Reading violent stories or watching a war documentary are examples in which people voluntarily engage with the suffering of others whom they do not know. Using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated why people make these decisions, while also mapping the characteristics of strangers’ suffering to gain a rich understanding. In Study 1 (N = 247), participants described situations of suffering and their reasons to engage with it. Using qualitative thematic analysis, we developed a typology of the stranger (who), the situation (...) (what), the source (how), and the reason(s) for engaging with the situation (why). We categorised the motives into four overarching themes – epistemic, eudaimonic, social, and affective – reflecting diversity in the perceived functionality of engaging with a stranger’s suffering. Next, we tested the robustness of the identified motives in a quantitative study. In Study 2, participants (N = 250) recalled a situation in which they engaged with the suffering of a stranger and indicated their endorsement with a variety of possible motives. Largely mirroring Study 1, Study 2 participants engaged to acquire knowledge, for personal and social utility, and to feel positive and negative emotions. We discuss implications for understanding the exploration of human suffering as a motivated phenomenon. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

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.

The Novelty Seeking Model (NSM) places “novelty” at center stage in characterizing the mechanisms behind curiosity. We argue that the NSM's conception of novelty is too broad, obscuring distinct constructs. More critically, the NSM underemphasizes triggers of curiosity that better unify these constructs and that have received stronger empirical support: those that signal the potential for useful learning.