PsyPost
  • Mental Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Neuroscience
  • About
No Result
View All Result
Join
My Account
PsyPost
No Result
View All Result
Home Exclusive Cognitive Science

Curiosity leads us to seek out painful and unpleasant outcomes

by Association for Psychological Science
April 10, 2016
Reading Time: 3 mins read
Photo credit: Sophie

Photo credit: Sophie

Share on TwitterShare on Facebook

Curiosity is a powerful motivator, leading us to make important discoveries and explore the unknown. But new research shows that our curiosity is sometimes so powerful that it leads us to choose potentially painful and unpleasant outcomes that have no apparent benefits, even when we have the ability to avoid these outcomes altogether.

The findings are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Just as curiosity drove Pandora to open the box despite being warned of its pernicious contents, curiosity can lure humans–like you and me–to seek information with predictably ominous consequences,” explains study author Bowen Ruan of the Wisconsin School of Business at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Previous research had shown that curiosity drives people to seek out miserable experiences, including watching horrible scenes and exploring dangerous terrain. Ruan and co-author Christopher Hsee at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business hypothesized that this curiosity stems from humans’ deep-seated desire to resolve uncertainty regardless of the harm it may bring.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers designed a series of experiments that exposed participants to a variety of particularly unpleasant outcomes.

In one study, 54 college student participants came to the lab and were shown electric-shock pens that were supposedly left over from a previous experiment; they were told that they could click the pens to kill time while they waited for the “real” study task to begin.

For some of the participants, the pens were color coded according to whether they would deliver a shock–five pens that would shock had a red sticker and five pens that wouldn’t shock had a green sticker–meaning that the students knew with certainty what would happen when they clicked a given pen.

Other participants, however, saw 10 pens that all bore yellow stickers and were told that some of the pens had batteries while others didn’t. In this case, the outcome of clicking each pen was uncertain.

Google News Preferences Add PsyPost to your preferred sources

The results were clear: Students in the uncertain condition clicked noticeably more pens. On average, those who didn’t know what the outcome would be clicked about five pens, while those who knew the outcome clicked about one green pen and two red pens.

A second study, in which students were shown 10 pens of each color, confirmed these results. Once again, students clicked more of the uncertain outcome pens than the pens that were clearly identified.

To find out whether the findings would hold under other conditions and whether resolving curiosity would indeed make participants feel worse, the researchers designed a third study involving exposure to pleasant and unpleasant sounds. Participants saw a computer display of 48 buttons, each of which played a sound when clicked. Buttons labeled “nails” would play a sound of nails on a chalkboard, buttons labeled “water” played a sound of running water, and buttons labeled “?” had an equal chance of playing either sound.

On average, students who saw mostly uncertain buttons clicked about 39 buttons, while those who saw mostly identified buttons clicked only about 28.

Interestingly, the results also showed that participants who clicked more buttons reported feeling worse afterward, and those who faced mostly uncertain outcomes reported being less happy than those who faced mostly certain outcomes.

Additional findings suggest that asking people to predict the consequences of their choices might dampen the power of their curiosity. Participants in an online study were presented with obscured pictures of unpleasant-looking insects–such as centipedes, cockroaches, and silverfish–and they could click on image to reveal the insect.

As in the previous studies, participants faced with uncertain outcomes clicked on more pictures (and felt worse overall); but when they had to predict how they would feel about their choice first, they clicked on relatively fewer pens (and felt happier overall).

Together, the findings from this series of simple experiments make a big point: While curiosity is often seen as a human blessing, it can also be a human curse. Many times, we seek out information to satisfy our curiosity without considering what will happen when we do.

“Curious people do not always perform consequentialist cost-benefit analyses and may be tempted to seek the missing information even when the outcome is expectedly harmful,” Ruan and Hsee write in their paper.

“We hope this research draws attention to the risk of information seeking in our epoch, the epoch of information,” Ruan concludes.

TweetSendScanShareSendPinShareShareShareShareShare

Follow PsyPost

The latest research, however you prefer to read it.

Daily newsletter

One email a day. The newest research, nothing else.

Google News

Get PsyPost stories in your Google News feed.

Add PsyPost to Google News
RSS feed

Use your favorite reader.

Copy RSS URL
Social media
Support independent science journalism

Ad-free reading, full archives, and weekly deep dives for members.

Become a member

Trending

  • Mapping the dark triad: Which countries have the most narcissistic and manipulative populations?
  • Study finds unpredictable childhood environments are linked to borderline personality traits in adulthood
  • Is intelligence related to happiness?
  • Anti-democratic attitudes are highly contagious, new psychology study finds
  • How the brain shifts gears to appreciate the beauty of poetry

Science of Money

  • New study blames authoritarian bosses for the quiet quitting trend
  • Three types of older jobseekers, three very different odds of getting hired
  • Can AI read the market’s mood? Researchers test DeepSeek sentiment scores against Shanghai stock returns
  • Do glowing words really sell? An economist finds a small but real puffery effect on Airbnb
  • Error tolerance: entrepreneurship booster or societal risk?

Recent

  • Internal expectations, not actual posts, drive how narcissists view their social media success
  • Female biology professors are now more likely to have a Wikipedia page than their male peers
  • Artificial intelligence reveals subtle movement differences in autistic toddlers
  • Adults with depression show a negative attentional bias, but new research suggests it is highly task-specific
  • Physically compressing peoples’ torsos reduces the riskiness of their decisions, study finds
  • The surprising disconnect between intense romance and a couple’s sex life
  • Does going to religious services actually improve your mental health?
  • Specific cognitive skills rival general intelligence in predicting socioeconomic success
  • Jealousy increases men’s support for feminine honor norms, study finds
  • Prenatal THC exposure drives teenage binge drinking in female rats

PsyPost is a psychology and neuroscience news website dedicated to reporting the latest research on human behavior, cognition, and society. (READ MORE...)

  • Mental Health
  • Neuroimaging
  • Personality Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cognitive Science
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Contact us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms and conditions
  • Do not sell my personal information

(c) PsyPost Media Inc

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Cognitive Science Research
  • Mental Health Research
  • Social Psychology Research
  • Drug Research
  • Relationship Research
  • About PsyPost
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

(c) PsyPost Media Inc