ArticleMetacognition and learning2025
The limits of curiosity? New evidence for the roles of metacognitive abilities and curiosity in learning.
Article in Metacognition and learning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- External incentives change the relation between confidence and epistemic curiosity.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Inquiry and innovation: Considering curiosity and creativity in autism.Acta psychologica · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study investigated how metacognitive abilities such as Knowledge Confidence (subjective prior knowledge estimate) and Correctness Confidence (appraisal of the likelihood of closing the gap) relate to curiosity, and examined the roles of these metacognitive measures and curiosity in learning. Using a blurred picture paradigm in which participants viewed blurred pictures and provided their metacognitive and curiosity estimates, the current study identified distinct connections between Knowledge Confidence, Correctness Confidence and curiosity. Our finding suggests that when Knowledge Confidence is at low or medium levels, curiosity is particularly heightened. In contrast, Correctness Confidence linearly influences curiosity such that the higher the Correctness Confidence, the greater the curiosity. We also find that learning is best predicted by a learner's metacognitive appraisal of their knowledge gap, especially when they are on the verge of knowing, and this learning effect is independent of curiosity. These findings provide new evidence for the role of curiosity and metacognition in learning, highlighting limits of the effect of curiosity on learning. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-024-09407-9.
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.