We read the paper by Ivancovsky et al. on the interplay between curiosity, creativity, and novelty seeking with great interest. The authors’ efforts to synthesize these complex constructs into a cohesive, biologically informed framework are both ambitious and praiseworthy. Intuition suggests curiosity and creativity are linked (Loewenstein, Reference Loewenstein1994) and scholars have written about and examined their interconnection in the past (Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi2014; Hardy, Ness, & Mecca, Reference Hardy, Ness and Mecca2017; Kaufman & Gregoire, Reference Kaufman and Gregoire2016). However, few attempts have been made to integrate these constructs into a single, coherent theory (Litman, Reference Litman2005). Ivancovsky et al. advance the discourse by proposing that curiosity and creativity share a complementary and dynamic relationship that contributes significantly to human innovation. Their novelty-seeking model (NSM) opens new avenues for further scholarly inquiry into this complex but important topic.

Here, we suggest four ways to extend their contribution: (1) Situate the NSM within a stage-based process model of creativity; (2) dive deeper into how different forms of curiosity and creativity are related; (3) further explore conditions that trigger the search for creative solutions; and (4) account for empirical evidence that curiosity and creativity are only weakly related.

Elucidating the complex interplay between curiosity and creativity is a main contribution of the paper. The authors point out a key benefit of curiosity is that it equips individuals with a vast and varied knowledge base, alongside robust general problem-solving skills. These advantages are developed through repeated practice and are often established long before a person faces any particular creative challenge. But curiosity not only fosters a useful knowledge base and the development of general skills, it also enhances an individual's ability to notice when unconventional solutions are needed and can initiate the search for solutions (creative or otherwise). That is, the authors’ work strongly suggests curiosity influences creativity through multiple channels, some more studied than others: Curiosity lays the groundwork for creative thinking with the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Anderson, Dixson, Monroy, & Keltner, Reference Anderson, Dixson, Monroy and Keltner2020); it impacts whether an individual will seek out a problem and how they frame it (Harrison, Sluss, & Ashforth, Reference Harrison, Sluss and Ashforth2011); it predicts the ability to generate innovative solutions (Dailey & Mumford, Reference Dailey and Mumford2006; Hardy et al., Reference Hardy, Ness and Mecca2017); it affects how deeply individuals engage with problems and how solutions are evaluated (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, Reference Lonergan, Scott and Mumford2004; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, Reference Mueller, Melwani and Goncalo2012); it impacts when and how one seeks feedback on creative ideas (Harrison & Dossinger, Reference Harrison and Dossinger2017) and how one handles rejection (Kawamoto, Ura, & Hiraki, Reference Kawamoto, Ura and Hiraki2017); and it predicts persistence on challenging tasks (Lauriola et al., Reference Lauriola, Litman, Mussel, De Santis, Crowson and Hoffman2015). Given the many pathways by which curiosity impacts creativity, integrating the NSM and a stage-based process model (Hardy et al., Reference Hardy, Ness and Mecca2017; Lubart, Reference Lubart2001; Mumford, Mobley, Reiter‐Palmon, Uhlman, & Doares, Reference Mumford, Mobley, Reiter‐Palmon, Uhlman and Doares1991) might offer a comprehensive approach to predicting who naturally excels in creative endeavors, under what conditions, and how to cultivate creativity more broadly.

Another way to extend Ivancovsky et al.'s work is to dive deeper into how various forms of curiosity and creativity are related. Depth-curiosity – also known as epistemic or deprivation curiosity – is the drive to gain a deeper understanding of a subject. It's a compulsion to acquire additional information to reduce uncertainty and alleviate frustration. Conversely, breadth-curiosity – also referred to as interest or diversive curiosity – is the drive to seek diverse stimuli simply because the exploration itself is stimulating or pleasurable (Berlyne, Reference Berlyne1960, Reference Berlyne1966; Harrison et al., Reference Harrison, Sluss and Ashforth2011; Litman & Silvia, Reference Litman and Silvia2006). These forms of curiosity are evident across cultures (Karandikar, Kapoor, & Litman, Reference Karandikar, Kapoor and Litman2021) and life stages (Piotrowski, Litman, & Valkenburg, Reference Piotrowski, Litman and Valkenburg2014), and contribute to the creative process at distinct stages and in unique ways. For instance, depth curiosity may lead to the development of expertise and enhanced problem-solving skills (Harrison et al., Reference Harrison, Sluss and Ashforth2011; Lydon-Staley, Zhou, Blevins, Zurn, & Bassett, Reference Lydon-Staley, Zhou, Blevins, Zurn and Bassett2021; Zhou, Xiao, & Zhang, Reference Zhou, Xiao and Zhang2020), both of which are known to benefit the creative process (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, Reference Scott, Leritz and Mumford2004). Likewise, because breadth-curiosity is associated with broad information gathering, it is more critical to amassing the wide array of information and experiences that can be instrumental in making remote associations. Integrating a clearer distinction between these curiosity types into a theoretical model could clarify their unique contributions to creativity, help resolve conflicting findings in the literature, and guide future thinking as researchers further articulate the brain networks that subserve this dynamic. Addressing these nuances could also enhance the predictive power of curiosity in creative problem solving by providing a clearer framework for when and why each form of curiosity is beneficial.

Another noteworthy aspect of the paper is its preliminary exploration of the factors that encourage individuals to seek innovative solutions or, alternatively, that make such pursuits seem daunting or unnecessary. Research into what compels an individual to pursue a novel approach to a problem rather than default to a tried and tested solution is scant. Scholarly efforts have largely focused on identifying the traits of highly creative individuals (Amabile, Reference Amabile1996; Feist, Reference Feist, Kaufman and Sternberg2019; Kandler et al., Reference Kandler, Riemann, Angleitner, Spinath, Borkenau and Penke2016); we understand comparatively little about the circumstances that prompt an individual, whether typically creative or not, to innovate rather than settle for a standard or routinized approach. The paper's efforts to identify the conditions under which people self-initiate creative pursuits highlight areas ripe for further research.

Finally, the paper raises an intriguing paradox: If curiosity and creativity are deeply intertwined, why do empirical studies observe only modest correlations between the two? Correlations in past research are less straightforward than theory would suppose. For example, the recent meta-analysis (Schutte & Malouff, Reference Schutte and Malouff2020) cited by the authors found curiosity and creativity to only be weakly related once self-report measures of creativity were discounted (e.g., r = 0.16). Furthermore, a frequent refrain in curiosity research is that not all forms of curiosity contribute to creativity equally (Hardy et al., Reference Hardy, Ness and Mecca2017; Harrison et al., Reference Harrison, Sluss and Ashforth2011; Koutstaal, Kedrick, & Gonzalez-Brito, Reference Koutstaal, Kedrick and Gonzalez-Brito2022; Whitecross & Smithson, Reference Whitecross and Smithson2023). These findings imply a complex interplay deserving of closer scrutiny. Which types of curiosity are more essential to creativity, at which stage in the process, and under what conditions? This puzzle reinforces the need for a nuanced, stage-based model to delineate the various curiosity–creativity interactions and provide a structured approach for future research in this domain.