ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025
Independently testing prosocial interventions: Methods and recommendations from 31 researchers.
Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Independently testing prosocial interventions: Methods and recommendations from 31 researchers.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing need for independent, ecologically valid research on prosocial design interventions within online platforms. Platform design has a significant impact on user interactions, yet independent researchers often lack access to live platforms, limiting the ecological validity of studies testing the effectiveness of prosocial interventions. In response, 31 experts from academia, industry, and civil society gathered for a workshop focused on understanding methods that enable effective research on design interventions that lead to prosocial outcomes, such as healthy interactions and individual safety, well-being, and dignity. We synthesize the workshop findings to guide researchers and practitioners in advancing prosocial design and to provide stakeholders-platforms, advocacy groups, and regulators-with evidence-based tools to promote healthy online behavior. First, we present a review of the dominant research methods in the field. Second, we highlight the challenges that researchers agreed were most prominent (such as reinvention of the wheel) for testing interventions and recommend ways to address them. Finally, we propose specific future actions to address the challenges in the areas of knowledge sharing, events, and supporting infrastructure that experts consider most worth pursuing, and set out an agenda for future online prosocial research and investment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.