CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Misinformation and Its ImpactsDigital Media Forensic DetectionMedia Influence and Politics

They Would Never Say Anything Like This! Reasons To Doubt Political Deepfakes

Open access
Hameleers, Michael, van der Meer, Toni G. L. A., Dobber, Tom·2024·European Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1177/02673231231184703
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although deepfakes are conventionally regarded as dangerous, we know little about how deepfakes are perceived, and which potential motivations drive doubt in the believability of deepfakes versus authentic videos. To better understand the audience's perceptions of deepfakes, we ran an online experiment ( N = 829) in which participants were randomly exposed to a politician's textual or audio-visual authentic speech or a textual or audio-visual manipulation (a deepfake) where this politician's speech was forged to include a radical right-wing populist narrative. In response to both textual disinformation and deepfakes, we inductively assessed (1) the perceived motivations for expressed doubt and uncertainty in response to disinformation and (2) the accuracy of such judgments. Key findings show that participants have a hard time distinguishing a deepfake from a related authentic video, and that the deepfake's content distance from reality is a more likely cause for doubt than perceived technological glitches. Together, we offer new insights into news users’ abilities to distinguish deepfakes from authentic news, which may inform (targeted) media literacy interventions promoting accurate verification skills among the audience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/02673231231184703

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The processing of false information is likely to be motivated by a confirmation bias.

    “The processing of false information is likely to be motivated by a confirmation bias (e.g., Hameleers et al., 2024): People are more likely to uncritically accept information when it reassures their worldviews and political attitudes, and critically scrutinize information when it does not confirm their existing worldviews (e.g., Kunda, 1990).”

    From How persuasive are political cheapfakes disseminated via social media? The effects of out-of-context visual disinformation on message credibility and issue agreement (2025) · cites this paper as Hameleers et al., 2024

  • AI can be used by authoritarian regimes or interest groups to rewrite historical and cultural narratives.

    “Furthermore, and very relevant to this reflection, AI can be used by authoritarian regimes or interest groups to rewrite historical and cultural narratives (Hameleers et al., 2024).”

    From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Hameleers et al., 2024

  • Hameeler et al. showed that if a statement made by the video subject seemed out of character or unlikely for the subject to make, participants were more likely to question the credibility of the video, regardless of whether the video was a deepfake or not.

    “Hameeler et al. [31] also showed if a statement made by the video subject seemed out of character or unlikely for the subject to make (i.e., ' he would never say anything like this ' ), participants were more likely to question the credibility of the video, regardless of whether the video was a deepfake or not.”

    From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Dobber, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Corresponding author
Hameleers, Michael
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-06-26
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
56-70
ISSN
  • 0267-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3705
DOI
10.1177/02673231231184703
OpenAlex
W4382065225
Cited by
47
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Facebook
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
deepfakes, political disinformation, deepfake detection, perceived authenticity, radical right-wing populism, political speeches, media literacy, news users

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