Radical Humility

Consequences of epistemic curiosity

Creativity and innovation

Creativity

People who experience epistemic curiosity—the motivation to accrue knowledge that is associated with intellectual humility (Leary et al., 2017)—enjoy a range of benefits.  For example, epistemic curiosity may sometimes enhance the capacity of individuals to solve problems creatively. 

In one study, conducted by Hardy et al. (2017), 122 students, enrolled at the University of Oklahoma, participated in a simulation, in which they assumed the role of an advertising manager who needed to develop a marketing plan to increase sales.  These participants were granted unlimited time to peruse information they could use to inform this plan.  Specifically, these individuals first outlined an initial set of possible ideas before finalising this plan.   To measure their performance,

  • the researchers calculated the duration that participants dedicated to reading the information—a measure of information seeking,
  • the researchers calculated the number of unique ideas each participant listed,
  • the researchers calculated the number of categories these ideas encompassed
  • three trained judges evaluated the originality and quality of the plans.

Finally, after completing the task, participants answered a series of questions including

  • the original epistemic curiosity scale, designed to measure diversive curiosity or curiosity around all topics, such as “I find it fascinating to learn new information”, and specific curiosity or curiosity to address a particular shortfall, such as “I work hard at problems that I feel must be solved”,
  • traits that overlap with epistemic curiosity, such as openness to experience, need for cognition, and level of intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992),
  • other demographic variables, such as gender and GPA.

Overall, diversive curiosity, but not specific curiosity, was associated with the various measures of creative problem solving, even after controlling similar traits.  Specifically

  • diversive curiosity was positively associated with the originality and quality of solutions,
  • furthermore, diversive curiosity was positively related to the duration that participants dedicated to reading the information,
  • this duration was positively associated with the number of unique ideas and categories generated—a key determinant of both the originality and quality of solutions.

Arguably, when individuals experience diversive curiosity, they feel inspired to consider extensive information, even if this information does not seem immediately relevant. This breadth of information primes a diversity of memories, concepts and ideas in individuals, facilitating the originality and utility of solutions.   

Innovation at work

Staff who experience epistemic curiosity may not only be more creative but may also introduce more innovative solutions and proposals to the workplace.  Indeed, several studies have verified that epistemic creativity may foster innovative work behaviours (e.g., Al Bloushi et al., 2024; Pelit & Katircioglu, 2023).

Al Bloushi et al. (2024) proposed and assessed one theory to explain how curiosity might promote innovation.  Specifically, according to these scholars

  • when individuals experience curiosity, especially interest curiosity, they perceive work activities as opportunities to learn,
  • hence, they feel excited about work, fostering engagement and diminishing burnout,
  • when individuals feel engaged at work, they are more inclined to devote effort into their activities,
  • this effort promotes innovation; that is, to be innovative, individuals need to override their entrenched beliefs or practices—activities that demand considerable effort.   

This argument implies that engagement at work should mediate the association between curiosity and innovation.  To evaluate this premise, Al Bloushi et al. (2024) administered a survey to 406 employees of service organisations in the UAE.   The survey included Arabic translations of

  • the measure of epistemic curiosity that Litman (2008) validated, comprising items like “I find it fascinating to learn new information” to measure interest epistemic curiosity and “I work like a fiend at problems that I feel must be solved”, to measure deprivation epistemic curiosity.
  • the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) to measure three facets of engagement—vigour, dedication, and absorption—comprising items like “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”,
  • a measure of innovation at work (Dobni, 2008), exemplified by items like “I am prepared to do things differently if given a chance to do so”.

As the findings revealed, both interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity were positively associated with work engagement as well as innovation at work.  Engagement at work mediated the relationship between curiosity and innovation.    

As Al Bloushi et al. (2024) also revealed, the association between curiosity and work engagement was especially pronounced in staff who had developed respectful, trusting, and reciprocal relationships with their supervisor, called leader-member exchange.  Presumably, in these circumstances

  • staff trust that, in general, their supervisor will assign tasks that are important rather than unnecessary,
  • according to the information-gap theory, because they perceive their tasks as important, staff will feel especially inspired to learn while completing these activities, increasing the degree to which curiosity will promote engagement.  

Entrepreneurial behaviour

Epistemic curiosity does not only foster innovation but also significantly promotes entrepreneurial behaviour.  That is, some people are particularly entrepreneurial.  These individuals, for example,

  • often scan websites or forums to remain aware of potential business ideas and opportunities, called entrepreneurial alertness,
  • feel motivated to launch novel ventures and businesses, called entrepreneurial intentions,
  • embrace risks and proactively seek opportunities, called an entrepreneurial orientation.

People who experience significant levels of epistemic curiosity demonstrate many of the qualities that facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour.  For example, people who experience this epistemic curiosity strive to learn information. To learn information, these individuals like to explore unfamiliar settings and opportunities and thus might enjoy the pursuit of novel business possibilities, manifesting as entrepreneurial alertness.    

To explore this premise, Heinemann et al. (2022) administered an online survey to 296 American adults, recruited from the website Prolific.  The survey included

  • the Work-Related Curiosity Scale (Mussel et al., 2012), designed to measure curiosity at work, comprising 10 items like “I am interested in how my contribution impacts the company”,
  • the measure that Litman (2008) validated that differentiates interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity,
  • a set of questions that assess entrepreneurial alertness (Tang et al., 2012), such as “I always keep an eye out for new business ideas when looking for information”,
  • the Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (Liñán & Chen, 2009), comprising items like is “I am determined to create a company in the future” as well as a question in which participants guessed the likelihood they will initiate a business next year,
  • another set of questions that assess the hallmarks of entrepreneurial orientation (Bolton & Lane, 2012), such as risk taking and a proactive personality, epitomised by items like “I like to take bold action by venturing into the unknown” or “I usually act in anticipation of future problems, needs or changes”,
  • the openness to experience scale, derived from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006), comprising items like “I like to solve complex problems”.

Consistent with the proposed arguments, all facets of epistemic curiosity were positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial orientation.  Furthermore, entrepreneurial alertness mediated the association between epistemic curiosity and both entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial orientation (Heinemann et al., 2022).  Finally, curiosity was associated with these entrepreneurial tendencies even after controlling openness to experience—the personality trait that is typically the greatest predictor of entrepreneurialism.  Thus, individuals who demonstrated epistemic curiosity were more alert to novel business opportunities and thus more inclined to pursue entrepreneurial ventures.

Learning, memory, and study

Learning

Perhaps unsurprisingly, epistemic curiosity also seems to enhance the capacity of individuals to study and to learn effectively.  For example, as Naveed et al. (2024) revealed, when students experience significant levels of epistemic curiosity, they feel more confident in their capacity to maintain concentration and thus to thrive in their classes, called academic self-efficacy. Similarly, students who experience this curiosity also study diligently and apply useful study practices, called academic self-regulation. 

Naveed et al. (2024) conducted a study that explores the relationship between epistemic curiosity, academic self-efficacy, and academic self-regulation.  In this study, 240 Pakistani undergraduate students completed a series of measures including

  • an epistemic curiosity scale that Litman (2008) constructed, comprising two subscales: curiosity to explore an interest, comprising items like “I enjoy exploring new ideas”, and curiosity to resolve a shortfall, comprising items like “I spend hours on a problem because I cannot rest without answer”,
  • the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Sachitra & Bandara, 2017), typified by items like “I produce my best work in examinations”, “I engage in academic discussions with my friends”, and “I make sense of feedback on my assignments”, and
  • the Academic Self-Regulatory Learning Questionnaire (Nambiar et al., 2022)—an instrument that entails three sub-scales: performance control, comprising items like “I study in a suitable place where I can concentrate”, self-reflection, comprising items like “I make necessary changes in study plan to improve learning”, and forethought, comprising items like “I organize the study material before I start studying”.

As hypothesised, both facets of curiosity were associated with academic self-efficacy. And academic self-efficacy was positively related to all three facets of academic self-regulation: performance control, self-reflection, and forethought.  Presumably,

  • when individuals experience curiosity, they feel inspired and motivated to learn,
  • because of this motivation to learn, these students can readily concentrate when studying and persist in response to challenges, fostering self-efficacy or confidence. 

This confidence should also encourage students to study diligently and to plan effectively.  That is, if confident, students associate study with success.  These students, therefore, like to think about their studies, plan their studies, and uncover strategies to enhance their learning.  

Help-seeking behaviour

Several accounts could explain why epistemic curiosity facilitates learning in students.  One possibility is that curiosity might affect the strategies that students apply to seek assistance.   To illustrate, as the Online Academic Help-seeking questionnaire implies (Cheng & Tsai, 2011; Cheng et al., 2013b), when students experience academic obstacles, they can initiate three sets of strategies to resolve these problems:

  • they can search information in search engines, online forums, websites, and similar platforms, illustrated by items like “When I have an academic problem, I will seek a relevant solution using search engines”,
  • they can formally send queries to the relevant instructor, tutors, or educators, illustrated by items like “When I have an academic problem, I will email the instructor or class assistants to make a query”,
  • they can informally send queries to online networks, illustrated by items like “When I have an academic problem, I will ask for peers’ help through some popular social media systems”.

Epistemic curiosity may affect the strategies that students utilise to resolve academic problems. For example, if students experience interest epistemic curiosity, and thus perceive knowledge as fascinating and interesting, they might often search information themselves.  This use of search engines, online forums, websites, and similar platforms may unearth insights these students perceive as intriguing.  In contrast, if students experience deprivation epistemic curiosity, in which they seek knowledge to resolve the discomfort that uncertainty provokes, they may instead send queries to official instructors or online networks.  These queries may be a more efficient means to address a specific shortfall in knowledge.

Cheng (2024) conducted a study that explores these predictions.  In this study, 262 university students, studying in Taiwan, completed several measures including

  • the Online Academic Help-seeking questionnaire (Cheng & Tsai, 2011; Cheng et al., 2013b) to measure the degree to which students search information, send format requests to educators, or send informal requests to online networks, and
  • the Epistemic Curiosity Scale that Litman (2008) developed, comprising questions that assess the interest facet, such as “I enjoy learning about subjects that are unfamiliar to me”, and the deprivation facet, such as “I brood for a long time to solve problems”.

As hypothesised, interest epistemic curiosity was positively associated with information search, whereas deprivation epistemic curiosity was positively associated with formal or informal requests (Cheng, 2024).

Memory

Epistemic curiosity also seems to improve memory in particular circumstances.  Specifically, when individuals experience pronounced levels of epistemic curiosity, they are especially like to later remember information or events they did not anticipate.

To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Kang et al. (2019), participants were invited to guess the answer to a series of trivia questions, such as “What instrument was invented to sound like a human singing”.  After each question,

  • participants were invited to indicate, on a scale from one to five, the degree to which they felt curious about the answer as well as the degree to which they felt confident they know the answer,
  • next, participants received the answer to this question, unaware they will later be invited to recall the answer,
  • finally, about two weeks later, participants were invited to answer the same questions again.

The analysis was confined to the questions that participants had answered incorrectly the first time.  As the data revealed

  • if participants had been curious about an answer, they were more likely to respond correctly to this question two weeks later,
  • that is, curiosity boosted memory,
  • as another study revealed, individuals were most curious about the answers when they were about 50% sure they had responded correctly,
  • in contrast, when individuals felt their knowledge about a topic was very limited or very extensive, their curiosity subsided.

Kang et al. (2019) proposed, and then validated, a theory to explain the beneficial effects of curiosity on memory. Specifically, in conditions in which hazards are likely, unanticipated events or information, such as surprises, may be harmful. However, in safe conditions, unanticipated events or information could be a font of useful knowledge and insight—knowledge and insight that could be rewarding and beneficial in the future.  Curiosity may have evolved to signify the conditions are safe, priming the individual to learn and memorise, rather than dread or dismiss, unanticipated events or information. 

To assess this theory, Kang et al. (2019) utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging, or FMRI, to monitor the neural activity of individuals while they answer the trivia questions and receive the correct answer.  As this study revealed

  • when participants indicated they were curious about a question, neural regions that usually coincide with the anticipation of a reward were activated—such as the caudate, putamen, and globus pallidus,
  • when participants indicated they were curious about a question, an unanticipated answer was especially likely to activate regions that underpin memory and learning, such as the left para-hippocampal gyri and the left inferior frontal gyrus,
  • although not definitive evidence, this pattern of activation is consistent with the notion that curiosity enhances the likelihood that unanticipated information is perceived as rewarding and remembered.

Grades

As previous studies demonstrate, curiosity can foster creativity, learning, and memory.  Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, students who experience epistemic curiosity also tend to receive higher grades in school or university.  To illustrate, in a study of 557 mathematics students, aged around 14 to 16,

  • in the girls, both interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity were positively associated with their grades in mathematics,
  • in the boys, only deprivation epistemic curiosity was positively associated with their grades in mathematics (Eren & Coskun, 2016).

Potential complications of epistemic curiosity

Risky traffic behaviour

As some research has shown, epistemic curiosity may, in specific circumstances, encourage irresponsible behaviour.  For example, Cui et al. (2025) explored the possibility that deprivation curiosity, in which people seek knowledge because they dislike uncertainty, may encourage conformity.  That is, conformity may diminish uncertainty. Because of this conformity, these individuals may gravitate to risky traffic behaviour as a pedestrian or driver, especially if these risks are prevalent in their community or social circle.  In one study, 305 Chinese college students completed a series of measures including

  • the epistemic curiosity scale that Litman (2008) constructed to measure two facets—interest curiosity, epitomised by items like “I like to explore new ideas”, and deprivation curiosity, epitomised by items like “I need to think for a long time to solve problems”,
  • an instrument that assesses risky traffic behaviour (Vickers et al. 1990), comprising items like “I run a red light when crossing the road”,
  • the social information comparison scale to measure conformity (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984), comprising items like “I proactively avoid wearing inappropriate clothes”.

As hypothesised, deprivation curiosity was positively associated with risky traffic behaviour—and conformity fully mediated this relationship.  Interestingly, interest curiosity was weakly, but significantly, associated with risky traffic behaviour as well—but conformity did not mediate this relationship (Cui et al., 2025).