Cognition in Online Environments
The online world is rife with problems such as information overload, the spread of harmful misinformation, and design structures that subtly influence user decisions. We aim to develop an evidence-based understanding of the dynamics and challenges specific to online environments and to build a roadmap for tackling these challenges. Our approach includes online and field experiments, conceptual work, and evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic and expert reviews).
Competences for Digital Citizens
In a world of information overabundance, attention is a limited resource. Furthermore, not everything online is what it claims to be, and people are often exposed to low-quality, false, and manipulative information. In our conceptual work, we propose that people need new competences to reclaim their attention and autonomy online. One key competence is critical ignoring: the ability to choose what to ignore and where to invest one’s attention. In our empirical work, we test simple cognitive interventions that aim to boost people’s digital competences. One of these interventions is lateral reading, a fact-checking strategy for verifying the credibility of online information. Another is self-nudging, a situational self-control strategy, in which individuals acts as choice architects of their own digital environments, making small changes to their surroundings that make it easier to stick to their goals. In the online context, that might mean turning off notifications to minimize distractions or curating news feeds to include only credible sources, thereby improving the quality of information accessed.
Addressing Misinformation as a Policy Problem
We study misinformation as a policy challenge that requires coordinated responses at both the system and the individual level. At the system level, we examine public attitudes toward content moderation, particularly how people balance freedom of expression against the need to limit misinformation-related harms, with ongoing work extending this research across the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States.
At the individual level, we have collaborated with leading researchers from 24 institutions and universities to develop a toolbox of cognitive and behavioral interventions to counter online misinformation. Drawing on evidence from 81 scientific studies, this resource provides a detailed overview of interventions that have been shown to help individuals identify and resist misinformation. They include lateral reading, media literacy tips, verification strategies, debunking, accuracy prompts, and fact-checking labels.
Building on this synthesis, we are currently testing practical tools like lateral reading and online search strategies that help users verify information themselves. At the same time, we are studying how self-selection into interventions affects their success and whether hybrid approaches combining artificial intelligence with human judgment can reliably distinguish false from true news.
Understanding Susceptibility to Misinformation in Adults and Adolescents
Our studies also investigate who is susceptible to misinformation and why. In a large meta-analysis across 31 studies, we found that older adults, politically liberal participants, and individuals with stronger analytical thinking skills are better at distinguishing true from false news, and that education alone makes little difference. At the same time, people are more likely to accept information as true when it aligns with their political views or feels familiar, and higher analytical thinking can sometimes reinforce rather than reduce partisan biases.
We are particularly interested in how misinformation affects adolescents, today’s most active social media users. While adolescents may be more vulnerable to misinformation due to their ongoing social and cognitive development, they also have strengths—such as openness and digital fluency—that interventions can leverage.
Complementing this work, we are developing conceptual tools to enhance the understanding and discussion of misinformation. These tools aim to clarify ongoing debates within misinformation research and to structure future research and policy responses by identifying disagreements about how misinformation should be framed, studied, and addressed.
Promoting Meaningful Use of Digital Technologies
How can digital tools empower users to be more intentional and self-directed in their online engagement and consumption? The focus of our research is not on external constraints like screen-time limits, but on self-nudges that users choose to adopt to disrupt ingrained habits. For example, a field experiment evaluated one sec, a self-nudging app that requires users to pause briefly before opening selected social media apps. The intervention substantially reduced the number of times users tried to open those apps over a period of up to one year.
A large-scale policy experiment with Danish adolescents further showed that small in-app interventions reduced daily social media use, cut usage during school hours, and increased sleep—without increasing fear of missing out. These results demonstrate that digital interventions that help people manage their screen time without taking away their autonomy can be effectively scaled up for broader use.
Online Environments, Public Discourse, and Democracy
Is the widespread use of online sources for accessing information and forming opinions contributing to a decline in democracy? We investigate the effects of digital platforms on public discourse and political behavior by synthesizing causal and correlational evidence and conducting field experiments. Our aim is to understand how online environments impact politically relevant behaviors and attitudes. For example, one way in which online environments influence public discourse is by shaping who participates in discussions and whose voices remain unheard. Online discussions are often dominated by a small, highly active minority, while most others remain silent—especially when conversations are perceived as toxic or polarized. This “spiral of silence” can distort perceptions of public opinion. In a field experiment conducted on Reddit, we found that heated environments amplify the voices of highly active users. Financial incentives and positive feedback proved successful in increasing the participation of “lurkers,” whereas appealing to politeness norms showed little effect.
Another goal is to understand the mechanisms that can lead people to lose trust in democratic institutions and shared factual reality. Our ongoing work aims to tackle this pressing question from the perspectives of both individuals and society.
Research reports
We also engage in policy-relevant work by contributing to research reports on how online technology is impacting democracy, and on social media use in adolescents.
Associated Projects
- Reclaiming Individual Autonomy and Democratic Discourse Online: How to Rebalance Human and Algorithmic Decision Making, Volkswagen Stiftung 2021–2025.
- Social Media for Democracy (SOME4DEM): Understanding the causal mechanisms of digital citizenship, EU Horizon Europe, 2023–2025. https://www.mis.mpg.de/some4dem/index.html
References
Grüning, D. J., Riedel, F., & Lorenz-Spreen, P. (2023). Directing smartphone use through the self-nudge app one sec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(8), e2213114120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213114120
Kozyreva, A., Herzog, S. M., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Leiser, M., & Reifler, J. (2023). Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(7), e2210666120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210666120
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707
Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Ali, A., Bak-Coleman, J., Barzilai, S., Basol, M., Berinsky, A. J., Betsch, C., Cook, J., Fazio, L. K., Geers, M., Guess, A. M., Huang, H., Larreguy, H., Maertens, R., … Wineburg, S. (2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0
Kozyreva, A., Smillie, L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023). Incorporating psychological science into policy making: The Case of Misinformation. European Psychologist, 28(3), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000493
Kozyreva, A., Wineburg, S., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121570
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020). How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1102–1109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1
Ma, I., Sultan, M., Kozyreva, A., & Van Den Bos, W. (2026). Understanding the impact of misinformation on adolescents. Nature Human Behaviour, 10, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02338-8
Oswald, L., Kozyreva, A., Herzog, S. M., Nickl, P. L., & Hertwig, R. (2025). Boosting Media Literacy Using Lateral Reading and Online Search Interventions. Psychological Science, 09567976261453813. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261453813
Oswald, L., Schulz, W., Lorenz-Spreen, P. (2025). Disentangling participation in online political discussions with a collective field experiment. Science Advances, 11(50), eady8022. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ady8022
Sultan, M., Tump, A. N., Ehmann, N., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Hertwig, R., Gollwitzer, A., & Kurvers, R. H. J. M. (2024). Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(47), e2409329121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2409329121