Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

Understanding your audience's psychology is the key to crafting communication that resonates.

Persuading others isn't about magic spells or mind-reading tricks. According to Emily Falk, the real secret is simpler: know what your audience finds relevant, and you’ll be able to craft a message that resonates.
Falk is a professor of communication, psychology, and marketing at the University of Pennsylvania, Vice Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication, and director of the Communication Neuroscience Lab. In her book What We Value: The Neuroscience of Choice and Change, she reveals that our brains have what she calls a "social relevance system" — our ability to understand what other people are thinking and feeling. "I use social relevance as this kind of catchall for these thoughts about what other people are thinking and feeling, which also helps us predict what they're gonna do and how we might communicate successfully with them," she explains.
In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Falk and host Matt Abrahams explore how to put this insight into practice, from the power of storytelling to leveraging "neural synchrony" to create shared understanding. Whether you’re motivating a team or influencing a customer, Falk offers science-backed strategies for tapping into your audience’s psychology and communicating with relevance.

Episode Reference Links:
Connect:

Chapters:

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (02:18) - Neuroscience & Behavior Prediction
  • (03:36) - Brain Systems in Persuasion
  • (04:59) - Tailoring Messages for Impact
  • (07:37) - Psychological Closeness & Relevance
  • (10:05) - Power of Storytelling
  • (13:19) - Neural Synchrony & Shared Meaning
  • (15:04) - Better Conversations Through Sync
  • (19:08) - Rapid-Fire Q&A with Emily Falk
  • (24:33) - Conclusion

********
Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.

This episode is brought to you by Babbel. Think Fast Talk Smart listeners can get started on your language learning journey today- visit Babbel.com/Thinkfast and get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription.

Join our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be.

Creators and Guests

Host
Matt Abrahams
Lecturer Stanford University Graduate School of Business | Think Fast Talk Smart podcast host
Guest
Emily Falk
Professor | Neuroscientist | Author | Speaker

What is Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques?

One of the most essential ingredients to success in business and life is effective communication.
Join Matt Abrahams, best-selling author and Strategic Communication lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, as he interviews experts to provide actionable insights that help you communicate with clarity, confidence, and impact. From handling impromptu questions to crafting compelling messages, Matt explores practical strategies for real-world communication challenges.

Whether you’re navigating a high-stakes presentation, perfecting your email tone, or speaking off the cuff, Think Fast, Talk Smart equips you with the tools, techniques, and best practices to express yourself effectively in any situation. Enhance your communication skills to elevate your career and build stronger professional relationships.

Tune in every Tuesday for new episodes. Subscribe now to unlock your potential as a thoughtful, impactful communicator. Learn more and sign up for our eNewsletter at fastersmarter.io.

Matt Abrahams: Relevance is critical
to communication, relevance to

yourself, and relevance to others.

My name is Matt Abrahams and I
teach strategic communication at

Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Welcome to Think Fast,
Talk Smart, the podcast.

Today I'm excited to
speak with Emily Falk.

Emily is a professor of communication,
psychology and marketing at the

University of Pennsylvania and the
Vice Dean of the Annenberg School

of Communication, where she directs
the Communication Neuroscience Lab.

Her latest book is entitled What We Value:
The Neuroscience of Choice and Change.

Welcome, Emily.

I'm really excited for our conversation.

I know we missed each other once when
you were out at Stanford, and I'm excited

that we're getting to talk in this way.

Shall we get started?

Emily Falk: Let's do it.

Matt Abrahams: So in your lab and
your research, you use neuroscience

to explore communication.

And a topic I, and many of our
listeners, are fascinated by

is persuasion and influence.

And I know you've done a lot of work
in this area and I'm curious if you

can share with us how do our neuro
responses to persuasive messages

help predict real world behaviors?

Can you share some of your findings
and, and what we can do based on those?

Emily Falk: Yeah, in our early research,
a lot of my work was focused on

persuasive messages that were designed
to change people's behaviors, like to

help people quit smoking or get more
physically active or wear sunscreen.

And as I've continued to do that work and
found that neural activity and response to

persuasive messages can help us understand
behavior change, and also what people

decide not only to change themselves, but
also what they want to share with others.

I've also gotten really interested
in like, well, how do we choose what

those behaviors are in the first place?

So whereas in the early work, a lot of
it was aimed at convincing people of

stuff, in my more recent research program,
I'm more interested in how do we help

people develop a sense of agency and
autonomy, and how do they successfully

pursue goals that they want to achieve.

Matt Abrahams: In some ways it's
self persuasion you're talking about.

How do we motivate ourselves?

Emily Falk: Exactly.

Matt Abrahams: So what have you
found both in your prior research

and in the new research that we
can all take to heart when we try

to persuade others and ourselves?

Emily Falk: There are three core brain
systems that our work has focused on.

One, is the brain's valuation system
that helps us calculate how valuable

we anticipate any number of different
choice options to be, and then to select

the one that our brain anticipates
is gonna be the most rewarding to

us, and then to enact that choice.

And that value system integrates lots
of different inputs from many other

brain systems, and two that really
interest me are the brain self relevance

system that helps us think about
whether something is me or not me.

It helps us think about our past
experiences and make meaning

of them and think about our own
traits and what we're thinking.

Then the social relevance system, which
sometimes scientists talk about in terms

of a theory of mind or mentalizing system.

And I use social relevance as this kind
of catchall for these thoughts about

what other people are thinking and
feeling, which also helps us predict

what they're gonna do and how we might
communicate successfully with them,

or negotiate or win a game of chess.

By extension, thinking about what are the
ways that we can tap into those processes

and think about making behaviors that
we want to do or that are compatible

with our long-term goals, feel identity
congruent and socially valuable now.

Matt Abrahams: So if we were to craft
messages to try to motivate somebody to

do something, that's in line with what
we're asking, we have to factor in both

the impact, or the recipient's identity,
how they see themselves, but also the

social value that that brings as well.

Did I get that right?

Emily Falk: Well, I don't know that
you always have to do both, but those

are two potential inroads to doing it.

So for example, in research that
we've done, looking at what motivates

people to share information, when we
gave them messages that were about

things like health or climate change,
headlines and teasers, and we just

ask them to talk to other people
about what this article's about.

So they write a little social
media post about what the article's

about, and that's our control group.

So that's kind of the baseline
of like, how much are people

motivated to share when they're
just asked to share the information.

And we compare that to when we
give them the chance to make

it relevant to themselves.

So really simple prompts like, write
about how this relates to you and

things that you care about, or write
about how this might be relevant

to people in your social network.

And in both of those conditions where
we ask people to focus on the self

relevance or the social relevance,
it significantly increases people's

interest in sharing that information.

Matt Abrahams: So you were able to
persuade them to be more motivated

by asking them to focus on the
relevance to themselves or the

relevance to those they know.

Emily Falk: Exactly.

And there's a lot of other kinds
of techniques as well that tap

into those kinds of processes.

So if message tailoring is an idea
that's been around for a long time,

where scientists have found that when
they tailor persuasive messages to the

recipients goals, values, things that
they know about that person's history.

For example, in research on tailoring
smoking messages, if a smoker wants to

quit because they're sick of spending
all their money on cigarettes, then

giving them messages that really focus on
those cost issues can be more effective

than focusing on, you know, maybe the
long-term health effects if that's not

the thing that they really care about.

For a different person, let's say
that they really are motivated to

quit because they wanna protect
the people in their family.

They're worried about secondhand
smoke in their kids, and so for

that person focusing on cost may
be less of a persuasive argument

and focusing on keeping their kids
safe might be the way to do it.

So that's an example where a
different route to tapping into self

relevance is also then compatible
with more successful influence.

And one of the things that I really like
about having a neuroscience perspective

on all of this is that I think it can
help boil it down to what kinds of systems

many of these different interventions
are tapping into, and then give us a

way of just organizing that information.

Matt Abrahams: I find it so fascinating
that looking at how the brain functions

in communication can really give
insight into why and how things work.

I find how you study communication
to be really fascinating.

What I'm hearing is that you really
have to think about your audience and

what might be motivational to them.

So many of us in our communication just
focus on broadcasting the information out,

but if you can actually find the value
and motivation and tailor the message,

especially if it can be around what's
relevant to the individual or to their

social network or social environment.

It can really make a difference.

So we have to take the time to think
about it, and in many cases, those

of us who have the opportunity, we
could test different messages it

sounds like, to see which is our
most relevant for which people.

And I think that's so useful to
being effective in the communication.

Did I miss anything in that?

Emily Falk: Yeah, so when we think
about the way that these brain systems

are working, one of the things that
I find fascinating is that our value

system tends to prioritize rewards
that are psychologically close.

And what does psychologically close mean?

When we think about the way that the
medial prefrontal cortex functions, there

have been these beautiful papers led
by people like Diana Tamir and Carolyn

Parkinson that have shown something that
wasn't at all obvious to me, which is

that different kinds of psychological
distance are encoded in similar ways.

So something that happens far off
in the future or geographically,

the other side of the world, or
to somebody who's socially really

different than I am, those things
all function in kind of similar ways.

And so when we say that we want to make
it relevant to the person, it's not

only just like relevant to Matt, or
relevant to Emily, but it's relevant to

the person that's right here, right now.

Like if we want to change some kind of
behavior because it's gonna have a payoff

that's several decades in the future,
you might as well be talking about a

different person who's gonna get that
benefit from the brain's perspective.

Or when we think about, you know, asking
people to lend a helping hand or to make

donations for folks that are all the way
on the other side of the world, in other

communities, without doing extra work to
make that concrete and vivid and help you

really imagine like, what are the rewards
for somebody that I can connect with?

Then it can be less motivating.

And so I think that this way of thinking
about psychological distance is another

key ingredient that's relevant to
the brain's value system has been

really helpful for me in thinking
about shaping these kinds of messages.

Matt Abrahams: Absolutely.

So relevance is not just in
general, it's proximal or distal.

I remember when I was in graduate
school, I did some work with Phil

Zimbardo on time perspective, and we
looked at persuasive messaging that had

long-term consequences versus short-term.

So we looked at brushing your teeth, and
we talked about how the distant goal was

you'll have healthy teeth and you won't
need to have dentures when you get older,

which was nowhere near as successful
in terms of messaging as when we talked

about how you'll have fresh breath and
your teeth will look white and clean.

So this notion of thinking about
relevance, not just generically,

but in terms of how close it is to
the real time, is fascinating to me.

Beyond tailoring for relevance, what is
the value of story in framing messages?

Emily Falk: There are a lot of different
ways that we can frame messages that

increase their effectiveness, and
so there's a large literature in

communication and psychology, which shows
that when we use stories to communicate,

it can reduce people's defensiveness,
make them more open to new ideas.

Often people identify with
characters in the story.

And in our work we found that when people
are given information in the form of

stories, it also makes it easier for
them to reason about the information.

So for example, in a study that Jason
Coronel led, when he was in my lab, he

brought people who smoke into the lab and
he presented them with information about

a wide range of topics, including smoking.

And sometimes that information was
presented in the form of didactic facts.

You know, if you smoke for
several decades, it significantly

increases your risk of lung cancer.

And then for other folks, they got the
information in the form of stories.

So for example, John is a smoker
who smoked for several decades.

He developed lung cancer.

And the twist in this study, that's
different from some of the other

behavioral science studies, is that
people came in for two different sessions,

and in one of those sessions we used
a kind of brain stimulation technique

called transcranial direct current
stimulation, which changes the activation

in particular regions of people's brains.

So during one session they had this brain
stimulation that like literally decreased

activation in regions that help us reason.

And during the other session they
got a sham stimulation, where we

hook them up to the equipment, and
everything's happening in a similar

way, but they're not actually having any
alteration happening in their brains.

And the finding there was that for people
who got the information delivered in the

typical didactic facts kind of way, when
they were under brain stimulation that

was decreasing activation within parts
of lateral prefrontal cortex that help

us reason, they were less able to reason,
which is exactly what you would predict.

On the other hand, when people were
told that information in the form of a

story, reasoning about an exemplar is
something that we do from the time that

we're really little kids, and it taps
into different kinds of brain systems.

So other research has shown that stories
tap into these social brain systems.

And even when we essentially reduced
people's ability to use these parts of

their brain, they were still able to
reason about the stories just as well.

So stories are one effective way
of improving our communications.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for sharing
the value of story and how even when

you purposely impact, in a negative
way, people's ability to reason

stories still have great power.

I find in my own life I learn
best when people tell stories.

One of the things I enjoyed so much about
your book is that you have lots of stories

that reinforce and support what you say.

I want to turn to your new book, What
We Value, and you dedicated a whole

chapter of that book to brain synchrony
that happens between people when we

communicate, when we tell stories.

Can you define what that synchrony means?

Emily Falk: Neural synchrony
happens when people's brain

activation follows similar patterns.

And so one of the kind of simplest
ways of thinking about synchrony

is that if activation in a given
region in my brain and your brain are

going up and down at the same times,
that's something we call synchrony.

Some of the early research on neural
synchrony looked at how neural synchrony

relates to shared understanding.

And there have been a number of
studies that have shown that when

people's brains are more in sync,
especially in the social relevance

system and other brain systems, that is
associated with making similar meaning.

And what I mean by that is, for example,
when one person tells a story and

another person gets the main point
or extracts the same facts from the

story, then that's associated with
their brains being more in sync.

When we watch movies together, like
if we watch a movie that's a powerful

movie, then that external stimulus is
gonna drive our brains to be in sync.

So often audiences watching, you know,
a really amazing Western or listening to

a powerful political speech, their brain
activation is gonna be driven up and

down in similar ways at similar times.

Matt Abrahams: Are there ways to
bring about synchrony so that you

can have that shared meaning, which
can help accomplish many goals?

I can imagine empathy is a critical
component of shared meaning.

It sounds to me like
storytelling is one way.

Are there other ways to bring about this
kind of synchrony so you can get the

benefit of shared reality, shared empathy?

Emily Falk: Well, I think what you're
saying sort of highlights one of the ways,

when you're talking about shared reality.

There's other research that has
shown that when people have similar

assumptions going into a communication
that their brains are more in sync.

So for example, a research study at
Princeton showed that when people

were given different back stories,
before their brains were scanned, the

people who are given the first back
stories brains are in sync with one

another, but out of sync with people
who are given a different backstory.

So making sure that we're on the
same page about what kinds of

assumptions we have is one thing.

There have also been a handful of
studies looking at what happens

in the brains of partisans.

So people in the US, for example, who tend
to be more liberal or more conservative.

And what that research has shown is
that when people watch the same media

clips, people who share ideological
perspectives also tend to be more in

sync with each other than with people
who are part of the other group.

And I think that that is also a
function of the kinds of assumptions

that people are bringing to the table.

And behavioral research shows that
the media play a large part in that.

And you know, as Vice Dean of the
Annenberg School for Communication and

a communication scholar, like that's
a piece of this puzzle that I think

is so important for us to recognize
is that the media that we consume

fundamentally shapes so much about how
we see the world, what we think and feel.

There's this incredible study where
political scientists randomized

people to change their news viewing
habits, and after changing their news

viewing for a relatively short period
of just a few weeks, the things that

they thought were important, like
what issues to focus on shifted.

Their beliefs about those things shifted.

And so of course, in day-to-day life, we
don't usually make these major pivots,

but if we want to understand where
other people are coming from or checking

our assumptions can be really helpful.

And we can think about
it in the workplace too.

Like for example, if you come in and
you're gonna make a big presentation and

your boss is in the audience and they look
kind of bored, maybe a little bit annoyed.

Like one very reasonable assumption you
might make is that they didn't like the

presentation, but if you don't have access
to the fact that like they slept badly,

they hit every red light, they didn't get
to have their coffee first, all of those

things might be at play in their mind.

And they thought your presentation was
great, but you might be out of sync then

when you have a conversation afterwards
about what just happened, if you come into

that conversation feeling a little bit
defensive or a little bit like, oh, like

what didn't they like about this, right?

And they don't know that you're thinking
that 'cause they weren't paying attention

to what was happening on their face.

Matt Abrahams: So much
richness in what you just said.

I just wanna put an exclamation point to
the, the impact media can have on all of

our communication and the way we interact.

When I asked you the question, what
are things we can do to bring about

synchrony beyond storytelling, what
I heard you say is that expectation

setting that we can do in advance
can prime people to be more in sync.

So it could be what we call the meeting
or what we put in the meeting invite,

and all of that could help people
get to synchrony more quickly because

you're setting those expectations.

But I also heard you say that we have
to check our own self expectations,

the assumptions that we have going in.

This happens all the time where I
see a student who looks disengaged

in my class, and it turns out
they're actually very engaged.

It has to do with the bad day they
had or, or some other situation.

And once I learned that, it
allows us to get back in sync.

So very helpful that there are
things we can do in advance to prime

others, but also things we have to
do to ourselves to set ourselves up.

I appreciate that.

Well, Emily, before we end, I'd like to
ask three questions of all my guests.

One I create just for you, and the other
two are similar for everyone I interview.

Uh, are you up for this?

Emily Falk: I'm ready.

Matt Abrahams: So in all of the
fascinating research that you've done,

I'm curious, is there one finding
that stands out as something that's

just really impacted how you do
things, affected your communication

or, or where you are in the world?

Emily Falk: I'll tell you a little
bit about some of the work that

we're doing right now that is
most exciting and on my mind.

I'm doing this work with Diana Tamir
and Shannon Burns, and a team of amazing

postdocs that's about conversation,
and we talked a little bit in our

conversation here about neural synchrony.

But one of the things that's been
fascinating to me is that neural synchrony

in and of itself seems like it's a
starting point, not the end point you

want to strive for in a conversation.

And what I mean by that is in research
that Lily Tsoi and Sebastian Speer led,

when people have conversations where
they're either talking with a friend

or with a stranger, the friends quickly
get in sync, and then they use the

rest of the conversation to explore all
different kinds of topics and ideas.

Whereas the strangers often spend a lot
of the time in that kind of small talk

space where they're trying to establish
common ground and getting in sync.

And then maybe not surprisingly,
the friends end up enjoying

their conversations more, on
average, than the strangers.

But the good thing is that when the
strangers do that pattern that the

friends did of relatively quickly
getting in sync, maybe do a little bit

of small talk, but then they explore
lots of different topics and lots of

different mental space, they end up
enjoying the conversations more too.

That's something that's really intriguing
me now and kind of pushing me in

conversations with particularly people
that aren't my best friends, try to be

a little bit more adventurous, right?

Not like inappropriate, but just
like try to be more curious.

Matt Abrahams: That's really interesting.

And this notion of getting in sync
quickly can free you up to do other

things, and it speaks to the power
of icebreakers and other things that

can help people really get there.

Thank you for sharing that and
how it's impacting what you do.

Question number two, who's a
communicator that you admire and why?

Emily Falk: Tonya Mosley, who I
talk about in the book because

she has this amazing capacity to
connect different people and ideas.

She is a radio journalist.

She hosts Fresh Air.

She has an amazing podcast called Truth
Be Told, and she's done just incredible

work, bringing together different kinds
of expertise and providing context

for what's happening in the moment.

Like when we look around and we're baffled
by the political moment or by, you know,

just how we function as humans, she's
somebody who I think is incredible.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for sharing that.

Final question, what are the first
three ingredients that go into a

successful communication recipe?

Emily Falk: I love this question and
there are so many ways to answer it.

I'm gonna focus on sort of the three
ingredients that the book centers on,

which have to do with our brain's value
system, our brain social relevant system,

and our brain's self relevant system.

And so when we think about a successful
communication recipe, I think about

all of the myriad possible ways
that we can tap into those systems.

So I think the recipe sort of starts
with understanding how our brains work.

An analogy that I've been really liking
is that many of us can cook a basic

meal, but if you understand something
about how chemistry works, then that

can help you swap out ingredients if you
don't have all the right ingredients.

Or it can help you diagnose where
something went wrong in a baking project.

And likewise, if we understand how our
brains are working, I'm hoping that

that also helps people, A, make sense of
like why we do the things that we do and

have a little bit more compassion for
ourselves, and for other people whose

behavior does not make sense to us.

And then also that maybe it
can help us sort of diagnose

places that we can intervene.

Matt Abrahams: You have done a great
job of that today, helping us understand

how our brains work and how that informs
the choices we can make as communicators

and perhaps the habits that we have.

I really appreciate your insights
and your time, and I wish

you well with your new book.

Thank you for your time.

Emily Falk: Thank you so much, Matt.

It's such a pleasure to talk with you.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for
joining us for another episode of

Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.

To learn more about neuroscience
and communication, please listen to

episode 39 with David Eagleman and
episode 101 with Matt Lieberman.

This episode was produced by Katherine
Reed, Ryan Campos, and me Matt Abrahams.

Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

With special thanks to
Podium Podcast Company.

Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

Also, follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram.

And check out FasterSmarter.io for
deep dive videos, English language

learning content and our newsletter.

Please consider our premium offering
for extended Deep Thinks episodes,

Ask Matt Anythings, and much
more at FasterSmarter.io/premium.