ArticlePloS one2025
Can deepfakes manipulate us? Assessing the evidence via a critical scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deepfakes are one of the most recent developments in misinformation technology and are capable of superimposing one person's face onto another in video format. The potential of this technology to defame and cause harm is clear. However, despite the grave concerns expressed about deepfakes, these concerns are rarely accompanied with empirical evidence. We present a scoping review of the existing empirical studies that aim to investigate the effects of viewing deepfakes on people's beliefs, memories, and behaviour. Five databases were searched, producing an initial sample of 2004 papers, from which 22 relevant papers were identified, varying in methodology and research methods used. Overall, we found that the early studies on this topic have often produced inconclusive findings regarding the existence of uniquely persuasive or convincing effects of deepfake exposure. Moreover, many experiments demonstrated poor methodology and did not include a non-deepfake comparator (e.g., text-based misinformation). We conclude that speculation and scare mongering about dystopian uses of deepfake technologies has far outpaced experimental research that assess these harms. We close by offering insights on how to conduct improved empirical work in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.