Content uploaded by Payton Jones
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Payton Jones on Dec 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead
Abstract
Background and objectives:
Trigger warnings notify people of the distress that written, audiovisual, or other material may evoke, and were initially used to provide for the needs of those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since their inception, trigger warnings have become more widely applied throughout contemporary culture, sparking intense controversy in academia and beyond. Some argue that they empower vulnerable individuals by allowing them to psychologically prepare for or avoid disturbing content, whereas others argue that such warnings undermine resilience to stress and increase vulnerability to psychopathology while constraining academic freedom. The objective of our experiment was to investigate the psychological effects of issuing trigger warnings.
Methods:
We randomly assigned online participants to receive (n = 133) or not receive (n = 137) trigger warnings prior to reading literary passages that varied in potentially disturbing content.
Results:
Participants in the trigger warning group believed themselves and people in general to be more emotionally vulnerable if they were to experience trauma. Participants receiving warnings reported greater anxiety in response to reading potentially distressing passages, but only if they believed that words can cause harm. Warnings did not affect participants' implicit self-identification as vulnerable, or subsequent anxiety response to less distressing content.
Limitations:
The sample included only non-traumatized participants; the observed effects may differ for a traumatized population.
Conclusions:
Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.
... However, trigger warnings do not typically describe how to prepare oneself or manage reactions and instead usually describe potential negative emotional reactions that will likely occur when viewing the material (e.g., distress, anxiety). Indeed, some detractors argue that trigger warnings may instead cause "nocebo effects" and ironically increase the very anxiety responses they warn against (Bellet et al., 2018). Indeed, extant literature on expectancy effects (Kirsch, 1985) demonstrates that setting up an expectation of negative physical-health symptoms such as pain, itch, and other side effects can cause or exacerbate those very outcomes (Benedetti et al., 2007). ...
... Most of the empirical inquiry into the efficacy of trigger warnings has focused on emotional responses toward material accompanied by warnings (e.g., ratings of anxiety while reading passages; Bellet et al., 2018). These studies have reached mixed conclusions. ...
... Most studies Boysen et al., 2021;Bridgland et al., 2019;Gavac, 2020;Sanson et al., 2019) have concluded that trigger warnings have a trivial impact on emotional responses. Two studies found that warnings increase negative emotional reactions toward material (Bellet et al., 2018;Jones et al., 2020). Only one study concluded that warnings may reduce emotional reactions toward material (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018). ...
Trigger warnings, content warnings, or content notes are alerts about upcoming content that may contain themes related to past negative experiences. Advocates claim that warnings help people to emotionally prepare for or completely avoid distressing material. Critics argue that warnings both contribute to a culture of avoidance at odds with evidence-based treatment practices and instill fear about upcoming content. A body of psychological research has recently begun to empirically investigate these claims. We present the results of a meta-analysis of all empirical studies on the effects of these warnings. Overall, we found that warnings had no effect on affective responses to negative material or on educational outcomes. However, warnings reliably increased anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material or that they increased engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implications for policy and therapeutic practice are discussed.
... Thus, ve new items assessing CSJA-consistent ways of intervening in oppressive behavior were added for analyses in this study. These include combating microaggressions (small slights that are perceived to be offensive to marginalized people) and cultural appropriation (a privileged group adopting, e.g., traditions or dress from an oppressed group), and attempting to enact safe spaces (where speech is limited to what is considered inoffensive to marginalized people), attach trigger warnings to, e.g., texts (warnings that the text may contain offensive depiction or language), and persuade people into declaring their gender pronouns online (Arao & Clemens, 2013;Bellet et al., 2018;McGlashan & Fitzpatrick, 2018;Rogers, 2006;Sue et al., 2007). ...
Objectives: The present study set out to refine and further validate a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes as well as replicate results from a previous study. This study assessed the reliability, factor structure, model fit, and both convergent and divergent validity of the scale. The study examined the prevalence of critical social justice attitudes in different subpopulations and probed the scale’s correlations with well-being and other variables.
Methods: Participants were a nationwide sample (n = 5030) of people aged 15-84. 5 new candidate items for the scale were introduced and after analyses, 4 were included in the final version of the critical social justice attitudes scale (CSJAS; 11 items).
Results: The final CSJAS scale had high reliability and good model fit as well as convergent and divergent validity. Overall, the study sample rejected critical social justice propositions, with strong rejection from men but cautious support from women (gender difference: d = 1.16). CSJAS was correlated with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so than being politically left was.
Conclusions: The Critical Social Justice Attitude Scale was successfully constructed and validated. It had good reliability and model fit.
... The PCL-5 is a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress symptoms defined by DSM-5 criteria, validated with both clinical and undergraduate student samples (Weathers et al., 2013). It has been used in comparable studies (Bellet et al., 2018a;Jones et al., 2020). This 20-item scale asks how "bothersome" symptoms have been over the last month (0 = not at all and 4 = extremely); for example, "In the past month, how much have you been bothered by: repeated, disturbing, and unwanted memories of the stressful experience?" ...
Trigger warnings alert readers that upcoming themes may serve as trauma reminders. They have been proposed as an accommodation for individuals diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the context of higher education. Previous research has raised the concern that deploying and using trigger warnings can increase one’s sense of trauma centrality, which in turn impedes posttraumatic adjustment. The current study tests the hypothesis that trauma centrality moderates the relationship between self-reported PTSD symptoms and positive trigger warning attitudes, such that those reporting comparatively high centrality and high symptomatology are most receptive to trigger warnings. Participants (n = 161) were trauma-exposed undergraduates who completed measures of trigger warning attitudes, PTSD symptoms, and trauma centrality. Results showed a significant moderating effect. Participants reporting the greatest levels of PTSD severity reported the most receptivity to trigger warnings. For those reporting the highest levels of trauma centrality, we saw high levels of trigger warning acceptability, regardless of PTSD levels reported. Even those who were experiencing few symptoms, but nevertheless understood their trauma as highly central to their identity, were highly receptive to trigger warnings. The finding adds empirical data to the understanding of the relationship between PTSD symptoms and trigger warning attitudes. Results have implications for the use of trigger warnings for trauma survivors in the context of higher education, indicating more research on how to address trauma on campus in a trauma-sensitive and evidence-based way.
... Trigger warnings have long been the subject of controversy and debate. In 2015, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) summarized the controversy and issued survey results of faculty attitudes and experiences (see also Bellet et al., 2018). Students requested faculty to give trigger warnings before discussing deeply disturbing topics, such as childhood trauma and sexual assault. ...
In this essay I argue that research on trigger warnings has missed an important point about them. They are as much, if not more, about developing trust between student and teacher as they are about preventing trauma. I also point out that most research on trigger warnings lack a pedagogical reason why subjects should view potentially disturbing materials.
... Although a small number of studies in this review appeared to evaluate warnings as a general 'community-based clinical intervention for emotional well-being', 14 several others appeared to reference learning conditions, demonstrating focus on the increasing use of warnings in learning settings. Experiment tasks or stimulus material 31 were chosen to reflect curricular content, 5,32,33 or study participants reflected student populations. 6,31 Findings from studies that were educationally situated suggest warnings have neutral effect 14,31 or decrease tendency towards avoidance 33 and that warnings only slightly improved comprehension. ...
Background:
While definitions of trigger warnings vary, it is generally accepted that they caution about potential reactions arising from exposure to distressing material. Controversy surrounds use of warnings in education, with concerns noted regarding impacts on academic freedom, "coddling", thereby undermining resilience, reinforcement of traumatised identity and enablement of avoidance. Proponents of warnings position them as accommodations for those affected by trauma, enhancing inclusion, and suggest warnings empower choice and enable informed engagement in learning. A recent meta-analysis of warnings' efficacy demonstrated no effect on affective responses or comprehension. Findings regarding avoidance suggested warnings may increase engagement with material. Synthesis of heterogeneous results relating to context of warning application necessitates cautious interpretation of findings. Furthermore, controlled experimental designs do not reflect complex ecologies of social learning environments.
Methods:
Evidence relating to warnings in healthcare professions education remains limited. We undertake a narrative review and synthesis of evidence regarding the role and functions of trigger warnings from a range of disciplines, to inform healthcare education practice. We apply this evidence in considering how warnings may act within a range of theoretical frameworks for healthcare professionals educations including andragogy, self-directed learning and, ultimately, transformative learning. Tensions between exposure to emotionally stimulating learning episodes and the necessity of emotion for learning while simultaneously attending to learners' needs and fulfilling educators' responsibilities are explored. We probe gaps and contentions in existing theoretical frameworks for learning, and consider implications of recognised limitations with reference to warnings. We summarise by proposing a conceptual model for the role of warnings that considers wider salient factors for fostering effective learning.
Discussion and conclusions:
Difficulties associated with deriving contextually-relevant evidence and conclusions relating to warnings as an evolving cultural concept are highlighted. We propose warnings as tools to enable critical reflection and emotional literacy, to curate effective learning environments and support humanistic healthcare professional identity formation, within wider trauma-informed pedagogies and educator practice.
... Öyle ki bazı hallerde hangi travmatik olayın ne şekilde gerçekleşeceği hakkında tahmin yürütebiliyor ve azımsanamayacak bir isabet yüzdesi kaydedebiliyoruz. Bu bakış açısında travmanın dar tanımına uyan yegâne özellik, beklentimiz dahilinde gerçekleşse de travmatik olayın her seferinde kontrolümüz dışında gerçekleşiyor oluşu (Bellet et al., 2018). İlker Küçükparlak'ın (Küçükparlak, 2016) travmayı tanımlarken işaret ettiği, korkmuş olup savaş ya da kaç tepkisi oluşmasına rağmen ne savaşabildiğimiz ne kaçabildiğimiz durumlar bu kontrol boyutuna gönderme yapıyor. ...
Bu yazıda, bildiğimiz akademinin sonunu hazırlayan etmenler arasında bir travma politikası bulunduğunu tartışmaya açıyoruz. Öteden beri tekrarla maruz kalınan yıkıcı toplumsal olaylar ve akademiye yönelen tasfiye işlemlerinden yola çıkarak bu politikanın izlerini sürüyoruz. Bu değerlendirmeyi Barış Akademisyenleri’ne yönelik tasfiye işlemleri, 15 Temmuz darbe girişimi ve KHK’yla kapatılan üniversite öğrencilerinin deneyimleri üzerinden örnekliyoruz. Travma olgusunu, sadece bireylerdeki yansımalarıyla tanımlamanın olguyu eksik ve kusurlu tanımlamak anlamına geleceğini, kolektif izdüşümleri hesaba katılmaksızın travmaya karşı etkili müdahale ve başa çıkma yaklaşımları geliştirilemeyeceğini öne sürüyoruz. Bir yandan travma yaratan yıkıcı toplumsal olayların kasıtlı olarak kolektif deneyimlenmesinin amaçlandığını, diğer yandan aynı deneyimin bir kolektif hafızaya dönüşmesinin engellenmek istendiğini gözlüyoruz. Özellikle kollektif deneyimlenen travma olgusunun anlaşılmasında, olayların öngörülemez oluşundan çok kontrol edilemez oluşunun önemini vurguluyoruz. Bu
vurguyu, yakın geçmişte akademik alanda deneyimlenen kollektif travmalara ilişkin çalışmalar aracılığıyla, olgunun tanımına dahil etmeye çalışıyoruz. Kolektif hafıza oluşturma ve tutmanın, travma politikasının yol açtığı olumsuz etkilere karşı onarıcı yaklaşımlar geliştirmenin başat yolu olacağını öneriyoruz. Kolektif üretilmeyen müdahale süreçlerinin iyileştirici ve geliştirici etkisinin sınırlı kalacağını ve hayata geçirilmesinin aksayacağını öngörüyoruz. Akademinin yeniden kurulmasının veya bilinenin ötesinde bir akademinin var edilmesinin, kolektif deneyimlenen travmaların kolektif hafızasının kurulması ve tutulmasıyla mümkün olacağını öne sürüyoruz.
Anahtar Sözcükler: travma politikası, kolektif travma, kolektif hafıza, akademik tasfiye,
toplumsal hafıza yarılması
Abstract
This article intends to open up a discussion over the assertion that a calculated trauma policy is among the chief factors preparing the end of academia as we know it. We exemplify the impacts of a guided trauma policy in reference to devastating social incidents and academic purges of the recent past; namely the dismissals of Academics for Peace, failed coup of 15 July and the experiences of students whose universities were shut down by a statutory decree. We hold that defining trauma by relying only on individuals’ experiential reflections ends in a deficient and flawed definition of the phenomenon. We posit that it is hardly possible to develop effective intervention approaches without taking into account the collective projections of trauma. We maintain that trauma-generating catastrophic social incidents are meant to be experienced collectively on one hand, yet the same experience is besieged to hinder its transformation into a collective memory on the other. We emphasize that controllability rather than predictability is the main tenet in understanding the collectively experienced trauma. We emphasize the need for expanding the scope of the definition of the phenomenon by referring to the studies concerning collective traumas experienced during the recent academic purge. We propose that a functional intervention strategy to develop restorative approaches against the detrimental effects of a guided trauma policy calls for building a collective memory. We envisage that the intervention processes which are not developed collectively would limit ameliorating and improving impacts and make it difficult to transfer acquisitions into real life settings. We posit that setting up the academia anew or carrying it beyond what we have known of it may be realized through building up and maintaining the collective memory of collectively experienced traumas.
This chapter will examine the scientific status of a significant segment of what might be called the “social justice movement” within psychology (e.g., Sue, Counsel Psychol 45(5):706–716, 2017), as this movement relates to longstanding problems of prejudice, bias, discrimination, and oppression. Nothing in this chapter is meant to suggest that there are not social and interpersonal problems that are not real. These problems have been shown to be widespread, harmful, and relevant to the tasks of a psychologist and the clients they serve (Pieterse et al., J Counsel Psychol 59(1):1–9, 2012). To date, however, the scientific status of much of these efforts in psychology—and particularly the resultant scientific and practical progressiveness of these efforts—are questioned. Moreover, the quality of these efforts—particularly the scientific quality of the set of unique constructs this movement utilizes to understand and modify these problems is useful to critically examine. The importance of these problems should necessitate using the most effective problem-solving tools available, as well as the use of the most effective means to produce consensus on these divisive issues. Science is an unparalleled problem-solving process.
In recent years, campus activists who have disrupted talks or otherwise tried to silence those they deem offensive have often appealed to psychology for support. First, they use the language of safety, embracing safetyism, which seeks to eliminate harm without consideration for tradeoffs demanded by other practical or moral concerns. Second, they appeal to a particular kind of social justice in which virtually all interactions can be understood in terms of group oppression and victimhood. Third, they employ new concepts of mental illness and identity. These ideas, loosely drawn from certain strains of psychology and other behavioral and social sciences, provide a framework for censoring speech said to make members of victim groups “unsafe,” but they are generally not grounded in evidence. Psychological findings can, instead, be used to support a strong case for freedom of speech.
This essay examines the discourse around the trigger warning through the analytic paradigm of racial literacy and the rhetorical frames of colorblind racism to illuminate how the trigger warning as currently conceptualized, even when framed as a means of equitable engagement, is mediated by and upholds the racial status quo.
Trigger warnings (TWs) are alerts before media that warn readers who have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that the content may depict a trauma reminder. Some college students have requested that TWs be on syllabi or otherwise available in classrooms, which has stirred controversy. Proponents comment that TWs help people prepare to deal with trauma reminders. Opponents assert that utilizing TWs is a means to avoid upsetting stimuli, and avoidance is known to maintain the psychopathology experienced by those TWs are supposed to help. The present study explored predictors hypothesized to associate with TW utilization. A sample of MTurk workers (N = 270) completed scales measuring depression, entitlement, post-traumatic adjustment (PTSD, trauma centrality, avoidance, institutional betrayal, post-traumatic growth) and TW utilization. Several linear regressions were run in the general sample and in the sample scoring high on the TW utilization scale. All the trauma related scales positively associated with TW use (p < .05) in both groups. Two stepwise regressions revealed that the strongest predictors in the two groups differed (general sample: avoidance and post-traumatic growth, p < .001, TW users: trauma centrality and institutional betrayal, p = .02). Continuing the TW conversation with these findings in mind is discussed.
Trigger warnings (TWs) are defined as an alert before presented material that warns readers of potentially disturbing content. They have become a controversial topic. The present study aims to build on previous TW literature – much of which is opinion-based – in order to assess traits of undergraduates who want TWs, particularly their level of trauma centrality, PTSD symptomology, and physiological reactivity to a TW. An experimental paradigm is employed in which participants will be randomly assigned to see a TW, a movie rating, or no warning before watching a movie clip. The dependent variable will be physiological stress in response to the warning (vs. none), measured by heart rate, respiration rate, and electro-dermal activity. A 3 (TW, movie rating, or control) by 2 (high/low centrality) by 2 (high/low PTSD) ANOVA will be used to test the hypothesis that high PTSD and centrality will positively predict more anxiety when TWs are presented.
Crowdsourcing has had a dramatic impact on the speed and scale at which scientific research can be conducted. Clinical scientists have particularly benefited from readily available research study participants and streamlined recruiting and payment systems afforded by Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a popular labor market for crowdsourcing workers. MTurk has been used in this capacity for more than five years. The popularity and novelty of the platform have spurred numerous methodological investigations, making it the most studied nonprobability sample available to researchers. This article summarizes what is known about MTurk sample composition and data quality with an emphasis on findings relevant to clinical psychological research. It then addresses methodological issues with using MTurk-many of which are common to other nonprobability samples but unfamiliar to clinical science researchers-and suggests concrete steps to avoid these issues or minimize their impact. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 12 is March 28, 2016. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
Recent interest in the implicit self-esteem construct has led to the creation and use of several new assessment tools whose psychometric properties have not been fully explored. In this article, the authors investigated the reliability and validity of seven implicit self-esteem measures. The different implicit measures did not correlate with each other, and they correlated only weakly with measures of explicit self-esteem. Only some of the implicit measures demonstrated good test–retest reliabilities, and overall, the implicit measures were limited in their ability to predict our criterion variables. Finally, there was some evidence that implicit self-esteem measures are sensitive to context. The implications of these findings for the future of implicit self-esteem research are discussed.
According to the popular press, students have been increasingly demanding warnings before being exposed to potentially distressing classroom material. The validity of these types of trigger warnings has been a topic of vigorous debate. Based on a review of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) research and closely related topics, this article answers questions that teachers might ask about the validity of the scientific assumptions behind trigger warnings and their use in the classroom. External stimuli causing distress is a feature common to many mental disorders, and trauma-based triggers of distress are an essential feature of PTSD. However, development of PTSD after a traumatic experience is relatively rare. Environmental triggers are often difficult to predict, but warnings may reduce distress among people with PTSD by allowing exposure to be controlled. To the extent that trigger warnings allow avoidance of hyperarousal when trying to learn, they should increase students’ classroom performance. However, avoidance of trauma reminders contributes to the persistence of PTSD symptoms. Although clinical research generally supports the notion of trigger warnings as an accommodation for individual students diagnosed with PTSD, the effectiveness of trigger warnings in the classroom is unknown. In addition, trigger warnings may be a legitimate accommodation for students with psychiatric disabilities, but this does not mean that they are relevant to nonclinical issues.
Recently, a heated debate has risen in Academia following numerous student initiatives petitions for the formal incorporation of rigger warnings in course syllabi. When contextualized within the intersecting politics of disability and feminist pedagogies, a number of fundamental contentions within this debate become apparent. First, grave misunderstandings remain regarding about practices of accommodation and the possibility of establishing the classroom as a “safe space.” Second, resistance within the academy to understand trauma as a pedagogical issue illustrate a failure to consider experiences of and responses to trauma as issues of disability (in)justice. Through an exploration of these issues, it becomes evident that the conflicting approaches to trauma in the classroom demand the more integrated, collaborative praxis of a “Feminist Disability Studies Pedagogy” (FDSP). When approached through this hybrid pedagogy, the conversation shifts from whether we should use trigger warnings, to why trauma itself is an imperative social justice issue within our classrooms.
We examine the trade-offs associated with using Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) interface for subject recruitment. We first describe MTurk and its promise as a vehicle for performing low-cost and easy-to-field experiments. We then assess the internal and external validity of experiments performed using MTurk, employing a framework that can be used to evaluate other subject pools. We first investigate the characteristics of samples drawn from the MTurk population. We show that respondents recruited in this manner are often more representative of the U.S. population than in-person convenience samples-the modal sample in published experimental political science-but less representative than subjects in Internet-based panels or national probability samples. Finally, we replicate important published experimental work using MTurk samples. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology. All rights reserved.