Narrative Standardization and Experiential Specificity in Xiaohongshu Lifestyle Posts:A Cross-Period Content Analysis in the Context of Generative AI
Keywords:
generative artificial intelligence, user-generated content, narrative standardization, experiential specificity, Xiaohongshu, content analysisAbstract
This study examines narrative differences in Xiaohongshu lifestyle posts across two publication periods in the context of expanding generative artificial intelligence (AI). Its objectives are to compare formal and narrative characteristics, interpret patterns of standardization through an alienation-informed perspective, and identify implications for creators and platform governance. The reported corpus comprises 800 posts: 400 published in 2023 and 400 in 2025–2026, covering urban life, daily goods, life experience, and emotional sharing. Comparative content analysis organizes the material into five domains: external form, narrative structure, linguistic style, emotional expression, and experiential specificity. The reported qualitative patterns contrast flexible, situated accounts in the earlier group with more formulaic organization, generalized wording, conventional positivity, and fewer individualized details in the later group. These patterns are interpreted as textual standardization and reduced experiential specificity. Publication period does not establish AI authorship, and textual form does not establish factual falsity, creators’ psychological alienation, or platform-wide displacement. Technological convenience, visibility incentives, and commercial pressures are discussed as possible contextual explanations rather than demonstrated mechanisms. The study contributes a bounded analytical framework linking observable narrative features to questions about mediated self-expression. It recommends preserving experiential detail, verifying substantive claims, and evaluating diversity without equating polished writing with AI generation. Incomplete sampling and coding documentation limits reproducibility and the strength of empirical inference.
References
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. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
Hancock, J. T., Naaman, M., & Levy, K. (2020). AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 89–100. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023). Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(11), e2208839120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2208839120
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292. doi:10.1177/1461444818769694
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. doi:10.2307/2088565
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Pacific Institute of Management Science

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของ สถาบันวิทยาการจัดการแห่งแปซิฟิค
ข้อความที่ปรากฏในบทความแต่ละเรื่องในวารสารวิชาการเล่มนี้เป็นความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับสถาบันวิทยาการจัดการแห่งแปซิฟิค และคณาจารย์ท่านอื่นๆในสถาบันฯ แต่อย่างใด ความรับผิดชอบองค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของบทความแต่ละเรื่องเป็นของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่าน หากมีความผิดพลาดใดๆ ผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านจะรับผิดชอบบทความของตนเองแต่ผู้เดียว
