Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T21:03:22.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Oguz A. Acar Open the ORCID record for Oguz A. Acar [Opens in a new window]  and
Christoph Fuchs
Oguz A. Acar*
Affiliation:
King's Business School, King's College London, London, UK oguz.acar@kcl.ac.uk https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/oguz-a-acar
Christoph Fuchs
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business, Economics, and Statistics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria christoph.fuchs@univie.ac.at https://marketing.univie.ac.at/ueber-uns/habilitierte/christoph-fuchs/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e90
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acar, O. A. (2018). Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: Money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing. Marketing Letters, 29(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acar, O. A. (2019). Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation. Research Policy, 48(8), 103716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personality vitality and creative freedom. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (2017). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: Deeper understanding and new insights. In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., and Langley, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 434–451). Oxford Handbooks.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar