The adverse effects of deepfakes are becoming apparent; however, less is known about what affects individuals’ credibility judgments concerning deepfakes. This article conducted two randomized controlled 2 × 2 × 2 experiments (N = 518) to explore the influence of heuristic cues (including the number of followers, popularity, and description as variables) generated by the system and video characteristics (including definition, duration, and editing as variables). The results suggest that the number of the source’s followers and the video’s popularity are positively associated with perceived credibility. Moreover, high-definition deepfakes are more efficient at deceiving viewers. Interestingly, an interaction effect indicates that it is not easy for users to detect editing traces in relatively long videos (greater than 30 s). Our study is an initial step to better understand how individuals assess video credibility and lay the grounds for approaches to combat the negative effects of deepfakes.
AhmedS (2021a) Fooled by the fakes: cognitive differences in perceived claim accuracy and sharing intention of non-political deepfakes. Personality and Individual Differences182: 111074.
2.
AhmedS (2021b) Navigating the maze: deepfakes, cognitive ability, and social media news skepticism. New Media & Society25: 1108–1129.
AliKLiCZain-ul-abdinK, et al. (2022) Fake news on Facebook: examining the impact of heuristic cues on perceived credibility and sharing intention. Internet Research32(1): 379–397.
BaschCHMeleo-ErwinZFeraJ, et al. (2021) A global pandemic in the time of viral memes: COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation on TikTok. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics17(8): 2373–2377.
7.
BerloDKLemertJBMertzRJ (1969) Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly33(4): 563–576.
CelikHPolatOOzcanC, et al. (2020) Assessment of the quality and reliability of the information on rotator cuff repair on YouTube. Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research106(1): 31–34.
11.
ChenGMChenPSChangC-W, et al. (2017) News video quality affects online sites’ credibility. Newspaper Research Journal38(1): 19–31.
12.
ChesneyRCitronDK (2019a) Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review107(6): 1753–1819.
13.
ChesneyRCitronDK (2019b) Deepfakes and the new disinformation war the coming age of post-truth geopolitics. Foreign Affairs98(1): 147–155.
14.
ChikkerurSSundaramVReissleinM, et al. (2011) Objective video quality assessment methods: a classification, review, and performance comparison. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting57(2): 165–182.
CumminsRGChambersT (2011) How production value impacts perceived technical quality, credibility, and economic value of video news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly88(4): 737–752.
17.
De VeirmanMCaubergheVHuddersL (2017) Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising36(5): 798–828.
18.
DobberTMetouiNTrillingD, et al. (2021) Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes?The International Journal of Press/Politics26(1): 69–91.
19.
Domínguez RigoM (2020) La alfabetización visual como defensa ante las noticias falsas: visual literacy as a defense against fake news. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje13(26): 85–93.
20.
DuanRBombaraC (2022) Visualizing climate change: the role of construal level, emotional valence, and visual literacy. Climatic Change170(1): 1.
21.
GabarronEFernandez-LuqueLArmayonesM, et al. (2013) Identifying measures used for assessing quality of YouTube videos with patient health information: a review of current literature. Interactive Journal of Medical Research2(1): 101–109.
22.
GiesekeAP (2020) “The new weapon of choice”: law’s current inability to properly address deepfake pornography. Vanderbilt Law Review73: 1479.
23.
GuptaAKumaraguruPCastilloC, et al. (2014) TweetCred: real-time credibility assessment of content on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the social informatics: 6th international conference, SocInfo 2014 (eds AielloLMMcFarlandD), Barcelona, 11–13November2014, pp. 228–243. Cham: Springer.
24.
HancockJTBailensonJN (2021) The social impact of deepfakes. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking24(3): 149–152.
HautzJFullerJHutterK, et al. (2014) Let users generate your video ads? The impact of video source and quality on consumers’ perceptions and intended behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing28(1): 1–15.
27.
HayatTHershkovitzA (2018) The role social cues play in mediating the effect of eWOM over purchasing intentions: an exploratory analysis among university students. Journal of Customer Behaviour17: 173–187.
28.
HeGYingXMiaohongH (2022) The persuasive mechanism of “science communication influencer” in the pandemic: two experimental studies based on the elaboration likelihood model. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication44(05): 110–133.
29.
HofstetterCRZunigaSDozierDM (2001) Media self-efficacy: validation of a new concept. Mass Communication & Society4: 61–76.
30.
HoppT (2022) Fake news self-efficacy, fake news identification, and content sharing on Facebook. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19(2): 229–252.
HungKLiSYTseDK (2011) Interpersonal trust and platform credibility in a Chinese multibrand online community. Journal of Advertising40(3): 99–112.
33.
HwangYRyuJYJeongSH (2021) Effects of disinformation using deepfake: the protective effect of media literacy education. CyberPsychology, Social Networking, and Behavior24(3): 188–193.
34.
IacobucciSDe CiccoRMichettiF, et al. (2021) Deepfakes unmasked: the effects of information priming and bullshit receptivity on deepfake recognition and sharing intention. CyberPsychology, Social Networking, and Behavior24(3): 194–202.
35.
JinSAAPhuaJ (2014) Following celebrities’ Tweets about brands: the impact of twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising43(2): 181–195.
36.
Jones-JangSMMortensenTLiuJ (2019) Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist65(2): 371–388.
37.
KarasavvaVNoorbhaiA (2021) The real threat of deepfake pornography: a review of Canadian policy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking24(3): 203–209.
38.
KasraMShenCO’BrienJF (2018) Seeing is believing: how people fail to identify fake images on the web. In: Paper presented at the extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26April.
39.
KhanMLIdrisIK (2019) Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology38(12): 1194–1212.
40.
KimJW (2018) Rumor has it: the effects of virality metrics on rumor believability and transmission on Twitter. New Media & Society20(12): 4807–4825.
41.
KoppenCSpenceC (2007) Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect. Experimental Brain Research180(4): 737–754.
42.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
43.
LewandowskySEckerUKHSeifertCM, et al. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
44.
LiHSakamotoY (2014) Social impacts in social media: an examination of perceived truthfulness and sharing of information. Computers in Human Behavior41: 278–287.
45.
LocoroAFisherWPMariL (2021) Visual information literacy: definition, construct modeling and assessment. IEEE Access9: 71053–71071.
46.
LoertsTBelcherC (2019) Developing visual literacy competencies while learning course content through visual journaling: teacher candidate perspectives. Journal of Visual Literacy38(1–2): 46–65.
47.
MeskysELiaudanskasAKalpokieneJ, et al. (2020) Regulating deep fakes: legal and ethical considerations. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice15(1): 24–31.
MessarisPMoriartyS (2005) Visual literacy theory. In: SmithKLMoriartySKenneyK, et al. (eds) Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 481–502.
50.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439.
51.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJEyalK, et al. (2003) Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association27(1): 293–335.
52.
MezarisVNixonLPapadopoulosS, et al. (2019) Video Verification in the Fake News Era. Cham: Springer.
53.
MichalovichAHershkovitzA (2020) Assessing YouTube science news’ credibility: the impact of web-search on the role of video, source, and user attributes. Public Understanding of Science29(4): 376–391.
54.
MirskyYLeeW (2021) The creation and detection of deepfakes: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys54(1): 1–41.
55.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205.
56.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
57.
QianSShenCZhangJ (2023) Fighting cheapfakes: using a digital media literacy intervention to motivate reverse search of out-of-context visual misinformation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication28(1): zmac024.
58.
RichardLDRobertHL (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science32(5): 554–571.
59.
SchaewitzLKluckJPKloestersL, et al. (2020) When is disinformation (in)credible? Experimental findings on message characteristics and individual differences. Mass Communication and Society23(4): 484–509.
60.
ScheufeleDAKrauseNM (2019) Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(16): 7662–7669.
61.
SelfCS (1996) Credibility. In: SalwenMBStacksDW (eds) An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 421–441.
62.
SeowJWLimMKPhanRCW, et al. (2022) A comprehensive overview of deepfake: generation, detection, datasets, and opportunities. Neurocomputing513: 351–371.
63.
ShenCKasraMPanW, et al. (2018) Fake images: the effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society21(2): 438–463.
64.
SouthwickLGuntukuSCKlingerEV, et al. (2021) Characterizing COVID-19 content posted to TikTok: public sentiment and response during the first phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health69: 234–241.
65.
SterrettDMalatoDBenzJ, et al. (2019) Who shared it? Deciding what news to trust on social media. Digital Journalism7(6): 783–801.
66.
SundarS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
67.
SundarSMolinaMDChoE (2021) Seeing is believing: is video modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messaging apps?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26(6): 301–319.
68.
SwerzenskiJD (2021) Fact, fiction or photoshop: building awareness of visual manipulation through image editing software. Journal of Visual Literacy40(2): 104–124.
69.
ThompsonDSBeeneS (2020) Uniting the field: using the ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards to move beyond the definition problem of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy39(2): 73–89.
70.
ThomsonTJAngusDDootsonP, et al. (2022) Visual mis/disinformation in journalism and public communications: current verification practices, challenges, and future opportunities. Journalism Practice16(5): 938–962.
71.
VaccariCChadwickA (2020) Deepfakes and disinformation: exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society6(1): 205630512090340.
72.
Waddell FranklinT (2017) What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society20: 3068–3083.
73.
WaltherJBVan der HeideBKimSY, et al. (2008) The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: are we known by the company we keep?Human Communication Research34(1): 28–U60.
74.
WeismuellerJHarriganPWangS, et al. (2021) Influencer endorsements: how advertising disclosure and source credibility affect consumer purchase intention on social media. Australasian Marketing Journal28(4): 160–170.
75.
WobbrockJOHsuAKBurgerMA, et al. (2019) Isolating the effects of web page visual appearance on the perceived credibility of online news among college students. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM conference on hypertext and social media, Hof, 17–20September. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342220.3343663
76.
YangJKimWAmbleeN, et al. (2012) The heterogeneous effect of WOM on product sales: why the effect of WOM valence is mixed?European Journal of Marketing46(11–12): 1523–1538.
77.
ZhuYHeynderickxIRediJA (2015) Understanding the role of social context and user factors in video Quality of Experience. Computers in Human Behavior49: 412–426.
