1. ISSID 2013 Conference
Interest and Deprivation Types of Epistemic Curiosity – Data from Three German Samples
Jordan Litman
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, USA
Patrick Mussel
Department of Psychology, University of Würzburg, Germany

2. The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity (EC)
Epistemic curiosity (EC) is the desire for new knowledge expected to either:
Stimulate affectively positive states of intellectual interest (I-type) or
Relieve negative affective states of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type).

3. The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity (EC)
The I/D Distinction in EC – correlated but meaningfully different traits
I-type
D-type
Optimally Activated
When individuals have little or no prior knowledge (novelty seeking).
When individuals have some prior knowledge or feel close to solving a problem.
Subjective Experience
Less intense, “learning is fun”
(weaker, but pure positive affect)
Uncomfortably intense “need to know”
(stronger, but involves some initial negative affect.
Learning
Goals
To enjoy a new discovery
To accurately solve problems, complete knowledge-sets, and improve the understanding of something.
Expected Reward
The anticipated enjoyment of thinking about new ideas.
The anticipated relief from dispelling an unknown (the “Ah-ha!” moment).
(wasn’t sure if you wanted these to appear or fade in with a button click – I think all at once is ok but feel free to edit however you wish  )
Associated emotional-motivational state of I-type EC are found to be activated by opportunities for new discoveries and corresponds to the intrinsic pleasure of learning.
D-type EC states reflect an uncomfortably intense “need to know,” activated when people lack specific pieces of information needed to solve a problem or complete a knowledge-set.
Both types of EC are associated with knowledge-seeking, but because D-type EC reflects an unsatisfied need-like state, it is found to be a stronger motive than I-type EC states
D-type EC is also more complex, and motivated by both the intrinsic rewards of new discoveries as well as extrinsically regulated concerns about the accuracy or fit of new knowledge.

4. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
The I/D Distinction in EC – correlated but meaningfully different traits
Individual differences in tendencies to experience and express I- and D-type EC are found to differentially predict:
Effort expended in seeing out new knowledge
Academic goal-setting and learning
Job-related motivation and performance
Orientation towards seeking novelty vs. solving problems

5. Diagram of the I/D EC Model
The Nature and Measurement of Individual Differences in Epistemic Curiosity (EC)
The I/D Distinction in EC – correlated but meaningfully different traits
Diagram of the I/D EC Model
(from Litman, 2008)
The 2-factor I/D EC model comprises 5 I-type and 5 D-type self-report items.
Validated in large samples of American and Chinese respondents suggesting cross-cultural stability of the model.
However, no research had been conducted to investigate the validity of the I/D EC model in Germany or other Western non-English-speaking cultures.
German sample items: I enjoy exploring new ideas = Es macht mir Spaß, neue Ideen zu verfolgen; I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer = Wenn ich mich mit einem Problem beschäftige, kann ich nicht ruhen, bis ich die Lösung habe.
Litman and colleagues have validated a 2-factor latent variable I/D EC model comprising 5 I-type and D-type items in large samples of American college students and working adults.
This model has also been independently empirically validated with a Chinese translation in a large sample of respondents in Beijing as well, suggesting cross-cultural stability of the model.
Consistent with the I/D distinction, the two 5-item scales, across cultures and languages clearly differentiate in their relationships to negative affect and to intrinsically or extrinsically regulated goals and motives.
However, no research had been conducted to investigate the validity of the I/D EC model in Germany – or for that matter in any other Western non-English-speaking groups.
The study of curiosity and exploratory behavior has a long research tradition in Germany, exemplified most notably in several scholarly texts derived from symposiums on curiosity in the 1980s and 1990s (Keller, Schneider, & Henderson, 1994; Voss & Keller, 1983; Görlitz & Wohwill, 1987). This tradition has continued into the 21st century, as evidenced by several new lines of research on EC and its impact on various life outcomes (e.g., Mussel, 2010; Renner, 2006). In order to facilitate further new research on EC in Germany, validation of the most contemporary I/D EC model is a logical and important step.
Sample Items
I-type: I enjoy exploring new ideas.
D-type: I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer.

6. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Research Plans and Goals
The present studies examined the validity 10-item 2-factor I/D EC model using German translations of the scales in three German samples in keeping with I/D EC theory.
Study 1 and 2 examined the dimensionality of I-type and D-type EC scales.
Studies 1&2 also evaluated convergent and discriminant validity of the I/D scales based on relationships to other measures of tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation as well as measures of the Big Five traits.
Study 3 examined relationships between the I- and D-type EC measures and seeking cognitive stimulation and also setting different learning and problem solving goals.

7. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Major Hypotheses
We expected to find further validation of the 2-factor, 10-item I/D model previously found in American and Chinese samples for our translated I- and D-type EC scale items in our German samples.
We anticipated positive relations for both I/D scales with tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation including Openness (especially for I-type EC) and divergence from the other Big Five scales.
The I-type EC scale was predicted to be more associated with the intrinsic joy of seeking out new ideas and with scales that assessed positive affectivity.
The D-type EC scale was predicted to be more associated with persistence, problem solving, and to be generally unrelated to measures of positive affect.
NOTE: Although the r’s with negative effect were weak, it is worth noting that D-type is theorized to be initially bothersome, but to lead to a greater reward through the relief of these moderately aversive states. It is NOT analogous to feelings of distress – but closer to an intense appetite for knowledge, whereas I-type reflects a more modest appetite – “snacking” on new information vs. ravenously devouring it!

8. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Methods & Procedures: Instruments Administered
Instruments
Studies 1 2 3
German translations of the I/D EC scales
Need For Cognition scale
CEI Scale and Exploration & Absorption sub scales
NEO-PI-R –Big Five inventory
HEXACO –Big Five inventory
TIE scale and subscales
NEO-PI-R “ideas” facet of Openness
Preliminary WRC scale & Develop Ideas and Solve Problems subscales
Goal Orientation Learning scale
WPI Challenge and Enjoyment Scales
The Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire consisted of German translations of the 10 I- and D-type EC items; these were used in all three studies.
Need For Cognition (NFC; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984; German translation by Bless, Wänke, Bohner, Fellhauer, & Schwarz, 1994) is an 18-item instrument that assesses tendencies to enjoy intellectual stimulation and cognitive activity (e.g., “I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.”). The NFC was administered in all three studies.
The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004; translation by Renner, 2006) is a 7-item measure that includes a 4-item Interest in Exploration subscale (e.g., “Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new things or experiences”), and a 3-item subscale that measures absorption when engaged in a specific task (e.g., “When I am actively interested in something, it takes a great deal to interrupt me”). The CEI was used in Study 1 only.
In Study 1, to assess individual differences in Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, the German version of the NEO-PI-R (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993) was administered. In Study 2, these personality variables were measured using the German version
of the HEXACO inventory (Ashton & Lee, 2009). In Study 3, only the NEO-PI-R “ideas” facet of Openness was assessed.
Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; translation byWilhelm, Schulze, Schmiedek, & Süß, 2003) is an 18-item measure of attraction to intellectually stimulating activities, consisting of three subscales: Reading (5 items; e.g., “I read a great deal”), Contemplation (7 items; e.g., “I like to think about a problem, even if it doesn’t affect the result,” and Curiosity (6 items; e.g., “there are few topics that I find boring”). This instrument
was administered in Studies 2 and 3.
The Work Preference Inventory Challenge and Enjoyment Scales (WPI; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; German translation by Ohly &Fritz, 2007). The WPI 7-item Enjoyment measure assesses taking intrinsic pleasure in working on various tasks (e.g., “It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy”); the 8-item Challenge subscale measures a desire to be intellectually challenged by the tasks in which one is engaged (e.g., “I enjoy
tackling problems that are completely new to me”). These instruments were only used in Study 3.
The Goal Orientation Learning scale (VandeWalle, 1997) is a 5-item German instrument that measures being motivated to enhance one’s competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new challenges (e.g., “I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge”). This scale was administered only in Study 3.
Work-Related Curiosity Scale (WRC; Mussel, Spenger, Litman,&Schuler, 2012) is aGerman instrument that assesses motives regarding information seeking, learning, developing new ideas or solutions, and accomplishing intellectually demanding tasks in the workplace. Based on the responses of
participants in the present study, factor analyses revealed two 6-itemfactors, from which preliminary subscales were developed. The first subscale measures a desire to Develop Ideas (e.g., “I like to develop new strategies”) and the second measures being focused on Solving Problems (e.g., “I am further motivated by difficulties when solving problems”). This scale was administered only in Study 3.

9. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Methods & Procedures: Factor Analytic Strategies
Data analytic strategy for I- and D-type EC items and assessment of model fit…
We conducted CFA’s of the covariance matrix of the EC items using ML estimation.
We compared the hypothesized 2-factor I/D EC model to a 1-factor EC model (as well as other models – see Litman & Mussel, 2013 for details) to determine whether the I/D distinction was structurally valid.
Why? Well, the factors are strongly positively correlated – these are NOT orthogonal constructs, but rather psychologically distinct, but overlapping, expressions of EC that lead to different affective states, expressions, etc.
For any naysayers: Depression and Anxiety are also highly correlated but are associated with different thoughts, metacognitive states, affective experiences, and specific behavioral expressions. The common ground between anxiety and depression is negative affect – for I-type and D-type it is the pursuit of knowledge, although each lends itself to different thoughts, feelings, and behavioral expressions.

10. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Methods & Procedures : Factor Analytic Strategies
To assess model fit we considered…
Size of χ² (n.s. or smaller values are desirable)
MFI > .90, CFI and NNFI > .95
RMSEA < .06
PFI > .50 are acceptable (higher values are desirable)
ECVI, no consensus on cut off, but lower values indicate superior fit

11. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Results and Major Findings
CFA’s of hypothesized 2-factor model vs. 1-factor model and assessment of fit.
GFI
1-factor
2-factors
χ2 (df)
(35)**
(35)**
75.898(34)**
38.462(34) n.s.
CFI
.861
.805
.963
.993
NNFI
.822
.749
.951
.991
MFI
.713
.948
.988
RMSEA
[95% CI]
.106[ ]
.139[ ]
.056[ ]
.026[ ]
PFI
.696
.623
.728
.727
ECVI [95% CI]
.588[ ]
1.09[ ]
.302[ ]
.437[ ]
Clear evidence of superior model fit for the 2-factor 10-item I/D model, consistent with findings previously reported for the English versions (Litman, 2008) and Litman, Crowson, & Kolinski (2010) and Chinese translation (Huang, Zhou, Wang, & Zhang, 2010).
Strong fit indices and high loadings for
hypothesized model in both samples
(sample 1 = left, N=395;
sample 2 = right, N =191)
**p<.001; sample 1 = top, N=395; sample 2 = bottom, N =191)

12. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Results and Major Findings
Convergent and Discriminative Validity –zero and partial r’s
Study 1 (N=395)
Zero-order r
Partial r
Scale
I-type
D-type
CEI total
.64
.58
.47
.36
CEI-Exploration
.68
.46
.57
.15
CEI-Absorption
.33
.49
.09
.38
NFC
.72
.31
Openness*
.23
-.06
Neuroticism*
-.19
-.05
.05
Extraversion*
.25
-.02
Agreeableness*
.14
.00
.17
-.08
Conscientiousness*
.29
.10
.22
Positive zero-order relationships with measures of tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation show convergence vs. divergence.
Unique relationships (partial r’s) to measures of novelty seeking vs. persistence and positive vs. negative affectivity show discrimination
Bold = p<.05
Blue = significantly stronger for I-type; Red = significantly stronger for D-type, p<.05
*Median r with facet and total scales
Clear evidence of convergence based on positive r’s with CEI and NFC; evidence of divergence based on weaker relationships with the Big Five measures, particularly N and C.
After partialing out the other EC measure, discrimination between the I- and D-type scales was evidenced based on significantly stronger correlations for the I-type EC scale with the CEI exploration scale, NFC scale (which emphasizes the enjoyment of thinking), Extrav. (positive affect in social exploration) and Agreeableness (positive affect again), and a negative relation to Neurot. (negative affect).
D-type scale was more strongly related to CEI Absorption (focus on a single source of info) and Conscientiousness (hard work and persistence).
These correlations were consistent with the view that the scales both measure intellectual curiosity, but differ meaningfully in terms of underlying affective conditions and the ways in which each is expressed when seeking out new knowledge (e.g., broad in scope and for fun vs. narrow in scope and persistent).
I-type and D-type r = .56

13. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Results and Major Findings
Convergent and Discriminative Validity –zero and partial r’s
Study 2 (N=191)
Zero-order r
Partial r
Scale
I-type
D-type
TIE total
.52
.41
.40
.19
TIE-Reading
.16
.05
.15
-.03
TIE-Contemplate
.61
.51
.47
.28
TIE-Curious
.42
.39
.22
NFC
.62
.67
.44
Openness
.49
.27
.03
Conscientiousness
.29
.10
.33
Extraversion
.45
-.01
Agreeableness
.04
-.15
.14
-.19
Neuroticism
-.12
-.17
.12
Positive zero-order relationships with measures of tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation show convergence vs. divergence.
Unique relationships (partial r’s) to measures of novelty seeking vs. persistence and positive vs. negative affectivity show discrimination
Bold = p<.05
Blue = significantly stronger for I-type; Red = significantly stronger for D-type, p<.05
In study 2 we see a similar pattern, particularly for the Big Five scales, although the weak overall relationship to TIE reading was unexpected – perhaps reading is aimed more at stimulation seeking/boredom relief, which is generally uncorrelated with curiosity. By contrast the TIE curiosity measures were about equally correlated with both I/D scales.
I-type and D-type r = .51

14. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Results and Major Findings
Convergent and Discriminative Validity –zero and partial r’s
Study 3 (N=249)
Zero-order r
Partial r
Scale
I-type
D-type
TIE
.56
.36
.49
.20
TIE-Reading
.29
.12
.27
.01
TIE-Contemplate
.55
.45
.47
.31
TIE-Curious
.51
.35
.44
NFC
.57
.58
WRC total
.64
.66
.59
WRC-Solve Problems
.50
.67
.60
WRC-Develop Ideas
.68
.61
.38
WPI-Challenge
.48
.52
WPI-Enjoy
.33
.17
Openness-Ideas
.39
.21
Goal Orient.-Learning
.63
.53
.41
Positive zero-order relationships with measures of tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation show convergence vs. divergence.
Unique relationships (partial r’s) to measures of novelty seeking vs. persistence and positive vs. negative affectivity show discrimination
Bold = p<.05
Blue = significantly stronger for I-type; Red = significantly stronger for D-type, p<.05
In Study 3, we again see generally positive relationships with the TIE scales (again with weaker relationships to reading – though in this sample they tended to be stronger with I-type); NFC was about equally correlated with both scales. Overall these data showeed further evidence of convergent validity for the I/D EC scales.
Evidence of discrimination between the measures was clear based on the partial correlations (again, holding the other EC scale constant for each), such that being open to new ideas, and enjoying thinking was more strongly associated with I-type, whereas being oriented towards solving problems was more associated with D-type tendencies.
These results are, again, generally consistent with the I/D distinction found in the other two studies of the present research as well as past research with English and Chinese translations of the I/D EC scales.
I-type and D-type r = .37

15. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Discussion and Conclusions
Very strong evidence in support of hypothesized 2 factor model – further supports the model overall as well as cross-culturally
Strong evidence of convergence based on common tendencies to seek cognitive stimulation .
Also generally strong evidence of differences in affective experience, approach to learning, degree of associated effort, and formation of learning goals in keeping with I/D EC theory.

16. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Limitations, Caveats, and Future Research Aims
More research is needed to further clarify similarities and differences between the constructs, including an expansion of the I/D model with new items and new experimental measures (research underway…)
Further exploration into universality of the I/D EC model (research already underway with translations in Italy, Buenos Aires, Israel, Russia, the Netherlands, and Iran)
New work on the development of I- and D-type EC in young children and adolescents
New research being conducted on relationships to using and seeking knowledge and solving problems (e.g., in causal reasoning by open source intelligence analysts)
New research underway on relationship to facial expressions as markers of affective states associated with each EC trait.
Shows a richness beyond merely pointing to seeking “general” cognitive stimulation – suggests meaningful differences in the activating conditions, affective experience, intensity of motive, persistence and effort, etc.
Why not diversive vs. specific – the I/D distinction expands on this old dichotomy to specify differences in underlying metacognitive processes, affective conditions, learning goals, etc, etc.

17. The Present Study – Developing and Validating German I/D EC Scales
Want more information?
Whether generally interested and wish to explore further… or
Quite intrigued with specific questions you need answered…
(Or perhaps both - these different experiences are correlated, after all  )
Please for reprints, details, etc.
Thank you for your time!