Making the Case for Curiosity in Sport

Abstract

Curiosity is a crucial factor for promoting development and learning in various performance domains. In this article we position curiosity as a construct of interest in sport and draw on knowledge from the psychological, pedagogical, and organizational literature to inform our argument. In doing so, we speculate on the value that promoting curiosity can have for those working in sport, before offering an overview of the work conceptualizing curiosity, and considering ways that curiosity is inhibited in high-performance sport contexts. We conclude by offering considerations for applied sport psychologists for promoting curiosity in sport, and invite practitioners to begin a critical discourse on the topic of curiosity and the role it can have within their sport context.

Keywords:

• Curious
• desire to know
• high performance sport
• practice
• psychological safety

Making the case for curiosity in sport psychology

Considerable research has been dedicated to understanding how people involved in high-performance sport can achieve peak performance and well-being. One construct of relevance for anyone involved in this pursuit is curiosity. Being curious has been found to foster knowledge acquisition, learning, creativity, innovation and social relationships across a range of performance-focussed domains including education and business (see Lievens et al., 2022, for a review). Nevertheless, no systematic research or applied interventions dedicated to understanding the role curiosity plays in performance sport exist. As such, our purpose for this article is to draw on knowledge from research in the psychological, pedagogical, and organizational literature to introduce curiosity as a construct of interest in sport. In so doing, we offer a critical and contextualized view of curiosity in high-performance sport settings.

Our own interest in the construct of curiosity stemmed from the first author’s contrasting experiences when working with young people as a teacher in a higher education institution and as a trainee sport psychology practitioner in a football academy. More specifically, it was noteworthy how student learning and development was encouraged through curiosity in the classroom; yet curiosity appeared absent within players’ training. In light of this observation, we wanted to know more about the construct of curiosity from research, to consider how readily existing knowledge would transfer to performance sport settings and what barriers, if any, may exist, and to reflect on what strategies could be used to promote its occurrence in sport. Although we believe that curiosity could be beneficial across a variety of performance levels, such as youth and recreational sport, for the purpose of this article we focus on high-performance sport. For psychologists working at this performance level, curiosity can offer value by aiding reflection on one’s way of working, professional philosophy, and may provide an ethical and effective practice, as well as promote positive client outcomes.

How might curiosity benefit people in sport?

A growing body of work in the psychological, pedagogical, and organizational literatures has reported on the individual-level effects of curiosity. One way in which curiosity has been found to have a positive effect in the pedagogical literature is through facilitating learning (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Pekrun (2019) argued that curiosity can be important for acquiring knowledge and is comprised of three parts: recognizing a gap in one’s knowledge, the expectation that it is feasible to bridge this gap, and a desire to close this knowledge gap. Given the pedagogical parallels between teaching and sports coaching (e.g., both can involve the transfer of knowledge and skills through instruction), we suggest that an approach which aims to encourage people in high-performance sport to be curious about themselves could enhance their learning and knowledge acquisition of, for example, their strengths, areas for growth, values, or decision-making. Further, being curious about areas outside of one’s sporting identity is important given that athletic identity foreclosure is associated with negative consequences such as substance use, burnout, and transition issues (Brewer & Petitpas, 2017).

In addition to the positive effect of curiosity on learning, researchers have sought to understand the indirect effects of the construct. For example, curiosity can indirectly stimulate creativity via acquiring knowledge, which can be considered as a prerequisite to creative solutions (Lievens et al., 2022). Moreover, curiosity has been found to be positively related to personal initiative, which can reduce work-place emotional exhaustion and improve psychological well-being (Wang & Li, 2015). This positive effect could be because being curiousity can contribute to enhanced levels of personal initiative, which can increase proactive behaviors (e.g., actively exploring novel information that will lead to a reduction in stress or emotional exhaustion) that improve psychological well-being. Therefore, considering the benefit that being curious can have on an individual’s psychological well-being, promoting this construct in sport could play a role in supporting athlete well-being and safety.

Beyond these individual-level effects on learning, creativity and well-being, curiosity can have positive effects on social relationships (Lievens et al., 2022). Social psychology researchers have found that curiosity can help develop close relationships, even after accounting for physical attraction or positive affect (Kashdan et al., 2011). This relational benefit is because the likelihood of experiencing good social outcomes can be increased from displaying behaviors associated with being curious (e.g., increased responsiveness, asking questions and inquiring for self-disclosure from people). Therefore, considering the numerous interdependent relationships that are key for a sport organization’s functioning, curiosity can benefit those involved in high-performance sport through enhancing social relationships. Indeed, fostering close relationships through being curious could be important for those involved in sport because of the role that attachments can play in promoting positive outcomes, such as thriving (Davis et al., 2021).

Current understanding of curiosity

The formal study of curiosity began with Daniel Berlyne’s (1954) seminal work on the topic. Berlyne’s work offered two dichotomies distinguishing between epistemic (i.e., a desire for learning new knowledge, such as a coach who is curious to develop their knowledge of coaching styles) and perceptual (i.e., a desire for novel sensory stimuli, such as an athlete who is curious to view and explore a new stadium or venue) curiosity, and between diversive (i.e., a general desire to explore information, such as when an athlete is bored when doing a repetitive training task and they explore stimuli elsewhere to boost arousal) and specific (i.e., a preference to explore precise information, such as a parent who is curious to ask how their child got on after a game) curiosity. In the years since Berlyne’s early work, researchers (e.g., Litman, 2008; Loewenstein, 1994) have adopted various conceptualizations of the construct (e.g., described as a desire by some, an emotion by others, as well as a psychological state and/or trait) and the result has been conceptual ambiguity. Another factor that has impeded the development of a coherent conceptualization of curiosity is the lack of clear conceptual delineation between curiosity and similar constructs such as intrinsic motivation, sensation seeking and situational interest. Further, according to Kidd and Hayden (2015), an understanding of the construct has been limited by the lack of agreement regarding the nature and dimensionality of curiosity. That is, while there seems to be a general agreement among scholars that curiosity represents a desire for knowledge, the exact nature of this desire and the associated behaviors this inspires remains the focus of debate. In an attempt to move beyond this conceptual ambiguity and traditional approaches to understanding curiosity, Lievens et al. (2022) defined curiosity as “a desire to know, activated by (collative) variables such as novelty, ambiguity or complexity, that motivates rewarding exploratory behavior to learn and fill pressing knowledge gaps” (pp. 13–14).

Except for a line of research dedicated to fan behavior (see Park et al., 2011), little is known about curiosity in sport. While there is limited knowledge on curiosity in sport, similar constructs such as coachability (Côté & Gilbert, 2009) and growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) have received some scholarly attention. One thing in common across each of these constructs is the support of learning. That is, curiosity drives people to explore information and experiences, coachability allows them to take in and apply information from coaches, and a growth mindset promotes the belief that abilities are developed through hard work. Moreover, all three constructs are related to increased motivation and engagement in various pursuits, including sport, academic and personal development. People with high levels of curiosity, coachability and growth mindset are more likely to actively seek challenges, accept feedback and persevere in the face of setbacks.

In summary, similar constructs have shown value in applied sport psychology practice, and thus, while debate in the psychological, pedagogical and organizational literature persists around our understanding of curiosity and how best to define it, there appears to be an opportunity to advance our understanding of the construct in sport. Accordingly, research on curiosity in performance sport would be welcome given the unique set of demands that exist in sport environments which may or may not influence the processes and function of curiosity. While such inquiry may reveal that there are benefits to constructing an environment where performers can be curious, we recognize that there are some circumstances in high-performance sport wherein it is difficult for individuals to demonstrate curiosity.

Possible inhibitors of curiosity in sport

High-performance sport environments can be precarious, volatile and inherently unsafe, in part because of the existence of a performance narrative and the exclusive focus on achieving performance outcomes (Carless & Douglas, 2013). This performance narrative can inform people’s perceptions of how they are expected to behave. To illustrate, in such a context, the pressure to perform could act as a barrier to curiosity as athletes are less willing to take risks or try new approaches given the potential for underperformance or failed skill execution. Thus, performers are more inclined to follow expected patterns of behavior and the norms of those in positions of power such as coaches, managers, or captains, than to experiment in an innovative and curious manner. Yet if sport performers are only curious about things that perpetuate the performance narrative, then this can be detrimental for their well-being and development by neglecting areas that fall outside of one’s sporting identity (Carless & Douglas, 2013).

McGillivray and McIntosh (2006) argued that the culture of sport organizations can lead to the overcommitment of adolescent boys to their sport at the expense of intellectual curiosity, thereby impairing the boys’ career development and the possibility of securing a job outside of professional sport. Such arguments were supported by Ronkainen et al. (2020) who found women sports coaches actively constructed a career for themselves in sport yet showed little curiosity for vocations outside of elite sport coaching. As a result, the coaches were considered to be susceptible to psychological distress if they were unable to accomplish their career aspirations within high-performance sport. Taken together, these sources imply that sport cultures and contexts can stimulate a drive for high levels of competence in sport to the detriment of curiosity.

Social interactions represent a further inhibitor of curiosity. For example, pedagogy scholars (Jirout et al., 2018) have developed a framework that suggests ways in which teachers can promote or inhibit curiosity through their interactions. From this work, one way in which curiosity can be impeded is through actively suppressing information-seeking behaviors that are associated with being curious (e.g., negatively reacting to someone who attempts to do something in an alternative way to what is instructed). There may be parallels in sport with Ntoumanis and Mallett (2014) suggesting that some coaches employ authoritative practices which limits athlete autonomy. An example of this could be limited opportunities to voice alternatives derived from being curious. In high-performance sport, this lack of autonomy could be perpetuated by the ingrained power dynamics that can exist within the coach-athlete relationship and the unquestionable expert power that coaches can hold which may mean curiosity is inhibited.

Promoting curiosity in sport

The benefits of curiosity lead us to suggest how to promote the construct in sport, once again drawing on key learnings from other settings. In doing so it is our hope that we encourage sport psychology practitioners and applied researchers to critically consider how curiosity has merit for people in high-performance sport settings. Table 1 provides a summary of three evidence-based ways to promote curiosity drawing on a review of curiosity-enhancing interventions (see Schutte & Malouff, 2022). First, leaders and people in positions of power can play a key role in promoting curiosity by modeling their own curiosity through explicit exploration and question asking. The key here is for leaders to model a desire to be curious and learn new information to overcome gaps in their knowledge; this not only provides an illustration of how to be curious, but also signaling its acceptance in the setting. Second, coaches could develop a climate that creates and embraces the uncertainty associated with exploring one’s curiosity. One way a coach could do this is by presenting players with a question they do not know the answer to, such as on a pattern of play in a football drill within a coaching session, and inviting them to be curious and think about potential answers or solutions. By doing this, athletes are provided with the opportunity to explore what they know and do not know, and can utilize such knowledge gaps as a chance to learn.

Table 1. Example evidence-based interventions to promote curiosity from Schutte and Malouff (2022).

Strategy to promote curiosity	Description	Example in sport
1. Leaders model curiosity	Displays of curiosity from leaders can increase curiosity among group members.	A leader could authentically model curiosity by bringing others into discussions where they explore and examine perspectives when considering tactics for a match, while behaving in keeping with their sense of self and values.
2. Induce uncertainty	Uncertainty of outcome or of a gap in one’s knowledge can induce curiosity, whereby an individual has a desire to seek information to reduce the uncertainty.	A coach could ask an athlete a question they are uncertain about, such as on climate action or gender inclusion in sport, and invite them to reflect and explore for answers.
3. Induce mystery	Reveal new information stage by stage, but explicitly leave the next piece of information to be uncovered unknown to provoke curiosity due to mystery.	A coach could explain what to do in a training drill but withhold information about the learning objective, and challenge performers to seek such information through exploratory behavior to pique their curiosity.

Third, by creating a sense of mystery, a coach could pique athlete curiosity through generating a desire to know the unknown. A coach could do this by explicitly withholding information or challenging players through a novel problem-based scenario to evoke mystery which can only be resolved through curiosity driven information seeking behaviors. Underpinning these three strategies is a need for athletes to feel psychologically safe. This is because in a psychologically safe environment athletes may feel more able to question ideas and explore alternative solutions rather than fear possible negative consequences of such exploratory behavior. Environments that facilitate psychological safety to support curiosity driven behaviors could be particularly important given the aforementioned challenges to perceptions of safety in performance sport.

In addition to these three strategies, mindfulness was found to have a positive albeit non-significant effect on enhancing curiosity (Schutte & Malouff, 2022). This could be because techniques from mindfulness training, such as nonjudgmental present-moment awareness, may increase curiosity through diminishing interruptions that impede on one’s desire to know or learn. A sport psychologist could support athletes, coaches and performance support team members through providing recommended readings (e.g., Henriksen et al., 2019) or tailored sessions to teach clients techniques that involve awareness of thoughts, breathing and bodily sensations to foster present-moment awareness and create space for curiosity.

Beyond the strategies outlined by Schutte and Malouff (2022), we suggest that social interactions are another way to promote curiosity. For example, perceptions of threat within social exchanges can affect whether a person demonstrates their curiosity, with Peters (1978) finding that when teachers are perceived as threatening, student curiosity is inhibited. Given the importance of the nature of these social interactions, sport psychologists are well placed to support curiosity as they strive for their exchanges with clients to be safe and welcoming spaces for exploration. More specifically, sport psychologists could guide conversations and ask questions in such a way that reduces perceptions of threat and stimulates curiosity. To this end, a sport psychologist could use Motivational Interviewing given its non-confrontational approach to work with client resistance and promote curiosity-driven self-exploration.

Considerations for promoting curiosity in high performance sport

Although we have articulated an argument for curiosity as largely positive for individuals, teams, and organizations in sport, it is important to note that the suitability of being curious may be bound by time and situation. That is, not every situation or environment is likely to benefit from curiosity because the timing of curiosity’s application does not work (e.g., momentary curiosity may serve as a distraction during an important event in sport which could have adverse consequences for performers) or that curiosity is inappropriately applied (e.g., being curious about risky behaviors in sport such as drug use). Accordingly, we provide some questions for consideration:

1. Will everyone benefit from being curious in high-performance sport? Although there are benefits of promoting curiosity, it is important to acknowledge that not every stakeholder in sport will benefit from being curious. For example, athletes who tend to be engrossed in their own thinking may be more likely to experience dysfunctional effects from being curious, such as cognitive distortions.

2. Is it more effective to be curious about one specific thing, or many things in high-performance sport? It may be that different performers are curious about different things, and the direction and breadth of this curiosity may differ depending on the individual (e.g., their cognitive stage of development) and the context (e.g., the novelty, complexity or ambiguity of a situation). To meet this need, sport psychologists should explore with clients the breadth of their curiosity and evaluate the impact this has on their experiences in performance sport.

3. What are the optimal conditions for curiosity where the benefits will be maximized in high-performance sport? The gap between what someone already knows and what they would like to know needs to be considered when promoting curiosity in sport. Researchers have suggested that when this gap is small, curiosity is optimized (Lievens et al., 2022). Hence, coaches and leaders in sport might seek to continually assess performers’ current knowledge on a given topic and adapt their questioning approach to ensure knowledge gaps stretch but do not stifle curiosity in those they interact with.

4. Are there boundary conditions of when (and when not) curiosity is beneficial in high-performance sport? We suggest that it is important to be aware of the drawbacks to promoting curiosity. Such drawbacks can include circumstances or contexts in which curiosity is detrimental in high-performance sport. For example, being curious about and questioning widely-held assumptions within organizations may support new ways of thinking, systemic change, and innovation; yet, this questioning may also cause some unhealthy disruption within an organization.

5. What are the short-term vs long-term implications of promoting curiosity? It is important to consider the role of time in the process of being curious given that researchers remain uncertain about how the construct ebbs and flows (Lievens et al., 2022). For example, momentary curiosity can distract an athlete at that time, yet it could also facilitate a prospective experience that stimulates learning and creativity.

Conclusion

In this article we aimed to bring attention to a construct that has received relatively little attention in sport, and in doing so offer an introductory discussion of curiosity. By exploring this construct, we have satiated our own curiosity about the role curiosity can have in performance sport. Curiosity has the potential to act as a strength for those involved in high-performance sport through facilitating learning and helping to develop social relationships. By failing to pay attention to curiosity, performers risk forming narrow identities, stifling creativity and maintaining a cultural and performance status quo. Nevertheless, the discussion offered herein is grounded in research from relevant, but distinct performance-focussed domains. While there can be benefits gained from learning from these relevant domains, the ideas presented in this article are yet to be tested in sport. High-performance sport is unique, complex and turbulent. For this reason, we invite sport psychology practitioners and researchers to critically consider and build a bespoke evidence-base for curiosity in sport settings.

Disclosure statement

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.