Evidence for curiosity as an aversive state is inconclusive; an incentive-salience (liking/wanting) account offers a more parsimonious explanation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues there is little direct and conclusive evidence supporting the aversive nature of curiosity, and that wanting and liking can be incorporated as two components of expected reward value without assuming aversive avoidance-based motivation. → Kou Murayama 2019

Evidence¶

Kou Murayama 2019¶

Kou Murayama, Lily FitzGibbon & Michiko Sakaki. (2019). Process Account of Curiosity and Interest: A Reward-Learning Perspective. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09499-9

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review's assessment of the aversive-state literature: it cites Jepma et al.'s finding that ambiguous pictures activate anterior cingulate and anterior insular cortex but notes those areas serve many functions including reward expectation, so a strong conclusion is not easily derived.

"To our knowledge, there is little direct and conclusive evidence supporting the aversive nature of curiosity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Curiosity and situational interest differ on five dimensions: theoretical account, biology, triggers, affect, and information search — reports the opposite
• Frequently used word stems such as \"can\", \"want\", \"thing\" and \"feel\" carry no discriminative value between curiosity and interest definitions — related