Why Do People Try New Things?
Familiarity gives us reliable answers. Exploration becomes valuable when we need answers our previous experience cannot provide.
Most people do not pursue novelty indiscriminately. They return to restaurants they like, maintain friendships that work, follow familiar routes, develop expertise in occupations they understand, and build routines precisely because repetition reduces uncertainty.
Yet the same person who values familiarity will sometimes abandon it deliberately. They travel somewhere unknown, attempt a new skill, consider a different career, or start a conversation with someone they have never met. In each case, certainty is traded for the possibility of learning something.
That exchange provides a useful way to understand why people try new things. Exploration is not simply a preference for novelty; it can be a method for discovering information that the familiar option cannot produce.
Curiosity Turns Ignorance Into a Question
Psychologist George Loewenstein’s information-gap theory of curiosity offers one explanation for why certain unknowns become so compelling. Curiosity intensifies when people recognize a gap between what they know and what they want to know.
A subject about which we know absolutely nothing can pass unnoticed because we do not yet understand enough to identify what is missing. Give us a partial explanation, however, and the missing information can suddenly become difficult to ignore.
Mystery stories use this structure deliberately. They establish enough facts to create a discrepancy and then allow the reader to see exactly what remains unexplained. The urge to continue reading comes partly from wanting to close that newly visible gap.
Outside fiction, contradictions, unfamiliar methods, and surprising claims can produce the same effect. Curiosity makes exploration emotionally attractive before we have established whether the answer will be useful.
Exploration Creates Information for Future Choices
A different motivation appears when the unknown contains a potentially better option.
Imagine someone deciding whether to remain in an established career or investigate another field. The current job comes with known compensation, responsibilities, relationships, and frustrations. The alternative promises possibilities but contains uncertainty about almost all of them.
Remaining in the current path exploits existing knowledge. Investigating the alternative explores a possibility whose value has not yet been established.
This is the exploration-exploitation tradeoff. Exploitation uses information we already possess to obtain familiar rewards, while exploration sacrifices some immediate predictability in exchange for information that could improve later decisions.
The same tension appears in business. A successful marketing campaign can continue producing predictable returns, while an experimental campaign might perform worse, perform better, or teach the organization something about customers that the existing campaign cannot reveal.
Exploration therefore has both an immediate cost and a possible informational return.
Unexpected Outcomes Can Change the Next Decision
New experiences become particularly valuable when reality departs from expectation.
Consider someone who avoids public speaking because they expect to perform poorly. Eventually, circumstances produce a low-stakes opportunity to explain a familiar subject to a small group. The presentation goes better than expected, and the experience creates evidence that did not exist before.
The lesson does not have to be that the person “loves public speaking.” A more precise update might be that prepared presentations feel manageable, small groups are comfortable, or knowledge of the subject matters more than previously assumed.
Learning research examines a specific mechanism called reward prediction error, in which received outcomes differ from expected outcomes. The neuroscience of that mechanism should not be stretched into a complete theory of confidence or exploration, but the underlying logic provides a useful analogy for ordinary decisions.
Experience can correct predictions.
Get QuestionClass’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Avoiding experience preserves them.
Identity Is Full of Untested Predictions
Many beliefs about identity sound permanent despite being built from limited evidence.
People say they are bad at math, uncreative, shy, technologically inept, or incapable of learning languages. Some of those assessments are well supported. Others began with an experience years earlier and were never seriously tested again.
Trying something new creates an opportunity to distinguish between a stable limitation and an outdated prediction.
Someone taking an acting class may discover that they dislike improvisation but enjoy prepared performance. Someone attempting a creative activity may discover that enjoyment matters more than exceptional skill. Someone learning unfamiliar software may find that the old belief about being “bad with technology” was tied to a different stage of life.
Exploration can therefore revise identity without requiring dramatic reinvention. It gives people better evidence from which to describe themselves.
Not Every Unknown Deserves Exploration
Novelty carries costs, and those costs vary by circumstance.
Changing careers can threaten income and stability. Trying a new investment can put capital at risk. Experimenting with a different business strategy consumes resources that could have been used on an approach that already works.
Even low-stakes experimentation consumes time. Every hour spent exploring one possibility is an hour unavailable for another activity.
This prevents a simplistic conclusion that exploratory people are courageous while cautious people are closed-minded. The same experiment can be sensible for one person and irresponsible for another because their financial obligations, available time, reversibility, and potential downside differ.
What matters is the relationship between the potential information and the cost of obtaining it.
Use Small Experiments When You Can
Many unfamiliar opportunities can be tested without immediately accepting their full consequences.
Someone considering a career change can talk with practitioners, take a class, complete a project, or temporarily work on adjacent responsibilities. A company can test customer demand before funding a full product. Someone curious about a new hobby can attend a session before purchasing all the equipment.
These are not merely smaller commitments. They are experiments designed to convert uncertainty into evidence.
The quality of the experiment matters. Spending one afternoon observing a profession may answer some questions while leaving others completely untouched. A useful test should resemble the underlying decision closely enough to teach something relevant.
The objective is not to eliminate uncertainty before committing. It is to replace guesses with evidence where doing so is affordable.
The Familiar Has a Cost Too
Risk is easy to notice when it involves action because the consequences are visible. The cost of not exploring is quieter.
Remaining in a familiar career may avoid the risk of changing jobs while preserving uncertainty about whether another kind of work would fit better. Staying with an established strategy avoids an experimental failure while leaving potential improvements undiscovered.
This does not make exploration automatically correct. It means inaction should be evaluated as a choice with its own information costs.
The familiar tells us what has worked so far.
Exploration tells us what else might be possible.
So the next time an unfamiliar possibility attracts your attention, ask something more precise than whether it will succeed:
What would I never learn if I didn’t try?
