# 01 — Curiosity

**The Curiosity Lab**

Version: 0.1  
Status: Working Draft  
Path: `/research/domains/01-Curiosity.md`

---

## 1. Purpose

This document defines the first research domain for The Curiosity Lab: **curiosity**.

Its purpose is to establish a working understanding of curiosity that can inform:

- the Literature Review;
- the Research Register;
- the Living Information Architecture Notebook;
- the Pattern Catalogue;
- the Ontology;
- MVP experiments.

This is not intended to be a complete theory of curiosity.

It is a domain paper that asks:

> **What is curiosity, how does it arise, and what does that imply for the design of curiosity-oriented information environments?**

---

## 2. Current Status

This is a Version 0.1 working draft.

It is based on an initial source map, not a completed literature synthesis.

The claims in this document should be treated as provisional until the supporting sources are fully registered in:

```text
/research/literature/Research-Register.md
```

Current confidence: **Low to Moderate**

Reason:

- Several foundational sources have been identified.
- The domain is highly relevant to the programme.
- Some source details have been verified.
- The full register and contradiction review have not yet been completed.
- MVP validation has not yet begun.

---

## 3. Domain Question

The domain question is:

> **How can curiosity be understood in a way that is useful for designing information environments?**

Supporting questions:

1. What distinguishes curiosity from interest, novelty-seeking and engagement?
2. What triggers curiosity?
3. How does curiosity relate to knowledge gaps?
4. How does curiosity relate to uncertainty, surprise and complexity?
5. How does curiosity affect learning and memory?
6. Can curiosity be represented as movement through a knowledge network?
7. What behaviours might indicate curiosity?
8. What design principles follow from the literature?
9. What should The Curiosity Lab test first?

---

## 4. Working Definition

For The Curiosity Lab, the current working definition is:

> **Curiosity is a motivated state of seeking, resolving or reconfiguring understanding in response to a perceived gap, uncertainty, connection or possibility.**

This definition is provisional.

It deliberately includes four elements:

```text
Motivation
   ↓
Knowledge gap or uncertainty
   ↓
Exploratory behaviour
   ↓
Possible change in understanding
```

The definition is intentionally broader than simple information seeking.

A user may be curious not only because they lack a fact, but because they sense:

- something unresolved;
- something surprising;
- something connected;
- something contradictory;
- something aesthetically or emotionally compelling;
- something that changes what they thought they understood.

---

## 5. Core Distinctions

Curiosity must be separated from related but distinct concepts.

---

### 5.1 Curiosity vs Novelty

Novelty can trigger curiosity, but novelty is not curiosity.

A new object, fact or image may attract attention without producing sustained inquiry.

For The Curiosity Lab, novelty is useful only when it opens a meaningful question or connection.

Design implication:

```text
Novelty should be used as a doorway, not as the destination.
```

---

### 5.2 Curiosity vs Interest

Interest is often more sustained than curiosity.

The four-phase model of interest development suggests that interest can move from triggered situational interest through maintained situational interest into emerging and well-developed individual interest.

Curiosity may trigger a first movement.

Interest may support return, depth and persistence.

Design implication:

```text
Curiosity journeys should not optimise only for first-click surprise.
They should also support continuation.
```

---

### 5.3 Curiosity vs Engagement

Engagement can be shallow.

A user may click, scroll or watch without becoming more curious.

The Curiosity Lab should avoid equating engagement metrics with curiosity.

Useful engagement is engagement that produces:

- another question;
- deeper exploration;
- a remembered connection;
- a shift in perspective;
- voluntary continuation.

Design implication:

```text
Measure curiosity behaviours, not attention alone.
```

---

### 5.4 Curiosity vs Information Need

An information need often begins with a known goal.

Curiosity may begin with a less defined sense that something is worth exploring.

For example:

```text
Information need:
"What year was this coin minted?"

Curiosity:
"How did this coin travel from one empire to another, and what does that reveal about trade, power and identity?"
```

Design implication:

```text
The system should support both answer retrieval and open-ended exploration.
```

---

## 6. Major Theoretical Strands

This section summarises the initial theoretical strands most relevant to The Curiosity Lab.

---

## 6.1 Curiosity as Arousal, Conflict and Complexity

Berlyne’s work is foundational because it connects curiosity to stimulus properties such as novelty, uncertainty, conflict and complexity.

This strand suggests that curiosity can arise when a person encounters something that disrupts expectation or demands further processing.

Possible triggers:

```text
novelty
uncertainty
complexity
conflict
surprise
incongruity
```

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

Curiosity-oriented design should create productive disequilibrium.

However, disequilibrium must remain navigable.

Too little uncertainty may be boring.  
Too much uncertainty may be confusing.

Design principle:

> **Curiosity is supported by uncertainty that feels meaningful and bridgeable.**

### Architecture implication

The system may need to represent:

```text
Expectation
Disruption
Uncertainty
Bridge
Resolution Path
```

### Confidence

Moderate for the relevance of novelty, uncertainty and complexity.

Low to Moderate for direct translation into information architecture.

---

## 6.2 Curiosity as Information Gap

Loewenstein’s information-gap theory is central to The Curiosity Lab.

The theory frames curiosity as arising when a person becomes aware of a gap between what they know and what they want to know.

This is especially useful because it treats curiosity as dependent on perceived knowledge structure.

A person must know enough to notice that something is missing.

The gap must also appear worth resolving.

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

A curiosity-oriented system should not merely answer questions.

It should help users perceive worthwhile gaps.

Possible user journey:

```text
User encounters object
   ↓
System reveals partial context
   ↓
User notices unresolved gap
   ↓
System offers bridgeable path
   ↓
User explores
   ↓
Understanding changes
```

### Design principle

> **Design for the recognition of meaningful gaps, not merely for the delivery of information.**

### Architecture implication

Potential entities:

```text
Knowledge Gap
Prompt
Partial Explanation
Bridge
Resolution
Follow-up Question
```

Potential relationships:

```text
reveals_gap
bridges_to
raises_question
partially_explains
invites_exploration
```

### MVP implication

Test whether users continue more often when a content unit introduces a meaningful unresolved gap before explanation.

### Confidence

Moderate to High for the importance of information gaps in curiosity theory.

Moderate for its design implication.

---

## 6.3 Epistemic Curiosity: Diversive and Specific

Litman and Spielberger distinguish between different components of epistemic curiosity, including diversive and specific forms.

This distinction is useful because not all curiosity behaves the same way.

A user may browse widely without a precise target.

Another user may seek a specific answer to a particular gap.

For The Curiosity Lab, both forms matter.

```text
Diversive curiosity:
"Show me something interesting."

Specific curiosity:
"Why did this Roman coin appear in Britain?"
```

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

The system should support both:

- open exploration;
- focused inquiry.

### Design principle

> **Curiosity journeys should allow movement from broad exploration to specific question resolution.**

### Architecture implication

The system may need different journey modes:

```text
Browse Mode
Question Mode
Deep Dive
Connection Trail
Return Path
```

### MVP implication

Observe whether users move from broad curiosity triggers into specific follow-up questions.

### Confidence

Moderate.

The distinction is useful, but interface translation requires testing.

---

## 6.4 Curiosity, Reward and Memory

Neuroscience and behavioural work suggest that curiosity can influence learning and memory.

Kang et al. found that epistemic curiosity was associated with activation in reward-related brain regions and improved memory for answers.

Gruber, Gelman and Ranganath found that states of curiosity can enhance hippocampus-dependent learning and may improve memory even for incidental information encountered during high-curiosity states.

Kidd and Hayden also review curiosity as an important motivator for learning and decision-making, while noting that its mechanisms remain incompletely understood.

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

Curiosity may not be merely a pleasant state.

It may change how information is encoded and remembered.

However, the programme must avoid overclaiming.

The existence of curiosity-linked memory effects does not prove that any curiosity-themed interface will improve learning.

### Design principle

> **Curiosity should be treated as a potential learning amplifier, not as a guaranteed outcome.**

### Architecture implication

The system should record when content was encountered in relation to:

```text
question
gap
surprise
choice
connection
resolution
reflection
```

This could help later validation.

### MVP implication

Test recall or remembered connections after curiosity-led journeys versus direct explanation.

### Confidence

Moderate.

The memory connection is supported by relevant studies, but product translation remains unvalidated.

---

## 6.5 Curiosity as Rational Exploration

Dubey and Griffiths propose a rational analysis of curiosity that helps reconcile novelty and complexity.

Their approach suggests that curiosity may be understood in relation to the expected usefulness of information for future action or understanding.

This is relevant because curiosity is not always directed at the newest or most complex thing.

People may seek information because it improves their ability to make sense of the world.

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

The system should not assume that maximum novelty produces maximum curiosity.

A curiosity path should balance:

```text
novelty
complexity
comprehensibility
future usefulness
user confidence
```

### Design principle

> **Curiosity increases when information feels both surprising and useful for understanding.**

### Architecture implication

Potential attributes:

```text
novelty_level
complexity_level
expected_utility
confidence_required
prior_knowledge_required
```

### MVP implication

Test whether users prefer paths that are moderately novel and comprehensible over paths that are maximally surprising but poorly scaffolded.

### Confidence

Moderate.

Strong conceptual relevance, but practical scoring methods are unresolved.

---

## 6.6 Curiosity as Knowledge Network Formation

Patankar et al. model curiosity as filling, compressing and reconfiguring knowledge networks.

This is especially important for The Curiosity Lab because the programme’s working hypothesis concerns connected knowledge rather than isolated content.

Their work suggests that curiosity may involve more than acquiring missing facts.

It may also involve restructuring the network of what is known.

Three useful processes:

```text
Filling
Compressing
Reconfiguring
```

For The Curiosity Lab:

```text
Filling:
Adding missing information.

Compressing:
Finding a simpler organising pattern.

Reconfiguring:
Changing how ideas are connected.
```

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

The system should support curiosity as network change.

A successful curiosity journey may not only add facts.

It may change the user’s organising model.

### Design principle

> **The strongest curiosity journeys may alter the structure of understanding, not merely add content.**

### Architecture implication

Potential entities:

```text
Concept
Connection
Knowledge Gap
Pattern
Reframe
Mental Model
```

Potential relationships:

```text
fills_gap
compresses_pattern
reconfigures_understanding
connects_to
reframes
```

### MVP implication

Ask users before and after a journey how they connect ideas, then compare whether the journey changed their explanation.

### Confidence

Moderate.

The fit with The Curiosity Lab is strong, but risk of confirmation bias is high because the theory aligns closely with the programme’s preferred direction.

---

## 6.7 Curiosity and Question Asking

Question asking is a visible behaviour that may indicate curiosity.

Ronfard et al. provide a framework for understanding question asking in childhood, including initiation, formulation, expression and evaluation/follow-up.

This matters because curiosity is difficult to observe directly.

Questions may provide one measurable trace.

However, question count alone is insufficient.

A user can ask many shallow questions or one transformative question.

### Implication for The Curiosity Lab

The system should help users generate better questions.

Useful question types may include:

```text
factual
causal
comparative
counterfactual
analogical
ethical
historical
predictive
reflective
```

### Design principle

> **Curiosity design should support question formation, not merely answer consumption.**

### Architecture implication

Questions should probably be first-class entities.

Potential entities:

```text
Question
Question Type
Prompt
Answer
Follow-up Question
Unresolved Question
```

Potential relationships:

```text
raises
answers
deepens
reframes
leads_to
```

### MVP implication

Measure whether users generate more causal, comparative or reflective questions after object-led curiosity journeys.

### Confidence

Moderate.

Question asking is a plausible behavioural signal, but measurement must distinguish quality from quantity.

---

## 7. Curiosity Cycle

The current programme diagram proposes the following cycle:

```text
Observation
   ↓
Curiosity
   ↓
Connection
   ↓
Understanding
   ↓
Wonder
   ↓
Renewed Observation
```

This model is not yet established theory.

It is a working synthesis.

### 7.1 Observation

Curiosity often begins with noticing.

The user encounters:

- an object;
- a place;
- a phrase;
- a contradiction;
- a surprising fact;
- a visual detail;
- a story fragment.

Observation is not passive.

What a person can notice depends on prior knowledge, context and framing.

---

### 7.2 Curiosity

Curiosity emerges when the observation becomes charged with possibility.

The user senses that there is something to resolve, explore or understand.

Possible triggers:

- gap;
- conflict;
- mystery;
- analogy;
- unfinished pattern;
- surprising connection.

---

### 7.3 Connection

The user moves from isolated observation toward relationship.

Connection may involve:

- object to story;
- story to context;
- context to pattern;
- pattern to another domain;
- present to past;
- local to global.

---

### 7.4 Understanding

Understanding occurs when the user forms a better organising model.

This may involve:

- filling a gap;
- reducing confusion;
- seeing a pattern;
- reframing an object;
- linking domains;
- explaining cause and consequence.

---

### 7.5 Wonder

Wonder is not simply ignorance.

In this model, wonder is renewed perception after understanding.

A person knows more, and therefore can notice more.

This loops back to observation.

---

## 8. Design Principles

The following principles are provisional.

---

### CP-001 — Create bridgeable gaps

Curiosity is supported when users perceive a meaningful gap that appears possible to explore.

Avoid:

- obvious questions;
- impossible questions;
- manipulative mystery;
- withholding information without purpose.

---

### CP-002 — Start from concrete encounters

Objects, places, images and stories can provide accessible entry points into abstract knowledge.

A concrete object can become a doorway into wider systems.

---

### CP-003 — Label connections explicitly

Users should not be left to infer every relationship.

Connections should explain why they matter.

Example:

```text
This coin connects to trade because its metal source reveals movement across empire.
```

---

### CP-004 — Support both wandering and focus

Curiosity may begin as broad browsing and become specific inquiry.

The system should support both modes.

---

### CP-005 — Use questions as first-class structures

Questions should not be decoration.

They should organise journeys and reveal gaps.

---

### CP-006 — Design for continuation

The end of one explanation should open the possibility of another observation.

A good curiosity journey should not simply close.

It should resolve enough to satisfy, while opening enough to continue.

---

### CP-007 — Avoid novelty addiction

The system should not optimise for surprise alone.

Surprise without meaning may produce attention but not understanding.

---

### CP-008 — Preserve uncertainty honestly

Curiosity-oriented design should not pretend all questions have simple answers.

Some uncertainty should remain visible.

---

## 9. Architecture Implications

Curiosity requires an architecture that can represent more than content items.

Potential entity candidates:

```text
Observation
Object
Question
Knowledge Gap
Curiosity Trigger
Concept
Connection
Story
Context
Analogy
Pattern
Perspective
Understanding
Wonder
Doorway
Reflection
```

Potential relationship candidates:

```text
observes
raises_question
reveals_gap
connects_to
is_analogous_to
contrasts_with
explains
reframes
deepens
opens_doorway_to
supports_understanding_of
```

Potential attributes:

```text
curiosity_trigger_type
gap_type
confidence_level
novelty_level
complexity_level
prior_knowledge_required
expected_exploration_depth
question_type
connection_type
```

---

## 10. MVP Implications

The first MVP should not try to model all curiosity.

It should test one or two high-value claims.

Recommended first experiments:

---

### EXP-CUR-001 — Gap Before Explanation

Research question:

> Does revealing a meaningful knowledge gap before explanation increase continued exploration?

Variants:

```text
A: direct explanation
B: question-gap followed by explanation
```

Possible measures:

- next click;
- time on follow-up;
- question generation;
- self-reported curiosity;
- recall.

---

### EXP-CUR-002 — Object as Doorway

Research question:

> Does beginning with a concrete object produce more curiosity than beginning with an abstract topic?

Variants:

```text
A: topic-led entry
B: object-led entry
```

Example:

```text
A: Roman trade routes
B: A Roman coin found far from Rome
```

Possible measures:

- continuation rate;
- quality of follow-up questions;
- number of connections followed;
- remembered explanation;
- user preference.

---

### EXP-CUR-003 — Labelled Connections

Research question:

> Do labelled meaningful connections increase exploration compared with generic related links?

Variants:

```text
A: Related links
B: Doorways with relationship labels
```

Example relationship labels:

```text
caused_by
connected_to
similar_pattern
unexpected_consequence
modern_parallel
```

Possible measures:

- click-through;
- explanation quality;
- relationship recall;
- depth of exploration.

---

### EXP-CUR-004 — Question Quality

Research question:

> Can prompts increase the depth of user-generated questions?

Variants:

```text
A: no prompt
B: factual prompt
C: causal/comparative/reflective prompt
```

Possible measures:

- number of questions;
- question type;
- depth;
- continuation behaviour.

---

## 11. Measurement Candidates

Curiosity should not be reduced to one metric.

Possible behavioural indicators:

```text
voluntary continuation
follow-up question
choice to reveal more
selection of deeper path
return to topic
cross-domain exploration
reflection submitted
changed explanation
```

Possible self-report indicators:

```text
I wanted to know more.
I noticed a connection I had not seen before.
This changed how I understood the object/topic.
I would follow another path like this.
I have a new question.
```

Possible caution:

```text
Clicks are not curiosity.
Time-on-page is not curiosity.
Surprise is not curiosity.
```

These may be signals, but only when interpreted in context.

---

## 12. Implications for The Curiosity Lab Hypothesis

Current hypothesis:

> **Meaningful curiosity emerges when knowledge is experienced as an interconnected network rather than as isolated information.**

The curiosity literature gives this hypothesis partial support.

Supportive strands:

- information-gap theory;
- interest development;
- exploratory behaviour;
- question asking;
- curiosity and memory;
- knowledge-network curiosity models.

However, the literature does not yet prove the full hypothesis.

The hypothesis contains at least three claims:

```text
Claim 1:
Curiosity can be supported by designed information environments.

Claim 2:
Meaningful connections increase curiosity.

Claim 3:
Networked knowledge structures produce richer understanding than isolated content.
```

Current confidence:

| Claim | Confidence | Notes |
|---|---:|---|
| Designed environments can influence curiosity conditions | Moderate | Supported indirectly by curiosity, interest and learning literature. |
| Meaningful connections increase curiosity | Low to Moderate | Plausible but needs stronger evidence. |
| Networked knowledge improves understanding | Low to Moderate | Requires work from knowledge representation, learning sciences and validation. |

---

## 13. Known Weaknesses

This document has the following weaknesses:

1. The supporting sources have not yet all been registered.
2. The review currently favours sources that align with the programme’s hypothesis.
3. Curiosity, interest and engagement require sharper separation.
4. Measurement remains underdeveloped.
5. The neuroscience evidence may be over-applied if not handled carefully.
6. The knowledge-network literature is promising but may not translate directly into user experience.
7. Social curiosity is underrepresented.
8. Ethical risks are underdeveloped.
9. Cultural and individual differences are not yet addressed.
10. No MVP data exists.

---

## 14. Contradictions and Cautions

The programme should actively investigate the following cautions:

### 14.1 Curiosity can be shallow

Some curiosity may be short-lived, trivial or driven by novelty alone.

The platform must not assume every exploratory action is meaningful.

---

### 14.2 Curiosity can be manipulated

Curiosity gaps are widely used in clickbait.

The programme must distinguish meaningful curiosity from exploitative withholding.

---

### 14.3 Curiosity may depend on prior knowledge

A gap is only meaningful if the user has enough context to perceive it.

This has design implications for scaffolding.

---

### 14.4 Curiosity may not always feel pleasant

Some curiosity may be driven by tension, anxiety or uncertainty.

The programme should avoid assuming curiosity is always positive.

---

### 14.5 More information may reduce curiosity

If information is delivered too quickly or completely, curiosity may close rather than deepen.

The system must balance resolution and continuation.

---

## 15. Research Debt

| ID | Debt | Priority | Status |
|---|---|---:|---|
| RD-CUR-001 | Register Berlyne in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-002 | Register Loewenstein in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-003 | Register Litman & Spielberger in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-004 | Register Hidi & Renninger in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-005 | Register Kang et al. in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-006 | Register Gruber et al. in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-007 | Register Kidd & Hayden in Research Register. | Medium | Open |
| RD-CUR-008 | Register Dubey & Griffiths in Research Register. | Medium | Open |
| RD-CUR-009 | Register Patankar et al. in Research Register. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-010 | Add sources on social curiosity. | Medium | Open |
| RD-CUR-011 | Add sources on curiosity measurement scales. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-012 | Add sources criticising curiosity-gap design. | Medium | Open |
| RD-CUR-013 | Define curiosity metrics for MVP. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-014 | Translate curiosity entities into Ontology.md. | High | Open |
| RD-CUR-015 | Translate design principles into Experience-Patterns.md. | High | Open |

---

## 16. Register Entries to Create

Minimum first entries:

```text
RR-0001 — Berlyne, D. E. (1960)
RR-0002 — Loewenstein, G. (1994)
RR-0003 — Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003)
RR-0004 — Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006)
RR-0005 — Kang, M. J., et al. (2009)
RR-0006 — Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014)
RR-0007 — Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015)
RR-0008 — Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020)
RR-0009 — Patankar, S. P., et al. (2023)
RR-0010 — Ronfard, S., et al. (2018)
```

---

## 17. Immediate Architecture Promotions

The following items should be considered for `/architecture/Ontology.md`.

### Candidate Entities

```text
Observation
Question
Knowledge Gap
Curiosity Trigger
Connection
Doorway
Understanding
Wonder
```

### Candidate Relationships

```text
raises_question
reveals_gap
connects_to
opens_doorway_to
supports_understanding_of
reframes
```

### Candidate Attributes

```text
gap_type
question_type
trigger_type
connection_type
novelty_level
complexity_level
confidence_level
```

Status: **Provisional**

---

## 18. Immediate Pattern Promotions

The following items should be considered for `/architecture/Pattern-Catalogue.md`.

```text
Bridgeable Gap
Object as Doorway
Question-Led Exploration
Labelled Connection
Resolution with Remainder
Curiosity Loop
```

Status: **Emerging**

---

## 19. Immediate MVP Promotions

The following items should be considered for `/mvp/Experiments.md`.

```text
EXP-CUR-001 — Gap Before Explanation
EXP-CUR-002 — Object as Doorway
EXP-CUR-003 — Labelled Connections
EXP-CUR-004 — Question Quality
```

Status: **Candidate**

---

## 20. Provisional Conclusion

Curiosity is not simply attention, novelty or entertainment.

The most useful working model for The Curiosity Lab is that curiosity emerges when a person perceives a meaningful possibility for changed understanding.

That possibility may take the form of:

```text
a gap to fill
a conflict to resolve
a connection to follow
a pattern to compress
a model to reconfigure
a question to pursue
```

The strongest implication for the programme is:

> **Curiosity-oriented information architecture should design the conditions under which users notice meaningful gaps and follow meaningful connections.**

This remains a hypothesis.

The next stage is to register the supporting sources, identify contradictions and test the first MVP experiments.

---

## 21. References

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). *Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity*. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dubey, R., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. *Psychological Review*, 127(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175

Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. *Neuron*, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. *Educational Psychologist*, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T., & 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

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

Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. *Journal of Personality Assessment*, 80(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. *Psychological Bulletin*, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

Patankar, S. P., Zhou, D., Lynn, C. W., Kim, J. Z., Ouellet, M., Ju, H., Zurn, P., Lydon-Staley, D. M., & Bassett, D. S. (2023). Curiosity as filling, compressing, and reconfiguring knowledge networks. *Collective Intelligence*, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26339137231207633

Ronfard, S., Zambrana, I. M., Hermansen, T. K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Question-asking in childhood: A review of the literature and a framework for understanding its development. *Developmental Review*, 49, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.002

---

## 22. Next Action

Do not expand this document next.

The next action is to create source-level register entries for the first curiosity sources.

Recommended next artefact:

```text
/research/literature/Research-Register.md
```

Add:

```text
RR-0001 — Loewenstein, G. (1994)
```

or, if following the historical sequence:

```text
RR-0001 — Berlyne, D. E. (1960)
```