ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023
Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artistic-Value Descriptions Are Associated with Higher Aesthetic Ratings than Social-Value Descriptions for AI-Generated Variants of Classical Paintings.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unique Digital Images as Incentives in Clinical Trials: A Digital Shift Toward Meaningful Participation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- An AI-generated art evaluation model that integrates computational aesthetics and cognitive psychology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Is there a "mind" behind the music? Attributing music to AI can suppress narrative meaning-making.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- How Consistent Friendlike Conversation with AI Companions Influences Our Attitudes and Perceptions Toward AI: An Exploratory Experiment.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Understanding purchase intention for genAI-enabled museum cultural and creative products using a SOR model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-generated artwork detection using self-distilled transformers with global-local feature learning and Grad-CAM interpretability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Human-made vs. AI-generated: how provenance labels drive strategic curation via perceived effort.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Where does the bias begin? Cognitive processing differences in the aesthetic evaluation of AI-generated art.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Beyond ethics and aesthetics: perceived lay theory violations and agency disruption in AI-generated art.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- How generative AI shapes designers' cultural heritage revitalization intention: process and content cues in AI-assisted cultural heritage design.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Is employment anxiety among vocal music students associated with AI replacement concerns? The roles of AI anxiety and vocal-performance replacement perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- From perceptual rule transformation to listener attribution judgments: a blind-listening experiment on AI-generated, human-AI collaborative, and human-composed music.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Anti-AI Bias Toward Couple Images and Couple Counseling: Findings from Two Experiments.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Cyber-Creativity: A Decalogue of Research Challenges.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Examining the role of compression in influencing AI-generated image authenticity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Creativity and aesthetic evaluation of AI-generated artworks: bridging problems and methods from psychology to AI.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Data Ownership in the AI-Powered Integrative Health Care Landscape.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the recent proliferation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of mimicking human artworks, AI creations might soon replace products of human creativity, although skeptics argue that this outcome is unlikely. One possible reason this may be unlikely is that, independent of the physical properties of art, we place great value on the imbuement of the human experience in art. An interesting question, then, is whether and why people might prefer human-compared to AI-created artworks. To explore these questions, we manipulated the purported creator of pieces of art by randomly assigning a "Human-created" or "AI-created" label to paintings actually created by AI, and then assessed participants' judgements of the artworks across four rating criteria (Liking, Beauty, Profundity, and Worth). Study 1 found increased positive judgements for human- compared to AI-labelled art across all criteria. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1 with additional ratings (Emotion, Story, Meaningful, Effort, and Time to create) intended to elucidate why people more-positively appraise Human-labelled artworks. The main findings from Study 1 were replicated, with narrativity (Story) and perceived effort behind artworks (Effort) moderating the label effects ("Human-created" vs. "AI-created"), but only for the sensory-level judgements (Liking, Beauty). Positive personal attitudes toward AI moderated label effects for more-communicative judgements (Profundity, Worth). These studies demonstrate that people tend to be negatively biased against AI-created artworks relative to purportedly human-created artwork, and suggest that knowledge of human engagement in the artistic process contributes positively to appraisals of art.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.