“The More Who Die, The Less We Care;” The Trouble with Large Stakes
In this article we’re going to talk about the problem of Psychic Numbing and how to practically maintain your audience’s emotional engagement.
As screenwriters, we often anchor our stories around massive, world-altering stakes—apocalyptic threats, epic battles, or races against time to save humanity. While such grand scenarios can create excitement, they can also feel distant and difficult to connect with. The truth is, as humans, “our capacity to feel is limited.” if stakes get too large without being emotionally grounded, it could push your audience into psychic numbing, aka unconsciously shutting off emotionally.
Before we get too far though -
Let’s talk about “psychic numbing”
If you listen to the news, you’re probably intimately familiar with this effect. “As the number of victims in a tragedy increases, our empathy, our willingness to help, reliably decreases. This happens even when the number of victims increases from one to two.” Basically, hearing a story involving the suffering of massive amounts of people actually inspires less emotional resonance than hearing the story of a single individual.
According to research spearheaded by social scientist Paul Slovic, “The more who die, the less we care.” Is that extremely fucked up? Yes. Does it make it any less true? No.
So, why? It seems so counterintuitive.
First: Let’s remember for a second that our emotional processing isn’t 100% rational; It’s widely considered to be “less evolved” and instinctual. A singular object is easier for your emotional processing to visualize and connect to. Emotional processing is also limited - we can only experience so much emotion at one time (an excess in any emotion results in a physical reaction to get rid of the excess chemicals: tears), so dispersing your attention to more than 1 item at a time doesn’t increase emotion, it forces you to feel less about those two items overall.
A 2014 study in PLOS One shows willingness to donate decreases when the number of children is increased from one to two.
Second: the larger the problem, the less it feels like we as individuals are able to make a difference - regardless of if that’s accurate or not. If you’re able to help one person, and you do so, you’ve solved the problem. Emotionally = Yay! If you’re able to help one person and the scale of the problem is in the millions, you’ve solved a despairingly small fraction of the problem. Emotionally = Apathy/ Despair/Shut Down. Even though technically both outcomes are the same.
Pst - This is often why sequels that just increase the number of explosions or gunfights fail to resonate emotionally. The stakes might be rationally larger, but they aren't grounded in a way audiences can emotionally relate to.
How do you manage your audience’s emotions effectively?
Focus on an individual rather than a group.
Use small, grounding, relatable, and intimate details.
Richard Price encapsulates this idea beautifully:
“The bigger the issue, the smaller you write. Remember that. You don’t write about the horrors of war. No. You write about a kid’s burnt socks lying on the road. You pick the smallest manageable part of the big thing, and you work off the resonance.”
Ground your large stakes in relatable, everyday experiences. By concentrating on the smaller, more intimate aspects of a big situation, you make the stakes feel real and immediate for your audience. It's not just about saving the world—it's about how your characters feel while they're trying to do it.
A grand spectacle might look impressive on screen, but what truly captivates the audience is feeling the stakes through the characters' personal journeys.
In short: The larger the stakes, the smaller and more personal you should keep your details. Focus on individuals over groups. Keep it intimate. Relatable details evoke big emotions. These are the moments that make the audience lean in and care, and that's ultimately what keeps your audience hooked.
Need Professional Feedback on Your Screenplay?
I’ll do it.
Sources:
Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2015). The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Psychic Numbing and Genocide. In P. Slovic & D. Västfjäll, Behavioural Public Policy (pp. 94-114). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110376616-005
Slovic, P. (2017, June). The more who die, the less we care. [Video]. TEDx Talks. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIt-THEbNIE
Resnick, B. (2017, July 19). Psychic numbing: Why we’re indifferent to mass tragedy. Vox. https://www.vox.com/explainers/2017/7/19/15925506/psychic-numbing-paul-slovic-apathy
McKee, R. (1997). Story: Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting. ReganBooks.
