Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has brought into question how much ownership college students feel for “their” writing when it is AI-generated. This study recruited 88 college writers at one midwestern state university in the United States. In a within-subjects design, participants composed poems about a meaningful, challenging life experience, then prompted GenAI to compose a poem about that same event. Results showed significantly greater ownership for human-made poems; additionally, human-made poems were rated as more accurately reflective of selected lived experiences. Aesthetic merit, however, was rated higher for AI-generated poems for imagery, language, and form—but not for originality. Half the students preferred GenAI poems, mainly because of their textual features, while less than half preferred human poems, mainly for personal connections to the events presented. Implications for GenAI as a tool to support creative writing and meaningful literacy are explored.
AkiyoshiJ. (2017). Japanese L2 writers’ self-perceived voice in haiku poetry and academic prose. Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 6(1), 37–54.
2.
BarneyT. (2008). Literary evaluation and poetic form: Poetic form and creative tension. In van PeerW. (Ed.), The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 71–81). John Benjamins.
3.
BelfiA. M.VesselE. A.StarrG. G. (2018). Individual ratings of vividness predict aesthetic appeal in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000153
4.
BishopW. (1993). Writing is/and therapy?: Raising questions about writing classrooms and writing program administration. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(2), 503–516.
5.
BrittonJ.BurgessT.MartinN.McLeodA.RosenH. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11–18). Macmillan.
6.
BroadB.TheuneM. (2010). How we value contemporary poetry: An empirical inquiry. College English, 73(2), 113–137.
7.
ByrdA.FloresL.GibsonA.GreenD.HasselH.JohnsonS. Z.KirschenbaumM.LockettA.LoshE. M.MillsA. (2024). Student guide to AI literacy. Modern Language Association of America and Conference on College Composition and Communication.
8.
ChamberlainR.MullinC.ScheerlinckB.WagemansJ. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000136
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
ColasJ. T.HsiehP. J. (2014). Pre-existing brain states predict aesthetic judgments. Human Brain Mapping, 35(7), 2924–2934. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22374
11.
Di DioC.ArdizziM.SchieppatiS. V.MassaroD.GilliG.GalleseV.MarchettiA. (2023). Art made by artificial intelligence: The effect of authorship on aesthetic judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000602
GilburtI. (2023). A machine in the loop: The peculiar intervention of artificial intelligence in writer’s block. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice & Theory of Creative Writing, 21(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2023.2223176
14.
GuoA.PataranutapornP.MaesP. (2024). Exploring the interaction of creative writers with AI-powered writing tools. https://arXiv:2402.12814
15.
HanauerD. I. (2004). Poetry and the meaning of life. Pippin.
HanauerD. I. (2015a). Beauty judgements of non-professional poetry: Regression analyses of authorial attribution, emotional response and perceived writing quality. Scientific Study of Literature, 5(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.2.04han
18.
HanauerD. I. (2015b). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314563023
19.
HanauerD. I. (2021). Mourning writing: A poetic autoethnography on the passing of my father. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419898500
20.
HanauerD. I.DolanE. L. (2014). The project ownership survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123
21.
HesseD.RademaekersJ.BlakesleeA.Britt-SmithL.Moroski-RigneyK.CraigS.RoskinskiP.SheriffS. (2023). Artificial intelligence writing tools in writing across the curriculum settings: A statement from the AWAC executive committee. https://wacassociation.org/statement-on-ai-writing-tools-in-wac/
22.
HoneaH.HorskyS. (2011). The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-011-9149-y
23.
IidaA. (2016). Exploring earthquake experiences: A study of second language learners’ ability to express and communicate deeply traumatic events in poetic form. System, 57, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.004
24.
IidaA. (2018). Living in darkness at the time of the great east Japan earthquake: A poetic-narrative autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(4), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417745917
25.
IidaA. (2021). “I feel like I can’t avoid dying”: A poetic representation of a survivor’s traumatic experience in the great east Japan earthquake. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419897695
26.
JacobsenT. (2010). Beauty and the brain: Culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. Journal of Anatomy, 216(2), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01164.x
27.
JakobsonR. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In SebeokT. A. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
28.
JoshiN.VogelD. (2024). Writing with AI lowers psychological ownership, but longer prompts can help. https://arXiv:2404.03108v1
29.
KangasharjuA.IlomäkiL.LakkalaM.ToomA. (2022). Lower secondary students’ poetry writing with the AI-based Poetry Machine. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100048
KöbisN.MossinkL. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computer in Human Behavior, 114, 106553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553
32.
LatikkaR.BergdahlJ.SavelaN.OksanenA. (2023). AI as an artist? A two-wave survey study on attitudes toward using artificial intelligence in art. Poetics, 101, 101839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2023.101839
33.
LernerL. (2010). Poetic value: Political value. In van PeerW. (Ed.), Quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 93–104). John Benjamins.
34.
LindellA. K.MuellerJ. (2011). Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.539556
35.
MarchettiE.NicholsonB. (2020). Using a culturally safe creative writing programme to empower and heal aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men in prison. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 59(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12383
36.
MessingschlagerT. V.AppelM. (2022). Creative artificial intelligence and narrative transportation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 18(5), 848–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000495
37.
NadalM.VartanianO. (2021). Empirical aesthetics: An overview. In NadalM.VartanianO. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 3–38). Oxford University Press.
NiloyA. C.AkterS.SultanaN.SultanaJ.RahmanS. I. U. (2023). Is ChatGPT a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12929
40.
ObermeierC.MenninghausW.von KoppenfelsM.RaettigT.Schmidt-KassowM.OtterbeinS.KotzS. A. (2013). Aesthetic and emotional effects of meter and rhyme in poetry. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00010
41.
OgawaK.TauraK.IshiguroH. (2012). Possibilities of androids as poetry-reciting agent. 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Paris, France.
42.
OlckersC. (2013). Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument [Article]. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1105
ParraM. L. (2021). Strengthening writing voices and identities: Creative writing, digital tools and artmaking for Spanish heritage courses. Languages, 6(117), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030117
45.
PearceM. T.ZaidelD. W.VartanianO.SkovM.LederH.ChatterjeeA.NadalM. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621274
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.
48.
PierceJ. L.KostovaT.DirksK. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
49.
SamoA.HighhouseS. (2023). Artificial intelligence and art: Identifying the aesthetic judgment factors that distinguish human- and machine-generated artwork. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000570
50.
SinghN.BernalG.SavchenkoD.GlassmanE. L. (2023). Where to hide a stolen elephant: Leaps in creative writing with multimodal machine intelligence. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 30(5), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511599
51.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815
52.
SpiroJ. (2014). Learner and writer voices: Learners as writers and the search for authorial voice. In DisneyD. (Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 23–40). John Benjamins.
53.
SpiroJ.DymokeS. (2016). Translating writing worlds: Writing as a poet, writing as an academic. In JonesR. H.RichardsJ. C. (Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 77–94). Routledge.
54.
StickleyT.HuiA.StubleyM.BakerF.WatsonM. C. (2019). “Write here, sanctuary”: Creative writing for refugees and people seeking asylum. Arts & Health, 11(3), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533015.2018.1494450
55.
StockwellR. (2016). Creative play: Welcoming students into a community of practice in creative writing through a participatory action research project. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 13(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2016.1142569
56.
Summerby-MurrayR. (2010). Writing for immediacy: Narrative writing as a teaching technique in undergraduate cultural geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260903274378
57.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
58.
TsaoJ.NoguesC. (2024). Beyond the author: Artificial intelligence, creative writing and intellectual emancipation. Poetics, 102, 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2024.101865
59.
van PeerW. (2010). The evaluation of literary texts: A new perspective. In van PeerW. (Ed.), Quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 1–14). John Benjamins.
60.
Vicente-Yagüe-JaraM. I.López-MartínezO.Navarro-NavarroV.Cuéllar-SantiagoF. (2023). Writing, creativity, and artificial intelligence. ChatGPT in the university context. Comunicar, 31(77), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.3916/C77-2023-04
61.
YoungA. (1982). Considering values: The poetic function of language. In YoungA.FulwilerT. (Eds.), Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum (pp. 77–97). National Council of Teachers of English. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/language_connections/chapter6.pdf
