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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18868v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:13:17 GMT
• Title: Through the Looking-Glass: AI-Mediated Video Communication Reduces Interpersonal Trust and Confidence in Judgments
• Abstract summary: We examined whether AI-mediated video retouching, background replacement and avatars affect interpersonal trust.<n>We observed that perceived trust and confidence in judgments declined in AI-mediated videos.<n>Participants' actual judgment accuracy remained unchanged, and they were no more inclined to suspect those using AI tools of lying.
• Score: 5.462484730799417
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Full Disclosure, Less Trust? How the Level of Detail about AI Use in News Writing Affects Readers' Trust [10.22272389430846]
  Findings show that not all AI disclosures lead to a transparency dilemma, but instead reflect a trade-off between readers' desire for more transparency and their trust in AI-assisted news content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T16:45:45Z)
• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [73.8907110799657]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims.<n>In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy.<n>In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)<n>These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Role of AI Quality Disclosure in Lie Detection [5.539973416151908]
  We investigate how low-quality AI advisors, lacking quality disclosures, can help spread text-based lies while seeming to help people detect lies.<n>We find that when relying on low-quality advisors without disclosures, participants' truth-detection rates fall below their own abilities, which recovered once the AI's true effectiveness was revealed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T15:58:05Z)
• The impact of labeling automotive AI as "trustworthy" or "reliable" on user evaluation and technology acceptance [0.0]
  This study explores whether labeling AI as "trustworthy" or "reliable" influences user perceptions and acceptance of automotive AI technologies. Using a one-way between-subjects design, the research involved 478 online participants who were presented with guidelines for either trustworthy or reliable AI. Although labeling AI as "trustworthy" did not significantly influence judgments on specific scenarios, it increased perceived ease of use and human-like trust, particularly benevolence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T14:48:24Z)
• Trusting Your AI Agent Emotionally and Cognitively: Development and Validation of a Semantic Differential Scale for AI Trust [16.140485357046707]
  We develop and validated a set of 27-item semantic differential scales for affective and cognitive trust. Our empirical findings showed how the emotional and cognitive aspects of trust interact with each other and collectively shape a person's overall trust in AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T18:55:33Z)
• Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions [6.724854390957174]
  The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our daily life explains the significance of trust/distrust in AI from a user perspective. Trust/distrust in AI plays the role of a regulator and could significantly control the level of this diffusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T20:26:49Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)
• Machine Learning Explanations to Prevent Overtrust in Fake News Detection [64.46876057393703]
  This research investigates the effects of an Explainable AI assistant embedded in news review platforms for combating the propagation of fake news. We design a news reviewing and sharing interface, create a dataset of news stories, and train four interpretable fake news detection algorithms. For a deeper understanding of Explainable AI systems, we discuss interactions between user engagement, mental model, trust, and performance measures in the process of explaining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T05:42:29Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.