Measures of epistemic curiosity

Introduction

Variants of epistemic curiosity

Epistemic curiosity is a profound desire to acquire knowledge.  Nowadays, researchers tend to distinguish two kinds of epistemic curiosity that differ in the emotions that motivate this pursuit of knowledge:

• interest epistemic curiosity, in which individuals explore novel, creative, and stimulating ideas because they enjoy this exploration and experience a sense of fun or fascination,
• deprivation epistemic curiosity, in which individuals scour particular information diligently to release the tension or discomfort they feel because of an unresolved contradiction or puzzle.

Thus, a sense of fascination elicits interest epistemic curiosity, and a sense of discomfort or uncertainty elicits deprivation epistemic curiosity.  Despite some overlap, this distinction is distinct from two other kinds of epistemic curiosity that Berlyne (1960, 1966) had proposed decades earlier.  Specifically, Berlyne had distinguished

• diversive curiosity, in which individuals seek novel and diverse information or experiences to overcome boredom,
• specific curiosity, in which individuals seek particular information to resolve a shortfall in their knowledge.

This distinction between diversive curiosity and specific curiosity primarily revolves around how people explore information instead of the emotions that coincide with this exploration.   

Relationship with intellectual humility

Both interest epistemic curiosity and humility purportedly correspond to a passion or thirst to learn from other people and experiences.  Indeed, both interest epistemic curiosity (Litman & Jimerson, 2004) and intellectual humility (Owens et al., 2013) tend to overlap with a learning or mastery orientation, defined as the motivation of individuals to extend their knowledge and capabilities.  Thus, intellectual humility may, in principle, overlap closely with interest epistemic curiosity.

Yet, limited research has explored the association between epistemic curiosity and intellectual humility.  According to one study, diversive and specific curiosity respectively are positively associated with intellectual humility, r = .35 and r = .27 (Leary et al., 2017). 

Measures of epistemic curiosity in general

The epistemic curiosity scale: diversive versus specific curiosity

Litman and Spielberger (2003) constructed and validated the first scale to measure epistemic humility.  This instrument, comprising 10 items, was developed before the interest and deprivation variants had been distinguished.  Instead, this instrument distinguishes diversive and specific curiosity. Examples of items that assess diversive epistemic curiosity

• I enjoy learning about subjects that are unfamiliar
• I enjoy exploring new ideas
• I enjoy discussing abstract concepts.

Examples of items that assess specific epistemic curiosity

• If I see an incomplete puzzle, I try and imagine the final solution,
• I am interested in solving riddles.

Litman and Spielberger (2003) administered this scale and other related measures to 739 university students.  Overall, the findings validate this scale.  For example, the overall scale and both subscales were

• positively associated with other measures of curiosity, such as perceptual curiosity (Collins, 1996) and trait curiosity,
• inversely related to trait anxiety,
• positively associated with sensation seeking.

The distinction between interest and deprivation curiosity: The curiosity as a feeling-of-deprivation scale

Soon after the epistemic curiosity scale was developed, Litman and Jimerson (2004) proposed that curiosity tends to emanate from two distinct motives or goals: to seek pleasure from novel information, called interest, and to override the discomfort of uncertainty, called deprivation.  Interest was equated to a mastery or learning orientation, and deprivation was equated to a performance orientation (Litman & Jimerson, 2004). 

To measure deprivation epistemic curiosity, Litman and Jimerson (2004) developed the Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale, comprising 15 items.  This instrument comprised three subscales:

• the desire to improve competence and to prevent ignorance, comprising items like “I do not like not knowing things, so I try to learn new information about even the most complex topics”,
• intolerance for unsolved problems, comprising items like “It really gets on my nerves when I know that I am close to solving a puzzle, but still cannot figure it out”, and
• persistence when attempting to solve a problem, comprising items like “I can spend hours on a single problem because I just cannot rest without knowing the answer”.

The distinction between interest and deprivation curiosity: A refined measure

Later, in a seminal paper, Litman (2008) explored whether all the items in this Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale and the all the items in the epistemic curiosity scale might instead correspond to two main facets: interest and deprivation.  Four distinct samples of participants completed

• the Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale,
• the epistemic curiosity scale, and in some instances
• the learning-achievement goal scale (Elliot & Church, 1997), to assess the degree to which individuals prioritise developing their capabilities, called mastery, outperforming rivals or standards, called performance-approach, or preventing failure, called performance-avoid. 

Across these studies, the researchers uncovered some informative results:

• All five facets, derived from both measures of epistemic curiosity, generated two factors.
• The persistence facet of the Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale was highly related to one factor; the diversive facet of the epistemic curiosity scale was highly related to the other factor; the remaining subscales were associated with both factors to similar degrees and thus not as useful.
• In a separate factor analysis, the 10 items that correspond to the persistence facet and diversive facet generated two distinct factors.
• The persistence facet primarily revolved around enjoyment of unfamiliar ideas, exemplifying interest curiosity.  In contrast, the diversive facet primarily revolved around tension until a problem is solved, exemplifying deprivation curiosity.
• A confirmatory factor analysis validated this model: CFI = .965, RMSEA = .056,
• Interest epistemic curiosity was positively associated with a mastery orientation, and deprivation epistemic curiosity was primarily associated with a performance avoid orientation.

In short, Litman (2008) derived 10 items from two previous scales—the Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale and the epistemic curiosity scale—to measure interest epistemic curiosity and deprivation epistemic curiosity, respectively.  As further evidence of validity, in a subsequent study,  Litman (2010) revealed that

• interest epistemic curiosity is positively associated with tolerance to ambiguity and negatively associated with negative affect,
• deprivation epistemic curiosity is negative associated with tolerance to ambiguity and positively associated with negative affect (Litman, 2010).

These results are consistent with the wanting-liking model: the notion that interest epistemic curiosity is a desire to seek knowledge, whereas deprivation epistemic curiosity is a need to seek knowledge.

Measures of epistemic curiosity in particular settings or populations

The work-related curiosity scale

A plethora of studies have verified the importance and benefits of epistemic curiosity in many spheres of life.  Yet, until the 2010s, only a modest number of studies had explored the role of epistemic curiosity in the workplace. According to Mussel et al. (2012), this shortfall could be ascribed to the observation that researchers had not developed a measure of epistemic curiosity that is specifically germane to the workplace.  To address this shortfall, Mussel et al. (2012) constructed and validated a measure of curiosity that is relevant to the workplace, comprising 10 items, translated in both English and German.  Each item either refers to the workplace or assesses a capability that is obviously important in the workplace.  These items include

• I enjoy developing new strategies.
• I am eager to learn.
• I enjoy pondering and thinking.
• I carry on seeking information until I am able to understand complex issues.
• I try to improve work processes by making innovative suggestions.

Mussel et al. (2012) conducted two studies to validate this measure.  To illustrate, in one study, 395 German university students completed a survey that included

• this Work-Related Curiosity Scale,
• the Epistemic Curiosity Scale that Litman and Spielberger (2003) developed, designed to assess diversive curiosity and specific curiosity,
• the German translation (Renner, 2006) of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (Kashdan et al., 2004), comprising seven items like “I actively seek as much information as I can in new situations”,
• the curiosity as a feeling of deprivation measure (Litman & Jimerson, 2004),
• the short variant of the need for cognition measure (Cacioppo et al., 1984; for the German translation, see Bless et al., 1994), such as “I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve”,
• a measure of the five main personality traits (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993),
• assessments of job performance—derived from peer ratings, self-ratings, and career success.

As evidence of validity, scores on the work-related curiosity scales were positively associated with all other measures of curiosity, need for cognition, openness to experience, conscientiousness, peer-ratings of performance, self-ratings of performance, and university grades.  Indeed, the correlations between this instrument and all other measures of curiosity approached or exceeded 0.7.  Despite these high correlations, the researchers uncovered some evidence of incremental validity—although the criterion was not specified explicitly in the paper.  Finally,

• some of the items seemed to epitomise interest epistemic curiosity and other items seemed to epitomise deprivation epistemic curiosity,
• however, because the instrument was not developed to differentiate these facets, the final instrument did not include enough items to characterise these facets effectively,
• instead, confirmatory factor analysis verified one factor: CFI = .92; RMSEA = .07. 

Measures of epistemic curiosity in children

To explore the evolution and development of epistemic curiosity across age, researchers need to measure this quality in children, adolescents, and adults.  However, until the mid 2010s, researchers had yet to develop and validate a measure of epistemic curiosity that is suitable to young children.  To address this shortfall, Piotrowski et al. (2014) constructed and substantiated a measure in which parents evaluate the epistemic curiosity of their children. 

To construct this scale, adapted the items that Litman (2008) had assembled to measure epistemic curiosity in adults.  These items were adapted to assess manifestations of curiosity that only young children demonstrate but are observable to other people, such as a parent.  The final measure of epistemic curiosity in young children comprised five items that gauge interest epistemic curiosity such as

• my child has fun learning about new topics and subjects,
• my child is attracted to new things in his or her environment,
• my child shows visible enjoyment when discovering something new.

This measure of epistemic curiosity in young children also comprised five items that gauge deprivation epistemic curiosity such as

• when presented with a tough problem, my child focuses all his or her attention on how to solve it,
• my child is bothered when he or she does not understand something, and tries to make sense of it.

To validate the scale, 316 Dutch parents of children aged 3 to 8 completed an online survey.  Besides this measure of epistemic curiosity in young children, the survey included questions, translated to Dutch, that assess

• sensation-seeking, such as “My child … likes to go as fast as possible, for example, on a bike” (Trice, 2010),
• shyness, such as “My child is sometimes shy even around people she or he has known a long time” (Majdandzic & van den Boom, 2007),
• inhibitory control, such as “My child loses control more easily than peers”, derived from the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Gioia et al., 2000),
• hyperactivity and inattention, such as “My child is easily distracted and has trouble staying focused”, derived from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (for the Dutch translation, see van Widenfelt et al., 2003).

As evidence of validity, a confirmatory factor analysis verified the two factors, CFI = .96, RMSEA=.07.  Both facets of curiosity were positively associated with sensation seeking and negatively associated with shyness.  Finally, deprivation epistemic curiosity, but not interest epistemic curiosity, was inversely related to both inhibitory control and hyperactivity (Piotrowski et al., 2014). 

Measures of curiosity in infants and toddlers

To complement the measures of curiosity in children, Altmann et al. (2025) also developed an instrument that gauges curiosity in infants and toddlers, aged between 5 months and 24 months.  The items were designed to measure how children can explore and interact with their physical and social environment.  After an initial pilot study, the authors selected 23 items that measure three facets of curiosity:

• sensory curiosity or curiosity of objects, comprising items like “My child is interested in a wide variety of objects” or “My child usually inspects objects from all angles and sides”,
• investigative curiosity or the tendency to analyse objects, comprising items like “My child often bangs objects to see what noise they make” or “If a toy has multiple functions, my child will typically discover and play with more than one of them”, and
• interactive curiosity or the inclination to interact with other people to explore the environment, comprising items like “When faced with a problem, my child will seek the help of others in order to solve it” and “My child often leads me to or brings me things that they want to know more about”.

Altmann et al. (2025) conducted several studies to validate this measure.  For example, one study of 75 caregivers explored the association between this measure of curiosity and an instrument that gauges the temperament of these children—and specifically

• surgency, revolving around elevated levels of activity, pleasure, and approach, comparable to extraversion  
• negative affect, revolving around fear and distress, comparable to neuroticism,
• effortful control, revolving around prolonged orienting and soothability, comparable to conscientiousness.  

As this study revealed, sensory curiosity was positively associated with surgency and effortful control as well as negatively associated with negative affect. Investigative curiosity was also positively associated with surgency. Finally, interactive curiosity was negatively associated with negative affect.  These findings are broadly compatible with the notion that curiosity tends to emanate from extraversion or social interaction, conscientiousness or effort, and confidence rather than negative affect.  The other studies also uncovered findings that also corroborate the measure. For example

• confirmatory factor analysis substantiated the three correlated factors: CGI = .90 RMSEA = .045,
• test-retest reliability across one week and two weeks were deemed as good (Altmann et al., 2025).