The target article presents a heroic review of the literature on curiosity and creativity. For decades, scholars have suspected that the two constructs are related to recent research sparking renewed interest. Yet, the curiosity and creativity research landscape is dotted with nuanced terms like open-ended versus goal directed, divergent versus convergent thinking, exploration versus exploitation, and originality versus usefulness, to name a few. Ivancovsky et al. suggest that these terms can be aligned under a unified theory – novelty seeking – and claim to be among the first to establish a link between curiosity and creativity. Yet, prior research in other fields does establish this link. Thus, although we applaud the target article for tackling this complicated issue and acknowledge its important contributions, we worry about some of the claims made and issues related to missing broader literature.

Signaling out novelty seeking as the mechanism that links creativity and curiosity is not supported by numerous conceptual, theoretical, and empirical studies from research in developmental and educational fields. Several researchers studied curiosity and creativity in authentic educational contexts (Scott-Barrett, Johnston, Denton-Calabrese, McGrane, & Hopfenbeck, Reference Scott-Barrett, Johnston, Denton-Calabrese, McGrane and Hopfenbeck2023) and explored links between survey and direct measures of curiosity and creativity (e.g., Evans & Jirout, Reference Evans and Jirout2023; Schutte & Malouff, Reference Schutte and Malouff2020). Other theories presented alternative views linking curiosity and creativity based on uncertainty rather than novelty (i.e., Evans, Todaro, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, Reference Evans, Todaro, Golinkoff and Hirsh-Pasek2022; Jirout & Matthews, Reference Jirout and Matthews2022). The focus on novelty in the novelty-seeking model (NSM) as an umbrella term to include theoretically distinct constructs is problematic. This is best demonstrated in the text: “…novelty appraisal (including incongruity, complexity, unexpectedness, obscurity, and uncertainty; …)” (target article, sect. 2.5, para. 5) where novelty is used as a catch-all, rather than its traditional meaning of new, original, or unfamiliar.

Studies demonstrate important differences between novelty and uncertainty or ambiguity, terms that could suggest moderate levels of novelty on a continuum, but the target article discusses novelty as noncontinuous. For example, in Loewenstein's curiosity research, participants rate curiosity highest in a state of uncertainty (tip-of-tongue) compared to novelty (unfamiliar/unknown), and this is replicated with behavioral measures in adults (Litman, Hutchins, & Russon, Reference Litman, Hutchins and Russon2005) and children (Schulz & Bonawitz, Reference Schulz and Bonawitz2007). This work builds on a long history of considering novelty as continuous or distinct from these related constructs (e.g., Kreitler, Zigler, & Kreitler, Reference Kreitler, Zigler and Kreitler1975; McReynolds, Acker, & Pietila, Reference McReynolds, Acker and Pietila1961). Creativity research similarly specifies the importance of uncertainty in definitions (Beghetto, Reference Beghetto2021), such as arguing that uncertainty is a prerequisite for novelty (Runco, Reference Runco2022). Although possible to consider uncertainty as an intermediate level of novelty, the construct of uncertainty might prove a better underlying basis for curiosity and creativity.

The underspecification of definitions and alternating between conceptualizations of the key constructs leads to inconsistencies that could benefit from a more comprehensive look at theories of curiosity and creativity. Berlyne's cited “classical definition” for curiosity didn't include novelty as a core feature. Rather, it suggested that novelty is a trigger for curiosity specifically in the context of an optimal level of novelty and often as it relates to factors like unpredictability or incongruity (e.g., Berlyne, Reference Berlyne1966). Later work discusses novelty as more of a general motivator without mentioning curiosity (e.g., Berlyne, Reference Berlyne1970). Similarly, a single definition of creativity is given without discussion of other perspectives, and although aspects of the definition include ideas that are both novel and useful, all subsequent discussion focuses primarily on divergent and convergent thinking as specific processes that can either be considered creativity on their own or together. How one operationally defines the constructs of curiosity and creativity plays a key role in how one uncovers underlying mechanisms. By way of example, uncertainty and knowledge seeking is a core feature of curiosity and, perhaps, divergent thinking. Yet, uncertainty and novelty might not arise from convergent thinking or the homing in on a solution to a problem.

More clarity is also needed when discussing the difference in how processes like exploration and exploitation align with curiosity and creativity. Is information gained from exploration then exploited? Is exploration just curiosity (intrinsically motivated information seeking) while exploitation drives information toward a creative solution to a problem? The same issues arise in the discussion of curiosity as consisting of two types: feelings of general interest (labeled diverse curiosity) and feelings of deprivation (labeled specific curiosity). Perhaps, but this articulation conflicts with recent work that separates general interest from curiosity (see special issue on this in Educational Psychology Review; Peterson & Hidi, Reference Peterson and Hidi2019), and work showing interest-driven curiosity (different from general interest) and deprivation curiosity are related but distinct (Piotrowski, Litman, & Valkenburg, Reference Piotrowski, Litman and Valkenburg2014; Ryakhovskaya, Jach, & Smillie, Reference Ryakhovskaya, Jach and Smillie2022), with only interest curiosity relating to developing an accurate knowledge base through information seeking, whereas deprivation curiosity related to susceptibility to misinformation and errors, and lower knowledge base and intellectual humility (Zedelius, Gross, & Schooler, Reference Zedelius, Gross and Schooler2022). See also the long and robust line of research on epistemic emotions that include important considerations about curiosity (e.g., Pekrun, Reference Pekrun2019; Vogl, Pekrun, Murayama, & Loderer, Reference Vogl, Pekrun, Murayama and Loderer2020). Figure 2 of the target article attempts to add clarity, but sadly leaves the uncertainty about the relationships between these many constructs unclear. An explanation of the distinctions between each of the types of curiosity and creativity discussed is needed, specifically how diversive curiosity differs from divergent thinking and specific curiosity differs from convergent thinking. This muddying of distinctions between constructs is problematic for uncovering underlying mechanisms.

We appreciate the important discussion and the consolidation of research that illuminates the connection between curiosity and creativity in the target article. The general model of moving from broader information seeking to a convergence on a good solution is important to consider in future research. As argued, there are clearly shared processes between curiosity and creativity. Whether novelty seeking is the missing link is less clear. A broader review of the literature that includes work in developmental and educational psychology and better operational definitions of key terms – including clear demarcations of terms like curiosity and the divergent thinking arm of creativity – may suggest otherwise. Although this is not the first article to link these important constructs, it is an important thesis that deserves serious consideration.