Curiosity follows an INVERTED-U over prior knowledge/confidence — peaks at MODERATE knowing, falls when one knows nearly nothing or nearly everything (Kang 2009, Dubey-Griffiths 2020, Lee 2024)
Summary
Claim: The curiosity-information-gap relationship is an inverted-U over prior knowledge / confidence: curiosity peaks at MODERATE prior knowledge and falls when one knows nearly nothing or nearly everything. Replicated across paradigms (trivia, blurred pictures, letter guessing, web-ad clicks).
Source: Kang et al. 2009; Dubey & Griffiths (2020), Psychological Review 127(3), 455-476; Lee et al. (2024), Metacognition and Learning.
Confidence: Verified.
Caveat: Curiosity gaps can also backfire when too vague — see Curiosity gaps can BACKFIRE when teasers are too vague/abstract — information-seeking drops (Scientific Reports 2024; OBHDP 2023 frustration finding).
Why this matters for Candid: THE design-critical limit on M1. A tool's question must feel answerable-but-unknown to the user. Aim above the user's "I have no idea" floor and below their "I already know" ceiling. Anchors R1 — Design the tool's opening question for the curiosity inverted-U: ANSWERABLE-but-UNKNOWN; do not go too vague (backfire) or too obvious (no gap).
Related entries
Referenced by (4)
- research-notes Research notes (capture-layer top-up): why interactive online tools are psychologically engaging — six additional mechanisms (June 2026) relates-to
- reference Curiosity gaps can BACKFIRE when teasers are too vague/abstract — information-seeking drops (Scientific Reports 2024; OBHDP 2023 frustration finding) relates-to
- reference Caveats for the engagement-mechanisms top-up: strong independent evidence sits at the MECHANISM level not the business-outcome level; nearly every effect is moderated relates-to
- rule R1 — Design the tool's opening question for the curiosity inverted-U: ANSWERABLE-but-UNKNOWN; do not go too vague (backfire) or too obvious (no gap) depends-on