The Impact of Template-Based Design Tools on Gen Z Creators’ Sense of Creative Freedom and Perception of Originality
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jnme.202610302
Author(s)
Jingyi Li
Affiliation(s)
Department of Data and Media Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Abstract
Template-based design tools such as Canva and CapCut have lowered the technical barriers to visual creation by providing preset layouts, ready-made visual elements, and automatic formatting functions. While these tools enable non-professional users to produce visual content efficiently, they may also contribute to stylistic homogenization and influence creators’ perceptions of creative freedom and originality. This study examines the relationship between template-based design tool usage, perceived creative freedom, and perceived originality among Generation Z non-professional creators aged 18 to 26. Based on 200 valid questionnaires, the study adopts a cross-sectional survey design and uses pretested, reliable scales to measure template usage, perceived creative freedom, and perceived originality. The results show that respondents generally displayed high-frequency but moderate-dependent template use. Pearson correlation analysis found a moderate positive relationship between template usage and perceived creative freedom (r = .481, p < .001) and a weak positive relationship between template usage and perceived originality (r = .192, p = .006). Linear regression analysis further showed that template usage significantly predicted perceived creative freedom, but did not significantly predict perceived originality after controlling for age and gender. The study suggests that template-based design tools may enhance non-professional creators’ sense of expressive autonomy, while their relationship with perceived originality remains weak and unstable. These findings contribute to understanding the social impact of digital creative tools and offer implications for platform design and creative education.
Keywords
Template-Based Design Tools; Generation Z; Creative Freedom; Perceived Originality; Design Homogenization
References
[1] Abulela, M. A. A. (2024). Development and initial validation of a creative self-efficacy scale for undergraduates: Categorical confirmatory factor analysis and multidimensional item response theory. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1306532. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1306532/full
[2] Bakhshi, S., Shamma, D. A., & Gilbert, E. (2015). Faces engage us: Photos with faces attract more likes and comments on Instagram. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 965–974. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2556288.2557403
[3] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08589-000
[4] boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.12987/9780300166439/html
[5] Caputo, A. (2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported measures. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2025–2038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0389-6
[6] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://misq.umn.edu/misq/article-abstract/13/3/319/191/Perceived-Usefulness-Perceived-Ease-of-Use-and?redirectedFrom=fulltext
[7] Frich, J., Vermeulen, L., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2019). Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in human–computer interaction. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300619
[8] Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.12987/9780300235029/html
[9] Lamb, K. N., Boedeker, P., & Kettler, T. (2025). Measuring creative self-efficacy: Instrument development and validation. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187124002797
[10] Lupton, E., & Phillips, J. C. (2008). Graphic design: The new basics. Princeton Architectural Press.
[11] Manovich, L. (2017). Instagram and contemporary image. Cultural Analytics Lab. http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/instagram-and-contemporary-image
[12] Maudet, N. (2022). Une brève histoire des templates: Entre autonomisation et contrôle des graphistes amateurs. Hybrid.
[13] Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research. Sage Publications.
[14] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
[15] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
[16] Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
[17] Tang, Y., Zhang, N., Ciancia, M., & Wang, Z. (2024). Exploring the impact of AI-generated image tools on professional and non-professional users in the art and design fields. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10640
[18] Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429
[19] Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
