IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp17646.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Abel, Martin

    (Bowdoin College)

  • Johnson, Reed

    (Bowdoin College)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Abel, Martin & Johnson, Reed, 2025. "AI Bias for Creative Writing: Subjective Assessment Versus Willingness to Pay," IZA Discussion Papers 17646, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp17646.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nina Beguš, 2024. "Experimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    4. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Editor's Choice Working over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1067-1115.
    5. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(3), pages 489-520.
    6. Kreps, Sarah & McCain, R. Miles & Brundage, Miles, 2022. "All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate: AI-Generated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 104-117, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav, 2021. "Can time-inconsistent preferences explain hypothetical biases?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    4. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    7. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    8. Nilgen, Marco & Rode, Julian & Vorlaufer, Tobias & Vollan, Björn, 2024. "Measuring non-use values to proxy conservation preferences and policy impacts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    9. Mywish K Maredia & Brian Bartle, 2023. "Excess demand amid quality misperceptions: the case for low-cost seed quality signalling strategies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 360-394.
    10. Imamura, Kohei & Takano, Kohei Takenaka & Kumagai, Naoki H. & Yoshida, Yumi & Yamano, Hiroya & Fujii, Masahiko & Nakashizuka, Tohru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "Valuation of coral reefs in Japan: Willingness to pay for conservation and the effect of information," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    11. Werbeck, Anna, 2024. "Stated preferences and actual choices in german health insurance," Ruhr Economic Papers 1091, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    13. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    14. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Marc Labie & Carolina Laureti & Ariane Szafarz, 2016. "Discipline and Flexibility: A Behavioral Perspective on Product Design in Microfinance," Working Papers CEB 15-020, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Bartels, Lara & Falk, Thomas & Duche, Vishwambhar & Vollan, Björn, 2022. "Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    18. D. Fang & R. M. Nayga & H. A. Snell & G. H. West & C. Bazzani, 2019. "Evaluating USA’s New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 545-562, December.
    19. Zhou, Liang & Chen, Wei & Xu, Shang, 2022. "Do rural residents care about domestic waste management? A hedonic analysis of housing prices in rural China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322212, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Artificial Intelligence; creative writing; willingness to pay; AI bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Z11 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economics of the Arts and Literature

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.