Individual differences in information demand have a low dimensional structure predicted by some curiosity traits.

IF 9.4 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Hayley K Jach, Roshan Cools, Alex Frisvold, Michael A Grubb, Catherine A Hartley, Jochen Hartmann, Laura Hunter, Ruonan Jia, Floris P de Lange, Ruby Larisch, Rosa Lavelle-Hill, Ifat Levy, Yutong Li, Lieke L F van Lieshout, Kate Nussenbaum, Silvio Ravaioli, Siyu Wang, Robert Wilson, Michael Woodford, Kou Murayama, Jacqueline Gottlieb
{"title":"Individual differences in information demand have a low dimensional structure predicted by some curiosity traits.","authors":"Hayley K Jach, Roshan Cools, Alex Frisvold, Michael A Grubb, Catherine A Hartley, Jochen Hartmann, Laura Hunter, Ruonan Jia, Floris P de Lange, Ruby Larisch, Rosa Lavelle-Hill, Ifat Levy, Yutong Li, Lieke L F van Lieshout, Kate Nussenbaum, Silvio Ravaioli, Siyu Wang, Robert Wilson, Michael Woodford, Kou Murayama, Jacqueline Gottlieb","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2415236121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To understand human learning and progress, it is crucial to understand curiosity. But how consistent is curiosity's conception and assessment across scientific research disciplines? We present the results of a large collaborative project assessing the correspondence between curiosity measures in personality psychology and cognitive science. A total of 820 participants completed 15 personality trait measures and 9 cognitive tasks that tested multiple aspects of information demand. We show that shared variance across the cognitive tasks was captured by a dimension reflecting directed (uncertainty-driven) versus random (stochasticity-driven) exploration and individual differences along this axis were significantly and consistently predicted by personality traits. However, the personality metrics that best predicted information demand were not the central curiosity traits of openness to experience, deprivation sensitivity, and joyous exploration, but instead included more peripheral curiosity traits (need for cognition, thrill seeking, and stress tolerance) and measures not traditionally associated with curiosity (extraversion and behavioral inhibition). The results suggest that the umbrella term \"curiosity\" reflects a constellation of cognitive and emotional processes, only some of which are shared between personality measures and cognitive tasks. The results reflect the distinct methods that are used in these fields, indicating a need for caution in comparing results across fields and for future interdisciplinary collaborations to strengthen our emerging understanding of curiosity.</p>","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11551435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2415236121","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To understand human learning and progress, it is crucial to understand curiosity. But how consistent is curiosity's conception and assessment across scientific research disciplines? We present the results of a large collaborative project assessing the correspondence between curiosity measures in personality psychology and cognitive science. A total of 820 participants completed 15 personality trait measures and 9 cognitive tasks that tested multiple aspects of information demand. We show that shared variance across the cognitive tasks was captured by a dimension reflecting directed (uncertainty-driven) versus random (stochasticity-driven) exploration and individual differences along this axis were significantly and consistently predicted by personality traits. However, the personality metrics that best predicted information demand were not the central curiosity traits of openness to experience, deprivation sensitivity, and joyous exploration, but instead included more peripheral curiosity traits (need for cognition, thrill seeking, and stress tolerance) and measures not traditionally associated with curiosity (extraversion and behavioral inhibition). The results suggest that the umbrella term "curiosity" reflects a constellation of cognitive and emotional processes, only some of which are shared between personality measures and cognitive tasks. The results reflect the distinct methods that are used in these fields, indicating a need for caution in comparing results across fields and for future interdisciplinary collaborations to strengthen our emerging understanding of curiosity.

信息需求的个体差异具有低维度结构,由某些好奇心特征所预测。
要了解人类的学习和进步,了解好奇心至关重要。但是,各科学研究学科对好奇心的概念和评估的一致性如何?我们介绍了一个大型合作项目的结果,该项目评估了人格心理学和认知科学中好奇心测量方法之间的对应关系。共有 820 名参与者完成了 15 项人格特质测量和 9 项认知任务,这些任务测试了信息需求的多个方面。我们的研究表明,认知任务中的共同差异可以通过反映定向(不确定性驱动)与随机(随机性驱动)探索的维度来捕捉,而且人格特质可以显著、一致地预测个体在这一轴线上的差异。然而,最能预测信息需求的人格指标并不是经验开放性、剥夺敏感性和快乐探索等核心好奇心特征,而是包括了更边缘的好奇心特征(认知需求、寻求刺激和压力容忍)以及传统上与好奇心无关的测量指标(外向性和行为抑制)。研究结果表明,"好奇心 "这一总称反映了一系列认知和情感过程,其中只有一部分是人格测量和认知任务所共有的。这些结果反映了这些领域所使用的不同方法,表明在比较不同领域的结果时需要谨慎,并需要在未来开展跨学科合作,以加强我们对好奇心的新认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信