Determinants of epistemic curiosity

Relevant theories

Information-gap theory

Many conditions and circumstances can foster epistemic curiosity. One account, called information-gap theory, proposed in the 1990s, can explain some of these conditions and circumstances (e.g., Loewenstein, 1994). According to this theory,

when individuals experience a disparity between the level of information they aspire to know about a topic and the level of information they actually know about a topic, they experience curiosity,
in other words, people experience curiosity when they want to know more about a topic,
interestingly however, when people learn snippets of information about a topic, the level of information they aspire to know often escalates,
consequently, the disparity between the level of information they aspire to know and the level of information they actually know also increases, fostering curiosity.

This theory can thus explain the finding that people are often curious when their knowledge about a topic is moderate (e.g., Kang et al., 2019). In contrast, people are seldom curious when their knowledge about a topic is negligible or extensive.

Evidence of information-gap theory from brain imaging

Many studies, including research that utilised brain imaging, have substantiated some key premises of information-gap theory. To illustrate, in one study that utilised brain imaging (Jepma et al., 2012)

participants were exposed to some blurry images that were designed to elicit perceptual curiosity,
while these participants experienced curiosity, activation of the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex were pronounced—regions that correspond to the arousal that stems from unfulfilled expectations, similar to an information gap,
after the images were visible and the curiosity was relieved, regions that correspond to a sense of reward, such as the striatum and orbitofrontal cortex, were activated (Jepma et al., 2012).

These findings are consistent with the notion that curiosity emanates from a discrepancy—and, in particular, a discrepancy between the level of information people want to acquire and the level of information people have acquired about a topic. When this discrepancy is resolved and curiosity subsides, individuals experience rewarded instead.

The Prediction, Appraisal, Curiosity, and Exploration or PACE framework

In the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Gruber and Ranganath (2019) proposed a more comprehensive account of curiosity, called the Prediction, Appraisal, Curiosity, and Exploration, or PACE, framework. The cornerstone of this theory is that people experience curiosity when they are exposed to unexpected events and perceive these surprises as significant to their life but resolvable.

The framework outlines a sequence of events that both precede and follow curiosity. This sequence commences with a moment in which individuals recognise that one of their predictions or expectations was inaccurate. For example,

individuals might observe an unexpected event, such as a dog that appears to talk,
or they might realise they do not know the answer to an important question, such as the occupation of their partner.

Several brain circuits or regions underpin these unfulfilled expectations, called prediction errors, such as the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex. Roughly, the hippocampus stores memories of past circumstances and thus may help individuals recognise events that diverge from previous memories or experiences (e.g., O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978). The anterior cingulate cortex is activated in response to conflicts between predictions and observations (e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001).

These prediction errors, however, elicit curiosity only in specific circumstances. Specifically, prediction errors tend to evoke curiosity only when these errors seem important and resolvable. Thus, after people experience an unexpected event, a shortfall in their knowledge, or some other prediction error, they tend to assess whether this experience is important and resolvable. To illustrate the impact of this appraisal

if the error seems important but resolvable, individuals experience curiosity—an emotion that incites the motivation to accrue more knowledge to solve the problem (Gruber & Ranganath, 2019),
if the error seems important, or even threatening, but unresolvable, individuals experience anxiety instead.

Circuits that entail the lateral prefrontal regions of the cortex underpin this appraisal (see Wager et al., 2008). When individuals experience curiosity because a prediction error seems important but resolvable, they feel inspired to explore the environment and to peruse relevant material, ultimately to garner more information and overcome the prediction error. Interestingly, according to this model, curiosity does not only motivate this pursuit of knowledge but also increases the likelihood this knowledge will be retained (Gruber & Ranganath, 2019). That is, in this state of curiosity, dopaminergic activity interacts with the hippocampus to consolidate memories (see Shohamy & Adcock, 2010). This effect of curiosity is adaptive, because this emotion implies the information is significant to the individual. Hence, curiosity helps people learn vital information.

The information-as-reward hypothesis

Marvin and Shohamy (2016) proposed an alternative but similar theory, called the information-as-reward hypothesis or sometimes the reward-anticipation account of curiosity (for further evidence and discussions, see Berridge & Kringelbach, 2011; Kang, 2009; Murayama, 2022; Murayama et al., 2019). In essence, this theory invokes traditional principles of learning to characterise the antecedents and effects of curiosity (Marvin & Shohamy, 2016). According to this theory, individuals are often exposed to events that imply their knowledge is limited. For example,

individuals may be asked a question to which they do not know the answer, such as “Is still water healthier than sparkling water?”,
or individuals might observe an unexpected event, such as a purple triangular light in the sky, and thus realise their knowledge must be limited.

In response, individuals anticipate the level of satisfaction or reward they would feel if they sought information to resolve this uncertainty. Specifically

if individuals anticipate the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge will feel very satisfying and rewarding, they experience a strong motivation to seek this information, experienced as curiosity,
if individuals anticipate the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge will not feel satisfying or rewarding, they experience limited motivation to seek this information, diminishing curiosity.

Once their curiosity exceeds some threshold, individuals feel more compelled to seek relevant information and to acquire knowledge. This acquisition of knowledge will then diminish feelings of uncertainty and thus decrease curiosity.

Importantly, this acquisition of knowledge may feel more or less rewarding than anticipated—and these errors in forecast affect learning. To illustrate

suppose individuals anticipate that knowledge about a topic, such as whether still water is healthier than sparkling water, may be moderately rewarding,
if, instead, the answer is fascinating and thus very rewarding, individuals are more likely to retain the information;
if, in contrast, the answer is mundane and thus not rewarding, individuals are not as likely to retain the information,

These experiences could also affect future expectations. For example, if individuals perceive an answer as more fascinating and rewarding than anticipated, in the future, they may anticipate the acquisition of future information could be very satisfying as well. So, fascinating knowledge at one time could promote curiosity in the future.

The integrative appraisal model of epistemic curiosity

Erdemli et al. (2025) proposed a framework that integrates previous theories of curiosity with each other and with other models—such as theories of information-seeking (Sharot & Sunstein,

2020), the component process model (Grandjean et al., 2008; Sander et al., 2005, 2018), and epistemic emotion dynamics (D’Mello & Graesser, 2012; Muis et al., 2018). This framework is called the integrative appraisal model of epistemic curiosity. Like other appraisal theories of curiosity, this framework assumes that

individuals are often exposed to circumstances, such as an outcome that deviated from expectations, that indicate their knowledge or information about some topic is limited,
yet these circumstances elicit curiosity in specific circumstances only,
specifically, individuals appraise various features of the circumstances, such as the extent to which the topic is relevant to their goals, and these appraisals determine whether these individuals experience curiosity.

Erdemli et al. (2025) suggest that individuals appraise four overarching characteristics of these circumstances: relevance to wellbeing, consequence to goals, coping potential, and normative implications. In particular

to appraise relevance to wellbeing, individuals consider whether the circumstances are novel, unexpected, pleasant, or unpleasant but able to be accommodated,
to appraise consequence to goals, individuals may consider the likelihood these circumstances could facilitate or impede progress on goals and the urgency of these goals,
to appraise coping potential, individuals may consider the extent to which they feel a sense of power, can withstand challenges, or can readily control outcomes,
to appraise normative implications, individuals may consider the degree to which knowledge about this topic is compatible with societal expectations or personal values.

If individuals feel the topic in which knowledge is limited is relevant, consequential, and aligned to norms as well as feel they can cope in response to challenges—such as distressing information—curiosity is more likely. If curiosity is ignited, individuals experience

elevated levels of arousal,
the motivation to approach rather than avoid the topic,
a conscious feeling of curiosity,
anticipation of reward, corresponding to elevated dopaminergic activity, projected from the ventral striatum to orbitofrontal regions,
and many other physiological and somatic changes.

These changes evoke the inclination of individuals to seek knowledge. If individuals are indeed granted the opportunity and resources to acquire this knowledge, their curiosity is satisfied. Dopaminergic activity, projected from the nuclear accumbens to the hippocampus, then consolidates this knowledge to facilitate learning and memory. Furthermore, if the knowledge is more rewarding than anticipated, often coinciding with the experience of surprise, the information is especially likely to be consolidated, and individuals are more inclined to anticipate that future knowledge will be rewarding too.

Need fulfilment

Some research has explored the conditions or circumstances in which individuals experience epistemic curiosity—a motivation to seek knowledge that overlaps with intellectual humility. Puerta-Sierra and Puente-Díaz (2024) invoked self-determination theory to predict which conditions or circumstances might foster epistemic curiosity. Self-determination theory comprises several distinct sub-theories. According to one of these sub-theories

individuals experience three basic psychosocial needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000): the need to experience autonomy, the need to feel competent, and the need to develop relationships,
to fulfill the need to experience autonomy, individuals need to be granted the right to choose courses of action that exemplify their personal values,
to fulfill the need to feel competent, individuals need to be granted the opportunity to develop the capabilities they need to pursue these values and to withstand important challenges,
when these needs are fulfilled, individuals feel equipped to pursue their values, evoking a sense of intrinsic motivation (Sheldon & Filak, 2008), diminishing the concern they must satisfy uninspiring duties instead,
in this state of intrinsic motivation, individuals feel more compelled to challenge themselves and to extend their knowledge, manifesting as epistemic curiosity.

Accordingly, whenever people feel their need to experience autonomy and need to feel competent have been achieved, they are more likely to exhibit the hallmarks of epistemic curiosity. Puerta-Sierra and Puente-Díaz (2024) conducted a study that was designed to validate this premise. In this study, 162 students, enrolled in a class on entrepreneurship, completed a battery of questionnaires on three occasions, separated by 5 to 7 weeks. These questionnaires included

the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Van der Kaap-Deederet al. 2020) to assess whether the needs to experience autonomy and competence were fulfilled or frustrated, comprising items like “Most of the things I do feel like I have to”, epitomising autonomy frustration, and “I have serious doubts about whether I can do things well”, epitomising competence frustration,
the Multidimensional Workplace Curiosity Scale (Kashdan et al. 2020) to measure epistemic curiosity, comprising items like “I enjoy that I often ﬁnd my mind continues to work through complex problems outside of school”.

As the findings revealed, when participants felt their needs to experience autonomy and competence were fulfilled rather than frustrated, they were more likely to report epistemic curiosity at the same time (Puerta-Sierra & Puente-Díaz, 2024). To establish the direction of causality, however, future researchers could assess these longitudinal relationships in more detail or manipulate need fulfillment.

The role of parental behaviour

An illustration

Some research has revealed that epistemic curiosity can emanate from childhood experiences. To illustrate, some parents are responsive to the needs of their children. These parents exhibit warmth, sympathy, and comfort when the child is upset or hurt. They praise and encourage the child when appropriate. They display affection, and they cooperate with the child on challenging tasks. As Iwasaki et al. (2023) revealed, when parents are responsive, children are more likely to display both interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity.

In this study, 245 caregivers of young children—that is, children aged between 3 and 12—completed a survey. The survey included

a Japanese variant (Nakamichi & Nakazawa, 2003) of the Parenting Style Questionnaire (Robinson et al., 1995) to measure two parenting styles: the extent to which parents are responsive, typified by items like “When a child is playing alone and seems bored, I join in and play with him or her” and the extent to which parents are demanding, typified by items like “I tell the child what to do,
a measure of epistemic curiosity (Piotrowski et al., 2014) that comprises questions that assess interest epistemic curiosity, such as “My child has fun learning about new topics or subjects”, and deprivation epistemic curiosity, such as “When presented with a tough problem, my child focuses all of his her attention on how to solve it”.

The practices that parents adopted shaped the perceived epistemic curiosity of their children. Specifically, after controlling the age and sex of these children,

the degree to which parents were responsive was positively related to both the interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity of their children,
this finding was more pronounced in children enrolled in the first couple of years of primary school—and not as apparent in pre-schoolers or older children,
the extent to which parents were demanding was not significantly associated with the epistemic curiosity of their children (Iwasaki et al., 2023).

Presumably, when parents are responsive, the children feel safe to explore unfamiliar activities, concepts, and environments, confident they will receive support and assistance in response to unforeseen complications. This tendency to explore manifests as epistemic curiosity.

The role of attachment style

To substantiate the reasons that exemplary parenting may foster epistemic curiosity in their children, Kwok et al. (2023) explored the role of attachment style. That is, some parents are not only responsive but also participate in the activities their children enjoy, called parental involvement. For example, these parents frequently and eagerly play with their children. They also help organise the activities and events their children attend, such as sport or camps.

When a parent is responsive and involved, the children gradually develop the belief they will be supported in response to unanticipated problems or challenges. Because of this belief, these children do not feel compelled to maintain close proximity to their parents. Instead, these children feel safe to explore unfamiliar environments and excited when their parents return, called a secure attachment. This propensity to embrace unfamiliar experiences or information epitomised the hallmarks of epistemic curiosity

To verify these arguments, Kwok et al. (2023) conducted a study in which 311 parents of young children—children aged three to six—completed a series of instruments. These instruments included

the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire–Preschool Revision (Clerkin et al., 2007), designed to assess the degree to which parents are responsive and involved, comprising items like “You play games or do other fun things with your child”,
the measure of epistemic curiosity that Piotrowski et al. (2014) constructed and validated,
the attachment subscale in the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2013), comprising seven items to measure secure attachment, such as “The child acts happy and excited when a parent returns”.

As hypothesised, when parents were responsive and involved, their children were more likely to exhibit both interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity. A secure attachment partly, rather than fully, mediated these associations (Kwok et al., 2023).

As these findings imply, the benefits of responsive and involved parenting cannot be entirely ascribed to attachment style. Other accounts might also explain these benefits. To illustrate, when parents participate in the activities their children enjoy, they demonstrate epistemic curiosity. Their children might emulate this behaviour, fostering curiosity.

Other theories could also explain why a secure attachment promotes epistemic curiosity. To illustrate,

when individuals experience a secure attachment and thus feel they will be supported, feelings of anxiety tend to diminish swiftly
after this anxiety subsides, individuals no longer feel the need to resolve impending threats or to maintain vigilance,
liberated from these immediate concerns, these individuals feel they can explore novel or exciting possibilities instead, enabling curiosity.

Partly consistent with this possibility, Hong et al. (2022) revealed that decreases in anxiety about some topic do indeed foster epistemic curiosity.

The role of education

School climate

In some schools, the climate or culture is supportive. The students treat one another respectfully. The teachers are respectful and supportive of students. Everyone feels proud of their school, and the individuals operate cohesively. As research shows, in these schools, students are more likely to report epistemic curiosity.

Yang (2025) explored this association between school climate and epistemic curiosity. In this study, 303 Chinese adolescent students completed a series of measures including

the abbreviated version of the Dual School Climate and School Identification Measure-Student (Yu et al., 2022), designed to assess several facets of school climate such as respect between students, respectful teachers, academic support, and shared values, comprising items like “Teachers show understanding to students”, “Teachers want every student to do their best”, and “There is a sense that we are all on the same team”,
the Spanish variant (Litman et al., 2018) of the Epistemic Curiosity Scale (Litman & Spielberger, 2003),
measures of life satisfaction (Gadermann et al., 2010) as well as engagement (Veiga, 2016)—designed to assess the degree to which students plan carefully to study effectively, socialise with peers, and attend classes.

As hypothesised, the school climate was positively associated with epistemic curiosity and engagement. Indeed, together with life satisfaction and identification with the school, epistemic curiosity mediated the association between school climate and engagement (Yang, 2025).

Arguably, when the climate is supportive, students do not feel concerned they may be rejected or shunned. So, they do not merely attempt to accommodate their peers or teachers—but instead feel safe to pursue and to explore their interests, manifesting as curiosity.

Authentic learning

In recent decades, educators and researchers have applauded the introduction of authentic learning, in which students contemplate, analyse, and solve actual problems in society. According to Ghaleb and Otamurodov (2026), these opportunities to learn authentically can, often, foster epistemic curiosity. That is,

when individuals need to solve an actual problem, they feel their limited knowledge about this topic could be harmful,
hence, these individuals want to learn more about the topic—a motivation that, according to information-gap theory, underpins curiosity.

Nevertheless, whether these authentic problems foster epistemic curiosity may depend on the goals of individuals. To illustrate

if people are motivated to conceal their incompetence, sometimes called a performance-avoid orientation, they might be concerned their limited knowledge about this topic could be discovered,
hence, these authentic problems might elicit anxiety—or even the motivation to shun this topic—rather than curiosity,
in contrast, if people feel motivated to develop their capabilities, sometimes called a learning orientation, these concerns abate, increasing the likelihood that authentic problems will incite curiosity.

In short, when students adopt a learning orientation, in which they feel motivated to extend their capabilities, authentic problems should be especially likely to foster epistemic curiosity. To assess this possibility, Ghaleb and Otamurodov (2026) invited 277 students, who were learning English, to complete a survey. The survey comprised sets of questions that gauge

the degree to which students had been exposed to authentic learning (Indriati et al., 2024), such as “I am able to implement what I’ve learned to a similar project”,
the extent to which students experienced the hallmarks of epistemic curiosity (Litman, 2008), such as “I enjoy exploring new ideas”, and
the degree to which students adopted a learning goal orientation while attempting to learn English (Xie, 2011), such as “My main reason for completing the course is to challenge myself and to improve my English”.

As hypothesised, authentic learning was positively associated with epistemic curiosity—and this relationship was especially pronounced when the students adopted a learning orientation. Accordingly, to foster epistemic curiosity, educators should apply the nine principles of authentic learning that Herrington, Parker, et al. (2014) delineated (see also Herrington & Herrington, 1998; Herrington, Reeves et al., 2006, 2014), such as

organise an authentic context or setting to emulate how the knowledge will be utilised in real life,
invite students to complete authentic tasks and activities—tasks and activities they would complete in real life,
arrange opportunities for students to observe the performance of experts,
expose students to multiple roles and perspectives,
grant students opportunities to acquire knowledge collaboratively with one another,
encourage students to reflect upon these authentic experiences to uncover key insights—and to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge,
provide coaching and scaffolding to students during these authentic experiences,
design assessments that entail authentic tasks and activities.

Coping with boredom

Unsurprisingly, when people feel bored, they inspiration to learn information—or epistemic curiosity—tends to decline. However, how people cope with this boredom also influences the level of epistemic curiosity. That is, people can utilise a range of strategies or practices to overcome boredom. To illustrate, according to the Coping with Boredom Scale (Nett et al., 2010), these strategies and practices can be divided into four clusters:

cognitive-approach, comprising items like “When bored in class, I make myself aware of the importance of the issue”, in which individuals attempt to convince themselves the topic is significant or challenging,
behavioural-approach, comprising items like “When bored in class, I suggest that the instructor add variety to the lessons”, in which individuals attempt to uncover materials that are more intriguing,
cognitive-avoidance, comprising items like “When bored in class, I prepare for my next class”, in which individuals direct their attention to another topic,
behavioural-avoidance, comprising items like “When bored in class, I try to contact other classmates who are feeling also bored”, in which individuals converse with other people.

According to Eren and Coskun (2016), the cognitive-approach strategies imply the learning materials are important. Thus, individuals aspire to know more about this topic, the key determinant of curiosity. In contrast, the cognitive-avoidance and behavioural-avoidance strategies imply the learning materials are insignificant, diminishing curiosity. Indeed, to confirm these premises, Eren and Coskun (2016) administered a battery of scales to 557 high school students, including

a set of questions that measure the degree to which students feel bored during their mathematics classes,
the Coping with Boredom Scale (Nett et al., 2010), and
the Epistemic Curiosity Scale that Litman (2008) developed, comprising items like “I find it fascinating to learn new information” and “I work like a fiend at problems that I feel must be solved”, to measure interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity, respectively.

As hypothesised, boredom was inversely associated with both interest and deprivation epistemic curiosity. An analysis of correlations, however, revealed that cognitive-approach strategies were positively, and behavioural-avoidance strategies were negatively, associated with both facets of curiosity. Thus, to evoke curiosity about a topic that might seem boring, students should contemplate the potential implications and importance of these materials to their life.

Interventions that are designed to foster curiosity

An introduction

Some researchers and scholars have designed and delivered online modules, workshops, and similar courses that are intended to promote intellectual curiosity. For example, Orona and Pritchard (2022) constructed and assessed a series of online modules that were designed to foster intellectual virtues, especially curiosity, in university students. The program comprises eight short modules that can be completed within about 2.5 hours. These modules included

materials that underscore the benefits of intellectual curiosity to the career and lives of participants,
videos of academics, from diverse specialties and disciplines (Hong & Lin-Siegler, 2012), who discuss how curiosity was vital to their work and to research in general—and is a quality that distinguishes people who thrive from people who do not thrive,
recordings of university students, collaborating with one another effectively and epitomising curiosity (cf., Yuretich et al., 2001),
practical exercises in which participants were granted opportunities to reflect upon how their intellectual virtues, such as their curiosity, evolved and developed over time (cf., Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009),
recommendations on how participants can apply this intellectual virtue to improve their study and lives.

In one study, 202 university students completed these modules as well as various measures before and after the program (Orona & Pritchard, 2022). These measures assessed

their familiarity with these intellectual virtues, such as curiosity
the perceived importance of these intellectual virtues,
the measure of interest epistemic curiosity that Litman (2008) developed,
an instrument that assesses need for cognition—also regarded as a measure of curiosity.

Furthermore, after the program, participants indicated the degree to which they were satisfied with the modules and perceived these modules as beneficial. After completing the suite of online modules, the students exhibited increases in need for cognition, a manifestation of curiosity, and perceived curiosity as more important. In addition, participants were generally satisfied with the modules. Nevertheless, because the study did not include a control group, the impact of this intervention is hard to establish definitively.

A smartphone program

Researchers have designed a range of other interventions and programs to foster curiosity in children, adolescents, and adults. Gross and Schooler (2026), for example, developed an app that people can access from their smartphone. In essence,

users set and transcribe six goals in which they choose specific, challenging, but feasible actions or behaviours that revolve around learning or attempting unfamiliar activities,
next, users convert these goals into implementation intentions, specifying when they will initiate each behaviour, such as “Immediately before dinner, I will listen to a new podcast”,
the participants then agree to fulfill one of these goals every second day,
on every other day, the app prompts users to complete a specific daily challenge.

To illustrate these daily challenges, on one day, the app prompts users to diverge from their usual routine, such as work outside, sit at an unfamiliar location, or shift the order in which they complete their tasks. On another day, the app invites users to write a Haiku—a poem comprising 3 lines, with 5, 7, and 5 syllables each, about their experience. In addition, on one day, the app invites participants to conduct research and evaluate one of their assumptions, such as the notion that creative people favour the right brain hemisphere.

Users can also complete additional sessions, designed to encourage mindful curiosity. During these sessions, users complete one of three mindfulness exercises each day, in which they observe their thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations and surroundings while eating, walking, or washing their hands. While completing these exercises, the app encourages users to contemplate questions about their experience, such as “Why do certain water temperatures feel more pleasant than other water temperatures?”er, revealed that cognitive-approach strategies were positively, and behavioural-avoidance strategies were negatively, associated with both facets of curiosity. Thus, to evoke curiosity about a topic that might seem boring, students should contemplate the potential implications and importance of these materials to their life.

A smartphone program: Evidence

Gross and Schooler (2026) conducted a study that was designed to validate this app. In this study, participants completed a series of instruments and measures before and after using this app for 21 days, including

the Epistemic Curiosity Scale (Litman & Spielberger, 2003), comprising questions that assess both interest epistemic curiosity, such as “I enjoy exploring new ideas”, and deprivation epistemic curiosity, such as “Difficult conceptual problems can keep me awake all night thinking”,
the Perceptual Curiosity scale (Collins et al., 2004), designed to assess the inclination of individuals to embrace novel sensory experiences in their environment, such as “I like exploring my surroundings”,
the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006), designed to measure presence of meaning in life, exemplified by items like “My life has a clear sense of purpose” as well as searching for meaning in life, exemplified by items like “I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful”,
the Creative Behaviours Inventory, Short form (Dollinger, 2003) to gauge the frequency which with participants undertake creative activities,
the mindful attention and awareness scale.

This study tentatively demonstrated the utility of this app, although a larger sample size may be warranted to validate and clarity these findings. Relative to participants who had not been exposed to this app, participants who used this app were more likely to show increases in epistemic interest curiosity, perceptual curiosity, and creative behaviour—although the increases in epistemic interest curiosity, relative to the control condition, generated a p value of 0.06. Furthermore, participants who had also completed the exercises that revolve around mindful curiosity were more likely to experience meaning in life and mindfulness.