The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author ... · 2017) by demonstrating the...

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


Dacher Keltner


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: [email protected].


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


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?


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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.,


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

https://osf.io/7ztpu/?view_only=1625ac46c29041f6b8dbb5c74bd3fae1


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


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


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| <

https://osf.io/7ztpu/?view_only=1625ac46c29041f6b8dbb5c74bd3fae1


.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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


(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


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.


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.


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


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,


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


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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%


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.


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.


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]


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.


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

The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author ... · 2017) by demonstrating the...

Documents

Transcript of The copyright holder for this non-refereed preprint is the author ... · 2017) by demonstrating the...