Curiosity and Learning Motivations

A few weeks ago, I wrote about curiosity, wondering if we were putting the cart before the horse in our quest to spark creativity without nurturing curiosity first.  Jay Rounds, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, guided me to his 2004 article in Curator on curiosity, and it, of course, got me thinking.  (Now Jay, I am paraphrasing you some here, so if I goof, don’t hesitate to set me straight!)  This is one of my more mind-bending posts, so bear with me.

 

Jay states that a “curiosity-driven visitor” is not a personality type, but a behavior based on the goal of the museum visit.  We would argue that the “curiosity-driven visitor” is more of a personality type than not (though there is undoubtedly a sliding scale).  That is, those individuals who define themselves as “curious” in our studies exhibit very different behaviors than those that do not.  They visit a wider variety of museums more often, have higher satisfaction levels at the museum, are more philanthropic, and have more omnivorous leisure-time habits.  In short, they are much more likely to be what we call “Museum Advocates.”  So I definitely read his article through that lens.

 

But where I really became intrigued is when he differentiates between extrinsically motivated museum visitation, which he says can be “thought of as a process of acquiring knowledge for which we have a known use” and intrinsically motivated museum visitation, which produces “knowledge for which we have no known use.”  Extrinsic knowledge tends to be “narrow but deep,” while intrinsic knowledge tends to be “wide but shallow.”  We all possess some mix of the two.

 

When we overlay what we know about Museum Advocates and Core Visitors (explored in more detail in our recent book) then we can better see how curiosity can be a personality type.  Because those visitors who meet Jay’s description of “curiosity-driven” visitors who are intrinsically motivated generally fall into our Museum Advocate category, while those who are more extrinsically motivated generally fall into our Core Visitor category. 

 

Why does extrinsic motivation correlate with Core Visitor behaviors?  Because it focuses on “knowledge we need,” according to Jay, and Core Visitors are often moms who bring their children to museums to learn knowledge she thinks they need, or are individuals who are specifically interested in an exhibit or program a museum is offering (such as a guy who is really interested in trains, and goes to every train museum out there, but skips other types of museums). 

 

Both forms of learning are important.  In our professional lives, extrinsic learning is hugely important (we want our doctors to have the deep knowledge they need to help keep us well).  Yet intrinsic knowledge is curiosity-driven, and itself drives creativity.  It sparks cross-pollination that allows us to make leaps between two seemingly disparate subjects and find important connections.  Museums, with their wide variety of collections, are in a position to tap into curiosity-driven, intrinsically-motivated, free-choice learning in ways that schools and other more formal learning environments cannot.  No wonder they are beloved by curious Museum Advocates!

 

But we come back to our data yet again here.  Most of our regular visitors are not intrinsically motivated Museum Advocates.  Some of our visitors are extrinsically motivated in the subject matter of our museum, and that is great.  And moms bringing their children to museums because they think it is good for them to gain knowledge is hardly a bad thing either.  What I wonder about is how excited those moms are themselves – especially when those moms do not identify themselves as curious.  We’ve discussed this dilemma in previous posts, and hope to learn much more on the subject in future research. 

 

Interestingly, Jay posits that curiosity-driven visitors are seeking novel and interesting experiences he calls “wide-but-shallow.”  Yet our research indicates that visitors want deeper experiences.  On the surface, this appears to be contradictory, but I don’t think it is.  Instead, I think curiosity-drive visitors are looking for a wide variety of interesting experiences, but when something does pique their interest, they want to be able to dig deep.  Having that option to investigate further is important, as is the option to skip over things that simply don’t capture their interest.  This behavior would not be contradictory to Jay’s model or the behaviors we see in our research.  And indeed, as Jay explains further, this behavior would be, indeed, typical of curiosity-driven visitors.

 

We’ll be digging further into this issue of curiosity, and what it means for young visitors, moms, and both Museum Advocates and Core Visitors.  As we plan our research, we would love to hear your thoughts.  Click on “comments” below to share.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)  Please include the name of your museum as well!

 

Want to read Jay’s excellent article?  It can be found in the October 2004 issue of Curator, volume 47, number 4.

- Susie 

Comments

[John]

This was a wonderful post because it talks about learning in a way that interacts with visitor attendance. Museums always struggle with ways to bring in new or more visitors, and often think about the learning after they think of the big exhibit, or program theme.
What about looking at visitors from these multiple levels of entry the same way we should be looking at kids vs. adults in program or exhibit design. Exhibits should reach out to both of these kinds of visitors and appreciate them both.

When you go to a place with kids like the Strong Museum you see kids who can return time and time again to the same exhibit. We think it is because kids just like to "play" and they have these cool toys that keep them involved, and each time they come they seem to revisit some old favorites but then also always find something new and fresh.
Oh wait that is what all museums should be doing!
We should enter have a deep or shallow experience, be left with wetted lips and if we can make the time, return for more.

I love Art Museums but often they seem to do the worst at this. Paintings on walls with tombstones. All onus on you buddy! They scream. And while I can go a thousand times to see my favorite paintings, and this is valid, this format of content delivery does not provide me with the opportunity for curiosity. I can appreciate the paintings, and I can even think about the intentions and meanings behind the image, but let’s face it, even for a straight forward painting you need some scaffolding.

So museums should cater to deep and wide. It is possible to do this and they should think about my Strong analogy. If you don't think play=learning, then you may never capture repeat visitors.

[Rosemary]

Susie, thanks for an interesting post. As mentioned in the comment above, it's helpful to read about your visitor data compared and contrasted with learning theory.

[Michael]

It's interesting how a curiosity-driven visitor's expectations of wide vs. deep seem to mirror the interactivity expected from most digital and web-based platforms. This is obviously a human behavior with precedence predating the 21st century, but it is undoubtedly accelerating and seems to be the modus operandi of younger visitors. It's crucial that cultural institutions account for this type of engagement with their audience, both in their on-line as well as with their physical experiences.