New research from the University of Sussex has revealed the biological limits to human compassion and empathy. The study found a stark contrast between how the brain processes information about risk to human lives and information about financial risk and could help explain why people can struggle to respond emotionally to large-scale humanitarian disasters.
Published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, the study by Sussex researchers Dr. Dan Campbell-Meiklejohn and Dr. Jo Cutler used MRI scans to examine how people process information about real-life-and-death events in the brain. The team found that neural responses were surprisingly low for large numbers of lives at risk and for lives lost overseas.
Their findings shed new light on two longstanding challenges in humanitarian response: our tendency to tune out as a disaster grows larger and to prioritize local crises over those farther away.
Dr. Dan Campbell-Meiklejohn, associate professor of psychology and director of the Social Motivation Lab at the University of Sussex, said, "The world is facing more life-threatening problems that require a global response. Our findings suggest that our brain's processing of people at risk can be lower if those lives are far away or in greater numbers. Those biases may have grown out of evolution in small groups facing nearby threats or perhaps from how our brains are shaped by the media we experience.
"Whatever the cause, living up to values that all lives matter equally may require all of us, especially policymakers and communicators, to work together to overcome these limits and save more lives both at home and abroad."
The researchers scanned the brains of British participants as they read 200 news headlines describing real threats to life that occurred, ranging from a single person to tens of thousands of people, either in the U.K. or across 56 other countries. Participants then learned whether those individuals survived or died.
In addition, the participants were given a large number of entries in a genuine sweepstakes with a cash reward. Throughout the experiment, they were told that some of their entries were also at risk and that they could lose anywhere between 1 and 1,000 of their chances to win the money. Later, they were told whether those entries had in fact been lost or were safe. Their brain responses to these financial risks and losses were measured, just as they were for human lives.
This uncovered several insights into how the brain responds to human suffering, revealing how people become less responsive as the number of victims grows and how deaths abroad are processed differently from those at home.
The findings could help policymakers and humanitarian organizations develop more effective ways of communicating global crises and encouraging action:
- A collapse of response as the number of lives at risk increases: When tracking financial risks, brain activity scales up naturally as the amount of money increases. But with human lives, the opposite happens: Brain activity broadly decreases as the number of people at risk grows. This happens no matter where the lives are located in the world.
- A unique pattern for overseas lives: Unlike individual lives at risk at home, single lives at risk abroad generate a very low response. The response does go up for midrange numbers but then collapses for the largest numbers of victims. This creates a characteristic "inverted U" pattern of response across the number of lives at risk in countries abroad.
- Empathy regions react differently to risks compared with deaths—but only in our home country: Brain activity shows a heightened response when local people die compared with when they survive. Crucially, these same regions show no measurable distinction between survival and death when they occur abroad.
The researchers caution that brain scans reveal patterns of neural activity rather than a single explanation for human behavior. Follow-up responses from participants suggested that if they were biased toward local events, it was because these would be more likely to affect them or people they know, indicating that self-protection may play a role alongside differences in empathy.
Publication details
Daniel Campbell-Meiklejohn et al, Diminished neural responses for greater numbers of lives at risk and lives lost in foreign countries, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (2026). DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsag049
Who's behind this story?
BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021. Full profile →
Master's in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success. Full profile →
Citation: Neuroscientists reveal limits of human compassion for global crises (2026, July 28) retrieved 28 July 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-07-neuroscientists-reveal-limits-human-compassion.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
>> Home