PreprintPDF Available

The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating general overt and covert social curiosity

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

Curiosity is a fundamental human motivation that influences learning, the acquisition of knowledge, and life fulfillment. Our ability to understand the benefits (and costs) of being a curious person hinges on adequate assessment. Synthesizing decades of prior research, our goal was to improve a well-validated, multi-dimensional measure of curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2018). First, we sought to distinguish between two types of social curiosity: the general desire to learn from other people versus covert, surreptitious interest in what other people say and do. Second, we sought to remove weaker items and reduce the length of each subscale. Using data from a survey of 483 working adults (Study 1) and 460 adults (Study 2), we found evidence to support the pre-existing four dimensions of curiosity (Joyous Exploration, Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, and Thrill Seeking) along with the separation of the fifth dimension into General Overt Social Curiosity and Covert Social Curiosity. Each factor of the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR) had substantive relations with a battery of personality (e.g., Big Five, intellectual humility) and well-being (e.g., psychological need satisfaction) measures. With greater bandwidth and predictive power, the 5DCR offers new opportunities for basic research and the evaluation of curiosity enhancing interventions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales
while separating overt and covert social curiosity
Todd B. Kashdan
a,
, David J. Disabato
a
, Fallon R. Goodman
b
, Patrick E. McKnight
a
a
Department of Psychology MS 3F5, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States
b
University of South Florida, United States
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Curiosity
Personality
Well-being
Values
Social competence
Gossip
Scale development
ABSTRACT
Curiosity is a fundamental human motivation that influences learning, the acquisition of knowledge, and life
fulfillment. Our ability to understand the benefits (and costs) of being a curious person hinges on adequate
assessment. Synthesizing decades of prior research, our goal was to improve a well-validated, multi-dimensional
measure of curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2018). First, we sought to distinguish between two types of social curiosity:
the overt desire to learn from other people versus covert, surreptitious interest in what other people say and do.
Second, we sought to remove weaker items and reduce the length of each subscale. Using data from a survey of
483 working adults (Study 1) and 460 community adults (Study 2), we found evidence to support the pre-
existing four dimensions of curiosity (Joyous Exploration, Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, and Thrill
Seeking) along with the separation of the fifth dimension into Overt Social Curiosity and Covert Social Curiosity.
Each factor of the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR) had substantive relations with a battery of
personality (e.g., Big Five, intellectual humility) and well-being (e.g., psychological need satisfaction) measures.
With greater bandwidth and predictive power, the 5DCR offers new opportunities for basic research and the
evaluation of curiosity enhancing interventions.
1. Introduction
In a world where people are deluged with information and can at-
tain novel experiences with only a few keyboard clicks, curiosity be-
comes a potent psychological strength. Curiosity is about seeking in-
formation and experiences for their own sake through self-directed
behavior. Theorists have argued that curiosity is critical to human
learning and achievement (e.g., Kidd & Hayden, 2015;
von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Empiricists have dis-
covered that the contribution of curiosity to the attainment of knowl-
edge is largely independent of cognitive abilities (e.g.,
von Strumm, 2018).
Existing knowledge suggests curiosity is a multifaceted phenom-
enon that is more sophisticated than previous definitions. A large por-
tion of research has conceptualized curiosity as one or two highly re-
lated facets, limiting empirical investigation and practical applications
(e.g., Kashdan et al., 2009). In the present study, we dive into the social
domain and differentiate between two types of social curiosity im-
portant to human functioning. At the same time, we refine the mea-
surement of other curiosity facets.
1.1. Individual differences in curiosity
Our team recently synthesized decades of research to create a single,
multi-dimensional measure called The Five Dimensional Curiosity Scale
(5DC; Kashdan et al., 2018). This scale has already been validated by
independent research teams in multiple countries (e.g.,
Birenbaum et al., 2019;Lydon-Staley, Zhou, Blevins, Zurn, & Bassett,
2019;Schutte & Malouff, 2016). The benefit of the 5DC is a compre-
hensive approach to operationalizing curiosity.
First, the 5DC distinguishes between experiences of curiosity that
differ in emotional valence. There is the pleasurable experience of
finding the world intriguing (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009), what we refer to
as Joyous Exploration. In contrast, there is the anxiety and frustration
of being aware of information you do not know, want to know, and
devote considerable effort to uncover (Loewenstein, 1994). We call this
second dimension Deprivation Sensitivity. When Joyous Exploration is
present, people feel a love of learning, a sense of fascination about
activities, places, and things, and in turn, experience high levels of well-
being (e.g., Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004;Schutte &
Malouff, 2019). When Deprivation Sensitivity is present, people ex-
perience discomfort and annoyance until they resolve information gaps
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836
Received 22 October 2019; Received in revised form 5 January 2020; Accepted 11 January 2020
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tkashdan@gmu.edu (T.B. Kashdan).
Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
(e.g., Litman, 2005;Noordewier & van Dijk, 2017). Any adequate as-
sessment of curiosity must separate these initial two, distinct manifes-
tations of curiosity.
Second, the degree to which someone is curious depends on two
cognitive judgments. Initially, a person has to recognize that an event is
interesting and warrants attention. Mysterious, novel, complex, un-
certain, and/or ambiguous events tend to elicit interest (e.g.,
Berylne, 1954,1960;Silvia, 2008a). If a person notices that an event
has novelty potential, curiosity is initiated. A person will only be cur-
ious, however, if they also believe they can sufficiently cope with the
distress that arises from exploring the novelty potential of a situation
(Silvia, 2005,2008a). If a person believes that a situation has novelty
and coping potential, a person is said to be curious in the moment (i.e.,
state curiosity). People who endorse novelty and coping potential with
high frequency, intensity, and/or longevity are said to be highly curious
(i.e., trait curiosity) (e.g., Silvia, 2008b). From this work on the ap-
praisal components of curiosity, the 5DC measures a dimension of
curiosity referred to as Stress Tolerance—the dispositional tendency to
handle the anxiety that arises when confronting the new. Some people
go further than just tolerating stress and willingly accept social, phy-
sical, financial, and legal risks to acquire new experiences
(Zuckerman, 1994). This additional dimension of curiosity, referred to
as Thrill Seeking, is also part of the 5DC. Thrill Seeking is a particular
dimension of curiosity where arousal is not something to be reduced,
but rather is part of what makes events intrinsically desirable. A com-
prehensive assessment of curiosity must include these additional two,
distinct manifestations of curiosity.
Third, as the final dimension, the 5DC addresses how people are
curious about other people. Social Curiosity has been previously shown
to be a distinct dimension (Litman & Pezzo, 2007;Renner, 2006). One
of the most efficient and effective ways to acquire new information is to
observe and communicate with other people (Aron, Aron, & Norman,
2001). Spending time with other people offers access to unique per-
spectives, philosophies, strengths and skill sets, and wisdom. By lis-
tening to what happened in their social interactions, one can quickly
discern who is worthy of being a trusted ally and who should be dis-
trusted (e.g., Dunbar, 2004).
1.2. Social curiosity
In the original 5DC, our research team created a single set of items
that merged together overt and covert social curiosity. A recent set of
studies suggests that being curious about other people's feelings,
thoughts, and behavior is distinct from observing other people surrep-
titiously to acquire new information (e.g., Litman & Pezzo, 2007;
Renner, 2006). The lack of differentiation in our measure of social
curiosity could explain why the only correlation greater than .25 was
with agreeableness (Kashdan et al., 2018). We sought to refine our scale
by creating items that capture overt social curiosity as well as the
snooping, prying, and surreptitious observation behaviors that capture
covert social curiosity, and subsequentially determine whether these
items are empirically distinct (i.e., by loading on two different factors
with unique patterns of correlations with interpersonal outcomes).
General overt social curiosity is an interest in other people's beha-
viors, thoughts, and feelings. It is defined as an underlying motivation
to understand what makes people tick, rather than a tendency to in-
itiate conversations or socialize with others, per se (i.e., extraversion)
(Litman & Pezzo, 2007). Social information is gathered by directly
talking to people rather than surreptitious routes such as gossiping.
Field research has estimated that over half of human conversation re-
volves around socializing, including how people behave in social si-
tuations, how people interpret life events, discussions about relation-
ship dynamics, planning future social gatherings, and people's interests
and preferences (Dunbar, Marriott, & Duncan, 1997). There seems to be
a general disposition towards exploring the social lives of those around
us. Individual differences exist on this disposition, including how much
someone desires and acquires novel and unique information about
specific people, as opposed to hearing about common human experi-
ences.
Covert social curiosity is defined by how details about other people
are discovered – indirect, surreptitious, secretive ways
(Trudewind, 2000). For example, hearing about others from friends/
families/neighbors; reading about others in articles or watching them in
video footage; and observing their behaviors, expressions, and con-
versations from across the room. Covert social curiosity often functions
to regulate self-esteem through the search for downward social com-
parisons, which would explain why the majority of gossip is negative
(Wert & Salovey, 2004). Individual differences exist on how often
people use covert versus overt covert strategies to learn about their
social worlds.
1.3. Current research
Using two separate samples, we created and validated the Five-
Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR). The primary reason for a
revised version was the creation of a less crude assessment of social
curiosity. Unlike the initial 5DC, we included a battery of measures to
test the differential validity of the two sets of social curiosity items.
Specifically, we expected Overt Social Curiosity to be related to heal-
thier outcomes including the Big Five (higher agreeableness, extraver-
sion, open-mindedness, and conscientiousness, and lower negative
emotionality), interpersonal competencies, intellectual humility, and
less loneliness, whereas we expected Covert Social Curiosity to be re-
lated to unhealthy outcomes such as gossiping and negative emotion-
ality (e.g., social anxiety). Our hope was to transform the unsatisfactory
5DC Social Curiosity subscale into a theoretically and empirically de-
fensible assessment.
With the inclusion of two distinct manifestations of social curiosity,
we also aimed to improve the overall scale by reducing the length of
each subscale. To do this, we sought to remove at least one item from
each subscale that had the lowest conceptual and/or empirical support.
We conducted additional tests of the temporal stability and construct
validity of each of the five dimensions. We sought to replicate prior
evidence of relations with well-being (e.g., satisfaction of psychological
needs for autonomy, competence, and belonging), personality (using a
more comprehensive measure of the Big Five with 15 facet level scores;
Soto & John, 2017), and values (using a well-established framework
and measure of 10 basic human values; Schwartz, 1996). We also in-
cluded a wider range of measures that capture approach oriented be-
haviors and motivations in the workplace (e.g., innovative behaviors,
willingness to dissent, promotion focus, engagement), and psycholo-
gical strengths (e.g., wisdom during conflicts, mindfulness). Taken to-
gether, our goal was to improve an existing comprehensive, multi-di-
mensional measure to enable new research directions on the nature of
dispositional curiosity.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedures
Two samples of participants were recruited from Amazon's
Mechanical Turk (i.e., MTurk), an online platform that allows people to
participate in research studies for financial reimbursement. Data col-
lected from Amazon Mechanical Turk has been demonstrated to be
more generalizable than data collected from United States college stu-
dents (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Both samples completed
an online Qualtrics survey consisting of self-report questionnaires and
demographic questions. Each round of data collection was approved by
the Institutional Review Board. Demographics are presented in Table 1.
Sample 1 participants were recruited via a study advertisement
describing a “Job and Personality” survey where researchers “wish to
know how your unique personality interacts with the culture of your
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
2
workplace.” The following inclusion criteria were specified: (1) 18+
years old, (2) literate in the English language, (3) living in the United
States, and (4) employed full-time or part-time in the United States. A
total of 618 initial participants were recruited. After removing parti-
cipants who failed attention checks (e.g., please select “slightly agree”),
the final sample size was 483. Two follow-up surveys were adminis-
tered to Sample 1 at two and eight months after the baseline survey.
Due to attrition, sample size was 352 at the two-month follow up and
294 at the eight-month follow up. For each of the three timepoints,
participants were informed the survey would take approximately
45 min to complete. The median time spent on each survey was 28.5,
28.2, and 27.8 min across the timepoints, respectively. Participants
were compensated $4 through MTurk for each survey.
Sample 2 participants were recruited via a study advertisement
describing a “Social Curiosity” survey. Participants were instructed that
they would be “asked to review and electronically sign an informed
consent before completing a set of questionnaires that will ask for in-
formation about your personality and functioning. This should take
approximately 45 min.” The inclusion criteria were identical to Sample
1, except employment in the United States was not required. A total of
475 participants were recruited. After removing participants with
missing data on key variables, the final sample size was 460. The
median time spent on the survey was 52.0 min. Participants were
compensated $4 through MTurk.
2.2. Measures–study 1
Participants completed the 25-item Five Dimensional Curiosity
Scale (5DC; Kashdan et al., 2018) along with 11 additional social
curiosity items in the hopes of effectively disentangling overt and
covert social curiosity dimensions. The 11 items were variants of items
previously used to operationalize these two dimensions of social curi-
osity (e.g., Litman & Pezzo, 2007;Renner, 2006). The Stress Tolerance
items of the 5DC are reversed scored such that higher scores reflect
greater tolerance of the distress that arises from confronting new sti-
muli and situations.
The 10-item Work-Related Curiosity Scale (Mussel et al., 2012) as-
sessed behavioral tendencies to seek information, acquire knowledge,
learn, and think at the workplace (e.g., I am interested in how my con-
tribution impacts the company). Participants responded to items on a 7-
point scale from 0=totally disagree to 6=totally agree. Reliability was
acceptable (α = .94).
The 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown &
Ryan, 2003) assessed trait mindfulness (e.g., I find myself doing things
without paying attention). Responses were made on a 6-point scale from
1=almost always to 6=almost never; higher scores reflected higher
mindfulness. Reliability was acceptable (α = .94).
The 6-item Innovative Behavior Scale (Scott & Bruce, 1994, mod-
ified by Rosing & Zacher, 2017) assessed the extent to which, at work,
people exhibited behaviors involving innovation (e.g., This month, at
work I promoted and championed ideas to others). Participants responded
on a 7-point Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
Reliability was acceptable (α = .92).
Participants completed the Wise Reasoning Scale (Brienza, Kung,
Santos, Bobocel, & Grossmann, 2018;Huynh, Oakes, Shay, & McGregor,
2017) with five subscales: the 4-item Considering Others’ Perspectives
(e.g., Trying to put myself in the other person/people's shoes), the 4-item
Intellectual Humility (e.g., Considering whether others’ opinions might be
more correct than mine), the 3-item Search for Compromise (e.g., Trying
to find a way to accommodate both perspectives), the 3-item Adopting
Others’ Perspective (e.g., Trying to see the situation from the point of view
of an uninvolved person), and the 5-item Recognition of Change (e.g.,
Looking for different solutions as the situation evolves) subscales. Partici-
pants responded to items from 1=very useless to 5=very useful in-
dicating the value of strategies in resolving personal conflicts. Relia-
bility was acceptable (α = .82, .83, 84, .82, 86 [in order presented
above]).
Participants completed the 10-item Work Regulatory Focus Scale
(Petrou, Demerouti, & Häfner, 2013), with 5-item Prevention (e.g., I
focus my attention on avoiding failure at work) and Promotion (e.g., I tend
to take risks at work in order to achieve success) subscale. Participants
responded to items from 1=totally disagree to 5=totally agree. Construct
validity has been shown via positive correlations with job crafting
during and after major organizational changes (Petrou &
Demerouti, 2015). Reliability was acceptable (α = .79 and .84, re-
spectively).
Participants completed a 4-item Willingness to Dissent measure
(Dreu, Vries, Franssen, & Altink, 2000) that captures principled in-
subordination (e.g., I dare to take a minority position within the team).
Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1=never to
5=very often. Construct validity has been shown with evidence that a
willingness to dissent from accepted norms was linked to a group's in-
novation and effectiveness when there was also a sense of psychological
safety (e.g., Dreu, 2002). Reliability was acceptable (α = .70).
Participants completed a 20-item Organizational Dissent Scale
(Kassing, 1998) which measures whether and how employees express
frustration and disagreement about workplace issues to three audi-
ences: management (9-item Upward subscale; e.g., I speak with my su-
pervisor or someone in management when I question workplace decisions),
co-workers (5-item Latent/Lateral subscale; e.g., I let other employees
know how I feel about the way things are done around here), and non-work
Table 1
Demographic Information.
Study 1 English
Workers Sample
Study 2
Online Mturk
Sample
Age (t = 8.47, df = 941, p < .001)
Mean (SD) 35.63(10.06) 41.66(11.73)
Number % Number %
Gender (χ2 = 0.38, df = 1, p = .540)
Female 248 48.20% 226 58.10%
Race (χ2 = 0.68, df = 4, p = .950)
White 380 78.70% 307 78.90%
African American 44 9.10% 35 9.00%
Hispanic 19 3.90% 13 3.30%
Asian or Pacific Islander 36 7.50% 32 8.20%
Other 4 0.80% 2 0.50%
Relationship Status (χ2 = 21.50, df = 5, p < .001)
Single 150 31.10% 133 34.20%
Married 217 44.90% 179 46.00%
Long Term Relationship 85 17.60% 37 9.50%
Short Term Relationship 7 1.40% 2 0.50%
Divorced/Separated 23 4.70% 32 8.20%
Other 1 0.20% 6 1.50%
Children (χ2 = 0.58, df = 1, p = .450)
No Children 251 52.10% 192 49.40%
Has Children 230 47.90% 197 50.60%
Education (χ2 = 6.13, df = 3, p = .110)
Some High School 1 0.20% 6 1.50%
High School Graduation
or Equivalent
204 10.60% 152 39.10%
4 year College Graduate 218 45.20% 188 48.00%
Graduate School or
Professional Degree
60 12.40% 43 11.10%
Employment (χ2 = 83.5, df = 6, p < .001)
Not Employed 0 0.00% 17 4.40%
Part Time 46 9.50% 51 13.10%
Full Time 437 90.50% 280 72.00%
Homemaker/Volunteer 0 0.00% 11 2.80%
Student (Full-time) 0 0.00% 3 0.80%
Retired 0 0.00% 14 3.60%
Other 0 0.00% 13 3.30%
Notes. Statistical significance between sample demographics is based on chi-
square tests of contingency tables, except for age which is based on an in-
dependent two-samples t-test.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
3
family and friends (6-item Displaced subscale; e.g., I rarely voice my
frustrations about workplace issues in front of my spouse/partner or non-
work friends). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale from
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Construct validity has been
shown via correlations with work engagement and intent to leave one's
organization (Kassing, Piemonte, Goman, & Mitchell, 2012). Reliability
was acceptable (αs = .91, .84, .88, respectively).
Participants completed the 9-item short-version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), with three 3-
item subscales capturing vigor (e.g., At my work, I feel strong and vig-
orous), dedication (e.g., I am proud of the work I do), and absorption
(e.g., I am immersed in my work). Participants responded on a 7-point
Likert scale from 1=never to 7=always/every day. Reliability was ac-
ceptable for the vigor, dedication, and absorption subscales, respec-
tively (αs = .89, .91, .86).
Participants completed the 16-item Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), with 8-item Dis-
engagement (e.g., It happens more and more often that I talk about my
work in a negative way) and Exhaustion (e.g., After my work, I usually feel
worn out and weary) subscales. Participants responded to items from
0=strongly disagree to 3=strongly agree. Construct validity has been
shown with evidence that people who stay versus leave their work
organization can be differentiated by burnout scores (e.g., De Lange, De
Witte, & Notelaers, 2008). Reliability was acceptable for the disen-
gagement and exhaustion subscales, respectively (αs = .81, .82).
Participants completed the Twenty Item Values Inventory (TwIVI;
Sandy, Gosling. Schwartz, & Koelkebeck, 2017), a brief version of the
Schwartz 40-item Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ;
Schwartz, 2003). Ten 2-item subscales assess the extent to which par-
ticipants value 10 domains: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism,
achievement, power, benevolence, universalism, conformity, tradition,
and security. Participants responded on a 6-point Likert scale from
1=not at all like me to 5=very much like me. Construct validity has been
shown via correlations with Big Five personality traits (e.g.,
Sandy et al., 2017) and Dark Triad traits (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism,
and Machiavellianism were each positively related with power and
achievement and negatively related with conformity; Jonason, Koehn,
Bulyk, & Davis, 2019). Reliability was acceptable (αs = .71, .63, .68,
.80, .87, .81, .84, .72, .65, .53 [in order presented above]).
2.3. Measures–study 2
Participants completed the 25-item Five Dimensional Curiosity
Scale (Kashdan et al., 2018) with 11 additional social curiosity items
and the Stress Tolerance items reverse scored as in Study 1.
Participants completed the 14-item Social Curiosity Scale
(Renner, 2006) with separate 7 item subscales capturing General Social
Curiosity (e.g., When I meet a new person, I am interested in learning more
about him/her) and Covert Social Curiosity (e.g., Every so often I like to
stand at the window and watch what my neighbors are doing). Participants
rated items on a scale from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree.
Reliability was acceptable (αs =.93, .88, respectively).
Participants completed the 16-item Interpersonal Curiosity Scale
(Litman & Pezzo, 2007), which consisted of three subscales including
curiosity about emotions (e.g., observe people's expressions to figure out
how they feel), spying and prying (e.g., feel comfortable asking about
people's private lives), and snooping (e.g., love going into people's houses to
see how they live). Participants rated items on a scale of 1=definitely not
true to 5=very true. Reliability was acceptable for subscales
(αs = .84-.88).
Participants completed the 12-item Attitudes towards Gossip Scale
(Litman & Pezzo, 2005),which asks about social values (e.g.. Gossip is a
good ice-breaker) and moral values (e.g., You should never mention rumors
even if you think they are true [reverse coded]). Participants rated items
from 1=disagree strongly to 5=agree strongly. Reliability was acceptable
(α = .91).
Participants completed the 20-item Tendency to Gossip
Questionnaire (Nevo, Nevo & Derech-Zehavi, 1993), which measures
how frequently people gossiped about other people's physical appear-
ance (e.g., I talk with friends about people's clothes), achievement (e.g., I
talk with friends about other people's salaries), social information (e.g., I
analyze with friends the compatibility of couples), and sublimated gossip
(e.g., I read gossip columns in newspapers). Participants rated the fre-
quency of engaging in each behavior from 1=never to 7=always. Re-
liability was acceptable (α = .95).
Participants completed the 40-item Interpersonal Competency
Questionnaire (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988) which
measures how people handle different social situations (e.g., Finding
and suggesting things to do with new people who you find interesting and
attractive and Revealing something intimate about yourself while talking
with someone you're just getting to know). Participants rated their level of
comfort in each situation, from 1=I'm poor at this; I'd feel so un-
comfortable and unable to hale this situation; I'd avoid it if possible to 5=I
am extremely good at this; I'd feel very comfortable and handle this situation
very well. Reliability was acceptable for same sex and other sex inter-
actions (αs = .97, .98).
Participants completed the 30-item Social Anxiety Questionnaire
(Caballo, Arias, Salazar, Irurtia, & Hofmann, 2015) that measures felt
unease, stress, or nervousness in response to social situations (e.g.,
Speaking in public and Asking someone attractive of the opposite sex for a
date). Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale from 1=not at
all or very slightly to 5=very high or extremely high. Reliability was ac-
ceptable (α = .97).
Loneliness was measured using the 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scale
(Russell, 1996). Sample items included I feel alone and I feel like there is
no one I can turn to. Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale
from 1=never to 5=always. Reliability was acceptable (α = .96).
Participants completed the 60-item Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2;
Soto & John, 2017), to assess Extraversion, Agreeableness, Con-
scientiousness, Negative Emotionality (formerly Neuroticism), and
Open-Mindedness (formerly Openness to Experience) and relevant
lower-order facets. Extraversion includes: Sociability, Assertiveness,
and Energy Levels. Agreeableness includes: Compassion, Respectful-
ness, and Trust. Conscientiousness includes: Organization, Productive-
ness, and Responsibility. Negative Emotionality includes Anxiety, De-
pression, and Emotional Volatility. Open-Mindedness includes:
Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual Curiosity, and Creative Imagination.
Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale from
1=disagree strongly to 5=agree strongly. Reliability was acceptable
(αs = .88-.93).
Participants completed the 22-item Intellectual Humility Scale
(Krumrei-Mancuso, & Rouse, 2016) to assess beliefs about one's own
and others’ intellect. Items assess how participants deal with in-
dependence of intellect and ego (e.g., I feel small when others disagree
with me on topics that are close to my heart), openness to revising their
viewpoint (e.g., I am open to revising my important beliefs in the face of
new information), respect for others viewpoints (e.g., I can respect others
even if I disagree with them in important ways), and intellectual over-
confidence (e.g., My ideas are usually better than other people's ideas).
Participants rated agreement with each statement, on a scale of
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Reliability was acceptable
(α = .90).
Participants completed the Balanced Measure of Psychological
Needs Scale (Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012), which measures satisfaction of
needs for autonomy, competence, and belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Participants responded to 18 items on a 5-point Likert scale from
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Reliability was acceptable
(αs = .87, .80, .80, respectively).
Identical to Study, 1, participants completed the Twenty Item
Values Inventory (TwIVI; Sandy, Gosling, Schwartz, & Koelkebeck,
2017). Reliability was acceptable (αs =.70-.86).
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
4
2.4. Data analytic plan
Before understanding the nature of social curiosity and further va-
lidating the other four dimensions of curiosity, we began with person-
ality structure analyses. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) to determine the independence of overt and covert social curi-
osity. With two independent samples, we conducted EFA on both. Next,
we included the final items selected for social curiosity into a model
with the other four curiosity dimensions (Joyous Exploration,
Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, and Thrill Seeking) for con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) models on both independent samples.
For ease of interpretation, the factor analytic results of Studies 1 and 2
are reported together in the next section. To ensure we measured a
trait-like construct, we tested the temporal stability of each subscale at
2 month and 8 month intervals. Finally, we examined the bivariate
correlations between 5DCR dimensions and relevant constructs to
evaluate the construct validity of the 4-item subscales.
3. Results
3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
A parallel analysis based on a factor analytic model was conducted
on Sample 1 to test the number of dimensions present in the 16 initial
social curiosity items. Parallel analysis uses simulation to correct for
upward bias in eigenvalues due to sampling error. The magnitude of
bias was based on the 95
th
percentile of 10,000 simulated eigenvalues.
Two of the bias adjusted eigenvalues were greater than 1 (6.85 and
1.13), suggesting the presence of two factors (Glorfeld, 1995). To de-
termine the nature of the factors and identify the best performing items,
an exploratory factor analysis was conducted specifying two factors
underlying the 16 items. The extraction method was unweighted least
squares and the rotation criterion was (orthogonal) varimax. The two
factors appeared to correspond to Overt and Covert Social Curiosity and
together explained 54.8% of the item variance. Based on (1) greater
face validity, (2) larger magnitude of the standardized focal loading,
and the (3) smaller magnitude of the standardized cross loading, four
items for each factor were retained.
An EFA with the final eight social curiosity items was conducted on
both Sample 1 (English Workers) and Sample 2 (Online MTurk). The
extraction method was unweighted least squares and the rotation cri-
terion was (oblique) oblimin. In both samples, the two factors corre-
sponded to Overt and Covert Social Curiosity. Table 2 presents the
standardized factor loadings. In Samples 1 and 2, the factor correlation
between the two Social Curiosity dimensions was .45 and .57, respec-
tively.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
After finalizing the items for both social curiosity subscales, we
revisited the other four curiosity subscale items. We identified one item
from each subscale that had the least face validity, did not map as well
onto our conceptual understanding of curiosity, and/or exhibited the
lowest factor loading. The item “I am always looking for experiences
that challenge how I think about myself and the world” was removed
from the Joyous Exploration subscale because of the lack of uniqueness
to curiosity. The item “It frustrates me not having all the information I
need” was removed from the Deprivation Sensitivity subscale because it
did not incorporate a problem-solving element. The item “I cannot
function well if I am unsure whether a new experience is safe” was
removed from the Stress Tolerance subscale because functioning well is
too broad to be useful. The item “The anxiety of doing something new
makes me feel excited and alive” was removed from the Thrill Seeking
subscale because many people had different answers depending on
whether situations were chosen or forced upon. This trimming process
led to four items per subscale, including the two social curiosity sub-
scales, which together form The Five Dimensional Curiosity Scale
Revised (5DCR).
A CFA with the final 24 items from the 5DCR was conducted on both
Sample 1 and Sample 2. A correlated factor model was specified with no
cross-loadings or covaried errors. The estimator was full information
maximum likelihood to account for (the very little) item missing data.
The Yuan-Bentler T2* chi-square test statistic and Huber-White ad-
justed standard errors were used to account for any item non-normality
(i.e., MLR) (Yuan and Bentler, 2000). Table 3 presents the standardized
factor loadings in each sample, which ranged from .62 to .90. The
model fit in Sample 1 was χ2 (237) = 773.741, p< .001; TLI = .910;
CFI = .922; RMSEA = .068 (90% CI: [.063, .074]); SRMR = .058. The
model fit in Sample 2 was χ2 (237) = 888.827, p< .001; TLI = .892;
CFI = .908; RMSEA = .077 (90% CI: [.072, .083]); SRMR = .053.
Modification indices suggested various cross-loadings and covaried
errors; however, given their tendency to not replicate across samples,
the original correlated factor model was retained (Gerbing &
Anderson, 1984;MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). A second-
order or bifactor model was considered; however, the factor correla-
tions did not suggest the presence of a dominant general factor
(Table 4). For example, the correlation between deprivation sensitivity
and stress tolerance was close to zero and a weak correlation emerged
between stress tolerance and covert social curiosity. This pattern of
factor correlations is evidence against the use of a total score for the
5DCR.
3.3. Descriptive statistics and reliability
The mean item score and standard deviation for each of the sub-
scales are reported in Table 5. The reliability of the 5DCR unit-weighted
observed subscale scores was assessed via omega coefficients and are
also in Table 5. Omega coefficients are model-based indices of internal
consistency based on the CFA model results (McNeish, 2018). In this
case, they are interpreted similar to alpha coefficients, but do not make
the assumption of equal factor loadings. All omega coefficients across
both samples were greater than .80, indicating strong internal
Table 2
EFA standardized factor loadings.
Sample Study 1 English Workers Study 2 Online MTurk
Item Overt Covert Overt Covert
I ask a lot of questions to figure out what interests other people. .867 -.068 .696 -.008
When talking to someone who is excited, I am curious to find out why. .736 .114 .842 .031
When talking to someone, I try to discover interesting details about them. .850 -.014 .910 -.067
I like finding out why people behave the way they do. .485 .193 .745 .113
When other people are having a conversation, I like to find out what it's about. .057 .851 .078 .837
When around other people, I like listening to their conversations. -.053 .933 -.026 .900
When people quarrel, I like to know what's going on. -.004 .849 -.102 .783
I seek out information about the private lives of people in my life. .128 .550 .158 .602
Notes. Overt = Overt Social Curiosity; Covert = Covert Social Curiosity.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
5
consistency of the items within each subscale. The reliability of the
5DCR unit-weighted observed subscale scores in Sample 1 was also
assessed via test-retest correlations (see Table 5). The test-retest cor-
relations across 2 month and 8 month intervals ranged from .61 to .79,
indicating strong reliability of trait-like measures.
3.4. Construct validity
The validity of the 5DCR unit weighted observed subscale scores
was assessed via correlations with theoretically related or unrelated
measures. In direct comparisons between correlations (Table 6), Overt
Social Curiosity could be distinguished from Covert Social Curiosity by
large positive correlations with measures of general interpersonal
curiosity, moderately large positive correlations with open-mindedness,
extraversion, agreeableness, self-endorsed social competence, and low
loneliness, social anxiety, and negative emotionality. Covert Social
Curiosity exhibited large positive correlations with measures of
snooping, prying, surreptitious social behavior, and tendencies to
gossip.
Joyous Exploration had the strongest relations of the curiosity di-
mensions to work-related curiosity, wisdom (specifically, the ability to
consider others’ perspectives and intellectual humility), innovation, a
willingness to dissent from social norms and express contradictory
opinions to supervisors and managers, a workplace promotion focus,
and the valuing of self-direction and universalism (see Table 7). Joyous
Exploration also showed the strongest relations with open-mindedness,
extraversion, the intellectual humility to revise one's viewpoints in
conflicts, and valuing of self-direction (see Table 8).
Stress Tolerance had the strongest relations with dispositional
mindfulness, work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) and
low levels of work burnout; in addition, it was moderately related to
work-related curiosity and a willingness to dissent from social norms
and express contradictory opinions to supervisors (Table 7). Stress
Tolerance also showed the strongest inverse relation with negative
emotionality and positive associations with extraversion, con-
scientiousness, respectfulness, trust, satisfaction of psychological needs,
and the humility to separate intellect and ego (Table 8).
Overt Social Curiosity had the strongest relations with wisdom
(specifically, the search for compromise, adopting others’ perspectives,
and recognition of change) and the valuing of benevolence (Table 7).
Overt Social Curiosity also showed the strongest relations with agree-
ableness, sociability, and the valuing of benevolence and universalism
(Table 8).
Table 3
CFA standardized factor loadings.
Subscale Item Study 1 English Workers Study 2 Online MTurk
Joyous Exploration I view challenging situations as an opportunity to grow and learn. .747 .763
I seek out situations where it is likely that I will have to think in depth about something. .682 .774
I enjoy learning about subjects that are unfamiliar to me. .849 .838
I find it fascinating to learn new information. .832 .819
Deprivation Sensitivity Thinking about solutions to difficult conceptual problems can keep me awake at night. .643 .759
I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can't rest without knowing the answer. .804 .869
I feel frustrated if I can't figure out the solution to a problem, so I work even harder to solve it. .673 .788
I work relentlessly at problems that I feel must be solved. .731 .791
Stress Tolerance The smallest doubt can stop me from seeking out new experiences. .816 .745
I cannot handle the stress that comes from entering uncertain situations. .841 .823
I find it hard to explore new places when I lack confidence in my abilities. .831 .818
It is difficult to concentrate when there is a possibility that I will be taken by surprise. .815 .836
Overt Social I ask a lot of questions to figure out what interests other people. .629 .690
When talking to someone who is excited, I am curious to find out why. .800 .861
When talking to someone, I try to discover interesting details about them. .811 .866
I like finding out why people behave the way they do. .833 .806
Covert Social When other people are having a conversation, I like to find out what it's about. .893 .895
When around other people, I like listening to their conversations. .905 .894
When people quarrel, I like to know what's going on. .833 .709
I seek out information about the private lives of people in my life. .620 .656
Thrill Seeking Risk-taking is exciting to me. .868 .864
When I have free time, I want to do things that are a little scary. .847 .881
Creating an adventure as I go is much more appealing than a planned adventure. .754 .728
I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable. .750 .757
Table 4
CFA factor correlations.
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Joyous Exploration - .640 .475 .582 .152 .402
2. Deprivation Sensitivity .628 - .034 .415 .225 .302
3. Stress Tolerance .268 -.195 - .199 -.162 .284
4. Overt Social Curiosity .666 .515 .013 - .452 .294
5. Covert Social Curiosity .159 .249 -.332 .565 - .184
6. Thrill Seeking .338 .319 .074 .381 .233 -
Notes. Lower Triangle = Study 1 English Workers sample; Upper
Triangle = Study 2 Online MTurk sample
Table 5
Reliability coefficients.
Sample Mean (Standard Deviation) Omega Coefficient Test-retest
Subscale Study 1 English Workers Study 2 OnlineMTurk Study 1 English Workers Study 2 OnlineMTurk 2 months 8 months
Joyous Exploration 5.03 (1.35) 5.61 (1.06) .856 .870 .748 .772
Deprivation Sensitivity 4.54 (1.31) 4.93 (1.21) .803 .879 .620 .611
Stress Tolerance 4.36 (1.61) 4.85 (1.57) .896 .882 .707 .709
Overt Social Curiosity 4.86 (1.39) 5.13 (1.20) .851 .880 .700 .733
Covert Social Curiosity 4.16 (1.55) 4.31 (1.61) .888 .869 .735 .727
Thrill Seeking 3.07 (1.46) 3.50 (1.61) .882 .882 .793 .779
Notes. Test-retest data are from Study 1.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
6
Covert Social Curiosity had the strongest relations with a workplace
prevention focus, a tendency to express disagreement about work issues
with co-workers and non-work family and friends (but not supervisors),
and the valuing of achievement. In addition, there was an inverse re-
lationship with dispositional mindfulness (Table 7).
Deprivation Sensitivity had the strongest relations with the valuing
of security, and was positively correlated with work-related curiosity,
wisdom, both a promotion and prevention focus in the workplace, and
the valuing of self-direction and stimulation (Table 7). Deprivation
Sensitivity had the strongest inverse relation with the humility to resist
overconfidence, a weak positive relation with the valuing of security
(Table 8), and a moderate positive relation with open-mindedness.
4. Discussion
We described the refinement of a new brief self-report measure in-
tended to assess individual differences in five distinct dimensions of
curiosity. We used the subscales to predict criterion variables that
capture a comprehensive approach to basic personality dimensions,
human values, approach motivation and behaviors in the workplace,
psychological need satisfaction, and psychological strengths. Despite
reducing the scale length, we found stronger evidence for the factor
structure, temporal stability, and construct validity of the five dimen-
sions of curiosity than the original version (5DC; Kashdan et al., 2018).
With a more nuanced approach to measuring social curiosity, we found
Table 6
Construct validity of the 5DCR social curiosity scales (Study 2).
Outcome rwith Overt Social Curiosity rwith Covert Social Curiosity Test of difference between correlations
r r
Social Curiosity Scale - General .65* .44* 4.35*
Interpersonal Curiosity– Curious about emotions .56* .29* 4.83*
Big Five Inventory-2 – Open Mindedness .47* .05 6.60*
Interpersonal Competency Questionnaire – Same Sex Friend .40* .12 4.27*
Big Five Inventory-2 - Extraversion .39* .11 4.32*
Interpersonal Competency Questionnaire – Other Sex Friend .38* .05 4.93*
Big Five Inventory-2 - Agreeableness .37* -.01 5.71*
UCLA Loneliness Scale -.31* -.02 -4.29*
Intellectual Humility Scale - Total .21* -.14* 5.08*
Big Five Inventory-2 – Negative Emotionality -.20* .12 -4.64*
Social Anxiety Questionnaire -.20* .11 -4.50*
Big Five Inventory-2 - Conscientiousness .15* -.14* 4.19*
Social Curiosity Scale - Covert .27* .72* -9.04*
Interpersonal Curiosity– Snooping .41* .59* -3.50*
Interpersonal Curiosity– Spying and prying .22* .55* -5.70*
Tendency to Gossip Questionnaire .22* .49* -4.51*
Attitudes Toward Gossip Scale -.00 .42* -6.42*
Note. Results for the test of differences occurred by converting correlation coefficients into a z-score using Fisher's r-to-ztransformation and then comparing them
(formula 2.8.5; Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 54). * = correlation coefficients significant at .01 level.
Table 7
Construct validity for 5DCR dimensions (Study 1).
Personality JE DS ST TS Overt SC Covert SC
Work-Related Curiosity Scale .66* .36* .23* .22* .37* .04
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale .22* -.08 .43* -.07 -.05 -.23*
Innovative Behavior .38* .22* .17* .22* .30* .10
Wise Reasoning Scale – Considering Others Perspectives .43* .24* .17* .05 .42* .11
Wise Reasoning Scale – Intellectual Humility .39* .22* .18* -.01 .33* .04
Wise Reasoning Scale – Search for Compromise .31* .20* .14 -.01 .35* .07
Wise Reasoning Scale – Adopting Others Perspectives .37* .31* .02 .16 .42* .16*
Wise Reasoning Scale – Recognition of Change .41* .17* .19* .09 .42* .08
Work Regulatory Focus - Promotion .45* .26* .18* .44* .32* .15
Work Regulatory Focus - Prevention .05 .15 -.16* -.14 .22* .25*
Willingness to Dissent .30* .15 .21* .35* .12 -.09
Organizational Dissent – Upward/Articulated .27* .09 .36* .24* .18* -.06
Organizational Dissent – Lateral/Latent .02 .15 -.12 .23* .09 .23*
Organizational Dissent – Displaced .05 .26* -.12 .07 .29* .37*
Work Engagement - Vigor .29* .06 .24* .22* .21* .03*
Work Engagement - Dedication .36* .10 .27* .16* .24* -.00
Work Engagement - Absorption .30* .13 .20* .18* .25* .02
Burnout - Exhaustion -.25* .03 -.35* -.09 -.15 .11
Burnout - Disengagement -.25* .03 -.35* -.09 -.13 .07
Schwartz Value Survey
Self-direction .59* .32* .24* .26* .41* .04
Stimulation .49* .24* .27* .67* .37* .10
Hedonism .19* .12 .09 .39* .26* .16
Achievement .05 .21* -.19 .14 .22* .26*
Power .23* .23- -.03 .27* .19* .16*
Benevolence .29* .17* .07 -.04 .38* .12
Universalism .32* .14 .12 .02 .27* .03
Conformity .06 .08 -.15 -.09 .11 .09
Tradition .02 .04 -.08 .07 .05 .07
Security .16* .17* -.10 -.10 .18* .12
Notes. JE = Joyous Exploration; DS = Deprivation Sensitivity; ST = Stress Tolerance; TS = Thrill Seeking; SC = Social Curiosity. * = significant at the .01 level.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
7
clear evidence for two distinct dimensions. Overt Social curiosity was
linked to healthy psychological outcomes including open-mindedness,
extraversion, agreeableness, low negative emotionality, interpersonal
competencies, and low levels of loneliness. Covert social curiosity, al-
ternatively, was linked to a strong preference to engage in gossip,
snooping, spying, prying, a motivation to avoid errors and mistakes in
the workplace, and tendency to complain and disagree about work to
everyone except supervisors. We made an error in failing to distinguish
these separate dimensions of Social Curiosity in the 5DC. The pattern of
results supports the value of using the 5DCR over its predecessor as an
empirical tool for in future research.
In Study 1, each curiosity dimension was highly stable up to 8
months later, meeting the criteria of a personality disposition. Our work
extends prior research suggesting curiosity is moderately related to
other psychological strengths such as intellectual humility and wisdom
(e.g., Leary et al., 2017). Not all dimensions are relevant to these
strengths. For instance, Overt Social Curiosity and Joyous Exploration
were the strongest predictors of wise reasoning in conflict-laden
situations in terms of intentionally seeking compromise, considering
other people's perspectives, a willingness to adopt other people's per-
spectives, and the ability to discern how situations are unfolding; di-
mensions such as Stress Tolerance had no association. As for intellectual
humility, Stress Tolerance and Joyous Exploration were the strongest
predictors of being able to remove one's ego from a problem, whereas
Covert Social Curiosity predicted ego entanglements. It is only by as-
sessing separate dimensions, instead of collapsing them into a single
score, that researchers and practitioners can truly understand the re-
levance of curiosity to psychological functioning and behavior.
Study 2 incorporated a different set of measures to understand the
psychological correlates of being a curious person. Except for Covert
Social Curiosity, each curiosity dimension was positively related to the
core elements of open mindedness (namely, intellectual curiosity, aes-
thetic sensibility, and creative imagination) and extraversion (namely,
sociability, assertiveness, and high energy). The use of a broader
bandwidth approaches to the Big Five (Soto & John, 2017) allowed for a
better understanding of how curiosity operates within the taxonomy of
basic personality traits (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2009;Mussel, 2013). Ex-
tending prior work on curiosity and well-being (e.g., Gallagher &
Lopez, 2007;Kashdan & Steger, 2007;Park et al., 2004), we uncovered
particular links between curiosity dimensions and the satisfaction of
psychological needs. Being high in Joyous Exploration, Stress Toler-
ance, and Overt Social Curiosity predicted feelings of autonomy, com-
petence, and belonging; being high in Deprivation Sensitivity was only
linked to satisfying the need for competence.
Both studies measured values, allowing for a replicated pattern to
emerge: people scoring high on Joyous Exploration and Deprivation
Sensitivity primarily valued self-direction, people scoring high on Thrill
Seeking primarily valued stimulation and hedonism, people scoring
high in Overt Social Curiosity primarily valued benevolence and an
appreciation and tolerance of all people (universalism), whereas a clear
set of values or standards failed to emerge for the other dimensions. The
link to values offers insight into what different types of curious people
rely on to guide their goal-directed actions and evaluation of particular
behaviors, policies, events, and people. Some curiosity dimensions are
more closely aligned with self-gratification, whereas other dimensions
are more about personal growth and enhancing the welfare of others
(Schwartz, 1992, 1996). A better clarification of values allows a person
to be more intentional about their decisions, choosing paths that are
more likely to bring fulfillment. Our work initiates a new line of
questions to understand types of curious people that are oriented to-
ward different ways to satisfy their needs, and detect and acquire
meaning and purpose in life.
All of the interpretative caveats for studies employing self-report
questionnaires are relevant to the presented research program. In ad-
dition, there were a few demographic differences between our samples.
As expected from the recruitment approach, the English speaking
working adult sample possessed more individuals working full-time
outside of the home than the MTurk sample, and the English workers
sample was slightly younger with more individuals in long-term re-
lationships outside of marriage. What these small demographic differ-
ences mean for interpreting the results can only be speculated on. We
might expect the various dimensions of curiosity to have stronger as-
sociations with work-related benefits in self-chosen, full-time work
environments. After all, there is greater exposure to novelty and un-
certainty when work-related tasks are dependent on the behavior and
demands of various colleagues and managers. Some research suggests
that pleasurable engagement is greater during work than moments of
leisure (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989), offering the possibility
that curiosity might be activated more often and lead to greater psy-
chological benefits during work situations. Of course, this is an em-
pirical question, as people endorsing greater dispositional curiosity
might be more adept at finding and relishing the unfamiliar in see-
mingly familiar environments.
Instead of viewing curiosity as a universal virtue or character
Table 8
Construct validity for 5DCR dimensions (Study 2).
Personality JE DS ST TS Overt SC Covert SC
BFI-2 - Open Mindedness .63* .40* .33* .25* .47* .05
Facet: Intellectual Curiosity .64* .38* .33* .20* .46* .08
Facet: Aesthetic Sensibility .44* .29* .19* .17* .40* .06
Facet: Creative Imagination .55* .36* .35* .29* .36* -.00
BFI-2 - Extraversion .49* .23* .49* .41* .39* .11
Facet: Sociability .37* .14* .38* .36* .36* .14*
Facet: Assertiveness .39* .24* .38* .32* .28* .05
Facet: Energy Level .48* .21* .48* .36* .34* .08
BFI-2 - Negative
Emotionality
-.36* .02 -.59* -.21* -.20* .12*
Facet: Anxiety -.32* .04 -.56* -.26* -.15* .12
Facet: Depression -.38* .09 -.55* -.22* -.24* .05
Facet: Emotional Volatility -.26* .02 -.47* -.06 -.15* .17*
BFI-2 - Agreeableness .27* -.01 .32* -.05 .37* -.01
Facet: Compassion .25* .09 .20* -.11 .40* .03
Facet: Respectfulness .16* -.05 .25* -.19* .22* -.08
Facet: Trust .26* -.06 .35* .11 .30* .01
BFI-2 - Conscientiousness .18* .11 .27* -.15* .15* -.14*
Facet: Organization .08 .08 .10 -.14* .10 -.08
Facet: Productiveness .29* .17* .36* -.03 .20* -.14*
Facet: Responsibility .12 .04 .25* -.23* .10 -.14*
Satisfaction of Need for
Autonomy
.29* .00 .38* .12 .17* -.06
Satisfaction of Need for
Competence
.44* .19* .52* .19* .22* -.05
Satisfaction of Need for
Belonging
.36* .08 .42* .11 .29* .06
Intellectual Humility –
Independence of
Intellect and Ego
.27* -.06 .45* .10 .11 -.30*
Intellectual Humility –
Openness to Revising
Ones Viewpoints
.19* .14* .08 .02 .17* .03
Intellectual Humility – Lack
of Intellectual
Overconfidence
-.07 -.16* .06 -.15* .06 -.05
Values
Self-direction .60* .40* .27* .30* .38* .07
Stimulation .55* .25* .36 .68* .32* .15*
Hedonism .29* .14* .11 .39* .17* .19*
Achievement .21* .19* .02 .27* .08 .25*
Power .24* .18* .10 .31* .14* .17*
Benevolence .33* .17 .20* -.01 .43* .13
Universalism .30* .13 .11 -.02 .32* .03
Conformity -.00 .03 -.13 -.11 .04 .09
Tradition .01 .05 -.02 -.05 .00 .03
Security .12 .14* .06 -.04 .11 -.00
Notes. JE = Joyous Exploration; DS = Deprivation Sensitivity; ST = Stress
Tolerance; TS = Thrill Seeking; SC = Social Curiosity. BFI = Big Five
Inventory. * = significant at the .01 level.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
8
strength (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), there is merit in exploring how
various dimensions of curiosity could be healthy or unhealthy de-
pending on the application. Thrill Seeking and Covert Social Curiosity
are often linked to disadvantageous outcomes such as unwanted ne-
gative emotional experiences and impulsive decision-making (e.g.,
Renner, 2006;Zuckerman, 1994). When highly curious people are ob-
served by friends and strangers, some of the qualities pinpointed such
as rebelliousness, non-conformist thinking, and the tendency to conduct
interviews instead of two-sided conversations, can lead to healthy
change or difficult social interactions (Kashdan, Sherman, Yarbro, &
Funder, 2013). Future work should explore the consequences of when
and how particular dimensions of curiosity are underplayed and over-
played.
Curiosity has been described as a central human motivation
(Maslow, 1943), a universal human strength (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004), and a pillar leading to human achievement
(von Stumm et al., 2011). There is a pressing need to better understand
what curiosity is, what curiosity offers, whether curiosity is malleable,
and how to best enhance curiosity. Our comprehensive, multifaceted
scale offers an opportunity to ask and answer nuanced questions about
the causes, nature, and consequences of curiosity. Synthesizing decades
of theory and empirical study, the present work provides a compelling
case for studying curiosity as a series of distinct dimensions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Todd B. Kashdan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal ana-
lysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. David J.
Disabato: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Fallon R. Goodman:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review &
editing. Patrick E. McKnight: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors have no financial conflict of interest.
Appendix
Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR)
Below are statements people often use to describe themselves. Please use
the scale below to indicate the degree to which these statements accurately
describe you. There are no right or wrong answers.
1 – Does not describe me at all
2 – Barely describes me
3 – Somewhat describes me
4 – Neutral
5 – Generally describes me
6 – Mostly describes me
7 – Completely describes me
Joyous Exploration:
1 I view challenging situations as an opportunity to grow and learn.
2 I seek out situations where it is likely that I will have to think in
depth about something.
3 I enjoy learning about subjects that are unfamiliar to me.
4 I find it fascinating to learn new information.
Deprivation Sensitivity:
1 Thinking about solutions to difficult conceptual problems can keep
me awake at night.
2 I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can't rest
without knowing the answer.
3 I feel frustrated if I can't figure out the solution to a problem, so I
work even harder to solve it.
4 I work relentlessly at problems that I feel must be solved.
Stress Tolerance: (entire subscale reverse-scored)
1 The smallest doubt can stop me from seeking out new experiences.
2 I cannot handle the stress that comes from entering uncertain si-
tuations.
3 I find it hard to explore new places when I lack confidence in my
abilities.
4 It is difficult to concentrate when there is a possibility that I will be
taken by surprise.
Thrill Seeking:
1 Risk-taking is exciting to me.
2 When I have free time, I want to do things that are a little scary.
3 Creating an adventure as I go is much more appealing than a
planned adventure.
4 I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.
Social Curiosity:
Overt Social Curiosity
1 I ask a lot of questions to figure out what interests other people.
2 When talking to someone who is excited, I am curious to find out
why.
3 When talking to someone, I try to discover interesting details about
them.
4 I like finding out why people behave the way they do.
Covert Social Curiosity
1 When other people are having a conversation, I like to find out what
it's about.
2 When around other people, I like listening to their conversations.
3 When people quarrel, I like to know what's going on.
4 I seek out information about the private lives of people in my life.
Scoring instructions:
Compute the average item score for each dimension and analyze
separately (reverse score Stress Tolerance items).
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2001). Self-expansion model of motivation and
cognition in close relationships and beyond. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & M. S. Clark (Eds.).
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 478–501). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45,
180–191.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Birenbaum, M., Alhija, F. N. A., Shilton, H., Kimron, H., Rosanski, R., & Shahor, N.
(2019). A further look at the five-dimensional curiosity construct. Personality and
Individual Differences, 149, 57–65.
Brienza, J. P., Kung, F. Y. H., Santos, H. C., Bobocel, D. R., & Grossmann, I. (2018).
Wisdom, bias, and balance: Toward a process-sensitive measurement of wisdom-re-
lated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 1093–1126.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its
role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
822–848.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of
interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 991–1008.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6, 3–5.
Caballo, V. E., Arias, B., Salazar, I. C., Irurtia, M. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2015).
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
9
Psychometric properties of an innovative self-report measure: The Social Anxiety
Questionnaire for adults. Psychological Assessment, 27, 997–1012.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
De Lange, A. H., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should I stay or should I go?
Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for
stayers versus movers. Work & Stress, 22, 201–223.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Dreu, C. K. D. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of
minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 11, 285–298.
Dreu, C. K. D., Vries, N. K., Franssen, H., & Altink, W. M. (2000). Minority dissent in
organizations: Factors influencing willingness to dissent. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30, 2451–2466.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8,
100–110.
Dunbar, R. I., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. C. (1997). Human conversational behavior.
Human Nature, 8, 231–246.
Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Curiosity and well-being. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 2, 236–248.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated
measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572–580.
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on horn's parallel analysis methodology for se-
lecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 55, 377–393.
Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit
of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28,
1848–1856.
Jonason, P. K., Koehn, M. A., Bulyk, R. A., & Davis, M. D. (2019). Standing out and not
fitting in: The Dark Triad traits and social values. The Journal of Social Psychology in
press.
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, 987–998.
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. A., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How are curious
people viewed and how do they behave in social situations? From the perspectives of
self, friends, parents, and unacquainted observers. Journal of Personality, 81,
142–154.
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on
novelty and challenge. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2, 367–374.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning
in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159–173.
Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., &
Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of
curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research
in Personality, 73, 130–149.
Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale.
Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229.
Kassing, J. W., Piemonte, N. M., Goman, C. C., & Mitchell, C. A. (2012). Dissent ex-
pression as an indicator of work engagement and intention to leave. The Journal of
Business Communication, 49, 237–253.
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron,
88, 449–460.
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. (2016). The development and validation of the
comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98,
209–221.
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C.,
Raimi, K. T., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of in-
tellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 793–813.
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new
information. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 793–814.
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2005). Individual differences in attitudes towards gossip.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 963–980.
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 1448–1459.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.
Lydon-Staley, D. M., Zhou, D., Blevins, A. S., Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2019). Hunters,
busybodies, and the knowledge network building associated with curiosity.
Manuscript under review. Preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/undy4/download?
format=pdf.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in
covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 490–504.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological
Methods, 23, 412–433.
Mussel, P. (2013). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 453–472.
Mussel, P., Spengler, M., Litman, J. A., & Schuler, H. (2012). Development and validation
of the German work-related curiosity scale. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 28, 109–117.
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1993). The development of the tendency to
gossip questionnaire: Construct and concurrent validation for a sample of Israeli
college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 973–981.
Noordewier, M. K., & van Dijk, E. (2017). Curiosity and time: from not knowing to almost
knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 411–421.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Oxford University Press.
Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a
motivation to craft a job. Career Development International, 20, 102–118.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Häfner, M. (2013). When fit matters more: The effect of
regulatory fit on adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 24, 126–142.
Renner, B. (2006). Curiosity about people: The development of a social curiosity measure
in adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 305–316.
Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and
exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694–709.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68–78.
Sandy, C. J., Gosling, S. D., Schwartz, S. H., & Koelkebeck, T. (2017). The development
and validation of brief and ultra-brief measures of values. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 99, 545–555.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work en-
gagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2019). Increasing curiosity through autonomy of choice.
Motivation and Emotion, 43, 565–570.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). Connections between curiosity, flow and crea-
tivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 152 in press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology.Vol. 25.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp.
1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying of theory of integrated
value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Vol. Eds.), The Psychology
of Values: The Ontario Symposium.Vol. 8.The Psychology of Values: The Ontario
Symposium (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations.
Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259, 261–319.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
580–607.
Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs
(BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation
and Emotion, 36, 439–451.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest.
Emotion, 5, 89–102.
Silvia, P. J. (2008a). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17, 57–60.
Silvia, P. J. (2008b). Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal
basis of trait curiosity. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 94–113.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and
assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and
predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.
Trudewind, C. (2000). Curiosity and anxiety as motivational determinants of cognitive
development. Ed. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.). Motivational psychology of human develop-
ment: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 15–38). New York:
Elsevier.
von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind intellectual
curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6, 574–588.
von Stumm, S. (2018). Better open than intellectual: The benefits of investment person-
ality traits for learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 562–573.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General
Psychology, 8, 122–137.
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and
covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Eds. In M. E. Sobel, & M.
P. Becker (Eds.). Sociological methodology (pp. 165–200). Washington, D.C.: ASA.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
T.B. Kashdan, et al. Personality and Individual Differences 157 (2020) 109836
10
Article
In the current review, we propose to look at curiosity from the goal systemic perspective and differentiate between curiosity as a motive/goal, which engenders various activities (means) aimed at satisfying it, and information-seeking behaviors which can, but do not have to be, driven by the curiosity motivation as such. We thus assume that people can adopt various behaviors in order to satisfy their curiosity. On the other hand, they can behave in a curious and inquisitive manner in order to satisfy 'incurious' motives (e.g. to obtain a reward or attain cognitive closure). We also analyze a special case in which the mere activity of information gathering and exploration becomes the goal in itself. Then, mere performance of this activity can be rewarding.
Article
Full-text available
We replicated and extended (N = 207) work on the social values (i.e., obedience, tradition, security, benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power) linked to the Dark Triad traits (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). Each of the traits was positively associated with values of achievement and power. Psychopathy and narcissism were both negatively correlated with benevolence, and psychopathy and Machiavellianism were negatively correlated with obedience. Psychopathy was also negatively correlated with tradition. Sex differences in the values of tradition, benevolence, and power were mediated by psychopathy. We suggest that high rates of the Dark Triad traits facilitate, for men, holding social values that emphasize standing out whereas low rates facilitate, for women, fitting in.
Article
Full-text available
This study examined the effect of satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy on curiosity. One hundred and fifty-four participants first completed measures of autonomy-need satisfaction and curiosity. Participants were then randomly assigned to either a condition that supported autonomy of choice or a condition not supporting autonomy of choice. The autonomy-choice intervention provided participants with choice of topic for a video they could watch, while those in the no-autonomy of choice condition did not have choice. All participants then rated their curiosity regarding the topic of the video. Results showed that participants whose need for autonomy was more satisfied had higher levels of curiosity. Participants randomly assigned to the autonomy of choice condition providing choice of topic showed greater curiosity regarding the topic than participants who did not have a choice of topic. Autonomy of choice was most beneficial in stimulating a high level of curiosity about the topic for participants who had low general autonomy need satisfaction. The results of the study support the importance of self-determination in fostering the emotion of curiosity.
Article
Full-text available
Since the origins of psychology, curiosity has occupied a pivotal position in the study of motivation, emotion, and cognition; and disciplines as far-ranging as biology, economics, robotics, and leadership. Theorists have disagreed about the basic tenets of curiosity; some researchers contend that the rewards arise when resolving ambiguity and uncertainty whereas others argue that being curious is an intrinsically pleasurable experience. Three studies were conducted to consolidate competing theories and isolated bodies of research. Using data from a community survey of 508 adults (Study 1), 403 adults on MTurk (Study 2), and a nationally representative household survey of 3,000 adults (Study 3), we found evidence for five distinct factors: Joyous Exploration, Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, Social Curiosity, and Thrill Seeking - forming The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DC). Each factor had substantive relations with a battery of personality, emotion, and well-being measures. Taking advantage of this multidimensional model, we found evidence for four distinct types of curious people in Study 3 referred to as The Fascinated (28% of sample), Problem Solvers (28%), Empathizers (25%), and Avoiders (19%). Subgroups differed in their passionate interests, areas of expertise, consumer behavior, and social media use; challenging an assumption that there is a homogenous population to be discriminated on a single dimension from incurious to very curious. With greater bandwidth and predictive power, the 5DC offers new opportunities for research on origins, consequences, life outcomes, and intervention strategies to enhance curiosity.
Article
Full-text available
Philosophers and behavioral scientists refer to wisdom as unbiased reasoning that guides one toward a balance of interests and promotes a good life. However, major instruments developed to test wisdom appear biased, and it is unclear whether they capture balance-related tendencies. We examined whether shifting from global, de-contextualized reports to state-level reports about concrete situations provides a less biased method to assess wise reasoning (e.g., intellectual humility, recognition of uncertainty and change, consideration of the broader context at hand and perspectives of others, integration of these perspectives or compromise), which may be aligned with the notion of balancing interests. Results of a large-scale psychometric investigation (N = 4,463) revealed that the novel Situated WIse Reasoning Scale (SWIS) is reliable and appears independent of psychological biases (attribution bias, bias blind spot, self-deception, and impression management), whereas global wisdom reports are subject to such biases. Moreover, SWIS scores were positively related to indices of living well (e.g., adaptive emotion regulation, mindfulness), and balancing of cooperative and self-protective interests, goals (influence-vs.-adjustment), and causal inferences about conflict (attribution to the self-vs.-other party). In contrast, global wisdom reports were unrelated or negatively related to balance-related measures. Notably, people showed modest within-person consistency in wise reasoning across situations or over time, suggesting that a single-shot measurement may be insufficient for whole understanding of trait-level wisdom. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for research on wisdom, judgment and decision making, well-being, and prosociality. (PsycINFO Database Record
Article
Full-text available
Most people can reason relatively wisely about others’ social conflicts, but often struggle to do so about their own (i.e., Solomon’s Paradox; Grossmann & Kross, 2014). We suggest that true wisdom should involve the ability to reason wisely about others’ and one’s own social conflicts. The present studies investigate the pursuit of virtue as a construct that predicts this broader capacity for wisdom. Results across two studies support prior Solomon’s Paradox findings: participants (N = 623) expressed greater wisdom (e.g., intellectual humility, adopting outsider’s perspectives) about others’ social conflicts than their own. The pursuit of virtue (e.g., pursuing personal ideals and contributing to others) moderated these results. In both studies, high virtue pursuit was associated with a greater endorsement of wise reasoning strategies for one’s own personal conflicts, reducing the discrepancy in wise reasoning between one’s own and others’ social conflicts. Implications and mechanisms are explored and discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Empirical studies in psychology commonly report Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability despite the fact that many methodological studies have shown that Cronbach's alpha is riddled with problems stemming from unrealistic assumptions. In many circumstances, violating these assumptions yields estimates of reliability that are too small, making measures look less reliable than they actually are. Although methodological critiques of Cronbach's alpha are being cited with increasing frequency in empirical studies, in this tutorial we discuss how the trend is not necessarily improving methodology used in the literature. That is, many studies continue to use Cronbach's alpha without regard for its assumptions or merely cite methodological papers advising against its use to rationalize unfavorable Cronbach's alpha estimates. This tutorial first provides evidence that recommendations against Cronbach’s alpha have not appreciably changed how empirical studies report reliability. Then, we summarize the drawbacks of Cronbach's alpha conceptually without relying on mathematical or simulation-based arguments so that these arguments are accessible to a broad audience. We continue by discussing several alternative measures that make less rigid assumptions which provide justifiably higher estimates of reliability compared to Cronbach’s alpha.. We conclude with empirical examples to illustrate advantages of alternative measures of reliability including omega total, Revelle’s omega total, the greatest lower bound, and Coefficient H. A detailed software appendix is also provided to help researchers implement alternative methods.
Article
The five-dimensional curiosity construct, recently advanced by Kashdan and his colleagues (2018a), was examined using open-ended and Likert type questionnaires to further understand the nomological network and correlates of the five curiosity dimensions. The nature of each dimension (Joyous Exploration, Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, Social curiosity, and Thrill-Seeking) and of profiles based on those dimensions were examined as well as their relationships with value-driven actions (Personal Well-being, Moral values, Religious values, Social Ideology, and Environment.) Results of qualitative and quantitative analyses shed light on the role of positive uncertainty (stress tolerance) and of thrill-seeking in shaping epistemic and social curiosity; on authentic descriptions of reactions to curiosity-related objects or situations; on types of questions of interest that are more likely to be posed by curious people, and on values that drive their actions. The findings were discussed from an educative perspective.
Article
The investment theory of adult intelligence posits that individual differences in knowledge attainment result from people’s differences in cognitive ability and their propensity to apply and invest that ability, which is referred to as investment personality traits. Here, we differentiated intellectual (i.e., intellectual curiosity) and non-intellectual investment (i.e., openness to experience), and we tested their respective predictive validity for knowledge attainment in four independent lab-based studies (overall N = 649). Openness to experience was positively associated with knowledge attainment across all four studies, and this effect was by and large independent of cognitive ability. By contrast, intellectual curiosity was not related to knowledge attainment. The findings suggest that openness to experience, rather than intellectual curiosity, is the investment personality trait that broadly benefits learning and adult intelligence.
Article
Four studies examined intellectual humility—the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were “flip-flopping,” and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.