Unlocking creativity with artificial intelligence (AI): Field and experimental evidence on the Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect of human-AI collaboration.
{"title":"Unlocking creativity with artificial intelligence (AI): Field and experimental evidence on the Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect of human-AI collaboration.","authors":"Hsuan-Che Brad Huang","doi":"10.1037/xge0001838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Humans create artificial intelligence (AI), but can AI help humans create? Numerous studies show how AI enhances productivity; however, little is known about creativity-another aspect of performance that requires higher level problem-solving. To understand how AI affects the creative process, I conducted two experiments by assigning 139 business professionals and 319 working adults to collaborate in varying degrees with ChatGPT on an entrepreneurial challenge. In contrast to the well-documented positive correlation between AI usage and productivity and early studies suggesting the same for creativity, the present research shows a Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect: Moderate (vs. low or high) human-AI collaboration increases creative performance. This effect, holding across general creativity rated by human judges (either the crowdsourced public or specific trained individuals), business values by entrepreneurs, and AI-evaluated creativity, is explained by the generation of new diverse ideas (i.e., knowledge diversity) rather than problem restructuring during the brainstorming stage. I further replicate the Goldilocks phenomenon with multisource-multiwave surveys among workers in the creative industries (<i>N</i> = 188). Overall, these findings provide timely insights to the broader public regarding the effective approach to working with AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in daily and professional life. This research emphasizes the importance of striking the right balance-not too little, not too much-when working with AI technologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001838","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Humans create artificial intelligence (AI), but can AI help humans create? Numerous studies show how AI enhances productivity; however, little is known about creativity-another aspect of performance that requires higher level problem-solving. To understand how AI affects the creative process, I conducted two experiments by assigning 139 business professionals and 319 working adults to collaborate in varying degrees with ChatGPT on an entrepreneurial challenge. In contrast to the well-documented positive correlation between AI usage and productivity and early studies suggesting the same for creativity, the present research shows a Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect: Moderate (vs. low or high) human-AI collaboration increases creative performance. This effect, holding across general creativity rated by human judges (either the crowdsourced public or specific trained individuals), business values by entrepreneurs, and AI-evaluated creativity, is explained by the generation of new diverse ideas (i.e., knowledge diversity) rather than problem restructuring during the brainstorming stage. I further replicate the Goldilocks phenomenon with multisource-multiwave surveys among workers in the creative industries (N = 188). Overall, these findings provide timely insights to the broader public regarding the effective approach to working with AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in daily and professional life. This research emphasizes the importance of striking the right balance-not too little, not too much-when working with AI technologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.