CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeTeam Dynamics and Performance

“Who” Is the Best Creative Thinking Partner? An Experimental Investigation of Human–Human, Human–Internet, and Human– AI Co‐Creation

Tang, Min, Hofreiter, Sebastian, Werner, Christian H., Zielińska, Aleksandra, Karwowski, Maciej·2025·The Journal of Creative Behavior
DOI 10.1002/jocb.1519
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent research suggests that working with generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, can produce more creative outcomes than humans alone. However, does AI retain its creative edge when humans have access to alternative information sources, such as another human or the internet. We explored this question in a between‐group experiment with 202 German participants across four conditions (human–human dyads, human–Internet, and two human–AI groups with basic or specific instructions) and four creativity tasks (two alternate uses tasks, a consequences task, and a problem‐solving task). Results showed that the human–human condition obtained higher creativity scores in the divergent thinking tasks than the remaining groups. No significant between‐group differences were observed in the problem‐solving task. Moreover, interacting in human dyads made people more creatively confident, an effect not observed in the other groups. In addition, we compared human‐rated outcomes with AI‐based automated scoring (Ocsai). Interestingly, notable discrepancies emerged between the AI assessment and the human‐judged results, raising concerns about AI's susceptibility to “elaboration bias.” These findings highlight the benefits of human collaboration for creativity and call for further studies about the reliability and potential biases of AI in evaluating creative performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jocb.1519

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Human collaboration still holds unique value in terms of emotional support, creative motivation, and shared sense of accomplishment.

    “Although AI has demonstrated significant advantages in many areas, human collaboration still holds unique value in terms of emotional support, creative motivation, and shared sense of accomplishment (Tang et al., 2024; McGuire et al., 2024).”

    From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2024

  • Participants collaborating with AI did not experience significant increases in creative confidence or creative motivation, in stark contrast to those collaborating with humans.

    “Additionally, Tang et al. (2024) found that participants collaborating with AI did not experience significant increases in creative confidence or creative motivation, in stark contrast to those collaborating with humans.”

    From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2024

  • Tang et al. (2024) examined the impact of human-AI co-creation on creative quality, and Huang et al. (2024) explored trust and acceptance in human-AI collaboration.

    “For instance, Tang et al. (2024) examined the impact of human–AI co-creation on creative quality, and Huang et al. (2024) explored trust and acceptance in human–AI collaboration.”

    From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tang, M., Hofreiter, S., Werner, C. H., Zielińska, A., & Karwowski, M.
Affiliations
  • Hochschulinstitut Schaffhausen (CH)
  • University of Applied Management (DE)
  • University of Wrocław (PL)
Corresponding author
Hofreiter, Sebastian
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Creative Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-12-10
Volume
59
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0022-0175 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-6057
DOI
10.1002/jocb.1519
OpenAlex
W4405261195
Semantic Scholar
3300d445c9b673fde9e565a31f444c78742caacc
Cited by
32
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 11
FWCI
13.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
The Journal of Creative Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
human-AI co-creation, generative AI, ChatGPT, human-human collaboration, divergent thinking, creative problem solving, creative confidence, alternative uses task

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