The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity: a New Conceptual Approach to the Understanding of Sport Fan Behavior

The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity: A New Conceptual Approach to the Understanding of Sport Fan Behavior

Seong-Hee Park Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Daniel Mahony Kent State University

Yu Kyoum Kim Florida State University

Most literature on sport fan behaviors has focused on highly identified or loyal sport fans. While the literature has found that factors influencing current sport fans and their behaviors are related to, and based on, various psychological, social, and cultural factors, only a limited number of studies have investigated what factors initially attract individuals to consume sport. Curiosity has been found to be one of the crucial motivators that initially influence human exploratory behaviors in many domains. Using theories of curiosity, the present review aims to shed light on the role of curiosity in explaining various sport fan behaviors. “I have no special talents. I am only passionately industry, practitioners need to identify initial psycho- curious”—Albert Einstein logical factors that impact sport fan behaviors and help generate sport fans (Park, Andrew, & Mahony, 2008). In 1961, ABC Sports introduced a new and unique Despite the large number of previous studies on sport program called the Wide World of Sports. While the sport fan behaviors, most of the literature has attempted show did broadcast sport events that were popular in the to investigate how highly identified or loyal sport fans United States, such as professional boxing, its signature are generated or influenced. In other words, only limited was clearly laid out in its famous introduction: “spanning research has examined the initial psychological moti- the globe to bring you the constant variety of sport.” vational factors that lead nonfans of sports to become Wide World of Sports was broadcast from 55 countries initially attracted to sport (Park et al., 2008). Therefore, and showed 120 different sports, which ranged from frog investigating initial factors is meaningful to better under- jumping to Evil Knievel jumping cars on his motorcycle stand various sport fan behaviors and for increasing inter- (“It’s a wide,” 2009). While the producers certainly est in various sports. In fact, it is a necessity in a highly understood the popularity of the traditional American competitive marketplace (Mahony & Howard, 2001). sports like baseball and football, they also understood Prior research has suggested that many individual, that some people, enough people to generate good ratings, social, and psychological factors influence sport fan would be curious in novel sport events to give up 90 min behaviors (e.g., Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; James, on a Saturday to watch this program. The show was very 2001; Madrigal & Chen, 2008; McDonald & Rascher, popular and as a result, lasted for 37 years. 2000; Park et al., 2008; Trail & Robinson, 2005, Wann In the years since ABC’s Wide World of Sports was & Pierce, 2003). Another new factor that has potential in its prime, the sport industry has become increasingly to explain cognitive, sensory, psychological, and situ- meaningful in our society (Wann, Melnick, Russel, & ational effects on sport fan behaviors is sport fan curiosity. Pease, 2001) and the number of sport entertainment There have been many definitions of curiosity. Litman options have increased. Because the sport industry has and Spielberer (2003) argued that curiosity is a reaction become bigger and more popular, it comes as no surprise and desire that motivates human exploratory behaviors. that there is serious competition in the current sport Voss and Keller (1983) also noted that “curiosity is a marketplace (Mahony & Howard, 2001). Therefore, motivational prerequisite for exploratory behavior” (p. developing loyalty in existing sport fans and creating new 17). Thus, curiosity has been regarded as the one of the sport fans to expand the fan base are important goals for crucial motivators that influences human exploratory sport marketers. To fulfill their goals and survive in this behaviors in many domains including the educational,

Park is with the Division of International Sport and Leisure, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yong-In, Republic of Korea. Mahony is with the Dean’s Office, Kent State University, Kent, OH. Kim is with the Dept. of Sport and Recreation Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

46 The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity 47 occupational, and recreational sectors (Reio, Petrosko, explore the novel object to learn the characteristics of the Wiswell, & Thongsukmag, 2006). object (Carlin, 1999). For example, asking questions is an Although it seems unlikely that curiosity alone can example of how individuals reduce conceptual complexity explain all the behaviors of sport fans, we argue there as efficiently as possible (Moch, 1987). might be a meaningful relationship between curiosity Similarly, the second dimension of Berlyne’s (1960) and various sport consumption behavior for the follow- curiosity concept, diversive and specific curiosity, would ing reasons. First, sport consumption behaviors have also be likely influenced by the degree to which individual an exploratory aspect (Park et al., 2008). As discussed concentrates on curiosity-arousing objects. Thus, the above, previous research (Reio et al., 2006; Voss & Keller, dimension would be closely related to the optimal level of 1983) suggested that curiosity is a main driver of human stimulation theory, which suggests there is an appropriate exploratory behavior, which can be broadly defined as level of stimulus that generates curiosity. For example, “behavior, aimed at modifying stimulation from environ- Berlyne (1960) argued that an organism has a desire to ment” (Raju, 1980, p. 272). Second, the uncertainty of maintain certain levels of preferred stimulation and at those the sport context (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007) may levels curiosity is generated. However, if individuals have provoke sport fans’ curiosity. This uncertainty would too much information about the object, it would no longer increase curiosity levels in people or keep them curious be interesting or new. In this case, the state of arousal or stimulated. Third, the variety within sport (Irwin, is below the optimal level at which human exploratory Sutton, & McCarthy, 2008) may also elicit sport fans’ behavior is generated, and organisms may experience curiosity. Each sport has different rules, each game has boredom (Berlyne, 1971; Zuckerman, 1994). In ideal different players and strategies, and every game, contest, conditions, diversive curiosity is evoked by this boredom or competition ends with a different result. Consequently, and this motivates individuals to seek out varied sources it would be expected that the inherent characteristics of of exploration “regardless of source or content” (Berlyne, sport are closely related to the nature of curiosity. 1960, p. 26) to increase the level of arousal to the optimal The primary purpose of this review is to explain the level (Berlyne, 1960, 1966; Edelman, 1997; Fowler, 1965). role of curiosity and discuss how the various concepts of In contrast to diversive curiosity, specific curiosity curiosity can be incorporated in a sport context and be exists when the state of arousal is higher than the optimal used to predict sport fan behavior. To fulfill this purpose, level. Specific curiosity is defined as “actively seeking the authors critically reviewed prior research on curios- depth in one’s knowledge and experience with a particular ity in several domains, including psychology, education, stimulus or activity” (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004, business, and sport. Because there is a limited number p. 291). In other words, individuals would be over- of studies on curiosity in sport (Park, 2007b), the article stimulated if they had limited information about a novel will first review the general curiosity literature and then object. Therefore, specific curiosity motivates specific will discuss the possible application in a sport context. exploration for more information to lower the level of stimulation to the optimal level (Berlyne, 1960, 1966; Cyr, 1996). To sum up, Berlyne’s (1960, 1966, 1971) Berlyne’s Curiosity Concept works on curiosity suggested it is a strong motivational drive that encourages individuals to explore their environ- The literature in curiosity has shown that curiosity is a ments for multiple reasons. “critical motive that influences human behavior” (Loew- enstein, 1994, p. 75). Berlyne (1960) was the main author of the early work on curiosity and he insisted that curi- Trait and State Curiosity osity has a multifaceted classification with two distinct dimensions: (a) perceptual and epistemic curiosity and (b) Day’s (1971) distinction between trait and state curiosity specific and diversive curiosity. Perceptual curiosity is the has been also important in understanding the construct of state of high arousal “evoked by uncertain or ambiguous curiosity. While Berlyne (1949, 1950, 1954, 1960) has patterns of sensory stimulation (e.g., sights, sounds)” (Col- significantly contributed to the literature on curiosity, a lins, Litman, & Spielberger, 2004, p. 1128) that motivates limitation in his work was it did not clearly explain an exploratory behaviors, such as visual inspection, to acquire individual’s inborn curiosity (Park et al., 2008; Reio, new information that reduces arousal generated by percep- 1997). Day classified curiosity into two categories: (a) tual uncertainty (Berlyne, 1966). Thus, individuals may trait curiosity and (b) state curiosity. This distinction has feel perceptual discomforts or uncertainty when they are been one of the most frequently examined in the literature exposed to “novel, surprising, highly complex, or ambigu- (Loewenstein, 1994). ous stimulus patterns” (Berlyne, 1966, p. 30), and those Trait curiosity is a “a stable individual preference having high perceptual curiosity would be more likely to be for either becoming curious under more conditions, more motivated to seek the source of stimulus. Epistemic curios- readily becoming curious, and/or possibly remaining ity is the quest or desire to “gain knowledge” (Rossing & in a state of curiosity for longer periods of time” (Day, Long, 1981, p. 25) that motivates intelligence and cognitive 1971, p. 102). In other words, trait curiosity reflects an information seeking behaviors. Due to its characteristic, individual’s tendency to be curious over time. Spielberger epistemic curiosity plays a key role in learning; those (1975) and Spielberger, Ritterband, Sydeman, Reheiser, having high epistemic curiosity would be more likely to and Unger (1995) also supported the definition by finding 48 Park, Mahony, and Kim that trait curiosity is a relatively stable dispositional state of knowledge exists (Gentry et al., 2002). Therefore, tendency. In contrast, state curiosity refers to transi- individuals aroused by a curiosity knowledge gap are tory curiosity that reflects how unique and interesting a motivated to fill and close the knowledge gap (Gentry et situation is to an individual (Cyr, 1996; Naylor, 1981). al., 2002). It might also be true that “the more curious Loewenstein (1994) argued that the concept of state one is, the more knowledge one acquires, making other curiosity is somewhat related to Berlyne’s (1954, 1960) information gaps more manageable and thus creating concept of curiosity (i.e., specific curiosity) in that both higher levels of curiosity” (Gentry et al., 2002, p. 68). could possibly influence individuals to explore external Finally, it is also likely that when trait and state curios- curiosity-arousing stimuli. In summary, Day’s (1971) ity are both at high levels, a very high level of curiosity concept is important because it has helped in investigat- would be reached. As discussed, prior studies in the fields ing the multifaceted construct of curiosity and offers a of psychology, business, and education have consistently meaningful lens through which we understand individu- shown that curiosity is an important psychological moti- als’ behaviors (Reio et al., 2006). vational drive (Reio, 1997; Reio et al., 2006). In other words, because curiosity is a primary drive that provides “the motivation for stimulus seeking, which is exploratory Optimal Level Theory behavior aimed at increasing arousal” (Collins, 2000, As mentioned previously, optimal level theory is closely p. 9), curious individuals would be likely to have more related to Berlyne’s (1960) concept of diversive and motivation to explore environments to obtain various specific curiosity in that the level of curiosity is related perceptual, cognitive, and sensational information to sat- to the level of the information gap between what people isfy their curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2005; Pearson, 1970; know and what they want to know. Studies on this theory Zuckerman, 1994). Because the two major goals of sport include Berlyne’s (1960) Optimal Stimulation Theory, practitioners are to cultivate new sport fans and maintain Day’s (1982) Zone of Curiosity, Loewenstein’s (1994) existing sport fans (Park et al., 2008), the curiosity gap Curiosity Knowledge Gap Theory, and Spielberger, model is particularly important in that manipulated levels Peters, and Frain’s (1981) Duel Process Theory of of newness or information (i.e., moderate level of curios- Exploratory Behaviors. One of the essential commonali- ity gap) may help practitioners develop several strategies ties among these theories is that there is an optimal level using promotional or advertising mediums. of stimulation in which human exploratory behavior and curiosity are maximized. Sensation and Novelty Seeking For example, Spielberger et al.’s (1981) theory suggested that two contradictory concepts, pleasure and aver- Zuckerman (1965) regarded sensation seeking as a per- sion, would be meaningful motivational drivers of human sonality trait and developed the Sensation Seeking Scale behaviors. According to them, curiosity would stimulate (SSS) to measure an individual’s level of sensation seek- people to become involved in exploratory behaviors in ing. Zuckerman (1979) defined sensation seeking as a which their pleasure would increase (Gentry et al., 2002; trait that leads to the pursuit of new, diverse, and complex Hebb, 1949). This is somewhat similar to Day’s (1982) feelings and experiences, and the willingness to accept “zone of curiosity,” in which people would be motivated the uncertainty of undesirable physical, social, legal, and to behave exploratively most when in the middle zone (see financial outcomes to have such feelings and experiences. Day, 1982). Day (1982) also argued that people would The most representative and frequently used version of not engage in exploratory behavior when in a “zone of the SSS is Form V that consists of four factors: (a) Thrill anxiety” when too much uncertainty is experienced by an and Adventure Seeking (TAS) that measures individual individual or when in the “zone of relaxation” in which preference to participate in adventurous and risky physical there is too little stimulation. activities, (b) Experiencing Seeking (ES) that measures Curiosity knowledge (or information) gap by Loew- individual desire to explore novel experiences related enstein (1994) is also one of the most recent theories rela- to art, music, and travel, (c) Disinhibition (DIS) that tive to the optimal stimulation for curiosity. As previously measures individual social sensation seeking behaviors discussed, the knowledge gap generally refers to the dif- through drinking or sex, and (d) Boredom Susceptibility ference between what individuals want to know and what (BS) that measure individual abhorrence at repetitive they know (Menon & Soman, 2002). Loewenstein (1994) or routine experiences (Zuckerman, 1979). Because the argued that “the intensity of one’s curiosity directed to a literature has shown curiosity to be related to various particular item of information is related positively to its novel stimuli, it seemed likely that curiosity would have a ability to resolve uncertainty” (p. 88), and, as discussed relationship with sensation seeking. Therefore, a number previously, the ability or motivation to resolve uncertainty of studies have investigated the relationship between is closely associated with the level or amount of stimula- sensation seeking and curiosity (cf. Berlyne, 1960, 1971, tion (Collins, 2000; Day, 1982). 1973; Loewenstein, 1994; Pearson, 1970; Zuckerman, In summary, it is plausible that curiosity motivates Kolin, Price, & Zoob, 1964) and found that both TAS individual exploratory behaviors and is intensified when and ES were positively correlated with diversive curiosity a moderate or manageable knowledge gap between (Collins, 2000; Collins et al., 2004; Litman, 1998; Litman individuals’ current level of knowledge and their desired & Spielberger, 2003; Olson, Camp, & Fuller, 1984; Starr, The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity 49

1992). Therefore, the concept of sensation seeking is thinking about ideas, and (d) External Cognition (EC) that conceptually and empirically associated with diversive measures individual disposition to experience cognition curiosity rather than specific and epistemic curiosity. through reading books, learning historical facts, and solv- In addition to sensation seeking, novelty experience ing historical puzzles or quizzes (Pearson, 1970). seeking has also been examined related to curiosity. Because novelty seeking is a meaningful individual Novelty experience seeking is defined as “a tendency trait would appear to have a strong relationship with to approach . . . a disposition toward changing new or curiosity (Loewenstein, 1994), some studies examined the unexpected experiences” (Pearson, 1970, p. 199) and “a relationship between measures of curiosity and novelty disposition to approach, instead of avoid, novel experi- experience seeking (Spielberger & Starr, 1994; Voss & ences” (Collins, 2000, p. 13). Because Zuckerman (1994) Keller, 1983). The results showed that IC and EC of the insisted that “sensation seeking was primarily related NES have significant relationships with trait and specific to the seeking of novelty through the senses rather than curiosity that are consistent with Berlyne’s (1954) notion through cognition” (p. 57), the difference between novelty of information seeking in epistemic curiosity. Collins experience seeking and sensation seeking is that novelty et al. (2004) also found that ES of the NES was signifi- experience seeking is influenced by internal and external cantly related to Experience Seeking (ES) and Thrill-and sensation as well as internal and external cognition. Adventure Seeking (TAS) of the SSS (Loewenstein, 1994; Therefore, Pearson (1970) argued that novelty experience Spielberger & Starr, 1994; Starr; 1992). seeking would exist and increase based on the source of In summary, curiosity, sensation seeking, and novelty stimulation (i.e., internal or external source) and the type seeking have common characteristics in that these con- of subjective experiences (i.e., sensation or cognition). cepts illuminate how individuals engage in exploratory He developed the Novelty Experiences Scales (NES) to behaviors in response to various novel stimuli (Litman better measure an individual’s tendency to seek or avoid & Spielberger, 2003; Voss & Keller, 1983). Therefore, novelty experiences. The NES has four factors labeled understanding the concept of curiosity through an (a) Internal Sensation (IS) that measures individual dis- examination of sensation or novelty seeking would be also position to experience sensation through imagination, meaningful in explaining sport fans’ various exploratory dream, or virtual reality, (b) External Sensation (ES) that behaviors. Based on a detailed review of literature, rela- measures individual disposition to experience sensation tionships among curiosity, and the theoretical similarity through physical activities, (c) Internal Cognition (IC) that among curiosity-related theories are identified in Figure measures individual disposition to experience cognition 1. The figure also explains how levels of arousal could through figuring out reactions, analyzing situations, and influence the way an individual feels.

Figure 1 — A relationship between curiosity theories and research questions. 50 Park, Mahony, and Kim

Curiosity in a Sport Context research on curiosity in the sport context (Park, 2007b; Park, Mahony, & Greenwell, 2009; Park et al., 2008). Considerable research has investigated various fac- Park and his colleagues argued that curiosity could be tors influencing the sport consumption behaviors. For used in the sport context to help explain diverse sport fan example, motives, constraints, identification, commit- behaviors. Specifically, they believed that understand- ment, involvement, attitude, loyalty, socialization, and ing the link between curiosity and sport fan behaviors environmental factors have been widely studied and is essential in establishing a strong body of knowledge knowledge of these constructs has provided valuable for understanding one’s initial attraction to sport. The insights into understanding of how and why individuals first study to examine the function of curiosity in a sport are driven toward the various sport consumption behav- context was Park et al.’s (2008) study on the impact of iors (Funk et al., 2002; James, 2001; Madrigal & Chen, trait curiosity on fans’ initial interest in novel sports. 2008; McDonald & Rascher, 2000; Park et al., 2008; They selected ten novel sports (cricket, e-sport, field Trail & Robinson, 2005; Trail, Robison, & Kim, 2008; hockey, lacrosse, taekwondo, mountain biking, rowing, Wann & Pierce, 2003). However, despite the substantial softball, ultimate fighting, and wakeboading), which amount of the research on the numerous drivers of sport did not have a long history of fan interest in the United consumption behaviors, there has been limited research States and developed the Novel Sport Index (NSI) to identifying what factors engender the initial interest in measure individuals’ intentions to watch ten novel sport consumption (Funk & James, 2001). sports and whether the “individual already considered There might be several factors might lead to an initial him/herself a fan of those particular novel sports” (p. interest in sport consumption. For instance, Funk and 6). The Melbourne Curiosity Inventory (MCI; Naylor, James (2001), in their PCM (Psychological Continuum 1981) was used to measure trait curiosity. The inten- Model), argued that the change of individuals’ attitude tions of respondents to watch these novel sports was toward a certain sport, team, or player would be influ- used as a dependent variable. A simple linear regression enced by various factors such as psychology, knowledge, showed that trait curiosity was a statistically significant socialization, and promotion that might play critical role predictor of the individual’s interest in novel sport spec- in developing initial interest. Similarly, James (2001) also tatorship. While the results were an important first step, found a number of socializing agents, including family this study is limited in that the effects of other aspects members and television, influenced early fan behavior of curiosity, such as state curiosity, were not examined. and this could lead to the development of long term Therefore, to improve the examination of curiosity in attachment to teams, players, and sports by around ages a sport context, a new measurement scale was needed. 8–9. While a number of factors here may impact initial In addition, further examination was needed to distin- sport fan behavior, it is intuitive that curiosity, because guish the impact of trait and state curiosity on sport of its impact on exploratory behaviors, may also be a fan behaviors. key factor in explaining how sport consumers become The second study on curiosity in sport setting inves- interested in sport consumption (Litman & Spielberer, tigated the curiosity knowledge gap model (Park et al., 2003; Reio et al., 2006; Voss & Keller, 1983). There- 2009). To generate state curiosity in a sport context, Park fore, curiosity and the other variables addressed would and his colleagues developed three simulated advertise- share some similar attributes in that both could explain ments (e.g., high knowledge gap, moderate knowledge the development or, at least, affect the change of sport gap, low knowledge gap) containing different levels of consumers’ attitude toward sport. If curiosity would content about a novel sport, Tae Kwon Do. This sport work in the development or change of sport consumers’ was chosen because it had among the lowest number behaviors and attitude, it could be integrated with other of fans in the previous study (see Park et al., 2009). variables and conceptually placed before the other vari- Three different simulated advertisements containing ables as a major intrinsic drive (Park, 2007b) because different levels of curiosity gaps were used as predic- curiosity would be particularly meaningful in explaining tors, and generated state curiosity and the intention to a sport fan’s attraction to novel sports or in understand- watch the novel sport were chosen as outcome variables. ing how people are initially attracted to sport in general Trait curiosity was controlled as a covariate because it (see Park et al., 2008). Consequently, more studies are was a significant predictor of sport fans’ novel sport needed to ascertain the relationship between curiosity spectatorship in the prior study (Park et al., 2008). The and the theories on sport fan behaviors and attitude and results showed that generated curiosity was significantly to incorporate curiosity into those theories that would greater for the group exposed to the moderate curiosity help both researcher and practitioner better understand gap. Results also indicated that generated state curiosity various sport fan behaviors. was a statistically significant predictor of the intention to watch the novel sport. Additional analysis indicated Relationships Between Curiosity and that generated state curiosity completely mediated the Sport Fan Behaviors relationship between the knowledge gap and intention to watch the novel sport. In other words, the moderated Even though curiosity influences various human explor- knowledge gap increased generated state curiosity, atory behaviors in many domains, there has been limited which then increased intention to watch Tae Kwon Do. The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity 51

Therefore, it was concluded that manipulations of the Measurement of Sport Fan Curiosity curiosity knowledge gap for a novel sport may significantly influence sport fan behavior. Even though these two studies introduced the concept of The studies above, however, have some limitations curiosity and applied it into a sport context for the first that warrant discussion and offer future research direction time, these attempts had a similar limitation in that they did Park and his colleagues (2008, 2009) did not examine not clarify the structure of sport fan curiosity. Thus, these curiosity together with other potential drivers of the inten- attempts leave researchers needing a new measurement tion to watch novel sports. This poses two limitations on scale to precisely assess sport fan curiosity. Considering understanding the link between curiosity and novel sport that the research on curiosity in a sport context is in its initial stage, the development of an effective, valid, and consumption behavior. It cannot be clearly determined reliable measurement scale is a crucial step in establish- how much variance in intention to watch novel sports was ing and undergirding a strong body of knowledge for any really accounted for by curiosity because the impacts of scientific research (Churchill, 1979; Netemeyer, Bearden, other potential causes were not controlled. One cannot & Sharma, 2003). Therefore, Park (2007a) developed a discount the possibility that individuals are attracted to reliable and valid measurement scale for sport fan curiosity a novel sport because of other factors such as general strongly. He incorporated various concepts of curiosity in interest in sport rather than curiosity. More research is sport and developed two different scales (sport fan explor- needed to determine whether curiosity has an additive atory curiosity scale: SFECS; sport fan specific curiosity impact when predicting sport behavior. scale: SFSCS) measuring constructs of sport fan curiosity However, it is also possible that prior research may largely based on the literature. have underestimated the impact of curiosity. There might Sport fan exploratory curiosity refers to seeking be some factors suppressing the strength of relationship sensational and novel stimulation from sports, players, between curiosity and intention to watch novel sports. teams, or any sport-derived products by engaging in That is, suppressors behind curiosity might mask the exploratory behaviors. Sport fan specific curiosity refers actual strength of the relationship between curiosity and to seeking specific novel and cognitive information about intention to watch novel sports. Existence of the suppres- sports, players, teams, or any sport-derived products. sor would indicate the actual impact of curiosity is even Through various statistical analyses and reliability and stronger than it appeared in the Park studies. Second, validity procedures, Park (2007a) developed the 10-item it is unrealistic to believe that curiosity influences the SFECS with three factors (Excitement, New Sport Events, intention to watch novel sports without interactions with Sport Facility) and the 11-item SFSCS with three factors various psychological and environmental factors. The (Specific Information, General Information, Sport Facil- sport consumption decision making process is highly ity Information). The results of the study indicated that complex and numerous elements in the process interact both SFECS and SFSCS successfully measured sport fan with each other to reach the final decision. Therefore, curiosity and also predicted various sport fan behaviors. the role of curiosity should be understood as a part of For example, the SFECS scales significantly explained the whole process and this cannot be done without iden- sport fans’ interest in watching novel sports. Similarly, tifying other components of the process and the role of the SFSCS significantly predicted sport fans’ tendency each component. to search for information related to sport via the Internet Third, the later study (Park et al., 2009) was not as well as television. consistent with the previous study (Park et al., 2008) As with any research, this study also had some limita- regarding the impact of trait curiosity in a sport context. tions such as the use of college student samples. One of Park et al. (2008) found trait curiosity was a significant the important limitations, however, is that, due to the fact motivator for sport fan behaviors, but it was not a sig- it was the first attempt to measure sport fan curiosity and nificant covariate in the second study. Fourth, the later develop a measurement scale, this study did not examine study did not clearly distinguish the distinct relationship convergent validity with other similar measures. Because between trait and state curiosity (r = .08). Even though the the literature has shown that some curiosity measures are literature has found there is a clear distinction between related to other psychological motivational factors, it is trait and state (Weinberg & Gould, 1999), it is also true possible that sport fan curiosity may have similar rela- that there have been some debate in curiosity literature tionships with other scales measuring various sport fan with regard to the distinction between trait and state behaviors or their psychological traits (i.e., motivation, curiosity in that both types of curiosity are quasi-similar identification, or socialization). To reconfirm the structure factors (see Loewenstein, 1994). of sport fan curiosity and extend future research, further Lastly, the authors did not examine the relation- study is needed. ship between intended behavior and actual exploratory In summary, Park and his colleagues examined behavior in both studies. Therefore, more studies in curiosity as an intrinsic (i.e., trait curiosity) and extrinsic similar settings on the relationship between trait and state (i.e., state curiosity) motivational drive impacting sport curiosity and its impact on sport fans’ actual exploratory fan behaviors. Their studies offered a new perspective and behaviors are needed to better clarify and generalize the potential for better understanding individuals’ attraction findings in a sport context. to a sport. A curiosity oriented approach to understanding 52 Park, Mahony, and Kim sport fan behaviors could help practitioners develop exploratory behavior in certain ways. Therefore, the fol- pragmatic strategies that will assist them in maintaining lowing research propositions can be made: and developing highly identified sport fans (Park, 2007b; Park et al., 2008). Research Proposition 2 An individual’s level of trait curiosity can provide the Future Research foundation for the development of a sport fan. For example, if an individual has a curious personality (i.e., Curiosity has been defined as a “desire for acquiring new high trait curiosity), he or she would be more likely to knowledge and new sensory experience that motivates seek information and knowledge related to a specific team explorative behavior” (Litman & Spielberger, 2003, p. 75) or player and perhaps attend games and events. and a “motivational prerequisite for exploratory behavior” (Voss & Keller, 1983, p. 17). Thus, curiosity may play an important role in explaining behavior in a sport setting Research Proposition 3 (Park et al., 2008). This paper is one of the first attempts Examining state curiosity among individuals can be in a sport context to conceptually understand the role of helpful in explaining the effect of the sport environ- curiosity as a possible motivator of sport fan behavior ment on consumptive decisions. For example, Park et through a thorough literature review in psychology and al. (2008) argued that “a highly introverted individual sport. Based on this detailed review of literature, various may behave to the contrary when in a crowded college implications for future research emerge. football stadium in support of his/her alma mater’s team” First, Berlyne’s (1971) concepts of curiosity (i.e., (p. 3). In addition, because of the impact of state curios- diversive curiosity, specific curiosity, epistemic curiosity on sport fan behaviors, sport fans would be likely to ity, and perceptual curiosity) could possibly explain how watch a game or support a team in a stadium they do not individuals react to novel information or stimulation like or to purchase sport-related products (e.g., licensed related to sports, teams, players, or any sport-derived product) they really do not need. products. For example, specific perceptual curiosity As discussed previously, there has been some debate could lead sport fans to search for exciting scenes, such in psychology regarding the distinction between trait and as slam dunk contests or ‘must-see’ highlights of plays state curiosity as they are considered to be somewhat on a sport network. Specific epistemic curiosity could quasi-similar concepts (see Loewenstein, 1994). While lead sport fans to search for information, statistics, prior research has indicated that the correlation between and history about her/his favorite team or player or the the trait and state curiosity is weak (Park et al., 2009), the answer to a particular sport quiz question. Diversive trait-state distinction is still somewhat unclear (Weinberg perceptual curiosity could lead sport fans to explore & Gould, 1999) and may vary based on situations and sport facilities without particular purpose. Finally, contexts. In addition, because the previous study has diversive epistemic curiosity could lead sport fans to found that both trait and state curiosity influence sport flip through sport network channels or browse through fan behaviors (see Park et al., 2008; Park et al., 2009), it sport magazines or newspapers to avoid boredom or would be plausible that both trait and state curiosity have seek new intellectual stimuli. It is believed, therefore, an interaction in a sport context. Therefore, following that future research on Berlyne’s concepts of curiosity in research propositions are presented: sport may help us to improve our understanding of how to attract individuals to a sport. The following research Research Proposition 4 propositions were developed related to various sport fan behaviors. Sport fan’s trait curiosity and state curiosity may interact with each other in various curiosity-arousing sport Research Proposition 1 situations.

Various types of curiosity (i.e., diversive, specific, epis- Research Proposition 5 temic, and perceptual curiosity) will stimulate sport fans’ exploratory behaviors in seeking out various sources (i.e., Sport fan’s trait curiosity and state curiosity are conceptu- novel, perceptual, and cognitive) of stimulation. ally and empirically different concepts. Second, Day’s concepts trait and state curiosity are In addition to more thoroughly examining trait and also worth examining in a sport context. This concept state curiosity, understanding sensation and novelty is of particular importance in explaining various sport experience seeking in sport is also important. Various fan behaviors because it provides both researchers and sport fan behaviors that might hold some exploratory practitioners in sport with insight into sport fans and characteristics (e.g., participating in sports or physical why they progress from casual sport fans to loyal sport activities or seeking diverse stimuli in a sport context) fans, as well as the evidence into understanding sport may be influenced by a combination of these concepts. fans’ diverse reactions when exposed to unique sport The literature on sensation seeking has found that sensa- situations. In addition, a particular sport situation (i.e., tion seeking positively influences sport fans’ participation high state curiosity) may also influence an individual’s in various sports (see Breivik, 1996; Campbell, Tyrrell, & The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity 53

Zingaro, 1993; Wagner & Houlihan, 1994). In addition, novel sports as compared with fans with lower level of the literature has also shown that curiosity, sensation seek- curiosity. ing, and novelty seeking commonly influence individuals’ involvement in exploratory behaviors when various Research Proposition 9 novel stimuli are given (Litman & Spielberger, 2003; Voss & Keller, 1983). Due to the relationships between Given a moderate level of information, sport fans with curiosity and sensation and novelty seeking, sport fans’ higher level of curiosity would be more likely to watch participation in sport influenced by both sensation and popular sports as compared with having lower level of novelty seeking would also have a relationship with, or curiosity. be affected by, curiosity as well. While Park et al. (2009) found a moderate curios- Prior study has found that watching sports related ity knowledge gap increases intentions to watch a novel with sensational seeking (e.g., sand boarding, canyoning, sport, they did not investigate the impact on actual ice climbing, skysurfing, wingsuit flying, and yamakasi) behaviors. Furthermore, they did not investigate which would stimulate individuals to display aggressive behav- type of sport advertisement arouses sport fan curiosity iors in their spectating (Watson, 2002; Zillmann, 1983). in relation to curiosity knowledge gap. In other words, In addition, by participating in sport, individuals are because the study only dealt with the amount of infor- provided knowledge that helps them understand and enjoy mation given, more research on the effect of advertising the sport (Geertz, 1973). Furthermore, the understand- on generating curiosity and on the curiosity knowledge ing and enjoyment of sports does not only impact sport gap is still needed. Therefore, possible extensions of this fans’ behaviors but also their characteristics (McDonald, study would be to examine the effect of sport advertise- Milne, & Hong, 2002). Therefore, study on sensation ment on both curiosity and curiosity knowledge gap and seeking and novelty experience seeking in relation to to compare the impact of different levels of the curiosity curiosity in sport would serve to illuminate how indi- knowledge gap among different sports or sport-related viduals show different behaviors in their participating products. For example, a study on the difference between and spectating as well. Thus, the following research popular sports and novel sports would be helpful in clari- propositions are proposed: fying when and under what conditions practitioners could manipulate the curiosity knowledge gap most effectively Research Proposition 6 (Park et al., 2009). Based on Park et al.’s study (2009) regarding the impact of sport advertising on sport fans’ Sensation or novelty seeking in sport will help to explain spectatorship, the possible research propositions are how an individual becomes involved in sport participation. presented:

Research Proposition 7 Research Proposition 10 Sensation or novelty seeking in sport will help to explain A sport advertisement providing individuals with evi- how individuals become sport spectators. dence on the subject (i.e., sport, team, player, or other As a follow up to Park et al.’s (2009) study, future sport-related information) would more effectively arouse research should investigate the impact of a moderate curiosity than the one possessing and directly exposing level of information in the sport advertisement on sport the subject. fans’ curiosity and behavior. While Park et al. (2009) examined the impact of a moderate level of information on sport fans’ behaviors, they did not examine the Research Proposition 11 relationship between a moderate level of information The impact of the curiosity knowledge gap on sport fans’ and level of sport fans’ curiosity. Therefore, it would actual behaviors should be examined. be interesting to examine how sport fan curiosity (i.e., high or low scores on curiosity) may result in different Research Proposition 12 behaviors when a moderate level of information is provided in an advertisement. In addition, because Park et The different levels of curiosity knowledge gap would al. (2009) simply examined the participants’ intention differently influence sport fans’ consumptive behaviors to watch novel sports, many other types of sports and based on the popularity or newness of sports (i.e., popular sport fans’ consumptive behaviors need to be examined. sport vs. novel sport). With regard to some existing studies (e.g., trait curiosity and curiosity knowledge gap) on curiosity in a sport Research Proposition 13 context, the following research propositions are also provided: The different levels of curiosity knowledge gap would differently influence sport fans’ consumptive behaviors Research Proposition 8 based on types of sport products. When curiosity is triggered by various stimuli, Given a moderate level of information, sport fans with individuals may want to explore and reveal the source higher level of curiosity would be more likely to watch of stimuli that help them satisfy their curiosity (cf. Day, 54 Park, Mahony, and Kim

1982; Park, 2007a). While a number of studies have sport marketers maintain fan interest. The following investigated the process by which curiosity is generated, research propositions can be developed: there has been limited research on the mechanism for satisfying curiosity (Park, 2007a). Because individuals Research Proposition 16 may have different ways and characteristics to approach to the origin of curiosity-arousing stimuli, it would be Sport fans in the hot state (i.e., when curiosity-arousing important to empirically investigate scientific process information about sport is provided through an advertise- of how to satisfy curiosity. To fulfill this need, different ment) will have strong levels of intention to consume research processes such as ‘fMRI(functional Magnetic sport-related products or watch sport events. Resonance Imaging)’ that scans brain or spinal cord to investigate neural activity (Buxton, 2002) could be used. Research Proposition 17 Given that sport is a context where various stimuli exist Sport fans in the cold state (i.e., after their curiosity about and sport fans have different characteristics relative to sport is satisfied) will be interested in consuming sport- nonfans of sport (Park, 2007a), it could be hypothesized related products or watching sport events if novel stimuli that sport fans have different processes or neural activ- or curiosity-arousing stimuli are present. ity. Therefore, the following research propositions can Another line of future research derived from the be made: hot-cold state of curiosity would be an examination of impulsive purchases by sport fans. Because impulsive Research Proposition 14 purchase refers to the immediate tendency to engage in Individuals’ process for satisfying curiosity would be unplanned buying (Kwon & Armstrong, 2002), the hot different based on their trait or state. state may lead sport consumers to make impulsive purchases because they do not rationally judge their current needs and wants or predict their future behaviors and Research Proposition 15 emotions. Therefore, the following research proposition Sport fans will have different neural process in satisfying is offered: their curiosity from nonfans of sport. With regard to how to satisfy curiosity, it would also Research Proposition 18 be interesting to examine whether individuals’ behav- The hot state will increase sport fans’ tendency to make iors change after their curiosity is satisfied. This can be impulsive purchases. investigated by using one of the latest curiosity theories, Finally, the measurement of sport fans’ curiosity is Loewenstein’s (2000) ‘hot’ state and ‘cold’ state of curi- important for helping to examine the way in which curiosity. He examined how individuals predict their future osity works as a potential motivational factor for sport behaviors based on their current emotional status. He fan behavior. However, because Park’s (2007a) study was argued that their future behaviors will be influenced by the the first attempt to measure sport fan curiosity, refining changes in visceral states, such as hunger, sexual desire, the measurement scale would help to apply the concept or thirst (cf. Loewenstein, 1999). The hot state is the state of curiosity to sport situations and more fully establish of anticipation in which individuals cannot rationally the construct of curiosity in a sport context. Thus, the judge the current situation and predict future behaviors following research proposition could be investigated: due to the curiosity aroused by their current emotional disequilibrium. For example, shoppers who are hungry are more likely to buy foods they want rather than foods they Research Proposition 19 need. In contrast, the cold state is the state of tranquility Both sport fan exploratory curiosity scale (SFECS) and resulting from satisfaction of curiosity. The “cold” is not sport fan specific curiosity (SFSCS) will show convergent “dissatisfaction” but “calmness” (Bernard & Schulze, validity with other similar measures. 2005). In this state, individuals sometimes underestimate In summary, curiosity has been considered a major the effect of visceral drives when predicting their future motivator of human exploratory behavior. Thus it is behaviors. For example, Loewenstein (2005) argued that believed that curiosity can be helpful in understanding “when one is not hungry, afraid, or in pain, it is difficult sport fans and may provide new perspectives on curiosity to imagine what it would feel like to experience one of because sport situations elicit more curiosity by their nature these states, or to fully appreciate the motivational power (see Park, 2007b; Park et al., 2008). However, the research such states could have over one’s own behavior” (p. S49). on curiosity in sport is in its initial stage. Because there Understanding these concepts may explain why have only been a limited number of studies, future research people behave differently under various emotional states. needs to focus on the clarification of the curiosity concept Consequently, the hot state and cold state of curiosity may and the role curiosity plays in various sport settings based help sport marketers develop various marketing strate- on the research propositions identified above. This article gies to retain current sport fans. By keeping fans in the reviewed several studies that have explored the impact of hot state of curiosity or offering novel curiosity-arousing curiosity in areas such as psychology, education, and busi- stimuli to fans in the cold state of curiosity, it could help ness, as well as sport. This paper also presented a series The Role of Sport Fan Curiosity 55 of propositions for future research to extend the curiosity Edelman, S. (1997). Curiosity and exploration. Retrieved June literature and undergird the construct of curiosity in sport. 21, 2007, from http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/ Therefore, it is hoped that this article provides a theoretical explore.htm basis and conceptual framework on which future research Fowler, H. (1965). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. New can be based and ultimately provide researchers and prac- York: Macmillian. Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., & Ridinger, L.L. (2002). Character- titioners with a better understanding of their fans and how izing consumer motivation as individual difference factors: to meet their goals. Augmenting the Sport Interest Inventory (SII) to explain level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly, Acknowledgments 11, 33–43. Gentry, J.W., Burns, A.C., Putrevu, S., Hongyan, Y., Williams, This work was supported by Hankuk University of For- L., Bare, T., et al. (2002). Managing the curiosity gap does eign Studies Research Fund of 2010. matter: What do we need to do about it? Developments in Business Stimulation and Experiential Learning, 29, 67–73. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: References Basic. Hirt, E.R., & Zillmann, D. (1992). Cost and benefits of alle- Berlyne, D.E. (1949). Interest as a psychological concept. The giance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after British Journal of Psychology, 39, 53–59. team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personality and Berlyne, D.E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. The British Social Psychology, 63, 724–738. Journal of Psychology, 45, 180–191. Irwin, R.L., Sutton, W.A., & McCarthy, L.M. (2008). Sport Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New promotion and sales management (2nd ed.). Champaign, York: McGraw-Hill. IL: Human Kinetics. Berlyne, D.E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, It is a wide, wide, wide world. (2009). EW.com. Retrieved 25–33. August 28, 2009, from http://www.ew.com/ew/arti- Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: cle/0,314115,00.html. Appleton-Century-Crofts. James, J.D. (2001). The role of cognitive development and Berlyne, D.E. (1973). Interrelations of verbal and nonverbal socialization in the initial development of team loyalty. measures used in experimental aesthetics. Scandinavian Leisure Sciences, 23, 233–261. Journal of Psychology, 14, 177–184. Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F.D. (2004). Curiosity and Bernard, J.C., & Schulze, W. (2005). The next new thing: exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences Curiosity and the motivation to purchase novel products. and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Economic Bulletin, 3(32), 1–8. Assessment, 82, 291–305. Breivik, G. (1996). Personality, sensation seeking and risk Kwon, H.H., & Armstrong, K.L. (2002). Factors influencing taking among Everest climbers. International Journal of impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport Sport Psychology, 27, 308–320. Marketing Quarterly, 11, 151–163. Buxton, R.B. (2002). An introduction to functional Magnetic Litman, J.A. (1998) Theory and assessment of epistemic Resonance Imaging: Principles and techniques. Cam- curiosity: The development of an experimental epistemic bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. curiosity scale. Unpublished master’s thesis, University Campbell, J.B., Tyrrell, D.J., & Zingaro, M. (1993). Sensation of South Florida, Tampa. seeking among whitewater canoe and kayak paddlers. Litman, J.A., & Spielberger, C.D. (2003). Measuring epistemic Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3), curiosity and its diversive and specific components.Jour - 489–491. nal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75–86. Carlin, K.A. (1999). The impact of curiosity on learning during Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity. A review a school field trip to the zoo. Unpublished doctoral dis- and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98. sertation, University of Florida, Florida. Loewenstein, G. (1999). A visceral account of addiction. In J. Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better Elster & O.J. Skog (Eds.), Getting hooked: Rationality measurement of marketing constructs. JMR, Journal of and addiction (pp. 235–264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Marketing Research, XVI, 64–73. University Press. Collins, R.P. (2000). Measurement of curiosity as a multidimen- Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and sional personality trait. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, economic behavior. Preferences, Behavior, and Welfare, University of South Florida, Florida. 90, 426–432. Collins, R.P., Litman, J.A., & Spielberger, C.D. (2004). The Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical measurement of perceptual curiosity. Personality and decision making. Health Psychology, 24, S49–S56. Individual Differences, 36, 1127–1141. Madrigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating Cyr, T.A. (1996). Arousing and sustaining intellectual curiosity: effects of team identification in regard to causal attribu- A study of course design and implementation. Unpublished tions and summary judgment following a game outcome. doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 717–733. Day, H.I. (1971). The measurement of specific curiosity. In Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D.R. (2000). Using H.I. Day, D.E. Berlyne, & D.E. Hunt (Eds.), Intrinsic the psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale to motivation (pp. 77–97). Toronto, ON: Holt, Rinehart and segment sport consumer based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Winston of Canada. Quarterly, 9(1), 15–25. Day, H. I. (1982). Curiosity and interested explorer. National Mahony, D.F., & Howard, D.R. (2001). Sport business in the Society for Performance and Instruction Journal, May, next decade: A general overview of expected trends. Jour- 19-22. nal of Sport Management, 15, 275–296. 56 Park, Mahony, and Kim

Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D.R. (1999). The Rossing, B.E., & Long, H.B. (1981). Contributions of curiosity effect of individual levels of self-monitoring on loyalty to and relevance to adult learning motivation. Adult Educa- professional football team. International Journal of Sports tion, 32, 25–36. Marketing & Sponsorship, 1, 146–167. Robinson, M., & Trail, G.T. (2005). Relationships among McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational spectator gender, motivators and points of attachment in factors for evaluating sport spectator and participant mar- selected intercollegiate sports. Journal of Sport Manage- kets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100–112. ment, 19, 58–80. McDonald, M.A., & Rascher, D. (2000). Does bat day make Spielberger, C.D. (1975). The measurement of state and trait cents? The effect of promotions on the demand for major anxiety: Conceptual and methodological issues. In L. Levi league baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 8–27. (Ed.), Emotions-Their parameters and measurement (pp. Menon, S., & Soman, D. (2002). Managing the power of curi- 713–725). New York: Raven Press. osity for effective web advertising strategies. Journal of Spielberger, C.D., Peters, R.A., & Frain, F. (1981). Curiosity Advertising, 31, 1–14. and anxiety. In H.G. Voss & H. Keller (Eds.), Curiosity Moch, M. (1987). Asking questions: An expression of epis- research: Basic concepts and results. Weinheim, DE: temological curiosity in children. In J.F. Wohwill & D. Beltz. Gorlitz (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play: On the Spielberger, C., Ritterband, L., Sydeman, S., Reheiser, E., & development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational Unger, K. (1995). Assessment of emotional states and processes (pp. 199–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. personality traits: Measuring psychological vital signs. Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2007). Sport marketing. In Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. New York: Oxford University Press. Naylor, F.D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Spielberger, C.D., & Starr, L.M. (1994). Curiosity and Psychologist, 16, 172–183. exploratory behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Associates. procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Starr, L.M. (1992). Assessment of curiosity as a multifaceted Olson, K.R., Camp, C.J., & Fuller, D. (1984). Curiosity and construct. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the need for cognition. Psychological Reports, 54, 71–74. South Florida, Tampa. Park, S.H. (2007a). The development of sport fan curiosity. Trail, G.T., Robinson, M., & Kim, Y.K. (2008). Sport consumer Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louis- behavior: A test for group differences on structural con- ville, Kentucky. straints. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 190–200. Park, S.H. (2007b). Sport fan curiosity. Korean Journal of Sport Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G. Science, 18, 173–184. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of Park, S.H., & Moorman, A.M. (2006). Strategic and innovative spectators. New York: Routledge. use of insurance in the sport industry: Implications for Wann, D.L., & Pierce, S. (2003). Measuring sport team identi- improving risk management techniques. Paper Presented fication and commitment: An empirical comparison of the at the conference of the 2006 Sport Recreation and Law sport spectator identification scale and the psychological Association Conference (SRLA). Albuquerque, NM. commitment to team scale. North American Journal of Park, S.H., Andrew, D.P.S., & Mahony, D.F. (2008). Exploring Psychology, 5, 365–372. the relationship between trait curiosity and initial inter- Watson, J.C. (2002). Violence and aggression in sport. Retrieved est in sport spectatorship. International Journal of Sport January 25, 2007, from http://www.wvu.edu/~psysed/ Management, 9, 286–301. sportpsych/watson/aggression.ppt Park, S. H., Mahony, D. F., & Greenwell, T. C. (2009). The Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and curiosity gap model: Curiosity and the intention to watch exercise psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human novel sports. Paper submitted for publication. Kinetics. Pearson, P.H. (1970). Relationships between global and specific Zillmann, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R.G. Geen measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and Clinical Psychology, 34, 199–204. empirical reviews (). New York: Academic Press. Raju, P.S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the opti- to personality, demographics, and explanatory behavior. mal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum The Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272–282. Associates. Reio, T.G. (1997). Effects of curiosity on socialization-related Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial learning and job performance in adults. Unpublished bases of sensation seeking. New York: Erlbaum. doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E.A., Price, L., & Zoob, I. (1964). State University, Virginia. Development of a sensation seeking scale. Journal of Reio, T.G., Petrosko, J.M., Wiswell, A.K., & Thongsukmag, J. Consulting Psychology, 28(6), 477–482. (2006). The measurement and conceptualization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 117–135.