Interest: A unique motivational variable

Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

Interest: A unique motivational variable夽 Suzanne Hidi ∗ Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada M4T 2B9 Received 15 February 2006; received in revised form 30 August 2006; accepted 1 September 2006

Abstract In the first part of this article, I discuss motivational variables in general, and interest in specific and propose that because of its biological roots, interest is a unique motivational variable. Furthermore, it is suggested that to demonstrate the uniqueness of interest, neuroscientific findings need to be considered. In the second section of the paper, I argue that the impact of the neuroscientific literature in the areas of social, educational and cognitive psychology has not been appropriately recognized. To support this claim, links between selected neuroscientific findings and motivational variables in general and interest in specific are discussed. Finally, some of the educationally relevant implications of interest research supported by neuroscientific findings are considered. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Interest; Neuroscience; Motivation; Affect

1. Historical introduction The importance of interest was already recognized in the late 19th century. Thinkers like Ebbinghaus (1885/1964) and James (1890) acknowledged that interest made a significant contribution to what people paid attention to and remembered. In the early part of the 20th century there was a continued understanding of the important role interest played in learning and development. Dewey (1913) maintained that interest facilitates learning, improves understanding and stimulates effort as well as personal involvement. Others like Clapar`ede (1905), Arnold (1906), Fryer (1931) and Bartlett (1932) also noted the importance of interest. Berlyne (1949) pointed out that researchers tended to focus on feelings and attention as the two most important components of interest. As many of my colleagues and I argued in various publications, the significance of affective and motivational variables in general, and interest in specific, was diminished during behaviourism and the subsequent cognitive revolution (e.g., Boekaerts, 1999; Eppstein, 1990; Hidi, 1990; Krapp, 1999). However, in the last 25 years, neuroscientists rediscovered the importance of emotions and feelings (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Damasio, 1994, 2003; Panksepp, 1998, 2003, etc.). Psychologists also started to focus on affective variables (e.g., Dai & Sternberg, 2004; Meyer & Turner, 2002). Interest was again acknowledged to be a critical motivational variable that influences learning and achievement. H. Schiefele (1978, 1981) was one of the first in this period who recognized the pivotal role interest plays in education. He argued that the differentiation, development and stabilization of academically relevant interests

夽

This paper is based on a plenary address presented at the 10th Plennial Meeting of the European Association for Learning and Instruction, 2003 August, Padova, Italy. ∗ Tel.: +1 416 483 7547; fax: +1 416 203 0124. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1747-938X/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001

70

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

should be important goals of education (cf. Krapp, 2003). Findings from a set of wide ranging studies showed positive influences of interest on attentional processes, quantity and levels of learning, learners’ organization of tasks (e.g., the kind of learning strategies they use), their goals and choices (e.g., academic courses that they continue to take) (see Hidi & Renninger, 2006, for a review of the literature).1 Persistence in engagements and positive affect has also been associated with interested activities (e.g., Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002; Ainley, Hillman, & Hidi, 2002). 2. Definition of interest What is the most appropriate definition of interest? A momentary fixation, attraction, or fascination? A preference or an attitude? A love of learning or even a passion? A trait-like concept such as curiosity or perhaps a motivational belief? Most importantly, is it an emotion? Whereas all these concepts can be found in literature reviews of various researchers’ conceptualizations of interest, in this paper, based on previous publications that Andreas Krapp, Ann Renninger and I wrote separately and together (e.g., Hidi, 1990, 2001; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 2004; Krapp, 2002, 2003; Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992; Renninger, 2000; Renninger & Hidi, 2002), I consider interest to be a unique motivational variable, as well as a psychological state that occurs during interactions between persons and their objects of interest, and is characterized by increased attention, concentration and affect. The term interest also refers to a relatively enduring predisposition to re-engage with particular content such as objects, events and ideas. Furthermore, it has been proposed that there is a developmental thread linking repeated interested engagements that produce a psychological state of interest to the development of interest as a predisposition (Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Hidi et al., 2004; Krapp, 2002). Dealing with interest development, Silvia (2001) referred to magnification, a repeated experience with qualitatively similar input, which results in a lasting form of interest. Before further discussing the characteristics of interest as a motivational variable, motivational theories based on cognitive frameworks are briefly reviewed. 3. Cognitive approaches to motivation Most theories of learning motivation have had a cognitive framework and focused on individuals’ thoughts, evaluations and beliefs (Meyer & Turner, 2002). These theories tend to describe affect as outcomes, rather than mediators of cognition. For example, in Achievement Goal Theory (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988, etc.) students’ achievement goals were presumed to provide them with a framework for establishing their learning purposes, general approach to academic activities and performance, as well as to influence their affective reactions. Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1997; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000), another basically cognitively driven approach, postulated that individuals’ beliefs about their ability to produce successful outcomes and attain designated goals are critical to increasing their achievement motivation, self-regulation and improving their performance. As far as affect is concerned, when self-efficacy research dealt with affect, it focussed on how self-efficacy resulted in affective reactions. For example, increased self-efficacy was found to have increased individuals’ resistance to negative emotions like anxiety, distress and even fear. On the positive affect side, increased self-efficacy was casually linked to increased intrinsic interest.2 Yet another motivational theory based on a cognitive framework is Task Value (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2002) that describes students’ motivation as resulting from their beliefs and expectations of how desirable an activity is. According to the theory, cognitively determined components of the total value that students establish for their future engagements are incentive value, utility value, intrinsic value and cost. It is interesting to note that, although intrinsic value has an affective element, it has been viewed as a cognitively determined variable. Finally, Deci and Ryan’s influential Self-Determination Theory – that has also been referred to as Cognitive Evaluation Theory (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985) – is by definition, a cognitive theory. Although at least social relatedness, one of the three basic needs that are critical aspects of the theory, seems to have biological roots, the necessity of cognitive realization of these needs is a basic aspect of the theory.

1

Hidi and Renninger (2006) and this paper were developed concurrently and readers are encouraged to read Hidi and Renninger (2006) for further clarification of some of the issues related to interest and its development. 2 I have previously questioned the terminology of intrinsic interest (see Hidi, 2000), arguing that the term sets up an expectation of extrinsic interest. However, interest always is always an outcome of the interaction between individual and environment/content.

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

71

Characteristic of the cognitive approaches is their focus on the representational aspects of motivation and the consideration of affective components as outcomes of cognitive processing (Meyer & Turner, 2002), although affect is not necessarily just such an outcome. For example, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997) demonstrated that increased self-efficacy was associated with increased interest and thus assumed that increased self-efficacy resulted in increased interest. However, the relation between interest and self-efficacy may be more reciprocal than unidirectional. That is, not only can increased self-efficacy increase interest, but through activities that are interest driven and have a positive affective component, individuals may change in a positive manner the ways in which they perceive their competence (Hidi et al., 2002). That is, individuals’ interested engagements may contribute to increased self-efficacy for an activity. As Krapp pointed out in several papers (e.g., Krapp, 2002, 2003), cognitive theories have not taken into consideration motivational factors that have an influence at the subconscious level. He also noted that cognitive theories of motivation tended to have a general motivational focus. For example, general issues of goal-fulfillment, such as achieving certain learning or performance goals, have been central to achievement goal research, although recently researchers seem to be more aware of the importance of content in respect of achievement goals. Cognitive theories were also likely to ignore physiological/biological correlates of the psychological state that characterise motivated activities. The exclusively cognitive approach to learning and motivation has been questioned recently by many researchers who have recognized the importance of emotions (e.g., Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Dai & Sternberg, 2004; Damasio, 1994, 2003; Panksepp, 1998, 2003). Meyer and Turner’s research (2002) reaffirmed the importance of affect in the classroom. They reported that, as reflected by students’ self-reports and instructional interactions, affect was integral for understanding students’ goals, strategies and self-efficacy, in fact, students’ interviews were “affect laden” (Meyer & Turner, 2002, p. 108). Other investigators have suggested that affective components should play an increased role in the conceptualization of learning achievement and motivation (e.g., Ainley, Corrigan, & Richardson, 2005; Boekaerts, 1999, 2003; Boekaerts & Boscolo, 2002; Krapp, 2003; Pekrun, 1992; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002). More specifically, it has been proposed that interest is a motivational variable that links affective and cognitive components of motivation (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). 4. Interest: a motivational variable with a difference In contrast to cognitively driven motivational variables, interest, according to most researchers, has both an affective and a cognitive component. Although there have been a few exceptions to this conceptualization in interest research,3 the assumption that affect is an inherent component of interest has been a critical feature of the way in which interest has been conceptualized, and one that sets it apart from other motivational constructs (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Hidi et al., 2004; Krapp, 1999). Experiencing interest involves affect from the outset of experience and can be assumed to be combined or integrated with cognition as it develops (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Iran-Nejad, 1987; Krapp, 2000, 2002; Renninger, 1990, 2000). Although typically, the affect associated with interest is positive and positive affect is critical for interest to develop (Hidi & Ainley, in press; Izard & Ackerman, 2000), interest can also operate in affectively negative situations (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Panksepp, 2003; Renninger, 2000). In recognizing the strong affective component of interest, many researchers went as far as arguing that interest is a basic emotion (e.g., Fredrickson & Branigan, 2000; Izard, 1977; Silvia, 2001). It seems to me that if we only consider the moment in which the psychological state of interest is triggered, interest may be appropriately considered as an emotion. However, as interest develops and is maintained, both affect and cognition contribute to the experience. Furthermore, the relative strength of the two components of affect and cognition change over time, cognition having an increasing presence as interest develops (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). That is, the strength of the two components may be determined by the level of interest development, a position that has been advocated (Krapp, 2002; Renninger, 2000). An additional important aspect of considering emotions/affect to be an essential component of interest is that it allows the integration of psychological and neuroscientific approaches. Specifically, the neuroscientist Panksepp’s work (e.g., Panksepp, 1998, 2003) suggests that the uniqueness of interest as a motivational variable is related to an evolutionary and genetically ingrained emotional brain system (SEEKING 3

For example, Schraw et al. (1995) viewed interest related to reading “. . . as a complex cognitive phenomena . . .” (p. 12).

72

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

system)4 that is one of the major biological foundations of the psychological state of interest. As an individual’s interest develops in a particular area, emotions are accompanied by developing cognitive components and by the time this interest becomes a predisposition, the cognitive component is well developed. It is an important aspect of this conceptualization that the functioning of various emotional-neural-circuits produces unique feelings and, as such, the neurocircuits that are foundations of interest also produce a unique feeling. This feeling is conscious and subjective and is what we refer to as “being interested”. Whereas the potential for interest resides in the person, the environment and the content define the direction of interest and contribute to its development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). This idea has been germane to many interest researchers’ conceptualization and has been referred to as Person/Object Theory (H. Schiefele, 1978; Krapp, 2002, 2003) or as an interactive view between person and content (Hidi & Baird, 1986; Renninger, 1990; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985). The interactive view of interest development points to interest being content-specific. Rather than being globally interested, individuals have interest in some activity, subject, topic, task or specific text-segments (Alexander & Murphy, 1998). As Renninger (2000) and Hidi and Renninger (2006) pointed out, interest refers to focused attention and/or engagement with the characteristics of particular content, suggesting possibilities for activity. As such, the content specificity of interest not only distinguishes interest from some other motivational variables that focus on more general aspects of learning (e.g., achievement goals), but also provides educators with information as to how students’ motivation could be increased through interest development. This issue will be further discussed in the last section of the paper. 5. Interest types and developmental issues In educational research, two types of interest – situational and individual – have been the focus of research (e.g., Alexander, 1997, 2004; Bergin, 1999; Hidi, 1990, 2000; Hidi & Baird, 1988; Krapp, 2002; Krapp et al., 1992; Renninger, 2000; Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Situational interest is environmentally triggered, involves an affective reaction and focused attention. It has been argued, and empirically demonstrated, that situational interest has two phases. In the first phase, interest is triggered and in a subsequent second phase, interest is further maintained (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Hidi & Baird, 1986; Mitchell, 1993). After investigators established that situational interest can contribute to increased comprehension and learning – many studies of this literature dealt with text-based learning – research in the area focused on the ways in which situational interest can be generated and on the factors that can contribute to its maintenance (e.g., Anderson, Shirey, Wilson, & Fielding, 1987; Hidi & Baird, 1986, 1988; Mitchell, 1993; Schraw, Bruning & Svoboda, 1995; Wade, Buxton, & Kelly, 1999). Harp and Mayer (1997), based on early work by Kintsch (1980) and Schank (1979), suggested that cognitive and emotional sources of situational interest may result in different types of processing and set out to demonstrate empirically this assumption. In their study, they compared the effects of coherent texts (that, according to their theory, elicits cognitive interest) with the effects of less coherent texts (referred to as “seductive text segments”) and illustrations, presumed to elicit emotional interest. The results indicated that texts aimed at increasing emotional interest through “seduction” failed to improve understanding of scientific explanations, whereas coherent texts increased cognitive interest and contributed to increased comprehension and learning. The authors maintained that these results indicate a qualitative difference in the two types of interests and that, in the case of cognitive interest, processing coherent texts promoted a sense of positive affect about the passage that led to increased learning. Whereas it is possible to set up research paradigms that separate emotional and cognitive interests, such separation seems to be artificial, as emotional and cognitive functioning surely interact continuously in interest development. In addition, there are no neurophysiological indications of unique neural processes that underlie exclusively cognitive processing of interesting materials leading to positive affect. It is more likely that both cognitive and affective systems are involved to varying degrees in the processing of interesting texts. Individual interest develops over time and is a relatively enduring predisposition to attend to objects, events, ideas, etc., and to reengage with particular content. It is associated with positive feelings, increased value and knowledge (Krapp, 1999, 2000; Renninger, 1992, 2000; Renninger, Ewen, & Lasher, 2002; U. Schiefele, 1998). Alexander (1997) argued that learners’ individual interests energize and motivate their thoughts and actions in a very goal-directed way. 4

The capitalization of the word “SEEKING” follows Panksepp’s practice, designed to convey the fact that it is a scientific term referring to a “genetically ingrained emotional operating system” (Panksepp, 1998, p. 51).

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

73

Although individual interest has been linked with several motivational concepts, such as intrinsic motivation, flow, various other forms of interest and mastery goal orientations, Renninger (2000) pointed out that it can be distinguished from each of those processes in that it is an evolving relation of a person and a particular subject content that is specific to the individual. It includes stored knowledge and stored value that refers to both positive feelings and feelings of competence related to particular engagements. In Renninger’s conceptualization, the stored knowledge component of individual interest refers to a person’s developing understanding and storing of subject content. She specifically argued that curiosity questions5 that are signs of individual interest can only be formulated, if one has enough knowledge to organize information. Thus, a child working with multiplication and developing individual interest, might ask a curiosity question, such as “why isn’t 6 × 7 the same as 5 × 8”, only when she or he has a certain level of understanding. It is important to note that (a) individual interest refers to both a predisposition and a psychological state, and (b) situational interest as well as individual interest can be associated with the psychological state of interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). When we talk about a student who has an individual interest in mathematics and therefore is looking for ways in which he could solve word problems, we conceptualize his/her interest as a predisposition. When we consider this student’s behaviour while working with an interesting world problem, we refer to his/her psychological state of interest6 that is generated both by the task and the predisposition. However, another student who does not have an interest in mathematics may also find the world problem interesting, and thus experience the psychological state of interest triggered by the situation. The dual meaning of individual interest has not always been recognized in the literature. The best way that I can think of clarifying the relationship between individual interest, situational interest and the psychological state of interest, is to consider individual interest as a sufficient but not necessary condition to elicit the psychological state of interest and to acknowledge that situational interest can also trigger this state. Researchers have also noted that situational and individual interest may be complementary (Alexander, 1997; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). In addition to the above two categories, investigators have examined topic interest, an anticipatory response triggered by the presentation of topics and themes.7 Ainley, Hidi, et al. (2002) and Ainley, Hillman, et al. (2002) found that both situational and individual factors can contribute to topic interest. For example, if students are given a topic such as “Black Holes and Quasars”, those with individual interest in astronomy may find it interesting, as it is closely associated with their area of interest. However, some other students without such individual interest may also find the topic interesting because of situational interest factors, like novelty or danger, which are conveyed by the title. Interest research allows for the investigation of specific processes, including affect through which interest may influence learning and student achievement, and the characteristics of the state that accompanies interested engagements. For example, Ainley, Hidi, et al. (2002) and Ainley, Hillman, et al. (2002) have investigated how various types of student interests, affective reactions, persistence and learning outcomes are related. In these investigations, traditional self-report measures were combined with dynamic on-line recording in real life sequence of students’ affective and cognitive reactions while they were reading scientific and popular texts. The critical feature of this methodology is that students’ responses reflect how involved they are with their tasks. The results showed that students’ interest in the topics of the texts and their individual interest in the domain were related to their affective responses, affective responses were associated with persistence and persistence was related to learning. Not surprisingly, students who reported feeling interested were more likely to continue reading than students who reported feeling bored. Furthermore, on-line recordings of the affective reactions identified the actual points in the text where subjects made decisions as to whether or not continue reading. More recently, Ainley and colleagues (Ainley & Chan, 2006; Ainley & Patrick, in press) have reported research indicating that interest is a mediator of associated self-regulatory processes, such as self-efficacy and achievement goal orientations (Hidi & Ainley, in press). 5

According to Renninger (2000), curiosity questions – that are not necessarily verbalized expressions – are made in search of further understanding of content and are signs of students taking responsibility for their own learning. 6 Krapp et al. (1992) and Schraw and Lehman (2001) referred to this state as the actualized state of individual interest; Ainley (2005) called it active interest. 7 Not all researchers have used the term topic interest in this sense. For instance, Schiefele (1996) and Schiefele and Krapp (1996) considered topic interest as a form of individual interest.

74

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

6. Interest development—a four-phase model Building on and extending existing research, Hidi and Renninger (2006) presented a four-phase model of interest development. The proposed model (a) provides a description of how interest unfolds, (b) points to the need for researchers to identify the type of interest they are investigating, and (c) suggests ways in which educators and parents could contribute to interest development. Briefly, the four phases are triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging (or less-developed) individual interest, and well developed individual interest. Hidi and Renninger (2006) summarized the model as follows: “Each phase of interest can be characterized by varying amounts of affect, knowledge, and value. The length and character of a given phase is likely to be influenced by individual experience, temperament, and genetic predisposition. The four phases are considered to be sequential and distinct, and represent a form of cumulative, progressive development in cases where interest is supported and sustained either through the efforts of others or because of challenges or opportunity that a person sees in a task. However, without support from others, any phase of interest development can become dormant, regress to as previous phase, or disappear altogether (Renninger, 2000; Renninger & Hidi, 2002; Renninger, Sansone, & Smith, 2004)” (p. 112). Basic to the conceptualization of interest development presented in the Four Phase Model is the assumption that the psychological state of interest has biological roots. Thus, an important question that needs to be considered is what neuroscientific evidence currently exists to support a neural basis of interest development. Before discussing such evidence, the importance of neuroscientific literature, in more general terms, is considered. 7. Importance of neuroscientific literature to the field of psychology My own commitment to look at the neural foundations of motivational concepts, in general, and interest, in specific, was fueled by the following four considerations: 1. The recognition that there was a problem in defining motivational concepts non-circularly without concurrent neural support. For example, if we say that individuals focus on a task and persist in their engagement because they are interested, and also conclude that a manifestation of interest is focusing and persisting with a task, we have a classic example of circularity. Panksepp (1998) made the same argument looking at negative emotions of fear and rage. He suggested that to avoid circularity, researchers should specify potential brain mechanisms that are essential substrates for emotions. In this way, the problem of circularity can be avoided, and in addition, new and powerful predictions about behaviour can be made. 2. My belief that interest is so central to motivation, learning and performance that it must have biological roots and a physiological basis. This belief was supported by emerging evidence that interest can generate spontaneous, automatic attention resulting in more efficient and faster processing of information (Hidi, 1995, 2001; McDaniel, Waddill, Finstead, & Bourg, 2000). 3. The realization that humans are not always consciously aware of their motivations or, as Alexander (2000) noted, all humans have restricted access to their motivation. As most motivational researchers have used subjective data such as interviews and rating scales, the results may be limited, and neuroscientific research could contribute findings not available from the traditional motivational investigations. 4. Encountering the new innovative techniques developed in the neurosciences. As Damasio (2003) pointed out, current scanning techniques allow us to create images of both the anatomy and activity of the human brain. In specific, the mapping of the geography of the feeling brain can elucidate how emotions and feelings are triggered and maintained. In reviewing the literature, I concluded that the importance of neuroscientific data has been underestimated in the social, educational and cognitive psychological literature, in general, and in the area of motivation research, in specific, (Hidi, 2003). As Panksepp (1998, 2003) noted, psychologists have typically been conducting research and developing theories about learning without adequate consideration of the implications of available and relevant brain research and neuroscientific data, and without integration across various areas of the discipline. Such disregard may leave psychologists vulnerable to generating theories that subsequently cannot be substantiated, and/or are incompatible with neuroscientific data.

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

75

For example, in 1990, Ortony and Turner published a paper entitled “What’s basic about basic emotions?” in the journal of Psychological Review. Their conclusion was: “very little.” Two years later, the same journal published critical responses by Izard (1992), Ekman (1992) and Panksepp (1992). Important criticism was provided by Panksepp who pointed out that Ortony and Turner’s thesis was flawed by their failure to consider available neurobehavioral data showing the existence of genetically dictated, coherently operating, basic emotional systems in the brain that have neural substrates and that these systems mediate affective-emotional processes. Panksepp concluded that issues, such as basic emotions, can no longer be credibly discussed without adequately considering relevant brain research and neurological data. Another example of how educational and social psychologists have reached conclusions without considering available neuroscientific data that could inform their experimental findings concerns research on rewards and intrinsic motivation/interest. Based on over 128 studies and several meta-analyses of the reported results, some researchers concluded that overall, rewards tend to be harmful to students’ intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci et al., 1999). Others (e.g., Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996, 1998) also conducted various meta-analyses, more or less on the same studies, and concluded the opposite, i.e., that rewards only have negative impact on intrinsic motivation in certain limited situations and that verbal praise and positive feedback definitely enhance interest. These findings created an intense debate among the participants and their peers that has yet to be settled. The general argument that intrinsic motivation is more desirable than extrinsically triggered motivation, and the specific suggestion that rewards (a form of external motivation) are detrimental to individuals’ intrinsic motivation, and thus their use in classrooms is suspect or even harmful, have been powerful (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kohn, 1993). The negative connotations attached to rewards have significant social and educational relevance. They have strongly influenced educational research and practice, leaving many educators bewildered as to what to do with their academically unmotivated students without the use of rewards and incentive systems (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Unfortunately, the above studies and meta-analyses have not considered the implications of the vast amount of neuropsychological literature on rewards (Ashby, Valetin, & Turken, 2002). Some findings of the neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies on reward mechanisms that may be relevant are as follows: (a) Rewards induce positive affect in humans. Such positive affect, in turn, facilitates recall, leads to increased creativity and greater cognitive flexibility such as organizing ideas in multiple ways and accessing alternative cognitive perspectives (Ashby et al., 2002). (b) In several brain structures, neurons react to the expectation and detection of rewards, and anticipated rewards have different neuronal reactions than unexpected rewards (Martin-Soelch et al., 2001; Schultz, 2000; Schultz & Dickinson, 2000). (c) Anticipation of a reward and finding out that the reward has been obtained recruit different brain regions (Knutson, Fong, Bennett, Adams, & Hommer, 2003). Importantly, as Ashby et al. (2002) noted, the most common methods of inducing positive affect in subjects has been to administer an unexpected, noncontingent reward, that is, to provide an unexpected gift. Ashby et al. (1999) further proposed that some of the beneficial outcomes of positive affect are related to increased dopamine in frontal cortical areas. Taking these findings into consideration could undoubtedly inform the existing debate on rewards and their effect on learning. Panksepp (1998) argued that a focus on the neurobiological nature of brain operating systems such as those that mediate motivational and emotional tendencies would be needed to provide a foundation for a mature and scientifically prosperous discipline of psychology. He further suggested that basic to this approach would be the establishment of a common language, incorporating behavioural, cognitive, and neuroscientific perspectives, for discussing the fundamental psychoneurological processes. In recommending that neuroscientific findings be taken into consideration, Panksepp emphasized that one does not need to advocate that all psychologists need to conduct brain research – a remarkably difficult endeavour – but that we build psychology on a solid neuroscience foundation and that non-biological accounts must be consistent with neuroscientific evidence. Even though Panksepp promotes the importance of a neurobiological approach to describing the brain’s operating systems in explaining motivational and emotional tendencies, he acknowledges that an exclusively neurological focus is insufficient and that only integrated conceptual approaches can make sense of complex emergent phenomena such as emotions. That is, rather than advocating a reductionistic view that ignores the nature of the mental apparatus, Panksepp argues for an

76

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

integrative approach that can provide an insight as to how the brain is related to both psychological and behavioural processes. A major concern for psychologists should be that by not acknowledging and integrating relevant findings of neuroscience, educational and social psychology is exposed to the threat of reduced scientific importance in the field. That is, without acknowledging and considering the relevance of the continuously emerging neuroscientific findings, psychologists may stay inward looking, or even become scientifically obsolete. In contrast, by combining information from various areas of psychology and integrative neuroscience, the threat to the discipline could be overcome. In his argument that a new psychology must be grounded on a solid neuroscience foundation, Panksepp (1998) stated: “Although psychology can continue to deal with the loftiest human aspirations, it also must become rooted in the evolutionary realities of the brain if it is to become a true science . . . Since few psychologists are doing brain research, it is hard to convince them that their thinking should be premised on a deep respect for and understanding of the organ of the mind . . . Unfortunately, in the present scientific climate (where we often reward knowing more and more about less and less), there is remarkably little integrative work . . . Brain scientists are typically unwilling to use mentalistic words in discussing their empirical findings, and psychologists, because of the lack of training in the neurosciences, are typically unable to link their psychological concepts to brain functions” (pp. viii, ix). A rare example of combining brain research and education is the book Brain Literacy for Educators and Psychologists by Berninger and Richards (2002) that addresses what educators need to know about the brain and how brain research and literacy research can be related. In the following section, I am considering a few links between motivation and the brain. 8. Neuroscientific findings relevant to motivational variables in general and interest in specific One of the few neurobehavioral ideas that have been acknowledged by educational and social psychologists (e.g., Covington, 2002; Elliott, 19998 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000) involves the two fundamental motivational dimensions of Approach and Avoidance that are found at all phylogenetic levels (Cacioppo, Berntson, Larsen, Poehlmann, & Ito, 2000; Davidson, 1993, 2000; Depue & Collins, 1999; Schultz & Dickinson, 2000). Subcortical and cortical regions have been shown to provide important neural substrates for theses two basic circuits that are believed to instantiate and mediate two different forms of motivation and emotions (e.g., Davidson, 2000). The approach system has been associated with appetitive behaviour, generation of positive affect, planning, intentions, interest, moving toward a goal and self-regulation. Some suggested that the approach system could be thought of as an “I want” response. The avoidance system, on the other hand, is related to withdrawal, pain, failure and generation of negative affect, and can be considered as “I do not want”. Rather than two discrete emotions, approach and avoidance should be perceived as two initial behavioural tendencies, determined by rudimentary stimulus evaluations. Some psychophysiological research has demonstrated hemispherical specialization in the neural substrates of the two systems. More specifically, the right anterior cortical and subcortical regions are subserving the withdrawal system, and the left anterior region of the same areas is subserving the approach system. Supporting these finding are investigations that indicated during experimental arousal of withdrawal-related emotional state (fear, disgust, etc.) high activation of electrophysiological measures in right frontal regions and during experimental arousal of approach related emotional systems in the left regions. Other supporting body of clinical research showed that damage to the left region results in loss of interest and pleasure in objects and people and, in general, apathy. Importantly, the same robust differences in frontal brain asymmetries were found when reward and punishment contingencies were manipulated. That is, greater right-sided activation was present during punishment than during reward phases and the opposite was true for left-sided activation. These findings indicate an association between rewards and positive affect, as suggested by Hidi (2000), and between punishment and negative affect.9 8 Elliott (1999) suggested that approach and avoidance motivation should be incorporated with the mastery and performance dichotomy. He noted historical, theoretical, and empirical reasons for attending to the approach/avoidance literature. 9 It should be noted that the anterior asymmetry related to the approach/avoidance processes is associated with experiencing and expressing emotion. The hemispheric substrates of perceiving emotions may have different neuronal controls, as this process has been associated with the right hemisphere regardless of positive or negative valence.

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

77

Whereas many neuroscientists consider the dichotomous approach/avoidance system to be fundamental, Panksepp (1998) maintained that the distinction provides a simplified – or perhaps simplistic – neuroscientific analysis of human emotion that does not lead to the conceptualization of tenable core emotional systems. He suggested that it seems unlikely that only two systems would account for the complex set of affect humans’ experience. For example, it seems unlikely that the dislike of physical pain emerges from the same neurocircuit as the dislike of bitter food (or I may add as false music). Similarly, on the approach side, the desire for sweets is unlikely to emerge from the same brain system as the urge to play. Supporting a more complex system is neuroscientific data that showed that electrical and chemical brain stimulations evoke a distinct variety of emotions that cannot be categorized by only two major dimensions. Panksepp and colleagues (Panksepp, 1998, 2000, 2003; Panksepp & Moskal, 2004) argued that there are multiple emotional and motivational systems that all mammals share and so far specified a number of systems such as: FEAR, RAGE, PANIC and SEEKING. They acknowledged that their list is not exhaustive, but one that is adequately supported by neurophysiological findings. That is, electrical and chemical brain stimulations have been shown to evoke distinct variety of emotions related to the systems. The SEEKING system has special relevance for the conceptualization of interest. Originally, this system was called the foraging/expectancy system by Panksepp, and behavioural activation system by others (e.g., Gray, 1990). However, Panksepp concluded that SEEKING is the more appropriate term for the system that implies a distinct psychological dimension in addition to behavioural process. The feeling tone unique to all basic emotions for seeking is psychic energization, invigorated feeling of anticipation. Thus, he argued that “. . . the mammalian brain contains a foreaging/exploration/investigation/curiosity/interest/expectancy SEEKING system that leads organisms to eagerly pursue the fruits of their environment from nuts to knowledge, so to speak” (Panksepp, 1998, p. 145). As pointed out by Panksepp (1998, 2003), all motivated behaviour has appetitive and consummatory components (see also Panksepp & Moskal, 2004, in this issue). The SEEKING system appears to control the appetitive component that activates search, foraging and investigating activities that are needed before an individual can engage in consummatory behaviour. We feel differently when we “SEEK” (a form of energization, such as anticipating rewards), than when we indulge in consummatory behaviour (experiencing pleasurable feelings). In respect of humans, Panksepp stated: “This harmoniously operating neuroemotional system ‘drives’ and ‘energizes’ many mental complexities that humans experience as persistent feelings of interest, curiosity, sensation seeking, and, in the presence of a sufficiently complex cortex, the search for higher meaning. Although this brain state, like all other basic emotional states, is initially without intrinsic cognitive content, it gradually helps cement the perception of casual connections in the world and thereby creates ideas” (Panksepp, 1998, p. 145). Accepting the existing neuroscientific evidence that we are “prewired”, so to speak, to experience interest as an emotion and the feelings of interest as a motivator of our behaviours, suggests that our brain reacts specifically when it encounters interesting content. Thus, eliciting and utilizing interest in educational settings should be a major focus of educators. 9. Educational implications Fredrickson and Branigan (2000) pointed out that, in contrast to negative affect that spark tendencies for physical actions, positive feelings spark changes primarily in cognitive activities by widening the array of thoughts that come to people’s mind and their choices of activities. More specifically, building on Izard’s (1977) position, the authors argued that experiencing positive feelings associated with interest is likely to generate thought-action tendencies that are aimed at increasing experience with and knowledge of the target of interest. They suggested that interest leads to short-term exploration and, over time, to increased personal knowledge and improved cognitive abilities; thus interest can be seen as a mental resource that contributes to future endeavours (Hidi, 1990). In addition, citing empirical evidence, Fredrickson and Branigan (2000) reported that the beneficial influence of positive feelings on cognition has been linked to physiological changes, such as increases in brain dopamine levels (e.g., Ashby et al., 1999). They also reported that the broadened thought-action repertoire of positive affect is physiologically incompatible with the narrowed thought-action repertoire of negative feelings (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2000). In other words, researchers demonstrated an “undoing effect” of positive feelings on negative feelings. The importance of the positive affect that interest generates suggests that performing activities that are associated with interest is likely to facilitate knowledge acquisition and cognitive performance. In addition, it may also reduce the generation of negative

78

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

affects while studying. Thus, skills that are taught or exercised together with interested engagements should have definite advantages over situations lacking interest. As Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) noted, one of the most important unresolved questions in education is how to enhance the academic performance of individuals. Research over the last 25 years indicates that students’ academic motivation, interest and attitudes toward school tend to deteriorate over time. Investigators focussed on a variety of motivational variables to try to reverse the trend. As the role of interest as a motivator is strongly supported by neuroscientific data, educators should focus on how they can best support their students’ interest development. Teachers who recognize the potential benefits of increased academically relevant interests may be best positioned to enhance their students’ learning. Research data from educational psychology further supports this claim. Studies not only showed that interest impacts individuals’ attention, goals and levels of learning (see Hidi & Renninger, 2006, for a summary) but that well developed individual interests can help individuals overcome low ability and/or perceptual disabilities (Berninger and Hidi, 2006; Fink, 1998; Renninger et al., 2002). Furthermore, Harackiewicz and colleagues (Harackiewicz & Durik, 2003; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliott, 2002; Harackiewicz et al., 2000) found that content-specific interests play an important role in college students’ academic choices and performance. These findings were replicated over 7 years. Given the importance of interest in academic activities, a critical question is how academically relevant interests can be developed. The conceptualization of interest development as an outcome of person/environment and his/her social and physical interaction has particular relevance to educational practice as educators can influence the environmental aspects. Hidi and Renninger (2006) reviewed research that demonstrated that educators can help students’ interest development. By selecting resources that trigger interest, providing feedback that allows students’ to maintain attention, demonstrating their own interest for subject matter and through generating positive affect, teachers were shown to positively influence students’ academic interests (e.g., Bergin, 1999; Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004; Long & Murphy, 2005; Renninger & Hidi, 2002). In one of the best examples of studies that examined specific ways in which content-specific interest can be increased and/or contribute to learning, Hoffmann (2002) and Hoffmann and Haussler (1998) showed how changes in the curriculum and classroom composition interacting with students’ gender can increase girls’ interest and improve their performance in science-related areas. An especially intriguing finding from their research, in the area of physics, was related to the workings of a pump. The data showed that girls tended not to have any interest in the way mechanical pumps work. However, as soon as the pumps were related to biology, that is, to the pumping of blood during a heart operation, girls’ interest increased significantly, highlighting that girls are more interested in the living than in the inanimate. Research has also shown that students in high school and college can develop their own interests. For example, Sansone and colleagues (Sansone & Smith, 2000; Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan, 1992) demonstrated that through self-regulation, students can develop interest in specific content in which they had no previous interest. However, Hidi and Renninger (2006) concluded that although external support is especially critical in the early phases of interest and internal support can evolve as interest continues to develop, students often need teachers’ and significant others’ support to continue to develop and sustain their interests. This caveat may be particularly true in the case of academic interests. Teachers may continue to support students verbally, organize the way problems are presented (e.g., involving students’ individual interests) and arrange group work that allows students to work with peers. Renninger and Hidi (2002) showed in a case study that a young adolescent’s interest in science could be developed to improve his academic work through external support. 10. Conclusion The brain’s emotional systems generate affective states. Being interested in an activity or a specific content is associated with distinct brain-generated, internally experienced feelings that tend to be positive. These associations should lead to optimal learning and performance. In addition to the neuroscientific data supporting this premise, educational research also suggests that interest-based performance leads to optimal motivation of students of various ages and abilities. Thus, focusing on academically relevant interest development should be one of the major goals of education. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge valued support and feedback provided by my friends and colleagues: Mary Ainley, Dagmar Berndorff, Pietro Boscolo, Andreas Krapp and Ann Renninger, as well as from two anonymous reviewers. I

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

79

feel especially fortunate to have received advice and theoretical, as well as, editorial suggestions from Jaak Panksepp, whose work I so very much admire. My thanks also go to Keri Cull and Andre Tremblay for their editorial assistance. References Ainley, M. (2005, April). Motivation, affect and cognition as basic processes in learning episodes: A discussion of some key questions. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Ainley, M., & Chan, J. (2006). Emotions and task engagement: Affect and efficacy and their contribution to information processing in during a writing task. Paper presented at the Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Ainley, M., Corrigan, M., & Richardson, N. (2005). Students, tasks and emotions: Identifying the contribution of emotions to students’ reading of popular culture and popular science texts. Learning Instruction, 15, 433–447. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561. Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Individual and situational interest: Gender and interest in prescribed English texts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 411–428. Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (in press). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Alexander, P. A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge: The sequel. Educational Researcher, 29(28–33), 44. Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 273–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). Profiling the differences in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 435–447. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L. L., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1987). Interestingness of children’s reading material. In R. E. Snow, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Cognitive and affective process analyses: III, (pp. 287–299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Arnold, F. (1906). The psychology of interest. I/II. Psychological Review, 13, 221–238/291–315. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550. Ashby, F. G., Valentin, G., & Turken, U. (2002). The effects of positive affect and arousal on working memory and executive attention. In S. Moore, & M. Oaksford (Eds.), Emotional cognition: From brain to behaviour (pp. 245–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influence of classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87–98. Berlyne, D. E. (1949). ’Interest’ as a psychological concept. The British Journal of Psychology, 39, 184–195. Berninger, V. W., & Hidi, S. (2006). Mark Twain’s writers’ workshop: A nature-nurture perspective for motivating students with learning disabilities to compose. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 18. Writing and motivation (pp. 175–194). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Berninger, V., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. New York: Academic Press. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Motivated learning: Studying student-situation transactional units. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 14, 41–55. Boekaerts, M. (2003). Towards a model that integrates motivation, affect and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series II, Part 2 (Development and motivation), 173–189. Boekaerts, M., & Boscolo, P. (2002). Interest in learning, learning to be interested. In N. Mercer (Ed.), Learning and instruction, The Journal of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, 12, 375–382. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A. (2000). The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis, & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 119–142). New York: Guilford Press. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423. Clapar`ede, E. (1905). Psychologie de l’enfant et pedagogie exp´erimentale. Gen`eve: Kundig. Covington, M. V. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: A needs-based, developmental perspective. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 169–192). Greenwich, CT: IAP. Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York: Putnam.

80

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for spinoza, joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. New York: Harcourt, Inc. Davidson, R. J. (1993). The neuropsychology of emotion and affective style. In M. Lewis, & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 143–154). New York: Guilford Press. Davidson, R. J. (2000). The neuroscience of affective style. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1149–1162). Cambridge, MT: MIT Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Riverside Press. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Dover (Original work published in 1885). Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effect of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psychologist, 53, 676–679. Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99, 550–553. Elliott, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189. Eppstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self theory: Implications for developmental psychology. In M. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Self processes and development (pp. 79–123). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fink, R. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 402–407). Kiel, Germany: IPN. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93–114. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2000). Positive emotions. In T. J. Mayne, & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions (pp. 123–151). New York: Guilford. Fryer, D. (1931). The measurement of interest. New York: Holt. Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition Emotion, 4, 270–288. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement: Predicting continued interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliott, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575. Harackiewicz, J. M., & Durik, A. M. (2003). Task value in the college classroom: Predicting goals, interest, and performance. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Learning and Instruction as part of the symposium, Advances in achievement goal research: The role of moderators and mediators. M. Niemivirta (Chair). Padova, Italy. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. Hidi, S. (1995). A re-examination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 323–350. Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher’s perspective on the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimum motivation and performance (pp. 309–339). New York: Academic Press. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–208. Hidi, S. (2003, August). Interest: A motivational variable with a difference. Plenary address presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy. Hidi, S., & Ainley, M. (in press). Interest and self-regulation: Relationships between two variables that influence learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179–194. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179. Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127. Hidi, S., Renninger, A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447–465. Hoffmann, L., & Haussler, P. (1998). An intervention project promoting girls’ and boys’ interest in physics. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on interest and gender (pp. 301–316). Kiel, Germany: IPN.

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

81

Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 120–130. Izard. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press. Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion—Cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561–565. Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M. HavilandJones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 253–264). New York: Guilford Press. James, W. (1890). Talks to teachers on psychology. London u. a.: Longmans, Green and Comp. Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from texts, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–98. Knutson, B., Fong, G. W., Bennett, S. M., Adams, C. M., & Hommer, D. (2003). A region of mesial prefrontal cortex tracks monetarily rewarding outcome: Characterization with rapid event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 18, 263–272. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 14, 23–40. Krapp, A. (2000). Interest and human development during adolescence: an educational-psychological approach. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 109–128). London: Elsevier. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development. Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409. Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development—an educational-psychological perspective. In L. Smith (Guest Ed.), Development and motivation, British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 57–84. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In R. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Long, J. F., & Murphy, P. K. (2005, April). Connecting through content: The responsiveness of teacher and student interest in a core course. Paper presented at the Meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada. Martin-Soelch, C., Leenders, K. L., Chevalley, A. F., Missimer, J., Kunig, G., Magyar, S., et al. (2001). Reward mechanisms in the brain and their role in dependence: Evidence from neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies. Brain Research Reviews, 36, 139–149. McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., Finstad, K., & Bourg, T. (2000). The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 492–502. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 107–114. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–436. Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review, 97, 315–331. Panksepp, J. (1992). A critical role for “affective neuroscience” in resolving what is basic about emotions. Psychological Review, 99, 554–560. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. Panksepp, J. (2000). Emotions as natural kinds within the mammalian brain. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 137–156). New York: Guilford Press. Panksepp, J. (2003). At the interface of the affective, behavioural and cognitive neurosciences: Decoding the emotional feelings of the brain. Brain and Cognition, 52, 4–14. Panksepp, J., & Moskal, J. (2004). Dopamine, pleasure, and appetive eagerness: An emotional systems overview of the trans-hypothalamic reward system in the genesis of additive urges. In S. Bosch (Ed.), The cognitive, behavioural, and affective neurosciences in psychiatric disorders. Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 359–376. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106. Renninger, K. A. (1990). Children’s play interests, representation, and activity. In R. Fivush, & K. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 127–165). New York: Cambridge Press. Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373–404). New York: Academic Press. Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instructions, 12, 467–491. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). New York: Academic Press. Renninger, K. A., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2004). Love of learning. In C. Peterson, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook (pp. 161–179). New York: Oxford University Press. Renninger, K. A., & Wozniak, R. H. (1985). Effect of interest on attention shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 624–632. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 13–54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). Self-regulating interest: When, why and how. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 343–372). New York: Academic Press. Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379–390.

82

S. Hidi / Educational Research Review 1 (2006) 69–82

Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling inferences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273–297. Schiefele, H. (1978). Lernmotivation und motivlernen. Munich, Germany: Ehrenwirth. Schiefele, H. (1981). Interesse [Interest]. In H. Schiefele, & A. Krapp (Eds.), Handlexikon zur padagogischen psychologie (pp. 192–196). Munich, Germany: Ehrenwirth. Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 3–18. Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 91–104). IPN. Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 141–160. Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 27, 1–17. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52. Schultz, W. (2000). Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 1, 199–207. Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 473–500. Silvia, P. J. (2001). Interest and interests: The psychology of constructive capriciousness. Review of General Psychology, 5, 270–290. Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194–216. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from progress to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.