The first objective of this scoping review was to map the literature on curiosity, in terms of dimensionality, how it is measured, and the context that it is studied in. The second objective was to uncover gaps that can inform future research. Before going into the theoretical implications, we first detail the relevance of curiosity research based on geographical location.

4.1. Geographical LocationOf the identified articles, approximately 70% of articles were conducted in Western countries (North America, followed by Europe, and Australia). Conversely, Asian countries only accounted for an estimated 22%. This suggests an imbalance of literature that skews towards Western cultures. Research has found that culture plays a role in shaping personality traits [83]. Given that curiosity has been studied as part of the web of personality traits in personality inventories such as the NEI-PI-R and the HEXACO, it is possible that curiosity differs across cultures, but this notion is obscured by researchers not specifically investigating the construct of curiosity [9,10]. Taking a finer grained approach by focusing solely on curiosity, Ye et al., using a similar sample in terms of age and gender, found that the CEI-II (developed and validated in the USA) did not conform to a two-factor structure as per the original scale, in a sample of Chinese students in Hong Kong [35]. The researchers reported that a single factor curiosity construct fitted the data better. Moreover, the Hong Kong students showed higher levels of curiosity compared to the USA sample, which could be due to living in a culture that emphasises innovation and creativity, which are common correlates of curiosity [84]. Generally speaking, there is a lack of research surrounding levels of curiosity between different cultures. Of the 22 articles that used mixed country samples, only six articles mentioned cultural impact when interpreting their findings. Moreover, of these six articles, only one involved an Asian country (Hong Kong). Accordingly, more research can be done in Eastern cultures to obtain parity and more points of comparison with their Western counterparts.From the perspective of an individualistic-collectivistic continuum based on the cultural dimensions theory by Hofstede [85], research often points to Western countries as being more individualistic, and Asian countries as more collectivistic, and it is often the case that openness to experience (a personality factor that curiosity is nested under) is higher is Western cultures compared to Eastern cultures [86,87]. However, by using this distinction, nuances can be missed out on. For example, Singapore, located in Southeast Asia, often blends both individualistic and collectivistic principles, and is aligned with Western modernity while retaining its Asian values, such as prioritising harmony and conformity [88]. It would be insightful to investigate how curiosity works not only in an underrepresented region (Asia), but also in multicultural or blended countries. In our scoping review, there were no studies involving Singapore, and only four originating from the region of Southeast Asia (three from Malaysia, and one from Indonesia).Secondly, again drawing upon the cultural dimensions by Hofstede [85], a difference in power distance within cultures can affect levels of curiosity. Power distance is defined as the extent (usually high vs. low) to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept that power is unevenly distributed, and tends to be higher in Asian countries, while lower in English-speaking Western countries [89]. In relation to curiosity, Karandikar et al. [90] conducted a cross-cultural study of curiosity between Americans and Indians and found that the Indian sample showed lower snooping (a covert social curiosity facet) than their American counterparts. They explained that the difference in said levels of curiosity could be due to a higher power distance between individuals in India, which then led to them maintaining distance from people perceived to have higher status, ultimately resulting in individuals stifling their curiosity.Lastly, a cultural difference in levels of curiosity can also be characterised by the high vs. low uncertainty avoidance dimension, where a high uncertainty avoidance culture (e.g., Japan) display increased stress and anxiety when faced with ambiguity, while low uncertainty avoidance cultures demonstrate the opposite (e.g., USA) [87]. Drawing links to curiosity, specifically the stress tolerance facet of curiosity, in order to elicit curiosity, one has to make a judgement that they are able to cope with the stress that accompanies uncertainty [6]. Considering research has shown that different cultures display varying degrees of uncertainty avoidance (e.g., high in East and Central European countries, low in Chinese culture countries) [85], it is plausible that people from different cultures would also possess different levels of curiosity, especially on the stress tolerance facet. 4.2. Dimensionality and Measurement of CuriositySince the dimensions of curiosity are often based on the measure of curiosity used, they will be discussed in the same section. Results from the scoping review suggest that curiosity was more commonly conceptualised as a multidimensional construct (78%) as opposed to a unidimensional one (14%). This aligned with views that there are multiple dimensions to curiosity. This was also further highlighted with the majority of articles (n = 133, 54%) that embraced this multidimensionality by analysing individual facets of curiosity. Curiously, research that viewed curiosity as unidimensional sometimes used the term in a more colloquial manner, rather than as a psychological construct [91]. While this may not affect the robustness of the studies, it does imply that there is much more to curiosity when viewed as a psychological construct rather than simply as a synonym of interest. There was also a small subset of articles (n = 31, 13%) that viewed curiosity as multidimensional, but used a global score in their analyses. While the appropriateness of using a global score is beyond the scope of this review, it is worth noting that using global scores could overinflate or underinflate the importance of curiosity due to the aggregation of scores. Findings from this scoping review show that the most-studied dimension of curiosity is a deprivation type of curiosity. This factor of curiosity stems from individuals trying to resolve information gaps, where they strive to seek answers to avoid unpleasant feelings of not possessing said information [16]. This then manifests as curiosity. Likewise, Kashdan et al. [6] put forward the factor of deprivation sensitivity as one of the core dimensions of curiosity. Together, these two conceptualisations of a deprivation-type curiosity made up a substantial number (n = 62) of the articles that conceptualised curiosity as multidimensional. Conversely, although the nomenclature differs, a sizable portion of included articles (n = 58) conceptualised curiosity as the pleasure to obtain information (joyous exploration and interest-based curiosity) [6,16]. Results from this scoping review also found that researchers studied curiosity along the dimensions of diversive (n = 17), specific (n = 18), and breadth/depth (n = 3). This classification conceptualised an individual’s curiosity being either more spread out across a wide range of subjects or focused on a single one. The abovementioned categorizations do not refer to the topic of interest itself, but rather the ‘how’ of the way people are curious. While investigating curiosity based on the different axes of dimensionality can provide a more holistic picture, it does not discount the importance of the context-specific nature of curiosity. Findings from the present scoping review suggest that the Epistemic Curiosity Scale by Litman [16] was the most common measure used, followed by the CEI-II by Kashdan et al. [1]. In the CEI-II, curiosity is split into two factors, one involving the motivation to consume new experiences (e.g., “I actively seek as much as I can in new situations”) and the other, the inclination to accept unpredictability (e.g., “I like to do things that are a little frightening”). Litman, in the Epistemic Curiosity Scale, goes one step further by incorporating a failure-avoidance factor in deprivation type curiosity (e.g., “Spend hours on a problem because I cannot rest without an answer”). Kashdan et al. in 2018, and later in 2020, sought to combine isolated strands of research into a comprehensive curiosity measure, and developed the 5DC, which was later refined into the 5DCR [6,47]. Although this has been less widely utilised than the Epistemic Curiosity Scale and the CEI-II, we believe that this is largely due to the measure having been developed only recently. The 5DC was the first to include a social curiosity factor among other existing factors. This was further expanded into overt and covert social curiosity factors in the 5DCR. Additionally, both the 5DC and its successor encompass an appraisal style factor called stress tolerance, where an individual must determine if they are able to cope with the stress that accompanies novel and unfamiliar situations, before any manifestation of curiosity. Additionally, Kashdan et al. synthesized a body of research that was largely ignored in the construct of curiosity: thrill-seeking, where individuals feel a rush of excitement whenever they have to take risks [6,47]. Taken together, the 5DCR represents the newest measure of curiosity that captures the full bandwidth of curiosity. This has multiple implications, such as enabling researchers to better study the correlates of curiosity using a single multidimensional scale, and also to allow for investigating curiosity profiles, or ‘types’ of curious people [6]. However, to establish that the 5DCR is truly the most robust measure of curiosity, more research should be conducted. 4.3. Context of Curiosity ResearchResults from the present scoping review found that 108 (44%) of the included articles were context-general in nature (i.e., not investigating curiosity in specific domains). While curiosity may be trait-like and generalised across all contexts, some researchers have also put forward a more nuanced distinction, arguing that individuals exhibit both domain-general and domain-specific forms of curiosity that vary across multiple contexts [24]. From the remaining 137 (56%) articles that specified a context, roughly half were situated in a workplace context (69), followed by education (n = 29, 21%). Intuitively, this is unsurprising, given the importance of schooling, and thereafter joining the workforce once an individual graduates from school. Moreover, curiosity has often been implicated in both education and at the workplace. For example, curiosity aids learning by promoting engagement and improving academic performance [4], while curiosity is also positively linked with job performance and a sense of belonging to organisations [2]. Compared to curiosity in employment and education, much less research has been conducted on curiosity in leisure activities (n = 26, 19%). Based on longitudinal data, people spend a comparable amount of time between work and leisure activities [92], indicating that leisure activities represent a major domain of human activity, but have somewhat escaped the attention of curiosity researchers. Of note, there is a sharp increase in the leisure activity of video gaming, and this could present an opportune time to delve deeper into this topic, given the increased interest and curiosity to play video games ever since the COVID-19 pandemic started, where global lockdowns and quarantine conditions forced individuals to stay home [93]. On a global scale, time spent video gaming during COVID-19 has increased by 39% [94]. Six articles in the present scoping review were situated in the domain of video gaming. Given the growing number of video gamers and time spent gaming, more research can be devoted to studying curiosity in video gaming. This is perhaps made even more important, since research has pointed out that curiosity not only drives video gamers’ engagement but can also have a negative effect—video gaming addiction [95,96].Outside of games, people also spend increasing amounts of time on social media, which is further exacerbated by a transition from offline to online activities (remote working/learning) [97,98]. Despite its many advantages such as the ease of information exchange, longer usage of social media can lead to addiction. More importantly, curiosity has been implicated as a potential antecedent to addictive social media use [99]. For example, Brailovskaia et al., found that curiosity (the desire to know what happens on Facebook) was a predictor of Facebook addiction [99]. In our scoping review, only three included articles had a social networking context. Given the ubiquitous nature of social media sites nowadays, more research should be conducted on the links between curiosity and addiction to social media. Based on findings from the present scoping review, only 13 (5%) of included articles were situated in the context of a clinical setting and health, and were all conducted pre-COVID-19. Along with individuals potentially turning to different leisure activities due to COVID-19, the global pandemic may have also highlighted the importance of investigating how curiosity works in clinical settings or how it is related to an individual’s well-being. Research has found that possessing high levels of curiosity increases coping efficacy to stop negative thoughts in suicidal clients [72]. Not only is curiosity useful for clients, but also for therapists—Lefevre reported that therapists who endorse higher levels of curiosity had less compassion fatigue, enabling them to better connect with patients [73]. It is well documented that COVID-19 resulted in individuals experiencing worsening mental health [100]. As such, this can serve as a call to action that more curiosity research can be done not only in the context of mental health, but also on well-being and quality of life. 4.4. Limitations and Future Research

A few limitations of this scoping review should be noted. Firstly, only English language records were included, thus non-English but relevant articles could have been missed out on. The smaller number of articles originating from Asia, compared to North America, could be due to this limitation, where English may not be the first language in countries from these regions. If this holds true, findings should be interpreted with caution. This could also represent a constraint for examining how curiosity differs across cultures. However, available resources necessitated the exclusion of non-English language records.

Additionally, in the present scoping review, methodological rigour and quality of articles were not investigated. Since the purpose of a scoping review is to map the literature, rather than assessing quality, we opted to include not only published articles, but conference papers and dissertations as well. This aligned with the main objective to obtain breadth of research being conducted on the construct of curiosity.

As part of the data extraction form, we looked at future directions that the included articles proposed. As previously mentioned, curiosity does possess an unhealthy downside, such as addiction [95]. A total of 10 (4%) articles made recommendations to investigate the negative aspects of curiosity, such as its maladaptive effects, and individuals’ propensity to engage in risky and unhealthy behaviours. To bolster the literature, future research can seek to further examine how curiosity interacts with maladaptive behaviours. For example, Dahabiyeh et al. found that curiosity leads to individuals downplaying risks and driving intention to play online games, resulting in addiction [101]. In Lindgren et al., the researchers found that higher scores on the absorption factor of the CEI-I were associated with more alcohol-related problems, but this was not found for the exploration factor [68]. This suggests that perhaps only specific facets of curiosity are applicable to maladaptive behaviour, and can be studied as such, as compared to using global scores of curiosity. Researchers can also go one step further by investigating curiosity in the nuances among contexts of addiction. Current views suggest that gaming addiction works in a similar fashion to substance and gambling addiction [102], but the specific role of curiosity with respect to the different types of addiction is still inconclusive, and thus provides fertile ground for future research. The current scoping review only included records that used quantitative and self-report surveys. While self-report questionnaires are by far the most common, other forms of data can enrich the literature. For instance, qualitative data can shed light on individuals’ in-depth experience of curiosity, and their personal perspectives [103]. Studying curiosity from a neuroscience perspective can also further the field. For example, Marvin et al. reported that curiosity and impulsivity share surprising overlaps in their neural substrates. An interesting takeaway from their research involves the notion that educational and cultural consensus trend towards trying to decrease impulsivity in individuals, which could then inadvertently attenuate curiosity as well, along with its benefits [104]. Taken together, conducting curiosity research using measures other than self-report surveys can help researchers achieve a more holistic picture on how curiosity functions. Lastly, the 5DCR, developed by Kashdan et al. is the latest contemporary measure of curiosity, and also purported to be the most comprehensive, capturing the full construct of curiosity, and providing greater predictive power [47]. Given its recency, it is unsurprising that only two articles used the 5DCR in their research. Future research can continue to not only utilise the 5DCR, but also validate its applicability across different cultures and countries. There are currently no cross-validation studies involving the 5DCR. Considering the substantial role that culture can have in affecting curiosity, it is important to investigate the 5DCR in a non-Western culture. The 5DCR may also be used in conjunction with other curiosity measures that focus on facets of curiosity not measured by it. For example, Litman et al. developed a curiosity scale surrounding an individual’s curiosity about themself—the Intrapersonal Curiosity scale [17]. An introspective form of curiosity can be helpful in reaping benefits from activities such as meditation, where a major goal is the improvement of the self-concept and accepting oneself [105]. Research has shown that curiosity is positively related to individuals practicing meditation [106]. Considering that meditation focuses on the self, it is possible that an inward-looking curiosity can be efficacious in promoting personal growth and reducing self-discrepancy beyond a generic conceptualisation of curiosity (i.e., curiosity as unidimensional and context-general), even if it is through indirect means (e.g., via meditation). Whether intrapersonal curiosity can be assimilated with the 5DCR remains to be seen, but investigating this factor of curiosity is a worthwhile endeavor for future research.