Creativity Self Efficacy Mediation

Research Planning Protocol

Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:

1. State the research question — What mechanism or moderator is being tested?
2. Justify the method choice — Why SEM-based mediation (not Baron & Kenny, not PROCESS)? What alternatives were considered?
3. Declare expected outcomes — What pattern of indirect/direct effects would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
4. Note assumptions and limitations — What does SEM assume? Where could cross-sectional mediation mislead?
5. Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation before proceeding.

For detailed methodology guidance, see the research-literacy skill.

⚠️ Verification Notice

This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please open an issue.

Theoretical Framework

Creative Self-Efficacy as Mediator

Creative self-efficacy (CSE) = an individual's belief in their ability to produce creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). It is grounded in Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy theory: people who believe they can be creative are more likely to attempt, persist at, and succeed in creative tasks.

Hypothesized causal chain (Lee & Chung, 2024):

AI tool use → ↓ Creative Self-Efficacy → ↓ Creative Output

Mechanism: Using AI to generate ideas may undermine the user's
belief in their own creative ability, leading to reduced creative
effort and output on subsequent tasks.

Baseline Creativity as Moderator

Baseline creativity moderates how much AI assistance affects creative output:

• High-creativity individuals: May benefit less from AI (ceiling effect) or be harmed more (self-efficacy threat)
• Low-creativity individuals: May benefit more from AI (scaffolding) or show less effect (floor effect)

Lee & Chung (2024) found that ChatGPT use disproportionately reduced creativity for individuals with higher baseline creativity (measured by RAT).

Measurement Instruments

Creative Self-Efficacy Scale (Tierney & Farmer, 2002)

3 items, 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

1. "I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively"
2. "I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas"
3. "I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others"

Critical timing note: CSE must be measured after the manipulation (e.g., after ChatGPT use) and before the outcome measure. Measuring CSE before the manipulation captures trait CSE, not the mediated state change.

Remote Associates Test — RAT (Mednick, 1962)

Used as the baseline creativity measure for moderation analysis.

Example item: FALLING / ACTOR / DUST → answer: STAR

Why RAT as baseline: RAT measures convergent thinking (a creativity component independent of divergent thinking), so it serves as a baseline creativity indicator without directly measuring the same construct as the AUT outcome (Lee & Chung, 2024).

SEM Mediation Model Specification

Model Structure (Lee & Chung, 2024)

 Creative Self-Efficacy (M)
 ↗ a b ↘
AI Condition (X) Creativity Score (Y)
 ————— c' —————→

• Path a: Effect of AI condition on CSE
• Path b: Effect of CSE on creativity, controlling for condition
• Path c': Direct effect of condition on creativity, controlling for CSE
• Indirect effect: a × b (the mediated portion)
• Total effect: c = c' + a × b

lavaan Specification (R)

library(lavaan)

mediation_model <- '
 # Measurement model (if using latent variables)
 # CSE =~ cse1 + cse2 + cse3 # Uncomment for latent CSE

 # Structural model
 cse ~ a * condition # Path a: X → M
 creativity ~ b * cse + # Path b: M → Y
 cprime * condition # Path c': X → Y (direct)

 # Indirect and total effects
 indirect := a * b # Mediated effect
 total := cprime + a * b # Total effect
'

fit <- sem(mediation_model, data = df, se = "bootstrap", bootstrap = 5000)
summary(fit, ci = TRUE)

Key Specification Decisions

Moderation Analysis

Baseline Creativity × Condition Interaction

Two approaches (Lee & Chung, 2024 used both):

Approach 1: Median Split (Descriptive)

1. Compute median RAT score across all participants
2. Split into high-creativity (above median) and low-creativity (below median) groups
3. Run separate ANOVAs or t-tests within each subgroup
4. Report condition effects separately for high vs low creativity

Limitation: Median split loses information and reduces power (MacCallum et al., 2002). Use for visualization/description; rely on continuous moderation for inference.

Approach 2: Continuous Moderation (Inferential)

# In lavaan or linear regression
moderation_model <- '
 creativity ~ b1 * condition +
 b2 * rat_score +
 b3 * condition:rat_score # Interaction term
'
# b3 = moderation effect
# Probe interaction at ±1 SD of RAT score (Aiken & West, 1991)

Interpreting Moderation Results

Simple Slopes Visualization

Plot creativity scores against condition, separately for high (+1 SD) and low (-1 SD) baseline creativity:

library(emmeans)
# For interaction probing
emtrends(model, ~ condition, var = "rat_score")
# Or Johnson-Neyman technique for regions of significance

Moderated Mediation (Full Model)

When both mediation and moderation are relevant, combine into a conditional indirect effect model:

Does the indirect effect (X → M → Y) depend on baseline creativity (W)?

Model:
 CSE ~ a1 * condition + a2 * rat + a3 * condition:rat
 creativity ~ b * cse + c' * condition

Conditional indirect effect at level w of RAT:
 (a1 + a3 * w) × b

Software: Use lavaan with bootstrap, or the mediation package in R, or PROCESS macro Model 7 (Hayes, 2022).

Common Pitfalls

1. Cross-sectional mediation as causal evidence: Mediation in a cross-sectional or single-session design cannot establish temporal causation. The X → M → Y sequence must be theoretically justified and, ideally, measured at different time points (Bullock et al., 2010). Lee & Chung (2024) addressed this by measuring CSE after manipulation but before the outcome task.

2. Interpreting non-significant direct effect as "full mediation": A non-significant c' does not prove full mediation — it may reflect insufficient power. Report both direct and indirect effects with CIs (Rucker et al., 2011).

3. Using the Sobel test instead of bootstrapping: The Sobel test assumes normality of the indirect effect, which is almost never met. Use bootstrap CIs exclusively (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

4. Forgetting to measure the mediator at the right time: CSE must be measured after the manipulation and before the outcome. Measuring at the wrong time destroys the mediation logic.

5. Median split without continuous analysis: Dichotomizing a continuous moderator loses statistical power and can create spurious interactions. Always accompany median splits with continuous moderation analysis (MacCallum et al., 2002).

6. Ignoring measurement reliability: Low reliability of the CSE scale attenuates the mediated effect. Report Cronbach's alpha and consider latent variable SEM if reliability is below 0.80.

7. Not controlling for potential confounders: In online studies, prior AI experience, age, education, and task engagement may confound the condition-creativity relationship. Include as covariates or demonstrate randomization balance.

Minimum Reporting Checklist

Based on Lee & Chung (2024) and Preacher & Hayes (2008):

• Mediation model diagram with all paths labeled
• Mediator measure: name, items, response scale, reliability (Cronbach's alpha)
• Moderator measure: name, scoring, descriptive statistics
• Path coefficients: a, b, c', total c (with SEs and CIs)
• Indirect effect estimate with bootstrap CI (number of samples, CI type)
• Software and package (lavaan version, R version)
• Estimator used (ML, MLR, WLSMV)
• Model fit indices (if applicable): CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR
• For moderation: interaction term coefficient, simple slopes at ±1 SD
• Sample sizes per condition
• Evidence of adequate statistical power for mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007)

References

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
• Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what's the mechanism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550-558.
• Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239.
• Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Lee, B. C., & Chung, J. (2024). An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1
• MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19-40.
• MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128.
• Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
• Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371.
• Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.

See references/lavaan-templates.md for complete model specification code.