Distorting the truth versus blatant lies
The effects of different degrees of deception in domestic and foreign political deepfakes
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21562452 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Hameleers (0000-0002-8038-5005, University of Amsterdam, corresponding author), T G L A Van Der Meer (0000-0002-7605-2021, University of Amsterdam), Tom Dobber (0000-0002-6657-4037, University of Amsterdam) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 152 |
| Pages | 108096 |
| Publication date | 2024-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Computers in Human Behavior (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0747-5632 • E-ISSN: 1873-7692 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108096 |
| OpenAlex | W4389729385 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 27 |
Political deepfakes are regarded as an urgent threat to democracy. However, we know little about how different degrees of deception in deepfakes affect recipients’ credibility perceptions and the delegitimization of the target of the deepfake. Against this backdrop, we conducted a comparative experiment in the US and the Netherlands (N = 1187) to map the effects of domestic and foreign political deepfakes delegitimizing a prominent Democrat politician. Key findings illustrate that a hyper-realistic deepfake with plausible manipulation of content is perceived as substantially more credible than deepfakes with implausible content manipulation. However, implausible deepfakes have a stronger effect on delegitimizing the depicted politician. We also show that higher scores on a cognitive reflection test correspond to a lower credibility rating for deepfakes. Our findings demonstrate that political deepfakes do not have to be rated as credible to delegitimize established politicians and suggest that analytical thinking may enhance resilience toward deepfakes
Credibility · Deception · Democracy · Economics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Law · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology
Making Sense of AI-Generated Disinformation
Effects of Health-related Deepfakes on Misperceptions
Deepfakes’ Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Impact
Disinformation in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The Short-Term Impact of an On-Site Literacy Intervention on Discerning Deepfake Videos Based on Visual Features
Mapping the terrain of social media misinformation
What Looks Good and Familiar Seems Real
Deepfakes as a Democratic Threat
When AI and Humans Produce Partial Truths
Rhyme or reason
Synthetification of public opinion
Mapping the landscape of deepfake research
Radical Right-Wing Political Deepfakes Can Successfully Delegitimize Targeted Political Actors
Deepfakes and the crisis of digital authenticity
Deepfakes and Journalism
Artificial Intelligence and Illicit Drugs
Frequency and the conference of referential validity
The Emergence of Deepfake Technology
The Social Impact of Deepfakes
Effects of Disinformation Using Deepfake
Something that They Never Said
Visual Mis- and Disinformation, Social Media, and Democracy
Continued influence of misinformation in times of Covid ‐19
Degrees of deception
A Clearer Picture
Lazy, not biased
The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing
Beyond (Mis)Representation
Do (Microtargeted) Deepfakes Have Real Effects on Political Attitudes
When is Disinformation (In)Credible? Experimental Findings on Message Characteristics and Individual Differences
Visual disinformation in a digital age
Fighting cheapfakes
The disinformation order
A Picture Paints a Thousand Lies? The Effects and Mechanisms of Multimodal Disinformation and Rebuttals Disseminated via Social Media
Disinformation as Political Communication
When Corrections Fail
Resilience to Online Disinformation
The need for cognition
Deepfakes and Disinformation
Truth-Default Theory (TDT)
Documenting the Truth-Default
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 16 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |