Post on 18-Mar-2020
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Are Awe-Prone People More Curious? The Relationship Between Trait Awe, Curiosity,
and Academic outcomes
Craig L. Anderson
University of California, Berkeley
Dante D. Dixson
Wayne State University
Maria Monroy
University of California, Berkeley
Dacher Keltner
University of California, Berkeley
Author Note
Craig L. Anderson is now at the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San
Francisco.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Craig L. Anderson,
Department of Psychiatry, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94121.
Email: clanderson@berkeley.edu.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Abstract
Objective: Guided by a functional account of awe, we aimed to test the hypothesis that people
who often feel awe are also more curious (Studies 1 and 2), and that this relationship in turn
related to academic outcomes (Study 3).
Method: In Study 1 (n = 1,005), we used a self-report approach to test the relationship between
trait awe and curiosity. In Study 2 (n =100), we used a peer-report approach to test if
participants’ trait awe related to how curious they were rated by their friends. In Study 3, in a
sample of 447 high school adolescents we tested of trait awe predicted academic outcomes via
curiosity.
Results: We found that trait awe was positively related to people’s self-rated curiosity (Study 1)
and how curious they were rated by their friends (Study 2). In Study 3, we found that trait awe
predicted academic outcomes via curiosity.
Conclusions: We conclude that among trait positive emotions, awe is uniquely related to
curiosity, and this link in turn predicts academic outcomes. This work further characterizes awe
as an epistemic emotion and suggests that activities that inspire awe may improve academic
outcomes.
(Words: 188)
Keywords: awe, curiosity, trait positive emotion, academic outcomes, peer-report
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Are Awe-Prone People More Curious? The Relationship Between Trait Awe, Curiosity,
and Academic outcomes
One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of
the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little
of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
— Albert Einstein, (1955, May). Death of a genius. LIFE, 38(18), p. 65.
An examination of people who have pushed the boundaries of human knowledge
suggests that awe, an emotion felt in the presence of vast stimuli that transcend understanding
(Keltner & Haidt, 2003), moves people to be curious about the world and pursue such curiosity
in acts of exploration and innovation. For example, the awe that Marie Curie felt toward the
radioactive subjects of her research, which glowed “like faint, fairy light,” fueled the curiosity
that led to the identification of new elements and a scientific career distinguished by two Nobel
Prizes (Goldsmith, 2005, p. 96). For John Muir, it was profound feelings of awe elicited by
nature that propelled him across the peaks and valleys of the Sierra Nevada and to scientific
discovery (Muir, 1894). The core themes in these life narratives, captured by Einstein’s quote
above, suggest that awe-prone people are highly curious and motivated to learn about the world
in which we live. However, no empirical work has systematically tested the relationship
between awe and curiosity at the trait level, and whether this relationship is unique among
positive emotions. In the present investigation, we aimed to provide the first evidence for the
unique relationship between trait awe and curiosity. Moreover, we tested the importance of this
relationship by examining the how trait awe and curiosity relate to academic outcomes.
What Predicts Trait Curiosity?
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Much of the scientific literature on the subject of curiosity, described generally as the
desire to learn and acquire new knowledge (Kang et al., 2009), has focused on the assessment of
subtypes of curiosity that are elicited by different classes of stimuli, such as perceptual features
(Collins, Litman, & Spielberger, 2004), social situations (Renner, 2006), epistemic components
(Litman & Spielberger, 2003), and information deprivation (Litman & Silvia, 2006; Litman &
Jimerson, 2004). Relatively less work has focused on what factors predict curiosity. One such
factor is Openness to Experience, a personality trait that describes “the breadth, depth,
originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life” (John & Srivastava,
1999, p. 121). Openness has been consistently linked to curiosity measures with correlations
ranging between r = .19 to r = .57 (Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Kashdan et al., 2009; Kashdan,
Rose, & Fincham, 2004; Mussel, 2010).
Positive affect has also been shown to relate to curiosity. For example, studies guided by
the Broaden and Build theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2013) have found that state-like occurrences
of positive emotions (e.g., serenity, joy, amusement), relative to negative emotions (e.g., anger,
sadness) and neutral states, promote behaviors related to curiosity such as wider range of
thoughts and behaviors (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Johnson, Waugh, & Fredrickson, 2010;
Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2006). Indeed, the trait tendency to experience positively valenced
activation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Activation Schedule (PANAS; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), has also been shown to relate to trait measures of curiosity such as the
Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Gallagher & Lopez, 2007; Kashdan et al., 2009, 2004;
Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007) and the State Trait Curiosity Inventory (STCI; Kashdan, 2002;
Kashdan & Roberts, 2004a, 2004b; Spielberger, Peters, & Frain, 1976). Further support for the
link between curiosity and positive emotions is provided by work that examined the zero-order
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
correlations between trait-level discrete positive emotions and the Values in Action Inventory of
Strengths (VIA; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), which includes curiosity (Güsewell & Ruch,
2012). In this study, the trait-level awe and five other positive emotions—amusement,
contentment, compassion, joy, and pride—were found to be positively related to curiosity
(Güsewell & Ruch, 2012), although systematic analyses parsing the unique effects of awe or
other distinct positive emotions on curiosity were not conducted. In sum, empirical evidence
suggests that both Openness to Experience and positive affect, generally construed, are directly
related to curiosity. Any attempt, therefore, to document the relationship between trait awe and
curiosity must account for the Openness to Experience and other positive emotions to ascertain
whether the expected influences of awe are unique or part of a more general association between
positive affect and curiosity.
Awe and Curiosity
Recently, psychological scientists have begun to document the state and trait level
outcomes of awe, including an increased sense of time (Rudd, Vohs, & Aaker, 2012), humility
(Stellar et al., 2017), reduced self-awareness (Bai et al., 2017), prosociality (Piff, Dietze,
Feinberg, Stancato, & Keltner, 2015), enhanced scientific reasoning (Gottlieb, Keltner, &
Lombrozo, 2018; Valdesolo, Shtulman, & Baron, 2016), and engagement in explanatory
frameworks (Valdesolo & Graham, 2014; Valdesolo, Park, & Gottlieb, 2016). A common theme
in these findings is that awe directs attention away from the self, outwards to one’s physical and
social environment. These findings together with analysis of the appraisals that lead to awe
support our claim that above and beyond other positive emotions, awe is uniquely related to
curiosity.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Awe is produced by a distinct set of appraisals related to the incongruity between one’s
knowledge and information in the external world. Specifically, the experience of awe is
produced by two central appraisals: perceptual vastness, and need for accommodation (Keltner &
Haidt, 2003). Vastness signifies a departure from one’s typical frame of reference and can be
instantiated by physical, temporal, and social dimensions. Empirical work has indeed
demonstrated that experiences of vastness such as sitting beneath a replica Tyrannosaurus Rex
skeleton (Shiota, Keltner, & Mossman, 2007), standing in a grove of tall trees (Piff et al., 2015),
or taking in the view from the top of a tall tower (Stellar et al., 2017) reliably elicit awe.
Accommodation, the other central appraisal that leads to awe, is necessary when new
information is not accounted for by existing mental schema (Piaget, 1970). That awe-eliciting
stimuli need to be accommodated into mental schema is also supported by previous work. For
example, when describing experiences of awe, people often refer to stimuli that transcend
existing categories, actions of individuals that violate expectations about what humans are
capable of, and express the need to understand, to inquire, to refine their knowledge about the
world (Cohen, Gruber, & Keltner, 2010; Shiota et al., 2007). In short, people feel awe when they
experience something perceptually vast that they cannot fully comprehend in the moment.
We argue that these appraisals make salient the incongruency between one’s existing
knowledge and information in the environment, produce awe, and motivate curiosity, the
acquisition of knowledge, and exploration (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). This functional analysis of
awe converges with previous work suggesting that curiosity is triggered by information that
makes the individual aware of gaps in existing knowledge structures (Kashdan, Sherman,
Yarbro, & Funder, 2013; Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Kashdan, 2004; Kashdan et al., 2009;
Loewenstein, 1994; Silvia & Kashdan, 2009). Not only do awe-eliciting stimuli represent a gap
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
in existing knowledge structures by nature of their need to be accommodated, but their vast
nature makes them especially salient due to their departure from one’s typical frame of reference.
When faced with such vast gaps in knowledge that awe-eliciting stimuli represent, one action
tendency is to seek to close the gap by curiously gathering more information from the
environment (Loewenstein, 1994). Following from this conceptual approach, we propose that a
primary function of awe, unique among positive emotions, is to produce curiosity.
Research has linked awe with epistemic processes related to curiosity. For example,
experimental work at the state level has shown that brief experiences of awe, compared to other
positive emotions, increases systematic information processing and reduces reliance on
heuristics, making people more likely to reject weak persuasive arguments (Griskevicius, Shiota,
& Neufeld, 2010) and less likely to remember false details when remembering a story (Danvers
& Shiota, 2016). Other work has shown that state awe leads to greater engagement in
explanatory frameworks such as religion and science (Valdesolo & Graham, 2014; Valdesolo,
Park, et al., 2016). Such work has led to recent theorizing that awe fosters scientific learning
(Valdesolo, Shtulman, et al., 2016), which is supported by trait-level evidence showing that awe
is positively related to basic understanding of scientific processes (Gottlieb et al., 2018). Taken
together. this body of work suggests that awe promotes several distinct epistemic behaviors
including systematic information processing, explanation, and scientific understanding. While at
face value these behaviors seem quite different—or even antithetical in the case of religious and
scientific thinking—they are all related to information seeking and how people learn about their
physical and social world. Our claim that awe promotes curiosity, therefore, provides a
framework that both unites the extant literature and motivates the present work.
Current Investigation
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
In the current work, we aimed to demonstrate a unique relationship between awe and
curiosity and show that this link in turn is associated with academic outcomes. In pursuit of this
aim, we took a trait-level approach that examined people’s general tendency to feel curiosity and
different positive emotions. Affective traits have been conceptualized as “stable predispositions
towards certain kinds of responding” (Rosenberg, 1998, p. 249). Given that state-level awe has
been shown to promote behaviors related to curiosity (Danvers & Shiota, 2016; Gottlieb et al.,
2018; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Valdesolo & Graham, 2014; Valdesolo, Park, et al., 2016;
Valdesolo, Shtulman, et al., 2016), we argue that people who are disposed to feel awe more
frequently and intensely would also be higher in trait curiosity. This is consistent with
arguments suggesting that state and trait emotion have similar influences upon cognitive process
(e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001; Oveis, Horberg, & Keltner, 2010; Rosenberg, 1998).
Based on this thinking we tested two primary hypotheses. First, we expected that even
when controlling for personality factors known to be related to curiosity such as Openness to
Experience and trait positive activation, as well as the other distinct trait positive emotions, awe
would be related to self-rated (Studies 1 and 3) and peer-rated (Study 2) curiosity. Having
demonstrated this unique relationship, we then tested its association with academic outcomes.
We predicted that trait awe would indirectly predict several academic outcomes via curiosity
(Study 3).
Study 1: Trait awe and curiosity
The purpose of Study 1 was to establish the unique relationship between awe and
curiosity at the trait level. While initial work done by researchers using a German sample
showed a zero-order relationship between trait awe and curiosity measured by the VIA
(Güsewell & Ruch, 2012), they did not control for measures known to relate to both awe and
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
curiosity such as Openness to Experience (Danvers & Shiota, 2016; Kashdan et al., 2009, 2004;
Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006) and trait positive activation (Gallagher & Lopez, 2007; Mussel,
2010). This leaves open the possibility that Openness to Experience, for example, fully explains
the relationship between awe and curiosity. We thus tested our hypothesis that awe would be
uniquely related to curiosity by conducting a series of increasingly stringent models that
controlled for Openness to Experience, trait positive activation, and six other discrete trait
positive emotions: amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride (e.g., Gottlieb et
al., 2018).
Method
Participants and Procedure. Data from 1,005 people in the US from six separate samples
were pooled, which represented both undergraduate students and people recruited using the
Mechanical Turk (mTurk) platform, thus yielding samples that are relatively diverse with regards
to age, race, and socioeconomic status (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). In all samples,
people first completed demographic and trait measures via online survey software before
participating in an unrelated study. Demographic characteristics of each individual sample as well
as the combined sample are displayed in Table 1.
Measures. Descriptive statistics for Study 1 measures by sample are displayed in Table
2.
Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI-II). There are many ways to measure
subtypes of curiosity (Collins et al., 2004; Litman & Silvia, 2006; Litman & Jimerson, 2004;
Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Renner, 2006). As this is the first attempt to systematically test the
unique association between trait awe and curiosity when controlling for other positive emotions,
we decided to use a broad conceptualization of curiosity that captures the external search for new
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
knowledge and understanding. Thus, we selected the CEI-II, a widely used measure of curiosity
that operationalizes trait curiosity as the tendency to seek out new information and embrace the
complexities of life (Kashdan et al., 2009). Participants rated how much each of ten items
accurately reflected their general feelings and behavior. While the authors of the CEI-II
presented evidence that it captures two different dimensions of curiosity, stretching and
embracing (Kashdan et al., 2009), these dimensions are highly related and thus we take an
approach commonly used in the literature and form a composite of all ten items (e.g., Kaczmarek
et al., 2013; Kashdan, DeWall, et al., 2013; Kashdan, Afram, Brown, Birnbeck, & Drvoshanov,
2011). Two sample items are: I actively seek as much information as I can in new situations and
Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new things or experiences. In the current sample, CEI-II
scores were found to be reliable with an alpha estimate of .93. CEI-II scores were also found to
be structurally valid with the result of a 1-factor exploratory factor analysis (principal axis
factoring) revealing communalities (.40–72) and factor loadings (.63–.85) within the acceptable
range (Costello & Osborne, 2005).
Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES). The DPES consists of 38 items that
measure people’s trait-level disposition to experience seven discrete positive emotions: awe,
amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride (Shiota et al., 2006). These seven
discrete emotion scales have been shown to be robust and valid (Dixon, Anderson, & Keltner,
2018). Participants were instructed to respond on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) based on how well each item describes their own tendencies. Sample items for
each scale are: I feel wonder almost every day, I see beauty all around me, and I often feel awe
(awe); I find humor in almost everything (amusement); I often notice people who need help
(compassion); I am generally a contented person (contentment); I am an intensely cheerful
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
person (joy); I develop strong feelings of closeness to people easily (love); and I am proud of
myself and my accomplishments (pride). In the pooled data, all seven positive emotion scales
were found to be reliable with all alpha estimates being > .7 (see Table 3). In addition, the scales
were found to be structurally valid with a series of exploratory factor analyses revealing
acceptable communality ranges (awe: .13–.64; amusement: .27–.57; compassion: .42–.67;
contentment: .37–.58; joy: .33–.51; love: .37–.58; and pride: .36–.55) and factor loadings (awe:
.36–.80; amusement: .52–.78; compassion: .65–.82; contentment: .76–.83; joy: .58–.72; love:
.61–.76; and pride: .60–.74; Costello & Osborne, 2005).
We note that one item of the DPES awe scale, I seek out experiences that challenge my
understanding, is very similar to an item on the CEI-II, I am always looking for experiences that
challenge how I think about myself and the world. To ensure that findings are not being driven
by these similar items, we also tested our hypothesis using a five-item awe scale that omits this
item, and in presentation of results note how the results differ from the main findings presented.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-short form (I-PANAS-SF). Unlike the DPES,
which assesses distinct positive emotions, the I-PANAS-SF measures the tendency to experience
positively and negatively valenced activation (Thompson, 2007). Participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they generally feel each of five positive and five negatively valenced
states on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). To measure general positive activation the five
items describing positive states were averaged: determined, attentive, alert, inspired, and active.
In the current sample, positively valenced I-PANAS-SF scores were found to be both valid and
reliable with an alpha estimate of .79 and the results of a 1-Factor exploratory analysis revealing
acceptable communalities (.28–.65) and factor loadings (.53–.81).
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience was measured by the Big Five
Inventory (BFI) which assesses five broad personality dimensions (John & Srivastava, 1999).
We focused on the 10-item Openness to Experience scale because it has been found to be related
to both trait-level awe (Danvers & Shiota, 2016; Shiota et al., 2006) and curiosity (Kashdan et
al., 2009, 2004; Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Mussel, 2010). Participants indicated how well each
statement reflected their personality using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Example items from the BFI Openness to Experience scale include: original, comes up
with new ideas, and is creative and inventive. In the current sample, BFI scores were found to be
reliable with an alpha estimate of .81. Lastly, BFI scores were also found to be structurally valid
with a communality range of .23 to .57 and a factor loading range of .48 to .76.
Results
Analytic Approach. To test the unique association between trait awe and curiosity we
ran three models. Given that Openness to Experience and general positive activation have both
been shown to be related to curiosity (Gallagher & Lopez, 2007; Kashdan et al., 2009, 2004;
Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Mussel, 2010), we first tested the relationship between awe and
curiosity, controlling for both Openness and trait-level general activation. In the second model,
to test the unique relationship between awe and curiosity above and beyond other trait positive
emotions, we simultaneously regressed all seven scales of the DPES on trait curiosity. Finally,
in the third and most stringent model, we entered Openness to Experience, trait general positive
activation, and all seven DPES scales as predictors in a regression with trait curiosity as the
outcome. This analytic plan distinguishes the current work from other research that has only
examined the zero-order effects of trait awe on outcomes (Piff et al., 2015; Güsewell & Ruch,
2012) or controlled for positivity using only the PANAS and joy scale of the DPES (Stellar et al.,
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
2017) by demonstrating the unique effect of awe on curiosity above and beyond the influence of
the other six trait positive emotions and relevant traits measured.
Main Analyses. The data and syntax used to generate these results can be found at
https://osf.io/7ztpu/?view_only=1625ac46c29041f6b8dbb5c74bd3fae1. Data were z-scored
within samples before being pooled. Zero-order correlations between measures are reported in
Table 3. We tested the unique relationship between trait awe and curiosity in three increasingly
stringent models, the results of which are displayed in Table 4. In the first model we found that
after controlling for Openness to Experience and trait positive activation, awe was related to trait
curiosity. In the second model we found that when controlling for the six other trait positive
emotion assessed by the DPES, awe had a unique association with curiosity. Moreover, given
that the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the effect of awe on trait curiosity did not overlap with
that of amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride, we concluded that awe had a
significantly stronger relationship with curiosity than these other positive emotions. We note
that in this model, we also found that pride was positively related to curiosity. In our third and
most stringent model, we found that when controlling for Openness to Experience, trait positive
activation, and all other trait positive emotions, awe remained significantly and positively related
to trait curiosity. In this model both awe and pride were significantly related to curiosity, but
even though the 95% CI of those effects overlapped, a z test comparing the coefficients (Clogg,
Petkova, & Haritou, 1995) indicated that the effect of awe was significantly stronger, z = 2.60, p
= .009. Trait amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, and love were not related to curiosity.
Analyses run with the five-item awe scale omitting the item similar to one on the CEI-II yield the
same pattern such that in the third model awe and pride are the only trait positive emotions that
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
are related to curiosity. However, we note that in this case the effect of awe is weaker, β = .14,
SE = .03, t = 4.14, 95% CI [.08, .21].
In sum, Study 1 provides initial evidence of the unique link between trait awe curiosity,
demonstrating that awe positively and uniquely related to curiosity when controlling for
Openness to Experience, general positive affect, and six other discrete positive emotions. We
also found a similarly strong relationship between pride and curiosity. Given that pride is often
felt in response to gaining social status and acceptance (Tracy, Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski,
2009; Tracy & Robins, 2007) this effect is consistent with previous research linking social status
enhancement-related appraisals of social situations with trait curiosity (Kashdan, Elhai, & Breen,
2008).
Study 2: Trait awe and peer-ratings of curiosity
In Study 1 we demonstrated in a large sample that when controlling for traits known to be
related to curiosity such as Openness to Experience and trait positive activation, as well as trait
amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride, trait awe was uniquely related to
curiosity. However, these findings are subject to the limitations of self-report methods (Paulhus
& Vazire, 2007), most notably including self-perception and presentation biases. There is also
conceptual overlap between awe and curiosity. For example, one usage of the English term
wonder, a synonym for awe, can also be used to signify curiosity. To address these limitations,
in Study 2 we used a peer-report approach to test how participants’ self-ratings of awe and other
traits relate to how curious they are rated by their peers, which are not subject to participants’
individual biases or the conceptual overlap between awe and curiosity. We used the same
analytic technique as in Study 1 to test the hypothesis that trait awe would be uniquely related to
peer-rated curiosity by using increasingly stringent analyses to control for Openness to
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Experience, trait positive activation, and the six other positive emotion scales: amusement,
compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride.
Method
Participants. One hundred and nineteen first-year undergraduate students were recruited
to participate in a multi-phase study on the subject of awe in exchange for payment (see Table 1,
Sample C for demographic characteristics). We recruited exclusively college freshmen because
the first year of college often involves novel intellectual and social experiences, a rich time for
both awe and curiosity to be experienced and expressed. We sampled from the student body at
large, with only 8% of participants reporting psychology or cognitive science as their intended
majors. Data presented in the current work overlap with that used by a previous report of the
relationship between awe and humility (Stellar et al., 2017).
Procedure. Participants were recruited at the beginning of the semester via flyers posted
throughout the university campus. After enrolling in the study, participants reported
demographic information and completed trait measures. Participants then nominated four friends
who attended the same university to take a brief survey concerning questions about both
themselves and the participant. We contacted the first two peers on each participant’s list by
email and offered them $5 in exchange for completing the survey. Additional peers were
contacted as needed if the first two did not complete the survey. A total of 193 peers submitted
reports for 100 of the participants enrolled in the study. When more than one peer rated a
participant, scores were averaged.
Measures. In addition to demographic information, Openness to Experience (BFI),
general positive activation (I-PANAS-SF), trait discrete positive emotions (DPES), and trait
curiosity (CEI-II) were measured as in Study 1. Descriptive statistics for these measures can be
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
found in Table 2, Sample C. In the current sample, the scores of all three measures were found
to be reliable with alpha estimates > .7 (BFI = .76, I-PANAS-SF = .72, and CEI-II = .81). In
addition, factor analysis results indicated that BFI (.23–.78), I-PANAS-SF (.46–.75), and CEI-II
(.27–.76) scores were structurally valid with acceptable ranges of factor loadings.
Peer-rated curiosity. Peers reported on the curiosity of the participant using three items
adapted from the CEI-II (Kashdan et al., 2009): your friend is the type of person who really
enjoys the uncertainty of everyday life, everywhere your friend goes, he/she is looking for new
things or experiences, and your friend views challenging situations as an opportunity to grow
and learn. Peers indicated how well they thought the statements described the participants on a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and the three items were then averaged (M
= 4.80, SD = .97, α = .81).
Results
The data and syntax used to generate these results can be found at
https://osf.io/7ztpu/?view_only=1625ac46c29041f6b8dbb5c74bd3fae1. Measures were z-scored
prior to analysis. Participants’ self-ratings of trait curiosity were significantly related to peer
ratings of curiosity, r(98) = .25, p = .011. Using the same analytic approach as in Study 1, we
used three increasingly stringent models to test if participants’ trait awe was uniquely associated
with how curious they were rated by their peers. In the first model, controlling for Openness to
Experience and trait positive activation, we found that trait awe was positively related to how
curious participants were rated by their peers, β = .43, SE = .13, t = 3.36, p = .001, 95% CI [.17,
.68]. In the second model, when entering all seven trait positive emotions as predictors, awe was
significantly related to curiosity, β = .45, SE = .14, t = 3.31, p = .001, 95% CI [.18, .72].
Moreover, none of the other six trait positive emotions were related to peer-rated curiosity, |βs| <
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
.14, ps > .29. Finally, in our third and most stringent model that controlled for Openness to
Experience, trait positive activation, and trait positive emotions, awe remained related to peer-
rated curiosity, β = .45, SE = .16, t = 2.90, p = .005, 95% CI [.14, .76]. Again, no other trait
positive emotion was significantly related to peer-rated curiosity, |βs| < .12, ps > .30. Analyses
using the five-item awe scale yield the same pattern of findings such that awe is the only positive
emotion scale to be related to curiosity, although slightly weaker, β = .39, SE = .15, t = 2.60, p =
.011, 95% CI [.09, .69]. Taken together, these peer-report findings converge with those of Study
1 suggesting that trait awe is uniquely related to curiosity, above and beyond the effects of other
trait positive emotions.
Study 3: Trait Awe, Curiosity, and Academic Outcomes
Together, Studies 1 and 2 show converging self and peer-report evidence that trait awe is
uniquely related to curiosity. In Study 3, we aimed to demonstrate the importance of this
relationship by examining its contribution to academic outcomes in a diverse sample of
adolescents. Positive emotion traits in general have been previously linked to academic
outcomes (Dixson, Anderson, Rigney, Niemasik, & Potte, 2018), but our aim in the current work
was to demonstrate that the path by which trait awe relates to academic outcomes is via curiosity.
Specifically, we hypothesized that awe would indirectly predict several academic outcomes (i.e.,
work ethic, behavioral engagement in school, and academic self-efficacy) via curiosity. To
demonstrate that this relationship is unique—not part of a broader association between positive
affect, curiosity, and academic outcomes (Gallagher & Lopez, 2007; Kashdan et al., 2009, 2004;
Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007)—we tested this model controlling for trait joy. We
hypothesized that the indirect effect of awe on academic outcomes via curiosity would remain
even after controlling for joy.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Method
Participants and Procedure. The sample consisted of 447 high school adolescents
(46.7% female) aged 12–19 (Mage = 15.8, SD = 1.28) attending an urban high school in a
Midwestern state. The average grade point average of the sample was 2.88 (SD = .75). The self-
reported ethnic breakdown of the sample was 55.8% European American/White, 25.3% African
American/Black, 5.7% Hispanic American/Mexican, 3.0% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and
10.2% Multi-Ethnic/Other. In addition, the socioeconomic breakdown was self-reported as 9%
Poor/Working Class, 15.5% Lower Middle Class, 54.2% Middle Class, 16.2% Upper Middle
Class, 2.1% Lower Upper Class, and 2.1% Wealthy. The current study’s data were a subsection
of data that were collected as a part of a school-wide improvement initiative to enhance the
school climate. The school collected data on psychosocial factors (e.g., school belonging),
positive emotions (e.g., the DPES), academic perceptions (e.g., academic self-regulation), and
school personnel perceptions (e.g., perceptions toward teachers). The survey was administered
during the students’ free period, with an allotted time of 45 minutes to complete the survey
online from a school computer. All students who attended school on the two designated survey
days participated in the data collection (> 95% of total school population).
Measures. The following measures were used in this study.
Awe, joy, and curiosity. As in Study 1, trait awe and joy were measured with the DPES,
and curiosity with the CEI-II. In the current sample, the scores of all three scales were found to
be both reliable and structurally valid with acceptable reliability estimates (DPES-Awe, α = .76;
DPES-Joy, α = .86; CEI-II, α = .90) and exploratory factor analysis results (DPES-Awe [6-
items], communality range = .16–.54, factor loading range = .40–.74; DPES-Joy, communality
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
range = .39–.68, factor loading range = .62–.82; CEI-II, communality range = .35–.67, factor
loading range = .59–.82).
Work ethic. Work ethnic was measured with the hard work subscale (HWS) of the Work
Ethic Scale (Blau & Ryan, 1997). This 6-item scale measures both one’s philosophy on hard
work and one’s belief in the utility of hard work (e.g., If you work hard you will succeed).
Response options on this scale ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Higher
scores on this scale indicate a higher willingness to engage in as well as a higher expected payoff
from hard work. Previous studies have found HWS scores to be reliable (e.g., α = .85; Blau &
Ryan, 1997). In the current sample, HWS scores were found to be both reliable and structurally
valid with an alpha of .90, and a 1-Factor exploratory factor analysis revealing a communality
range of .53–.68 and a factor loading range of .73–.83.
Behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement was measured with a reduced version
of behavioral engagement subscale of the Engagement vs. Disaffection Scale (Skinner et al.,
2008). This 4-item scale measures students’ willingness to participate in academic courses (e.g.,
I pay attention in class). Response options ranged from 1 (Not true at all) to 7 (Very true).
Higher scores are indicative of both a higher behavioral engagement in the past and a higher
willingness to participate in academic courses in the future. Behavioral engagement subscale
scores have been found to be reliable in similar samples in previous research (alpha range of .71–
.72; Skinner et al., 2008). In the current sample, behavioral engagement subscale scores were
found to be both valid and reliable with an alpha estimate of .81, and a 1-Factor exploratory
factor analysis revealing a communality range of .245–.846 and a factor loading range of .495–
.920.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Academic self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy was measured with the self-efficacy for
academic achievement subscale (ASE) of the Children’s Multidimensional Self-Efficacy Scale
(Bandura, 1990; Zimmerman & Ban, 1992). This 8-item subscale assesses how strongly students
believe they can achieve in academic subjects. The subscale is prefaced with the phrase “How
well can you learn…” and the items consist of school subjects (e.g., general mathematics,
algebra, science, biology, and social studies). Response options ranged from 1 (Not at all) to 6
(Extremely well), with higher scores indicating a stronger belief in one’s academic ability.
Previous research in similar samples indicate that ASE scores are reliable with alpha estimates
ranging from .70 to .81 (Dixson, Worrell, Olszewski-kubilius, & Subotnik, 2016; Zimmerman &
Ban, 1992). In the current sample, ASE scores were found to be both reliable and structurally
valid with an alpha estimate of .85, and a 1-Factor exploratory factor analysis revealing a
communality range of .314–.633 and a factor loading range of .534–.796.
Results
Preliminary analyses. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in
Table 5. Although no differences across study variables were found for race, several differences
were found for gender, all in keeping with the extant literature. Females reported significantly
higher work ethic (p = .02, g = .23) and behavioral engagement (p = .01, g = .25) than males, albeit
all with small effect sizes.
Primary analyses. A series of structural equation models (SEMs) were used to assess
whether awe indirectly affects behavioral engagement, academic self-efficacy, and work ethic
via curiosity. Assessing this indirect relationship via SEM has the advantage of decreasing
measurement error and the capability to assess more complicated models when compared to
traditional methods (see Baron & Kenny, 1986; Gunzler, Chen, Wu, & Zhang, 2013). Consistent
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
with best practice, a weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator
was used for analysis and multiple fit indices were used to assess the fit of the theorized model to
the data (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). Generally, indicators of good fit include a non-
significant chi square, a comparative fit index (CFI) value that is greater than or equal to .90, a
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) value that is greater than or equal to .90, and a Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value below .08 (Kenny, 2015; Maccallum, Browne, &
Sugawara, 1996; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). However, Kenny (2015) asserted that the chi
square is an inappropriate measure of fit for sample sizes over 400 because these models almost
always have a significant chi square. Thus, the chi square was not used as an indicator of good
fit in the current analysis.
The first model started with awe, continued through curiosity, and ended with academic
self-efficacy, behavioral engagement in school, and work ethic simultaneously (see Figure 1).
Consistent with previous research (Dixson et al., 2018) curiosity, work ethic, behavioral
engagement, and academic self-efficacy were correlated in the model. Fit indices for this model
were as follows: Chi square (χ2) = 1781.49 (degrees of freedom = 519, p < .0001), CFI = .918,
TLI = .911, and RMSEA =.074 (90% CI: .070 to .078). Given that the model had an acceptable
CFI, TLI, and RMSEA, it was concluded that the model had overall good fit. Further, indirect
analyses revealed that awe predicted academic self-efficacy (β = .503, SE = .040, p < .001),
behavioral engagement (β = .315, SE = .037, p < .001), and work ethic (β = .354, SE = .034, p <
.001), with the model as a whole accounting for 59.4% of curiosity’s variance, 3.7% of academic
self-efficacy’s variance, 16.7% of behavioral engagement in school’s variance, and 21.1% of
work ethic’s variance. Taken together these findings support our hypothesis that trait awe
indirectly predicts academic outcomes via curiosity. Finally, the standardized beta loadings for
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
awe items (β range = .433–.833), curiosity items (β range = .578–.845), academic self-efficacy
items (β range = .677–.838), work ethic items (β range = .806–.879), and behavioral engagement
items (β range = .652–.918) were all acceptable within the model. A similar pattern of results
was found using the five-item awe scale.
To test that this pattern is unique to awe, and not part of a more general pattern between
positive emotions more generally and curiosity and academic outcomes, we then tested if this
relationship held when controlling for trait joy. We tested a second model that included a path
from joy to the school outcomes via curiosity. The second model started with both awe and joy,
continued through curiosity, and concluded with academic self-efficacy, behavioral engagement,
and work ethnic simultaneously. The results of this model were as follows: Chi square (χ2) =
2382.57 (degrees of freedom = 730, p < .0001), CFI = .900, TLI = .894, and RMSEA =.071
(90% CI: .068 to .074). Given that the CFI and RMSEA were acceptable and the TLI was very
close to acceptability, it was concluded that the model exhibited good fit. Follow-up indirect
analyses revealed that awe indirectly predicted academic self-efficacy (β = .548, SE = .068, p <
.001), behavioral engagement (β = .375, SE = .052, p < .001), and work ethic (β = .407, SE =
.051, p < .001) via curiosity even after controlling for the joy to academic self-efficacy,
behavioral engagement, and work ethic via curiosity pathways in the model. Importantly, in this
model joy was not indirectly related to academic self-efficacy (β = -.035, SE = .057, p = .544),
behavioral engagement (β = -.024, SE = .039, p = .543), and work ethic (β = -.026, SE = .042, p
= .542) via curiosity. The model accounts for 58.6% of curiosity’s variance, 2.7% of academic
self-efficacy’s variance, 21.6% of behavioral engagement’s variance, and 25.5% of work ethic’s
variance. These results support our hypothesis that awe, and not positive emotions in general,
indirectly affects academic self-efficacy, behavioral engagement, and work ethic via curiosity.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Finally, the standardized beta loadings for awe items (β range = .437–.766), joy items (β range =
.637–.810), curiosity items (β range = .561–.834), academic self-efficacy items (β range = .680–
.837), work ethic items (β range = .812–.879), and behavioral engagement items (β range = .667–
.917) were all acceptable within the model. A similar pattern of results were found using the
five-item awe scale.
General Discussion
The life narratives of famous scientists and explorers like Marie Curie, Albert Einstein,
and John Muir suggest that people who often and intensely feel awe are also highly curious. In
the current work we provided the first empirical evidence that trait awe is uniquely related to
curiosity. In Study 1 using a self-report approach we showed that people who were higher in
trait awe were on average higher in curiosity. In Study 2 we provided converging evidence using
a peer-report approach. More specifically, we found that the higher people were in trait awe the
more curious they were rated by their friends on average. Importantly, the findings from these
two studies held when controlling for Openness to Experience, trait positive affect, and six other
trait positive emotions—amusement, compassion, contentment, joy, love, and pride—confirming
our hypothesis that trait awe is uniquely related to trait curiosity. Having demonstrated this
unique effect, in Study 3 we showed its importance by testing its relationship with academic
outcomes such as work ethic, behavioral engagement in school, and academic self-efficacy.
Using an SEM approach, we found that trait awe indirectly predicted all three academic
outcomes via trait curiosity even when controlling for trait positivity. Taken altogether, these
findings demonstrate the roles that awe and curiosity play in how people learn about the world.
While we consistently demonstrated a unique relationship between awe and curiosity this
does not suggest that awe is the only predictor of curiosity. Consistent with previous work
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
(Gallagher & Lopez, 2007; Güsewell & Ruch, 2012; Kashdan et al., 2009, 2004) we found that
both Openness to Experience and trait positive activation were strongly related to curiosity. In
terms of other trait positive emotions, pride also emerged as a predictor of curiosity. This is
consistent with previous work linking social status enhancement behaviors and curiosity
(Kashdan et al., 2008) and consistent with the notion that people with high status have more
physical and social capital to support exploratory behavior.
While the theoretical framing of this work suggests a directional influence of awe on
curiosity, we note that current data cannot speak to causality. A bidirectional relationship is
possible, such that people who are more curious feel awe more frequently because their
exploration expose them to more vast and novel experiences. Experimental research is needed to
confirm the causal effect of awe on curiosity. Given the results from Study 1, pride may be a
stringent comparison condition for such work to test if awe increases curiosity above and beyond
the effect of other positive emotions, although we note that pride was not related to peer-rated
curiosity in Study 2.
Another future direction suggested by the current work is testing the potential of awe
interventions to bolster curiosity and thus academic outcomes. Previous research has shown that
trait awe is related to science learning (Gottlieb et al., 2018), but the results from Study 3 suggest
that awe and curiosity relate to broader academic outcomes such as work ethic and behavioral
engagement in school. Together with emerging evidence that awe promotes creativity (Zhang et
al., 2018) and systematic processing of information (Danvers & Shiota, 2016; Griskevicius et al.,
2010), the current work raises the possibility that experiences of awe may enhance a suite of
cognitive capabilities that foster learning. Empirical evidence along these lines would highlight
the importance of providing real world experiences of awe to youth in schools through nature
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
experiences (Anderson, Monroy, & Keltner, 2017, 2018; Piff et al., 2015), trips to museums, and
cultural exchanges.
In conclusion, we provided the first evidence that awe-prone people are more curious, a
finding that is consistent with the life narratives of scientists and explorers that have changed
human history through their exploration. Our findings suggest that experiences of awe may play
an important role in sparking the curiosity of the future generation of Einsteins and Curies.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
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: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by
Grants 95524 and 88210 from the John Templeton Foundation.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
References
Anderson, C. L., Monroy, M., & Keltner, D. (2017). Emotion in the Wilds of Nature: The
Coherence and Contagion of Fear During Threatening Group-Based Outdoors Experiences.
Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000378
Anderson, C. L., Monroy, M., & Keltner, D. (2018). Awe in Nature Heals: Evidence From
Military Veterans, At-Risk Youth, and College Students. Emotion.
Bai, Y., Maruskin, L. A., Chen, S., Gordon, A. M., Stellar, J. E., Mcneil, G. D., … Keltner, D.
(2017). Awe, the Diminished Self, and Collective Engagement: Universals and Cultural
Variations in the Small Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. a. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality, 51(6), 1173–
1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Blau, G., & Ryan, J. (1997). On measuring work ethic: A neglected work commitment facet.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 435–448.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New
Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression
Coefficients Between Models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782277
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Cohen, A. B., Gruber, J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Comparing spiritual transformations and
experiences of profound beauty. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2(3), 127–135.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019126
Collins, R. P., Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2004). The measurement of perceptual
curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1127–1141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00205-8
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four
Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Education, 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1.1.110.9154
Danvers, A. F., & Shiota, M. (2016). Going Off Script: Effects of Awe on Memory for Script-
Typical and –Irrelevant Narrative Detail, 17(480), 938–952.
Dixon, D. D., Anderson, C. L., & Keltner, D. (2018). Measuring positive emotions: Validation of
scores on the seven Dispositional Positive Emotions Scales (DPES).
Dixson, D. D., Anderson, C. L., Rigney, A. M., Niemasik, M. A., & Potte, A. (2018). Positivity
in School: How Positive Traits Relate to Productive School Attributes. Manuscript
Submitted to Journal of Happiness Studies.
Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Beyond
perceived ability : the contribution of psychosocial factors to academic performance, 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13210
Fredrickson, B., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and
thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000238
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What Good Are Positive Emotions ? Review of General Psychology,
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
2(3), 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive Emotions Broaden and Build. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 47 (1st ed., Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2
Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Curiosity and well-being. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 2(4), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701552345
Goldsmith, B. (2005). Obsessive genius: The inner world of Marie Curie. WW Norton &
Company.
Gottlieb, S., Keltner, D., & Lombrozo, T. (2018). Awe as a scientific emotion. Cognitive
Science, 40–43.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions
on persuasion processing: a functional evolutionary approach. Emotion (Washington, D.C.),
10(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018421
Gunzler, D., Chen, T., Wu, P., & Zhang, H. (2013). Introduction to mediation analysis with
structural equation modeling. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 25(6), 390–394.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.06.009
Güsewell, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Are only Emotional Strengths Emotional? Character Strengths
and Disposition to Positive Emotions. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4(2),
218–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01070.x
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and Research. New York: Guilford.
Johnson, K. J., Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Smile to see the forest: Facially
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
expressed positive emotions broaden cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 24(2), 299–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903384667
Kaczmarek, L. D., Kashdan, T. B., Kleiman, E. M., Baczkowski, B., Enko, J., Siebers, A., …
Baran, B. (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
Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T., &
Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: epistemic curiosity activates
reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
Kashdan, T. B. (2002). Social anxiety dimensions, neuroticism, and the contours of positive
psychological functioning. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(6), 789–810.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021293501345
Kashdan, T. B. (2004). curiosity_VIA_chapter.pdf. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.),
Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 125–141). Oxford
University Press.
Kashdan, T. B., Afram, A., Brown, K. W., Birnbeck, M., & Drvoshanov, M. (2011). Curiosity
enhances the role of mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to existential threat.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1227–1232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.015
Kashdan, T. B., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Silvia, P. J., Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., …
Keller, P. S. (2013). Curiosity protects against interpersonal aggression: cross-sectional,
daily process, and behavioral evidence. Journal of Personality, 81(1), 87–102.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00783.x
Kashdan, T. B., Elhai, J. D., & Breen, W. E. (2008). Social anxiety and disinhibition: An
analysis of curiosity and social rank appraisals, approach-avoidance conflicts, and
disruptive risk-taking behavior. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(6), 925–939.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.09.009.Social
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., &
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
Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004a). Social Anxiety’s Impact on Affect, Curiosity, and
Social Self-Efficacy During a High Self-Focus Social Threat Situation. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 28(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COTR.0000016934.20981.68
Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004b). Trait and State Curiosity in the Genesis of Intimacy:
Differentiation From Related Constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6),
792–816. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.6.792.54800
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004a). Curiosity and exploration: facilitating
positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 82(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004b). Curiosity and exploration: facilitating
positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 82(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. a, Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How are curious people
viewed and how do they behave in social situations? From the perspectives of self, friends,
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
parents, and unacquainted observers. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 142–54.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00796.x
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in
life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31(3), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9068-7
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion.
Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297
Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific
influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473–493.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, Anger, and Risk. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The Measurement of Curiosity As a Feeling of
Deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157.
Litman, J. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006a). The latent structure of trait curiosity: evidence for interest
and deprivation curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(3), 318–28.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_07
Litman, J. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006b). The latent structure of trait curiosity: Evidence or interest
and deprivation curiousity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 318–328.
Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring Epistemic Curiosity and Its Diversive and
Specific Components Measuring Epistemic Curiosity and Its Diversive and Specific
Components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
Maccallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power Analysis and
Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling. Psychological Methods,
3(2), 130–149.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on
Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in
Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler ’ s ( 1999 ) Findings. Structural Equation Modelling,
11(3), 320–341.
Muir, J. (1894). The Mountains of California : . (Reprint). New York: American Museum of
Natural History.
Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant
validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506–510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (n.d.). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén.
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in
relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(4), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002
Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self-
other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 618–30.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017628
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, &
R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–
239). New York: Guilford.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child
Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 703–720). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the Small Self,
and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899.
Renner, B. (2006). Curiosity About People : The Development of a Social Curiosity Measure in
Adults Curiosity About People : The Development of a Social Curiosity Measure in Adults,
(November 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703
Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of Analysis and the Organization of Affect. Review of General
Psychology, 2(3), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.247
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people’s perception of time, alters
decision making, and enhances well-being. Psychological Science, (2095).
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially
associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and
effects on self-concept. Cognition & Emotion, 21(5), 944–963.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668
Silvia, P. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Interesting Things and Curious People :Exploration and
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Engagement as Transient States and Enduring Strengths. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 3(5), 785–797.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., Kindermann, T., Sherwood, H., & Usinger, P. (2008).
Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom : Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic ?,
100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
Spielberger, C. D., Peters, R. A., & Frain, F. (1976). The State-Trait Curiosity Inventory.
Stellar, J. E., Gordon, A. M., Anderson, C. L., Piff, P. K., Mcneil, G. D., & Keltner, D. (2017).
Awe and Humility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000014
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and Validation of an Internationally Reliable Short-Form
of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301
Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2009). Authentic and Hubristic
Pride: The Affective Core of Self-esteem and Narcissism. Self and Identity, 8(2–3), 196–
213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505053
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 147–150.
Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. (2014). Awe, uncertainty, and agency detection. Psychological
Science, 25(1), 170–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613501884
Valdesolo, P., Park, J., & Gottlieb, S. (2016). Awe and scientific explanation. Emotion, 16(7),
937–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000213
Valdesolo, P., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2016). Science is awe-some: The emotional
antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review, in press, 1–23.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916673212
Wadlinger, H. a, & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2006). Positive mood broadens visual attention to positive
stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9021-1
Watson, D., Clark, L. a, & Tellegen, a. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063–70. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3397865
Zhang, J. W., Anderson, C. L., Razavi, P., Mello, Z., Shaban-Azad, H., Monroy, M., … Keltner,
D. (2018). Trait and State Based Experience of Awe Promotes Creativity. Manuscript
Invited for Resubmission, 2018.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ban. (1992). Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-
Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3),
663–676.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of Study 1 samples
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E Sample F Total sample
n 161 278 119 174 155 118 1,005
Mean age
(SD)
20.47
(2.04)
20.66
(4.15)
18.40
(.66)
35.87
(12.41)
20.89
(2.52)
21.31
(2.80)
23.29 (8.46)
% Female 74% 65% 70% 58% 77% 75% 69%
Type Psych
Undergrad
Psych
Undergrad
First-year
Undergrad
mTurk Psych
Undergrad
Psych
Undergrad
-
% Asian 65% 50% 65% 1% 62% 42% 47%
% Black 1% 3% 5% 11% 3% 3% 4%
% White 27% 40% 22% 85% 34% 48% 44%
% Pacific
Islander
2% 1% 0% 0% 3% 3% 1%
% Native
American
1% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 3%
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of Study 1 measures by sample
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E Sample F
CEI-II 3.35 (.64) 3.52 (.61) 3.48 (.58) 4.71 (1.15) 4.66 (1.02) 3.01 (.76)
DPES-awe 4.86 (.89) 4.97 (.83) 4.87 (1.03) 4.99 (1.04) 4.98 (.95) 4.90 (1.03)
DPES-amusement 4.91 (.98) 5.11 (.91) 5.26 (1.16) 4.81 (1.06) 4.96 (.99) 5.21 (1.06)
DPES-compassion 5.44 (1.00) 5.41 (.91) 5.48 (.93) 5.47 (1.10) 5.67 (.76) 5.74 (.86)
DPES-
contentment
4.77 (1.13) 4.83 (1.02) 4.84 (1.25) 4.71 (1.25) 4.81 (1.21) 4.78 (1.29)
DPES-joy 4.72 (.98) 4.79 (.92) 4.80 (1.05) 4.62 (1.13) 4.71 (1.04) 4.63 (1.11)
DPES-love 4.72 (1.08) 4.80 (.95) 4.56 (1.14) 4.62 (1.16) 4.89 (1.02) 4.79 (1.11)
DPES-pride 4.93 (.99) 5.03 (.86) 5.07 (.97) 4.89 (.99) 4.89 (.97) 5.07 (1.05)
BFI-openness 3.58 (.57) 3.67 (.57) 3.74 (.49) 3.83 (.56) 3.51 (.52) 3.56 (.62)
PANAS-positive 3.38 (.81) 3.50 (.70) 3.76 (.57) 3.64 (.69) 3.49 (.65) 3.56 (.62)
Note. CEI-II = Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II (Kashdan et al., 2009); DPES =
Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006); PANAS-positive = positive
activation items from International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-
SF; Thompson, 2007); BFI = Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). In Samples D and E
the CEI-II was presented on a seven-point scale, and in the remaining samples on a five-point
scale.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Table 3
Zero-order correlations and alpha estimates of Study 1 measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 CEI-II (.93) .55 .29 .30 .37 .43 .29 .44 .50 .36
2 DPES-awe (.78) .41 .49 .53 .63 .48 .47 .50 .40
3 DPES-
amusement
(.77) .30 .31 .46 .36 .29 .27 .15
4 DPES-
compassion
(.86) .30 .44 .44 .33 .30 .30
5 DPES-
contentment
(.90) .74 .57 .68 .17 .40
6 DPES-joy (.83) .62 .62 .29 .43
7 DPES-love (.82) .48 .17 .27
8 DPES-pride (.80) .29 .44
9 BFI-openness (.81) .26
10 PANAS-
positive
(.79)
Note. Alpha estimates are provided on the diagonal in parentheses. All correlations are significant at p < .001
level.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Table 4
Study 1 Regression models demonstrating the unique relationship between trait awe and curiosity
β SE t p 95%CI
Model 1 DPES-awe .35 .03 11.70 <.001 [.29, .40]
BFI-open .32 .03 10.10 <.001 [.26, .39]
PANAS-positive .14 .03 5.36 <.001 [.09, .19]
Model 2 DPES-awe .43 .04 12.44 < .001 [.36, .50]
DPES-amusement .04 .03 1.59 .11 [-.01, .10]
DPES-compassion .01 .03 0.23 .82 [-.05, .06]
DPES-contentment -.04 .04 -1.24 .22 [-.11, .03]
DPES-joy .04 .04 0.95 .35 [-.04, .12]
DPES-love -.05 .03 -1.52 .13 [-.11, .02]
DPES-pride .23 .03 6.80 < .001 [.16, .29]
Model 3 DPES-awe .28 .04 7.76 < .001 [.21, .35]
DPES-amusement .03 .03 1.09 .28 [-.02, .08]
DPES-compassion -.02 .03 -.82 .41 [-.07, .03]
DPES-contentment .01 .03 .21 .84 [-.06, .07]
DPES-joy .02 .04 .50 .62 [-.06, .10]
DPES-love -.02 .03 -.47 .64 [-.08, .05]
DPES-pride .15 .03 4.65 <.001 [.09, .21]
BFI-open .32 .03 9.68 <.001 [.25, .38]
PANAS-positive .09 .03 3.32 .001 [.04, .14]
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Table 5
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between Study 3 measures
1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD
1. DPES-awe - .67 .54 .36 .43 .44 4.64 1.00
2. DPES-joy - .43 .38 .36 .36 4.59 1.15
3. Curiosity - .33 .35 .33 3.23 0.84
4. Behavioral engagement - .43 .45 4.82 1.20
5. Work Ethic - .34 5.59 1.13
6. Academic Self-Efficacy - 4.32 0.78
Note. All p values < .003.
The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission.
Figure 1. Standardized pathways from awe to academic outcomes via curiosity.
*p < .001.
β = .408 SE = .044*
Work Ethic
Curiosity
Awe
Academic
Self-Efficacy
Behavioral
Engagement
β = .771 SE = .027*
β = .465 SE = .043*
Work Ethic
Curiosity
Awe
Academic
Self-Efficacy
Behavioral
Engagement
Joy