Individual differences in information demand have a low dimensional structure predicted by some curiosity traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".