Authors

Discussion

To assess the credibility of political information, most citizens rely on heuristics drawn from the political environment. However, it is not clear how citizens use heuristics in the contexts where the political environment cannot serve this supporting function. In autocracies, citizens are often aware of the manipulative nature of the media and politics. In addition, during political crises, the media environment is filled with contradictory information. Relying on focus groups, this study uses Russian TV viewers’ reception of the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a case study to investigate credibility heuristics of citizens living in an autocracy during an intense geopolitical confrontation. I identify three types of audiences. Partisans rely on confirmation heuristic and agree with the pro-government narratives if the latter align with their political priorities bypassing credibility assessment. Sceptics rely on persuasive intent heuristic and look for cues which suggest that the message can be an attempt to persuade, such as excessive emotions. Apoliticals use experiential knowledge to verify or challenge the credibility of information. While the conflict itself is very politicised, most participants borrow heuristics from personal experience and folk wisdom rather than the political environment. The findings suggest that citizens adapt to an authoritarian environment by drawing heuristics from alternative sources when media and political institutions are seen as biased.