Enhancing creativity and collaboration in data science: the impact of artificial intelligence-augmented brainstorming
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2026.22135Abstract
As artificial intelligence continues to permeate various aspects of creativity, its influence on data science expands, especially in situations where innovative thinking is essential for interpreting complex data and generating actionable insights. This study examines how ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence tool, impacts brainstorming dynamics among data science students. Utilizing a mixed-method approach, we investigate the effects of artificial intelligence augmentation on participants’ satisfaction, as well as the social and cognitive dimensions of brainstorming. Our findings show that artificial intelligence-assisted group sessions significantly boost self-perceived creativity and satisfaction compared to traditional group and nominal individual techniques, particularly benefiting individuals with social low-anxiety. However, artificial intelligence-assisted sessions showed a tendency towards free-riding, with participants relying more on artificial intelligence than their peers for idea generation. This study highlights the need for strategies to mitigate free-riding and ensure balanced contributions in human–artificial intelligence collaborations. The implications of these findings are profound for designing effective brainstorming sessions in educational and corporate environments, suggesting that artificial intelligence, when thoughtfully integrated, can significantly enhance creativity and collaborative efforts.
Keywords:
artificial intelligence-augmented brainstorming, collaborative creativity, design thinking in data science, free-riding in hybrid teams, generative artificial intelligence, human–artificial intelligence collaborationHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Akata, Z., Balliet, D., Rijke, de M., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Eiben, G., Fokkens, A., Grossi, D., Hindriks, K., Hoos, H., Hung, H., Jonker, C., Monz, Ch., Neerincx, M., Oliehoek, F., Prakken, H., Schlobach, S., Gaag, van der L., Harmelen, van F., Hoof, van H., Riemsdijk, van B., Wynsberghe, van A., Verbrugge, R., Verheij, B., Vossen, P., & Welling, M. (2020). A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: Augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(8), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2996587
Barnett, P. J., & Romeike, R. (2017). Creativity within computer science. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu, & J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity across domains (pp. 299–322). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.017
Benbasat, I., & Lim, L.-H. (1993). The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables on the usefulness of group support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Small Group Research, 24(4), 430–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493244002
Bittner, E. A. C., Oeste-Reiß, S., & Leimeister, J. M. (201, 8–11 January 9). Where is the bot in our team? Toward a taxonomy of design option combinations for conversational agents in collaborative work. In M. Siponen & T. Klaavuniemi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, China (pp. 284–293). University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203508527
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071
Cao, L. (2017). Data science: A comprehensive overview. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/3076253
Daker, R. J., Colaizzi, G. A., Mastrogiannis, A. M., Sherr, M., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2022). Predictive effects of creative abilities and attitudes on performance in university-level computer science courses. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 8(1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000293
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
Donoghue, Th., Voytek, B., & Ellis, Sh. E. (2021). Teaching creative and practical data science at scale. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(S1), S27–S39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1860725
Ergin, M., & Koskan, O. (2023). Comparison of student’s – t, Welch’s t, and Mann–Whitney U tests in terms of Type I error rate and test power. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 37(2), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.15316/SJAFS.2023.022
Geerts, J., Wit, de J., & Rooij, de A. (2021). Brainstorming with a social robot facilitator: Better than human facilitation due to reduced evaluation apprehension? Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.657291
Goldenberg, O., & Wiley, J. (2011). Quality, conformity, and conflict: Questioning the assumptions of Osborn’s brainstorming technique. The Journal of Problem Solving, 3(2), 96–118. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1093
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040755
Hackman, J. R., & Kaplan, R. E. (1974). Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups. Decision Sciences: A Journal of the Decision Sciences Institute, 5(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1974.tb00631.x
Harlow, L. L. (2002). Book review of using multivariate statistics by Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_9
Holt, O. (2023). Brainstorming with AI: With the proper prompts, integrate AI dialogues into your content development toolkit. Association for Talent Development. https://www.td.org/content/td-magazine/brainstorming-with-ai
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819
Lamm, H., & Trommsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (Brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030402
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
Lavrič, F., & Škraba, A. (2023, 22–24 March). Group brainstorming support by ChatGPT and Ayoa at the design of regional development plan. In P. Šprajc, D. Maletič, N. Petrović, I. Podbregar, A. Škraba, & D. Tomić (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Organizational Science Development: Interdisciplinarity Counts, Portorož, Slovenia (pp. 555–567). University of Maribor Press. https://doi.org/10.18690/um.fov.3.2023.43
Lee Nichols, A., & Webster, G. D. (2015). Reprint of “Designing a brief measure of social anxiety: Psychometric support for a three-item version of the Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS-3)”. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.013
Memmert, L., & Tavanapour, N. (2023). Towards Human–AI–collaboration in brainstorming: Empirical insights into the perception of working with a Generative AI. ECIS Research Papers, 429. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2023_rp/429/
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-Ch. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.110
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Siemon, D. (2022). Elaborating team roles for artificial intelligence-based teammates in Human-AI collaboration. Group Decision and Negotiation, 31, 871–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09792-z
Siemon, D., & Wank, F. (2021, 12–14 July). Collaboration with AI-based teammates – evaluation of the social loafing effect. In PACIS 2021 Proceedings: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AIS eLibrary. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2021/146/
Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(1), 58–67.
Stieglitz, S., Mirbabaie, M., Möllmann, N. R. J., & Rzyski, J. (2022). Collaborating with virtual assistants in organizations: Analyzing social loafing tendencies and responsibility attribution. Information Systems Frontiers, 24, 745–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10201-0
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size – or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390603
Wang, Ch. (2025). Exploring students’ generative AI-Assisted writing processes: Perceptions and experiences from native and nonnative English speakers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3
Wingström, R., Hautala, J., & Lundman, R. (2024). Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2107850
Yu-Han, Ch., & Chun-Ching, Ch. (2023, 17–19 July). Investigating the impact of generative artificial intelligence on brainstorming: A preliminary study. In 2023 International Conference on Consumer Electronics – Taiwan, ICCE-Taiwan 2023: Proceedings, Pingtung City, Taiwan (pp. 193–194). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE-Taiwan58799.2023.10226617
Žižić, A., Granić, A., & Lukie, M. P. (2017). What about creativity in computer science education? International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 5(1–2), 95–108.
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.