Specific and diversive curiosity are labels on a continuum of information generality within one knowledge-gap-driven process, not categorically distinct types¶

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 framework treats specific curiosity as information-seeking to close a knowledge gap and argues there is no pure exploratory motivation to increase knowledge gaps, since all epistemic behavior is guided by closing some gap. → 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

Theoretical argument: even seemingly random exploration (scanning a bookshelf, infant exploration) is explained as guided by the expected reward value of generic information, with the generality of expected information lying on a continuum rather than a categorical divide.

"From our perspective, there is no pure exploratory motivation to increase knowledge gaps, as all of our epistemic behavior is, either explicitly or implicitly, guided by the desire to close a knowledge gap or to gain information"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The consensus distinction characterises curiosity as active seeking of specific unknown information and interest as pleasurable, in-depth seeking in already-known domains — related
• Yes/no feedback that participants were correct nearly quenched curiosity for correct answers, whereas without feedback curiosity peaked at moderate-to-high confidence — related
• Only medium-level incongruity between individual knowledge and wiki information causes cognitive conflict that motivates equilibration — related