Advertisement

Increasing curiosity through autonomy of choice

Abstract

This study examined the effect of satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy on curiosity. One hundred and fifty-four participants first completed measures of autonomy-need satisfaction and curiosity. Participants were then randomly assigned to either a condition that supported autonomy of choice or a condition not supporting autonomy of choice. The autonomy-choice intervention provided participants with choice of topic for a video they could watch, while those in the no-autonomy of choice condition did not have choice. All participants then rated their curiosity regarding the topic of the video. Results showed that participants whose need for autonomy was more satisfied had higher levels of curiosity. Participants randomly assigned to the autonomy of choice condition providing choice of topic showed greater curiosity regarding the topic than participants who did not have a choice of topic. Autonomy of choice was most beneficial in stimulating a high level of curiosity about the topic for participants who had low general autonomy need satisfaction. The results of the study support the importance of self-determination in fostering the emotion of curiosity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., … Ryan, R. M. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1.

  2. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.

  3. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-110.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

  4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.24.

  5. Dwee, C. Y., & Anthony, E. M. (2017). Learner autonomy in university English classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.

  6. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300.

  7. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2018). Reflections on positive emotions and upward spirals. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617692106.

  8. Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Curiosity and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701552345.

  9. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.

  10. Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012758.

  11. Hardré, P., & Reeve, J. (2009). Benefits of training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy supportive style toward employees: An intervention study. International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.00325.x.

  12. Harrison, S. H., & Dossinger, K. (2017). Pliable guidance: A multilevel model of curiosity, feedback seeking, and feedback giving in creative work. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2051–2072. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0247.

  13. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.

  14. Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.003.

  15. Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05.

  16. Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9068-7.

  17. Kashdan, T. B., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. D., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.011.

  18. Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9027-y.

  19. Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., De Santis, R., Crowson, H. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017.

  20. Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101.

  21. Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation dimensions of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014.

  22. Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.021.

  23. Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1448–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021.

  24. Litman, J. A., Robinson, O. C., & Demetre, J. (2017). Intrapersonal curiosity: Inquisitiveness about the inner self. Self and Identity, 16, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1255250.

  25. Mussel, P., Spengler, M., Litman, J. A., & Schuler, H. (2012). Development and validation of the German work-related curiosity scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000098.

  26. Must See, T. E. D., & Talks (2018). Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/playlists/77/11_must_see_ted_talks.

  27. Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309.

  28. Noordewier, M. K., & van Dijk, E. (2017). Curiosity and time: From not knowing to almost knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1122577.

  29. Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375.

  30. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.10371/10003-066X.55.1.68.

  31. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications.

  32. Silvia, P. (2008). Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701298481.

  33. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  34. Von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nicola S. Schutte.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M. Increasing curiosity through autonomy of choice. Motiv Emot 43, 563–570 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09758-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Autonomy
  • Autonomy of choice
  • Autonomy support
  • Curiosity
  • Self-Determination Theory