THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL
BEHAVIORS AND A CHILD'S CURIOSITY
AND PLAY BEHAVMR

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D,
MECHIQAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT M. SAXE
1968

A

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL
BEHAVIORS AND A CHILD'S cuauosurv
AND PLAY BEHAVIOR.

presented by

Robert M. Saxe

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M degree in Psyc ho] ogy

I" (.
.
.
a
z n
/
. I
. I

f gyi” /
AgeV/«K Jae

/ ’1 Major professor
_ 1/ ,
Date ggfl/

0-169

wrm~ -n,

LIBKAK 1'

Michigan State
University

   
   

      
     

’* ’5 Imam BY 1‘
HUM; & SfllS’
300K BINDERY INC.

LIBRARY BINDERS

 

 

b 1'7fia7fl‘ohll,

W03

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL
BEHAVIORS AND A CHILD'S CURIOSITY
AND PLAY BEHAVIOR

by Robert M. Saxe

Most of the recent literature on curiosity has
focused on determining the stimulus characteristics elicit-
ing exploration, manipulation, and seeking information.
Studies relating parent-child variables, and experiences,
such as anxiety, have for the most part tended to rely on
paper-pencil tests.

The presented study, in contrast, defined parent
and child behaviors in observational terms, and focused on
relating maternal behavior and a boy's curiosity in a
playroom situation.

Four groups of first grade boys who differed in
curiosity, aggressiveness, and neurotic behavior (anxiety
and social withdrawal), based on teachers' ratings, were
selected to participate in a free play situation study.

The mother-son interaction was observed by raters who were
trained to code both mother and son on pre-selected behavior

categories.

Robert M. Saxe

In general the results indicate the categories
could be reliably measured by trained raters, though some
interactional behaviors, such as non-cooperativeness,
proved to be less stable than the other behavior categories.
Also child behaviors between the first and second ten
minutes were quite variable and unstable, so that further
research is in order to obtain more reliable estimates of
variables such as a child's novel curiosity.

The results of the study, nevertheless, indicate
that investigation of objects (attentive observation and
manipulation) was positively intercorrelated with curiosity
toward novel stimuli, the number of different kinds of
objects explored, and such verbal manifestations of curio—
sity, as seeking and offering information. Exploration of
novel stimuli and exploration of a greater variety of
objects was not, however, correlated with seeking and offer-
ing information.

Although emotional indices, such as anxiety,
expression of negative feeling, and aggressiveness by the
child were not correlated either positively or negatively
with the curiosity measures, solitary play by the child was
negatively correlated with investigation of familiar
objects and seeking information. In this study solitary
play was the only behavior exhibited by the child Which
competed and interfered with the expression of curiosity.

Other child behaviors such as aggression, anxiety, and

Robert M. Saxe

join participation were not frequent or intense enough to
inhibit the expression of curiosity.

Regarding the influence of parental behaviors on
a child's curiosity and play, parental punitive behaviors
were not found to be negatively correlated with the child's
expressions of curiosity. Punitive behaviors, such as
restriction, aggression, and negative feeling were too
infrequently displayed by the mothers. Low intervention by
the parent, in terms of a reluctance to seek participation,
give help and direction, and reflect behavior, was asso-
ciated with greater solitary play by the child. The paren—
tal behaviors which were most highly positively correlated
with the child's curiosity were (1) the mother's curiosity
behavior and (2) the mother's expression of positive
feeling. The child's curiosity toward novel stimuli was
highly positively correlated with the novel curiosity
expressed by his mother (r = .72). The child's attentive
observation.manipulation, and seeking information was
positively correlated with the mother's expression of
positive feeling.

In contrast, parental non—attention was negatively
correlated with a number of child curiosity measures in-
cluding attentive observation, manipulation, seeking and
offering information.

The differences between the groups of boys,

based on the teacher's ratings, were in the predicted

Robert M. Saxe

direction with the High Curious—High Prosocial group ex-

hibiting the most manipulation and positive feeling, the

high neurotic group expressing the most anxiety, and the

High Agressive group displaying the most aggression. The
differences in child behavior between the groups were not
large enough, however, to be statistically significant.

A number of significant differences in behavior
between the groups of mothers were found. The greatest
differences were between the mothers of the High Curious-
High Prosocial boys and the mothers of the High Aggressive
boys. Mothers of High Curious-High Prosocial boys exPressed
significantly more positive feeling and were less restric-
tive and less non-attentive than mothers of High Aggressive
boys.

The results were interpreted within a social
learning theory model, which emphasized the influence of
such social reinforcers as positive feeling and attentive-
ness and the effect of imitation on curiosity. The effect
of the child's curiosity and play on the parent's behavior

was also discussed.

Approved:

 

Committee Chairman

Date:

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL
BEHAVIORS AND A CHILD'S CURIOSITY

AND PLAY BEHAVIOR

BY

\3-

Robert M. Saxe

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1968

DEDICATION

I should like to dedicate this thesis to my wife,
Jacquie, and daughter, Matty, whose love and joy.helped
make the last five years most exciting and rewarding. I
would also like to thank both our parents for their consis-

tent interest, understanding, and support, in our develop-

ment and enjoyment.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge myself, for
without my persistence, tolerance for frustration, and
ingenuity, the study would not have been completed.

I would also like to thank my committee, Dr.
Gary Stollak, Dr. Terry Allen, Dr. Dozier Thornton, Dr.

dkuLK&MCLa /
John McKinney, and Dr. Lafirence Messe for their interest
and comments which helped focus and clarify the purpose,
results, and discussion of the study. Thanks are especially
due to my Chairman Dr. Stollak who provided consistent
encouragement, precise non-ambiguous critical comment,
immediate positive feedback, and genuine positive warmth.

Achknowledgement is also due to the many raters
who participated in the study, to Jerry Gilmore, who
provided statistical consultation, as well as the Holt
school system and parents for their willing cooperation.

Acknowledgement is not due to the Lansing and
East Lansing School Boards who, in the year of our Lord,
1968, refused to allow the study to be undertaken in their
school districts. Their undue apprehension, lack of inter-
est and non-cooperation directed toward this project, as

well as other research projects conducted within the

iii

Psychology Department deserves mention, and hopefully

change.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION I I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 1

Definition of Curiosity and Novel Stimuli . . . . 2
Curiosity and Parent-Child Interaction
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Exploratory Behavior of Animals . . . . . . . . . 8
Theories Relating to Curiosity . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
METHOD
Observational Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Child's Behavior . . . . . . . . . 22
Reliability of the Ratings of the .Child
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Reliability of the Ratings of the Adult
BehaVior O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O 2 4

RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . 27

Stability of Adult and Child Behaviors within

the Twenty-Minute Session . . . . . . . . . . 27
The Curiosity Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Other Child Behaviors and Curiosity . . . . . . . 33
The Effect of the Child's Emotionality on

Exploration and Curiosity . . . . . . . ... 34
The Effect of Parental Behavior and Curiosity . . 35
Relationship between the Social-Economic Class

Variables and Curiosity . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Teacher's Ratings and Behavior Observation

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Adult Behavior Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Child Behavior Categories . . . . . . . . 42
Summary of Results as Related to Hypotheses . . . 42

DISCUSSION...................... 47

SUMMRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 5

 

Chapter
REFERENCES

APPENDICES

 

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Correlation coefficients between raters' and
the investigator's observations for the
child and adult behavior categories . . . . . 25

2. Correlations for child and adult behaviors
between first and second ten minutes . . . . 29

3. Intercorrelations among child behavior
categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Means and standard deviations for adult and
child behavior categories (maximum
score = 60) O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 32

5. Correlations between child and adult behavior
categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6. Differences between group means on the adult
and child behavior categories . . . . . . . . 43

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Teacher Rating Questionnaire . . . . . . . 64
B. Rules Followed in Forming High Curiosity-

High Prosocial, Low Curiosity,
High Aggressive and High Neurotic

Groups 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 67
C. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
D. Definitions of Child and Adult

Behavior Categories . . . . . . . . . . 71
E. Criteria for Coding Children's Overt

Aggressive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 75

viii

 

INTRODUCTION

Although there has been much theoretical specula-

 

tion about the nature of curiosity since James (1890) to Lfi

Maslow (1954), only recently has curiosity been experimen- t

 

tally studied (Harlow, 1950; Harlow, Harlow, and Meyer,
1950; Butler, 1953, 1957; Welker, 1956; Berlyne, 1960). The
results of these experimental studies with both animals and
humans indicate that "novel" stimuli evoke exploratory
behavior.

In several experiments, for example, Berlyne
noted which stimulus a subject looked at first. In human
infants aged three to nine months it was the figure with the
greater amount of contour which captured the infant's
gaze, (Berlyne, 1958). Frantz 11958) reported similar
findings for human infants and infant chimpanzees using a
checkerboard pattern as compared to simpler patterns. With
human adults, Berlyne (1958) found more complex or incon-
gruous pictures were fixated longer than were congruous
or less complex pictures. In this experiment the pair of
figures was only briefly exposed (10 seconds) but a longer
time (two minutes, Berlyne, 1958) did not alter the results.

These experiments are representative of the finding that

1

subjects orient themselves to stimuli in accordance with
such stimulus pr0perties as novelty, incongruity, and
complexity.

The majority of the research has focused on
defining the specific stimulus properties subsumed under the
concept novelty. Little research, however, has been.
directed toward elucidating the effect of other variables,
such as an individual's life experiences on exploratory
behavior. Harlow's studies on the "Nature of Love" stand
out as an exception. He showed that.monkeys raised on
soft cloth mothers, when presented a novel fearful stimulus,
emitted fewer indices of emotional behavior, and more
exploratory behavior than monkeys raised on wire mothers.
He concluded that contact comfort provided a means of
relaxation, which enabled fear to be reduced, so that
monkeys would freely explore their environment.

Definition of Curiosity and
NoveI_StImuli

The stimulus properties which have been subsumed
under the concept, novelty, include: (1) stimulus incon-
gruity, i.e., a combination of familiar and unfamiliar
elements, such as a camel with a lion's head (Hebb, 1946,
1949; Berlyne, 1957), (2) stimulus complexity-~the absence
of redundancy and the presence of variety and diversity in
stimulus pattern (Berlyne, 1957, 1958), and (3) the sur-

prising aspect of a stimulus, i.e., whether a figure differs

markedly from several other figures.

Curiosity has been operationally defined and
inferred from instrumental actions which increase the
organism's contact with environmental stimuli. Curiosity
may be inferred from the degree to which a child reacts
positively to new, strange,.and incongruous elements in the
environment by: (l) approaching them, (2) manipulating
them, (3) exhibiting a need to know about himself.and his
environment by questioning, or (4) scanning his surroundings,
seeking new experiences (Maw and Maw, 1961).

Curiosity and Parent-Child
Interaction VariEbIes

In an exhaustive review of the literature very few
studies were found where the primary purpose was to relate
children's curiosity to parent-child interaction variables.
.A.few studies were found, however, in which curiosity was
a small part of a larger study. The results of studies done
Iby Baldwin (1948) and Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese (1949)
indicated that parents who were strict and undemocratic in
“their methods of control were likely to have children who
swere among other things restricted in curiosity, original-
ity, creativity, and imagination.

In the Baldwin (1948) study each of 67 preschool
four year old children were observed for a month in a
nursery school environment,, during which the child was

rated on a battery of child behavior variables. Con-

currently he was visited in his home every 6 months by an
independent investigator, who rated the impact of the home
environment upon the child using a battery of Parent
Behavior Ratings. Factor analysis of the child behavior
ratings revealed a general factor which might be called
activeness, or maturity, or good nursery school behavior.
Factor analysis of the parental behaviors revealed two
closely related factors; namely democracy and control.
Democracy was characterized by a high level of verbal
contact between parent and child, appearing as consulta-
tion regarding policy decisions, explanations for family
rules, and verbal explanations in response to the child's
curiosity. The second factor, control, emphasized the
existance of restrictions clearly conveyed to the child,
although not necessarily arrived at democratically. A
characteristic often accompanying control was lack of
friction over disciplinary decisions. The lack of disagree-
, ment appeared to be a function of: (l) prohibitions against
talking back, (2) easy conformity by the child, or (3)
determination of policy by mutual agreement. Most democratic
Ihomes were found to be not uncontrolled. Democracy in the
Ihome tended to have two sorts of effects upon the child's
Ibehavior. It tended to accentuate and raise significantly
the activity level of the child and produce aggressive,
fearless and planful, leadership behavior in the nursery

school. Democratic homes, however, also tended,.though the

differences did not reach statistical significance, to
facilitate curiosity, non-conformity, and disobedience.
Control produced the Opposite childhood behaviors. When
control and lack of democracy occurred together, they
produced a quiet, well behaved, non-resistant child, who
was socially unaggressive, and restricted in his curiosity
and originality. Despite these interesting findingS*
numerous methodological criticisms can be offered which

put into question the findings Baldwin reported. For one,
so many variables were tested without utilizing appropriate
analysis of variance techniques so that the probability of
obtaining significant differences was greatly enhanced.
Second, levels of significance were not reported. Third,
there was possibility that a halo effect existed, since it
is quite conceivable that when the rater observed curiosity
in the home, he tended, to assume the home was more demo-
cratic and rate it appropriately. Finally, the vague.way
the behavior ratings were reported reduced the possibility
of the study being replicated.

Despite these criticisms the general results were
supported by Watson (1957) who found that sixth grade
children from permissive homes (based on questionnaires)
showed a higher level of spontaneity, originality, and
creativity than children from restrictive homes. On the
other hand Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese (1945) reported

that indulgence (babying and protecting) fosters inactive,

unaggressive behavior, lacking in originality and inferior
in social status. Arsenian (1943) reported that three year
told children who were left alone to play in.a strange play-
room expressed more indices of insecurity (crying and
agitated non-adaptive movements) than other children whose
mothers were present. When the mother was present the
children played more frequently and demonstrated less
insecurity. McReynolds, Archer, and Pietila (1961),

Penny (1965), and Zucherman, Kolin, Price, and Zoob (1964)
also reported studies showing that‘low anxiety (as measured
by the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale) was inversely
related to curiosity (as measured by a Sensation Seeking
Scale and a Reactivity Curiosity Scale). Medinnus and Love
(1965), however, failed to confirm the negative relation—
ship between insecurity and curiosity. In the Medinnus and
Love study, 25 four year old children were administered
three tests of curiosity. Two teachers were also asked to
rate independently the children on security, using six
behavioral-rating scales developed by Prichard and

Ojemann (1941). The children were also rated on global
insecurity and curiosity (based on the definition proposed
Iby Maw and Maw, 1961). The first test of curiosity was
‘very similar to the one used by McReynolds, Acker, and
]?ietila. Twelve relatively common toys and objects, such
Ias a magnet, ball, and car, were placed in a curtained box,

from which § drew the toys. E scored S's manipulations on

a score sheet, listing all possible manipulations for each
toy. A stopwatch was used to measure the time spent with
each toy. S's task was to stick his hand in the box, touch
the toy, and try to guess what it was.

After making a guess the child was allowed to
take the toy out of the box and play with it. During the
play period manipulations, time spent manipulating, and
questions asked were recorded.

The second curiosity test involved the child
chosing to play with a known toy which he could see or an
unknown toy hidden from his view.

The third curiosity test consisted of reading to
g nine two choice situations in which the problem essen-
tially was whether to explore or not to explore.

The results indicated first, that the curiosity
measures were not significantly intercorrelated. Only
one of six possible intercorrelations was significant; and
that significant correlation was between the time scores
and the manipulation scores. The results were interpreted
to mean that curiosity is not a unitary characteristic and
that future research should aim at identifying various
aspects of curiosity rather than attempting to relate a
single measure of curiosity to other variables.

In testing the hypothesis of a positive correla-
tion between curiosity and security Pearson product-moment

correlations were computed. Twenty—seven of the 36

correlations were in the predicted direction, but none of
the coefficients reached the .05 level of significance.
In interpreting the results it is important to note that:
(1) the small sample size used reduced the probability of
obtaining significant correlations, (2) the population from
which the sample was drawn may not have varied sufficiently,
and (3) the experimental situation may have in some way
reduced the insecurity felt by the Se, especially since the
tasks were quite structured, and may not have elicited
uncertainty and anxiety. Furthermore, the objects were
quite familiar, rather than possessing novel properties.
Although there has been a paucity of research
focusing on observing exploratory behavior and curiosity in
children in naturalistic free play situations, there-has
been reported numerous studies on the exploratory behavior

of animals.

Exploratory Behavior of
Animals

 

Numerous investigators have tried to determine
whether exploratory behavior is influenced by hunger,
thirst,.and sexual deprivation. Dasiell in 1925 reported
that hungry animals explored less frequently than satiated
animals. Bolles (1967) in reviewing a number of replica-
tions of the Dashiell and Montgomery studies, concluded the
findings were contradictory. He inferred that exploration

may be overwhelmingly under the control of the novelty of

the stimulus conditions under which it occurs.

Though drives such as hunger and thirst may not
be important determinants of exploration, Montgomery and
Monhman (1955), Hays (1960), and Baron (1964) demonstrated
that exploration in animals is inhibited by fear. Another
class of variables studied in relation to exploratory
behavior and curiosity is the effect of stimulus depriva-
tion. Again the results are somewhat contradictory.
Montgomery (1953) found a confinement of eight days had no
effect on exploration; and studies by Charlesworth and
Thompson (1957), Montgomery and Zimbardo (1957), and Ehrlich
(1954) supported Montgomery's earlier findings. Butler
(1953) however reported visual deprivation was effective
in increasing visual exploratory behavior. Fowler (1963)
reduced some dissonance by pointing out that the length
of confinement and associated boredom may be an important
variable in determining whether deprivation increases or

decreases curiosity and exploratory behavior.

Theories Relating to Curiosity

 

In isolating other determinants of curiosity and
exploratory behavior in humans, apart from the impersonal
characteristics of stimulus objects, two classes of parental
behavior can be identified: namely, what a parent does
before and after a child has emitted a curiosity or explora-

tory response. From an operant learning theory point of

10

view any event which acts as a reinforcer, and follows such a
response, ought to increase its rate and frequency. The pres
sentation of such secondary reinforcers as attentive obser-
vation (Allen, Hart, Buell, Harres, and Wolf, 1964; Harris,
Wolf, and Baer, 1966) prfgse, expression of affection or
positive feeling ought to facilitate such behavior. If ver-
bal curiosity and exploratory behavior are not reinforced,
then such behavior should diminish, and the child will only
infrequently explore the environment and ask questions to seek
additional information. If, on the other hand, curiosity
functions independently of external reinforcement then the,
child's curiosity will be more a function of the available
novel stimuli, a view which more closely corresponds to Ber-
lyne's theory (1950). Berlyne hypothesizes that curiosity
is related to the amount of information gained when an ob-
ject is explored. He hypothesizes that the relationship is
non-monotonic, and stimuli which contain both familiar and
novel elements will elicit the greatest curiosity. Berlyne's
explanation of curiosity, however, does not emphasize the
possible influence of such variables as punishment, fear,
and learning to be curious by observing and imitating one's
parents (Bandura and Walters, 1963).

If parents punish a child after he acts in a
curious manner, the child may react in a number of alter-
native ways. He may respond with heightened anxiety, fear,

hostility, withdrawal (Dollard and Miller, 1950), or with

ll

protests and demands for an explanation. The child may
also respond to punitive parental behavior by turning to
examine other objects. The important point is that punish-
ment or actively preventing the child from expressing
curiosity may be conceptualized as a frustrating experience
which temporarily interrupts a careful examination of the
environment. If punitiveness toward manifestations of
curiosity toward both "dangerous" and "safe" stimuli char-
acterize the parent-child interaction, the child may
develop the habit of not carefully attending to the environ-
ment in.a persistent manner. His behavior may then be
characterized by either (1) short attention span and
hyperactivity, or (2) withdrawal from the parent into
isolated play and indirect hostility.

‘A short attention span with hyperactivity may be
conceived as one way of responding to an approach-avoid-
ance conflict. Environmental stimuli elicit approach and
investigation responses, while punitive behaviors by the
parent elicit avoidance responses. The child approaches-
one stimuli then withdraws, avoiding punishment, and
tentatively approaches another object. To an observer
he appears hyperactive.

A second way of responding when parents consis-
tently punish exploratory behavior is to withdraW-into
solitary play. The child approaches familiar objects, but

instead of investigating and seeking information, he plays

12

alone, avoiding interaction with his parents. He avoids
making a new response which might elicit parental punitive-
ness. As the child continues to play-with the same
objects, the parent becomes bored, and non-attentive.

Utilizing the concept of "imitation" (Bandura.
and Walters, 1963), it can be hypothesized that the child
may learn to be curious by observing and imitating the
curiosity behavior of his parents. If the parents express
limited curiosity, curiosity may only infrequently appear
in the child's total repertoire of behavior, especially as
the child grows older, to be replaced by other competing
behaviors. In contrast, if the child observes his parents
manipulating objects and hears them frequently ask.
questions and seek.information, the child may imitate these
parental behaviors. Parents who express limited curiosity
and, in addition, infrequently reinforce curiosity behavior
in their children, may, instead, reinforce other behavior,
such as goal directed competitive play, school behavior,
or quite noneexplorative solitary play.

The second class of parental behavior which may
relate to curiosity behavior may be identified as what the
parent does before a curiosity response is expressed by the
child. From a classical conditioning paradigm the parent's
behavior may serve-as a conditioned stimulus for eliciting
further exploration or curiosity. Parental behaviors which

may elicit curiosity, may include, for example, directing

l3

behavior such as pointing to an object and saying, "Look

at that," or asking questions which encourage the child to
more carefully examine an object. These directive cues may
have established their "eliciting" properties by being
associated with active exploration when the child was an
infant or toddler. Other parental behavior may inhibit
curiosity. If the child, upon entering the play room,
perceives the room as strange, and is uncertain about what
is expected of him, he may respond with anxiety (Arsenian,
1943) which may be defined operationally as acts unrelated
to the task at hand, such as rubbing, stuttering, crying,
picking one's nails, looking back and forth, etc. The
child has not expressed curiosity, but how the parent
responds to the child's anxiety may determine the kind and
frequency of curiosity. Numerous studies on the effects of
anxiety on learning have shown that high anxiety may»
facilitate the learning of simple tasks, where there is
little competition between presenting stimuli-and one
dominant response already in the repertoire of the individual
is defined as correct (Taylor and Spence, 1952). Where

the learning task is more complex and the subject is
presented numerous stimuli demanding fine discriminations
and where the response to be made requires differentiation,
high anxiety has been found to interfere with learning
(Lucas, 1952; Monague, 1953; Raymond, 1953; Steindish and

Champion, 1960).

14

Extending the relationship between anxiety and
learning to the expression of curiosity, it is possible
that a high level of anxiety, which the parents may ignore
or augment, may facilitate expression of curiosity of a
simple kind, manifested by brief examination of numerous
stimuli and numerous competing responses, so that the
child appears highly distractable. When-anxiety is low or
when the parents interact in such a way so as to reduce
high anxiety, curiosity is expressed and manifested by a-
more careful, persistent examination of the environment.

It could be further hypothesized that the low anxious
child will more frequently seek information from his parents
and also more frequently form answers to his own questions.

In summary, from a social learning point of View,
curiosity can be conceived as a class of behaviors involv-
ing exploration of the environment and seeking and offering
information. As a class of behaviors curiosity may be
influenced by social reinforcers such as parental attention
and expression of positive feeling, which have been shown
to influence other classes of behaviors. Exploration and
curiosity are elicited or "released" by the presence of
novel and familiar stimuli. At the same time events
following exploration, either reinforce and increase the
probability of exploration, decrease the rate of explora-
tion, or temporarily suppress the rate of exploration. In

addition, events occurring before or contiguous with

15

exploration serve as conditioned stimuli for exploration.
Cues preceding exploration or in temporal proximity with
curiosity, such as directions, questions, or another person
exploring the environment, serve as stimuli to elicit,
exploration. The person expressing curiosity may also
serve as a model for curiosity. The exploration of novel
stimuli, however, may be conceived as a reinforcing behavior
in itself (Premack, 1959). Being punitive or nonattentive,
however, may temporarily suppress the rate of exploration,
though its rate may increase in the absence of the punitive
agent.

The basic question which, nevertheless, arises
is, "Why is the exploration of novel stimuli a reinforcing
experience? If novel stimuli are conceived as unconditioned
stimuli, does this imply a drive for exploration? Rather
than postulating a drive for exploration, a manipulation
drive (Harlow and Meyer, 1950) or a need for stimulation,
the reinforcement value of novel stimuli can be accounted
by other explanations. First, it is hypothesized that by
attending to novel stimuli, one avoids familiar stimuli,
which through past experience have become associated with
reactive and associative inhibition (Hull, 1941) or more
generally negative feelings of boredom. A second explana-
tion is that an organism tries to maintain a general
adaptation level or activity level, and that a combination

of familiar and novel elements in a stimulus (Berlyne, 1960)

16

arouses and maximizes exploration. The combination of
familiar elements and surprising, incongruous, and complex
elements arouses internal cognitive dissonance conflict
(Fesinger, 1957) which is resolved by investigation and
exploration. The important distinction is that the capacity
for novel stimuli to elicit and reinforce behavior can be
accounted by an anxiety reduction hypothesis and stimulus
habituation hypothesis, without postulating an exploratory
drive concept. The postulation of an exploratory drive
would appear to be more related to research aimed at
determining the effect of stimulus deprivation on explora-
tory behavior. As Fowler (1963) stated the relationship
between stimulus deprivation and associated boredom and its
effect on curiosity is more complex than the relationship
between food deprivation, hunger, and eating. However,
even confinement and stimulus deprivation may be conceived
as a frustrating experience, which energizes a variety of
behaviors, including exploration.

From the above discussion the following major

hypotheses were formed:

Major Hypotheses

1. Measures of curioSity, such as attentive observa-
tion, manipulation of objects, variety of objects
explored, curiosity directed toward novel stimuli,
preference for novel stimuli, seeking of informa-
tion, and offering information would be positive-
ly intercorrelated.

2. Child behavior categories such as high anxiety,

17
negative feelings and aggressiveness would be
negatively correlated with curiosity measures.

3. High solitary play would be negatively correlated
with curiosity measures.

4. Parental punitive behaviors, such as restriction,
negative feeling, and aggression would be nega—
tively correlated with the-child's expression of
curiosity. In contrast parental attentiveness
and expression of positive feeling would be
positively related to the child's expressions of
curiosity.

5. Parental non-attention would be negatively
correlated with expression of curiosity.

6. >Parental curiosity toward novel stimuli would be
positively correlated with the child's curiosity
toward novel stimuli.

It was also hypothesized that children who were
rated by their teachers as low-prosocial and low-curious
would express inra play situation with their mothers present
less curiosity than children rated high-prosocial and high-
curious. Conjointly it was hypothesized that mothers of
low prosocial-low curious children would interact differ-
ently with their children than mothers of children rated
high—prosocial-high-curious.

The above hypotheses were based on the assumption
that: (1) teachers' ratings would be sufficiently reliable
and valid to allow group differences in parent and child
behaviors to emerge in the play situation, and (2) that
children, in part, develop social and intellectual behavioral

skills through their interaction with their parents.

A more basic assumption which underlies the study

18

is that there is a relationship between children's play

and intellectual and social behavior in school. Granted
that the school class differs from a play situation in the
demands it makes on a child, nevertheless it was hypothe-
sized that parents who would allow their children to freely
play and explore the environment without excess restriction,
non-attention, anxiety, or negative feeling, would have
children who could more effectively and creatively adjust
and benefit from a school experience. The following minor

hypotheses were formed:

7. Boys identified by their first grade teachers as
highly curious and prosocial would express more
curiosity and less anxiety, negative feeling and
aggression in a laboratory playroom than boys
identified as less curious, more neurotic, and
more aggressive.

8. Mothers of highly curious-prosocial boys would
more frequently reinforce the child with praise,
affection and positive feeling than parents of
low curious, neurotic, and aggressive boys.

9. MOthers of high curious-prosocial boys would
express less non-attention and less punitive
behavior than parents of low curious, neurotic,
and aggressive boys.

METHOD

The subjects were forty first-grade boys selected
from a sample of 105 boys from the Holt school system in
Michigan.

Each of seven teachers was asked to select two
boys who most aptly fit each of several behavioral cate-
gories. Each teacher was presented a behavioral check list
containing nineteen categories.. The check lists were
adopted from those used by Maw and Maw (1961), Quay (1966),
and Ross, Lacey, and Parton (1965). For the specific items
used see Appendix A. From the teacher's ratings four
groups were formed: namely, (1) a high curiosity-high
prosocial group (HC-HP), (2) a low curiosity group (LC),
(3) a high aggressive group (HA), and (4) a high neurotic
group (HN).

The limited number of subjects available for
study in the selected school system, and the fact that the
teachers tended to rate high prosocial boys high on
curiosity, and not rate neurotic and aggressive boys high
on curiosity prevented the identification of other pertinent
groups; such as: (l) a High Neurotic-High Curiosity group,

(2) a High Aggressive-High Curiosity group, (3) a High

19

20

Aggressive-Low Curiosity group, and (4) a High Prosocial-
Low Curiosity group.

The specific criteria and rules used in forming
the four groups can be found in Appendix B. Briefly, high
curiosity included such criteria as exploration, investi-
gation, manipulation of objects, asking of questions, and
expressing a need to know more about oneself and the environ-
ment. Low curiosity included items such as little or only
short-lived enthusiasm about objects in environment,
acceptance of information without question, and limited
interest in learning about oneself and the environment.
Prosocial behavior included criteria such as cooperative-
ness, considerateness, self-confidence, independence, and
pOpularity. The aggressive group included, in addition to
aggression, hyperactivity, uncooperativeness, and attention
seeking "show—off" behavior. Neurotic behavior included
items such as anxiety, depression, low self-confidence,
confusion, and social withdrawal.

Of sixty-seven boys who fit into the four groups,
forty parents agreed to participate in the study. The high
curious-high prosocial and low curious groups included 11
subjects each, while high neurotic and high aggressive
groups included 9 subjects each. Before observing the
mother and son interact in the play room, each mother was
asked to complete in an adjoining room a short questionnaire

containing questions pertaining to family size, income,

21

vocation, education, and the ordinal position of the child.
The-child usually sat quietly watching his mother fill out

the questionnaire.

Observational Situation

 

Each mother and her son were brought into a play-
room (16' X 20') containing standard playroom toys, such.
as a punching bag, a sandbox, masks, toy furniture, dolls,
guns, bowling pins, and puzzles. For a more complete list
see Appendix C. Novel objects were also present and
included: (1) incongruous pictures, (2) pictures on the.
walls, (3) a battery-Operated ice-cream truck with faces
painted on ice-cream cones, (4) a doll, half black and half
white, (5) a candy "life saver" man, (6) a "I Hate You
Teacher" doll, (7) a puzzle which allowed more than 3,000
possible combinations of facial features to form cartoon
faces, and (8) a gerbil and running wheel in an aquarium.
The novel objects were selected utilizing the definitions
of novelty formulated by Berlyne (1960). All objects were
placed in the-same location for each session.

The instructions for the play period were as
follows:

We want to see how children play with these
materials with their mothers present. You do not have
to play with your child at all, if you don't want to,
but you certainly may do so as much as you like.

We so have one restriction. Your son.can play with
the animal in the cage or on his lap. But we would

rather not have the animal on the floor or table.
The session will last twenty minutes. Would you be

22

prepared to leave at . I'll leave you alone
until then, but I'll Be SeHind the.one-way mirror
observing.

The mother-child interaction and the child's
curiosity and play behavior were observed through a one-way
mirror by trained raters, one rater observing the child's
behavior while a second rater observed the parent's
behavior. Each rater recorded the observations into one
channel of a stereo tape recorder. Another tape recorder

counted off twenty-second intervals.

Child's Behavior

 

During each twenty-second interval a rating was
made on each of the seventeen child behavioral variables,
partially derived from a more comprehensive system first
developed by Moustakas, Siegel, and Schalock (1956).

During each twentyesecond interval more than one category.
could be scored, but no category (except number of
different objects) was scored more than once during the,
interval. For the twenty-minute session, the highest score
that could be obtained was a score of sixty. The seventeen
child behavioral categories included six measures of
curiosity; namely: (1) close attentive observation, (2)
manipulation of objects, (3) seeking of information, (4)
offering information, (5) an absolute frequency count of
the number of different kinds of objects manipulated, and

(6) whether or not a novel stimulus was explored during the

23

interval. Other variables scored were (7) solitary play,
(8) joint participation, (9) expression of positive feel-
ing, (10) expression of negative feeling, (ll) c00peration,
(12) non—cooperation, (13) direction, (14) anxiety, (15)
aggression, (16) seeking attention, help, and participa-
tion from parent, and (17) whispering. The raters were
instructed to note whether anxiety and aggression were
mild, moderate, or severe. The specific criteria for
scoring the seventeen variables can be found in Appendix
D. In addition, preference for novel objects was deter-
mined by asking each child to name five objects which he
did not have at home with which he especially enjoyed

playing.

Reliabilit of the Ratings of
tHe CHiId Behavior

A group of eight raters were trained in both

 

group and individual sessions. The raters observed a
variety of parents and their children interact in the.playe
room. In addition the investigator role-played behaviors
which were displayed infrequently by the children to insure
the raters learned the categories. After twelve hours of
training, product moment correlations on twenty-minute
segments of play were computed. The investigator's ratings
served as the standard by which each rater was compared.
One rater, at a time, observed with the investigator a

different set of mothers and sons in order to correlate the

24

relationship between the standard and the rater on the.
behavioral categories. For example, to determine the rater
reliability correlation coefficient for positive feeling,
the total positive feeling score obtained by rater A on
subject Q was computed against the total positive feeling
score obtained by the investigator on subject Q. Rater
B's total positive feeling score on subject R was compared
with theinvestigator's total positive feeling score on
subject R. In this way mean scores and standard deviations
were obtained for the eight raters as compared to the
investigator's rating's on eight different Ss. Pearson
product-moment correlations were computed with M=8 and
d.f.=6.

The correlations between the raters and the.
standard were quite high, demonstrating that the behaviors
could be reliably measured. The reliability coefficients
can be found in Table 1..

Of the seventeen correlations, twelve Pearson.
product-moment correlations were greater than .83, signifi-
cant at the p < .01 level of significance. The categories
which appeared least reliable were direction (r = .42),
non-cooperation (r = .53), and negative feeling (r = .65).
Elfifitttfiivifii “mm

Another group of nine raters were trained in

individual and group sessionato rate the mothers on seven-

25

.Hoo. v m «.4
.Ho. v m as
omo. V m *

 

 

oh " 0M0” ~¢ HAHN
. I . o e I

m I m c m I ca
44mm. chAmdmAez «sow. chAmmmArz
«emm. coammoummm
.4sm. sumsxcs .«Nm. sumsxca
«sgmm. mcflamom o>aummmz mo. academy o>Hummoz
««smm. mcflaoom o>HuHmom «seem. mcflamwm m>fluflmom
I445m. mpsmoanso Assassmm mm. cosumuwdoooucoz
*««mm. mnemOAHso Ho>oz «sam. cowumuomoou
we. coflumuomooolcoz mv. coauooufla
«seem. cowpoauumom *«om. ucoumm Eoum uncommon mcflxoom
mm. cosuomuflc .4smm. coflummaoAuAMd ucflon
«IImm. mmcommmu emusosaomqo ...mm. swam ammunaom
mm. omcommou coDAOHHom ««vm. coflumEH0mcH muommo
«seam. n0a>mcoc mo cowuooawom «samm. coaumEHOMcH mxomm
«xsmm. coaumEHOMGH mxmmm «s«hm. anamowuso Ho>oz
«ssmm. HMMIGOHum>Homno o>Hucouu¢ «ssmm. muoomno ucoquMHc mo Honasz
«ssmm. omoaoIGOHum>nmmno o>flucouu¢ om. coaumasmflcmz
;««mm. coapcoDDMIcoz «on. coaum>uomno coaucouum

ucmHOAMMooo ucofloflmmoou
coaumaonuou muofi>mcom pacts coaumamuuou mu0fl>mcom UHHcU

N

H

 

 

mmfinommumo H0H>mcon pants can cawco map How

MCOH#M>H0wDO m.HOU.MIDHU.mO>Gfl TQM. UGM .mHOHMH GOO3HOQ mHCmflUHMMmOU COHfiMHmHHOUII..—. man—”3.6

26

teen behavioral categories. The reliability coefficients
for each behavioral category were determined in the same way
as the child behavioral categories and can be found in.
Table l. Thirteen of fifteenbehavioral categories had
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients ranging
betweener = .89 and r = .99. Too many mothers had zero
ratings on aggression so correlation coefficients were not
computed for aggression. The three categories which appeared
least reliable were direction, non-coOperation, and solicited
response (r = .55, r = .46, and .58 respectively). In
general the adult behavior categories were rated more
reliably than the child categories, perhaps because the
raters of the adult behaviors had received additional
training and experience in another study, using similar

categories .

RESULTS AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION

Stability of Adult and Child
Behaviors within the Twenty-
Mihute Session

 

 

 

In order to assess the reliability of the.
behavioral categories, Pearson product-moment correlations
were computed for the adult and child behavior categories
between the first and second ten minutes of the play
session. The data from Table 2 indicates the adult behav-
iors in general were reasonably stable. Of the seventeen
variables, only non-cooperation, negative feeling, and
aggression were not highly positively correlated between
the first and second ten minutes. This suggests that the
behavior observation ratings in the-play room, were not
taping stable and valid estimates of the child's non-coop-
eration, negative feeling, and aggression. The children
were not consistently aggressive, negative, or non-cooper-
ative, over the total situation, and tended to have instead
periods of such behaviors.

The data from Table 2 indicates that the child
behaviors were less stable and more variable between the
first and second ten minutes than the adult behavior

categories. Of the six observational curiosity measures,

27

28

four had Pearson product-moment correlations ranging between
.43 and .67. The number of different kinds of objects
explored and novel curiosity had Pearson product-moment
correlations of .31 and .34, respectively. These lower
correlations were expected and suggest investigation of
different objects and exploration of novel stimuli may have
diminished during the second ten minutes due to (1) possible
habituation, and (2) the restricted number of new and differ-
ent objects left to explore in the second ten minute period.
The habituation of novel curiosity suggests that the

novelty of the objects used elicited exploration of a short
duration. The novel stimuli, with exploration and investi-
gation lost their novelty.

Of the remaining child behaviors, seeking
response from parents, expression of positive feeling,
negative feeling, and anxiety appeared more reliable
measures than interaction behaviors, such as joint partici-
pation, cooperation, or non-cooperation, and direction. The
lower reliability for interaction behaviors was probably
due to the following methodological difficulty. Since each
rater had a great variety of behaviors to attend to they
each focused on just the one person they were instructed
to rate. However, in rating cooperation, it is necessary to
observe the parent.direct the child, and observe the child
follow the direction. If the rater misses the parent's

direction, cooperation would probably not be noted. In

29

.couuomon ouo3 mcoflumaouuoo ucosoauuoscoum comumom .mm ow n z

 

mcwummmflcz

 

mm. mcwuommwcz Hm.
mo. conmoumms mm. cofimmoummd
hm. Mbmec< we. . wumflxcs
mm. mcflaoom o>wummoz mm. mcwaoom o>wummoz
aw. mcHHoom o>fluflmom mm. mcaaoom o>auflmom
Hm. anamowuso HMHHHEmm mm. cowuoonflo
me. auHmOAHsO Ho>oz Nb. omcommom mxoom
Ho. cOADMHMQOOOIcoz mm. coaumuomoooIcoz
mm. cospowuumom om. coauoummooo
Ho. coauoonfla hm. coflummaoflunmm ucHOh
mm. mmcommmm couaofiHOmcD mm. moan mumuflaom
on. omcommom cmufloflaom hm. coflumfiuomcH muommo
om. How>mcom muooamom me. coaumEHOMcH mxoom
mm. coaumEHomcH mxoom em. mnemoausu Ho>oz
No. Ammueoflucmuus Hm. muommno ucmAmmmso
as. mmoHoIcosucmuum so. noAumasmscmz
an. coflucouudIcoz em. omoHUIcoaucouus
mcofiumaouuou muofl>mcom pasts mcowumaonuoo mnofl>mcom tHH£U

 

 

mouscwa cop

UCOOmm Ufim #mHHH CO03HOQ mHOH>MSOQ nan—”5U” UGM UHHSO MOM mGOHUMHmHHOUIlom Waugh...

30

future research, it therefore may be necessary to assign
one rater to record a limited number of interaction
behaviors.

In general, the low internal consistency of the
child behavior categories indicates that without more
reliable estimates of the child's behavior, correlations
among the child behaviors and between the child and parent's
behavior would tend to be unstable and low. Extending the.
time of the observation or introducing the child to another
play situation with different novel and familiar objects
might increase both the reliability of the behaviors and
the degree to which child and parental behaviors are.
correlated.

Even though a number of child behaviors proved to
be unstable estimates of the child's behavior, intercorrela-
tions were computed, using the total scores on each behavior
category for the entire 20 minute session.

The intercorrelation coefficients among the child
and among the adult behavior categories, and the correla-
tions between the child and parent behavior categories were
computed using all subjects. The correlations for the
curiosity measures are presented in Table 3. The means and
standard deviations for all behavior measures are presented

in.Table 4.

THO. v nuts
.mo. v Qt

.Amm u .u.ce mcoauoaouuoo acmEoEIuoscoum :Omucom mcwmucoo wand» macea

 

31

“was mcauoamars

 

mv.I Ahav cowmmoumma
vo.I No. Aoav aboaxc<
m~.I came. mo. “may mcflaoom o>wummoz
so. so. mm. so.I Asa. mcsamms o>Ausmom
mo.I ~H.I me. No. cumm. Amae newuoouwo
mm. «vm.I a.mv. n~.I «mm. vm. ANHV uncommom mxoom
no. 00. «an. mo.I oo. mm. HH.I AHHV c0wumuom000Icoz
«0.- ms.u mo.I mo.- mN. ma. oo.- «.mm. rose cosumumdooo
mo. mo. mo. oo.I smm. ad. HH.I mm. «eve. Ame coHucQAOADumm assoc
mH.I 50.: -.I «H.I mH.I AA.I mo.- so.I mm.. ..mm.- Amt swam sumusflom
so. HH.I so. No. mm. «mm. ma. oo. ms. no. so. 1st cowumsuoucH muumuo
no.- es. mm. «mm. mm. «mm. as. MH.I on. sw. .sm.- pm. Awe cosuaauomcH mxmom
so.: mm.- as. so. mo.I ~H.I mm. 00. om. mH.I mH.u mo.- mo. Ame muoonno Hw>oz nmuuoumum
mo.. 00. so. mo. so. AH.I so”- mo.u HA. «0.- ma.. NH. mo. ..sm. Ase susmosuso Ho>oz

.mm.- so. mm. no. as. OH” AN. mo. ma. on. H~.- NH. ma. mo. H~.- Ame nuuonno ucmuouuso
as. No. mm. ms. ms. «H mm. mo.- so. mo. ..me. ..~v. .«mv. .Hm. «hm. ..os. 1st cosuoasmscnz
No. mo. sN. ms. mm. as. ma «0.- am. «A. ..sm. .om. ..mm. mm. «.mv. .Hma ..~m. 1H1 cosuu>uomno w>Aucouu<

ma ha SH ma vs ms NA as as m m n m m c m N

 

mowuomoumo u0a>mcon cawco ocean macsucaouuoououcHII.m mqmda

32

 

 

.os.n e

hm.m mo.v mcwuommwcz
mm.s om.m chAmmmAes om.m mm.m .eosmmmummm
ms. mm. _coAmmmum« mm.m ma.~a sumsxaa
Hw.m .mm.m muowxcm mH.m mH.m mcwaoom o>wummoz
mm.m mm.~ mafiammm m>aummmz mm.m wom.mH mesammm m>AuAmom
om.oa ms.ma mesammm m>ApAmom mm.~ mm.~ .coAuomAAo
mo.m om.m muflmofluso umHHAsmm mo.m ms.aa mucommmm mxmmm
vs.oa om.sa susmofluso Hm>oz mm.a ms.H cofiumumdoooucoz
vm.H ms. cowumumdoooucoz .oo.v mm.s coflumnmmooo
eh.~ mH.N GOADOHHumom ma.h mm.> cowummflowuumm ucfl0b
mm.m mm.m cospomusc mm.ma mo.m~ swam sumusaom
H¢.m os.HH mucodmmm consoAHOmcs mm.m ms.- .coflumsuomcH mummmo
ms.m ma.m omcodmwm consonaom mH.m ma.m coaumsnomaH mxomm
mm.m mo.m How>mcmm muooamom vo.H mm.H (moconomoum Hm>oz
mm.m mm.s eosumsuomcH mxmmm m~.~H om.m~ susmosuso Ho>oz
mm.ma mo.o~ HmmIcowucouu< av.m mm.va muoonno uconommaa
mm.~a ms.mm mmoaoucosucmuus .mo.vH .om.om eoflpmaamaamz
om.s mm.ma cosucmuuaucoz ~o.sH _oo.mm mmoaouqoflucmuus

.Q.m mcmoz muofl>mcom pasts .o.m memos muow>mcom caflcu

I
I“

Ace n whoom Edaaxmsv

ill

 

 

 

mowuomoumo uoa>mcon caflco can adapt mom chHuma>oc cumccmum can mammzll.v mqmda

33

The-Curiosity Measures

The data from Table 3 indicates that attentive
observation and manipulation of objects was significantly
correlated in a positive direction with the number of differ-
ent objects explored, (r = .31 and r = .40, respectively),
exploration of novel objects (r = .49 and .37, respectively),
seeking information (r - .39 and .42, respectively).
Exploring a greater variety of objects or focusing on the
novel stimuli was not, however, associated with such increased
verbal manifestations of curiosity as seeking and offering
information.

The low stability of the child's novel curiosity
may, in part, account for the low relationship between novel
curiosity and seeking and offering information. One can
not, therefore, conclude that exploration of novel stimuli
either increases or decreases question asking.

Other Child Behaviors and
Curiosity

The data from Table 3 indicates that solitary play
was negatively correlated with such curiosity measures as
attentive observation (r = -.57), manipulation (r = -.43),
and seeking information (r = -.37). The negative relation-
ship between solitary play and attentive observation, mani-
pulation, and seeking information tentatively suggests the
existence of an exploratory investigating behavior factor

and a solitary play factor. The small sample (N = 40) did

34

not, however, allow a factor analysis of the child's~
behavior to clearly substantiate this inference. It is
tentatively hypothesized that solitary play can be dif-
ferentiated from exploration, and that the two distinct
behaviors may be influenced by different variables. The.
negative relationship also implies that playing alone,
using a toy in its prescribed fashion may compete with
exploring the environment and more Carefully investigating

an object to gain new information.

The Effect of the Child's Emo-

tionality on Exploration and
Curi051ty

 

Emotional indices, such as the child's positive
and negative feeling, anxiety, and aggression were for the
most part not significantly correlated with exploratory
behavior or verbal curiosity. In general a high degree of
investigation and curiosity toward novel stimuli was not
associated consistently with either a high degree of positive
or negative feeling expressed by the child. For example,
some children explored frequently, and concommitantly
expressed high positive feeling, whereas others explored
frequently, expressing limited positive affect. Only
negative feeling was moderately related to the seeking in-
formation (r = .36). The positive relationship between
negative feeling and seeking information suggests that

irritation, frustration associated with manipulating an

35

object, or boredom with a task may prompt the subject to
seek information from the parent. However, since temporal
sequences were not examined this speculation is offered

with some caution.

The Effect of Parental
Behavior and Curiosity

 

The data from Table 5 suggests that the explora-
tion of and preference for novel stimuli by the child was
highly positively related to the exploration of novel
stimuli by the parent. From Table 4 it.can be seen that
children and mothers differed widely in the degree to which
they attended to novel stimuli. The high correlation
(of .72) between parent and child curiosity toward novel
stimuli suggests exploration of novel stimuli may be influ-
enced by parentechild variables. A number of alternative:
explanations can be offered to account for this high relae
tionship between child and parent curiosity. First, child
and parenthay learn to imitate each other's curiosity,
particularly in terms of the selection of stimuli to attend
to. Second, attention and manipulation of novel stimuli by
one person may elicit "following behavior" in another
person. This interpretation defines the "novel stimulus" as
including, in addition to the object being explored, the
subject attending to it. The parent attends to the child
exploring a novel stimulus. And third, the parent who

attends to a novel stimulus as a child explores novel

236

 

 

 

.Ho. vase.
.mo. v a.
.Amm u .m.cv macsuoamuuou ucoaoEIuostosm COmumom mcfimucoo manna macu asses
.Nm. oo.- NN.- os.- oo. oo. ss. so. .oN.I ms.- Ns. oo. oo. ms. no. mo. os.I mcsuommsa:
oN.- os. os. so. mo. os.- oo.- No. ..om. NN. No. ms. oo.- so. oo. oo.- oo.- cosommuooc
mo. os. .mm. mo. oN. NN.- ss.- Ns. oo. so.I oN. oo. so.- os.I ..No. NN.- sN.- sumsxc<
ss. ss. .NN. so. oN.- sN.- oN.- .No.I oN. os. os. os. so.: so.- os. oo.- oo.- ocssumm m>summoz
..oN.I os.I .NN.I os.- ..so. «oo.- oo.- os. NN. oo. as. os. oN. oo. os. oo. ..om.- ocssomo m>susmom
.sm. os.I NN.- oo.- oN. NN.- NN.- .oo. oo. os.- Ns. oo.- os. oo. os. ss.- .om.- cosuomsso
os.- oN.- so. ms.I oN. vs.- oN.- Ns. so. ms.- ..oo. oo. ss. ms.I oN. oN.- ..oo. uncommmm mxmmm
ms. .om. ss.- NN. ss.- .om. oo. oo. oN. ..mm. .sm. sN.- ms.- sN. Ns.- Ns. oo. aosuouodoooucoz
NN.- .om. ss.- oN. os. oo.- oN. oo.- sN. ..sN. .«No. oo. oo. ..oo. mo.- os. sN.- :osuouocooo
.om.- «.oo. sN.- oo.- .Nm. ss.- Ns. ms.» oN. ..om. ..so. .om. .mm. .sm. oo.- os. NN.- cosumdsosuuom unsoo
oo.- «oo.. No. ss.- oo.- .Nm. so. oo. os.- ..so.u .om. ..mm.u .om.n NN.- ss.- os. oN. Nose suoussom
os. oo.- .oN.I oo.- ..sv. os.- oo. ms. ss.- oo. mo. oo.- oo. .om. so. oN. ..ov.- cosuuerwcs muwsuo
so.I oo.- os. oN.- sN. oN.- ss.- Ns. Ns. Ns. os. NN. oo. os. os. oo. .NN.I cosumsuoscs oxoom
«NN. oo. os. Ns. so. ss.- ..om. ms.u os. os. ms. ss. oo. ss.- Ns.- oo. Ns.- .sno .>oz souuosoum
osu os. os. mo. Ns. .Nm.u ..NN. oo.- NN. os. Ns. No. oo.- Ns. oo.- NN.- ss.- susmosusu so>oz
so I Ns.- oo. oo. ss. ss.- .mN.I ms. ms. NN. No. «no. mo. so. oN. os.- oN.- .flno unassumso
oNH oo.- oo. os. .mm. .vm.- oo. ms. no. Ns. so. oN. oo.- ss. NN. Ns. ..so.- cosuussmscmz
oo oo. oo. ms. .om. .«om.- Ns. sN. vs. .om. oN. ..Nv. No. oN. os. oN. .om.- .ono m>sucmuu<
M V. v. 3N dd 33
3 D G n
N m m %.m a w m m n o w I u_u w_% w_w M W w” W
s I T. ID» TLT? T??? IN 0 s 1 88 ST. q; 1’s «.1 33 3N
a s 3 u I. u r. s I. o A e o 1 o d I o o A a one s u onu u u
1 s .A 6A 5A to. 53 1n 1. a. 0.... ur. To mx. 1.4 3.... 3.
r. e a «+1 r.T e _ o r. u o s 4 0.4 e s r. 3.} I
o .A 3 3 a. o 8.... as 1 3 o o A
u A t. t. u a 4 P r. u u a
O o a 0
u u D. u

 

 

muos>nnom assoc

ouos>ugom osszo

 

 

smmsuoooumo u0s>ocon ussco can cswro coo3uon u:oauosouuooaI.m mamas

37

stimulus, also provides positive reinforcement, especially

if attention is considered as a positive reinforcer.

The data from Table 5 did indicate that parental
non-attention and focusing on familiar stimuli was negative-

ly related to a number of curiosity measures, such as atten—

tive observation (r = -.38; r = -.39), manipulation
(r,= -.41; r = -.34), seeking information (r = -.37;
r = -.28), offering information (r = -.40; r = -.l9). Non-

attention was also negatively related to the child's expres-
sion of positive feeling (r = -.54). These relationships
suggest that when a parent was distracted from her child,
she tended to express less positive feeling, as she examined
familiar stimuli. At the same time non-attention occurred
more frequently when the child was expressing limited inves-
tigation and verbal curiosity.

In contrast being responsive to the child, by
offering attention, help, participation upon request and
expressing positive feeling was positively correlated with
exploratory behavior and offering information. This
suggests that parental interaction with the child may
booster exploratory behavior. Another interpretation-could
be that exploratory behavior by the child may foster inter-
action by the parent.

Parental behaviors such as attentive observation,
reflection of behavior, seeking information, offering unsol-

icited behavior, direction, restriction, and non-coopera-

38

tion, negative feeling, anxiety, and aggression were, for
the most part, not correlated with the child's exploratory
behavior or verbal curiosity. The absence of any negative
relationships between the control techniques and explora-
tion might have been due to their infrequent use-by the
mothers in the playroom. The means and standard deviations
for the parental behavior can be found in Table 4.

When control techniques, however, were correlated
with a number of other child behaviors, some interesting
relationships were found. The data from Table 5 indicates
that giving unsolicited help, participation, and direction,
and expressing mild aggression was positively correlated
with joint participation, cooperation, and non-cooperation.
These.same control techniques and reflecting behavior were
negatively correlated with solitary play. Unsolicited help
was positively correlated with joint participation (r = .41)
indicating that giving help or participation often was
associated with joint participation in an activity by the
child with the parent. The parent however, initiated the
interaction. Giving help by the parent-was reciprocated by
the child who then more frequently c00perated (r = .42).
Unsolicited help was also negatively correlated with seeking
a response by the child (r = -.46). With a high degree of
help offered without being requested the child does not
feel need or does not learn to frequently seek help or par-

ticipation from the parent.

39

A high level of giving directions by the parent
was likewise associated with joint participation. This
indicates that in participating jointly with the child, the
parent tended to give more directions (r = .39). In this
study direction was correlated with both c00peration (r = .71)
and non-c00peration (r = .53). This indicates that the boys
did not cooperate with every request their parents made of
them. Those parents who frequently gave directions had
children who both frequently obeyed their parents and
ignored them.

The same control techniques or intervention
behaviors were negatively correlated with solitary play.
The parent who did not intervene, by seeking participation,
qtvhmg directions, or commenting on the child's activity,
allowed solitary play to persist and interfere with the
expression of other behaviors.

In summary, by playing alone, the child tended to
avoid being directed by the parent and avoided conflicts
associated with cooperation-non-cooperation, and participa-
tion with the possible expression of aggression.

Restriction by the parent was only related to
aggression by the child. Since restriction was not corre-
lated with the expression of high or low curiosity or other
behaviors, the most reasonable interpretation is that
aggressiveness by the child tended to elicit restriction by

the parent. This hypothesis was supported by a qualitative

40

examination of the data. Aggression by the child tended to
precede restriction by the parent.

Finally the correlations between the child and
his parent's expression of feeling provide some evidence'
indicating the feelings expressed by a child are related to
the feelings expressed by his parent. Positive feeling
expressed by the child was especially highly correlated with
positive feeling by the parent (r = .62).
Relationship between the.

SociaI—Economic Class
Variables and Curiosity

The only socio-economic class variable which was
significantly related to the behavior measures was the
parent's level of education (less than High School, High
School, greater than High School). Level of education was
correlated in a positive direction with parent's seeking of
information (r = .47, p < .01) and the child's offering of
information (r = .30, p < .05). With more education there
tended to be more "teacher-student" or question-answer
interaction.

Teacher's Ratings and Behavior
OBse‘rva'tion Measures

In order to determine whether the teacher's
:ratings on curiosity and high and low prosocial behavior
were related to the child and adult behaviormeasures in-the

playroom, analysis of variances and Newman-Keuls individual

41

comparisons were computed. Analysis of variances were also
computed on the socio-economic variables to determine whether
the groups differed in education, family size, income, and
ordinal position of the child studied.

Those F-tests which approached (p < .124) or
reached the .05 level of significance are presented in
Table 6. There were no significant differences between the
groups on parent's level of education, family size, or
ordinal position. Differences between the groups on amount
of income earned approached but did not reach the .05 level

of significance.

Adult Behavior Categories

The data from Table 6 indicates the mothers
differed in the amount of non-attention, restriction, and
positive feeling they displayed in the playroom.

The largest differences were between the mothers
of the high-curious-high prosocial boys and the mothers of
high aggressive boys. Mothers of high curious-high pro-
social boys were less non-attentive, less restrictive, and
expressed more positive feeling than mothers of HA boys.
Mothers of high curious-high prosocial boys also expressed
more positive feeling than mothers of low curious boys.

The mothers of high curious-high prosocial boys also tended
to observe their child more frequently from a distance than-

the other groups of mothers. Mothers of low curious boys

42

were less restrictive than mothers of high aggressive and
high neurotic boys. No significant differences were
present between the mothers of high curious-high prosocial
vs high neurotic boys and mothers of high aggressive vs

high neurotic boys.

Child Behavior Categories

 

The data from Table 6 suggests the groups of boys
tended to differ in the extent to which they manipulated
objects, sought information, directed their mothers,
displayed aggressive behavior, and expressed positive feeling
and anxiety.

Even though the differences between groups were
not large enough to be statistically significant, in general
the differences were in the predicted direction. The HC-HP
group had the highest mean manipulation, seeking informa-
tion, direction and positive feeling scores. The HA group
had the highest aggression score; and the HN group had the.
highest anxiety score.

Summary of Results as Related
‘tO'Hypotheses-
Hypothesis One:

InveStigation of objects (attentive observation
and manipulation) was positively intercorrelated with
curiosity toward novel stimuli, number of objects explored,

and verbal manifestations of curiosity (seeking and offer-

43

.mo. v m.

 

 

 

 

.oo u .o u on .o u on .ss u a: .ss n a:
.copsommu
our oococwmcoo mo Ho>oa mo. ecu ccowon ucmoomwcmsm m.» masoMIcmszozmacoH
mh.s ve.s ms.m mm.m ewo. vo.m .cosuoousa
.oo.o mm.ss oo.o Nm.Ns No.ss oso. Nm.N sumsxes
m>.b oo.oa mm.m mn.m mno. mm.m cosmmosmmd
hm.ms mm.mH vm.mH me.m~ ems. mo.~ meadows m>suwmom
-.oa ¢¢.m o.m o.oa ems. mo.~ cosumauomcH mxoom
-.~m hm.m~ mm.m~ a.mm «NH. mo.m coauoasmflsmz
mmwuomoumo
Hos>mnom cHHcU
mm.~ mm.~ Hm.s vm.m Hmo. mm.m mfioocH
hm.ha mm.ea h~.ba Hm.m~ who. mv.m HMHIcosucouus
smm.m «Hm.m «a.ms.hm.as ~>.HH me.~m mvo. mm.m mewsmmm o>susmom
sma.m ems.m mm.~ mm.v mm. mv.a Hmo. em.m cosuowupmmm
mm.vs mm.oN Hm.ma m¢.m mvo. om.~ cowucmuudIcoz
ono a o m 4 m ummaus mossomoumo
zm fit on mmlum H0fl>msmm based

 

 

H

mossommumo Hos>mcmn casco can pants on» so mamas msoum consume moocosommwall.m mamas

44

ing information). Some of the correlations between atten-
tion close and manipulation, for example, can be inter-
preted as unduly high since they were not completely inde-
pendent. There was, however, no support for the hypothesis
that novel stimuli elicit greater verbal expression of
curiosity by first grade boys. Furthermore, the number of
different kinds of objects explored did not correlate with
novel curiosity or verbal manifestations of curiosity. The
data, therefore, supports the notion that curiosity may be
most usefully measured by: (1) investigation (attention
observation and manipulation) of familiar objects, (2)
exploration of novel objects, and, (3) verbal expression of

curiosity by seeking and offering information.

Hypothesis Two:
High anxiety, expression of negative feeling, and
aggressiveness by the child were not correlated with the

curiosity measures.

Hypothesis Three:

Solitary play was, however, negatively correlated
with a number of curiosity measures. Boys who more fre-
quently played alone, less frequently investigated familiar
objects, and less frequently sought information from their

mothers.

 

45

Hypothesis Four:

Parental punitive behaviors wera.not correlated
with the child's expression of curiosity. Expression of
positive feeling by the mother, however, was positively
correlated with investigation and seeking information.
Parental positive feeling was not correlated with the
number of different kinds of objects explored, curiosity
toward novel stimuli, or offering of information. Attention-
close and attention-far were not correlated with any of the

curiosity measures.

Hypothesis Five:

Parental non—attention was negatively correlated
with investigation and verbal manifestations of curiosity.
Parental non-attention was not, however, negatively corre-

lated with exploration of novel stimuli.

Hypothesis Six:

Curiosity toward novel stimuli by mother and son

was highly positively correlated.

Hypothesis~Seven:

Although the boys rated HC-HP by their teachers
tended to more frequently investigate familiar stimuli,
ask questions, and express more frequent positive feeling
'uhan the other groups of boys, the differences between the

groups were not large enough to be statistically significant.

46

Hypothesis Eight:

Mothers of HC-HP boys expressed significantly
more positive feeling than mothers of HA boys. Mothers of
HC-HP boys also expressed significantly more positive

feeling than mothers of LC boys.

Hypothesis Nine:

Mothers of HC-HP boys were less non-attentive and

gave fewer restrictions than mothers of HA boys.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that curiosity may be most
usefully measured by: (l) attentive observation and
manipulation of familiar stimuli, (2) exploration of novel
stimuli, and (3) verbal manifestations of curiosity, such
as seeking and offering information. In general, because
the consistencies of the child behavior categories were low,
especially for such categories as novel curiosity, consis-
tent relationships between parent and child variables which
applied to all the curiosity measures were not uncovered.
Nevertheless, a number of significant relationships emerged
which did lend support for the notion that curiosity is
influenced or relates to interpersonal and social learning
variables.

The pertinent variables which appeared positively
correlated to a number of child curiosity measures were
the amount of curiosity and positive feeling the parent
expressed in the playroom. Although parental non-attention
appeared consistently related to less frequent investiga-
tion and verbal curiosity, no support was present for the
hypothesis that parental punitive behaviors and negative

feelings either inhibited or facilitated the expression of

47

48

curiosity. Nevertheless, when the child did not interact
with his parents, and became preoccupied with solitary
play, he less frequently investigated familiar objects and
verbally expressed curiosity. The child's positive feeling,
negative feeling, or aggression did not, however, appear to
either inhibit or facilitate exploratory behavior and
verbal curiosity over the total session.

When the data was analyzed in terms of the groups
the children were assigned to, based on teacher's ratings,
the differences between the boys in curiosity, positive
feeling, anxiety, and aggression were in the predicted
direction, but differences were not large enough to be
statistically significant. The mothers who appeared most
different in their behavior were the mothers of the HC-HP
boys and the mothers of the HA boys. The HE-HP mothers
expressed much more positive feeling and were less non-
attentive and less restrictive than the HA mothers.

In discussing the results, an emphasis will be
placed on the effect the child's behavior has on.the parent.
It is felt, as Bell (1968) has concluded, that focusing
exclusively on the effect a parent has on a child is-too
limited an approach to accommodate the data from studies
of human-and animal gs.

Since the data collected is correlational, in-
ferring cause-effect relationships is questionable, since

variables were not systematically varied to experimentally

49

test their influence. The inferences presented are'theree
fore offered with some caution and the hOpe that they will
stimulate further experimental research.

The results indicate that curiosity toward
novel stimuli by one person is influenced by the amount of
curiosity directed toward novel stimuli by another person.
From the data it was not possible to determine whether the
parent influenced the child or the child influenced the
parent. Three hypotheses could be clarified by future
research. They are: (l) curiosity is developed through the
process of imitation, by observing another express either
high or low levels of curiosity (Bandura and Walters, 1963);
(2) curiosity is enhanced merely by another person follow-
ing and attending to explorative behavior; and (3) expres-
sion of positive feeling or the presentation of other
reinforcers increases curiosity behavior. The present
study, in terms of its design and analysis, does not clarify
which hypothesis is most influential and applicable.
Furthermore, it is quite conceivable that investigation and
exploration by the child may elicit attentiveness, curiosity,
and positive feeling in the parent, whereas solitary play
and infrequent social interaction by the child may elicit
non—attention and less frequent positive feeling by the
parent. Qualitatively what was often observed in high
curious children was the following pattern. A child would

be exploring the playroom as his parent attended to him and

50

what he was doing. As she watched her child she expressed
positive feeling, frequently smiling. She was pleased by
his behavior. At times however, the boy would become
excessively preoccupied with one stimulus and become.
involved in a solitary activity. The mother would then
intervene, by directing the child's attention to another
stimulus, or by herself beginning to explore a novel
stimulus. The child then observing his mother explore a
novel stimuli would join her; and then the mother would
again attend to the child and his behavior, displaying
renewed positive feeling.

No support was present to suggest punitive control
techniques either inhibited or facilitated investigation,
exploration of novel stimuli, or verbal curiosity.

Punitive behavior by the parents was relatively infrequent.
When restrictions were given, they appeared to be elicited
by mild aggressive behavior by the child. The nature of
the playroom, the presence of crayon drawings on the walls,
the array of stimulus objects, and the fact that the parents
and children knew they were being observed,.all may have
elicited a permissive and socially acceptable behavior
"set" in the parents and children. The fact that non-
attention nevertheless emerged as a significant variable
suggests that: (1) non-attention is a behavior which is
difficult to inhibit, especially if one concentrates on

suppressing negative feelings and controlling behavior and

51

(2) consistent and "selective" attentiveness with positive
feeling toward a child as he explores the environment may
be important behavior for some parents to learn.

The lack of a relationship between aggression and
anxiety and the curiosity measures may be due also to the
fact that primarily mild anxiety and mild aggression were
expressed in the playroom, rather than more disrupting
intense anxiety or aggression. The mean number of intervals
during which an aggressive act was displayed was, for
example, 6.55, which indicates aggression did not pervade
the play session.

Concerning child behaviors other than curiosity,
the results indicate that parental intervention and respon-
siveness was related to low solitary play by the child.
Solitary play was associated with fewer attempts by the
parent to intervene and establish interaction between
child and parent.

In general this exploratory study on curiosity
relating maternal behavior and curiosity illuminated a
number of variables which might be more systematically and
experimentally studied.

The ideal strategy would be to select adults or
students to role play various adult behaviors and determine
their influence on child behaviors, such as novel curiosity,
seeking information, solitary play, and positive feeling.

Adult behaviors which might be systematically varied

52

include: (1) non-attention, (2) consistent attention-close
and attention-far, (3) adult curiosity toward novel
stimuli, (4) adult intervention behaviors, such as direc-
tion, solicited and unsolicited responsiveness, and (5)
expression of positive and negative feeling. Adults might
also be trained to selectively reinforce various curiosity
behaviors.

To assess the influence of the child's behavior
on the parent, children could likewise be trained through
instruction to focus on one or two basic behaviors, such
as: (1) high novel curiosity, (2) exclusive solitary play,
or (3) high aggressiveness and high anxiety.

Before such an experimental study is undertaken
the study of situational variables, such as the nature of
the playroom, and the extent to which it elicits stable
behavior patterns, is necessary to obtain reliable and
valid behavioral measures and relationships. Situational
variables which might be varied include (1) the number and
type of objects present, (2) the time of the play observa-
tion session and (3) the degree to which the investigator
provides structure by placing restrictions on the child
and adult behaviors.

In terms of a theoretical discussion of the
exploratory drive concept the-study did not provide a
systematic test for its presence, absence or heuristic

value. Likewise, it excluded in its design the relationship

53

between covert, internal physiological processes and
attempted to focus on manifest behavior. The study did
provide support for the operant learning position, that
social learning variables, such as reinforcers and imitation
relate to the expression of curiosity. This is not to

say, however, that activity level and the stimuli available
are not important determiners of curiosity.

In extending this study beyond the data, to the
school situation, home, and play therapy hour the following
recommendations can be offered. In regard to school, if
a teacher focuses exclusively on directing her children
to be c00perative, and to work in solitary achievement
activity, providing materials which lack novelty, she runs
the risk of reducing the child's chance to investigate and
enjoy activities which he finds unusual and surprising.

If at the same time she finds teaching "dull” and does not,
herself, express positive feeling, her students may, like-
wise, express less positive felling connected with the
discovery and learning of information. If a teacher can
identify children who express limited curiosity, on the
other hand, she-can focus, and reinforce small steps made
by each child toward greater curiosity and interest in
learning. Reinforcement of "questioning asking" may be a
beginning step.

In a similar way parents can learn to reinforce

with positive attention the exploration and inquisitiveness

54

their children display. In children, who are especially
hyperactive, however, it may be necessary to reinforce and,
direct curiosity to a more limited number of stimuli. Non-
attention, and allowing the child to persist in continuous
solitary play may lead to less curiosity, exploration, and
a reduced interest in seeking new information.

In reference to the therapy hour the parent-
child interaction data presented, indicates that a play
therapist may take advantage of a number of therapeutic
behaviors, which previously he has inhibited or ignored.
For one thing there was no evidence, what so ever, that it
is important to consistently maintain a close (less than
five feet) relationship inra play room with a child.
Attention close was not correlated with any of the prosocial
or curiosity measures. Second, the therapist can engage
in joint participation and intervention behaviors when the
child is playing alone, without fearing the child will
become hopelessly dependent. Third, it would appear that in
interacting with a child, one might, in addition to
empathizing with the child, also shape behaviors, such as
curiosity, by expressing and sharing genuine positive
feeling when the child is enjoying his exploratory behavior
and play. In summary by exclusively focusing on just
relection of internal feelings and sharing ones understand-
ing, the therapist may miss the opportunity to reinforce

other learning and social skills.

SUMMARY

Most of the recent literature on curiosity has
focused on determining the stimulus characteristics eliciting
exploration, manipulation,.and seeking information.

Studies relating parent-child variables, and experiences,
such as anxiety, have for the most part tended to rely on~
paper-pencil tests.

The presented study, in contrast, defined parent.
and child behaviors in observational terms, and focused on
relating maternal behavior and a boy's curiosity in a
playroom situation.

Four groups of first grade boys who differed in
curiosity, aggressiveness, and neurotic behavior (anxiety
and social withdrawal), based on teachers' ratings, were
selected to participate in.a free play situation-study.

The mother-son interaction was observed by raters who were
trained to code both mother and son on pre-selected behavior
categories.

In general the results indicate the categories
could be reliably measured by trained raters, though some
interactional behaviors, such as non-cooperativeness,

proved to be less.stab1e than the other behavior categories.

55

56

Also child behaviors between the first and second ten
minutes were quite variable and unstable, so that further
research is in order to obtain more reliable estimates of
variables such as a child's novel curiosity.

The results of the study,.nevertheless, indicate'
that investigation of objects (attentive observation and
manipulation) was positively intercorrelated with curiosity
toward novel stimuli, the number of different kinds of
objects explored, and such verbal manifestations of curio-
sity, as seeking and offering information. Exploration of
novel stimuli and exploration‘of a greater variety of
objects was not, however, correlated with seeking and offer-
ing information.

Although emotional indices, such as anxiety,
expression of negative feeling, and aggressiveness by the
child were not correlated either positively or negatively
with the curiosity measures, solitary play by the child was
negatively correlated with investigation of familiar
objects and seeking information. In this study solitary
play was the only behavior exhibited by the child which.
competed and interfered with.the expression of curiosity.
Other child behaviors such as aggression, anxiety, and
joint participationwere not frequent or intense enough to
inhibit the expression of curiosity.

Regarding the influence of parental behaviors

on«a child's curiosity and play, parental punitive behaviors

57

were not found to be negatively correlated with the child's
expressions of curiosity. Punitive behaviors, such as
restriction, aggression, and negative feeling were.too
infrequently displayed by the mothers. Low intervention by
the parent, in terms of a reluctance to seek participation,.
give help and direction, and reflect behavior, was asso-
ciated with greater solitary play by the child. The paren-
tal behaviors which were most highly positively correlated
with the child's curiosity were (1) the mother's curiosity
behavior and (2) the mother's expression of positive
feeling. The child's curiosity toward novel stimuli was
highly positively correlated with the novel curiosity
expressed by his mother (r = .72). The child's attentive
observation manipulation, and seeking information was
positively correlated with the mother's expression of
positive feeling.

In contrast, parental non—attention was negatively
correlated with a number of child curiosity measures
including attentive observation, manipulation, seeking and
offering information.

The differences between the groups of boys,
based on the teacher's ratings, were in the predicted
direction with the High Curious-High Prosocial group
exhibiting the most manipulation and positive feeling, the
high neurotic group expressing the most anxiety, and the.

High Aggressive group displaying the most.aggression. The

58

differences in child behavior between the groups were not
large enough, however, to be statistically significant.

A number of significant differences in behavior
between the groups of mothers were found. The greatest
differences were between the mothers of the High Curious-
High Prosocial boys and the mothers of the High Aggressive
. boys. Mothers of High Curious-High Prosocial boys expressed
significantly more positive feeling and were less restric-
tive and less non-attentive than mothers of High Aggressive
. boys.

The results were interpreted within a social
learning theory model, which emphasized the influence of
such social reinforcers as positive feeling and attentive—
ness and the effect of imitation on curiosity. The effect
of the child's curiosity and play on-the parent's behavior

was also discussed.

10.

11.

REFERENCES

Allen, K. E., Hart, B. M., Buell, J..S., Harris, F. R.,
and Wolf, M. M. Effects of social reinforcement
on isolate behavior of a nursery school child.
Child Development. 1964, 35, 511 - 518.

Arsenian, M. Young children in an insecure situation.
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1943, 38, 225 - 249.

 

Baldwin, A. L. Socialization and the parent-child
relationship. Child Developm., 1948, 19, 127 -
136.

Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, Joan.and Breese, Fay H.
The appraisal of parent behavior. Ps chol.
Monogr., 1949, 63, (4, Whole No. 299).

Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. Social Learnin and
Personality Development. New YOEk: Holt, I963.

Baron, A. Suppression of exploratory behavior by
aversive stimulation. J. Comp. Physical Psychol.,
1964, 51, 299 - 301.

Bell, R. Q. A reinterpretation of the direction of
effects in studies of socialization. Psychol.
Rch, 1968' 15-, NO. 2’ 81 - 96o

Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Berlyne, D. E. Conflict and information-theory var-
iables as determinants of human perceptual
curiosity. J. Exp. Psychol., 1957, 53, 399 -
404.

Berlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and novelty
in-visual figures on orienting responses. g.

 

Berlyne, D. E. and Frommer, F. D. Some determinants
of the incidence and content of children's ques-
tions. Child DevelOpm., 1966, 31, (l), 177 - 189.

59

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

60

Boles, Robert C. Theory of Motivation. New York:
Harper and Row, 1967.

Butler, R. A. Discrimination learning by rhesus
monkeys to visual exploration of motivation. J.

Butler, R. A. The effect of deprivation of visual
incentives on visual exploration on motivation in
monkeys. J. Com . Phsyiol. Psychol., 1957, 50,
177 - 179. (5) -—

Charlesworth, W. R. and Thompson, W. R. (1957) Effect
of lack of visual stimulus variation on explora—
tory behavior in the adult white rat. Psychol.
Rep,, 3, 509 - 512.

Dashiell, J. F. A quantitative demonstration of
animal drive. J. Comp. Psychol., 1925, 5, 205,
208.

Dollard, T. and Miller, N. E. Personalit and Psycho-
therapy. New York: McGraw-HilI, l9 .

Ehrlich, A. Effect of post experience on exploratory
behavior in rats. Canad. J. Psychol., 1959, 13,
248 - 254.

Fowler, H. Exploratory motivation and animal handling:
the effect on funway performance of start-box
exposure time. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1963,
36, 866 - 871.

Freud, S. Collected Pa ers, Institute of Psycho—
analysis and HogartH Press, London, 1924, V. II.

Guerney, B. G. Jr., Burton, Jean, Silverberg, Dona,
and Shapiro, Ellen. Use of adult responses to

codify children's behavior in a play situation.
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1965, 20, 614 -

Harlow,.H. F. Learning and satiation of responses in
intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance
by monkeys. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1950,
43, 289 - 294.

Harlow, H. F., Harlow, Margaret K. and Meyer, D. R.
Learning motivated by a manipulation drive.
J. Exp. Psychol., 1950, 42, 228 - 234. (a)

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

61

Harlow, H. F. The nature of love. Am. Psychol.,
1958, 33, 673 - 685.

Harris, F. R., Wolf, M. M., Baer, D. M. Effects of
Adult Social Reinforcement on Child Behavior. In
The Causes of Behavior II, Rosenblith, J. F. and
AIlensmith, W. (eds). Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
1966, 99 - 107.

Hays, K. J. Exploration and fear. Psychol. Rep.,
1960’ E! 91 — 93o

Hebb, D. 0. On the nature of fear. Psychol. Rev.,
1946, 33, 259 - 276.

Hebb, D. O. The or anization of behavior. New York:
Wiley, 1949.

James, W. The principles of psychology. New York:
Holt, 1890.

Lucas, J. D. The interactive effects of anxiety,
failure, and intra-serial duplication. Amer. J.
PSYChOlo' 1952, 22, 59 - 660

Maddi, S. R. Exploratory behavior and variation-seek-
ing in man. In D. W. Fiske and S. R. Maddi,

Functions of varied ex erience. Homewood, Ill.:
Dorsey Press, I96I, 25g - 277.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper, 1954.

Maw, W. H. and Maw, Ethyl W. Establishing criterion
groups for evaluating measures of curiosity. 3.
Exp. Educ.' 1961’ £2, 299 - 3060

 

McReynolds, P., Archer, Mary and Pietila, Caryle.
Relation of object curiosity to psychological ad-
justment in children. Child Developm., 1961,

33, 393 - 400.

Medinnus, G. and Love, J. M. The relation between
curiosity and security in preschool children.
J. Genet. Psychol., 1965, 107, 91 - 98.

 

Montague, E. K. The role of anxiety in serial learn-
ing. J. Exp. Psychol., 1953, 13, 91, 96.

 

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

62

Montgomery, K. C. Exploratory behavior as a function
of "similarity" of the stimulus situation. 3.
Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1953, 33, 129 - 133.

Montgomery, K. C. The effect of hunger and thirst
drives upon exploratory behavior. J. Comp.

 

Montgomery, K. C. The role of exploratory drive in
learning. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1954,
33, 60 - 64.

Montgomery, K. C. and Monkman, J. A. The relation
between fear and exploratory behavior. J. Comp.

Montgomery, K. C., Zimbardo, P. G. Effect of sensory
and behavioral deprivation upon exploratory
behavior in the rat. Percept. Mot. Skills, 1957,
3, 223 - 229.

Moustakas, C. E., Sigel, I. E. and Schalock, H. D.
An objective.method for the measurement and
analysis of child-adult interaction. Child
Developm., 1956, 33, 2, 109 - 134.

 

Penny, R. K. Reaction curiosity and manifest anxiety
in children. Child Develgpm., 1965, 33, 697 -
711.

Premack, D. Toward empirical behavior laws: Positive
reinforcement. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 33, 219 -
233.

Quay, H. C., Morse, W. C., and Cutler, R. L. Person-
ality patterns of pupils in special classes-for
the emotionally disturbed. Exceptional Children,
1966, 33 (5), 297 - 301.

Raymond, C. K. Anxiety and task as determiners of
verbal performance. J. Exp. Psychol., 1953,
33, 120, 124.

R085, A. 0., Lacey, Ho M. p and Parton" Do A. The
development of a behavior checklist for boys.
Child Developm., 1965, 33, 1013 - 1027.

 

Siegel, A. Film-mediated fantasy aggression and
strength of aggressive drive. Child Developm.,

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

63

Spence, K. W. and Farber, I. E. The relation of anxiety
to differential eyelid conditioning. J. Exp.
PSYCh010' 1954’ $1, 127 - 1340

Spence, K. W., Farber, I. E. and McFann, H. H. The
relation of anxiety level to performance in com-
petitional and non-competitional paired asso-
ciates. J. Exp. Psychol., 1956, 33, 296 - 305.

Spence, K. W., Taylor, J. A., and Ketchel, R. Anxiety
drive and degree of competition in paired asso-
ciates learning. J. Exp. Psychol., 1956, 52,

306 - 310. '—

Standish, R. R. and Karwoski, T. F. Task difficulty
and drive in verbal learning. J. Exp. Psychol.,
1960, 33, 361 - 365.

Taylor, J. A. The relationships of anxiety to the
conditioned eyeblink response. J. Exp. Psychol.,
1951, 33, 81, 92.

Taylor, J. A. and Spence, K. W. The relationships of
anxiety level to performance in serial learning.
J. Exp. Psychol., 1952, 33,61, 64.

Walters, J., Pearce, D., Dohms, Z. Affectional and
aggressive behavior of preschool children. Child
Develoemo' 1957' £2, 15 - 22.

Watson, G. Some personality differences in children
related to strict or permissive parental dis-
cipline. J. Psychol., 1957, 33, 227 - 249.

Welker, W. I. Some determinants of play and explora-
tion in chimpanzees. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.,
1956' 12, 84 - 89. (a

Welker, W. I. Variability of play and exploratory
behavior in chimpanzees. J. Comp. Physiol.,
1956, 33, 181, 185. (b)

Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E. A., Price, L., and Zoob,.I.
Development of a sensation seeking scale. 3.
Consult Psychol., 1964, 33, 477 - 482.

APPENDIX A

TEACHER RATING QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: Select two boys who most aptly fit each des-

 

1-

cription and rank them first and second.

Explores and actively manipulates novel stimuli, ex-
pressing a strong need to know more about himself and
the environment.

(1) (2)

 

Self-confident and sure of himself.

(1) (2)

 

Relatively at "ease" with himself.

(1) (2)

 

Hyperactive, is "always on the go", restless.

(1) (2)

 

Expresses little or only short lived enthusiasm about
objects-in-his environment, usually accepting informa-
tion without question or enthusiasm.

(l) (2)

 

Often anxious, or sad, or depressed.

(1) (2)

 

64

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

65

Spontaneously helpful, considerate, and cooperative.

(1) (2)

 

Persistently concentrates, investigates, and examines
objects in order to know more.about them. Frequently
asks questions, but is not a "pushy" or an "overly-
curious" child.

(1) (2)

 

POpular with his classmates and happy as most children.

(1) (2)

 

Is quick to be helpful and considerate, but only when
asked to be by his teacher, or others.

(1) (2)

 

Appears to lack self-confidence and is often easily
flustered and confused.

(1) (2)

 

Appears more disruptive, aggressive, irritable, and
uncooperative than other children.

(1) (2)

 

A leader.

(1) (2)

 

Works well by himself, but is generally a follower.

(l) (2)

 

Quiet and relatively passive, expressing limited inter-
est in learning more about himself and the environment-
yet is not withdrawn or distant. Could be called quiet
but good child.

(1) . (2)

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

66

Volunteers and works well by himself.

(1) (2)

 

Very quiet and passive, expressing little interest in
learning more about himself and the environment.

(1) (2)

 

Socially withdrawn, shy and distant.

(l) (2)

 

Exhibits attention seeking and "show—off" behavior.

(1) (2)

 

II.

APPENDIX B

RULES FOLLOWED IN FORMING HIGH CURIOSITY-

HIGH PROSOCIAL, LOW CURIOSITY, HIGH

AGGRESSIVE AND HIGH NEUROTIC GROUPS

High Curiosity-High Prosocial Groups (HC-HP)

A. Items

1.

15.
18.

Explores and actively manipulates novel
stimuli, expressing a strong need to know
more about himself and the environment.

Persistently concentrates, investigates, and
examines objects in order to know more about
them. Frequently asks questions, but is not
a "pushy" or an "overly-curious" child.
Self-confident and sure of himself.

Spontaneously helpful, considerate, and
cooperative.

Popular with his classmates and happy as most
children.

A leader.

Volunteers and works well by himself.

B. To belong to HC-HP groups 3 must be-rated on either
item 1 or 8, and on.l or more of items 2, 7, 9,
15, and 18.

Low Curiosity Group (LC)

A. Items

67

17.

19.

68

Expresses little or only short lived enthu-
siasm about objects in his environment,
usually accepting information without question
or enthusiasm.

Quiet and relatively passive, expressing
limited interest in learning more about him-
self and the environmente-yet is not with-
drawn or distant. Could be called a quiet
but good child.

Very quiet and passive, expressing little
interest in learning more about himself and
the environment.

B. To belong to LC S must be rated on either items 5,
17, or 19 and not be rated on prosocial, or
aggressive items.

III. High Aggressive Group (HA)

A. Items

4.

14.

21.

Hyperactive, is "always on the go", rest-
less.

Appears more disruptive, aggressive, irri-
table, and uncooperative than other children.

Exhibits attention seeking and "show-off"
behavior.

B. To belong to HA S must not be rated on the curio-
sity behavior items but? is rated on one or more of
items 4,14,21.

IV. High Neurotic Group (HN)

A. Items

6.

5.

13.

Often anxious, or sad, or depressed.

Expresses little or only short lived enthue
siasm about objects in his environment,
usually accepting information without ques-
tion or enthusiasm.

Appears to lack self-confidence and is often
easily-flustered and confused.

69

19. Very quiet and passive, expressing little
interest in learning more about himself and
the environment.

20. Socially withdrawn, shy, and distant.
To belong to HN groups S is rated on one or

more of items 6,.13, 20_and may be rated on items
5 and 19.

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE

List of Toys in Playroom

1. Socker ball 28. Play bathtub

2. Bowling pins and,balln 29. Punching bag

3. Sand box 30. Wagon

4. Dart gun 31. Ping-pong table

5. Space gun *32. Battery-run truck
6. Knife *33. Negro-white doll
7. Tinker Toys *34. Donald Duck—Mickey
8. Puppets Mouse puzzle

9. Toy shovel *35. Animal

10. Teddy bear *36. Life savertman

ll. Raggedy Ann *37. Paintings

12. Blocks *38. Pictures in playroom
l3. Checkers
14. Dolls

15. Football

16. Trucks

17. Toy stove, refrigerator
18. Toy telephone

19. Tanks

20. Buggy

21. Fire engine

22. Lincoln logs

23. Toy furniture

24. Toy toaster

25. Pin-ball game

26. Doctor's kit

27. Chalk and blackboard

*Novel stimuli
Preference for novel stimuli: Of the toys you-don't have at

home, which ones did you like the best? Which ones were the.
most fun? Name five.

70

APPENDIX D

DEFINITIONS OF CHILD AND ADULT

BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES

Attentive observation:
(a) The child or parent looks from a distance-
(greater than ten feet) at an object or person.

(b) The child or parent looks closely at an object
or person (less than five feet).

Holds and manipulates object:
In differentiating manipulation from "play", it
is important to observe whether the child is attemp-
ting to discover something new about the object,
rather than just using it.

Seeks information:
The child or parent asks a question about an object,
the playroom, personal feelings, or experiences.

Offers information:
The child makes a comment about the objects he is
exploring.

Number of different objects manipulated:
Each.time the child manipulates a different object,
the category is scored.-

Solitary play:
The child plays alone. He does not appear to be
seeking additional information, but instead uses
the toy; examples, pulling a-toy, throwing a ball,
playing with a puppet. Important note--some.
activities involve both curiosity and play. It is
then necessary to score both categories. An
-example might be playing with a jig-saw puzzle.

Joint participation:
Both parent and child play together. If the parent

71

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

72

watches the child, joint participation is not scored.

Expression of positive feeling:
Satisfaction, joy, enthusiasm, pleasure, affection,
or praise may be expressed verbally and non-—
verbally. Positive feeling is scored if the child
or parent verbally states, "I like this," "I'm
happy," "Boy, is this fun," "I wish I could play
longer," "wowee," etc. It is also scored if the
child laughs, smiles or expresses physical affec-
tion.

EXpression of negative feeling:
This is scored when the child or parent expresses
annoyance, anger, fatigue, or dislike toward an
object or person. It may be expressed verbally, by
gesture, or facial expression.

Seeking response from parent:
Seeking response is scored when the child asks the
parent for help, assistance, or asks the parent to
join him in play. It is not scored when the child
seeks information about an object. If the child
is looking for an object and asks the parent where
it is located, it will be scored as seeking help.

Direction:
Direction is scored when the child or parent
suggests or directs another person's behavior.
Direction is scored when-it is expressed verbally
or by using a gesture such as pointing.

Non-cooperation:
Non-cooperation is scored when a question or request
is ignored, help is rejected, or avoidance of
another is expressed.

COOperation:
Cooperation is scored when the child complies to a
parent's request. It is different from participa-
tion in that the child who cooperates is not
involved in an activity with the-parent. Example,
the parent who says, "Why don't you play in the sand
box?" The child replies, "O.K."

Anxiety:
Anxiety is scored in three degrees.

(a) Mild: motoric manifestations of fear,
nervousness, anxiety, but feeling is not
expressed intensely. Mild nervous gestures,
may be present such as, picking nails, nose,

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

(b)

(C)

73

rubbing hands, sucking thumb, looking back
and forth at clock, mirror, parent.

Moderate: scored when it begins to inter-

erre with activity. When mild anxiety is

present, the child plays and appears unaware
of nervousness. When moderate anxiety is
present the child is clearly aware he is
upset and verbalizes anxiety. He may-walk
back and forth, more intensely rub his hands,
drop objects, and at times appear agitated,
criticizing himself.

Severe: scored when anxiety disrupts the
child's behavior. The child is terrified,
trembles, cries, hunches up in a corner, or
wants to leave.

Aggression: See Appendix E.

Curiosity toward novel stimuli:
Novel stimuli is scored when curiosity is directed
toward stimuli such as the pictures on the walls,
the mechanical toy, the negro-white doll, the "I
hate you teacher" doll, the "Life-saver" man, and
the gerbil.

Curiosity toward familiar stimuli:
Curiosity familiar is scored when the parent
attends to an object other than the novel stimuli.

Non-Attention:
Non-attention is scored when parent looks away
from child and becomes involved in another task.
It is important to note that non-attention and
attentive observation can occur in the same inter-

val.

Solicited response:
Solicited response is scored when the child asks
for and receives information, help and participa—

tion.

Unsolicited response:
Unsolicited response is scored when the parent
responds with information,.help, or participation
without the child seeking a response.

Restriction:
Restriction is scored when the parent prevents the
child from partaking in an activity, by either

74

saying, "no", or physically restraining the child,
threatening or appealing to sense of guilt.

22. Reflection of content behavior:
Reflection of behavior is scored when parent comments
on behavior of child.

23. Whispering:
Whispering is scored when the rater can not hear
the response and code it appropriately.

A.

APPENDIX E

CRITERIA FOR CODING CHILDREN'S

OVERT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

A rating of 0 will be given when the child shows no
aggression, either verbal or physical.

A rating of 1 will be given for mild aggressive verbal
or physical behavior, that is shooting darts at target
or walls, bowling, playfully hitting the punching bag,
or throwing any object, other than while playing catch
with the therapist. Verbal aggression directed against
either the therapist or some object or person in or out
of the playroom should be given a one rating. Games
like pinball or miniature baseball, in which the child
strikes something but does not, in doing so, exert,
effort or show anger at the game itself (such as pick-
ing up the device and banging it on the counter)

should be scored as 0.

A rating of12 should be given for aggression in which
the child is more physically involved. Rather than
taking a haphazard swing at the punching bag, he will

repeatedly strike it with force; rather than shooting

75

D.

76

darts at a target, he will repeatedly shoot them at
the therapist. A rating of 2 should also be given
for attacks or attempted plots against the therapist.
In a two rating, the child will have his emotions
concentrated upon the object of his aggression. He
will pay little or no attention to either the thera-
pist or any object in the room.
A three rating is given only for violent physical ag-
gression in which the child is deliberately trying to
destroy the object of his aggression. In contrast to
the two rating, given when the emotions of the subject
are concentrated but withheld, the three rating is
given for acts in which there is a violent emotional
outburst, that is, screaming, crying, and a loss of

physical co-ordination.

LB

IIIII'IIII‘I‘ITI'“

3660

     

M'CIHININ!sllrliliillulNlei
3 1293 03189