Interest, Prior Knowledge, and Learning
Abstract
This article discusses the importance of studying interest and reviews research on the association between interest and prior knowledge. It is concluded that there is a substantial linear relationship between interest and prior knowledge. Previous findings of minimal interest-knowledge relationships were attributed to one, or more, of the following: (a) Knowledge and interest measures reflecting different content, (b) questionable reliability or validity of the measures, (c) ideographic assignment to high/low groups introducing error into group assignments, (d) use of materials not suited to the sample, and (e) possible confounding of interest and knowledge measures. Research suggests that working on interesting, compared to neutral, materials may engage deeper cognitive processing, arouse a wider, more emotional, and more personal associative network, and employ more imagery. A model of the interest-knowledge relationship is updated, and suggestions for further research are made. Finally, the similarity between interest and curiosity is explored, and the advantages of research on these constructs are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Occupational knowledge demands align with the content of basic interest scales.
“Occupational knowledge demands seamlessly align with the content of basic interest scales, as the connection between knowledge and interests has long been recognized.”
From Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET) (2026) · cites this paper as Tobias, 1994
Abundant evidence in educational psychology supports a linear relationship between interest and knowledge.
“Abundant evidence in educational psychology has supported the linear relationship between interest and knowledge, as interest help initiate initial engagement and motivates continued re-engagement in specific activities or content (Renninger & Hidi, 2022;Tobias, 1994).”
From Interest Fit Beyond the RIASEC: The Comprehensive Assessment of Basic Interests—O*NET (CABIN-NET) (2026) · cites this paper as Tobias, 1994
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 50 · Cited by 713
- Authors
- Tobias, S.
- Affiliations
- City College of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tobias, Sigmund
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-54
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2130081384
- Cited by
- 713
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 21.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- interest, prior knowledge, curiosity, cognitive processes, associative networks, imagery, learning, interest measurement, knowledge assessment
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