Abstract
The rise of AI-generated music has implications for how people derive meaning from the listening experience, including the propensity to imagine a story as music unfolds. Previous research suggests that such narrative listening requires some form of common ground between composer and listener. Therefore, people may be less likely to engage in narrative listening when they believe music is the product of an AI system rather than a human mind. We tested this possibility across two preregistered studies in which US participants (N = 399) listened to several pieces of instrumental music and reported their experience of narrative listening-whether they imagined a story and how engaging it was. When presented with unlabeled, human-composed music, participants reported imagining fewer and less engaging narratives in response to pieces they regarded as more likely computer generated than human composed (Study 1). When we experimentally manipulated the purported composer by labeling human- and AI-composed music clips as either "Human" or "AI" composed, the "AI"-labeled pieces elicited fewer and less engaging narratives than their "Human"-labeled counterparts, regardless of the actual composer (Study 2). Together, these findings suggest that ascribing music to AI is associated with-and can engender-an impoverished listening experience, devoid of the mental narratives that unfold as the composer's musical choices guide the listener's imagination. Our findings contribute to an emerging literature on perceptions of artificial creators, with practical implications for listeners, musicians, and policymakers.