Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11In two online studies, people reported more sexual arousal when suggestive images were believed or labeled to show real people than when they were believed or labeled to be AI-generated. The result is about perceived authenticity and self-reported response to a specific set of images—not proof that AI-generated images cannot be arousing.
What did the researchers find?
Participants gave higher self-reported arousal ratings to images they thought were real, or were told were real, than to images they thought or were told were artificially generated. The authors’ abstract puts it this way: “In both cases, Realness correlated with significantly higher scores on self-reported sexual arousal.”
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The distinction matters: the experiments tested what participants believed about an image, or what label they were given. They do not establish that AI images are inherently less attractive because of their actual origin or visual quality. Nor do they show that AI-generated images cannot elicit arousal.
How were the two studies conducted?
Marco Marini, Alessandro Ansani, Alessandro Demichelis, Giovanna Mancini, Fabio Paglieri, and Marco Viola reported the two preregistered online studies in their 2024 paper, “Real is the new sexy: the influence of perceived realness on self-reported arousal to sexual visual stimuli”, published in Cognition & Emotion.
#1 Best Overall
| Study | Participants and task | What participants rated |
|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | 57 participants viewed 60 images of models in underwear. | How aroused they felt and how likely each image was to be AI-generated. |
| Study 2 | 108 participants viewed the same images in blocks labeled as real photographs or artificially generated. | How aroused they felt. |
In Study 1, participants made image-by-image judgments about possible AI generation. In Study 2, the real-or-generated description was supplied as a block label. Across both approaches, perceived or stated realness was associated with higher reported arousal.
Does knowing an image is AI-generated change how people respond?
The second study speaks directly to the effect of a label: participants saw the same image set under blocks described as real or artificially generated, and reported their arousal. The first study instead asked participants to judge the images themselves. Together, the findings suggest that beliefs about authenticity can matter to reported responses in these conditions.
They do not isolate every possible reason for that difference, and they should not be read as a universal rule about how viewers react to AI imagery. The measured outcome was what participants said they felt, not a physiological measure of arousal.
Can AI-generated images still be arousing?
Yes. The study found a relative difference in ratings, not an absence of response to images believed to be artificial. Study authors Alessandro Demichelis and Alessandro Ansani told PsyPost that allegedly fake images were “still capable of generating arousal, especially in men, just in an inferior amount.” That is the authors’ interpretation as reported by PsyPost, not a claim that every participant responded the same way.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What are the limits of the finding?
- Narrow images: The researchers used 60 suggestive images of models in underwear, not a broad range of sexual imagery.
- Self-report: Participants rated their own arousal; the study did not measure a physiological response.
- Participant representation: A report on the study notes that participants were heterosexual, so the result should not be generalized to all orientations or preferences.
- No population estimate: The samples of 57 and 108 participants do not establish how common this response is among people generally.
The article was published online on January 16, 2024; its journal issue is volume 38, issue 3, pages 348–360, dated 2024. The paper is also listed in the Roma Tre University repository. A report on the study appeared in Futurism on June 16, 2024.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
