1 Introduction

Curiosity has a robust relationship with well-being (Kaczmarek et al., 2014; Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Lydon-Staley et al., 2019). Curious individuals outperform in various life domains, including education (Von Stumm et al., 2011), work (Lievens et al., 2022), and social relationships (Minson & Chen, 2022). This success may stem from their inclination to embrace, rather than avoid, novel, uncertain, and potentially stressful activities that offer opportunities for personal growth and increased well-being. Paradoxically, satisfaction for the curious often comes from tackling difficult, challenging, and complex situations rather than avoiding life hardships (Gruber & Ranganath, 2019; Spielberger & Starr, 1994). However, this approach can lead to deep (physiological and psychological) engagement and, when curiosity is unsatisfied (Loewenstein, 1994), a sense of missed opportunities, dissatisfaction, and disappointment.

Curiosity can be broadly divided into trait curiosity, a stable characteristic that varies across individuals, and state/task curiosity, a temporary condition influenced by the specific demands in a given moment (Silvia & Kashdan, 2009). While trait curiosity is linked to general tendencies to seek new experiences and information, state curiosity is more situational and can be triggered by tasks (Fleeson, 2004; Jach et al., 2022). While extensive research has explored the broad trait of curiosity across different contexts (Silvia & Kashdan, 2009), less attention has been given to the experience of task-specific curiosity. Few studies have investigated how state curiosity about a particular task can enhance stress coping mechanisms, such as viewing stress as a challenge rather than threat (Tomaka & Magoc, 2021). Furthermore, little is known about how task curiosity influences cardiac reactivity, an indicator of motivational intensity and task engagement (Behnke et al., 2021; Richter et al., 2016). Finally, no study has examined how curious individuals react when they cannot perform anticipated actions during an upcoming novel situation.

To fill these gaps, we aim to examine the complex path from personality trait (openness to experience) and state (task curiosity) through appraisals (challenge/threat stress evaluation), physiological reactivity duration, to satisfaction or disappointment after missing an opportunity to face an anticipated novel situation. Considering task curiosity as a mediator between openness to experience and other variables is grounded in theoretical and empirical research on personality, cognition, and coping. The observation that situational cognitive appraisals mediate personality and the stress response dates back to work on how interpretations of events are more important than events themselves (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, openness to experience is a broad personality trait characterized by a willingness to engage with novel and complex stimuli with intellectual curiosity as a core, explicit component (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Silvia & Christensen, 2020). Individuals who are highly open are more likely to experience frequent states of curiosity, especially when confronted with novel tasks (Silvia & Christensen, 2020). Thus, openness to experience can be seen as a dispositional antecedent that fosters a higher probability of situational (or task-specific) curiosity. Thus, we aim to integrate several perspectives and extend the scope of performance to situations where individuals are prepared but not allowed to execute the task (Fredrickson et al., 2000). This research provides a broader perspective on how state curiosity and the curiosity-related personality trait of openness to experience (Silvia & Christensen, 2020) predict task-related stress responses. It helps understand the benefits and costs curious individuals encounter in stressful situations.

1.1 Curiosity

Curiosity embodies a desire to learn and understand more about the world and other people (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Through self-directed behavior, curiosity propels the pursuit of information, experiences, and actions for their own sake. Those with higher curiosity often feel more uncomfortable not knowing something they need to progress (Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b). Their heightened deprivation sensitivity further amplifies motivation to expand knowledge or skills and find resolutions. Naturally drawn to challenging situations, curious individuals relish life's complexities (Litman, 2005). Consequently, they are more motivated and equipped to engage in novel situations.

Unlike trait curiosity, state curiosity emerges in response to specific situations and reflects a transient desire to acquire new information or experiences (Litman, 2005). This dynamic can lead to different outcomes in various contexts, such as novel tasks, where state curiosity might influence engagement and appraisal differently than trait curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b). For instance, while trait curiosity might provide a baseline readiness to explore, state curiosity determines the actual level of engagement and interest in an imminent task.

Novel tasks with uncertain outcomes can spark curiosity and foster an exploratory focus, sometimes leading to risky behavior (Jovanović & Gavrilov‐Jerković, 2014; Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b). For those who inherently crave new knowledge and experience, satisfying curiosity can be rewarding, even when faced with threat or failure. It is like saying, “I failed, but I’m glad I tried.” Moreover, for those who feel positively challenged, the prospect of satisfying curiosity can offer an additional benefit. It is like saying, "'I succeeded, and it’s great to know that I'm good at it." This suggests that curious individuals may experience lasting discomfort when prevented from initiating a task they were ready to engage with (Kaneko et al., 2017).

The psychophysiology of curiosity is a relatively unexplored area. One study on cognitive absorption found a correlation between curiosity and task focus, with larger variations in electrodermal response, indicating engagement of sympathetic activity (Leger et al., 2010). In the context of simultaneous interpreting, trait curiosity was found to correlate with cardiac mobilization (Klonowicz, 1990). Physiological measures, being sensitive to stress and motivational intensity (Richter et al., 2016), could facilitate research on curiosity reaching beyond self-reports and behaviors.

1.2 Openness to Experience

Openness to experience is a trait that shares a common motivation with curiosity states—the drive to seek out information for exploration (Jach et al., 2022; Kashdan et al., 2013; Silvia & Christensen, 2020). Individuals open to experience express their curiosity by enjoying new things, ideas, and experiences. They have a wide range of interests (McCrae & John, 1992), which helps prevent hedonic adaptation and, in turn, maintain long-term well-being (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012). The fundamental role of openness to experience in shaping the quality of a person's life is reflected in strong associations with valuing self-direction and maturity (Dollinger et al., 1996).

When faced with stress, individuals open to experience prefer to cope via problem-solving rather than withdrawal or avoidance (Allen et al., 2012; Connor-Smith & Flaschsbart, 2007). This might explain why such individuals achieve improved outcomes when coping with stress, including better performance during speech stressors (Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Schneider et al., 2012). Research has shown that more open individuals evaluate stress differently. They generally perceive situations as challenging rather than threatening, especially during public speaking (Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Schneider et al., 2012; Tomaka & Magoc, 2021). This primarily results from a more favorable evaluation of one's abilities rather than underestimating situational demands. However, a consensus is lacking as some studies found inconsistent relationships between openness to experience and appraisals (Gallagher, 1990), no association (Kaiseler et al., 2012), or a positive relationship with an appraisal of threat (Kulenovic & Busko, 2006).

Participants open to experience are more physiologically reactive to tasks (Bibbey et al., 2013; O'Súilleabháin et al., 2018a, 2018b). Despite increased physiological arousal, individuals scoring high on openness feel more in control (Bibbey et al., 2013). This might reflect their motivational intensity as an increased heart rate (HR) indicates task engagement (Behnke et al., 2021; Hase et al., 2020). Consequently, they might be less likely to disengage prematurely from stressful situations.

1.3 Engaging and Anticipating Stressors

Task engagement is driven by increased goal-directed motivation, leading to heightened sympathetic activation in the autonomous nervous system and a rise in HR (Seery, 2013). High HR reactivity is a response to tasks perceived as demanding and rewarding (Eubanks et al., 2002; Obrist, 2012; Richter et al., 2016), while a lack of cardiac response indicates task disengagement (Behnke et al., 2021; Brinkmann et al., 2009; Hase et al., 2020). Research indicates that in stressful situations, individuals exhibit lower heart rates (HR) when they remain passive or disengaged compared to active or engaged (Obrist, 2012). For example, participants who made fewer attempts to complete an unsolvable puzzle or persevere in a cold-pressor test showed lower cardiovascular reactivity (Chauntry et al., 2019; Whittaker et al., 2021). Low physiological reactivity has been linked to motivational dysregulation (Carroll et al., 2009) or approach-behavior dysregulation (Goldstein & Volkow, 2002). Thus, an individual’s task engagement is the highest for self-relevant tasks that are within their mental/physical/emotional capacity to handle, and this motivational response is reflected in HR (Gendolla, 1998, 1999).

These variations in HR linked to engagement levels contribute to the more general acute stress response, which activates the body’s fight-or-flight mechanism (Berntson & Cacioppo, 2007). During this response, hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol elevate HR and enhance blood flow to muscles and the brain. This physiological state can improve cognitive function and performance under moderate stress (Ginty et al., 2022; Seery, 2013). However, under excessive stress, elevated levels of these hormones can impair cognitive function, thereby hindering task engagement and performance (Lupien et al., 2007).

While faced with a novel task, individuals assess its relevance and worthiness of effort. The effort, defined as the energy mobilized to execute a task (Richter et al., 2016), is proportional to task difficulty if deemed achievable and worthwhile. However, if the task's difficulty is unclear, the effort invested tends to be directly proportional to the importance of success. This approach helps individuals conserve energy in anticipation of potential difficulties that lie ahead (Obrist, 1981; Richter et al., 2016).

Individuals also appraise goal-relevant and potentially stressful situations as either challenging or threatening (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). These appraisals result from evaluating personal action resources (like skills, knowledge, and abilities) against situational demands. A situation is appraised as a challenge when individuals perceive their resources as sufficient to overcome demands. Conversely, when perceived demands exceed personal resources, the situation is evaluated as threatening.

Anticipatory stress, or the response to an impending stressor, produces responding similar to coping with the actual stressor (Neubauer et al., 2018). However, there is limited research on responses to situations where an individual prepares for a demanding task (like delivering a public speech) but is ultimately denied the opportunity to perform. These situations can be seen as recovery from anticipating a stressful event rather than the event itself. For instance, individuals preparing for a speech respond with greater negative affect and a similar HR recovery duration than those who prepare but avoid giving the speech (Waugh et al., 2010). In the latter case, incomplete HR recovery is coupled with less pronounced affective recovery.

Individual responses to avoiding a stressful task can vary. Some might feel relieved that they no longer have to deal with the stress of performing the task. This satisfaction could stem from the perception of avoiding unwanted distress. Others might feel disappointed, having missed out on the thrill of a new experience. This dynamic could be relevant in various contexts, such as education, work, or everyday situations where individuals prepare for a performance but do not get the chance to act. These responses could be tied to openness to experience and curiosity, as curious individuals are intrinsically motivated to seek out and relish novelty.

1.4 Current study

In this research program, we gathered experimental data to expand on conceptual models relating to the multidimensionality of curiosity (Lievens et al., 2022; Litman, 2005). These include joyous exploration (the pleasure derived from new experiences), deprivation sensitivity (the discomfort of not being able to fill an information gap), and stress tolerance (the capacity to handle the unease that comes from encountering new, unfamiliar, and uncertain situations) (Kashdan et al., 2018; Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b; Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b). We investigated how openness to experience and state curiosity influence cognitive, affective, and cardiovascular responses when an anticipated stressor is avoided. We investigated how openness to experience and state curiosity influence cognitive, affective, and cardiovascular responses when an anticipated stressor is avoided. Our model situates state curiosity as a mediator in the longer pathway, starting from personality precursors to more distal outcomes, such as physiological responses and eventual satisfaction or regret stemming from avoidance of a task (Silvia & Christensen, 2020).

Specifically, we expected that individuals more open to experience would be more curious about the upcoming task, that curiosity would predict more challenge and less threat appraisal (i.e., the joyous exploration dimension), that more open and curious individuals would express more disappointment and less satisfaction when prevented from challenging themselves (i.e., the deprivation sensitivity dimension), and openness and curiosity would predict HR reactivity duration (i.e., the stress tolerance dimension). Thus, the hypothesized path model is based on a theoretically supported chain: 1. Openness to experience fosters higher levels of task-specific curiosity, 2. Higher task curiosity leads to more positive (challenge-based) cognitive appraisals and greater physiological engagement; 3. These cognitive and physiological responses, in turn, predict emotional outcomes such as satisfaction and disappointment after task avoidance.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Our study involved 123 volunteers (60.2% women, ages 19–26, M = 21.14, SD = 1.70). Power analysis with G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that a sample size of 114 participants is required to detect small-to-moderate effect sizes of f2 = 0.10 and power of 0.80 with up to three predictors. Participants, recruited via campus fliers, had no significant health issues or prior diagnosis of cardiovascular disease or hypertension and did not use drugs or medications. They were instructed to avoid eating, physical exercise, and intake of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, or non-prescription drugs for at least two hours before the experiment. Each participant received a $3 gift. Missing data (1.01%) were determined to be random via Little’s (1988) chi-square test, χ2 (2499) = 2517.30, p = 0.39, and imputed using the Expectation–Maximization algorithm (Enders, 2001) in SPSS 21. All participants provided written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee.

2.2 Procedure

The procedure involved individual testing in a dimly lit room. After providing informed consent and having cardiovascular sensors applied, participants sat quietly for a seven-minute baseline, completed questionnaires, received task instructions, and completed baseline self-reports.

We induced stress using a validated social protocol (Fredrickson et al., 2000; Kaczmarek et al., 2019; Mendes et al., 2008). Participants prepared a 2-min speech (on the topic “Why are you a good friend?”), with a 50% chance of being selected to deliver it. After the one-minute preparation period, each participant was informed that they were selected not to deliver the speech (performance exemption).

During the 4-min stress recovery, we presented positive and neutral pictures based on randomization. However, this data was not analyzed due to the fast recovery of many participants before the presentation. We controlled for potential effects of this presentation to ensure it did not influence recovery time and anticipatory stress avoidance response.

3 Measures

3.1 Cardiovascular Activity

We recorded cardiovascular biosignals continuously and noninvasively using electrocardiography with a Psychlab AC amplifier (Contact Precision Instruments, London, UK). Two Ag/AgCl electrodes were placed on the musculature between the neck and the distal end of the right collarbone and the left lateral abdomen below the lower rib cage. The data were digitized at 1000 Hz onto a PC. The LabChart 8.02 software automatically evaluated the recordings, followed by visual inspection and necessary corrections. LabChart software calculated the heart rate (HR) based on intervals between R peaks. Heart rate (in beats per minute) reflects sympathetic and parasympathetic influences (Obrist, 2012). Increased heart rate can result from increased sympathetic activity, withdrawal of parasympathetic activity, or both. We excluded six participants due to > 10% of artifacts in the ECG signal and nine whose HR did not return to baseline during recovery, preventing us from determining their recovery time. Individuals whose HR did not return to baseline after the task did not differ from those who recovered in openness to experience, curiosity, challenge, and threat appraisal, all ts (121) < 0.83, ps > 0.20.

Our focus was on the duration of HR recovery from stress. We calculated each participant's HR time to return to their baseline, within the confidence interval for at least five consecutive seconds, a validated index of HR response sensitive to temporal cardiovascular dynamics (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998; Kaczmarek et al., 2019; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). HR deviation from the baseline indicates task engagement (Behnke et al., 2021).

We calculated a baseline confidence interval defined by the participant’s 60-s baseline HR mean plus and minus one standard deviation of that mean. HR recovery duration was calculated as the time elapsed until cardiovascular levels returned to within an individual's baseline confidence interval and remained within this confidence interval for at least five consecutive seconds (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998). Higher values of HR recovery duration indicated longer cardiac recovery.

3.2 Task Curiosity

Participants were asked about their immediate feelings toward the upcoming speech to capture state curiosity. We asked directly about curiosity (“curious”), used a popular synonym for a curiosity-inducing task (“interesting”), and emphasized novelty and the desire for new experiences (“opportunity for a new experience”). These measures, grounded in established theories on curiosity (DeYoung, 2013; Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b; Kidd & Hayden, 2015), capture the essence of curiosity, which involves a drive to seek out and engage with new information and uncertain situations. Participants answered these items ("curious," "interesting," and "opportunity for a new experience") on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), achieving acceptable reliability (α = 0.74).

3.3 Openness to Experience

Situational curiosity was analyzed in the context of their broader trait of openness to experience, measured using the NEO-FFI subscale (Costa & McCrae, 1992). NEO-FFI measures openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992) with 12 items (e.g., "I often try new and foreign food"). Participants responded to statements on a scale from 1 to 5 (strongly agree). The measure showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.66). Unfortunately, due to a software error during data collection, we could not obtain the results for eight participants.

3.4 Task Appraisal

The approach to measuring appraisal was derived from established stress and coping literature (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Allen et al., 2002; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Following Tugade and Fredrickson (2004), who studied similar processes, we conceptualized threat appraisals as reflective of situations perceived as psychologically dangerous, where individuals feel unsafe and threatened. In contrast, we conceptualized challenge appraisals as reflective of situations where individuals feel mobilized, activated, and stimulated. Mobilization reflects being prepared and readiness for action, aligning with viewing a task as a challenge that can be met with one's capabilities and resources. Activation implies being alert and energetic, indicating that the individual feels equipped to tackle the task. Finally, stimulation conveys excitement, which is central to perceiving a task as an opportunity rather than threat. Participants responded on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), to three items measuring threat (“threatening,” “dangerous,” and “unsafe”) (α = 0.80), and with three measuring challenge appraisal (“stimulating,” “mobilizing,” “activating”) (α = 0.82).

3.5 Task Avoidance Response

After being informed they would not deliver the speech, participants reported their level of “satisfaction” (cognitive judgment) and “disappointment” (affective response) using two single-item rating scales, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). These items are theoretically grounded in research on anticipatory stress and emotional reactions to task avoidance (Neubauer et al., 2018; Waugh et al., 2010). The simplicity of these measures aims to capture direct, immediate responses when prevented from completing a prepared task.

3.6 Data Analytic Approach

We used path analysis with mPlus 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) to examine whether challenge/threat appraisals, task curiosity, and openness to experience predicted physiological task engagement (measured by HR reactivity duration) and satisfaction and disappointment with anticipated stress avoidance. We controlled for age, sex, and type of pictures shown after the task. The robust Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLR) was used to evaluate the fit of the path model (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). MLR scales the data to account for possible deviations from normality. We used the RMSEA fit index, with values < 0.06 indicating a good fit, and the CFI with a cut-off value above 0.90 (Bentler, 1990). Bias-corrected bootstrapping with 10,000 samples was used to test indirect effects. Bootstrapping produces point estimates and confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effects. If the 95% confidence intervals do not include zero, it indicates significant indirect effects. Scatter plots were generated with Jamovi 2.3.21 (Jamovi, 2024). We report Cohen’s f2 as effect size measures with values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 considered small, medium and large effect sizes (Cohen, 1991). This effect size measure informs about the amount of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variable.

4 Results

Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between study variables are shown in Table 1. Figure 1 presents the HR levels throughout the procedure. The pairwise relationships between the variables in the model are illustrated in Fig. 2. The hypothesized path model is illustrated in Fig. 3. The model fit the empirical data well, χ2 (33) = 37.08, p = 0.28, RMSEA = 0.03, 90% CI [0.00, 0.08], CFI = 0.96. Including insignificant paths didn’t affect the model fit, Δχ2 (28) = 33.38, p > 0.05, so they were removed.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and inter-correlations among study variables
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The HR response in four minutes preceding the task, during the task and four minutes after the task. HR = heart rate (beats per minute)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Scatterplots for the relationships between the variables in the model. Note. The shaded areas represent the Standard Error

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Model for the role of openness to experience and task curiosity in predicting appraisal, physiological engagement duration, and responses to performance opportunity cancelation. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Full size image

The findings revealed that participants who were more open to experience felt more curiosity about the upcoming stress task, with a medium effect size, f2 = 0.12. Those with higher task curiosity viewed the task more as a challenge and less as a threat. The effect size of task curiosity was strong for challenge appraisal, f2 = 0.34, and moderate for threat appraisal, f2 = 0.08. Individuals more curious about the task also had longer HR activation during the trial, with a small effect size of f2 = 0.05. They felt more disappointed when they learned they would not be asked to deliver the speech, a medium effect size f2 = 0.15. On the other hand, those who felt threatened by the task were moderately more satisfied with the decision not to deliver the speech, with a medium effect size, f2 = 0.14.

Several indirect effects were observed. More open individuals were also more challenged, β = 0.067, 95% CI [0.027, 0.115], more disappointed with task exemption, β = 0.072, 95% CI [0.029, 0.125], and showed longer physiological engagement, β = 0.197, 95% CI [0.014, 0.442], due to their greater task curiosity. These individuals were less satisfied with task performance exemption, β = − 0.024, 95% CI [− 0.055, − 0.004], because they felt more curious and, consequently, less threatened.

5 Discussion

This research unifies various perspectives to broaden our understanding of task-related performance, cognitions, and experience when individuals prepare for but are prevented from completing a task. It introduces a novel element to curiosity studies by scrutinizing how this psychological strength theoretically operates in a stress/challenge context. We explored how individuals open to experience and curiosity respond to anticipated novel situations through cognitive appraisal and HR reactivity duration and how they react when denied the opportunity to perform a prepared action. Our investigation addressed the mechanisms that account for how curiosity as a trait and state influence performance.

Individuals open to experience displayed a particular type of well-being before an impending novel speech task, such as heightened curiosity, feeling challenged, and less threatened. They also exhibited longer physiological engagement, indicating sustained task involvement. However, these individuals were susceptible to negative outcomes (disappointment and dissatisfaction) after avoiding anticipated stress, fitting with conceptual models of the curiosity dimension known as deprivation sensitivity (Kashdan et al., 2018; Litman, 2005; Lowenstein, 1995) or distress experienced when an information gap is left unfulfilled. This research highlights the advantages and drawbacks (physiological and cognitive) of openness to experience and curiosity on human performance. Importantly, our approach reveals that significant curiosity-related phenomena arise when individuals are asked to prepare for a task but denied the opportunity to perform it.

The results illustrate that state curiosity is critical in mediating the effect of trait openness to experience on stress appraisal and physiological engagement. This mediation suggests that while trait curiosity provides a general inclination towards novel experiences, the situational curiosity (state curiosity) activated by the specific task at hand directly contributes to the observed positive and negative outcomes (Fredrickson et al., 2000; Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b).

We observed that individuals scoring higher on openness to experience and curiosity tended to be more physiologically engaged, showing extended HR reactivity during the stress task. These individuals spent more time outside their baseline HR range while preparing for and recovering from the uncompleted task. Increased HR, a marker of task engagement, suggests that curious participants were more engaged in the trial than their less curious counterparts. We also found that the state of curiosity mediates some of the effects of openness to experience—supporting a trait-state curiosity model (e.g., Fleeson, 2004). Openness to experience was moderately linked to curiosity, most likely via its “intellectual curiosity” component (Jach et al., 2022; McCrea & Costa, 1997; Silvia & Christensen, 2020). These findings expand upon previous research linking openness to experience and curiosity with task engagement, not by self-report but via physiological indicators (i.e., HR reactivity) (Bibbey et al., 2013; O'Súilleabháin et al., 2018a; O'Súilleabháin et al., 2018b). However, this group also takes longer to recover, which could pose health risks as slower recovery exerts more strain on the cardiovascular system (Chida & Steptoe, 2010).

Reduced physiological reactivity to tasks is associated with motivational inefficiency and diminished mental and somatic health, such as depression and compromised immunity (Carroll et al., 2012). Our findings support this, showing that individuals closed to experience and relatively incurious about upcoming tasks had the shortest HR response. This suggests that open and curious individuals may experience a performance boost but with a tradeoff between physiological costs and benefits (Kashdan et al., 2023).

We observed more challenge and fewer threat appraisals among individuals who were more open to experience, both indirectly through increased curiosity and directly among those who are highly curious. This aligns with previous studies highlighting better stress coping among individuals open to experience (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2020a, 2020b; Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Schneider et al., 2012), but contradicts others (Gallagher, 1990; Kaiseler et al., 2012; Kulenovic & Busko, 2006). The cognitive evaluations, indicating more challenge and less threat, align with the physiological HR response, suggesting greater engagement. Importantly, we found that task curiosity mediated the relationship between openness to experience and stress outcomes. After including curiosity, no direct path linking openness to experience with stress outcomes was significant, suggesting state curiosity may be the central asset for people open to experience during performance (Jach et al., 2022; Silvia & Christensen, 2020). Moreover, the effects of task curiosity on the appraisal of stress as a challenge were the strongest we observed among participants in this study.

Another aspect of our findings relates to cognitive and affective responses to avoided stressors. Individuals open to experience were more likely to respond with disappointment and dissatisfaction after avoiding an anticipated stressor. This negative response could be due to their inherent interest in novel tasks (i.e., joyous exploration). While task avoidance may reduce cognitive load, it also removes the opportunity for a new experience. The disappointment response suggests that for individuals open to experience, the benefits of gaining new experiences outweigh the costs (i.e., deprivation sensitivity). This could be attributed to curious individuals' tendency to exert considerable effort to eliminate gaps between what is present and what is newly desired (e.g., Loewenstein, 1994). This creates a paradoxical path to satisfaction for curious individuals who are drawn to difficult, challenging, and complex situations rather than avoiding difficulties. However, the consequences of unsatisfied curiosity may include recognizing missed opportunities and subsequent disappointment. Furthermore, curious individuals may be motivated not only by the desire to challenge their skills but also to avoid the aversive effects of unsatisfied curiosity.

The negative response to unmet curiosity warrants closer examination from the mental health perspective. The dissatisfaction and disappointment from being unable to expand knowledge or gain new experiences that we observed at a lab-based level might cause serious adverse effects when occurring on a real-life scale and during major life pursuits. Further research might examine whether people who consistently fail to fulfill their curiosity experience more life distress and are at a greater risk of diminished mental health and well-being. This phenomenon might be especially burdensome for engaging in seemingly unsolvable problems when anticipation and preparation never lead to fulfillment or problems that require long-term effort. Understanding the balance between healthy curiosity and obsessive pursuits and their possible negative life consequences could lead to better ways to encourage curiosity without causing harm (Vallerand et al., 2023).

Finally, we observed that stress recovery in some participants occurred faster than expected, even during the speech preparation period. There can be several explanations for this phenomenon. For instance, the highest cardiac response often occurs when individuals act under the pressure of the highest uncertainty (Richter et al., 2016). In such cases, many individuals maximize the mobilization (“just in case”) because they do not know which level of mobilization is sufficient. Participants initially faced this level of uncertainty, which led to maximum mobilization. Once they assessed the task's difficulty, they could adjust their mobilization levels accordingly, leading to faster HR re-stabilization. Moreover, some individuals might give up actively coping with the speech preparation task early on, perceiving their successful completion as beyond their mental/physical/emotional capacity. In such cases, the HR response tends to diminish (Gendolla, 1998, 1999).

5.1 Interpretative Caveats

Our research has several limitations. Firstly, our sample consisted of young and healthy individuals, and cardiovascular fitness may play a larger role as a result of greater variability in other age groups. Secondly, despite the extensive use of HR in studies on the effect of personality traits and appraisals on stress (e.g., Bibbey et al., 2013), future investigations might consider other biological stress-related parameters. Further studies could consider whether the changes we observed were primarily driven by sympathetic activation, parasympathetic activation, or a combination of both. Heart rate (HR) is influenced by sympathetic activation and parasympathetic withdrawal (Richter et al., 2016). Although cardiovascular systems less influenced by parasympathetic activity (e.g., systolic blood pressure) show similar response patterns for predicting task engagement (Gendolla, 1998), future studies should incorporate more direct measures of sympathetic and parasympathetic activity. For example, the pre-ejection period is less influenced by parasympathetic withdrawal than HR (Richter et al., 2016), making it a potentially valuable metric for such studies. Moreover, cardiac output and total peripheral resistance might be physiological indicators of the challenge and threat response (Blascovich et al., 2004; Mendes et al., 2008). Thirdly, we focused on HR as an indicator of task engagement (Richter et al., 2016). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that increased HR is also a component of the acute stress response (Berntson & Cacioppo, 2007). Thus, in our study, HR measures likely captured the physiological engagement associated with curiosity and the acute stress response related to the anticipation of a public speech. This nuanced interpretation highlights the complex physiological mechanisms underlying curiosity and stress. Fourthly, individuals more open to experience tend to be more physiologically reactive to tasks but also habituate faster to repeated tasks (O'Súilleabháin et al., 2018a). Therefore, our results pertain to a single initial stress response, which might differ for research designs with repeated tasks. The benefits of curiosity might be diminished once a curious individual satisfies their need to learn a novel experience. Fifthly, we excluded several participants who did not exhibit any reactivity to stress or did not recover during the last phase of the experiment. Recent findings emphasize that both blunted and exaggerated reactivity could be indicative of several adverse health outcomes (Carroll et al., 2011). Thus, our results do not generalize to these two specific subgroups of outliers. Furthermore, future studies should account for the presence of individuals who do not return to their baseline physiological or psychological state immediately after task completion in their sample size calculations. Sixthly, the current design and sample size did not allow for testing possible moderators. Further studies might focus on other factors involved in the task-curiosity process, which could enhance or suppress the effects observed in the model. For instance, this could involve other personality traits beyond openness, situational factors (e.g., perceived task relevance), or social context (e.g., social support that might enable active coping in less engaged or more threatened individuals). Lastly, we used a speech stressor. Despite social stressors being among the most arousing, more studies are needed to examine whether a similar response generalizes to other tasks, such as passive stress scenarios (Soye & O'Súilleabháin, 2019).

5.2 Practical implications

This study has several practical implications. Firstly, for curious individuals, it might be more beneficial to allow them to complete tasks rather than relieve them of the obligation. This could be particularly relevant in educational or professional contexts to boost efficacy, support satisfaction, and reduce disappointment (Amanvermez et al., 2020; Richardson & Rothstein, 2008). Secondly, our findings could be useful in tailoring stress management programs. By understanding the unique stress responses of individuals high in openness to experience and curiosity, we can guide the development of stress management and resilience training programs (e.g., Williams et al., 2009). These programs could focus on harnessing the action-oriented aspects of these traits while mitigating potential adverse effects on health. Thirdly, mental health professionals could incorporate these findings into interventions, especially for clients who exhibit high levels of openness and curiosity. Tailored strategies can be developed to help curious and open individuals manage stressors effectively while leveraging their tendencies for personal growth. Fourthly, we observed that some individuals embraced the opportunity to further their experience at the expense of physiological arousal indicative of psychological stress. Individuals who engage in stressful activities (e.g., public speaking) while pursuing their interests may be at an increased cardiovascular risk. Reactivity to mental stress observed in laboratory settings is associated longitudinally with suboptimal cardiovascular status (Chida & Steptoe, 2010). Thus, these two findings should be considered by psychologists in their work, for example, from high-intensity work environments to competitive athletic competitions.

6 Conclusions

This study emphasizes the complex interplay of personality traits, cognitive and physiological responses to stress, and the implications for individual well-being and health. It underscores the need to address the multidimensional nature of curiosity, as dimensions such as joyous exploration and deprivation sensitivity produced opposing affective, cognitive, and physiological responses. Our work allows for a better understanding of how curiosity operates in stressful performance situations, especially in realistic situations when an opportunity for novel experiences is anticipated, prepared for, but then withdrawn. It is these types of naturalistic sequences that will allow for a greater understanding of psychological strengths in action.