A potential way of enquiry into human curiosity

British Journal of Educational Technology doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00949.x

Vol 41 No 3 2010

E48–E52

Colloquium

A potential way of enquiry into human curiosity Shesen Guo, Ganzhou Zhang and Run Zhai Address for correspondence: Qianjiang College, Hangzhou Normal University, Zhejiang, 310012 P. R. China. Email: guoshesen@126.com

Abstract A powerful search for ‘curiosity’ or its related topics at the online American Psychological Association PsycNET database will produce comparatively disappointing meagreness of resource. This reflects our scanty knowledge in this field though curiosity is widely recognised as one of the most important factors that contribute to motivation and effectiveness in education and scientific discovery. Lack of understanding in curiosity may be due partly to limitation of research methodology and technology. This paper suggests using Google Trends as a tool for the study of curiosity and its measurement. The observation based on this tool discusses external stimuli, accessible resource and surprisingness that are closely related to curiosity.

Curiosity is defined as a desire to acquire new information and knowledge and new sensory experience that motivates exploratory behaviour (Litman & Spielberger, 2003).

It plays a very important role in human cognitive development, education and scientific discovery. Dewey (1910) emphasises that curiosity is ‘the only sure guarantee of the acquisition of the primary facts upon which inference must base itself ’.

Loewenstein (1994) states that curiosity study experienced two periods in the 20th century—the 1960s’ research focused on curiosity’s underlying cause and the 1970– 80s’ intense activity of quantitatively measuring curiosity. However, the measurement is extraordinarily difficult and research on curiosity scales, behaviour and individual characteristics produced contradictory findings (Loewenstein). Curiosity’s lack of scholarly acknowledgement is due partly to measurement and conceptual issues (Reio, Petrosko, Wiswell & Thongsukmag, 2006).

In his seminal and most influential work, Berlyne (1960) dichotomises curiosity into perceptual and epistemic explorations—the former is applied to describe animals’ behaviour, the latter to human behaviour. In summing up approaches to conceptualisation and measurement of curiosity, Henderson and Moore (1979) emphasised that © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Enquiry into human curiosity

E49

investigators were conducting experimental studies in the laboratory and nonexperimental ones by using self-reports or ratings by teachers or peers. The experiment is mainly intended to study perceptual curiosity by exposing subjects to tangible stimuli, such as mazes, objects and visual or auditory patterns, and self-reports are employed to enquire into human curiosity’s causes and dimensions (Crandall, 1971; Loewenstein, 1994).

Given that there is a comparatively small proportion of studies on epistemic curiosity and its application to education, difficulties in building theories and finding truth may be as follows: 1. Curiosity is unobservable. Inferences will have to be made on the basis of indirect indicators like self-reports or physiological responses. Conceptualisation and measurement are subjected to subjectivity and inaccuracy.

2. Curiosity is not a unitary construct (Langevin, 1971). A single or a few self-reports may lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Multifacetedness contributes to a variety of its concepts.

3. Curiosity is dynamically changing, unstable over time, highly transient but intense (Loewenstein, 1994). This would reduce internal reliability and external replicability of both experimental and non-experimental approaches based on samples.

4. Surveys in the form of questionnaire or interview or self-report are widely employed in curiosity research. Inadequacies and potential dangers in such methods include: • possibility of social and cultural desirability and acquiescence response sets; • heavy reliance on goodwill of participants and vulnerability to their deliberate faking or distortion; • researcher bias on elicitation questions; • confusing or misleading wording of questions (Loewenstein, 1994); and • incorrect and unjustified application of factor-analytic methodology (Boyle, 1983).

According to Langevin (1971), human curiosity as a motivational state can be measured by: (1) free exploration time, (2) selective attention, (3) verbal expressions of preference or interest in complexity, novelty and incongruity, (4) number of questions asked, and (5) physiological indicators. Measures will not only quantify variables for analysis but also contribute to further understanding and insight of curiosity.

Google Trends (http://www.google.com/trends) is a tool from Google Lab that records and monitors search queries on the largest scale with billions of searches across various regions of the world, and in a variety of languages. The x-axis of the Google Trends graph represents history (from 2004 to present). The y-axis denotes search volume of a term or terms. Search for a word or phrase can be regarded as acquisition of knowledge or exploration for satisfaction of curiosity. Search volume and time frame can be used as parameters for formulation of curiosity conceptualisation and dimensionality.

The advantages of employing Google Trends to research curiosity include: © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta.

E50

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 41 No 3 2010

1. Natural context. The behaviour of individual search for terms online occurs in a natural environment rather than in an experimental laboratory or a setting for purposeful survey or questionnaire. Investigation from such a naturalistic perspective will overcome difficulties, such as heavy reliance on goodwill of participants or data distortion in curiosity research as mentioned above, and help to make objective and scientific inference.

2. Largest sample size. Google’s importance and influence in the online search market ensure that search volume of a particular term by individuals is close to that of the entire population. This will lead to internal validity and confidently made generalisation.

3. Observable manifestation. Though it may be a voyeuristic tool, Google Trends provides plain, transparent and vivid display of human covert curiosity.

4. Potential for further research. All searches are broken down geographically and chronologically. This feature would considerably expand its usability and flexibility for comparative study of curiosity.

But the tool is not perfect and the main disadvantage for research is that Google does not reveal the actual numbers of searches in Google Trends, with a result that the graph comes with volume of searches and with no indication of scale.

An observation and discussion of curiosity Below is an observation based on a group of queries on Google Trends. Search terms in Group 1 (Figure 1): oscar, olympics, tsunami.

The following statement assumes that: (1) all searches on Google are done by human beings, (2) search volume and time frame are true and actual indicators provided by Google, and (3) search volume is an indicator that displays human curiosity or desire to know.

Figure 1: Search terms oscar, olympics and tsunami on Google Trends. 1, oscar; 2, olympics; 3, tsunami © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta.

Enquiry into human curiosity

E51

1. Curiosity is elicited externally by stimuli. In Group 1, peaks of all keyword search volume correspond to the periods of time when the incidences occur. The spike for ‘oscar’ corresponds highly to the time when the awards ceremony takes place. This search volume obviously demonstrates regular, continual and seasonal characteristics. Though it is not likely to accurately attribute all surges in search volume on Google Trends to particular and precise stimuli, it may be inferred from this group search that all explorations or searches by human beings are induced by stimuli that can be evidently identified. Human need or desire to know is triggered by external environment.

2. Curiosity is satisfied when searchers are able to access a tool that can be managed for providing knowledge or information. Human curiosity is intense when environment allows them to explore effortlessly and manipulatively. Entering a term or terms is the most convenient way to expedite and facilitate search for answers. Though it is not possible to estimate the actual search numbers, ubiquitous presence and speed of computer and Internet connection enable curious searchers to satisfy their curiosity.

The educational implication of this easily satisfied curiosity is that resource of both man and materials for knowledge acquisition should be manageably accessible to students so that they could freely and smoothly explore for a maximum of satisfaction.

3. Among collative variables (Berlyne, 1960) such as novelty, complexity, uncertainty or surprisingness that elicit curiosity, surprisingness is the most powerful. A tsunami, like other natural phenomena such as earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane, flooding, occurs frequently every year though it may be non-destructive or cause minor damage. It is not uncommon that the media report such an occurrence that causes a certain degree of loss. To people, a tsunami may be understood as an ocean wave, or incorrectly as tidal wave for it may not be novel, complex or uncertain in their experience. But the volume of search for ‘tsunami’ is exceedingly high after it took place in December 2004, as indicated in the graph. An intuitive and potential explanation for this sudden surge of search may lie in its deadliest devastation that causes serious death and destruction. ‘This tsunami’, out of expectation, contradicts sharply the ones in their existing knowledge or experience in such a lethal degree of destruction. This may give two suggestions that guide curriculum design and knowledge presentation. One is that surprisingness should be placed on top priority to arouse the highest degree of curiosity when novelty, complexity, uncertainty and surprisingness are all simultaneously available for use. The other is that dynamic, objective and accurate assessment of pre-existing knowledge in students is the basis for stimulating and maintaining their curiosity. The more sharply the presented information for learning contradicts their expectation, the higher the degree of their curiosity.

The present research suggests curiosity study from a new and naturalistic perspective.

Google Trends is far from perfect but it does provide a platform for attempts to precisely conceptualise and potentially measure curiosity. Much more research is needed to determine the motivational hierarchy of curiosity-inducing stimuli. Time frames and search volumes that are being recorded chronologically may empirically enable us to © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta.

E52

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 41 No 3 2010

clarify quantitatively the relationship between curiosity intensity and transience. Geographical breakdown and its corresponding chart may even allow us to conveniently investigate into curiosity comparison of different cultures. The possibility of conducting research by using Google Trends may fill gaps in human understanding of curiosity.

References Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.

Boyle, G. J. (1983). Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 377–397.

Crandall, J. E. (1971). Relation of epistemic curiosity to subjective uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 2, 273–276.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Henderson, B. & Moore, S. G. (1979). Measuring exploratory behavior in young children: a factor—analytic study. Developmental Psychology, 15, 2, 113–119.

Langevin, R. (1971). Is curiosity a unitary construct? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 25, 360– 374.

Litman, J. A. & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75–86.

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.

Reio, T. G. Jr, Petrosko, J. M., Wiswell, A. K. & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptualization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 117–135.

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta.

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.