DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/empati.2026.54443

TANTANGAN PSIKOLOGIS DALAM MENGHADAPI FENOMENA DEEPFAKE DI ERA POST-TRUTH: SCOPING REVIEW

1Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Tarumanagara, , Indonesia

2Letjen S. Parman No. 1, Tomang, Grogol petamburan, Kota Jakarta Barat, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, Indonesia 11440, Indonesia

Received: 30 Nov 2025; Available online: 15 Apr 2026; Published: 15 Apr 2026.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Fenomena deepfake menandai pergeseran besar dalam lanskap post-truth, di mana batas antara realitas dan rekayasa digital menjadi semakin kabur. Penelitian ini bertujuan memetakan tantangan psikologis yang muncul dalam menghadapi deepfake, dengan meninjau faktor kognitif, afektif, sosial, dan teknis yang memengaruhi persepsi dan perilaku individu. Menggunakan pendekatan scoping review, studi ini menganalisis 16 artikel internasional terbitan 2020 sampai 2025 dari basis data PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PLOS ONE, ScienceDirect, dan SAGE Journals. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa keterbatasan kognitif seperti illusory truth effect dan overconfidence bias membuat individu rentan terhadap manipulasi deepfake. Di sisi afektif, persepsi keaslian memodulasi respons emosional dan neural terhadap ekspresi wajah atau suara sintetis. Sementara pada tingkat sosial, kepercayaan terhadap institusi dan interaksi antar kelompok turut melemah akibat penyebaran konten palsu yang meyakinkan. Namun, beberapa studi juga menemukan bahwa deepfake tidak selalu lebih manipulatif dibanding misinformasi non-deepfake bila kontrol eksperimental diperketat. Studi ini menegaskan perlunya integrasi antara teori psikologi dan strategi literasi digital berbasis prebunking untuk mengurangi dampak psikologis deepfake dalam era post-truth.

The rise of deepfakes marks a significant shift in the post-truth era, where the boundary between reality and digital fabrication becomes increasingly blurred. This study aims to map the psychological challenges in confronting deepfakes by examining cognitive, affective, social, and technical factors that influence individual perception and behavior. Using a scoping review approach, this study analyzed 16 international articles published between 2020 and 2025 from databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PLOS ONE, ScienceDirect, and SAGE Journals. The findings reveal that cognitive limitations such as the illusory truth effect and overconfidence bias make individuals vulnerable to deepfake manipulation. Affectively, perceived authenticity modulates emotional and neural responses to synthetic faces and voices. At the social level, public trust in institutions and interpersonal relationships are weakened by the spread of highly convincing false content. However, several studies also indicate that deepfakes are not necessarily more manipulative than non-deepfake misinformation when strict experimental controls are applied. This study highlights the importance of integrating psychological theory with digital literacy and prebunking strategies to mitigate the psychological impacts of deepfakes in the post-truth era.

Fulltext Email colleagues
Keywords: socialpPsychology; cognitive psychology; cyber psychology
Funding: Universitas Tarumanagara under contract None

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : ID
  1. Ahmed, S., Bee, C., Ng, Y. L., & Masood, A. (2024). Social media news use amplifies the illusory truth effects of viral deepfakes: A cross-national study of eight countries. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2024.2410783
  2. Ahmed, S., & Chua, Y. T. (2023). Perception and deception: Exploring individual responses to deepfakes across different modalities. Heliyon, 9(12), e21052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20383
  3. Ahmed, S., Masood, M., Bee, A. W. T., Ichikawa, K. (2025). False failures, real distrust: the impact of an infrastructure failure deepfake on government trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 23 (3), 16:1574840. https://doi.org?10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1574840
  4. Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729
  5. Ching, T., Alvarez, A., & Kim, J. (2025). Mapping the psychological impact of deepfakes: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Media Psychology, 37(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000345
  6. Dan, V., Morisi, D., Riedl, M., & Stier, S. (2025). Deepfakes as a democratic threat: Experimental evidence shows noxious effects that are reducible through warnings. Digital Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612251317766
  7. Eiserbeck, M., Szycik, G. R., Müller, K., & Hasson, U. (2023). Deepfake smiles matter less: The psychological and neural effects of believing a face is synthetic. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 20391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42802-x
  8. Josephs, M., Fosco, C., & Oliva, A. (2023). Artifact magnification on deepfake videos increases human detection and subjective confidence. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 21777. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.04733
  9. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  10. Köbis, N. C., Bonnefon, J.-F., Rahwan, I., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can. iScience, 24(11), 103364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103364
  11. Lewandowsky, Stephan & van der Linden, Sander. (2021). Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology. 32 (7). https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
  12. Lovato, J., St-Onge, J., Harp, R., Salazar Lopez, G., Rogers, S. P., Ul Haq, I., Hébert-Dufresne, L., & Onaolapo, J. (2024). Diverse misinformation: Impacts of human biases on detection of deepfakes on networks. npj Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44260-024-00006-y
  13. Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3
  14. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2022). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 20(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000320
  15. Pramod, D., Patil, K. P., & Bharathi, V. S. (2025). Is it really unreal? A two-theory approach on the impact of deepfakes technology on the protection motivation of consumers. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2461239. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2461239
  16. Roswandowitz, C., Kathiresan, T., Pellegrino, E., Dellwo, V., & Frühholz, S. (2024). Cortico-striatal brain network distinguishes deepfake from real speaker identity. Communications Biology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06372-6
  17. Simon, J. (2025). Generative AI, quadruple deception & trust. Social Epistemology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2025.2491087
  18. Weikmann, T., Greber, H., & Nikolaou, A. (2024). After Deception: How Falling for a Deepfake Affects the Way We See, Hear, and Experience Media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241233539
  19. Wilson, T., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2023). The role of motivated reasoning in belief in political deepfakes. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0287542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287542

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.