Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving

and creative performance
a, b c
Jay H. Hardy III , Alisha M. Ness , Jensen Mecca
a Oregon State University, United States
b University of Oklahoma, United States
c Shaker Consulting Group, United States

article info

Article history:
Received 21 April 2016
Received in revised form 2 August 2016 Accepted 4 August 2016 Available online xxxx

Keywords:
Epistemic curiosity
Diversive curiosity
Specific curiosity
Creative problem solving
Creative performance
abstract

Anecdotal evidence suggests that curiosity contributes to creative performance. However, empirical work linking curiosity to creativity is surprisingly lacking. To fill this gap, this study
examines the effect of trait epistemic cu-riosity on the creative problem solving process. Participants (N = 122) responded to questionnaires assessing trait curiosity before performing in
a low-fidelity simulation in which they were tasked with solving a complex marketing problem. The quality and originality of the creative solutions were then rated by three independent
coders. Results revealed that diversive curiosity (i.e., epistemic curiosity associated with interest factors) had a positive influence on creative performance—an effect that was fully
mediated by information seeking behavior during early-stage creative problem solving. Furthermore, diversive curiosity positively predicted ratings of both solution quality and
originality beyond established predictors of creative performance (gender, personality, domain expertise, and GMA) and constructs conceptually similar to curiosity (epistemic openness
to experience, need for cognition, and typical intellectual engagement). Specific curiosity (i.e., curiosity associated with depriva-tion factors) was unrelated to both creative problem
solving and creative performance. Implications of these find-ings for theory and practice are discussed.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is hard to deny the power of curiosity as a force for motivating human behavior. Over the course of history, humanity's seemingly un-quenchable desire for
knowledge and discovery has resulted in count-less scientific and cultural advances (Zuss, 2011). The reach of curiosity is vast, spanning across cultural
boundaries, situational con-texts, and even time itself. In recognition of its importance to human be-havior, early theorists conceptualized curiosity as a basic,
homeostatic drive, which operates in a manner similar to that of hunger or thirst (Hebb, 1958; Jones, Wilkinson, & Braden, 1961; Loewenstein, 1994). Motivated
by sources of unresolved novelty in the environment, curios-ity stimulates exploratory behavior, which allows individuals to seek out, resolve, and adapt to
changes in their surroundings (Berlyne, 1966).
Given its central role in the human identity, it is easy to find func-tional applications for curiosity in any context in which novelty and complexity are present.
For example, trait curiosity has been shown to facilitate newcomer adaptation in organizations (Harrison, Sluss, & Ashforth, 2011) and to positively predict
ratings of job performance be-yond the effects of general mental ability (GMA) and personality

Corresponding author at: Oregon State University, College of Business, 352 Austin Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States.
E-mail address: jay.hardy@oregonstate.edu (J.H. Hardy).
(Mussel, 2013). However, aside from the exceptions noted above, the role of curiosity has been largely overlooked within the domain of crea-tive performance on
the job. This fact is surprising, particularly given a robust interest in better understanding how organizations can select and prepare employees to adapt to the
increasingly complex realities of the modern workplace (Baard, Rench, & Kozlowski, 2013; Cascio, 1995; Mussel, 2013).

One area of research that could greatly benefit from an improved un-derstanding of the role of curiosity in organizational life is the literature on creative
problem solving, defined as the production of high-quality and original solutions in response to complex, novel, ill-defined prob-lems (Besemer & O'Quin, 1999;
Christiaans, 2002; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Indeed, curiosity has long been thought of as a key an-tecedent of individual creativity. For instance,
researchers identified cu-riosity as a ubiquitous childhood trait in exceptionally creative people (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997) and anecdotal
evidence suggests a strong link between the insatiable curiosity of entrepreneurs such as Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, and Larry Page and the creativity of their work.
In his writings on the topic, Loewenstein (1994) went as far as to argue that “it would be disturbing not to find a positive interre-lationship [between curiosity and
creativity]” (p.79). Organizations ap-pear to subscribe to this belief as well. A quick search of job postings on job search websites reveal thousands of listings that
include curiosity-based job requirements (e.g., “intellectual curiosity”, “insatiable

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237 231
curiosity”, “a passion for learning”) alongside creativity-based job re-quirements (e.g., “generate creative ideas”, “creative thought process to think outside the box”, “a curiosity for generating creative solutions”). Yet, despite this
interest, empirical research on the curiosity/creative problem solving relationship is rare. As a result, scholars are currently unable to confidently address questions surrounding why, when, and how curiosity influences the creative
problem solving process. This makes it difficult for scholars to provide evidence-based recommenda-tions to decision makers who wish to leverage the curiosity of potential applicants or current employees to develop a more
creative workforce.
Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to develop a better understanding of the influence of trait epistemic curiosity, defined as a collection of traits underlying preferences for knowledge, acquisition, learning, and
1
thinking (Mussel, 2013), on creative performance (i.e., the quality and original of creative ideas) via creative problem solving (i.e. the process mechanisms underlying the creation of creative ideas). Consistent with the broader
literature on curiosity (Berlyne, 1960, 1966; Harrison et al., 2011; Litman & Silvia, 2006), we distinguish between two types of epistemic curiosity, namely, diversive curiosity, which refers to curiosity associated with the interest
to explore unfamil-iar topics and learn something new, and specific curiosity, which refers to curiosity associated with the desire to reduce uncertainty and resolve gaps in one's understanding. We then integrate this typology with a
well-studied, stage-based, process model of creative problem solving (Mumford, Mobley, Reiter-Palmon, Uhlman, & Doares, 1991) to develop predictions regarding precisely how curiosity benefits creative perfor-mance. In doing
so, we argue that diversive curiosity contributes to cre-ative performance by driving individuals to spend more time seeking out and gathering information during the early stages of the creative problem solving process,
information that is then utilized when devel-oping creative solutions and that that specific curiosity contributes pri-marily to late stage creative problem solving via its influence on idea generation. The theoretical model guiding this
work is shown in Fig. 1.

1.1. The influence of curiosity on creative problem solving and creative performance

In their stage-based, process analytic model of creative problem solving, Mumford et al. (1991) argued that the bulk of the production of creative solutions is the end result of a progression through an inten-tional, systematic,
2
and largely cognitive sequence of sub-processes that cumulate to form a high quality and original creative solution. During the early stages of creative problem solving, individuals attempt to de-fine the problem at hand and begin
gathering information relevant to solving that problem (Amabile, 1983). They then progress to middle stages, where they make sense of, select, organize, and reorganize gath-ered information in preparation for use in developing
creative solutions. In the late stages of creative problem solving, individuals take gathered information and generate ideas. They then enter a period of evaluation in which they decide what ideas are the most useful. Only then do
they progress to the implementation of their ideas in the pursuit of cre-ative solutions. We argue that although both diversive and specific curi-osity ultimately benefit creative performance, they will do so through

1 Note that this definition of curiosity focuses on traits relevant to human behaviors di-rected at obtaining knowledge-related information ( Mussel, 2013). In this regard, episte-mic curiosity is distinct from similar constructs such as tolerance of ambiguity ( Norton, 1975) and
sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979), which are concerned with sensations de-rived from perceptual rather than informational stimuli (Berlyne, 1960; Litman & Spielberger, 2003).

2 The process analytic model of creative problem solving described here focuses primar-ily on the conscious, rationale, and cognitive processes underlying the formation of crea-tive ideas. However, Mumford and Gustafson (1988) also acknowledged in their writings that the
synchronizations between conscious and unconscious process character-istic of insight or intuition may also play a role in the creative process. Nevertheless, in the present study, we focus primarily on intentional, systematic, and cognitive processes given that they are more central to
the theoretical mechanisms we argue mediate interplay be-tween curiosity and creativity.
 Creative problem solving
Early stage Late stage

Diversive Information
curiosity seeking Creative
performance
quality
originality
Specific Idea
curiosity generation

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

distinct process mechanisms at different stages within the creative problem-solving process.

1.1.1. Diversive curiosity and information seeking

Individuals high in diversive curiosity are predisposed to seek out novelty because exposure to new information provides them feelings of interest and excitement ( Litman, 2005). Unlike specific curiosity, which is focused on
the reduction of perceived gaps between one's un-derstanding and their current level of competence (Litman & Jimerson, 2004; Loewenstein, 1994), diversive curiosity contributes to a broader form of information seeking behavior
that emphasizes the pursuit of a breadth, rather than depth, in understanding about one's situation. This tendency is well suited to early stage creative problem solving, which requires that individuals gather a wide range of
information rel-evant to the problem that they can use in later stages of creative prob-lem solving to generate and evaluate new ideas. Given the complex, ill-de fined nature of most creative problems (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988),
it is difficult for individuals to say for certain early in the creative process what information will be critical to developing a high quality, original problem solution down the road. Thus, the exposure to a wide range of information
associated with diversive curiosity should prove beneficial to creative performance, because a commitment to informa-tion seeking can help prevent individuals from adopting an overly nar-row focus on a limited subset of
information too early in the creative problem solving process.

Hypothesis 1: Diversive curiosity will be positively related to informa-tion seeking.

Hypothesis 2: Diversive curiosity will be positively related to informa-tion seeking.

1.1.2. Specific curiosity and idea generation

Individuals high in specific curiosity are motivated to reduce feelings of uncertainty by resolving sources of novelty that comprise gaps in their understanding ( Litman & Jimerson, 2004; Loewenstein, 1994). Un-like diversive
curiosity, behaviors associated with specific curiosity are more problem focused, and are dedicated to the reduction rather than proliferation of perceived novelty in one's environment. This more targeted form of exploratory
behavior helps individuals respond to changes in their surroundings, leading to the development of feelings of competence and mastery ( White, 1959). Given its information-pro-cessing emphasis, we expect that the problem-
focused nature of specific curiosity should prove more useful in late-stage rather than early-stage creative problem solving. To be precise, we expect that individuals higher in speci fic curiosity will be more productive during the
initial surge of idea generation, as they will be more motivated to make sense of sources of novelty encountered during earlier stages. Individ-uals who develop more ideas will then perform better in idea evaluation and
implementation stages of creative performance because they will have a broader array of potential solutions from which they can select.

Hypothesis 3: Specific curiosity will be positively related to idea generation.

232 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237

Hypothesis 4: Idea generation during late stage creative problem solving will mediate the relationship between specific curiosity and creative performance.

1.2. Incremental predictive validity of epistemic curiosity

Given that research on epistemic curiosity in the organizational sci-ences is a relatively new area of inquiry ( Harrison, 2012; Harrison et al., 2011; Mussel,
2013), it is important to demonstrate that epistemic curi-osity can provide unique explanatory power beyond that of already established constructs ( Le, Schmidt,
Harter, & Lauver, 2010). According-ly, a secondary goal in the present study was to examine whether scores on Litman and colleagues' epistemic curiosity scales
(Litman, 2005, 2008; Litman & Jimerson, 2004; Litman & Silvia, 2006) could provide in-cremental predictive validity beyond (a) other established predictors of
creative performance and (b) constructs argued to be most conceptually similar to curiosity.

Specifically, we examined the incremental predictive validity of ep-istemic curiosity beyond general mental ability (GMA), domain exper-tise, and
personality. We selected these variables based on prior research supporting the relevance of these constructs to creative prob-lem solving and creative
performance (Dailey & Mumford, 2006; Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Mumford, 2011). In addition, we ex-amined the incremental predictive validity of
epistemic curiosity be-yond constructs demonstrated in the curiosity literature to be most similar to curiosity (Mussel, 2013). These variables included need for
cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992), and personality, particularly the openness to ideas subdimension
of personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mussel, Winter, Gelléri, & Schuler, 2011). In keeping with our theoretical ratio-nale that curiosity has an important
influence on creative performance via creative problem solving, we predict that trait epistemic curiosity will provide incremental predictive validity beyond the
influence of other established predictors of creative performance and conceptually similar constructs.

Hypothesis 5: Epistemic curiosity will emerge as an important predictor of creative performance beyond the influence of GMA, domain exper-tise, the Big 5
personality dimensions, need for cognition, and typical in-tellectual engagement.

2. Method

2.1. Sample, experimental task, and procedures

The sample consisted of 122 undergraduates attending the Universi-ty of Oklahoma (Mage = 19.88, SD = 2.62, Range = 18–39; 86% female). In exchange for
their participation in what they were told was a study of complex problem solving, study participants received credit toward a psychology course research
participation requirement.
After filling out an informed consent form, participants completed a demographics questionnaire and a survey in which they provided a self-report of their
ACT/SAT scores, current GPA, and prior work experience. They then filled out a battery of questionnaires assessing their trait cu-riosity, openness to experience,
need for cognition, and typical intellec-tual engagement.

The experimental task was a computerized low-fidelity simulation involving the development of a marketing plan for a retail chain. This paradigm has been
used successfully in prior research on the creative problem solving process and creative performance and has been found to be well suited to the expertise of an
undergraduate sample (Lonergan et al., 2004; Mecca & Mumford, 2014; Redmond, Mumford,
& Teach, 1993). The simulation began with participants reading an email from their supervisor describing the firm and outlining their new role in the company. In
this description, participants were
informed that they had recently been hired as the head of advertising and that they were to be tasked with the job of developing a marketing strategy that would
increase sales in the company's various locations with a particular emphasis on improving sales figures in the 17– 29 year old demographic. Participants were
given time to review a large packet of materials that provided information relevant to the problem that they could use when developing this plan. Participants
were then allowed to spend as much or as little time as they wanted reviewing these materials.

After indicating that they were finished reviewing the informational packet, participants were asked to generate a list of ideas for a market-ing plan to meet
the company's marketing goals. They were told that this list was intended to be a rough draft and that they did not need to elaborate on their ideas quite yet. Once
the list was complete, partici-pants were asked to come up with an outline of a comprehensive mar-keting plan to be presented to the company's leadership. As
they developed their plan, participants were given the opportunity to look back over the materials they received earlier. Once finished, participants received a final
email from their supervisor acknowledging that the plan had been received and that the supervisor would be in touch in a few days to follow up. Following the
experimental task, participants com-pleted a final battery of covariate questionnaires including a personality adjective checklist and a short survey assessing their
domain-relevant experience and expertise in marketing.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Diversive and specific curiosity

The subdimensions of trait epistemic curiosity were measured using scales developed by Litman and colleagues (Litman, 2005, 2008; Litman
& Jimerson, 2004; Litman & Spielberger, 2003). On these scales, partici-pants were asked to report how they “generally feel” in reference to a series of
statements. Five items assessed diversive curiosity (e.g., “I find it fascinating to learn new information”; α = 0.80) and five items assessed specific curiosity (e.g.,
“I work hard at problems that I feel must be solved”; α = 0.81). Responses were made on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost
always). Evidence for the validity of these measures has been provided by Litman and Spielberger (2003).

2.2.2. Creative problem solving

Information seeking behavior (i.e., early stage creative problem solv-ing) was operationalized as the total number of minutes a participant spent accessing
information relevant to solving the creative task. Idea generation (i.e., late stage creative problem solving) was rated by three independent coders. Speci fically,
coders were instructed to provide counts of idea fluency, defined as the total number of unique ideas the participants listed, and idea flexibility, defined as the total
number of unique categories contained within the participant's listed ideas. Interrater agreement (r wg ) for idea fluency and idea flexibility were 0.87 and 0.75
respectively. These two ratings were found to be strongly related (r = 0.75). Accordingly, we took the average of scores on the flu-ency and flexibility indices to
produce a single idea generation index.

2.2.3. Creative performance

Consistent with the recommendations of Besemer and O'Quin (1999) and Christiaans (2002) and in line with common practice in the broader creativity
literature, the creative performance of each mar-keting plan was evaluated based on the plan's quality and originality using a set of benchmark scales ( Redmond
et al., 1993). Quality was de-fined as the extent to which the creative solution was complete, coher-ent, and useful. Originality was defi ned
as the extent to
which the creative solution was rich, elaborate, and unexpected. To develop these scales, a panel of judges familiar with both
the creativity literature and the creative simulation used in the present study rated a subset of the marketing plans on a 5-point
scale with respect to the above
 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237 233

definitions of quality and originality. Creative solutions that (a) pro-duced means near the low, medium, and high scale points and (b) ex-hibited low standard
deviations were selected as scale anchors. These solutions were then abstracted to reflect critical aspects of quality and originality in respect to the experimental
task.
Next, three doctoral students in an industrial-organizational psy-chology program with expertise in the creativity literature underwent training in which they
were familiarized with the above operational definitions of quality and originality along with the benchmark rating scales to be used in appraising the problem
solutions. They were then provided examples at each level of the rating scale in question and were asked to apply these scales to evaluating a set of sample
problem solutions. Feedback was then provided to the raters and questions relat-ed to applications of the operational de finitions were addressed. Follow-ing
training, each rater independently coded all participant problem solutions using the quality and originality scales. Inter-rater agreement coef ficients (rwg ) for
ratings of solution quality and originality were 0.88 and 0.81 respectively. Similar to prior research on creativity (e.g., Scott, Lonergan, & Mumford, 2005),
evaluations of solution quality and originality were strongly related (r = 0.88).

2.2.4. Control variables

Gender, general mental ability (GMA), domain expertise, and per-sonality were included as covariates in the present study based on prior research supporting
their relevance to creative problem solving and creative performance (Dailey & Mumford, 2006; Lonergan et al., 2004; Mumford, 2011).
GMA was measured using a composite of self-reported GPA and scores on the ACT/SAT. Research by Frey and Detterman (2004) and Koenig, Frey, and
Detterman (2008) supports the construct validity of measures of academic achievement as indicators of GMA.
Domain expertise was measured using a 6-item background data questionnaire based on earlier work by Scott et al. (2005) that assessed participant interest
and involvement in advertising (α = 0.78). This scale included items such as “how often do you think about current ad-vertisement and marketing trends in
commercials, magazine ads, etc.?” and “how likely is it that you will go into advertising or marketing as a career? ” Lonergan et al. (2004) provide evidence
speaking to the con-struct validity of this measure.

The Big-5 subdimensions of personality were measured using Goldberg's (1972) adjective checklist. On this measure, participants were presented with 100
adjectives (e.g., imaginative, active) associat-ed with each of the five major subdimensions of personality (extraver-sion, α = 0.87; agreeableness, α = 0.71;
conscientiousness, α = 0.79; neuroticism, α = 0.78; and openness, α = 0.85) and were asked to in-dicate on a 9-point scale how accurate each adjective is in
describing them (1 extremely inaccurate to 9 extremely accurate).

2.2.5. Traits similar to epistemic curiosity

To enable examination of the incremental predictive validity of epi-stemic curiosity beyond the in fluence of other established and concep-tually similar
constructs, we included three measures in the present study representing the three trait-like variables argued by researchers to be most similar to curiosity —
namely, openness to experience, need for cognition, and typical intellectual engagement (Mussel, 2013).
Openness to experience was measured using Goldberg's 60-item IPIP openness subscale (Goldberg et al., 2006). Similar to the NEO-PI-R, the IPIP openness
to experience scale includes ten items assessing each of the three sub dimensions that comprise perceptual openness to experience (i.e., imagination, artistic
interests, and emotionality;
α = 0.89) and each of the three sub dimensions that comprise episte-mic openness to experience (i.e., adventurousness, intellect, and liberal-ism; α = 0.85). The
use of sub-dimensions was important in this study to account for the heterogeneous nature of openness to experience as it relates to performance in work-related
settings (Mussel et al., 2011). Evidence for the validity of these scales has been provided by
Goldberg (1972) and by Dailey and Mumford (2006) in the domain of creative problem solving.
Need for cognition was measured using Cacioppo and Petty's (1982) original 18-item scale (α = 0.86). On this scale, participants were asked to indicate their
agreement with a series of statements such as “I would prefer complex to simple problems” and “I only think as hard as I have to” (reverse coded) on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Refer to Cacioppo and Petty (1982); Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984), and Marcy and
Mumford (2007) for evidence pertaining to the construct validity of this scale.
Typical intellectual engagement was measured using Goff and Ackerman's (1992) original 13-item scale. For this measure, participants were asked to indicate
how they “generally feel” on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) in reference to state-ments such as “I prefer my life to be
filled with puzzles I must solve” and “when I am concentrating, sometimes it is as if other people just don't exist.” Evidence for the validity of this scale has been
provided by Goff and Ackerman (1992).

2.3. Analytical approach

Observed variable path analysis in MPlus version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010) was used to examine the mediating role of creative problem solving
mechanisms (i.e., information seeking and idea gener-ation) in explaining the relationship between epistemic curiosity and creative performance. Given the
parameter-to-sample size ratio, we de-termined path analysis to be more appropriate in this situation than structural equations modeling (MacCallum, Browne, &
Sugawara, 1996). After identifying the best fitting model, total and specific indirect effects were examined to identify the primary pathways responsible for the
observed effects.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine the incremen-tal validity of scores on the trait curiosity scales for predicting creative performance. In
the first step, control variables relevant to creative problem solving (i.e., gender, GMA, domain expertise, and personality including perceptual openness to
experience) were entered. In the sec-ond step, constructs conceptually similar to epistemic curiosity were entered and the change in variance explained in the
3
second step relative to the first step was examined. In the final step, diversive and specific curiosity were entered and the change in variance explained relative to
the previous two steps was examined. This approach allowed us to examine the proportion of unique variance attributable to epistemic curiosity.

3. Results

3.1. The influence of curiosity on creative problem solving and creative performance

3.1.1. Model comparisons

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities are pre-sented in Table 1. First, the relative fit and parsimony of three plausible alternative models
for explaining the positive relationship between cu-riosity and creative performance were compared using path analysis:
(a) the hypothesized model representing full mediation by creative problem solving processes via information seeking (for diversive curios-ity) and idea
generation (for specific curiosity), (b) an alternative model representing partial mediation by the creative problem solving process-es with a direct effect of
specific and diversive curiosity on creative per-formance, and (c) an alternative model that ignored stage-dependent

3 The IPIP version of the openness scale provided a greater level of detail regarding the sub-dimensions of openness to experience relative to the adjective checklist. Accordingly we elected to use
the IPIP version of the openness scale in these analyses rather than the adjective checklist openness scale. Nevertheless, scores on the two scales were strongly correlated in our sample (r = 0.69),
supporting the convergent validity of the scale scores.
234 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237

Table 1
Means, standard deviation, intercorrelations, and scale reliabilities for predictor and control variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Gender –
2. GMA −.05 –
3. Domain expertise −.07 .01 (.78)
4. Extraversion .09 −.09 .25 (.87)
5. Agreeableness .07 −.11 −.13 .16 (.71)
6. Conscientiousness .16 .06 −.01 .06 .27 (.79)
7. Neuroticism .12 .18 −.03 −.33 −.19 −.17 (.78)
8. Perceptual openness .26 −.03 .10 .27 .03 .14 .10 (.89)
9. Epistemic openness −.12 .15 .10 .23 −.10 −.01 −.07 .48 (.85)
10. Need for cognition −.08 .23 .14 .30 .07 .16 −.20 .29 .61 (.86)
11. Typical int. engagement −.07 .03 .25 .27 −.06 .09 −.08 .31 .55 .57 (.73)
12. Diversive curiosity −.07 .14 .14 .35 .04 .12 −.28 .33 .63 .67 .57 (.81)
13. Specific curiosity −.04 .04 .03 .28 .15 .30 −.12 .15 .23 .47 .46 .54 (.80)
14. Information seeking −.12 −.01 .13 .08 .10 −.04 .03 .04 .20 .20 .18 .25 .05 –
15. Idea generation −.20 .13 .01 −.03 .20 .00 −.02 −.03 .09 .10 .08 .16 .14 .40 –
16. Solution quality −.19 .16 .20 .04 .09 .06 .08 .01 .10 .30 .15 .29 .13 .55 .50 –

17. Solution originality −.23 .21 .16 −.01 .00 .03 .10 −.02 .15 .27 .13 .27 .07 .54 .45 .88 –
M 0.86 0.00 2.26 3.40 3.90 3.72 2.87 3.78 3.16 3.22 2.99 3.26 3.64 7.23 3.02 2.71 2.70
SD 0.35 0.78 0.75 0.82 0.50 0.56 0.65 0.47 0.42 0.51 0.55 0.76 0.70 4.95 1.24 1.11 1.14

Note. Gender coded 0 = male, 1 = female. GMA = General mental ability (standardized composite of participant GMA and scores on the ACT/SAT); Values in parentheses represent scale
score reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach's alpha).
N = 122.
p b .05.
p b .01.

effects of curiosity on creative problem solving (i.e., adding a direct ef-fect of diversive curiosity on late stage idea generation and a direct ef-fect of specific
curiosity on early stage information seeking). Gender, GMA, and domain expertise were included as controls in all three models.

As shown in Table 2, all three models demonstrated good fit. However, neither the partial mediation model nor the alternative model significant-ly improved
2 2
model fit relative to the more parsimonious full mediation model (partial mediation: Δχ (4) = 3.17, p N 0.05; alternative model: Δχ (2) = 1.31, p N 0.05).
Furthermore, none of the unique paths included in the partial mediation and alternate model that were not also included in the hypothesized full mediation model
were statistically significant (i.e., specific curiosity ➔ creative performance; diversive curiosity ➔ creative performance; specific curiosity ➔ information seeking;
diversive curiosity ➔ idea generation). Accordingly, the full mediation model was identified as the best fitting model and was used in further analyses.

3.1.2. Hypothesis tests

In H1 and H2, we predicted that diversive curiosity would be posi-tively related to information seeking and that this early stage creative problem solving
process would mediate the relationship between diversive curiosity and creative performance. Both H1 and H2 were sup-ported. As shown in Fig. 2, diversive
curiosity was positively related to information seeking behavior (B = 1.80, SE = 0.62, t = 2.88, p b 0.01;
β = 0.25). In addition, as shown in Table 3, diversive curiosity had a pos-itive indirect effect via information seeking on ratings of solution quality ( β = 0.13; p b
0.01) and originality (β = 0.13; p b 0.01). In H3 and H4,

Table 2
Fit statistic for hypothesized and alternative path models.
we predicted that specific curiosity would be positively related to idea generation and that this late stage creative problem solving process would mediate the
relationship between specific curiosity and creative performance. Contrary to our predictions, neither H3 nor H4 were sup-ported. Specific curiosity was not
significantly related to idea generation and did not show a significant indirect effect on creative performance.

3.2. Incremental predictive validity of epistemic curiosity

In H5, we predicted that epistemic curiosity would produce incre-mental predictive validity beyond established constructs and constructs that are conceptually
2 2
similar. As shown in Table 4, H5 was supported. Trait epistemic curiosity positively predicted ratings of both quality ( R = 0.06, p b 0.05) and originality ( R =
0.05, p b 0.05) beyond var-iance associated with gender, GMA, domain expertise, personality, epi-stemic openness, need for cognition, and typical intellectual
engagement. However, this effect appeared to be driven primarily by diversive rather than specific curiosity. Diversive curiosity was positive-ly related to ratings
of both quality (β = 0.40, p b 0.01) and originality (β = 0.36, p b 0.01). In contrast, specific curiosity was not related to cre-ative performance.

4. Discussion

As the workplace continues to evolve (Cascio, 1995) and as jobs be-come increasingly dynamic, complex, and nonlinear (Arthur & Rousseau, 2001; Sullivan,
1999), having employees who are actively
2 2
Model χ (df) CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC/BIC Δχ (df)
ns
Hypothesized model (full mediation) 14.67 (16) 0.99 0.00 0.04 1634.14/1707.04
ns ns
Hypothesized model (partial mediation) 11.50 (12) 0.99 0.00 0.04 1638.97/1723.09 3.17 (4)
ns ns
Alternative model (DC ➔ IG; SC ➔ IS) 13.36 (14) 0.99 0.00 0.04 1636.80/1715.32 1.31 (2)
Note. All models include significant correlates of creative performance (i.e., gender, general mental ability, domain expertise, epistemic openness to experience, and need for cognition) as control
variables. DC = diversive curiosity; SC = specific curiosity; IG = idea generation; IS = information seeking; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR
= standardized root-mean residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion. The alternative model was the same as the full me-diation model with two additional
paths, one representing a direct effect diversive curiosity on late stage creative problem solving (i.e., idea generation) and one representing a direct effect of speci fic curiosity on early stage creative
problem solving (i.e., information seeking).
N = 122.
ns
Statistically non-significant.
 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237 235

Creative problem solving Table 4

Early stage Late stage

Diversive .25** Information Q: .40**

curiosity seeking O: .42** Creative
performance
.39** quality
Specific .12 Idea Q: .31** originality
curiosity generation O: .24**

2
Fig. 2. Best fitting model (i.e., the full mediation model): χ (16) = 14.67, p N 0.05; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; SRMR = 0.04. Q = quality; O = originality. N = 122. **p b 0.01.

engaged with and are continuously exploring and adapting to their sur-roundings will become increasingly critical for individual and organiza-tional success
(Baard et al., 2013). For this reason, the role of curiosity, one of our most basic human tendencies, will continue to increase in im-portance in the coming years
(Mussel, 2013). In light of this trend, the purpose of the present study was to develop a better understanding of the role of trait epistemic curiosity as it pertains to
creative problem solving and performance on creative (i.e., complex and ill-de fined) tasks. Collectively, we found that trait epistemic curiosity positively pre-
dicted creative performance, even when controlling for conceptually similar constructs. However, this effect was driven primarily by the less goal-directed,
interest-motivated, diversive curiosity rather than the more targeted, competence-motivated, specific curiosity. In the fol-lowing sections, we discuss what we
believe are the primary theoretical and practical implications of these results.

4.1. Theoretical implications

For years, curiosity researchers placed a greater emphasis on the functional properties of specific curiosity over those of diversive curios-ity (Berlyne, 1960,
1966; Day, 1970; Loewenstein, 1994). The rationale behind this approach is relatively straightforward. Whereas diversive curiosity is described as being aimless
and hedonistic in nature, specific curiosity is characterized as goal-oriented and problem-focused. As a re-sult, exploratory behavior associated with diversive
curiosity is often relegated to the status of an unproductive, or in some cases, a coun-ter-productive byproduct of our natural curious tendencies. For exam-ple,
consider the tone that Loewenstein used in his review when describing Berlyne's (1960, 1966) original typology:

“Specific epistemic curiosity is exemplified by the scientist's search for the solution to a problem, and diversive epistemic curiosity is ex-emplified by a bored
teenager's flipping among television channels.” [(p. 77, Loewenstein, 1994)]

This perspective has been vindicated thus far by the fact that re-searchers have been able to find theoretical utility in specific curiosity as a motivating factor
compelling individuals to resolve perceived limi-tations in their capability (Litman & Jimerson, 2004), particularly given
Summary of hierarchical multiple regression results.

Creativity of problem solution

Step/predictor Quality Originality

1. Controls B SE β B SE β
Gender −.672 .299 −.21 −.809 .306 −.25
GMA .195 .129 .14 .260 .132 .18
Domain expertise .296 .138 .20 .230 .141 .15
Extraversion .055 .140 .04 .031 .143 .02
Agreeableness .324 .211 .15 .123 .216 .05
Conscientiousness .143 .190 .07 .132 .195 .06
Neuroticism .240 .171 .14 .227 .175 .13
Perceptual openness to .028 .228 .01 .022 .234 .01
experience
2
R .13 .13
2. Similar constructs −.042 .259 −.02 −.134 .269 −.06
Epistemic openness to −.346 .341 −.13 −.028 .355 −.01
experience
Need for cognition .817 .269 .38 .650 .280 .29
Typical intellectual −.059 .230 −.03 −.099 .239 −.05
engagement
2
R .21 .18

2
R .08 .05
3. Trait epistemic curiosity
Diversive curiosity .644 .222 .40 .582 .232 .36
Specific curiosity −.208 .164 −.14 −.259 .172 −.17
2
R .27 .23
2
R .06 .05
2
Note. Values represent standardized regression coefficients in the step in which they were entered. Gender coded 0 = male, 1 = female. GMA = General mental ability. R = variance explained in the
2
full model. R = incremental variance explained in the relevant step.

N = 122.
p b .05. p b .01.

the ease with which it can be integrated into control theory perspectives of human behavior (e.g., Hardy, Day, Hughes, Wang, & Schuelke, 2014).
However, the findings of the present study suggest that such a mindset risks overlooking the potential utility of diversive forms of cu-riosity and exploration
when orienting an individual to a situation or problem. This is particularly true in creative problem solving contexts where details regarding the problem at hand
are ambiguous and com-plex. In such an environment, the tendency to spend additional time seeking out a wide range of information, regardless of its immediate
rel-evance, can help bolster the creative problem solving process later on. Indeed, some degree of diversive curiosity may even be necessary for enabling the
creative potential of specific curiosity. Specifically, diversive curiosity primes individuals to adopt a broad focus of attention that facilitates breadth in information
seeking and a cognitive emphasis on global information processing that is fundamental to idea generation. Without a willingness to expand their informational
horizons, individ-uals high in specific curiosity will be limited in their ability to convert creative potential into creative performance. Along these lines, the

Table 3
Indirect effects of curiosity on creative performance.

Quality Originality

Indirect effect SE β Indirect effect SE β

Diversive curiosity total indirect effect .207 .078 .13 .210 .079 .13
DC ➔ information seeking ➔ creative performance .159 .062 .10 .172 .067 .11
DC ➔ information seeking ➔ idea generation ➔ creative performance .049 .023 .03 .038 .020 .02
Specific curiosity total indirect effect .053 .039 .04 .042 .032 .03
SC ➔ idea generation ➔ creative performance .053 .039 .04 .042 .032 .03
Note. DC = diversive curiosity; SC = specific curiosity.
N = 122.
p b .05.
p b .01.
236 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237

findings of the present study suggest that diversive, not specific curios-ity, explains the tendency of curious individuals to spend more time seeking out
information relevant to the creative problem. These findings build upon the work of Harrison et al. (2011) who found that new-comers higher in diversive
curiosity were generally more willing to frame problems they encountered in a more positive manner. We rec-ommend that future researchers continue to apply
Berlyne's taxonomy of curiosity to understanding the implications of different types of curi-osity and exploratory behavior across a wide range of tasks and
contexts.

4.2. Practical implications

The current study contributes to a growing body of evidence (e.g., Harrison et al., 2011; Mussel, 2013) suggesting that there may be utility in including
measures of trait curiosity when selecting new employees, particularly for jobs rich in novelty and complexity. Specifically, the findings of the present study
provide preliminary evidence that trait ep-istemic curiosity can predict creative performance beyond both established predictors of creative performance and
conceptually similar constructs such as epistemic openness, need for cognition, and typical intellectual engagement. The knowledge and goal-oriented nature of
epistemic curiosity that distinguish it from less-goal oriented like toler-ance of ambiguity (Norton, 1975) or sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979) make it a prime
candidate for employee selection. As previously discussed, many organizations already include things like “an insatiable desire to learn” and “a deep intellectual
curiosity” in job descriptions ad-vertising positions ranging from a high level sales associate to an entry-level automotive technician. As measures of curiosity
continue to im-prove, practitioners will be able to begin to better leverage many of the adaptive and information-orienting tendencies that have led hu-manity to
thrive over the course of human history, even in the face of a constantly changing world. Along these lines, an important area of fu-ture research is the continued
evaluation and validation of existing and newly developed measures of curiosity in the contexts of high-stakes testing and evaluation.

4.3. Study limitations

When considering the implications of the present study, it is impor-tant to note certain limitations that constrain interpretations of these findings. To start,
although the present study was based on a classic par-adigm commonly used in research on creative problem solving and in-volved a low- fidelity simulation task
that has been shown to be well suited to the expertise of an undergraduate sample (Lonergan et al., 2004; Mecca & Mumford, 2014; Redmond et al., 1993), the
laboratory nature of the task and sample used in the present study limit our ability to generalize our findings to real-world settings. In addition, given the domain-
specific nature of creative performance (Baer, 2012), there is a need for future research that replicates the present findings in other domains. Finally, although our
data did not support a direct effect of specific curiosity on creative performance, it is possible that specific cu-riosity still might show an indirect effect on the
quality and originality of creative solutions via other creative problem solving mechanisms not examined in the present study. Alternatively, specific curiosity
may work in tandem with diversive curiosity by helping individuals identify what pieces of information are particularly important to retain as they progress
through information seeking stages. Future research should continue to explore the relationship between the dimensions of trait ep-istemic curiosity and creative
problem solving mechanisms.

5. Conclusions

As the workplace becomes ever more complex and dynamic, the role of curiosity as a force for motivating human behavior will become in-creasingly
important as a contributor to individual and organizational
success. The results of the present study suggest that an often overlooked dimension of epistemic curiosity—namely trait diversive ep-istemic curiosity—may
hold potential as a predictor of effective creative problem solving and creative performance. Clearly, research on curiosi-ty holds great potential for advancing
knowledge on the antecedents of human performance. We hope that the present study will inspire future research on this fundamental human characteristic.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualiza- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The boundaryless career: A new employment prin-ciple for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.
Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2013). Performance adaptation: A theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management, 40, 48–99.
Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16–29.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job perfor-mance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, 25–33.
Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cogni-tion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928–939.
Christiaans, H. H. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Communication Research Journal, 14, 41–54.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge University Press.
Dailey, L., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in ap- praising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 385–390.
Day, H. I. (1970). The measurement of specific curiosity. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship be-tween the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373–378.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typ-ical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537 –552.
Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Parameters of personality inventory construction and utilization: A comparison of prediction strategies and tactics. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, 7, 1–59.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of pub- lic-domain personality
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Hardy, J. H., Day, E. A., Hughes, M. G., Wang, X., & Schuelke, M. J. (2014). Exploratory be-havior in active learning: A between- and within-person examination. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 125, 98–112.
Harrison, S. H. (2012). Organizing the cat? Generative aspects of curiosity in organization life. In K. S., & G. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 110–124).
New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, S. H., Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2011). Curiosity adapted the cat: The role of trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 211 –220.
Hebb, D. O. (1958). The motivating effects of exteroceptive stimulation. American Psychologist, 13, 109.
Jones, A., Wilkinson, H. J., & Braden, I. (1961). Information deprivation as a motivational variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 126.
Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability.
Intelligence, 36, 153–160.
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redun- dancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 112, 112–125.
Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new in- formation. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 793–814.
Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1585–1595.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of depri-vation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 147–157.
Litman, J. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: Evidence for inter- est and deprivation curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 318–328.

Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75–86.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.
Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Effects of appraisal and revision standards. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 231–246.
 J.H. Hardy III et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 230–237 237

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determi-nation of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130.

Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 123 –140.
Mecca, J. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Imitation and creativity: Beneficial effects of pro-pulsion strategies and specificity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 209–236.
Mumford, M. D. (2011). Handbook of organizational creativity. Academic Press. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application,
and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27.
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991).
Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91 –122.
Mussel, P. (2013). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 453–472.
Mussel, P., Winter, C., Gelléri, P., & Schuler, H. (2011). Explicating the openness to expe- rience construct and its subdimensions and facets in a work setting. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 19, 145–156.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User's Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607–619.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55,
120–151.
Scott, G., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 79–98.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Management, 25, 457–484.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking. Wiley Online Library.
Zuss, M. (2011). The practice of theoretical curiosity, vol. 20, Springer Science & Business Media.