The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The contemporary art world is conservatively estimated to be a $65 billion USD market that employs millions of human artists, sellers, and collectors globally. Recent attention paid to AI-made art in prestigious galleries, museums, and popular media has provoked debate around how these statistics will change. Unanswered questions fuel growing anxieties. Are AI-made and human-made art evaluated in the same ways? How will growing exposure to AI-made art impact evaluations of human creativity? Our research uses a psychological lens to explore these questions in the realm of visual art. We find that people devalue art labeled as AI-made across a variety of dimensions, even when they report it is indistinguishable from human-made art, and even when they believe it was produced collaboratively with a human. We also find that comparing images labeled as human-made to images labeled as AI-made increases perceptions of human creativity, an effect that can be leveraged to increase the value of human effort. Results are robust across six experiments (N = 2965) using a range of human-made and AI-made stimuli and incorporating representative samples of the US population. Finally, we highlight conditions that strengthen effects as well as dimensions where AI-devaluation effects are more pronounced.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This implies that uncertainty surrounding AI’s reliability and contextual fit may depress individuals’ subjective evaluations of its perceived usefulness.”
From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Horton et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The standard definition of creativity
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 · Cited by 3,895
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
effectsize: Estimation of Effect Size Indices and Standardized Parameters
Ben‐Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.02815 · Cited by 2,108
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88067-4_21 · Cited by 1,723
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/0022243719851788 · Cited by 1,500
The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities and Challenges
Xu, M., David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018) · International Journal of Financial Research · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p90 · Cited by 1,290
Art and the science of generative AI
Epstein, Z., Hertzmann, A., the Investigators of Human Creativity, Akten, M., Farid, H., Fjeld, J., Frank, M. R., Groh, M., Herman, L., Leach, N., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh4451 · Cited by 788
Initial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale
Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014 · Cited by 785
An Aligned Rank Transform Procedure for Multifactor Contrast Tests
Elkin, L. A., Kay, M., Higgins, J. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2021) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/3472749.3474784 · Cited by 711
The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?
Fuchs, C., Schreier, M., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2015) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.14.0018 · Cited by 479
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Garg, A. Another Word a Day: An All-new Romp Through Some of the Most Unusual and Intriguing Words in English 163 (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).
- Ta, A. What happens when AI creates art that looks like your work?. KCRW. https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/press-play-with-madeleine-brand/ukraine-artificial-intel-scissor-sisters/ai-artists (2023).
- Amabile, T. M. & Hennessey, B. A. Consensual assessment. Encycl. Creat. 1, 347–359 (1999).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sikhondze, B., Ye, H. J., Wang, W., Zhan, X., & Santhanam, R. (2025) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2025.2487314 · Cited by 18
From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner
Liu, Y., Yang, Y., & Xu, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1695532 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Horton Jr, C. B., White, M. W., & Iyengar, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- ORCID
- White, Michael W.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2023-11-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19001-19001
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10624838
- OpenAlex
- W4388292415
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 17.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- AI-generated art, human creativity, art valuation, human-AI collaboration, visual arts, art market
- MeSH terms
- Art, Creativity, Humans, Museums
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
