This paper investigates the implications of increasingly intelligent technology environments on human creative thinking, with a focus on differentiating intrinsically human contributions to creativity from those that are amenable to technology-mediation. Confronted with rapid advances in technology, we argue that there remain affective, embodied, experiential, and socio-cultural human dimensions to creative thinking that should be recognized, monitored, and advanced. This is especially true for those that are foundational to creativity or act in frictional ways with technology, as they optimize the overall creative potentials of human-machine relationships. By examining the complex interplay between human consciousness and technological affordances, this paper also outlines several lenses that may promote a more sophisticated exploration of the interactions between and among technology and creative inputs. This flexible framework is intended to help researchers and practitioners better understand and support hybrid creativity in GenAI-enhanced environments by recognizing the synergistic, catalytic, and frictional dynamics shaping human–machine interactions, and by illuminating how these interactions reshape the conditions of what can be imagined, expressed, and made creatively possible.
BottinelliK.KyeongY.CheungC. (2018). Adolescents’ drawing and divergent thinking: Does culture matter?Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 147–158.
5.
BuchtelE. E.NorenzayanA. (2008). Which should you use, intuition or logic? Cultural differences in injunctive norms about reasoning. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(4), 264–273.
6.
BülbülA. E.ArslanC. (2017). Investigation of patience tendency levels in terms of self-determination, self-compassion and personality features. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(9), 1632–1645.
7.
BurkhardtJ.LubartT. (2010). Creativity in the age of emerging technology: Some issues and perspectives in 2010. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 160–166.
8.
CambriaE.FuJ.BisioF.PoriaS. (2015, February). AffectiveSpace 2: Enabling affective intuition for concept-level sentiment analysis [Confe-rence session]. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 29, No. 1).
9.
CelumeM. P.IvcevicZ.ZenasniF. (2023). Mood and creativity in children: Differential impacts on convergent and divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000577
10.
ChaudharyN.PillaiP. (2017). Creativity and Indian culture. In GlăveanuV. P. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 391–405). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
11.
ChenV.LiaoQ. V.Wortman VaughanJ.BansalG. (2023). Understanding the role of human intuition on reliance in human-AI decision-making with explanations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–32.
ClaxtonG.CraftA.GardnerH. (2008). Concluding thoughts: good thinking - education for wise creativity. In CraftA.GardnerH.ClaxtonG. (Eds.), Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship: Exploring the role of education (pp.168–176). Corwin Press.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.5
16.
CraftA. (2010). Possibility thinking and wise creativity: Educational futures in England? In BeghettoR. A.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 289–312). Cambridge University Press.
17.
CropleyD. (2023). Is artificial intelligence more creative than humans?: ChatGPT and the divergent association task. Learning Letters, 2, 13–13.
18.
CropleyD. H.MedeirosK. E.DamadzicA. (2023). The intersection of human and artificial creativity. In HenriksenD.MishraP. (Eds.), Creative provocations: Speculations on the future of creativity, technology & learning (pp. 19–34). Springer International Publishing.
19.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins.
20.
CurryO. S.PriceM. E.PriceJ. G. (2008). Patience is a virtue: Cooperative people have lower discount rates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 780–785.
21.
DeSchryverM.HenriksenD.LeahyS. (in press). Beyond automation: Intrinsically human aspects of creativity in the age of generative AI. In BeghettoR. A. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human creativity × generative AI in education. Oxford University Press.
22.
DeSchryverM.MishraP. (2008). Pre-service teachers and the web: Does access to the web enhance creative thinking about teaching? [Conference session]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
23.
DoshiA. R.HauserO. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity. Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4535536
24.
EpsteinZ.HertzmannA.AktenM.FaridH.FjeldJ.FrankM. R.GrohM.HermanL.LeachN.MahariR.PentlandA. S.RussakovskyO.SchroederH.SmithA. (2023). Art and the science of generative AI. Science, 380(6650), 1110–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4451
25.
EstevaA.KuprelB.NovoaR. A.KoJ.SwetterS. M.BlauH. M.ThrunS. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056
26.
EubanksD. L.MurphyS. T.MumfordM. D. (2010). Intuition as an influence on creative problem-solving: The effects of intuition, positive affect, and training. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.481513
27.
FuY.NewmanM.GoingL.FengQ.LeeJ. H. (2025). Exploring the collaborative co-creation process with AI: A case study in novice music production. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15276.
28.
GaymerR. D. (1985). You are a camera… Some aspects of observation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(1), 67–75.
29.
GerverC. R.GriffinJ. W.DennisN. A.BeatyR. E. (2023). Memory and creativity: A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between memory systems and creative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 2116–2154.
30.
GlăveanuV. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007
31.
GlăveanuV. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.
32.
GlăveanuV. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354.
33.
GlăveanuV. P. (2023). Possibility studies: A manifesto. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1-2), 3–8.
34.
GrajzelK.AcarS.SingerG. (2023). The Big Five and divergent thinking: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 214, 112338.
35.
GuzikE. E.ByrgeC.GildeC. (2023). The originality of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100065.
36.
HanushekE. A.KinneL.LergetporerP.WoessmannL. (2022). Patience, risk-taking, and human capital investment across countries. Econometrics Journal, 132(646), 2290–2307.
37.
HardmanT. J. (2021). Understanding creative intuition. Journal of Creativity, 31, 100006.
38.
HarrisD. X.RousellD. (2022). Posthuman creativities: Pluralist ecologies and the question of how. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(5), 427–434.
39.
HassanD. K. (2019). Creativity trilateral dynamics: Playfulness, mindfulness, and improvisation. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 1–14.
40.
HenriksenD.CreelyE.HendersonM.MishraP. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2091–2108.
41.
HenriksenD.CreelyE.MehtaR. (2022). Rethinking the politics of creativity: Posthumanism, indigeneity, and creativity beyond the western Anthropocene. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(5), 465–475.
42.
HenriksenD.MishraP.CapurroC. T. (2022). A socio-cultural perspective on creativity and technology: New synergies for education. In PluckerJ. (Ed.), Creativity & innovation: Theory, research & practice (2nd ed., pp. 327–346). Prufrock Press.
43.
HuL.WeiS.ZhaoZ.WuB. (2022). Deep learning for fake news detection: A comprehensive survey. AI Open.
44.
IppolitoD.YuanA.CoenenA.BurnamS. (2022). Creative writing with an ai-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030.
45.
JeonY.JinS.HanK. (2021, April). FANCY: human-centered, deep learning-based framework for fashion style analysis [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (pp. 2367–2378).
46.
KaptelininV.NardiB. (2012, May). Affordances in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 967–976).
47.
KoivistoM.GrassiniS. (2023). Best humans still outperform artificial intelligence in a creative divergent thinking task. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 13601. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40858-3
KrishnanS. S.SitaramanR. K. (2012, November). Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference (pp. 211–224). https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398799
50.
LeahyS.MishraP. (2023, March). TPACK and the Cambrian explosion of AI [Conference session]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2465–2469). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
51.
LeanderK. M.BurrissS. K. (2020). Critical literacy for a posthuman world: When people read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1262–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12924
52.
LeungA. K.MadduxW. W.GalinskyA. D.ChiuC. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169
53.
LubartT. I. (2010). Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In KaufmanJ. C.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 265–278). Cambridge University Press.
54.
MagnussonP. R.NetzJ.WästlundE. (2014). Exploring holistic intuitive idea screening in the light of formal criteria. Technovation, 34(5-6), 315–326.
55.
MarkG.IqbalS. T.CzerwinskiM.JohnsP.SanoA. (2016, May). Neurotics can’t focus: An in situ study of online multitasking in the workplace [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1739–1744).
56.
McCormackJ.GiffordT.HutchingsP. (2019, April). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art [Conference session]. International conference on computational intelligence in music, sound, art and design (part of EvoStar) (pp. 35–50). Springer International Publishing.
NiloyA. C.AkterS.SultanaN.SultanaJ.RahmanS. I. U. (2024). Is Chatgpt a menace for creative writing ability? An experiment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 919–930.
61.
NiuW.SternbergR. J. (2006). The philosophical roots of Western and eastern conceptions of creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1-2), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091265
62.
NormanD. (2014). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Diversion Books.
63.
O’DonnellA. (2015). Contemplative pedagogy and mindfulness: Developing creative attention in an age of distraction. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(2), 187–202.
64.
PalmieroM.FusiG.CrepaldiM.BorsaV. M.RusconiM. L. (2022). Divergent thinking and the core executive functions: A state-of-the-art review. Cognitive Processing, 23(3), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01091-4
65.
PalmieroM.NoriR.PiccardiL.D’AmicoS. (2020). Divergent thinking: The role of decision-making styles. Creativity Research Journal, 32(4), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1817700
66.
PenaM. L. C.CarballalA.Rodríguez-FernándezN.SantosI.RomeroJ. (2021). Artificial intelligence applied to conceptual design. A review of its use in architecture. Automation in Construction, 124, 103550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103550
67.
PeschlM. F. (2024). Human innovation and the creative agency of the world in the age of generative AI. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241238049
68.
PéterváriJ.OsmanM.BhattacharyaJ. (2016). The role of intuition in the generation and evaluation stages of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1420.
69.
PiirtoJ. (2018). The creative process in writers. In LubartT. (Ed.), The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains (pp. 89–123). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
70.
RaiA.ConstantinidesP.SarkerS. (2019). Next generation digital platforms: Toward human-AI hybrids. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), iii–ix.
71.
Root-BernsteinR. S.Root-BernsteinM. (2001). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
72.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In SternbergR. J.PreissD. D. (Eds.), Intelligence and technology (pp. 95–110). Routledge.
73.
SawyerR. K.HenriksenD. (2024). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
74.
SchnitkerS. A. (2012). An examination of patience and well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(4), 263–280.
75.
SchnitkerS. A.ShubertJ.RatchfordJ. L.LumpkinM.HoultbergB. J. (2021). Mixed results on the efficacy of the CharacterMe smartphone app to improve self-control, patience, and emotional regulation competencies in adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 586713.
76.
ShersonJ.RabecqB.DellermannD.RafnerJ. (2023). A multi-dimensional development and deployment framework for hybrid intelligence [Conference session]. HHAI 2023: Augmenting Human Intellect (pp. 429–432). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/faia230119
SinclairN.PimmD. (2006). A historical gaze at the mathematical aesthetic. In SinclairN.PimmD.HigginsonW. (Eds.), Mathematics and the aesthetic: New approaches to an ancient affinity (pp. 1–17). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38145-9_1
79.
SquiresS. D.MacdonaldS. N.CulhamJ. C.SnowJ. C. (2016). Priming tool actions: Are real objects more effective primes than pictures?Experimental Brain Research, 234, 963–976.
TsaoJ.NoguesC. (2024). Beyond the author: Artificial intelligence, creative writing and intellectual emancipation. Poetics, 102, 101865.
82.
VakratsasD.WangX. (2021). Artificial intelligence in advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 50(1), 39–51.
83.
VerbeekP. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State Press.
84.
VergantiR.VendraminelliL.IansitiM. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212–227.
85.
VinchonF.LubartT.BartolottaS.GironnayV.BotellaM.Bourgeois-BougrineS.BurkhardtJ.BonnardelN.CorazzaG. E.GlăveanuV.Hanchett HansonM.IvcevicZ.KarwowskiM.KaufmanJ. C.OkadaT.Reiter-PalmonR.GaggioliA. (2023). Artificial intelligence & creativity: A manifesto for collaboration. Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.597
WardT. B.KolomytsY. (2019). Cognition and creativity. In KaufmanJ.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge University Press.
