The DOI matches its Crossref record.
ChatGPT Decreases Idea Diversity in Brainstorming
Open accessAbstract
Lee and Chung explore how ChatGPT augments human creativity in brainstorming. In a series of experiments, they randomized participants to complete a range of creative challenges, either with or without the help of ChatGPT. These challenges included tasks such as coming up with gift ideas, designing toys from various everyday objects, and repurposing household items. Each participant submitted one idea, which external evaluators rated on multiple creativity dimensions, including innovativeness and usefulness. Across tasks, instructing participants to use ChatGPT enhanced the average creativity of ideas, outperforming web searches and unaided human intuition, with creativity measured as the average of aggregated scores of originality (original, innovative, creative) and appropriateness (practical, effective, useful). These results strengthen the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of LLMs in idea generation, contributing to a rapidly growing literature. However, as we further demonstrate analytically, reliance on ChatGPT for idea generation comes with a significant tradeoff: while enhancing individual ideas' creativity, it reduces the diversity of ideas in a pool of ideas—a critical element for effective brainstorming.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
People who use AI tend to produce more similar outputs compared to their counterparts who do not, an effect shown in a range of contexts involving open-ended output such as product design and short-story writing.
“People who use AI tend to produce more similar outputs compared to their counterparts who do not—an effect that has been shown in a range of contexts involving open-ended output, such as product design [1, 18] and short-story writing [4].”
From The Role of Human Agency in Human-AI Co-Creativity (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Role of Human Agency in Human-AI Co-Creativity
Wu, S. H., Yang, Y., Lee, A. Y., Liebscher, A., Rapuano, K., Niederhoffer, K., & Hancock, J. T. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Creativity and Cognition · doi:10.1145/3803784.3816857
Metadata
- Authors
- Nave, G., Meincke, L., & Terwiesch, C.
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2024-12-10
- OpenAlex
- W4405226672
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, brainstorming, idea diversity, idea generation, creativity, originality, appropriateness, human-AI collaboration
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
