Deepfake videos are widely recognized for their potential to manipulate and distort reality. This study aims to identify prevalent deepfake identification strategies among an often-overlooked age group, seniors (55 years and older) and how these strategies develop over time. We conducted a 3-week diary study with 30 seniors, guided by prior work on information credibility and deepfake identification. Four main deepfake identification strategy categories emerged: (1) source, (2) endorsement, (3) media, and (4) content. A common combination was the use of strategies from the media, source, and endorsement categories. Another common combination was the content, endorsement, and source categories. Notably, the number of strategy combinations employed increased over the 3-week data collection period. By incorporating a longitudinal perspective, the study offers a more dynamic understanding of how seniors’ identification strategies evolve over time. Practically, the insights from this study can inform targeted interventions and collaborative programs that aim to enhance seniors’ resilience against video-based disinformation.
DiakopoulosNJohnsonD. Anticipating and addressing the ethical implications of deepfakes in the context of elections. New Media Soc2021; 23: 2072–2098.
2.
JacobsenBNSimpsonJ. The tensions of deepfakes. Inf Commun Soc2024; 27: 1095–1109.
3.
VaccariCChadwickA. Deepfakes and disinformation: exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Soc Media Soc2020; 6: 205630512090340.
HsuL-Y. AI-assisted deepfake detection using adaptive blind image watermarking. J Vis Commun Image Represent2024; 100: 104094.
6.
LiuXQiLWangL, et al. Checking the fact-checkers: the role of source type, perceived credibility, and individual differences in fact-checking effectiveness. Commun Res2023: 00936502231206419.
7.
GohDH. ‘He looks very real’: media, knowledge, and search-based strategies for deepfake identification. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2024: asi24867.
GrohMSankaranarayananASinghN, et al. Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video. http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12883 (2024, accessed 26 March 2024)
10.
AhmedSWangYBeeAWT. Adjusting news accuracy perceptions after deepfakes exposure: evidence from a non-Western context. Telemat Inform2023; 84: 102047.
11.
LaoYHirvonenNLarssonS. AI and authenticity: young people’s practices of information credibility assessment of AI-generated video content. J Inf Sci2025: 01655515251330605.
12.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandL, et al. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science2019; 363: 374–378.
13.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci Adv2019; 5: eaau4586.
14.
MooreRCHancockJT. A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Sci Rep2022; 12: 6008.
15.
BrashierNMSchacterDL. Aging in an era of fake news. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2020; 29: 316–323.
16.
SádabaCSalaverríaRBringuéX. Overcoming the age barrier: improving older adults’ detection of political disinformation with media literacy. Media Commun2023; 11: 113–123. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i4.7090
17.
SeoHBlombergMAltschwagerD, et al. Vulnerable populations and misinformation: a mixed-methods approach to underserved older adults’ online information assessment. New Media Soc2021; 23: 2012–2033.
18.
ShangLZhouJZuoM. Understanding older adults’ intention to share health information on social media: the role of health belief and information processing. Internet Res2020; 31: 100–122.
19.
AugustinFFreshmanB. The effects of service-learning on college students’ attitudes toward older adults. Gerontol Geriatr Educ2016; 37: 123–144.
20.
TangZGohDH-LLeeCS, et al. Understanding strategies employed by seniors in identifying deepfakes. Aslib J Inf Manag2024; 78: 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2024-0255
21.
HilligossBRiehSY. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Inf Process Manag2008; 44: 1467–1484.
22.
TahirRBatoolBJamshedH, et al. Seeing is believing: exploring perceptual differences in deep fake videos. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May 2021, pp.1–16. ACM.
23.
SteinfeldN. How do users examine online messages to determine if they are credible? An eye-tracking study of digital literacy, visual attention to metadata, and success in misinformation identification. Soc Media Soc2023; 9: 20563051231196871.
24.
KöbisNCDoležalováBSoraperraI. Fooled twice: people cannot detect deepfakes but think they can. iScience2021; 24: 103364.
25.
GoldbergMHLindenSvan der BallewMT, et al. The experience of consensus: video as an effective medium to communicate scientific agreement on climate change. Sci Commun2019; 41: 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019874361
26.
AhmedS. Who inadvertently shares deepfakes? Analyzing the role of political interest, cognitive ability, and social network size. Telemat Inform2021; 57: 101508.
27.
DobberTMetouiNTrillingD, et al. Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes?Int J Press2021; 26: 69–91.
28.
ChaikenS. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended Thought1989: 212–252.
29.
ChenC-Y. Belief in or identification of false news according to the elaboration likelihood model. Int J Commun2021; 15: 1263–1285.
QiuHGoh DH-L HuangS. Cutting through the fog: investigating the verification of multimodal disinformation in social media. J Doc2026; 82: 588–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2025-0256
32.
ShinD. Seeing through the fake: how users detect and interpret deepfakes. Inf Commun Soc2025; 29: 1–19.
33.
AppelMPrietzelF. The detection of political deepfakes. J Comput-Mediat Commun2022; 27: zmac008.
34.
ThawNNJulyTWaiAN, et al. Is it real? A study on detecting deepfake videos. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol2020; 57: e366.
35.
ThawNNJulyTWaiAN, et al. How are deepfake videos detected? An initial user study. In: StephanidisCAntonaMNtoaS (eds) HCI international 2021 – posters. Springer, 2021, pp.631–636.
36.
HoqueMAFerdousMSKhanM, et al. Real, forged or deep fake? Enabling the ground truth on the Internet. IEEE Access2021; 9: 160471–160484.
37.
SundarSSMolinaMDChoE. Seeing is believing: is video modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messaging apps?J Comput-Mediat Commun2021; 26: 301–319.
38.
ZrnecAPoženelMLavbičD. Users’ ability to perceive misinformation: an information quality assessment approach. Inf Process Manag2022; 59: 102739.
39.
HameleersM. Cheap versus deep manipulation: the effects of cheapfakes versus deepfakes in a political setting. Int J Public Opin Res2024; 36: edae004.
40.
ThomsonTJAngusDDootsonP, et al. Visual mis/disinformation in journalism and public communications: current verification practices, challenges, and future opportunities. Journal Pract2022; 16: 938–962.
41.
CheeSY. Age-related digital disparities, functional limitations, and social isolation: unraveling the grey digital divide between baby boomers and the silent generation in senior living facilities. Aging Ment Health2024; 28: 621–632.
42.
BorahPLorenzanoKJ. Who corrects misinformation online? Self-perceived media literacy and the moderating role of reflective judgment. Online Inf Rev2024; 48: 661–675.
43.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ. Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. Am Behav Sci2021; 65: 371–388.
44.
BittonDBHoffmannCPGodullaA. Deepfakes in the context of AI inequalities: analysing disparities in knowledge and attitudes. Inf Commun Soc2025; 28: 295–315.
45.
HameleersMVan Der Meer TGLA DobberT. They would never say anything like this! Reasons to doubt political deepfakes. Eur J Commun2024; 39: 56–70.
ChoudrieJBanerjeeSKotechaK, et al. Machine learning techniques and older adults processing of online information and misinformation: a COVID 19 study. Comput Hum Behav2021; 119: 106716.
48.
BolNVan WeertJCMLoosEF, et al. How are online health messages processed? Using eye tracking to predict recall of information in younger and older adults. J Health Commun2016; 21: 387–396.
49.
MikelsJALöckenhoffCEMaglioSJ, et al. Following your heart or your head: focusing on emotions versus information differentially influences the decisions of younger and older adults. J Exp Psychol Appl2010; 16: 87–95.
50.
PetersEHessTMVästfjällD, et al. Adult age differences in dual information processes: implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspect Psychol Sci2007; 2: 1–23.
51.
ApukeODOmarBTuncaEA, et al. Information overload and misinformation sharing behaviour of social media users: testing the moderating role of cognitive ability. J Inf Sci2024; 50: 1371–1381.
52.
KhanMLIdrisIK. Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behav Inf Technol2019; 38: 1194–1212.
53.
LeistAK. Social media use of older adults: a mini-review. Gerontology2013; 59: 378–384.
54.
CzajaSJCharnessNFiskAD, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging2006; 21: 333–352.
55.
XiangHZhouJXieB. AI tools for debunking online spam reviews? Trust of younger and older adults in AI detection criteria. Behav Inf Technol2023; 42: 478–497.
56.
Quan-HaaseAMartinKSchreursK. Interviews with digital seniors: ICT use in the context of everyday life. Inf Commun Soc2016; 19: 691–707.
57.
LucassenTSchraagenJM. The influence of source cues and topic familiarity on credibility evaluation. Comput Hum Behav2013; 29: 1387–1392.
58.
LandisJRKochGG. An application of hierarchical Kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics1977; 33: 363–374.
59.
AhadzadehASLeeK-FOngFS. Mapping pathways to social media scepticism: a personality-cognition framework anchored in cognitive media literacy and heuristic-systematic model. Online Inf Rev2025; 49: 1154–1173.
60.
McGuireWJ. Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. J Abnorm Soc Psychol1961; 63: 326–332.
GeengCYeeSRoesnerF. Fake news on Facebook and Twitter: investigating how people (don’t) investigate. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April 2020, pp.1–14. ACM.
64.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. J Commun2010; 60: 413–439.
65.
JinXWangGZhangZ, et al. Identifying individual differences in deepfake discernment: the effects of cognitive disposition and visual literacy. Inf Commun Soc2025; 28: 1–20.
66.
Valera-OrdazLRequena i-MoraMCalvoD, et al. Desenredando la desinformación: Nociones y discursos de la población española. Comun Rev Científica Comun Educ2022; 30: 21–32.
67.
SavolainenR. Assessing the credibility of COVID-19 vaccine mis/disinformation in online discussion. J Inf Sci2023; 49: 1096–1110.
68.
ChenC-YKearneyMChangS-L. Comparative approaches to mis/disinformation| Belief in or identification of false news according to the elaboration likelihood model. Int J Commun2021; 15: 1263–1285.
69.
PantaziMKissineMKleinO. The power of the truth bias: false information affects memory and judgment even in the absence of distraction. Soc Cogn2018; 36: 167–198.
70.
MillerSMenardPBourrieD, et al. Integrating truth bias and elaboration likelihood to understand how political polarisation impacts disinformation engagement on social media. Inf Syst J2024; 34: 642–679.
ChengYChenZF. Encountering misinformation online: antecedents of trust and distrust and their impact on the intensity of Facebook use. Online Inf Rev2021; 45: 372–388.
73.
ZhangLIyendoTOApukeOD, et al. Experimenting the effect of using visual multimedia intervention to inculcate social media literacy skills to tackle fake news. J Inf Sci2025; 51: 135–145.
74.
LewandowskySVan Der LindenS. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur Rev Soc Psychol2021; 32: 348–384.
75.
ZengJChanC. A cross-national diagnosis of infodemics: comparing the topical and temporal features of misinformation around COVID-19 in China, India, the US, Germany and France. Online Inf Rev2021; 45: 709–728.
