Video filters and avatars erode viewers' trust and confidence but do not make them worse at spotting lies; AI-mediated appearance changes reduce perceived credibility without impairing actual detection of deception.

Main Finding

AI-mediated video transformations (skin retouching + virtual backgrounds, and fully animated avatars) systematically reduce viewers’ interpersonal trust in speakers and lower viewers’ confidence in their truth/lie judgments — especially when some participants use AI-mediated representations and others do not — while leaving viewers’ actual deception-detection accuracy and overall tendency to suspect deception essentially unchanged (two preregistered online experiments, N = 2,000).

Key Points

• Two preregistered online experiments (total N = 2,000) compared three mediation levels: control (original video), weak AI-mediation (retouching, lighting, virtual background), and strong AI-mediation (animated avatar).
• Study 1 (homogeneous environment): participants saw six videos of the same mediation type. Study 2 (mixed environment): participants saw two videos of each mediation type (more ecologically realistic).
• Primary outcomes per video: perceived trustworthiness, binary truth/lie judgment, and confidence in that judgment. Follow-ups asked which cues participants relied on.
• Consistent result: AI-mediated videos reduced perceived trustworthiness and lowered confidence in judgments.
• Effects were strongest in mixed environments (when some interlocutors looked “real” and others used AI-mediated representations), consistent with expectancy-violation and uncertainty-reduction mechanisms.
• Crucially, AI mediation did not change deception-detection accuracy (no meaningful change in correct truth/lie classification) and participants were not more likely to accuse AI-mediated speakers of lying.
• Authors interpret findings as evidence against strong cue-based accounts of lie detection (i.e., removal/distortion of visual micro-cues did not worsen accuracy) and more consistent with context-based/truth-default perspectives.
• Practical takeaway: everyday AI video features (not only extreme deepfakes) alter social evaluations (trust/confidence) even when information accuracy is preserved.

Data & Methods

• Design: two large, preregistered online experiments simulating video-call interactions.
• Sample: combined N = 2,000 (details on exact recruitment platform not in excerpt; stimuli were prerecorded speakers).
• Stimuli: short videos of speakers recounting stories that were either truthful or deceptive. Videos were processed using Microsoft Teams’ integrated features to create three conditions:
• Control: original video (embedded in a video-call frame for realism).
• Weak AI-mediation: skin smoothing, lighting adjustments, virtual background.
• Strong AI-mediation: animated/avatar replacement of the speaker.
• Procedure: after each video, participants rated trust in the speaker, judged whether the speaker was lying or telling the truth, and reported confidence in that judgment; follow-up questions probed the cues they used.
• Experimental manipulations: both uniform (all videos same type) and mixed (varying mediation within a participant) environments were used to test sensitivity to heterogeneity in representation.
• Analysis: hypothesis-driven comparisons across conditions for trust, truth-judgment rate, confidence, and accuracy. (Paper reports consistent reduction in trust and confidence; no change in accuracy or suspicion rates.)

Implications for AI Economics

• Market frictions and transaction costs
  • Reduced interpersonal trust and lower confidence in judgments can increase transaction frictions in any economic setting that relies on video-mediated interaction (remote hiring, telemedicine, online contracting, marketplaces, negotiations). Lower trust may lengthen search, increase screening, require more verification, or necessitate costly intermediaries—raising transaction costs and reducing efficiency.
• Matching, hiring, and screening
  • In labor markets and gig platforms, AI-mediated representations (avatars or heavy retouching) may negatively affect candidate evaluations and trust signals even when performance-relevant information is unchanged. Platforms and firms may face trade-offs: allow convenient AI features (privacy, aesthetics) but risk less trust and reduced willingness of employers/clients to engage. This could bias hiring against users who rely on avatars unless platform-level mitigations exist.
• Reputation systems and signaling
  • Because accuracy at detecting deception did not decline, worries that everyday AI mediation will make deceit materially harder to detect may be overstated. However, trust erosion itself functions as a signal: users may be penalized (lower trust scores, fewer matches) simply for using AI-mediated visuals. Platforms should be aware that mixed-representation environments amplify these effects (the “Replicant Effect”); consistent representation policies could mitigate heterogeneity-driven trust losses.
• Adoption and welfare effects
  • If AI-mediated features reduce trust, adoption will depend on user preferences and outside options: some users may adopt avatars for privacy/comfort, but if others respond by reducing cooperation or payments, the overall welfare calculus changes. The net welfare impact depends on benefits (privacy, reduced cognitive load, accessibility) vs. lost trust and downstream cooperation.
• Design and regulatory prescriptions with economic consequences
  • Policy/design levers that can reduce trust costs include transparent signaling (labels/provenance of AI mediation), standardized metadata (provenance that confirms benign use), and design choices that prioritize representational consistency (reduce mixed-representation settings by showing avatar + badge or require uniform defaults in a meeting).
  • Platforms may internalize externalities by setting defaults (e.g., show a lightweight “AI-mediated” badge), controlling which features are available in high-stakes contexts (hiring, courts, telemedicine), or offering higher-fidelity avatar options that minimize expectancy violations—each choice will change platform costs and user behavior.
• Implications for empirical and theoretical work in AI economics
  • Models of platform competition and user matching should incorporate trust externalities from representation heterogeneity and disclosure policies.
  • Experimental and field work could quantify the monetary impact (e.g., changes in hiring offers, contract terms, conversion rates) of reduced trust/confidence caused by AI-mediated visuals.
  • Cost–benefit analyses for platform features should include indirect trust effects and how they propagate through reputation and matching systems.

Suggested next steps for economists and platform designers - Measure economic magnitudes: run field or lab-in-the-field experiments linking AI-mediated representations to hiring probabilities, wages, pricing, or contracting outcomes. - Test mitigations: evaluate labeling/provenance, representational consistency rules, or high-fidelity avatar investments to see which reduce trust losses at lowest cost. - Sector-specific evaluation: study high-stakes domains (telemedicine, law, finance) where trust has larger downstream value and regulatory intervention may be warranted. - Dynamic effects: study long-term learning/adaptation—do trust penalties persist, attenuate, or reverse as people become accustomed to AI-mediated visuals?

Bottom line: Everyday AI video features do not appear to worsen the objective ability to detect lies, but they do reduce trust and confidence in interpersonal judgments in video-mediated contexts — a nontrivial economic externality that platforms, firms, and regulators should account for when designing features, disclosure rules, and matching mechanisms.