Generative AI (GenAI) tools are transforming information seeking, but their fluent, authoritative responses risk overreliance and discourage independent verification and reasoning. Rather than replacing the cognitive work of users, GenAI systems should be designed to support and scaffold it. Therefore, this paper introduces an LLM-based conversational copilot designed to scaffold information evaluation rather than provide answers and foster digital literacy skills. In a pre-registered, randomised controlled trial (N=261) examining three interface conditions including a chat-based copilot, our mixed-methods analysis reveals that users engaged deeply with the copilot, demonstrating metacognitive reflection. However, the copilot did not significantly improve answer correctness or search engagement, largely due to a "time-on-chat vs. exploration" trade-off and users’ bias toward positive information. Qualitative findings reveal tension between the copilot’s Socratic approach and users’ desire for efficiency. These results highlight both the promise and pitfalls of pedagogical copilots, and we outline design pathways to reconcile literacy goals with efficiency demands.

Many users struggle with effective online search and critical evaluation, especially in high-stakes domains like health, while often overestimating their digital literacy. Thus, in this demo, we present an interactive search companion that seamlessly integrates expert search strategies into existing search engine result pages. Providing context-aware tips on clarifying information needs, improving query formulation, encouraging result exploration, and mitigating biases, our companion aims to foster reflective search behaviour while minimising cognitive burden. A user study demonstrates the companion’s successful encouragement of more active and exploratory search, leading users to submit 75% more queries and view roughly twice as many results, as well as performance gains in difficult tasks. This demo illustrates how lightweight, contextual guidance can enhance search literacy and empower users through micro-learning opportunities. While the vision involves real-time LLM adaptivity, this study utilises a controlled implementation to test the underlying intervention strategies.

While it is often assumed that searching for information to evaluate misinformation will help identify false claims, recent work suggests that search behaviours can instead reinforce belief in misleading news, particularly when users generate queries using vocabulary from the source articles. Our research explores how different query generation strategies affect news verification and whether the way people search influences the accuracy of their information evaluation. A mixed-methods approach was used, consisting of three parts: (1) an analysis of existing data to understand how search behaviour influences trust in fake news (2) a simulation of query generation strategies using a Large Language Model (LLM) to assess the impact of different query formulations on search result quality, and (3) a user study to examine how 'Boost' interventions in interface design can guide users to adopt more effective query strategies. The results show that search behaviour significantly affects trust in news, with successful searches involving multiple queries and yielding higher-quality results. Queries inspired by different parts of a news article produced search results of varying quality, and weak initial queries improved when reformulated using full SERP information. Although 'Boost' interventions had limited impact, the study suggests that interface design encouraging users to thoroughly review search results can enhance query formulation. This study highlights the importance of query strategies in evaluating news and proposes that interface design can play a key role in promoting more effective search practices, serving as one component of a broader set of interventions to combat misinformation.

In this work, we investigate the efficacy of boost interventions rooted in information literacy principles to enhance user interaction with search results and promote knowledge acquisition on debated topics. We conducted a pre-registered online user study with a between-groups design involving 351 participants who each completed knowledge assessments before and after performing a search task. In total, 9 boost conditions were tested (consisting of 4 search tips × 2 presentations and one control without a boost).

Featured snippets that attempt to satisfy users’ information needs directly on top of the first search engine results page (SERP) have been shown to strongly impact users’ post-search attitudes and beliefs. In the context of debated but scientifically answerable topics, recent research has demonstrated that users tend to trust featured snippets to such an extent that they may reverse their original beliefs based on what such a snippet suggests; even when erroneous information is featured. This paper examines the effect of featured snippets in more nuanced and complicated search scenarios concerning debated topics that have no ground truth and where diverse arguments in favor and against can legitimately be made. We report on a preregistered, online user study (N = 182) investigating how the stances and logics of evaluation (i.e., underlying reasons behind stances) expressed in featured snippets influence post-task attitudes and explanations of users without strong pre-search attitudes. We found that such users tend to not only change their attitudes on debated topics (e.g., school uniforms) following whatever stance a featured snippet expresses but also incorporate the featured snippet’s logic of evaluation into their argumentation. Our findings imply that the content displayed in featured snippets may have large-scale undesired consequences for individuals, businesses, and society, and urgently call for researchers and practitioners to examine this issue further.

Search engines often provide featured snippets, which are boxed and placed above other results with the aim of directly answering user queries. To learn about how users judge the credibility of such results and how they influence search outcomes, a controlled web-based user study (N = 96) was conducted. Using resources made available by scholars in the community, we study featured snippets in a medical context with participants being tasked with determining whether a named treatment is helpful for a specified medical condition both before and after viewing the search results. Experimental conditions varied the presence and credibility of featured snippets. Our findings indicate that participants tend to overestimate the credibility of information in featured snippets. Featured snippets are, moreover, shown to often change users’ opinion about a topic, especially if they are uncertain. Showing correct information inside featured snippets helped participants make more accurate decisions, whereas incorrect or contradicting information led to more harmful outcomes.