Ownership,Accuracy,and Aesthetics: University Writers’ Perceptions of GenAI Poetry

Abstract

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.

Keywords

generative artificial intelligence poetry meaningful literacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akiyoshi

(2017). Japanese L2 writers’ self-perceived voice in haiku poetry and academic prose. Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 6(1), 37–54.

Barney

(2008). Literary evaluation and poetic form: Poetic form and creative tension. In van Peer

(Ed.), The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 71–81). John Benjamins.

Belfi

A. M.

Vessel

E. A.

Starr

G. 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

Bishop

(1993). Writing is/and therapy?: Raising questions about writing classrooms and writing program administration. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(2), 503–516.

Britton

Burgess

Martin

McLeod

Rosen

(1975). The development of writing abilities (11–18). Macmillan.

Broad

Theune

(2010). How we value contemporary poetry: An empirical inquiry. College English, 73(2), 113–137.

Byrd

Flores

Gibson

Green

Hassel

Johnson

S. Z.

Kirschenbaum

Lockett

Losh

E. M.

Mills

(2024). Student guide to AI literacy. Modern Language Association of America and Conference on College Composition and Communication.

Chamberlain

Mullin

Scheerlinck

Wagemans

(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

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Colas

J. T.

Hsieh

P. 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 Dio

Ardizzi

Schieppati

S. V.

Massaro

Gilli

Gallese

Marchetti

. (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

12.

Fact Book. (2024). UW-Stout enrollment. https://public.tableau.com/views/FactBookEnrollment_16807069506540/Story1?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

13.

Gilburt

(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.

Guo

Pataranutaporn

Maes

(2024). Exploring the interaction of creative writers with AI-powered writing tools. https://arXiv:2402.12814

15.

Hanauer

D. I.

(2004). Poetry and the meaning of life. Pippin.

16.

Hanauer

D. I.

(2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 45(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000522

17.

Hanauer

D. 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.

Hanauer

D. I.

(2015b). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314563023

19.

Hanauer

D. 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.

Hanauer

D. I.

Dolan

E. 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.

Hesse

Rademaekers

Blakeslee

Britt-Smith

Moroski-Rigney

Craig

Roskinski

Sheriff

(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.

Honea

Horsky

(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.

Iida

(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.

Iida

(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.

Iida

(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.

Jacobsen

(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.

Jakobson

(1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok

T. A.

(Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

28.

Joshi

Vogel

(2024). Writing with AI lowers psychological ownership, but longer prompts can help. https://arXiv:2404.03108v1

29.

Kangasharju

Ilomäki

Lakkala

Toom

(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

30.

Knowles

A. M.

(2024). Machine-in-the-loop writing: Optimizing the rhetorical load. Computers and Composition, 71, 102826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102826

31.

Köbis

Mossink

L. 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.

Latikka

Bergdahl

Savela

Oksanen

(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.

Lerner

(2010). Poetic value: Political value. In van Peer

(Ed.), Quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 93–104). John Benjamins.

34.

Lindell

A. K.

Mueller

(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.

Marchetti

Nicholson

(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.

Messingschlager

T. V.

Appel

(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.

Nadal

Vartanian

(2021). Empirical aesthetics: An overview. In Nadal

Vartanian

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 3–38). Oxford University Press.

38.

Nicholes

(2017). Measuring ownership of creative versus academic writing: Implications for interdisciplinary praxis. Writing in Practice, 3. https://www.nawe.co.uk/DB/current-wip-edition-2/articles/measuring-ownership-of-creative-versus-academic-writing-implications-for-interdisciplinary-praxis.html

39.

Niloy

A. C.

Akter

Sultana

Rahman

S. 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.

Obermeier

Menninghaus

von Koppenfels

Raettig

Schmidt-Kassow

Otterbein

Kotz

S. 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.

Ogawa

Taura

Ishiguro

(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.

Olckers

(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

43.

Palmer

S. E.

Schloss

K. B.

Sammartino

(2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504

44.

Parra

M. 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.

Pearce

M. T.

Zaidel

D. W.

Vartanian

Skov

Leder

Chatterjee

Nadal

(2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621274

46.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Booth

R. J.

Boyd

R. L.

Francis

M. E.

(2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015: Operator’s Manual. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31333/LIWC2015_LanguageManual.pdf

47.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.

48.

Pierce

J. L.

Kostova

Dirks

K. 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.

Samo

Highhouse

(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.

Singh

Bernal

Savchenko

Glassman

E. 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.

Smagorinsky

(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.

Spiro

(2014). Learner and writer voices: Learners as writers and the search for authorial voice. In Disney

(Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 23–40). John Benjamins.

53.

Spiro

Dymoke

(2016). Translating writing worlds: Writing as a poet, writing as an academic. In Jones

R. H.

Richards

J. C.

(Eds.), Creativity in language teaching: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 77–94). Routledge.

54.

Stickley

Hui

Stubley

Baker

Watson

M. 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.

Stockwell

(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-Murray

(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.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. 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.

Tsao

Nogues

(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 Peer

. (2010). The evaluation of literary texts: A new perspective. In van Peer

(Ed.), Quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation (pp. 1–14). John Benjamins.

60.

Vicente-Yagüe-Jara

M. I.

López-Martínez

Navarro-Navarro

Cuéllar-Santiago

(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.

Young

(1982). Considering values: The poetic function of language. In Young

Fulwiler

(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