Claims

Information seeking follows a cost–benefit analysis of resolving curiosity

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? People seek missing information only when perceived benefit exceeds perceived cost, with effort cost and emotional cost as key deterrents. → Shin 2019

Evidence

Shin 2019

Shin, D. D., & Kim, S. (2019). Homo Curious: Curious or Interested? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09497-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review synthesis. Benefits include personal relevance, usefulness for superordinate goals, and expected availability; costs include effort cost and emotional cost, including the ostrich effect of avoiding information that could validate negative predictions.

"Individuals are likely to engage in information-seeking behavior when the benefit of resolving curiosity is perceived to be greater than the cost."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id curiosity-cost-benefit-information-seeking
title Information seeking follows a cost–benefit analysis of resolving curiosity
description Information seeking follows a cost–benefit analysis of resolving curiosity
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2019
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — shin-2019

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.