Ivancovsky et al.'s Novelty-Seeking Model suggests several mechanisms that might underlie developmental change in creativity and curiosity. We discuss how these implications both do and do not align with extant developmental findings, suggest two further elements that can provide a more complete developmental account, and discuss current methodological barriers to formulating an integrated developmental model of curiosity and creativity.

Ivancovsky et al. propose a novelty-seeking model linking curiosity to creativity. This commentary suggests integrating their work with a stage-based creativity model for additional insights. It also encourages readers to address knowledge gaps identified by the authors, including factors that trigger the pursuit of creative solutions. We aim to refine theory and direct future research to clarify the complex curiosity–creativity relationship.

notwithstanding the many strengths of the dynamic developmental theory, there remain challenges to be overcome before it can be incorporated into a true causal model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adhd). these include the development of reliable measures of reinforcement delay gradients, the validation of shortened reinforcement delay as an endophenotype, and the integration of this pathway with other potential pathways.

In our target article, we proposed that curiosity and creativity are both manifestations of the same novelty-seeking process. We received 29 commentaries from diverse disciplines that add insights to our initial proposal. These commentaries ultimately expanded and supplemented our model. Here we draw attention to five central practical and theoretical issues that were raised by the commentators: (1) The complex construct of novelty and associated concepts; (2) the underlying subsystems and possible mechanisms; (3) the different pathways and subtypes of curiosity and creativity; (4) creativity and curiosity “in the wild”; (5) the possible link(s) between creativity and curiosity.

Emotion-science without basic brain-science is only superficially satisfying. Dynamic systems approaches to emotions presently provide a compelling metaphor that raises more difficult empirical questions than substantive scientific answers. How might we close the gap between theory and empirical observations? Such theoretical views still need to be guided by linear cross-species experimental approaches more easily implement in the laboratory.

Dubourg and Baurmard ask why people consume fiction with imaginary worlds. We extend this inquiry to ask why people engage in creating imaginary worlds. In Fanfiction, the writing of fiction by fans involves both an immersive creative experience and a very interactive community that may explain the high (social) engagement of people with Fanfiction.