Characteristics of Curious Minds: Evidence from Interviews with Renowned Experts in Five Curiosity-Dominant Fields

Abstract

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 renowned experts from five curiosity-dominant professional fields (scientists, inventors (high-tech entrepreneurs), artists, explorers, and therapeutic professionals). The five-dimensional curiosity framework proposed by Kashdan and colleagues (comprising joyous discovery, deprivation sensitivity, social curiosity, stress (uncertainty) tolerance, and thrill-seeking) was adopted. The purpose was to explore nuances of curiosity manifestations expressed by the subjects in their own words and related personality and contextual attributes. A directed approach to content analysis was applied to code the interview data; qualitative methods were employed for data analysis, complemented by quantitative ones. Insights gained from the findings regarding the curiosity construct, focusing on differences among the groups in regard to aspects of social curiosity and effects of uncertainty tolerance and thrill-thinking, were discussed, followed by implications for cultivating curious minds.

1. Introduction

Curiosity, commonly referred to as a quality related to an intrinsic desire to seek out new knowledge and experience [1], has been studied for over 130 years in psychology. Its nature; dimensionality; underlying mechanisms; correlates; and behavioral, emotional, and developmental aspects have been researched but still need to be better understood [2].

In line with this contention, the present study intends to enhance our understanding of curiosity by (a) using a multidimensional model to characterize it, (b) involving participants who are experts in five curiosity-dominant professions, and (c) using a mixed-methods approach to integrate qualitative information from semi-structured interviews with statistical findings from quantitative data. It purports to explore nuances in curiosity manifestations expressed by the experts in their own words and related psychological and contextual attributes. More specifically, the three purposes of the current study are as follows:

(1)

To qualitatively depict the five groups’ curiosity profiles and related psychological and contextual attributes.

(2)

To statistically compare the curiosity profiles and gauge the rate of correct classification (based solely on curiosity) to their groups.

(3)

To extend the repertoire of authentic expressions of curiosity-related thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, as revealed by curious minds in the various professions, thus deepening and refining the understanding regarding the components of the complex curiosity construct.

1.1. Background and Literature Review

1.1.1. Curiosity: Theoretical Accounts and Perspectives

Curiosity is viewed from two perspectives—dispositional (trait) and situational (state) [3].

However, it has been argued that the trait-based perspective dominates much of the curiosity research, impeding a broad account of curiosity expression [4].

Two competing theoretical accounts (drive theory and optimal level of arousal) have been advanced to explain the curiosity experience [2]. According to the former, curiosity is induced by stimuli characterized by novelty, complexity, and conflict [5], causing an uncomfortable state of uncertainty that can be reduced or eliminated by seeking new knowledge about the stimuli [4]. Such knowledge is theorized to satisfy curiosity and be rewarding. According to the latter, an optimal level of arousal is achieved by interacting with stimuli that induce situational interest [3]. Such theories are associated with well-being [6,7] and supported by findings from brain research [8].

Emphasizing the role of personal appraisal in inducing interest, Silvia [9,10] pointed out two necessary conditions: belief that there is sufficient potential for novelty in the situation or object in question and feeling capable of coping with or handling the novelty.

Integrating the various theoretical accounts, Litman [2] describes curiosity in terms of two types (D and I). Motivated to reduce situational uncertainty, the D-type reflects discomfort while exerting much effort into closing the knowledge gap. In contrast, the I-type, being motivated to induce situational interest, reflects a more relaxed attitude toward exploring new information and having fun during the process. He further argues that the I-type, relative to the D-type, was found to be associated with lower intensity of curiosity states and the exertion of less effort when given the opportunity to seek out new information capable of satisfying the curiosity.

1.1.2. Dimensionality of Curiosity

The dimensionality of curiosity has also stirred much debate, which is still unresolved.

The two core dimensions are intellectual curiosity (IC, hereafter) and social curiosity. IC has been widely acknowledged, and its components and relationships to achievement were studied [11,12]. Epistemic curiosity, one of the IC components [12], was conceptualized and empirically validated as being composed of two dimensions—joyous exploration (or interest) and deprivation sensitivity [13,14]. Social curiosity, comprising overt and covert components [15], refers to the interest in learning from and about people and in gossiping about or prying into people, respectively [16,17,18]. Empathic curiosity (interest in helping people) is yet another component of interpersonal curiosity, which is highly relevant in the helping professions [19].

The association between epistemic and social curiosity is illuminated in the I/D theoretical model [2,20] through the central role the D-type curiosity plays in both epistemic and social (interpersonal and intrapersonal) curiosity [17,21].

Recently, an empirically derived measurement model of curiosity comprising five dimensions (the 5-DC) has been advanced by Kashdan and colleagues [13]; the five dimensions are joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, social curiosity, stress tolerance, and thrill-seeking (measured by five items each). It should be noted that there is not an entire consensus among curiosity theorists that stress (uncertainty) tolerance and thrill-seeking are facets of the curiosity construct. Some argue that they are related but ultimately different from curiosity (see tolerance of ambiguity [22] and sensation-seeking [23], respectively). However, Kashdan and his colleagues [13] argue that including them with the other three dimensions of curiosity in a single measure enables a simultaneous examination of a unified curiosity framework. Indeed, in recent years, the five-dimensional curiosity model proposed by Kashdan and his colleagues has been increasingly used in various studies pointing to the complex and multidimensional nature of curiosity [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

1.1.3. The Current Spread of Curiosity

Interest in curiosity has spread to the workplace, spurring research regarding its impact on workplace culture, leadership functioning, and employees’ collaboration and productivity [31,32]. Consequently, instruments for measuring workplace curiosity were developed [33], and programs for boosting curiosity at all levels of the modern workplace have been offered [31]. Likewise, educational researchers and policymakers have renewed their interest in curiosity, especially since it was indicated as a primary goal in the OECD 2030 education program [34].

Acknowledging the fast-spreading interest in curiosity in various fields as a fundamental competency for successful functioning in the 21st century requires a more refined description of its components. The current study addresses this requirement from a less conventional perspective, both substantially and methodically. Its focus is on renowned experts in various curiosity-dominant professional fields who were interviewed regarding multiple aspects of their curiosity, aiming to explore the nuances of the five-dimensional curiosity framework.

1.1.4. Exploring Curiosity

The most common data sources used in curiosity research are quantitative self-reports of Likert-type scale items demonstrating psychometrically sound qualities. Less frequent self-report measures include responses to open-ended items, such as sentence completion [35], or narrative-based sources, such as autobiographies [36], biographies, and diaries [37], or various types of interviews [38]. In the current study, semi-structured interviews [39] were adopted with groups of renowned curious minds as data sources.

A previous study [36] analyzed autobiographies of curious scientists and inventors written late in their careers. It was performed to obtain an authentic, holistic perspective and in-depth personal reflections highlighting the experiences, critical events, and social actors the writers considered influential in shaping their life histories and professional development. The analysis of the autobiographies provided insights into the writers’ thoughts, emotions, and actions, as viewed retrospectively [40]. Adopting such a perspective enabled them to address the depth and breadth of their life experiences [37,41]. Focusing on the writers’ descriptions of various pathways leading them to professional expertise helped to further understand the interaction of context with personal characteristics, their influence on the development of curiosity, and how they jointly lead to outstanding professionalism.

However, given the nature of autobiographies, their analysis left a few unanswered questions related to the facets of social curiosity and the roles of uncertainty tolerance and thrill-seeking in shaping epistemic and social curiosity. To address those questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted in the current study, and the scope of the professional expertise was broadened to include five groups of experts (scientists, inventors (high-tech entrepreneurs), artists, explorers, and therapeutic experts). The first four groups constitute the “curiosity compass” [42], and the fifth (empathic curiosity) represents a primary desired quality in the helping professions [19]. Further support for the connections between curiosity and the five professional fields can be found in the following sources: [43,44,45,46,47], which explored curiosity among scientists, high-tech entrepreneurs, artists, cultural explorers, and therapeutic experts, respectively.

1.2. The Research Questions and the Central Working Hypothesis

The Research questions of the current study were as follows:

(1)

Which characteristics of curiosity and related psychological and contextual factors are shared by experts in high-curiosity professions, and which attributes are unique to a given profession?

(2)

To what extent can the group affiliation of experts in a curiosity-dominated profession be predicted based solely on their curiosity attributes?

(3)

How do experts in curiosity-dominated fields express their curiosity?

The central working hypothesis was that the between-group differences in curiosity nuances would exceed the within-group ones, particularly:

-

Thrill-seeking will be prominent among the explorers.

-

Empathy will be prominent among experts in the helping professions.

-

Epistemic curiosity will be prominent among the scientists.

-

Social curiosity will be prominent among the artists, explorers, and therapeutics, yet from different stances.

-

Artists, explorers, and entrepreneurs will embrace uncertainty.

2. Methods

2.1. Sample and Data Collection

The sample consisted of 50 experts (16 females and 34 males) from five curiosity-dominant professional fields: Scientists, inventors (high-tech entrepreneurs), artists, explorers, and therapeutic experts. Each group consisted of 10 renowned local experts with a global reputation. They were selected based on consultation with people who are familiar with the respective fields, directories of local and international distinguished prize laureates, and lists of promising young scientists and other professionals. The saturation criterion [48] was used to determine the number of interviewees per group. The number was decided upon reaching saturation at the most heterogeneous group (occupation-wise), namely the Explorers.

The institutional ethics committee approved the study.

Table S1 (The first table in Supplementary Materials) lists the participants’ particular fields of expertise, their other main areas of interest, and their gender.

Semi-structured interviews were employed for data collection (the length of each interview is shown in the last column of Table S1). Such interviews often take the form of a conversation (two-way communication). Although the interviewers follow a guiding protocol, they have significant flexibility when using probes and unplanned questions for clarification, exploration, and deepening their understanding of the interviewees. Advantages of such interviews include a priori protocol preparation coupled with the flexibility to control the questions’ order or alter their phrasing as seems appropriate, the possibility to explore the reasons for the given answers, and judge the interviewee’s non-verbal behavior. However, the disadvantages include being resource-intensive and time-consuming, requiring expertise in preparing protocols with questions that are not prescriptive or leading, expertise in interviewing, and analyzing a large amount of resulting data. Other disadvantages are associated with interviewer-related possible bias and the effect of flexibility that might impede comparisons. (Section 2.2 explains how the research team coped with those obstructions.)

In total, 50 semi-structured interviews were conducted following the guidelines for interviews of that kind [39]. The interview protocol was rewritten several times following discussions with the research team and piloted until the operational version was produced. The invitation letter to the interview stated its purpose: “To trace the factors and circumstances that have brought well-known figures in various fields of practice to their high achievements.” (A translation of the entire invitation letter appears in Exhibit S1).

Before e-mailing the invitation letter, the authors contacted 59 potential subjects to determine if they would be interested in being interviewed for research and receiving a formal invitation letter with details about the study and the interview. Only two people declined at the outset. Finally, 50 candidates were interviewed to balance the number of interviewees per group. All interviewees fully cooperated, and it was easy to get them to talk; some even drifted and slipped far beyond the time allotted (as seen in the interview length column in Table S1). Moreover, at the end of the interview, most interviewees expressed interest in hearing about the study and receiving a copy of the publication; some even thanked the for the opportunity to talk about themselves and indicated that they learned about things they had not thought of before. It should be noted that the term “curiosity” was mentioned for the first time only late in the interview to avoid influencing its content.

Each interview comprised four parts: The first (partially addressed in the current article) concerned the participant’s home background, areas of interest in various periods in life (childhood, adolescence, and adulthood), and attitudes toward and coping with uncertainty. The second part (not addressed in the current article) referred to the participant’s professional choice and their perceptions regarding the characteristics of experts in that profession. The third part focused on curiosity. The fourth part (not addressed in the current article) concerned the participant’s ideas regarding education and how schools could cultivate students’ curiosity. The protocol for conducting the semi-structured interviews is presented in Exhibit S2.

Non-fixed pairs of interviewers from the research team (all experienced interviewers) conducted the interviews (via Zoom), which were recorded (with the prior consent of each participant). The mean length of an interview was 66.32 min (with a standard deviation of 15.47), ranging between 46 and 177 min each.

The recorded footage was uploaded to a web-based annotation tool [49]. Each team member watched and annotated each interview, commenting on a colleague’s annotation when deemed relevant. When three-to-four annotated interviews were accumulated, the team discussed them in a Zoom meeting; insights gained and conclusions drawn from each discussion were documented, and coder agreement was checked. Each interview with the embedded discussions was saved in a separate file, accessible to the research team members.

The inter-rater coding followed a rigorous procedure. The initial agreement rates ranged between 83% and 89%. Codes that did not reach a complete agreement rate were thoroughly discussed in team conferencing until all coders were convinced, which led to a complete agreement.

2.2. Data Analysis

The content analysis (CA) method [50] was employed to analyze the data. Specifically, the directed approach to CA [51] was adopted using the five-dimensional curiosity framework [15] as guidance for initial codes.

To more comprehensively portray the five professional groups, salient psychological attributes (cognitive, motivational, and personality [based on the Big-5 factors [52]]) and contextual attributes (home background and childhood experiences) were added (as shown in Table S2.1,2).

The directed approach to CA aimed to explore nuances of the five-dimensional curiosity framework by comparing five diverse professional groups of curious experts. New categories were expected to be identified during the coding process that might further refine, extend, and enrich the five-dimensional framework.

Evidence from each interview was classified according to the coding scheme. The six- research team members coded the data in two stages. The first stage was meant to design the data-based coding scheme by integrating the initial (theoretical) categories with the new emergent ones. The second was to code the dataset accordingly. In the first stage, the research team split into three pairs, each coding a third of the interviews according to the initial and emergent categories they identified, listing supporting quotes from the interviews. Following this stage, the team convened a Zoom meeting to discuss the new emergent categories, resolve problems encountered, and insights gained during the process, revising the coding scheme accordingly. The research team then proceeded to the second stage, in which, using the revised coding scheme, each team member coded between eight to ten interviews in which she took part as a co-interviewer. Questions and problems encountered were discussed with the team via e-mail to adjust the coding appropriately before finalizing the process. The complete data structure is presented in Table S2.1.

For the quantitative layer of the study, the following six curiosity variables were created: joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, social curiosity, empathic curiosity, uncertainty tolerance, and thrill-seeking. Each variable consisted of three levels (low, medium, and high) of the respective dimension. The data were entered into the SPSS software (V.28) and analyzed using univariate and multivariate statistics (one-way ANOVAs and discriminant analysis, respectively) to complement the qualitative analyses.

Data triangulation [53] was used to integrate the qualitative and quantitative findings. To contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the research question, convergences (areas where the data sources converge) and divergences (areas where the data sources present different findings) were searched for.

3. Findings

This section comprises two parts: The first briefly depicts the five professional groups on dimensions of curiosity, psychological, and contextual factors. The second part presents statistical results from the analyses of the six curiosity variables.

3.1. Depiction of the Five Professional Groups

The depiction of each group refers to attributes mentioned by at least 60% of its members (unless stated otherwise). Each narrative addresses (in similar order) the following super-categories: dimensions of curiosity (social and empathic curiosity, uncertainty tolerance, thrill-seeking, joyous discovery, and deprivation sensitivity), psychological factors (cognition, motivation, and personality), contextual factors (home background and childhood effects). To comply with space restrictions, relevant citations from the interview appear in Table S3 and are numbered accordingly in the text.

The scientists aim to contribute to humanity through their research (1 in Table S3). They are relatively low on sociability but interested in educating students and maintaining professional collaboration with colleagues (2 in Table S3). Hardly any evidence regarding empathic curiosity was found in this group’s interviews. Most scientists come to terms with the uncertainty that characterizes the research work due to their great joy with the subsequent discovery (3 in Table S3) or viewing it as an integral part of life, in general, and of their profession, in particular (4 in Table S3). A few even embrace uncertainty and attest to flourishing in such situations (5 in Table S3). The scientists are relatively low on thrill-seeking, except for the few who seek the thrill associated with excelling in their field of research. They enjoy learning and conducting research, are engaged in reflection, and demonstrate self-awareness (6 in Table S3). The dominant curiosity dimension in this group is deprivation sensitivity (11 in Table S3).

Analytic and critical thinking are scientists’ most salient cognitive competencies. Only a few attested to thinking outside the box (7 in Table S3). Motivation-wise, they express faith in their way and are self-determined and self-disciplined, resilient (8 in Table S3), and passionate about what they do. Some are highly ambitious and desire to be the first to explore and excel (9 in Table S3). They demonstrate agency and express a high sense of self-efficacy (10 in Table S3). The group reports diverse interests; its dominant personality factors are openness and conscientiousness.

Within-group variability is evident in this group’s socio-economic status, and no dominant characteristics of parental patterns regarding raising children were found. (Since this finding also applies to the other four groups, it will not be repeated to comply with the publication length restrictions.)

The inventors: Unlike uncertainty tolerance, neither social curiosity nor empathic curiosity is a salient dimension among this group’s members. They conceive uncertainty as an integral part of technological entrepreneurship (12 in Table S3), requiring them to invent management and working methods (13 in Table S3). They feel confident in their ability to deal with such situations (either due to recognition of the benefits (14 in Table S3), which leads them to embrace such situations (15 in Table S3), or due to mastering uncertainty reduction strategies (16 in Table S3)). Likewise, they constantly seek professional thrill, recognizing that searching for it leads them to situations where they must take risks, claiming that entrepreneurship requires risk management (17 in Table S3). The inventors attest to being self-regulated learners, aiming to deepen their understanding of their current ventures (18 in Table S3). They admit to working hard to solve problems and are highly joyful when cracking them (19 in Table S3). Uncertainty tolerance is the dominant curiosity dimension in this group.

Moreover, the inventors reveal a variety of cognitive competencies (including analytic thinking, critical thinking, mental flexibility, problem-solving, and thinking outside the box). They express a desire to understand how things work and demonstrate competence in identifying technological needs and leveraging a good idea for a venture (26 in Table S3). They are unafraid to change directions in real time when recognizing that their current direction does not lead to success (27 in Table S3). At times, they daringly integrate resources to meet their development target (21 in Table S3). Like scientists, inventors exercise reflection, demonstrate self-awareness (20 in Table S3), have high levels of agency (24 in Table S3) and self-efficacy (25 in Table S3), and report diverse interests. They admit to constantly being in control (23 in Table S3) and attest to being unafraid of failure, stating that they are satisfied with it as they are with success (22 in Table S3). Most inventors assume leading positions where they identify the potential for a successful venture, determine the company’s DNA, and enthuse their employees (28 in Table S3). They invest efforts in employee selection in recognition that these constitute a “force multiplier” (29 in Table S3). Noticeable is their passion for knowing and understanding to excel in invention (30 in Table S3). Their dominant personality factors include openness, conscientiousness, and extroversion.

The artists express much interest in people (31 in Table S3). It is essential for them that their work touches people and influences them (32 in Table S3). They engage in storytelling, recognizing that there is no story without an audience (33 in Table S3). Only two of them conveyed empathic curiosity in their role as teachers (34 in Table S3). The artists revealed mixed attitudes toward uncertainty. Some admit it is challenging but declare that they are unafraid of it (35 in Table S3); others challenge uncertainty and search for such situations (36 in Table S3).

The artists attest to being self-regulated learners, aiming to know and understand (49 in Table S3), be updated, and improve their performance (37 in Table S3). As creators, they conduct relevant research for their work using diverse sources of information (observations; conversations with key figures, professionals, colleagues, and students; and reading relevant literature) (38 in Table S3). Like the inventors, the artists reveal a relatively narrow gap between the joy of creation on the one hand and, on the other hand, thoroughness and accuracy that require perseverance, diligence, and hard work (39 in Table S3). Social curiosity and uncertainty tolerance are the dominant curiosity dimensions in this group.

Critical thinking, doubting, cognitive flexibility, associative thinking, and rich imagination are the most typical mental attributes in the artist group (41 in Table S3). Like scientists and inventors, artists exercise reflection (professional and critical introspection) and demonstrate self-awareness (40 in Table S3). They also share attributes with the scientists and inventors (faith in their way, determination, self-discipline, passion for what they do (42 in Table S3), resilience (43 in Table S3), agency, and strong willingness to know and understand (49 in Table S3) and excel (44 in Table S3)). Additionally, they set high standards, maintain them in their work, and challenge themselves (45 in Table S3). They reveal various sensitivities (especially toward the audience’s responses (46 in Table S3)) and demonstrate constant excitement and a non-fading creative passion (47 in Table S3). Like the former groups, they report diverse interests. Several indicated that they have excelled in their artistic field since childhood (48 in Table S3). Openness, conscientiousness, and introversion are the dominant personality factors in the artist group.

The explorers generally indicated that they did not comply with conventional educational frameworks (64 in Table S3); instead, they needed freedom to do things their way (65 in Table S3), craving open spaces and nature (66 in Table S3). In their work, they engage with people (whether as their tutors, subjects of their investigation, recipients of their assistance, partners in their environmental ventures, or guided by them on tours). They also engage in social, cultural (50 in Table S3), or environmental entrepreneurship (51 in Table S3). Like artists, explorers testify to being storytellers (52 in Table S3). A few also report experiencing empathic curiosity as part of embracing the freedom to do what they like, including caring for young animals or people in need of care (53 in Table S3). The explorers attest to embracing situations of uncertainty, enjoying and flourishing in them (54 in Table S3). They further indicate that uncertainty characterizes their occupation, requiring a departure from their comfort zones (55 in Table S3). They claim that uncertainty occasions opportunities and surprising adventures (56 in Table S3), and it arouses curiosity and different thinking (57 in Table S3). Explorers are viewed as adventurous sensation seekers (58 in Table S3), but they attest to not taking risks blindly (59 in Table S3). Like inventors, explorers are self-regulated learners. Their constant learning and inquiry stem from curiosity, passion, and professional interest. They achieve it through experience, observation, meeting with experts, or written sources—as appropriate for a given purpose. The gap between joyous exploration and hard work in this group is relatively broad: most members stress their joy of discovery more than the hard work they have invested in it (60 in Table S3). The dominant curiosity dimensions in this group are social curiosity, uncertainty tolerance, and thrill-seeking.

The most dominant cognitive competency in the explorer’s group is thinking outside the box (62 in Table S3). Like the former groups, explorers are reflective people, especially toward themselves, and self-aware (61 in Table S3). They try to be constantly alert and learn new things (67 in Table S3). Of particular interest is that six members of this group attested to having ADHD or other learning disabilities. Explorers share with scientists and inventors several attributes: determination, passion for what they do and enjoyment of it, daring, and resilience (63 in Table S3). They also share agency and diverse interests with the other groups. Openness is the most dominant personality factor in the explorer group.

The therapeutic professionals turned to their professional field out of interest in people (or animals) and a strong desire to help them (68 in Table S3). They are characterized by love and respect for people (69 in Table S3), sensitivity to human beings (70 in Table S3), empathy (from cognitive (71 in Table S3) and emotional aspects (72 in Table S3)), ability to listen (73 in Table S3), interest in people’s feelings and stories about their lives (74 in Table S3), and being nonjudgmental (75 in Table S3). They attest to living in peace with situations of uncertainty that characterize their profession either because they exercise careful judgment in making therapeutic decisions (76 in Table S3) or because the professional setting helps them feel free and secure (77 in Table S3). Unlike the other groups, no one in this group admitted to embracing uncertainty.

The salient cognitive attributes in this group are analytic and critical thinking. Its members strongly desire to know and understand (86 in Table S3) and attest to learning the most from their patients (78 in Table S3) and practice. They emphasize the need for lifelong learning (79 in Table S3), much experience, and common sense (80 in Table S3) to expand their field of practice and improve professionalism (81 in Table S3). Most of them engage in research and student training as part of their academic role. They similarly rate the perseverance and effort they put into their demanding work and their satisfaction with the success of the treatment. Like the other groups, this group exercises reflection (regarding their practice and themselves) (82 in Table S3) and demonstrates self-awareness (83 in Table S3). Their dominant curiosity dimension is empathic curiosity.

Motivation-wise, they share attributes with the other groups (including faith in their way, determination and self-discipline, resilience, passion for what they do, agency, and diverse interests (84 in Table S3)). Like the artists, they set a high standard and maintain high standards in their practice (85 in Table S3). The dominant personality factors in this group are openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.

To summarize, the curiosity dimensions were mainly group-related, encompassing the largest source of variation among the five researched groups. In contrast, common to the five groups are attributes related to motivation (faith in their way, determination and self-discipline, resilience, passion for what they do, agency, and diverse interests). Typical attributes to three or four groups include cognition-related attributes (analytical and critical thinking); personality factors (openness and conscientiousness); and a relatively narrow gap between hard work, on the one hand, and genuine joy of discovery (accomplishment) on the other. Finally, attributes related to the home background (SES and parental child-rearing practices) show within-group variance, indicating individual differences.

3.2. Comparison of the Five Professional Groups Regarding the Curiosity Dimensions

Given the saliency of the curiosity dimensions in defining group differences in the current study, the next target was to gauge the correct classification rate of the experts to their professional groups solely based on their curiosity profiles. Based on the current study’s data, the following six curiosity variables were created: joyful exploration, deprivation sensitivity, social curiosity, empathic curiosity, uncertainty tolerance, and thrill-seeking. (The group effect was significant for all six curiosity variables (with effect sizes (h²) ranging from 19% to 47%), as shown in the one-way ANOVAs results presented in Table S4.) The set of the six variables was analyzed using discriminant analysis.

The analysis results (presented in Table S5) yielded three significant functions (p < 0.001) and one insignificant function (p = 0.06) with canonical correlations of 0.85, 0.64, 0.61, and 0.40, respectively. As shown in the structure matrix (displaying the pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions), the larger coefficients in the first function are for thrill-seeking, uncertainty tolerance (positive values), and empathic curiosity (negative value). The higher group centroids on this function are for the therapeutic professional group (negative value) and the explorers’ and inventors’ groups (positive values). The larger coefficients on the second function are for social curiosity and joyous exploration (positive values) and deprivation sensitivity (negative value). On this function, the higher group centroids are for the inventors’ group (negative value) and the explorers’ group (positive value). The larger coefficients on the third function are for empathy, uncertainty tolerance, and social curiosity (positive values). The higher group centroids on this function are for the scientists’ group (negative value), and the explorers’ and therapeutic professional groups (positive values). Although falling short of the 0.05 significance level, the fourth function yielded large positive structure coefficients for deprivation sensitivity and social curiosity. The artist’s group had this function’s highest (and positive) centroid.

Overall, 82% of the professional group members were correctly classified based on the set of curiosity variables (the hit rate for each group ranged from 70% (artists and explorers) to 100% (therapeutic professionals)).

4. Discussion

This section comprises four parts: the first integrates the quantitative and qualitative findings; the second summarizes insights gained from the findings regarding the curiosity dimensions; the third draws implications for the field of education from the research findings; and the fourth underscores the study’s contribution, points to its limitations, and offers recommendations for further studies.

4.1. Integration of the Quantitative and the Qualitative Findings

Essential connections between the quantitative and the qualitative findings are noticeable regarding most curiosity dimensions:

In social curiosity, the second discriminant function distinguished explorers from inventors, which aligns with the qualitative description of the explorers as highly engaged with people in their work. In contrast, inventors’ social interactions were more focused on collaboration for product development, with less emphasis on broad social curiosity.

Regarding empathic curiosity, the first function distinguished therapeutic professionals from explorers and inventors, a finding supported by qualitative data. Therapeutic professionals attested in the interviews to turning to their profession out of interest in people (or animals) and a strong desire to help them. In contrast, empathic curiosity was not a salient feature in the descriptions of the inventors and most of the explorers.

Regarding uncertainty tolerance, the first function distinguishes explorers and inventors from therapeutic professionals, aligning well with the qualitative descriptions. Unlike the latter group, the former two groups were described as embracing uncertainty. As to thrill-seeking, the first function distinguished explorers and inventors from therapeutic professionals, a finding strongly supported by qualitative data. While explorers were described as sensation seekers and inventors as constantly seeking a professional thrill, the description of therapeutic professionals did not emphasize thrill-seeking.

Regarding epistemic curiosity, the second function, having a considerable positive weight for joyous exploration and a large negative one for deprivation sensitivity, distinguished explorers from inventors. That nuance was reflected in the qualitative descriptions of the explorers, who stressed their joy of discovery more than the hard work invested. In contrast, the gap between hard work and the joy of creation was much smaller among the inventor group.

4.2. Insights Concerning the Curiosity Dimensions

4.2.1. Social and Empathic Curiosity

Social curiosity reflects the desire to learn about people’s lives, cultural habits, typical cuisine, interests, education, occupations, and more [13] and gossip about and pry and snoop into people’s lives [15,16]. Subsumed under social curiosity are interpersonal [21] and intrapersonal [17] curiosity.

Empathic curiosity reflects a desire to utilize professional knowledge to individually help those in need (humans and animals). It stems from love and respect for them and is vastly emphasized in training programs for therapeutic professionals [54,55].

The current study’s findings extended the scope of those two aspects, pointing to various nuances related to the groups under study. It was noted that artists inspire their creations by observing people (100 in Table S3) listening to their stories, or conversing with them (101 in Table S3). They also strive for their artwork to touch and impact people so they will not forget it (102 in Table S3). Furthermore, before finalizing their artwork, they seek the audience’s feedback and utilize it to make adjustments as deemed appropriate (103 in Table S3). However, in certain stages of the creation process, they must be by themselves. Similarly, explorers are involved in various profession-related interactions with people, mainly trying to observe and learn from them. However, they are also happy to be alone, enjoying the freedom and open spaces they love immensely (104 in Table S3).

In contrast, the social curiosity of inventors (entrepreneurs) and scientists is revealed in working collaborations with people. However, their focus is on the object of the collaboration (the product or the research topic, respectively). Inventors seek to invent a product that people will consume, which will inflect on their professional success. They invest much effort in selecting employees they feel comfortable working with to increase mutual fertilization in the work process, realizing the advantages of productive teamwork for their companies (105 in Table S3). Likewise, scientists’ social curiosity is revealed in their working relationships with colleagues from their professional communities (106 in Table S3) or in the teaching and guiding interactions with their students and assistants (107 in Table S3), often entailing reciprocal learning. Yet, teaching is not limited to scientists; it is also part of the duty in other professions. Those excelling in this venture express caring and dedication to their students, indicating a sincere desire to socialize them into the profession (108 in Table S3).

Regarding empathic curiosity, two components (cognitive and emotional) were identified [19]. The first was most dominant among the psychologists, who admitted to working hard, not being judgmental, containing their patients, and seeing things from their point of view (109 in Table S3). The second was more typical of the medical physicians (MDs) who tried to sympathize with the suffering of their patients (110 in Table S3), but at the same time gave them hope and empowered them (111 in Table S3). Moreover, some of the therapeutic professionals in the current study attested to having both kinds of interpersonal curiosity—empathic curiosity and social curiosity (general interest in people’s lives, in hearing their stories, irrespective of their therapeutic expertise (112 in Table S3)).

4.2.2. Uncertainty Tolerance

Tolerance of ambiguity is a well-researched broad personality construct referring to reactions to perceived ambiguous stimuli in various contexts [22]. One of its correlates (or components) is uncertainty tolerance. Lauriola and his colleagues [22] identified three factors underlying this construct: affective (discomfort with ambiguity), cognitive (moral absolutism/splitting), and epistemic (need for complexity and novelty). Given that their third factor includes curiosity attributes, which also stood out in the current study, the dispute among curiosity researchers about locating uncertainty tolerance in the nomological network of curiosity is understood.

Much has been written about the relationship between uncertainty and curiosity, pointing to the role curiosity plays in reducing the aversive consequences of experiencing uncertainty and ambiguity [56]. Several theories are referenced as accounting for the sources and mechanisms underlying such stressful feelings (which include, among others, Berlyne’s curiosity drive theory [1], Piaget’s [57] cognitive disequilibrium theory, Hebb’s [58] incongruity theory, and Loewenstein’s [4] information-gap model of curiosity). The implication is that rewards will arise only when uncertainty is resolved (“closing the information gap”).

However, the current study’s findings exposed two types of curious minds with varying attitudes toward uncertainty—those who learn to accept the uncertainty that characterizes their occupation and life in the present era and those who embrace and seek situations of uncertainty in which they flourish. The former includes most scientists and therapeutic professionals (an occupational domain massively addressed in research on tolerance of uncertainty). In contrast, the latter contains explorers, artists, most inventors, and a few scientists. Such appreciation of uncertainty suggests that curiosity is an intrinsically pleasurable experience that stimulates joyous explorations and contributes to well-being [7,13].

Nevertheless, the data exposed various ways of coping with uncertainty and adjusting to it, typical of the different professional groups. For instance, therapeutic professionals attest to exercising careful judgment before deciding on treatment (113 in Table S3) or using available diagnostic outlines and adjusting them to the particular case (114 in Table S3) as strategies to reduce the possible life-threatening consequences of uncertainty. Despite their positive attitude to uncertainty, inventors stress the essentiality of “risk management” to their profession, perhaps due to the high financial stakes involved. Several strategies were mentioned to cope with uncertainty: breaking complex problems into concrete components and dealing with each separately (115 in Table S3). Artists who also favor uncertainty admit to consulting colleagues and asking for audience feedback before releasing their artworks (116 in Table S3). Explorers who most appreciate uncertainty contend that they avoid taking unnecessary risks (117 in Table S3); likewise, most scientists admit to “playing it safe”, especially before receiving tenure (118 in Table S3).

4.2.3. Thrill-Seeking

The current study’s qualitative and quantitative findings indicate a relatively high tendency for thrill-seeking among three groups—explorers, artists, and inventors. Their members contend that the thrill associated with their discoveries causes them supreme happiness (119, 120, 121 in Table S3). However, while seeking a thrill, they do not take risks for the sake of risk-taking (Zuckerman, 1979) [23]; to satisfy their curiosity, each group is in line with its professional drive. As recalled, the three groups also stood out for their uncertainty tolerance, implying that combining the two curiosity dimensions inspires creative and innovative explorations. Indeed, relationships between thrill-seeking and uncertainty tolerance were noted, especially among those who embraced curiosity and searched for situations that occasion it to satisfy their sensation-seeking urge (146 in Table S3). Most of them were explorers.

Moreover, associations between thrill-seeking and social curiosity were identified among explorers who led expeditions to exotic places, eager to share with their tour groups the exciting, mostly non-touristy sites they had discovered in their journeys to remote places (147 in Table S3). Likewise, the digital nomad provides guiding tips to travelers through his blogs. Those findings are supported by an empirical study by [59] that integrated thrill-seeking, social curiosity, and joyous exploration.

4.2.4. Joyous Discovery and Deprivation Sensitivity (Epistemic Curiosity)

Litman [2] argues that his I/D theoretical model explains the two components of epistemic curiosity—interest and deprivation—but is also relevant to other aspects of curiosity, such as interpersonal and intrapersonal. D-type curiosity is associated with deeper and more profound efforts to seek the missing information to close an identified, disturbing information gap [4].

As mentioned in the Introduction (Section 1.1.1), Litman’s I/D models and Kashdan and his colleagues’ five-dimensional model of curiosity are anchored in competing theoretical accounts regarding the experience of curiosity (drive theory and optimal level of arousal, respectively). Our qualitative and quantitative findings align with the second account. They demonstrate that the five-dimensional framework supports the broader view of curiosity, especially concerning coping with uncertainty and thrill-seeking, two dimensions that were criticized for not being integral to the curiosity construct. Nevertheless, as our findings show, they comprise critical framework components that enable understanding and portrayal of the multifaceted nature of curiosity.

The current study also identified three learning-related themes, which accounted for group differences in epistemic curiosity: ways of learning, reactions to errors or failure, and cognitive learning skills.

Ways of learning: Although members from all groups attested to being self-regulated learners, their learning purposes, methodologies, strategies, and sources of information varied.

Scientists follow strict research methodologies to design their studies. They mainly work alone, sometimes collaborate with colleagues from their professional community, and are also involved in learning interactions with their assistants and students (122 in Table S3). Inventors invest efforts in learning to gain a deep understanding of what is needed to advance their current project (123 in Table S3) and engage in on-site learning through interactions with their teams (124 in Table S3). Artists utilize various learning opportunities in formal and informal frameworks combined with independent study from written texts. However, they mainly construct their knowledge through experiential learning during the creation process (125 in Table S3). Likewise, explorers learn through experience gained by immersing themselves in their environments of interest and through an apprenticeship with natives they meet in their expeditions (126 in Table S3). They also learn from the internet (127 in Table S3). Therapeutic professionals combine theoretical and practical learning in training programs; later in their careers, they learn primarily from their practice (128 in Table S3) and are updated through professional channels. Those who assume clinical academic positions also learn through interactions with their interns (129 in Table S3). Moreover, a member of this group explains that, in his case, curiosity serves as a learning strategy (130 in Table S3).

Reactions to errors or failure: Failure empowers! This message was echoed in many interviews. For instance, scientists admitted to large learning gains from a significant failure they had experienced, acknowledging its value to advancing science (131 in Table S3), and inventors attested to making swift changes when realizing they erred (132 in Table S3), as they could not afford failure. However, some of them testify that they do not think in terms of failure (133 in Table S3) or contend that failure should not be judged in the short run (134 in Table S3). Artists admitted that their creation process is characterized by trial and error (135 in Table S3). Explorers, too, admit to learning from their errors (136 in Table S3). Only one of them attested to not thinking in terms of failure (137 in Table S3). Therapeutic professionals attested to taking strict measures in advance (such as exercising careful judgment (138 in Table S3) or using formal protocols (139 in Table S3)) to avoid errors or significant failures due to possible health-threatening consequences. One of them, who also engages in research, eloquently distinguishes between two reactions to failure (140 in Table S3).

Ways of thinking: Besides analytic and reflective thinking, which are common to most group members, specific cognitive skills were more salient in certain groups than others. For instance, rich imagination and associative thinking were most typical of the artists. Critical thinking and intellectual flexibility were most typical of the scientists, thinking outside the box was typical of the explorers, the artists, and the inventors.

As to reflective thinking, two components of professional reflectivity were identified: reflecting on one’s performance in professional-related activities (141 in Table S3) and reflecting on the impact of the performance on the performer (142 in Table S3). The former aligns with Schön’s [60] assertion that professionals should reflect before, during, and after performing their professional activities. The latter adds an introspective viewpoint regarding one’s performance. As Schön [61] has pointed out, reflection is strongly related to effective job performance. Since the current study sample consisted of professional experts, this dimension was typical across the five groups.

Supported by Litman’s [2] explanation about the generalizability of the I and D-types to multiple aspects of curiosity, the current study’s findings pointed to associations between epistemic and other types of curiosity. Most research groups are characterized by associations between epistemic curiosity and attributes of social curiosity indicative of learning or exploring in a social setting. For instance, scientists attest to being engaged in learning and exploring interactions with colleagues (148 in Table S3) or with students they supervise (149 in Table S3). Likewise, a playwriter attests to engaging in learning interactions with his actors (150 in Table S3). Explorers describe learning interactions with natives they met in their journeys to remote palaces (151 in Table S3).

Moreover, evidence was found of feelings of personal growth resulting from learning interactions in social settings. For instance, a dedicated art teacher attests to such feelings resulting from workshops with his students (152 in Table S3), or a theater director explains the impact working sessions with good actors had on him (153 in Table S3). One of the artists eloquently expressed multiple aspects of curiosity as a product of learning interactions that took place during a creative process (154 in Table S3).

The findings regarding curiosity group differences can be anchored in Holland’s professional choice theory [62,63]. Mapping the five professional groups into Holland’s six theoretical types, realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional—RIASEC (where scientists resemble the I type; artists—A; therapeutic professionals—S; inventors—E type; and explorers—SEI)—can explain the groups’ respective expertise. Yet, the current study’s findings provide an additional layer of curiosity, which differentiates between the five professional groups.

4.3. Implications

The current study’s findings carry significant implications for education:

Education policymakers must remember that not all parents are equally capable of catering to their children’s learning needs and nurturing their curiosity, thus requiring schools to become gatekeepers of equality. For that purpose, teachers need training in cultivating curiosity and are expected to have curious minds to act as models for their students. Moreover, policymakers need to realize the multidimensional nature of curiosity, which requires occasioning various educational frameworks so that students can choose those that best suit them.

The teachers in all of those frameworks should be most dedicated, care for their students, believe in their learning capacity, and challenge them with curiosity-stimulating tasks requiring stepping out of their comfort zone and thinking outside the box. They should also empower their students by occasioning opportunities for success in an environment that legitimizes failure, treating it as a springboard to success. Teachers are expected to explicitly foster student self-assessment by promoting reflection as a habit of mind and nurturing self-regulation and passion for learning, determination, stamina, and desire to excel, thus cultivating agentic, self-efficacious, and curious minds. Moreover, exposing the learners, especially teenagers, to experts in curiosity-dominant professions, such as those who participated in the current study, with whom they can identify, can further inspire students and deepen their interest in those subjects.

The findings have additional implications for educational practice, including cultivating social and empathic curiosity in school culture, in particular, the one that is based on assessment for learning (AfL) [64], encompassing all its nested subsystems [65]—the classroom, the teacher professional learning, and the school leadership. Cultivating social and empathic curiosity in those frameworks carries vital implications for improving education, as implied by research in the classroom [66] in teacher-preparation programs [27] and school leadership frameworks [67].

Additionally, the findings highlight the advantages of cultivating students’ positive attitudes toward uncertainty [68] and thrill-seeking [30].

Finally, the research findings underscore the transformative power of nurturing the love of learning among teachers and students [69], creating a beacon of light that could lead to sustainable flourishing in the educational landscape [26].

In conclusion, research has shown that flexible and responsive teaching practice is vital to supporting all learners’ equal opportunities to fulfill their potential, express curiosity, find ways to enjoy learning, and practice self-regulation and agency [70].

Another implication concerns the “public relations” of the term curiosity. As indicated in the Methods section (Section 2.1), the term “curiosity” was mentioned late in the interview. Consequently, it was noticed that most interviewees did not use the term until that point but used it immensely from that point on. Likewise, earlier studies have shown that, when asked to list their important instructional goals, teachers did not include curiosity in their lists. However, when provided a checklist of instructional objectives, including the term “curiosity”, they ranked it high on their instructional goals [71]. Given the acknowledged importance of curiosity as an essential 21st-century competency [34], it is deemed necessary to place curiosity in the spotlight and incorporate it into all sorts of learning frameworks [72,73].

4.4. Strength, Limitations, and Further Research

The study’s strengths lie in its focus on curious minds, experts in curiosity-dominant professions, and its methodological design. The questions that motivated the current study regarding curiosity manifestations in the social domain and the effects of tolerance of uncertainty and thrill-thinking received answers through group comparisons. They exposed nuances of group-related motives underlying social interactions, differentiating the various groups. The findings also revealed group-related attitudes toward uncertainty and multiple manifestations of coping in situations of uncertainty. Moreover, they exposed group-related differences in thrill-seeking and pointed to an association between uncertainty tolerance and thrill-seeking, hence justifying the inclusion of those two dimensions in the extended nomological network of curiosity, as Kashdan et al. [13,15] suggested.

Furthermore, the inclusion of a group of therapeutic professionals in the study enabled us to discern the complex network of interpersonal curiosity. It helped distinguish curiosity manifestations motivated by a desire to learn from and about people (social curiosity) from those motivated by a desire to help those in need (empathic curiosity) professionally.

However, like other studies, the current study is not free of limitations. These include general limitations inherent to qualitative data collection and semi-structured interviews [53], which consist of transfer (related to the quality of the interview protocol), “scientific truth” (related to the interviewee’s responses), and interpretation (related to the exhaustiveness and depth of the analysis) [74]. (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 clarified the attempts to cope with those issues). Other limitations are related to the research design: a single data-collection method, a sample from one country, and the absence of control groups. Additional limitations include the absence of in-depth analyses of the reasons underlying the interviewee’s responses, their self-curiosity (introspective), and their non-verbal behavior during the interview. Another limitation that might have blurred the intergroup differences is that several participants classified into one group based on their primary profession were also engaged in activities typical of other groups (for instance, therapists who are also researchers, scientists who are also inventors, a scientist who writes poetry and aphorism books, or an inventor who writes feature books).

Hence, for future research, the authors recommend the following:

-

Adding quantitative measures of the attributes addressed in the current study to strengthen the validity of the inferences.

-

Adding control groups of experts in professions that are not curiosity-dominant.

-

Collecting more evidence about the subjects’ conceptions of curiosity and the factors that shape them along the life span, including additional interests, above and beyond the professional ones.

-

Conducting in-depth analyses of the reasons underlying the interviewee’s responses, non-verbal behavior during the interview, and self-curiosity.

-

Conducting comparisons of renowned experts in curiosity-dominant professions in different cultures to identify common and unique aspects of the construct.

5. Conclusions

The current study’s findings illuminated various aspects of social curiosity, landed support for including uncertainty tolerance and thrill-seeking in the extended nomological network of curiosity, and exposed group-related nuances of curiosity manifestations. The insights gained from the findings regarding curiosity dimensions, psychological strengths, contextual factors, and learning-related themes that carry significant implications for cultivating curious minds were discussed.

Since curiosity is highly nuanced, various frameworks are needed to nurture it. However, the findings also imply that curiosity is a necessary but insufficient condition for professional success, indicating that shared motivational factors must also be cultivated. Furthermore, the individual negligible group-related differences in the home background imply that where you aim to go is more important than where you came from.

Overall, the findings support the anticipation that the “Why” and the “Why not” questions continue to capture humans’ minds, contributing to global advancement and personal well-being.