Scientists Explain Why ‘Doing Your Own Research’ Leads to Believing Conspiracies

“Do your own research.” On the surface, it is a phrase that embodies independence and intellectual rigor. It suggests a refusal to take things at face value, an insistence on digging deeper, and a commitment to truth. But in recent years, those same four words have become a rallying cry for conspiracy movements, invoked to legitimize everything from vaccine skepticism to climate denial. This shift raises a troubling question: how did a phrase once associated with critical thinking become so tightly linked with misinformation?

Scientists are beginning to unravel the answer. A growing body of research suggests that the way people use search engines, combined with the gaps in reliable information online, can actually make individuals more likely to believe falsehoods. Far from shielding us against deception, the process of “researching” online can create a false sense of confidence and reinforce misleading narratives. The very tools we rely on to make sense of the world are, under certain conditions, shaping our understanding in ways that make us more vulnerable to conspiracies.

Why Searching for the Truth Can Backfire

At first glance, “do your own research” sounds like sound advice. Checking claims and verifying sources is, in principle, a core habit of critical thinking. Yet a recent study published in Nature reveals that the very act of fact-checking through online searches can make people more vulnerable to misinformation. In experiments conducted by researchers at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics, participants were presented with both factual and misleading articles on subjects such as COVID-19 vaccines, impeachment proceedings, and climate events. Those encouraged to use search engines to assess accuracy were nearly 20 percent more likely to misclassify false or misleading information as true compared with participants who did not search. The findings overturn the conventional wisdom that “looking it up” naturally protects against deception.

The problem lies in the structure of the internet itself. Researchers point to what they call “data voids”—gaps where little credible information exists to challenge misleading claims, especially when the news is new or niche. In such cases, search engines tend to serve up content that mirrors the misleading framing people type into the search bar. For instance, participants who searched the phrase “engineered famine,” lifted from a fabricated headline, often found results that reinforced the false narrative, whereas searching more general terms like “famine” yielded accurate information. Because many people instinctively search using the exact words of a headline or URL, their results are skewed toward low-quality publishers that rely on the same sensationalized phrasing.

This dynamic explains why even well-meaning attempts at verification can backfire. As information scientist Chirag Shah of the University of Washington put it, “People think they’ve done their due diligence and checked, but it makes it worse than not checking.” The study found that in some cases, individuals who had initially judged a story as misleading changed their minds after searching online, swayed by the abundance of false but confidently presented content. Joshua Tucker, one of the study’s authors, described the consistency of these results across multiple experiments as both remarkable and alarming. The takeaway is that without knowing how to search critically—and without enough credible sources available to counterbalance false ones—search engines can unintentionally deepen belief in conspiracies rather than dispel them.

The Role of Search Behavior and Keyword Choices

One of the most revealing aspects of the NYU research was how strongly search outcomes depended on the way people framed their queries. When individuals copied a misleading headline verbatim into the search bar, the results almost always reinforced the false claim. Seventy-seven percent of participants who searched using the headline or URL of a fabricated story encountered misinformation in their top results. This is partly because low-quality websites recycle the same sensational terms, flooding search engines with repetitive content that looks consistent to the casual reader. By contrast, when people searched with broader or more neutral terms—such as “famine” instead of “engineered famine”—falsehoods were far less likely to appear.

These patterns highlight a crucial truth: people rarely approach searching with sophisticated strategies. Most type phrases exactly as they appear, assuming that the top results will naturally reflect the most accurate information. But search engines are designed to deliver what users are looking for, not necessarily what is true. As a spokesperson for Google acknowledged, if someone searches for a specific, misleading phrase, it is unsurprising that similar misinformation appears in the results. In this way, the design of search systems interacts with human habits in a way that amplifies fringe claims and conspiracy theories, especially when people search in moments of uncertainty.

The consequences of these behaviors extend well beyond isolated misinformation events. When a person encounters a sensational claim, feels unsettled, and searches using the exact phrasing of that claim, they are effectively stepping into an echo chamber crafted by bad actors who anticipate those search terms. The repetition of the same misleading language across multiple sites can create an illusion of credibility—what psychologists call the “illusory truth effect.” Thus, rather than offering clarity, keyword-driven searches can entrench false beliefs and give misinformation the appearance of legitimacy.

The Psychology of Reassurance Through “Research”

Beyond the mechanics of search, there is a powerful psychological dimension that explains why “doing your own research” often strengthens, rather than weakens, conspiracy thinking. The very act of searching provides people with a sense of control, agency, and diligence—qualities most of us associate with being well-informed. Even when the material found is dubious, the process of having searched for it instills confidence that one has “checked the facts.” This confidence can become misplaced when the underlying sources are flawed.

The NYU study found that nearly one in five participants who initially recognized a story as misleading later changed their judgment to “true” after searching online. This is a striking example of cognitive reinforcement: the more effort we put into a task, the more invested we become in believing the outcome was worthwhile. Once people spend time scrolling through results, they are less likely to think they were misled, even if the evidence is weak. Scholars have noted that this effect mirrors patterns seen in conspiracy communities, where “research” becomes a badge of credibility. Members often describe themselves as “awake” or “informed” not because they rely on trusted sources, but because they have personally scoured the internet for confirmation.

What makes this cycle particularly insidious is the combination of reassurance and repetition. A misleading phrase encountered in multiple search results appears validated simply by frequency, regardless of source quality. This psychological mechanism helps explain why misinformation is sticky: once individuals feel they have verified a claim through their own effort, they resist contradictory evidence. The sense of empowerment derived from “research” paradoxically locks them more tightly into the very beliefs they set out to scrutinize.

The Responsibilities of Tech Platforms and Educators

If individual search habits and cognitive biases help misinformation take root, the infrastructure of search engines plays an equally critical role. Google has acknowledged that data voids—the absence of reliable information on emerging or niche topics—pose a well-known challenge. In response, the company has introduced tools such as the “About This Result” feature, which provides context on sources, and content advisories that warn users when information about a rapidly evolving event is limited. Independent studies have shown that Google generally ranks higher-quality sources than competing platforms, but as researchers note, even the best ranking systems cannot eliminate the problem when credible reporting simply does not yet exist.

Experts argue that more needs to be done to equip people with the skills and tools to navigate the information landscape. Kevin Aslett, a co-author of the NYU study and professor at the University of Central Florida, has stressed that digital literacy cannot stop at encouraging people to “look it up.” Instead, curricula must teach how to search effectively: examining sources, questioning phrasing, and recognizing when results are shaped by biased terms. Chirag Shah echoed this point, emphasizing that technology companies should shoulder some responsibility by providing users with tools that make credibility more transparent, rather than expecting individuals to discern truth from fiction in a sea of junk content.

At the same time, experts caution against overreliance on suppression or censorship. Shah noted that it is neither technically feasible nor morally defensible for governments or companies to remove all false content. Instead, the priority should be empowering users with awareness: understanding that searching is not synonymous with verification, and that the presence of information online does not guarantee its reliability. As misinformation becomes more sophisticated—particularly with the rise of generative AI flooding the web with convincing but false narratives—closing data voids through stronger fact-checking and better search literacy will be vital.

A Call to Awareness and Critical Vigilance

The lesson from this body of research is not that we should abandon curiosity or disengage from the task of verifying claims. Rather, it is that “doing your own research” requires more skill and caution than most people realize. Blind faith in search engines can leave us more exposed to conspiracy theories, not less. Simply typing a headline into Google is not enough; responsible searching demands attention to sources, careful phrasing, and a willingness to weigh credibility rather than accept repetition as truth.

The danger of misinformation is not only in its content but in its ability to masquerade as knowledge. When people equate the act of searching with the act of learning, they risk mistaking noise for evidence. This risk is heightened in moments of uncertainty, when credible information is sparse and sensational narratives dominate the void. The solution, then, lies in cultivating both personal vigilance and systemic support: fact-checkers need resources, platforms must design for transparency, and individuals must approach information with humility, acknowledging that not all answers can be found with a quick search.

As Shah put it, awareness itself is the first line of defense: knowing that “doing your research” is not automatically enough. In an age where misinformation spreads faster than truth, the most powerful tool we have is not the search bar, but the habit of pausing, questioning, and seeking out evidence from credible, diverse, and verifiable sources. The invitation is not to abandon research, but to practice it with the rigor, patience, and discernment it deserves.