Table 1.

Synthesis matrix of theoretical frameworks of curiosity

Attributes	Characteristics
Dimensions	• Curiosity should be understood from both a psychological and a neurological perspective (Gruber & Ranganath, 2019; Kidd & Hayden, 2015; Litman, 2005). • Curiosity can be physical, sensory, social, epistemic (Grossnickle, 2014; Russell, 2013). • Curiosity can be a temporary state and or an enduring personality trait (Boyle, 1983; Grossnickle, 2014). • Curiosity and interest may be overlapping phenomena (Grossnickle, 2014; Murayama et al., 2019).
Drive	• Shift from curiosity seen as impulsive in alignment with drive theory to a multifaceted view of motives driving curiosity (Berlyne, 1954; Hull, 1943; Lester, 1968; Loewenstein, 1994; Modirshanechi et al., 2023; Voss, 1983). • Curiosity can be driven by an information-gap based and maintained by a signal or learning progress (Jirout & Klahr, 2012; Gottlieb et al., 2013; Oudeyer et al., 2016). • Curiosity’s drive can be defined as actively building one’s knowledge networks “where one could purposefully leap from their existing knowledge network into an external pool of the knowledge network” (Zurn & Bassett, 2018).
Domains	• Curiosity plays an important role in learning, knowledge acquisition, and educational settings (Dyche & Epstein, 2011; Goupil & Proust, 2023). • Curiosity can improve job performance, creativity, adaptability, satisfaction, and well-being in organizational settings (Lievens et al., 2022; Horstmeyer, 2020; Wagstaff et al., 2021). • Domain-specificity may support curiosity in academic settings (Peterson & Cohen, 2019).
Development	• Understood as a metacognitive process, curiosity can be procedurally deployed (Goupil & Proust, 2023).