If ChatGPT can do it, where is my creativity? generative AI boosts performance but diminishes experience in creative writing

Peidong Mei , Deborah N. Brewis , Fortune Nwaiwu , Deshan Sumanathilaka , Fernando Alva-Manchego , Joanna Demaree-Cotton
{"title":"If ChatGPT can do it, where is my creativity? generative AI boosts performance but diminishes experience in creative writing","authors":"Peidong Mei ,&nbsp;Deborah N. Brewis ,&nbsp;Fortune Nwaiwu ,&nbsp;Deshan Sumanathilaka ,&nbsp;Fernando Alva-Manchego ,&nbsp;Joanna Demaree-Cotton","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As generative AI (GenAI) becomes more sophisticated, it is increasingly being used as a tool to enhance creative expression and innovation. Along with its potential benefits, it is imperative that we examine pitfalls in how generative AI may affect the quality of creative thinking and possibly lead to a narrowing of diversity both in representation and thought. In this study, we employed an experimental design with 225 university students who completed a creative writing task with pre- and post-task surveys to assess ChatGPT's impact on their performance and experiences compared to a control group who did not use ChatGPT. Results show that using ChatGPT enhanced creativity of output and reduced the difficulty and effort required for the task, particularly for non-native English speakers. However, it also diminished the value and enjoyment of the task and raised moral concerns. We contribute to the nascent literature on GenAI by showing how ChatGPT assistance could potentially bolster human creativity by facilitating content delivery or providing useful counterpoint ideas. We also significantly advance scholarship on understanding experience of GenAI, demonstrating that bypassing the cognitive effort required for creativity by using ChatGPT could be harmful to the creative process and experience of creative tasks, especially when steps are not taken to address the use of AI in a transparent manner. Finally, our novel mixed-method study design offers a contribution to the methodological frameworks for the study of the effects and experience of GenAI. We discuss the study results in relation to implications for educational practices and social policy and argue that our results support recommending an integration of generative AI into higher education alongside practices that help to mitigate the negative impacts of AI use on student experience.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes more sophisticated, it is increasingly being used as a tool to enhance creative expression and innovation. Along with its potential benefits, it is imperative that we examine pitfalls in how generative AI may affect the quality of creative thinking and possibly lead to a narrowing of diversity both in representation and thought. In this study, we employed an experimental design with 225 university students who completed a creative writing task with pre- and post-task surveys to assess ChatGPT's impact on their performance and experiences compared to a control group who did not use ChatGPT. Results show that using ChatGPT enhanced creativity of output and reduced the difficulty and effort required for the task, particularly for non-native English speakers. However, it also diminished the value and enjoyment of the task and raised moral concerns. We contribute to the nascent literature on GenAI by showing how ChatGPT assistance could potentially bolster human creativity by facilitating content delivery or providing useful counterpoint ideas. We also significantly advance scholarship on understanding experience of GenAI, demonstrating that bypassing the cognitive effort required for creativity by using ChatGPT could be harmful to the creative process and experience of creative tasks, especially when steps are not taken to address the use of AI in a transparent manner. Finally, our novel mixed-method study design offers a contribution to the methodological frameworks for the study of the effects and experience of GenAI. We discuss the study results in relation to implications for educational practices and social policy and argue that our results support recommending an integration of generative AI into higher education alongside practices that help to mitigate the negative impacts of AI use on student experience.
随着生成式人工智能(GenAI)变得越来越复杂,它也越来越多地被用作增强创造性表达和创新的工具。除了其潜在的益处之外,我们还必须研究生成式人工智能可能影响创造性思维质量的隐患,并可能导致表述和思维多样性的缩小。在这项研究中,我们采用了实验设计,让 225 名大学生完成了一项创意写作任务,并进行了任务前和任务后调查,以评估 ChatGPT 与未使用 ChatGPT 的对照组相比,对他们的表现和体验产生的影响。结果显示,使用 ChatGPT 提高了输出的创造性,降低了任务的难度和所需的努力,尤其是对英语非母语者而言。然而,这也降低了任务的价值和乐趣,并引发了道德问题。我们通过展示 ChatGPT 辅助如何通过促进内容传递或提供有用的对位想法来潜在地提高人类的创造力,为 GenAI 的新兴文献做出了贡献。我们还极大地推动了关于理解 GenAI 体验的学术研究,证明了通过使用 ChatGPT 绕过创造力所需的认知努力可能会对创造性过程和创造性任务的体验有害,尤其是在没有采取步骤以透明的方式解决人工智能使用问题的情况下。最后,我们新颖的混合方法研究设计为研究 GenAI 的效果和体验的方法框架做出了贡献。我们讨论了研究结果对教育实践和社会政策的影响,并认为我们的研究结果支持建议将生成式人工智能与有助于减轻人工智能使用对学生体验的负面影响的实践相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信