1 / 8

The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity

The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity.

channing-fisher
Download Presentation

The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity Epistemic Curiosity (EC): An innate motive that underlies knowledge-seeking, problem-solving and intellectual development. Research on individual differences in EC suggest that the construct reflects approaching and using new information in order to either... Stimulate affectively positive states of intellectual interest (I-type) or Relieve negative affective states of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type). These two expressions of intellectual curiosity overlap quite a bit, but are found to correspond to meaningfully distinct experiences and expressions relevant to learning over the lifespan.

  2. The Measurement of Individual Differences in I- and D-type EC Over the Life Span The I/D Distinction: Correlated but meaningfully different Dimensions of EC Basic Diagram of the I/D EC Model [1.2.3] The I- and D-type EC traits are assessed by two 5-item self- or other-report scales for children and adults (Alpha range .75 to.85). Generally excellent model fit in CFA’s (CFI, NNFI >.95.); fit always much poorer for 1-factor models. Validated in large samples cross-culturally and across the lifespan. Inter-factor/scale r’s are strong (M r =.52) as are loadings (range .50 to .80) Both scales positively correlated (M r = .50) with NFC, TIE, and other related scales (convergence) Both only weakly related or uncorrelated to other constructs (divergence). Although I- and D-type EC overlap, they show very different relationships to Openness and to Conscientiousness and each scale predicts very different kinds of self-directed learning activities over the lifespan… Notes: 1. Piotrowski et al (2014) 2. Litman & Zettler (in development) 3. Litman (2008); Litman et al (2010); Litman & Mussel (2013)

  3. The I/D EC Distinction: A summary of findings that suggest each may guide self-directed learning in different ways that map onto the higher order constructs of Openness and Conscientiousness Positively related measures of Openness (M r = .40); uncorrelated to Conscientiousness [1] Positively related to measures of Conscientiousness (M r = .32); weakly related to Openness (M r = .10) [1] Predicts levels of state-curiosity to learn when individuals report they “Don’t Know” something (i.e., totally novel; B = .24). Also, levels of state-curiosity and knowledge-seeking are significantly lower as compared to D-type EC. [2] Predicts levels of state-curiosity to learn something when individuals report it is on the “TOT” (i.e., have some prior knowledge; B = .33). Levels of state curiosity and knowledge-seeking are significantly higher as compared to I-type EC [2] Positively related to positive affect (r = .30); negatively related to negative affect (M r = -.15). [1, 3] Positively related to negative affect (Mr = .20); essentially uncorrelated to measures of positive affect. [1, 3] Positively correlated with setting learning goals aimed at mastering new interests (r = .45); essentially unrelated to other learning goals. [1, 4, 5] Positively correlated with setting performance-approach and failure avoidant learning goals (Mr = .28); less related to mastery/interest related goals (r = .17). [1] Positively related to IM (M r = .40); unrelated to EM and desires for tangible rewards. [1] Positively related to both IM (M r = .25) and EM (M r= .23), but unrelated to desires for tangible rewards. [1, 4, 5] Positively related to ambiguity tolerance (r = .36). [3] Negatively related to ambiguity tolerance (r = -.15). [3] Significantly predicts developing study strategies aimed at intrinsic interest and personal satisfaction (B = .31). [6] Significantly predicts developing study strategies aimed at devoting time and effort to fully understand material (B = .37). [6] Notes: All reported coefficients significant p< .05; M = Mean; r = partial correlation, holding other EC scale constant; B = std. path/regression coefficient. 1. Litman & Mussel (2013) 4. Litman (2008) 2. Litman et al (2005) 5. Litman et al (2010) 3. Litman (2010) 6. Richards et al (2013)

  4. New and Ongoing Research on the I/D EC Model and Differences in the Self-Regulation of Learning Across the Lifespan A summary of the latest research findings on studies examining the relationships between I and D-type EC and measures of Shyness and Inhibitory Control in children and Outcome Evaluation, Risk Taking/Assessment, and BAS/BIS in Adults Correlated negatively with impulsivity and hyperactivity (M r = - .17). Correlated negatively with shyness (r = -.30) Correlated negatively with hyperactivity (r = - .27); unrelated to risk-taking. Correlated positively with Risk taking (r = .12) and with hyperactivity (r = .23). Correlated positively with optimistic expectations about exploring (r = .32). Correlated positively with pessimistic concerns about exploring (r = .27) Correlated positively with concerns over negative outcomes (r = .32). Correlated negatively with pessimistic expectations about exploring (r = -.22) Associated with careful deliberation and evaluation before acting and assessing the potential risks of failing (M r = .20) Correlated positively with willingness to take risks (Mr = .38) Associated with a greater focus on rewards, pleasure and fun-seeking with willingness to take risks (r = .30) Negatively associated with fun-seeking or willingness to take risks without careful assessment (M r = .19) Notes: All reported coefficients significant p< .05; M = Mean; r = partial correlation, holding other EC scale constant; B = std. path/regression coefficient. 1. Piotrowski et al (2014) 2. Litman & Zettler (in development) 3. Lauriola et al (in development)

  5. Conclusions about I- and D-type EC: What Does Research on the I/D Model Suggest about the Different Roles each aspect of EC plays in Learning Over the Life-Span When individuals have some prior knowledge or feel close to solving a problem (persistent, determined to obtain or arrive at precise and correct answers). When individuals have little or no prior knowledge (gather/generate information by novelty seeking, brainstorming). Optimally Activated Subjective Experience Qualitatively Less intense, “learning is fun.” Lower intensity, but pure positive affect (“warm fuzzies”). Qualitatively uncomfortably intense “need to know”. Stronger, but involves some initial negative affect (an “itch to be scratched”). To have relief from dispelling an unknown by accurately solving problems and improving one’s understanding of something. Self-Directed Learning Goals To simply try out/enjoy new discoveries and stimulate positive affect through intellectual engagement. Self-Regulation of Learning Associated with having optimistic expectations about taking risks/chances when gathering new knowledge; a desire to have fun when learning. Associated with careful deliberation and evaluation of new knowledge before acting on it; assessing the potential risks of failing to get the correct answer.

  6. A Potentially Important Future Direction in the Study of Intellectual Development:Evidence of Expressions of I- and D–type EC in Infants Research on infants as young as 1 – 2 months suggest that there are two very different facial expressions associated with “interest” in examining various stimuli. The first is an “open” expression: raised brows, wide eyes, relaxed mouth (sometimes closed), but always displays no evidence of tension – they are engaged, but relaxed and happy. “Open” expressions occur when there is low-intensity, nonthreatening stimuli. Infants with showing “open “expression will broadly (visually) explore the environment. Commonly this expression is described “curiosity” and “wide-eyed wonder” (an early expression of I-type EC?). Notes: See Bronson, 1972; Camras, 1992; Sullivan & Lewis, 1989; 2003; Sullivan, Lewis,& Alessandri, 1992; Lewis & Michalson, 1983 for more details on these facial expressions. The second “interested” face occurs in situations that may present infants with challenges and/or require them to engage in some form of problem-solving. This facial expression involves furrowing of the brows (sometimes very tightly), narrowed eyes, wariness, increased tension, and heightened vigilance. Sometimes called “excited interest” or “knit-brow interest”, infants showing this expression appear to be intensely and deeply engaged and appear to be acutely studying a stimulus in detail. “Knit-brow interest” is found in response to novel stimuli and occurs in the absence of any threatening or unpleasant stimuli (i.e., this is not due to fear or disgust). Consensus view by researchers in this area is that “knit brow interest” reflects very focused attention and the exertion of cognitive effort to process new information (an early expression of D-type EC?)

  7. Want more information about the I/D Model of EC? Whether broadly interested and wish to explore further… or Quite intrigued with specific questions you need answered… Please email jlitman@ihmc.us or go to drjlitman.net for reprints of cited papers, more details on studies/papers in development, freely available psychometric instruments, interest in collaboration, etc. Thank you for your time!

More Related