Unity without uniformity: Humans’ social creativity strategy under generative artificial intelligence salience

Abstract

The rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) technology has sparked concerns akin to opening a Pandora’s box. In recent years, the remarkable progress of generative AI has further amplified this uncertainty, bringing forth numerous challenges to human society. One such challenge is the symbolic threat to human distinctiveness posed by generative AI. This threat is difficult to avoid and may generate widespread and intricate negative impacts. Therefore, grounded in social identity theory, this study examines individuals’ use of social creativity strategies in response to generative AI salience, while also investigating the moderating role of anthropocentrism in this process. To investigate these effects, this research conducted four progressive studies. Study 1 used two survey rounds to identify mind dimensions perceived as overlapping or distinct between humans and generative AI, revealing the specific forms of social creativity strategies in response to generative AI salience. Study 2 employed a single-factor, three-level between-subjects design to demonstrate that generative AI salience leads individuals to adopt social creativity strategies, particularly by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing dimensions. Study 3 introduced anthropocentrism as a moderating variable using a 2×2 between-subjects design and found that anthropocentrism strengthens the use of social creativity strategies when generative AI is salient. Finally, Study 4 controlled for the effects of social competition strategies by presenting participants with both social creativity and social competition scenarios, further demonstrating that generative AI salience leads individuals to adopt social creativity strategies, and anthropocentrism enhances social creativity strategy use in generative AI salient contexts. The findings reveal several key insights across four studies. Study 1 identified the specific mind dimensions that individuals perceive as overlapping or distinct between human and generative AI, demonstrating that people actively redefine these distinctions when faced with generative AI salience. Study 2 showed that individuals respond to generative AI salience by employing social creativity strategies, specifically by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing dimensions of the human mind. Study 3 introduced anthropocentrism as a moderating factor and demonstrated that individuals with higher anthropocentric beliefs are more likely to adopt social creativity strategies when generative AI is salient. Finally, Study 4 controlled for the influence of social competition strategies and provided additional evidence that generative AI salience leads individuals to adopt social creativity strategies, and anthropocentrism enhances the use of social creativity strategies. In summary, this study demonstrates that generative AI salience prompts the application of social creativity strategy, with a moderating role played by individuals’ anthropocentrism. The findings reveal the specific manifestations and positive implications of individuals’ use of social creativity strategies in contexts where generative AI is made salient. They also elucidate the functional role of anthropocentrism and offer new insights into how social creativity strategies can be leveraged to promote harmonious human−AI coexistence in the era of intelligence.