📽️🔪 Tragedy and entertainment: In late July, Netflix released its new documentary series The Idaho Murders: College Nightmare. A few weeks earlier, Shahid launched the first installment of Al Qissa Al Kamila (The Full Story) under the title Le’ebet Gohannam (Hell’s Game). What both productions have in common is the reaction that followed their release — each retold real crimes that happened less than two years ago.

Searches for Le’ebet Gohannam topped Google in Egypt, as interest surged in the story of a horrific crime that claimed the life of a young child — a case in which the perpetrator was executed and the instigator sentenced to 15 years in prison. What drew attention wasn’t the quality of the dramatization so much as the brutality of the crime itself, which reignited a longstanding debate that played out particularly on social media — with some criticizing the decision to dramatize the story and the renewed pain it causes the victim’s family. The question beneath all of it: why do we enjoy watching these things? And what do they actually do to us?

Why we’re gripped by true crime

We’ve all got that one friend who takes genuine, almost theatrical pleasure in eating extremely spicy food — eyes red, sweating, coughing long after the meal is over. We all, most likely, also know someone else who is entirely absorbed by podcasts covering the most disturbing true crimes. Both behaviors raise the same question every time: why do they do this to themselves? That question isn’t ours alone — it has occupied scientists for some time, and American psychologist Paul Rozin gave it a name: benign masochism, or safe risk-taking.

“⁠I think there is a normal human curiosity about danger,” clinical psychologist Menna Abdel Wahab (LinkedIn) tells EnterpriseAM, noting that we are instinctively drawn to understanding threats — especially when we have the chance to explore them from a position of relative safety. True crime content may give viewers the sense that they are learning more about risk, trying to understand human motivation, or making sense of something frightening.

The pleasures of safe risk: Abdel Wahab’s view has scientific backing. Rozin’s theory about why some people seek out psychologically or physically unpleasant experiences offers a rationale for why thousands enjoy this kind of content. The theory describes a paradoxical psychological state in which a person enjoys disturbing or frightening experiences that generate fear, anxiety, and emotional discomfort — but finds pleasure in them precisely because they know they are entirely safe from real danger, according to a 2023 Cambridge University study.

When a person deliberately goes through a negative experience, the mind effectively deceives the body — there is no real danger, so the sense of pleasure that follows reads as a kind of triumphant laugh the mind plays on the body, according to the study. These negative experiences aren’t limited to true crime or horror — they extend to deliberately listening to sad music, inducing a state of melancholy, or eating something painfully spicy, as that one friend may.

The opponent-process theory: When a person goes through an experience saturated with intense negative emotions — terror, disgust, tension — it automatically triggers a secondary, opposing emotional response: the relief and calm the mind and body feel once the experience ends. This is known as opponent-process theory, referenced by researchers from Brown and Pennsylvania universities in a study published in Psychological Review in the 1970s. With repeated exposure to such stimuli, the negative feelings gradually weaken while the subsequent positive feelings grow stronger — which drives viewers to consume this content continuously.

True crime content meets genuine psychological needs: the need for understanding, control, and emotional regulation through crime puzzles that push the viewer to search for patterns, motivations, and resolution — as well as a space to channel feelings of anger and fear within a safe, controlled environment. Paradoxically, true crime content can function as an escape from reality, not unlike riding a rollercoaster.

Entertainment or obsession?

“⁠I wouldn’t use the amount of true crime someone watches as the diagnostic measure,” Abdel Wahab tells us, adding that the more clinically relevant question is: what is this content actually doing to the viewer? Someone who watches this kind of material occasionally, finds it interesting, and then goes about their normal life is fundamentally different from someone who feels a compulsive need to consume disturbing and violent content — someone who can’t stop, or whose viewing is beginning to affect their sleep, relationships, and daily functioning.

Who’s watching? Women make up around 73% of the total true crime podcast audience, according to a study of more than 300 people published in the Journal of Radio and Audio Media in 2018. While motivations vary across three main categories — social engagement, escapism, and curiosity — a Psychology Today report reveals that women’s consumption is linked to a higher statistical likelihood of experiencing violence, meaning their engagement with true crime content may represent a form of psychological preparation: learning to read warning signs and red flags and mentally rehearsing responses to potential threats.

This behavior connects to mean world syndrome — a perceptual bias that develops in people who consume large amounts of violent content and negative news, amplifying their sense of personal danger and threat. In the case of women, this can gradually push them toward building scenarios designed to train the mind on how to respond in dangerous situations.

For Abdel Wahab, genuine concern begins when consumption leaves a tangible mark on a person’s mental health. Red flags include continuing to watch disturbing content despite knowing it causes anxiety; losing the ability to sleep due to persistent thoughts about case details; experiencing episodes of suspicion or increasing fear of others; beginning to avoid ordinary daily activities out of a belief that the world is a dangerous place; imagining that crimes are actually happening; or repeatedly using this content to reassure oneself of personal safety.

Old wounds

For those who have lived through violent or traumatic experiences, similar content can become a trigger that brings those experiences back, Abdel Wahab says. A sound, an image, a sequence of events, a location, or even a specific detail can activate the memories and physiological responses associated with the original experience.

The crucial distinction is that “therapeutic exposure” is structured, gradual, and conducted within a systematic clinical framework. Watching a dramatization of an event that resembles a viewer’s personal trauma is not automatically equivalent to exposure therapy, Abdel Wahab says. The real measure is how the individual responds afterward — did the exposure generate tension and fear as though they were trapped in the experience again? Or did they feel they had moved through it?

Some symptoms should be taken seriously when people with prior trauma encounter this content: nightmares or intrusive memories, physiological panic episodes, avoidance or withdrawal, sleep disturbances, or a noticeable increase in anxiety levels. Abdel Wahab stresses the importance of treating these warning signs with care rather than assuming that repeated exposure will help process the trauma. “We should remember that for the audience this may be a story, but for the victim’s family or someone who has experienced a similar traumatic event, it may be their actual life.”

What to do if you feel stuck

If someone finds themselves feeling anxious about their immersion in this content, the first step is to reduce consumption gradually, Abdel Wahab advises. “I’d suggest taking a deliberate break, particularly before bed, and noticing what happens to anxiety and sleep. They can also replace some of that content with something emotionally neutral or positive,” she adds.

It is also important to examine one’s viewing patterns: is the motivation genuine enjoyment, or is it a compulsive need to know what happened — to confirm personal safety, or to convince oneself of an ability to avoid similar situations? If someone experiences panic episodes, noticeable fear, or sustained anxiety after watching, Abdel Wahab recommends speaking with a mental health professional. “Sometimes the healthiest response to a piece of media is simply recognizing that it isn’t good for you at that particular point in your life.”