Something that they never said: Multimodal disinformation and source vividness in understanding the power of AI-enabled deepfake news
Abstract
While deepfake has emerged as a severe issue in the multimedia environment, most studies examined text-based false claims, leaving the question of what unique features of video-based deepfake news deceives recipients and how it can be corrected. By conducting two online experiments, we study perceived source vividness as a psychological mechanism of the effect of AI-enabled deepfake news on news credibility and engagement intentions. Furthermore, we test how an inserted false-tag onto the fake news can reduce the impact of source vividness experienced by seeing multimodal disinformation on news credibility and engagement intentions. The results suggest that participants who saw deepfake news had higher source vividness than those who saw fake news with other modalities (i.e., text-only and text-photo), and such source vividness increased credibility and engagement intentions of fake news. The false-tag successfully reduced engagement intentions of deepfake news for those who perceived a high vividness of the superimposed interviewee.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Deepfakes are multimodal, targeting several channels of human perception simultaneously.
“deepfakes are multimodal, targeting several channels of human perception simultaneously (Lee & Shin, 2022).”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Lee & Shin, 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Lee, J., & Shin, S. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Jiyoung
- Venue
- Media Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-12-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 531-546
- ISSN
- 1521-3269 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-785X
- OpenAlex
- W4200268203
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Media Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The University of Alabama and University of Hawaii at Manoa
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Keywords
- news credibility, engagement intention, misinformation correction, AI-generated video
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
