ISABELLA BARRET FAUCETT

Disclaimer: This is a preprint and has not yet been peer-reviewed. The findings and conclusions are subject to change.

Abstract

This paper aimed to discover the importance of early childhood curiosity for learning outcomes in late adulthood, with the research question: How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood? In a comprehensive literature review that comprised peer-reviewed longitudinal studies, meta-analyses, and empirical studies, many influential findings on the longitudinal nature of trait curiosity were discovered. Though a majority of the literature on curiosity suggests that it declines after the development of intellectual curiosity in early childhood, the findings indicated that the gradually increasing specificity of curiosity should be viewed as an evolution of the trait rather than a decline. This new theory of curiosity is plausible due to many biological and environmental factors that showcase the longitudinal nature of the trait and potentially point towards early childhood curiosity as a neuroprotective factor for curiosity in late adulthood. Due to limited research on the longitudinal nature of curiosity, a future study on the longitudinal nature of early childhood curiosity throughout the lifespan could help confirm the theory that a fourth evolution of trait curiosity occurs from the development of intellectual curiosity to late adulthood, which could change the way that curiosity is researched in the future. 

Keywords: Curiosity, Late Adulthood, Early Childhood, Neuroprotective/Risk Factors, Neuroplasticity, Lifelong Learning

The Development of Early Childhood Curiosity and Its Implications for Learning in Late Adulthood

Before scientists studied the concept, people invented the term curiosity to describe a subjective feeling, leaving much ambiguity that led to widespread debate over a universal objective definition (Murayama et al., 2019). Because of its intrinsic ties to motivation, in this paper, curiosity will be defined as motivation “for its own sake” (Silva et al., 2012, p. 159). While there is much debate about the best way to define curiosity, there is no debate over its motivational importance in early childhood learning (Bjerknes et al., 2024). A longitudinal study of
6200 children that sought to discover the association between curiosity and academic achievement found that greater curiosity was associated with greater math and reading academic achievement in kindergarten (Shah et al., 2018). When considered at a population level, the magnitude of the effect of curiosity on academic achievement in kindergarten is notable, despite prior math and reading experience having a higher association with academic achievement (Shah et al., 2018). While most of the literature on curiosity and learning examines its association with early childhood education, its vital motivational importance extends past early childhood into late adulthood (Kidd et al., 2015). 

Because neuroplasticity enables the brain to establish new crossmodal connections and reorganize old connections, which allows individuals to learn and adapt to altered sensory environments and sensory deprivation throughout the lifespan, learning continues beyond early childhood and exists throughout the lifespan (Karim et al., 2021). Considering that neuroplasticity enables individuals to learn throughout the lifespan, and curiosity’s vital importance in learning, the crucial significance of curiosity extends beyond early childhood into the lifespan (Kidd et al., 2015). UNESCO’s Institute for Lifelong Learning defined lifelong learning as being, “rooted in the integration of learning and living, covering lifelong (cradle to grave) and life-wide learning for people of all ages, delivered and undertaken through a variety of modalities and meeting a wide range of learning needs and demands” (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2021, p. 1). Because of its vital motivational importance in learning, curiosity is an essential factor in lifelong learning, which is enabled by neuroplasticity. 

Background

While many studies explore curiosity’s significance, applications, and mechanisms in early childhood education (Bjerknes et al., 2024), less literature exists examining curiosity in late adulthood. Curiosity in late adulthood has been associated with enhanced memory (Padulo et al., 2022), cognitive reserve, and life satisfaction (Feraco et al., 2024), indicating a positive correlation with better learning outcomes. While curiosity is shown to decline from early childhood (4-5) to school-aged children (6-10) (Skalstad et al., 2021), it is not yet known if children do not become less curious; a plausible counterargument to this decline is that their diverse curiosity becomes more specific over time (Jirout et al., 2018). Furthermore, similar research exists on curiosity in late adulthood, as it has been hypothesized that older adults have more selective curiosity than younger adults (Chu et al., 2021). The hypothesis that curiosity becomes more specific over time rather than declining suggests that curiosity has been studied incorrectly, leading to a possible mistaken presumption of a negative correlation between curiosity and advanced aging (Chu et al., 2021; Jirout et al., 2018). 

The Problem

While there is a plethora of information about curiosity in early childhood education and some literature on the association between curiosity and lifelong learning, there is less research on the impact of early childhood curiosity on curiosity in late adulthood.

Research Question

To address the perceived gap in the literature, this study will consider the following research question: How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood?

Literature Review

In order to respond to the research question “How to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood?” this literature review is divided into three main categories: (a) The Importance of Curiosity in Early Childhood, (b) The Importance of Curiosity in Late Adulthood, and (c) The Importance of Early Childhood Curiosity for Learning in Late Adulthood.

Literature Genres

This literature review consists of several peer-reviewed journal articles, including longitudinal studies, meta-analyses, and empirical studies. Selected book chapters are also included. A systematic search was conducted to obtain relevant research in the disciplines of Mind, Brain, Health, and Education to achieve a “transdisciplinary” understanding of the evidence.

The Importance of Curiosity in Early Childhood

Curiosity is a multifaceted concept with many different applications; for the purposes of this paper, curiosity will be viewed as a personality trait, which is defined as “proneness to experience momentary curiosity frequently, in various conditions and over prolonged periods” (Bjerknes et al., 2024, p. 52). There are two subtypes to distinguish individual variances in curiosity: (a) curiosity as a personality trait; and (b), an unstable and discreet curiosity (Kashdan et al., 2004). Because this paper is focused on the longitudinal importance of early childhood curiosity, it will focus on trait curiosity. 

Trait curiosity holds longitudinal importance because it is a relatively stable personality trait (Ainley, 2019). In trait curiosity, the degree to which an individual is curious varies from person to person (Shah et al., 2023). While trait curiosity is heritable (Power et al., 2015), external environmental factors such as early childhood neighborhood safety, parenting, and home environment help predict the extent to which someone expresses curiosity (Shah et al., 2023). These neuroprotective factors motivate an investigation into how early childhood curiosity evolves across the lifespan.

While there are many theoretical frameworks of curiosity, including Piaget’s, Ainsley’s, and L’Ecuyer’s, for clarity, Ainsley’s will be used in this paper. At the earliest stage, trait curiosity is observed as a wide range of sensory exploratory actions and seen as the expression of organic energy (Ainley, 2019). This curiosity evolves into social curiosity, which is explored through “posing incessant questions to people who populate their social world” (Ainley, 2019, p. 791). The final evolution of trait curiosity in early childhood occurs when social curiosity shifts to intellectual curiosity, which occurs when children seek answers for themselves (Ainley, 2019). The evolution of the trait is a key factor, because while curiosity has been shown to have longitudinal stability (Sawada et al., 2025), the trait itself grows and changes throughout the lifespan, from childhood to late adulthood.Children with low effortful control and high curiosity perform better academically than those with low effortful control and less curiosity (Shah et al., 2018). For clarity, Shah defines curiosity as “a capacity for invention and imagination” and effortful control as “persistence and attentiveness to tasks” (Shah et al., 2018, p. 380). The variances in levels of curiosity are due to the multitude of neuroprotective and risk factors that influence trait curiosity in early childhood (Shah et al., 2023). For example, a study of 4750 children in the United States found that “the achievement gap between high and low-income children essentially eliminated at high levels of early childhood curiosity” (Shah et al., 2023, p. 2). Children from lower-income families also demonstrated higher curiosity when they experienced more positive parenting (characterized by more sensitive, stimulating, and attuned parenting) and higher-quality home environments (characterized by higher safety, stimulation, and supervision) (Shah et al., 2023). These neuroprotective environmental factors are vital considerations when delving into the importance of early childhood curiosity because they help explain individual differences in curiosity.

The Importance of Curiosity in Late Adulthood

Curiosity in late adulthood is associated with increased involvement in leisure, cultural and art activities, creative occupations and new learning (Bourgault et al., 2019; Feraco et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016), suggesting that neuroprotective environmental factors of trait curiosity are present in research on curiosity in late adulthood. The aforementioned neuroprotective factors are linked by their association to higher socioeconomic status. This observation is interesting because an early childhood curiosity finding showed that the gap between high- and low-income children was eliminated at high levels of curiosity (Shah et al., 2023). The evolution of neuroprotective factors from early childhood to late adulthood is vital because they show a gradual evolution of curiosity over time.

A study that examined the association between age and intellectual curiosity found that “as future time becomes limited with age, curiosity is less valued” (Chu et al., 2021, p. 45). While this finding seems to suggest a decline in curiosity in the advanced aging process, they made two influential speculations in this paper: (a) limited time perspective reduces “the tendency to invest time and resources to form or resolve intellectual curiosity” (Chu et al., 2021, p. 52); and (b), different aspects of curiosity age differently (Chu et al., 2021). These findings are interesting because they claim that the source of curiosity’s decline in aging is an external environmental factor (Chu et al., 2021). Complementing Chu’s findings, a study on neural correlates of working memory training in older adults found that working memory training increased brain activity, confirming their initial hypothesis that brain activity increases as working memory increases regardless of age (Iordan et al., 2020). To learn more about the advanced aging process of curiosity, it is essential to delve into the advanced aging process of the brain’s mechanisms associated with trait curiosity. 

Ainley characterizes intellectual curiosity as seeking information of personal curiosity (Ainley, 2019); this characterization is important because it has been found that “the dopaminergic reward system is involved in information-seeking behavior” (Kobayashi et al., 2024, p. 1742) because “the reward system encodes the expectation of advanced information about future probabilistic outcomes” (Kobayashi et al., 2024, p. 1743). A study that examined reward system stability in aging contrasted older and younger participant groups in a monetary incentive delay task using electroencephalography (Opitz et al., 2022). Reward-guided acting can be separated into two temporal phases: (a) the prediction phase, when a reward-predicting stimulus elicits an approach behavior to the task; and (b), the receiving phase, when the reward is received, typically leading to positive emotions; they studied each part to learn more about how the reward system of the brain ages (Opitz et al., 2022). Using these methods, the study found that the reward system of the brain ages more slowly than other parts of the brain (Opitz et al., 2022). They speculate that this is because “a functionally intact reward system remains indispensable in healthy aging to succeed in daily life” (Opitz et al., 2022, p.2). The association between the brain’s dopaminergic reward system, advanced aging, and curiosity was further confirmed by a study that found that even in advanced aging, the dopaminergic reward system remained associated with the neurological process of curiosity despite differences in motivation across different age groups (Sakaki et al., 2018). The difference in motivation across age groups can be explained by a change in goal orientation due to the realization of the limited time left in the lifespan in older age, which leads to a decline in openness and an optimized selection of experiences (Sharp et al., 2019). Sharp and colleagues’ work defined openness of experience as comprising three other factors in addition to curiosity, with limited research available on the gradually increasing selectivity of curiosity, it is a notable finding (Sharp et al., 2019). To further explore the aging process of trait curiosity, it is essential to look at its neuroprotective and risk factors as well as the biological and environmental stability of the trait itself. 

The Importance of Early Childhood Curiosity for Learning in Late Adulthood

It has been found that trait curiosity is significantly stable with predictable developmental trends due to relatively consistent biological and environmental factors, though environmental factors seem to have a larger influence than genetics (Grossnickle, 2016). That said, it has also been hypothesized that “if curiosity is something that can and should be cultivated and develop over time, the potential for the creation of theoretical models proposing state curiosity as a means of developing enduring curiosity may emerge” (Grossnickle, 2016, p. 51). To learn more about the longitudinal nature of trait curiosity, it is crucial to delve into the association between neuroplasticity, advanced aging, and lifelong learning. A 2021 study on a life-span perspective of adaptive functions of neurobehavioral plasticity in language learning and processing studied “the patterns of ‘cue cost’, a multifactorial concept relevant for capturing the microplasticity of the processing system” (Kail, 2021). The study found that, in older French adults, cue cost variability is mediated by processing speed, which preserves online syntactic abilities, meaning that plasticity is preserved in older adults, though the processing speed decreases (Kail, 2021). While the aging process of neuroplasticity offers evidence that the process remains relatively intact in healthy aging (Kail, 2021), to explore this further, it is essential to investigate the interaction of gene expression and environmental factors of trait curiosity. 

A study on the heritability estimates of the big five personality traits based on common genetic variants performed a genomic-relatedness-matrix residual likelihood analysis on the big five personality traits, including openness, which is characterized as imagination and intellectual curiosity in the study (Power et al., 2015). They found that as a personality trait, openness had 21% heritability and was a relatively stable trait (Power et al., 2015). Because of the broad scope of neuroprotective/risk factors for curiosity in early childhood and late adulthood, such as positive parenting (Shah et al., 2023) and creative occupations (Feraco et al., 2024), Table 1 provides a comprehensive list from this paper’s source material. 

Table 1

Neuroprotective/Risk Factors for Curiosity in Early Childhood and Late Adulthood

Neuroprotective/RiskFactor	Stage of Life (Early Childhood or Late Adulthood)	Source
Trying New Activities	Early Childhood	(Friesen et al., 2025)
Leisure Activities	Late Adulthood	(Feraco et al., 2024;  Morita et al., 2024)
Retired instead of Employed	Late Adulthood	(Feraco et al., 2024)
Single instead of Married	Late Adulthood	(Baumann et al., 2020)
Creative Occupations	Late Adulthood	(Feraco et al., 2024)
Cultural and Art Activities	Late Adulthood	(Palmeiro et al., 2016)
New Learning	Late Adulthood	(Bourgault et al., 2019)
Expressing Interest in What Others Do	Early Childhood	(Friesen et al., 2025)
Positive Parenting	Early Childhood	(Shah et al., 2023)
Safe Neighborhood	Early Childhood	(Shah et al., 2023)
High Quality Home Environment	Early Childhood	(Shah et al., 2023)

Source: Created by author based on a summary of the literature reviewed. 

Note: This table shows the neuroprotective factors of curiosity in early childhood and late adulthood in this paper, and this does not serve as a comprehensive list of all relevant neuroprotective factors of curiosity throughout the literature. 

Though Table 1 offers a mere glimpse of the neuroprotective/risk factors for curiosity, it helps to provide a broad context of the external factors that are associated with trait curiosity. Interaction of gene expression and environmental factors of trait curiosity.

Literature Review Summary

Literature Review Summary

                                                                Exploring the current literature on the importance of curiosity in early childhood, the importance of curiosity in late adulthood, and the importance of early childhood curiosity for learning outcomes in late adulthood yielded several influential findings for this paper. The literature search on the importance of curiosity in early childhood provided Ainley’s theoretical framework of the development of curiosity which served as a lens to view the rest of the research presented in the paper (Ainley, 2019). Ainley also provided the distinction between trait and state curiosity, and lead to a shift in the direction of research as the study showed that trait curiosity has more longitudinal value than trait curiosity (Ainley, 2019). Early childhood curiosity research also provided various neuroprotective/risk factors to compare and contrast with neuroprotective/risk factors in late adulthood. The literature search on the importance of curiosity in late adulthood relied on research on the brain’s reward system and its association with intellectual curiosity in aging. It also reviewed various brain mechanisms associated with curiosity in late adulthood. The final literature search on the importance of early childhood curiosity for learning in late adulthood targeted finding the neuroprotective/risk factors of curiosity in early and late adulthood. It also examined the relationship of genes and environment in relation to trait curiosity. 

Methodology

The original aim of this paper was to investigate the association between wonder and learning across the lifespan. This research was conducted by crossing keywords in the Harvard On-Line Library Information System (HOLLIS) such as “wonder,” “early childhood,” and “education.” This search yielded an influential source for this paper: a 2024 systematic review of curiosity and wonder in natural science and early childhood education research, in which Bjerknes and colleagues reviewed the distinction between wonder and curiosity (Bjerknes et al., 2024). After learning the distinction between wonder and curiosity, the aim of the paper was redirected towards curiosity instead of wonder because a much wider body of literature examines the topic. The new objective of the paper led to the development of two research questions: “How and to what extent can curiosity be developed in early childhood education?” and “How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning through the lifespan?” 

After receiving feedback, the first question was too unoriginal due to finding a wide variety of terms when crossing terms such as “early childhood education,” “curiosity,” and “importance.” Because the question was answered, a gap didn’t exist in the literature. The next assignment refined the second question: “How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning through the lifespan?” The feedback from the following two assignments and a meeting with Kent led to the final iteration of the research question: “How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood?” This research question also came from a key connection found in a peer-reviewed article, “Intellectual Curiosity: The Mediating Roles of Future Time Perspective and Importance of Curiosity”, in which Chu and colleagues hypothesized that curiosity becomes gradually more specific rather than declining (Chu et al., 2021; Jirout et al., 2018). Once the research question had been developed, the literature search began.

The literature search was divided into three topics: (a) The Importance of Curiosity in Early Childhood, (b) The Importance of Curiosity in Late Adulthood, and (c) The Importance of Early Childhood Curiosity for Learning in Late Adulthood. When researching the association between curiosity and early childhood, the following keywords were crossed in HOLLIS: “early childhood,” “curiosity,” “education,” and “lifespan.” This search led to a vital source for the paper: “Early Childhood Curiosity and Kindergarten Reading and Math Achievement,” in which Shah and colleagues’ longitudinal study brought up a lot of interesting directions for the literature review and provided a helpful reference for relevant sources in their reference list. 

When researching the association between curiosity and late adulthood, a search was conducted in HOLLIS using the following terms: “late adulthood,” “curiosity,” “importance, “older age,” “advanced aging,” “importance of curiosity,” “education,” and “learning.” This search provided a plethora of literature, such as “Character Strengths and Life Satisfaction in Later Life: An Analysis of Different Living Conditions,” in which Baumann and colleagues provided a set of neuroprotective/risk factors for curiosity in late adulthood. Researching the last topic, the importance of early childhood curiosity for curiosity in late adulthood, was more difficult, as this is where the gap in the literature exists. This search consisted of crossing the following terms in HOLLIS: “curiosity,” “importance,” “learning,” “lifespan,” “brain,” “early childhood,” “late adulthood,” and “older adulthood.” Less literature was found in the source than in others; however, by doing a second search in HOLLIS, crossing the keywords “neuroplasticity,” “lifelong learning,” “curiosity,” and “neuro correlates,” more studies were found that elaborated on the connection between curiosity in early childhood and curiosity in late adulthood. In researching each topic in HOLLIS, only peer-reviewed articles were considered for inclusion in the paper.

While limited research on late adulthood curiosity made the literature search difficult, the search provided sufficient evidence to attempt to answer the research question. The first topic, The Importance of Curiosity in Early Childhood, yielded information about neuroprotective/risk factors for early childhood curiosity and provided the theoretical framework that guided the literature review, analysis, conclusion, and directions for future studies. The second topic, The Importance of Curiosity in Late Adulthood, provided the bulk of the evidence relating to neuroscience for the paper’s literature review, analysis, conclusion, and directions for future studies. The third topic, The Importance of Early Childhood Curiosity for Curiosity in Late Adulthood, yielded information on the environmental factors of trait curiosity and neuroplasticity. Overall, thirty articles were chosen for the conclusion based on their relevance to the research question. 

Analysis

While Ainley’s theoretical framework for curiosity only has three stages: sensory curiosity, social curiosity, and intellectual curiosity (Ainley, 2019), Chu’s theory suggests that curiosity becomes gradually more specific rather than declining (Chu et al., 2021). This analysis indicates that the gradually increasing specificity of trait curiosity should be viewed as a fourth dimension of curiosity rather than a gradual decline. The plausibility of this theory is possible because of the link between curiosity and the brain’s reward system (Kobayashi et al., 2024), because the dopaminergic reward system of the brain ages more slowly than other parts of the brain (Opitz et al., 2022); therefore, trait curiosity potentially ages more slowly than other personality traits. In addition, an evaluation of neuroprotective/risk factors for curiosity in early childhood and late adulthood, and the biological factors associated with trait curiosity, provides further evidence for the theory that a fourth evolution of curiosity, characterized by a gradual increase in specificity of curiosity throughout the lifespan following the development of intellectual curiosity, is plausible. 

Details of the Analysis

The varying perspectives on how curiosity is affected by aging are due to ambiguity over how to best define and measure curiosity. While some literature shows a decline in curiosity after ages 6-10 (Skalstad et al., 2021), this evidence is based on the assumption that curiosity’s gradually increasing specificity should be viewed as a decline (Chu et al., 2021; Jirout et al., 2018). That assumption is contradicted by current literature suggesting that the brain’s reward system, which is associated with intellectual curiosity (Kobayashi et al., 2024), ages more slowly than other parts of the brain (Opitz et al., 2022). This is furthered by a finding that the neurological function of intellectual curiosity remains associated with the dopaminergic reward system in the advanced aging process (Sakaki et al., 2018). The sum of the literature on the biological processes related to intellectual curiosity shows that it remains relatively intact during the advanced aging process (Kobayashi et al., 2024; Opitz et al., 2022; Sakaki et al., 2018). That said, trait curiosity has also been observed to have longitudinal stability (Sawada et al., 2025). Because of the overwhelming biological evidence that curiosity’s gradual specificity shouldn’t be viewed as a decline (Chu et al., 2021; Jirout et al., 2018), it is essential to delve into the environmental factors associated with trait curiosity.

Though trait curiosity is thought to have 21% heritability (Power et al., 2015), there is also evidence that environmental factors significantly impact individual variances in trait curiosity (Shah et al., 2023). Due to limited literature on the longitudinal nature of the environmental factors impacting trait curiosity, the vast body of literature on environmental neuroprotective/risk factors affecting trait curiosity in early childhood and late adulthood must be examined to find similarities and differences between the two age groups. The neuroprotective/risk factors in current literature, such as safe parenting (Shah et al., 2023), high-quality home environment (Shah et al., 2023), safe neighborhood (Shah et al., 2023), and trying new activities (Friesen et al., 2025) suggest that high socioeconomic status is a key neuroprotective/risk factor for high intellectual curiosity. This is interesting because neuroprotective risk factors in advanced aging, such as cultural and art activities (Palmeiro et al., 2016), leisure activities (Feraco et al., 2024; Morita et al., 2024), and being retired rather than being employed (Feraco et al., 2024), suggest that high socioeconomic status is a neuroprotective/risk factor for curiosity in advanced age as well. High socioeconomic status remains a consistent neuroprotective/risk factor for intellectual curiosity from early childhood to late adulthood (Feraco et al., 2024; Friesen et al., 2025; Morita et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2023), suggesting that there is significant stability of the trait from early childhood to late adulthood. The stability of trait curiosity (Sawada et al., 2025) in conjunction with the consistency of high socioeconomic status as a neuroprotective/risk factor for curiosity from early childhood to late adulthood (Feraco et al., 2024; Friesen et al., 2025; Morita et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2023) suggests that early childhood curiosity is a neuroprotective/risk factor for curiosity in late adulthood. 

The longitudinal nature of trait curiosity in conjunction with the biological stability of the brain’s reward system in the aging process suggests that curiosity does not steadily decline from early childhood to late adulthood. This is further confirmed by the stability of neuroplasticity in healthy aging (Kail, 2021) because it enables lifelong learning, and curiosity is a vital motivational force for lifelong learning (Kidd et al., 2015). The sum of the evidence provided by the literature review suggests that curiosity doesn’t face a significant decline in aging because of underlying biological and environmental factors. One plausible explanation for the decline in intellectual curiosity during the aging process is that a limited future time perspective leads to a lack of importance placed on curiosity (Sharp et al., 2019). This finding is interesting because it suggests that the decline in curiosity is due to mental processes (Sharp et al., 2019). Therefore, it is plausible that a shift in mindset that places higher importance on maintaining curiosity could lead to heightened curiosity in late adulthood; this is complemented by Iordan and his colleagues’ finding that memory training in older adults found that working memory training increases brain activity because it theoretically suggests that training the mind to focus on curiosity could improve curiosity outcomes in late adulthood (Iordan et al., 2020). In conclusion, a fourth evolution of curiosity, characterized by a gradually increasing specificity of curiosity over the life span (Chu et al., 2021), is possible with training the mind to place importance on curiosity (Iordan et al., 2020; Sharp et al., 2019) because of the longitudinal stability of trait curiosity (Sawada et al., 2025), the brain’s reward system (Opitz et al., 2022), neuroplasticity (Kail, 2021), and the neuroprotective/risk factor of socioeconomic status (Feraco et al., 2024; Friesen et al., 2025; Morita et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2023). 

Conclusions

Answer to the Research Question

The answer to the research question “How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood?” is that early childhood curiosity impacts learning outcomes in adulthood because of the longitudinal stability of trait curiosity (Sawada et al., 2025), the brain’s reward system (Opitz et al., 2022), neuroplasticity (Kail, 2021), and the neuroprotective/risk factor of socioeconomic status (Feraco et al., 2024; Friesen et al., 2025; Morita et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2023). The evidence from the literature supports the idea of early childhood curiosity as a neuroprotective factor for curiosity in late adulthood because of the stability of trait curiosity (Sawada et al., 2025) in conjunction with the consistency of high socioeconomic status as a neuroprotective/risk factor for curiosity from early childhood to late adulthood (Feraco et al., 2024; Friesen et al., 2025; Morita et al., 2024; Palmeiro et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2023). However, this evidence may not be conclusive due to a lack of literature examining the longitudinal nature of biological and environmental factors impacting trait curiosity over the lifespan. Therefore, while the “how” of the question can be answered, the extent of the effect can not be determined due to the little research examining the longitudinal stability of trait curiosity. 

Limitations of the Study and Reccomendations of Future Studies

One of the most significant limitations of this paper is the lack of a clear definition of curiosity. Based on this limitation, I recommend that future studies delve into the complexity of curiosity’s definition. Another limitation of this paper was its lack of focus on the neuroscience related to curiosity in early childhood. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies focus on the neuroscience of curiosity to further determine the longitudinal nature of the trait. While the time constraints of this project were undoubtedly limiting, there was a lack of focus on the subtopic of the importance of early childhood curiosity for learning outcomes in late adulthood, specifically the element of lifelong learning. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies place significant importance on lifelong learning to ensure comprehensive results. Finally, I suggest that future studies spend more time developing a research question that fits the assignment’s criteria to avoid going down avenues that don’t apply to the study. 

General Summary

While the study began as an effort to discover how individuals who do not feel good at math can enjoy and excel in the subject, the question went through a series of iterations with the direction of Dr. Tokuhama-Espinosa that lead to the question that guided the entirety of this paper: How and to what extent can early childhood curiosity impact learning outcomes in late adulthood? As someone who hadn’t written an academic paper of this magnitude before, this assignment was a challenge. However, I learned vital lessons about the academic writing process that will follow me throughout my future educational pursuits: the importance of clear definitions for keywords, the importance of correct APA formatting for clarity, and the importance of putting equal importance on each aspect of MBHE (Mind, Brain, Health, and Education) to ensure that the research presented is a comprehensive view of the subject from a transdisciplinary lens. One of my biggest takeaways from the research process of the paper was how little is known about trait curiosity and how little research is available for curiosity in late adulthood. Specifically, there is a lack of longitudinal studies that examine early childhood curiosity as a neuroprotective factor for curiosity in late adulthood. Based on this lack of research, I recommend that a future longitudinal study on this topic would yield influential information in early childhood curiosity, late childhood curiosity, and the associated neurological processes. I believe that research of this nature could help discover new neuroprotective factors for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and dementia. I wanted to know more about why early childhood curiosity is important for learning outcomes in late adulthood, because my family has a long history of neurodegenerative diseases, and I wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help my son combat his genetic predisposition. This led to many important discoveries about how early childhood curiosity serves as a neuroprotective factor for curiosity in late adulthood, such as the longitudinal stability of trait curiosity (Sawada et al., 2025) and the importance of a shift in mindset to maintain curiosity in late adulthood (Iordan et al., 2020; Sharp et al., 2019). A future study on how to train the brain to place importance on curiosity in the aging process could further the importance and plausibility of this finding and potentially produce a protocol that helps combat a sharp decline in learning outcomes in the advanced aging process. While this paper provided important information on the longevity of trait curiosity and the importance of curiosity for learning outcomes in late adulthood, there is still much to be learned about the relatively unexplored subject of curiosity in late adulthood.

References

Ainley, M. (2019). Curiosity and Interest: Emergence and Divergence. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09495-z

Baumann, D., Ruch, W., Margelisch, K., Gander, F., & Wagner, L. (2020). Character strengths and life satisfaction in later life: an analysis of different living conditions. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9689-x 

Bjerknes A.L., Wilhelmsen T., & Ford-Brunn E. (2024). A systemic review of curiosity and wonder in natural science and early childhood education research. Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 38(1), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2023.2192249

Bourgault, R. (2019). Wisdom and engagement: connecting aging, art aducation, creativity, and learning. The International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978061.ead007

Chu, L., Tsai, J. L., & Fung, H. H. (2021). Association between age and intellectual curiosity: the mediating roles of future time perspective and importance of curiosity. European Journal of Ageing, 18(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-020-00567-6

Feraco, T., Casali, N., Carbone, E., Meneghetti, C., Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Muffato, V. (2024). Soft skills and their relationship with life satisfaction and cognitive reserve in adulthood and older age. European Journal of Ageing, 21(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-024-00820-2

Friesen, R. S., Cheng, K. C., Cimetta, A. D., Marx, R. W., Cutshaw, C. A., & Yaden, D. B. (2025). Environmental Factors Predicting Young Children’s Secure Exploration. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01649-1

Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts review of disentangling curiosity: dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y

Iordan, A. D., Cooke, K. A., Moored, K. D., Katz, B., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S. M., Polk, T. A., Peltier, S. J., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2020). Neural correlates of working memory training: evidence for plasticity in older adults. NeuroImage, 217, 116887–116887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116887

Jirout, J. J., Vitiello, V. E., & Zumbrunn, S. K. (2018). Curiosity in schools. In G. Gordon (Ed.), The new science of curiosity, 243–266. Nova Science Publishers.

Kail, M. (2021). Adaptive functions of neurobehavioral plasticity in language learning and processing: a life span perspective. LIA : Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 12(1), 20–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.20016.kai

Karim, A. K. M. R., Proulx, M. J., de Sousa, A. A., & Likova, L. T. (2021). Neuroplasticity and crossmodal connectivity in the normal, healthy brain. Psychology & Neuroscience, 14(3), 298–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000258

Kidd, C., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron (Cambridge, Mass.), 88(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010 

Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: Differentiation from related constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 792–816. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.6.792.54800

Kobayashi, K., & Kable, J. W. (2024). Neural mechanisms of information seeking. Neuron, 112(11), 1741–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.04.008

Morita, S., Sueyasu, T., Tokuda, H., Kaneda, Y., Izumo, T., Nishikawa, K., Kusumi, T., & Nakao, Y. (2024). Diets and leisure activities are associated with curiosity. PloS One, 19(12), e0314384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314384

Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., & Sakaki, M. (2019). Process account of curiosity and interest: a reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09499-9

Opitz, L., Wagner, F., Rogenz, J., Maas, J., Schmidt, A., Brodoehl, S., & Klingner, C. M. (2022). Still wanting to win: reward system stability in healthy aging. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14, 863580–863580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.863580

Padulo, C., Marascia, E., Conte, N., Passarello, N., Mandolesi, L., & Fairfield, B. (2022). Curiosity killed the cat but not memory: enhanced performance in high-curiosity states. Brain Sciences, 12(7), 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070846

Palmiero, M., Di Giacomo, D., & Passafiume, D. (2016). Can creativity predict cognitive reserve? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.62

Power, R. A., & Pluess, M. (2015). Heritability estimates of the big five personality traits based on common genetic variants. Translational Psychiatry, 5(7), e604–e604. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.96

Sakaki, M., Yagi, A., & Murayama, K. (2018). Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 88, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.007

Sawada, K., & Nomura, M. (2025). Longitudinal stability in dispositional awe during emerging adulthood: A trait-state-occasion model. Personality Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/27000710251327744

Skalstad, I., & Munkebye, E. (2021). Young children’s questions about science topics when situated in a natural outdoor environment: A qualitative study from kindergarten and primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 43(7), 1017–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1895451

Shah, P. E., Weeks, H. M., Richards, B., & Kaciroti, N. (2018). Early childhood curiosity and kindergarten reading and math academic achievement. Pediatric Research, 84(3), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0039-3

Shah, P. E., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Spinelli, M., Ozor, J., Weeks, H. M., McCaffery, H., & Kaciroti, N. (2023). Ecological contexts associated with early childhood curiosity: Neighborhood safety, home and parenting quality, and socioeconomic status. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 986221–986221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.986221

Sharp, E. S., Beam, C. R., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2019). Openness declines in advance of death in late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000328

Silva, P. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Curiosity and motivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, 157-166. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0010

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2021). Technical notes on lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/keydocuments/LifelongLearning/en/UNESCOTechNotesLLL.pdf