When L&D professionals take claims for granted, we waste time chasing effects that don’t exist while missing the mechanisms that actually help people learn. For me, that means looking closely at learning through stories. As much as I believe in the power of storytelling and like the idea that “we’re wired for stories”, I find it crucial to base my work in what’s evidence-informed. That’s why I try to be more cautious with hype.
Three Myths about Stories and Learning
Goodbye mirror neurons! I liked you, but you're not what I thought.
#1. Mirror Neurons are Empathy Machines
The reality: In the 1990s, researchers discovered brain cells in monkeys that activated both when performing and observing a movement. For years, the hype was: „Neurons that can read minds.“ However, more recent studies show that mirror neurons control basic movement processing, not our empathy.
#2. Stories are 22x More Memorable Than Facts
The reality: No peer-reviewed study supports this. Often misattributed to Stanford researchers, but there’s no official publication.
#3. Your Brain Can’t Tell Fiction from Reality
The reality: Stories engage the same brain regions used for perception and action, but our prefrontal cortex remains aware of the “narrative frame” and knows the difference between stories and reality. Otherwise, we’d have a serious problem.
Three Research-Backed Principles
We can see stories from different perspectives: narrative structure, cultural meaning, creative craft, and also cognitive processes. So, what does research from cognitive psychology actually show about how our brains process stories for learning?
#1. We Build Situation Models
“Monday morning. Maria walks into the conference room. The projector isn’t working. She needs to start her presentation in 10 minutes. She calls IT.” Our brain doesn’t store these sentences separately. It builds a situation model: a mental simulation tracking Maria, the room, the timeline, and her goal. This relies on grounded cognitionthe brain understands a situation by mentally re-enacting the sensory and motor experiences it describes, rather than just processing abstract data. This is why scenario-based learning is so effective for teaching procedures.
But: If the story jumps back and forth too much (different times, different places, too many characters), the brain expends all its energy just following the plot, rather than learning from it. Furthermore, deep understanding only emerges when we can successfully transfer this situational model to a new scenario.
LXD Tip: Simple, coherent stories work best. The narrative should support learning, not compete with it. We want cognitive training, not cognitive overload.
Helping People Understand
Instead of: Here are five conflict resolution techniques: active listening, I-statements, finding common ground, taking breaks, and seeking mediation.
Practical implementation: A branching scenario where people follow a workplace conflict across various layers: time (Monday to Friday), space (meeting room, email, colleague's office), causality (what triggered what), people (two team members plus a manager), and intentions (what each person aims to achieve). This way, people build a mental model of how job conflicts escalate and are resolved, rather than memorizing a list. When faced with a real conflict, they then refer to this model instead of dry bullet points.
#2. Getting Absorbed Makes Us Less Defensive
When absorbed in a story, we stop arguing with it. The scientific term for this is transportation. Our brain is so busy building a mental movie, responding emotionally, and focusing all its attention on what happens next, that we have less mental energy left for “I don’t buy this”.
But: This immersion does not automatically change settings or behaviors. Transportation and identification are two different things: we can be captivated by a story without identifying with the protagonist. Immersion merely lowers resistance to the message. Identification, on the other hand, is more likely to lead to a change in behavior because it temporarily alters how we perceive ourselves.
LXD Tip: Even if we in L&D are not writing the next bestseller, understanding how transportation and identification work helps us design better learning experiences.
Shifting Attitudes
Instead of: A high-gloss corporate video featuring an AI voice stating: „Our diversity training changes perspectives on inclusive leadership.“
Practical implementation: An authentic, 90-second testimonial where a team member describes a very specific moment: „I was sitting in the team meeting when...“ These details create genuine immersion. Viewers mentally simulate the actions described. They build the scene in their minds, which precisely occupies the mental capacities that would otherwise be used for skepticism or rejection. This is far more effective than abstract claims about „new perspectives.“.
#3. We Remember Cause-and-Effect, Not Random Facts
We’re constantly searching for causal connections. When a story shows us that A caused B, which led to C, we understand it and remember it way better than if someone just lists A, B, and C. Research on causal coherence shows we store stories in our memory as a web of causes rather than a linear timeline. “Here are ten tips for better meetings” is harder to remember than “Maria tried having shorter meetings, which made people more focused, which led to better decisions.”
But: This only works if people already understand enough to follow the cause-and-effect chain. A story about a reactor meltdown can feel like magic to someone without a physics background.
LXD Tip: Ensure narratives reveal causal relationships learners can understand. “This happened, then this” is chronology. “This happened because this, which led to this” is causality, but only if people are able to make the inferences.
Supporting Retention
Instead of: „The product launch failed. What we learned is: better market research, clearer communication, earlier testing, and better alignment with stakeholders.“
Practical implementation: A case study that makes the process tangible: „The product team skipped user interviews because the deadline was extremely tight. Without this feedback, they built features based on pure assumptions...“ The causal chain is made crystal clear: skipped research → built on assumptions → late discovery → redesign delay → damaged trust → lost momentum. Each link in this chain is immediately understandable if one knows the basics of project management.
Bonus: motion Makes Things Stick
Here’s the popular “Stories stick”, but how does it happen? When something hits us emotionally, the amygdala — which processes the significance of an event — signals the hippocampus to encode it as a priority memory: “This is important, remember this!”.
But: When something is really emotional, our attention narrows. We remember the emotional moment vividly, but we might completely forget what was happening around it.
LXD Tip: Emotional storytelling makes core concepts memorable, but intensity at the wrong moment hurts retention. Additionally, we recognize inauthentic, forced emotional escalation, which can create a negative implicit memory of the topic itself.
Making It Relevant
Instead of: Starting a cybersecurity course with a dramatic video about a massive hacker attack, accompanied by menacing music, only to then drone on about password rules and two-factor authentication (2FA) for 45 minutes.
Practical implementation: Place the emotional moment exactly where the real learning objective lies. When you explain two-factor authentication, show a short report from a real person at that exact moment describing how their email account was hacked and how simple 2FA would have prevented it. This way, the emotion and the technical concept merge directly.
Informed Decisions
The research shows stories aren’t magic. They’re tools with specific cognitive effects that can work under the right conditions. Sometimes a clear procedure beats a scenario. Sometimes a causal case study transfers better than a checklist. Sometimes emotion at the wrong moment destroys retention rather than enhancing it.
As usual, our goal is to find the sweet spot: a narrative must be compelling enough to grab attention, but clear enough to support the intended cognitive processes. Unlike movies and series, we’re not just telling stories to entertain. We’re using them as a vehicle for learning.
The research helps us understand the mechanisms and gives us the criteria to make decisions instead of defaulting to “add a story” whenever content feels dry. When none of these mechanisms serve our goal, we can design without a story.
Sources: Situation models (Zwaan, 2025) • Transportation (Green & Appel, 2024) • Mirror neurons (Heyes & Catmur, 2022) • Causal coherence (Dahlstrom, 2012) • Emotional memory (McGaugh, 2000).
Edited with Anthropic's Claude. Ideas are mine.