The current research adopts a developmental view of interest in line with research by Hidi & Renninger (2006) and Krapp (2002; 2007). This framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding of interest and draws widely from existing literature both in interest and motivation research. Whilst interest is widely acknowledged as a motivational variable, its specificity is not addressed by macro-level theories of motivation, and as already acknowledged, Renninger and Hidi (2011) accept that
there is still a need to develop a fitting and appropriate theory in this field. The underlying assumption is that interest develops sequentially through a set of phases. The most recent theories put forward by these researchers share many commonalities and are essentially borne from the three-phase model of interest (Krapp, Hidi & Renninger, 1992). However, their theoretical understanding is later divided over the role of affective and cognitive components in interest development and also in how interest development is researched. Hidi and Renninger focus on the role of interest in learning and development whereas Krapp is concerned with the individual’s growing self-awareness and identification with interest (Renninger & Hidi, 2011).
The four-phase model of interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006) proposes the view that situational interest may, over time, lead to individual interest (Hidi, 1990; Renninger & Hidi, 2016) across four stages that may interact and overlap. Interest is initiated by external environmental factors until, at its final stage, it has become secure, developed and internalised. The four phases can be usefully split into two stages which distinguish situational interest and individual interest. The first phase, triggered situational interest, is defined as a ‘psychological state resulting from short- term changes in cognitive and affective processing’ (Hidi & Renninger, 2016 p.13) and this develops into maintained situational interest. This second phase also describes interest as a purely psychological state but additionally, it recurs and persists over time. Initially, there is typically only fleeting engagement with content, and external support to do so is required. This interaction can provoke either a positive or negative reaction. Importantly, the response triggered is likely to be beyond the conscious awareness of the individual. By the maintained (second) phase, there is positive reengagement with the previously triggered content and both knowledge and a sense of value for the content begin to develop. This is where a more personal connection first emerges as content becomes meaningful to the individual (Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008). The third and fourth phases are so-called emerging and well-developed individual interest. Here, there is a shift from the uniquely psychological state to the development of a favourable predisposition for the content that is aligned with preferences to reengage, develop knowledge and take a tenacious approach to personal development in the area (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
This account of situational interest is particularly forceful because it acknowledges that, whilst the individual is susceptible to the influence of triggers, its development will depend on multiple factors: continuing interaction with the task as well as social,
environmental and further motivational factors such as self-efficacy beliefs, rewards, role models, attitudes, prior experience and so on. This therefore acknowledges not only the potency of social environments but also validates and recognises other key motivational theories where a wider goal for example, may drive behaviour.
Hidi & Renninger (2006) propose that interest is a combination of affective and cognitive components that are interactive but separate systems. Interest mediates the way in which the individual engages with content and influences the decision to reengage. ‘How much’ situational interest any one individual requires before interest is maintained and over what period of time is not specified. Clearly, the notion that interest may impact any decision to reengage could perhaps be better phrased to explain that interest may determine firstly whether or not the individual voluntarily reengages with a task or activity and secondly will impact the attitude of the individual and their psychological state when they reengage. This caveat is proposed as, if reading is considered as an activity for young children, they will clearly be obliged to engage in some form in reading. However, evidence hereto considered would suggest that reading in a motivated state, with interest in the activity, will enhance both performance and learning.
Krapp’s work (2002; 2003; 2005; 2007) focuses on the relationship between interest and the individual: interest is a relational construct between the individual and object or content that may or may not last over time and develops sequentially. Krapp identifies three stages – emerging situational, stabilised situational and individual interest – in contrast to Hidi & Renninger’s (2006) four stages, but both theories therefore describe situational interest as developing over two phases. Indeed, the multi-faceted nature of interest is viewed as a key finding that has contributed significantly to research (e.g. Hidi, 1990; 1995; Krapp et al., 1992; Mitchell, 1993). By classifying the different types or stages of interest researchers have been able to show distinct differences in how interest may be initiated, sustained and maintained over different lengths of time. Although the detail of how these processes may take place remains unclear, this recognition of there being different types of interest is a very important first step to reach this understanding. Recognition of the multi-faceted nature of interest has enabled research to draw out distinct characteristics distinguishing situational interest (a context specific interest) from individual interest (a more general and long-lasting interest), (Schraw & Lehman, 2001).
There are strong similarities between the work of Krapp and that of Hidi and Renninger: interest development is commonly regarded as sequential and content
specific, and the interaction between the individual and a stimulus is associated with positive emotion or feeling. However, although both theories recognise affective and cognitive interplay, the function of each is explained differently. The four-phase model attributes greater importance to affect, which is seen as an integral part of the interaction, to a greater or lesser extent, throughout each stage of interest development. Affect informs valuing in tandem with knowledge so that cognitive processes respond to and interact directly with affective systems. Krapp (2007) describes emotional response as a separate function, which occurs alongside cognitive process.
Further differences lie in how the role of knowledge is interpreted. The four-phase model asserts that variation in depth of knowledge is present for all age groups and at all stages of interest development: essentially, knowledge and value must eventually be present and the need for these progresses as interest itself progresses (Renninger & Su, 2012). Krapp (2002), however, regards knowledge as only relevant for younger children when interests are necessarily linked to their knowledge base (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), a view shared by Schiefele (1999).
Krapp’s later arguments (e.g. Krapp, 2007) stand on the shoulders of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory which proposes that motivation centres on the three basic needs of competence, autonomy and social-relatedness. Krapp argues that these needs are necessary to interest development: the individual will only reengage in an activity where it is felt to have sufficient value-related valence and provides an essentially positive experience (Krapp, 2007). He views interest as a response by the individual to an increasing self-awareness and biological need to mollify the sense of self by integrating these two aspects of self and object or content. The transformation to individual interest only occurs if the content fulfils certain criteria for the individual (Krapp, 2007). Krapp suggests that this is explained by the central psychological mechanism of ‘internalisation’ as described by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Krapp, 2002b as cited in Krapp, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast, whilst recognising a role for these needs, the four-phase model is less absolute. It views them as one of several determinants in interest development, fulfilling a more supportive role. Interest mediates how the individual engages in an activity or content: the individual may gain a sense of pleasure from the autonomy derived from choosing to engage in a particular activity, thus fulfilling a central tenet of SDT without engaging this as a meta-theory of interest development. Equally, by reading challenging material about a topic, the individual is also fulfilling other motivational and interest determinants such as goal setting and self-efficacy (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
There is some direct empirical validation of the four-phase model. For example, Harackiewicz and colleagues’ study (2008) found relationships between initial interest, achievement goals, situational interest, and class performance, where reported situational interest in an introductory course (assessed through participant responses to questions regarding experiences in and enjoyment of course lectures) predicted course choices seven months later. These results are particularly compelling as the researchers controlled for initial interest and the study was carried out with a large sample (858) of undergraduates. Levels of interest, stemming from situational interest triggers, were directly related to reported previous level of interest over the three points of measurement. That is, those students who reported increased interest at Time 1 were more likely to report increased interest at Time 2, and so on. However, most data were collected using self-report surveys and furthermore, all participants came from a psychology course and therefore would have held a certain amount of interest in the area: the researchers found moderate effects when attrition rates (those who had dropped out or not taken up enough courses over time) were accounted for. The authors also point out that the trigger for situational interest was not established but speculate that it may have been non-textual task features or meaningfulness or presentation of the material; this is also identified as an area that would merit further research.