An Experimental Study of Curiosity in Children Author(s): Leon R.

Mittman and Glenn Terrell Reviewed work(s): Source: Child Development, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 851-855 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126510 . Accessed: 17/09/2012 23:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

An Experimental of Curiosity Study in Children

LEON R. MITrMAN,'

and GLENN TERRELL*

of University Colorado
The present study was designed to test Berlyne'sepistemic curiosity formulation. Epistemic curiosity is elicited when a question arises that demands an answer. Forty-two first and second grade Ss were randomly assigned to three experimentalgroups, differentiated with respectto level of epistemiccuriosity.Ss learned size and form tasks concurrently.The rank order of the three groups by errors made was low-, moderate-,and high-curiosity, The highrespectively. curiositygroup made significantlyfewer errors than did either the moderate- or low-curiositygroups (p = .01 in both comparisons). Results are interpretedwithin the frameworkof Berlyne'scuriosity notion. Berlyne (4, 6) postulates two types of curiosity, perceptual and epistemic. According to Berlyne, perceptual curiosity is generated by novel stimuli which are rewarding to the organism. Considerable research has indicated the importance of novel sensory stimulation in eliciting curiosity, exploratory behavior (i, 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15)Epistemic curiosity, according to Berlyne, is "a drive reducible by knowledge rehearsal." It is elicited in an individual when a question arises that demands an answer. It is sated when an acceptable answer is realized (i.e., with knowledge rehearsal). Whereas Berlyne emphasizes the importance of novel stimulation in arousing the perceptual curiosity motive, he points to a different source of stimulation as being responsible for the arousal of epistemic curiosity. According to Berlyne, when a question elicits epistemic curiosity, a number of competing responses, the repertoire of perceived solutions, are brought into play. The degree of conflict generated by these competing responses determines the strength of epistemic curiosity. Epistemic curiosity has been studied by Berlyne in a series of studies (3, 4, 5) in which an experimental group of Ss received a 48-item preques* College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois, Navy Pier, Chicago. ] Now with the Philco Corporation,Palo Alto, California. in Child Develpm., 1964, 35, 851-855. ? SocietyforResearch ChildDevelopment,Inc., 1964.

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
tionnaire about invertebrate animals. Ss were instructed to select one of two possible answers to each question in the prequestionnaire. They were then given 72 statements about invertebrate animals. Answers to all questions presented in the prequestionnaire were contained in these statements. Finally, Ss were given a postquestionnaire consisting of the questions of the prequestionnaire (rerandomized) in which they were required to give the correct answers. Ss of a control group were given the same procedures except that the prequestionnaire was omitted. The experimental group supplied significantly more correct answers than the control group. The present study is an analysis of Berlyne's notion of epistemic curiosity in children. Specifically it concerns the effects of three levels of epistemic curiosity on the solution by children of size and form discrimination problems.
METHOD

Subjects
The Ss were i8 first graders (9 boys, 9 girls) and 24 second graders (x2 School,Boulder,Colorado. boys, 12 girls) from the BaselineElementary

Materials Two sets of three-dimensional geometric objects were used, one set each for a form and a size discrimination learning problem.The stimuli for the form task consistedof a cylinder,a cone, and a pyramid,each containing a basalarea of four squareinches and a height of two inches. The stimuli for the size problemconsistedof threecube boxesthe sides of which were four, six, and eight inches respectively.The stimuli were painted
flat black. Additional apparatus consisted of a 2Y/2 ft. by 3 ft. felt covered board on top of which were placed the task stimuli for each trial. The board rested on a small desk at which S sat. The experimenter sat behind the desk facing S. Approximately one foot from S's left side was placed a music stand on which was placed a dot drawing of either an elephant standing on its hind legs, wearing a hat, or a dog standing on its hind legs, begging. The drawing of the elephant contained 50 dots, while the drawing of the dog contained 42 dots. Ss were given an opportunity at the beginning of the game to choose either a red, a brown, or a blue crayon for use in connecting the dots on the drawing.

concurrently. The order of presentation of the tasks was counterbalanced in accordance with the following sequence: size, form, form, size, size, form, size, form, form, size. The stimuli were counterbalanced with respect to position. The order of testing Ss was randomized. For the size problem, the middle-sized cube was the positive stimulus. For the form problem, the

Design and Procedure Ss were required to learn the size and form discriminationproblems

852

LEON R. MITTMAN and GLENN TERRELL cylinder was correct. Within each grade level independently, Ss were randomly assigned to low-, moderate-, and high-curiosity groups. The three curiosity groups were differentiated in terms of the number of correct responses Ss were required to make in the discrimination problem before the identity of the dot drawing was made known to them. For the lowcuriosity group E presented the completed drawing immediately following the instructions and just prior to the first trial. The completed drawing was presented to Ss of the moderate- and high-curiosity groups following the 8th and 29th correct responses respectively. Ss were allowed to make one connection on the dot drawing (i.e, connect two dots) following each correct response on the size and form tasks. In order to determine how many dot connections were required in order that first and second graders might recognize the drawings, a pilot study on 14 Ss (7 first graders and 7 second graders) was performed. Initially, Ss made a number of wild guesses as to the identity of the drawings. They were cautioned, however, not to guess but to tell E when they were certain of the identity of the drawing. After the latter instructions, none of the Ss correctly identified the drawings before connecting to the 3oth dot. From the results of the pilot study it was assumed that the Ss of the moderate- and high-curiosity groups would not recognize the drawings before E presented them with a completed drawing.2 Ss were tested individually. Each child was asked: Which of these crayonswould you rather use to draw a picture? (E removed all other crayons but S's choice.) This is a game where you choose one of these (E points to the size or form task stimuli placed before S on the red felt covered board) and point to the one you choose. If you are right, I will hand you this crayon and you can begin to connect these dots. (E points to drawing.) Every time you point to the right one (E again points to the size or form stimuli), I will hand you a crayon and you can draw the line to the next dot-like this (E connectsfirst two dots). If you can choose the right one enough times, you will be able to connect all the dots and see what kind of a drawing this is. Won't that be a fine surprise! The problem continued for all Ss until they had made 29 correct responses and, therefore, had connected to the 3oth dot on the drawings. RESULTS All analyses were performed in terms of the number of errors made on the two tasks. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no grade level differences. Treatment group differences were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance technique, applied to the sums of ranks of the three curiosity
2 In the actual study three Ss in the high-curiositygroup indicated that they recognized the drawings before the 29th correct response; one following the 19th correct response, one after the 23rd and the other after the 25th correct response.Apparently no Ss in the moderate-or low-curiositygroups recognized the drawings until E presentedthe completed drawing.

853

CHILD DEVELOPMENT
TABLEI

Error Scores Treatment Group

(N i= 4 in eachgroup)
Mean Low-curiosity group ............. Moderate-curiosity group ......... High-curiosity group ............ 31.3 20.8 I4.2 Median 29.5 16.5 14-5 Range 4-66 1-58 0-33

The and of are medians, ranges the threetreatment groups. means, groups in difference the number in of presented TableI. Therewas a significant errors and committed theSs of thelow-,moderate-, high-curiosity by groups, the of in (p < .oI). As expected, rankorder the threegroups termsof the number errors of was and committed low-,moderate-, high-curiosity, respecbetween possible all tively.The differences pairsof meansof the threeexU perimental groupswereanalyzed the Mann-Whitney test.The highby from the low-curiosity group (p < curiosity groupdiffered significantly were .025).The othercomparisons nonsignificant. DIscussioN It is apparent the Ss of the high-curiosity that in groupperformed a to and manner superior thoseof the moderate- low-curiosity groups;sigso notionof epistemic nificantly in the caseof the lattergroup.Berlyne's a possible of theseresults. thisformulation In curiosity provides explanation of arousal conflict tendencies, (the arousal conflicting response hypotheses) role of a the occupies central in determining strength curiosity. Presumably, the longerSs had to wait for information the regarding identityof the the the of rehearsal) greater likelihood the arousal (knowledge drawings of conflicting aboutthe correct solution the size tasks.Preto hypotheses this to the of sumably wouldbe expected intensify curiosity Ss, bothwith to tasks and regard the drawings the discrimination with whichthe former werebeingassociated this experiment. in the low-curiosity in Ss groupdid nothavean opportunity reach stateof highconflict a to arousal (andthereforecuriosity), sinceknowledge rehearsal placebefore trialswere took the initiated.Increased conflictand a consequent increase curiosityprein in and sinceknowlsumably developed the moderate- high-curiosity groups did to edge rehearsal not take placeuntil afterthe Ss had connected the in then Assuming Ioth and the 29thdotsrespectively the two conditions. thatthe greater curiosity moreefficient learning, rankorder the the the the of effectiveness the threecuriosity of groupsis predictable. Somesupport the abovereasoning foundin the general for is reactions of the Ss as a function the experimental of condition whichthey were to 854

LEONR. MITTMAN GLENNTERRELL and assigned. Numerous Ss in the high-curiositygroup commented favorably concerningthe tasks and indicated disappointmentwhen the experiment was over. On the other hand, many of those in the low-curiosity group frecommentedon the difficultyof the game, and seemed requently sighed, lieved when the experimentwas over.
REFERENCES S. x. BARNETT, A. Exploratorybehavior. Brit. I. Psychol., 1958, 49, 289-310o. 2. BERLYNE,D. E. Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behavior. Brit. i. Psychol., 1950, 41, 68-8o. D. 3. BERLYNE, E. Some aspectsof human curiosity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale Univer., 1953. D. 4. BERLYNE, E. A theory of human curiosity. Brit. 1. Psychol., 1954, 45, 180-19z. 45, 256-265. 6. BERLYNE,D. E. Conflict arousal and curiosity. McGraw-Hill, ig6o. 7. BEXTON,W. H., HERON, W., & Scorr, T. H. Effects of decreased variation in the sensory environment. Canad. I. Psychol., 1954, 8, 70-76. 8. BUTLER,R. A. Discriminationlearning by rhesus monkeys to visual-explorationmotivation. I. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1953, 46, 95-98. 9. DEMBER, W. N. Response by the rat to environmental change. i. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1956, 49, 93-95. to. HARLOW,H. F. Learning and satisfactionof response in intrinsicallymotivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys. i. comp. physdol. Psychol., 1950, 43,
289-294. HARLow, H. F., HARLOw,M. K., & MEYER,D. R. Learning motivated by a manipulation drive. J. exp. Psychol., 1950o, 40, 228-234. 12. HARLOW, H. F., & MCCLEARN,G. E. Object discriminationlearned by monkeys on Is. 5. BERLYNE, D. E. An experimental study of human curiosity. Brit. I. Psychol., 1954,

the basis of manipulation motives. I. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1954, 47, 73-76. 13. HEBB,D. O. The organizationof behavior. Wiley, 1949. 14. KRECHEVSKY, Brain mechanisms and variability:Variabilitywhere no learning is I. involved. I. comp. Psychol., r937, 23, 139-164. 15. MYERs, A. K., & MILLER, N. E. Failure to find a learned drive based on hunger; evidence for learning motivated by exploration. comp. physiol. Prychol., 1954, I. 47, 528-536.

855