Trigger Warnings Can Be Triggering

Trigger warnings may be defined as “alerts about upcoming content that may contain themes related to past negative experiences.” The rationale for using such alerts emerged from the PTSD literature, which found that many people with PTSD can be "triggered" into re-experiencing unpleasant symptoms when exposed to materials that spark traumatic memories.

The application of this idea beyond the clinic’s confines began in the late 1990s on feminist internet message boards, with the intent of cautioning readers about graphic depictions of rape in certain posts for fear that they could trigger panic attacks and symptoms of PTSD in readers who were victims of sexual violence.

Since their emergence, trigger warnings have been adopted for use with a variety of contents other than those related to violent or sexual trauma. Trigger warnings have been slapped on general language content (e.g., adult humor) medical content (e.g., human bodily functions), and stigma-related content (e.g., depictions of racism), and the concerns they purport to address have branched beyond re-experiencing traumatic symptoms, and onto the possibility of experiencing emotional distress or mere discomfort.

Source: OpenClipart-vectors for Pixabay

All the while, the value of trigger warnings has been hotly debated. Proponents argue that they serve to inform and educate consumers of the content they are about to consume. They argue that people, particularly those who have suffered a traumatic experience in their past, will be better able to handle difficult content if they are prepared in advance and are given the choice to engage or not.

Opponents argue that trigger warnings coddle and infantilize adults, and that they facilitate avoidance and/or inflate morbid and prurient curiosities, thus increasing rather than decreasing emotional turmoil and anxiety. In promoting avoidance of challenging material, opponents argue, trigger warnings also run counter to the clinical literature, which shows that trauma is best overcome through exposure rather than avoidance.

In recent years, a sizable empirical literature has accumulated looking to referee between these warring hypotheses. Yet the results have often been mixed, the quality of studies suspect, and the dissemination to the public weak. Recently, the Australian psychologist Victoria Bridgland of Flinders University and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on trigger warnings in an effort to settle the debate. To ensure that the studies under consideration were of high quality, the authors first decided on stern inclusion criteria.

Included studies were only those that:

1. Presented a trigger warning to participants “notifying them that forthcoming content may trigger memories or emotions relevant to past experiences,” thus excluding more generic warnings about content appropriateness for a general audience (e.g., PG-13 warnings).
2. Included measures of participants’ psychological, psychophysiological, and/or behavioral reactions to either the trigger warning itself or the warned-about content.
3. Presented their results "in such a way that a standardized mean difference between a test condition (warning given) and control condition could be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy.”

After a careful search of five databases, 12 studies meeting the above criteria were selected for participation in the meta-analysis. All 12 studies were published between 2018-2022 and most included trauma survivors in their sample. Participants in the selected studies were mostly from Western, democratic, wealthy countries. The authors then went on to examine and integrate the results from these studies with regard to several outcomes.

1. Response affect was defined as “a participant’s affective state after encountering a potentially distressing stimulus.” The authors compared response affect effects in samples that received or did not receive trigger warnings. Analyzing nine articles that measured this outcome, they found that warnings had a “trivial effect” on response affect. The authors concluded that “a meaningful effect in either direction is very unlikely.”
2. Avoidance was defined as “the behavioral action of bypassing or otherwise blocking exposure to content.” Five articles included measures of avoidance, comparing groups that did or did not receive trigger warnings. The authors’ analysis concluded that overall, “warnings had a negligible effect on avoidance.”
3. Anticipatory affect was defined as “participant affect that was measured after receiving a warning but before being exposed to the warned-about stimulus.” Specifically, anticipatory affect “measured increases in distress after receiving a warning but before viewing a stimulus.” Results from five articles that analyzed anticipatory affect suggested that “warnings increased anticipatory affect.” In other words—and ironically—the data suggest that trigger warnings are themselves triggering.
4. Comprehension. Since trigger warnings are most often used in educational settings, the meta-analysis authors looked at whether these warnings may improve or hinder comprehension of stimulus material. Results from the three articles that included a measure of comprehension showed that trigger warnings “had a trivial or null effect on comprehension.”

Trauma Essential Reads

How We Help Each Other Heal

Beyond Social Media: What Is a Trigger?

The authors note that their results largely concur with the interpretations of the studies’ own authors: “In terms of authors’ interpretation of their work, 11 of the 12 articles concluded that warnings were ineffective at their proposed goals. And most of them tended toward a characterization of warnings as inert.”

The results show, in effect, that both extremes in the debate over trigger warnings are misguided. Trigger warnings are neither necessary nor devastating for those who receive them. “Existing research on content warnings, content notes, and trigger warnings,” they write, “suggests that they are fruitless, although they do reliably induce a period of uncomfortable anticipation.”

This study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Future studies may well find that trigger warnings are reliably helpful for certain people under certain circumstances. Yet until such evidence for their effectiveness is produced, we may do well to heed the authors' concluding recommendation: “Trigger warnings should not be used as a mental health tool.”