The Information Gap Theory of Curiosity

What it is

Loewenstein published the account in a review article in Psychological Bulletin, titled as a review and reinterpretation of the psychology of curiosity. The review covers two periods of research. The first, in the 1960s, concentrated on the psychological mechanisms behind curiosity. The second, in the 1970s and 1980s, concentrated on measuring curiosity and identifying its dimensions. Loewenstein gives most of his attention to the earlier period.

His criticism of the earlier theories was specific. They did not explain why people deliberately seek out experiences that arouse curiosity. They did not identify the situations that trigger it. And they missed features that anyone who has been curious will recognise: its intensity, its brief duration, its link to impulsiveness, and its tendency to feel unsatisfying once it has been resolved.

The reinterpretation he offered was that curiosity is a cognitively induced state of deprivation, brought about by noticing a gap in one's knowledge or understanding. Two parts of that sentence carry the weight. The state is cognitively induced, so it depends on what a person has noticed and not only on what is objectively missing. And it is a deprivation, which is why it can feel like an itch that wants relief rather than a pleasant interest.

In effect

The account makes sense of everyday observations. A question that has been posed and not answered holds attention in a way that the same fact delivered unasked does not, because the posing of the question is what makes the gap visible. These are applications of the idea and not results reported in the 1994 review, and this page treats them as such.

In media, the account can be used to read narrative structure. A story that sets out a puzzle, such as who was involved, how events unfolded and why, creates a run of small gaps, and each answer tends to open the next. That reading is an application of the idea, not a finding of the 1994 review.

What it does not say

The 1994 review is a theoretical reinterpretation. It organises earlier research and proposes a framework, and it is not a single decisive experiment. The framework describes curiosity about a specific question well. It says less about the wandering, exploratory interest that has no particular question attached.

The account does not say that every gap produces curiosity, or that more information always means more curiosity. It also says nothing about narrative on its own: that application is ours. And it should not be read as a claim about the brain. The abstract of the 1994 review makes a psychological claim about a state of deprivation.

---