Compassion Has Limits—What You Should Know

There is a limit to human compassion. Understanding the hows and whys can help nonprofits raise revenue.  

Let’s assume a LOT of people suffer from the condition your nonprofit exists to fix. Will that big number help in your copy for your appeals, or even your website?  

No.  

Psychic Numbing 

Humans have evolved to be exquisitely sensitive to an individual’s suffering but equally insensitive to the suffering of many. When we see one person, we can understand their pain. But 25 million? It’s not something we can wrap our minds around. Mass suffering doesn’t get our attention, be it regarding health, refugees, undocumented immigrants, human atrocities, or other terrible situations affecting large numbers of people.  

Psychologists call this cognitive bias “psychic numbing.” As the number of victims increases, our empathy decreases. Or, put another way, our apathy increases. You might ask, what’s the number that triggers psychic numbing?  

Shockingly, psychic numbing kicks in when the number of victims increases from one to two.  

Evolutionary Context 

In today’s world, psychic numbing might seem like a flaw in our human psyche. But, like other unconscious biases, psychic numbing can be understood from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. How would psychic numbing be a survival advantage for our thousands of generations of ancestors? Here’s the evolutionary take. 

First, our ancestors lived in small groups. Their survival depended on their immediate community. Evolutionarily speaking, it made more sense for early humans to be deeply affected by a threat to one group member than to distant, abstract numbers. And, if one of their group was threatened, they might be too. Those who could quickly respond to immediate threats had a better chance of survival. 

Second, our brains evolved to conserve precious calories. Processing a large amount of information, especially emotional information, can be overwhelming. Psychic numbing might have developed as a protective mechanism, reducing “cognitive load.” This prevented our ancestors from becoming paralyzed by overwhelming feelings, especially when swift action was needed. 

Finally, psychic numbing may have served to protect against emotional burnout. Continual emotional responses to every large-scale crisis might quickly lead to exhaustion. Numbing the emotional impact as numbers increase might have enabled us to keep going and tackle the challenges we could manage. 

Pseudo-Inefficacy 

The psychic numbing bias comes into play because people are insensitive to large numbers. But there are other reasons people are apathetic to major crises.  

Another is what’s called “pseudo-inefficacy.” When people see large numbers of others suffering, they feel that whatever they do, it won’t matter. When you think that anything you do will impact only a small portion of the problem, the many people you’re not helping “crowd out” the good feeling you might get by donating.  

Research shows that sending a fundraising appeal with the story of an individual with a preventable health issue will get a certain (albeit small) number of people donating to “cure” them. 

If you send the same appeal, same story, picture, etc., and you add, “Twenty-five million people are affected worldwide; unless we act, this number will double by 2050,” donations will be reduced by half.  

It’s called “pseudo-inefficacy,” meaning “false” inefficacy because people can make a difference. But they don’t act because of this cognitive bias. The tragedy is that even partial solutions can transform or even save lives.  

Focus on Individuals 

It’s undeniable that people care deeply about individuals. For example, look at the thousands of successful GoFundMe fundraisers that raise money so individuals can have surgeries, rebuild homes, or even travel to compete in sporting events.  

Understanding psychic numbing can significantly affect how we approach donor campaigns. Knowing that people are more likely to respond to individual stories rather than overwhelming statistics can guide the narratives we choose to share. Instead of highlighting the vastness of an issue, focusing on individual, relatable stories can help draw donors in and make them feel they can genuinely make a difference.  

The nonprofit world recognized this years ago, and a cottage industry has grown up around storytelling. For $500, you can attend the 2023 Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, where you’ll “learn the science, formulas, and techniques for engaging your donors on a deeper level.” And by deeper level, they mean focusing on the plights of individuals to get people to respond.  

Our failure has been to explain why the story of one person has more impact than the story of ten million or even two people.  

No Simple Solution 

Given all of this, what’s a nonprofit copywriter’s best play? I often employ individuals’ stories in fundraising copy. It works. But I’m aware of its limitations.  

Sure, talking about a single individual can move people to donate. If there’s an earthquake in Haiti, write about someone whose home was destroyed, and people will help—for a while. However, over time, the emotion that spurred them to respond diminishes, and apathy returns. So, to borrow from football lingo, you wind up running the same play over and over. The defense figures it out.  

The ultimate answer to this dilemma is to involve your constituents in the story, helping them connect with the mission by doing more than just donating. That means (brace yourself) breaking down internal silos to allow them to engage in multiple ways. But that’s for another blog.  

Here’s one thing you can do now to help: If you ask your marketing director what “psychic numbing” is and a blank look comes over their face, don’t let them near your fundraising copy.