Support for deepfake regulation: The role of third-person perception, trust, and risk

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 14 (2025), Edition 4
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 14 (2025), Edition 4

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright year
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 14 (2025), Edition 4

Support for deepfake regulation: The role of third-person perception, trust, and risk

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

Like other emerging technologies, deepfakes present both risks and benefits to society. Due to harmful applications such as disinformation and non-consensual pornography, calls for their regulation have increased recently. However, little is known about public support for deepfake regulation and the factors related to it. This study addresses this gap through a pre-registered online survey (n = 1,361) conducted in Switzerland, where citizens can influence political regulation through direct democratic instruments, such as referendums. Our findings reveal a strong third-person perception, as people believe that deepfakes affect others more than themselves (Cohen’s d = 0.77). This presumed effect on others is a weak but significant predictor of support for regulation (β = 0.07). However, we do not find evidence for the second-person effect – the idea that individuals who perceive deepfakes as highly influential on both themselves and others are more likely to support regulation. However, an exploratory analysis indicates a potential second-person effect among females, who are specifically affected by deepfakes; a result which must be further explored and replicated. Additionally, we find that higher perceived risk and greater trust in institutions are positively associated with support for deepfake regulation.

Bibliography

  1. Ahmed, S. (2023). Examining public perception and cognitive biases in the presumed influence of deepfakes threat: Empirical evidence of third person perception from three studies. Asian Journal of Communication, 33(3), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2023.2194886 Open Google Scholar
  2. Altay, S., & Acerbi, A. (2024). People believe misinformation is a threat because they assume others are gullible. New Media & Society, 26(11), 6440–6461. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231153379 Open Google Scholar
  3. Baek, Y. M., Kang, H., & Kim, S. (2019). Fake news should be regulated because it influences both “others” and “me”: How and why the influence of presumed influence model should be extended. Mass Communication and Society, 22(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1562076 Open Google Scholar
  4. Birrer, A., & Just, N. (2024). What we know and don’t know about deepfakes: An investigation into the state of the research and regulatory landscape. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241 253138 Open Google Scholar
  5. Bendahan Bitton, D. B., Hoffmann, C. P., & Godulla, A. (2024). Deepfakes in the context of AI inequalities: Analysing disparities in knowledge and attitudes. Information, Communication & Society, 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2420037 Open Google Scholar
  6. Chen, M., Yu, W., & Liu, K. (2023). A meta-analysis of third-person perception related to distorted information: Synthesizing the effect, antecedents, and consequences. Information Processing & Management, 60(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103425 Open Google Scholar
  7. Chung, M., & Wihbey, J. (2024). Social media regulation, third-person effect, and public views: A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Mexico. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4534–4553. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122996 Open Google Scholar
  8. Corbu, N., Oprea, D.-A., Negrea-Busuioc, E., & Radu, L. (2020). ‘They can’t fool me, but they can fool the others!’ Third person effect and fake news detection. European Journal of Communication, 35(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0267323120903686 Open Google Scholar
  9. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763 Open Google Scholar
  10. de Ruiter, A. (2021). The distinct wrong of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1311–1332. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13347-021-00459-2 Open Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, G. T., & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924. 1989.tb01243.x Open Google Scholar
  12. Godulla, A., Hoffmann, C. P., & Seibert, D. (2021). Dealing with deepfakes – An interdisciplinary examination of the state of research and implications for communication studies. SCM Studies in Communication and Media, 10(1), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2021-1-72 Open Google Scholar
  13. Gosse, C., & Burkell, J. (2020). Politics and porn: How news media characterizes problems presented by deepfakes. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 37(5), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2020.1832697 Open Google Scholar
  14. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2003.tb02586.x Open Google Scholar
  15. Hameleers, M., Van Der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Dobber, T. (2022). You won’t believe what they just said! The effects of political deepfakes embedded as vox Open Google Scholar
  16. populi on social media. Social Open Google Scholar
  17. Media + Society, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221116346 Open Google Scholar
  18. Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.034 Open Google Scholar
  19. Jungherr, A., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2024). Negative downstream effects of alarmist disinformation discourse: Evidence from the United States. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2123–2143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09911-3 Open Google Scholar
  20. Jungherr, A., & Rauchfleisch, A. (in press). Public Opinion on the Politics of AI Alignment: Cross-National Evidence on Expectations for AI Moderation from Germany and the United States. Social Media + Society. Open Google Scholar
  21. Kalogeropoulos, A., Toff, B., & Fletcher, R. (2022). The watchdog press in the doghouse: A comparative study of attitudes about accountability journalism, trust in news, and news avoidance. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(2), 485–506. https://doi.org/10. 1177/19401612221112572 Open Google Scholar
  22. Karaboga, M., Frei, N., Puppis, M., Vogler, D., Raemy, P., Ebbers, F., Runge, G., Rauchfleisch, A., de Seta, G., Gurr, G., Friedewald, M., & Rovelli, S. (2024). Deepfakes und manipulierte Realitäten: Technologiefolgenabschätzung und Handlungsempfehlungen für die Schweiz [Deepfakes and manipulated realities: Technology impact assessment and policy recommendations for Switzerland]. vdf Hochschulverlag AG. Open Google Scholar
  23. Kim, M. (2025). A direct and indirect effect of third-person perception of COVID-19 fake news on support for fake news regulations on social media: Investigating the role of negative emotions and political views. Mass Communication and Society, 28(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2227601 Open Google Scholar
  24. Lima, M. L., Barnett, J., & Vala, J. (2005). Risk perception and technological development at a societal level. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1229–1239. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00664.x Open Google Scholar
  25. Liu, P. L., & Huang, L. V. (2020). Digital disinformation about COVID-19 and the third-person effect: Examining the channel differences and negative emotional outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(11), 789–793. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber. 2020.0363 Open Google Scholar
  26. Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance: does political trust matter? European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01930.x Open Google Scholar
  27. Nguyen, D. (2023). How news media frame data risks in their coverage of big data and AI. Internet Policy Review, 12(2). https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/how-news-media-frame-data-risks-big-data-and-ai Open Google Scholar
  28. Paradise, A., & Sullivan, M. (2012). (In)visible threats? The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 55–60. ­https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0054 Open Google Scholar
  29. PytlikZillig, L. M., Kimbrough, C. D., Shockley, E., Neal, T. M. S., Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Tomkins, A. J. (2017). A longitudinal and experimental study of the impact of knowledge on the bases of institutional trust. PLOS ONE, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175387 Open Google Scholar
  30. Rauchfleisch, A., Vogler, D., & de Seta, G. (2025). Deepfakes or synthetic media? The effect of euphemisms for labeling technology on risk and benefit perceptions. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251350975 Open Google Scholar
  31. Riedl, M. J., Whipple, K. N., & Wallace, R. (2022). Antecedents of support for social media content moderation and platform regulation: The role of presumed effects on self and others. Information, Communication & Society, 25(11), 1632–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1874040 Open Google Scholar
  32. Six, F. (2013). Trust in regulatory relations: How new insights from trust research improve regulation theory. Public Management Review, 15(2), 163–185. ­https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.727461 Open Google Scholar
  33. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x Open Google Scholar
  34. Swissinfo.ch (2025, May 9). Switzerland rejects deepfake regulation. Retrieved from https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ai-­governance/switzerland-rejects-deepfake-regulation/89277391 Open Google Scholar
  35. Thouvenin, F.; Eisenegger, M.; Volz, S.; Vogler, D.; Jaffé, M., (2023). Governance von Desinformation in digitalisierten Öffentlichkeiten. Bericht für das Bundesamt für Kommunikation (BAKOM) [Governance of disinformation in digitalized publics. Report for the Federal Office of Communication]. Retrieved from: https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/de/home/elektronische-medien/studien/ Open Google Scholar
  36. einzelstudien.html Open Google Scholar
  37. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408 Open Google Scholar
  38. Verhoest, K., Redert, B., Maggetti, M., Levi-Faur, D., & Jordana, J. (2025). Trust and regulation. In F. Six, J. A. Hamm, D. Latusek, E. V. Zimmeren, & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Handbook on Trust in Public Governance (pp. 360–380). Edward Open Google Scholar
  39. Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 4337/9781802201406.00030 Open Google Scholar
  40. Wang, S., & Kim, S. (2022). Users’ emotional and behavioral responses to deepfake videos of K-pop idols. Computers in Human Behavior, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107305 Open Google Scholar
  41. Wolf, C. (2021). Public trust and biotech innovation: A theory of trustworthy regulation of (scary!) technology. Social Philosophy and Policy, 38(2), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052522 000036 Open Google Scholar
  42. Yadlin-Segal, A., & Oppenheim, Y. (2021). Whose dystopia is it anyway? Deepfakes and social media regulation. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 27(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1354856520923963 Open Google Scholar
  43. Yu, E., Song, H., Jung, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2023). Perception and attitude toward the regulation of online video streaming (in South Korea). Online Media and Global Communication, 2(4), 651–679. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2023-0059 Open Google Scholar
  44.   Open Google Scholar

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Download complete (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media