ORCID

Abstract

The evaluation of AI-generated art has seen increased interest after widespread access to AI-generated art (e.g., DALL-E or Stable Diffusion). While previous studies have suggested that there are preferences for human-generated art, the research remains far from robust with numerous contradictory findings. One potential reason for this discrepancy is differing experimental designs employing comparative or non-comparative methods. To shed light on this problem, two experiments were conducted: one using a Likert scale (N = 250) and another using a 2-alternative forced choice design (N = 102). Our conflicting results between the two designs suggest that traditional Likert-based art appraisals in non-comparative formats may not be sensitive enough to reliably detect preferences that a forced-choice task can reveal. While AI-generated art continues to become more mainstream, people tend to prefer human art in terms of their liking and valuation appraisals when measured in comparative designs that better approximate real-world interaction with art.

Publication Date

2025-07-28

Publication Title

Empirical Studies of the Arts

ISSN

0276-2374

Acceptance Date

2025-01-01

Deposit Date

2025-09-01

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, (grant number RGPIN-2022-03079).

Keywords

art perception, artificial intelligence, forced-choice design

Download

Share

COinS