The bigger the problem, the smaller it seems

 When  1 in 4 per WHO that has a stroke and there is nothing for 100% recovery, that is a big problem. And every single fucking failure of a stroke association IS RUNNING AWAY! COWARDS!

10 million yearly stroke survivors is the size of the problem

The bigger the problem, the smaller it seems

Perceiving issues as severe or widespread can lead people to disengage from finding solutions, a recent study finds.

On the whole, we like to think of ourselves as making a difference in the world. At the same time, though, as a group we also manage to avoid addressing working together to mitigate massive, sometimes existential threats — acting like climate change isn't happening, for example, or looking the other way when it comes to racism, transphobia, or gender-based violence. These two things are hard to square: how can we claim to care about others on a grand scale, whilst also looking the other way?

It could be, a team writes in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, because of the "big problem paradox". Across six studies, Lauren Eskreis-Winkler and colleagues find that from poverty to drunk driving — and even severe chest pain — the bigger a problem seems, the less concerning it feels.

In the first study, 328 participants read scenarios about a local problem in Chicago: either a failed restaurant health inspection, a building code violation, or a child not being vaccinated. Crucially, only some participants were told how common the problem was after reading the vignette. All participants then rated how likely the problem was to cause serious harm. Those who had learned that something had high prevalence consistently rated its likelihood of causing harm as lower.

Subsequent studies suggested that the big problem paradox seems to exert its effects across many different fields, making situations that participants were already aware are likely to be harmful seem less of a threat. Probed topics in these studies included drink driving, dropping out of college, and even particular genetic mutations that could lead to cancer.

The next set of studies looked to understand exactly why this happens. Firstly, 201 participants read about a U.S. family whose tap water contained microplastics. One group was told the contamination is extremely common (present in 99.99% of U.S. households), while the other was not. Both groups then rated how likely it was that the contaminated water would cause harm, and whether they believed the problem had been dealt with safely.

As before, participants who learned the contamination was common were significantly more likely to believe the family would not get sick, in part because they were more likely to think such a notable problem will have received attention and safely solved. As the team puts it, "the more pervasive the problem, the more people assume it has already been addressed, and the less likely they may be to see the need to address it." This, of course, has the potential to lead to dangerous outcomes where issues remain unseen to.

The next two studies looked at whether the big problem paradox actually undermines helping behaviour. In both, participants imagined that a friend was experiencing a life-threatening problem — either chest pain or suicidal ideation. Again, only the participants who were told the problems were highly prevalent rated the situation as less likely to result in serious harm. Crucially, here, the team found that this reduced perception of harm also drove significantly lower motivation to seek urgent help for the person in need — meaning that the big problem paradox may be inhibiting people's desires to help others, even when they need it.

This also held in the final study, where 303 participants were asked to select someone to receive a donation: a woman needing what they were told was a rare surgery, or a woman needing a more common surgery. Again, learning the prevalence of a problem reduced participants' beliefs about its severity, which in turn reduced their likelihood to donate.

This could go some way to explain why people look the other way when faced with big social issues, and why climate change, poverty, or war can feel oddly abstract even when they touch millions. When a problem becomes 'normal', it also becomes easier to dismiss, and the scale that should inspire action instead inhibits a genuine sense of urgency.

These findings pose clear practical implications here for public messaging: organisations that emphasise just how widespread a problem is may inadvertently weaken public concern and reduce action at the individual level.

Read the paper in full:
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Troncoso Peres, L. T., & Fishbach, A. (2025). The bigger the problem the littler: When the scope of a problem makes it seem less dangerous. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 790–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000409