Navigating the Hidden Costs of Curiosity
Paying Attention to Curiosity Trade-Offs
NOTE: this is part of a series on the science of curiosity including how this strength changes over the lifespan (click here), enhances creativity (click here), alters social interactions (click here), and persuades people (click here).
Yes, curiosity is listed as a central human strength across cultures and history.
Yes, feeling curious frequently offers a reliable path to the good life.
Yes, the self-help industry is currently obsessed with cultivating curiosity.
But this misses an important truth. Every behavioral decision has trade-offs. Even the decision to be curious has costs.
A Perfunctory Primer on the Awesomeness of Curiosity
Entrepreneurs, leaders, scientists, artists, and decision-makers and creators in various disciplines regularly attribute their accomplishments to curiosity. Mónica Guzmán, senior fellow at Braver Angels, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing political polarization, describes curiosity as “the most powerful tool we have to navigate our world.” In his commencement address to an audience of 23,000 at Stanford University, Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, said “much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on.” Retrospective accounts by successful individuals happen to be supported by a large body of evidence.
As a fundamental human motivation (Maslow, 1943), curiosity prioritizes the pursuit of learning and meaningful accomplishments (Hidi & Reinnger, 2020). Learners who are curious show a strong receptiveness to opportunities with an impressive tolerance for the distress, uncertainty, and conflicts that arise along the journey (Silvia, 2005). Alongside intellectual capacity and perseverance, curiosity has been characterized as one of three pillars influencing effort and progress toward desired goals (von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuszic, 2011).
Perhaps most interesting is how little attention curiosity receives compared to the first two pillars of achievement - intellect and perseverance (recently re-packed as grit).
The promise of curiosity begs for investigation. My focus is on a neglected topic: the cost-benefit analysis of curiosity by individuals, groups, and organizations.
Introducing Curiosity Trade-Offs
Lets dispel a certain romanticism about curiosity in group settings - from sport teams to classrooms to family households to board rooms. Groups often deceive members and new recruits into believing curiosity is important yet making it tough to pursue. This is no different than adults verbalizing a preference for creativity and divergent thinking while showing clear favoritism toward rule-followers (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). When teachers are queried on their ten most and and ten least favorite students, a strong preference emerges for a classroom filled with curious children who are vocal, ask questions, and express non-conformity. Yet, observe teachers in the classroom and you find explicit biases against curious, vocal, non-conformist students who are often the source of frustration and disdain, and punished more often than quiet, timid peers (Guncer & Oral, 1993; Scott, 1999; Westby & Dawson, 1995). What is observed in teachers is no different than any other group leader. Organizational leaders proclaim a preference for curious, creative group members when in practice, group members who listen, conform, and can be easily controlled are deemed more desirable.
Pursuing curiosity is not a universally positive experience for the individual or the targets of their wonder. When curious, people remember information better and show a greater desire to explore additional sources related to that information (that is, exploratory behavior; e.g., Gruber, Gelman, & Ranganath, 2014; Mullaney, Carpenter, Grotenhuis, & Burianek, 2014). But here’s an important point that is often forgotten: the experience of curiosity is an activity that requires a great deal of energy and self-regulation (e.g., Kang et al., 2009).
Energy expenditure when curious is not subjective. Scientists have uncovered that the momentary experience of curiosity is accompanied by pupil dilation, a marker of cognitive load during a task (e.g., Hyönä, Tommola, & Alaja, 1995; Laeng, Sirois, & Gredebäck, 2012). In particular, the dimension of curiosity referred to as deprivation sensitivity which reflects the desire to close information gaps (Loewenstein, 1994; Litman, 2005) is linked with feeling more anxious and angry, and less tolerant of distress-related thoughts and feelings (Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Feeling deprived of information might not feel good but the benefits are manifold as distress serves as motivational fuel - a sense of urgency to solve problems with actions taken to uncover new knowledge (e.g., Lydon-Staley, Zhou, Blevins, Zurn, & Bassett, 2021).
The astute reader will notice that most of the research on curiosity is at the level of individuals and their motivation, emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. An intra-individual account of curiosity, however, fails to address how curiosity operates in the real world. Curiosity is a dynamic element best understood in a social ecosystem. Research finds that individual curiosity sparks the energy, thinking, and social engagement of other members in a group or workplace (e.g., Lievens, Harrison, Mussel, & Litman, 2022).
Depending on the social norms in an organization, there is often a gap between the public values professed and rewarded behavior.
Curiosity and creativity are both inefficiencies in systems.
Meetings run longer when people ask questions.
Decision-making is harder when group members spend time getting and taking multiple perspectives before seizing and freezing on a position.
Yes, curiosity is linked with a variety of positive outcomes but there are costs that include reductions in group locomotion, positivity, and cohesion.
Knowing the curiosity trade-offs offers an initial step to addressing a cost-benefit analysis. Because what is often challenging in the short-term produces profound gains in the longer term.
A Synthesis of New Curiosity Concepts
With this backdrop, it is with great pleasure to share our latest work on curiosity. As readers of Provoked, you get to read it before it is officially available.
Kashdan, T.B., Harrison, S.H., Polman, E., & Kark, R. (in press). Curiosity in organizations: Addressing adverse reactions, trade-offs, and multi-level dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Click this link to download our work:
Provocation
How can you sell the value of deep, intense curiosity to other people?
How can you work with, instead of against, the inefficiencies that curiosity evokes?
How can you be more receptive to curious people around you who lengthen meetings and slow down decisions?
If you want to capitalize on this strength, you must search for, acknowledge, and address the costs. Self-awareness of curiosity trade-offs is the first step.
The best way to support my work is to become a paid subscriber and share this link! Or click the heart button (always appreciated). Leave constructive criticism and dare I say, a few positive words. Converse with me on LinkedIn or Instagram or Twitter.
Dear Todd. Is the article (Curiosity in organizations: Addressing adverse reactions, trade-offs, and multi-level dynamics) now published? I wish to refer to it in my book. / Take care.