Disentangling Curiosity: Dimensionality, Definitions, and Distinctions from Interest in

Educational Contexts
Author(s): Emily M. Grossnickle
Source: Educational Psychology Review , March 2016, Vol. 28, No. 1 (March 2016), pp. 23-
60
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24761218

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Psychology Review

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60
DOI ! 0.1007/s 10648-014-9294-y

REVIEW ARTICLE

Disentangling Curiosity: Dimensionality, Definitions,

and Distinctions from Interest in Educational Contexts

Emily M. Grossnickle

Published online: 28 December 2014

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Curiosity has received increasing attention in the educational literature, yet empir
ical investigations have been limited by inconsistent conceptualizations and the use of curiosity
synonymously with other constructs, particularly interest. The purpose of this review is to
critically examine the dimensionality, definitions, and measures of curiosity within educational
settings, and address the boundaries between curiosity and interest. A systematic review of 39
articles from 2003 to 2013 revealed a reliance on self-report measures, a focus on curiosity as a
personality trait, and definitions characterized by four themes, the most common of which
were curiosity as a need for knowledge or information, and curiosity as a motivator of
exploratory behavior. The overlap and relations between curiosity and interest are discussed,
and it is proposed that an examination of (a) the role of knowledge, (b) goals and outcomes,
and (c) stability and malleability provide a basis for differentiating curiosity and interest
according to their essential characteristics.

Keywords Curiosity • Interest • Motivation

Individuals who make advancements, be it in science, history, or art, are not satisfied to learn
solely what is already considered knowledge within a field. Rather, they move understanding
forward as their own need for knowledge leads their research and explorations into new and
uncharted directions (Kashdan 2004). It is this need for knowledge and exploration of the
unknown that most conceptions of curiosity hold in common (Loewenstein 1994), and it is
proposed that curiosity is a force behind research and academic explorations that require
countless hours to gain results (Bowler 2010).
Within educational contexts, curiosity is regarded as a means to increase and support the
outcomes and processes of learning (Arnone and Grabowsky 1994; Berlyne 1954; Spielberger
and Starr 1994). Curiosity has been found to enhance memory for new information (Kang
et al. 2009) and has been linked to higher academic performance on standardized tests (Wavo
2004). For students, curiosity has been positively associated with question asking (Peters

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/sl0648-014-9294-y)

contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

E. M. Grossnickle (El)
Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, 3304
Benjamin Building, College Park, Maryland, MD 20742-1131, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 24 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

1978), academic persistence (Neblett et

resources learning new information (
curiosity can be manipulated by factor
structure (Boscolo et al. 2011; Knobloch
1981), and motivational interventions (V
a personality trait has demonstrated t
environments varies depending on stud
and Yuen 2007). The ability to adjust ed
students' individual degrees of curiosity
ing curiosity to support learning.
Despite curiosity's
in educatio presence
inconsistent conceptualizations of cur
related constructs. In both scientific w
a history of being used synonymously
2004; Silvia 2006), need for cognition (
openness to experience (Mussel et al. 2
(Schmitt and Lahroodi 2008). Concern
constructs have been noted (e.g., Bym
examining the boundaries and relations b
academic development has most often be
one of conceptual or theoretical clarity,
2008; Silvia 2008).
Of particular relevance for education
between curiosity and interest. Theoretic
are separate constructs, with certain conc
and interest are frequently used interch
(Ainley 1987; Kashdan 2004; Silvia 200
investigated through separate lines of r
curiosity leads to interest) rather than
Kashdan 2004). Moving beyond scienti
conceptions (i.e., intuitive, everyday c
and the colloquial use of curiosity syno
challenges to a field attempting to unde
unique to each. Although the call to dif
relations has received continued attenti
Silvia 2008), no review has explicitly
Moreover, although several studies have
and interest (Boscolo et al. 2011; Conn
efforts have remained limited.
This entanglement demonstrates a cl
theories of curiosity and interest. In orde
that can be developed over time and thr
theoretically defined and delineated par
interest). Subsequently, empirical vali
conceptualizations is critical. Currently
curiosity has been limited to a singular
Silvia et al. 2009), and the relations hav
mechanisms. Theoretical advancement sh
enabling valid and reliable measuremen

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 25

measures of curiosity within recent research

which these measures overlap with theoretical
could be improved to increase alignment. Incr
process. Given the divergent research traditions
developed without much concern for the disti
Kashdan et al. 2009; Litman and Spielbeiger
measure development will help to move the fiel
in diverse settings and cultures, and with part
From thoughtful empirical designs based on ref
begin to understand how interest and curiosity
settings. Ultimately, theory-building will not
tiveness of curiosity and interest, but will pr
support enhanced educational practices.
However, before theoretical enrichment can b
delineation of the construct of curiosity, part
dedicated to understanding and measuring th
educational settings, and for educators attempti
providing clarity of these terms presents a cr
Bowler 2010; Mussel 2010; Schmitt and Lahroo
interest may be of more importance for learnin
how these constructs may work independen
cannot be addressed without this initial exami
common themes across definitions of curiosity
of how curiosity may manifest in students—an
and intelligence tend to be confounded (Alber
the purpose of this review is to critically exam
settings, with a focus on recent empirical studi
As such, this review is presented in four main
be overviewed, including major dimensions of
Second, the methods and results of a system
curiosity within educational contexts will be
the questions of how curiosity has been defined
the overlaps, distinctions, and relations betwe
retical and empirical overlaps and relations that
dimensions that allow the boundaries between the essential characteristics of these constructs
to be critically examined. Finally, I will present conclusions, summarizing the findings of the
review and putting forward implications for theory, research, and instruction.

Defining Curiosity and Its Dimensions

Given its potential importance for education, research on curiosity developed throughout the
20th century, from John Dewey's (1910) emphasis on curiosity-inspiring instruction to mid
century investigations of the role of curiosity in student achievement (e.g., Day 1968; Maw
and Maw 1972). Although research waned in the latter half of the 20th century, more recent
educational research has focused on the development of curiosity measures applicable to
educational investigations (Kashdan et al. 2009; Litman and Jimerson 2004; Woods-Groves
et al. 2009) and has examined curiosity as it relates to learning (Kashdan and Yuen 2007; Reio
and Wiswell 2000).

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 26 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Defining Curiosity

Curiosity has been explained through the

optimal arousal (Berlyne 1960; Spielberg
(Iran-Nejad and Cecil 1992), and knowled
necessitates a variation of the definition of
an appetite, such as hunger, that require
and Deary 2011), while optimal arousal th
in which individuals seek a level of novelty
to cause boredom (James 1890/1950; Spi
been proposed to merge these theories,
that focuses on curiosity as resulting from
Additionally, dynamic subsystem regulat
process that involves attention to collativ
awareness (Iran-Nejad 1990; Iran-Nejad
spontaneous process is included as a part o
in research examining neurological and
dilation (Kang et al. 2009).
Persisting from its entry into psycholo
James 1890/1950), curiosity has been view
the frequently examined dimensions w
framework for definitional and conceptua
curiosity that will be overviewed. The rea
dimensions is directed to prior reviews
For the purpose of this review, it is neces
curiosity. At its core, curiosity is the des
stimulation to resolve gaps or experience
1954; Litman 2005). This general definitio
Table 1, and provides a point from which
differ in terms of whether the desire occur
trait curiosity) or as a result of the env
Additionally, the dimensions can be dis
experiencing the unknown (e.g., diversive
deprivation-type curiosity; Arnone and G
longest-standing differentiations of curio
whether the object of curiosity is knowle
curiosity), experience (i.e., physical cur
Within each of these foci, whether the ob
depth vs. breadth curiosity) characterizes

Dimensions of Curiosity

Both James (1890/1950) and Dewey (1910)

the environment. Dewey (1910) elaborat
curiosity as they relate to education, prop
develop sequentially in children from th
exploration and manipulation of oneself and
include the use of language to engage expl
other individuals for information. The fina

4Q Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 27

Table 1 Definitions and comparisons of curiosity

Dimensions based on object of curiosity

Physical vs. Perceptual vs. Social vs. Epistemic Cu
Physical Curiosity Perceptual Curiosity
Cognitive, or
Information-Seek
Curiosity
The exploration and Exploration through sensoty The use of language to A need or desire for
manipulation of stimulation (e.g., visual or engage explorations knowledge, information,
oneself and auditory inspection) in through questions and or the exploration of
surroundings order to acquire new appeals to other academic environments
(Dewey 1910) information (Berlyne individuals for (Kang et al. 2009; Litman
1954; Litman and information (Dewey 2010)
Spielberger 2003) 1910) or a desire to know
about other people
(Renner 2006)
Breadth vs. Depth curiosity
Breadth curiosity Depth curiosity
Curiosity about many different topics, ideas, or Curiosity for ideas and experienc
experiences in a constant search for variation sustained manner toward a sing
(Loewenstein 1994) et al. 2009; Loewenstein 1994)
Dimensions based on degree of stability
State vs. Trait curiosity

State curiosity Trait curiosity

The momentary experience of curiosity expressed An enduring dispositiona
by the individual in response to features of the experience the desire fo
environment (Loewenstein 1994) through frequent response to
sparking curiosity or by seeking out opportu
curious (Kashdan et al. 2004; Litman and S
Dimensions based on the reason for curiosity or exploration
Specific vs. Diversive curiosity
Diversive curiosity Specific curiosity
The motive to increase arousal and reduce boredom The motive to reduce uncertainty thro
by seeking uncertainty and new experiences exploration of stimuli (Arnone and
(Amone and Grabowsky 1992; Kashdan et al. Spielberger and Starr 1994)
2009)
Interest-type vs. Deprivation-type curiosity

Interest-type curiosity Deprivation-type curiosity

The desire to gain new information for the purpose The desire to gain new information to reduce the unknown
of enjoyment or interest (Litman 2005) or feelings of ignorance (Litman 2005)

epistemic, information-seeking, or cognitive curiosity), occurs when the child generates

particular problems and seeks resolutions and explanations for the particular questions of
interest. It is this type of curiosity that Dewey held in the highest esteem as an educational goal,
imploring educators to support such inquiry in their students. Consistent with Dewey's (1910)
and James's (1890/1950) conceptualization of physical and intellectual curiosity, a distinction
has been consistently drawn in the literature to differentiate between curiosity for the physical
environment (i.e., perceptual curiosity) and curiosity for ideas or knowledge (i.e., epistemic
curiosity). These dimensions have been found to be related, yet distinct (Byman 2005; Reio
et al. 2006). While the terms epistemic, intellectual, information-seeking, and cognitive

ß Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 28 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

curiosity are all commonly used within th

epistemic curiosity will be used predominately
Following foundational writings on the dim
izations have built on original dimensions, an
of the multidimensional nature of curiosity. O
state and trait (i.e., curiosity as a transient
personality trait) and interest-type and depriv
information that is enjoyable vs. curiosity a
unknown). An additional description of spe
curiosity serves to highlight recent shifts in c

Trait and State Curiosity Perhaps the most f

the consideration of curiosity as a personality
curiosity as a more transient condition resultin
individuals high in trait curiosity will experie
intensely, be it in a more diverse set of situa
with similar situations that allow for the m
1971; Day 1971; Litman 2005; Litman and Sil
state curiosity is regarded as arising from the
variables. These variables (i.e., uncertainty,
regarded as creating disequilibrium and a sta
Trait and state curiosity are not viewed as
significantly related, with correlations rang
and Roberts 2004) and as high as .78 (Reio
individuals, regardless of whether they ar
experience particular situations that instigate
state is experienced should vary depending u
(Kashdan et al. 2004; Naylor 1981). Further, c
incompatible with other types of curiosity
analyzing trait measures of curiosity, Reio e
further delineated into cognitive curiosity,
While others have come to different conclusio
up trait curiosity (e.g., Ainley 1987; Byman
2004), these studies provide general agreemen
dimensions.

Interest-Type Curiosity and Curiosity as a Feeling of Deprivation The separation of trait

curiosity, specifically, epistemic trait curiosity, into the dimensions of interest-type (I-type) and
deprivation-type (D-type), posed by Litman and colleagues (Litman 2010; Litman et al. 2010;
Litman and Jimerson 2004), has emeiged in the past decade as an important division of
epistemic curiosity. Central to this model is that curiosity is pleasurable and serves as a reward.
Whether the reward comes from gaining information that individuals feel that they are lacking
(i.e., D-type), or from gaining information that is enjoyable to the individual (i.e., I-type),
distinguishes the two types.
I-type curiosity is associated with positive affective responses corresponding with seeking
unknown information that an individual anticipates will stimulate interest (Litman 2008,
2010). The reward for I-type curiosity is the enjoyment one receives from learning new
information; therefore, the anticipation of such enjoyment motivates feelings of I-type curios
ity. For I-type curiosity, knowledge gaps serve as something positive to be sought and resolved

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 29

due to the pleasure from learning somethin

does not always elicit a feeling of joy. Fo
serve to identify points of ignorance. It is
associated feelings of reward following D-
one is deprived of information yet may ha
juxtaposes negative emotions of uncertainty
Studies have found I- and D-type curios
and motivational constructs. D-type cu
with anxiety, depression, and anger in
Jimerson 2004), although some inco
Jimerson 2004). In contrast, I-type cu
with anxiety, depression, and need for
uncertainty and unknown answers; Lit
relate positively with ambiguity toler
2010). D-type curiosity was negatively
icantly related to need for closure. Th
curiosity have different relations with
in I-type curiosity have a high toleran
novelty and uncertainty. In contrast,
resolve ambiguities and reduce knowled
relation to motivational constructs, I-t
mastery goal orientation, whereas D-ty
approach and avoidance goal orientatio
(Litman 2008). Further, a study by Lit
roles of I-type and D-type trait curios
knowledge questions. While I-type curi
for learning the answering to trivia qu
reported not knowing the answer, D-ty
state curiosity when participants reporte
of their tongue. Although the relation
to be strong (e.g., Litman 2005, 2010;
distinction in how they manifest and r

Specific/Diversive and Breadth/Depth Cu

ceived substantial attention but recently
distinction between specific and diversi
curiosity as breadth versus curiosity as dep
the motive of curiosity is to reduce uncerta
seeking uncertainty (i.e., diversive curiosity
has been referred to as breadth and depth.
are curious about many different topics, id
(i.e., breadth curiosity), or whether their c
a more sustained manner (i.e., depth curi
specific and diversive curiosity, breadth a
curiosity are focused investigations of a lim
limited investigations in a large number
dimensions of curiosity have received som
Levitt et al. 2009), the focus of this review
recently established distinction between I-t

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 30 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Comparing and Relating Dimensions of Cu

differences across these dimensions, consi
ingful ways, and examine whether emp
dimensions over others. These dimension
curiosity according to the object to which c
underlying reason for curiosity or explora
social, and epistemic curiosity delineates
(Dewey 1910; James 1890/1950). Similarly
of curiosity is a range of topics that is broad
not concerned with the object of curiosity
experiences curiosity and the degree to
curiosity (Gilmore and Cuskelly 2011; K
1981; Litman 2005).
Specific and diversive curiosity, while
and depth curiosity, also share similari
focus on the reason guiding an individu
are respectively defined by the reason
increasing arousal and reducing bored
Kashdan et al. 2009; Spielberger and
diversive curiosity) is frequently align
individuals could theoretically engage i
investigations of a singular area (i.e., de
bare certain similarities to specific and
defined by seeking out new informatio
2003), resembles the seeking out of the
Moreover, both D-type and specific cur
seeking out gaps (Litman and Jimerson
With regard to the coexistence of dim
interactive or hierarchical. For instance, sen
with epistemic curiosity to allow individu
(Litman and Spielberger 2003; Reio et al.
epistemic curiosity might lead an individ
experiences, and the desire to experienc
inquiry. In addition to interrelations, a nu
proposed. For example, Loewenstein (1994)
dimensions of specific curiosity. He noted
independent (i.e., breadth) or related (i
information to reduce uncertainty (i.e., sp
to alleviate boredom (i.e., diversive curiosi
empirically examined (Reio et al. 2006). A
divided into further types. Specifically, epis
curiosity, with I-type and D-type further d
Litman and Jimerson 2004). Conceptualizin
with dividing curiosity as physical, percep
overarching category of object (e.g., percep
in a momentary form resulting from the
enduring disposition or trait (Naylor 1981
In the last decades of the twentieth cen
examine whether curiosity should be

ö Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 31

breadth and depth, or specific and diversi

Boyle 1989; Byman 1993). For instance, A
curiosity through a factor analysis of five c
and depth, sparked intense debate since it
data (Boyle 1989; Byman 1993) and of new
investigations provided conflicting eviden
multidimensionality, perhaps in part due
exclusion of state measures of curiosity.
curiosity have been subject to on-going d
for distinguishing curiosity along broad
curiosity (Litman et al. 2005a; Reio et al.
been divided in slightly different way
Spielberger and Starr 1994). Conceptualizin
itself well to factor-analytic studies given t
theoretical relations among state and trait c
literature, including evidence such as indiv
(Kashdan et al. 2004; Litman and Jimerso
curiosity (Kashdan and Roberts 2004; Litm
the stability of trait curiosity (Kashdan et
Given these overviewed dimensions, definitio
empirical literature will be analyzed with res
identified and the curiosity and interest literat
and curiosity will be described, and three dim
tics of curiosity and interest are proposed.

Method

Literature Search

In order to address the three main research questions, I conducted a systematic literature review
in a series of stages (Cooper 1982; Fink 2005; White 2009). Following the clarification of
research questions, databases and search terms were identified (Fink 2005). Given the three
major research questions, the search terms curiosity and curious were entered in a title and
abstract search in PsycINFO. Then, a series of screening measures were applied to determine
the suitability of studies for inclusion (Fink 2005). With regard to practical screening criteria,
the search was limited to studies that were: (a) peer-reviewed, (b) written in English, and (c)
used human subjects. This search produced 2856 results. In order to align with the aim of the
research questions in addressing recent empirical research, an additional criterion of date of
publication was applied (Fink 2005). This criterion served to provide a compendia of articles
for consideration and analysis (Hart 1998). The date was limited to capture recent research on
curiosity since the publication of Litman and Spielberger's (2003) seminal article introducing a
new measure and conceptualization of epistemic curiosity. The revised criteria resulted in a
pool of 851 hits.
From the initial pool of 851 articles, the titles and abstracts were examined to determine
their relevance in addressing the questions outlined in this review. To do this, a series of
inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, which resulted in the final inclusion of 39
studies. An ancestry approach (Cooper 1982; White 2009) was also applied to search through

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 32 Eciuc Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

the references cited in the articles identif

reviews (e.g., Jirout and Klahr 2012; Silvia
practical criteria were identified through
asterisk in the reference list and summariz
It is important to note that although a me
examination of effect sizes, a systematic re
questions of interest, given their descriptive
the relations among curiosity dimension
different set of search criteria, which fell o

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied. First, only empirical research studies were
included. As such, commentaries, theoretical reviews, book reviews, and similar publications
were not included. Second, as the focus of this review was on understanding curiosity within
educational contexts, only studies that examined educational outcomes, situated the study
within educational contexts, or studies of curiosity measure development that included the
development or analysis of specific or general measures that could be applicable to education
were retained. For this reason, it was decided that studies of more general measure develop
ment or factor analyses of measures should be included, provided that the measure was linked
or potentially linked to educational studies. For instance, although a multidimensional measure
of curiosity developed by Litman and colleagues (Litman and Jimerson 2004; Litman and
Spielberger 2003) was designed to measure curiosity generally as a personality trait, it has
been more recently employed in educational contexts, and was therefore included. In contrast,
although curiosity is examined as a component of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (e.g.,
McMahon et al. 2012; Maree 2012), it was not included in this review due to the focus of this
measure on vocational beliefs and behaviors. In order to focus on curiosity within educational
settings, studies that examined either epistemic curiosity or general curiosity were retained,
while studies that examined specific types of curiosity other than epistemic or general curiosity
(e.g., interpersonal curiosity) were excluded.
Third, the decision was made to exclude studies that addressed the relation between
curiosity and solely emotional learning (e.g., Leonard and Harvey 2007) or interpersonal
learning (e.g., Litman and Pezzo 2007). This meant that studies such as one conducted by Reio
and Callahan (2004) were not included because the learning they focused on was socialization
related. Similarly, studies using clinical populations, examining curiosity as related to risk
behaviors or addiction (e.g., Garnier-Dykstra et al. 2012), and studies related to economics or
consumer behavior (e.g., Menon and Soman 2002) were not included. Fourth, given the
question of the relation between interest and curiosity, studies that included measures of both
curiosity and interest were included, even if these studies did not examine these factors within
an educational context. Finally, studies that did not include a measurement of curiosity or a
manipulation of curiosity were excluded. This included studies that examined collative
variables (e.g., novelty, uncertainty) rather than curiosity, as well as one study that measured
"frequency of engaging in online research when curious" rather than the frequency of curiosity
itself (Arnone et al. 2009, p. 123). Although the frequency of engaging in research when
curious provides an indicator of curiosity-enacted behaviors, the focus of this measure was the
online research behavior rather than curiosity itself.
It is important to note that the search criteria dictated that studies about curiosity were
defined for inclusion by the authors' labeling it as such. While this may limit the extent to
which these studies examine a consistent understanding of curiosity as opposed to other,

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 33

similar constructs, the reasons for this met

understand the current state of how resear
literature, it was necessary to include any st
major variables of interest. Second, as one of t
examine definitions and measures of curio
definitions was central to the analysis of the
for inclusion would not have enabled the ana
identified until after the included studies w
studies that used curiosity scales would have
question of how curiosity has been measured c
identifying curiosity as a variable under inv
sure^) used.

Coding

Definitions of curiosity were coded according to a two-level process. First, studies were coded
as having an implicit or explicit definition (Dinsmore et al. 2008). Definitions of curiosity or
epistemic curiosity provided in studies, whether the authors' own, or quoted or paraphrased
from a previously published work, were considered explicit. Studies not stating a definition of
curiosity were considered implicit. The author and a second rater coded 38.5 % of included
studies with 93.3 % perfect agreement («=.87). Any disagreements were resolved through
discussion and the remainder of the coding was completed by the author. Second, of the
studies providing explicit definitions, themes were identified using content analysis. This was
guided by overarching definitional themes in the literature, concurrent with a bottom-up
analysis. Through the process of content analysis, the definitions were inspected for recurring
words or phrases. From these recurrences, patterns were identified. This process was conduct
ed iteratively until the coding scheme reached saturation. These identified themes aligned
closely with the definitional components first conceptualized by Maw and Maw (1966) and
later elaborated by Olson and Camp (1984). The themes were not mutually exclusive, with
many definitions falling into multiple categories.
The categories included curiosity defined: (a) as a need for knowledge or information, (b) as
exploratory behavior, (c) in relation to collative variables, and (d) as characterized by emotions
or arousal. Definitions of curiosity as a need for knowledge or information described curiosity
as a desire or need for knowledge, information, or learning something new. Definitions of
curiosity as exploratory behavior described curiosity as a motivator behind exploration, or as a
motivator behind the "pursuit" of knowledge, information, or learning. Curiosity in relation to
collative variables described curiosity as arising from any of the collative variables, or as a
desire to seek out any collative variables. Collative variables included novelty, complexity,
ambiguity, challenge, disequilibrium, uncertainty, or variables with similar characteristics.
Finally, curiosity as characterized by emotions or arousal defined curiosity as including
positive or negative emotions (or arousal). A complete coding scheme with examples is
included as Table 2.
Of the 26 articles with definitions present, 46.2 % of definitions were coded for theme
by the author and a second rater. Each definition was coded for the presence or absence
of each of the four themes. Perfect agreement was reached at a level of 83.3 % («=.67)
for three themes: need for knowledge or information (NK), association with collative
variables (CV), exploratory behavior (ExB), and at 91.7 % («=.83) for emotions or
arousal (EmA). Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and the remainder
of the definitions were coded by the author.

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 34 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Table 2 Coding scheme for curiosity definitions

Code Explanation Examples

Need for knowledge or information "the desire f

(Litman and Silvia 2006; p. 318
Describes curiosity as a desire or need for "an intelle
knowledge, information, learning something (Bowle
new, etc.

Association with collative variables "recognition,

Collative variables include novelty, complexity, investig
ambiguity, challenge, disequilibrium, and 2007, p
uncertainty (or similar characteristics); Describes "need t
curiosity as arising from any of the collative Randa
variables, or as a desire to seek out any collative
variables

Exploratory behavior "seeking out knowledge and new experiences"

Describes curiosity as a motivator behind (Kashdan et al. 2009, p. 988)
exploration/exploratory behavior, or as a "motivates individuals to learn new ideas, elimin
motivator behind the "pursuit" of knowledge, information-gaps, and solve intellectual
information, or learning problems" (Litman 2008, p. 1586)
EmA Emotions or arousal

Defined curiosity as something that includes "the emotion trait associated with feelings of
emotions (positive or negative) or arousal interesf' (Silvia 2008, p. 95)
"a desire for new information aroused by novel,
complex, or ambiguous stimuli" (Koo and Choi
2010, p. 14)

Definitional Themes

As reviews of curiosity theories have been conducted elsewhere (Kashdan 2004; Loewenstein
1994; Litman 2005), the central focus of this analysis will be on patterns of the definitions
provided within recent empirical research on curiosity. Notably, a substantial number of th
studies («=13; 33.3 %) provided no explicit definition of curiosity. Therefore, descriptions o
the definitions relies on the 26 studies that included an explicit definition, and is organize
around the four identified and coded themes: (a) need for knowledge or information, (b
exploratory behavior, (c) collative variables, and (d) emotions and arousal.

Need for Knowledge or Information

One of the most frequent definitional components of curiosity describes it as a need fo

information or knowledge. This component was present in 65.4 % (n=17) of the 26 article
that included conceptual definitions. Defining curiosity as a need for knowledge or information
was present from Berlyne's (1960) initial conceptualization and later reconceptualizations by
Loewenstein (1994) and others (Arnone et al. 2011 ; Kashdan 2004). Definitions of curiosity as
a need for information or knowledge included: "an intellectual need, a desire to know"
(Bowler 2010, p. 1332) and "the complex feeling and cognition accompanying the desire
to learn what is unknown" (Kang et al. 2009, p. 963). These definitions tend to refer to
knowledge as something to be acquired, a conception that regards knowledge as something t
be retained, recalled, and remembered (Bloom et al. 1956). This conceptualization is limited in
that it does not address knowledge as understanding, even though knowledge may be

<£} Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 35

conceptualized as cohesive and integrated, de

of exposure and experience in a discipline.
Although rarely stated explicitly, the need
results from within an individual, rather than
need upon the individual. This identification
acquire new information" (Litman 2010, p. 3
absence of any external reward" (Cavojovâ a
tends to be directed toward exploration (Ko
problem-solving (Litman 2008), and the acquisi
gaps (Litman et al. 2005a; Mussel 2010). Thes
gap must be identified by the individual, in
what is not known. In a few definitions, the n
as not just an identification of the gap, b
(Kashdan et al. 2009). Whether one has a need
the enjoyment of identifying and learning fr
is to gain knowledge or information in order
tualizations of I-type and D-type curiosity
Defining curiosity as the need for knowledg
of curiosity as it results from these different
Moreover, the need for knowledge or inform
of trait curiosity, has the potential to define s
work by Litman et al. (2005b), Koo and Choi
information "is aroused by novel, complex,
provided by Litman and Jimerson (2004) in a
than implying that individuals have a consis
edge and information, these definitions sugg
environment triggers the state of curiosity.
mention of particular conditions that spur cur
curiosity as the need for knowledge or inform

Exploratory Behavior

Sixteen of the explicit definitions (64.0 %

exploration or the pursuit of knowledge
were not used synonymously in definitio
as a defining outcome of curiosity. One e
Wavo (2004) that defined curiosity behav
outcome of curiosity harkens to Kashdan
distinct from openness to experience due
by Reio et al. (2006) included explorati
framework of a general state-trait conce
colleagues (Litman and Spielberger 20
(2010) provided this component within e
curiosity. Definitions included curiosity
and new sensory experiences that mot
Spielberger 2003, p. 75), and "having desi
the Internet" (Yang and Lay 2011, p. 342
Exploratory behavior was used in conjunctio
in nine of the identified studies (e.g., Koo

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 36 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Spielberger 2003). The nature of the explorato

unclear, although some indications suggest
depending on whether the desire is for sen
knowledge (Reio et al. 2006), or informat
Whether the motivated exploration is inte
physical (e.g., opening a door to see what's
tance about her marital status), stems back
provides a potential means by which to diff
curiosity within the framework of a common

Relation to Collative Variables

Harkening back to initial definitions of curiosity (Berlyne 1960), collative variables were used
in 24.0 % of the reviewed definitions of curiosity (n=6). The definitions included variables of
novelty, complexity, ambiguity, challenge, and uncertainty (Cavojovâ and Sollâr 2007;
Kashdan et al. 2004; Kashdan and Yuen 2007) and defined curiosity as occurring in the
presence of phenomena that are unexpected or puzzling, including conceptual conflict or
questions (Engel and Randall 2009). These variables are typically related to attentional
processes (Berlyne 1960), and the definitions indicated two different relations between
curiosity and attention. First, the presence of these variables was most frequently suggested
as arousing cognitions and motivations that constitute curiosity, indicating that attention may
be regarded as a precursor to curiosity. The resolution of such moments of disequilibrium is
not mentioned as a requirement for curiosity, rather the presence and subsequent identification
of these variables is critical. Second, several definitions suggested that these variables are not
only something to be resolved, but that curiosity also involves seeking these variables
(Kashdan et al. 2004; Kashdan and Yuen 2007). For instance, Kashdan and Yuen, who based
their definition on a previous conceptualization (Izard 1977), suggested that curiosity involves
"the recognition, pursuit, and intense desire to investigate" collative variables (p. 260).
Definitions such as these suggest that attention to collative variables is a consequence of
curiosity.

Emotions or Arousal

Of the studies reviewed, nine (36.0 %) definitions included positive feelings or emotions.
Characterizations of curiosity in terms of emotions and arousal align with conceptuali
zations of curiosity as a spontaneous and dynamic capacity (Iran-Nejad and Cecil 1992;
James 1890/1950). The inclusion of curiosity as "a positive emotional-motivational
system" (Kashdan et al. 2004, p. 291) was adopted by Cavojovâ and Sollâr (2007).
The need for positive feelings was present in the definition of I-type by Litman et al.
(2010), but not D-type, curiosity. Silvia (2008) also indicated the significance of emo
tions in curiosity, when he defined curiosity as "the emotion trait associated with feelings
of interest" (p. 95). The use of the term emotion as opposed to mood or affect is a critical
feature in understanding how curiosity is defined. Affect is typically described as an
overarching term that includes moods and emotions (Linnenbrink 2006; Rosenberg
1998). Compared to the term mood, emotions are regarded as having a specific referent
and are experienced with greater intensity (Russell 2003). As indicated in the section
describing the need for knowledge or information and the relation to collative variables,
the referent in the case of curiosity is typically disequilibrium. Moreover, the motivation
of exploratory behavior as a defining feature of curiosity suggests that the intensity of

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 37

curiosity is sufficiently strong to prompt exp

emotion (Rosenberg 1998).
The reviewed definitions indicate that curi
positive emotions. This is further implicated w
construct in positive psychology (Kashdan 20
theoretical articles supporting the benefits
(Gallagher and Lopez 2007; Kashdan et al.
the effects of curiosity have not been found
supporting the adage that "curiosity killed t
review suggest that curiosity is a personally
negative outcomes. The discussion of emo
Bowler's (2010) exploration of the distinc
although it was not clear what emotions the
of interest or curiosity. In addition to posit
through the acknowledgement of curiosity as
acknowledgement of collative variables. Fo
defined curiosity as "a desire for new info
ambiguous stimuli" (Litman and Jimerso
curiosity stems back to James's (1890/1950)
co-occur in the presence of novel stimuli, as
to avoid potential threats.

Revised Definition of Curiosity

In light of the themes identified in the reviewed

working definition of curiosity presented previo
for knowledge, exploratory behavior, collative v
may now be defined as the desire for knowledge o
seeking out collative variables, which is accompa
or exploratory behavior. This revised definition, p
and information, reflects the emphasis of this r
educational settings.
The revised definition highlights four major a
four definitional themes. These four aspects
exploratory behavior, collative variables, and
by which to compare different types of curio
differ in relation to the manifestation of the n
relation to collative variables. Specifically, tra
sity to desire knowledge and to seek out col
involves triggering the desire for knowledge
the context (Kashdan et al. 2004; Loewenstein
desire to gain new knowledge for the pur
emotions surrounding the stance that collati
the opportunity for learning experiences (Litm
involves the desire to gain specific informati
Jimerson 2004). Although negative emotions
gaps and collative variables for this type of cur
positive (Kang et al. 2009). Comparison acros
dimensions of curiosity more commonly stu

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

perceptual curiosity, where the desire fo

different form, and exploratory behavior
In light of these common definitional theme
the lack of explicit definitions of curiosity
researchers operationalized curiosity?

Measurement of Curiosity

A substantial portion of the research conduc

ment of the construct, and due to inclusion
operational definition of curiosity. As Eng
decades ago, "there are almost as many op
theories" (p. 22). This trend has scarcely dim
tion. Although much of the research has fo
report questionnaires or reports by teachers
measuring curiosity through observations of
aspects of the construct such as time spent
asked.

Self-Report Trait Curiosity Measures

Of the studies included in this review, 92.3 %

either alone or in conjunction with addition
trait were employed frequently, with 71.2 %
measure of trait curiosity. A close examination
general curiosity measures applied in acad
applied in academic settings, or (c) measur
academic curiosity. Table 3 provides a summary
frequently within this review. Of the range
genera] curiosity measures most commonly u
Personality Inventory (STPI; Spielberger 1979
Kashdan et al. 2004; CEI-II: Kashdan et al. 2
(C/IW scale; Peterson and Seligman 2004), t
Day 1971), and the Melbourne Curiosity Inv
as the STPI typically direct individuals to repo
the CEI and CEI-II were designed as general t
(2009) noted the potential of the CEI to be m
activities. This suggestion was applied by Ya
of the CEI-II and another curiosity measur
curiosity. Another recently developed scale, th
in two of the reviewed studies (Litman and
1971) and the MCI (Naylor 1981) have wane
OTIM used in one study (Byman 2005), and
2004; Reio et al. 2006).
In addition to general curiosity questionn
of the included studies used measures of se
measures such as the Sensation-Seeking S
studies, the Novelty Experiencing Scale (N

•£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 39

Table 3 Selected trait curiosity questionnaires

Measure of curiosity Citation General description

General curiosity scales applied in educational settings

Ontario Test of Intrinsic Motivation Day 1971 Subscales of specific and diversiv
(OTIM)
State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) Spielberger 1979 10-item trait and state curiosity
includes trait and state scales for other
characteristics (i.e., anxiety, anger, &
depression)
Melbourne Curiosity Inventory (MCI) Naylor 1981 20-item trait and state curiosity subscales
Curiosity and Exploration Inventory Kashdan et al. 2004 7-item scale with subscales of exploration
(CEI) and absorption
Curiosity/Interest in the World P
(C/IW) scale Seligman 2004 component of the Values in Action
Inventory; use concentrated in the positive
psychology literature

Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II Kashdan et al. 2009 Modification of CEI; 10-item scale di
(CEI 11) into subscales of stretching and embracing
Sensation-seeking scales applied
in educational settings
Novelty Experiencing Scale (NES) Peareon 1970 20-item subscale
sensation, external sensation, internal
cognitive desires, and external cogni
desires

Sensation-Seeking Scale V (SSS-V) Zuckerman 1979 40-item scale with four subscales: thrill and
adventure seeking, experience seeking,
disinhibition, and boredom susceptibility
Epistemic or academic curiosity scales
Academic Curiosity Scale (ACS) Vidler and Rawan 80 true-false items measuring curiosity in
1974 educational settings
Curiosity as a Feeling of Deprivation Litman and D-type curiosity scale; 15-ite
Scale (CFD scale) Jimerson 2004 subscales of competence, problem-solving,
and intolerance, although typically
examined as a single scale
Epistemic curiosity scale Litman 2008 I-type curiosity scale; 3- to 40-item versions;
10-item scale with subscales of specific
and diversive curiosity is most common

Within subsections, scales are organized by year of the citation

the Scale of Behavioral Engagement (Neblett et al. 2006; Smalls et al. 2007), used in two
studies. These measures were not originally designed to measure curiosity per se.
However, the inclusion questions about an individual's desire to seek collative variables
seem to have supported their continued use as measures of curiosity. For instance, the
SSS-V directs individuals to select options to describe their likes and feelings on topics
ranging from whether one prefers to see new movies or rewatch previously seen movies,
to whether or not one would like to learn to fly an airplane, to items asking about drug
use and activities such as parachute jumping. Similar in its focus on interest in pursuing
collative variables, the NES (Pearson 1970) includes subscales measuring internal and
external sensation as well as internal and external cognitive desires. The cognitive
subscales relate more closely to epistemic curiosity, including items such as "Learning

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 40 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

how to put a watch together" and "Readin

thought" (pp. 200-201).
To contrast the use of more general trait
curiosity and academic curiosity were includ
I-type and D-type curiosity, Litman and coll
2003) developed the Epistemic Curiosity
Deprivation Scale (CFD scale). The 10-item
specific and diversive curiosity, in accordan
previously forwarded in the literature. As a
initially created as a 15-item scale (Litman
versions were also used (Koo and Choi 201
Additional scales specifically designed to t
the Academic Curiosity Scale (ACS; Reio et
subscale of the Motivation for Reading Qu
2012), the curiosity subscale of the Battery
2004), the curiosity subscale of the Typica
and Deary 2011; Mascherek and Zimprich 201
in the Classroom Scale (Zisimopoulos and G
scales and subscales specifically target aca
experienced in academic settings, rather tha
or examining the relation between general t

Self-Report State and Task-Specific Curiosit

Self-report measures were also used to ass

information (Kang et al. 2009; Litman et a
Cuskelly 2011), typically with the aim of as
learn a new piece of information or see somet
report answers to a question, such as "indica
question" (Litman et al. 2005, pp. 564-565).
task in several studies (Kang et al. 2009; L
revealed the answers to trivia questions, an
examined participants' willingness to spend
Three studies examined students' curios
conducting a research project or reading a
Rnobloch et al. 2004). Bowler deviated from
and having high-school age participants com
completion of a written research paper abou
data were coded for metacognitive knowled
regulating one's own curiosity. The study
measure to assess curiosity induced by texts
curious participants felt while reading the
asked students to report curiosity after readin
some of the questionnaire measures of curio
MCI (Naylor 1981), include state measures in
these scales were not used in any of the rev
Despite increasing interest in curiosity wit
measures of trait curiosity imply certain
differences over differences in the role of t

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 41

the field moves forward, the creation and us

Knobloch et al. (2004), or adapting present tr
will be particularly informative in moving
correlates to understanding how curiosity ca

Teacher and Parent Reports

The use of teacher reports of curiosity ha

student's scores on intelligence tests (Alb
popularity. In fact, only one of the review
2005). In this study, teachers rated students
and Maw (1961), three indicating speci
curiosity. In addition to the selection
differences, Byman (2005) found evidence
as measured by self-report and other-repor
Moreover, for girls, teacher reports of sp
curiosity or sensation-seeking factors, rath
no measure of intelligence was included in t
were basing their ratings of curiosity on pe
identified in a prior study (Langevin 1971
With a different focus, a study by Chak
preschool teachers and parents of preschoo
reported conceptions of curiosity rather than
Questions included identifying how indicative
those behaviors are valued and should be en
changes in curiosity. Differences between pa
instance, teachers indicated that they believ
curiosity, suggesting that underlying concep
effects reported by Byman (2005) and prior

Observational Measures

Behavioral measures were not used frequently, appearing in only 5.1 % (n=2) of the studies
examined. The focus of the observations tended to be on one of two features of curiosity: (a)
attention and resources paid toward the collative variables as identified by Berlyne (1954,
1960), or (b) exploratory behaviors manifest in the form of question asking or exploration in a
digital environment. Focus on the former of these observational measures was evident in a
study by Gilmore and Cuskelly (2011) that asked children ages 3-8 to select doors to open, a
task taken from Harter and Zigler (1974). Children were forced to select between opening a
door with a picture of what was inside, or a blank door with no indication of what was inside.
Selection of the blank doors was determined for the purposes of this study to be indicative of
higher curiosity, as it suggested exploration of the unknown.
In a study investigating curiosity in college students playing an educational game, written
comments communicated through online chat and behaviors recorded during the game were
analyzed for indications of curiosity (Dickey 2011). In addition, interviews were conducted
after completion of the game. Although the author noted that the interviews revealed two
different themes in students' curiosity, curiosity for specific pieces of evidence versus curiosity
to explore, the specific findings from the observational measures were not reported beyond a
few examples of curiosity questions posed by students.

Ô Springe:

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 42 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Manipulation of Curiosity

In a 2009 study by Engel and Randall, child

by asking questions. As the researchers in th
children's questions and inquiry given inst
"help the child complete the task and acco
with a child who followed a script designed
studies included in this review, the respon
focus of the investigation. Results of the s
student learn, teachers were more encoura
goal was to complete a worksheet.

Quality of Curiosity Measures

Thereliability and validity of trait curi

highlighted in a recent review as a streng
However, most of the reliability investiga
sures, rather than consistency across time,
of personality traits. Much of the resear
validity, with varying degrees of suppor
research has focused on documenting conv
Mussel (2010) demonstrated, the high corr
constructs demonstrate a lack of discrimin
curiosity provide some evidence for constr
identified across studies (e.g., Byman 2005
necessary. Moreover, it is important to ack
curiosity measures often relied on single-i
have not received the same rigorous analysis
measures.

Concerns remain as to the specific constructs measured by these instru

some of the measures of curiosity were originally designed as measures
such as sensation seeking, examining the alignment between the cont
measures and the characteristics of academic-related curiosity is of partic
measuring curiosity within educational contexts. Returning to the revised c
curiosity measures can be examined for whether they contain the four id
whether they may emphasize certain aspects to the exclusion of other
Novelty Experiencing Scale (NES; Pearson 1970) and the Sensation-Seek
Zuckerman 1979) have been commonly used as measures of curiosity.
exceptions, the items in these scales emphasize exploratory behaviors, par
perceptual realm. Further, for NES items that address cognitive desires, the
the desire for knowledge or information. For example, the NES item, "re
newspaper that provoke my thought," suggests that gained knowledge w
does not stipulate the presence of feeling a need or desire (Pearson 1970, p
observational measures (Dickey 2011; Gilmore and Cuskelly 2011) and t
curiosity (Engel and Randall 2009) tend to emphasize collative variabl
behaviors such as a question asking. Although the need for knowledge m
motivator behind the exploration in these measures, this definitional aspe
The scales identified in Table 3 as epistemic or academic curiosity s
consistent alignment with the defining aspects of curiosity, although cer

4) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 43

emerge. For instance, in terms of face valid

single problem because I just can't rest witho
150) provide an indicator of the need for kn
implies a relation to collative variables (e.g., t
exploration (e.g., "I can spend hours") and a
Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS) such as "I enjo
me" (Litman and Spielberger 2003, p. 79), a
unfamiliarity) and positive emotions, do not
focus is on the enjoyment of new knowledge,
concept of interest. Moreover, the ECS includ
in discovering how things work" (Litman and
way decreases (he validity of measures seeking
interest. However, additional research is necessa
measure curiosity, interest, or related concept

Examining the Boundaries and Relations b

Having reviewed definitions and measures of c

decade, the juxtaposition of curiosity and inter
and relations. First, a brief overview of intere
essential. As the purpose is to examine the bou
will be on features salient for confronting
Schiefele (2009), Hidi (2006), and Silvia (200
in-depth examinations of interest.

Interest

Theories of interest have positioned it as an emotion with a corresponding appraisal structure

(Silvia 2005, 2006; Silvia et al. 2009), as a relation between person and object (Hidi 2006;
Krapp 2005, 2007), and as a motivational variable integral to learning and development
(Alexander 1997; Hidi and Renninger 2006; Krapp 2002). Within educational research,
interest is typically depicted as being one of two types: situational or individual (Alexander
2003; Hidi 1990; Schiefele 2009), with both forms having distinct cognitive and affective
components (Ainley 2006; Hidi 2006; Krapp 2007). Situational interest is defined by feelings
of enjoyment accompanied by momentary arousal or attention sparked by features of the
environment (Hidi 1990; Schraw and Lehman 2001). In contrast, individual interest is depicted
as an enduring disposition toward particular content (Krapp 2002; Silvia 2006; Renninger
2000). Whether the experience of interest is fleeting or sustained over the course of a career, it
must be directed toward particular objects or content (Hidi 2006; Krapp 2002, 2007).
Describing an individual as interested or uninterested necessarily requires that the object of
their interest (or lack thereof) be described. Students can be interested in biology or in reading
a book about the rainforest, but students are not regarded as being globally interested in the
same way in which individuals might be considered to be optimistic, have a performance goal
orientation, or be curious.
Defining features of interest include: knowledge of, positive feelings toward, and value for
the object of interest (Hulleman et al. 2008; Schiefele 2009). Renninger and others (Hidi and
Renninger 2006; Renninger 2000; Renninger et al. 2002) have referred to stored knowledge as
an essential component for individual interest. Interest cannot be maintained if there is not

£l Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23 60

some continuity in knowledge of the content

one's college major as measured through the
load on a single factor (Schiefele et al. 1993;
individual interest in contrast to the dimens
with curiosity.
Conceptualizing interest includes an unders
components. Hidi (2006) argued that the stren
over the experience of interest and as int
primarily an emotion at the initial triggering
components as interest develops. Moreover
distinguish interest from the other motiv
emotional responses associated with intere
(Ainley et al. 2002; Lehman et al. 2007) an
Schiefele 2009; Silvia 2006).
However, it is important to note that in
Situational interest may result more readil
However, enjoyment is regarded as depend
or anticipated success. Research into the app
tions of perceived competence and perceiv
important role in whether individuals are in
et al. 2009; Silvia and Kashdan 2009). When
yet comprehensible, situational interest is
within this line of interest research stems fr
role of collative variables in motivation and m
all the more challenging.

Conceptual Overlaps

Despite the aforementioned explicit conceptu

distinguish curiosity from interest (Bowle
certain overlaps remain. It is important to
curiosity and interest as separate yet related
Silvia 2005), no empirical studies to date h
curiosity. As such, the overlaps identified rela
the terms within the literature.
The overlap between curiosity and interest is
in scholarly research and everyday discourse.
interchangeably both in theoretical writin
investigations (e.g., Ainley 1987). In an argum
Silvia (2006) noted that curiosity and interes
curiosity (Berlyne 1949, 1974). Moreover,
synonyms within dictionaries (e.g., Merriam-W
analyzed within this systematic review used
Silvia 2008). This exchange may be due in pa
instance, the use of "need" in many of the def
also present in some definitions of interest,
underlying needs or desires (Alexander et al
that they are directed toward an object o
Renninger 2000). Individuals are interested i

■ö Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 45

Additionally, interest often appears in meas

2003), and curiosity appears in measures of in
also argued that curiosity is an indicator of
interest should include evaluations of curios
titles of measures also often conflate these ter
World Scale (Peterson and Seligman 2004), th
unitary construct is evident. In contrast, Ain
as depth-of-interest and breadth-of-interest,
and Spielberger 2003) put forward a distin
conventions are problematic and add addition
The potential to distinguish interest from inte
semantic challenge. Whether an individual is
type curiosity for economics, is a challenge t
Curiosity and interest are commonly divided
to the conceptual confusion are the similarities
Specifically, curiosity and interest in their tra
and exhibit remarkably comparable characte
ated with curiosity (Berlyne 1960; Gilmore a
specific to curiosity. In fact, they are rega
situational interest (Schraw and Lehman 2
enduring forms, curiosity and interest have b
processes (Iran-Nejad and Cecil 1992; Iran-N
through cognitive and emotional components,
2002; Berlyne 1960; Hidi 1995; Kang et al.
feelings (Ainley and Hidi 2014; Kang et al.
these lines, curiosity and interest have bee
systems (Berridge et al. 2009; Kang et al. 200
(Iran-Nejad 1990; Izard 1977).
In examining the boundaries between cur
constructs are not divorced. In fact, some re
of curiosity and interest should necessarily o
this suggestion, limited studies have empirica
interest. These studies will be explained in de
that descriptions of the relations remain most
describe theorized relations that may be examin
to summarize the limited empirical research th

Theoretical Relations Between Curiosity and

Several conceptualizations have suggested

interest (Dewey 1910; Silvia 2008), altho
proposed (Amone et al. 2011; Engel and
discuss the role of knowledge as the link b
that epistemic curiosity necessitates an inc
varied topics. That knowledge then establis
aids individuals in determining their inter
nation with individual interest has been r
individuals are capable of asking curiosity
development of interest (Hidi 2006; Renni

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

In an analysis of technology pervasive

forward possible means to conceptualize
integrated with engagement in learning e
that curiosity can lead to interest, Amone
trigger and be triggered through the deve
to the notion of curiosity as both a motiv
conceptualization is conceived as both a m
stipulations are included in this model of t
et al. (2011) suggest that interest will result
is achieved. They view curiosity as necessari
reciprocal relation between curiosity and in
models such as Hidi and Renninger's (2006

Empirical Research of the Relations Betwe

Consideration of curiosity episodes (Arnon

model of curiosity that supports the notio
varying degrees based on personal, situatio
instance, Boscolo et al. (2011) empirically
curiosity for text passages, and investigated
dependent upon interest. Within their inv
as "feeling the need for more information
variable and psychological state associate
affect" (p. 468). They discussed text-based
leanings, a contrast to their definition of
this characterization, they found that inte
reported curiosity for paragraphs across sev
To my knowledge, in addition to the stu
studies using Silvia's appraisal model of
et al. 2009) included in this review are the o
examined the relation between curiosity and
The studies by Silvia and colleagues situated
and examined trait curiosity as it related t
trait curiosity as measured by the CEI was n
viewing more complex polygons. Moreover,
appraised ability to understand abstract art.
However, in a later study that reported
interest, Silvia (2008) found that curios
Specifically, trait curiosity predicted pe
pictures and poetry, with individuals scorin
ability to understand these stimuli. In this s
read and pictures viewed, rather than m
measured in the 2005 study. For simple pic
by participant perceptions), there was no re
curiosity significantly predicted perceived a
For art, different novelty-complexity ap
individuals. Individuals for whom interest
reported a higher level of trait curiosity. Ov
seem to have a higher perception of their ab

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 F.duc Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23- 60 47

complex, this perception manifests in higher in

curiosity have higher perceptions of their abilit
understanding is unknown, as no ability meas
Given the limited empirical research comb
curiosity and interest synonymously, there h
curiosity and interest (Arnone et al. 2011; B
such, identifying viable distinctions based o
curiosity remains an important next step.

Distinguishing the Essential Features of Cur

With an understanding of current definitions a

comparing the characteristics essential to cur
characteristics is organized across three dimen
and interest literatures: (a) role of knowledge
malleability. These dimensions will be consider
features, and remaining questions.

Role of Knowledge

The analysis of definitions of curiosity forwa

indicated the importance of desiring knowled
Perhaps resulting from the focus on studies
educational contexts, the desire for knowledge
of definitions of the 26 reviewed articles that in
emphasis on knowledge as an integral compon
regarded as an essential characteristic of int
(Renninger 2000; Renninger et al. 2002). Even
of interest, its role is one of presence, as oppo
curiosity as marked by the absence of knowle
Beyond definitions, the role of knowledge in
different in curiosity and interest. Optimum co
too much knowledge is required to stimulate th
Loewenstein 1994; Schmitt and Lahroodi 20
novelty principle, which proposes that curios
object, and that individuals direct their attention
novel (Ginsburg and Opper 1988). For objects t
but for objects that are too novel, individuals d
the object.
Recently, Kang et al. (2009) examined the relation between participants' curiosity about
and confidence in their knowledge of the answers to trivia questions. The relation between
curiosity and confidence exhibited an inverted U-shape function, such that curiosity was
reported to be lowest when confidence was extremely high or extremely low. The highest
curiosity was reported and subsequently, individuals were most willing to spend resources
given to them in the context of the study when they were 45-55 % confident (on a 100 point
scale) that they knew the answer to a question, indicating an optimal level of curiosity for those
reporting a moderate level of knowledge. Additionally, in a study by Litman et al. (2005),
participants reported their degree of knowledge in addition to their curiosity to uncover

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 48 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

answers to trivia questions. Given the opti

not know the answer, or (c) the answer wa
was highest for questions where they felt t
for answers that they reported knowing.
question at hand, but not too much or too li
also found differences for I-type and D-ty
strongly related to answers that were not
related to tip-of-the-tongue states than whe
curiosity may be more likely activated w
while curiosity as a feeling of deprivation
knowledge gap is small.
In contrast to curiosity, developmental
individual interest increase reciprocally as
domain (Alexander 1997, 2003; Hidi and R
knowledge necessary for interest, interes
well as low levels of knowledge, as is th
Indeed, consideration of coping ability as i
2009; Silvia and Kashdan 2009) implies that
individual's perceptions of comprehensibil
that other conditions are met).
It is critical to note that the relation betw
limited types and depths of knowledge. O
studies on perceived knowledge rather tha
focus on what participants believe that they
knowledge on a given topic or question (Mu
between curiosity and knowledge, specific
whether the relation between these variables
and knowledge.

Goals and Outcomes

Curiosity is characterized by goals of reducing uncertainty and filling knowledge gaps,

whereas interest is characterized by goals of pursuing enjoyment and gaining knowledge.
For interest and curiosity, these outcomes do not need to be pursued in an intentional manner;
rather, they can be experienced as part of an intrinsic, spontaneous process (Iran-Nejad and
Cecil 1992). For curiosity in general and state curiosity in particular, the knowledge to be
gained is specific to the identified knowledge gap. If the object of one's curiosity is to know
the name of the composer who wrote Symphonie Fantastique, then learning that it was Hector
Berlioz meets the goal to resolve that gap. State and trait curiosity are often seen as seeking
resolution. Historically, examinations saw this resolution in light of drive reduction theories,
such that resolving uncertainty surrounding knowledge gaps was viewed as the pleasurable
response to an uncomfortable state (Berlyne 1960). This goal of resolution and gaining
knowledge to experience the pleasure of curiosity is evident in the view of curiosity as a
feeling of deprivation (Litman 2005; Litman and Jimerson 2004; Litman and Silvia 2006). On
the other hand, with trait curiosity, the aim is to reestablish curiosity and seek situations that
provide conditions of uncertainty and a lack of knowledge—an experience that receives
attention as a reward in and of itself (Kashdan et al. 2004; Loewenstein 1994; Schmitt and
Lahroodi 2008). Consistent with optimal arousal theories (Berlyne 1960), interest-type curi
osity (Litman 2010; Litman and Silvia 2006; Litman and Spielberger 2003), and with

<0 Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 49

physiological research finding neural and b

experience of reward (Kang et al. 2009),
knowledge gaps (associated with state a
(associated with trait curiosity). The review
of these goals as essential characteristics o
In contrast, interest is characterized with
objects identified as interesting either thr
repeated engagement (Schiefele 2009). Whi
resolution, interest is not viewed as hav
positive emotions surrounding the engage
goals of interest. If one has individual in
increased knowledge of the piece (e.g., tha
that it includes program notes that Berlioz
may be further enjoyment through listenin
with the essential characteristics of curio
interest may tend to be more general, as in
noted musical piece, as compared to the sp
the other hand, experiencing situational int
manifest in short-term goals similar to tho
tion. However, conceptualizations of situa
through goals of increased attention and en
knowledge gaps as with curiosity.
As Hidi (2006) noted, interest is unique
affective as well as cognitive components.
goals and experiences of interest. Howeve
above, positive affect and arousal are frequ
In both interest and curiosity, the focus on
possibility for negative emotions is evident
2010; Levitt et al. 2009; Litman and Jimer
satisfied (Berlyne 1960) and as an experi
suggest that initially, curiosity may have b
responses than interest. However, different
that D-type retains some of the origina
curiosity is more closely linked to the em
Additional investigations will be needed t
components.

Stability and Malleability

Finally, consideration of the stability and

light on the essential characteristics that
ences are notable. First, although curiosity
forms, there are a number of differences
individual interest. Second, the path of dev
to differ.

In its more enduring form, interest is characterized by positive feelings for, knowledge
about, and value of a particular topic, domain, or object. In comparison, curiosity is charac
terized as a disposition toward novelty-seeking with a focus on the questioning itself rather
than the content of the questioning. With some exceptions (e.g., Krapp 2007), discussions of

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 50 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

interest do not tend to use the term trai

responses. Rather, they refer to the mor
interest rather than a trait (Alexander
individual interest as "a relatively enduring
(Hidi 2006, p. 70) indicates the stability
distinguishes interest from personality t
across situations as well as genetic comp
An exception to this is interest in learni
trait reflective of a combination of person
cognition, and typical intellectual engagem
of interest in learning often include ques
(e.g., "In general, I'm really excited abou
than linking it to learning in to a specific d
as interest in learning about a specific do
Lie 2011), aligning it more closely with res
The development of enduring forms o
indicative of the differences between per
the viewpoint of personality developmen
individual's personality across the lifespan
able developmental trends due to environ
McCrea and Costa 1997). For instance, ope
curiosity, has been found to decrease thro
has also been reflected in some studies o
1984; Gold and Henderson 1990; Masch
2011). However, certain types of curiosity
stay stable or even increase throughout t
combined cross-sectional and longitudinal
women, impersonal-mechanical curiosity
sciences," p. 152) increased with age, and n
there was no change in impersonal-mec
identified certain decreases in curiosity (
these results suggest that further investiga
for various types of curiosity.
Proposed models of interest development
particular domain, topic, or object does
adulthood (Alexander 1997, 2003; Hidi an
that certain biological predispositions play
directed toward archeology, car repair, o
Domain Learning (MDL; Alexander 1997,20
parallel development of knowledge and in
knowledge increases, their individual int
with increases in individual interest com
increase one's knowledge of the domain and
by extended engagement with a particu
2003), rather than an overarching trait.
In their four-phase model of interest d
sequence of stages that individuals follow
individual interest. In the initial stage (i.
interest depends upon factors in the enviro

<ö Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 51

knowledge, and may be relatively brief in dura

of maintained situational interest and emergin
larger role as individuals are hypothesized to
domain in order to move from situational inter
the interest becomes longer, and interest trans
an internalized propensity for reengaging wi
(2003) model, the four-phase model of inte
experiences and engagement with particular co
major factors in the development of individual
Current understandings of trait curiosity d
Relations between state and trait curiosit
developmental sequence in the manner in w
or Alexander (2003). In fact, trait curiosity i
frequently with objects of curiosity in a myr
Silvia 2006; Naylor 1981). Therefore, a p
Renninger's (2006) model and Alexander's (2
of situational interest as individual interest de
models of curiosity. However, if curiosity is
develop over time, the potential for the creati
as a means of developing enduring curiosity m
whether curiosity can be increased through t
environments (Moore and Bulbulian 1976;
Grabowsky 1992; Arnone et al. 1994), sur
2010), and controversy (Lowry and Johnson 19
would result in increases in trait curiosity ov

Conclusions and Implications

The purpose of this review was to examine h

and measured in the recent empirical literat
interest in everyday conversation has foun
constructs. Despite definitions, measures, an
uniqueness of curiosity as a construct, questi
and relations between curiosity and interest. T
were identified: (a) tendency to focus on c
measures, (c) inclusion of cognitive, affectiv
curiosity, and (d) the proposal of three dim
distinguishing curiosity and interest. Based on
and practice are proposed.

Conclusions

Since curiosity's first entry into the psychological and educational literature over a century ago
(e.g., Dewey 1910), and particularly the empirical literature of the past decade analyzed in this
review, research reveals a focus on curiosity in its trait, rather than state form. The prepon
derance of studies considering trait curiosity has been acknowledged (Arnone et al. 2011), but
deserves further examination. While state and trait curiosity have been found to be highly
associated (Kashdan and Roberts 2004; Reio et al. 2006), there is evidence that state curiosity

â Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 52 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

positively impacts learning and behavior

2005). While most of the reviewed researc
educational and cognitive outcomes, cert
outcome that may be affected by individu
et al. 2007).
A related finding is the extensive reliance on self-report measures of curiosity. For measures
of trait curiosity, this tended to take the form of questionnaires of general curiosity or sensation
seeking applied to educational settings (e.g., Kashdan et al. 2009; Pearson 1970) or of
measures specific to epistemic or cognitive curiosity (e.g., Litman 2008; Vidier and Rawan
1974). The preponderance trait curiosity questionnaires has narrowed in scope within the past
decade, with the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (Kashdan et al. 2009), Epistemic
Curiosity Scale (Litman 2008), and the Curiosity as a Feeling of Deprivation Scale (Litman
and Jimerson 2004) increasing in use. When state curiosity was measured via self-report,
single-item scales were most common (Kang et al. 2009; Litman et al. 2005). However, to
capture curiosity when reading, Knobloch et al. (2004) developed a state curiosity measure to
be used in conjunction with a task.
Third, the analysis of definitional themes present in the reviewed definitions sug
gested that cognitive, affective, and behavioral components are critical for defining
curiosity. More than half of definitions included the need for knowledge or information
as a defining feature of curiosity. This suggests that thinking and reasoning about the
knowledge one has and the knowledge one desires may be required at either a conscious
or automatic level in order for curiosity to arise. Further, the nearly one quarter of
definitions that included collative variables as a factor defining curiosity described
cognitive components such as "recogniz[ing]... novelty and challenge" (Cavojovâ and
Sollâr 2007, p. 90) and "explaining] the unexpected" (Engel and Randall 2009, p. 184).
Additionally, heightened arousal and emotions surrounding curiosity emerged as a
definitional theme, and commonly depicted the positive emotional side of curiosity
(e.g., Litman et al. 2010; Silvia 2008). Moreover, curiosity was commonly defined in
relation to the behavior it produces, specifically, exploratory behavior. Given the focus of
this review on epistemic curiosity, the exploratory behavior included pursuing knowledge
and phenomena in addition to traditional conceptions of exploring the environment.
Finally, based on the findings from the systematic review, curiosity was identified
as exhibiting certain characteristics that distinguish it from interest. For one, the role
of knowledge differs across interest and curiosity, with differences in the optimal level
of knowledge and the inclusion of knowledge as a defining feature. While a moderate
level of knowledge is more associated with curiosity than high or low levels of
knowledge (Litman et al. 2005), interest and knowledge maintain a reciprocal relation,
with interest present at high and low levels of knowledge (Alexander 2003).
Additionally, curiosity and interest differ according to their goals and outcomes, with
curiosity associated with goals or reducing uncertainty and filling knowledge gaps
(Loewenstein 1994), and interest associated with increased attention, pursuing enjoy
ment, and gained knowledge (Hidi and Renninger 2006). Finally, curiosity and interest
can be distinguished according to their degree of developmental stability. Curiosity in
its enduring form is conceptualized as a dispositional trait that results from genetic
components and maintains stability across situations (Bleidorn et al. 2009; Blonigan
et al. 2008). However, the enduring form of interest, individual interest, is character
ized as a predisposition to reengage with content that does not have genetic indica
tors, and the development of specific individual interests does not follow a stable path
(Alexander 2003; Hidi and Renninger 2006).

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 53

Implications for Theory, Research, and Practic

With regard to theory, this review points to a

develop theories integrating curiosity and inte
vational frameworks. For one, there is a need fo
curiosity. While subtle developmental changes
noted (Mascherek and Zimprich 2012; von
curiosity can be developed both as a more end
important question for researchers and pract
curiosity within a framework of achievement
curiosity can be fostered within educational c
consider the interest literature, and its develo
construct (Alexander 2003; Hidi and Renninge
In order to differentiate curiosity and interest
for systematic investigations and expanded th
have begun to consider how interest and curio
2011; Hidi and Renninger 2006), the relations a
particularly as they consider curiosity and int
Additionally, only a few studies have empirica
interest, and these studies have done so within
(2006) appraisal model of interest. Future theo
the systematic examination of curiosity withi
particularly as it relates to attention. The collat
also those identified as related to interest and t
was beyond the scope of this review, an under
and attention would provide potential insights
similar or different, but also in analyzing curio
Although theoretical accounts of curiosity hav
research has not yet provided clarity as to the
whether certain dimensions are more predicti
has only begun to be addressed in relation to I-t
et al. 2005; Litman and Jimerson 2004). Fur
theoretically coexist, factor-analytic studies h
investigate this notion. Moreover, future rese
interest when naming dimensions of curiosity, a
Guided by models of curiosity that address
benefit from a re-examination of its measures,
report. Although the reliance on self-report me
curiosity for specific knowledge or experien
studies using behavioral indicators (Litman et
individuals' experiences of curiosity. Addition
aroused in specific situations (e.g., Bowler 201
a ground for future investigations of state curi
measures of curiosity (and vice versa) is fairly c
challenge a field that relies on conceptual clari
Research would also benefit by the increas
educational outcomes and its precursors. Sp
addressed should be further expanded to include
complete within educational settings. Although

â Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 54 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

review tends to be on knowledge as somethin

2009; Litman et al. 2005), research moving f
aligns with educational goals of developing u
Finally, for educators, what guidance does
of curiosity cannot be put forward with the
from consideration of curiosity as multidim
curious or not, identifying what individual
innate curiosities, which Dewey (1910) sugg
dering productive learning. Consideration o
that in contrast to the prevalence of trait c
benefit from a better understanding of the r
learning environments, lessons, and texts
conceptualize and measure curiosity as a tra
values educators and learning environments
An examination of these definitional compon
curiosity may manifest in their students. Sp
within educational contexts, curiosity is d
behavioral components. Last, based on the d
as different constructs, teachers could addr
students within their classrooms. For instan
interest and curiosity has the potential for m
stages within students' academic careers. Ho
interest, curiosity, or some combination is a q
As research moves forward, vigilance in
establishing a distinction between curiosity
into the realm of Berylne's collative variabl
complex relation between curiosity and re
constructs has been persistent (Arnone e
2008; Silvia 2005, 2008). Nevertheless, in sp
direct attempts to provide clarification have
provides clarity regarding how curiosity has
dialogue as researchers seek to identify and
elusive construct.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank P

Denis Dumas for their helpful comments on an earl
helpful feedback related to the need for theoiy-build

References

References marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the systematic portion of this review

Ainley, M. D. (1987). The factor structure of curiosity measures: breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 53-59. doi:10.1080/00049538708259035.
Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: motivation, affect, and cognition in interest processes. Educational
Psychology Review, 18, 391—405. doi:10.1007/s 10648-006-9033-0.

Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 55

Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement

enjoyment to students' continuing interest in learning
36, 4—12. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001.
Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoy
International handbook of emotions in education (p
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, lea
relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94
Alberti, E. T., & Witryol, S. L. (1994). The relationship b
grade children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensiona
motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr
achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213-250). Greenwich: JAI
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise:
Researcher, 32, 10-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X0320
Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duh
concomitant changes in students' knowledge, inte
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125-146
Arnone, M. P., & Grabowsky, B. L. (1992). Effects on
learner control over an interactive video lesson. Ed
15-27.
Arnone, M. P., & Grabowsky, B. L. (1994). Curiosity as a personality variable influencing learning in a learner
controlled lesson with and without advisement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 5
20. doi: 10.1007/BF02298167.
Arnone, M. P., Reynolds, R., & Marshall, T. (2009). The effect of early adolescents' psychological needs
satisfaction upon their perceived competence in information skills and intrinsic motivation for research.
School Libraries Worldwide, 15, 115-134.
Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest, and engagement in
technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59, 181-198. doi: 10.1007/sl 1423-011 -9190-9.
Baranik, L. E., Barron, K. E., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Examining specific versus general measures of achievement
goals. Human Performance, 23, 155-172. doi: 10.1080/08959281003622180.
Berlyne, D. E. (1949). "Interest" as a psychological concept. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 184-195.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180-191. doi:10.1111/j.
2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward and objective psychology of
aesthetic appreciation. Washington: Hemisphere.
Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E., & Aldridge, J. W. (2009). Dissecting components of reward: 'Liking',
'wanting', and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9(1), 65-73.
Beswick, D. G., & Tallmadge, K. (1971). Reexamination of two learning style studies in the light of the cognitive
process theory of curiosity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(6), 456-462. doi: 10.1037/h0031817.
Bleidorn, W., Kandier, C., Reimann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2009). Patterns and sources of adult
personality development: growth curve analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 142-155. doi:10.1037/a0015434.
Blonigan, D. M., Carlson, M. D., Hicks, B. M., Kreuger, R. F., & lacono, W. G. (2008). Stability and change in
personality traits from late adolescence to early adulthood: a longitudinal twin study. Journal of Personality,
76, 229-266. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-6494.2007,00485.x.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Fürst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objects, handbook I: cognitive domain. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Boscolo, P., Ariasi, N., Del Favero, L., & Baliarin, C. (2011). Interest in expository text: how does it flow from
reading to writing? Learning and Instruction, 21, 467-480. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.009.
Bowler, L. (2010). The self-regulation of curiosity and interest during the information search process of
adolescent students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7),
1332-1344. doi: 10.1002/asi.21334.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Breadth-depth or state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state-trait curiosity and state
anxiety scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 175-183. doi : 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90201 -8.
Boyle, G. J., Richards, L. M., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1993). Children's motivation analysis tests (CMAT): an
experimental manipulation of curiosity and boredom. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 637-643.
doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90005-N.
Braun, H. I., & Mislevy, R. (2005). Intuitive test theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 488497.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Byman, R. (1993). From two-dimensional to

breadth-factor model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 155-160. doi:10.1080/
00049539308259133.
*Byman, R. (2005). Curiosity and sensation seeking: a conceptual and empirical investigation. Personality
Individual Differences, 38, 1365-1379. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.004.
Camp, C. J., Rodrigue, J. R., & Olson, K. R. (1984). Curiosity in young, middle-aged, and older adu
Educational Gerontology, 10, 387-400. doi:10.1080/0380127840100504.
*Cavojovâ, V., & Sollâr, T. (2007). The curiosity and exploration inventory: structure and reliability. S
Psychologica, 49(1), 89-100.
Chak, A. (2007). Teachers' and parents' conceptions of children's curiosity and exploration. Internatio
Journal of Early Years Education, 15, 141-159. doi:10.1080/09669760701288690.
Connelly, D. A. (2011). Applying Silvia's model of interest to academic text: is there a third appraisal? Lear
and Individual Differences, 21, 624-628. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.007.
Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educat
Research, 52(2), 291-302.
Day, H. Y. (1968). Role of specific curiosity in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59
43. doi: 10.1037/h0025460.
Day, H. I. (1971). The measurement of specific curiosity. In H. I. Day, D. E. Berlyne, & D. E. Hunt (Eds.),
Intrinsic motivation: a new direction in education. New York: Hold, Rinehart, & Winston.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York: Heath.
Dickey, M. D. (2011). Murder on Grimm Isle: the impact of game narrative design in an educational game-based
learning environment British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 456-469. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-8535.
2009.01032.x.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, R A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens of metacognition
self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391-409. doi:10.1007/
S10648-008-9083-6.
Engel, S., & Randall, K. (2009). How teachers respond to children's inquiry. American Educational Research
Journal, 46, 183-202.
Engelhard, G., Jr., & Monsaas, J. A. (1988). Grade level, gender, and school-related curiosity in urban elementary
schools. The Journal of Educational Research, S2(l), 22-26. doi: 10.3102/0002831208323274.
Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: from the Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Curiosity and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(4),
236-248. doi: 10.1080/17439760701552345.
Gamier-Dykstra, L. M., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., O'Grady, K. E., & Arria, A. (2012). Nonmedical use
prescription stimulants during college: four-year trends in exposure opportunity, use, motives, and sources.
Journal of American College Health, 60, 226-234. doi:10.1080/07448481.2011.589876.
Giambra, L. M., Camp, C. J., & Grodinsky, A. (1992). Curiosity and stimulation seeking across the adult lif
span: Cross-sectional and 6- to 8-year longitudinal findings. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 150-157. do:10
1037/0882-7974.7.1.150.
Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2011 ). Observational assessment and maternal reports of motivation in children and
adolescents with Down Syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
116(2), 153-164. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-116.2.153.
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget's theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gold, S. R., & Henderson, B. B. (1990). Daydreaming and curiosity: stability and change in gifted children and
adolescents. Adolescence, 25, 701-708.
Hambrick, D. Z., Pink, J. E., Meinz, E. J., Pettibone, J. C., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). The roles of ability,
personality, and interests in acquiring current events knowledge: a longitudinal study. Intelligence, 36, 261—
278. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.004.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Los Angeles: Sage.
Harter, S., & Zigler, E. (1974). The assessment of effectance motivation in normal and retarded children.
Developmental Psychology, 10, 169-180. doi:10.1037/h0036049.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research,
60, 549-571.
Hidi, S.( 1995). A re-examination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review,
7, 323-350.
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective on the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation.
In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: controversies and new directions (pp. 309
339). New York: Academic.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: a unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, I, 69-82. doi: 10.1016/j.
edurev.2006.09.001.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 57

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase mo

42, 111-127. doi: 10.1207/sl5326985ep4102 4.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. A., & Har
and interest: an integrative analysis. Journal of Edu
0663.100.2.398.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 573-602. doi:10.3102/00346543060004573.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Cecil, C. (1992). Interest and learning: a biofiinctional perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi,
& A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 297-332). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Iran-Nejad, A., & Chissom, B. S. (1992). Contributions of active and dynamic self-regulation to learning.
Innovative Higher Education, 17, 125-136.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.
James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology (vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.
Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children's scientific curiosity: in search of an operational definition of an elusive
construct. Developmental Review, 32, 125-160. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002.
Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T.-Y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009).
The wick in the candle of learning: epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory.
Psychological Science, 20, 963-973.
Kashdan, T. B. (2004). Curiosity. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: a
handbook and classification (pp. 125-141). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kashdan, T. B., Afiram, A., Brown, K. W., Bimbeck, M., & Drvoshanov, M. (2011). Curiosity enhances the role
of mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to existential threat. Personality and Individual Differences,
50, 1227-1232. doi : 10.1016/j .paid.2011.02.015.
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Teihar, D., & Steger, M. F.
(2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory—II: development, factor structure, and psychometrics.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987-998. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011.
Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: differentiation from
related constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 792-816. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.6.792.
54800.
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective
experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291-305. doi:10.
1207/s 15327752jpa8203_05.
•Kashdan, T. B., & Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on
perceptions about the school learning environment: a study of Hong Kong students. Motivation and
Emotion, 31, 260-270. doi: 10.1007/sl 1031-007-9074-9.
Kjasmsli, M., & Lie, S. (2011). Students' preference for science careers: international comparisons based on
PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 121-144. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518642.
Knobloch, S., Patzig, G., Mende, A.-M., & Hastall, M. (2004). Effects of discourse structure in narratives on
suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and novels. Communication Research, 31(3), 259
287. doi: 10.1177/0093650203261517.
Koo, D.-M., & Choi, Y.-Y. (2010). Knowledge search and people with high epistemic curiosity. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.013.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations
from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409. doi:10.1016/S0959
4752(01)00011-1.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic-motivational orientations. Learning
and Instruction, 15, 381-395. doi:10.1016/j.leaminstruc.2005.07.007.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5-21. doi:10.1007/sl0775-007-9113-9.
Langevin, R. (1971). Is curiosity a unitary construct? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 25, 360-374. doi: 10.
1037/h0082397.
Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive
details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569-587. doi: 10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2006.07.002.
Leonard, N. H., & Harvey, M. (2007). The trait of curiosity as a predictor of emotional intelligence. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1914-1929. doi: 10.111 l/j. 1559-1816.2007.00243.x.
Levitt, H. M., Williams, D. C., Utuk, A. C., Kantian, D., Obana, M., Smith, B. L., & Biss, W. J. (2009). The
experience of depth curiosity: the pursuit of congruence despite the danger of engulfment. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 22, 187-212. doi: 10.1080/10720530902915093.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

*Lin, D., Wong, K. K.., & McBridge-Chang, C. (20

Chinese and English among bilingual students. R
011-9297-8.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Emotion research in education: theoretical and methodological perspectives on the
integration of affect, motivation, and cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 307-314. doi:10.1007/
si 0648-006-9028-x.
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: wanting and liking new information. Cognition &
Emotion, 19(6), 793-814.
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 1585-1595. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014.
Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need
for closure: an initial test of the wanting-liking model of information seeking. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 397-410. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005.
Litman, J. A., Collins, R. R, & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). The nature and measurement of sensory curiosity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1123-1133. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.001.
♦Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation type epistemic
curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531-536. doi: 10.1016/j.
paid.2010.05.021
♦Litman, J. A., Hutchins, T. L., Russon, R. K. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing and exploratory
behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559-582. doi: 10.1080/0269993044100042.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 82, 147-157. doi:10.1207/sl5327752jpa8202_3.
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 1448-1459. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021.
Litman, J. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: evidence for interest and deprivation
curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(3), 318-328. doi:10.1207/sl5327752jpa8603_
07.
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific
components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 8(K 1 ), 75-86. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75-98. doi: 10.1037/0033
2909.116.1.75.
Lowry, N., & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemic curiosity, achievement, and attitudes
The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 31-43. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1981.9711985.
Maree, J. G. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale—South African form: psychometric properties and construct
validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 730-733.
Mascherek, A., & Zimprich, D. (2012). Stability and change in typical intellectual engagement in old age across
5 years. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67, 309-316
doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbrl 01.
Maw, W. H., & Maw, E. W. (1961). Information recognition by children of high and low curiosity. Education
Research Bulletin, 40(80), 197-201.
Maw, W. H., & Maw, E. W. (1966). Children's curiosity and parental attitudes. Journal of Marriage and th
Family, 28, 343-34.
Maw, W. H., & Maw, E. W. (1972). Differences between high- and low-curiosity fifth-grade childre
in their recognition of verbal absurdities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 558-562. doi:10.
1037/h0034075.
McCrea, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates to openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J.
A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826-848). San Diego:
Academic.
McMahon, M., Watson, M., & Bimrose, J. (2012). Career adaptability: a qualitative understanding
from the stories of older women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 762-768. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.
2012.01.016.
Menon, S., & Soman, D. (2002). Managing the power of curiosity for effective web advertising strategies.
Journal of Advertising, 31, 1-14.
Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). (2012). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Moore, S. G., & Bulbulian, K. N. (1976). The effects of contrasting styles of adult-child interaction on children'
curiosity. Developmental Psychology, 12, 171-172. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.12.2.171.
Murphy, P. K. (1998). Toward a multifaceted model of persuasion: exploring textual and learning interactions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: lacking evidence of discriminant validity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 506-510. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014.

•£) Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60 59

Mussel, P., Winter, C., Gelléri, P., & Schuller, H. (2011),

subdimensions and facets in a work setting. Interna
doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-2389.2011,00542.x.
Naylor, F. D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity invento
00050068108255893.
Neblett, E. W., Jr., Philip, C. L., Cogbum, C. D., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African-American adolescents'
discrimination experiences and academic achievement: racial socialization as a cultural compensatory and
protective factor. Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 199-218. doi:10.1177/0095798406287072.
Olson, K. R., & Camp, C. J. (1984). Factor analysis of curiosity measures in adults. Psychological Reports, 54,
492^197. doi: 10.2466/pi0.1984.54.2.491.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty seeking. Journal of
Counsulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 199-204. doi:10.1037/h0029010.
Peters, R. A. (1978). Effects of anxiety, curiosity, and perceived instructor threat on student verbal behavior in the
college classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 388-395.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Assessment and applications. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman
(Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification (pp. 625-644). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Pierce, J. P., Distefan, J. M., Kaplan, R. M., & Gilpin, E. A. (2005). The role of curiosity in smoking initiation.
Addictive Behaviors, 30, 685-696.
Reio, T. G., Jr., & Callahan, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: a path analysis of
antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 3-22. doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.
0000040269.72795.ce.
Reio, T. G., Jr., Petrosko, J. M., Wiswell, A. K., & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptu
alization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 117-135.
Reio, T. G., Jr., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace
learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 5-30. doi:10.1002/1532
1096(200021 ) 11:1 <5 ::AID-HRDQ2>3.0.CO;2-A.
Renner, B. (2006). Curiosity about people: the development of a social curiosity measure in adults. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 57(3), 305-316. doi: 10.1207/sl 5327752jpa8703_l 1.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C.
Sansone & J. M. Harackiwiecz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the search for optimal motivation
and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego: Academic.
Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and
mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12, 467-490. doi:10.1016/S09594752(01)00012
3.
Reeve, J. (1989). The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 13,83-103.
doi: 10.1007/BF00992956.
Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology, 2,
247-270.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110,
145-172. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X. 110.1.145.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp. 197-222). New Yoik: Routledge.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., Wild, K.-P., & Winteler, A. (1993). Der "Fragebogen zum Studieninteresse" (FSI) [The
Study Interest Questionnaire]. Diagnustica, 39, 335-351.
Schmitt, F. F., & Lahroodi, R. (2008). The epistemic value of curiosity. Educational Theory, 58, 125-148. doi:10.
Ill 1/j.1741-5446.2008.00281 Jt.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research.
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52. doi:10.1023/A:1009004801455.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89-102. doi:10.
1037/1528-3542.5.1.89.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Appraisal components and emotion traits: examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity.
Cognition and Emotion, 22, 94-113. doi: 10.1080/02699930701298481.
Silvia, P. J., Henson, R, A., & Templin, J. L. (2009). Are the sources of interest the same for everyone? Using
multilevel mixture models to explore individual differences in appraisal structures. Cognition and Emotion,
23, 1389-1406. doi:10.1080/02699930902850528.
Silvia, P. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Interesting things and curious people: exploration and engagement as
transient states and enduring strengths. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 785-797. doi:10.
Illl/j.l751-9004.2009.00210.x.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 Educ Psychol Rev (2016) 28:23-60

Smalls, C., White, R., Chavous, T., & Sellers, R. (2

experiences as predictors of academic engagement
Psychology, 33, 299-330. doi:10.1177/009579840
Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Prebminaiy manual for th
University of South Florida.
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity an
(Eds.), Motivation theory and research (pp. 221-2
Subbotsky, E. (2010). Curiosity and exploratory behav
adults. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 481-
Swan, G. E., & Carmelb, D. (1996). Curiosity and mo
collaborative group study. Psychology and Aging,
Vidier, D. C., & Rawan, H. R. (1974). Construct va
Reports, 35, 263-266.
Villiger, C., Niggli, A., Wanderler, C., & Hutzelma
effects of a school/home-based intervention pr
Instruction, 22, 79-91. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2
von Stumm, S., & Deary, I. J. (2011). Typical intellec
the Lothian Birth Cohort of 1921. Psychology an
Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M
interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research
Wavo, E.-Y.-T. (2004). Honesty, cooperation, and cur
IFE PsychologIA, 12, 178-187.
White, H. D. (2009). Scientific communication and lit
Valentine (Eds.), The Handbook of research synthe
Russell Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://b
Woods-Groves, S., Eaves, R. C., & Williams, T. O., Jr.
scale. Psychological Reports, 105, 835-848. doi:10
Yang, H.-J., & Lay, Y.-L. (2011). Affecting factors a
Taiwan's undergraduate students. Journal of Educ
EC.45.3.e.
Zisimopoulos, D. A., & Galanaki, E. P. (2009). Academic intrinsic motivation and perceived academic
competence in Greek elementary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 24, 33-43. doi:10.1111/j.l540-5826.2008.01275.x.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

54.79.119.62 on Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:21:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms