A woman in a beige blazer balances a cracked boulder on her head on a beach at dusk, with blue and purple paint dripping down over it

DESCRIPTION: The widely reported link between ADHD and creativity is based on a conference poster that has not undergone peer review. What the study on divergent thinking actually reveals, and which correlations are missing.

ADHD and creativity: What the study that went viral in 2025 actually says

In October 2025, a report made headlines around the world: ADHD makes people creative because those with ADHD let their minds wander more frequently. Science portals, newspapers, advice websites and support forums for those affected all shared the story. It was based on a conference poster, not a peer-reviewed academic paper. To this day, no journal publication, DOI, or data exists for other researchers to verify.

The text the reporting was based on is about 400 words. It contains a finding that barely made the headlines: in the study’s sole performance test, ADHD traits showed no correlation with divergent thinking. The reported correlation relates exclusively to self-reported creative achievements.

ADHD and creativity: what the evidence actually shows

Han Fang and colleagues from Radboud University Medical Centre presented the study on Saturday, 11 October 2025, at the 38th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology in Amsterdam. The reference number is PS01-0168. PS stands for Poster Session.

The ECNP press release bears the same date and an embargo time of 00:05. Above the text is a label that was missing from most press reports: ‘Type of study: not peer-reviewed/observational study/people.’ The organiser said the study had not undergone peer review and that observational data had been analysed.

This is no scandal for a conference poster. Conferences showcase ongoing research. A poster may pave the way for a subsequent publication, be revised, or disappear entirely. The problem arose when the poster was subsequently treated as established knowledge.

Two studies, 750 participants

The abstract describes two separate surveys.

The first comprised 347 participants: 275 cases and 72 controls from the test battery of the ECNP working group ‘ADHD across the lifespan’. ADHD symptoms were assessed using the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, mind wandering using the Mind Excessively Wandering Scale, and creative achievement using the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. All three measures were self-reports.

The second study comprised 403 British participants recruited via Prolific, a paid online platform. They also completed the ADHD self-report questionnaire. In addition, they used separate scales for intentional and spontaneous mind wandering, the Alternate Uses Task as a performance test of divergent thinking, the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, and an assessment of functional impairment based on Criterion C of the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults.

The figure of 750 reported in the press combines both samples. The press release refers to both groups as ‘ADHD patients and healthy controls’. For the second study, this description is too strong. Prolific does not provide a clinical patient cohort. The ADHD characteristics recorded there are based on self-report. The abstract does not mention any clinically confirmed diagnosis for this group.

Creativity in performance tests: the findings without the headline

The key sentence in the abstract reads: In both studies, inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity correlated positively with creative success and mental wandering. In Study 2, they showed no significant correlations with divergent thinking.

Divergent thinking is the performance component of creativity research. In the Alternate Uses Task, participants name as many unusual uses as possible for an everyday object. The quantity, variety and originality of the answers, amongst other things, are assessed. It was the only test in the study that required creative performance during testing.

In this test, ADHD traits did not correlate with creative thinking. The headline ‘ADHD makes you creative’ is therefore not based on better performance in the creativity test. It is based on the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, in which participants report past creative achievements: published texts, exhibited artworks, composed music, awards, and similar accomplishments.

This is a different matter. The questionnaire measures reported creative achievements throughout one’s life. The Alternate Uses Task measures performance in a specific task. The study found a correlation in the self-report questionnaire, but not in the second test.

People with ADHD in self-reports: the problem of self-reporting

In Study 1, ADHD traits, mental wandering and creative achievements were derived from questionnaires completed by the same participant, at the same time and during the same round of data collection. Those who score highly on one questionnaire will, under certain conditions, also score higher on other questionnaires. This effect is known as common method variance. It can generate or amplify correlations even when the measured characteristics are not linked to the same extent in real life.

With the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, a second difficulty arises. It does not measure creativity independently of self-knowledge. It asks for self-descriptions of a person’s life story. People with an ADHD diagnosis or high ADHD scores are more likely to find themselves in environments where the link between ADHD and creativity circulates as a familiar narrative. This expectation can shape which experiences someone counts as creative, which achievements they remember, and what they consider worth mentioning.

This does not invalidate the responses. It does, however, limit what we can infer from them. The study shows that people with higher scores on ADHD self-reports also report greater creative success and more mental wandering. It does not show that ADHD makes people more creative.

How a poster became a fact

The sequence of events can be traced precisely.

It all began with the professional association. It turned an unpublished poster into a press release with an embargo, quotes from the lead author and a comment from an uninvolved professor. Science marketing is part and parcel of conference life. In this case, the label ‘not peer-reviewed’ was even clearly displayed above the text.

Then news distribution services and science websites picked up the story. EurekAlert published it almost verbatim. ScienceDaily ran the headline: ‘New research reveals how ADHD sparks extraordinary creativity’ and summarised the message as a creative advantage. The site cites the ECNP itself as the source.

With each repost, the distance from the original material grew. A preliminary observational study became ‘new research reveals’. The reference to self-reported creative successes became ‘creativity’. A mediation analysis using cross-sectional data became an explanation: that wandering thoughts are why ADHD fosters creativity.

In the final stage, advice websites, social media and support forums quote the headlines. From this point onwards, the claim is treated as fact. Nobody reads the original post anymore.

The quotable sentence

The press release included a comment from K. P. Lesch, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry in Würzburg, who was not involved in the study. He stated that the tendency for the mind to wander is one of the key resources underpinning the remarkable creativity of highly functional people with ADHD. This makes them an “incredibly valuable asset” for society and the future of the planet.

The sentence is crafted for a headline. It links diagnosis, positive identity and social benefit. Its grandeur is out of all proportion to the evidence: two cross-sectional surveys, a poster, predominantly self-reports and no link between ADHD symptoms and divergent thinking.

A diagnosis long associated with deficits, school problems, the need for treatment, and shortcomings is given a positive reinterpretation here. This explains the story’s reach. No one needs to mislead for such a story to be circulated deliberately. It is enough to capture attention, promise hope, and be summed up in a single sentence.

What the authors themselves say

The gap between the abstract and the headlines cannot be attributed entirely to the researchers. The abstract concludes cautiously, stating that the work could open up new avenues for promoting strengths and reducing functional impairments. Han Fang explicitly states in the press release that this is the first time the link has been investigated in this way, and that further studies are needed to confirm the findings.

Conflicts of interest: what the disclosures mean

The authors’ financial affiliations are also listed in the abstract. The China Scholarship Council funds the first author, whilst two other authors are funded by the Dutch research organisation NWO. Both organisations are public research funding bodies. They fund scientific research. This funding does not create any particular conflict of interest regarding the study’s findings.

The situation is different for the last author. She declares a speaking fee from Medice. Medice sells medicines for the treatment of ADHD, including methylphenidate preparations. A speaking fee means a company paid a researcher for a talk. It does not mean that Medice funded this study, wrote its findings, or arranged for its publication. The abstract does not indicate this.

Nevertheless, this information belongs in the text. A company that sells ADHD medicines has a financial interest in how ADHD is publicly perceived, diagnosed and treated. A report linking ADHD with creativity, innovation and social benefit can alter the public perception of the diagnosis. This also has an indirect influence on the market for ADHD medicines.

This connection does not imply any manipulation of the study. However, it gives readers a reason to scrutinise the work more closely. The crucial point is not the speaking fee. It lies in the study itself: a conference poster without peer review, two cross-sectional surveys, predominantly self-reported data, no correlation between ADHD characteristics and divergent thinking, and a mediation analysis without a time series.

Mediation without a time series

The abstract reports on so-called mediation analyses. According to these, mental wandering mediates between ADHD characteristics and creativity: intentional wandering towards creativity, involuntary wandering towards impairment.

Mediation implies a sequence: A affects B, B affects C. Both surveys were cross-sectional. All variables were measured at the same time point. No temporal sequence can therefore be determined from this. It is not known whether ADHD traits intensify the wandering of thoughts, whether this wandering contributes to a particular self-description of ADHD, whether creative activities promote intentional wandering, or whether a fourth variable influences all three variables jointly.

Statistics can calculate an indirect effect using cross-sectional data. However, they cannot prove a causal pathway. The explanation that made the press release so interesting therefore remains, at best, a conjecture.

Involuntary and deliberate wandering of the mind

Part of the study remains valid regardless of the criticism. It distinguishes between two processes that public reporting almost always conflates.

Spontaneous distraction is an involuntary diversion of attention. Attention drifts away from the task at hand, even though the person wants to stay focused. In the second study, this was linked to functional impairments.

Intentional digression refers to conscious free association. Someone interrupts a task or lets their thoughts run free to generate ideas, relax, or explore possibilities. In the study, it was linked to divergent thinking and creative success.

The distinction is useful, even if its direction remains unclear. The reporting turned two processes with opposite consequences into a ‘superpower’. This is the most significant distortion in the entire report.

Mental wandering and maladaptive daydreaming

Mental wandering is not the same as maladaptive daydreaming. Maladaptive daydreaming refers to prolonged, often deliberately induced fantasy worlds featuring recurring characters and plots. They can take up hours and undermine work, relationships or self-care.

There is an overlap with ADHD, and both topics generate a high volume of search queries. Anyone who notices frequent mental digressions in themselves should understand this distinction before interpreting it as a creative advantage. A deliberately constructed, time-consuming fantasy world differs from a brief flash of inspiration, a conscious digression, or an involuntary lapse in attention.

Who benefits from the narrative of the ADHD ‘superpower’

The ‘superpower’ narrative has three winners. Those affected get language that avoids talk of deficiency or failure. The media are given a topic with wide reach. A research project gains visibility before it has undergone peer review.

Those who suffer are the ones who do not recognise themselves in this positive portrayal. People with ADHD who cannot demonstrate creative achievements are faced with a new expectation. The old question was: ‘Why don’t I function like others?’ The new one might be: ‘Why haven’t I been granted this promised superpower either?’

ADHD does not require justification through creativity. The impairment is not diminished simply because certain characteristics may, under specific conditions, result in an advantage. Nor does creativity become any more credible when it is derived from a diagnosis.

Key points in brief

• The report ‘ADHD makes you creative’ from October 2025 is based on the ECNP poster PS01-0168, presented on 11 October 2025 in Amsterdam.

• The ECNP itself classified the work as a non-peer-reviewed observational study. The work was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and no DOI was available.

• Study 1 involved 347 participants and consisted entirely of self-reported data.

• Study 2 comprised 403 participants recruited via Prolific. The abstract describes self-reported ADHD characteristics here, not a clinically confirmed ADHD diagnosis.

• The only performance test, the Alternate Uses Task for divergent thinking, showed no significant association with inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity.

• The reported association stems from the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, a self-report measure of creative achievements.

• The mediation analysis uses cross-sectional data. It cannot establish any temporal or causal sequence.

• In Study 2, spontaneous mind-wandering was associated with impairments, whilst intentional mind-wandering was associated with divergent thinking and creative achievement.

• Mental wandering and maladaptive daydreaming are distinct processes.

• ADHD does not require a creative justification. For many affected individuals, the ‘superpower’ narrative creates another standard they may fall short of.

Sources

· European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. (2025, 11 October). Study confirms that people with ADHD can be more creative: The reason may be that they let their minds wander. Press release and conference abstract PS01-0168.

· Fang, H., De Roubaix, A., Grimm, O., Ziegler, G. C., Kittel-Schneider, S., Réthelyi, J. M., Kilencz, T., Balogh, L., Greven, C. U., & Hoogman, M. (2025). Mind wandering as a mediator in the link between ADHD and creativity: Evidence from two independent samples. Conference poster PS01-0168, 38th ECNP Congress, Amsterdam.

· Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.

· Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

· Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Smilek, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Mind-wandering with and without intention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 605–617.

· Somer, E. (2002). Maladaptive daydreaming: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 32, 197–212.

· EurekAlert. (2025, 11 October). Study confirms that people with ADHD can be more creative. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1101131

· ScienceDaily. (2025, 12 October). New research reveals how ADHD sparks extraordinary creativity. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251012054608.htm