1 Richie LeDonne Adv. Social 11/15/10 A curious focus as a means to life well-being We are curious creatures.

We want to be happy and feel good, but as humans we are predisposed to a paradox in what fulfills those needs. We want to be unique and yet we want to fit in. We want to know the truth, but too often the truth is disheartening. How do we resolve this unsatisfying paradox of human existence? Perhaps the solution lies in our focus. We plague ourselves with a focus on outcomes and finitudes. Instead, lets focus on curiosity (for its own sake), maybe we can find satisfaction en route. This paper explores the growing body of evidence in support of enduring curiosity as a means to greater life well-being. I will offer a new argument to the literature; the connection between enduring curiosity and life-wellbeing is the result of a change in the individuals focus with regard to life events. My theory predicts that continual curiosity encourages individuals to frame life difficulties as challenges that are part of a perpetual process, as opposed to threats that are finite in nature. While this change in focus is central to well-being because it extends the life of pleasant feelings, it also acts as a catalyst for further curiosity development. Curiosity and Well-being The development of sustainable and consistent well-being throughout ones life is of central importance to the human experience. Well-being tends to be transient, as benefits from positive life events tend to be short-lived. The search for a mechanism through which humans can achieve more enduring happiness is central to the fields of psychology and health. Psychologists have recognized that characteristics of curiosity make it an ideal candidate for well-being development and have begun to show the

2 connection in the literature. In a study examining the relationship between strengths of character (the Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths) and life satisfaction the individuals appraisal of his or her life as a whole Park, Peterson & Seligman (2004) found a robust association with curiosity. In fact, among the twenty-four character traits examined curiosity had the fourth strongest correlation behind hope, zest and gratitude. Higher levels of curiosity are associated with greater cognitive develop regardless of initial intelligence children that are more curious at the age of three score higher on general intelligence exams at the age of eleven (Raine, Reynolds, Venable & Mednick, 2002). Higher levels of curiosity are also associated with physical well-being decreasing the likelihood of negative health outcome such as hypertension and diabetes (Richman et al., 2005) and reducing the likelihood of mortality over a five-year period (Swan & Carmelli, 1996). Positive interpersonal outcomes are also relatedeliciting higher ratings of attraction and closeness after a brief interaction with a stranger (Kashdan & Roberts, 2004). On top of associations with mental, physical and social wellbeing, curiosity is closely tied to what some researchers have argued to be the optimal states of psychological functioning: intrinsic motivation, interest, and flow (Kashdan & Steger, 2007). While this research is compelling, it tells us little of the mechanism linking curiosity with well-being. In what follows I will define curiosity and examine mechanistic theories that connect curiosity to well-being. What is Curiosity? Generally, curiosity is recognized as a key emotional-motivational force in human exploration and development. However, over the last one hundred years, defining its core properties has proven to be a difficult task for psychologist. Prepsychology, philosophers

3 thought of curiosity as an intense, intrinsically motivated appetite for information (Loewensteing, 1994). Initially, psychologist ignored this definition focusing primarily on curiosity as an exploratory/sensation seeking behavior resulting from boredom. Later researchers developed a definition of curiosity focused more on its intrinsic characteristics. The current literature is riddled with a number of competing theories, the most prominent of which is Loewensteins (1994) information-gap perspective. Loewenstein (1994) asserts that curiosity reflects a natural human tendency to try to make sense of the world; this need is constant but is evoked by violated expectations. He borrows from Hebb (1955) and Berlyne (1960) in postulating that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between evoked curiosity and the extremity of such expectation violations. In other words, curiosity involves the individuals perceived capacity to make sense of novelty, ambiguity and uncertainty (Kashdan et al., 2009). The theory goes on to establish curiosity as an aversive, transient and predominantly intrinsic state resulting when attention becomes focused on a gap in ones knowledge. This causes a powerful feeling of deprivation, which is curiosity, and the individual is motivated to seek information to reduce this feeling. Loewenstein would argue that alleviation from a curious state is pleasurable. There is an abundance of evidence supporting the information-gap perspective. In a clever series of studies Kruger & Evans (2009) showed that curious individuals will seek information even when they know it will do them more harm than good. Manipulations of curiosity had significant influence on participants information seeking behavior while manipulations of expected outcomes had no effect. The authors explain these results as evidence that immediate positive gratification was sought through the

4 release from an aversive curious state. Subsequent studies introduced a delay between choice and the satisfaction of curiosity (opportunity to know immediately as opposed to ten months in the future) and elicited less information seeking behavior; providing evidence that curiosity acts similarly to other visceral factor eliciting intense motivational power that is short-lived. Further, the authors showed that individuals are more likely to expose themselves to potential harmful information than they are to expose others to the same information, presumably because when thinking for another person we used higherorder analysis and are not as influenced by visceral effects. Loewensteins model focuses on state curiositycuriosity in a particular situation. However most of the research linking curiosity and well-being employs trait measures of curiosity. Trait curiosity is difficult to measure because curiosity is highly dependent on the reference object or topic. There is a lot of variability in what specifically evokes curiosity, therefore it may be impossible to disentangle curiosity from the specific situation without asking directly are you a curious person? which in fact many curiosity scales do. For this reasons there are practical limitations to a study of trait curiosity. The most current, prevalent and valid measure of trait curiosity is the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan et al., 2009; Kashdan, Rose & Fincham, 2004). The CEI identifies two dimensions of trait curiosity: stretching and embracing. Stretching measures an individuals motivation to seek knowledge and new experiences (e.g. I view challenging situation as an opportunity to learn and grow; I actively seek as much information as I can in new situation). Embracing is the general willingness of an individual to embrace the novel, uncertain and unpredictable nature of everyday life (e.g. I like things that are a little frightening; Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new

5 things or experiences). As mentioned above this measure is associated with a large number of well-being measures. While research with the CEI suggests individual differences in curious tendency, most authors agree that trait differences in curiosity represent the aggregate effect of a number of situational factors over a long period of time (Loewenstein, 1994; Kashdan et al., 2009; Silvia & Kashdan, 2009) or that trait curiosity manifests in the frequency or intensity of state experience (Silvia, 2008). In this way, trait curiosity is something that can be developed over ones lifetime. This is promising for interventions seeking to use curiosity to promote well-being. Litman (2005) offers a second, contemporary, theory of curiosity that expands on Loewensteins perspective. The information-gap model does not take into account people who seek information because they believe they will find it interesting (and not because the absence of information is viewed as a deficiency). Loewenstein claims that this does not produce the most prominent symptoms of curiosity: intense motivation, transience, impulsivity and disappointment upon successful information assimilation. In contrast, Litman (2005) postulates that there are, in fact, two facets contributing to the feeling of wanting to know involved in curiosity. One element involves people seeking information out of pure interest (low levels of wanting) and the second involves the search for information as a result of a frustration (deprivation) caused by not knowing (high levels of wanting). While these are highly related they are distinct factors (Litman & Silvia, 2006) and I argue that, while both types of curiosity are important, pure-interest curiositycuriosity as a feeling of interest for its own sake (aesthetic appreciation)is essential to enduring well-being. Further, there is interplay between pure-interest curiosity and deprivation curiosity that is similar to that of trait and state

6 curiosity. An accumulation of experiences through deprivation curiosity set the stage for pure-interest curiosity (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009). The relationship also goes the other way, deprivation curiosity comes from an individuals preexisting interest when an information-reference point is brought to the light. Interest accumulates information, which increases the tendency and intensity of deprivation curiosity. In this way pureinterest primes the pump of deprivation curiosity (Loewenstein, 1994). The cyclical qualities of curiosity make it a prime candidate for engendering long lasting well-being. How Curiosity Promotes Well-Being I have demonstrated that curiosity is related to life well-being. I have also shown that pure-interest curiosity is related to trait curiosity and both manifest from deprivation and state curiosity. Further, I have established that curiosity builds in a cyclical and selfperpetuation manor through the exchange between stand and trait, deprivation and pureinterest curiosity. For the remainder of the paper I will argue that the reason for this connection lies in the way the individual construes life events. Pure-interest curiosity and high trait curiosity require individuals to construe life events as challenges that are part of a perpetual process, as opposed to threats that are finite in nature. Curiosity entails reacting to events with open and non-defensive attitudes, including the willingness and tolerance to confront ambiguity, distress and uncertainty (Kashdan et al., 2009). Curiosity for its own sake does not require resolution for pleasure; rather enjoyment is reaped through the process of being curious. This seems to run counter to Loewensteins model, however more recent research is moving in this direction. Wilson, Centerbar, Kermer & Gilbert (2005) point to a pleasure paradox in Loewensteins modelcognitive processes engaged to understand and make sense of

7 positive events reduce the pleasure obtained from them. In order to resolve the paradox they propose an uncertainty intensification hypothesis, whereby uncertainty (i.e. curiosity) is not merely a negative state, but rather acts as an amplifier of current affective state (Bar-Anan, Wilson & Gilbert, 2009). In essence, uncertainty makes negative events more unpleasant and positive events more pleasant. After a clever series of studies testing this hypothesis the authors conclude by noting that, people can obtain all the information they want about pleasurable events without reducing their enjoyment if they maintain a subjective sense of uncertainty (Bar-Anan et al., 2009, pp. 126). Thus, the individuals focus is extremely important when drawing a connection between curiosity and wellbeing, since continued uncertainty prolongs and intensifies feelings of pleasure. People who focus on process rather than outcome are more likely to frame life events in nondefensive and ambiguous manor, in this way they reap more pleasure out of lifes events. The significance of the individuals focus on perpetual process is also highlighted in the education literature, which teaches us that an overemphasis on intelligence as a finite ability renders people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings (Dweck, 2007). In contrast, promoting a growth mind-set which encourages a focus on effort leads to more motivation to learn and better grades (Mueller& Dweck, 1998; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). A focus on process instead of finitudes has also been shown to be important for healthy interpersonal relationships (Kammrath & Dweck, 2006) and work-place success (Heslin, Latham & VandeWale, 2005). Further, in a study examining diaries of daily experiences over a three-week period Kashdan & Steger (2007) found that greater trait curiosity predicted more growthoriented behaviors on days of particular curiosity. In essences curiosity leads to more

8 growth-oriented mindset, which involves a focus on life events as part of a process. The authors also found connections to well-being and the perpetual cycle of growth generated through curiosity and process oriented thinkinghigher trait curiosity and more curiosity on a given day both predict greater meaning in life and the continuation of intentional search for meaning from one day to the next. Discussion and Conclusion There is a large body of research connecting curiosity with well-being, however, the mechanism at work has received little examination. Work in this area has promising consequences for health and clinical industries and therefore deserves more attention. This paper suggests that one possible mechanism may lie in the individuals general focus with regard to life events. Research in the areas of education and curiosity suggest that a shift in perspective from finitudes to growth-oriented processes holds promising health related outcomes. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is another possible area of work that draws on similar principles to those discussed in this paper. Future research should examine curiosity within an ACT framework as a possible means to enduring well-being.

9 References Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T.D. & Gilbert, D.T. (2009). The Feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions. Emotion, 9 123-127. Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Duckworth, A.L. & Seligman M.E.P. (2005). Self-discipline out does IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescence. Psychological Science, 16, 939-944. Dweck, C.S. (2007, December). The Secret to raising smart kids. Scientific American Mind, 69-75 Hebb, D.O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243-254. Heslin, P.A., Latham, G.P. & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The Effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 842-856. Kammrath, L.K. & Dweck, C. (2006). Voicing conflict: Preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorist. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1497-1508. Kashdan, T.B., Gallagher, M.W., Silvia, P.J., Winterstein, B.P., Breen, W.E., Terhar, D., Steger, M.F. (2009). The Curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987998. Kashdan, T.B. & Roberts J.E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: Differentiation from related constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 792-816. Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F.D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitated positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291-305. Kashdan, T.B. & Silvia, P.J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The Benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In Nathan, P.E., Snyder, C.D., & Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 367-374). New York: Oxford University Press. Kashdan, T.B. & Steger, M.F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being an meaning in life: Traits, states and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159173. Kruger, J. & Evans, M. (2009). The paradox of Alypius and the pursuit of unwanted information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1173-1179. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The Psychology of curiosity: a Review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75-98. Litman, J.A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and linking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 793-814. Litman, J.A, & Silvia, P.J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: Evidence for interest and deprivation curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 75-86. Mueller, C.M. & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine childrens motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.

10 Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619. Raine, A., Reynold, C., Venable, P.H., & Mednick, S.A. (2002). Stimulation-seeking and intelligence: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 663-674. Richman, L.S., Kubzansky, L., Maselko, J., Kawachi, I., Choo, P. & Bauer, M. (2005). Positive emotion and health: Going beyond the negative. Health Psychology, 24, 422-429. Silvia, P.J. (2008). InterestThe curious emotions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 57-60. Silvia, P.J. & Kashdan, T.B. (2009). Interesting things and curious people: Exploration and engagement as transient states and enduring strengths. Social and Personality Compass, 785-789. Swan, G.E. & Carmelli, D. (1996). Curiosity and mortality in aging adults: A 5-year follow-up of the Western Collaborative Group study. Psychology and Aging, 11, 449-453. Wilson, T.D., Centerbar, D.B., Kermer, D.A & Gilber, D.T. (2005). The Pleasures of uncertainty: Prolonging positive moods in ways people do not anticipate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 5-21.