During my MHCI Capstone Project, I became fascinated with visualizing networks and information. As a team, we used several methods to visualize networks (speed dating, participatory design, peer critiques, etc.), we came up with many ways to visualize networks in the form of people, content, and resources. But, what I think is even more interesting is identifying information that is not there and visualizing ways to represent these “gaps”.
Information can be presented in a manner that is straightforward or curious. If we opt for curious, we are guaranteed not only attention, but likely higher engagement as well. As human beings, we demand to know more. What was known information (a book we’ve read many times) that might have been ignored has been converted into something unknown, something mysterious, something that demands resolution (a movie adaptation of said book where the ending has been changed).
When we become aware of this missing information- when something changes from being known (or so we thought) to an unknown state—we become curious. This is the explanation of curiosity posed by behavioral economist George Loewenstein in his Information-Gap Theory. Loewenstein says “curiosity happens when we feel a gap in our knowledge.”
The feeling we get from these information gaps is best described as deprivation, which is critical to understanding why it is we are motivated by curiosity. In order to “eliminate the feeling of deprivation,” we seek out the missing information. This is ironic, considering people routinely seek out puzzles, mystery novels and other curious situations that create this sense of deprivation. However, it’s important to note that many researchers once viewed curiosity as something averse, this view suggests we should only want to know something if it helps us make more informed decision.
In “The Psychology of Curiosity,” Lowenstein surveys the body of curiosity research and how it resolves many of the debates surrounding curiosity. He sums it up as: I’m curious because there’s a gap between “what I know and what I want to know.” Two notable implications come from this perspective:
- Loewenstein’s tests confirmed that subjects were more curious when given parts of a greater whole—the need to complete enough of a picture puzzle in order to determine what it was (a picture of an animal) resulted in more interaction than a scenario where each block was a discrete picture.
- Curiosity correlates with our own understanding of a particular domain. The more we know about some topic, the more likely we are to focus on our own information-gaps. If I know 8 of 10 items, I’m more curious about the remaining 2 than if I only know 2 of 10 things.
I want to visualize the 2 of the 10 things I don’t know, but what is the best way to do this? And, how much does a user have to invest in the information to want to do this? My belief is that the best way to get people to spend time doing this is to embrace both the highly-motivated, highly-curious users as well as those that “stumble-upon” the information via social networking tools that are available (and avoid bias simultaneously).
How to embrace them all? How to get people motivated? What’s the best way to visualize these gaps? In progress…