Killing the cats or satisfying the human? The role of epistemic curiosity in adolescents’ multidimensional well-being

Abstract

The role of epistemic curiosity in achievement has been widely acknowledged. In recent years, research has started to understand the broad effect of curiosity, and thus the association between curiosity and well-being is of special interest. Yet, studies so far have found both beneficial and detrimental effects of curiosity on well-being, leaving inconclusive findings. The present study aimed to understand the associations between epistemic curiosity and well-being from a multidimensional perspective. We further examined whether there were individual differences (i.e., gender and grade) among those associations. For those purposes, 315 adolescents in 4–6th grades were surveyed, and their two epistemic curiosity (i.e., joyous curiosity and deprivation curiosity) and five well-being (i.e., physical, dietary, emotional, psychological, and academic well-being) indicators were measured. Results indicated that (1) joyous curiosity was unanimously associated with five well-being domains while deprivation was not; (2) among five well-being indicators, the closest association to curiosity is academic well-being, whereas dietary well-being was the least close; and (3) neither gender nor grade moderated the association between epistemic curiosity and well-being. In conclusion, we found that joyous curiosity was a consistent beneficial factor for well-being, and the effects were not related to gender or grade among early adolescents.

Keywords

epistemic curiosity joyous exploration deprivation sensitivity well-being adolescence

Introduction

As an important facilitator of learning, curiosity is conceptualized as a human motive for knowledge and information (Kashdan et al., 2018; Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Broadly speaking, curiosity can be understood from multiple perspectives. Berlyne (1960; 1966) firstly divided curiosity into four categories: diverse curiosity, specific curiosity, perceptual curiosity, and epistemic curiosity. Among those categories, epistemic curiosity is closest to learning since it is generally defined as the desire for knowledge (Tang & Salmela-Aro, 2021).

While epistemic curiosity was mostly examined as a facilitator for learning and achievement, its roles in well-being started to gather attention in the research (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2018; Miljković & Jurčec, 2016; Mishra, 2022). This is because curiosity might have paradoxical effects on well-being. On the one hand, curiosity was found to relate to well-being positively, given its beneficial role in learning (Garrosa et al., 2017; Sakaki et al., 2018). On the other hand, curiosity might be detrimental to well-being as it is close to novelty-seeking and risk-taking behaviors (e.g., Lindgren et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2011).

Due to the broad conceptualization of curiosity and well-being, it might be that the multidimensional nature of both constructs contributes to the paradoxical relationships among them. However, to date, there have been few studies examining them from the multidimensional perspective. The aim of this study was to fill this research gap by having two types of epistemic curiosity and five categories of subjective well-being. Moreover, we focused on early adolescence because this is the most salient period to observe the associations between curiosity (especially sensation-seeking) and risk-taking behaviors (Steinberg, 2008).

Curiosity and well-being

Being curious means exploring the surroundings proactively (Garrosa et al., 2017; Litman et al., 2005). This, in turn, results in more chances to get information and knowledge and consequently contributes to learning (Tang & Salmela-Aro, 2021). Thus, the beneficial role of curiosity in learning has been widely found. While when actively searching for information, curiosity can have other consequences in addition to learning outcomes. Well-being is one broad type of outcome that curiosity can contribute to.

When individuals engage in new experiences, they are more likely to report positive feelings and thus have better well-being. Previous studies found that curiosity is inclined to enhance individuals’ (especially adults’) positive affect, which further benefits their physical health and functioning, as well as life satisfaction (Garrosa et al., 2017; Lydon-Staley et al., 2020; Sakaki et al., 2018). Moreover, since highly curious individuals are more confident about their capabilities, they are more motivated to initiate new behaviors or engage in novel, uncertain, and challenging activities that stretch their skills and potential. These, in turn, enhance their personal resources for greater well-being (e.g., greater self-efficacy, adaptability, resilience, energy, and positive emotions; Fredrickson, 2013; Jovanovic & Brdaric, 2012; Kaczmarek et al., 2013; Wang & Li, 2015). Finally, studies in neuroscience also added that curiosity is implicated in noradrenergic, dopaminergic, and other mechanisms that are beneficial to individuals’ mental health (Richman et al., 2005; Sakaki et al., 2018).

Despite positive associations between curiosity and well-being, other studies found the opposite relationship between them, particularly among early adolescents. For instance, it has been found that curiosity can trigger sensation-seeking behaviors like smoking, alcohol drinking, and video game addiction (Kim & Lee, 2017; Portnoy et al., 2014), as well as some risk-taking behaviors like substance use, unsafe sex, and aggressive and destructive behaviors (Crawford et al., 2003; De Micheli & Formigoni, 2002; Donohew et al., 2000). These behaviors, in turn, are detrimental to physical and psychological well-being (Jovanović & Gavrilov-Jerković, 2014; Schwartz et al., 2011). Adolescence is a period characterized by increasing sensation-seeking and risk-taking behaviors (Steinberg, 2008). The tendency to seek out novel and exciting experiences is likely to trigger risky behavior engagement (Dahabiyeh et al., 2021; Johnston et al., 2005; Jovanović & Gavrilov-Jerković, 2014). These risky behaviors may, in turn, exacerbate their well-being.

Given the paradoxical relationships between curiosity and well-being, more research is needed to uncover the reasons behind this phenomenon, particularly among early adolescents. The current study thus took a multidimensional perspective to understand the complex relationships between curiosity and well-being.

Two types of epistemic curiosity and multidimensional well-being

While curiosity is a broad construct, research focused mostly on epistemic curiosity as it relates to learning and development widely (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2009; Lauriola et al., 2015; Tang & Salmela-Aro, 2021). Within epistemic curiosity, it is typically separated into two types: interest- and deprivation-type curiosity. Interest-type curiosity, or joyous exploration, refers to a preference for hedonic experiences and for seeking new information and experiences and a value of self-expansion over security (Kashdan et al., 2018; Litman et al., 2010). In contrast, deprivation-type curiosity, also called deprivation sensitivity, is understood as the stress and anxiety to fulfill the knowledge gap, to escape the deprivation or tension of not knowing something (Kashdan et al., 2018). It can lead to persistent exploration and seeking behaviors (Litman, 2008).

Recent research from neuroscience sheds light on the critical difference between these two curiosities (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015; Litman, 2005). Joyous exploration is represented by the “liking system,” originating from a smaller set of hedonic hot spots within limbic circuitry. In contrast, deprivation sensitivity is represented by the “wanting system,” which concerns the anticipation of rewards and generates from a large and distributed brain system (Litman, 2005). According to previous studies, both types of epistemic curiosity relate to learning and achievement (e.g., Tang & Salmela-Aro, 2021). Whereas interest-type curiosity relates to achievement due to its positive effects on joyful experiences, deprivation-type curiosity relates to learning, given its role in the impulsive pursuit of knowledge and information-hunting (Lydon-Staley et al., 2021). However, what was less known were two epistemic curiosities’ roles in individuals’ well-being, especially from a multidimensional perspective.

Well-being, like curiosity, is also a broad construct that can be differentiated from multiple angles. Being in a state of well means not only mentally but also physically and socially. In the current study, we examined the students’ well-being broadly from five domains: physical, emotional, dietary, psychological, and academic well-being (Tang et al., 2022). Physical well-being is defined as wellness in physical health with few illnesses. Emotional well-being means experiencing positive feelings with few negative feelings. Dietary well-being consists of healthy diets and eating behaviors. Psychological well-being represents satisfaction in mental and social life. Academic well-being refers to engagement in school life and in academic work. All those five aspects are critically important for students’ life and future development.

There have been studies on epistemic curiosity and well-being; however, most of them are focused on emotional and psychological well-being. It has been found that interest-type epistemic curiosity (e.g., joyous exploration) is associated with subjective happiness, pleasure experience, contribution to others, and positive emotions (Kashdan et al., 2018; Lauriola et al., 2015). Meanwhile, interest-type curiosity was also associated with fun-seeking and risk-taking behaviors (Lauriola et al., 2015; Lindgren et al., 2010), leaving a complex role for interest-type curiosity in well-being.

Regarding deprivation-type epistemic curiosity, its role in emotional and psychological well-being is also complex. Previous research found that deprivation-type curiosity did not associate with happiness or positive/negative emotions significantly (Kashdan et al., 2018; Lauriola et al., 2015). However, it is still connected to distress intolerance and perseverance, which might contribute to well-being (Kashdan et al., 2018; Lauriola et al., 2015).

A few studies also examined the relationships between epistemic curiosity and other types of well-being. For instance, Kaczmarek et al. (2013) found that a high level of epistemic curiosity is likely to protect against various physical diseases (e.g., hypertension and diabetes) via the rewarding hormone effects. Moreover, epistemic curiosity is likely to enhance academic well-being through its association with information-retrieving (Gruber et al., 2014) and problem-solving skills (Di Leo et al., 2019).

In summary, so far, research about associations between epistemic curiosity and well-being has displayed several limitations (including several puzzling phenomena). First, most studies treated curiosity as a unified construct; thus a complex relationship between curiosity and well-being was observed. Second, and related to the first, well-being was mostly studied from emotional and psychological perspectives without a comprehensive examination. Third, many studies focused on the adult population (including college students), and more attention should have been paid to adolescence. However, as we suggested above, this is a prominent period that researchers should focus on, given the hyper-connections between curiosity and risk-taking. Thus, this study aimed to address those limitations by examining two epistemic curiosities and five categories of well-being among early adolescents.

Individual differences of curiosity effect

While the curiosity–wellbeing association might not be straightforward, their complex connection might also be attributed to the gender and grade stages. Previous studies using a person-oriented approach also found large individual variances in curiosity effects (Kashdan et al., 2018). In this study, besides the multidimensional understanding of curiosity and well-being, the moderation roles of gender and grade were also explored.

In general, male adolescents are more likely to engage in various risky behaviors than female adolescents (Djerboua et al., 2016; Johnston et al., 2010; Schwartz et al., 2011). However, at the same time, female students generally report more mental health problems than male students (Bergman & Scott, 2001; Tang et al., 2021). Thus, it would be of special interest to understand the gender effects in the link between curiosity and well-being, particularly from a multidimensional perspective.

In addition to gender, grade (in line with age) might also play a moderating role. Adolescence is a rapid growth period that is fueled by the brain's dopaminergic system for novelty, without the mature brain's cognitive control system (Steinberg, 2008). As a consequence, adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. Recent research also showed that ages 10–15 (corresponding to the 4th to 6th grades) witnessed a rapid change in curiosity (Guo et al., 2022). We thus focused on our sample from grades 4 to 6 and examined their moderating effects (Kautz et al., 2014).

The present study

In sum, this study aimed to understand the complex relationships between epistemic curiosity and well-being among early adolescents. We took a comprehensive perspective so that two epistemic curiosities (interest-type and deprivation-type curiosity) and five categories of well-being (i.e., physical, dietary, emotional, psychological, and academic) were examined. Based on the literature reviewed above, we expected to see positive associations between interest-type curiosity (i.e., joyous exploration) and all five indicators of well-being (H1). The role of deprivation-type curiosity will be complex. While deprivation-type curiosity was assumed to correlate with emotional- and psychological well-being negatively (H2), it was expected to associate with academic well-being positively (H3). We have no particular hypotheses regarding deprivation-type curiosity and physical/dietary well-being. In addition, we aimed to explore whether gender and grade played a role in the relationship between epistemic curiosity and well-being. Since there were few direct studies on this issue, no specific hypotheses can be proposed.

Methods

Participants

The sample in this study came from a primary school in Beijing, China. In total, 315 adolescents graded 4–6 agreed to participate in this study (N_{grade 4} = 124; N_{grade 5} = 102; N_{grade 6} = 88, missing = 1). Among them, 168 are male (53.3%), 146 are female (46.3%), and left 1 as information missing. According to the power analysis, 311 participants are required in order to detect a small effect size (i.e., 0.02) with the power of 0.80 (α error probability = 0.05). Thus, our sample size is able to help us find small-to-medium effect sizes. All the students provided their consent to participate in the project. The study was also approved by the ethical board of the home institute. Participants answered the survey in paper format in the school under teachers’ guidance.

Measurement

Epistemic curiosity consisted of joyous exploration and deprivation sensitivity. These two subdimensions were measured by the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR) developed by Kashdan et al. (2020). The scale had eight items for epistemic curiosity, four of which tapped into joyous exploration (e.g., “I enjoy learning about subjects that are unfamiliar to me”) and four that tapped into deprivation sensitivity (e.g., “I work relentlessly at problems that I feel must be solved”). In this study, curiosity was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The items used in this study illustrated good reliability (i.e., Cronbach's α = 0.82, 0.79 for two subdimensions, respectively) and good structural validity (two-factor model fits: RMESA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.03) in line with our previous study (Tang & Salmela-Aro, 2021).

Well-being consisted of physical, dietary, emotional, psychological, and academic well-being that were constructed from the SchoolDay Well-being Model (Tang et al., 2022). Physical well-being was measured using six items (e.g., “I exercise every day”; “I have not had headaches”). Dietary well-being was measured using five items (e.g., “My diet is healthy”; “I eat at least one warm meal every day”). Emotional well-being was measured using five items (e.g., “My stress is low”; “I feel happy”). Psychological well-being was measured using four items (e.g., “I have friends”; “I like being at school”). Academic well-being concerns the positive experience and attitude toward learning and was measured using four items (e.g., “Time flies when I am studying”; “I can manage my studies”). In this study, items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. All dimensions showed good reliability (i.e., Cronbach's α = 0.75, 0.78, 0.85, 0.74, 0.80 for physical, dietary, emotional, psychological, and academic well-being, respectively). Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed the scale had a good model fit for the five-factor model (RMESA = 0.05, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.05) than for the one-factor model (RMESA = 0.06, CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.84, SRMR = 0.06).

Data analyses

After data cleaning, we use the mean of items to compose the epistemic curiosity and well-being. The Structural Equation Model (SEM) was performed to analyze the association of adolescents’ epistemic curiosity and five indicators of well-being, as well as the moderating effects of gender and age. There were 34 (10.8%) data points missing on independent variables, which was acceptable. To handle the missing data, the model was estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation, with a full-information estimator. In the analyses, gender and grade were centered using effect coding (i.e., −0.5 = male, 0.5 = female; −1 = Grade 4, 0 = Grade 5, 1 = Grade 6). The analyses were performed in Mplus Version 8.3, and demonstrated good model fits (RMESA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.00). To ensure the transparency of the study, original data and analyses codes/outputs can be accessed at the Open Science Framework site (https://osf.io/fa8tu/?view_only = 5e51e8180ca04c6e86725bbca6d295aa).

Result

Descriptive reports

The descriptive analysis and correlation are shown in Table 1. Results showed acceptable correlation effect sizes among independent variables (i.e., two types of curiosity) and dependent variables (i.e., well-being) (r(313) ≤ 0.75), which demonstrated relatively weak collinearity. Both joyous exploration (r(313) = 0.49–0.75, p < 0.001) and deprivation sensitivity (r(313) = 0.32–0.52, p < 0.001) were positively correlated with all categories of well-being, and the correlation effects of joyous exploration were more prominent.

Table 1.

Descriptive of the studied variables

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	0.47	0.50
2. Grade	4.89	0.81	−0.01 (0.860)
3. Joyous curiosity	4.22	0.72	0.01 (0.933)	0.02 (0.813)
4. Deprivation sensitivity	3.60	0.89	−0.08 (0.159)	0.07 (0.201)	0.63 (<0.001)
5. Physical well-being	4.13	0.73	−0.02 (0.688)	−0.05 (0.398)	0.57 (<0.001)	0.42 (<0.001)
6. Emotional well-being	4.13	0.80	−0.03 (0.671)	0.04 (0.563)	0.50 (<0.001)	0.32 (<0.001)	0.64 (<0.001)
7. Dietary well-being	4.45	0.63	0.04 (0.490)	0.01 (0.805)	0.49 (<0.001)	0.33 (<0.001)	0.65 (<0.001)	0.55 (<0.001)
8. Psychological well-being	4.33	0.68	0.03 (0.587)	0.10 (0.075)	0.65 (<0.001)	0.44 (<0.001)	0.62 (<0.001)	0.69 (<0.001)	0.60 (<0.001)
9. Academic well-being	4.08	0.77	0.09 (0.136)	0.07 (0.222)	0.75 (<0.001)	0.52 (<0.001)	0.64 (<0.001)	0.55 (<0.001)	0.56 (<0.001)	0.71 (<0.001)

Note: the figures in the table means r(p value).

The associations between epistemic curiosities and adolescents’ well-being

Tables 2 and 3 presented the association of epistemic curiosity and its subdimensions with five categories of well-being. Results illustrated positive associations of adolescents’ epistemic curiosity with physical (β = 0.55, p < 0.001), dietary (β = 0.45, p < 0.001), emotional (β = 0.44, p < 0.001), psychological (β = 0.59, p < 0.001), and academic well-being (β = 0.70, p < 0.001), after controlling for gender and grade. Further analysis in Table 3 demonstrated that joyous exploration was a more prominent dimension for adolescents’ well-being (β = 0.45–0.70, p < 0.001), while the relationships between deprivation sensitivity and all well-being were insignificant. In particular, joyous exploration showed the strongest linkage with academic well-being (β = 0.70, p < 0.001), whereas its association with dietary well-being was the weakest (β = 0.45, p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Structural Equation Model with curiosity as an integrated variable

	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
Physical well-being
Gender	−0.01	0.05	−0.29	0.772	(−0.11, 0.08)
Grade	−0.09	0.05	−1.80	0.071	(−0.20, 0.01)
Epistemic curiosity	0.55***	0.05	10.65	<0.001	(0.44, 0.65)
Emotional well-being
Gender	−0.01	0.05	−0.17	0.864	(−0.12, 0.10)
Grade	0.01	0.06	0.20	0.845	(−0.10, 0.12)
Epistemic curiosity	0.44***	0.06	6.91	<0.001	(0.32, 0.57)
Dietary well-being
Gender	0.05	0.05	0.87	0.387	(−0.06, 0.15)
Grade	−0.02	0.05	−0.35	0.729	(−0.12, 0.09)
Epistemic curiosity	0.45***	0.06	7.97	<0.001	(0.34, 0.56)
Psychological well-being
Gender	0.04	0.05	0.86	0.388	(−0.05, 0.14)
Grade	0.06	0.05	1.25	0.210	(−0.03, 0.15)
Epistemic curiosity	0.59***	0.05	12.14	<0.001	(0.50, 0.69)
Academic well-being
Gender	0.11*	0.04	2.49	0.013	(0.02, 0.19)
Grade	0.04	0.05	0.84	0.402	(−0.05, 0.13)
Epistemic curiosity	0.70***	0.04	17.29	<0.001	(0.62, 0.77)

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 3.

Structural Equation Model with curiosity as separate sub-facets

	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
Physical well-being
Gender	−0.03	0.05	−0.71	0.476	(−0.13, 0.06)
Grade	−0.08	0.05	−1.60	0.110	(−0.18, 0.02)
Joyous exploration	0.52***	0.08	6.37	<0.001	(0.36, 0.68)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.09	0.07	1.35	0.177	(−0.04, 0.23)
Emotional well-being
Gender	−0.03	0.05	−0.62	0.536	(−0.13, 0.07)
Grade	0.03	0.05	0.53	0.596	(−0.08, 0.13)
Joyous exploration	0.51***	0.09	5.70	<0.001	(0.34, 0.69)
Deprivation sensitivity	−0.02	0.08	−0.20	0.840	(−0.17, 0.14)
Dietary well-being
Gender	0.03	0.05	0.57	0.571	(−0.07, 0.13)
Grade	−0.01	0.05	−0.11	0.913	(−0.11, 0.10)
Joyous exploration	0.45***	0.08	5.42	<0.001	(0.29, 0.61)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.06	0.08	0.74	0.459	(−0.09, 0.21)
Psychological well-being
Gender	0.02	0.05	0.37	0.710	(−0.07, 0.11)
Grade	0.08	0.04	1.84	0.065	(−0.01, 0.16)
Joyous exploration	0.63***	0.06	9.82	<0.001	(0.50, 0.76)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.04	0.06	0.65	0.517	(−0.08, 0.16)
Academic well-being
Gender	0.08*	0.04	2.05	0.040	(0.00, 0.15)
Grade	0.06	0.04	1.45	0.147	(−0.02, 0.13)
Joyous exploration	0.70***	0.06	11.44	<0.001	(0.58, 0.82)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.09	0.06	1.39	0.165	(−0.04, 0.21)

The moderation role of gender or grade

To further understand the individual differences in curiosity effect, we included gender and grade (i.e., 4th, 5th, 6th grades) in the model as moderators (Table 4). Results showed that neither of them significantly interacted the relations between epistemic curiosity and all categories of well-being, except the interacted effect of gender and deprivation sensitivity on dietary well-being (β = 0.17, p = 0.034). However, the simple effect analysis (Table 5) indicated nonsignificant linkages between deprivation sensitivity and dietary well-being for male (β = -0.06, p = 0.343) or for female groups (β = 0.18, p = 0.058).

Table 4.

Structural Equation Model for interaction effect

	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
Physical well-being
Gender	−0.07	0.36	−0.20	0.839	(−0.77, 0.63)
Grade	−0.38	0.33	−1.15	0.252	(−1.02, 0.27)
Joyous exploration	0.52***	0.08	6.68	<0.001	(0.37, 0.68)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.11	0.07	1.46	0.145	(−0.04, 0.25)
Grade × joyous exploration	0.57	0.45	1.28	0.201	(−0.31, 1.45)
Gender × joyous exploration	−0.36	0.49	−0.74	0.461	(−1.32, 0.60)
Grade × deprivation sensitivity	−0.27	0.31	−0.87	0.386	(−0.87, 0.34)
Gender × deprivation sensitivity	0.41	0.32	1.29	0.196	(−0.21, 1.02)
Emotional well-being
Gender	0.14	0.38	0.36	0.717	(−0.60, 0.88)
Grade	−0.14	0.39	−0.35	0.727	(−0.90, 0.63)
Joyous exploration	0.52***	0.09	6.06	<0.001	(0.36, 0.69)
Deprivation sensitivity	−0.01	0.09	−0.16	0.869	(−0.18, 0.15)
Grade × joyous exploration	0.48	0.49	0.97	0.332	(−0.49, 1.45)
Gender × joyous exploration	−0.42	0.52	−0.80	0.424	(−1.43, 0.60)
Grade × deprivation sensitivity	−0.31	0.34	−0.91	0.362	(−0.98, 0.36)
Gender × deprivation sensitivity	0.25	0.37	0.67	0.502	(−0.47, 0.96)
Dietary well-being
Gender	0.21	0.32	0.63	0.528	(−0.43, 0.84)
Grade	−0.57*	0.28	−2.01	0.044	(−1.12, −0.02)
Joyous exploration	0.46***	0.08	5.72	<0.001	(0.30, 0.62)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.09	0.08	1.13	0.261	(−0.07, 0.25)
Grade × joyous exploration	0.53	0.42	1.25	0.212	(−0.30, 1.36)
Gender × joyous exploration	−0.87	0.46	−1.90	0.058	(−1.77, 0.03)
Grade × deprivation sensitivity	0.06	0.33	0.18	0.859	(−0.59, 0.71)
Gender × deprivation sensitivity	0.72*	0.34	2.12	0.034	(0.05, 1.38)
Psychological well-being
Gender	0.07	0.34	0.20	0.844	(−0.60, 0.73)
Grade	−0.15	0.30	−0.51	0.609	(−0.74, 0.43)
Joyous exploration	0.64***	0.06	10.41	<0.001	(0.52, 0.76)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.05	0.06	0.71	0.478	(−0.08, 0.17)
Grade × joyous exploration	0.39	0.35	1.11	0.265	(−0.30, 1.08)
Gender × joyous exploration	−0.27	0.40	−0.67	0.504	(−1.06, 0.52)
Grade × deprivation sensitivity	−0.16	0.26	−0.61	0.541	(−0.66, 0.34)
Gender × deprivation sensitivity	0.22	0.29	0.78	0.434	(−0.34, 0.79)
Academic well-being
Gender	−0.01	0.21	−0.04	0.969	(−0.42, 0.40)
Grade	−0.19	0.19	−0.99	0.323	(−0.56, 0.18)
Joyous exploration	0.70***	0.06	11.94	<0.001	(0.59, 0.82)
Deprivation sensitivity	0.09	0.06	1.51	0.130	(−0.03, 0.21)
Grade × joyous exploration	0.53	0.32	1.64	0.101	(−0.10, 1.15)
Gender × joyous exploration	−0.18	0.36	−0.49	0.622	(−0.88, 0.53)
Grade × deprivation sensitivity	−0.28	0.26	−1.06	0.289	(−0.78, 0.23)
Gender × deprivation sensitivity	0.27	0.28	0.97	0.335	(−0.28, 0.81)

Table 5.

Simple effect analysis of “gender × deprivation sensitivity” on dietary well-being

	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
Male	−0.06	0.06	−0.95	0.343	(−0.18, 0.06)
Female	0.18	0.10	1.85	0.064	(−0.01, 0.37)

Discussion

The goal of this study was to further the understanding of the paradoxical relationships between curiosity and well-being among early adolescence from a multidimensional perspective. The findings showed that joyous-type curiosity was a prominent facilitator for all dimensions of well-being, whereas deprivation-type curiosity was not, regardless of gender or grade. Moreover, among the five well-being indicators, academic well-being had the tightest association with joyous-type curiosity, and dietary well-being had the least. The study contributed to the field by showing that joyous exploration was a consistently beneficial factor for well-being. However, for Chinese adolescents, the role of deprivation sensitivity was minimal for their well-being.

Joyous exploration as a prominent factor in multidimensional well-being

This study found a consistent positive role of joyous exploration in multidimensional well-being among early adolescents. As expected, academic well-being was the closest indicator with joyous exploration, due to the direct connection of epistemic curiosity with learning. Joyous exploration is an appetitive approach motivation for adolescents to seek new knowledge (Kashdan et al., 2018; Lauriola et al., 2015). This motivation helps adolescents develop mastery orientation, have broad learning interests, and suffer less burnout (Kashdan et al., 2020; Litman, 2008; Litman et al., 2010), and consequently, improve their engagement in school life and academic work.

Apart from academic well-being, we also observed significant associations between joyous exploration and physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. On the one hand, joyous exploration can stretch adolescents’ personal strengths for a broader state of being well, including grit, adaption, stress resilience, and emotional stability (Kashdan et al., 2020; Litman, 2008; Litman et al., 2010). These personalities are crucial facilitators for their positive emotions, as well as good physical and psychological functioning, and thus, joyous exploration is one of the main factors to explain the overall curiosity benefits on well-being in prior studies (e.g., Jovanovic & Brdaric, 2012; Kaczmarek et al., 2013; Lydon-Staley et al., 2020). On the other hand, there remains some argumentation in curiosity-related risk-taking. For instance, using interviews rather than traditional quantitative analysis, Racz (2008) has argued that curiosity appeared as an excuse for adolescents to reject risk-taking responsibilities rather than the antecedent of risky behaviors. Moreover, even if joyous curiosity leads to risks, the possible negative effect can be largely prevented by appropriate guidance and regulation in school. Since schools in China typically put emphasis on regulation, it is thus reasonable to witness the non-negative effects of joyous curiosity in this study.

In addition, the weakest connection was found in dietary well-being. Consisting of healthy dietary and eating behaviors, it would be more related to daily routine rather than novel experience. As a consequence, the favor and motive in novel-seeking play a less effective role in improving dietary well-being.

Insignificant role of deprivation sensitivity in well-being

Despite the positive role of joyous exploration in well-being, the role of deprivation sensitivity was insignificant in all well-being indicators. This distinct result probably helps reveal the reasons for the complex association between curiosity and well-being, especially in emotional and psychological indicators. Instead of enjoying great pleasure in exploration, deprivation sensitivity refers to an aversive avoidance motivation, in which adolescents usually suffer from anxiety, stress, and dissatisfaction when seeking resolutions to information gaps (Kashdan et al., 2018; Litman, 2008; Noordewier & van Dijk, 2017). These aversive feelings, in turn, are possibly responsible for the negative side of paradoxical curiosity effects.

However, given its negative role in prior studies, the weak association of deprivation sensitivity with well-being resulted partly from our expectations. One of the possible explanations is the early period of adolescence, in which knowledge gaps in primary school are comparably easy to be filled. As such, the anxiety and depression due to the deprivation state can be relieved in the short term, thereby not afflicting early adolescents contentiously (Noordewier & van Dijk, 2017).

In addition, we also failed to observe the role of deprivation sensitivity in academic well-being. This is probably due to the fact that deprivation sensitivity is more closely associated with depth-exploratory-seeking behaviors, thus contributing to greater persistence in learning and tighter knowledge networks (Litman, 2019; Lydon-Staley et al., 2021). However, the efficacy of this contribution might be limited by less challenging contexts. For instance, Tang and Salmela-Aro (2021) found that high school students’ deprivation sensitivity was mainly related to expectancy and task values in mathematics rather than in Finnish, partly owing to the more challenging perception of math tasks (Salmela-Aro, 2020). Given this, it is understandable that deprivation curiosity works less effectively than joyous curiosity in primary school learning, which is less challenging.

Undifferentiated role of gender and grade

To understand the individual differences among multidimensional epistemic curiosity and well-being, we further examined the roles of gender and grade in their associations. Findings revealed that neither of them played moderated roles, in which these individual factors cannot amplify or buffer the effects of epistemic curiosity. In other words, epistemic curiosity (especially joyous exploration) might be a universal facilitator of early adolescents in all grades and gender, though this conclusion requires further examination in the future. One possible reason is that, in this study, epistemic curiosity is examined as a personality trait that works for all genders and age groups. It is likely that when adolescents are highly curious, they can hardly resist their internal desires to seek and explore new things (Litman et al., 2005; Silvia & Kashdan, 2021), no matter which gender or grade they are. This explorative desire for all curious adolescents, in turn, unanimously boosts a wide range of well-being.

Limitations and future direction

There are some limitations to this study. First and foremost, this is a cross-sectional study; thus any causal conclusions are not warranted. Also, data from multi-informants would be appreciated in the future. Second, the study treated epistemic curiosity and well-being at the trait level. Future studies can take state-level examinations to further understand the reasons behind the paradoxical effects on well-being. Third, this study only examined the associations among two types of epistemic curiosity and five dimensional well-being indicators, the mechanisms underneath remaining unexplored. The examinations of cognitive, behavioral, social, and biological mechanisms in further studies can lead to promising avenues regarding when and how curiosity results in desirable outcomes (Silvia & Kashdan, 2021).

Conclusion

The current study showed that two types of epistemic curiosities exert distinct relations with adolescents’ multidimensional well-being. In general, joyous exploration was a consistent beneficial factor for physical, emotional, dietary, psychological, and academic well-being, while deprivation sensitivity was not. The closest indicator with joyous exploration was academic well-being, whereas dietary well-being was the least, regardless of gender and grade. Findings reveal the broad effect of epistemic curiosity and help explain the paradoxical relationships of curiosity and well-being using multidimensional examination.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231185381 - Supplemental material for Killing the cats or satisfying the human? The role of epistemic curiosity in adolescents’ multidimensional well-being

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909231185381 for Killing the cats or satisfying the human? The role of epistemic curiosity in adolescents’ multidimensional well-being by Tian Li, Haoyan Huang, Jia Liu and Xin Tang in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Xin Tang also thanks the Business Finland, AI in learning project for the travel support.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Business Finland, AI in Learning Project and Shanghai Pujiang Program (grant number 22PJC057).

ORCID iD

Xin Tang

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bergman

M. M.

Scott

(2001). Young adolescents’ well-being and health-risk behaviours: Gender and socio-economic differences. Journal of Adolescence, 24(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0378

Berlyne

D. E.

(1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000

Berlyne

D. E.

(1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153(3731), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.153.3731.25

Berridge

K. C.

Kringelbach

M. L.

(2015). Pleasure systems in the brain. Neuron, 86(3), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018

Crawford

A. M.

Pentz

M. A.

Chou

C.-P.

Dwyer

J. H.

(2003). Parallel developmental trajectories of sensation seeking and regular substance use in adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.17.3.179

Dahabiyeh

Najjar

M. S.

Agrawal

(2021). When ignorance is bliss: The role of curiosity in online games adoption. Entertainment Computing, 37, 100398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100398

De Micheli

Formigoni

M. L. O. S.

(2002). Are reasons for the first use of drugs and family circumstances predictors of future use patterns? Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00167-2

Di Leo

Muis

K. R.

Singh

C. A.

Psaradellis

(2019). Curiosity… confusion? Frustration! The role and sequencing of emotions during mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.001

Djerboua

Chen

B. E.

Davison

C. M.

(2016). Physical fighting, fighting-related injuries and family affluence among Canadian youth. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 199. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2886-3

10.

Donohew

Zimmerman

Cupp

P. S.

Novak

Colon

Abell

(2000). Sensation seeking, impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: Implications for risk-taking and design of interventions. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(6), 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00158-0

11.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2013). Chapter one—Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine

Plant

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2

12.

Garrosa

Blanco-Donoso

L. M.

Carmona-Cobo

Moreno-Jiménez

(2017). How do curiosity, meaning in life, and search for meaning predict college students’ daily emotional exhaustion and engagement? Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9715-3

13.

Gruber

M. J.

Gelman

B. D.

Ranganath

(2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

14.

Guo

Tang

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

Basarkod

Sahdra

Ranta

Salmela-Aro

(2022). The roles of social-emotional skills in students’ academic and life success: A multi-informant and multicohort perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(5), 1079–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000426

15.

Johnston

L. D.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Schulenberg

J. E.

(2005). Monitoring the Future National Survey results on drug use, 1975–2004. Volume I: Secondary school students. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

16.

Johnston

L. D.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Schulenberg

J. E.

(2010). Monitoring the Future National Results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2009. NIH Publication Number 10-7583.

17.

Jovanovic

Brdaric

(2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Evidence from subjective well-being in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.043

18.

Jovanović

Gavrilov-Jerković

(2014). The good, the bad (and the ugly): The role of curiosity in subjective well-being and risky behaviors among adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12084

19.

Kaczmarek

L. D.

Kashdan

T. B.

Kleiman

E. M.

Baczkowski

Enko

Siebers

Szäefer

Król

Baran

(2013). Who self-initiates gratitude interventions in daily life? An examination of intentions, curiosity, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 805–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.013

20.

Kashdan

T. B.

Disabato

D. J.

Goodman

F. R.

McKnight

P. E.

(2020). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836

21.

Kashdan

T. B.

Gallagher

M. W.

Silvia

P. J.

Winterstein

B. P.

Breen

W. E.

Terhar

Steger

M. F.

(2009). The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011

22.

Kashdan

T. B.

Stiksma

M. C.

Disabato

D. J.

McKnight

P. E.

Bekier

Kaji

Lazarus

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011

23.

Kautz

Heckman

J. J.

Diris

Ter Weel

Borghans

(2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success (No. 110, OECD Education Working Papers, Issue). https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en.

24.

Kidd

Hayden

B. Y.

(2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010

25.

Kim

Y.-B.

Lee

S.-H.

(2017). Mobile gamer’s epistemic curiosity affecting continuous play intention. Focused on players’ switching costs and epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.023

26.

Lauriola

Litman

J. A.

Mussel

De Santis

Crowson

H. M.

Hoffman

R. R.

(2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017

27.

Lindgren

K. P.

Mullins

P. M.

Neighbors

Blayney

J. A.

(2010). Curiosity killed the cocktail? Curiosity, sensation seeking, and alcohol-related problems in college women. Addictive Behaviors, 35(5), 513–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.024

28.

Litman

(2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101

29.

Litman

(2019). Curiosity: Nature, dimensionality, and determinants. In The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 418–442). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.019

30.

Litman

Hutchins

Russon

(2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000427

31.

Litman

J. A.

(2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014

32.

Litman

J. A.

Crowson

H. M.

Kolinski

(2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 531–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.021

33.

Lydon-Staley

D. M.

Zhou

Blevins

A. S.

Zurn

Bassett

D. S.

(2021). Hunters, busybodies and the knowledge network building associated with deprivation curiosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00985-7

34.

Lydon-Staley

D. M.

Zurn

Bassett

D. S.

(2020). Within-person variability in curiosity during daily life and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality, 88(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12515

35.

Miljković

Jurčec

(2016). Is curiosity good for students’ well-being? The case of the faculty of teacher education and the faculty of kinesiology. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski Časopis za Odgoj I Obrazovanje, 18(Sp. Ed. 1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v18i0.2184

36.

Mishra

K. K.

(2022). Exploring the association between curiosity and subjective well-being: The mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs in Hindi-speaking youth. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03522-z

37.

Noordewier

M. K.

van Dijk

(2017). Curiosity and time: From not knowing to almost knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 31(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1122577

38.

Portnoy

D. B.

C. C.

Tworek

Chen

Borek

(2014). Youth curiosity about cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars: Prevalence and associations with advertising. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 47(2, Supplement 1), S76–S86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.04.012

39.

Racz

(2008). The role of the curiosity in interviews with drug users. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

40.

Richman

L. S.

Kubzansky

Maselko

Kawachi

Choo

Bauer

(2005). Positive emotion and health: Going beyond the negative. Health Psychology, 24(4), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.422

41.

Sakaki

Yagi

Murayama

(2018). Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 88, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.007

42.

Salmela-Aro

(2020). The role of motivation and academic well-being—The transition from secondary to further education in STEM in Finland. European Review, 28(S1), S121–S134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798720000952

43.

Schwartz

S. J.

Waterman

A. S.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Whitbourne

S. K.

Weisskirch

R. S.

Vernon

Caraway

S. J.

Kim

S. Y.

Forthun

L. F.

Donnellan

M. B.

Ham

L. S.

(2011). The association of well-being with health risk behaviors in college-attending young adults. Applied Developmental Science, 15(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.538617

44.

Silvia

P. J.

Kashdan

T. B.

(2021). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

Edwards

L. M.

Marques

S. C.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 367–375). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199396511.013.29

45.

Steinberg

(2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

46.

Tang

Salmela-Aro

(2021). The prospective role of epistemic curiosity in national standardized test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102008

47.

Tang

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2021). School burnout and psychosocial problems among adolescents: Grit as a resilience factor. Journal of Adolescence, 86(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.12.002

48.

Tang, X., Upadyaya, K., Toyama, H., Kasanen, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). Assessing and tracking students’ wellbeing through an automated scoring system: School Day Wellbeing Model. In H. Niemi, R. Pea, & Y. Lu (Eds.), AI in learning: Designing the future. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09687-7_4

49.

Wang

(2015). How trait curiosity influences psychological well-being and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of personal initiative. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.020

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB