用人工智能(AI)释放创造力:关于人类与人工智能协作的金发姑娘(曲线)效应的现场和实验证据。

IF 3.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Hsuan-Che Brad Huang
{"title":"用人工智能(AI)释放创造力:关于人类与人工智能协作的金发姑娘(曲线)效应的现场和实验证据。","authors":"Hsuan-Che Brad Huang","doi":"10.1037/xge0001838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Humans create artificial intelligence (AI), but can AI help humans create? Numerous studies show how AI enhances productivity; however, little is known about creativity-another aspect of performance that requires higher level problem-solving. To understand how AI affects the creative process, I conducted two experiments by assigning 139 business professionals and 319 working adults to collaborate in varying degrees with ChatGPT on an entrepreneurial challenge. In contrast to the well-documented positive correlation between AI usage and productivity and early studies suggesting the same for creativity, the present research shows a Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect: Moderate (vs. low or high) human-AI collaboration increases creative performance. This effect, holding across general creativity rated by human judges (either the crowdsourced public or specific trained individuals), business values by entrepreneurs, and AI-evaluated creativity, is explained by the generation of new diverse ideas (i.e., knowledge diversity) rather than problem restructuring during the brainstorming stage. I further replicate the Goldilocks phenomenon with multisource-multiwave surveys among workers in the creative industries (<i>N</i> = 188). Overall, these findings provide timely insights to the broader public regarding the effective approach to working with AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in daily and professional life. This research emphasizes the importance of striking the right balance-not too little, not too much-when working with AI technologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unlocking creativity with artificial intelligence (AI): Field and experimental evidence on the Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect of human-AI collaboration.\",\"authors\":\"Hsuan-Che Brad Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001838\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Humans create artificial intelligence (AI), but can AI help humans create? Numerous studies show how AI enhances productivity; however, little is known about creativity-another aspect of performance that requires higher level problem-solving. To understand how AI affects the creative process, I conducted two experiments by assigning 139 business professionals and 319 working adults to collaborate in varying degrees with ChatGPT on an entrepreneurial challenge. In contrast to the well-documented positive correlation between AI usage and productivity and early studies suggesting the same for creativity, the present research shows a Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect: Moderate (vs. low or high) human-AI collaboration increases creative performance. This effect, holding across general creativity rated by human judges (either the crowdsourced public or specific trained individuals), business values by entrepreneurs, and AI-evaluated creativity, is explained by the generation of new diverse ideas (i.e., knowledge diversity) rather than problem restructuring during the brainstorming stage. I further replicate the Goldilocks phenomenon with multisource-multiwave surveys among workers in the creative industries (<i>N</i> = 188). Overall, these findings provide timely insights to the broader public regarding the effective approach to working with AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in daily and professional life. This research emphasizes the importance of striking the right balance-not too little, not too much-when working with AI technologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001838\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001838","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类创造了人工智能(AI),但人工智能能帮助人类创造吗?大量研究表明人工智能如何提高生产力;然而,我们对创造力知之甚少,创造力是另一个需要更高层次的解决问题能力的方面。为了了解人工智能如何影响创意过程,我进行了两个实验,指派139名商业专业人士和319名在职成年人与ChatGPT进行不同程度的合作,共同应对一个创业挑战。与充分证明的人工智能使用与生产力之间的正相关以及早期研究表明创造力之间的正相关相反,目前的研究显示了一种金发女孩(曲线)效应:适度(相对于低或高)的人类与人工智能合作可以提高创造性表现。这种效应存在于人类评委(众包公众或特定训练的个人)评估的一般创造力、企业家的商业价值和人工智能评估的创造力中,可以通过产生新的多样化想法(即知识多样性)而不是在头脑风暴阶段对问题进行重组来解释。我进一步复制了金发女孩现象,对创意产业的工人进行了多源多波调查(N = 188)。总的来说,这些发现为更广泛的公众提供了在日常和职业生活中使用人工智能工具(如ChatGPT)的有效方法的及时见解。这项研究强调了在使用人工智能技术时保持正确平衡的重要性——不要太少,也不要太多。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unlocking creativity with artificial intelligence (AI): Field and experimental evidence on the Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect of human-AI collaboration.

Humans create artificial intelligence (AI), but can AI help humans create? Numerous studies show how AI enhances productivity; however, little is known about creativity-another aspect of performance that requires higher level problem-solving. To understand how AI affects the creative process, I conducted two experiments by assigning 139 business professionals and 319 working adults to collaborate in varying degrees with ChatGPT on an entrepreneurial challenge. In contrast to the well-documented positive correlation between AI usage and productivity and early studies suggesting the same for creativity, the present research shows a Goldilocks (curvilinear) effect: Moderate (vs. low or high) human-AI collaboration increases creative performance. This effect, holding across general creativity rated by human judges (either the crowdsourced public or specific trained individuals), business values by entrepreneurs, and AI-evaluated creativity, is explained by the generation of new diverse ideas (i.e., knowledge diversity) rather than problem restructuring during the brainstorming stage. I further replicate the Goldilocks phenomenon with multisource-multiwave surveys among workers in the creative industries (N = 188). Overall, these findings provide timely insights to the broader public regarding the effective approach to working with AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in daily and professional life. This research emphasizes the importance of striking the right balance-not too little, not too much-when working with AI technologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信