比较 AIGC 和传统的创意生成方法:评估这两种方法对产品设计构思阶段创造力的影响

IF 3.7 2区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Huan Lin , Xiaoliang Jiang , Xiaolei Deng , Ze Bian , Cong Fang , Yuan Zhu
{"title":"比较 AIGC 和传统的创意生成方法:评估这两种方法对产品设计构思阶段创造力的影响","authors":"Huan Lin ,&nbsp;Xiaoliang Jiang ,&nbsp;Xiaolei Deng ,&nbsp;Ze Bian ,&nbsp;Cong Fang ,&nbsp;Yuan Zhu","doi":"10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the early stages of product design, generating creative ideas is crucial for designers as it lays the groundwork for innovative products. This study explores how different idea generation methods, including modern artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) and traditional approaches, affect designers' creativity. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted a detailed experiment with 38 s-year university students majoring in product design, comparing four methods: traditional brainstorming (with and without images) and AIGC (using DCGANs and PGGANs). Our findings indicate that while AIGC offers benefits, it does not consistently surpass traditional techniques in fostering creativity. The quality of AIGC-generated images significantly impacts creativity, with higher-quality images proving more inspirational. Additionally, gender differences were observed: male designers preferred traditional methods, while female designers favored AIGC for creative enhancement. Male designers generated more creative ideas when working with low-quality images, whereas female designers were more productive with high-quality stimuli. This study suggests that to optimize creativity in product design, it is essential to balance the benefits of both AIGC and traditional methods, choosing the approach that best fits the project's unique needs rather than focusing solely on the latest or most advanced methods. Moreover, maintaining a good balance between AIGC and traditional idea generation methods throughout the process should be considered.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47729,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","volume":"54 ","pages":"Article 101649"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing AIGC and traditional idea generation methods: Evaluating their impact on creativity in the product design ideation phase\",\"authors\":\"Huan Lin ,&nbsp;Xiaoliang Jiang ,&nbsp;Xiaolei Deng ,&nbsp;Ze Bian ,&nbsp;Cong Fang ,&nbsp;Yuan Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101649\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the early stages of product design, generating creative ideas is crucial for designers as it lays the groundwork for innovative products. This study explores how different idea generation methods, including modern artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) and traditional approaches, affect designers' creativity. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted a detailed experiment with 38 s-year university students majoring in product design, comparing four methods: traditional brainstorming (with and without images) and AIGC (using DCGANs and PGGANs). Our findings indicate that while AIGC offers benefits, it does not consistently surpass traditional techniques in fostering creativity. The quality of AIGC-generated images significantly impacts creativity, with higher-quality images proving more inspirational. Additionally, gender differences were observed: male designers preferred traditional methods, while female designers favored AIGC for creative enhancement. Male designers generated more creative ideas when working with low-quality images, whereas female designers were more productive with high-quality stimuli. This study suggests that to optimize creativity in product design, it is essential to balance the benefits of both AIGC and traditional methods, choosing the approach that best fits the project's unique needs rather than focusing solely on the latest or most advanced methods. Moreover, maintaining a good balance between AIGC and traditional idea generation methods throughout the process should be considered.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"volume\":\"54 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101649\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187124001871\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187124001871","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在产品设计的早期阶段,创意的产生对设计师来说至关重要,因为它为创新产品奠定了基础。本研究探讨了包括现代人工智能生成内容(AIGC)和传统方法在内的不同创意生成方法如何影响设计师的创造力。我们采用混合方法,对 38 名主修产品设计的大三学生进行了详细实验,比较了四种方法:传统头脑风暴法(有图像和无图像)和人工智能生成内容法(使用 DCGANs 和 PGGANs)。我们的研究结果表明,虽然 AIGC 能带来益处,但它在促进创造力方面并没有持续超越传统技术。AIGC 生成图像的质量对创造力有显著影响,质量越高的图像越能激发创造力。此外,我们还发现了性别差异:男性设计师更喜欢传统方法,而女性设计师则更喜欢使用 AIGC 来提高创造力。男性设计师在使用低质量图像时能产生更多创意,而女性设计师在使用高质量刺激时则更有成效。这项研究表明,要优化产品设计的创造力,必须平衡 AIGC 和传统方法的优势,选择最适合项目独特需求的方法,而不是只关注最新或最先进的方法。此外,还应考虑在整个过程中保持 AIGC 和传统创意生成方法之间的良好平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing AIGC and traditional idea generation methods: Evaluating their impact on creativity in the product design ideation phase

In the early stages of product design, generating creative ideas is crucial for designers as it lays the groundwork for innovative products. This study explores how different idea generation methods, including modern artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) and traditional approaches, affect designers' creativity. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted a detailed experiment with 38 s-year university students majoring in product design, comparing four methods: traditional brainstorming (with and without images) and AIGC (using DCGANs and PGGANs). Our findings indicate that while AIGC offers benefits, it does not consistently surpass traditional techniques in fostering creativity. The quality of AIGC-generated images significantly impacts creativity, with higher-quality images proving more inspirational. Additionally, gender differences were observed: male designers preferred traditional methods, while female designers favored AIGC for creative enhancement. Male designers generated more creative ideas when working with low-quality images, whereas female designers were more productive with high-quality stimuli. This study suggests that to optimize creativity in product design, it is essential to balance the benefits of both AIGC and traditional methods, choosing the approach that best fits the project's unique needs rather than focusing solely on the latest or most advanced methods. Moreover, maintaining a good balance between AIGC and traditional idea generation methods throughout the process should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Thinking Skills and Creativity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
172
审稿时长
76 days
期刊介绍: Thinking Skills and Creativity is a new journal providing a peer-reviewed forum for communication and debate for the community of researchers interested in teaching for thinking and creativity. Papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and may relate to any age level in a diversity of settings: formal and informal, education and work-based.
×
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