Development and Validation of the Perceived Deepfake Trustworthiness Questionnaire (PDTQ) in Three Languages
Open accessAbstract
Exposure to false information is becoming a common occurrence in our daily lives. New developments in artificial intelligence are now used to produce increasingly sophisticated multimedia false content, such as deepfakes, making false information even more challenging to detect and combat. This creates expansive opportunities to mislead individuals into believing fabricated claims and negatively influence their attitudes and behavior. Therefore, a better understanding of how individuals perceive such content and the variables related to the perceived trustworthiness of deepfakes is needed. In the present study, we developed and validated the Perceived Deepfake Trustworthiness Questionnaire (PDTQ) in English, Italian, and Slovene. This was done in three phases. First, we developed the initial pool of items by reviewing previous studies, generating items via interviews and surveys, and employing artificial intelligence. Second, we shortened and adapted the questionnaire according to experts’ evaluation of content validity and translated the questionnaire into Italian and Slovene. Lastly, we evaluated the psychometric characteristics via a cross-sectional study in three languages (N = 733). The exploratory factor analyses suggested a two-factor solution, with the first factor measuring the perceived trustworthiness of the content and the second measuring the perceived trustworthiness of the presentation. This factorial structure was replicated in confirmatory factor analyses. Moreover, our analyses provided support for PDTQ’s reliability, measurement invariance across all three languages, and its construct and incremental validity. As such, the PDTQ is a reliable, measurement invariant, and valid tool for comprehensive exploration of individuals’ perception of deepfake videos.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other variables, including trustworthiness of presentation, did not significantly predict viral behavioural intentions.
“Other variables, including the trustworthiness of the presentation, did not significantly predict viral behavioural intentions.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The Discussion (section 6; page unavailable) says trustworthiness of presentation did not predict viral behavioral intentions. But Table 9 shows that other variables, including age, trust in media, and message believability, were significant predictors in the final model. The blanket statement about other variables is therefore too broad. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPerceptions of trustworthiness can translate into measurable attitude change and behavioural intentions such as sharing content on social media.
“Finally, we showed that perceptions of trustworthiness do not remain at the level of passive judgments; they can translate into measurable attitude change and behavioural intentions such as sharing content on social media.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The Discussion (section 6; page unavailable) reports that perceived trustworthiness of video content positively predicted intentions to share it, and section 5.2.10 defines those intentions as willingness to share online. The paper does not establish attitude change, and its reported prediction does not show that trustworthiness judgments caused a change in attitudes or behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost of these factors are consistently associated with individuals' perception of the messages conveyed in deepfakes but not so much with their perception of deepfakes' presentation.
“While more studies are needed, most of these factors are consistently associated with individuals' perception of the messages conveyed in deepfakes but not so much with their perception of deepfakes' presentation, which includes paying attention to the person in the video and technical aspects.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Frequency of using social media as a source of news was positively associated with perceived trustworthiness of content but not with perceived trustworthiness of presentation.
“On the other hand, the frequency of using social media as a source of news was positively associated with the perceived trustworthiness of content but not the perceived trustworthiness of presentation (Plohl et al., 2024)”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
In the original PDTQ validation study, the newly developed scale explained a significant part of the variance (an additional 5.0%) in viral behavioural intentions over and above other included variables.
“We found that the newly developed scale explained a significant part of the variance (an additional 5.0%) in viral behavioural intentions over and above other included variables.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The authors' results suggest that many known correlates of misinformation susceptibility are also relevant in the context of deepfakes.
“As shown in Table 2, our results suggest that many known correlates of misinformation susceptibility are also relevant in the context of deepfakes.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The authors' study suggests that the importance of these factors translates to the deepfake context to some degree, but there is additional complexity due to deepfakes' multimodal nature.
“Our study (Plohl et al., 2024) suggests that the importance of these factors translates to the deepfake context to some degree, but that there is an additional complexity to judging deepfakes due to their multimodal nature.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Construct and incremental validity analyses confirmed that PDTQ scores relate meaningfully to some established correlates of misinformation susceptibility and predict relevant behavioural outcomes beyond existing measures.
“Moreover, construct and incremental validity analyses confirmed that PDTQ scores relate meaningfully to some of the established correlates of misinformation susceptibility (reviewed in section 4) and predict relevant behavioural outcomes beyond existing measures (reviewed in section 5).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Similar associations were found between sharing intentions and perceived trustworthiness of deepfakes.
“Similar associations were found between sharing intentions and perceived trustworthiness of deepfakes, with these results offering additional insight into the complex relationship between variables.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Older individuals were more inclined to trust manipulated videos.
“In other words, older individuals were more inclined to trust manipulated videos (Plohl et al., 2024).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Trust in media was significantly positively associated with perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content but not with perceived trustworthiness of deepfake presentation.
“Lastly, in our study, trust in media was significantly positively associated with the perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content but not the perceived trustworthiness of deepfake presentation.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The PDTQ demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including high reliability (α = .83-.92).
“The scale demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including high reliability (α = .83-.92).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The only cognitive variable significantly (albeit weakly) related to perceived trustworthiness of presentation, not just content, was specific deepfake knowledge.
“The only cognitive variable significantly (albeit weakly) related to the perceived trustworthiness of presentation, not just content, was specific deepfake knowledge (Plohl et al., 2024).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
In the authors' study, education was not significantly associated with perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content or presentation.
“In our study, we found that education was not significantly associated with the perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content or presentation.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
The authors found support for configural and metric invariance across the three language versions of the PDTQ, suggesting that the factor structure and factor loadings are similar across versions.
“In addition, we found support for configural and metric invariance across the three languages, suggesting that the factor structure and factor loadings are similar across different versions of the questionnaire.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Only age (risk factor) and deepfake knowledge (protective factor) were associated with perceived trustworthiness of deepfakes' presentation.
“In fact, only age (risk factor) and deepfake knowledge (protective factor) were associated with the perceived trustworthiness of deepfakes' presentation.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
In the authors' studies, age was significantly positively associated with individuals' judgments regarding the trustworthiness of deepfakes, their content, and presentation.
“In our studies, age was significantly positively associated with individuals' judgments regarding the trustworthiness of deepfakes, their content, and presentation.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Conservatism was positively associated with perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content but was not associated with perceived trustworthiness of presentation.
“Specifically, conservatism was positively associated with the perceived trustworthiness of deepfake content but was not associated with the perceived trustworthiness of presentation at all”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
None of the cognitive variables (media literacy, reflectiveness, bullshit receptivity) were significantly associated with trustworthiness of presentation.
“However, none of these cognitive variables were significantly associated with the trustworthiness of the presentation.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Deepfakes may disproportionally affect older individuals who use social media to a greater extent, are more conservative, trust media to a higher degree, have lower media literacy, are less reflective, and are more receptive to finding meaning in pseudo-profound information.
“In line with this, deepfakes may disproportionally affect older individuals who use social media to a greater extent, are more conservative, trust (media) to a higher degree, have lower media literacy, are less reflective, and are more receptive to finding meaning in pseudo-profound information.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
While both dimensions matter, trustworthiness of content emerges as more strongly linked to individual differences such as political orientation, trust in media, and cognitive reflection, and more predictive of attitudinal outcomes.
“While both dimensions matter, trustworthiness of content emerges as more strongly linked to individual differences such as political orientation, trust in media, and cognitive reflection, and more predictive of attitudinal outcomes, perhaps because audiences are not (yet) adept at scrutinizing subtle visual or behavioural inconsistencies.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
These variables are often more strongly associated with content-related trustworthiness than presentation-related trustworthiness.
“Importantly, these variables are often more strongly associated with content-related trustworthiness than presentationrelated trustworthiness.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Plohl et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1 retracted
Xu, X., Huang, Y., & Apuke, O. D. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2311973 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
RetractedTabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,888 · see citing works
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 28,268 · see citing works
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217 · see citing works
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274 · see citing works
A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY<sup>1</sup>
LAWSHE, C. H. (1975) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x · Cited by 7,313 · see citing works
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767 · see citing works
O’connor, B. P. (2000) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200807 · Cited by 4,116 · see citing works
Zarocostas, J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30461-x · Cited by 2,344 · see citing works
Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003) · Social Work Research · doi:10.1093/swr/27.2.94 · Cited by 1,591 · see citing works
Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world
Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van der Linden, S. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.201199 · Cited by 1,447 · see citing works
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120903408 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election
Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019) · CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) · Cited by 882 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879 · see citing works
Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research
Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008 · Cited by 852 · see citing works
Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012) · Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · doi:10.1177/0748175612440286 · Cited by 731 · see citing works
Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election
Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2 · Cited by 701 · see citing works
Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk
Chandler, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7 · Cited by 668 · see citing works
Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public
van der Linden, S. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology
Marshall University, Lankton, N., McKnight, D. H., Michigan State University, Tripp, J., & Baylor University (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00411 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: the critical role of trust in science
Plohl, N., & Musil, B. (2020) · Psychology Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
Self-citationOn the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Pennycook, G., Allan Cheyne, J., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006999 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Gariépy, J.-L., Propper, C., Sutton, K., Calkins, S., Moore, G., & Cox, M. (2007) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.11.010 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It
Lewandowsky, S. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Chi, O. H., Jia, S., Li, Y., & Gürsoy, D. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106700 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Advice on Exploratory Factor Analysis
Samuels, P. C. (2016) · BCU Open Access Repository (Birmingham City University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.5013.9766 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Spread of misinformation on social media: What contributes to it and how to combat it
Chen, S., Xiao, L., & Kumar, A. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107643 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Fooled twice – people cannot detect deepfakes but think they can
Köbis, N., Doležalová, B., & Soraperra, I. (2021) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3832978 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can
Köbis, N. C., Doležalová, B., & Soraperra, I. (2021) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103364 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Liberals Think More Analytically (More “WEIRD”) Than Conservatives
Talhelm, T., Haidt, J., Oishi, S., Zhang, X., Miao, F. F., & Chen, S. (2014) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167214563672 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
A Guide to Assessments that Work
(2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195310641.001.0001 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Effects of Disinformation Using Deepfake: The Protective Effect of Media Literacy Education
Hwang, Y., Ryu, J. Y., & Jeong, S.-H. (2021) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0174 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Alhabash, S., McAlister, A. R., Lou, C., & Hagerstrom, A. (2015) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2015.1071677 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Kiyonari, T., Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., & Cheshire, C. (2006) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1177/019027250606900304 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1029-4 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination
Doss, C., Mondschein, J., Shu, D., Wolfson, T., Kopecky, D., Fitton-Kane, V. A., Bush, L., & Tucker, C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39944-3 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Li, Z., Zhang, W., Zhang, H., Gao, R., & Fang, X. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2314350 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Lee, J., & Shin, S. Y. (2022) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213269.2021.2007489 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Götz, F. M., Maertens, R., Loomba, S., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000540 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Suen, H.-Y., & Hung, K.-E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107713 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Seeing is Believing: Exploring Perceptual Differences in DeepFake Videos
Tahir, R., Batool, B., Jamshed, H., Jameel, M., Anwar, M., Ahmed, F., Zaffar, M. A., & Zaffar, M. F. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445699 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Ahmed, S. (2021) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111074 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Development of a Media Literacy Skills Scale
Erişti, B., & Erdem, C. (2017) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/6199 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Shin, S. Y., & Lee, J. (2022) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2022.2026797 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Al-Qaysi, N., Al‐Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Iranmanesh, M., Ahmad, A., & Mahmoud, M. A. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2361210 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Dobber, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108096 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Iacobucci, S., Cicco, R. D., Michetti, F., Palumbo, R., & Pagliaro, S. (2021) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0149 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“He looks very real”: Media, knowledge, and search‐based strategies for deepfake identification
Goh, D. H. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24867 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Providing detection strategies to improve human detection of deepfakes: An experimental study
Somoray, K., & Miller, D. J. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107917 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Jin, X., Zhang, Z., Gao, B., Gao, S., Zhou, W., Yu, N., & Wang, G. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231199664 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Gaillard, S. D. M., Oláh, Z. A., Venmans, S. F. A. L., & Burke, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.661801 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Neylan, J., Biddlestone, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43885-2 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Social touch to build trust: A systematic review of technology-mediated and unmediated interactions
Valori, I., Jung, M. M., & Fairhurst, M. T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108121 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Human, Do You Think This Painting is the Work of a Real Artist?
Park, J., Kang, H., & Kim, H. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2232978 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Institutional Trust: An Introduction
Bornstein, B. H., & Tomkins, A. J. (2015) · Nebraska Symposium on Motivation/The Nebraska symposium on motivation · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_1 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Ukraine conflict: the challenge of informational war
Stănescu, G. C. (2022) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6795673 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Ng, Y.-L. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03621-x · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Sütterlin, S., Ask, T. F., Mägerle, S., Glöckler, S., Wolf, L., Schray, J., Chandi, A., Bursac, T., Khodabakhsh, A., Knox, B. J., et al. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_18 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
How Are Deepfake Videos Detected? An Initial User Study
Thaw, N. N., July, T., Wai, A. N., Goh, D. H., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78635-9_80 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bornstein, B. H., & Tomkins, A. J. (2015). Institutional trust: An intro- duction. In B. H. Bornstein in A. J. Tomkins (Ed.), Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority: The role of institutional trust (pp. 1-12). Springer.
- Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G., & Dobber, T. (2022). You won't believe what they just said! The effects of political deepfakes embedded as vox populi on social media. Social Media and Society, 8(3), 20563051221116346. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305122111634 · DOI
- Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G., & Dobber, T. (2023). They would never say anything like this! Reasons to doubt political deepfakes. European Journal of Communication, 39(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0267323123118470 · DOI
- Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
- Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivari- ate statistics. Pearson.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding Deepfake Detection Strategies Among Young Adults and Seniors
Tang, Z., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chen, C. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2607571 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Breaking the illusion: impact of news literacy on deepfake identification and sharing
Deng, R., & Ahmed, S. (2025) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-10-2024-0613 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Plohl, N., Mlakar, I., Aquilino, L., Brienza, M., Bisconti, P., & Smrke, U. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101179 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationDecoding Deepfake Perceptions: Trustworthiness, Importance and Behavioral Intention
Kumar, V., Kumar, S. S., Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Gupta, S. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10765-9 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project
(2026) · University of Maribor Press · doi:10.18690/um.feri.2.2026
Nam, S., & Lee, J. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2618551
The Psychology of Deception: Why We Believe Deepfakes
Plohl, N., Smrke, U., Aquilino, L., & Mlakar, I. (2026) · doi:10.18690/um.feri.2.2026.4
Self-citationAn Analysis of the Human Ability to Detect Deepfakes With Geopolitical Content
Brienza, M., Golotta, M., Romano, M., Nardi, D., & Bloisi, D. D. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2026.3667623
Deepfake Fraud Increased: Study of Indonesian Gen Z's Trust and Acceptance Toward Deepfake
Lumingkewas, E. V., & Halim, E. (2026) · International Conference on Advanced Research in Computing (ICARC) · doi:10.1109/icarc68737.2026.11454120
Zheng, H., Gui, H., & Lei, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2702695
- Authors
- Plohl, N., Mlakar, I., Aquilino, L., Bisconti, P., & Smrke, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Maribor (SI)
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
- DEXAI – Artificial Ethics
- Corresponding author
- Plohl, Nejc
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-08-05
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 6786-6803
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4401333101
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program (101094665)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- deepfakes, perceived trustworthiness, questionnaire development, measurement invariance, cross-cultural adaptation, Italian translation, Slovene translation, misinformation, psychometric validation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
