Abstract
This paper reviews seventy years of theoretical research and proposes systematic curiosity as an integrative tool for human flourishing with a focus on four key aspects: firstly, acknowledge curiosity’s multidimensional nature instead of harmonizing its complex taxonomy; secondly, emphasizing intentional curiosity as opposed to impulsive curiosity; thirdly, prioritizing domain-general curiosity for broader applicability across educational, organizational, and therapeutic settings; and lastly, focusing on curiosity as a developable skill rather than an innate trait. By segmenting systematic curiosity into cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components, and relating these to interactions with the self, others, and the world, the framework aims to apply across the spectrum of human experience. Furthermore, the framework encourages an exploration of various evidence-based activities for flourishing so individuals can discover the most suitable strategies for their specific context. Implications for both theory and practice are examined, limitations are discussed, and avenues for future research are suggested.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Flourishing has been defined as “[living] within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience” (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Historically rooted in philosophical traditions, flourishing has evolved from its ancient conceptualization in Aristotelian ethics, where it was synonymous with a life well-lived, to a more nuanced construct in contemporary research (Ryff, 2023; Waterman, 1990). This evolution reflects a shift from purely moral qualities to include psychological and emotional well-being (Narvaez, 2008, 2015). Flourishing is now thought to extend beyond happiness to encompass intellectual fulfillment, emotional resilience, and social contribution (Keyes, 2002; Ryan et al., 2008; Ryff, 1989). This broader view aligns with research suggesting that flourishing is not merely the absence of adversity but the presence of indicators of holistic development across multiple domains of human life (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). As such, flourishing is seen as a holistic measure of success, transcending traditional metrics of achievement to include mental health, emotional regulation, and the ability to form constructive social relationships, and has recently been characterized as the fundamental aim of education (Kristjánsson, 2017, 2023).
The existence of a list of objective goods central to flourishing remains the subject of debate. Some scholars argue for universal criteria that define a flourishing life, while others advocate for a more subjective, individualized approach (Rice, 2013; Schinkel et al., 2023; Wolbert et al., 2018). Despite this, there is consensus on certain individual factors being integral to flourishing (Keyes, 1998; Levin, 2021; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). These include not only autonomy and achievement but also engagement in meaningful activities, the pursuit of knowledge, and the expression of one’s creativity and imagination (Conner et al., 2018; Kiverstein & Miller, 2023; Rice, 2013; Schinkel et al., 2023). These factors highlight the importance of personal choice and self-directed behavior in achieving a state of flourishing and reflects a growing understanding that human development is multidimensional.
Curiosity is also increasingly recognized as a key contributor in human flourishing (Whitecross et al., 2023). Curiosity has been described as “the impulse towards better cognition” by philosopher and psychologist William James (1899). Cicero described curiosity as a natural inclination towards acquiring knowledge for its own sake, without any expectation of gain, but he also saw it as an uncontrollable impulse, referring to Ulysses and the Sirens as a parable for curiosity (Cicero, 1998; Lowenstein, 1994). In the 19th century, David Hume (1888) already divided curiosity into two different categories: a positive type, which he referred to as a love of knowledge, and a negative type, which he considered a passion. He saw good curiosity as the kind that drives scientific research, while bad curiosity was viewed as an excessive eagerness to know the lives and affairs of others (Hume, 1888).
Moving away from these moral considerations, modern techniques have allowed researchers to probe further into the nature of curiosity. From a neurophysiological standpoint, curiosity is strongly linked to the brain’s reward system (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Studies have shown that certain brain regions, such as the caudate nucleus and the inferior frontal gyrus, become active when individuals feel curious, implying that these areas play a role in the anticipation of the rewarding nature of acquiring new information, even though this anticipation does not always align with traditionally expected reward pathways, as indicated by the lack of activity in the nucleus accumbens (Kang et al., 2009). Further investigation suggested that states of high curiosity enhance memory retention, even for information that is not the focus of curiosity, highlighting the broad impact of curiosity on cognitive processes (Gruber et al., 2014). Additionally, the role of dopamine neurons in signaling both primary and informational rewards underlines the integral part of the dopaminergic reward system in mediating the experience of curiosity (Bromberg-Martin et al., 2010; Bromberg-Martin & Hikosaka, 2011). These findings collectively indicate that curiosity, while intrinsically motivated, shares common mechanisms with extrinsically motivated rewards, suggesting a complex interplay in how the human brain processes the desire for knowledge and new experiences.
From a psychological standpoint, curiosity is thought to motivate learning by spurring exploratory behaviors aimed at resolving gaps in knowledge (Gureckis & Markant, 2012; Oudeyer & Smith, 2016). As such, it fosters sense-making from childhood onwards (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). Whether through simple observation or active information-seeking, satisfying curiosity enables deeper encoding and retention of newly learnt information (Kang et al., 2009). Infants display exploratory behaviors such as gazing longer at unexpected events or novel stimuli that suggest early curiosity-driven learning (Mather, 2013; Stahl & Feigenson, 2015). As children develop cognitively, curiosity prompts question-asking and independent discovery of their physical, mental, and social world, facilitating cognitive and social development (Chouinard et al., 2007; Frazier et al., 2009; Jirout & Klahr, 2012; Liquin & Lombrozo, 2020). In adulthood, curiosity is considered an important trait for continuous learning and adaptability (Cronin-Golomb & Bauer, 2023; Sakaki et al., 2018; Fry et al., 2023).
Daily levels of curiosity have a significant impact on happiness and personal growth (Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Lydon-Staley et al., 2020; Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2020). Extensive research indicates that individuals with high curiosity exhibit more growth-oriented behaviors, derive a greater sense of meaning from life, and generally report higher levels of life satisfaction (Jovanovic & Brdaric, 2012; Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Peterson et al., 2007; Whitecross et al., 2023). They exhibit fewer symptoms of anxiety, depression, and burnout (Denneson et al., 2017; Garrosa et al., 2017; Kashdan et al., 2011). In professional settings, curiosity correlates positively with innovation (Celik et al., 2016) and is associated with increased job satisfaction and engagement (Kashdan et al., 2020). Furthermore, in educational contexts, a strong sense of curiosity is related to superior academic performance (Von Stumm et al., 2011). Curious individuals tend to pay more attention to their conversation partners and are more adept at discerning others’ personalities (Hartung & Renner, 2011). Curiosity is also linked to increased creativity (Schutte & Malouf, 2020), a quicker learning pace (van Schijndel et al., 2018), and enhanced memory retention (Padulo et al., 2022). These findings have led researchers to theorize that curiosity is a vital source of psychological well-being (Denneson et al., 2017; Garrosa et al., 2017; Whitecross et al., 2023).
The significance of curiosity in positively affecting various factors relevant to flourishing is evident, yet existing research has predominantly focused on delineating curiosity’s multifaceted nature or fostering curiosity as a general construct purported to support education, overlooking the potential applications of fostering curiosity to directly support flourishing (Arnone, 2003; Kashdan & Fincham, 2004; Pluck & Johnson, 2011). As a result, there is a lack of pragmatic tools that actively leverage this trait for holistic human development. This paper seeks to bridge this gap. Rather than attempting to reconcile the numerous existing typologies of curiosity, it seeks to identify and operationalize a type of curiosity that can be nurtured, practiced, and controlled. The aim is to develop an actionable framework that has tangible implications for basic research and real-world applications in fostering flourishing through the practice of curiosity.
Methods
Conceptual reviews are considered appropriate when the aim is to “untangle” terms used in research and practice and to revisit existing research to develop and refine theory (Hulland, 2020; Schreiber & Cramer, 2022). A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the Web of Science, one of the largest multidisciplinary databases of research publications (Birkle et al., 2020), focusing on the term “curiosity” in conjunction with associated terms such as “framework,” “model,” “theory,” and “construct,” as well as variations of these terms (Appendix 1). This initial search yielded a total of 1,375 records. To examine theoretical discussions of curiosity, a filter was applied to select only review articles, which narrowed down the results to 92 records. The remaining records were screened for relevance, resulting in a set of 22 theoretical papers (Appendix 2). A synthesis matrix was created to summarize the results (Ingram et al., 2006). The synthesis matrix formed the basis for a framework conceptualizing aspects of curiosity that can be operationalized to support human flourishing (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). The conceptual framework was built by map** the selected data sources, extensively reading and categorizing the selected data, identifying and naming concepts, deconstructing and categorizing the concepts, integrating the concepts, and finally synthesizing the concepts into an integrated framework (Jabareen, 2009).
Results
Despite the results spanning seventy years, more than 70% (n = 15) of the reviews exploring theoretical frameworks and operational definitions of curiosity were conducted in the past decade (2013–2023), indicating a growing interest in this area of research.
Early reviews focus on what can be described as impulsive curiosity, aligned with Hull’s drive theory (1943) which posits that behaviors are primarily motivated by the need to address biological needs and increase an organism’s potential for survival (Simpson & Balsam, 2016). Within this framework, curiosity is conceptualized as a motivational state that is aroused by specific types of stimuli (Berlyne, 1954). Curiosity motivates information-seeking, similar to how hunger motivates eating (Lowenstein, 1994). It is considered an adaptive function which contributes to survival, learning, and development (Voss & Keller, 1983). Those views emphasize the role of stimulation and arousal in exploratory behavior, proposing that these factors significantly influence the nature and extent of curiosity-driven actions (Lester, 1968). Already, researchers start to distinguish between curiosity as a temporary state and as a more enduring personality trait (Boyle, 1983).
Departing from the early theories centered on drive and optimal arousal, modern research is now exploring the multifaceted nature of curiosity. Some researchers chose to focus on one dimension of curiosity. In particular, intellectual curiosity has been defined as a motivational state of cognitive stimulation that leads to exploratory behavior to acquire new knowledge or clarity in understanding, influenced by both internal desires and external contexts, with newly gained knowledge motivating further curiosity in an iterative process of inquiry (Russell, 2013). Other researchers have attempted to create more comprehensive models that encompass various aspects of curiosity. For instance, curiosity has been conceptualized as an intrinsic desire to explore the unknown, with recent research suggesting it is based on dimensions of novelty and familiarity, focusing on how frequently and in what contexts stimuli are encountered, rather than being goal-directed (Modirshanechi et al., 2023). Another framework combines the interest/deprivation model with the neuroscience of wanting and liking to provide a more comprehensive understanding of curiosity as an emotional-motivational state (Litman, 2005; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Researchers have also proposed a neurological model of curiosity called the Prediction, Appraisal, Curiosity, and Exploration (PACE) framework which posits that curiosity arises from significant prediction errors, driving exploratory behaviors that bolster memory encoding, with dopamine neuromodulation providing further consolidation for memories formed during curious states (Gruber & Ranganath, 2019).
The results also indicate that the operationalization of curiosity is still a subject of debate. Researchers have proposed a new information-gap based measurement procedure focused on assessing young children’s scientific curiosity through exploratory behavior, defining curiosity as “the threshold of desired uncertainty in the environment that leads to exploratory behavior” (Jirout & Klahr, 2012). Other researchers operationalize curiosity through a “learning progress” (LP) signal that rewards activities leading to improvement in predictions and problem-solving over time, avoiding the need to define absolute uncertainty levels (Gottlieb et al., 2013). The LP hypothesis proposes that experiencing learning progress in an activity triggers intrinsic reward and curiosity, forming a positive feedback loop where curiosity drives activities that maximize further learning progress, which in turn enhances curiosity for those activities; this feedback loop causes learners to automatically focus on learnable activities tuned to their competence levels, progressing from simple to complex skills in a self-organized developmental trajectory (Oudeyer et al., 2016).
Yet more recent perspectives characterize curiosity as the practice of actively building one’s knowledge networks (Zurn & Bassett, 2018). This involves seeking out new information, forging connections between novel inputs and existing schemata, and expanding the scope and complexity of one’s mental representations. The very act of gathering and integrating new facts and experiences to resolve gaps strengthens and reorganizes knowledge networks. As such, curiosity manifests through exploratory behaviors aimed at sense-making—including manipulating novel objects, asking questions, or pursuing abstract ideas that provide learning opportunities (Spielberger & Starr, 2012).
One review (Grossnickle, 2014), in an attempt to disentangle the concepts of curiosity and interest, created an extensive map of the various definitions and dimensions of curiosity proposed in academic research: the dimensions can be based on the object of curiosity (physical, sensory, social, or epistemic), the breadth and the depth of curiosity, the degree of stability (state versus trait curiosity), the reason for curiosity (specific versus diversive, interest versus deprivation). However, disentangling curiosity and interest may not be necessary: it has been proposed that focusing on the subjective reward of gaining knowledge can advance understanding of sustainable exploration without needing definitive concepts of curiosity and interest (Murayama et al., 2019). Similarly, researchers have argued that progress in understanding curiosity’s biological and neural underpinnings has been hindered by an excessive focus on defining and categorizing it (Kidd & Hayden, 2015). They advocate for a more inclusive approach to studying curiosity, integrating it with other cognitive processes to gain deeper insights.
Instructional models suggest that curiosity flourishes when students take responsibility for learning, consider multiple perspectives, and reflect both on the subject matter and the learning process, which certain teaching strategies such as inquiry-based learning and group discussion can encourage (Dyche & Epstein, 2011). Researchers suggest that curiosity involves two key metacognitive monitoring steps: evaluating one’s own informational needs and predicting the likelihood of significant information gains from exploring the environment; this perspective indicates that curiosity can be procedurally deployed even by young children (Goupil & Proust, 2023). Curiosity training has been defined as “a process whereby individuals engage in the practice of certain mental states of curiosity” (Zurn & Bassett, 2018). It has also been argued that defining curiosity specifically within an academic domain, tracking students’ knowledge and behaviors as they advance, better distinguishes curiosity from interest and can help inform instructional interventions (Peterson & Cohen, 2019).
Cultivating curiosity in work environments shows promise as a way to support performance. A review found that organizational manifestations of curiosity such as establishing curiosity as a norm can increase creativity, adaptability, and learning, leading to higher job performance, job satisfaction, and well-being (Lievens et al., 2022). One model examined the role of curiosity in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) work environments, arguing that curiosity is associated with openness, exploration, a desire for knowledge, and a high tolerance to disruption—all attributes that can help employees adapt to change (Horstmeyer, 2020). However, researchers analyzed 13 curiosity measures and found limited application in organizational studies (only nine studies using five measures), highlighting a gap between the growing curiosity research literature and its practical use in organizations (Wagstaff et al., 2021).
In summary, despite the rich history of curiosity research spanning over seventy years, there remains a lack of consensus on its precise definition and operationalization. Nevertheless, contemporary research has increasingly acknowledged the multidimensional character of curiosity and its potential to support flourishing across a number of attributes (Table 1).
This review now turns to pinpointing specific aspects of curiosity that can be operationalized to support human flourishing. The conceptual framework is built around the following attributes from the synthesis matrix: (1) Dimensions: leveraging the multidimensional nature of curiosity; (2) Drive: emphasizing intentional curiosity as opposed to impulsive curiosity to encourage a deliberate decision to explore and learn; (3) Domains: prioritizing domain-general curiosity over domain-specific curiosity to apply across a wide range of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional contexts; (4) Development: focusing on curiosity as a cultivable skill rather than an innate trait to empower individuals to actively develop their curiosity. By focusing on these operational attributes of curiosity, there emerges an applied model that can be termed systematic curiosity—a multidimensional, intentional, domain-general, and cultivable form of curiosity (Table 2).
This conceptual framework offers a structured approach to leveraging curiosity for human flourishing. By emphasizing its multidimensional, intentional, domain-general, and cultivable attributes, systematic curiosity can support cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development. It can not only enhance our understanding of curiosity but also provide a foundation to devise practical strategies for fostering a more curious mindset across various domains, including educational, organizational, and therapeutic settings.
Discussion
Based on a conceptual review covering seventy years of research, systematic curiosity is suggested as an applied model rooted in the multidimensional, domain-general, intentional, and cultivable aspects of curiosity. As a framework integrating cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components, systematic curiosity may serve as a mechanism to positively influence well-being and progress at the individual, group, and societal levels. This framework proposes to leverage curiosity as a practical tool for both personal and professional development, aligning it more effectively with the aim of supporting flourishing, and encouraging the personal exploration of various evidence-based activities so individuals can discover the most suitable strategies for their specific context and needs. In summary, systematic curiosity is suggested as a proactive tool for learning and engagement, rather than a reactive, instinct-driven response; a skill that can be developed and applied to promote flourishing.
While the conceptualization of systematic curiosity as proposed here is new, similar concepts can be found in various schools of thought throughout history. From ancient philosophy to modern psychology and neuroscience, constructs similar to systematic curiosity consistently emerge as foundational to holistic human development (Haynes, 2009; Odman & Govender, 2020). Most famously, the Socratic method involved a systematic approach of asking and answering questions to probe deeper understanding and encourage critical thinking (Gregory, 1983). Confucius emphasized the systematic pursuit of knowledge and moral self-cultivation (Kidd, 2018). Descartes also promoted a systematic method of doubting knowledge to establish a more certain foundation for science and philosophy—in fact, the full version of cogito, ergo sum is ubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum, which can be translated to “I doubt, therefore I am—or what is the same—I think, therefore I am” (Charles & Tannery, 1901). Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of cognitive development includes the concept of the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’, which involves scaffolding learning experiences just beyond a child’s current ability, systematically fostering curiosity and learning.
Similar to scientific inquiry, systematic curiosity involves systematically confronting experiences, whether positive or negative, in a methodical manner driven by curiosity; questioning and exploring both internal experiences and external events; taking notes to notice patterns; forming hypotheses and testing assumptions (Jirout, 2020; Kuhn, 2004; Lindholm, 2018; Morris et al., 2012). Deliberate self-inquiry mirrors the experimental cycle of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and analyzing to refine predictions and adapt actions based on new evidence (Fig. 1a), akin to the action loops central to the cybernetics theory of self-regulation and the brain’s perception-action cycle (Carver & Scheier, 2012; Fuster, 2002; Kolb, 1971).
Situating systematic curiosity alongside other constructs of curiosity can help understand its potential value within the wider context of human flourishing. To that end, Fig. 1b illustrates how systematic curiosity can be positioned as “deep-deliberate” curiosity in relation to other forms of curiosity such as interest curiosity (“deep-spontaneous”, e.g., what is colloquially known as falling into a wiki rabbit hole), diversive curiosity (“shallow-spontaneous”, e.g., scrolling through social media), and specific curiosity (“shallow-deliberate”, e.g., quickly looking up information during a conversation to clarify a point).
Furthermore, systematic curiosity can be understood as a mindset, the feelings that accompany it, and the set of actions that follow from this stance, thus encompassing three key components of human experience: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. Within this framework, each of these components interact with three distinct levels: the self, the others, and the world. The first level (self) focuses on metacognition, affect integration, and interoception (Goupil & Proust, 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Leonard & Harvey, 2007; Price & Hooven, 2018; Solbakken et al., 2011); the second level (others) includes relational intelligence, compassionate listening, and prosocial behavior (Dunfield, 2014; Ekman, 2007; Miller, 2007); the third level (world) encompasses intellectual, emotional, and kinesthetic curiosity (LaBar et al., 2000; Russell, 2013; Vogl et al, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). This layered approach provides a comprehensive model for visualizing how systematic curiosity could influence various facets of human experience, ranging from narrower curiosity at the individual level all the way up to broader curiosity at the societal level (Fig. 2).
Systematic curiosity might indirectly support factors associated with flourishing, such as social contribution and environmental mastery. For instance, sharing novel experiences and knowledge with others and building relationships through mutual self-disclosure has been found to facilitate social interactions (Kashdan & Roberts, 2006). Disseminating newfound information more broadly can also enhance one’s reputation and influence, providing external rewards for indulging curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2013; Kawamoto & Hiraki, 2017). This might explain why systematic curiosity—defined as an intellectual stance—is considered a character virtue in science (Pennock, 2019).
On the other hand, systematic curiosity might support flourishing by being an end in itself. Positive affect—a pleasant subjective feeling associated with positive emotions, moods, and sentiments—is an important factor of flourishing (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), and the process of methodically exploring, questioning, and learning can be enriching on its own, contributing to psychological, emotional, and social well-being without needing to serve an external goal (Kashdan et al., 2009; Szumowska & Kruglanski, 2020). Systematic curiosity, therefore, may act as a bridge between the two perspectives regarding the teleological nature of curiosity (Szumowska & Kruglanski, 2020). It acknowledges the utility of curiosity as a means to achieve other ends, while recognizing the value of curiosity as intrinsically fulfilling.
Finally, systematic curiosity could also be applied to inquire about flourishing itself. A variety of activities have been found to promote flourishing, including cognitive activities such as practicing gratitude, savoring life’s experiences, and envisioning one’s ideal future self (VanderWeele, 2020), and behavioral activities such as performing acts of kindness (Kerr et al., 2015; VanderWeele, 2020). Furthermore, several workbook interventions targeting psychological distress have shown promise in contributing to overall flourishing (VanderWeele, 2020). The diversity of evidence-based activities suggests that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for flourishing, and individual differences may play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of each activity (Jung, 2019; Keyes et al., 2015; Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016; Wȩziak-Białowolska et al., 2019). Therefore, it might be beneficial to approach these potential strategies with systematic curiosity. By methodologically experimenting with various approaches, individuals can exert their sense of agency and discover the most effective methods for their unique needs and circumstances (Narasimhan et al., 2019; Shankar et al., 2019; Welzel & Inglehart, 2010). Satisfying their need for autonomy might even increase curiosity, creating a virtuous cycle (Schutte & Malouff, 2019).
In summary, systematic curiosity aims to offer a framework for supporting flourishing particularly in areas where personal agency plays a pivotal role. This framework promotes a more methodical approach to personal and professional development, encouraging individuals to examine their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in a deliberate manner to better understand the world, others, and themselves.
The framework has several implications for theory and practice. In education, this model could inform the development of curricula and teaching methods that encourage students to explore topics methodically and inquisitively, nurturing their capacity to engage with new information in a deep and meaningful way (Scott-Barrett et al., 2023; Singh & Manjaly, 2022). At work, fostering a culture of systematic curiosity could involve training programs and policies that encourage employees to adopt a methodical approach to problem-solving and creativity, with the aim of improving productivity, innovation, and employee satisfaction (Chang & Shih, 2019; Kashdan et al., 2020; Lievens et al., 2022; Silva & Silva, 2023). In therapeutic settings, systematic curiosity aligns with and could potentially enrich approaches such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based therapies, and other positive psychology interventions, offering a framework for hel** clients explore and understand their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors more methodically, potentially contributing to improved mental health outcomes (Clark & Egan, 2015; Zainal & Newman, 2022).
While the proposed model holds promise for operationalizing curiosity as a tool to promote human flourishing, it is important to note its limitations. The conceptual framework was developed based on a comprehensive and methodological review (Jabareen, 2009) integrating multiple streams of research on curiosity and its connections to flourishing. However, the last steps in building a conceptual framework are validating and rethinking the framework (Jabareen, 2009). As such, systematic curiosity requires empirical testing and validation through quantitative and qualitative studies across diverse contexts (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2018; Lucas, 2003; Stenner & Smith III, 1982).
One potential direction for future research is clarifying the relationship between systematic curiosity and associated constructs such as wonder and intrinsic motivation (Ainley, 2019; Donnellan et al., 2022; Schinkel et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2022). Neuroscientific research could possibly help untangle some of these adjacent constructs (Hidi & Renninger, 2019). As uncertainty has been found on one hand to increase curiosity but to decrease happiness (van Lieshout et al., 2021) and on the other hand to be more easily managed with curiosity (Horstmeyer, 2020), research could also examine the interactions between uncertainty and systematic curiosity. Moreover, a compelling area of research would be to examine the interplay between neurodiversity, systematic curiosity, and distraction. Given the unique ways in which individuals with diverse neurocognitive profiles experience and express curiosity and distraction (Hilton et al., 2019; Sedgwick et al., 2019; Sonuga-Barke & Kostyrka‐Allchorne, 2023), exploring how systematically applying curiosity across all levels of the framework might help regulate distraction in neurodiverse populations could offer valuable insights for develo** adaptive instructional strategies. Lastly, a prospective area of research would entail develo** and testing instructional interventions that teach the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of systematic curiosity across various cross-cultural settings (Schutte & Malouff, 2023).
While grounded in existing evidence on curiosity, the framework first and foremost serves as an initial foundation for future research. Empirical work is essential to evolve this conceptual framework into an evidence-based tool to support flourishing. Ultimately, the proposed framework invites researchers to consider curiosity’s potential role in flourishing and lays the groundwork for more targeted strategies to support holistic human development.
Conclusion
This review reveals an evolving understanding of curiosity, moving beyond unidimensional perspectives to recognize curiosity’s multifaceted nature. It is argued that operationalizing curiosity to promote flourishing requires focusing on its multidimensional, intentional, domain-general, and cultivable features. As a framework integrating cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components, systematic curiosity is suggested as a holistic model to positively influence well-being and growth at the individual, group, and societal levels. The possible applications of systematic curiosity extend beyond personal development, with the potential to foster a culture of deliberate inquiry that can in turn lead to innovative problem-solving, enhanced social cohesion, and a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives. By encouraging methodical questioning, exploration, and learning, systematic curiosity offers a pathway toward flourishing. Its broad applicability and potential impact requires further empirical research to explore its effectiveness and refine its application.
References
Ainley, M. (2019). Curiosity and interest: Emergence and divergence. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09495-z.
Arnone, M. P. (2003). Using instructional design strategies to foster curiosity (Vol. 4p.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x.
Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018.
Bromberg-Martin, E. S., Matsumoto, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2010). Dopamine in motivational control: rewarding, aversive, and alerting. Neuron, 68(5), 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.022.
Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Hikosaka, O. (2011). Lateral habenula neurons signal errors inthe prediction of reward information. Nature neuroscience, 14(9), 1209–1216. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2902.
Boyle, G. J. (1983). Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991647.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2012). Cybernetic control processes and the self-regulation of behavior. The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0003.
Celik, P., Storme, M., Davila, A., & Myszkowski, N. (2016). Work-related curiosity positively predicts worker innovation. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0013.
Chang, Y. Y., & Shih, H. Y. (2019). Work curiosity: A new lens for understanding employee creativity. Human Resource Management Review, 29(4), 100672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.005.
Charles, A., & Tannery, P. (Eds.). (1901). La Recherche de la Vérité par La Lumière Naturelle. Oeuvres de Descartes, p. 535.
Chouinard, M. M., Harris, P. L., & Maratsos, M. P. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the society for research in child development, i-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00412.x.
Cicero, M. T. (1998). Cicero De Finibus Bonorum et malorum (Vol. 22). Oxford University Press.
Clark, G. I., & Egan, S. J. (2015). The socratic method in cognitive behavioural therapy: A narrative review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39, 863–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9707-3.
Conner, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257049.
Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2018). Develo**, testing, and using theoretical models for promoting quality in education. In Educational Effectiveness Theory (pp. 99–116). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.869233.
Cronin-Golomb, L. M., & Bauer, P. J. (2023). Self-motivated and directed learning across the lifespan. Acta Psychologica, 232, 103816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103816.
David, H. (1888). A treatise of human nature. Clarendon.
Denneson, L. M., Smolenski, D. J., Bush, N. E., & Dobscha, S. K. (2017). Curiosity improves co** efficacy and reduces suicidal ideation severity among military veterans at risk for suicide. Psychiatry Research, 249, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.018.
Donnellan, E., Aslan, S., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2022). How are curiosity and interest different? Naïve Bayes classification of people’s beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09622-9.
Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as hel**, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 89451. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958.
Dyche, L., & Epstein, R. M. (2011). Curiosity and medical education. Medical Education, 45(7), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03944.x.
Ekman, P. (2007). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. Macmillan.
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversation. Child Development, 80(6), 1592–1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01356.x.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678.
Fry, J., Elkins, M., & Farrell, L. (2023). Cognition and curiosity: Strategies for firms to recruit curious employees. Applied Economics, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2174943.
Fuster, J. M. (2002). Physiology of executive functions: The perception-action cycle. In D. T. Stuss, & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 96–108). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0006.
Garrosa, E., Blanco-Donoso, L. M., Carmona-Cobo, I., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2017). How do curiosity, meaning in life, and search for meaning predict college students’ daily emotional exhaustion and engagement? Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9715-3.
Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P. Y., Lopes, M., & Baranes, A. (2013). Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: Computational and neural mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001.
Goupil, L., & Proust, J. (2023). Curiosity as a metacognitive feeling. Cognition, 231, 105325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105325.
Gregory, V. (1983). The Socratic Elenchus. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 1.
Grossnickle, E. M. (2014). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y.
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulatehippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060.
Gruber, M. J., & Ranganath, C. (2019). How curiosity enhances hippocampus-dependent memory: The prediction, appraisal, curiosity, and exploration (PACE) framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(12), 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.003.
Gureckis, T. M., & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454304.
Hartung, F. M., & Renner, B. (2011). Social curiosity and interpersonal perception: A judge× trait interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 796–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400618.
Haynes, C. J. (2009). Holistic human development. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9052-4.
Hidi, S. E., & Renninger, K. A. (2019). Interest development and its relation to curiosity: Needed neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09491-3.
Hilton, C. L., Ratcliff, K., Collins, D. M., Flanagan, J., & Hong, I. (2019). Flourishing in children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research, 12(6), 952–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2097.
Horstmeyer, A. (2020). The generative role of curiosity in soft skills development for contemporary VUCA environments. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(5), 737–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2019-0250.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory.
Hulland, J. (2020). Conceptual review papers: Revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 27–35.
Ingram, L., Hussey, J., Tigani, M., & Hemmelgarn, M. (2006). Writing a literature review and using a synthesis matrix. NC State University: NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62.
Jirout, J. J. (2020). Supporting early scientific thinking through curiosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1717. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01717.
Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32(2), 125–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002.
Jovanovic, V., & Brdaric, D. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Evidence from subjective well-being in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.043.
Jung, J. A. (2019). Personality and Flourishing: Differences in descriptions of a situation perceived as flourishing in relation to personality traits [Thesis, University of Twente].
Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T. Y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x.
Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Facilitating curiosity: A social and self-regulatory perspective for scientifically based interventions. Positive Psychology in Practice, 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939338.ch30.
Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2006). Affective outcomes in superficial and intimate interactions: Roles of social anxiety and curiosity. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(2), 140–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.005.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9068-7.
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011.
Kashdan, T. B., Afram, A., Brown, K. W., Birnbeck, M., & Drvoshanov, M. (2011). Curiosity enhances the role of mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to existential threat. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.015.
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. A., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How are curious people viewed and how do they behave in social situations? From the perspectives of self, friends, parents, and unacquainted observers. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00796.x.
Kashdan, T. B., Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., & Naughton, C. (2020). Curiosity has comprehensive benefits in the workplace: Develo** and validating a multidimensional workplace curiosity scale in United States and German employees. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109717.
Kawamoto, T., Ura, M., & Hiraki, K. (2017). Curious people are less affected by social rejection. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.006.
Kerr, S. L., O’Donovan, A., & Pep**, C. A. (2015). Can gratitude and kindness interventions enhance well-being in a clinical sample? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9492-1.
Keyes, C. L. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065.
Keyes, C. L. (2002). The Mental Health Continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197.
Keyes, C. L., Kendler, K. S., Myers, J. M., & Martin, C. C. (2015). The genetic overlap and distinctiveness of flourishing and the big five personality traits. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9527-2.
Kidd, I. J. (2018). Confucianism, Curiosity, and Moral Self-Cultivation. In Ilhan Inan, Lani Watson, Dennis Whitcomb, and Safiye Yigit (Eds.), The Moral Psychology of Curiosity. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010.
Kim, S., Sakaki, M., & Murayama, K. (2023). Metacognition of curiosity: People underestimate the seductive lure of non-instrumental information. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02404-0.
Kiverstein, J., & Miller, M. (2023). Experiencing well-being playfulness and the meaningful life: An active inference perspective. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2023(1), niad024. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niad024.
Kolb, D. A. (1971). A cybernetic model of human change and growth.
Kristjánsson, K. (2017). Recent work on flourishing as the aim of education: A critical review. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1182115.
Kristjánsson, K. (2023). Flourishing as the Aim of Education: An outline—and ten remaining problems. New Research and possibilities in Wellbeing Education (pp. 267–280). Springer Nature Singapore.
Kuhn, D. (2004). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? Handbooks of development psychology. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325485.ch19.
LaBar, K. S., Mesulam, M. M., Gitelman, D. R., & Weintraub, S. (2000). Emotional curiosity: Modulation of visuospatial attention by arousal is preserved in aging and early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 38(13), 1734–1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(00)00077-4.
Leonard, N. H., & Harvey, M. (2007). The trait of curiosity as a predictor of emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1545–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00226.x.
Lester, D. (1968). The effect of fear and anxiety on exploration and curiosity: Toward a theory of exploration. The Journal of General Psychology, 79(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1968.9710458.
Levin, J. (2021). Human flourishing: A new concept for preventive medicine. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(5), 761–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.018.
Lievens, F., Harrison, S. H., Mussel, P., & Litman, J. A. (2022). Killing the cat? A review of curiosity at work. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 179–216. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0203.
Lindholm, M. (2018). Promoting curiosity? Possibilities and pitfalls in science education. Science & Education, 27, 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0015-7.
Liquin, E. G., & Lombrozo, T. (2020). Explanation-seeking curiosity in childhood. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.012.
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75.
Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociological Theory, 21(3), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00187.
Lydon-Staley, D. M., Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). Within‐person variability in curiosity during daily life and associations with well‐being. Journal of Personality, 88(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12515.
Mather, E. (2013). Novelty, attention, and challenges for developmental psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00491.
Miller, K. I. (2007). Compassionate communication in the workplace: Exploring processes of noticing, connecting, and responding. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701434208.
Modirshanechi, A., Kondrakiewicz, K., Gerstner, W., & Haesler, S. (2023). Curiosity-driven exploration: Foundations in neuroscience and computational modeling. Trends in Neurosciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2023.10.002.
Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Masnick, A. M., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). The emergence of scientific reasoning. In Current topics in children’s learning and cognition. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.5772/53885.
Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., & Sakaki, M. (2019). Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09499-9.
Narasimhan, M., Allotey, P., & Hardon, A. (2019). Self care interventions to advance health and wellbeing: A conceptual framework to inform normative guidance. Bmj, 365. https://doi.org/10.1136/Bmj.l688.
Narvaez, D. (2008). Human flourishing and moral development: Cognitive and neurobiological perspectives of virtue development. Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 326–343). Routledge.
Narvaez, D. (2015). Understanding flourishing: Evolutionary baselines and morality. Journal of Moral Education, 44(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1054619.
Odman, C., & Govender, K. (2020). Human-driven development through shared ownership and decentralization. In H. Hackman (Ed.), Conversations on rethinking Human Development. International Science Council. https://doi.org/10.24948/2020.09.
Oudeyer, P. Y., & Smith, L. B. (2016). How evolution may work through curiosity-driven developmental process. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(2), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12196.
Oudeyer, P. Y., Gottlieb, J., & Lopes, M. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: Theory and applications in educational technologies. Progress in Brain Research, 229, 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.005.
Padulo, C., Marascia, E., Conte, N., Passarello, N., Mandolesi, L., & Fairfield, B. (2022). Curiosity killed the cat but not memory: Enhanced performance in High-Curiosity States. Brain Sciences, 12(7), 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070846.
Pennock, R. T. (2019). Systematic curiosity. An instinct for truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11218.003.0005.
Peterson, E. G., & Cohen, J. (2019). A case for domain-specific curiosity in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 807–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09501-4.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228938.
Pluck, G., & Johnson, H. L. (2011). Stimulating curiosity to enhance learning. GESJ: Education Sciences and Psychology, 2.
Price, C. J., & Hooven, C. (2018). Interoceptive awareness skills for emotion regulation: Theory and approach of mindful awareness in body-oriented therapy (MABT). Frontiers in psychology, 798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00798.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage.
ReioJr, T. G., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2020). Curiosity and well–being in emerging adulthood. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 32(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20270.
Rice, C. M. (2013). Defending the objective list theory of well-being. Ratio, 26(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12007.
Russell, B. H. (2013). Intellectual curiosity: A principle-based concept analysis. Advances in Nursing Science, 36(2), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/ans.0b013e3182901f74.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
Ryff, C. D. (2023). In pursuit of Eudaimonia: Past advances and future directions. Human Flourishing, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09786-7_2.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.
Sakaki, M., Yagi, A., & Murayama, K. (2018). Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 88, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.007.
Schinkel, A., Wolbert, L., Pedersen, J. B., & de Ruyter, D. J. (2023). Human flourishing, wonder, and Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 42(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-022-09851-7.
Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M. E., Drossaert, C. H., Westerhof, G. J., De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016). What factors are associated with flourishing? Results from a large representative national sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 1351–1370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9647-3.
Schreiber, F., & Cramer, C. (2022). Towards a conceptual systematic review: Proposing a methodological framework. Educational Review, 1–22.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2019). Increasing curiosity through autonomy of choice. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09758-w.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 940–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.421.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2023). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of curiosity-enhancing interventions. Current Psychology, 42(24), 20374–20384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03107-w.
Scott-Barrett, J., Johnston, S. K., Denton-Calabrese, T., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2023). Nurturing curiosity and creativity in primary school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, 104356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104356.
Sedgwick, J. A., Merwood, A., & Asherson, P. (2019). The positive aspects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A qualitative investigation of successful adults with ADHD. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 11, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-018-0277-6.
Shankar, A., Sundar, S., & Smith, G. (2019). Agency-based empowerment interventions: Efforts to enhance decision-making and action in health and development. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 46, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-018-9592-0.
Silva, R. D. O., & Silva, G. D. (2023). Curiosity unlocked the cat: The relationship between curiosity at Work and Worker Creativity. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 19. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2022220065.
Simpson, E. H., & Balsam, P. D. (2016). The behavioral neuroscience of motivation: An overview of concepts, measures, and translational applications. Behavioral Neuroscience of Motivation, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_402.
Singh, A., & Manjaly, J. A. (2022). Using curiosity to improve learning outcomes in schools. SAGE Open, 12(1), 21582440211069392. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211069392.
Solbakken, O. A., Hansen, R. S., & Monsen, J. T. (2011). Affect integration and reflective function: Clarification of central conceptual issues. Psychotherapy Research, 21(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.583696.
Sonuga-Barke, E., & Kostyrka‐Allchorne, K. (2023). Editorial perspective: Attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder viewed as neuro‐divergence in the digital world. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64(6), 972–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13710.
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (2012). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221–243). Routledge.
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2015). Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. Science, 348(6230), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa3799.
Stenner, A. J., & Smith, I. I. I., M (1982). Testing construct theories. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55(2), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1982.55.2.415.
Szumowska, E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2020). Curiosity as end and means. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.008.
Tang, X., Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. E., Murayama, K., Lavonen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). The differences and similarities between curiosity and interest: Meta-analysis and network analyses. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101628.
van Lieshout, L. L., de Lange, F. P., & Cools, R. (2021). Uncertainty increases curiosity, but decreases happiness. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14014. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93464-6.
van Schijndel, T. J., Jansen, B. R., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2018). Do individual differences in children’s curiosity relate to their inquiry-based learning? International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1460772.
VanderWeele, T. J. (2020). Activities for flourishing: An evidence-based guide. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 4(1), 79–91.
Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Loderer, K. (2020). Surprised–curious–confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration. Emotion, 20(4), 625. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000578.
Von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204.
Voss, H. G., & Keller, H. (1983). Curiosity and exploration: Theories and results. Elsevier.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wagstaff, M. F., Flores, G. L., Ahmed, R., & Villanueva, S. (2021). Measures of curiosity: A literature review. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(3), 363–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21417.
Waterman, A. S. (1990). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091489.
Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z.
Wȩziak-Białowolska, D., McNeely, E., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Human flourishing in cross cultural settings. Evidence from the United States, China, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Mexico. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1269. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01269.
Whitecross, W. M., & Smithson, M. (2023). Curiously different: Interest-curiosity and deprivation-curiosity may have distinct benefits and drawbacks. Personality and Individual Differences, 213, 112310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112310.
William, J. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of Life’s ideals. Henry Holt & Company.
Wolbert, L. S., de Ruyter, D. J., & Schinkel, A. (2018). Formal criteria for the concept of human flourishing: The first step in defending flourishing as an ideal aim of education. In Old and new generations in the 21st century (pp. 118–130). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2014.998032.
Zainal, N. H., & Newman, M. G. (2022). Curiosity helps: Growth in need for cognition bidirectionally predicts future reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms across 10 years. Journal of Affective Disorders, 296, 642–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.001.
Zhou, D., Lydon-Staley, D. M., Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). The growth and form of knowledge networks by kinesthetic curiosity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.09.007.
Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2018). On curiosity: A fundamental aspect of personality, a practice of network growth. Personality Neuroscience, 1, e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2018.3.
Acknowledgements
The author extends their sincere gratitude for the extensive resources provided by the Flourishing Network at Harvard University, which have been instrumental in the development of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Le Cunff, AL. Systematic Curiosity as an Integrative Tool for Human Flourishing: A Conceptual Review and Framework. Integr. psych. behav. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09856-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09856-6