Credibility cues of conspiracy narratives: exploring the belief-driven credibility evaluation of a YouTube conspiracy video

Abstract

ABSTRACT YouTube provides an exhaustive collection of videos that promote conspiracy narratives. Conspiracy narratives deviate from orthodox views and are grounded in non-falsifiable premises. This study aims to understand how people evaluate the credibility of conspiracy videos. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods, we examine the factors that affect users’ evaluations of the credibility of conspiracy videos in social-media settings. Qualitative findings show that users consider source, interaction, content, and their intent to follow-up on the topic as credibility cues. A quantitative analysis using a moon-landing conspiracy video as an example demonstrates that the role of credibility cues differs depending on pre-existing beliefs. Host and message cues are most relevant, with host cues more important for strong believers in the moon landing conspiracy and message cues more relevant for non-believers and moderate believers. The intention to follow up on the conspiracy topic mediates between credibility cues and users’ overall video credibility evaluation. Critical user comments about the video decrease this follow-up intention and thus contribute to a lower overall video credibility. People navigate conspiracy narratives based on information-related credibility cues, which are moderated by their previous beliefs and mediated by follow-up intention. Users who attribute credibility to conspiracy narratives perceive them as having high information quality, causing cognitive and conversational needs in users.