Constructs of curiosity and interest: qualitative and quantitative investigations

Curiosity and interest have long been a topic of psychology and education and there is no consensus about their conceptualizations, mechanisms and measurements. A contemporary work on curiosity treats information-seeking as reward learning; likewise, recent work on interest has also emphasized the importance of rewarding feeling. This led researchers to consider curiosity and interest in the common scheme called a reward learning framework of knowledge acquisition. The purpose of the current dissertation is to examine the similarity and differences of curiosity and interest based on this framework, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The first study (Chapter 2) examined people’s naïve beliefs about curiosity and interest. The results showed that while curiosity was considered to be active feelings towards uncertainty, interest was considered to be a more stable feeling than curiosity, which was more oriented towards certain things. On the other hand, curiosity and interest had a substantial overlap on knowledge acquisition process. The second study (Chapter 3) developed a new Curiosity and Interest as Rewarding Feeling scale (CIRF). The final 9-item scale showed a good fit with a single factor model, indicating that it may not be necessary to distinguish curiosity and interest when assessing the rewarding feeling caused by knowledge acquisition. In the last studies (Study 3a and Study 3b; Chapter 4), we tested the construct validity of CIRF by examining the relationship of the newly developed scale with other relevant scales. Overall, the developed scale demonstrated the pattern of relationships consistent with the predictions. These studies underscored the complex relationship of curiosity and interest during the knowledge acquisition process in the reward learning framework. Critical evaluations have been included in the last chapter, which drew a broader conclusion in the interaction between curiosity and interest during knowledge acquisition process and also discussed some implications

How are curiosity and interest different? Naïve Bayes Classification of people's beliefs

Researchers studying curiosity and interest note a lack of consensus in whether and how these important motivations for learning are distinct. Empirical attempts to distinguish them are impeded by this lack of conceptual clarity. Following a recent proposal that curiosity and interest are folk concepts, we sought to determine a non-expert consensus view on their distinction using machine learning methods. In Study 1, we demonstrate that there is a consensus in how they are distinguished, by training a Naïve Bayes classification algorithm to distinguish between free-text definitions of curiosity and interest (n = 396 definitions) and using cross-validation to test the classifier on two sets of data (main n = 196; additional n = 218). In Study 2, we demonstrate that the non-expert consensus is shared by experts and can plausibly underscore future empirical work, as the classifier accurately distinguished definitions provided by experts who study curiosity and interest (n = 92). Our results suggest a shared consensus on the distinction between curiosity and interest, providing a basis for much-needed conceptual clarity facilitating future empirical work. This consensus distinguishes curiosity as more active information seeking directed towards specific and previously unknown information. In contrast, interest is more pleasurable, in-depth, less momentary information seeking towards information in domains where people already have knowledge. However, we note that there are similarities between the concepts, as they are both motivating, involve feelings of wanting, and relate to knowledge-acquisition

People’s naïve belief about curiosity and interest: a qualitative study

The purpose of this study was to critically examine how people perceive the definitions, differences and similarities of interest and curiosity, and address the subjective boundaries between interest and curiosity. We used a qualitative research approach given the research questions and the goal to develop an in-depth understanding of people’s meaning of interest and curiosity. We used data from a sample of 126 U.S. adults (48.5% male) recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Mage = 40.7, SDage = 11.7). Semi-structured questions were used and thematic analysis was applied. The results showed two themes relating to differences between curiosity and interest; active/stable feelings and certainty/uncertainty. Curiosity was defined as an active feeling (more specifically a first, fleeting feeling) and a child-like emotion that often involves a strong urge to think actively and differently, whereas interest was described as stable and sustainable feeling, which is characterized as involved engagement and personal preferences (e.g., hobbies). In addition, participants related curiosity to uncertainty, e.g., trying new things and risk-taking behaviour. Certainty, on the other hand, was deemed as an important component in the definition of interest, which helps individuals acquire deep knowledge. Both curiosity and interest were reported to be innate and positive feelings that support motivation and knowledge-seeking during the learning process

Data: Development of a Curiosity and Interest as Rewarding Feeling Scale Based on a Reward-Learning Model and correlates of the curiosity and interest as rewarding feeling scale

Data associated with Aslan, S. (2021).Constructs of Curiosity and Interest: Qualitative and Quantitative Investigations [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Reading]

Drug-Drug Interaction of Aldehyde Oxidase Inhibitor and Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitor with Favipiravir

Aim: Favipiravir is an effective antiviral used in the treatment of COVID-19. It is metabolized by aldehyde oxidase (AO) and xanthine oxidase (XO). This study investigated drug-drug interactions between favipiravir with both AO substrate and XO enzyme inhibitor, allopurinol, and an XO inhibitor, verapamil. Material and Methods: 25 Sprague-Dawley female rats, 250-300 g, were divided into five equal groups. Blood samples were taken from the jugular vein at the end of 0, 15, 30, and 45 minutes, and at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th hours after the drugs were administered. The drug-blood concentration was determined in the HPLC-UV device using plasma. The ELISA method measured AO and XO enzyme activities in rat liver tissue. Results: Allopurinol prolonged the time taken for favipiravir to reach Cmax (Tmax), decreased maximum serum concentration (Cmax), elimination half-life (T1/2), area under the curve (AUC), and mean residence time (MRT). Allopurinol significantly reduced clearance per unit time (Cl/f) when co-administered with favipiravir. Verapamil accelerated the elimination of favipiravir, significantly reducing T1/2, MRT, and AUC. On the other hand, Favipiravir decreased the absorption of verapamil and slowed its elimination. Cmax, AUC, and Cl values of verapamil decreased. In addition, T1/2, MRT, and volume of distribution (Vd) increased. Conclusion: In conclusion, the concomitant use of favipiravir with other drugs that affect AO and/or XO enzyme activities may cause changes in the pharmacokinetic profiles of drugs and the levels of enzymes that metabolize drugs

The detection of occult HBV infection in patients with HBsAg negative pattern by real-time PCR method

Aim: Diagnostic problems may be encountered in Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections by serological tests and HBV DNA can be detectable in plasma and liver tissue while the HBsAg test is negative. This situation can be defined as occult or isolated Anti-HBc infections. Occult HBV infections may be divided into two categories by using hepatitis markers. One of them being that all hepatitis markers are negative and the other situation is having Anti-HBc +/- and Anti-HBs + patterns. These situations can be seen in isolated Anti-HBc cases

Rates of skincare product and cosmetic procedure use in patients with acne vulgaris and the effective factors: A multicenter study with 1,755 patients

Background Skincare products and cosmetic procedures are used as an adjunct or complementary to conventional drug therapy for acne vulgaris (AV). Objective To evaluate the use of skincare products and the frequency of cosmetic procedures in AV treatment. Methods A total of 1,755 patients with AV completed the survey prepared by the researchers and the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) questionnaire. The clinical findings and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) severity scores were recorded by the dermatologists. Results For AV, 66.7% of the patients stated that they used skincare products and 26.7% had undergone cosmetic procedures. The use of skincare products was statistically significantly higher in women (female: 74.5%, male: 57.7%, p =%76.8, p < 0.0001). The rate of cosmetic procedures was higher in those with higher CADI scores (users: 7.8 +/- 3.8; non-users: 7.1 +/- 3.96, p < 0.0001); older patients (users: 22.7 +/- 10.7 years; non-users: 21.3 +/- 5 years, p < 0.0001); high school (25.6%); and graduate (28.9%) education (p = 0.043), those with lower disease severity (FDA-1: 31.1%; FDA-2: 28.5%, FDA-3: 27.1%, FDA-4: 20.4%, p = 0.022); smokers (smokers: 32.5%; non-smokers: 25.5%, p = 0.020), and those with AV in the family (present: 29.8%; absent: 24.2%, p = 0.009). The patients most frequently used cleansers (85.2%) as cosmetic products, and most commonly underwent skincare treatment (71%) as an interventional procedure. They mostly learned about such products and methods from the Internet, and 33.3% of the participants had undergone procedures performed by non-physicians. Conclusion The patients generally choose skincare products as a result of their Internet search and sometimes have these procedures performed by non-physicians. Dermatologists should be aware of this situation and inform their patients about appropriate products and procedures