Through the Looking-Glass: AI-Mediated Video Communication Reduces Interpersonal Trust and Confidence in Judgments

Abstract

AI-based tools that mediate, enhance or generate parts of video communication may interfere with how people evaluate trustworthiness and credibility. In two preregistered online experiments (N = 2,000), we examined whether AI-mediated video retouching, background replacement and avatars affect interpersonal trust, people's ability to detect lies and confidence in their judgments. Participants watched short videos of speakers making truthful or deceptive statements across three conditions with varying levels of AI mediation. We observed that perceived trust and confidence in judgments declined in AI-mediated videos, particularly in settings in which some participants used avatars while others did not. However, participants' actual judgment accuracy remained unchanged, and they were no more inclined to suspect those using AI tools of lying. Our findings provide evidence against concerns that AI mediation undermines people's ability to distinguish truth from lies, and against cue-based accounts of lie detection more generally. They highlight the importance of trustworthy AI mediation tools in contexts where not only truth, but also trust and confidence matter.

Figures (6)

• Figure 1: Study conditions and primary outcome variables. Participants watched six videos in which video subjects recounted a story about someone they knew, that was either true or false. In the control condition, we embedded the original video in a video call to increase realism. In the weak AI-mediated treatment, we further processed the video using retouching and a virtual background. In the strong AI-mediated treatment, we replaced the subject with an animated avatar. For each video, participants indicated whether they trusted the person in the video, whether they thought the person in the video was lying, and how confident they were in their judgment.
• Figure 2: AI mediation affects interpersonal trust, particularly in mixed environments.Average interpersonal trust by video mediation type and study design with 95% confidence intervals; N = 2,000 ratings per data point. Participants in the left panel (Study 1) rated six videos of the same mediation type, whereas participants in the right panel (Study 2) watched two videos of each mediation type in random order.
• Figure 3: Truth judgment rates were unaffected by mediating AI mediationPercentage of times participants thought the person in the video told the truth, with 95% Wilson confidence intervals; N = 2,000 judgments per data point. Across both studies, participants exhibit a bias towards truth judgment rate (57.6 to 61.5%) independent of AI mediation, while the stimuli dataset contained 50% truths and 50% lies.
• Figure 4: Judgment accuracy by AI mediation type and statement veracity.Percentage of times participants correctly identified a truth as a truth or a lie as a lie, with 95% Wilson confidence intervals; N = 1,000-2,000 judgments per data point. Participants identified about 60-65% of truths correctly, but only about 42-45% of lies. Except for truths in the avatar treatment in Study 1, AI mediation did not affect judgment accuracy.
• Figure 5: AI mediation affects judgment confidence, but only in mixed environments.Average reported confidence in judgment by video mediation type and study design with 95% confidence intervals; N = 2,000 ratings per data point. Participants encountering different types of AI-mediated content and original content in Study 2 (right panel) were less confident in their judgments, particularly for strong AI-mediated content.