Detecting Deepfakes Through Emotion?: Facial Expression and Emotional Contagion as Dual Indicators of Deepfake Credibility

ABSTRACT This study examines the differences in emotional expressions between face‐swap deepfake videos featuring real human subjects and their authentic counterparts and investigates how these discrepancies influence viewers' emotional reactions and perceptions of video credibility. Using a two‐step approach, we first applied computer‐based facial expression analysis to compare emotional displays between deepfake and authentic videos. Next, guided by emotional contagion and emotion‐as‐information frameworks, we conducted an audience response analysis to assess how displayed emotions in the two types of videos transfer to viewers' emotional experiences and their subsequent assessments of the videos. Results indicate that deepfakes generally exhibit lower overall and negative emotions compared to authentic counterparts. Notably, audiences' reduced emotional responses to deepfakes were associated with higher perceived credibility. These findings underscore the importance of emotion‐based signals for detecting fabricated videos and highlight the relationship between viewers' emotional responses and their perceived trust in AI‐generated content.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Published
2025-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70141
Primary Topic
Emotion and Mood Recognition
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Detecting Deepfakes Through Emotion?: Facial Expression and Emotional Contagion as Dual Indicators of Deepfake Credibility

Kevin K. John, Jiyoung Lee
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Emotion and Mood Recognition
article

Detecting Deepfakes Through Emotion?: Facial Expression and Emotional Contagion as Dual Indicators of Deepfake Credibility

Kevin K. John, Jiyoung Lee
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examines the differences in emotional expressions between face‐swap deepfake videos featuring real human subjects and their authentic counterparts and investigates how these discrepancies influence viewers' emotional reactions and perceptions of video credibility. Using a two‐step approach, we first applied computer‐based facial expression analysis to compare emotional displays between deepfake and authentic videos. Next, guided by emotional contagion and emotion‐as‐information frameworks, we conducted an audience response analysis to assess how displayed emotions in the two types of videos transfer to viewers' emotional experiences and their subsequent assessments of the videos. Results indicate that deepfakes generally exhibit lower overall and negative emotions compared to authentic counterparts. Notably, audiences' reduced emotional responses to deepfakes were associated with higher perceived credibility. These findings underscore the importance of emotion‐based signals for detecting fabricated videos and highlight the relationship between viewers' emotional responses and their perceived trust in AI‐generated content.

Applied Cognitive PsychologyVol. 39(6)
Brigham Young University (US), Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
National Research Foundation, National Research Foundation of Korea, Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Emotion and Mood Recognition
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Detecting Deepfakes Through Emotion?: Facial Expression and Emotional Contagion as Dual Indicators of Deepfake Credibility — Kevin K. John, Jiyoung Lee · Applied Cognitive Psychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS