ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Metacognition of curiosity: People underestimate the seductive lure of non-instrumental information.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge Gap Illustrations Spark Curiosity.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- The Neural Markers of Perceptual Uncertainty/Curiosity-A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Systematic Curiosity as an Integrative Tool for Human Flourishing: A Conceptual Review and Framework.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Curiosity - the desire to seek information - is fundamental for learning and performance. Studies on curiosity have shown that people are intrinsically motivated to seek information even if it does not bring an immediate tangible benefit (i.e., non-instrumental information), but little is known as to whether people have the metacognitive capability to accurately monitor their motivation for seeking information. We examined whether people can accurately predict their own non-instrumental information-seeking behavior. Across six experiments (Experiments 1A-1E and 2, total N = 579), participants predicted that they would engage in information-seeking behavior less frequently than they actually did, suggesting that people tend to underestimate the motivational lure of curiosity. Overall, there was no consistent statistical evidence that this underestimation was altered by contextual factors (e.g., the cost to seek information). These results were consistent with the theoretical account that it is difficult for people to make sense of the internally rewarding value of information in advance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.