Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg 72074, Germany.
School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Nov 5;121(45):e2415236121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2415236121. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
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.
为了理解人类的学习和进步,理解好奇心至关重要。但是,好奇心的概念和评估在不同的科学研究学科中是否一致呢?我们呈现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之间的一致性。共有 820 名参与者完成了 15 个人格特质测量和 9 个认知任务,这些任务测试了信息需求的多个方面。我们表明,认知任务之间的共享方差由反映定向(不确定性驱动)与随机(随机性驱动)探索的维度来捕捉,并且沿着这个轴的个体差异可以被人格特质显著且一致地预测。然而,最能预测信息需求的人格指标不是开放性、剥夺敏感性和快乐探索等经验开放性的核心好奇心特质,而是包括更外围的好奇心特质(认知需求、寻求刺激和压力容忍)以及与好奇心传统上不相关的测量指标(外向性和行为抑制)。研究结果表明,“好奇心”这个总称反映了一系列认知和情绪过程,其中只有一些与人格测量和认知任务共享。结果反映了这些领域中使用的不同方法,这表明在跨领域比较结果时需要谨慎,并需要未来的跨学科合作来加强我们对好奇心的新兴理解。