Lighting the wick in the candle of learning: generating a prediction stimulates curiosity

Abstract

Curiosity stimulates learning. We tested whether curiosity itself can be stimulated—not by extrinsic rewards but by an intrinsic desire to know whether a prediction holds true. Participants performed a numerical-facts learning task in which they had to generate either a prediction or an example before rating their curiosity and seeing the correct answer. More facts received high-curiosity ratings in the prediction condition, which indicates that generating predictions stimulated curiosity. In turn, high curiosity, compared with low curiosity, was associated with better memory for the correct answer. Concurrent pupillary data revealed that higher curiosity was associated with larger pupil dilation during anticipation of the correct answer. Pupil dilation was further enhanced when participants generated a prediction rather than an example, both during anticipation of the correct answer and in response to seeing it. These results suggest that generating a prediction stimulates curiosity by increasing the relevance of the knowledge gap.

Cognitive Prerequisites for Generative Learning: Why Some Learning Strategies Are More Effective Than Others

“…These results are in line with research that suggests that surprise increases attention to task‐relevant information (Fazio & Marsh, 2009; Stahl & Feigenson, 2019), thereby enhancing learning. In a different experiment (Brod & Breitwieser, 2019), we were able to show that generating a prediction further increases attention to one’s knowledge gap, which leads to increased curiosity for the correct answer. Taken together, the results of our experiments suggest that the effectiveness of generating predictions is at least partially mediated by enhanced attention to the new information.…”

States of curiosity and interest enhance memory differently in adolescents and in children

“…Alternatively, our IPE findings might be explained by surprise about the content of the information. It has been shown that actively generating predictions about answers to trivia enhances curiosity and learning (Brod & Breitwieser, 2019; Brod, Hasselhorn, & Bunge, 2018) such that the generation of predictions about possible answers leads to larger surprise signals as indexed by pupil dilations (Brod et al., 2018). These results point to an alternative interpretation for our IPE findings to the interpretation drawn from the reward prediction error findings above.…”

Being proven wrong elicits learning in children – but only in those with higher executive function skills

“…Champagne, Klopfer, & Gunstone, ; Hardy, Jonen, Möller, & Stern, ; Liew & Treagust, ). It is suggested to fulfill various functions, including activating and exposing the learners' prior knowledge, stimulating curiosity for the correct answer (Brod & Breitwieser, ), and – if the prediction is wrong – triggering belief revision because the learners are surprised and realize that there is a flaw in their concept (Brod et al, ). Thus, we believe that our research using well‐controlled and simplistic scenarios in the laboratory could lay a foundation for further research that looks at changes in more complex concepts and their relation with EF skills.…”