, 2015, 38 (5): 1155- 1161. DOI
	张予贺, 金艳, 郑希付, 闫柯, 周晌昀. 状态焦虑对条件恐惧习得和消退的影响. 心理学报, 2014, 46 (3): 396- 404. DOI
	Anderson, C. J. The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, 129 (1): 139- 167. DOI
	Arbona, C., Fan, W. H., Phang, A., Olvera, N., & Dios, M. Intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and career indecision: A mediation model. Journal of Career Assessment, 2021, 29 (4): 699- 716. DOI
	Bensi, L., & Giusberti, F. Trait anxiety and reasoning under uncertainty. Personality and Individual Differences, 2007, 43 (4): 827- 838. DOI
	Bishop, S. J., & Gagne, C. Anxiety, depression, and decision making: A computational perspective. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 2018, 41 (1): 371- 388. DOI
	De Vries, M., Holland, R. W., & Witteman, C. L. M. Fitting decisions: Mood and intuitive versus deliberative decision strategies. Cognition and Emotion, 2008, 22 (5): 931- 943. DOI
	Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. Person×Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47 (3): 580- 592. DOI
	Etkin, J., & Ghosh, A. P. When being in a positive mood increases choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 2018, 45 (1): 208- 225. DOI
	Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 1992, 6 (6): 409- 434. DOI
	Garg, N., Inman, J. J., & Mittal, V. Emotion effects on choice deferral: The moderating role of outcome and process accountability. European Journal of Marketing, 2017, 51 (9–10): 1631- 1649.
	Gasper, K. Do you see what I see? Affect and visual information processing. Cognition and Emotion, 2004, 18 (3): 405- 421. DOI
	Gino, F., Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012, 102 (3): 497- 512. DOI
	Goette, L., Bendahan, S., Thoresen, J., Hollis, F., & Sandi, C. Stress pulls us apart: Anxiety leads to differences in competitive confidence under stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2015, 54, 115- 123. DOI
	Hadavi, S. & Farhadpoor, M. R. Relationship between information processing styles and information seeking behavior, with information anxiety as a moderator variable. Library and Information Science Research E-Journal, 2021, 31 (2): 119- 129. DOI
	Hu, X. Y., Turel, O., Chen, W. T., Shi, J., & He, Q. H. The effect of trait-state anxiety on choice overload: The mediating role of choice difficulty. Decision, 2023, 50 (2): 143- 152. DOI
	Krijnen, J. M. T., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. Decision importance as a cue for deferral. Judgment and Decision Making, 2015, 10 (5): 407- 415. DOI
	Kuo, F. Y., Hsu, C. W., & Day, R. F. An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under Framing—An application of the eye-tracking technology. Decision Support Systems, 2009, 48 (1): 81- 91. DOI
	Kuvaas, B., & Selart, M. Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2004, 95 (2): 198- 207. DOI
	Larasati, A., & Yeh, M. Y. Does more attractive choice always decrease choice deferral? The moderating effect of ideal point. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2016, 54, 43- 51. DOI
	Lewicka, M., Czapinski, J., & Peeters, G. Positive-negative asymmetry or ‘When the heart needs a reason’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1992, 22 (5): 425- 434. DOI
	Li, X. M., Ye, Q. L., & Yang, G. Q. The lack of dominance and choice deferral: Choosing to defer to cope with the feeling of being out of control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2017, 157 (6): 754- 765. DOI
	Liu, Y., Polman, E., Liu, Y. F., & Jiao, J. L. Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2018, 147, 65- 75. DOI
	Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384–405.
	Mishra, S., & Fiddick, L. Beyond gains and losses: The effect of need on risky choice in framed decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012, 102 (6): 1136- 1147. DOI
	Nagpal, A., Khare, A., Chowdhury, T., Labrecque, L. I., & Pandit, A. The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Marketing Letters, 2011, 22 (4): 405- 421. DOI
	Nieuwenhuys, A., Pijpers, J. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., & Bakker, F. C. The influence of anxiety on visual attention in climbing. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2008, 30 (2): 171- 185. DOI
	Park, K., Woo, S., Park, K., Kyea, J., & Yang, E. The mediation effects of career exploration on the relationship between trait anxiety and career indecision. Journal of Career Development, 2017, 44 (5): 440- 452. DOI
	Sarason, I. G. Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 46 (4): 929- 938. DOI
	Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Johnson, J. G., Böckenholt, U., Goldstein, D. G., Russo, J. E., Sullivan, N. J., & Willemsen, M. C. Process-tracing methods in decision making: On growing up in the 70s. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2017, 26 (5): 442- 450. DOI
	Schwarz, N. (2002). Feelings as information: Moods influence judgments and processing strategies. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 534–547). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
	Spielberger, C, D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults. Menlo Park, CA: MindGarden.
	Thomas, M. F., Binder, A., & Matthes, J. The agony of partner choice: The effect of excessive partner availability on fear of being single, self-esteem, and partner choice overload. Computers in Human Behavior, 2022, 126, 106977. DOI
	Tobias, M. R., & Ito, T. A. Anxiety increases sensitivity to errors and negative feedback over time. Biological Psychology, 2021, 162, 108092. DOI
	Wu, Y., van Dijk, E., & Li, H. Acute stress amplifies experienced and anticipated regret in counterfactual decision-making. Stress, 2021, 24 (4): 359- 369. DOI

自评情绪	焦虑组(n=50)		非焦虑组(n=49)		t	p
自评情绪	诱发前	诱发后	诱发前	诱发后	t	p
特质焦虑	45.24±10.12		44.96±11.24		0.13	0.896
紧张感	3.66±2.11	5.76±2.19	3.55±2.00	2.63±1.78	7.79	<0.001
压力感	4.34±2.24	5.26±1.98	4.47±2.49	2.69±1.61	7.05	<0.001
平静感	6.18±1.97	4.54±1.99	6.49±2.00	7.22±1.39	−7.79	<0.001
轻松感	5.64±1.94	4.56±1.92	6.00±2.20	7.16±1.48	−7.56	<0.001

自评情绪	焦虑组(n=50)		非焦虑组(n=49)		t	p
自评情绪	诱发前	诱发后	诱发前	诱发后	t	p
特质焦虑	45.24±10.12		44.96±11.24		0.13	0.896
紧张感	3.66±2.11	5.76±2.19	3.55±2.00	2.63±1.78	7.79	<0.001
压力感	4.34±2.24	5.26±1.98	4.47±2.49	2.69±1.61	7.05	<0.001
平静感	6.18±1.97	4.54±1.99	6.49±2.00	7.22±1.39	−7.79	<0.001
轻松感	5.64±1.94	4.56±1.92	6.00±2.20	7.16±1.48	−7.56	<0.001

自评情绪	焦虑组(n=39)		非焦虑组(n=38)		t	p
自评情绪	诱发前	诱发后	诱发前	诱发后	t	p
特质焦虑	49.21±4.53		47.74±4.55		1.42	0.160
紧张感	2.69±1.91	6.15±2.18	2.13±1.38	1.66±1.26	11.11	<0.001
压力感	2.90±1.92	6.00±2.30	2.55±1.84	1.97±1.46	9.18	<0.001
平静感	6.92±2.10	3.54±2.27	7.05±2.23	7.76±1.81	−9.02	<0.001
轻松感	6.67±2.04	3.44±2.15	6.79±2.37	7.39±2.26	−7.88	<0.001

自评情绪	焦虑组(n=39)		非焦虑组(n=38)		t	p
自评情绪	诱发前	诱发后	诱发前	诱发后	t	p
特质焦虑	49.21±4.53		47.74±4.55		1.42	0.160
紧张感	2.69±1.91	6.15±2.18	2.13±1.38	1.66±1.26	11.11	<0.001
压力感	2.90±1.92	6.00±2.30	2.55±1.84	1.97±1.46	9.18	<0.001
平静感	6.92±2.10	3.54±2.27	7.05±2.23	7.76±1.81	−9.02	<0.001
轻松感	6.67±2.04	3.44±2.15	6.79±2.37	7.39±2.26	−7.88	<0.001

自评情绪	焦虑组(n=66)		非焦虑组(n=67)		t	p
自评情绪	诱发前	诱发后	诱发前	诱发后	t	p
特质焦虑	43.08±11.85		41.76±10.19		0.69	0.494
紧张感	2.45±1.66	6.17±2.12	2.61±1.60	1.82±1.25	14.38	<0.001
压力感	2.67±1.95	5.58±2.34	2.93±1.97	2.07±1.56	11.02	<0.001
平静感	7.08±2.03	3.58±2.18	6.91±1.98	7.84±1.61	−12.81	<0.001
轻松感	6.91±1.98	3.50±2.13	6.73±2.14	7.70±1.88	−12.08	<0.001