We question the perspective that curiosity and creativity stem from a shared novelty- seeking process. We emphasize that creativity has two distinct dimensions: novelty and usefulness, each involving separate cognitive processes. These dimensions may not necessarily mutually reinforce each other. We contend that a more comprehensive model that encompasses the full scope of the creativity construct is needed

Acar, Oguz A.

Fuchs, Christoph

English

King's Research Portal

                       King’s Research Portal  Document VersionPeer reviewed versionLink to publication record in King's Research PortalCitation for published version (APA):Acar, O. A., & Fuchs, C. (Accepted/In press). Novelty-seeking might underlie curiosity and the novelty dimensionof creativity, but not the usefulness dimension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this maydiffer from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you areagain advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyrightowners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research PortalTake down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.Download date: 09. Jan. 20241   NOVELTY-SEEKING MIGHT UNDERLIE CURIOSITY AND THE NOVELTY DIMENSION OF CREATIVITY, BUT NOT THE USEFULNESS DIMENSION   Forthcoming in Behavioral and Brain Sciences   Oguz A. Acar King’s College London, King’s Business School  Christoph Fuchs University of Vienna, Faculty of Business, Economics, and Statistics,     2  ABSTRACT  We question the perspective that curiosity and creativity stem from a shared novelty-seeking process. We emphasize that creativity has two distinct dimensions: novelty and usefulness, each involving separate cognitive processes. These dimensions may not necessarily mutually reinforce each other. We contend that a more comprehensive model that encompasses the full scope of the creativity construct is needed.    3  NOVELTY-SEEKING MIGHT UNDERLIE CURIOSITY AND THE NOVELTY DIMENSION OF CREATIVITY, BUT NOT THE USEFULNESS DIMENSION  In their article, Ivancovsky, Baror, and Bar (2023, p. 1) posit that curiosity and creativity are “manifestations of the same novelty-seeking process.” Although their proposed novelty-seeking model is thought-provoking, we advocate for a more nuanced perspective that acknowledges the significant differences between the two core dimensions of creativity—novelty and usefulness. We argue that their proposed model may be valid for novelty but its applicability to usefulness is uncertain.   Central to the author team’s argument is a shared cognitive and motivational basis for curiosity and creativity. However, prior research has documented substantial differences in terms of how identical cognitive and motivational constructs affect novelty and usefulness (e.g., Acar, 2018; Baas, De Dreu, & Nistad, 2008; Mehta & Zhu, 2016; Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). For example, Miron-Spektor and Beenen (2015) found that learning achievement goals, likely common among many curious individuals (as discussed in Ivancovsky et al.), drive novelty, through increased cognitive flexibility, but not usefulness. In contrast, performance achievement goals drive usefulness through cognitive closure, but not novelty.   Ivancovsky and colleagues seek to resolve this issue by distinguishing between two forms of curiosity—diversive and specific—and connecting (i) novelty to diversive curiosity, exploration, and divergent thinking, and (ii) usefulness to specific curiosity, exploitation, and convergent thinking. While potentially promising, this perspective raises several issues. First, 4  the empirical foundation for these proposed connections is not sufficiently established. Second, the theoretical rationale behind connecting specific curiosity to other constructs remains unclear. For instance, it is unclear how specific curiosity aligns with convergent thinking, which requires accuracy, logic, and risk aversion (Cropley, 2006)—qualities that typically contradict novelty-seeking. It is also unclear why specific curiosity should be more closely connected to exploitation rather than exploration. Third, since creativity entails both novelty and usefulness, it is implied that both diversive and specific curiosity must coexist in creative pursuits, raising questions about whether this can consistently be the case. These issues do not directly refute the authors' propositions but highlight the need for a more precise theoretical development and stronger empirical evidence.  Furthermore, we question whether the authors’ portrayal of novelty and usefulness as mutually reinforcing represents the entire body of creativity literature. Notably, Miron-Spektor and Erez (2017), whom the authors cite to support their perspective, later state that "novelty and usefulness also derive from distinct, incongruent psychological processes” (p. 7). In fact, a considerable body of research suggests that novelty and usefulness are inherently incompatible and may even be negatively correlated (e.g., Diedrich, Benedek, Jauk, & Neubauer, 2015; McCarthy, Chen & McNamee, 2018; Paletz & Peng, 2008; Runco & Charles, 1993; Steele, Hardy, Day, Watts, & Mumford, 2021; Sullivan & Ford, 2010). For example, Diedrich et al. (2015) found strong and significant negative correlations between novelty and usefulness across two different tasks (rs = -.55 & -.48; ps < .01). It is therefore not surprising that individuals frequently struggle to reconcile these two dimensions, sometimes even perceiving them as contradictory (e.g., Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010; Zhou et al., 2019)—while individuals often appreciate useful ideas, they tend to be negatively biased against novel ones (e.g., Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2012). A major strand of 5  creativity research does not perceive the connection between novelty and usefulness as 'paradoxical,' nor does it assert that they are mutually reinforcing; instead, this body of research regards these two dimensions as independent contributors to creativity (see Harvey and Berry, 2023, for a review of different perspectives on how usefulness and novelty are related).   Importantly, there are reasons to expect that novelty-seeking might be unrelated to, or even detrimental to, usefulness. Curious individuals might have a higher motivation to maximize the creation of novel experiences, rather than focusing on what is appropriate or valuable in a given context. In essence, curiosity might encourage creating novel solutions which might come at the expense of producing useful content. This perspective aligns with motivational accounts of creativity. Amabile (1996), for example, suggests that curiosity and interest, which are components of intrinsic motivation, are crucial in the initial creative phase but become less dominant in later stages, where an idea's usefulness often determines its creative value. Moreover, after reviewing a diverse set of empirical studies, Grant and Berry (2011) concluded that intrinsic motivation drives the generation of novel ideas but not necessarily useful ones. They also referred to an early study by Barron (1936), which demonstrated that many intrinsically motivated architects struggled to produce creative outputs because they prioritized the novelty of their designs over their practicality. This argument is also consistent with empirical research showing that individuals with a strong motivation to acquire new knowledge generate less useful solutions to innovation problems (Acar, 2019).   In conclusion, while the authors’ novelty-seeking model presents an interesting perspective on the relationship between curiosity and creativity, it may not sufficiently account for the complexity of the creativity construct. This line of argumentation aligns with the views of 6  other creativity scholars who, recognizing this complexity, have suggested that the generation of creative outcomes requires multiple processes and components (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Baas et al., 2008; Batey & Furnham, 2006; Gruys, Munshi, & Dewett, 2011). We believe that the applicability of the proposed novelty-seeking model may be more suited to domains where usefulness is less of a priority, such as artistic creativity. We also believe that a more nuanced model that recognizes the distinction between novelty and usefulness is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of the creative processes in various domains.     7  REFERENCES Acar, O. A. (2019). Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation. Research Policy, 48(8), 103716. Acar, O. A. (2018). Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: Money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing. Marketing Letters, 29(2), 177-188. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. New York: Westview. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779. Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personality vitality and creative freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Batey, M.,  & Furnham A. (2006) Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355-429 Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404. Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96. Gruys, M. L., Munshi, N. V., & Dewett, T. C. (2011). When antecedents diverge: Exploring novelty and value as dimensions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 132-137. 8  Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W. (2023). Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: How novelty and usefulness shape creativity. Academy of Management Review, 48(3), 504-529. Ivancovsky, T., Baror, S., & Bar, M. (2023). A shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-61. Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. American Psychologist, 55, 1105-1116. Mehta, R., & Zhu, M. (2016). Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 767-782. McCarthy, M., Chen, C. C., & McNamee, R. C. (2018). Novelty and usefulness trade-off: Cultural cognitive differences and creative idea evaluation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 171-198. Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53-65. Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (2017). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: Deeper understanding and new insights. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, A. Langley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (pp. 434–451), Oxford Handbooks Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13-17. Paletz, S. B., & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 286-302. 9  Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 47-68. Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546. Steele, L. M., Hardy, J. H., Day, E. A., Watts, L. L. & Mumford, M. D. (2021). Navigating Creative Paradoxes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15 (1), 149-164. Sullivan, D. M., & Ford, C. M. (2010). The alignment of measures and constructs in organizational research: The case of testing measurement models of creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 505-521. Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Bavato, D., Tasselli, S., & Wu, J. (2019). Understanding the receiving side of creativity: A multidisciplinary review and implications for management research. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2570-2595.    

Novelty-seeking might underlie curiosity and the novelty dimension of creativity, but not the usefulness dimension

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/240087256/Acar_and_Fuchs_2024_Novelty-seeking_might_underlie_curiosity_and_the_novelty_dimension_of_creativity_but_not_the_usefulness_dimension.pdf

Novelty-seeking might underlie curiosity and the novelty dimension of creativity, but not the usefulness dimension

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

King's Research Portal