Perception of AI creativity: dimensional exploration and scale development
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), AI creativity has demonstrated significant potential for application across various fields. This study aims to explore the multidimensional characteristics of AI creativity from the audience's perspective and to develop a corresponding measurement scale. Specifically, Study 1 utilized open‐ended interviews with audiences of AI‐generated creative products and grounded theory‐based data coding to construct a theoretical framework of AI creativity perception. This framework encompasses four core dimensions: originality, depth, credibility, and attractiveness. In Study 2, an exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to develop a scale with high reliability and validity for measuring AI creativity perception, providing empirical support for the multidimensional framework. To further validate the scale's criterion‐related validity, Study 3 examined the effect of AI involvement disclosure on creativity perception. The results reveal that audiences hold biases against AI; although AI is perceived to have a significant advantage in enhancing the originality of creative products, it is viewed as less capable in terms of depth, credibility, and attractiveness. This research offers insights into the future development and iteration of AI creativity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Study 1, the perceived novelty, perceived usefulness, and co-creation intention scales showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.935, 0.852, and 0.887, respectively).
“the perceived novelty scale (Yang and Xu, 2025; Cronbach’s α = 0.935), the perceived usefulness scale (Davis, 1989; α = 0.852), and the co-creation intention scale (You and Robert Jr, 2018; α = 0.887).”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Yang and Xu, 2025
In Study 2, the perceived novelty, perceived usefulness, co-creation intention, and task self-efficacy scales showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.907, 0.717, 0.780, and 0.716, respectively).
“the perceived novelty scale (Yang and Xu, 2025; Cronbach’s α = 0.907), the perceived usefulness scale (Davis, 1989; α = 0.717), the co-creation intention scale (You and Robert Jr, 2018; α = 0.780), and the task self-efficacy scale (Tierney and Farmer, 2002; α = 0.716).”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Yang and Xu, 2025
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Yang, Y., & Xu, H.
- Affiliations
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Xu, Haoran
- ORCID
- Xu, Haoran
- Venue
- The Journal of Creative Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-05-05
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0022-0175 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-6057
- OpenAlex
- W4410097141
- Semantic Scholar
- 55d4e4383c87e6dadea2d31d111c044464c069e9
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 15.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Creative Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Social Science Fund of China (18AGL024)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Digital Media and Visual Art
- Keywords
- computational creativity, audience perception, scale development, originality, depth, credibility, attractiveness, measurement scales
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
