Interpersonal Curiosity as Relational Infrastructure
A Protective Factor Against Loneliness and a Lever for Men’s Friendship
John and I have been friends since kindergarten. Now, he lives in California and we see each other once or twice a year, but talk on the phone almost weekly. He is notorious among a wide group of people for asking deeply personal questions. They are often done with a wink and a smile, rather than a biting inquiry of judgement. Importantly, he circles back days or weeks later to ask how a difficult conversation played out or whether a stressful situation improved. As a result of his consistent curiosity and follow up, people share deeply personal things with him, and many people describe him as a close friend. I joked once that I’m probably one of ten people who consider him my best friend.
At a time when concern about loneliness—particularly among men—continues to grow, it is worth asking a different question: What if the missing ingredient in many men’s friendships is not more time together, greater vulnerability, or even shared activity, but inquiry? Interpersonal curiosity is the desire to know about the inner world of another may function as relational infrastructure that protects against loneliness and offers a practical lever for strengthening male friendship (Litman & Pezzo, 2007; Letendre Jauniaux & Lawford, 2024).
What Is Interpersonal Curiosity?
Interpersonal curiosity refers to the desire to know about the thoughts, feelings, experiences, and inner worlds of other people (Han et al., 2023; Litman & Pezzo, 2007). It is not the same as empathy or theory of mind. Empathy is the capacity to feel with someone, and Theory of Mind is the cognitive ability to infer what someone else might be thinking. Interpersonal curiosity, by contrast, is motivational, its relational. It is the impulse that moves a person to ask, to follow up, and to stay engaged long enough to understand.
Research suggests that interpersonal curiosity is multidimensional. It includes curiosity about emotions, curiosity about the relationship itself, and curiosity expressed through direct inquiry (Han et al., 2023; Litman & Pezzo, 2007). Scholars also distinguish overt, prosocial curiosity from covert forms of social curiosity like monitoring, gossiping, or prying (Kashdan et al., 2020). This distinction matters because the way curiosity is perceived can either build connection or undermine trust (Letendre Jauniaux & Lawford, 2024).
If curiosity is the motivation, what does it actually build?
Curiosity as Relational Infrastructure
Relationships are sustained by patterns of inquiry. When people ask meaningful questions, three processes unfold.
First, curiosity functions as a signal of care. Being asked about one’s well-being or internal experience communicates, “You matter.” In studies of adolescents and young adults, interpersonal curiosity is associated with feeling seen, affirmed, and socially connected (Han et al., 2023; Taffe et al., 2026).
Second, curiosity reduces misperception. People are often inaccurate in guessing what others think or feel. Research on social curiosity shows that more curious individuals use valid interpersonal cues more effectively and demonstrate greater accuracy in judging others’ traits (Hartung & Renner, 2011). Curiosity replaces assumption with clarification.
Third, curiosity supports relational calibration. Questions such as “How are we doing?” or “Is there something I’ve missed?” maintain alignment over time. Based on responses from young adults, questions aimed at improving relational dynamics were especially salient in close relationships (Taffe et al., 2026).
Without inquiry, relationships default to logistical coordination rather than emotional depth. This isn’t rocket science, but in the hustle of life, we need reminders.
Male Friendship and the Curiosity Gap
Men’s friendships are often organized around shared activity rather than explicit emotional exchange, and the proximity these activities provide matters. The way men experience their time together doesn’t always lack connection, but it can produce a curiosity gap. I can attest that men may care deeply about one another while rarely asking direct questions about each others’ more personal experiences.
When interpersonal curiosity is under-activated, emotional information remains uninvited and is often interpreted as unwanted. Emerging evidence suggests that asking questions and engaging in inquiry predicts greater likability, social competence, and relational connection (Han et al., 2023; Taffe et al., 2026). Taffe and colleagues demonstrate that young adults not only benefit from asking questions, but actively wish to be asked specific kinds of questions by close relational partners. Conversely, when curiosity is absent, misunderstandings persist, assumptions go unchallenged, and opportunities for relational repair are missed.
In Taffe et al. (2026), participants were prompted with open-ended questions such as: “Which question do you most wish to be asked by your closest friend?” From these prompts, the research team identified recurring categories of desired questions. Representative examples include:
Who I Am & What I Think — “Why do you act the way that you do?”
My Goals & Desires — “Are you sure you want to go to medical school?”
My Well-being — “How’s your mental health?”
My Life Updates — “How is your life, romantically?”
My Relationships — “How is your brother?”
What I Think About You — “Do you feel that I appreciate you?”
What I Need From You — “What kind of support do you need?”
Making Plans Together — “Do you want to hang out soon? Play frisbee?”
These questions were not hypothetical, they were questions young adults explicitly reported wanting to be asked by friends, parents, and romantic partners. Of course, IRL such questions may be revised for context, yet still hold the same intention.
The issue, then, may not be emotional incapacity but motivational suppression. Interpersonal curiosity functions as the engine that initiates deeper exchange. Without it, friendships risk becoming structurally thin—lacking the invitations that allow people to feel seen, understood, and connected.
Interpersonal Curiosity as a Protective Factor Against Loneliness
Loneliness is not merely the absence of contact; it is the perceived absence of meaningful understanding. Interpersonal curiosity addresses this through three mechanisms documented in the literature: invitation, validation, and reciprocity (Taffe et al., 2026).
When someone asks about your well-being, you are invited to disclose. When they follow up, you feel validated. When inquiry becomes mutual, reciprocity strengthens connection. In adolescence, higher interpersonal curiosity is positively associated with social-emotional skills and well-being (Han et al., 2023). In adult interaction research, curiosity predicts more accurate perception of others (Hartung & Renner, 2011). Together, these findings suggest that curiosity is low-cost but high-leverage.
Importantly, a friendship does not have to stretch back to kindergarten to grow strong and real. You do not need decades of shared history to know someone well. What matters more is whether you ask, listen, and follow up. Two people who begin asking honest questions today can build closeness quickly. Time and proximity help, but curiosity is what turns them both into connection.
IPC as a Male Friendship Intervention Lever
If interpersonal curiosity is protective, it is also teachable. Question-asking is a developmental skill that can be strengthened (Ronfard et al., 2018). Micro-interventions might normalize one meaningful check-in question per interaction. Activity-based contexts—workouts, games, shared projects—can integrate structured inquiry without transforming friendships into therapy sessions.
Importantly for researchers and program planners, interpersonal curiosity is measurable. Multidimensional scales distinguish aspects of IPC and link these patterns to personality and well-being outcomes (Kashdan et al., 2020). This makes IPC a viable target for relational skill-building initiatives.
The Infrastructure We Choose
Relationships do not deepen accidentally. They deepen through repeated, intentional inquiry. If loneliness is partly a failure of relational activation, then rebuilding male friendship may begin with something deceptively simple: better questions.
When was the last time you asked a friend something that made him/her feel truly seen?
Note: I recently learned about the woodblock prints of Sybil Andrews. What I see in Andrew’s work are images of masculine life, where individuals are working and moving collective in almost systematic ways. I like to imagine her work as appropriately aligned with my writing. The images in this blog were created using descriptions that I wrote to align with different sections of the blog. Then, I fed the descriptions into AI and instructed the tool to “generate the images inspired by the work of Sybil Andrews’ ” and I provided some links to her images as examples. You can learn more about Sybil Andrews’ interesting life and work after arriving in the Pacific Northwest at the following links: Link1, Link2 and Link3 – Google search “Sybil Andrews images”.
References
Han, J., Way, N., Yoshikawa, H., & Clarke, C. (2023). Interpersonal curiosity and its association with social and emotional skills and well-being during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 40(3), 636–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584231162572
Hartung, F.-M., & Renner, B. (2011). Social curiosity and interpersonal perception: A judge × trait interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 796–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400618
Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836
Letendre Jauniaux, M., & Lawford, H. L. (2024). Interpersonal curiosity as a tool to foster safe relational spaces: A narrative literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1379330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1379330
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1448–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021
Ronfard, S., Zambrana, I. M., Hermansen, T. K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Question-asking in childhood: A review of the literature and a framework for understanding its development. Developmental Review, 49, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.002
Taffe, R., Way, N., & Calvo-Studdy, C. (2026). The questions young adults want to be asked: A new perspective on interpersonal curiosity in relationships. Youth, 6(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth6010022
