Cited by 48Names, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesEducational Technology and Pedagogy

Using deepfakes for experiments in the social sciences - A pilot study

Open access
Eberl, Andreas, Kühn, Juliane, Wolbring, Tobias·2022·Frontiers in Sociology

Abstract

The advent of deepfakes - the manipulation of audio records, images and videos based on deep learning techniques - has important implications for science and society. Current studies focus primarily on the detection and dangers of deepfakes. In contrast, less attention is paid to the potential of this technology for substantive research - particularly as an approach for controlled experimental manipulations in the social sciences. In this paper, we aim to fill this research gap and argue that deepfakes can be a valuable tool for conducting social science experiments. To demonstrate some of the potentials and pitfalls of deepfakes, we conducted a pilot study on the effects of physical attractiveness on student evaluations of teachers. To this end, we created a deepfake video varying the physical attractiveness of the instructor as compared to the original video and asked students to rate the presentation and instructor. First, our results show that social scientists without special knowledge in computer science can successfully create a credible deepfake within reasonable time. Student ratings of the quality of the two videos were comparable and students did not detect the deepfake. Second, we use deepfakes to examine a substantive research question: whether there are differences in the ratings of a physically more and a physically less attractive instructor. Our suggestive evidence points toward a beauty penalty. Thus, our study supports the idea that deepfakes can be used to introduce systematic variations into experiments while offering a high degree of experimental control. Finally, we discuss the feasibility of deepfakes as an experimental manipulation and the ethical challenges of using deepfakes in experiments.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fsoc.2022.907199

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In one study, when participants were asked to summarize the study's aim in their own words, none commented suspicion of video manipulation.

    “When participants were asked to summarize the study ' s aim in their own words, none commented suspicion of video manipulation [34]”

    From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Ahmed S. (2021). Navigating the maze: deepfakes, cognitive ability, and social media news skepticism. New Media Soc. 1– 22. 10.1177/14614448211019198 · DOI
  2. Andreoni J. Petrie R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereotypes: evidence from laboratory experiments. J. Econ. Psychol. 29, 73– 93. 10.1016/j.joep.2007.07.008 · DOI
  3. Barrera D. Simpson B. (2012). Much ado about deception: consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociol. Methods Res. 41, 383– 413. 10.1177/0049124112452526 · DOI
  4. Bassili J. N. (1981). The attractiveness stereotype: goodness or glamour? Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 2, 235– 252. 10.1207/s15324834basp0204_1 · DOI
  5. Bernardi F. Chakhaia L. Leopold L. (2017). “Sing me a song with social significance”: the (mis)use of statistical significance testing in European sociological research, European sociological. Review. 33, 1– 15. 10.1093/esr/jcx044 · DOI
  6. Borges L. Martins B. Calado P. (2019). Combining similarity features and deep representation learning for stance detection in the context of checking fake news. J. Data Inf. Qual. 11, 1– 26. 10.1145/3287763 · DOI
  7. de Borst A. W. de Gelder B. (2015). Is it the real deal? Perception of virtual characters versus humans: an affective cognitive neuroscience perspective. Front. Psychol. 6, 1– 12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00576 26029133 PMC4428060 · DOI
  8. de Ruiter A. (2021). The distinct wrong of deepfakes. Philos. Technol. 34, 1– 22. 10.1007/s13347-021-00459-233717860 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dion K. Berscheid E. Walster E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24, 285– 290. 10.1037/h0033731 4655540 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Eberl A. Kühn J. Wolbring T. (2022). Data & code: using deepfakes for experiments in the social sciences - a pilot study. GESIS datorium. 10.7802/2467 PMC9745035 36524213 · DOI
  11. Fallis D. (2020). The epistemic threat of deepfakes. Philos. Technol. 34, 1– 21. 10.1007/s13347-020-00419-2 32837868 PMC7406872 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Felton J. Koper P. T. Mitchell J. Stinson M. (2008). Attractiveness, easiness and other issues: Student evaluations of professors on ratemyprofessors.com. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 33, 45– 61. 10.1080/02602930601122803 · DOI
  13. Gamage D. Chen J. Sasahara K. (2021). The emergence of deepfakes and its societal implications: a systematic review. TTO. 2021, 28−39. Available online at: https://truthandtrustonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/TTO_2021_proceedings.pdf
  14. Hamermesh D. S. Parker A. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: instructors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Econ. Educ. Rev. 24, 369– 376. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.07.013 · DOI
  15. Haut K. Wohn C. Antony V. Goldfarb A. Welsh M. Sumanthiran D.. (2021). Could you become more credible by being white? Assessing impact of race on credibility with deepfakes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08054. 1– 10. 10.48550/arXiv.2102.08054 · DOI
  16. Hosoda M. Stone-Romero E. F. Coats G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Pers. Psychol. 56, 431– 462. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x · DOI
  17. Hughes S. Fried O. Ferguson M. Hughes C. Hughes R. Yao X.. (2021). Deepfaked online content is highly effective in manipulating people's attitudes and intentions. PsyArXiv. 1– 6. 10.31234/osf.io/4ms5a · DOI
  18. Isola P. Zhu J.-Y. Zhou T. Efros A. A. (2017). “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks.” in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Honolulu, HI), 1125− 1134. 10.1109/CVPR.2017.632 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Keres A. Chartier C. R. (2016). The biasing effects of visual background on perceived facial trustworthiness. Psi Chi J. Psychol. Res. 21, 170– 175. 10.24839/2164-8204.JN21.3.170 · DOI
  20. Khodabakhsh A. Ramachandra R. Busch C. (2019). “Subjective evaluation of media consumer vulnerability to fake audiovisual content” in: 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX): IEEE. 1– 6. 10.1109/QoMEX.2019.8743316 · DOI
  21. Kietzmann J. Lee L. W. McCarthy I. P. Kietzmann T. C. (2020). Deepfakes: trick or treat? Bus. Horiz. 63, 135– 146. 10.1016/j.bushor.2019.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Konijn E. A. Hoorn J. F. (2020). Differential facial articulacy in robots and humans elicit different levels of responsiveness, empathy, and projected feelings. Robotics. 9, 1– 17. 10.3390/robotics9040092 · DOI
  23. Matern F. Riess C. Stamminger M. (2019). “Exploiting visual artifacts to expose deepfakes and face manipulations” in: 2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW): IEEE. 83– 92. 10.1109/WACVW.2019.00020 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Mehta V. Gupta P. Subramanian R. Dhall A. (2021). “Fakebuster: a deepfakes detection tool for video conferencing scenarios” in: 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces-Companion. 61– 63. 10.1145/3397482.3450726 · DOI
  25. Mori M. MacDorman K. F. Kageki N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19, 98– 100. 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Mulford M. Orbell J. Shatto C. Stockard J. (1998). Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success in everyday exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 103, 1565– 1592. 10.1086/231401 · DOI
  27. Pajunen T. Kukkonen I. Sarpila O. Åberg E. (2021). Systematic review of differences in socioeconomic outcomes of attractiveness between men and women. arXiv. 10.31235/osf.io/rmcqh · DOI
  28. Park T. Liu M.-Y. Wang T.-C. Zhu J.-Y. (2019). “Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization.” in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Long Beach, CA), 2337– 2346. 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00244 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Paustian-Underdahl S. C. Walker L. S. (2016). Revisiting the beauty is beastly effect: examining when and why sex and attractiveness impact hiring judgments. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27, 1034– 1058. 10.1080/09585192.2015.1053963 · DOI
  30. Perov I. Gao D. Chervoniy N. Liu K. Marangonda S. Umé C.. (2020). DeepFaceLab: integrated, flexible and extensible face-swapping framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.05535. 1– 10. 10.48550/arXiv.2005.05535 · DOI
  31. Qayyum A. Qadir J. Janjua M. U. Sher F. (2019). Using blockchain to rein in the new post-truth world and check the spread of fake news. IT Prof. 21, 16– 24. 10.1109/MITP.2019.2910503 · DOI
  32. Reed S. Akata Z. Yan X. Logeswaran L. Schiele B. Lee H. (2016). “Generative adversarial text to image synthesis.” in: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. 1060– 1069. 10.48550/arXiv.1605.0539633631607 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Riggio R. E. Widaman K. F. Tucker J. S. Salinas C. (1991). Beauty is more than skin deep: components of attractiveness. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 12, 423– 439. 10.1207/s15324834basp1204_4 · DOI
  34. Rubenstein A. J. (2005). Variation in perceived attractiveness: differences between dynamic and static faces. Psychol. Sci. 16, 759– 762. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01610.x 16181436 · DOI
  35. Trinh L. Liu Y. (2021). An examination of fairness of ai models for deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.00558. 1– 9. 10.24963/ijcai.2021/79 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Verdoliva L. (2020). Media forensics and deepfakes: an overview. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 14, 910– 932. 10.1109/JSTSP.2020.3002101 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Weisman W. D. Peña J. F. (2021). Face the uncanny: the effects of doppelganger talking head avatars on affect-based trust toward artificial intelligence technology are mediated by uncanny valley perceptions. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 24, 182– 187. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0175 33646048 · DOI
  38. Welker C. France D. Henty A. Wheatley T. (2020). Trading faces: complete AI face doubles avoid the uncanny valley. Preprint from PsyArXiv. 1– 11. 10.31234/osf.io/pykjr · DOI
  39. Westerlund M. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: a review. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 9, 39– 52. 10.22215/timreview/1282 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Wolbring T. Riordan P. (2016). How beauty works. Theoretical mechanisms and two empirical applications on students' evaluation of teaching. Soc. Sci. Res. 57, 253– 272. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.12.009 26973043 · DOI
  41. Zhu J.-Y. Park T. Isola P. Efros A. A. (2017). “Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks.” in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Honolulu, HI), 2223– 2232. 10.1109/ICCV.2017.244 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eberl, A., Kühn, J., & Wolbring, T.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Kühn, Juliane
Venue
Frontiers in Sociology
Published
2022-11-29
Volume
7
Pages
907199-907199
ISSN
2297-7775 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4310183460
Cited by
48
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
11.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Sociology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS FAU (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV), on behalf of the Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Technology and Pedagogy
Keywords
deepfakes, experimental manipulation, physical attractiveness, student evaluations of teachers, deepfake detection, experimental control, research ethics, social science experiments

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