https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3138-9533
Figures
Abstract
Despite the recent resurgence in research on human curiosity and its influence on knowledge acquisition, there is little consensus on how to operationalize curiosity. Understanding lay beliefs on what curiosity is—and how it is experienced—is therefore an important avenue of study. Furthermore, given age-related shifts in emotional processing and goal-seeking, definitions and experiences of curiosity may fluctuate over the lifespan. Here, we used qualitative techniques to characterize perceptions of curiosity in younger and older adults. We found that while both younger and older adults described curiosity as a form of joyous exploration, younger participants more commonly highlighted the link between curiosity and feelings of deprivation, thrill-seeking, and centrality to being human. Older adults, however, more frequently referenced the social aspects of curiosity, and interestingly, approximately 50% of all participants’ responses were categorized as miscellaneous, suggesting that current multidimensional frameworks of curiosity may not completely align with lay conceptualizations. Older adults were also more likely than younger adults to describe curiosity as a positive trait, indicative of one’s sincerity. In contrast, younger adults more frequently described curiosity as a trait linked to novelty-seeking and personal growth, but that it should be expressed in moderation, likely because of its potentially harmful consequences (e.g., invading others’ privacy). Overall, we show that conceptualizations and experiences of curiosity vary between younger and older adults—an important empirical contribution given the trait’s ubiquity across the lifespan and its role in promoting opportunities for lifelong learning.
Citation: Hirsch ME, Virk T, Chang C, Bellana B, Cyr A-A (2026) Age differences in the conceptualization and experience of curiosity: A qualitative study. PLoS One 21(5): e0345902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902
Editor: Vanessa Carels, PLoS ONE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: December 16, 2025; Accepted: April 10, 2026; Published: May 20, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Hirsch et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are available within the paper,its Supporting Information files, and on Open Science Framework (osf.io/vqxfr). A package containing examples, templates, and scripts for conducting qualitative content analysis is available on Open Science Framework (osf.io/uav2q).
Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Award Number RGPIN-2019-06296 to A.-A.C. (https://nserc-crsng.canada.ca/en). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The past fifteen years have seen a resurgence in research on human curiosity and its influence on knowledge acquisition [1]. However, there is little consensus in the literature on how curiosity should be operationally defined. Early theorists conceived of curiosity as the ‘itch to know’ that we feel when faced with uncertainty. Both Berlyne [2] and Loewenstein [3] suggested that curiosity is motivated by a feeling of deprivation, which the individual is driven to resolve via information-seeking behaviours (e.g., looking up the answer to a burning trivia question or trying to decipher what someone is saying in a noisy environment). Litman [4,5] suggested that curiosity can also be motivated by enjoyment and pleasure and distinguished between deprivation curiosity, which is driven by frustration at not knowing, and interest curiosity, which is driven by the desire to explore and expand our knowledge.
More recently, curiosity has been described through a multidimensional lens. Kashdan et al. [6] point out that curiosity varies as a function of the specific life contexts in which it is applied (e.g., curiosity for social versus educational information) and in terms of its relationship to other personality traits (e.g., novelty seeking, openness to experience, sensation seeking, need for cognition). They developed the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DC; [6]) in an attempt to synthesize these various conceptualizations of curiosity, and outlined five dimensions: joyous exploration (i.e., desire to seek out new information as a means of experiencing joy), deprivation sensitivity (i.e., desire to seek out information as a means of reducing information gaps), stress tolerance (i.e., willingness to embrace uncertainty while acquiring information), social curiosity (i.e., desire to seek out information about others), and thrill-seeking (i.e., willingness to take risks to acquire information). Litman et al. [7] described yet another curiosity dimension—intrapersonal curiosity—which represents one’s curiosity for information about oneself.
Thus far, empirical notions of curiosity remain almost entirely theory-driven. Existing scales were constructed by researchers based on their own conceptual assumptions, and little is known about how people themselves define and evaluate it. Lay conceptions are psychologically consequential: people’s beliefs about what curiosity is—and whether it is viewed as a positive (“inquisitive,” “open-minded”) or a negative trait (“prying,” “risky”)—shape whether they express curiosity and in what domains. Qualitative approaches are therefore essential for identifying aspects of curiosity that may be absent from research-generated constructs, including developmentally significant differences. Indeed, one reason why curiosity may be difficult to articulate is that its expression changes over the lifespan. Children are seen as invariably curious, and acquiring knowledge is necessary for their cognitive and personal development. As we age, however, curiosity may become more person and context-dependent. Studies of trait curiosity suggest that curiosity declines with age ([8–11]; cf. [12]), though recent work employing the 5DC found that not all aspects of curiosity decline: Older adults showed higher joyous exploration and stress tolerance, and comparable deprivation sensitivity relative to younger adults [13]. By contrast, studies of state curiosity, which represents one’s momentary experiences of curiosity in a given context [8], show stability [11]—or even an increase [8,10,11,14]—in curiosity with age. The findings of a recent study [8,14] illustrate this paradox: The authors found that both younger and older adults’ curiosity was similarly piqued by difficult trivia questions, but that older adults reported themselves to be less generally curious on a self-report measure of trait curiosity relative to younger adults.
Overall, findings show that, while older adults’ curiosity is just as likely to be excited by environmental stimuli as that of younger adults, they are less likely to report curiosity when reflecting on their own traits. In a recent study [13], we suggested that both younger and older adults may harbour the perception that curiosity declines with age. If internalized, this perception could lead older adults to self-report lower levels of curiosity, despite typically expressing it. Age differences in the experience and valuation of curiosity may also emerge because curiosity asks people to approach uncertainty, and uncertainty becomes differently consequential across the lifespan. Socioemotional Selectivity Theory (SST) posits that, with shorter time horizons, one’s focus shifts away from novelty and information acquisition towards satisfying emotional goals [15]. Through this lens, uncertainty may become more threatening both cognitively and socially as we get older. If conceptualizations of curiosity change over the lifespan, these shifts may have consequential implications for how curiosity is measured, raising the question of whether current measures accurately capture what it means to be curious for younger and older adults alike.
The aim of the present study was to explore younger and older adults’ perceptions of what curiosity is and whether it is viewed as a positive or a negative trait. Understanding these beliefs is critical, as mismatches between researcher-defined and lay-defined curiosity may obscure how and when people actually choose to engage with uncertainty. Few studies have explored lay conceptions of curiosity (see [16–18]), and none have compared how adults across the lifespan conceptualize and evaluate it. We addressed these gaps using qualitative methods, whereby participants responded to open-ended questions that gauged their definitions of and attitudes towards (i.e., valence) curiosity. Given the exploratory nature of the present work, we did not hold predictions concerning the specific ways in which conceptualizations would differ by age. Although, given mixed findings on what happens to curiosity with age (e.g., [8]) as well as evidence for age-related shifts in emotional processing and goal pursuit [19], we expected to find age differences in conceptualizations, more generally, both in terms of the definitions and the valence descriptions provided.
Materials and methods
Participants
A total sample size of 128 was determined a priori using the pwr package in R [20,21], requiring a power of at least 80% to detect a medium-sized effect (Cohen’s d = 0.50), assuming 𝛼 = .05. This corresponded to 64 participants per group (younger and older adults) for independent-samples t-tests, consistent with the analytical approach taken in Hirsch et al. [13]. To accommodate exclusions, between March and April of 2025, we recruited 95 and 100 English-speaking younger (aged 18−35 years) and older (aged 60−99 years) adults through the York University Undergraduate Research Participant Pool and the Glendon Research Participant Pool, respectively (i.e., a convenience sampling approach was used). The Glendon Research Participant Pool consists of community dwelling older adults that consented to be contacted about studies conducted at Glendon College. Participants were excluded if they: showed response biases on questionnaires (i.e., little to no variability across questionnaire items; identified via manual inspection of response patterns by the first author); spent less than 14 minutes completing the study (i.e., haphazardly submitted responses); did not pass all attention checks; reported using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to generate responses; and/or indicated that their responses did not accurately reflect their thoughts and/or opinions. After exclusions, the final sample consisted of 75 younger and 80 older adult participants (see Table 1 for sample demographics). Younger adult participants were compensated with course credit while older adults were compensated monetarily ($10.00 CAD). The present study received approval from the York University Office of Research Ethics (certificate number 2024−294).
Materials
Study materials included the following. Two open-ended questions were created by members of the research team. The first question, hereafter referred to as the Definition Question, was “In your opinion, what does curiosity mean (i.e., What is your definition of curiosity? What does it mean to be curious?)?” The second question, hereafter the Valence Question, was “Do you think of curiosity as more of a positive or negative trait? Please elaborate on your response.” The Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS; [22]), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; [23]), and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; [24]) were included as measures of vocabulary, trait, and state mood, respectively. A demographic questionnaire, a question asking whether participants used AI to aid in their responses (yes/no), and a question asking whether participants’ responses accurately reflected their thoughts and opinions (yes/no) were also included. Original and adapted versions (see osf.io/vqxfr) of the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DC; [6]) and Intrapersonal Curiosity Scale (InC; [7]) as well as an additional open-ended question (i.e., asking participants about what happens to curiosity with age) were also administered, although are not relevant to the aims of the present study (for details, see [13]).
Procedure
The present study was delivered online using Qualtrics [25]. After providing written informed consent, participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the SILS, and original versions of the 5DC and InC. Participants then provided typed responses to the open-ended questions. To encourage substantive responses, each open-ended question required responses that were at least 250 characters in length (~ 40 words). Finally, participants completed adapted versions of the 5DC and InC, the HADS, the PANAS, and questions regarding AI use and whether responses accurately reflected their thoughts and opinions. Materials were presented in the same order for all participants.
Content analysis
Across both samples (i.e., younger and older adults), hybrid qualitative content analysis was used (see [26]). A hybrid content analysis approach allowed us to utilize both deductive (top-down method, using pre-established coding schemes to code responses) and inductive (bottom-up, data-driven approach used to develop codes) methods to conceptualize open-ended response data [27,28]. For the Definition Question, deductive analysis was applied using the 5DC and InC coding scheme [6,7]. Accordingly, responses were coded into one or more of the following categories: joyous exploration, deprivation sensitivity, stress tolerance, social curiosity, thrill seeking, and interpersonal curiosity (for descriptions of each dimension, which were taken from 5DC and InC questionnaire items, see Table 2). Any responses that did not fall into any of these categories were categorized as miscellaneous. Responses were coded such that a given participant’s response could be coded as more than one of the above categories.
Inductive analysis was used for the Valence Question, which was conducted in two stages. First, each participant’s initial response was coded as reflecting curiosity as a positive or a negative trait. In addition, responses could be coded as in moderation when participants specifies that curiosity should be expressed to a limited degree. Thus, initial responses were assigned either a single code (positive or negative trait) or, in some instances, two codes (positive trait and in moderation or negative trait and in moderation). Next, the rationale underlying each response was coded separately. Multiple rationale codes could be assigned to a single response when it reflected more than one coding category, regardless of response length. Potential rationales for initial responses included the following categories: motivated learning, critical process, novelty-driven, advance knowledge, personal growth, harmful, sincerity, individual differences, centrality and miscellaneous (i.e., for rationale that did not fall into any of these categories). Initially, such categories were inductively derived as follows. Two primary coders independently reviewed 50% of the responses and began grouping responses into coding categories based on observed patterns, iteratively developing and refining category labels. Following this initial review, the authors met to discuss and reconcile category definitions, revising category labels and descriptions until consensus was reached.
Inter-rater reliability
After consensus was achieved, the same two primary coders each coded 50% of the full dataset. To assess reliability, a third coder coded a random 25% of all participant responses, ensuring validity of the coding schemes across questions (see [29]). Percentage agreement and Cohen’s kappa indices were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability (see OSF; [30]). Coefficients of .80 or greater reflect acceptable agreement [29], and thus if reliability scores fell below this threshold, coders met to discuss and resolve disagreements, consulting the senior author (A.-A.C.) if agreements were not met. Inter-rater reliability was very high across coders. For the younger adult sample, the Definition Question (percentage agreement ≥ 95%; κ ≥ 0.83), and the Valence Question (percentage agreement ≥ 95%; κ ≥ 0.88) reached high reliability scores. Likewise, inter-rater reliability for the older adult sample reached high reliability for both the Definition Question (percentage agreement ≥ 95%; κ ≥ 0.89), and the Valence Question (percentage agreement ≥ 95%; κ ≥ 0.83).
Results
All statistical analyses were conducted using R (v4.4.1; [21]). To understand what people think curiosity is, and how these definitions and experiences of curiosity vary by age, we employed two open-ended questions. For the Definition Question, we deductively coded participant responses into pre-established categories as per the separable dimensions of curiosity defined by the 5DC and InC ([6,7]; note that results are presented in the order in which their respective curiosity dimensions are listed in the 5DC and InC). Frequencies and example participant responses are reported for both samples (see Table 2; Fig 1). For the Valence Question, we report on inductively coded categories, whereby participant responses were evaluated for thematic qualitative content, and category codes were then developed to represent the data collected. The Valence Question (see Table 3; Fig 2) prompted respondents to first indicate whether curiosity is a positive, a negative trait, or a trait to be expressed in moderation, and were then asked to provide rationale for their initial response. For the Valence Question, we present results in the order through which codes were inductively derived from the data. For all questions and category codes where significant differences arose between samples, chi-square (χ²) analyses are reported (see S1 Table and S2 Table to view complete chi-square test results). See supplementary material (S1 Text; S3 Table; S1 Fig; S4 Table; S2 Fig) for additional descriptive analyses and visualizations.
Note. Frequency counts for each coding category are shown, illustrating how curiosity is defined by younger versus older adults. The shaded region corresponds to coding categories that were deductively derived (using the 5DC and InC), and the non-shaded region corresponds to coding categories that were inductively derived (miscellaneous and its sub-category codes).
Note. Frequency counts for each coding category are shown, illustrating how curiosity is experienced (i.e., in terms of its valence) by younger versus older adults. The shaded region corresponds to the coding categories of initial responses, and the non-shaded region corresponds to the coding categories of rationales for initial responses.
Defining dimensions of curiosity
Joyous Exploration (90.67% Younger Adults, 96.25% Older Adults).
Curiosity was most frequently described as a form of joyous exploration. More than 90% of participants from both samples described curiosity as a means to grow, an opportunity to look for new experiences that challenge their worldview, and/or as an enjoyable way to learn about new subjects or material. For instance, one younger adult participant stated “Curiosity is questioning, wondering, and seeing the world as something worth exploring. It means seeking knowledge and asking deeper questions, and even if they aren't deep, it's simply questioning everything itself.”. Another participant responded:
Curiosity...drives us to explore, learn, and understand the world around us. It's the innate desire to seek new knowledge, ask questions, and solve problems. At its core, curiosity is about an openness to the unknown and a willingness to challenge our current understanding. It compels us to ask ‘why,’ ‘how,’ and ‘what if,’ pushing us beyond the boundaries of our comfort zone to discover new perspectives. Curiosity can manifest in many forms: intellectual curiosity, which fuels our pursuit of knowledge and new ideas;...and even physical curiosity, such as exploring unfamiliar environments. ... It enriches our lives by connecting us to new experiences, broadening our horizons, and encouraging lifelong learning. Without curiosity, we would be stuck in the same patterns, missing out on the wonders and opportunities that life has to offer. (Younger Adults).
Older adults described curiosity similarly. For example: “Approaching the world with wonder is curiosity. To ask why, what,…when and how as part of how you approach your life observations and experiences. The most useful question is why. Being curious makes one's life lots of fun!”. Additionally, an older adult participant indicated:
Curiosity is the exploration of your environment to seek new information. It includes critical thinking and problem solving skills to find answers to inquiries. Curiosity is a sense of seeking and growing intellectually. It means wanting to challenge yourself. …a fundamental part of curiosity is learning (Older Adults).
Deprivation Sensitivity (45.33% Younger Adults, 10.00% Older Adults).
While only 10% of older adults described curiosity as deprivation sensitivity (i.e., a need or compulsion that drives the relentless search for knowledge to satisfy curiosity), nearly half of younger adults described curiosity as such. Younger adults reported this code more often than their older adult counterparts, χ²(1) = 24.46, p < .001, V = .40, indicating that they may associate curiosity with an experience of frustration until they reach a solution or ‘fill in’ the purported gap. For instance, a younger adult participant described: “Curiosity means a drive to learn about things that a person questions and wants that knowledge to quench their curiosity. Curiosity [is the] pull to learn things…”. Curiosity is “a sense of feeling on edge, unsatisfied until I find the answers Im looking for....I feel restless and antsy, but in a positive way. Its a strong desire that needs to be fulfilled so I can move on.” (Younger Adults). Although less frequently, some older adults described curiosity in similar terms: “Curiosity is an insatiable desire to dive deeper, to investigate, to learn more, and to know more about a person, place, event, or thing.” Put differently,
Curiosity is a need to know something you don't understand but find intriguing. It doesn't have to be anything specific but happens to trigger a sense of needing to understand it better than you already do (Older Adults).
Stress Tolerance (1.33% Younger Adults, 6.25% Older Adults).
Only about 1% of younger adults and about 6% of older adults viewed curiosity as a form of stress tolerance. That is, few participants discussed curiosity in reference to their abilities to tolerate stress resulting from uncertainty. When they described curiosity in these terms, participants characterized curiosity as “...see[ing] challenges and change as opportun[i]ties to grow and explore rather than avoiding them.” (Younger Adults). One participant described curiosity as “...looking behind a curtain or other obstacle blocking one's view” (Older Adults). Another older adult indicated that:
If you are stressed out and focusing your mind on the thing that is causing you stress as you walk down the street, it is possible to miss all kinds of interesting stimulus that would cause your mind to be not curious at all.
Social Curiosity (24.00% Younger Adults, 43.75% Older Adults).
One of the next most prevalent responses was that of social curiosity. A quarter of younger adults and almost half of the older adult participants indicated that they liked to learn about other people, for example, by listening to others’ conversations and knowing what is going on in their lives. Older adults reported this code more often than younger adults, χ²(1) = 6.71, p = .009, V = .21. For instance, “Being curious also means learning new things about the people around you and learning about their habits, likes, and dislikes.” and “...if a friend or family is incredibly upset about something, I'm curious to find out why. If someone dies I almost always ask how even if it's considered rude, because I am interested in it.” (Younger Adults). One participant stated:
It means that you are interested in what makes people or things tick. For example why does a person respond to another person in a certain way or why does a person act a certain way in situations. In my own situation I am always curious about people, where did they come from, what kind of an upbringing did they have, what kind of a career did they have, what are they most interested in doing for example their hobbies (Older Adults).
Thrill Seeking (10.67% Younger Adults, 1.25% Older Adults).
Thrill seeking refers to feelings of thrill or excitement about doing things that are unknown or could be considered scary or adventurous. Younger adults reported this code ten times more frequently than their older adult counterparts (roughly 11% versus 1%, respectively), χ²(1) = 6.28, p = .012, V = .20. Responses indicated that curiosity is about “going out of your comfort zone and just exploring life to the fullest…” (Younger Adults). Additionally, it refers to the enjoyment of new activities despite potential risks, such as being “...interested in taking risks and trying new things. ... [One] enjoys taking risks and is open to new opportunities.” (Younger Adults). Simply put, “Curious people are risk takers.” (Older Adults).
Intrapersonal Curiosity (8.00% Younger Adults, 3.75% Older Adults).
Among younger and older adults, intrapersonal curiosity was seldom used to describe what it means to be curious. Intrapersonal curiosity reflects instances in which one wonders about their purpose in life or about themselves: “...to learn and discover more about ourselves...and [curiosity] helps us grow and develop into the people we are meant to become.” (Younger Adults); “It means being a life long learner in regards to relationships, including with yourself…” (Older Adults). It also refers to how individuals fit into the world around them: “For instance, wondering how the universe works, what happens when we die, or why we were put on this Earth in the first place.” (Younger Adults).
Miscellaneous (50.67% Younger Adults, 50.00% Older Adults).
Interestingly, half of all responses from both samples fell outside of definitions of curiosity provided by the 5DC and InC. Accordingly, they were categorized as miscellaneous and were further inductively coded based on their thematic content. Below are the categories that miscellaneous responses were categorized into.
Future Thinking (5.33% Younger Adults, 5.00% Older Adults).
For both samples, 5% of all responses referred to curiosity as a mechanism of future thinking or considering future-oriented thoughts and/or outcomes. Both samples indicated their desire to learn about potential outcomes of situations: curiosity is “...trying to figure out...how things could have been different if a different decision was made.” (Younger Adults); “...I'm always curious about how the future will unfold.” (Older Adults).
Centrality (10.67% Younger Adults, 2.50% Older Adults).
Less than 3% of older adults and just over a tenth of younger adults, χ²(1) = 4.28, p = .039, V = .17, described curiosity in reference to centrality or the inherently human nature of curiosity. Curiosity was described as “...a fundamental human trait...It's the innate desire to seek new knowledge…” (Younger Adults) and as a “...normal part of being alive...” (Older Adults).
Individual Differences (24.00% Younger Adults, 35.00% Older Adults).
The most frequently used miscellaneous sub-category code was that of individual differences. About a quarter of younger adults and a third of older adults described curiosity in relation to how it manifests differently for different individuals, for example, “I believe that some people are more curious than others…” (Younger Adults). The sub-code was also exemplified in responses concerning personal interests, for example, “I travel a lot and my head is on a swivel taking in new surroundings” (Older Adults).
Innovation (12.00% Younger Adults, 5.00% Older Adults).
Over 10% of younger adults, and only 5% of older adults referred to curiosity as a means for innovation or a tool to advance knowledge (e.g., “I expect any day that someone will com[e] up with a completely different explanation of how the universe works at both the quantum level and the [astronomcal] level.”; Older Adults), express creativity, or adapt to change (e.g., “It [curiosity] motivates innovation, creativity, and personal growth....In essence, curiosity is the spark that drives human progress, fostering discovery and helping us adapt to changing circumstances.”; Younger Adults).
Other (6.67% Younger Adults, 7.50% Older Adults).
Lastly, responses that did not fall under any of the developed miscellaneous sub-category codes, were categorized as other (e.g., “Curiosity is more prevalent in younger years of life, but still remains until the day we die.”, Younger Adults; “When life brings you Shit - go find the pony.”, Older Adults).
Describing the Valence of Curiosity
Positive Trait (73.33% Younger Adults, 91.25% Older Adults).
As discussed above, coding for the Valence Question was a two-step process, where initial responses were coded first, followed by coding of rationale for initial responses. The most prevalent initial response to the Valence Question was that curiosity could be defined exclusively as a positive trait. Three quarters of the younger adult respondents (e.g., “I think of curiosity as more of a positive trait…”), and over 90% of older adults (e.g., “I think it's a positive trait.”) described curiosity as a positive or desirable trait, with older adults more likely to define curiosity as positive, χ²(1) = 8.64, p = .003, V = .24.
Negative Trait (1.33% Younger Adults, 1.25% Older Adults).
Only about 1% of both younger (e.g., “...but it [curiosity] can be negative trait…”) and older adult (e.g., “This is very negative...”) participants provided initial responses indicating curiosity as an exclusively undesirable, or negative trait to experience.
In Moderation (44.00% Younger Adults, 17.50% Older Adults).
Curiosity was also commonly described as desirable, however only when expressed in moderation. This code indicates that curiosity is not exclusively positive or negative, but can be either valence depending on how it manifests. Younger adults were more likely to state that curiosity could manifest in either a positive or negative fashion, χ²(1) = 12.87, p < .001, V = .29, while older adults responded in this way less than a fifth of the time. For example, a younger adult participant indicated that “Curiosity is generally a positive trait....However, curiosity can have negative aspects”. Similarly, an older adult participant noted that curiosity “Can be considered either depending on what individuals are [curious] about.”, suggesting that curiosity is not an inherently positive or negative trait but may be context-dependent.
Motivated Learning (50.67% Younger Adults, 46.25% Older Adults).
After coding initial responses to the Valence Question, rationale for such responses were coded. The most prevalent rationale provided was that of motivated learning. Half of all younger adult participants, and over 40% of older adults reported curiosity valence (i.e., positive, negative, or in moderation) as a function of one’s general open-mindedness to learn new things. This could include the desire to discover new knowledge, “Curiosity invokes learning and discovery, and I think having knowledge can be useful in a variety of ways.” (Younger Adults), or finding pleasure in learning, “To be curious and have desire to learn more always seems to increase dop[a]mine levels and I'm always chasing that dop[a]mine high.” (Older Adults). Additionally, remaining open-minded to new experiences, where “...Around every corner you might meet an interesting person...or get that light bulb flash over your head when you finally understand a concept that has been alluding you.” (Older Adults).
Critical Process (25.33% Younger Adults, 17.50% Older Adults).
A quarter of younger adults and less than a fifth of older adults described curiosity as a critical process, i.e., a means to question the world around them. This includes understanding the “whys” and the “hows” of the world, or understanding the way things “work” (Younger Adults). Put differently, “Without curiosity people would lack the ambition to find answers for questions…” (Younger Adults). It also refers to participants’ discussions surrounding future outcomes, such as “...to ask oneself if there is anything that one can do to prevent a dark event from recurring. On the other hand what one can do to promote a more positive event.” (Older Adults).
Novelty-Driven (37.33% Younger Adults, 17.50% Older Adults).
When considering curiosity’s valence, some participants tied their responses to a desire to explore, learn about, and/or participate—not just generally, as in motivated learning—but in particular, in novel experiences (i.e., novelty-driven). Over a third of younger adults and less than a fifth of older adults described curiosity in relation to engaging with novel material, χ²(1) = 7.71, p = .006, V = .22. A younger adult participant expressed how one is “...more likely to try new things, broaden our horizons, and interact meaningfully with the world around us when we are curious.”. Similarly, an older adult participant described the inherently novel nature of everyday experiences as “Every experience we have is technically new in some way as we have not lived it before. Curiousity allows us to take advantage to learn about every new experience.”
Advance Knowledge (37.33% Younger Adults, 31.25% Older Adults).
Over a third of younger adults, and slightly less than a third of older adults, defined curiosity’s valence as a means by which to advance knowledge. Curiosity drives innovation and knowledge gain, promoting one’s ability to adapt to new changes or challenges. It is also key in creative problem-solving and discovery (“Without curiosity, how would discoveries ever be made?”; Older Adults). For instance, one participant indicated “People who are curious are better able to push boundaries, pose meaningful queries, and find solutions to issues. It is the cornerstone of advancement in a wide range of fields, including technology, art, science, and even personal growth.” (Younger Adults). Across age, participants believed curiosity to be the motivator through which innovation occurs, “It is said ‘necessity is the mother of invention.’. If that is true, curiosity is the midwife. Curiosity motivates discovery, learning, and understanding. Without curiosity, innovation and change would [be] less probable” (Older Adults).
Personal Growth (40.00% Younger Adults, 16.25% Older Adults).
Younger participants were more likely than older adult participants to relate experiences of curiosity to instances of personal growth, χ²(1) = 10.89, p = .001, V = .27. Specifically, participants indicated that curiosity assists in developing new skills or behaviours, and/or aids in better understanding oneself and growing as a person. One participant remarked how this growth can be in relation to one’s career, “...curiosity in workspaces can lead to excelling in positions.” (Younger Adults), while others more generally noted curiosity’s impact on personal growth, “...helps one to grow and be more resilient.” (Older Adults).
Harmful (49.33% Younger Adults, 21.25% Older Adults).
Roughly half of younger adults viewed curiosity as harmful, while only a fifth of older adults held this view. Depending on how curiosity manifests, it can cause harm to oneself, or to others. For example, one participant noted “However when it is…not looked after well enough it can lead to over stepping boundaries or excessive questioning that disrupt our well being.” (Younger Adults). Additionally, depending on how curiosity manifests in an individual, it may cause annoyance or provoke negative feelings in others: “...one might annoy another if he/she is always displaying curiousity.” (Older Adults). Interestingly, younger adults were more cautious than their older counterparts and believed curiosity could manifest in harmful ways if not expressed mindfully, χ²(1) = 13.45, p < .001, V = .30.
Sincerity (10.67% Younger Adults, 22.50% Older Adults).
Curiosity may act as an indicator of an individual’s sincerity or character in reference to how they interact or engage with the world around them. While only a tenth of younger adults described curiosity in relation to sincerity, over 20% of older adults expressed how curiosity may reflect one’s character, i.e., their sincerity, χ²(1) = 3.88, p = .049, V = .16. Through this lens, curiosity was described as the ability to be cognizant and actively engage with the world (“Curiosity is a means of keeping us engaged in and aware of our surroundings.”; Older Adults). It was also used as a way of describing one’s character, “I feel like curiosity makes us more likeable and friendly as well because when we are genuinely curious, and show interest in other people, their lives, they would probably like us more.” (Younger Adults).
Individual Differences (20.00% Younger Adults, 22.50% Older Adults).
Younger and older adults similarly referred to the individual differences that arise when one expresses their curiosity. For instance, one participant noted the idiosyncratic nature of curiosity and why it manifests, “...nothing wrong with having a sense of curiosity. All humans behave, look, and speak differently and that is the reason for curiosity.” (Younger Adults). Participants also expressed personal accounts of how curiosity has led them on a new path in life. For example, one participant noted:
…[curiosity] has enriched my life by leading me to engage with new friends, travel to new places and continue my education through reading and researching. At age 40, I decided to write the Mensa exam and audition for a choir. Subsequently, I passed the Mensa test and ... performed musicals in community theatre for 13 years (Older Adults).
Centrality (12.00% Younger Adults, 5.00% Older Adults).
Only 12% of younger adults, and 5% of older adults described curiosity’s valence as a function of centrality, i.e., curiosity as an innately human characteristic. A small subset of participants from both samples referred to curiosity as being “...a fundamental human trait…every human being wants to learn to stay alive.” (Older Adults). Further, humans’ “...brains are wired to be curious about things and our lives…” (Younger Adults) as “Learning is [essential] for us as a species…” (Younger Adults).
Miscellaneous (10.67% Younger Adults, 21.25% Older Adults).
Responses were categorized as miscellaneous when they did not fall into any of the above rationale categories. Roughly 10% of younger adult responses and over 20% of older adult responses fell into this category. For example: “...[we are] putting more money and focus on less relevant things...rather than spending such amounts on people that actually need it.” (Younger Adults); “For one thing I believe the more you use your brain, the better off you are.” (Older Adults).
Discussion
Empirical work on curiosity has yet to reach a consensus on precisely what curiosity is. For example, trait curiosity had been described as a desire for specific (i.e., particular) versus diversive (i.e., general) information [2,3], a feeling of knowledge deprivation versus interest [4,5], and a multidimensional trait [6,7]. Concurrently, little is known about what happens to curiosity as we age (e.g., [8]), suggesting that potential differences in how we conceptualize and experience curiosity with age might contribute to this variance. To gain a better understanding of how curiosity is defined and experienced—particularly in the context of aging—the present study deductively coded participant responses to the Definition Question using the 5DC [6] and InC [7] curiosity dimensions.
Among both younger and older adults, curiosity was most frequently defined as a form of joyous exploration (Table 2), or an interest in learning novel information and/or challenging existing beliefs. However, this finding was not unanimous; other curiosity dimensions were also frequently represented in lay definitions of curiosity. For example, younger adults were more likely to describe curiosity as a form of deprivation sensitivity. That is, younger adults more often referenced curiosity as an ‘itch’ or drive to satisfy knowledge gaps, as evidenced by greater mentions of deprivation sensitivity, mapping onto recent work showing higher deprivation sensitivity in younger than in older adults ([31]; cf. [12]). Older participants, by contrast, more frequently viewed the trait through a social lens. They were significantly more likely than younger adults to reference social curiosity, running counter to previous findings that older adults report lower social curiosity than their younger counterparts [9,13]. The present findings thus suggest that, despite having relatively lower curiosity for social information than younger adults, older adults still conceptualize curiosity as highly social in nature. Younger adults also frequently associated curiosity with thrill-seeking behaviours, which makes sense in light age-related decreases in openness to experience [32], a personality trait tied to novelty seeking.
Interestingly, approximately 50% of the definitions of younger and older adults were coded as miscellaneous, indicating that they did not fall within any of the six pre-specified curiosity dimensions. This finding may signal that established multidimensional frameworks do not capture all the key dimensions of lay definitions of curiosity. In fact, people reliably emphasized how variable it was across people: The most frequently reported miscellaneous sub-code was individual differences, defining curiosity as something that varies from person to person. So, curiosity might be defined by its heterogeneity, both in terms of the construct itself and variability across people. Another sub-code, centrality, was more frequently used by younger adults than by older adults: Younger adults more often considered curiosity central to the human experience—a description also observed in Aslan et al. [16]. For example, when participants were asked to define curiosity, they frequently described it as an innate feeling which motivates and supports learning [16]. Accordingly, because earlier stages of life involve more rapid knowledge accumulation and exploration, younger adults may view curiosity as imperative to their personal development.
Experiences of Curiosity Change Over the Lifespan
We sought to explore whether the valence of the experience of curiosity also changes over the lifespan. To gauge attitudes towards curiosity—and how they might vary with age—we inductively coded participant responses to the Valence Question, asking participants whether they view curiosity as a positive trait, a negative trait, or a trait to be expressed in moderation (Table 3). Although most participants described curiosity as a positive rather than a negative trait (consistent with Aslan et al. [16]), older adults were significantly more likely to do so, suggesting the potential influence of an age-related positivity effect [19]. If older adults orient their attention towards activities that maintain a positive affect, they may be more likely to deploy curiosity for more positive over negative stimuli. Therefore, they may feel that their experience of curiosity is subjectively more positive. Indeed, older adults were less likely than younger adults to associate curiosity with deprivation in this sample (i.e., a curiosity facet linked to negative affect).
Among younger adults, describing curiosity as positive was most commonly linked to its ability to promote motivated learning, foster personal growth, engage with novel stimuli (i.e., novelty driven), and advance knowledge (S3 Table). Similarly, older adults used motivated learning and advance knowledge to rationalize curiosity as a positive trait. They also rationalized using miscellaneous (for example, one participant stated, “I think of curiosity as a positive trait in a person’s health and well-being lifestyle.”) and sincerity (i.e., curiosity acts as an indicator of an individual’s sincerity as they interact with others and the world around them; S4 Table). For example, an individual that asks questions about others and engages in active listening may appear more sincere, or as put by one older adult, curiosity “…creates human connections with others often that allow understanding to develop.” Expressing curiosity may thus, to older adults, signal active engagement with others and their environment, viewing that as a sign of character.
While older adults were more likely to view curiosity as a positive trait, younger adults more commonly indicated that curiosity should be expressed in moderation, highlighting an interesting age effect. Younger adults were relatively more likely to describe curiosity as a double-edged sword: It can have positive and negative consequences, depending on how it manifests. This age difference in describing curiosity’s valence makes sense in light of our finding that younger adults were also much more likely to highlight curiosity as potentially harmful, if “...invading privacy…” or “being interested in the wrong topics…”, for example. When we are younger, our curiosity might get us into trouble. With greater lived experience, curiosity is redirected towards expansive and joyful goals, again pointing to the potential influence of SST [15]. As time horizons narrow with age, older adults may prefer to deploy curiosity for more positive ends (e.g., learning a new recipe), which is less likely to lead to negative affect. By contrast, younger adults are more likely to deploy curiosity for both positive and negative ends (e.g., trying a drug), which is necessary for knowledge acquisition. A related construct, morbid curiosity (i.e., curiosity for negative stimuli), may also represent a dimension along which younger and older adults differ in their experience of curiosity. Accordingly, future work employing more theoretically grounded qualitative approaches may further elucidate how additional forms of curiosity—including those experienced for negative information—are experienced across the lifespan.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. First, both the younger and older adult samples were primarily female, and older adults were predominantly White (Table 1). Future research is needed to replicate the present study with a more ethnically and gender diverse sample of participants. Consistent with findings from a recent review, curiosity is predominantly studied in Western countries [33]. Accordingly, an important future aim is to sample from a broader range of cultures to explore its potential effects—in addition to age—on how people conceptualize and experience curiosity. An additional limitation involves the order in which our quantitative and qualitative questions were presented to participants. The original 5DC and InC questionnaires—which empirically measure various curiosity dimensions—were presented prior to participants defining curiosity. As such, questionnaire items may have primed participants to conceptualize curiosity in ways that align with theoretical dimensions, potentially constraining the range of responses. Accordingly, we cannot rule out the possibility that exposure to these scales influenced participants’ definitions of curiosity. However, approximately half of participant responses to the Definition Question were coded as Miscellaneous, indicating that despite being exposed to the scales beforehand, participant responses still contained a considerable amount of themes that deviated from those of the scales. Importantly, the goal of the present study was not to generate novel dimensions of curiosity, but rather to explore age differences in how individuals conceptualize curiosity relative to established theoretical frameworks. Accordingly, responses were coded deductively using existing curiosity dimensions, and any priming would be expected to operate similarly across age groups. Therefore, while priming may have influenced the overall content of responses, it is less likely to account for observed age-differences in conceptualizations. Nevertheless, future research would benefit from presenting qualitative questions prior to any standardized measures of curiosity to minimize potential priming effects. Additionally, employing more intensive qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews (e.g., [34]), may yield richer insights into participants’ experiences. Finally, given the link between socioeconomic status (SES) and curiosity (i.e., higher SES is associated with higher levels of some curiosity dimensions; [35]), it is important for future work to include larger, more socioeconomically diverse samples, although the present samples were more or less equally distributed along the SES scale employed.
Conclusions
While the empirical study of curiosity has been fruitful from a theoretical standpoint, little work has considered lay perspectives of curiosity. The present study took a first step in exploring this open question, employing qualitative techniques to investigate how younger and older adults define and experience curiosity. We found that along certain dimensions (e.g., deprivation sensitivity, social curiosity), younger and older adults differed in the extent to which they described curiosity, while also frequently describing the trait in ways that diverged from existing definitions (i.e., miscellaneous). Additionally, we found that younger and older adults differed in that older participants were more likely to describe curiosity as a positive trait (e.g., as it indicates one’s sincerity). In contrast, younger adults more frequently described curiosity as a trait to be expressed in moderation (e.g., due to its potentially harmful consequences). The present findings align with empirical work on age differences in curiosity, suggesting that curiosity is driven more by deprivation in younger years, shifting to more interest-driven motives in older age.
Importantly, our findings touch on an open question in the aging literature: What happens to curiosity as we age? Age differences observed across state and trait measures of curiosity might be influenced by how younger and older adults conceptualize curiosity. By incorporating lay perspectives qualitatively, we offer a complementary conceptualization of what it means to be curious, beyond what quantitative work alone can capture. To our knowledge, the present work provides the first look at how lay conceptualizations of curiosity may vary with age—an important consideration given curiosity’s role in lifelong learning and well-being [36].
Supporting information
S1 Table. Chi-Square Tests for Definition Question Codes.
Note. For all chi-square values, degrees of freedom (df) = 1. Under younger and older adult sample sections, numbers in parentheses indicate total percentages for corresponding code frequencies. Absence of χ2 and 95% CI values indicate that frequencies across both samples were too low for accurate comparisons. Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) corrected p-values are also included to correct for multiple comparisons. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p ≤ .001.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Chi-Square Tests for Valence Question Codes.
Note. For all chi-square values, degrees of freedom (df) = 1. Under younger and older adult sample sections, numbers in parentheses indicate total percentages for corresponding code frequencies. Absence of χ2 and 95% CI values indicate that frequencies across both samples were too low for accurate comparisons. Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) corrected p-values are also included to correct for multiple comparisons. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p ≤ .001.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. Frequency Counts for Combinations of Coding Categories in Younger Adults: Valence of Curiosity.
Note. Frequency counts for top (i.e., appear in ≥ 10% of all responses) combinations of initial and rationale coding category combinations are shown for the younger adult sample, illustrating how and why curiosity is experienced (i.e., in terms of its valence) as either a positive or negative trait, or a trait to be expressed in moderation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s004
(PDF)
S3 Table. Most Frequent Category Code Combinations for Younger Adult Sample.
Note. Order of frequencies presented in order of most to least frequent.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s005
(DOCX)
S2 Fig. Frequency Counts for Combinations of Coding Categories in Older Adults: Valence of Curiosity.
Note. Frequency counts for top (i.e., appear in ≥ 10% of all responses) combinations of initial and rationale coding category combinations are shown for the older adult sample, illustrating how and why curiosity is experienced (i.e., in terms of its valence) as either a positive or negative trait, or a trait to be expressed in moderation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s006
(PDF)
S4 Table. Most Frequent Category Code Combinations for Older Adult Sample.
Note. Order of frequencies presented in order of most to least frequent.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345902.s007
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Kidd C, Hayden B. The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron. 2015;88:449–60.
- 2.
Berlyne DE. A theory of human curiosity. 1954.
- 3. Loewenstein G. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;116(1):75–98.
- 4. Litman J. Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion. 2005;19(6):793–814.
- 5. Litman JA. Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008;44(7):1585–95.
- 6. Kashdan TB, Stiksma MC, Disabato DJ, McKnight PE, Bekier J, Kaji J, et al. The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018;73:130–49.
- 7. Litman JA, Robinson OC, Demetre JD. Intrapersonal curiosity: Inquisitiveness about the inner self. Self and Identity. 2016;16(2):231–50.
- 8. Whatley MC, Murayama K, Sakaki M, Castel AD. Curiosity across the adult lifespan: Age-related differences in state and trait curiosity. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0320600. pmid:40333682
- 9. Robinson OC, Demetre JD, Litman JA. Adult life stage and crisis as predictors of curiosity and authenticity. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2016;41(3):426–31.
- 10. Chu L, Fung HH. Age Differences in State Curiosity: Examining the Role of Personal Relevance. Gerontology. 2022;68(3):321–9. pmid:34062532
- 11. Yagi A, FitzGibbon L, Murayama K, Shinomori K, Sakaki M. Uncertainty drives exploration of negative information across younger and older adults. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2023;23(3):809–26. pmid:37100958
- 12. Galli G, Sirota M, Gruber MJ, Ivanof BE, Ganesh J, Materassi M, et al. Learning facts during aging: the benefits of curiosity. Exp Aging Res. 2018;44(4):311–28. pmid:29787342
- 13.
Hirsch M, Virk T, Chang C, Bellana B, Cyr AA. Exploring the relationship between curiosity and aging perceptions: a mixed methods approach. Manuscript under review.
- 14. McGillivray S, Murayama K, Castel AD. Thirst for knowledge: The effects of curiosity and interest on memory in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2015;30(4):835–41. pmid:26479013
- 15. Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles ST. Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am Psychol. 1999;54(3):165–81. pmid:10199217
- 16. Aslan S, Fastrich G, Donnellan E, Jones DJW, Murayama K. People’s naïve belief about curiosity and interest: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256632. pmid:34591855
- 17. Birenbaum M, Nasser-Abu Alhija F, Shilton H, Kimron H, Rosanski R. Perceived Quality of Life, Well-Being, and Curiosity of Older Adults. Societies. 2025;15(8):224.
- 18. Han J, Way N, Yoshikawa H, Clarke C. Interpersonal curiosity and its association with social and emotional skills and well-being during adolescence. J Adolesc Res. 2025;40(3):636–68.
- 19. Carstensen LL, DeLiema M. The positivity effect: a negativity bias in youth fades with age. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018;19:7–12. pmid:30327789
- 20.
Rosario HD. Pwr: R package. https://github.com/heliosdrm/pwr. 2022.
- 21.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2021). https://www.R-project.org/
- 22.
Shipley WC. Shipley Institute of Living Scale. PsycTESTS Dataset. American Psychological Association (APA). 1940. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07774-000
- 23. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70. pmid:6880820
- 24. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063–70. pmid:3397865
- 25.
Qualtrics XM: experience management software. https://www.qualtrics.com/. 2025. Accessed 2023.
- 26. Swain J. A hybrid approach to thematic analysis in qualitative research: using a practical example. 2018.
- 27. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 28. Proudfoot K. Inductive/Deductive Hybrid Thematic Analysis in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2022;17(3):308–26.
- 29. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC. Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Comm Res. 2002;28(4):587–604.
- 30. Hirsch ME, Virk T. Qualitative analysis package (QuAP) & standard operating procedure (SOP). 2025.
- 31. Hirsch M, Fisher W, Cyr AA. Curiosity and learning in younger and older adults: the relationship between information value and memory. Frontiers in Cognition. 2026;5:1715793.
- 32. Terracciano A, McCrae RR, Costa P. Personality traits: stability and change with age. Geriatrics and Aging. 2008;11(8):474–8.
- 33. Yow YJ, Ramsay JE, Lin PKF, Marsh NV. Dimensions, Measures, and Contexts in Psychological Investigations of Curiosity: A Scoping Review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022;12(12):493. pmid:36546976
- 34. Birenbaum M, Nasser-Abu Alhija F, Shilton H, Kimron H, Shahor N, Rosanski R. Characteristics of curious minds: Evidence from interviews with renowned experts in five curiosity-dominant fields. Educ Sci. 2024;14(10):1111.
- 35. Dubourg E, Baumard N. Does curiosity adaptively vary with ecological contexts? A correlational study with socioeconomic status. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. 2025;19(1):76–84.
- 36. Sakaki M, Yagi A, Murayama K. Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;88:106–16. pmid:29545165