To foster public engagement with societal threats like climate change, risk communicators lean heavily on scientific credentials and the presentation of research findings. However, this analytical approach flouts important biological realities that reliably predict engagement and action-taking. This chapter examines four such forces and their implications for effective science and risk communication. My primary claim is that embedding data in story structure with value-congruent characters more effectively triggers emotional engagement and action-taking than do analytical frames. Starting with the premise that the brain’s primary function is the optimal allocation of scarce bodily resources, I outline how experiential processing is more metabolically efficient than cognitive elaboration. Emotions are critical data that guide attentional allocation and serve as impetuses for action. Drawing on interdisciplinary research in psychology, neuroscience, and narratology, I explain how stories exert their persuasive powers through narrative transportation, emotional connection, and trust in story characters perceived to share important values and goals. The chapter presents empirical evidence from the author’s own research, together with reflections about the distinction between ‘science’ and ‘regulatory science,’ where the latter requires normative value judgements with distributive- and thus social, consequences. Accounting for these forces has the potential to strengthen not only public trust in risk communication, but also in the communicators themselves.