Abstract Search engines, such as Google, have a considerable impact on society. Therefore, undesirable consequences, such as retrieving incorrect search results, pose a risk to users. Although previous research has reported the adverse outcomes of web search, little is known about how search engine users evaluate those outcomes. In this study, we show which aspects of web search are perceived as risky using a sample (N = 3884) representative of the German Internet population. We found that many participants are often concerned with adverse consequences immediately appearing on the search engine result page. For example, 45.2% of respondents are concerned about retrieving incorrect information. In contrast, consequences with a delayed impact are rarely perceived as a risk. Moreover, participants' experiences with adverse consequences are directly related to their risk perception. Our results demonstrate that people perceive risks related to web search. In addition to our study, there is a need for more independent research on the possible detrimental outcomes of web search to monitor and mitigate risks. Apart from risks for individuals, search engines with a massive number of users have an extraordinary impact on society; therefore, the acceptable risks of web search should be discussed.

Nowadays, users trusting search engines seems a matter of course. However, in the face of critical evaluation of information, the apparent authority of search engines should be investigated. Therefore, the question arises again as to what extent users trust search engines and what their reasons for trusting them are. It is vital to untangle trust, trustworthiness, and trust-related behavior to address this question, a shortcoming of previous studies. The clarification helps to find evidence on the causes and effects of trust. Since there is not an adequate trust measure for technical artifacts to date, it will be developed with the help of a controlled laboratory study and validated with an online questionnaire. The measure will be applied in an online experiment to scenarios from the health and finance domain and the search engines Google and Ecosia. The expected results determine misplaced and legitimate trust in search engines. Consequently, this furthers the discussion among civil society, researchers, and policymakers on the societal consequences of trust, the role of search engines, and the necessary user skills. Additionally, the developed trust measure may be applied to novel AI applications.

Searching for medical information is both a common and important activity since it influences decisions people make about their healthcare. Using search engine optimization (SEO), content producers seek to increase the visibility of their content. SEO is more likely to be practiced by commercially motivated content producers such as pharmaceutical companies than by non-commercial providers such as governmental bodies. In this study, we ask whether content quality correlates with the presence or absence of SEO measures on a web page. We conducted a user study in which N = 61 participants comprising laypeople as well as experts in health information assessment evaluated health-related web pages classified as either optimized or non-optimized. The subjects rated the expertise of non-optimized web pages as higher than the expertise of optimized pages, justifying their appraisal by the more competent and reputable appearance of non-optimized pages. In addition, comments about the website operators of the non-optimized pages were exclusively positive, while optimized pages tended to receive positive as well as negative assessments. We found no differences between the ratings of laypeople and experts. Since non-optimized, but high-quality content may be outranked by optimized content of lower quality, trusted sources should be prioritized in rankings.