Storytelling strengthens the impact of psychological science

[This article is part of the 2026 Trends Report]

Psychology is perhaps the science discipline best positioned to help people navigate 2026’s complexities—including a global loneliness epidemic and growing rates of depression—with greater health, well-being, and meaning.

But at a time when mistrust of scienceopens in new window is high and funding is increasingly competitive, it is vital that psychologists share their findings and why they matter in ways that resonate with a wide variety of audiences.

There’s a lot at stake: The fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget proposed funding cuts of 40% to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 57% to the National Science Foundation (NSF), which sponsors much of the basic research at universities and federal laboratories. Additionally, the administration’s funding cuts via grant terminations and freezes on research funding continue to create challenges for researchers. Fortunately, both the House and Senate appropriations committees rejected the administration’s budget proposal and proposed an increase in funding for FY 2026. Visible and vocal stakeholder support for NIH and NSF research funding is needed as Congress seeks to finalize the FY 2026 budget and begin consideration of the FY 2027 budget, scheduled to be released early in 2026.

Becoming proficient in science communication, however, requires learning how to effectively translate academic knowledge into words, images, and venues that the average person can relate to—a direction some psychologists are already taking but more need to learn about, said Julie Sweetland, PhD, a sociolinguist at the FrameWorks Institute, a nonprofit organization that equips leaders to talk effectively with the public about scientific and social issues.

“Science doesn’t speak for itself,” she said. “Our research really requires translation if it’s going to have an impact on people’s thinking and understanding.” That’s important not just for ethical reasons—sharing scientific knowledge for the public good—but also pragmatic ones: Because the public funds research, they have the right to know how their dollars are being used, she noted.

To more effectively spread the word about psychology and how it can benefit the public in the year ahead, Sweetland and others suggest that the field consider the following strategies.

In 2026, there will continue to be many potential places where psychologists can and should share their findings publicly, including op-eds, blogs, public programs, and social media. That will be especially important in the coming year because it’s likely that the landscape for researchers and academics will remain fraught. The more that psychologists can effectively explain their research to the public and members of Congress, the more likely their work will be understood, appreciated, and, in the best-case scenario, funded, science communications experts said.

No matter where psychologists share their work, it’s important that they do so clearly and simply, said Tessa West, PhD, a professor of psychology at New York University who presents widely on science-related topics.

“We’re so used to living in a very narrow world, in a very small bubble, that we don’t realize how much jargon we use—those little phrases and words that are familiar only to a very small group of our peers,” said West, whose talk “The Problem of Being Too Nice at Work” was one of the top 10 TED Talks of 2024. “Not only are we isolating ourselves, but we turn people off, and they stop listening to us pretty quickly.”

Part of being clear means speaking to your audience, whether they are readers of The New York Times, policymakers, or a lay audience completely unfamiliar with psychological science, added Sheril Kirshenbaum, PhD, a political scientist in the University of Michigan’s Office of Research and Innovation and host of the PBS series Serving Up Science.

“When we’re talking about funding and other types of public communication, the central questions have to be, Why does this matter to my audience? What am I doing that directly connects to them?” she said.

Good science communication also means making content easy for people to relate to at a time when trust in scienceopens in new window needs bolstering. That entails connecting with people’s emotions before bringing in the data, said Sara Serritella, who is director of communications at the Institute for Translational Medicine in Chicago and teaches physicians, researchers, and students about the power of good science communication.

“No matter where people come from, they’ve felt love, they’ve felt loss, they’ve experienced joy, they’ve experienced sadness,” she said. “So, when you can tie your findings into those universal connections, it helps break through the noise.”

Key to making those connections is good storytelling, added Kirshenbaum, who has written extensively about science for the public in lay books and publications, including The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, and more.

“It’s not so much about how many publications you have or what your Google Scholar profile says about you,” she said. “It’s about telling stories that connect with the people who both depend on us and support us.”

Kirshenbaum, who served on two congressional staffs earlier in her career, found that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were most swayed about health care topics when they heard directly from patients and their families about the toll taken by conditions such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), cerebral palsy, and depression.

“[The lawmakers] were definitely impacted by people who were willing to share their stories about the difficulties in their lives,” she said. That goes for any public venue where you share psychological research. “Incorporating stories is a meaningful approach to take.”

In learning effective science communication, psychologists will also need to draw on a growing body of science communication research. For instance, studies at the FrameWorks Institute show that people tend to share mental models about science that are often erroneous or incomplete. These include the belief that science is a capricious enterprise—consider the ever-changing stories about which foods are healthy, or the shifting mask and other self-protection recommendations early in the COVID-19 pandemic—or simply failing to have a deeper understanding of what scientists do. For example, Sweetland’s team has found that most Americans define “research” as looking up information to learn more about a product, service, or practitioner rather than as the scientific research process.

Psychologists can help change these mental models by sharing information about their work in more positive and comprehensive ways. Instead of aiming just for news value or to explain the nitty-gritty details of one’s findings, psychologists can leverage the message that their science “is constantly figuring out new, better, sharper ways to study human problems that have real-world solutions,” Sweetland said. “If we can offer that kind of wider frame to a journalist who’s reporting out their story,” she said, “I think we have a better chance of getting science in front of Americans in ways that are more helpful.”

One creative strategy she recommends is explaining research in a storytelling format. Using that lens, the setting is a problem that society needs an answer to, the characters are experts who have built a knowledge base and have a fresh way of looking at the unanswered question, and the plot is the process of developing methods and controls to answer the question. Importantly, the plot resolution isn’t just the finding itself but also “its implications for making society better in whatever way,” Sweetland said. “If we can start to tell science-rich stories instead of doing what we’ve traditionally done, I think we’ll be in a better spot.”

While psychological scientists may understandably feel anxious in 2026 about the future of their careers, they have a big ace up their sleeve with social media, Serritella believes.

“Scientists have more control than ever over their destiny because of the reach they can have,” she said. “It’s no longer just research conferences or journal articles where you can share your work; it’s also having an online presence that can potentially reach millions and millions of people.”

For example, posting on LinkedIn and other platforms can serve as “your living, breathing résumé” in ways that go far beyond the traditional curriculum vitae in terms of distributing content that you want others to see, including potential employers, she said.

Similarly, sharing videos of yourself talking about your work on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Bluesky, and TikTok allows people to meet you virtually, learn about your science, and build trust with you over time. Stephen Rathje, PhD, a psychology postdoctoral fellow at New York University and an incoming professor at Carnegie Mellon University, for instance, has a number of fun TikTok presentations on topics including altruism, misinformation, and the effects of artificial intelligence.

For maximum visibility, you can also ask your university’s public affairs office to issue press releases about important work or post about it on its social media accounts, West recommended. And, if you have a solid relationship with colleagues who have large online followings, ask them to share your material on their platforms, she suggested.

Fortunately, the direction that social media is taking is increasingly amenable to scientific sharing, Serritella added. It’s moving from an era of social media in which one’s reach is impacted by the number of direct followers to an “interest media” era that allows people to connect with an unlimited number of nonfollowers based on an algorithm that serves content to those with similar interests and values.

“You don’t have to be an influencer with a million followers to reach a million people anymore,” she said.

In terms of what to share, follow your passions, she added: “Think about the things that light you up the most, that you have dedicated your career to. What gets you excited will get other people excited, too.”

Finally, when you’ve identified what you want to share and where to share it, keep sharing it, Serritella emphasized.

“Commit to posting new material at least once or twice a week,” she advised. “And share it multiple times, because people might have missed the first post or need to be reminded.”

Given the attacks on science and academia, the year ahead is also a good time for psychology departments to intentionally build science communication directly into their curricula, science communication experts believe. West, for example, requires that all her graduate students take a class on public communication of science. Communicating simply and clearly about one’s work applies not only to media interactions like interviews and writing op-eds but “for any audience that isn’t super knowledgeable about what you do,” she said. In fact, a number of universities include science communication as part of their science curricula, including Cornell, Northeastern, Stony Brook, Syracuse, and more.

To become proficient at impactful communication, West advises students to practice brief science communications with students of other disciplines, including giving the “audience” a chance to ask questions. In 10 or 20 seconds, students should be able to convey the finding itself, why it’s important, and what its impact will be. These exercises are challenging, but after a while, students gain confidence in their messaging, West said. “It gets that muscle going, so you learn it as a skill.”

The journal system is another arena that needs to make better connections with the public, said Myra Fernandes, PhD, a professor in cognitive neuroscience at the University of Waterloo in Canada and associate editor of the Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, an APA journal. For instance, journals could require brief, lay-friendly public significance statements that explain a study in simple terms, including how it can benefit society (editors of APA journals can opt into this policy). Fernandes also favors allowing international authors who submit to English-language journals to include abstracts in their home languages, which can convey greater meaning and nuance and draw others in who speak the same language. “These are small steps, but I think they are things that we need to take a bit more seriously now,” given the current political climate, she said.

For working psychologists who aren’t that familiar with social media or science communication, getting some instruction can help eliminate fear and promote competence, Serritella added. Training in science communication is widely available through universities, professional societies like the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University in New York, and specialized training providers. The University of Chicago, for instance, recently launched a science communication certificate programopens in new window that is open to the public and helps people build their own professional brands and create strategic content such as TED Talk–style videos, op-eds, and personal websites that align with the individual’s STEM-related mission and values.

Better and clearer communication about psychology’s findings—and demystifying psychologists themselves—is the way to keep a vital science alive and well during troubling times, Kirshenbaum added.

“This is the most pivotal moment in any of our lifetimes to be very clear about why our work matters and how it connects to our communities,” she said.