How Are Curious People Viewed and How Do They Behave in Social Situations? From the Perspectives of Self, Friends, Parents, and Unacquainted Observers

Curiosity is the predisposition to recognize and search for new knowledge and experiences (Berlyne, 1960; Izard, 1977; Spielberger & Starr, 1994; Tomkins, 1962). The psychological urge evoked by curiosity is accompanied by increased engagement with the world including exploratory behavior, meaning-making, and learning (Day, 1971; Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Panksepp, 2011). For decades, scientists have narrowly focused on how curiosity is relevant to achievement in school, work, and sports, and an appreciation of art (Silvia, 2006; Spielberger & Starr, 1994). Curiosity is neither an intrapersonal or interpersonal process by nature; it is relevant to any context where there is the potential for novelty, uncertainty, complexity, surprise, and conflict between the urges to approach or avoid stimuli (Berylne, 1960, 1967, 1971). Several scientists have argued that a family of individual difference variables that conceptually overlap with curiosity (i.e., novelty seeking, uncertainty orientation, need for structure, need for closure, need for cognition, openness to experience) are relevant to healthy social interactions and relationships (Kashdan & Fincham, 2004; McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). The present research extends this work about the relevance of curiosity to social functioning. Curious people are proposed to engage in behaviors that are particularly relevant for increasing the likelihood of positive social outcomes and healthy social relationships. To understand the potential benefits of being a curious person, consider how curiosity is activated. Bottom-up curiosity is driven by immediate experience and a history of reinforcement for exploratory behavior (Loewenstein, 1994). A novel, complex, unexpected, or uncertain event results in a sense of wonder and a desire to explore it. For instance, upon hearing a scratching sound against the bedroom window of a high-rise apartment building, a person turns to notice a Koala bear. Activated by novel stimulation in an unusual context, few individuals have to be prodded to feel a sense of wonder; the experience of curiosity is often rapid and reflexive (e.g., Litman, 2005; Silvia, 2001). What is often forgotten, especially when the scope of the analysis extends to social situations, is that curiosity can also be wielded intentionally in a top-down manner. Top-down curiosity involves the intentional search for novel and/or challenging stimuli. For instance, when meeting a new person, instead of asking uninspiring questions about their occupation or other mundane facts, one might ask for opinions on topics without expecting or pursuing any specific answer (e.g., what would you do if you were driving on an empty highway and passed an unburied, dead body?). This self-initiated search for novelty is part of a larger behavioral pattern that is reinforced by engagement in the search itself (Sansone & Thoman, 2005; Wilson & DuFrene, 2009). Although we are unaware of studies that have examined how curious people are viewed by partners interacting with them on multiple occasions (e.g., friends, parents), we suggest that the two different routes leading to curious exploration will account for a diverse range of social behavior. A common theme in discussing the relevance of curiosity to the social world is the management of anxious thoughts and feelings. Whether people are taking advantage of the growth potential of exploring interesting stimuli (top-down curiosity) or intentionally discovering and creating interesting situations (bottom-up curiosity), tension is experienced. Any model of curiosity has to explain why different people experience the same event differently. A “funny” story told at a party will cause some audience members to laugh, others to feel anxious, and others to reach for their smartphones out of boredom. An appraisal model offers a useful understanding of when curiosity is generated (momentary state) and the cognitive underpinnings of dispositional or trait curiosity. According to Silvia (2006), people respond to the environment with two automatic, rapid cognitive judgments (or appraisals). First, can the target of attention be described as novel, complex, or challenging (growth potential)? Second, can this novel, complex, or challenging object be managed (coping potential)? Curiosity will only arise if a person believes that there is new information to be acquired and sufficient belief that the search for this information is manageable. The likelihood of these appraisals appears to account for individual differences in trait curiosity. Curious people have been shown to be more likely to uncover novelty in their environment (novelty potential) and when they do, report greater confidence that they can handle unwanted emotions and thoughts elicited by these events (coping potential) (Silvia, 2006, 2008; Silvia, Henson, & Templin, 2009; Spielberger & Starr, 1994). An appraisal model has been useful in explaining why curious people are more likely to visually explore complex polygons, disturbing art, cognitively challenging books, unusual movies, and abstract poetry (Connelly, 2011; Silvia, 2005, 2006; Silvia & Berg, 2011; Turner & Silvia, 2006). Starting with distress tolerance, an appraisal perspective offers insight into the diversity of social behaviors that might be linked to curiosity. Tension is experienced when experiences are encountered that are inconsistent with existing conceptual frameworks about the self, other people, and the world (Loevinger, 1976; Piaget, 1952). Researchers have provided preliminary evidence that when novel stimuli are confronted (bottom-up) or purposely sought (top-down), curious people show less defensive reactions (Kashdan, Afram, Brown, Birnbeck, & Drvoshanov, 2011; Kashdan, DeWall, et al., 2011). Although novel or challenging social interactions often leave less curious individuals mentally exhausted, curious people believe they can cope and therefore are more energized prior to, during, and after social situations (Silvia, 2005: Silvia, 2008; Thoman, Smith, & Silvia, 2011). The flexibility of curious people offers a critical link to the social contexts that they chose, and the social behavior they enact in them. Curious people are psychologically flexible in that they are adept at committing effort toward interesting and deeply cherished goals despite the presence of pain/distress/tension (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010; Silvia, 2008). The cognitive flexibility inherent to curious people is best illustrated by their preference for: growth over safety, complexity over simplicity, autonomy over obedience and rules, and openness over closure (Litman, 2005; Roberts & Robins, 2000; Vitterso, Soholt, Hetland, Thoresen, & Roysamb, 2010). Because of their preference for new information (Loewenstein, 1994), curious people are less likely to prematurely commit to initial ideas and perspectives (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). In fact, there is evidence that the need for structure and cognitive closure are not only inversely related to curiosity (Litman, 2010), but reside at the other end of the continuum (Mussel, 2010).