Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Flipping the Script: How Can

the IC Recast Its Story?

Debora Pfaff, Ph.D.

Most Americans experience the Intelligence Community through works

of fiction—stories told on the silver screen, in powerful prose, and 

through conspiratorial overtures. These stories influence their thoughts 

about the mysterious entity that provides a critical national security 

function but is rarely seen or heard. Thoughts become beliefs, and beliefs

form biases, making it incredibly difficult to convince the average person 

that the NSA doesn’t listen to their phone calls and that CIA doesn’t have 

a dossier on every American. Even as the IC persists in its national 

security mission, each generation of Americans trusts it less and less. 

Fictional information spreads like wildfire. How can the IC use the 

science of communication to ignite the truth? 

RESEARCH SHORT

August 17, 2022

What this is:

This report is the product 

of academic research. As the 

IC’s university, NIU is uniquely 

positioned to use academic 

approaches to research—and 

report on—subjects of interest 

to the community.

What this is not:

This is not finished intelligence. 

The opinions expressed in this 

report are solely the author’s 

and not those of the National 

Intelligence University or 

any other U.S. Government 

agency.

IMAGE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK

SOUNDING BOARD Soliciting comments on inprogress academic research
2

Stories Are Compelling Tools That Shape Our Understanding—

or Misunderstanding

Stories are the very fabric of the human experience. They have built cities, destroyed empires, 

established religions, and upended allegiances. They are Ukrainian president Volodymyr 

Zelenskyy’s defiance of the Russian invasion, the success of the #MeToo movement, and the 

impetus for the American Revolution. Stories are why countries go to war and people fall in 

love. Everyone from major corporations to Internet influencers seems to be tapping into 

storytelling to find the link between empathy and action, using intrinsically held values to 

invoke powerful responses and drive change.1 

Everyone except the Intelligence Community (IC), which has yet to break free of its smothering 

long-term relationship with secrecy. When it does—and it must, as argued in last year’s 

Research Short, “From a Whisper to a Shout: The IC Should Use Its Outside Voice”2—it faces 

an uphill battle to change the public’s perception of its maneuverings. The American public’s 

most compelling points of reference are Jason Bourne, QAnon,

3 and cable news hosts.4 This is 

a problem, one the IC has brushed off for too long. 

The false narratives that surround the IC are established and persuasive. Americans believe 

conspiracy theories, Hollywood, and the media because 150,000 years of storytelling dominance 

have hardwired the human brain to think in terms of stories.5 The IC, on the other hand, is 

hardwired to deliver as little information as possible—concisely, 

dispassionately, and very, very selectively. The IC has little chance of 

eradicating the fictional narratives that saturate our society, but perhaps 

it can adopt the storytelling methods that support them. 

Storytelling has an appreciable effect on our subconscious.6 We lose 

ourselves in evocative narratives, adopting the thoughts and beliefs of 

characters with whom we identify. This can change our behaviors long 

after we close the pages or power off the screen. 7 As we age into 

adulthood, we stop believing in dragons and outgrow our dreams of being Wonder Woman, 

but we are primed to believe other stories, told to us with a similar absence of factual content.

Beliefs, once established, tend to persist even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.8

By the time someone believes an intelligence analyst’s average day involves waterboarding 

terrorists aboard a nuclear submarine stationed somewhere off the coast of Malaysia, it is 

already too late.

Plenty of data reinforce this highly exaggerated scenario. The U.S. media and entertainment 

industry is the largest in the world, pulling in about $717 billion in 2019, with predictions for 

industry growth to $825 billion in 2023. Filmed entertainment (motion pictures, television, and 

videos) was responsible for a little under $200 billion of the 2019 industry earnings.

9 People 

tune in to escape the mundane, to indulge the whimsical, to relish the fantastical. And we do it 

a lot. In 2021, Americans streamed more than 15 million years’ worth of content—at times 

exceeding the amount of time spent streaming at the height of the COVID lockdowns in 2020.10

–Sue Monk Kidd

The Secret Life of Bees

Stories have to be told or 

they die, and when they die, 

we can't remember who we 

are or why we're here. 
3

That year, the average American spent more than 30 hours a week watching television, with 

an additional 12 hours spent on a television-connected device.11 That is more time spent than 

on any other activity, except for sleeping. And it exceeds time spent in all other leisure, social, 

and sports activities combined.12 Lest one blame the pandemic, this is hardly a departure from 

previous years.13

If You Think All This Programming Is Just Entertainment, 

Think Again

Viewers may not be consciously aware of the effect television has on their beliefs and subsequent 

actions. A study by Max Weisbuch from Tufts University tested whether white participants 

identified racial biases in performers from several popular television shows, including CSI, 

Grey’s Anatomy, and House. His experiment found participants detected negative body language 

and nonverbal cues toward Black performers much more often than their white counterparts. 

Perhaps more meaningfully, the bias the participants saw on screen increased their own biases 

after viewing the clips, as measured by an implicit associated biases test.14, 15

Weisbuch’s study is not alone in these findings on the effect of television on beliefs. The 

Medical University of Vienna’s Center for Public Health in Austria found that about 12 percent 

of Austrians believed the death penalty still existed in their country, despite the fact that Austria 

abolished it in 1968. The more American television the respondents viewed, the more likely 

they were to think their own country still imposed the death penalty.

16

Figure 1.

Source: Figure 1 represents the author's average of data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2019, 2020, and 2021: U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release: Table 1. Time Spent in Primary Activities and Percent of the Population Engaging in Each Activity,

Averages for May to December 2019 and 2020,” July 22, 2021 (last modified), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm, and U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, "Economic News Release: Table 1. Time Spent in Primary Activities and Percent of the Population Engaging in Each Activity, Average 

per Day by Sex, 2021 Annual Averages," June 23, 2022 (last modified), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm.
4

Findings like these have led researchers to conclude that there is a correlation between fake 

television content and real human behavior. Their premise is that the people who spend more 

of their time watching television tend to perceive the world around them similarly to what they 

see on TV.17 Humans are the only species that experience stimuli beyond their immediate 

surrounding environment; other animals perceive just what is right in front of them.18 As we 

watch TV, hear stories, or read books, we develop “awareness or familiarity gained by 

experience of a fact or situation”—a standard definition of knowledge. Knowledge eases our 

inherent fear of the unknown; we find ourselves in a comfortable place, and we are increasingly 

reluctant to accept views that clash with those beliefs. 

When Searching for Reassurance, Reality Is Irrelevant

It is not just the entertainment industry that contributes to this quest to feel secure. Humans 

struggle deeply with the unknown, with uncertainty. Uncertainty unsettles us, driving us to look 

for any patterns of evidence that provide explanation and predictability, even if those patterns do 

not really exist. Perhaps this phenomenon explains why more than 50 percent of Americans 

believe in one or more conspiracy theories.19

A conspiracy theory involves the supposition that an important event or situation was 

controlled by a nefarious group of powerful or manipulative actors, who managed to cover up 

their role.20 There is no evidence to support the theory, and it is not falsifiable—any attempt to 

disprove it is often regarded as further cover-up.21 Human belief in conspiracy theories rests 

on a solid foundation of primitive instincts, psychological need, and imagination run amok.

22

Our relationship with conspiracy theories sprang from our primitive 

survival instincts. If you thought a saber-toothed tiger was out to get 

you, you were paranoid. Unless of course there really was a sabertoothed tiger out to get you, in which case you avoided being eaten. 

The most paranoid, skeptical, and risk-averse people survived, 

leading to our genetically programmed existential need to feel safe 

and secure. 

Beyond our genetic predispositions, psychology further suggests that we have an epistemic 

need for knowledge and certainty. We want to be able to explain why things happen, satisfy 

our curiosity, reduce our uncertainties, find meaning in experiences, defend our core beliefs, 

and ultimately—mitigate risk. 23 , 24 Conspiracy theories reassure people by supplying 

explanations that are consistent with an individual’s core beliefs; even when challenged, 

conspiracy theories hold up against uncertainty and contradiction.25 They reduce feelings of 

powerlessness, randomness, and lack of control. 

There is also a social “in-crowd” motive for believing in airplane chem trails or Avril Lavigne’s 

doppelganger. Humans have a need to belong to a group, to feel safety in numbers. This 

was perhaps best demonstrated in U.S. psychologist Solomon Asch’s classical conformity 

–Philip Roth

 Zuckerman Unbound

Seeing is believing, believing is 

knowing, and knowing beats 

unknowing and the unknown.
5

experiment, where 75 percent of the participants conformed to the wrong answer, even when 

the right one was obvious. 26 

A poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University in 2006 found that 

36 percent of Americans believed that it was ‘‘likely’’ or ‘‘somewhat likely’’ that U.S.

Government officials actually carried out the 9/11 attacks, or at least knew they would occur

and did nothing to stop them. More recently, theoriessurrounding the cause of COVID-19 posit

everything from 5G to genetically modified organisms. And 39 percent of Americans believe

there is a deep state—a parallel system of government comprising political elites in agencies

including the FBI and CIA, that conspired against former President Donald Trump.

If History Is Written by the Victor, the IC’s Future Belongs 

to the Best Storyteller

Narrative storytelling actively coalesces an audience around a specific conclusion, one that the 

storyteller introduces for consideration. Government communications often present information 

without suggesting how to interpret that information for fear of being perceived as persuasive 

rather than informative. Two additional fears plague the IC—fear of prescribing policy and fear 

of revealing classified information—and lead the community to hold back on communicating 

clearly with the public. This can leave a meaning vacuum that is then filled with coherent 

“explanations” from Hollywood, conspiracy theorists, political elites, and the media.

Believing in a big hairy creature who roams the Northwest is harmless fun for most, but 

Sasquatch is unlikely to storm the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election. 

What did storm the Capitol was actually a far scarier monster, fed by Hollywood, subversion, 

and social and mainstream media. This monster was a lie, one that undermined Americans’ 

Figure 2. Asch’s Classical Conformity Experiment: A group of eight college students were asked to select which 

of three lines of obviously differing lengths matched a target line. Unknown to the student who answered last, 

the other seven had previously agreed on a right or wrong answer that they all would provide. In 12 critical trials, 

75 percent of the unsuspecting participants conformed to the group’s selection at least once.

Source: Figure derived from experiment's description in: Solomon E. Ache, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a 

Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs 70, no. 9 (1956): 1-70, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0093718.
6

faith in themselves and the country’s ability to overcome any obstacle.27 And it has done what 

no other menace in our history has—cast a shadow long and large over the institution of 

American democracy. To subdue it, the IC needs to do what it has never before done: tell a 

story in which the American public can see itself.

How Might the IC Tell Its Own Story?

Although the IC must stick to the facts, it can learn to present objective information more 

effectively. But how, specifically? Consider the following:

 Our belief system forms when we are children.

Research suggests that kids are susceptible to disinformation/misinformation and are 

vulnerable to becoming conspiracy theorists by the time they are 14 years old.

28 The IC is 

inaccessible to the American public, and particularly overlooks children. Although there are a 

few examples of IC outreach to children and young adults (NSA’s GenCyber and STARTALK, 

CIA’s Spykids), most efforts involve unremarkable webpages tacked on to an agency’s already 

limited unclassified presence. 

• Should the IC sponsor efforts to connect with the youngest generations? 

• What might these efforts look like (e.g., grade school curriculum, more 

comprehensive/specific social media efforts, YouTube presence, digital literacy 

and/or critical thinking instruction)?

 The American public’s opinion on the IC is influenced by Hollywood.

Intelligence scholar Amy Zegart found that 38 percent of people who frequently watched “spy 

shows” believed that waterboarding terrorists was the right thing to do, compared with 28 

percent of infrequent watchers of intelligence-themed shows.29 Shows about the IC must be 

entertaining to satisfy viewership, but they can also be made both accurate and interesting.

• Should the IC attempt to correct Hollywood misperceptions with counter 

narratives? If so, how, and what form should those narratives take? 

• Alternatively, can the IC convince Hollywood to more factually represent IC 

activities? How? 

 Some demographics are more likely to indicate they are unfamiliar with the IC.

A 2021 public opinion survey found that Black (31%), Hispanic (29%), female (29%), and Gen 

Z (36%) respondents were the most likely to admit they lacked the information needed to form 

an opinion on U.S. intelligence.30

• We know little to nothing about why some demographics appear to know less 

about the IC than others. If this is in fact the case, why? 

• How could the IC more effectively brand itself to underrepresented demographics? 

 IC agencies and employees are sizably populated in only a few states. 

In the Washington, DC, area, it is not at all uncommon for a resident to have a neighbor, friend, 

or family member who works for the IC. The same cannot be said for Idaho, Maine, Louisiana, 
7

or dozens of other states; these are populations that will likely never meet or hear personally 

from an employee of the very enterprise that keeps them safe. 

• How can the IC introduce itself face-to-face with its biggest customer—the 

American public?

What Would You Recommend?

The IC is facing a determinative point in its relatively short history. It should not fail to 

anticipate the American public’s increasing discomfort with its lack of transparency...else it 

might find itself out of the business of anticipation altogether. 

It is imperative that these conversations begin not at the behest of Congress, or upon the 

demands of the media, or even at the urging of the public. The IC must tackle its compulsive 

dependence on secrecy from within and solicit solutions from the intelligence officers who 

know it best. 

NIU’s Center for Truth, Trust, and Transparency (Tr3) explores the IC’s complex, changing 

relationship with the American public, with an eye to options for expanding the scope of IC 

interaction with those that it serves to defend and also increasingly to inform. The Center 

invites your responses to the questions above and welcomes your thoughts on how the IC can 

best be available to the U.S. public, while keeping the nation’s adversaries at bay. To share 

your ideas, please contact Dr. Pfaff at Debora.J.Pfaff@odni.gov or the NIU Office of 

Research at NIU_OOR@dodiis.mil.

Dr. Debora Pfaff is an associate professor of research with the Ann Caracristi Institute at National 

Intelligence University and co-director of NIU’s Center for Truth, Trust, and Transparency. She has 20 

years of government service, 17 with the IC. Prior to her time with NIU, she served in the analyst career 

field at DIA. She holds a doctorate in justice, law, and criminology from American University and a 

master’s degree in forensic science from The George Washington University.

If you have comments, questions, or a suggestion for a Research Short topic or article, please contact 

the NIU Office of Research at NIU_OOR@dodiis.mil.
8

Endnotes

1 Craig Cormick, “Who Doesn’t Love a Good Story? What Neuroscience Tells About How We Respond to Narratives,” 

Journal of Science Communication 18, no. 5 (October 14, 2019): 1-10, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050401.

2 Debora Pfaff and Bowman Miller, “From a Whisper to a Shout: The IC Should Use Its Outside Voice,” Research 

Short (Washington, DC: National Intelligence Press, 2022).

3 Adrienne LaFrance, “The Prophecies of Q,” The Atlantic, June 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

archive/2020/06/qanon-nothing-can-stop-what-is-coming/610567/.

4 Eric Beech, “U.S. Intelligence Agency Says It Isn't Spying on Fox's Tucker Carlson,” Reuters, June 29, 2021, 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-intelligence-agency-says-it-isnt-spying-foxs-tucker-carlson-2021-06-30.

5 Kendall Haven, “Your Brain on Story,” mediaXstanford (YouTube video), March 9, 2015, https://www

.youtube.com/watch?v=YeGKGh8kDO4.

6 Corinna Oschatz, Katharina Emde-Lachmund, and Christoph Klimmt, “The Persuasive Effect of Journalistic 

Storytelling: Experiments on the Portrayal of Exemplars in the News,” Journalism & Mass Communication 

Quarterly 98, no. 2 (June 2021): 407-27, 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077699019850096?casa_token=LtJFA281PvAAAAAA%3A0g5ko

EBMLUuvt7cjDzOaLPtzeTqatw-Ug6OREMNo9lL0wJb_5uqFkdx_GlWJabksgpulfy623VNzTw. 

7 Ohio State University, “‘Losing Yourself’ in a Fictional Character Can Affect Your Real Life,” ScienceDaily, May 

7, 2012, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120507131948.htm.

8 Craig Anderson, Mark Lepler, and Lee Ross, “Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the 

Persistence of Discredited Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, no. 6 (1980): 1037-49.

9 “Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2021–2025,” PwC, accessed May 2022, www.pwc.com/outlook.

10 “Streaming Grew Its Audience in 2021; Drama, Reality and Kids’ Programming Led the Content Wars,” Nielsen, 

January 21, 2022, https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2022/streaming-grew-its-audience-in-2021-

drama-reality-and-kids-programming-lead-the-content-wars/.

11 “The Nielsen Total Audience Report: Advertising Across Today’s Media,” Nielsen, March 25, 2021, 

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2021/total-audience-advertising-across-todays-media/.

12 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release: Table 1. Time Spent in Primary Activities and Percent 

of the Population Engaging in Each Activity, Averages for May to December 2019 and 2020,” July 22, 2021 (last 

modified), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm.

13 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release: Table 1,” https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm.

14 Max Weisbuch, Kristin Pauker, and Nalini Ambady, “The Subtle Transmission of Race Bias Via Televised Nonverbal 

Behavior,” Science 326, no. 5960 (December 18, 2009): 1711-14, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20019288/. 

15 Ed Yong, “Even on Mute, TV Can Perpetuate Racial Bias,” National Geographic, December 17, 2009, 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/even-on-mute-tv-can-perpetuate-racial-bias?loggedin=true.

16 Medical University of Vienna, “Watching a Lot of TV Makes You More Susceptible to Everyday Myths,” Social 

Psychology, August 22, 2016, https://www.psypost.org/2016/08/watching-a-lot-of-tv-makes-you-more-susceptibleto-everyday-myths-44537.

17 George Gerbner et al., “Growing up with Television: The Cultivation Perspective,” in Against the Mainstream: The 

Selected Works of George Gerbner, ed. Michael Morgan (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2002), 193-213.

18 Eman Mosharafa, “All You Need to Know About: The Cultivation Theory,” Global Journal of Human-Social 

Science: Arts & Humanities–Psychology 15, no. 8 (2015), https://globaljournals.org/GJHSS_Volume15/3-All-youNeed-to-Know.pdf.

19 J. Eric Oliver and Thomas J. Wood, “Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion,” American Journal 

of Political Science 58, no. 4 (October 2014): 952-56.

20 Jørgen Eikvar Axelsen and Terje Emberland, “What Is a Conspiracy Theory?,” Center for Research on Extremism 

(C-REX) Compendium, September 7, 2020, https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-is-aconspiracy-theory.html. 

21 Jade Wu, “Why We Believe in Conspiracy Theories,” Psychology Today, July 29, 2020, 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-savvy-psychologist/202007/why-we-believe-in-conspiracy-theories.

22 Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996), 14.
9

23 Karen M. Douglas, Robbie M. Sutton, and Aleksandra Cichocka, “The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories,” 

Current Directions in Psychological Science 26, no. 6 (2017): 538-42, 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721417718261. 

24 Karen Douglas, “Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories,” Speaking of Psychology podcast of the 

American Psychological Society, Episode 124, January 2021, https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-ofpsychology/conspiracy-theories.

25 Douglas, Sutton, and Cichocka, “The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories.”

26 Solomon E. Ache, “Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority,” 

Psychological Monographs 70, no. 9 (1956): 1-70, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0093718.

27 Conor Friedersdorf, “The Contested Significance of January 6,” The Atlantic, January 12, 2022, 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/the-contested-significance-of-january-6/621235/.

28 Melinda Wenner Moyer, “Schoolkids Are Falling Victim to Disinformation and Conspiracy Fantasies,” Scientific 

American 326, no. 2 (February 2022): 34-39, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schoolkids-are-fallingvictim-to-disinformation-and-conspiracy-fantasies/#:~:text=Schoolkids%20Are%20Falling,in%20500%20years.

%E2%80%9D.

29 Amy Zegart, “Real Spies, Fake Spies, NSA, and More: What My 2012 and 2013 National Polls Reveal,” Lawfare 

(blog), November 7, 2013, https://www.lawfareblog.com/real-spies-fake-spies-nsa-and-more-what-my-2012-and2013-national-polls-reveal.

30 Stephen Slick and Joshua Busby, “2020 Public Attitudes on US Intelligence,” The Chicago Council on Global 

Affairs (website), May 20. 2021, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/research/public-opinion-survey/publicattitudes-us-intelligence-2020.