Abstract
A proposed study on whether a phishing checker that explains its warning (for example a mismatched link or a false sense of urgency) helps ordinary users make better decisions than one that only shows a score.
Research objective
To explore which email features (sender address, link destination, urgency wording, attachment type) are the most useful to show users, and whether plain-language explanations make people more likely to stop and verify.
Methodology
Planned approach: build a small rule-based checker as an extension of the Phishing Email Detection project; use only publicly available or self-created sample emails; compare user decisions with and without explanations through a short anonymous classroom survey. No real user emails will be collected.
Conclusion
This is a proposed research idea. No data has been collected yet and there are no results or findings. It will be updated if and when the work is carried out.
References
References will be listed here.