Overuse of Trigger Warnings in Therapy Groups

"Trigger warning" for language...

"H•E•double•hockey•sticks" (example of overuse); also, I was so "effing" angry. There is no need for a trigger warning for the word hell, especially when spelled out and even more so when using the words hockey sticks. No trigger warning is needed when saying effing. I have been in situations where people say trigger warning before the majority of their sentences. It's totally unnecessary. Even worse, is when people correct and shame others for not doing the same. Words such as God, suicide, abuse, etc., etc., etc. do not require a trigger warning.

The following article is about the scientific studies showing that trigger warnings don't work:

Trigger Warnings Don't Help — and Could Actually Cause Distress, Studies Suggest

'Trigger warnings are a cautionary tale, that we should help people, but we should check that we're actually helping first, right?'

"A new analysis of 12 studies has found that trigger warnings, notes that warn readers or viewers that they could find content distressing, do not actually reduce negative reactions or increase avoidance of the material — and instead may lead to a “risk of emotional harm.”

"This meta-analytic review suggests that trigger warnings … do not help people to: reduce the negative emotions felt when viewing material, avoid potentially distressing material, or improve the learning/understanding of that material,” says the paper, which was posted on OSF Preprints. “However, trigger warnings make people feel anxious prior to viewing material. Overall, results suggest that trigger warnings in their current form are not beneficial, and may instead lead to a risk of emotional harm.”

The pre-print study, which has yet to undergo peer review by other scholars, adds to the debate over trigger warnings, woke language and freedom of speech on campuses.

Payton Jones, a data scientist at Pluralsight with a phD in experimental psychopathology from Harvard University, was one of the authors on the paper.

"There’s lots of arguments surrounding trigger warnings that are not addressable by science, because they’re value judgments, right?” said Jones in an interview.

“This meta-analysis is a really good step to hopefully pushing the arguments to be evidence based where they can be.”

The warnings, which the paper notes have been subject to “fervid debate,” may be added to, for example, syllabi in a law course that discusses sexual assault cases, or an English literature class, wherein novels with retrograde language around gender or race may be present. They are, on occasion, also added to media stories that discuss topics such as self-harm, suicide or sexual violence and may include, the paper notes, descriptions of what content may be coming or what emotional reactions might be experienced in response to that content.

Proponents, the paper notes, say trigger warnings give readers or students the opportunity to prepare themselves for their own reactions to what they’re about to read, and constitute a “form of disability accommodation for psychologically vulnerable students.”

Since trigger and content warnings entered the cultural zeitgeist, a number of researchers have looked at their impact, including gauging emotional reactions of study participants to potentially triggering content, noting emotional responses after receiving a warning, but prior to reading the content, and avoidance of certain material in the presence of a trigger warning.

The paper notes it is the first “meta-analysis” of this research, meaning that it’s an analysis of prior work done on the subject. It found that of the 12 studies analyzed, 11 of them found the warnings were ineffective, while one concluded that they “introduce difficult-to-weigh trade-offs.”

"While some authors suggested that warnings might be actively counterproductive … most manuscripts tended towards a characterization of warnings as inert,” the paper notes.

In other words, the authors conclude, trigger warnings don’t do what they set out to do.

The paper also finds that, contrary to the claims of both those who support, and critique, trigger warnings, people don’t deliberately avoid material that comes with a trigger warning. A 2021 paper analyzed found that just six per cent of study participants chose to avoid material after seeing a trigger warning.

This meta-analytic review suggests that trigger warnings … do not help people to: reduce the negative emotions felt when viewing material, avoid potentially distressing material, or improve the learning/understanding of that material,” says the paper, which was posted last week on the website OSF Preprints. “However, trigger warnings make people feel anxious prior to viewing material. Overall, results suggest that trigger warnings in their current form are not beneficial, and may instead lead to a risk of emotional harm.”

The pre-print study, which has yet to undergo peer review by other scholars, adds to the debate over trigger warnings, woke language and freedom of speech on campuses.

Payton Jones, a data scientist at Pluralsight with a phD in experimental psychopathology from Harvard University, was one of the authors on the paper.

"There’s lots of arguments surrounding trigger warnings that are not addressable by science, because they’re value judgments, right?” said Jones in an interview.

“This meta-analysis is a really good step to hopefully pushing the arguments to be evidence based where they can be.”

The warnings, which the paper notes have been subject to “fervid debate,” may be added to, for example, syllabi in a law course that discusses sexual assault cases, or an English literature class, wherein novels with retrograde language around gender or race may be present. They are, on occasion, also added to media stories that discuss topics such as self-harm, suicide or sexual violence and 

"In studies where individuals are given a direct choice between options with and without warnings, options with warnings may garner more engagement,” the paper says.

Victoria Bridgeland, another study author and a phD candidate at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, said trigger warnings can actually enhance the attractiveness of something, called the “forbidden fruit effect.”

“If you warn someone about something, it can make it more desirable,” Bridgeland said.

What they do do, however, is increase the “anticipatory affect.” In other words, those who see a trigger warning may experience negative emotions because of the warning, but not necessarily because of the warned-against content. That said, the analysis suggests this feeling — a “bracing effect” — is “apparently completely ineffective.”

Bridgeland said it can be linked to “fear of the unknown or fear of getting told something scary coming up.

“And before you see it, it’s a lot scarier than when you actually see it,” Bridgeland explained.

The research, though, notes it has some limitations, including an inability to measure the effect of trigger warnings on a person over time, or the way they may impact subgroups, such as those with post-traumatic stress disorder.

This meta-analytic review suggests that trigger warnings … do not help people to: reduce the negative emotions felt when viewing material, avoid potentially distressing material, or improve the learning/understanding of that material,” says the paper, which was posted on OSF Preprints. “However, trigger warnings make people feel anxious prior to viewing material. Overall, results suggest that trigger warnings in their current form are not beneficial, and may instead lead to a risk of emotional harm.”

The pre-print study, which has yet to undergo peer review by other scholars, adds to the debate over trigger warnings, woke language and freedom of speech on campuses.

Payton Jones, a data scientist at Pluralsight with a phD in experimental psychopathology from Harvard University, was one of the authors on the paper.

"There’s lots of arguments surrounding trigger warnings that are not addressable by science, because they’re value judgments, right?” said Jones in an interview.

“This meta-analysis is a really good step to hopefully pushing the arguments to be evidence based where they can be.”

The warnings, which the paper notes have been subject to “fervid debate,” may be added to, for example, syllabi in a law course that discusses sexual assault cases, or an English literature class, wherein novels with retrograde language around gender or race may be present. They are, on occasion, also added to media stories that discuss topics such as self-harm, suicide or sexual violence and 

"In studies where individuals are given a direct choice between options with and without warnings, options with warnings may garner more engagement,” the paper says.

Victoria Bridgeland, another study author and a phD candidate at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, said trigger warnings can actually enhance the attractiveness of something, called the “forbidden fruit effect.”

“If you warn someone about something, it can make it more desirable,” Bridgeland said.

What they do do, however, is increase the “anticipatory affect.” In other words, those who see a trigger warning may experience negative emotions because of the warning, but not necessarily because of the warned-against content. That said, the analysis suggests this feeling — a “bracing effect” — is “apparently completely ineffective.”

Bridgeland said it can be linked to “fear of the unknown or fear of getting told something scary coming up.

“And before you see it, it’s a lot scarier than when you actually see it,” Bridgeland explained.

The research, though, notes it has some limitations, including an inability to measure the effect of trigger warnings on a person over time, or the way they may impact subgroups, such as those with post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Trigger warnings are a cautionary tale, that we should help people, but we should check that we’re actually helping first, right?” said Jones.Trigger Warnings Don't Help