Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin, 116(1), 75.
This is a really well done review article and would serve as a good template for future review articles. He starts by going through the history of the concept of curiosity and how it has changed. He then outlines certain problems with various theories. Finally, he proposes a new model of curiosity that is able to reconcile those certain problems. In doing so, he also makes connections between his new model and those historical theories.
Summary
Curiosity is an intrinsic attraction to information that confers no extrinsic benefit. Berlyne thought curiosity consisted of two polar dimensions - perceptual and epistemic curiosity, and specific and diversive curiosity. Perceptual curiosity is “a drive which is aroused by novel stimuli and reduced by continued exposure to these stimuli.” This exists for both humans and animals. Epistemic curiosity refers to the human trait of desire for knowledge. Specific curiosity deals with learning a specific piece of information. Diversive curiosity refers to a “more general seeking of stimulation that is closely related to boredom.” Other scholars have divided curiosity into state curiosity, or curiosity occurring in a particular scenario, and trait curiosity, an individual’s likelihood of experiencing curiosity. Tests have failed to show correlations relating to trait curiosity, and it is believed by some to not exist. Current research, and this article, is more focused on state curiosity.
Curiosity is not a derivative of other innate drives, it is satisfiable given a certain response, it intensifies if not satisfied (sometimes), is aversive, and invokes arousal. Incongruity theories deal with the innate need of humans to make sense of the world. When expectations are violated (incongruities), curiosity is evoked. Curiosity, though separate, is related to both the traits of need for cognition and ambiguity aversion. Other scholars see curiosity as a result of a motivation towards competency (though they are not the same). The author puts forth an “information gap” perspective of curiosity. Noting inconsistencies or gaps in our understanding produces feelings of deprivation known as curiosity. One’s desired knowledge is called an informational reference point. We can be curious to know what others know by adopting their knowledge as our reference point. The closer that a piece of knowledge can bring one to one’s reference point, the more intense the curiosity regarding that knowledge. People attempt to sate their curiosity only when the marginal utility of obtaining the info overcomes the aversiveness of the curiosity. People are not curious about things that they cannot know. Curiosity can end when one’s attention gets distracted.
Application
The author notes several interesting implications for education. Curiosity requires a preexisting knowledge base (i.e., people cannot be curious about what they know nothing about). In order to evoke curiosity in students, a teacher should point out “manageable gaps in their knowledge.”
Comments powered by Disqus.