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.

Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity.

The contemporary art world is conservatively estimated to be a $65 billion USD market that employs millions of human artists, sellers, and collectors globally. Recent attention paid to AI-made art in prestigious galleries, museums, and popular media has provoked debate around how these statistics will change. Unanswered questions fuel growing anxieties. Are AI-made and human-made art evaluated in the same ways? How will growing exposure to AI-made art impact evaluations of human creativity? Our research uses a psychological lens to explore these questions in the realm of visual art. We find that people devalue art labeled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human. We also find that comparing images labeled as human-made to images labeled as AI-made increases perceptions of human creativity, an effect that can be leveraged to increase the value of human effort. Results are robust across six experiments (N = 2965) using a range of human-made and AI-made stimuli and incorporating representative samples of the US population. Finally, we highlight conditions that strengthen effects as well as dimensions where AI-devaluation effects are more pronounced.

Evaluating the Evidence for Enclothed Cognition: Z-Curve and Meta-Analyses.

Enclothed cognition refers to the systematic influence that clothes can have on the wearer's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors through their symbolic meaning. It has attracted considerable academic and nonacademic interest, with the 2012 article that coined the phrase cited more than 600 times and covered in more than 160 news outlets. However, a recent high-powered replication failed to replicate one of the original effects. To determine whether the larger body of research on enclothed cognition possesses evidential value and replicable effects, we performed z-curve and meta-analyses using 105 effects from 40 studies across 24 articles (N = 3,789). Underscoring the marked improvement of psychological research practices in the mid-2010s, our results raise concerns about the replicability of early enclothed cognition studies but affirm the evidential value for effects published after 2015. These later studies support the core principle of enclothed cognition-what we wear influences how we think, feel, and act.