THE DIMENSION
Self-reported interest in unfamiliar ideas, creative experience, and reconsidering customary assumptions.
The dimension in context
Self-reported interest in unfamiliar ideas, creative experience, and reconsidering customary assumptions.
You may welcome unfamiliar perspectives and exploratory activities.
You may prefer established explanations and familiar forms of experience.
An illustrative work situation
A participant reads an interpretation of a familiar issue that conflicts with their usual explanation. The alternative is interesting but unfamiliar, and accepting it would require revisiting an established view. They can investigate the argument without immediately accepting it. The situation separates curiosity from agreement and novelty from quality.
Openness to ideas does not mean every new claim deserves equal confidence. A person can enjoy exploring an argument while finding its support weak. Another may initially resist unfamiliar language but engage once the underlying question is clear. Reflection should examine how the person approaches the idea and what evidence changes their view.
A small practice to examine
Write the strongest version of the alternative account in your own words. Identify one observation that would distinguish it from your current explanation. Seek an appropriate source for that observation, then record what remains unresolved. The exercise values careful engagement with a new possibility while preserving scrutiny of its actual support.
Continual novelty can compete with completing a chosen course of action.
A question for closer study
How can research distinguish curiosity about an unfamiliar idea from a general tendency to agree with appealing statements?
Read the example alongside the research
The following editorial passages come from the linked framework chapters. They provide context for the original teaching example above; the example is fictional and is not a reported study finding.
Character language creates special design problems. A question can invite idealized self-presentation if it reads like a public declaration of virtue. It can also imply accusation if it assumes wrongdoing. MSDC uses ordinary exchanges and manageable conflicts rather than dramatic moral dilemmas. Even then, the questions need interviews to establish how respondents understand an unjustified benefit, a reasonable explanation, or a minor offence. These phrases require judgment and may differ across settings. Emotional sensitivity items should not imply that seeking support is weakness. Patience items should not encourage tolerating mistreatment. A content review must inspect these implied messages as carefully as the scoring direction.
Continue: Writing questions about sensitive character themes →
MSDC's research roadmap should include a dedicated review of misuse before the first large pilot. Reviewers would inspect whether the name, dimension descriptions, sample narratives, or purchasing context could encourage a moral ranking of participants. They would then test alternative wording with readers rather than rely on internal agreement. This is particularly important because the intended self-reflection use can be undermined if a purchasing account treats the report as a verification of character. The development record should document how that risk shaped the interpretation.
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Ashton & Lee (2009): The HEXACO-60 ↗Lee & Ashton (2004): Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory ↗Thielmann et al. (2020): The HEXACO-100 across 16 languages ↗Zettler et al. (2020): The nomological net of the HEXACO model ↗