When visiting museums, people make unexpected yet meaningful discoveries that leave a lasting impression, or don’t they? The idea that such serendipitous experiences occur in museums, are desirable, and should even be actively encouraged, sounds good in theory but has not yet been substantiated by empirical research. In a collaboration between museum practice and psychological research, we conducted four studies to better understand what serendipity is, who experiences it under which conditions, and with which outcomes. We set out to capture the psychological experience of serendipity, and caught a rich and fruitful collection of insights into its core concept, contexts, and consequences.

Serendipity – what it is and what it’s not: A fuzzy concept 

What makes a serendipity experience? There are various understandings of serendipity from dictionary definitions to scientific articles in areas such as tourism, education, and online environments. All of them seem to converge on serendipitous moments being coincidental, surprising, new, positive, meaningful, and often also with a long lasting, maybe even transformative impact. Given my occupation, I might be biased towards seeing psychology all around,but this indeed sounds like a deeply psychological experience! 

However, in psychological research we are already struggling with “jingle-jangle” fallacies: studying the same thing but using different labels and mashing together different things under one name. So, is studying serendipitous experiences just another form of reinventing the wheel of already well-known and well-studied psychological phenomena? A critical look at serendipity definitions suggests some obvious overlaps: An unexpected and sudden moment of insight could also be a so-called “Aha!” experience. Something that captures our attention, even if by coincidence, might just be good old situational interest. Or, is a serendipitous moment maybe qualitatively no different from just having a general positive experience of something? 

To gain clarity on what serendipity actually is, we choose the path of theoretically informed empirical differentiation: First, we reviewed many different theoretical definitions and previous operationalizations of serendipitous experiences. Plus, we conducted qualitative interviews with museum visitors on their experiences of serendipity in museums and everyday life. Second, we then put together a short, psychometrically sound scale for assessing psychological experiences of serendipity capturing its cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. And finally, third, we validated it across multiple studies using cross-sectional field data from museums, autobiographical recall of previous serendipity experiences, and experimental vignettes asking participants to imagine a museum visit.

These studies suggest: Serendipity experiences can be empirically distinguished from other, more established constructs such as “aha” moments, situational interest, and general positive affect. However, there also is considerable overlap between them - in particular, with interest. Some of this might be due to theoretical, linguistic, and operational fuzziness of these states, but it remains an open question what exactly - psychologically speaking - serendipity is and what it is not: Might it be better subsumed under the overarching concept of interest as a subtype connected to discoveries? Or, does experiencing serendipity go beyond “just” interest by also encompassing affective and behavioral elements? 

So, is serendipity a psychological concept in its own right? Maybe. So far, our empirical investigations suggest that serendipity is a distinct piece in an overarching network connecting different states making a curious and happy mind and museum visit.

Serendipity – who experiences it in which situations? An experience for all

It seemed, serendipity was worth a closer look! In particular, we wanted to better understand the who and when of serendipity: Which visitors might be susceptible to experiencing serendipity? Which visit conditions and exhibition design elements might help or hinder it?

Surprisingly, we find that serendipity experiences seem largely independent of interindividual differences such as demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education) and personality traits (e.g., openness, extraversion). Serendipity is not reserved for a specific subgroup of people: Everyone can – and often does – experience it in museums! One personal ingredient that seems to help bring out serendipitous experiences’ flavour, though, is a prior inclination towards the topic and learning: Those who were motivated to visit museums to learn something or connect with an already existing passion also reported more intense serendipitous experiences.

This “open for all” nature of serendipity is further emphasized by our analyses showing that serendipity experiences were mostly unaffected by specific visit situations: For example, whether bringing your kids to the museum or coming alone, it seems to neither increase nor decrease your likelihood to chance upon a serendipitous moment. One exception: People who reported to have engaged more with interactive and multimodal media offerings during their visit, also made more happy, coincidental discoveries! 

Serendipity – and then? Potential consequences of serendipitous experiences

According to our data, experiencing serendipity is associated with all kinds of desirable mental states – curiosity, interest, insight, even awe and flow – during real, recalled, and imagined museum visits. We thus assumed that there might also be desirable consequences of serendipity experiences. Luckily, we were able to include our psychometric scale in museum exhibition evaluations in a large science museum. We find: Agreeing more that one made unexpected, positive discoveries that motivated further engagement did indeed predict higher exhibition liking and also higher recommendation intentions. Thus, serendipity-rich experiences in exhibitions were not only enjoyable for the visitors themselves, but might also prove to be “good advertisement” for museums by inspiring further word-of-mouth recommendations!

Of course, this data is so far only correlational in nature - it does not imply that experiencing serendipity causally leads to more positive and sustainable museum experiences. To solidify the direction of these relationships, and draw more definite conclusions, experimental evidence is needed: What follows from inducing more versus less serendipity? While this is a question for a whole career of future research, our insights offer first inspiration for possible serendipity “generators” – that is, aspects that could be systematically varied in an experimental fashion to scrutiny causal relationships and allow for creating more serendipitous experiences in general. 

Contrary to its coincidental nature, serendipity experiences likely do not appear out of the blue. They flourish in multisensory and interactive environments in which people are encouraged to explore and follow their own interests. One particularly promising serendipity trigger might be hidden “easter eggs” (i.e., surprising details, references, or jokes) that museum visitors stumble upon and offer new, positive, and unexpected insights, opening up a different, maybe personal perspective on a given topic. Such elements could be systematically varied to achieve a more or less fruitful environment for serendipity to grow: Creating situations in which positive coincidences become more or less likely.

Why this matters: Serendipity research and beyond

Chancing upon serendipity as a collaborative interest between psychological research and museum practice proved positive, meaningful, and productive. It is a highly rewarding experience to get to study something that sparks epistemic interest, inspires new insights, and promises practical relevance: Serendipity is something that many people experience in museums with potentially important downstream consequences, but the empirical literature on serendipity is only emerging, there is much we do not know yet! Thus this project offered practical insights for our museum partners on the value and manner of creating rewarding and psychologically rich exhibition experiences, while also advancing the scientific inquiry into the mysterious psychological nature of serendipity. I hope our work furthers the still scarce empirical work on serendipity in cultural contexts, sheds some light on concepts, contexts, and consequences of psychological serendipity experiences, and inspires others to dare a closer look at lucky coincidences – in research, museums, and life.

Author bio

Marlene Sophie Altenmüller is a social psychologist and junior professor at the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) in Germany. She studies the reception, communication, and inner workings of science as well as art reception and the museum experience.