Seven studies covering diverse contexts show an underappreciated benefit of teasing in information acquisition: first creating and then resolving an uncertainty can generate a net positive experience, yet laypeople do not seek out this process. For example, trivia readers report better hedonic experiences if they are first teased with some missing information and then given that information than if they receive all the information at the same time; however, when given a choice, readers prefer to receive all information at the same time. The authors further show that teasing is hedonically beneficial because uncertainty engenders curiosity and thereby builds a potential for a positive experience, whereas uncertainty resolution satisfies the curiosity and thereby realizes that potential. This research yields practical implications by demonstrating that imbuing an ad with an uncertainty creation–resolution process improves the viewer's attitude toward and increases the viewer's willingness to try the advertised product.

Curiosity-the desire for information-underlies many human activities, from reading celebrity gossip to developing nuclear science. Curiosity is well recognized as a human blessing. Is it also a human curse? Tales about such things as Pandora's box suggest that it is, but scientific evidence is lacking. In four controlled experiments, we demonstrated that curiosity could lead humans to expose themselves to aversive stimuli (even electric shocks) for no apparent benefits. The research suggests that humans possess an inherent desire, independent of consequentialist considerations, to resolve uncertainty; when facing something uncertain and feeling curious, they will act to resolve the uncertainty even if they expect negative consequences. This research reveals the potential perverse side of curiosity, and is particularly relevant to the current epoch, the epoch of information, and to the scientific community, a community with high curiosity.

We live in a dynamic world, surrounded by moving stimuli-moving people, moving objects, and moving events. The current research proposes and finds an approach aversion effect-individuals feel less positively (or more negatively) about a stimulus if they perceive it to be approaching rather than receding or static. The effect appears general, occurring whether the stimulus is initially negative or nonnegative and whether it moves in space (toward or away from "here"), in time (toward or away from "now"), or in probability (toward or away from "sure"). This research complements extensive existing research on perceived static distance of stimuli (near vs. far) by exploring perceived dynamic movement of stimuli (approaching vs. receding), showing that the effect of movement is distinct from the effect of distance.

Prior research indicates that a stimulus can reinforce an action if the stimulus is a reward (i.e., a priori positive) or carries useful information. The current research finds that if a stimulus is perceived as a reaction to an action, it can reinforce the action even if the stimulus is a priori nonpositive and noninformative. Mere reactions are reinforcing. Specifically, eight experiments, including a field experiment, demonstrate that individuals are more likely to repeat an action (e.g., inserting money in a donation box or typing a message in a textbox) if the action is followed by a stimulus (e.g., the emission of a sound or the flash of an image) than if it is not, even if the stimulus is a priori negative (e.g., an annoying sound or an aversive image) and carries no useful information. Moreover, the effect just described will occur only if the stimulus is contingent on (immediately follows) the action and perceived as a reaction to the action. Finally, by serving as a reaction, an a priori nonpositive stimulus can become positive. The present work yields theoretical implications for stimulus-response relationships and practical implications for designs of consumer products and loyalty programs.

No abstract