人工智能（AI）在内容共创中扮演重要角色。然而,相比于与人共创,与AI共创时个体内容共创意愿表现出何种差异?基于认知负荷理论和自我效能理论,通过4项情景实验,考察了不同共创主体对个体内容共创意愿影响的心理机制及作用边界。研究发现：（1）与AI共创有助于降低个体的认知负荷,进而提升内容共创意愿;与人共创有助于增强个体的创造自我效能,进而提升内容共创意愿。（2）任务类型调节了共创主体类型对内容共创意愿的影响,即对于认知分析型内容共创任务,与AI共创有助于提升内容共创意愿,而对于情感社会型内容共创任务,与人共创有助于提升内容共创意愿。
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly exemplified by tools such as ChatGPT, has emerged as a key player in the landscape of content co-creation, breaking away from the long-standing reliance on humans as co-creators. However, most existing research has focused on the foundational concepts and practical applications of human-AI content co-creation, with little attention paid to the differences in individuals’ willingness to co-create content with AI compared to humans. To address this gap, the current study adopts cognitive load theory and self-efficacy theory to explore the mechanisms by which individuals’ content co-creation intentions are influenced based on the type of co-creator. Specifically, this research aims to answer two questions: (1) What are the underlying psychological mechanisms by which different co-creators (human vs. AI) influence individuals’ content co-creation intentions? (2) What are the boundary conditions that affect the influence of different co-creators on individuals’ content co-creation intentions?
To explore these questions, this study formulates three research hypotheses, which were tested through three primary studies and an additional supplementary study. In Study 1, a between-subjects design with a single factor (co-creator types: human vs. AI) was utilized to examine the psychological mechanisms through which co-creator types affect content co-creation intentions. The sample consisted of 168 undergraduate students from a comprehensive university in China. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and bootstrapping for mediation analysis were employed to test hypotheses 1 and 2. In Study 2, the sample and task scenarios were altered and 216 participants were recruited from the Credamo platform to replicate the findings of Study 1. Study 3 employed a 2 (co-creator types: human vs. AI) × 2 (task types: cognitive analytical task vs. emotional social task) between-subjects experimental design to examine the moderating effect of task types on the relationship between co-creator types and content co-creation intentions. A total of 272 participants were recruited from the Credamo platform, and hypotheses 3, 3a, and 3b were tested using ANOVA and bootstrapping for moderating effects. Study 4, a complementary study, recruited 180 participants from the Credamo platform to examine the influence of technical proficiency on the relation between co-creator types and content co-creation intentions.
The research reveals that (1) The effect of co-creator types on content co-creation intention was mediated by cognitive load and creative self-efficacy. Specifically, co-creating with AI decreased individuals’ cognitive load and thereby increased their willingness to co-create content. In contrast, co-creating with humans enhanced individuals’ creative self-efficacy, and thereby increased their willingness to co-create content. (2) The type of task moderated the mediation process. For cognitive analytical content co-creation tasks, co-creating with AI enhanced content co-creation intention, whereas for emotional social tasks, co-creating with humans enhanced content co-creation intention. (3) Technical proficiency served as a boundary condition affecting human-AI content co-creation intention. Individuals with higher technical proficiency experienced a more significant reduction in cognitive load and enhanced creative self-efficacy, which increased their intention to co-create content.
This research contributes in three key ways. (1) While prior studies have examined individual collaboration willingness in human-machine collaboration tasks based on predefined rules and division of labor, this paper focuses on content co-creation tasks that involve deeper human-AI interaction, and further investigates individuals’ willingness to engage in human-AI content co-creation, and thereby enriches the theoretical understanding of human-AI content co-creation. (2) While prior research has primarily focused on content co-creation intentions among human team members, this paper extends the scope by comparing the psychological mechanisms underlying different co-creators’ effects on individual content co-creation intentions, thereby enhancing the theoretical understandings of content co-creation intentions. (3) The study delineates the boundary conditions for the impact of task types on individual content co-creation intentions, thereby expanding the research framework for understanding human-AI content co-creation.
关键词
人机共创 /
内容共创 /
认知负荷 /
创造自我效能 /
技术熟练度
Key words
human-AI co-creation /
content co-creation /
cognitive load /
creative self-efficacy /
technical proficiency
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 邓建国. (2023). 概率与反馈: ChatGPT的智能原理与人机内容共创. 南京社会科学, 3, 86-94, 142.
[2] 冯文琪, 宋晓兵, 董大海. (2024). 人工智能生成内容对消费者分享行为的影响研究. 管理工程学报, 38(6), 25-40.
[3] 裘江南, 张方芳, 高双燕, 王岍, 蔡承杰. (2024). 在线知识社区知识社会建构中人机协作模式的形成机制研究——基于人机互补的视角. 南开管理评论, 27(5), 117-128.
[4] 尹萌, 牛雄鹰. (2024). 与AI“共舞”: 系统化视角下的AI-员工协作. 心理科学进展, 32(1), 162-176.
[5] 赵建彬. (2023). 运气感对创造力的影响: 创造自我效能的中介作用. 心理科学, 46(5), 1173-1179.
[6] Arntz A., Straßmann C., Völker S., & Eimler S. C. (2022). Collaborating eye to eye: Effects of workplace design on the perception of dominance of collaboration robots. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, Article 999308.
[7] De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas M., & Nijstad B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739-756.
[8] Dwivedi Y. K., Kshetri N., Hughes L., Slade E. L., Jeyaraj A., Kar A. K., & Wright R. (2023). Opinion paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642.
[9] Haan, K. (2023). Over 75% of consumers are concerned about misinformation from artificial intelligence. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/artificial-intelligence-consumer-sentiment
[10] Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.
[11] Hayes A. F.(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
[12] Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155-172.
[13] Knop M., Weber S., Mueller M., & Niehaves B. (2022). Human factors and technological characteristics influencing the interaction of medical professionals with artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems: Literature review. JMIR Human Factors, 9(1), Article e28639.
[14] Korteling J. E., van de Boer-Visschedijk, G. C., Blankendaal R. A. M., Boonekamp R. C., & Eikelboom A. R. (2021). Human-versus artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 622364.
[15] Ma, X. Y., & Huo, Y. D. (2023). Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework. Technology in Society, 75, Article 102362.
[16] Nah F. F. H., Zheng R. L., Cai J. Y., Siau K., & Chen L. T. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277-304.
[17] Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087.
[18] Paluch S., Tuzovic S., Holz H. F., Kies A., & Jörling M. (2022). “My colleague is a robot”-exploring frontline employees' willingness to work with collaborative service robots. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 363-388.
[19] Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 21-42.
[20] Shin H., Perdue R. R., & Pandelaere M. (2020). Managing customer reviews for value co-creation: An empowerment theory perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 59(5), 792-810.
[21] Shin S. J., Kim T. Y., Lee J. Y., & Bian L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197-212.
[22] Song J., Gao Y., Huang Y., & Chen L. (2023). Being friendly and competent: Service robots' proactive behavior facilitates customer value co-creation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, 122861.
[23] Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
[24] Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
[25] Weigel, F. K., & Hazen, B. T. (2014). Technical proficiency for IS Success. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 27-36.
[26] Wirtz J., Patterson P. G., Kunz W. H., Gruber T., Lu V. N., Paluch S., & Martins A. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907-931.
[27] You, S., & Robert, L. P. Jr. (2018). Human-robot similarity and willingness to work with a robotic co-worker. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Chicago, IL.
[28] Zhao J., Wang T., & Fan X. C. (2015). Patient value co-creation in online health communities: Social identity effects on customer knowledge contributions and membership continuance intentions in online health communities. Journal of Service Management, 26(1), 72-96.
基金
*本研究得到天津市教委科研计划项目（2021SK009）和天津市艺术科学规划项目（B24068）的资助
PDF(1187 KB)
