Neuroscience and the Curiosity/Interest Debate

• In Event: 66.051 - Curiosity and Interest: Clarifying the Relationship

Abstract

The objective of this presentation is to link educational/social psychologists' and educators' dichotomous positions on whether or not curiosity and interest are distinct constructs with neuroscientists' research on the topic, a link that may lead to a resolution. In addition, I will discuss why this distinction is essential for optimal educational interventions.

In motivation research there has been a theoretical divide between those investigators who consider curiosity and interest to be synonymous (e.g., Rotgans & Schmidt, 2014; Silvia, 2006) and others who maintain that curiosity and interest are distinct - although possible overlapping constructs (e.g., Alexander & Grossnickle, 2016; Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Markey & Lowenstein, 2014). The dispute has been complicated by the fact that the terms are used interchangeably in everyday language.
Researchers acknowledged that both curiosity and interest lead to information seeking and distinguishing between them has been a measurement problem.

Motivational research traditionally relies on self-report measures and as long the items on these scales are confounded, so are the results. In contrast, neuroscientists study the activation in the brain. Through non-invasive, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) they can identify brain regions activated during elicited curiosity and/or interest.

Unfortunately, neuroscientists have not been concerned with a possible distinction between curiosity and interest. In their work, the two terms tend to be used interchangeably (e.g., Gruber, Gelman, & Ranganath, 2014). However, their methodology could verify if such distinctions exist. For example, one of the possible distinguishing factor between curiosity and interest is that experiencing curiosity - but not interest - is marked by an aversive emotional state. Jepma, et al., (2012) used fMRI to investigate what happens in the brain during induction and subsequent relief of perceptual curiosity. The induction of perceptual curiosity by presentation of ambiguous visual input activated so called aversive brain regions. Once curiosity was relieved, the reward circuitry and the hippocampus was activated, and incidental memory was enhanced. These findings provided evidence that curiosity is an aversive condition whose termination is rewarding and facilitates memory. Similar neuro-imaging could be used to assess what happens when individuals who experience interest are searching for information. Would such searches also involve aversion, and would individuals’ phases of interest influence the neuro-imaging data?

Resolution of the debate would have important implications for educational practice. No developmental aspects of curiosity have been identified. In contrast, interest development has been specified as evolving with content-related knowledge and value and as having reciprocal relations with other motivational variables such as goals, self-efficacy, etc. (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger & Hidi, 2016). Thus, it would be helpful if educators, parents, etc. were aware of the distinction that exists between curiosity and interest. It would help resolve how unmotivated learners could be best supported to continue serious engagement and the type of support needed for such engagement.

Author

• Suzanne E. Hidi, University of Toronto