AI观点发散性对团体创造表现的影响及其认知神经机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.2200

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在生成式人工智能嵌入团队协作的背景下, AI观点特征如何影响团体创造表现目前仍缺乏深入探讨。本研究设计“双人-AI”团体协作场景, 要求双人与AI合作完成科学与日常两类创造性任务, 操纵AI输出观点的发散性, 考察其对团体创意新颖性与实用性的影响, 及对AI调用策略、观点采择策略、观点语义特征、双人脑间同步和单人脑功能连接的作用。结果表明, 高AI观点发散性显著提升了团体创意的新颖性, 但这一增益作用仅体现在日常创造性任务中; 高AI观点发散性削弱了两类创造性任务中团体创意的实用性。中介分析表明, AI排除性生成策略及人类观点语义特征在AI观点发散性影响团体创造表现的过程中发挥中介作用。脑-行为整合分析显示, 前额叶脑间同步与单脑功能连接可通过AI调用策略、观点采择策略与观点语义特征等变量, 与团体创意新颖性和实用性产生间接关联。本研究为理解AI观点发散性影响团体创意新颖性与实用性的认知神经机制提供了实证证据, 进一步拓展了团体动机性信息加工模型在人智共创情境中的应用范围。

关键词: AI观点发散性, 团体创造表现, 人智共创, fNIRS超扫描, 认知神经机制

Abstract: Generative AI is increasingly integrated into collaborative work, yet how characteristics of AI-generated viewpoints shape group creative performance remains insufficiently understood. AI viewpoint divergence refers to the extent to which AI-generated viewpoints are distributed across semantic space and differ in content. Drawing primarily on the Motivated Information Processing in Groups model, this study examined whether high versus low AI viewpoint divergence differentially affects the novelty and usefulness of group ideas in scientific and everyday creativity tasks. It also examined whether these effects are associated with cognitive processing variables and prefrontal neural indicators during human-AI co-creation.
We designed a dyad-AI collaborative paradigm in which two participants worked with AI to complete one scientific and one everyday creativity task. We recruited 180 participants. After excluding one dyad because one participant did not follow the task instructions, the final sample comprised 89 dyads (44 in the high-divergence condition and 45 in the low-divergence condition). We used a 2 × 2 mixed design, with AI viewpoint divergence as a between-dyad factor and task type as a within-dyad factor. Group creative performance was assessed in terms of novelty and usefulness. We also measured AI utilization strategies, perspective-taking strategies, and semantic features of human-generated and group-generated ideas, and used fNIRS hyperscanning to measure prefrontal inter-brain synchronization and intra-brain functional connectivity.
Manipulation checks showed that AI-generated viewpoints in the high-divergence condition were more semantically dispersed than those in the low-divergence condition. High AI viewpoint divergence increased the novelty of group ideas, but this benefit emerged primarily in the everyday creativity task. In contrast, high AI viewpoint divergence reduced the usefulness of group ideas across both task types. Mediation analyses showed that AI exclusion-based generation strategies and semantic features of human ideas mediated the association between AI viewpoint divergence and group creative performance. Brain-behavior integration analyses further indicated that prefrontal inter-brain synchronization and intra-brain functional connectivity were indirectly associated with novelty and usefulness through AI utilization strategies, perspective-taking strategies, and semantic features.
These findings indicate that AI viewpoint divergence does not uniformly enhance group creativity. Instead, its effects depend on task constraints and on how groups search for, select, adopt, and semantically reorganize AI-generated information. The study extends the application of the Motivated Information Processing in Groups model to human-AI co-creation and provides empirical evidence for cognitive processing pathways and neural associations linking AI viewpoint divergence to the distinct outcomes of novelty and usefulness in group creative performance. Practically, AI support for creative collaboration should be calibrated to task openness, domain constraints, and the stage-specific demands of idea generation and evaluation.

Key words: AI viewpoint divergence, group creativity, human-AI co-creation, fNIRS hyperscanning, cognitive-neural mechanisms

中图分类号:

B842

周志豪, 乔煕诺, 张文宇, 童帅, 郝宁. (2026). AI观点发散性对团体创造表现的影响及其认知神经机制. 心理学报, 58(11), 2200-2217.

ZHOU Zhihao, QIAO Xinuo, ZHANG Wenyu, TONG Shuai, HAO Ning. (2026). Effects of AI viewpoint divergence on group creative performance: Cognitive-neural mechanisms. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(11), 2200-2217.

参考文献

[1] Acar, O. A., & van den Ende, J. (2016). Knowledge distance, cognitive-search processes, and creativity: The making of winning solutions in science contests. Psychological Science, 27(5), 692-699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616634665
[2] Acar O. A., Tuncdogan A., van Knippenberg D., & Lakhani K. R. (2024). Collective creativity and innovation: An interdisciplinary review, integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 50(6), 2119-2151. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231212416
[3] Aggarwal I.,& Woolley, A. W.(2019). Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Science, 652017.3001
[4] Anderson B. R., Shah J. H., & Kreminski M. (2024). Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition(pp. 413-425). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204
[5] Beaty R. E., Johnson D. R., Zeitlen D. C.,& Forthmann, B.(2022). Semantic distance and the alternate uses task: Recommendations for reliable automated assessment of originality. Creativity Research Journal, 342022.2025720
[6] Beaty R. E.,& Kenett, Y. N.(2023). Associative thinking at the core of creativity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 272023.04.004
[7] Beaty R. E., Kenett Y. N., Christensen A. P., Rosenberg M. D., Benedek M., Chen Q., … Silvia P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(5), 1087-1092. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713532115
[8] Chan M. M., Cho E., Ralph M. A.L., & Robinson, G. A.(2025). The cognitive and neural bases of creative thought: A cross-domain systematic review and meta-analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 175, 106237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106237
[9] Che J. S., Sun H. L., Xiao C. J.,& Li, A. M.(2019). Why information overload damages decisions? An explanation based on limited cognitive resources. Advances in Psychological Science, 272019.01758
[车敬上, 孙海龙, 肖晨洁, 李爱梅.(2019). 为什么信息超载损害决策?基于有限认知资源的解释. 心理科学进展, 27(10), 1758-1768. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01758]
[10] Chen Z.,& Chan, J.(2024). Large language model in creative work: The role of collaboration modality and user expertise. Management Science, 702023.03014
[11] Cheng S., Zhang W., Xie C.,& Hao, N.(2026). Communication modality modulates dynamic switching between neural coupling and decoupling during group creative ideation. NeuroImage, 326, 121707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.121707
[12] Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
[13] Cui X., Bray S.,& Reiss, A. L.(2010). Functional near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) signal improvement based on negative correlation between oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin dynamics. NeuroImage, 492009.11.050
[14] Cui X., Bryant D. M.,& Reiss, A. L.(2012). NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals increased interpersonal coherence in superior frontal cortex during cooperation. NeuroImage, 592011.09.003
[15] De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad B. A., & van Knippenberg D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
[16] Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
[17] Fink A., Grabner R. H., Benedek M., Reishofer G., Hauswirth V., Fally M., … Neubauer A. C. (2009). The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative problem solving by means of EEG and fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 734-748. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20538
[18] Fishburn F. A., Ludlum R. S., Vaidya C. J.,& Medvedev, A. V.(2019). Temporal derivative distribution repair (TDDR): A motion correction method for fNIRS. NeuroImage, 184, 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.025
[19] Gramfort A., Luessi M., Larson E., Engemann D. A., Strohmeier D., Brodbeck C., Goj R., Jas M., Brooks T., Parkkonen L.,& Hämäläinen, M. S.(2013). MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00267
[20] Grinsted A., Moore J. C., & Jevrejeva S. (2004). Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 11(6), 561-566. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-11-561-2004
[21] Gulati S., Sousa S.,& Lamas, D.(2019). Design, development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 382019.1656779
[22] Hayes A. F.(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-Based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
[23] Hoever I. J., van Knippenberg D., van Ginkel W. P., & Barkema H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982-996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
[24] Ivcevic Z.,& Grandinetti, M.(2024). Artificial intelligence as a tool for creativity. Journal of Creativity, 342024.100079
[25] Jackson R. L.(2021). The neural correlates of semantic control revisited. NeuroImage, 224, 117444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117444
[26] Krieger-Redwood K., Steward A., Gao Z., Wang X., Halai A., Smallwood J., & Jefferies E. (2023). Creativity in verbal associations is linked to semantic control. Cerebral Cortex, 33(9), 5135-5147. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac405
[27] Kranzle, T., & Sharratt, K. (2025). Evaluating creative output with generative artificial intelligence: Comparing GPT models and human experts in idea evaluation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 34(4), 991-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.70007
[28] Lamsiyah S.,El Mahdaouy, A., Espinasse, B., & El Alaoui Ouatik, S.(2021). An unsupervised method for extractive multi-document summarization based on centroid approach and sentence embeddings. Expert Systems with Applications, 167, 114152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114152
[29] Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1203_2
[30] Lu, K., & Hao, N. (2026). The interpersonal neural coupling in group creative ideation. Psychological Review, 133, 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000524
[31] Lu K., Gao Z., Wang X., Qiao X., He Y., Zhang Y., & Hao N. (2023). The hyper-brain neural couplings distinguishing high-creative group dynamics: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. Cerebral Cortex, 33(5), 1630-1642. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac161
[32] Lu K., Teng J., & Hao N. (2020). Gender of partner affects the interaction pattern during group creative idea generation. Experimental Brain Research, 238(5), 1157-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05799-7
[33] Lu R., Lin C., & Tsao H. (2024). Empowering large language models to leverage domain-specific knowledge in E-learning. Applied Sciences, 14(12), 5264. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125264
[34] Luchini S. A., Maliakkal N. T., DiStefano P. V., Laverghetta A., Patterson J. D., Beaty R. E., & Reiter-Palmon R. (2025). Automated scoring of creative problem solving with large language models: A comparison of originality and quality ratings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000736
[35] Martin S., Ferrante M., Bruera A., & Hartwigsen G. (2025). Causal contributions of left inferior and medial frontal cortex to semantic and executive control. Communications Biology, 8, 1343. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-025-08848-5
[36] MacKinnon D. P., Krull J. L., & Lockwood C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371
[37] Medeiros K. E., Cropley D. H., Marrone R. L., & Reiter- Palmon R. (2025). Human-AI co-creativity: Does ChatGPT make us more creative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(2), e70022. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70022
[38] Moon K., Green A. E.,& Kushlev, K.(2025). Homogenizing effect of large language models (LLMs) on creative diversity: An empirical comparison of human and ChatGPT writing. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 6, 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100207
[39] Nijstad B. A.,& De Dreu, C. K. W.(2012). Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.004
[40] OpenAI. (2024). New embedding models and API updates. OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/new-embedding-models-and-api-updates
[41] Peter L., Michinov N., Besançon M., Michinov E., Juhel J., Brown G., Jamet E.,& Cherbonnier, A.(2021). Revisiting the effects of gender diversity in small groups on divergent thinking: A large-scale study using synchronous electronic brainstorming. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 723235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.723235
[42] Pick H., Fahoum N., Zoabi D., & Shamay-Tsoory S. G. (2024). Brainstorming: Interbrain coupling in groups forms the basis of group creativity. Communications Biology, 7, 911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06614-7
[43] Ruan K., Wang X., Hong J., Wang P., Liu Y., & Sun H. (2026). Evaluating LLMs’ divergent thinking capabilities for scientific idea generation with minimal context. Nature Communications, 17, 3625. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70245-1
[44] Runco M. A.,& Jaeger, G. J.(2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 242012.650092
[45] Runco M. A., Plucker J. A., & Lim W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_16
[46] Saretzki J., Knopf T., Forthmann B., Goecke B., Jaggy A.-K., Benedek M., & Weiss S. (2025). Scoring German alternate uses items applying large language models. Journal of Intelligence, 13(6), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13060064
[47] Schaum M., Pinzuti E., Sebastian A., Lieb K., Fries P., Mobascher A., Jung P., Wibral M., & Tüscher O. (2021). Right inferior frontal gyrus implements motor inhibitory control via beta-band oscillations in humans. eLife, 10, e61679. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61679
[48] Shaw, A. (2021). It works…but can we make it easier? A comparison of three subjective scoring indexes in the assessment of divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100789
[49] Silvia P. J., Winterstein B. P., Willse J. T., Barona C. M., Cram J. T., Hess K. I., Martinez J. L., & Richard C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
[50] Vinchon F., Lubart T., Bartolotta S., Gironnay V., Botella M., Bourgeois-Bougrine S., … Gaggioli A. (2023). Artificial intelligence & creativity: A manifesto for collaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 472-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.597
[51] Wadinambiarachchi S., Kelly R. M., Pareek S., Zhou Q., & Velloso E. (2024). The effects of generative AI on design fixation and divergent thinking. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(380, pp. 1-18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642919
[52] Wan Q., Hu S., Zhang Y., Wang P., Wen B., & Lu Z. (2024). “It felt like having a second mind”. Investigating human-AI co-creativity in prewriting with Large Language Models. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637361
[53] Wan Y., Guo Y., Hu Y., Liu P., Qiu J., & Yang W. (2025). Measurement and automated scoring of scientific creative thinking. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/dy9p8_v1
[54] Wang X., Chen Q., Zhuang K., Zhang J., Cortes R. A., Holzman D. D., … & Qiu J. (2024). Semantic associative abilities and executive control functions predict novelty and appropriateness of idea generation. Communications Biology, 7, 703. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06405-0
[55] Wang X., Lu K., He Y., Qiao X., Gao Z., Zhang Y., & Hao N. (2024). Dynamic brain networks in spontaneous gestural communication. npj Science of Learning, 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00274-2
[56] Wu W., Huang Y.,& Qian, L.(2024). Social trust and algorithmic equity: The societal perspectives of users’ intention to interact with algorithm recommendation systems. Decision Support Systems, 178, 114115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2023.114115
[57] Yeo G. B., Celestine N. A., Parker S. K., To M. L., & Hirst G. (2024). A neurocognitive framework of attention and creativity: Maximizing usefulness and novelty via directed and undirected pathways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(6), 912-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2787
[58] Zhao H., Wang Z., Han M.,& Huang, Y.(2024). Collective thriving and team creativity in college students’ innovation teams: A serial mediation model. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101468
[59] Zhao X., Lynch J. G., Jr., & Chen Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
[60] Zhou Z., Xiao L., Wang J., Tong S., Zhang W., & Hao N. (2026). Group-AI collaboration enhances creativity performance: The roles of perspective-taking and AI utilisation strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 42(2), e70223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcal.70223