Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information

By Jordan Litman. 2005

760 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b3ca6ec227e04e4d3159a8fb6c563d931ef9b95f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda (2011, background): “Litman and Jimerson (2004) created a measure of curiosity based on feelings of deprivation which seems to build on Loewenstein’s (1994) information gap perspective of curiosity.”
Interest Development and Its Relation to Curiosity: Needed Neuroscientific Research (2019, background): “…(the desire for sensory input) and epistemic curiosity (the desire for missing information) (e.g., Berlyne 1954, 1960), as well as the extensive literature on trait curiosity (e.g., Litman 2005; for further discussions of various dimensions of curiosity we refer the reader to Grossnickle 2016).”
Internet pornography use and sexual motivation: a systematic review and integration (2019, background): “mation can be both liked and wanted (Litman, 2005), and the hedonic value of new information”
Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? (2007, background): “Curiosity has been conceptualized as signaling the presence of an “information-gap”—that is, a lack of desired knowledge or experience (Loewenstein, 1996; see also Berlyne, 1960; Litman, 2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004).”
Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity (2008, background): “No modern theory of trait curiosity is rooted in appraisal theories or in emotion psychology more generally (Kashdan, 2004; Litman, 2005; Spielberger & Starr, 1994).”
Shopping under the influence of curiosity: How retailers use mystery to drive purchase motivation (2016, background): “Based on this, the current study proposes that the satisfaction of curiosity could produce lower arousal (Litman, 2005); for example, after viewing amystery appeal, a consumermay experience the arousal of curiosity.”
The Latent Structure of Trait Curiosity: Evidence for Interest and Deprivation Curiosity Dimensions (2006, background): “…about the practical meaningfulness the distinction, it is important to note that measures of the two dimensions appear to have different correlates (Litman, 2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004), have been found differentially associated with specific metacognitive states, and are also associated with…”
Curiosity and Interest: The Benefits of Thriving on Novelty and Challenge (2009, background): “Building on Loewenstein's (1994) model of aversive curiosity, Litman (2005) has proposed two facets to curiosity: curiosity as a feeling of interest, and curiosity as a feeling of deprivation.”
Taking "Fun and Games" Seriously: Proposing the Hedonic-Motivation System Adoption Model (HMSAM) (2012, background): “With careful design, UMS development can benefit from taking advantage of the capacity of hedonic factors to provide intrinsic usage motivation (Barab et al., 2005; Carroll, 2004; Foreman et al., 2004; Litman, 2005).”
Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity (2008, background): “Accordingly, it will be worthwhile to investigate the underpinnings of I- and D-type curiosity, such as individual differences in appetitive responses to knowledge ( Litman, 2005 ), which may have consequences for their differential development.”
Validity of the Interest- and Deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students (2010, background): “First, consistent with the view that the activation of D-type EC involves some negative emotional experiences, the CFDS is found positively correlated with scales that measure anxiety, depression, and anger, whereas the positively valenced I-type ECS is found to be negatively correlated or unrelated”
Entertainment is Emotion: The Functional Architecture of the Entertainment Experience (2008, background): “’’ Novel and complex stimuli signal anticipated but uncertain reward, and the response, exploration, has its risks, resulting in some degree of threat and tension to be felt in interest (Berlyne, 1971; Litman, 2005).”
Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity (2010, background): “Correspondingly, several attempts have been made in order to describe and explain the content and latent structure of the construct, its nomological net as well as underlying mechanisms (e.g. Litman, 2005).”
Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking (2010, methodology): “Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid anger and anxiety (Litman 2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004; Litman & Spielberger, 2003).”
The Role of Epistemic Emotions in Personal Epistemology and Self-Regulated Learning (2018, background): “Although D’Mello and Graesser (2012) focus primarily on confusion, frustration, and boredom, others have focused on curiosity (Litman, 2005; Silvia, 2010), surprise (Foster & Keane, 2015), joy and anxiety (Chevrier, Muis, Trevors, Pekrun, & Sinatra, 2015; D’Mello & Graesser, 2011; Muis, Pekrun, et a”
The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people (2018, neutral): “Although a few theorists captured these two dimensions of curiosity (e.g., Litman, 2005), additional manifestations warrant inclusion: the perceived potential to cope with the new (Silvia, 2008a, 2008b), Social Curiosity (Litman & Pezzo, 2007; Renner, 2006), and Thrill Seeking (Arnett, 1994;…”
Students' level of boredom, boredom coping strategies, epistemic curiosity, and graded performance (2016, background): “Given that epistemic curiosity is significantly and positively related to student engagement, knowledge seeking, and deeper understanding of knowledge (Litman, 2005; Richards et al., 2013; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2014), the prominent role of epistemic curiosity in graded performance can be understood.”