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.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883251349195
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Computers and Composition
  2. Written Communication
  3. College English
  4. Written Communication
Also cites 40 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1075/lal.4.06bar
  2. Belfi A. M. Vessel E. A. Starr G. G. (2018). Individual ratings of vividness predict aesthetic appeal in poet…
  3. Chamberlain R. Mullin C. Scheerlinck B. Wagemans J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic response…
  4. Colas J. T. Hsieh P. J. (2014). Pre-existing brain states predict aesthetic judgments. Human Brain Mapping 35…
  5. Di Dio C. Ardizzi M. Schieppati S. V. Massaro D. Gilli G. Gallese V. Marchetti A. (2023). Art made by artific…
  6. Gilburt I. (2023). A machine in the loop: The peculiar intervention of artificial intelligence in writer’s bl…
  7. Hanauer D. I. (2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language Teaching 45(1) …
  8. Hanauer D. I. (2015a). Beauty judgements of non-professional poetry: Regression analyses of authorial attribu…
  9. Hanauer D. I. (2021). Mourning writing: A poetic autoethnography on the passing of my father. Qualitative Inq…
  10. Hanauer D. I. Dolan E. L. (2014). The project ownership survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry e…
  11. Honea H. Horsky S. (2011). The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context…
  12. Iida A. (2016). Exploring earthquake experiences: A study of second language learners’ ability to express and…
  13. Iida A. (2018). Living in darkness at the time of the great east Japan earthquake: A poetic-narrative autoeth…
  14. Iida A. (2021). “I feel like I can’t avoid dying”: A poetic representation of a survivor’s traumatic experien…
  15. Jacobsen T. (2010). Beauty and the brain: Culture history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciatio…
  16. Joshi N. Vogel D. (2024). Writing with AI lowers psychological ownership but longer prompts can help. https:/…
  17. Kangasharju A. Ilomäki L. Lakkala M. Toom A. (2022). Lower secondary students’ poetry writing with the AI-bas…
  18. Köbis N. Mossink L. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people…
  19. Latikka R. Bergdahl J. Savela N. Oksanen A. (2023). AI as an artist? A two-wave survey study on attitudes tow…
  20. Lindell A. K. Mueller J. (2011). Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation.…
  21. Marchetti E. Nicholson B. (2020). Using a culturally safe creative writing programme to empower and heal abor…
  22. Messingschlager T. V. Appel M. (2022). Creative artificial intelligence and narrative transportation. Psychol…
  23. Nicholes J. (2017). Measuring ownership of creative versus academic writing: Implications for interdisciplina…
  24. Niloy A. C. Akter S. Sultana N. Sultana J. Rahman S. I. U. (2023). Is ChatGPT a menace for creative writing a…
  25. Obermeier C. Menninghaus W. von Koppenfels M. Raettig T. Schmidt-Kassow M. Otterbein S. Kotz S. A. (2013). Ae…
  26. 10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343811
  27. Olckers C. (2013). Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument [Article]. SAJIP: South African Jour…
  28. Palmer S. E. Schloss K. B. Sammartino J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psy…
  29. Parra M. L. (2021). Strengthening writing voices and identities: Creative writing digital tools and artmaking…
  30. Pearce M. T. Zaidel D. W. Vartanian O. Skov M. Leder H. Chatterjee A. Nadal M. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The c…
  31. Pierce J. L. Kostova T. Dirks K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a…
  32. Samo A. Highhouse S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and art: Identifying the aesthetic judgment factors that…
  33. Singh N. Bernal G. Savchenko D. Glassman E. L. (2023). Where to hide a stolen elephant: Leaps in creative wri…
  34. 10.1075/lal.19.02spi
  35. Stickley T. Hui A. Stubley M. Baker F. Watson M. C. (2019). “Write here sanctuary”: Creative writing for refu…
  36. Stockwell R. (2016). Creative play: Welcoming students into a community of practice in creative writing throu…
  37. Summerby-Murray R. (2010). Writing for immediacy: Narrative writing as a teaching technique in undergraduate …
  38. Tausczik Y. R. Pennebaker J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analys…
  39. Tsao J. Nogues C. (2024). Beyond the author: Artificial intelligence creative writing and intellectual emanci…
  40. Vicente-Yagüe-Jara M. I. López-Martínez O. Navarro-Navarro V. Cuéllar-Santiago F. (2023). Writing creativity …
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →