The domain-specific bias in creativity evaluation: human evaluators favor human-created art, but prefer AI outputs for divergent thinking

Abstract

Abstract How do humans perceive and evaluate creativity when it is attributed to artificial intelligence (AI)? This research examined how labeling a source as “AI” versus “human” systematically biases creativity evaluations across different domains. In experiment 1 (painting and poetry), outputs labeled as human-created were rated as more creative than identical AI-labeled outputs in artistic creation. Experiment 2, which manipulated the attribution of co-created works, revealed that the “human ideation with AI assistance” label enhanced perceived originality in poetry, whereas those attributed primarily to humans remained dominant in evaluations of painting. Experiment 3 utilized a divergent thinking task (Alternative Uses Test), found a reversal: the same output received higher creativity ratings when bearing an AI label. The findings reveal a domain-specific pattern in attitudes toward AI creativity: viewing collaboration positively yet maintaining a persistent bias in valuing AI’s creative contributions.