Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI)

Abstract

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI), developed by Todd B. Kashdan, Paul Rose, and Frank D. Fincham in 2004, is a foundational psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in curiosity as an appetitive emotional-motivational system. Conceptualized within the framework of positive psychology and personality assessment, curiosity is defined as the recognition, pursuit, and self-regulation of novelty, challenge, and cognitive engagement. The original CEI consists of seven self-report items structured across two interrelated theoretical dimensions: Exploration (appetitive strivings for novel, challenging, and unfamiliar stimuli; comprising 4 items) and Absorption (the capacity to sustain full engagement and attentional immersion in activities; comprising 3 items). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”), with Item 4 reverse-scored. Across multiple validation cohorts comprising university students and community adults, the CEI has demonstrated robust psychometric integrity. Internal consistency reliabilities have yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .72 to .80 for the total inventory, .63 to .75 for the Exploration subscale, and .66 to .76 for the Absorption subscale, paired with strong test-retest stability across multiple weeks. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm that a two-factor oblique model provides superior fit relative to unidimensional alternatives. The instrument exhibits substantial construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, correlating positively with Openness to Experience, Extraversion, intrinsic motivation, subjective vitality, and psychological well-being, while maintaining distinctiveness from generalized positive affect, sensation seeking, and socially desirable responding. Moreover, the CEI demonstrates significant incremental validity in predicting daily personal growth, cognitive flexibility, and adaptive interpersonal behavior beyond traditional Five-Factor Model traits.

Keywords

Curiosity and Exploration Inventory, CEI, Todd B. Kashdan, curiosity measurement, exploration, absorption, positive psychology, intrinsic motivation, flow, sensation seeking, psychometrics, factor analysis

Authors

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory was authored and psychometrically validated by a collaborative team of researchers in personality and clinical psychology:

• Todd B. Kashdan, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Director of the Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States. Dr. Kashdan is a prominent researcher in the fields of well-being, curiosity, psychological flexibility, social anxiety, and positive psychology. Contact: Well-Being Laboratory, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030; Email: [email protected].
• Paul Rose, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE), Edwardsville, Illinois, United States. Dr. Rose’s scholarly focus encompasses personality measurement, social psychology, decision-making, and consumer behavior.
• Frank D. Fincham, Ph.D. — Eminent Scholar and Director of the Family Institute at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States. Dr. Fincham is an internationally renowned scholar recognized for his work on interpersonal relationships, marital dynamics, emotion regulation, and psychological health.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI) is to capture individual differences in trait curiosity, operationalized not merely as a passive yearning for information, but as an active, self-regulatory, emotional-motivational system dedicated to the recognition, pursuit, and deep processing of novelty and challenge. Historically, psychological research frequently conflated curiosity with non-goal-directed sensation seeking, intellectual need for cognition, or impulsive thrill seeking. Kashdan and colleagues constructed the CEI to establish an empirically rigorous, brief, and theoretically grounded measurement tool capable of disentangling healthy appetitive curiosity from impulsive risk-taking and unguided cognitive hyperactivity.

From a theoretical standpoint, curiosity serves as an evolutionary adaptation that motivates human organisms to explore unfamiliar environments, expand cognitive schemas, build durable internal resources, and foster psychological resilience. The CEI measures both the initiating component of curiosity—the behavioral and cognitive impulse to seek out new horizons (Exploration)—and the sustaining component—the capacity to immerse oneself deeply in an experience, lose track of time, and maintain focused engagement in the face of competing distractions (Absorption). By capturing both elements, the CEI provides researchers and clinicians with a nuanced profile of how an individual interacts with novel or complex environmental stimuli.

In empirical research, the CEI is utilized extensively across personality, social, organizational, and educational psychology. It allows investigators to evaluate how appetitive motivation relates to emotional resilience, meaning in life, adaptive interpersonal functioning, academic persistence, and creative problem-solving. In educational settings, the inventory helps identify motivational styles, distinguishing between students who passively absorb curricula and those who proactively probe for deeper insights. In organizational contexts, high CEI scores predict adaptability in turbulent market environments, professional innovation, and job engagement.

In clinical and counseling psychology, the CEI serves an indispensable function within interventions grounded in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and positive clinical psychology. Individuals suffering from clinical anxiety or major depressive disorders frequently manifest psychological rigidity, chronic avoidance of unfamiliar situations, and diminished hedonic engagement. By assessing a client’s baseline curiosity and monitoring shifts throughout the therapeutic process, clinicians can evaluate the recovery of appetitive behavioral approach systems. The scale operationalizes a shift away from experiential avoidance toward psychological flexibility, where clients view discomfort and novelty as opportunities for personal expansion rather than threats requiring defensive withdrawal.

Psychological Construct

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory evaluates a multi-faceted psychological construct that bridges personality, emotion, and self-regulatory motivation. Curiosity, within Kashdan and colleagues’ conceptualization, is an appetitive positive emotional state that motivates exploratory behavior and deep, sustained processing of novel, complex, or ambiguous information. Unlike purely cognitive formulations that define curiosity solely as an informational drive or an epistemic “gap” needing closure, the CEI conceptualizes curiosity as an intrinsically rewarding motivational state that generates psychological growth through two primary dimensions: Exploration and Absorption.

Exploration Dimension

The Exploration dimension captures appetitive strivings for novelty, challenge, complexity, and personal growth. It reflects an orientation toward proactively seeking out new experiences, ideas, environments, and interpersonal connections. Rather than waiting for opportunities to present themselves, high-exploration individuals actively construct situations that offer unfamiliar information and intellectual stimulation. This subscale comprises four items that represent this behavioral and cognitive search:

• Item 1: “I would describe myself as someone who actively seeks as much information as I can in a new situation.” This reflects an information-seeking orientation and cognitive proactivity when confronting ambiguous or unfamiliar settings.
• Item 3: “I frequently find myself looking for new opportunities to grow as a person (e.g., information, people, resources).” This captures personal growth orientation, indicating that curiosity functions as an engine for self-actualization and social resource acquisition.
• Item 4 (Reverse-scored): “I am not the type of person who probes deeply into new situations or things.” This reverse-keyed item taps intellectual passivity and reluctance to investigate environmental complexity.
• Item 7: “Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new things or experiences.” This captures a chronic, broad-spectrum exploratory mindset across diverse spatial and social contexts.

Behaviorally, individuals high in Exploration exhibit proactive questioning, open-minded inquiry, willingness to venture outside comfort zones, and a cognitive bias toward interpreting ambiguity as an engaging puzzle rather than a source of distress.

Absorption Dimension

The Absorption dimension assesses the self-regulatory capacity to maintain deep, focused attention and sustained engagement in tasks and activities of interest. While Exploration focuses on the initiation of contact with novelty, Absorption reflects the depth and continuity of cognitive engagement once an interesting stimulus is encountered. This subscale draws direct conceptual links to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, characterized by intense concentration, temporal distortion, and resistance to distraction. It comprises three items:

• Item 2: “When I am participating in an activity, I tend to get so involved that I lose track of time.” This reflects experiential immersion and altered time perception during intrinsically engaging activities.
• Item 5: “When I am actively interested in something, it takes a great deal to interrupt me.” This taps selective attentional focus, mental shielding, and resistance to environmental distractors.
• Item 6: “My friends would describe me as someone who is “extremely intense” when in the middle of doing something.” This captures observable behavioural manifestations of high-level engagement and task-directed intensity.

Without Absorption, exploratory strivings risk devolving into superficial sensation seeking or chronic distractibility, where an individual hops continuously from one novel stimulus to another without extracting meaningful knowledge. Conversely, without Exploration, an individual might become absorbed in familiar routines without ever expanding their psychological repertoire. The synergy between Exploration and Absorption constitutes the psychological engine of personal growth, allowing individuals to discover new domains and integrate them into complex cognitive frameworks.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory is built upon several major paradigms in psychological science, synthesizing historical models of motivation with contemporary positive psychological frameworks.

Berlyne’s Epistemic and Perceptual Curiosity Model

The earliest systematic experimental framework for curiosity was proposed by Daniel Berlyne (1960), who differentiated between perceptual curiosity (aroused by novel or surprising sensory stimuli) and epistemic curiosity (aroused by knowledge gaps and intellectual conceptual dilemmas). Berlyne also distinguished between diversive exploration (seeking out any novel stimulus to relieve boredom and elevate arousal) and specific exploration (seeking detailed, specific information to reduce subjective uncertainty and conflict). The CEI integrates these principles but departs from Berlyne’s homeostatic drive-reduction assumption. Berlyne viewed curiosity primarily as an uncomfortable tension state caused by “collative variables” (novelty, complexity, incongruity) that the organism sought to resolve. In contrast, Kashdan, Rose, and Fincham (2004) conceptualized curiosity as an intrinsically appetitive, positive emotional state that individuals seek to cultivate and sustain for its own sake, rather than a mere tension-reduction mechanism.

Spielberger’s State-Trait Curiosity Model

Charles Spielberger and colleagues (e.g., Spielberger & Starr, 1994) conceptualized curiosity through a state-trait paradigm, paralleling their seminal work on anxiety. In Spielberger’s framework, trait curiosity reflects enduring individual differences in the frequency and intensity with which state curiosity is experienced. State curiosity represents the transient emotional experience of inquisitiveness accompanied by exploratory behavior. Kashdan and colleagues adopted this trait perspective for the standard CEI, designing the inventory to evaluate dispositional tendencies toward curiosity across time and contexts, while validating it through daily diary paradigms that monitor state fluctuations.

The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions

A foundational theoretical pillar of the CEI is Barbara Fredrickson’s Broaden-and-Build Theory of positive emotions (1998, 2001). Fredrickson posited that whereas negative emotions (such as fear and anger) narrow an individual’s momentary thought-action repertoires toward immediate, survival-oriented defensive responses (e.g., fight or flight), positive emotions broaden these repertoires, prompting novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions. Specifically, Fredrickson theorized that curiosity broadens cognitive attention, inspires openness to unfamiliar information, and motivates exploratory behavior, which over time builds enduring physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources. The CEI directly operationalizes this broadening mechanism through Exploration, and the resource-building mechanism through the sustained, immersive processing captured by Absorption.

Self-Determination Theory and Flow

The CEI also draws significantly from Self-Determination Theory developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (2000). Intrinsic motivation—the propensity to engage in activities for inherent satisfaction and developmental challenge rather than external reward—is closely linked to curiosity. Curiosity represents the emotional spark of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, the Absorption dimension directly operationalizes flow states (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), where challenge and skill align, producing an autotelic experience characterized by complete attentional absorption and self-forgetfulness.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory has been extensively documented across laboratory experiments, cross-sectional surveys, multi-wave longitudinal designs, and ecological momentary assessment (daily diary) studies.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established by Kashdan, Rose, and Fincham (2004) during initial instrument validation across diverse samples totaling over 1,000 undergraduate participants. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the theoretical two-factor structure (Exploration and Absorption) exhibited superior empirical fit compared to a single-factor unidimensional model. The two latent factors correlated moderately (typically between r = .35 and r = .55), demonstrating that while Exploration and Absorption operate synergistically within a higher-order curiosity construct, they represent distinct psychological processes.

Convergent Validity

The CEI demonstrates robust convergent associations with established personality traits, motivational orientations, and subjective well-being constructs:

• Five-Factor Model Personality Traits: The CEI demonstrates moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Openness to Experience (r = .40 to .55) and Extraversion (r = .30 to .45). These correlations align with theoretical expectations, as Openness shares intellectual curiosity and aesthetic appreciation, while Extraversion shares behavioral approach sensitivity and positive affectivity.
• Intrinsic Motivation and Need for Cognition: The inventory correlates significantly with measures of intrinsic motivation (r = .35 to .50) and Cacioppo and Petty’s Need for Cognition scale (r = .38 to .48), verifying that individuals scoring high on the CEI actively enjoy effortful cognitive processing.
• Subjective Well-Being and Vitality: CEI scores correlate positively with Ryan and Frederick’s Subjective Vitality Scale (r = .38 to .52), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (r = .25 to .35), and psychological well-being dimensions such as personal growth and purpose in life.

Discriminant Validity

A central challenge in curiosity measurement is demonstrating that curiosity is not merely a redundant proxy for general positive affect, extraverted sociability, or impulsive sensation seeking. Kashdan et al. (2004) provided extensive discriminant validity evidence:

• Distinctiveness from Positive Affect: Although curiosity generates positive affective states, the CEI remains statistically distinct from generalized trait positive affect as measured by the PANAS (correlations typically range from r = .30 to .40). Hierarchical regression analyses confirm that the CEI predicts unique variance in personal growth, behavioral persistence, and cognitive engagement after controlling for PANAS positive affect scores.
• Distinctiveness from Impulsive Sensation Seeking: Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale correlates only modestly with the CEI (r = .20 to .30), primarily through the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale, while showing near-zero correlations with Disinhibition or Boredom Susceptibility. This demonstrates that the CEI captures purposeful, self-regulated exploration rather than maladaptive, reckless sensation seeking.
• Resistance to Social Desirability: Correlations between the CEI and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale were nonsignificant (r = .04 to .09), indicating that responses are relatively immune to impression management and social desirability biases.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

In a 21-day daily diary study conducted by Kashdan and Steger (2007), baseline CEI scores significantly predicted daily reports of positive events, feelings of personal meaning, and constructive interpersonal interactions, even on days characterized by heightened stress. Observer ratings have further confirmed predictive validity: peers and friends rate high CEI scorers as more intellectually active, creative, and emotionally expressive, establishing convergence between self-appraisal and informant reports.

Reliability

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory exhibits satisfactory to good reliability across various testing environments, age demographics, and clinical cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the original scale development and validation studies (Kashdan et al., 2004), internal consistency was evaluated across multiple independent samples:

• Full Scale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the complete scale consistently range from α = .72 to .80 across undergraduate, adult community, and outpatient clinical samples. Given the brief length of the scale (7 items), an alpha of .80 reflects excellent internal consistency without item redundancy.
• Exploration Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s alpha values typically fall between α = .63 and .75. While .63 is marginally acceptable for a brief 4-item scale, average inter-item correlations remain within the recommended range of .25 to .45, indicating acceptable conceptual coherence.
• Absorption Subscale (3 items): Cronbach’s alpha values range between α = .66 and .76. For a 3-item measure, these figures demonstrate solid psychometric reliability.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments reveal that the CEI captures an enduring dispositional trait while remaining sensitive to genuine developmental changes:

• Across a 2-week retest interval, the test-retest reliability coefficient for the full scale was r = .80 (p < .001).
• Over a 4-week interval, test-retest reliability remained robust at r = .78 for the full scale, r = .74 for Exploration, and r = .71 for Absorption.
• Longitudinal follow-ups extending over several months continue to demonstrate stability coefficients exceeding .60, confirming that the inventory measures an enduring personality orientation rather than temporary mood states.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the CEI was established using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), following standard psychometric scale development protocols.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item development, an initial pool of candidate items was administered to an exploratory cohort (N = 301). Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations were conducted, reflecting the theoretical expectation that the underlying curiosity dimensions would be correlated. Scree plot inspections, Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and parallel analysis converged on a clean two-factor solution accounting for approximately 52% of total item variance.

The two resulting factors mapped directly onto the theoretical constructs:

• Factor 1 (Exploration): Comprising items assessing active striving for novelty and knowledge (e.g., Items 1, 3, 4, 7), with primary factor loadings ranging from .55 to .78 and minimal cross-loadings (< .20).
• Factor 2 (Absorption): Comprising items tapping immersive engagement and sustained focus (e.g., Items 2, 5, 6), with primary factor loadings ranging from .58 to .81 and negligible cross-loadings.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To validate this two-factor model, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on independent cross-validation samples using structural equation modeling software (LISREL / AMOS). A competitive model-testing approach was employed, contrasting:

1. A One-Factor Model, where all 7 items loaded onto a single undifferentiated latent curiosity factor.
2. A Two-Factor Orthogonal Model, where Exploration and Absorption were constrained to be uncorrelated.
3. A Two-Factor Oblique Model, where Exploration and Absorption were specified as correlated latent dimensions.

The CFA results demonstrated that the Two-Factor Oblique Model exhibited superior fit across standard goodness-of-fit indices:

• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): > .96
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 to .97 (well above the conventional .90/.95 thresholds for acceptable fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .92 to .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.031, .078]), indicating close fit
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042

In contrast, the unidimensional One-Factor Model yielded unacceptable fit (CFI < .82, RMSEA > .11, χ² difference tests indicated highly significant deterioration in fit, p < .001). The latent factor intercorrelation between Exploration and Absorption was estimated at r = .45 (p < .001), corroborating that although these dimensions are conceptually and empirically related components of curiosity, they are non-redundant.

Evolution to CEI-II

In 2009, Kashdan, Gallagher, Silvia, Winterstein, Breen, Terhar, and Steger revised the scale into the 10-item Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II (CEI-II). The authors observed that Item 4 (“I am not the type of person who probes deeply…”) exhibited weaker factor loadings due to method effects associated with reverse scoring, and Item 6 (“My friends would describe me as someone who is ‘extremely intense’…”) contained minor ambiguity regarding social perception. The original 7-item CEI, however, remains a widely cited, structurally validated instrument in psychometric literature.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory is a brief, self-report psychometric instrument. The structural and operational characteristics of the tool are summarized below:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological scale / trait inventory
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-administered questionnaire
• Total Number of Items: 7 items
• Subscales / Dimensions:
  • Exploration: 4 items (Items 1, 3, 4, 7) — measures appetitive pursuit of novelty and challenge
  • Absorption: 3 items (Items 2, 5, 6) — measures sustained attentional engagement and flow-like immersion
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale formatted with explicit verbal anchors:
  • 1: Strongly Disagree
  • 2: (Unlabeled intermediate point)
  • 3: (Unlabeled intermediate point)
  • 4: Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5: (Unlabeled intermediate point)
  • 6: (Unlabeled intermediate point)
  • 7: Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Reverse Scoring: Item 4 is negatively keyed and must be reversed prior to score aggregation using the formula: Reversed Score = 8 - Original Score. (That is, a response of 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, and 7 becomes 1).
  • Subscale Scores:
    • Exploration Score: Sum or mean of Items 1, 3, 4 (reversed), and 7. Possible range of sum: 4 to 28 (mean: 1.00 to 7.00).
    • Absorption Score: Sum or mean of Items 2, 5, and 6. Possible range of sum: 3 to 21 (mean: 1.00 to 7.00).
  • Total Curiosity Score: Sum or mean of all 7 items (with Item 4 reversed). Possible range of sum: 7 to 49 (mean: 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores reflect greater dispositional curiosity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI) was formally published in 2004 in the Journal of Personality Assessment by authors Todd B. Kashdan, Paul Rose, and Frank D. Fincham. The scale was developed with academic and clinical research utility as a primary priority.

Licensing and Usage: The instrument is available for non-commercial academic research, educational instruction, and clinical practice free of charge. No licensing fee or formal permission request is required for academic or dissertation research, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the authors by citing the primary validation publication (Kashdan et al., 2004). Commercial utilization, inclusion in proprietary digital health applications, or reproduction for commercial distribution requires formal permission and licensing agreements through the copyright holders (Taylor & Francis Group / Society for Personality Assessment) or the lead author, Dr. Todd B. Kashdan.

References

• Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
• Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
• Kashdan, T. B., Barrios, V., Forsyth, J. P., & Steger, M. F. (2006). Experiential avoidance as a generalized psychological vulnerability: Comparisons with coping and emotion regulation strategies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(9), 1301–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.003
• 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., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). 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., & 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
• Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16
• Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221–243). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Items of the Scale