We encounter an enormous amount of information online every day, but deciding what deserves our trust isn't always straightforward.
People rarely evaluate information using a single rule. They look at the source, the way something is written, what other people are saying, whether it aligns with what they already know, and sometimes simply whether something feels credible.
This research explored how people make those decisions and what happens when they encounter information they're unsure about.
How do people determine whether information they encounter online is trustworthy?
Rather than asking people only what they say they do, we wanted to better understand the behaviors and thought processes involved when people actually evaluate information.
Our research included eight observed participants and eight interview participants.
We examined how people approached questionable or unfamiliar information, what signals influenced their judgment, when they chose to investigate further, and what made verification difficult.
We then synthesized the research into themes and translated the findings into persona spectrums, personas, scenarios, journey maps, and a priority matrix.
People combine multiple cues when deciding whether something is credible. The source may matter, but so can presentation, familiarity, language, social signals, and prior knowledge.
Knowing that information should be checked doesn't necessarily mean someone will check it. Verification takes time and effort, and people make different decisions depending on the situation and how important the information feels.
Feeling certain about something doesn't necessarily mean the underlying information is reliable. Familiarity and existing beliefs can influence how credible information appears.
Checking a claim isn't always as simple as performing another search. Users may encounter conflicting sources and then have to make another credibility judgment about the information that's supposed to help them verify the first one.
We used the findings to map different user behaviors rather than assuming everyone approaches questionable information in the same way.
Persona spectrums helped us think beyond a single "average" user, while scenarios and journey maps made it easier to see where uncertainty, effort, and trust changed throughout the verification process.
We then used a priority matrix to identify where design interventions could potentially provide the most value.
This project made me think differently about digital literacy. Giving people more information isn't necessarily the same as helping them make better decisions.
Useful tools need to account for the way people actually behave: limited time, different levels of confidence, existing beliefs, and varying motivation to investigate something further.
For me, the most interesting design question became less about "How do we tell people what's true?" and more about "How can we help people make better-informed judgments for themselves?"