AI Bias for Creative Writing: Subjective Assessment Versus Willingness to Pay

Martin Abel and Reed Johnson ()
Additional contact information
Reed Johnson: Bowdoin College

No 17646, IZA Discussion Papers from IZA Network @ LISER

Abstract: How do perceptions of AI versus human authorship affect engagement with creative work? In an incentivized experiment, participants (N=654) assessed the content of a short story labeled as either human or AI-generated and reported their willingness to pay and work to finish reading it. Consistent with prior research, the AI-labeled story received significantly lower content assessments. However, the time people invest in reading the story and their willingness to pay and work did not differ between the labels, even for the 36% of participants who profess to value human over AI writing. These findings raise questions about whether subjective assessments and aspirations to favor human authorship translate into actions.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; creative writing; willingness to pay; AI bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D12 O33 Z11 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 21 pages
Date: 2025-01
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://docs.iza.org/dp17646.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17646

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IZA Discussion Papers from IZA Network @ LISER Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Mark Fallak ().