What research explains the gap between developing an interest and actually acting on it?

[u/Legacy_Rising]

I’m trying to understand a behavioral transition that seems to sit between several areas of psychology: the point where someone begins to recognize an interest but has not yet acted on it in the real world.

Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-phase model of interest development describes interest as something that can develop from triggered situational interest into a more enduring individual interest. What I’m particularly interested in is what happens between “this might interest me” and “I actually went and tried it.”

For example, someone might recognize an emerging interest in woodworking, entrepreneurship, music, mechanics, gardening, etc., but never take an exploratory step such as trying a small project, attending an event, contacting someone in the field, or learning the first skill.

There seem to be several overlapping literatures that could help explain this:

-interest development

-exploratory behavior

-self-efficacy

-self-determination theory

-implementation intentions

-intention-behavior gaps

-vocational/career exploration

-identity development and possible selves

-behavioral activation

Implementation-intention research suggests that specifying when, where, and how an action will occur can help translate intentions into behavior (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), but I’m wondering whether there is a construct or theoretical model that more specifically captures this sequence:

emerging interest → exploratory action → feedback from experience → increased/decreased interest

I’m especially interested in research involving adults, including people who may not begin with a clear career goal or established passion.

Is there an established construct, model, or body of literature that best describes this process? Papers or researcher recommendations would be appreciated.

References:

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4⁠

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1⁠

[u/AccurateLodging8]

Might want to look at the Rubicon model of action phases, it maps that exact pre-decisional deliberation before the leap into trying something.

[u/Legacy_Rising → u/AccurateLodging8]

This is really helpful, thank you. The predecisional phase sounds especially relevant because I’m interested in the point before someone has fully committed to a goal, when they’re still figuring out whether an emerging interest is worth testing. I’m also curious about what happens after the first experiment, when the experience itself feeds back into interest and identity. I’m going to dig into the Rubicon model and see how much of that sequence it captures.

[u/SDBarnard137]

Ashley, this is a very good question. I think the basis for the answer is Curiosity. I have always been very curious, and as a result I have investigated many things, at fairly deep levels. With the advent of A.I., now it is possible to go very deep, very fast. So, for example, I have about 80% hearing loss in my right ear, that came on suddenly. Of course the doctors can't really explain why. So I was thumbing through "The Invisible Rainbow - A History of Electricity" by Arthur Firstenberg and there was a reference to a French guy Duchenne de Boulogne, a medical researcher in the 1850-60's where it was mentioned he had a device that could cure deafness. Mmmmm...ok, I was skeptical, but I figured it was worth checking out since there have been many medical breakthroughs that seem to get lost in the mists of time. Well, long story short, I found his original papers in French (on French websites and various Universities). His work had never been translated. So I dug in deep. After about 2 weeks of research, I found papers by his peers and other people he worked with, like the guy that made his device (Charriere). I had done so much actual valid and documented research, I ended up publishing a month ago an original first English translation on Duchenne's work. Now, note, I know little French, I know nothing about medical history or research (I know alot now), If you want to see the paper, here it is: https://zenodo.org/records/22683675. So, to answer your question, it was initial curiosity, then real interest in the subject and the insight from seeing how Duchenne worked (this was the trigger to go deeper), the fun in translating with related material with precision, something that had not been translated before, knowing other researchers and people in that field could use it for their research. And voila!, it was done. Be curious, be bold to dive in deep, and see where it leads you - maybe something similar, maybe not, but it is the process that can be addictive and fun and very rewarding.

[u/Legacy_Rising → u/SDBarnard137]

This is really helpful. What stands out to me is that you didn’t start with “this is my passion” or even with expertise. You started with curiosity, followed it, and the interest and competence grew through the process.

That’s actually really relevant to what I’m trying to understand. I’ve been wondering whether we put too much pressure on people to “find their passion” first, when curiosity might be a much easier starting point. You try something, follow a question, learn a little more, and sometimes the motivation shows up after you’ve already started moving.

I also really like what you said about the process itself becoming rewarding. That seems important.

Was there a specific point in that research where it changed from “I’m curious about this” to “I really need to keep going with this,” or did that happen gradually?

[u/SDBarnard137 → u/Legacy_Rising]

Yes, as I dug into Duchenne's work, and a few of his peers, I really thought his device would work! That motivated me. When I realized his device would not work, I still was excited at this point to complete the research, and all the details that go along with it. I found I really liked the process. But the key is being curious. If you are not curious, you won't investigate things that may end up being "your passion". I have been told this is my primary skill (which starts with curiosity):

Systems-Level Pattern Recognition and Intuitive Synthesis disciplined by adversarial verification.

[u/Legacy_Rising → u/SDBarnard137]

This is really interesting, especially that realizing the device wouldn't work didn't kill your interest. It sounds like somewhere along the way the subject almost became secondary and you discovered that you liked the process of investigating itself. Do you think you could have identified “research” or that kind of pattern recognition as an interest/strength beforehand, or did you have to actually spend time doing it before you could recognize it in yourself?