Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:34:59.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The costs of curiosity and creativity: Minimizing the downsides while maximizing the upsides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Todd B. Kashdan*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA [email protected]; [email protected]
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA [email protected]
Patrick E. McKnight
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA [email protected]; [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

The unbridled positivity toward curiosity and creativity may be excessive. Both aid species survival through exploration and advancement. These beneficial effects are well documented. What remains is to understand their optimal levels and contexts for maximal achievement, health, and well-being. Every beneficial element to individuals and groups carries the potential for harm – curiosity and creativity included.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Curiosity and creativity are (rightfully) defined as psychological strengths or positive goods (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, Reference Peterson and Seligman2004). From an evolutionary perspective, both aid species survival. Curiosity ensures that an agent explores anything that is new, uncertain, complex, or ambiguous in the environment. By doing so, there is opportunity to capitalize on rewards such as the medicinal value of plants or attaining status. An agent is also attuned to perturbations in the self (inward directed) or environment (outward directed) that could suggest potential insult, injury, or premature death. As for creativity, agents that design new and useful contributions are more likely to be valuable and thus, accepted and protected. At a societal level, creativity drives economies, underlies paradigm-shifting inventions, and offers solutions to global crises (Florida, Reference Florida2014).

From a psychological angle, there is evidence that people exhibiting greater curiosity and creativity benefit in terms of greater achievement, health, and well-being (in particular, vitality, meaning and purpose in life, psychological healing, and satisfying needs for autonomy and competence) (e.g., Acar, Tadik, Myers, Van der Sman, & Uysal, Reference Acar, Tadik, Myers, Van der Sman and Uysal2021; Kaufman, Reference Kaufman2023; Silvia & Kashdan, Reference Silvia and Kashdan2009). Curious and creative people are more likely to be successful entrepreneurs with larger social and professional networks. Conditioning on the beneficial consequences fits with a larger theme that there is a “shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity” (Ivancovsky, Baror, & Bar, this issue) that buffers against threats to a better life (cf. hedonic adaptation; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, Reference Sheldon and Lyubomirsky2007).

As with many psychological strengths, there are predictable, replicable situations with unintended costs (Biswas-Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, Reference Biswas-Diener, Kashdan and Minhas2011; Grant & Schwartz, Reference Grant and Schwartz2011). Unintended costs are inevitable with competing demands for our time and attention. There are metabolic costs, as the brain consumes energy to process new information. There are social costs, as those constantly seeking novelty may be seen as eccentric or disruptive. And there are psychological costs, as the constant pursuit of novelty can be mentally exhausting.

Is too much of a good thing, a good thing?

Curiosity is characterized as the enjoyable pursuit of new knowledge. However, curiosity comes in more than one flavor. Unlike the Joyous Exploration dimension of curiosity (i.e., Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman, & McKnight, Reference Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman and McKnight2020), there is Deprivation Sensitivity or the uncomfortable urge to fill an information gap (Litman, Reference Litman2005). Both have metabolic costs that arise from orienting attention to the new, detecting information gaps, and making sense of the target of curiosity (Gruber & Ranganath, Reference Gruber and Ranganath2019). Deprivation Sensitivity has additional burdens. There is a restless need to know and a sense of frustration, triggered by a lack of information (Schweitzer, Gerpott, Rivkin, & Stollberger, Reference Schweitzer, Gerpott, Rivkin and Stollberger2023). To the outsider, an agent experiencing deprivation sensitivity appears to be anxious and neurotic – definitely not in the throes of well-being.

Strangers, close friends, and family possess mixed reactions to highly curious individuals. Highly curious people are perceived as having a high intellectual capacity and being imaginative, humorous, and non-judgmental; on the flip side, they are viewed as somewhat critical, rebellious, and distant (going into interviewer mode) (Kashdan, Sherman, Yarbro, & Funder, Reference Kashdan, Sherman, Yarbro and Funder2013).

Similarly, creativity is explicitly praised, but bosses may show implicit bias against creative workers (Mueller, Goncalo, & Kamdar, Reference Mueller, Goncalo and Kamdar2011), possibly because it can be associated with lower company loyalty (Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, Reference Madjar, Greenberg and Chen2011) and quality (Miron, Erez, & Naveh, Reference Miron, Erez and Naveh2004). Teachers, too, show a comparable split between explicit and implicit views (Westby & Dawson, Reference Westby and Dawson1995). Creativity is often assumed to result in benevolent outcomes. However, creativity is not bound to any morality. Creativity can be used for negative ends which benefit the creator at the expense of others (such as stealing from work) or downright malevolent acts, with the goal being to cause harm (Kapoor & Kaufman, Reference Kapoor and Kaufman2022).

Creativity is often linked to mental illness, although these connections are often exaggerated or overly generalized. However, Carson (Reference Carson and Simonton2014) suggests that neurocognitive factors can be “shared vulnerabilities.” Neural hyperconnectivity (i.e., uncommon areas of the brain being connected, as in synesthesia), lower latent cognitive disinhibition, and a need for novelty can help someone be more creative – or more likely to develop psychopathology. Further, the creative process can trigger specific anxiety that is distinct from general anxiety (Daker, Cortes, Lyons, & Green, Reference Daker, Cortes, Lyons and Green2020).

Creative people have been likened to investors, choosing to put their time and resources toward a particular project (Sternberg & Lubart, Reference Sternberg and Lubart1995). Successful creators will buy low (unpopular) ideas, convince others of their value, and then sell high and move on to their next idea. A creator's decision to pursue any particular idea means they have less time to follow a different idea.

Optimal levels

Insufficient consideration is given to an inconvenient truth: there are always psychological trade-offs when investing in a behavior. In this case, we consider predictable ways that being curious and creative are costly. Think of finite resources – attention, time, money, and energy – that can be spent on other, more beneficial life pursuits that create a more well-rounded person. Some of the most powerful interventions for a good life such as exercise, diet, being in the company of pets, or spending time outside on a sunny day are often mundane habits.

Opportunity costs aside, there are social consequences that may lead to negative evaluations and/or social isolation (e.g., Mueller & Yin, Reference Mueller, Yin, Zhou and Rouse2021). The highly curious and creative often hold different ideas and perspectives than others. These differences lead to discriminatory actions by others and significant financial (e.g., rejection of novel ideas), personal (e.g., low self-worth), and interpersonal costs (social group rejection). Furthermore, at times, curiosity and creativity at their maximum produce overstimulation due to the vigilance demands and as a result, emotional well-being declines.

Despite a voluminous literature on curiosity and creativity, we know little about optimal levels of curiosity and/or creativity. We need to uncover when there is too much, when they are wrongly applied, and when costs outweigh benefits to the point of dysfunction. Determining optimal levels is the province of wisdom, metacognition, morality, and work–life balance, among other factors. We hope a conversation on trade-offs catalyzes research on what works best for whom in particular situations.

Financial support

The present research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

None.

References

Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., Van der Sman, C., & Uysal, R. (2021). Creativity and well-being: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55, 738751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 106118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, S. H. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198221). Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2020). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 4257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class–revisited: Revised and expanded. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 6176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, M. J., & Ranganath, C. (2019). How curiosity enhances hippocampus-dependent memory: The prediction, appraisal, curiosity, and exploration (PACE) framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 10141025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapoor, H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity. Theory & Psychology, 32, 467490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The five-dimensional curiosity scale revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. A., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How are curious people viewed and how do they behave in social situations? From the perspectives of self, friends, parents, and unacquainted observers. Journal of Personality, 81, 142154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, J. C. (2023). The creativity advantage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 793814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 730743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 494498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. S., & Yin, Y. (2021). Unraveling the bias against novelty: Guiding the study of our tendency to desire but reject the new. In Zhou, J. & Rouse, E. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity and innovation (pp. 267289). Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, V. M., Gerpott, F. H., Rivkin, W., & Stollberger, J. (2023). (Don't) mind the gap? Information gaps compound curiosity yet also feed frustration at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 178, 104276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Is it possible to become happier?(And if so, how?). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 129145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Interesting things and curious people: Exploration and engagement as transient states and enduring strengths. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 785797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd. Free Press.Google Scholar
Westby, E. L., & Dawson, V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar