Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

A research agenda for encouraging prosocial behaviour on social media

Nature Human Behaviour volume 9, pages 441–449 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Many studies examine antisocial behaviours on social media—such as sharing misinformation or producing hate speech—but far fewer examine how platforms can incentivize more prosocial behaviour. We identify several ways in which social media platforms currently enable such behaviour, including (1) connecting new communities, (2) enabling collective problem-solving and (3) expanding the boundaries of philanthropy. However, we also discuss how some of the factors that enable prosocial behaviour can also empower malicious actors—as well as the challenge of creating prosocial behaviour that is sustainable and impactful offline. We then propose a research agenda to help scholars, policymakers and corporate leaders to identify the causal factors that shape prosocial behaviour on social media. This agenda focuses on (1) the size and shape of social networks, (2) platform affordances, (3) social norms and (4) how prosocial behaviour can be embedded within existing and future business models of social media.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Prevalence of research on positive and negative behaviours on social media.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Bavel, J. J. V. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Finkel, E. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rathje, S., Bavel, J. J. V. & Linden der van, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024292118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Auxier, B. 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the U.S. today. Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/15/64-of-americans-say-social-media-have-a-mostly-negative-effect-on-the-way-things-are-going-in-the-u-s-today/ (Pew Research Center, 2020).

  5. Cameron, A. M. et al. Social media and organ donor registration: the Facebook effect. Am. J. Transplant. 13, 2059–2065 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wahlquist, C. Inside the hyper-local world of Facebook’s ‘buy nothing’ groups. Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/04/inside-the-hyper-local-world-of-facebooks-buy-nothing-groups (4 January 2021).

  7. Malone, K. Change My View on Reddit helps people challenge their own opinions. NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/06/29/534916052/change-my-view-on-reddit-helps-people-challenge-their-own-opinions (29 June 2017).

  8. VanderWeele, T. J., Mathur, M. B. & Chen, Y. Media portrayals and public health implications for suicide and other behaviors. JAMA Psychiatry 76, 891–892 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. in Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (eds Damon, W. & Eisenberg, N.) 701–778 (Wiley, 1998).

  10. Greener, S. & Crick, N. R. Normative beliefs about prosocial behavior in middle childhood: what does it mean to be nice? Soc. Dev. 8, 349–363 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simpson, B. & Willer, R. Beyond altruism: sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41, 43–63 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale Univ. Press, 2007).

  13. Castells, M. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (Polity, 2012).

  14. Fuchs, C. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media (Routledge, 2015).

  15. Lampe, C. & Resnick, P. Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds Dykstra-Erickson, E. & Tscheligi, M.) 543–550 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2004).

  16. Woelfer, J. P. & Hendry, D. G. Homeless young people on social network sites. In Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds Konstan, J. A. et al.) 2825–2834 (ACM, 2012).

  17. Kreiss, D. in Media, Movements, and Political Change (eds Earl, J. & Rohlinger, A. D.) Vol. 33, 195–223 (Emerald Group, 2012).

  18. Garcia, D., Mavrodiev, P. & Schweitzer, F. Social resilience in online communities. In Proc. 1st ACM Conference on Online Social Networks (eds Muthukrishnan, M. S. et al.) 29–50 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2013).

  19. Frost, R. L. & Rickwood, D. J. A systematic review of the mental health outcomes associated with Facebook use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76, 576–600 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang, Y., Davis, T. & Hindman, M. Visual misinformation on Facebook. J. Commun. 73, 316–328 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Budak, C., Nyhan, B., Rothschild, D. M., Thorson, E. & Watts, D. J. Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation. Nature 630, 45–53 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lauer, D. Facebook’s ethical failures are not accidental; they are part of the business model. AI Ethics 1, 395–403 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jemielniak, D. Wikipedia: why is the common knowledge resource still neglected by academics? GigaScience 8, giz139 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Michelucci, P. & Dickinson, J. L. The power of crowds. Science 351, 32–33 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilkinson, D. M. & Huberman, B. A. Cooperation and quality in Wikipedia. In Proc. 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (eds Désilets, A. & Biddle, R.) 157–164 (ACM, 2007).

  27. Temple, N. J. & Fraser, J. How accurate are Wikipedia articles in health, nutrition, and medicine? Can. J. Inf. Libr. Sci. 38, 37–52 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brown, A. R. Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: accuracy and completeness of coverage. Polit. Sci. Polit. 44, 339–343 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kräenbring, J. et al. Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard textbooks of pharmacology. PLoS ONE 9, e106930 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bortone, R. & Pistecchia, A. in Dynamics and Policies of Prejudice from the Eighteenth to the Twenty-First Century (ed. Motta, G.) 431–444 (Cambridge Scholars, 2018).

  31. Horowitz, J. M., Hurst, K. & Braga, D. The impact of videos of police violence against Black people. Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/the-impact-of-videos-of-police-violence-against-black-people/ (Pew Research Center, 2023).

  32. Witcher, E. The role of social media in the emotional lives of people with vitiligo. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/n5krd (2019).

  33. Bail, C. Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11823–11828 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Berger, M. N. et al. Social media’s role in support networks among LGBTQ adolescents: a qualitative study. Sex. Health 18, 421–431 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Andalibi, N., Haimson, O. L., Choudhury, M. D. & Forte, A. Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse. In Proc. 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (eds Kaye, J. et al.) 3906–3918 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).

  36. Andalibi, N., Haimson, O. L., Choudhury, M. D. & Forte, A. Social support, reciprocity, and anonymity in responses to sexual abuse disclosures on social media. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 25, 1–35 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  37. De Choudhury, M. & De, S. Mental health discourse on Reddit: self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 8, 71–80 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pelleg, D., Yom-Tov, E. & Maarek, Y. Can you believe an anonymous contributor? On truthfulness in Yahoo! Answers. In 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Conference on Social Computing (eds Nijholt, A. et al.) 411–420 (IEEE, 2012).

  39. Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Goodboy, A. K. & Wright, A. Anonymity and online self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Commun. Rep. 32, 98–111 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. González‐Bailón, S. & Lelkes, Y. Do social media undermine social cohesion? A critical review. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 17, 155–180 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Howard, P. N. & Hussain, M. M. Democracy’s Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).

  42. Kermani, H. & Hooman, N. Hashtag feminism in a blocked context: the mechanisms of unfolding and disrupting #rape on Persian Twitter. New Media Soc. 26, 4750–4784 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jackson, S., Bailey, M. & Foucault Welles, B. #HashtagActivism: Networks of Race and Gender Justice (MIT Press, 2020).

  44. Karimi, M. The Iranian Green Movement of 2009: Reverberating Echoes of Resistance (Lexington Books, 2018).

  45. Strandberg, K. & Berg, J. Impact of temporality and identifiability in online deliberations on discussion quality: an experimental study. Javnost 22, 164–180 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bunting, A. M. et al. Socially-supportive norms and mutual aid of people who use opioids: an analysis of Reddit during the initial COVID-19 pandemic. Drug Alcohol Depend. 222, 108672 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Iliffe, L. L. & Thompson, A. R. Investigating the beneficial experiences of online peer support for those affected by alopecia: an interpretative phenomenological analysis using online interviews. Br. J. Dermatol. 181, 992–998 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Sobieraj, S. Credible Threat: Attacks Against Women Online and the Future of Democracy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  49. Wu, A. H. Gendered language on the economics job market rumors forum. In Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (eds Johnson, W. R. & Markel, K.) Vol. 108, 175–179 (American Economic Association, 2018).

  50. Huang, G. The effect of anonymity on conformity to group norms in online contexts: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Commun. 10, 398–415 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. King, G., Pan, J. & Roberts, M. E. How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 111, 484–501 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pearce, K. E. Democratizing kompromat: the affordances of social media for state-sponsored harassment. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18, 1158–1174 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lindsay, B. R. Social Media and Disasters: Current Uses, Future Options, and Policy Considerations (Congressional Research Service, 2011).

  54. Akhgar, B., Fortune, D., Hayes, R. E., Guerra, B. & Manso, M. Social media in crisis events: open networks and collaboration supporting disaster response and recovery. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST) (eds Balenson, D. & Frye, E.) 760–765 (IEEE, 2013).

  55. Bird, D., Ling, M. & Haynes, K. Flooding Facebook—the use of social media during the Queensland and Victorian floods. Australian J. Emerg. Manag. 27, 27–33 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Buntain, C., Golbeck, J., Liu, B. & LaFree, G. Evaluating public response to the Boston Marathon bombing and other acts of terrorism through Twitter. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 10, 555–558 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kirby, R. H., Reams, M. & Lam, N. S.-N. The use of social media by emergency stakeholder groups: lessons learned from areas affected by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manage. 20, 133–168 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Panagiotopoulos, P., Bigdeli, A. Z. & Sams, S. Citizen–government collaboration on social media: the case of Twitter in the 2011 riots in England. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 349–357 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gao, H., Barbier, G. & Goolsby, R. Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief. IEEE Intell. Syst. 26, 10–14 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Meier, P. Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data Is Changing the Face of Humanitarian Response (Routledge, 2015).

  61. Broderick, R. & Darmanin, J. The ‘Yellow Vest’ riots in France are what happens when Facebook gets involved with local news. BuzzFeed News (5 December 2018).

  62. Spence, R., Bifulco, A., Bradbury, P., Martellozzo, E. & DeMarco, J. The psychological impacts of content moderation on content moderators: a qualitative study. Cyberpsychology 17, 8 (2023).

  63. Dubberley, S., Griffin, E. & Bal, H. M. Making Secondary Trauma a Primary Issue: A Study of Eyewitness Media and Vicarious Trauma on the Digital Frontline (Eyewitness Media Hub, 2015).

  64. Bernholz, L. How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us (MIT Press, 2023).

  65. Guo, C. & Saxton, G. D. Tweeting social change: how social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 43, 57–79 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Yartey, F. N. A. Microfinance, digital media and social change: a visual analysis of Kiva.org. Commun. Soc. Change (2013).

  67. Elmer, G. & Ward-Kimola, S. Crowdfunding (as) disinformation: ‘pitching’ 5G and election fraud campaigns on GoFundMe. Media Cult. Soc. 45, 578–594 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Snyder, J. & Cohen, I. G. Medical crowdfunding for unproven medical treatments: should GoFundMe become a gatekeeper? Hastings Cent. Rep. 49, 32–38 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Moqri, M. & Bandyopadhyay, S. in Internetworked World (eds Fan, M. et al.) Vol. 296, 162–169 (Springer International, 2017).

  70. Saxton, G. D. & Wang, L. The social network effect: the determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 43, 850–868 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Witman, P. Social media for social value. Computer 46, 82–85 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Koohy, H. & Koohy, B. A lesson from the ice bucket challenge: using social networks to publicize science. Front. Genet. 5, 430 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Lewis, K., Gray, K. & Meierhenrich, J. The structure of online activism. Sociol. Sci. (2014).

  74. Sohn, E. In 2014, millions of people doused themselves in icy water to raise money for ALS. Was it worth it? Nature 550, 113–114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kristofferson, K., White, K. & Peloza, J. The nature of slacktivism: how the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. J. Consum. Res. 40, 1149–1166 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Fazio, A., Reggiani, T. & Scervini, F. Social media charity campaigns and pro-social behaviour: evidence from the Ice Bucket Challenge. J. Econ. Psychol. 96, 102624 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Herdağdelen, A., Adamic, L. & State, B. Community gifting groups on Facebook. J. Quant. Descrip. Digital Media 3, 1–32 (2023).

  78. Almaatouq, A. et al. Beyond playing 20 Questions with nature: integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behav. Brain Sci. (2022).

  79. Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Merton, R. K. The role-set: problems in sociological theory. Br. J. Sociol. 8, 106–120 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Blau, P. M. & Schwartz, J. E. Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations (AP Professional, 1984).

  82. Bail, C. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).

  83. Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., Resnick, P. & Kittur, A. in Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design (eds Kraut, R., & Resnick, P.) 125–178 (MIT Press, 2011).

  84. Lampe, C., Zube, P., Lee, J., Park, C. H. & Johnston, E. Crowdsourcing civility: a natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 317–326 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Friedl, P. & Morgan, J. Decentralised content moderation. Internet Policy Rev. 13, 1–11 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Martin, T., Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., Anderson, A. & Watts, D. J. Exploring limits to prediction in complex social systems. In Proc. 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (eds Bourdeau, J. et al.) 683–694 (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2016).

  87. Matias, J. N. Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9785–9789 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Garcia, D. & Rimé, B. Collective emotions and social resilience in the digital traces after a terrorist attack. Psychol. Sci. 30, 617–628 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Reilly, P. & Vicari, S. Organizational hashtags during times of crisis: analyzing the broadcasting and gatekeeping dynamics of #PorteOuverte during the November 2015 Paris terror attacks. Soc. Media Soc. 7, 205630512199578 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Mensah, H., Xiao, L. & Soundarajan, S. Characterizing susceptible users on Reddit’s ChangeMyView. In Proc. 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society (eds Gruzd, A. et al.) 102–107 (ACM, 2019).

  91. Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I. & McDonald, D. W. Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars. In Proc. 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (eds Begole, B. & McDonald, D. W.) 47–56 (ACM, 2008).

  92. Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J. & Leskovec, J. Discovering value from community activity on focused question answering sites: a case study of Stack Overflow. In Proc. 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (eds Yang, Q. et al.) 850–858 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2012).

  93. Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N. & Crockett, M. J. How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe5641 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Kraut, R. E. & Resnick, P. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design (MIT Press, 2011).

  95. Zuckerman, E. The case for digital public infrastructure. Preprint at Columbia Academic Commons https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-chxd-jw34 (2020).

  96. Orben, A. The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1143–1290 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Whittaker, M. The steep cost of capture. Interactions 28, 50–55 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wagner, M. W. Independence by permission. Science 381, 388–391 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Rathje, S., Robertson, C., Brady, W. J. & Bavel, J. J. V. People think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 19, 781–795 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Gonzalez-Bailon, A. Almaatouq, D. Garcia, M. DeChoudhury, T. Althoff, S. Mullainathan, C. Tan, I. Rahwanfor, A. Amatz, K. Knowlton, D. Adjodah and E. Sugarman for providing useful feedback in the early stages of the project and for supporting our search for academic articles focusing on prosocial outcomes facilitated by social media.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Timothy Dörr & Duncan Watts

  2. School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Trisha Nagpal

  3. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Duncan Watts

  4. School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Duncan Watts

  5. Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Chris Bail

  6. Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Chris Bail

Authors
  1. Timothy Dörr
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trisha Nagpal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Duncan Watts
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Bail
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the research design, implementation, data analysis and writing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Timothy Dörr, Trisha Nagpal, Duncan Watts or Chris Bail.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following competing interests: D.W.’s research group has received an unrestricted gift from Google. C.B.’s research group has received unrestricted gifts from Google, Facebook and Twitter. Each of these funders had no role in the decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks David Garcia and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dörr, T., Nagpal, T., Watts, D. et al. A research agenda for encouraging prosocial behaviour on social media. Nat Hum Behav 9, 441–449 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02102-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02102-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing