The Dimensionality of Curiosity: Exploring the I/D Hypothesized Distinction

1. Exploring Curiosity Conference November 2018 Curiosity as Feelings of Interest and Deprivation: Seeking the New and Satisfying the Drive to Know Jordan Litman With additional support from

2. The Nature of Curiosity A Longstanding Debate about Why and how Curiosity Motivates Approaching New Information… Is curiosity and information-seeking best explained by a desire for: Arousal Induction? or Drive Reduction?  historically, for curiosity, these explanations have been treated as mutually exclusive… However, the Drive and Optimal Arousal perspectives are not incompatible... they just oversimplify things a bit… Want some yummy snacks or are do you need something more nourishing? All approach-motives can energize bothcasual pleasure-seeking and striving to satisfy specific deficiencies  Curiosity – the desire to seek the new and the drive to know – surely begs similar consideration of working much like other approach-motives.

3. The Dimensionality of Curiosity: The Theorized I/D Distinction • The I/D hypothesized Distinction in a nutshell… and in greater detail… [D-type] [I-type] “I enjoy exploring new ideas” Reduce feeling deprived of new knowledge Induce feeling interested in new knowledge “I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer” Not orthogonal & not “types of people”, but rather broad categories of inquisitiveness • Why Does This Distinction Matter? • Helps clarify the experience & expression of different but related motives for seeking novelty or solving problems (affective-tones & specific behaviors) • Points to different reasons for acting on self-directed & self-regulated learning and predicts actions most likely taken by curious learners • More clearly delineates a curious person’s learning goals from goal achievement (curiosity type = nature of appetite; learning type = appetite satiation)

4. Hypothesized Underlying Neural Mechanisms of I and D Curiosity Proposed Underlying Mechanisms: Research on Wanting & Liking They Vary in Activity… WANTING Lower:Weaker appetite; less approach Higher:Stronger appetite; rising discomfort & greater approach LIKING Lower:Lesser pleasure; lesser experience of reward Higher:Stronger pleasure; greater experience of reward Relevant for food, water, sex, & sensory stimulation Greater Wanting usually leads to greater Liking, but not always… They are cooperative but dissociated systems which explains a range of possible relative levels of initial desire and subsequent pleasure. Dopamine and Mu-Opioid pathways are empirically associated with investigation and learning in humans and animals, and is hypothesized to map onto I and D curiosity like this…

5. Summary of Empirical Evidence of the I/D Distinction Across Research Areas Psychometric Cognitive-Affective & Behavioral Neuroscientific Evidence of individual differences in traits and different intensities as states Define different factors Different Likelihoods of Performing Information Search Unique facial expressions (in progress: CFC) Unique Metacognitive Experiences Show different correlates Neural Pathways (in progress: Columbia U & UCSB) Event Related Potentials as Markers [Height in plane indicates relative progress]

6. Short Summary of Empirical Findings Cutting Across Research Areas: I and D Overlap and Differentiation More Oriented towards the Fun of New Discoveries More Oriented towards Accuracy and Clarity Seek Knowledge that can be Readily Applied • Willing to take risks with completely new experiences Evaluate Unknowns Very Cautiously Enjoy Ambiguity & Mystery More Conscientious Especially relevant to intellectual curiosity and inquisitiveness about the self and others Emerges in all forms of inquisitiveness (e.g., sensory-perceptual, intellectual) Desire for new information (Mdnr =.45) More Open I-type D-type Partial knowing answers to questions (“TOT” or “FOK”) “Don’t Know” answers to questions ERP deflections indicative of response to uncertainty Less intense Curiosity states ERP deflections more indicative of sustained attention More intense Curiosity states More active knowledge-seeking Less active knowledge-seeking (Effect size range for unique correlates/outcome measures with either I or D = .25 to .45) [ Email me at drjlitman@gmail.com for a recent chapter that expands on all of this in muchgreater detail  ]

7. (Some of the) New and Ongoing Research on I and D Curiosity • Improving Methodsfor Cultivating Trait Curiosity and Assessing State Curiosity 2. Identify and code facial action units indicative of I and D type curiosity states in real-time 3. After assessments, offer feedback and mindfulness training • 1. Assess Trait I and D attitudes, askgeneral knowledge questions, assess metacognitive experiences, state curiosity, and information seeking. D-type Training Consider how to best determine when learning objectives have been fully met. I-type Training Consider how a discovery may broaden your horizons. Understanding How Curiosity Drives Learning • Want to learn more about research on I and D curiosity? • Please email drjlitman@gmail.com or go to http://drjlitman.net/ • for reprints, more details on studies and projects in development, • assessment tools, and/or interest in collaboration! 2. fMRI’s of neural activity 1. Measure trait & state curiosity & response to general knowledge questions