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.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Threat and blame frames in political rhetoric about societal issues lead to neural and political polarization
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 20 March 2026

Threat and blame frames in political rhetoric about societal issues lead to neural and political polarization

  • Elisa van der Plas1,2,3,5,
  • Lara Todorova2,
  • Karin Heidlmayr2,
  • Giedo Jansen4,5,
  • Martin Rosema5 &
  • …
  • Alan G. Sanfey2 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 1064 Accesses

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Neuroscience
  • Psychology

Abstract

Online content about societal issues like climate change and immigration are often presented via frames of threat and blame. Here, we investigated how exposure to such framing in the context of an online short video-clip impacts voting behavior and associated brain activity. In a large-scale online study of 1825 Dutch participants, we found that online threat and blame framed video-clips increased agreement with the clips themselves but decreased issue voting, that is, voting in line with the intensity of one’s political beliefs. A follow-up fMRI study with 27 participants replicated this behavioral finding. It also showed that video-clips with threat- or blame-frames, compared to neutral video-clips, were represented more dissimilarly across participants in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)—a region involved in narrative understanding. These findings suggest that subtle framing of online political content can influence voter decisions and even the fundamental act of communication itself within a society.

Data availability

All data, code and materials are available at: https://Github.com/elisavanderplas/PoliticalAttitudes_fMRI.

References

  1. Aalberg, T., Esser, F., Reinemann, C., Stromback, J. & Vreese, C. H. Populist political communication in Europe. (1st ed.). (2016).

  2. Bischof, D. & Senniger, R. Simple politics for the people? Complexity in campaign messages and political knowledge. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57 (2), 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12235 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gadarian, S. K. The politics of threat: how terrorism news shapes foreign policy attitudes. J. Politics. 72 (2), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990910 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hameleers, M., Bos, L. & de Vreese, C. Framing blame: toward a better understanding of the effects of populist communication on populist party preferences. J. Elections Public. Opin. Parties. 28 (3), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1407326 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hameleers, M., Bos, L. & de Vreese, C. H. They Did It: the effects of emotionalized blame attribution in populist communication. Commun. Res. 44 (6), 870–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644026 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Obama, B. Remarks by the President at the GLACIER Conference, Anchorage, Alaska (The White House, 2015).

  7. Le Pen, M. Campaign speech at rally in Paris during the French presidential election campaign. Reported in: Marine LePen on immigration: “Give us France back”. UPI (2017).

  8. Alodat, M. et al. Political polarization and digital media exposure: A systematic review. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 20 (2023).

  9. Kahne, J. & Bowyer, B. The political signifi cance of social media activity and social networks. Polit. Commun. 35, 470–493 (2018).

  10. Guadagno, R. E., Rempala, D. M., Murphy, S. & Okdie, B. M. What makes a video go viral? An analysis of emotional contagion and Internet memes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (6), 2312–2319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.016 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nelson-Field, K., Riebe, E. & Newstead, K. The emotions that drive viral video. Australasian Mark. J. (AMJ). 21 (4), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2013.07.003 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yu, J. We Look for Social, Not Promotion: Brand Post Strategy, Consumer Emotions, and Engagement—A Case Study of the Facebook Brand Pages. (2014).

  13. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rabinowitz, G. & Macdonald, S. E. A directional theory of issue voting. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 83 (1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956436 (1989). JSTOR.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5 (4), 323–370 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. & Alford, J. R. Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behav. Brain Sci. 37 (3), 297–307 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K. & Cacioppo, J. T. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75 (4), 887–900 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johnston, C. D. & Madson, G. J. Negativity bias and political preferences: a meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 (2), 465–488 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. LeDoux, J. Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73 (4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M. & Van Bavel, J. J. Political neuroscience: the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Political Psychol. 35 (S1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12162 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Norris, C. J. The negativity bias, revisited: evidence from neuroscience measures and an individual differences approach. Soc. Neurosci. 14 (5), 517–528 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leong, Y. C., Chen, J., Willer, R. & Zaki, J. Conservative and liberal attitudes drive polarized neural responses to political content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 (44), 27731–27739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008530117 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. van Baar, J. M., Halpern, D. J. & Feldman Hall, O. Intolerance to uncertainty modulates neural synchrony between political partisans. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.28.358051 (2020).

  24. Marcus, G., Neuman, W. R. & MacKuen, M. Affective intelligence and political judgment. In Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press. (2013).

  25. Vasilopoulou, S. & Wagner, M. Fear, anger and enthusiasm about the European Union: effects of emotional reactions on public preferences towards European integration. Eur. Union Politics. 18 (3), 382–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116517698048 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Whalen, P. J. et al. A functional MRI study of human amygdala responses to facial expressions of fear versus anger. Emotion 1 (1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.1.70 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and coping in adaptation and illness. Int. J. Psychiatry Med. 5 (4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.2190/T43T-84P3-QDUR-7RTP (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, C. A. & Ellsworth, P. C. Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 48 (4), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. How does media choice affect hostile media perceptions? Evidence from participant preference experiments. J. Experimental Political Sci. 2 https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.10 (2015).

  30. Rooduijn, M., van der Brug, W. & van der Does, R. The Netherlands: Populism in a fragmented system (NCCR Democracy Working Paper No. 2022-01). National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Democracy. (2022).

  31. De Martino, B., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Nouguchi, T., Sharot, T. & Love, B. C. Social information is integrated into value and confidence judgments according to its reliability. J. Neurosci. 37 (25), 6066–6074. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3880-16.2017 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zahn, R. et al. Social concepts are represented in the superior anterior temporal cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (15), 6430–6435. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607061104 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sipma, T., Lubbers, M., Van der Meer, T., Spierings, N. & Jacobs, K. (2021). Versplinterde vertegenwoordiging. Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2021.

  34. Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D. & Singer, T. Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron 68 (1), 149–160 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  35. McMillan, C. T., Clark, R., Moore, P., Devita, C. & Grossman, M. Neural basis for generalized quantifier comprehension. Neuropsychologia 43 (12), 1729–1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.012 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shapiro, K., Pascual-Leone, A., Mottaghy, F., Gangitano, M. & Caramazza, A. Grammatical distinctions in the left frontal cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290152541386 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yang, F. G. et al. The influence of semantic property and grammatical class on semantic selection. Brain Lang. 124 (2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.012 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Brody, R. A. & Sniderman, P. M. From life space to polling place: the relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 7 (3), 337–360 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Carver, C. S. & Harmon-Jones, E. Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications. Psychol. Bull. 135 (2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013965 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H. & Tetlock, P. E. Sober second thought: the effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24 (6), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298246001 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A. & Fischoff, B. Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism: A National Field Experiment. 14(2), 7. (2003).

  42. Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn. Emot. 14 (4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P. & Morgan, G. S. Confrontational and preventative policy responses to terrorism: anger wants a fight and fear wants ‘them’ to go away. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28 (4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2804_11 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ambroziak, K. B., Harmon-Jones, E. & Harmon-Jones, C. Anger increases preference for dominant political leaders. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 123 (6), 1263–1286 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Apps, M., Lockwood, P. & Balsters, J. The role of the midcingulate cortex in monitoring others’ decisions. Front. NeuroSci. 7, 251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00251 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cavanna, A. E. & Trimble, M. R. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain 129 (3), 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl004 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wysiadecki, G. et al. Revisiting the morphology and classification of the Paracingulate Gyrus with Commentaries on Ambiguous Cases. Brain Sci. 11 (7), 872. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070872 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chang, S. W. C., Gariépy, J. F. & Platt, M. L. Neuronal reference frames for social decisions in primate frontal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 16 (2), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3287 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Behrens, T. E. J., Hunt, L. T., Woolrich, M. W. & Rushworth, M. F. S. Associative learning of social value. Nature 456 (7219), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07538 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lin, L. C., Qu, Y. & Telzer, E. H. Intergroup social influence on emotion processing in the brain. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 115(42), 10630–10635. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802111115 (2018).

  51. Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I. & Harris, S. Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 39589. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39589 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Baar, J. M., Halpern, D. J. & FeldmanHall, O. Intolerance of uncertainty modulates brain-to-brain synchrony during politically polarized perception. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022491118 (2021).

  53. Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. Fear, anger, and risk. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 146–159 (2001).

  54. Flew, T. & Iosifidis, P. Populism, globalisation and social media. Int. Commun. Gaz. 82 (1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Vilanova, F., Milfont, T. L. & Costa, A. B. Short version of the right-wing authoritarianism scale for the Brazilian context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 36 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-023-00260-4 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vasilopoulos, P., Marcus, G. E. & Foucault, M. Emotional responses to the Charlie Hebdo attacks: Addressing the authoritarianism puzzle. Polit. Psychol. 40, 557–575 (2019).

  57. Chirumbolo, A. The relationship between need for cognitive closure and political orientation: the mediating role of authoritarianism. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 32 (4), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00062-9 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S. & Hochman, L. The open and closed mind: a review of dogmatism. Psychol. Bull. 71 (4), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027056 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kossowska, M., Bukowski, M. & Hiel, A. V. The impact of submissive versus dominant authoritarianism and negative emotions on prejudice. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 45 (8), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.022 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Milburn, M. A., Niwa, M. & Patterson, M. D. Authoritarianism, anger, and hostile attribution bias: a test of affect displacement. Political Psychol. 35 (2), 225–243 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Prichard, E. C. & Christman, S. D. Authoritarianism, conspiracy beliefs, gender and COVID-19: links between individual differences and concern about COVID-19, mask wearing behaviors, and the tendency to blame China for the virus. Front. Psychol. 11, 3130. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.597671 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L. & Xenias, D. Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim. Change. 114 (3), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Munro, G. D. & Ditto, P. H. Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 (6), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236007 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Garrett, R. K. & Stroud, N. J. Partisan paths to exposure diversity: differences in pro- and counterattitudinal news consumption. J. Communication. 64 (4), 680–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hasell, A. & Weeks, B. E. Partisan provocation: the role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Hum. Commun. Res. 42 (4), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12092 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M. & van der Lee, R. Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 384–405 (2017).

  67. Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41 (1), 203–212 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pearse, N. Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of Likert type scales: the case of a 21-point scale. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods. 9 (2), 159–171 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G. & Malach, R. Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during naturalvision. Science 303, 1634–1640 (2004).

  70. Nummenmaa, L. et al. Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2017–2022 (2018).

  71. Nastase, S. A., Gazzola, V., Hasson, U. & Keysers, C. Measuring shared responses across subjects using intersubject correlation. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 14 (6), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz037 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Boynton, G. M., Engel, S. A., Glover, G. H. & Heeger, D. J. Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1. J. Neurosci. 16, 4207–4221 (1996).

  73. Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T. & Oeltermann, A. Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature 412, 150–157 (2001).

  74. Winkler, A. M., Ridgway, G. R., Webster, M. A., Smith, S. M. & Nichols, T. E. Permutation inference for the general linear model. NeuroImage 92, 381–397 (2014).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Funding

This work was supported by the Tech4People grant scheme for the project “Inside the Emotional Brain of Voters” awarded to M.R. by the University of Twente. E.v.d.P. was additionally supported by the Wellcome Trust (203376/2/16/Z).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, WC1N 3BG, UK

    Elisa van der Plas

  2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 6525 EN, The Netherlands

    Elisa van der Plas, Lara Todorova, Karin Heidlmayr & Alan G. Sanfey

  3. Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 6525 XD, The Netherlands

    Elisa van der Plas

  4. Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Giedo Jansen

  5. Department of Public Administration, University of Twente Enschede, Enschede, 7522 NB, The Netherlands

    Elisa van der Plas, Giedo Jansen & Martin Rosema

Authors
  1. Elisa van der Plas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lara Todorova
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karin Heidlmayr
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giedo Jansen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Rosema
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alan G. Sanfey
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.R., G.J., A.G.S. and E.v.d.P. designed the research; E.v.d.P. created the stimulus materials and collected the data; E.v.d.P., L.T., K.H. analyzed the data; E.v.d.P. wrote the first draft, the other authors revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa van der Plas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (download DOCX )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Plas, E., Todorova, L., Heidlmayr, K. et al. Threat and blame frames in political rhetoric about societal issues lead to neural and political polarization. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43389-9

Download citation

  • Received: 17 August 2025

  • Accepted: 04 March 2026

  • Published: 20 March 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43389-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Societal issues
  • Neuroscience
  • Affective polarization
  • Inter-brain correlations
  • Normative voting
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

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