Why do some ideas catch fire while others fizzle out? What makes a public health campaign successful or a social media post go viral? For decades, communication scholars and marketers have tried to answer these questions using surveys, focus groups, and behavioral observation. While useful, these methods have a fundamental limitation: they often rely on what people say they think or will do, which can be a poor predictor of their actual behavior.
A groundbreaking perspective, articulated by communication and neuroscience researchers Emily Falk and Christin Scholz¹, offers a new lens through which to understand influence. In their work, “Persuasion, Influence, and Value: Perspectives from Communication and Social Neuroscience,” they argue that the key to understanding and predicting persuasive success lies in the brain’s fundamental “value” systems. By looking directly at neural activity, we can bypass the uncertainty of self-report and gain unprecedented insight into the mechanisms of influence.
Beyond a “Buy Button”: The Centrality of Value
Early, simplistic notions of “neuromarketing” imagined a “buy button” in the brain—a single spot that, if activated, could compel a person to act. The reality, as Falk and Scholz detail, is far more nuanced and powerful. Their framework centers on the brain’s valuation system, a network of regions primarily involving the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (VMPFC) and the Ventral Striatum (VS).
This system is our internal appraiser. It’s not just for calculating monetary worth; it’s constantly assessing the value of everything we encounter—an idea, a piece of information, a social connection. It answers the fundamental question: “Is this relevant, rewarding, or important to me?” According to this neurocentric model, the journey of an idea from a single mind to mass influence can be understood in three key stages.
Stage 1: Individual Behavior Change – Valuing a Message
When you are exposed to a persuasive message—say, an advertisement encouraging you to use sunscreen—your brain immediately begins to evaluate it. Falk’s research shows that the degree of activity in the brain’s valuation circuitry (VMPFC and VS) while viewing the ad does something remarkable: it predicts whether you will actually change your behavior (i.e., use more sunscreen) in the following weeks, and it does so more accurately than your own stated intentions.
If your brain tags the message as highly valuable and self-relevant, it is more likely to be encoded deeply, influencing future decisions and actions. This is the first, most personal level of influence. The message has successfully persuaded the individual.
Stage 2: Spreading the Word – The Value of Sharing
Influence rarely stops with one person. The most successful ideas are those that people feel compelled to share. This is the second stage: the decision to transmit an idea to others. Falk and Scholz propose that this involves a second, distinct neural calculation.
In addition to the core valuation system, brain regions associated with “mentalizing” or “theory of mind” become critical. These include the Temporoparietal Junction (TPJ) and the Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex (DMPFC). This network is responsible for thinking about the minds of others—what they know, what they believe, and what they might find interesting.
When a person considers sharing a piece of information, their brain integrates two signals:
- Value to Self: “Is this interesting and valuable to me?” (Activation in VMPFC/VS)
- Value to Others: “Would my friends/family/followers find this valuable?” (Activation in TPJ/DMPFC)
Activity in both of these networks predicts who is most likely to act as an “idea salesperson” and spread the message within their social network. This explains why we share things not only because we like them, but because we think they will be valuable or entertaining to others, thereby enhancing our own social standing.
Stage 3: Population-Level Success – Predicting a Viral Hit
Perhaps the most astonishing finding from this line of research is its ability to scale up. Can the brain activity of a few dozen people in an fMRI scanner predict how an idea will fare across an entire population? The answer appears to be yes.
In a series of studies, Falk and her colleagues showed that the average brain response in the valuation regions (VMPFC) of a small group of people could predict the population-level success of various messages. For example:
- The neural activity of a test group predicted which anti-smoking ads would generate the most calls to a national quit-line.
- It predicted which articles from The New York Times were most likely to become highly shared online.
- It even forecasted which crowdfunding projects on Kickstarter would be most successful.
This “neural focus group” approach provides a powerful signal of what an audience collectively finds engaging and valuable, often outperforming traditional market research.
Implications and Ethical Considerations
The value-based framework proposed by Falk and Scholz has profound implications.
- For Public Health: It allows for the pre-testing and design of more effective campaigns to encourage vaccination, healthy eating, and safe behaviors.
- For Communication: It helps explain why certain messages resonate and spread, offering a biological basis for what makes communication compelling.
- For Business: The commercial applications for advertising and marketing are obvious, allowing for the creation of more engaging and persuasive content.
However, this power brings significant ethical responsibilities. The ability to peer into the brain to craft more persuasive messages raises concerns about manipulation and consent. Falk and her colleagues are keenly aware of these issues, emphasizing that the goal should be to use these tools for pro-social ends—to help people make choices they themselves would want to make, rather than to subvert their intentions.
In conclusion, the work of Emily Falk and Christin Scholz marks a pivotal merger of communication science and social neuroscience. By shifting the focus from what people say to what their brains value, they have provided a powerful, predictive framework for understanding influence at every level—from individual choice to viral phenomenon. The influential idea, it turns out, is the one that our brains collectively decide is worth paying attention to.
Reference:
¹ Falk, E., & Scholz, C. (2018). Persuasion, Influence, and Value: Perspectives from Communication and Social Neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 329-356.