Who Is the Best Helper for University Students' Mathematical Creativity? A Quasi‐Experimental Study of Human–ChatGPT, Human–Google, and Human–Human Co‐Creation

ABSTRACT Recent studies suggest that working with ChatGPT can generate more creative outcomes than humans alone. However, does ChatGPT retain its creative edge when humans have access to alternative information sources, such as Google Search or a human peer. This study addressed this question through a quasi‐experiment with 230 Chinese university students in three groups (the human–ChatGPT group, the human–Google group, and human–human dyads) and a mathematical creativity task. The results showed that the human–ChatGPT group generated the most flexible and fluent solutions, while the human–human group produced the most original solutions in solving mathematical creativity tasks. The human–human group accurately assessed their actual performance, while the human–ChatGPT group overestimated it, and the human–Google group underestimated it. Furthermore, the study revealed that the human–Google group encountered greater difficulties, invested more effort, and reported lower levels of interest compared to the human–human and human–ChatGPT groups. Students found Google less useful than ChatGPT and their human peers. Similarly, students also found Google less effective than ChatGPT and their peers in enhancing self‐efficacy. These findings highlight the benefits of human–human and human–ChatGPT co‐creation in fostering mathematical creativity and call for further research on how to combine human inspiration with ChatGPT support to enhance it.