Ovid: Kashdan: Am Psychol, Volume 57(5).May 2002.373

¹University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

²Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd B. Kashdan, Box 604110, Park Hall, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. Electronic mail may be sent to kashdan@acsu.buffalo.edu.

The labor of love aspect is important. The successful scientists often are not the most talented, but the ones who are just impelled by curiosity “italics added”. They've got to know what the answer is. (Schawlow, as quoted in Amabile, April 2001, p. 335)

Pauling had the intense curiosity “italics added” and abiding love of science needed to fuel long, hard work. (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, April 2001, pp. 337–338)

Curiosity appears to be a fundamental motive in facilitating industry and creativity. Writers, artists, inventors, scientists, and others engaged in the creative process often refer to curiosity to describe the compelling psychological need to work at their craft. Without curiosity, the act of pursuing success, eminence, and creativity is not enough to motivate an individual to consistently maintain 10-, 12-, or even 16-hour workdays at the expense of developing balance between work and other life roles (see the lucid description of Thomas Young's lack of relationship devotion in Martindale, April 2001, p. 344). This is because eminence and creativity are not the result only of individuals but of the receptivity of the social milieu to the novelty and adaptivity of ideas (see, e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Although individuals may be effused with self-confidence, domain-relevant and creativity-relevant processes (Amabile, 2001), and the belief that their work will have a potent impact, there will always be gatekeepers who determine if manuscripts get published, if artwork will be presented at galleries, and so on. We therefore expand on Amabile's (2001) refreshing motivational approach to creativity. Specifically, we characterize curiosity as a self-regulatory mechanism that facilitates intrinsic goal effort, perseverance, personal growth, and, under the right conditions, creativity.

With the advent of multidimensional models of creativity, one is immediately struck by the likelihood of positive feedback loops between different intraindividual constructs. For example, as one develops greater expertise and talent in a specific domain, one is likely to find domain-relevant activities to be more positively reinforcing, thus facilitating goal effort and perseverance. Alternatively, individuals reporting intrinsic interest in a domain are likely to report relevant activities as more satisfying, more relevant to their present and future well-being, and thus, central to their sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The reinforcing value of being a competent, contributing member to a domain may be reducible to an evolutionary-based motivation for personal growth (Aron & Aron, 1997). Across the life span, individuals seek to expand themselves by gaining knowledge, information, wisdom, relationships, and a better understanding of where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The personal growth motive manifests as the pursuit, integration, and creation of novel ideas, feelings, and experiences. An important step in advancing the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of creativity is a coherent theory integrating emotions, behaviors, and, as Amabile (2001) noted, motivation. It seems likely that the self-regulating mechanism of curiosity is important for explaining the link between personality traits, life experiences (e.g., crystallizing mentor relationships), and the development of creativity-relevant skills and creative outcomes.

The emotional–motivational state of curiosity is associated with actively acquiring information to create, maintain, and/or resolve meaningful perceptual conflicts or gaps in knowledge (e.g., Kashdan, 2002). Curiosity energizes the allocation of personal resources toward goal-directed activities that are intrinsically rewarding irrespective of other outcomes. This includes learning the rules of a domain (e.g., through advanced schooling, long hours of practice) and transforming boring activities into exciting ones by changing perspectives, altering rules, and taking risks (e.g., writing an autobiography assignment by reversing the order of events such that one begins with the present and works backward to birth). Curiosity is the prerequisite for exploring the environment and the self (e.g., ideas, emotions), thus leading to the attainment and integration of novel perspectives and experiences (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2001). If the wellsprings of creativity are the fusion of previously disparate ideas and concepts (Martindale, 2001), then the more ideas, categories, and/or domains accumulated and integrated by an individual, the greater the likelihood of finding novel or creative links among them.

In summary, systematic investigation of the role of curiosity in the development of creative cognitive processes, creative personalities, and the production of creative works is urgently needed. From the little child spending hours drawing an intricate picture of a colony of humans living in space to the computer engineer forgoing food and sleep to complete an interactive Web site where users can safely experience the inside of a tidal wave, curiosity and creativity resonate as interrelated constructs. We are not suggesting that high curiosity leads directly to high creativity but that high curiosity is necessary, though not sufficient, for creativity. There are many unanswered questions about the biopsychosocial mechanisms that facilitate and constrain curiosity and creativity. Why do individuals gravitate toward certain disciplines and not others? For highly curious individuals, what predicts creative compared with noncreative work? What are the consequences of channeling the majority of one's resources into a single domain (e.g., as in the life of Thomas Young; see Martindale, 2001) as opposed to multiple life domains? What role do gene–environment interactions play? With the advent of continual psychometric improvements in the theoretical underpinnings and measurement of curiosity (Kashdan, 2002) and creativity, psychologists can begin to formulate and test cohesive theories of the multifaceted pathways to creativity.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1997). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 251–270). New York: Wiley. [Context Link]

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and the person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press. [Context Link]

Kashdan, T. B. (2002). Curiosity and interest. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Values in Action (VIA) classification. Manuscript in preparation. [Context Link]

Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory: Theoretical basis and construct validation. Manuscript submitted for publication. [Context Link]

Ryan, R. L., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [PsycINFO Link] [Context Link]