Japan Version Epistemic Curiosity

Measuring curiosity in intellectual activities （Nishiakwa ＆ Amemiya, 2018）

Curiosity is a basic drive of exploration. As such, curiosity pertains to several areas of human activities from scientific creativity to amusement. In Japan, curiosity has been studied mainly in the field of educational psychology. In educational psychology, Hatano & Inagaki (1971) has introduced the theory of Berlyne (1960) on epistemic curiosity. Diversive curiosity and specific curiosity were clearly described in reference to several experimental studies.

Berlyne (1960) has divided exploratory behavior into diversive exploration and specific exploration. In diversive exploration, people explore environment or information widely without specific direction. In contrast, specific exploration is a directed exploration for some target or solution. Diversive exploration usually come about when people are in boring or leeway state. Specific exploration usually come about when people have specific goal or unsolved problem. Based on these two types of exploration, Berlyne proposed the existence of two types of curiosity in intellectual activities. These are diversive curiosity and specific curiosity in epistemic curiosity. Berlyne pointed out that, both types of curiosity work together reciprocally in intellectual activities. Berlyne also tried to provide the theoretical foundation for the existence of two types of curiosity using optimal arousal model. Berlyne’s optimal arousal model was a sophisticated general model and it was maintained to be applicable not only to curiosity but also to humor. Unfortunately, Berlyne’s grand theory based on optimal arousal model failed to receive adequate empirical support and recently it is regarded simply as a historical model (Silvia,2006; Martin, 2007).

As for the theory of epistemic curiosity in Japan, Hatano & Inagaki (1971) has taken over from Berlyne’s distinction between diversive curiosity and specific curiosity, but wisely ignored optimal arousal model. As a theoretical foundation, Hatano & Inagaki (1971) has referred to the idea of “optimal level of perceptualization rate” proposed by McReynolds (1962). Hatano & Inagaki (1971) has replaced “perceptualization” with the more general term of “information processing” and proposed an optimal level theory of information processing. According to Hatano & Inagaki (1971), people are essentially active information processing agent and this active nature was expressed by two types of curiosity. First, each person has certain level of information processing demand depending on each person’s ability, past experiences and current situation. When incoming information level is lower than the present optimal information processing level, person get bored and start diversive exploration to raise incoming information level to optimal (i.e. optimal level of information processing level). This is diversive curiosity. Second, person tried to resolve incongruities by searching for lacking information or reformulate the current problem differently. This is specific curiosity. These basic mechanisms are shown graphically in Figure 1. Hatano & Inagaki (1971) also examined the relation between two types of curiosity and pedagogical methods such as inquiry-based learning and hypothesis-experiment-instruction. Personal traits of diversive and specific curiosity were also described.

In US and Europe, after the pioneering work by Berlyne (1960), there have been continuing efforts to study curiosity. Several attempts of experimentation and scale development on curiosity were conducted (Silvia, 2006). For example, Litman & Spielberger (2003) has developed epistemic curiosity scale, which has diversive curiosity and specific curiosity as subscales. Unfortunately, in Japan brilliant study by Hatano & Inagaki (1971) was not taken over by the following researchers. As the result, curiosity has been regarded as a mere example of recommendable intrinsic motivation and no scale on curiosity were developed. Nishikawa & Amemiya (2015) has brought epistemic curiosity into educational psychology again after the long years of neglect. They developed Japanese epistemic curiosity scale, which consists of diversive curiosity subscale and specific curiosity subscale. Both subscales have enough reliability and the validities of both subscales were clearly attested. Because, Nishikawa & Amemiya (2015) was all written in Japanese, we will introduce Japanese epistemic curiosity scale in some detail.

There seems exist twists and turns in the development of the curiosity scale. Once width and depth of curiosity were measured (Ainley ,1987), but width and depth aspects are more related to the realm of interest not to the function of the curiosity per se. Epistemic curiosity scale by Litman & Spielberger (2003) is a legitimate product of Berlyne’s theory of epistemic curiosity. Yet it was criticized for the poor discriminant validity (Mussel,2010). After Epistemic scale, Litman (2008,2010) has tried to discriminate two aspects of epistemic curiosity based on the distinction between liking and wanting motivation (Berridge,2003). Because several branches of human curiosity have the base in the primitive seeking system (Panksepp, 1998), liking and wanting motivation have relevance also to the epistemic curiosity. Yet, as human curiosity develops along several branches (Kashdan et al., 2018), it seems to be better to try to measure each branch carefully. Because there were almost no study of curiosity scale in Japan, we tried to develop Japan version epistemic curiosity scale based on the study by Berlyne(1960) , Hatano & Inagaki (1971) and Litman & Spielberger (2003) . In item production, 93 items were created and through three steps of careful item selection, final 12 items were adopted(Table 1).

Factor structure and reliability of Japan version epistemic curiosity scale were clearly established. The result of exploratory factor analysis has shown two factors structure, with .49 inter-factor correlation. Cronbach’s α were .81 for both sub-scales. Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis of this 2-factor correlation model was adequate level (χ² (53) ＝179.29, p < .001, CFI ＝ .937, GFI ＝ .952, RMSEA ＝ .065). The inter-factor correlation in the confirmatory factor analysis was .51.

I will keep you updated...

For more details, please refer to the book below.

Nishikawa, K., & Amemiya(2018). Explore the structure and roles of curiosity in education and well-being. In G. Gordon (Ed.), New science of Curiosity (pp.225-242). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

URL: https://novapublishers.com/shop/the-new-science-of-curiosity/

The New Science of Curiosity | Nova Science PublishersGoren Gordon Curiosity Lab, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Israel Series: Psychology of Emotions, Motivations and Actions BISAC: EDU009000

REFERENCES

Ainley, M. (1987). The factor structure of curiosity measures: Breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 53-59.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berridge, K. C. (2003). Pleasures of the brain. Brain and cognition, 52, 106-128.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 11, 230-241.

Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70, 349-361.

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.

Farkas, D., & Orosz, G. (2015). Ego-resiliency reloaded: a three-component model of general resiliency. PloS one, 10(3), e0120883

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1971). Intrinsic motivation on education and development (Httatsu to kyouiku ni okeru naihatsutekidoukiduke). Meijitoshoshuppan Corporation (In Japanese).

Hirayama, R., & Kushumi, T. (2004). Effect of critical thinking dispotion on interpretation of controversial issues: Evaluting evidences and drawing conclusions, Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 186-198 (In Japanese with English abstract).

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science&Practice,10, 144–156.

Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Curious?: Discover the missing ingredient to a fulfilling life. New York: HarperCollins.

Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of research in personality, 43, 987-998.

Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of personality assessment, 82, 291-305.

Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 367-374). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. D., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130-149.

Kawamoto, T., Ura, M., & Hiraki, K. (2017). Curious people are less affected by social rejection. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 264-267.

Kouyama, T., & Fujihara, T. (1991). A basic study of the need for cognition scale. The Japanese Society of Social Psychology, 6, 184-192 (In Japanese with English abstract)．

LeDoux, J. E. (2015). Anxious: Using the brain to understand and treat fear and anxiety．Viking Press.

Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors 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, 397-402.

Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75-86.

Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic Press.

Maruyama, H. (2014). Sustainable Security for Lifelong Learners and Society. Journal of

International Cooperation in Education, 16,139-155.

McReynolds, P. (1962). Exploratory behavior: A theoretical interpretation. Psychological Reports, 11, 311–318.

Mitchell, K. E., Levin, S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance: Constructing unexpected career opportunities. Journal of counseling & Development, 77, 115-124.

Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant

validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 506-510.

Namikawa, T., Tani, I., Wakita, T., Kumagai, R., Nakae, A., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Development of a short form of the Japanese Big- Five Scale, and a test of its reliability and validity. The Japanese journal of psychology, 83, 91-99 (In Japanese with English abstract)．

Neff, K. (2011). Self-Compassion: The Proven Power of Being Kind to Yourself. William

Morrow.

Nettle, D. (2009). Personality: What makes you the way you are. Oxford University Press.

Nishikawa, K., & Amemiya, T. (2015). Development of an epistemic curiosity scale: Diversive curiosity and specific curiosity (In Japanese). Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 412-415 (In Japanese with English abstract).

Nishikawa, K., & Amemiya, T. (2017). Effects of trait curiosities on the appraisals of picture stimuli: diversive curiosity and specific curiosity. International Journal of Affective Engineering, 16, 21-25

Nishikawa,K., Yoshizu, J., Amemiya, T., & Takayama, N. (2015). Individual differences in trait curiosities and their relations to mental health and psychological well-being. Journal of Japan Health Medicine Association, 24, 40-48(In Japanese with English abstract).

Nishimura, S. (2007). Multi-dimensional structure of attitudes towards ambiguity. Japan Society of Personality Psychology, 15,183-194 (In Japanese with English abstract)．

Panksepp, J. (1989). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221–243). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Suzuki, K., & Sakurai, S. (2003) . The construction, reliability and validity of a Japanese need for closure scale. The Japanese journal of psychology, 74, 270-275 (In Japanese with English abstract)．

Takahashi, Y., Yamagata, S., Kijima, N., Shigemasu, K., Ono, Y., & Ando, J. (2007)．Gray’s temperament model: Development of Japanese version of BIS/BAS scales and a behavior genetic investigation using the twin method. Japan Society of Personality Psychology, 15, 276-289 (In Japanese with English abstract)．

Tsurumi, K. (1972). Curiosity and Japanese. (Koukishin to Nihonjin), Kodansha, Tokyo (In

Japanese)