4.6 Article

Navigating the maze: Deepfakes, cognitive ability, and social media news skepticism

Journal

NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 1108-1129

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/14614448211019198

Keywords

Cognitive ability; deep fakes; disinformation; news skepticism; social media

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study is one of the early researches on the social impact of deepfakes. The results suggest that exposure to deepfakes and concerns about them are positively related to skepticism towards news on social media. However, frequent users of social media as a news platform are less skeptical. Higher cognitive individuals are more skeptical of social media news. Moreover, among those who are more concerned about deepfakes, inadvertently sharing deepfake content is associated with heightened skepticism, especially among individuals with lower cognitive abilities.
The early apprehensions about how deepfakes (also deep fakes) could be weaponized for social and political purposes are now coming to pass. This study is one of the first to examine the social impact of deepfakes. Using an online survey sample in the United States, this study investigates the relationship between citizen concerns regarding deepfakes, exposure to deepfakes, inadvertent sharing of deepfakes, the cognitive ability of individuals, and social media news skepticism. Results suggest that deepfakes exposure and concerns are positively related to social media news skepticism. In contrast, those who frequently rely on social media as a news platform are less skeptical. Higher cognitive abled individuals are more skeptical of news on social media. The moderation findings suggest that among those who are more concerned about deepfakes, inadvertently sharing a deepfake is associated with heightened skepticism. However, these patterns are more pronounced among low than high cognitive individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available