Cited by 31Psychological and Educational Research StudiesCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Capturing, clarifying, and consolidating the curiosity-creativity connection

Open access
Koutstaal, Wilma, Kedrick, Kara, Gonzalez-Brito, Joshua·2022·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The cognitive-motivational concepts of curiosity and creativity are often viewed as intertwined. Yet, despite the intuitively strong linkage between these two concepts, the existing cognitive-behavioral evidence for a curiosity-creativity connection is not strong, and is nearly entirely based on self-report measures. Using a new lab-based Curiosity Q&A task we evaluate to what extent behaviorally manifested curiosity—as revealed in autonomous inquiry and exploration—is associated with creative performance. In a preregistered study ( N = 179) we show that, as hypothesized, the novelty of the questions that participants generated during the Curiosity Q&A Task significantly positively correlated with the originality of their responses on a divergent-thinking task (the conceptually-based Alternative Uses Task). Additionally, the extent to which participants sought out information that was implicitly missing in the presented factual stimuli ("gap-related information foraging") positively correlated with performance on two predominantly convergent-thinking tasks (the Remote Associates Task and Analogy Completion). Question asking, topic-related information foraging, and creative performance correlated with trait-based "interest-type" curiosity oriented toward exploration and novelty, but not with "deprivation-type" curiosity focused on dispelling uncertainty or ignorance. Theoretically and practically, these results underscore the importance of continuing to develop interventions that foster both creative thinking and active autonomous inquiry.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-19694-4

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Remote Associates Test (RAT) is widely used in prior research for measuring convergent thinking.

    “We selected this task due to its widespread use in prior research [16,34], and its compatibility with LLMs.”

    From Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction identifies the Remote Associates Task as an assessment that predominantly calls on convergent thinking, and the Methods describe its use in this study. The paper does not establish that the RAT was widely used in prior research; its statements that a task was often or extensively used refer to the Alternative Uses Task. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koutstaal, W., Kedrick, K., & Gonzalez-Brito, J.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Koutstaal, Wilma
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2022-09-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
15300-15300
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4295250390
Cited by
31
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
curiosity, creativity, autonomous inquiry, information foraging, questioning, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, remote associates task, alternative uses task, creativity interventions
MeSH terms
Creativity, Exploratory Behavior, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review