Study curiosity broadly as information-seeking in ethological context rather than fixing a strict definition first¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 review), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The article recommends that researchers "study it in its ethological context" and that "the definition stage follow a relatively solid characterization of curiosity, defined as broadly as possible". Broadening scope allows study of information-seeking in non-humans, sets aside speculation about decision-makers' motivations, builds bridges to reward and learning, and exploits powerful new information-seeking tasks. The authors accept the resulting terminological confusion as a cost outweighed by open-mindedness.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A willingness to accept varied terms describing similar phenomena across studies while empirical characterization matures

Constraints¶

• The authors acknowledge this approach risks different terms for the same phenomena and similar terms for different phenomena

Target Learners¶

• researchers of learning and cognition

Target Learning Goals¶

• building an integrative empirical understanding of curiosity and information-seeking

Claims¶

• Monkeys pay for non-strategic information: information about a reward is worth about 25% of the reward's value [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Kidd, Celeste and Hayden, Benjamin Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010