Outdoor attention sign - yellow triangle with exclamation.

Trigger Warnings Do Little to Reduce People’s Distress, Research Shows

Trigger warnings that alert people to potentially sensitive content are increasingly popular, especially on college campuses, but research suggests that they have minimal impact on how people actually respond to content. The findings are published in Clinical Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“We, like many others, were hearing new stories week upon week about trigger warnings being asked for or introduced at universities around the world,” says psychology researcher Mevagh Sanson of The University of Waikato, first author on the research. “Our findings suggest that these warnings, though well intended, are not helpful.”

Trigger warnings may be increasingly prevalent, but there has been almost no research actually examining their effects.

It’s possible that they function the way they’re meant to, helping people to manage their emotional responses and reduce their symptoms of distress. But it’s also possible trigger warnings could have the opposite effect, influencing people’s expectations and experiences in ways that exacerbate their distress.

“We thought it was important to figure out how effective these warnings are,” says Sanson. “This is the first piece of empirical work directly examining if they have their intended effects.” 

To resolve the question, the researchers conducted a series of six experiments with a total of 1,394 participants.

Some participants – a combination of college students and online participants – read a message about the content they were about to see, for example: “TRIGGER WARNING: The following video may contain graphic footage of a fatal car crash. You might find this content disturbing.” Others did not read a warning. All participants were then exposed to the content.

Afterward, the participants reported various symptoms of distress—their negative emotional state, and the degree to which they experienced intrusive thoughts and tried to avoid thinking about the content.

The results across all six experiments were consistent: Trigger warnings had little effect on participants’ distress. That is, participants responded to the content similarly, regardless of whether they saw a trigger warning.

The format of the content also did not make a difference: Trigger warnings had little impact regardless of whether participants read a story or watched a video clip.

Could it be that trigger warnings are specifically effective for those people who have previously experienced traumatic events? The data suggested the answer is no: There was little difference between groups. In other words, individuals with a personal history of trauma who received a trigger warning reported similar levels of distress as did those who did not receive a warning.

The researchers note that it remains to be seen whether these results would apply to individuals who have a specific clinical diagnosis such as anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder. However, these findings indicate that trigger warnings are unlikely to have the meaningful impact they’re typically assumed to have.

“These results suggest a trigger warning is neither meaningfully helpful nor harmful,” says Sanson. “Of course, that doesn’t mean trigger warnings are benign. We need to consider the idea that their repeated use encourages people to avoid negative material, and we already know that avoidance helps to maintain disorders such as PTSD. Trigger warnings might also communicate to people that they’re fragile, and coax them to interpret ordinary emotional responses as extraordinary signals of danger.”

M. Sanson was supported by Victoria University of Wellington, the University of Waikato, and Fulbright New Zealand.

Comments

Interesting and very important article. My impression has been that trigger warnings, along with a variety of other recently popular changes, have been accepted as “good” with little evidence by academia & students on many post secondary campuses. This gives so much needed rigor to an area woefully lacking in it.

I do hope that the university is supportive & protective of the author Mevagh Sanson; this is the sort of research that tends to make people with ideological commitments to positions (such as that trigger warnings are vitally important & helpful) angry. As with other research that has given results that are unpopular within certain ideological persuasions, a backlash may occur here. Hopefully not, but the author and the university should be prepared to handle one; and to stand up for academic freedom of inquiry.

It isn’t obvious whether the participants viewed the content after seeing the trigger warnings. That trigger warnings don’t help one avoid distress from viewing the content is interesting. I had thought that being forewarned would be helpful. But I have always assumed that one of the primary benefits of trigger warnings is that they allow one to choose not to view the content. It isn’t clear from the descriptions of the study, but was the content always viewed, even after seeing the warnings? If not, then it would be interesting to study whether seeing the warnings and therefore avoiding the content is beneficial. If so, then there would still be a good reason to have the warnings, even if they didn’t help those who choose to view the content despite the warnings.

Trigger warnings aren’t to stop people being distress though, They are there to warn people so people can turn it off or continue at there own risk so this research makes no sense because that’s not what trigger warnings are for. If I get triggered by Child abuse and I get warning that show has child abuse in it then I’m not going to watch it. It’s not to make it less distressing and how would that make it less distressing anyway.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Required fields are marked*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.