The early apprehensions about how deepfakes (also deep fakes) could be weaponized for social and political purposes are now coming to pass. This study is one of the first to examine the social impact of deepfakes. Using an online survey sample in the United States, this study investigates the relationship between citizen concerns regarding deepfakes, exposure to deepfakes, inadvertent sharing of deepfakes, the cognitive ability of individuals, and social media news skepticism. Results suggest that deepfakes exposure and concerns are positively related to social media news skepticism. In contrast, those who frequently rely on social media as a news platform are less skeptical. Higher cognitive abled individuals are more skeptical of news on social media. The moderation findings suggest that among those who are more concerned about deepfakes, inadvertently sharing a deepfake is associated with heightened skepticism. However, these patterns are more pronounced among low than high cognitive individuals.
AbouserieR (1994) Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-esteem in university students. Educational Psychology14(3): 323–330.
2.
AndersonCRHellriegelDSlocumJW (1977) Managerial response to environmentally induced stress. Academy of Management Journal201: 260–272.
3.
BasolMRoozenbeekJvan der LindenS (2020) Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition3(1): 2.
4.
BlaineBCrockerJ (1993) Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events: an integrative review. In: BaumeisterR (ed.) Self-Esteem. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 55–85.
5.
BrandtMJCrawfordJT (2016) Answering unresolved questions about the relationship between cognitive ability and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science7(8): 884–892.
6.
CampbellWKSedikidesC (1999) Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: a meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology3(1): 23–43.
7.
ChaikenSTropeY (1999) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
8.
ChesneyBCitronD (2019) Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy democracy and national security. California Law Review107: 1753.
9.
ChoJAhmedSKeumH, et al. (2018) Influencing myself: self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research45: 83–111.
ColemanJ (1990) The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
13.
ColemanSMorrisonDAnthonyS (2012) A constructivist study of trust in the news. Journalism Studies13(1): 37–53.
14.
CozzensMDContractorNS (1987) The effect of conflicting information on media skepticism. Communication Research14(4): 437–451.
15.
CravensRWWorchelP (1977) The differential effects of rewarding and coercive leaders on group members differing in locus of control. Journal of Personality45: 150–168.
EllisonNVitakJGrayR, et al. (2014) Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19: 855–870.
18.
FindleyMCooperH (1983) Locus of control and academic achievement: a literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44: 419–427.
19.
FiskeSTaylorS (2013) Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw Hill.
20.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2008) The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal72(3–4): 137–148.
21.
FoggBJ (2003) Prominence-interpretation theory: explaining how people assess credibility online. In: CHI EA ‘03: CHI ‘03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 5–10 April, pp. 722–723. New York: ACM.
22.
FreedmanJ (1964) Involvement, discrepancy and change. Journal of Abnormal Psychology69: 290–295.
23.
GanzachYHanochYChomaBL (2019) Attitudes toward presidential candidates in the 2012 and 2016 American elections: cognitive ability and support for Trump. Social Psychological and Personality Science10(7): 924–934.
24.
GazianoCMcGrathK (1986) Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly63(3): 451–462.
25.
GlickPGottesmanDJoltonJ (1989) The fault is not in the stars: susceptibility of skeptics and believers in astrology to the Barnum effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin15(4): 572–583.
26.
GonzalezCThomasRPVanyukovP (2005) The relationships between cognitive ability and dynamic decision making. Intelligence33(2): 169–186.
27.
GoyanesM (2020) Antecedents of incidental news exposure: the role of media preference, use and trust. Journalism Practice14: 714–729.
HattrupKO’ConnellMSLabradorJR (2005) Incremental validity of locus of control after controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology19(4): 461–481.
33.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
34.
HopmannDNShehataAStrömbäckJ (2015) Contagious media effects: how media use and exposure to game-framed news influence media trust. Mass Communication and Society18(6): 776–798.
35.
JaquishGRippleR (1981) Cognitive creative abilities and self-esteem across the adult life-span. Human Development24(2): 110–119.
36.
KimYChenHTDe ZúñigaHG (2013) Stumbling upon news on the Internet: effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2607–2614.
37.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
38.
LodgeMHamillR (1986) A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review80(2): 505–519.
39.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59(B): 210–220.
40.
MillerDT (1976) Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology34(5): 901–906.
O’BrienGE (1984) Locus of control, work, and retirement. In: LefcourtHM (ed.) Research With the Locus of Control Construct: Extensions and Limitations, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 7–72.
43.
Oeldorf-HirschA (2018) The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication & Society21(2): 225–247.
44.
PennycookGRandD (2018) Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition188: 39–50.
45.
PennycookGRandD (2019) Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(7): 2521–2526.
46.
PharesEJ (1976) Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
47.
PinkletonBEAustinEWZhouY, et al. (2012) Perceptions of news media external efficacy and public affairs apathy in political decision making and disaffection. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly89(1): 23–39.
48.
PotterW (2004) Argument for the need for a cognitive theory of media literacy. American Behavioral Scientist48(2): 266–272.
49.
PowersE (2014) How students access, filter and evaluate digital news: choices that shape what they consume and the implications for news literacy education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
50.
RosslerACozzolinoDVerdolivaL, et al. (2018) FaceForensics: a large-scale video dataset for forgery detection in human faces. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.09179.pdf
51.
RotterJ (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied80(1): 1–28.
52.
SchienkerBDlugoleckiDDohertyK (1994) The impact of self-presentations on self-appraisals and behavior: the power of public commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20: 20–33.
53.
SeligmanA (1997) The Problem of Trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Research.
54.
SerenoK (1968) Ego-involvement, high source credibility, and response to a belief-discrepant communication. Communications Monographs35(4): 476–481.
StåhlTVan ProoijenJW (2018) Epistemic rationality: skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences122: 155–163.
60.
StanovichKEWestRF (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences23(5): 645–665.
61.
StefanoneMAVollmerMCovertJM (2019) In news we trust? Examining credibility and sharing behaviors of fake news. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on social media and society, Toronto, ON, Canada, 19–21 July, pp 136–147. New York: ACM.
62.
SundarS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMFlanaginA (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
63.
TalwarSDhirAKaurP, et al. (2019) Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services51: 72–82.
64.
ThorndikeRL (1942) Two screening tests of verbal intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology26(2): 128–135.
65.
TsfatiY (2002) The consequences of mistrust in the news media: media skepticism as a moderator in media effects and as a factor influencing news media exposure. PhD dissertation, Faculty of the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
66.
TsfatiY (2003) Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(1): 65–82.
67.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 22–42.
68.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529.
69.
VaccariCChadwickA (2020) Deepfakes and disinformation: exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society6(1): 1–13.
70.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2016) Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society18(9): 1857–1874.
71.
VargoCGuoLAmazeenM (2018) The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society20(5): 2028–2049.
72.
VragaEKTullyM (2021) News literacy social media behaviors and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication and Society24: 150–166.
73.
WantaWHuYW (1994) The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting: a path analysis model. Journalism Quarterly71(1): 90–98.
74.
WassermanHMadrid-MoralesD (2019) An exploratory study of “fake news” and media trust in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. African Journalism Studies40(1): 107–123.
75.
WechslerD (1958) The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. 4th ed.Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/11167-000
WortmanCCostanzoPWittT (1973) Effect of anticipated performance on the attributions of causality to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology27(3): 372.
78.
YamamotoMKushinMJ (2014) More harm than good? Online media use and political disaffection among college students in the 2008 election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 430–445.
79.
ZmerliSVan der MeerT (2017) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenhamn: Edward Elgar Publishing.
80.
ZuckermanM (1979) Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality47(2): 245–287.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
