Ivancovsky et al. proposed that curiosity and creativity are processes that are likely to be closely linked. Indeed, we agree that both processes share similar exploration–exploitation mechanisms. Some may argue that there is a primary difference: Creative processes tend to be an exploration–exploitation for internal knowledge representation, whereas curiosity processes focus more on the exploration–exploitation of external information. However, both processes have the critical commonality that they are purported to build up the knowledge, either by seeking information internally or externally.
We have one critical comment, however. The proposed model has a fundamental assumption that novelty seeking is the key element underlying these two processes. In fact, the authors indicated “the underlying motivation of curiosity and creativity is novelty seeking” (target article, sect. 2.6, para. 4). We do not have any objection to the role of novelty seeking in creativity processes. However, we are not sure whether this is the shared view in the research on curiosity. Although curiosity is supported by multiple distinct types of motivation (Kobayashi, Ravaioli, Baranès, Woodford, & Gottlieb, Reference Kobayashi, Ravaioli, Baranès, Woodford and Gottlieb2019), one common view is that curiosity drives people to seek information that reduces uncertainty (Fitzgibbon & Murayama, Reference Fitzgibbon and Murayama2022; van Lieshout, de Lange, & Cools, Reference van Lieshout, de Lange and Cools2021). Uncertainty reduction is distinct from novelty seeking. In fact, people are often curious about the things that they are highly familiar with. In studies on interest in educational psychology, when participants are free to choose topics to learn about, they often opt for subjects they are already knowledgeable in (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, Reference Alexander, Kulikowich and Schulze1994; Fastrich & Murayama, Reference Fastrich and Murayama2020; Tobias, Reference Tobias1994).
Putting it from the knowledge network perspective (Murayama, Reference Murayama2022; Patankar et al., Reference Patankar, Zhou, Lynn, Kim, Ouellet, Ju, Zurn, Lydon-Staley and Bassett2023) people often feel curious when they perceive the potential for adding new edges between semantically close concept nodes. More specifically, people tend to become curious when two concepts are closely related but feel that some important information is missing to connect these two concepts – that is, when people are aware of the knowledge gap (Loewenstein, Reference Loewenstein1994; Patankar et al., Reference Patankar, Zhou, Lynn, Kim, Ouellet, Ju, Zurn, Lydon-Staley and Bassett2023). Consistent with this idea, in studies on curiosity that inform participants about knowledge gaps and ask if they can guess the missing information, curiosity is strongly positively associated with their confidence in their guess (Kang et al., Reference Kang, Hsu, Krajbich, Loewenstein, McClure, Wang and Camerer2009; Metcalfe, Schwartz, & Bloom, Reference Metcalfe, Schwartz and Bloom2017; Singh & Manjaly, Reference Singh and Manjaly2021). In other words, their curiosity was highest when they felt familiar with the answer but could not retrieve it (Litman, Reference Litman2005).
Why? This is because curiosity motivates organisms in a way that efficiently reduces uncertainty, so that organisms can make good predictions about the world and quickly adapt to the environment (Schwartenbeck et al., Reference Schwartenbeck, Passecker, Hauser, FitzGerald, Kronbichler and Friston2019). People are especially keen to fill the knowledge gap of a familiar topic because this missing information is likely to provide a bigger marginal gain in terms of understanding the topic. It is true that curiosity sometimes drives organisms to seek novel information, but this is mostly not because they are novel, but because such novel information often reduces the uncertainty. The goal is different.
We are not sure if this fundamental aspect of curiosity maps onto creativity processes. Creativity involves the capacity to generate an output that is semantically distant from the input or stimuli provided, yet remains meaningful, appropriate, or useful within the context of a given task. In other words, creativity motivates people to take substantial semantic leaps away from the current stimuli and connect the pieces of information that were far apart, while considering the constraints of utility. Uncertainty reduction, or more ultimately, accurate representation of the world does not seem to be the main function of creativity processes.
Note also that this strategic uncertainty reduction in curiosity does not map onto the exploitation (i.e., goal-directed) aspect of exploitation–exploration continuum the authors proposed. In a sense, all curiosity-motivated behavior can be regarded as goal directed (i.e., they serve to efficiently reduce uncertainty), and in fact, curiosity is often characterized as a strategic or “directed exploration” (Jach et al., Reference Jach, Cools, Frisvold, Grubb, Hartley, Hartmann, Hunter, Jia, de Lange and Larisch2023). The distinction between exploitation and exploration is somewhat blurred and arbitrary from the perspective of uncertainty reduction (Murayama, FitzGibbon, & Sakaki, Reference Murayama, FitzGibbon and Sakaki2019), while we agree that the distinction has a heuristics value to understand the phenomenon.
Ivancovsky et al. proposed that curiosity and creativity are processes that are likely to be closely linked. Indeed, we agree that both processes share similar exploration–exploitation mechanisms. Some may argue that there is a primary difference: Creative processes tend to be an exploration–exploitation for internal knowledge representation, whereas curiosity processes focus more on the exploration–exploitation of external information. However, both processes have the critical commonality that they are purported to build up the knowledge, either by seeking information internally or externally.
We have one critical comment, however. The proposed model has a fundamental assumption that novelty seeking is the key element underlying these two processes. In fact, the authors indicated “the underlying motivation of curiosity and creativity is novelty seeking” (target article, sect. 2.6, para. 4). We do not have any objection to the role of novelty seeking in creativity processes. However, we are not sure whether this is the shared view in the research on curiosity. Although curiosity is supported by multiple distinct types of motivation (Kobayashi, Ravaioli, Baranès, Woodford, & Gottlieb, Reference Kobayashi, Ravaioli, Baranès, Woodford and Gottlieb2019), one common view is that curiosity drives people to seek information that reduces uncertainty (Fitzgibbon & Murayama, Reference Fitzgibbon and Murayama2022; van Lieshout, de Lange, & Cools, Reference van Lieshout, de Lange and Cools2021). Uncertainty reduction is distinct from novelty seeking. In fact, people are often curious about the things that they are highly familiar with. In studies on interest in educational psychology, when participants are free to choose topics to learn about, they often opt for subjects they are already knowledgeable in (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, Reference Alexander, Kulikowich and Schulze1994; Fastrich & Murayama, Reference Fastrich and Murayama2020; Tobias, Reference Tobias1994).
Putting it from the knowledge network perspective (Murayama, Reference Murayama2022; Patankar et al., Reference Patankar, Zhou, Lynn, Kim, Ouellet, Ju, Zurn, Lydon-Staley and Bassett2023) people often feel curious when they perceive the potential for adding new edges between semantically close concept nodes. More specifically, people tend to become curious when two concepts are closely related but feel that some important information is missing to connect these two concepts – that is, when people are aware of the knowledge gap (Loewenstein, Reference Loewenstein1994; Patankar et al., Reference Patankar, Zhou, Lynn, Kim, Ouellet, Ju, Zurn, Lydon-Staley and Bassett2023). Consistent with this idea, in studies on curiosity that inform participants about knowledge gaps and ask if they can guess the missing information, curiosity is strongly positively associated with their confidence in their guess (Kang et al., Reference Kang, Hsu, Krajbich, Loewenstein, McClure, Wang and Camerer2009; Metcalfe, Schwartz, & Bloom, Reference Metcalfe, Schwartz and Bloom2017; Singh & Manjaly, Reference Singh and Manjaly2021). In other words, their curiosity was highest when they felt familiar with the answer but could not retrieve it (Litman, Reference Litman2005).
Why? This is because curiosity motivates organisms in a way that efficiently reduces uncertainty, so that organisms can make good predictions about the world and quickly adapt to the environment (Schwartenbeck et al., Reference Schwartenbeck, Passecker, Hauser, FitzGerald, Kronbichler and Friston2019). People are especially keen to fill the knowledge gap of a familiar topic because this missing information is likely to provide a bigger marginal gain in terms of understanding the topic. It is true that curiosity sometimes drives organisms to seek novel information, but this is mostly not because they are novel, but because such novel information often reduces the uncertainty. The goal is different.
We are not sure if this fundamental aspect of curiosity maps onto creativity processes. Creativity involves the capacity to generate an output that is semantically distant from the input or stimuli provided, yet remains meaningful, appropriate, or useful within the context of a given task. In other words, creativity motivates people to take substantial semantic leaps away from the current stimuli and connect the pieces of information that were far apart, while considering the constraints of utility. Uncertainty reduction, or more ultimately, accurate representation of the world does not seem to be the main function of creativity processes.
Note also that this strategic uncertainty reduction in curiosity does not map onto the exploitation (i.e., goal-directed) aspect of exploitation–exploration continuum the authors proposed. In a sense, all curiosity-motivated behavior can be regarded as goal directed (i.e., they serve to efficiently reduce uncertainty), and in fact, curiosity is often characterized as a strategic or “directed exploration” (Jach et al., Reference Jach, Cools, Frisvold, Grubb, Hartley, Hartmann, Hunter, Jia, de Lange and Larisch2023). The distinction between exploitation and exploration is somewhat blurred and arbitrary from the perspective of uncertainty reduction (Murayama, FitzGibbon, & Sakaki, Reference Murayama, FitzGibbon and Sakaki2019), while we agree that the distinction has a heuristics value to understand the phenomenon.
Financial support
This work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Kou Murayama, the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship endowed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research).
Competing interest
None.