1. Epistemic Curiosity and Self-Regulation
July 2017
Epistemic Curiosity and Self-Regulation
Jordan Litman
With support from

2. What is Epistemic Curiosity?
Epistemic Curiosity (EC) is the desire to learn new intellectual knowledge such as facts, ideas, solutions.
Individual differences in EC are experienced & expressed as correlated (mdn r = .5) but distinct motives to…
Induce feeling interested in new knowledge
“I enjoy exploring new ideas”
Reduce feeling deprived of new knowledge
“I can spend hours on a single problem because I just can’t rest without knowing the answer”
[I-type]
[D-type]
“Learning is fun” attitudes
Self-directed “anticipated interest” learning
Overlaps most with Openness (O)
Large knowledge-gaps “Don’t Know”
Moderate state-curiosity & knowledge-seeking
“Need to know” attitudes
Self-directed “impasse-driven” learning
Overlaps with O & especially Conscientiousness
Intermediate knowledge-gaps: “TOT” & “FOK”
High state-curiosity & knowledge-seeking
EC experiences are theorized as intertwined cognitive-affective processes (i.e., Knowledge Emotions)
I-type: POSITVE when aroused & if satiated (low wanting + high liking = information “snacking”)
D-type: NEGATIVE when aroused, then POSITIVE if satiated (high wanting + high liking = “hungry” to know!)
Major Goal
Examine relationships between EC and several self-regulatory strategies to inform us of how
I-type and D-type EC may differentially orient individuals to approach & use new knowledge!

3. Participants and Measures
Validated translations of the 5-item I-type and D-type EC scales (5-item scales, α range = )
Study 1
(Italians, N = 151)
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)
Cognitive Reappraisal: Change view to control emotions
Expressive Suppression: Maintain composure (restraint)
Elaboration on Potential Outcomes (EPO)
Generation/Evaluation: Think before you act
Positive Focus: Optimistic, more carefree outlook
Negative Focus: Pessimistic, more cautious outlook
Risk Taking (RT-18)
Risk-Taking Behavior: Willing to take risks
Risk Assess.: Tend to interpret potential risks as safe
Study 2
(Americans, N = 218; Germans, N = 56)
BIS: Regulation of avoidance
BAS: Regulation of approach
Drive
Fun Seeking
Reward Responsiveness

4. Study 1: Italian Respondents
D-type EC correlated positively with Expressive Suppression and Generation/Evaluation, whereas I-type was unrelated to either, indicating that, as hypothesized, D-type EC involves emotional-control and deliberation. I-type EC correlated positively with positive outcome-focus and willingness to take risks but negatively with negative outcome-focus, consistent with our hypothesis that I-type involves optimism about new discoveries.
As expected, for D-type EC, the opposite pattern of correlations with outcome-focus and Risk Assessment emerged, suggesting that D-type involves concern over potential negative consequences due to incorrectly comprehending/applying knowledge.
Source: 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,

5. Implications for I-type and D-type EC as Distinct
Study 2: American & German Respondents
Implications for I-type and D-type EC as Distinct
Knowledge Emotions
[I-type]
[D-type]
I-type reflects fun, carefree approach to seeking knowledge
I-type may be associated with taking “creative chances”
I-type may also involve more impulsivity, but less deliberation (self-directed anticipated interest)
D-type involves thoughtfulness, & caution when seeking knowledge
D-type may motivate eschewing “frivolous” over “useful” information
D-type’s lack of +r with Reward & Drive reflects impulse control & sustained effort (self-directed impasse-driven).
Unexpectedly, D-type was uncorrelated with Drive or Reward Responsiveness possibly, these BAS dimensions involve impulsivity and intense positive affect (e.g., ‘‘excited’’, ‘‘energized’’ )which is at odds with D-type’s association with impulse-control D-type affective experiences.
Consistent with this interpretation, we found that impulse-control and punishment-sensitivity (i.e., Low BAS + High BIS) interacted to jointly influence D-type experiences
An important implication of these findings is that while the (uncomfortable) arousal associated with D-type states might be more intense relative to I-type, but activation of D-type EC might not quite reflect a burst of ‘‘drive-like’’ activity but rather sustained intellectual activity and concentration, consistent with its association to conscientiousness.
In future research, it may be worthwhile to examine whether I- and D-type EC differentially predict resource expenditure when knowledge-seeking is experimentally constrained (e.g., place limits on question-asking).
Low BAS+High BIS= Impulse-control and punishment-sensitivity interacted with D-type EC
Future Research
Examine whether I-type and D-type EC differentially predict resource expenditure if knowledge-seeking is constrained (e.g., place limits on question-asking).
Source: 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,

6. NEW RESEARCH ON EC AS A KNOWLEDGE EMOTION: Faces of I-type and D-type states
Action units of face capture can also reliably detect and differentiate between YN and WH facial expressions.
I-type expressions?
D-type expressions?
Facial expressions in Sign Language = non-manual grammatical markers that express emotion
Raised eyebrows/open eyes = neutral to positive valences
Furrowed brows/narrowed eyes suggest negative valences
Two major types of inquisitive faces are found cross culturally in sign languages that map closely onto I-type and D-type EC:
YES/NO questions: Raised brows, eyes open wide. Wide open query, lacking any details, larger information gaps (I-type?)
WH-questions: Furrowed brows, eyes narrowed. Seek specific details, smaller knowledge-gaps (D-type?)
Also found in infants young as 3 months when involved in cognitive engagement tasks -- they also have clear emotional markers!
All of these faces overlap with faces of thinking, “interested” attention, problem solving, mental effort, impasse-driven learning (esp. brow furrow), etc. This is unlikely to be coincidental…
Research is ongoing right now in my lab on real-time state curiosity, inquisitiveness and information seeking using this approach – so stay tuned 
 In an approach to learning known as impasse-driven learning by VanLehn, and colleagues, (2003) making students confused motivates them to think through a problem instead of passively sitting and listening to what a teacher is saying. In one experiment, for example, students learned about scientific research methods from two virtual reality tutors, (D’Mello, Lehman, Pekrun, & Graesserin press). The tutors sometimes contradicted each other, however, which made the students confused*.
Measures of simple learning (memory for basic concepts) and deep learning (being able to transfer an idea to a new area) showed that students who had to* work through confusion learned more deeply—they were better at correctly applying what they learned to new problems.
*Confusion term is misleading in my view… they were more curious! Curiosity implies not HAVE to, BUT rather CHOOSE to!