Is a "Real" Artwork Better than a Reproduction? A Meta-Analysis of the Genuineness Effect

In general, people assume that looking at a real artwork-versus a reproduction-provides an experience that is qualitatively heightened, also called the genuineness effect. In this study, we used meta-analysis to assess the current evidence for the genuineness effect. We found a meta-analytic effect of Hedges's g =.32 (N = 11). However, only three studies did not include a context confound (i.e., real artworks in a museum vs. reproductions in the lab), and when this moderator was considered, the effect seemed to disappear. Furthermore, we found a lot of heterogeneity between studies. Thus, we looked at additional moderators: type of genuine artwork, type (and quality) of reproductions, aesthetic experience measure, and number of artworks included. We found that only the type of reproduction and the number of artworks were significant moderators of the effect. In addition, we found the best model fit for a random-effects model including confound, reproduction type, and number of artworks as moderators (Akaike information criterion [AIC] = 36.96, Bayesian information criterion [BIC] = 48.93, R-2 = 61.91). Nonetheless, even this model had significant residual heterogeneity. The findings suggest that it is too early to conclude that there is no genuineness effect, and we provide one theoretical explanation (the facsimile accommodation hypothesis) and two methodological explanations (a potential anchoring effect and using the wrong experience measures) that could explain why our meta-analysis (after considering the context confound) found no effect. Additionally, based on the included moderators, we discuss methodological concerns for future studies on the genuineness effect and for empirical research on art in general.