Researchers found a specific glitch in how anxious people weigh the future

Decisions that balance immediate comfort against long-term benefits are a fundamental part of daily life. Whether choosing to exercise, study for an exam, or have a difficult conversation, individuals constantly weigh the present against the future. A new study published in Personality and Individual Differences suggests that anxiety often short-circuits this process. The researchers found that while information about future outcomes helps most people make better choices, those with high levels of anxiety struggle to look past their immediate emotional discomfort.

Psychologists refer to the ability to guide behavior based on anticipated outcomes as sensitivity to future consequences. This mental calculation allows a person to endure temporary unpleasantness to achieve a valued goal. When this system functions well, it acts as a compass for personal success and well-being. When it fails, individuals may fall into patterns of avoidance. They might choose short-term relief that ultimately worsens their problems or prevents them from moving forward in life.

The researchers, Xinyao Ma and John E. Roberts of the University at Buffalo, initiated this investigation to address a gap in existing psychological literature. Past research on this topic largely relied on artificial assessments involving money. Tests like the Iowa Gambling Task measure how well people learn to avoid financial losses over time. These monetary tasks are effective for studying conditions characterized by impulsivity, such as substance abuse or conduct disorders.

Ma and Roberts argued that financial games fail to capture the reality of internalizing disorders like depression and anxiety. For someone suffering from anxiety, the primary motivator is often not the acquisition of a reward but the reduction of distress. The researchers posited that existing tools lacked ecological validity, meaning they did not resemble the real-world emotional dilemmas people face. They sought to understand if the tendency to prioritize immediate emotional relief over long-term stability is a defining feature of these mental health conditions.

To test this, the authors developed a novel assessment called the Scenario Task. They recruited 504 adults through an online research platform to participate in the experiment. The study utilized a between-subjects design, meaning participants were randomly assigned to one of two different groups.

The researchers presented both groups with fourteen hypothetical scenarios that required a decision. These scenarios involved everyday situations across various domains, such as work, relationships, and household chores. Each situation presented an “approach-avoidance” conflict. The participant had to decide whether to engage in a behavior that might be difficult or boring in the moment but beneficial later, or to avoid the behavior.

The experimental manipulation was subtle but central to the study’s design. The first group read scenarios that included specific information about the potential long-term consequences of the decision. The second group, serving as the control, read the same scenarios but without the future-oriented information. Instead, they received irrelevant background details. The researchers then asked participants to rate the likelihood that they would engage in the approach behavior.

The overall results showed that the manipulation worked as intended. Participants who received information about long-term consequences were generally more likely to choose the beneficial approach behavior than those in the control group. This confirms that for the average person, clearly understanding what is at stake in the future helps motivate action in the present.

The team then used linear regression analyses to determine how specific mental health symptoms and personality traits influenced this decision-making process. This is where the distinctions between anxiety and depression became apparent.

Symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder proved to be a strong moderator of decision-making. Individuals with low levels of anxiety responded strongly to the information about future consequences. When they learned that an action would help them in the long run, they were much more likely to do it. However, this effect diminished significantly for individuals with high levels of anxiety.

The data indicated that highly anxious participants were relatively insensitive to future consequences. Even when the study explicitly presented the long-term benefits of an action, these individuals remained fixated on the immediate difficulty. This aligns with clinical theories suggesting that anxiety functions through negative reinforcement. Anxious individuals learn to avoid situations that trigger distress, which provides immediate relief but prevents them from experiencing positive future outcomes.

The study found similar patterns regarding social anxiety. People who fear social scrutiny also showed a reduced sensitivity to future benefits. They appeared to prioritize the avoidance of immediate social discomfort over the potential for building relationships or resolving conflicts.

The researchers also examined a trait known as behavioral activation. This concept refers to a person’s tendency to remain engaged in goal-directed behavior despite obstacles. The findings indicated that people with high behavioral activation were very responsive to future consequences. They utilized the information to guide their choices effectively. Conversely, those with low behavioral activation struggled to use the future as a guide, appearing stuck in their current emotional state.

A similar trend appeared for the trait of perseverance. Individuals who described themselves as able to persist through boring or difficult tasks showed greater sensitivity to future outcomes. Those who identified as “non-perseverant” were less influenced by the long-term view. This suggests that the inability to stick with a task is linked to a failure to keep the end goal in mind.

The results regarding depression were more nuanced than the researchers expected. The team hypothesized that depression would universally blunt sensitivity to the future. However, the total score on the depression screening tool did not exhibit a statistically significant interaction with the experimental condition. This means that depression, as a broad category, did not predict how people used the consequence information.

However, when the researchers broke depression down into specific symptoms, they found clear associations. Symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, feelings of failure, and a lack of interest were significant moderators. Individuals suffering from these specific cognitive and motivational aspects of depression were less able to use future consequences to guide their actions. This suggests that the “brain fog” and low self-worth associated with depression may be the specific drivers of poor decision-making, rather than the low mood itself.

The study yielded null results for two other personality traits: anhedonia and non-planfulness. Anhedonia is the inability to feel pleasure. The researchers expected that people who cannot enjoy things would not care about future rewards. The data did not support this. The authors speculate that the measure they used assessed anhedonia as a permanent trait, whereas a person’s current state of mind might matter more in the moment of decision.

Similarly, “non-planfulness,” or the tendency to act impulsively, did not affect the results. This was surprising, as impulsivity is defined by a lack of future planning. The authors suggest that impulsive individuals might lack the self-awareness to report accurately on how they make decisions.

Ma and Roberts noted some limitations to their work. The sample population was drawn from a research volunteer registry that is disproportionately white, female, and older. A significant portion of the participants were retired. Older adults may view future consequences differently than younger adults who are still building their lives. This demographic skew limits how well the findings might apply to the general population.

Additionally, the study relied on self-reported intentions in hypothetical scenarios. While the Scenario Task is designed to be realistic, it is not the same as observing real behavior. It is easier for a participant to say they would have a difficult conversation than to actually have it.

Despite these caveats, the findings offer directions for future research and treatment. The study highlights that insensitivity to future consequences is not just a trait of “impulsive” disorders but is central to anxiety as well. This suggests that anxiety treatments should focus not only on reducing fear but also on training individuals to consciously weigh long-term outcomes.

The researchers propose that interventions could use variants of the Scenario Task to help patients practice this skill. By repeatedly exposing individuals to the link between present actions and future rewards, therapists might help them break the cycle of avoidance. Future studies will need to determine if these laboratory findings translate to clinical settings and if improving this sensitivity leads to symptom reduction.

The study, “An experimental investigation of individual differences in sensitivity to future consequences: Depression, anxiety, and personality,” was authored by Xinyao Ma and John E. Roberts.