Assessing the informational credibility of conspiracy theories: online discussion about the Nord Stream damage
| Date | 06 October 2023 |
| Pages | 153-174 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2023-0032 |
| Published date | 06 October 2023 |
| Author | Reijo Savolainen |
Assessing the informational
credibility of conspiracy theories:
online discussion about the Nord
Stream damage
Reijo Savolainen
Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences,
Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
Abstract
Purpose –To elaborate the picture of credibility assessment by examining how participants of online
discussion evaluate the informational credibility of conspiracy theories.
Design/methodology/approach –Descriptive quantitative analysis and qualitative content analysis of
2,663 posts submitted to seven Reddit threads discussing a conspiracy operation, that is, the damage of the
Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022. It was examined how the participants of online discussion assess
the credibility of information constitutive of conspiracy theories speculating about (1) suspected actors
responsible for the damage, (2) their motives and (3) the ways in which the damage was made. The credibility
assessments focussed on diverse sources offering information about the above three factors.
Findings –The participants assessed the credibility of information by drawing on four main criteria:
plausibility of arguments, honesty in argumentation,similarity to one’s beliefs andprovision of evidence. Most
assessments were negative and indicated doubt about the informational believability of conspiracy theories
about the damage. Of the information sources referred to in the discussion, the posts submitted by fellow
participants, television programmes and statements provided by governmental organizations were judged
most critically, due to implausible argumentation and advocacy of biased views.
Research limitations/implications –As the study focuses on a sample of posts dealing with conspiracy
theories about a particular event, the findings cannot be generalized to concern the informational credibility
conspiracy narratives.
Originality/value –The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of credibility
assessments by focussing on information constitutive of conspiracy theories.
Keywords Conspiracy theories, Conspiracy operations, Credibility assessment, Information credibility,
Online discussion
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Similar to misinformation, disinformation and fake news, conspiracy theories have become
an integral element of today’s information environments. For example, the COVID-19
pandemic has given rise to number of conspiracy theories about the origin of the coronavirus
and the nature of COVID-19 vaccines (Cheng et al., 2022;Moffitt et al., 2021). Such theories
claim, for example, that the coronavirus was deliberately manufactured in a Chinese
laboratory to wage war on the West. Assumptions such as these are characteristic of a
conspiracy. In general, it refers to a secret arrangement by a group of powerful people, usually
driven by nefarious or malevolent intentions to usurp political or economic power or violate
established rights (Keeley, 1999, p. 116). A conspiracy theory represents an explanation of
such arrangements (Uscinski, 2018, p. 235). Conspiracy theories tend to thrive under
Informational
credibility of
conspiracy
theories
153
© Reijo Savolainen. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-3806.htm
Received 27 January 2023
Revised 21 March 2023
Accepted 9 September 2023
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 77 No. 1, 2025
pp. 153-174
Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-01-2023-0032
conditions of causal uncertainty such as pandemics and wars when people have incomplete,
second hand, conflicting, or ambiguous information about the cause(s) of an event or an
ongoing process (Van der Wal et al., 2018, p. 972; p. 981). In such conditions, conspiracy
theories reflect declining trust in official (factual) sources, replacing trustworthy information
with speculation. Thereby, conspiracy theories are particularly characteristic of post-truth
information environments, where everything might be equally true or false because there are
no longer collectively agreed upon criteria to assess the veracity of information (Fuller, 2018;
de Zeeuw et al., 2020).
From a historical perspective, conspiracy theories have been part of Western culture for
ages. Belief in such narratives is quite common among citizens. For example, 60% of
Americans continue to believe that the CIA killed President John F. Kennedy in November
1963 (Douglas et al., 2019, p. 5). Social media forums have markedly facilitated the
dissemination of conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic in particular (Mahl et al.,
2022). The present study focuses on recent conspiracy theories closely related to the ongoing
Russo-Ukrainian war, that is, the damage of the Nord Stream underwater gas pipelines in
September 2022. It is speculated that the damage is not an accidental event but a sabotage,
resulting from a conspiracy operation motivated by the above war. The topic of the study is
relevant because in information behaviour studies so far, only occasional attention has been
paid to the informational aspects of conspiracy theories explaining such operations. Wilson
and Maceviciute (2022) have recently characterized the creation, acceptance and
dissemination of conspiracy theories as a form of information misbehaviour –a set of
activities which may be seen as pathological to some degree. The findings of the present
study suggest that despite the negative connotation, information offered by conspiracy
theories may be found –at least partly –meaningful when people try to make sense of a
significant event which lacks a publicly accepted explanation.
The Nord Stream damage exemplifies well events of this kind. So far, there is no
conclusive evidence about actor(s) responsible for the damage; similarly, the motive(s) behind
the secret operation, as well as the ways in which the pipelines were destroyed are subject to
speculation. As the damage occurred in times of the war raging in Ukraine, speculations were
soon disseminated in newspapers, television programmes and social media forums about
state-level perpetrators and their motives. The speculations became elements of conspiracy
theories claiming, for example, that Russia exploded the pipelines in order to cause economic
damage to West European countries that give weapons to Ukraine. As conspiracy theories
tend to constitute of a mix of rumours, opinions and guesses, occasionally backed by
individual facts, the assessment of the informational credibility of such theories is a
complicated issue.
The present study contributes to information behaviour research by elaborating the
above issue. To achieve this, an empirical study was made by exploring how participants of
online discussion assess the credibility of information offered by conspiracy theories about
the suspected actors of the Nord Stream damage, as well as their motives and the ways in
which the damage was carried out. The study is based on the analysis of a sample of posts
submitted to Reddit discussion threads debating the sabotage. The findings refine the
picture of credibility assessment occurring in times of uncertainty when people have to
make sense of socially significant events by drawing on ambiguous and conflicting
information.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. First, to create background, the nature of
conspiracy theories is reviewed, including a concise description of the Nord Stream damage
and the characterization of the main features of information credibility assessment.
Thereafter, the research framework and empirical research setting will be specified, followed
by the reporting of the findings. The last sections discuss the empirical results and reflect
their significance.
AJIM
77,1
154
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting