1. Epistemic Curiosity: Its Role in the Self-Direction and Self-Regulation of Learning and Problem Solving
Jordan Litman
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
University of Maine at Machias

2. What do we mean by “Curiosity” and What is Epistemic Curiosity?
Curiosity: states of desire for new information; also individual differences in tendencies to experience or express such states (i.e., as dispositional traits)
Epistemic Curiosity (EC) is the desire for new intellectual knowledge (facts, ideas, solutions)
Individual differences in EC are expressed in seeking out new knowledge to either...
Each type of EC is important for
Self-directed learning
Self-regulation of learning
Creative endeavors aimed at Intellectual achievement in both school and work
Stimulate emotionally positive states of interest (I-type) or
Relieve negative emotional states of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type)
Let’s start with exactly what we mean by curiosity. [TAP]
Whether we’re talking about transient states or individual differences in dispositional tendencies to experience and express curiosity as a relatively stable trait, curiosity always refers to a motive for NEW INFORMATION.
Sometimes other phenomena, such as imagination or play are treated as virtually synonymous with curiosity – they may be related, but the relevant processes and subsequent information-seeking behaviors are frequently very different.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY EPISTEMIC CURIOSITY? [TAP]
That means gaining NEW symbolic representations of information as intellectual knowledge in the form of ideas, facts, concepts, to be stored in memory – we can also differentiate this from, say, wanting new sensory-perceptual experiences, or sensation seeking.
Over the last decade or so we have found that individual differences in EC is expressed in two related but distinct ways [TAP] In other words:
I-TYPE: concerned with becoming pleasingly intellectually engaged.
D-TYPE: involves wishing to enhance clarity and reduce bothersome states of uncertainty. [click]
EC is theorized to be IMORTANT in a wide range of intellectual pursuits…

3. What do we mean by “Curiosity” and What is Epistemic Curiosity?
Curiosity: states of desire for new information; also individual differences in tendencies to experience or express such states (i.e., as dispositional traits)
Epistemic Curiosity (EC) is the desire for new intellectual knowledge (facts, ideas, solutions).
Individual differences in EC are expressed in seeking out new knowledge to either...
Our objectives are to review & discuss
Key ideas about the nature and measurement of EC and the I/D distinction
Major empirical findings in individuals, from infants to adults 
Potential applications for teachers and learners in a variety of instructional settings
Stimulate emotionally positive states of interest (I-type) or
Relieve negative emotional states of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type)
Lets discuss in a bit more detail the nature of Epistemic curiosity and its I-type and D-type forms of expression…

4. The Nature of Epistemic Curiosity & the I/D Distinction
I-type
Enjoy exploring new ideas
Learn something new,
want to find out more
about it
Have fun discovering
new topics & subjects
D-type
Bothered when missing
correct answers or solutions
Feel unknowns must be
resolved
Focused and sustained
attention to figure
things out or
problem-solve
Here are some key distinguishing aspects of I-type and D-type EC – that is, the different ways they are experienced and expressed.
In other words
Novelty seeking vs. Sleuthing or
Thinking expansively about new ideas vs. Digging deeply into a specific problem.

5. The Nature of Epistemic Curiosity & the I/D Distinction I-type D-type
Enjoy exploring new ideas
Learn something new,
want to find out more
about it
Have fun discovering
new topics & subjects
D-type
Bothered when missing
correct answers or solutions
Feel unknowns must be
resolved
Focused and sustained
attention to figure
things out or
problem-solve
Desire for knowledge
(Mdn r =.5)
Now, naturally, while there are some major differences in the way I-type and D-type EC is experienced and expressed, [TAP]
They overlap, due to a common orientation: [TAP] A common desire to obtain more knowledge.
Lets explore the ways in which they might differ in human experience a bit more in regard to [SLIDE INFO]
Mention incentive-salience and reward.
Their differences suggest each may be associated with very different:
(1) Activating Conditions, (2) Subjective Experiences, (3) Learning Goals, & (4) Expected Reward when Satiated

6. Hypothesized Differences between I-type and D-type Epistemic Curiosity
I-type EC
D-type EC .
Opportunities for Novelty seeking.
When one has little or no prior knowledge
Opportunities to put Ideas together: When individuals have some prior knowledge and feel en route to figuring something out
Optimally Activated by…
Subjective Experience reflects…
Attitudes that learning is pure fun. More relaxed (“warm fuzzies”)
A ”need-to-know”: More intense, involves some negative affect until resolved
(an “itch to be scratched”)
To accurately solve a problem or improve comprehension -- to achieve an “Ah-ha!” moment when it all comes together.
Learning Goals
involve wanting…
To enjoy a new discovery
Expected Reward experienced as the…
Anticipated enjoyment of learning a new idea (“Oh, that’s interesting.”)
Anticipated relief from dispelling unknowns (“Ah, now I understand!”)
[CLICK]
So, this begs the question, can we measure individual differences in tendencies to experience and express these two forms of EC?
Q: Can we reliably and validly assess individual differences in people’s tendencies to experience and express these two related but meaningfully distinct forms of EC?
A: YES!

7. Assessing Individual Differences in Tendencies to Experience & Express I-type and D-type Epistemic Curiosity
Measured using very brief 5-item self- or other-report scales (α range = )
“For each item, give the answer that describes how you/your child generally feel(s)”
1= Almost Never 2= Sometimes 3= Often 4= Almost Always
Age Cohort
I-type EC sample items
D-type EC sample items
Young Children
(3-7)
“My child shows visible enjoyment when discovering something new”
"My child will work for a long time to solve a problem because he/she wants to know the answer."
Adolescents/ Younger Teens
(8-15)
“I have fun learning about a new topic or subject”
“When presented with a tough problem, I focus all of my attention on how to solve it.”
Older Teens/Adults
(16-70)
“I enjoy exploring new ideas”
“I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer”
First – the scales. We have brief reliable scales for young children through adults. Validated in several different languages and cultures.
Here are some sample items… uses a frequency scale, but we find same results using other metrics (say, 1- 7 Likert type scales)
I know what you're thinking – I see children listed, but what about infants? I promised infants.
Well, we find that there are rather distinct baby facial expressions that suggest possible early expressions of the I/D distinction…
Their potential differences have been overlooked for about 30 years – we are in very early stages of work on this. Expect more soon!
Lets briefly review the evidence of the psychological meaningfulness of the I/D distinction in regard to factor structure and dimensionality. We’ll also begin to address in more detail where they overlap and where they differ in regard to relevant correlates and outcomes.
Infants’ (2-3 mo) facial expressions during learning/attention tasks 
Considered early markers of intellectual curiosity…
Wide eyed, focused attention
Positive vocalizations
Stable vagal tone
Furrowed brow, highly focused attention
More fussing, less soothable
Less stable vagal tone
(I-type)
(D-type)
For years, these differences were noted in passing, but not explored in-depth…

8. Diagram of the I/D EC Model
Measuring Individual Differences in Tendencies to Experience & Express I-type and D-type Epistemic Curiosity: Factor Structure and Distinctiveness
The I/D Distinction in EC – correlated but meaningfully different traits
Diagram of the I/D EC Model
(from Litman et al, 2010)
Excellent EFA simple structure; excellent CFA model fit; strong loadings on single factor
(e.g., Litman, 2008; et al, 2010).
Factor model validated in large samples in different languages and cultures (e.g., Litman & Mussel, 2013).
Moderate to strong r’s with Need For Cognition and Typical Intellectual Engagement; weaker r’s with sensation or thrill seeking (Powell et al, 2016).
I-type: Broad measure of “wide open interest” expressions of intellectual curiosity
D-type: Highly unique aspect of intellectual curiosity not effectively measured elsewhere (Powell et al, 2016)
Recent work on the higher order and lower order factor structure of Intellectual curiosity items, Powell and colleagues find:
I-type EC shares some variance (about 11%) across Intellectual Curiosity scales – good – that’s what we’d expect. Best of all, it’s only 5-items: bang for the buck so to speak in assessment!
Need for Cognition 18-items (also mainly measures intellectual avoidance!), Typical Intellectual Engagement has 59-items!
Another nice finding “Deprivation” EC is uniquely measured by EC scales not measured well in any other measure!
Having found some nice evidence of the I/D distinction and the practical value of using the 5-item scales as assessment tools, let’s next, let’s review some evidence of common and unique correlates of I-type and D-type EC…
Sample Items
I-type: I enjoy exploring new ideas
When I learn something new, I would like to find out more about it
D-type: I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer.
I work like a fiend at problems that I feel must be solved.

9. I-type D-type Empirical Evidence of the I/D Distinction in EC:
Personality, Affect, Metacognition, Knowledge-Seeking & Problem Solving
More stable during times of “crisis”
Higher levels during times of “crisis”
More
Agreeable
(relaxed)
More
Aggressive
(determined)
Less
Tense
More
Tense
More Open
More
Conscientious
I-type
D-type
Partial knowing answers to questions
(“TOT” or “FOK”)
“Don’t Know” answers to
questions
Less intense Curiosity states
More intense Curiosity states
First, both scales positively correlated with scales that assess general tendencies to think and reason and actual knowledge-seeking behaviors (convergence)
Both only weakly related or uncorrelated to other constructs (e.g., sensation seeking; divergence).
Though correlated, I- and D-type EC are theorized to have very different relationships to Openness (novelty seeking) and to Conscientiousness (effort and persistence) and predict very different kinds of self-directed learning activities…
Crisis episodes bring distress and instability, they Also present opportunities to learn new information and to connect newly learned pieces of knowledge to related knowledge already in memory in order to reason, to better understand something, or solve a specific problem.
Less active knowledge-seeking
More active knowledge-seeking
Less related to seeking sensory-perceptual stimulation
Typical
Intellectual
Engagement
Need
For Cognition
Predicts arousal of State-Curiosity & Knowledge-
Seeking Behavior
(answers to fact based questions)

10. I-type D-type Empirical Evidence of the I/D Distinction in EC:
Self-directed and Self-regulated Learning & Creative Intellectual Endeavors in School and Work
Enjoy Taking on New
and Challenging Tasks
Optimism
about unknowns
Cautious
about
Unknowns
Seek Knowledge that can be Readily Applied
Enjoy Ambiguity & Mystery
Prefer Clarity & Meaningfulness
Have Fun with New Discoveries
Evaluate Unknowns Very Thoughtfully
I-type
D-type
Will “Look Before Leaping”
Will Take Risks
More Performance
Oriented & Failure Avoidant
More Mastery (interest)
Oriented
When we move on to looking at variables that assess self-directed learning, self-regulated learning, and engaging in creative learning endeavors, we see more evidence of their unique effects.
BTW: Both scales correlate 0 with desire for material compensation.
So this begs an questions about underling mechanisms – how can EC involve, depending on the circumstances, such different experiences and expressions?
Here we need to look to cutting edge work on the neuroscience of motivation and emotion, specifically in regard to subjective states of desire and subsequent reward…
Try to Enjoy Studying New Material
Negatively Related to Concerns about Accuracy
Positively Related to Concerns about Accuracy
Will Make Sure New Material is Understood Fully
Need
For Cognition
Typical Intellectual Engagement

11. Previous theoretical models
Accounting for the I/D Distinction in EC: Theorized Underlying Neural Mechanisms
Q: How can we account for these overlapping, yet meaningfully different ways, in which EC is experienced, expressed, acted on, and satiated?
Previous theoretical models
“Optimal Arousal” and “Curiosity Drive” each account for one type of EC (I or D, respectively), but not both.
How can we explain these correlated but very different ways in which EC is experienced and expressed in order to motivate different kinds of self-directed learning.
Additionally, how can we account for the different subjective experiences associated with the activation and satiation of each type of EC?
Previous theoretical models developed to explain curiosity and exploration, such as “Optimal Arousal” or “Curiosity Drive”, fall short, and can really only explain one of the two types (I-type or D-type, respectively), but not both.
Moreover, although drive and optimal arousal models are rooted in neuroscience, they are based on a fairly archaic understanding of the physiological mechanisms that underlie motivation and reward.
Therefore, a new model is needed that explains the findings from research on the I/D EC distinction (as well as past research on curiosity and exploration) that is informed by our contemporary understanding of the neural underpinnings of motivation and reward.
This new model is the “Wanting/Liking” Model of Motivation...

12. Accounting for the I/D Distinction in EC: Theorized Underlying Neural Mechanisms
Q: How can we account for these overlapping, yet meaningfully different ways, in which EC is experienced, expressed, acted on, and satiated?
Previous theoretical models
“Optimal Arousal” and “Curiosity Drive” each account for one type of EC (I or D, respectively), but not both.
Moreover, both models reflect an archaic understanding of the neuroscience of motivation and reward.
How can we explain these correlated but very different ways in which EC is experienced and expressed in order to motivate different kinds of self-directed learning.
Additionally, how can we account for the different subjective experiences associated with the activation and satiation of each type of EC?
Previous theoretical models developed to explain curiosity and exploration, such as “Optimal Arousal” or “Curiosity Drive”, fall short, and can really only explain one of the two types (I-type or D-type, respectively), but not both.
Moreover, although drive and optimal arousal models are rooted in neuroscience, they are based on a fairly archaic understanding of the physiological mechanisms that underlie motivation and reward.
Therefore, a new model is needed that explains the findings from research on the I/D EC distinction (as well as past research on curiosity and exploration) that is informed by our contemporary understanding of the neural underpinnings of motivation and reward.
This new model is the “Wanting/Liking” Model of Motivation...
A: Therefore, a new model is needed to account to the I/D distinction in EC
ideally rooted in a contemporary understanding of neuroscience.
This new model is the Wanting/Liking Theory of Curiosity and Information Seeking!

13. Wanting & Liking in the Brain
Accounting for the I/D Distinction in EC: The Underlying Neural Mechanisms of Wanting & Liking
Wanting and Liking are cooperative but dissociated systems in the brain.
Wanting = Desire and approach.
Dopamine activity in brain.
Higher levels become more uncomfortable.
Liking = Reward from satiation of appetites.
Opioid activity in brain
Higher levels are more pleasurable.
Dopamine and Opioids are the common neural substrates of motivation and reward!
Pleasurable stimulation can occur without much wanting, but when wanting is high, liking will be greater (Hunger is the Best Spice).
Varying levels of wanting and liking account for different subjective experiences of desire and pleasure.
Wanting & Liking in the Brain
(Berridge & Robinson, 2003)
And that takes us to Kent Berridge and his colleagues’ neuroscientific work on Wanting and Liking in the Brain.
Dopamine and Opioids (pathways running between VTA, nucleus accumbens, amygdala – gradually more tense with greater wanting – and opioid receptors (also prefrontal cortex, impulse control) in the brain are the common substrates of motivation and reward for Food, Water, Sex, Drugs, and even Novel Information.
Varying degrees of wanting and liking activity in the brain accounts for different subjective experiences due to varying appetites and pleasure from satiation.
Relatively low wanting but high liking would be like snacking on chips or sweets; high wanting and high liking would be like craving protein and having a juicy steak!
These two regions are the quadrants of most relevance to the I/D distinction in EC.

14. Accounting for the I/D Distinction in EC: The Underlying Neural Mechanisms of Wanting & Liking
Wanting and Liking are cooperative but dissociated systems in the brain.
Wanting = Desire and approach.
Dopamine activity in brain.
Higher levels become more uncomfortable.
Liking = Reward from satiation of appetites.
Opioid activity in brain
Higher levels are more pleasurable.
Dopamine and Opioids are the common neural substrates of motivation and reward!
Pleasurable stimulation can occur without much wanting, but when wanting is high, liking will be greater (Hunger is the Best Spice).
Varying levels of wanting and liking account for different subjective experiences of desire and pleasure.
We can apply these ideas to the I/D Distinction!
Relatively low wanting to liking accounts for I-type, enjoyment and fun from new discoveries, with little tension
--it also accounts for aesthetic enjoyment, which is similar.
Relatively high wanting and high subsequent liking accounts for D-type as a “a need to know”, when the progressively irritating itch of uncertainty must be scratched with correct answers!
Thus the neuroscience of wanting and liking map beautifully onto the I/D differences we have discussed.
The critical follow-up question is:
****Is there any evidence of the role of dopamine in the arousal of curiosity and any evidence for the role of opioid in discovery or problem-solving when curious?
Answer: Yes!

15. Empirical Evidence of the Role of Wanting & Liking in Curiosity & Information Seeking
The social-affective neuroscience of curiosity is still very much in its infancy as an area of scientific inquiry…
Animal research (Bardo et al,1990’s; Bevins et al 2000’s; Panksepp et al, 2000’s): Dopamine and opioid activation associated with investigation and exploration in animals…
Beiderman and colleagues ( ) opioid activity occurs when we learn new information and incorporate it with knowledge stored in memory…
The social-affective neuroscience of curiosity is still very much in its infancy as an area of scientific inquiry…
But we do have a great deal of evidence gathered over the past few decades that strongly support Wanting and Liking pathways in the brain are involved in the stimulation of curiosity in the brain, both in terms of animal exploration and human intellectual curiosity.
Let’s finish up with some thoughts on applying what we know so far about Epistemic Curiosity, and think about how it might be important to keep it in mind in instructional settings – the very settings where EC will most likely be activated.
Gruber et al (2014) –Dopamine activity is correlated with curiosity to find out answers to questions…
Much more interdisciplinary work is needed among researchers in Emotion, Motivation, Personality Neuroscience, Cognition, etc.

16. Examples of EC “Exercises”
Applications & Implications of Assessment of I-type and D-type EC: Training Individuals to “Exercise” their Epistemic Curiosity
1. Assessment of levels of I-type and D-type EC: Obtain a “baseline” measure of an individual’s disposition towards learning and problem solving.
2. Following assessment, “EC Workshops”: Advise individuals on ways to “exercise” their I-type and D-type EC tendencies, potentially expanding their capacity for intellectual achievement and personal growth.
Examples of EC “Exercises”
I-type
D-type
Consider new knowledge-areas of potential interest to explore.
Consider how to develop a concrete plan of action on the best way to proceed in pursuit of one’s learning goals.
Consider how much fun will it be to pursue a new learning goal, and to discover if one has it in them to at least try.
Consider how much effort will be needed to pursue a learning goal and how to most accurately determine when one’s objectives have been met.
First, we would want to assess learners’ levels of I-type and D-type EC to get an idea of their natural tendencies to experience and express these aspects of curiosity.
Assessment may clarify who would benefit most from brainstorming or from “digging deeply”.
Following assessment, this information will make it possible to develop “EC Workshops”, aimed at advising and training individuals to “exercise” their Epistemic Curiosity, and thus apply their I- and D-type EC tendencies more effectively in regard to self-directed learning and problem solving, which will potentially expand their capacity for intellectual achievement and personal growth
Finally, once individuals are made more aware of their I-type and D-type levels, this information may be applied by them to self-regulate their own tendencies to approach opportunities to learn new idea or solve problems, facilitating their ability to develop more accurate self-efficacy estimates, and become more flexible and creative learners and problem-solvers in their every day lives.
More on developing I-type “Exercises”: If you feel yourself turning away from something new, consider giving it a try (be safe and reasonable, of course); consider that new experiences – good or not so good -- can provide a lot of new information you might not have discovered had you simply turned away. This also involves being open to other points of view, welcoming differences of opinion, and also accepting that even when "digging deeply", finding an unexpected answer might turn out to be of great value.
More on developing D-type “Exercises”: When trying to understand something or someone, ask yourself can I identify both what is clear to me and what it is that I still don't know -- what's missing? What more is there to learn? Don't take what you know or see for granted based on apparent surface meaning -- everything around us is an incomplete, unsolved puzzle that might be better understood by applying additional thoughtfulness and reflection.
Consider where a new discovery will potentially lead, and how the new knowledge may broaden one’s horizons.
Consider what might be gained or lost from succeeding or failing, and also what might be learned about the self, regardless of the outcome.
3. EC “exercises” such as these may help individuals to become more flexible and creative thinkers:
Individuals may be able to better self-regulate approach to learning and problem solving, and be better equipped to evaluate self-efficacy expectancies.

17. Want more information about Epistemic Curiosity?
Whether feeing interested, and wish to broadly explore… or
Puzzling thoughtfully over specific questions you need answered…
Please or go to
for reprints, more details on studies and projects in development,
assessment tools, and/or interest in collaboration!
Thank you for your time!

18. References
Bardo, M. T., Neisewander, J. L., & Pierce, R. C. (1989). Novelty-induced place preference behavior in rats: Effects of opiate and dopaminergic drugs. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 32, 683–689.
Biederman, I., & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual Pleasure and the Brain. American Scientist, 94,
Berridge, K.C. & Robinson, T.E. (2003) Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26,
Bevins, R.A., Besheer, J., Palmatier, M.I., Jensen, H.C., Pickett, K.S., & Eurek, S. (2002). Novel-object place conditioning: behavioral and dopaminergic processes in expression of novelty reward. Behavioural Brain Research, 129, 41–50.
Gruber, M.J., Gelman, B.D., Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84, 486–496.
*Koo, D.M., & Choi, Y.Y. (2010). Knowledge search and people with high epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 12–22.
*Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., De Santis, R., Crowson, H.M., & Hoffman, R.R. (2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83,
Litman, J.A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19,
*Litman, J.A. (2008). Interest and deprivation dimensions of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1585–1595.
*Litman, J.A. (2010). 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. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,
*Litman, J.A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531–536.
*Litman, J.A., Hutchins, T.L., & Russon, R.K. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 19,
*Litman, J.A. & Mussel, P. (2013). Development and validation of German translations of interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity scales. Journal of Individual Differences, 34,
Panksepp, J., Knutson, B., & Burgdorf, J. (2002). The role of brain emotional systems in addictions: a neuro-evolutionary perspective and new ‘self-report’ animal model. Addiction, 97, 459–469.
*Piotrowski, J.T., Litman, J. A., & Valkenburg, P. (2014). Measuring epistemic curiosity in young children. Infant and Child Development, 23,
Powell, C., & Nettelbeck, T., & Burns, N.R. (2016). Deconstructing intellectual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 147–151.
*Richards, J.B., Litman, J. A., & Roberts D.H. (2013). Performance characteristics of measurement instruments of epistemic curiosity in third-year medical students. Medical Science Educator, 23,
*Robinson, O.C., Demetre, J.D., Litman, J.A. (in press). Adult life stage and crisis as predictors of curiosity and authenticity: Testing inferences from Erikson’s lifespan theory. International Journal of Behavioral Development.
*Sullivan, M.W. & Lewis, M. (2003). Emotional expressions of young infants and children: A practitioner’s primer. Infants and Young Children, 16, 120–142.
*uncited on slide, but source of findings summarized on slides 7, 9 and 10