The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity.
Open accessAbstract
Curiosity is considered to be the essence of science and an integral component of cognition. What prompts curiosity in a learner? Previous theoretical accounts of curiosity remain divided-novelty-based theories propose that new and highly uncertain stimuli pique curiosity, whereas complexity-based theories propose that stimuli with an intermediate degree of uncertainty stimulate curiosity. In this article, we present a rational analysis of curiosity by considering the computational problem underlying curiosity, which allows us to model these distinct accounts of curiosity in a common framework. Our approach posits that a rational agent should explore stimuli that maximally increase the usefulness of its knowledge and that curiosity is the mechanism by which humans approximate this rational behavior. Critically, our analysis show that the causal structure of the environment can determine whether curiosity is driven by either highly uncertain or moderately uncertain stimuli. This suggests that previous theories need not be in contention but are special cases of a more general account of curiosity. Experimental results confirm our predictions and demonstrate that our theory explains a wide range of findings about human curiosity, including its subjectivity and malleability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On aims and methods of ethology
Tinbergen, N. (1963) · Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x · Cited by 4,551
Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments
Robbins, H. (1952) · Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society · doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1952-09620-8 · Cited by 2,184
Neural mechanisms for detecting and remembering novel events
Ranganath, C., & Rainer, G. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1052 · Cited by 779
Humans use directed and random exploration to solve the explore–exploit dilemma.
Wilson, R. C., Geana, A., White, J. M., Ludvig, E. A., & Cohen, J. D. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0038199 · Cited by 580
Striatal activity underlies novelty-based choice in humans
Wittmann, B. C., Daw, N. D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.027 · Cited by 277
Düzel, E., Bunzeck, N., Guitart-Masip, M., & Düzel, S. (2010) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.08.006 · Cited by 249
Cited by
Murayama, K. (2022) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000349 · Cited by 304
Curiosity as a Metacognitive Feeling
Goupil, L., & Proust, J. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105325 · Cited by 89
Capturing, clarifying, and consolidating the curiosity-creativity connection
Koutstaal, W., Kedrick, K., & Gonzalez-Brito, J. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19694-4 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 455-476
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2998119418
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/rev0000175
- The paper
- Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.