Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:42:51.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A shared “optimal-level of arousal”: Seeking basis for creativity and curiosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Erik Gustafsson*
Affiliation:
Institut National Supérieur du Professorat et de l'Education, Maison des Science de l'Homme et de l'Environnement (UAR 3124), University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/psychology/people/emily.burdett
Paula Ibáñez de Aldecoa
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, University of Toulouse 1 Capitole, Toulouse, France [email protected] https://www.iast.fr/people/paula-ibanez-de-aldecoa
Emily R R Burdett
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

We argue that the phases identified in the novelty-seeking model can be clarified by considering an updated version of the optimal-level of arousal model, which incorporates the “arousal” and “mood changing” potentials of stimuli and contexts. Such a model provides valuable insights into what determines one's state of mind, inter-individual differences, and the rewarding effects of curiosity and creativity.

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

We commend the authors’ effort in bridging exploratory and creative behaviors with the recent findings related to their possible neural correlates. The proposed novelty-seeking model (NSM) includes four phases: affinity, activation, evaluation, and commitment. We would like to extend these points by considering an updated version of the optimal-level of arousal (or stimulation) model (henceforth OLA model), traditionally used to explain the exploration/exploitation continuum, and which has recently been proposed to clarify links between curiosity and creativity (Gustafsson, Reference Gustafsson2023; Ibáñez de Aldecoa, Burdett, & Gustafsson, Reference Ibáñez de Aldecoa, Burdett and Gustafsson2022). For instance, the idea of novelty seeking as a biological need, as suggested by the authors, and by others (González-Cutre, Romero-Elías, Jiménez-Loaisa, Beltrán-Carrillo, & Hagger, Reference González-Cutre, Romero-Elías, Jiménez-Loaisa, Beltrán-Carrillo and Hagger2020), has been criticized because an excess of novelty may be overstimulating, perceived as noise, and not necessarily evaluated positively. Reframing the need for novelty as a need for an optimal-level of arousal (or stimulation) would address this issue. We specifically suggest consideration of the “arousal” and “mood changing” potential of stimuli and context in explaining the relationship of curiosity and creativity.

The OLA model hypothesizes that exploratory behaviors are mainly used to maintain an optimal level of arousal (Berlyne, Reference Berlyne1966; Dember & Earl, Reference Dember and Earl1957; Schneirla, Reference Schneirla1959; Zuckerman, Reference Zuckerman1994). Incorporating the concepts of “arousal” potentials of stimuli and contexts into the NSM can provide valuable insights into what determines affinity and activation. In fact, assuming that processing stimuli is costly, the arousal potential of the context in which the stimulus is embedded (i.e., its novelty, complexity, intensity, or surprise features) may have a determining role on exploratory behaviors. For instance, by decreasing overall stimulation, familiar contexts should favor exploration of novelty to get closer to our optimum. In contrast, by increasing overall stimulation, novel contexts should favor exploration of familiarity.

In the same vein, mood changing potentials of stimuli and context can also affect exploratory behaviors by modifying the cognitive resources available and the resulting arousal potentials of encountered stimuli and contexts. For instance, it is well documented that a comforting social environment or a happy mood decrease attraction toward familiarity and favor approach toward novelty in both human (Crockenberg & Leerkes, Reference Crockenberg and Leerkes2004; de Vries, Holland, Chenier, Starr, & Winkielman, Reference de Vries, Holland, Chenier, Starr and Winkielman2010) and non-human animals (Coleman & Mellgren, Reference Coleman and Mellgren1994; Dally, Clayton, & Emery, Reference Dally, Clayton and Emery2008; Forkman, Reference Forkman1991; Moretti, Hentrup, Kotrschal, & Range, Reference Moretti, Hentrup, Kotrschal and Range2015; Stowe, Bugnyar, Heinrich, & Kotrschal, Reference Stowe, Bugnyar, Heinrich and Kotrschal2006; Visalberghi & Addessi, Reference Visalberghi and Addessi2009; Voelkl, Schrauf, & Huber, Reference Voelkl, Schrauf and Huber2006). In contrast, physiological stressors tend to result in withdrawal from novelty/complexity and approach toward familiarity (Griebel, Belzung, Misslin, & Vogel, Reference Griebel, Belzung, Misslin and Vogel1993; Heinrichs & Koob, Reference Heinrichs and Koob1992; Shors & Wood, Reference Shors and Wood1995).

These findings are relevant for the current model as they relate both to the effect of arousal and to the broadening or narrowing of thinking mentioned by the authors in the State of Mind (SoM) Framework. The “Regulatory Focus Theory,” a well-established theoretical model, offers a clearer understanding of the mechanisms underlying these phenomena (Higgins, Reference Higgins1997). This model identifies a “promotion focus” motivation – in which people focus on growth – and a “prevention focus” motivation – in which people focus on maintaining security. Promotion state has been linked to the broadening of mental categories by adopting a more global processing style, while prevention state has been linked to their narrowing (Fredrickson, Reference Fredrickson2001; Friedman & Förster, Reference Friedman and Förster2001). Accordingly, broadening mental categories increases the likelihood that new stimuli integrate pre-existing representations and appear familiar, which would decrease their arousal potential (Förster, Marguc, & Gillebaart, Reference Förster, Marguc and Gillebaart2010). For these reasons, novelty is more attractive in a “promotion” state while familiarity is more appealing in a “prevention” state of mind (Gillebaart, Förster, & Rotteveel, Reference Gillebaart, Förster and Rotteveel2012).

Besides the state of mind, the optimal-level of stimulation model considers any factors affecting the cognitive resources available to predict exploration outcomes. Age is one of such major factors. For instance, while newborns explore familiarity more (Cernoch & Porter, Reference Cernoch and Porter1985; Pascalis, de Schonen, Morton, Deruelle, & Fabre-Grenet, Reference Pascalis, de Schonen, Morton, Deruelle and Fabre-Grenet1995; Schaal, Reference Schaal, Hopkins and Johnson2005), older infants and young children are more attracted toward novelty and complexity (Dovey, Staples, Gibson, & Halford, Reference Dovey, Staples, Gibson and Halford2008; Greenberg & O'Donnell, Reference Greenberg and O'Donnell1972; Hunter, Ames, & Koopman, Reference Hunter, Ames and Koopman1983). Such transition would reflect the broadening of mental categories and cognitive resources acquired through experience and brain maturation (Brennan, Ames, & Moore, Reference Brennan, Ames and Moore1966; DeLoache, Rissman, & Cohen, Reference DeLoache, Rissman and Cohen1978; Greenberg & O'Donnell, Reference Greenberg and O'Donnell1972).

As stated in the NSM, acquiring information through curiosity and creativity can be an intrinsically rewarding state in the evaluation phase of their model. The OLA model would provide here some mechanistic explanation of why this is so. In fact, in order to trigger the intrinsic motivation to explore, a stimulus must have a positive emotional valence which can also result from its arousal potential in addition to previous reinforcements. For instance, a very simple stimulus, usually perceived as boring, could get a very positive valence for an under-stimulated individual in an environment providing few affordances.

Interestingly, such stimuli can also come from internal physical or mental processes. For example, a bored person could engage in repetitive fidgeting movements, active thinking, daydreaming, or creative activities for the sake of the pleasurable stimulation such activity would provoke by itself. We argue that considering creative behaviors as attempts to produce our own stimulation in order to get closer to our optimal level of arousal could be key to relate arousal, curiosity, and creativity. It can help clarify why an exploratory SoM may enable some form of creativity to arise while an exploitatory SoM would promote narrow and specific exploration as stated in the target article. According to such a view, low arousal should favor both diversive curiosity to get more stimulation and divergent thinking to complexify one's environment. In contrast, high arousal would favor both specific curiosity and convergent thinking as both are aimed at solving problems and simplifying one's environment (Gustafsson, Reference Gustafsson2023).

The updated OLA model, by taking into account the “arousal” and the “mood changing” potential of stimuli and context, sheds new light on the NSM model phases. For this reason, we advise tinkering the authors’ novelty-seeking model into an optimal-level of arousal seeking model, which would allow for clearer explanation of curiosity and creativity relationships.

Financial support

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

Competing interest

None.

References

Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153(3731), 2533. JSTOR.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, W. M., Ames, E. W., & Moore, R. W. (1966). Age differences in infants’ attention to patterns of different complexities. Science, 151(3708), 354356. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.151.3708.354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cernoch, J. M., & Porter, R. H. (1985). Recognition of maternal axillary odors by infants. Child Development, 56(6), 1593. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130478CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, S. L., & Mellgren, R. L. (1994). Neophobia when feeding alone or in flocks in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Animal Behaviour, 48(4), 903907. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2004). Infant and maternal behaviors regulate infant reactivity to novelty at 6 months. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 11231132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dally, J. M., Clayton, N. S., & Emery, N. J. (2008). Social influences on foraging by rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Behaviour, 145(8), 11011124.Google Scholar
DeLoache, J. S., Rissman, M. W., & Cohen, L. B. (1978). An investigation of the attention-getting process in infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 1, 1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(78)80004-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. (1957). Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review, 64(2), 91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M., Holland, R. W., Chenier, T., Starr, M. J., & Winkielman, P. (2010). Happiness cools the warm glow of familiarity : Psychophysiological evidence that mood modulates the familiarity-affect link. Psychological Science, 21(3), 321328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359878CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovey, T. M., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. G. (2008). Food neophobia and “picky/fussy” eating in children : A review. Appetite, 50(2–3), 181193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forkman, B. (1991). Social facilitation is shown by gerbils when presented with novel but not with familiar food. Animal Behaviour, 42(5), 860861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 736755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00289.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 10011013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillebaart, M., Förster, J., & Rotteveel, M. (2012). Mere exposure revisited : The influence of growth versus security cues on evaluations of novel and familiar stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Cutre, D., Romero-Elías, M., Jiménez-Loaisa, A., Beltrán-Carrillo, V. J., & Hagger, M. S. (2020). Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motivation and Emotion, 44(2), 295314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09812-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, D. J., & O'Donnell, W. J. (1972). Infancy and the optimal level of stimulation. Child Development, 43(2), 639645. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127562CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griebel, G., Belzung, C., Misslin, R., & Vogel, E. (1993). The free-exploratory paradigm : An effective method for measuring neophobic behaviour in mice and testing potential neophobia-reducing drugs. Behavioural Pharmacology, 4(6), 637644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustafsson, E. (2023). How can contextual variables influence creative thinking? Contributions from the optimal-level of arousal model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrichs, S. C., & Koob, G. F. (1992). Corticotropin-releasing factor modulates dietary preference in nutritionally and physically stressed rats. Psychopharmacology, 109(1–2), 177184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02245497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 12801300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, M. A., Ames, E. W., & Koopman, R. (1983). Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez de Aldecoa, P., Burdett, E., & Gustafsson, E. (2022). Riding the elephant in the room : Towards a revival of the optimal level of stimulation model. Developmental Review, 66, 101051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2022.101051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, L., Hentrup, M., Kotrschal, K., & Range, F. (2015). The influence of relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves and dogs. Animal Behaviour, 107, 159173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascalis, O., de Schonen, S., Morton, J., Deruelle, C., & Fabre-Grenet, M. (1995). Mother's face recognition by neonates : A replication and an extension. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(1), 7985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaal, B. (2005). From amnion to colostrum to milk : Odor bridging in early developmental transitions. In Hopkins, B. & Johnson, S. (Eds.), Prenatal development of postnatal functions (pp. 51102). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schneirla, T. C. (1959). An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawal. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1959 (p. 1–42). Univer. Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Shors, T. J., & Wood, G. E. (1995). Contribution of stress and gender to exploratory preferences for familiar versus unfamiliar conspecifics. Physiology & Behavior, 58(5), 9951002. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(95)00153-ACrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stowe, M., Bugnyar, T., Heinrich, B., & Kotrschal, K. (2006). Effects of group size on approach to novel objects in ravens (Corvus corax). Ethology, 112(11), 10791088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visalberghi, E., & Addessi, E. (2009). Acceptance of novel foods in capuchin monkeys : Do specific social facilitation and visual stimulus enhancement play a role? Animal Behaviour, 62(3), 567576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelkl, B., Schrauf, C., & Huber, L. (2006). Social contact influences the response of infant marmosets towards novel food. Animal Behaviour, 72(2), 365372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar