In a within-subjects ideation study, ideas produced with ChatGPT were more similar to each other across users than ideas produced with a non-AI creativity aid, but there was no difference at the level of the individual user; the authors conclude the effect comes from the model giving different users similar ideas.

SocioLens project,

Claim LD09-SL-C15 (v1.0)

Provenance and status

Claim type: Estimate
Publication status: Eligible for publication, with a qualifier
Verification state: Checked against the primary source. Who checked this claim is not recorded for it; claim checks so far were AI-led, and no person has checked claims against their sources.
Does not license: Effects in larger or non-academic populations
Limitations: Small sample; short sessions; one embedding model; 36 recruited, 3 excluded; exact effect statistics not extracted for this version; participants' country not recorded in the source notes; read in the arXiv version 2 of the Creativity & Cognition 2024 paper; the proceedings version was not read
Source (as cited): Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536
Source type: Peer-reviewed conference paper (recorded as “Peer-reviewed conference paper”)
Institutional position: Independent academic (first author listed as independent; co-authors at Santa Clara University)
Maturity of the evidence: Emerging evidence
Recorded date: 15 October 2026
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern is recorded on its sources.

Sources this version cites

Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536 (Peer-reviewed conference paper)
Read the original

Version

This page shows version v1.0. Its record never changes, even when newer evidence arrives; the site may add a note to the page or withhold a figure not cleared for public use.

This pinned version is also the current version.

Versions: v1.0 · current

Raw record: every recorded field, with its coded values

All 25 canonical Claim fields, verbatim, with the coded values derived from them. The plain-language labels above are read from these.

Claim type (coded): ESTIMATE (as printed: “ESTIMATE”)
Publication status (coded): ELIGIBLE (QUALIFIED) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER”)
Verification state (coded): CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY
Source type (coded): PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
Maturity (coded): EMERGING

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD09-SL-C15	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	In a within-subjects ideation study, ideas produced with ChatGPT were more similar to each other across users than ideas produced with a non-AI creativity aid, but there was no difference at the level of the individual user; the authors conclude the effect comes from the model giving different users similar ideas.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	ESTIMATE	base_types: ESTIMATE
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B — Creative work, writing and ideas	—
5	MATURITY	EMERGING	states: EMERGING
6	SOURCE	Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536	source_ids: SRC-SL-ANDERSON-SHAH-KREMINSKI-CC-2024
7	SOURCE TYPE	Peer-reviewed conference paper	classes: PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic (first author listed as independent; co-authors at Santa Clara University)	—
9	SCOPE	Short divergent-thinking tasks (product improvement, improbable consequences)	—
10	DESIGN	Within-subjects comparison of ChatGPT and a card-based creativity aid (Oblique Strategies)	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	36 participants recruited through mailing lists and social media; 3 excluded, 33 analysed	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	ChatGPT (GPT-3.5, the May and August 2023 releases)	—
13	COMPARATOR	The same participants using the card-based aid	—
14	MAIN RESULT	Group-level semantic similarity higher with ChatGPT; no individual-level difference; ChatGPT users produced more and more detailed ideas but felt less responsible for them	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	Whether homogenization arises from individual fixation or from a shared source	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	Effects in larger or non-academic populations	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Small sample; short sessions; one embedding model; 36 recruited, 3 excluded; exact effect statistics not extracted for this version; participants' country not recorded in the source notes; read in the arXiv version 2 of the Creativity & Cognition 2024 paper; the proceedings version was not read	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	Not applicable	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	Not checked / English	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Not recorded	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	LD-09, D3	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	A larger study varying whether users see what the model typically suggests	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER	state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: QUALIFIED
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-10-15	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: LD-09 (LIVING_DEBATE); D3 (DOMAIN)

The sources as recorded, with their record IDs and coded source types:

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536” → Anderson et al. (2024), “Homogenization Effects of Large…” (SRC-SL-ANDERSON-SHAH-KREMINSKI-CC-2024--v1.0) — Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536; class PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER (explicit public provenance pin)

Cited by Living Debate versions

Individual gain, collective narrowing? Does AI make science, creative work and shared knowledge more alike? (v0.1) LD-09

Cite this page

SocioLens project. (2026, October 15). In a within-subjects ideation study, ideas produced with ChatGPT were more similar to each other across users than ideas produced with a non-AI creativity aid, but there was no difference at the level of the individual user; the authors conclude the effect comes from the model giving different users similar ideas [Claim LD09-SL-C15, version v1.0]. SocioLens. https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c15/v1.0/

@misc{sociolens_ld09_sl_c15_v1_0,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {In a within-subjects ideation study, ideas produced with ChatGPT were more similar to each other across users than ideas produced with a non-AI creativity aid, but there was no difference at the level of the individual user; the authors conclude the effect comes from the model giving different users similar ideas.},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-10-15},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c15/v1.0/}},
  note = {Claim LD09-SL-C15, version v1.0}
}

The link points to this version, whose record never changes. For a finding, cite the original study as well: SocioLens summarizes research and does not replace it.

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 be33db4c7175e15963d8f97bed00676fc2f8df3f984cafc73cd3a9c7ca29ab6d.

Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)

SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C15 v1.0 (v1.0) — written in the SocioLens repository by Project Lead (Claude, AI) on 2026-10-15; no Drive identity exists. Authority: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-09 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-09 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts. Block “ENTRY 15 — LD09-SL-C15” SHA-256 e9d33b37bca99e260db35a4e836087b4a401690f3d24fd174d06269146978a8b; fixture fixtures/authored/claims/LD09-SL-C15--v1.0.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the repository-authored claim fixture version (SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C15 v1.0); the first version of a new Claim of the LD-09 debate
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored claim "SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C15 v1.0" (Project Lead (Claude, AI), 2026-10-15); basis: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-09 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-09 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-SL-ANDERSON-SHAH-KREMINSKI-CC-2024--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 15 — LD09-SL-C15 cites "Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536"; the only field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-SL-ANDERSON-SHAH-KREMINSKI-CC-2024--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Anderson, Shah & Kreminski, “Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation,” ACM Creativity & Cognition 2024, arXiv:2402.01536".