Videogames are emerging as increasingly popular tools for training complex skills, in part due to their potential for improving the transfer of learning to changing demands. One caveat is that training outcomes are primarily influenced by a learner’s capability and willingness to engage in adaptive learning processes. The present study examined the role of epistemic curiosity as a predisposition for seeking information and resolving gaps in knowledge.
Method
Using a game-based learning environment with strong cognitive and perceptual-motor demands, we tested the effects of interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity on performance during skill acquisition and adaptation to unforeseen change. A task-change paradigm and piecewise latent trajectory model disentangled the effects on performance trajectories corresponding to skill acquisition and adaptation.
Results
Interest-type epistemic curiosity, but not deprivation-type, was positively related to baseline performance, even after controlling for cognitive ability and videogame experience. Moreover, the positive effect of interest-type epistemic curiosity on post-change performance (i.e., adaptation) was fully mediated by pre-change performance.
Discussion
These findings indicate that interest-type epistemic curiosity is particularly important in the earlier phases of learning, but explains little variability in adaptive performance beyond its direct influence on performance acquired prior to change. This research speaks to the roles of individual differences in cognition and motivation during game-based learning.
AckermanP. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598–614.
2.
AckermanP. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.288
AckermanP. L.KanferR.GoffM. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 270–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.4.270
5.
AndersonJ. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.
6.
BarnettS. M.CeciS. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637.
7.
BeierM. E.OswaldF. L. (2012). Is cognitive ability a liability? A critique and future research agenda on skilled performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030869
8.
BellB. S.KanarA. M.KozlowskiS. W. (2008). Current issues and future directions in simulation-based training in North America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1416–1434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802200173
9.
BellB. S.KozlowskiS. W. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00111.x
10.
BellB. S.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296
BlieseP. D.LangJ. W. B. (2016). Understanding relative and absolute change in discontinuous growth models: Coding alternatives and implications for hypothesis testing. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 562–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116633502
13.
BollenK. A.CurranP. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. John Wiley.
14.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.BowersC. (2010). Synthetic learning environments: On developing a science of simulation, games, and virtual worlds for training. In KozlowskiS.SalasE. (Eds.), Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (pp. 229–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
CarolanT. F.HutchinsS. D.WickensC. D.CummingJ. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56, 999–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813517710
16.
ChenG.FirthB. M. (2014).The motivational underpinnings of adaptability. In ChanD. (Ed.), Individual adaptability to changes at work: New directions in research (pp. 18–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
18.
CollinsR. P.LitmanJ. A.SpielbergerC. D. (2004). The measurement of perceptual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1127–1141.
19.
DörnerD. (1980). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulation & Games, 11, 87–106.
20.
DeShonR.AlexanderR. (1996). Goal setting effects on implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 18–36.
21.
DeShonR. P.BrownK. G.GreenisJ. L. (1996). Does self-regulation require cognitive resources? An evaluation of resource allocation models of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 595–608.
EspejoJ.DayE. A.ScottG. (2005). Performance evaluations, need for cognition, and the acquisition of a complex skill: An attribute–treatment interaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1867–1877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.10.003
25.
FaynK.SilviaP. J.MacCannC.TiliopoulosN. (2017). Interested in different things or in different ways?Journal of Individual Differences, 38(4), 265–273.
26.
FittsP. M.PosnerM. I. (1967). Human performance. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
27.
FloraD. B. (2008). Specifying piecewise latent trajectory models for longitudinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802154349
28.
GrossnickleE. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y
29.
HardyJ. H.DayE. A.ArthurW. (2019). Exploration-exploitation tradeoffs and information-knowledge gaps in self-regulated learning: Implications for learner-controlled training and development. Human Resource Management Review, 29, 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.07.004
30.
HardyJ. H.DayE. A.HughesM. G.WangX.SchuelkeM. J. (2014). Exploratory behavior in active learning: A between- and within-person examination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.005
31.
HardyJ. H.DayE. A.SteeleL. M. (2018). Interrelationships among self-regulated learning processes: Toward a dynamic process-based model of self-regulated learning. Journal of Management, 45, 3146–3177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318780440
32.
HardyJ. H.NessA. M.MeccaJ. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004
33.
HarrisonS. H.SlussD. M.AshforthB. E. (2011). Curiosity adapted the cat: The role of trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021647
34.
HassanM. M.BashirS.MusselP. (2015). Personality, learning, and the mediating role of epistemic curiosity: A case of continuing education in medical physicians. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.018
35.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
36.
HoffmanR. R.WardP.FioreS. M.FeltovichP. J.DiBelloL.AndrewsD. H. (2014). Accelerated expertise: Training for high proficiency in a complex world. Psychology Press.
37.
HoweM. (2019). General mental ability and goal type as antecedents of recurrent adaptive task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 796–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000379
38.
HuangJ. L.RyanA. M.ZabelK. L.PalmerA. (2014). Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034285
39.
HughesM. G.DayE. A.WangX.SchuelkeM. J.ArsenaultM. L.HarkriderL. N.CooperO. D. (2013). Learner-controlled practice difficulty in the training of a complex task: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029821
JundtD. K.ShossM. K.HuangJ. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S53–S71. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1955
42.
KaberD. B.DraperD. V.UsherJ. M. (2002). Influence of individual differences on application design for individual and collaborative immersive virtual environments. In HaleK. S.StanneyK. M. (Eds.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design implementation, and applications (pp. 379–402). CRC Press.
43.
KalyugaS. (2009). Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge and skills: A cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.019
44.
KanferR.AckermanP. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
45.
KangM. J.HsuM.KrajbichI. M.LoewensteinG.McClureS. M.WangJ. T.CamererC. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20, 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
46.
KashdanT. B.GallagherM. W.SilviaP. J.WintersteinB. P.BreenW. E.TerharD.StegerM. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011
47.
KeithN.WolffC. (2014).Encouraging active learning. In KraigerK.PassmoreJ.dos SantosN.R.MalvezziS. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of training, development, and performance improvement (pp. 92–116). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.
48.
KimY.LeeS. (2017). Mobile gamer’s epistemic curiosity affecting continuous play intention. Focused on players’ switching costs and epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.023
49.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
50.
KooD.-M.ChoiY.-Y. (2010). Knowledge search and people with high epistemic curiosity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.013
51.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.900
52.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ToneyR. J.MullinsM. E.WeissbeinD. A.BrownK. G.BellB. S. (2001). Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems. In SalasE. (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (pp. 59–123). Elsevier Science; JAI Press.
53.
LandersR. N.ArmstrongM. B. (2017). Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification: An empirical test of the technology-enhanced training effectiveness model. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.031
54.
LangJ. W. B.BlieseP. D. (2009). General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change: Applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013803
55.
LauriolaM.LitmanJ. A.MusselP.De SantisR.CrowsonH. M.HoffmanR. R. (2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017
56.
LitmanJ. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101
57.
LitmanJ. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
58.
LitmanJ. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005
59.
LitmanJ. A.CrowsonH. M.KolinskiK. (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
60.
LitmanJ. A.JimersonT. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3
61.
LitmanJ. A.MusselP. (2013). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity model in Germany. Journal of Individual Differences, 34, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000100
MussellP. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 506–510.
65.
MusselP. (2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 885–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031918
66.
MusselP.SpenglerM. (2015). Investigating intellect from a trait activation perspective: Identification of situational moderators for the correlation with work-related criteria. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 51–60.
67.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables.
68.
NaylorF. D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16(2), 172–183.
69.
OrvisK. A.HornD. B.BelanichJ. (2009). An examination of the role individual differences play in videogame-based training. Military Psychology, 21, 461–481.
70.
PowellC.NettelbeckT.BurnsN. R. (2017). The incremental validity of intellectual curiosity and confidence for predicting academic performance in advanced tertiary students. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.011
71.
PulakosE. D.SchmittN.DorseyD. W.AradS.BormanW. C.HedgeJ. W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15, 299–323.
72.
PulakosE. D.AradS.DonovanM. A.PlamondonK. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
73.
ReioT. G.WiswellA. K. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 5–30.
74.
RichardsJ. B.LitmanJ. A.RobertsD. H. (2013). Performance characteristics of measurement instruments of epistemic curiosity in third-year medical students. Medical Science Educator, 23, 355–363.
75.
SacauA.LaarniJ.HartmannT. (2008). Influence of individual factors on presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2255–2273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.001
ShossM. K.WittL. A.VeraD. (2012). When does adaptive performance lead to higher task performance?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 910–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.780
SitzmannT. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
80.
SmillieL. D.VarsavskyV.AveryR. E.PerryR. (2016). Trait intellect predicts cognitive engagement: Evidence from a resource allocation perspective. European Journal of Personality, 30, 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2059
81.
SwellerJ. (2006). How the human cognitive system deals with complexity. In ElenJ.ClarkR. E. (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 13–26). Elsevier.
82.
TenisonC.AndersonJ. R. (2016). Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000204
83.
VogelJ. J.VogelD. S.Cannon-BowersJ.BowersC. A.MuseK.WrightM. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243. https://doi.org/10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM
84.
VölkleM. C.WittmannW. W.AckermanP. L. (2006). Abilities and skill acquisition: A latent growth curve approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.01.001
85.
von StummS.AckermanP. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030746
86.
von StummS.HellB.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (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
87.
WilsonK. A.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H.SalasE.BurkeC. S.EstockJ. L.ConkeyC. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 217–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866
88.
WittmannW. W.SüßH.-M. (1999). Investigating paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In AckermanP. L.KyllonenP. C.RobertsR. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 77–108). American Psychological Association.
WoutersP.van OostendorpH. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60, 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.018
91.
WuW.-H.HsiaoH.-C.WuP.-L.LinC.-H.HuangS.-H. (2012). Investigating the learning-theory foundations of game-based learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00437.x
