A controversial issue in adolescents: Is the effect of digital games on creative personality traits positive or negative?

AIM: This study aimed to determine the effect of digital games on the creativity of adolescents. METHODS: This study was designed as a cross-sectional study using simple random sampling following the STROBE checklist. It was conducted with 384 adolescents between January and June 2022. Data were collected using the Digital Game Addiction Scale for Children and the Creative Personality Traits Scale. RESULTS: The adolescents were at risk for digital game addiction and had moderate creativity levels. The adolescents who had a male sex, had mothers who received primary education, started playing digital games before the age of 6 years, were using the internet for >5 h a day, had no activity other than playing digital games, and preferred action, adventure, and fighting games had higher digital game addiction levels than the other adolescents. In addition, the male adolescents had higher creativity levels than the female adolescents. There was a significant negative relationship between digital game addiction and creative personality traits among the adolescents. Digital game addiction had a negative effect on creativity. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents are at risk for digital game addiction and have moderate creativity levels. Digital game addiction negatively affects the development of creative personality traits. Interventions should be planned to prevent digital game addiction among adolescents, and adolescents should be guided to increase awareness of the effects of digital games on their creativity.

The role of bipolar disorder and family wealth in choosing creative occupations.

Research in psychology and medicine has linked mental health disorders, and particularly bipolar disorder (BD), to employment in creative professions. Little is known, however, about the mechanisms for this link, which could be due to biology (primarily through a person's genes) or environmental (through socioeconomic status). Using administrative data on mental health diagnoses and occupations for the population of Denmark, we find that people with BD are more likely to be musicians than the population, but less likely to hold other creative jobs. Yet, we also show that healthy siblings of people with BD are significantly more likely to work in creative professions. Notably, people from wealthy families are consistently more likely to work in creative professions, and access to family wealth amplifies the likelihood that siblings of people with BD pursue creative occupations. Nevertheless, family wealth explains only a small share of the correlation between BD and creative employment.

Be curious: Strategic curiosity drives creativity.

Ivancovsky et al. provide a compelling argument for the role of curiosity in creative thinking. We argue that (a) trait-like curiosity is necessary to engage in creative actions and (b) state-like curiosity might be effectively and strategically induced during interventions. Thus, we posit that curiosity works in an agentic and strategic way in strengthening creativity.

A shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity: Response to the commentators.

In our target article, we proposed that curiosity and creativity are both manifestations of the same novelty-seeking process. We received 29 commentaries from diverse disciplines that add insights to our initial proposal. These commentaries ultimately expanded and supplemented our model. Here we draw attention to five central practical and theoretical issues that were raised by the commentators: (1) The complex construct of novelty and associated concepts; (2) the underlying subsystems and possible mechanisms; (3) the different pathways and subtypes of curiosity and creativity; (4) creativity and curiosity "in the wild"; (5) the possible link(s) between creativity and curiosity.

Toward a causal model of curiosity and creativity.

We extend Ivancovsky et al.'s finding on the association between curiosity and creativity by proposing a sequential causal model assuming that (a) curiosity determines the motivation to seek information and that (b) creativity constitutes a capacity to act on that motivation. This framework assumes that both high levels of curiosity and creativity are necessary for information-seeking behavior.

Novelty seeking is neither necessary nor sufficient for curiosity or creativity, instead both curiosity and creativity may reflect an epistemic drive.

Novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient to link curiosity and creativity as stated in the target article. We point out the article's logical shortcomings, outline preconditions that may link curiosity and creativity, and suggest that curiosity and creativity may be expressions of a common epistemic drive.

On the dual nature of creativity: Same same but different?

The creativity literature is replete with dualistic constructs, suggesting shared mechanisms but also tempting overinterpretation of their interrelations. An explicit list of relevant concept associations indicates substantial commonality, yet also exposes certain inconsistencies. Dual-process accounts (A and B is relevant) hold promise in resolving discrepancies to the extent that we understand the relative contributions and conditions of A and B.

Prediction error minimization as a common computational principle for curiosity and creativity.

We propose expanding the authors' shared novelty-seeking basis for creativity and curiosity by emphasizing an underlying computational principle: Minimizing prediction errors (mismatch between predictions and incoming data). Curiosity is tied to the anticipation of minimizing prediction errors through future, novel information, whereas creative AHA moments are connected to the actual minimization of prediction errors through current, novel information.

Is a wandering mind a novelty-seeking mind? The curious case of incubation.

The Novelty-Seeking Model can explain incubation's effect on creativity by assuming an adaptive decision threshold. During an impasse, the threshold for novelty becomes too high and biased to previous neural activity, hindering progress. Incubation "resets" this threshold through attentional decoupling, allowing for spontaneous ideas to emerge from subsequent mind wandering or other activities that attract attention, facilitating progress.

Commentary on creativity and curiosity.

The target article covers a large amount of ground and offers a provocative perspective. This commentary focuses on (a) assumptions, namely that there are discrete stages in the creative process and that novelty and usefulness are inextricable, (b) hidden variables in the creativity-curiosity relationship, and (c) the difference between an explanation of creativity versus a description of influence on it.

Creativity is motivated by novelty. Curiosity is triggered by uncertainty.

Although creativity and curiosity can be similarly construed as knowledge-building processes, their underlying motivation is fundamentally different. Specifically, curiosity drives organisms to seek information that reduces uncertainty so that they can make a better prediction about the world. On the contrary, creative processes aim to connect distant pieces of information, maximizing novelty and utility.

A developmental account of curiosity and creativity.

Ivancovsky et al.'s Novelty-Seeking Model suggests several mechanisms that might underlie developmental change in creativity and curiosity. We discuss how these implications both do and do not align with extant developmental findings, suggest two further elements that can provide a more complete developmental account, and discuss current methodological barriers to formulating an integrated developmental model of curiosity and creativity.

Curiosity is more than novelty seeking.

The novelty-seeking model (NSM) does not offer a compelling unifying framework for understanding creativity and curiosity. It fails to explain important manifestations and features of curiosity. Moreover, the arguments offered to support a curiosity-creativity link - a shared association with a common core process and various superficial associations between them - are neither convincing nor do they yield useful predictions.

Mood regulation as a shared basis for creativity and curiosity.

We extend the work of Ivancovsky et al. by proposing that in addition to novelty seeking, mood regulation goals - including enhancing positive mood and repairing negative mood - motivate both creativity and curiosity. Additionally, we discuss how the effects of mood on state of mind are context-dependent (not fixed), and how such flexibility may impact creativity and curiosity.

Ignoring the role of reiterative processing and worldview transformation leads to exaggeration of the role of curiosity in creativity.

The Novelty-Seeking Model does not address the iterative nature of creativity, and how it restructures one's worldview, resulting in overemphasis on the role of curiosity, and underemphasis on inspiration and perseverance. It overemphasizes the product; creators often seek merely to express themselves or figure out or come to terms with something. We point to inconsistencies regarding divergent and convergent thought.

Beyond novelty: Learnability in the interplay between creativity, curiosity and artistic endeavours.

Using art and aesthetics as context, we explore the notion that curiosity and creativity emanate from a single novelty-seeking mechanism and outline support for the idea. However, we also highlight the importance of learning progress tracking in exploratory action and advocate for a nuanced understanding that aligns novelty-seeking with learnability. This, we argue, offers a more comprehensive framework of how curiosity and creativity are related.

Curious? The relationship between curiosity and creativity is likely NOT novelty.

The target article tackles an important and complicated issue of the underlying links between curiosity and creativity. Although thought-provoking, the target article overlooks contemporary theories and research on these constructs. Consequently, the proposed model is inconsistent with prior research in the developmental and educational fields and would benefit from better specification and clarity around key constructs and processes.

Getting curiouser and curiouser about creativity: The search for a nuanced model.

Ivancovsky et al. propose a novelty-seeking model linking curiosity to creativity. This commentary suggests integrating their work with a stage-based creativity model for additional insights. It also encourages readers to address knowledge gaps identified by the authors, including factors that trigger the pursuit of creative solutions. We aim to refine theory and direct future research to clarify the complex curiosity-creativity relationship.

Computational models of intrinsic motivation for curiosity and creativity.

We link Ivancovsky et al.'s novelty-seeking model (NSM) to computational models of intrinsically motivated behavior and learning. We argue that dissociating different forms of curiosity, creativity, and memory based on the involvement of distinct intrinsic motivations (e.g., surprise and novelty) is essential to empirically test the conceptual claims of the NSM.

Distinct neurocognitive pathways underlying creativity: An integrative approach.

By examining the shared neuro-cognitive correlates of curiosity and creativity, we better understand the brain basis of creativity. However, by only examining shared components, important neuro-cognitive correlates are overlooked. Here, we argue that any comprehensive brain model of creativity should consider multiple cognitive processes and, alongside the interplay between brain networks, also the neurochemistry and neural oscillations that underly creativity.