A new study published in Cognition and Emotion has discovered that the wording of trigger warnings can meaningfully influence how people respond to distressing material, even though the warnings themselves do not reduce emotional distress. In particular, the research indicates that vague warnings may inadvertently cause more negative outcomes, while more detailed warnings appear to be less harmful.
Trigger warnings—brief notices placed before potentially upsetting content—have become increasingly common across social media and entertainment platforms. These warnings are intended to help people prepare emotionally or avoid material that might be disturbing.
Despite their widespread use, scientific studies have repeatedly shown that trigger warnings do not lessen the emotional impact of distressing content. In some cases, they may even heighten anxiety before the content begins.
Researchers have long debated why trigger warnings fail to achieve their intended effect. One possibility is that the warnings themselves shape expectations in ways that influence later reactions. As trigger warnings vary widely in how much information they provide, the team behind the new study sought to determine whether the specific wording of a warning might play a role in shaping people’s experiences.
Led by Hannah Willems, the researchers recruited 143 healthy adults ranging from 18–65 years old (67% female), and randomly assigned them to one of three groups.
The first group received a detailed trigger warning that described the violent content of the upcoming film and mentioned possible emotional reactions, such as anxiety or intrusive memories. The second group received a general warning that simply stated the content might be distressing. The third group received no trigger warning at all, only a standard age restriction notice.
Participants then watched a 12‑minute film containing scenes of physical and sexual violence, as well as a fatal car accident. Before and after viewing the film, they rated their anxiety and their expectations about how well they would cope with intrusive memories. For the next three days, they kept a diary documenting any unwanted memories of the film, including how often they occurred and how distressing they were.
The findings were clear. As in previous research, trigger warnings, whether detailed or vague, did not reduce the level of anxiety participants felt before or after watching the film. All groups reported similar emotional responses once the film ended.
However, important differences emerged when comparing the groups’ cognitive responses. Participants who received the general, non‑specific warning reported lower confidence in their ability to cope with intrusive memories after watching the film. They also experienced significantly more intrusive memories in the days following the film compared to those who received the detailed warning.
Interestingly, the control group (which only received an age restriction) did not experience this spike in intrusions, suggesting that the vague warning actively worsened the frequency of unwanted memories. However, overall psychological distress scores did not significantly differ across any of the groups.
Willems and colleagues hypothesized: “the vague warning signalled the presence of a potential threat without specifying its nature, thereby confronting participants with uncertainty. Such uncertainty may have elicited heightened threat monitoring as an attempt to reduce the anxiety associated with the unknown, increasing attentional sensitivity to potential cues and, consequently, the accessibility of intrusive memories.”
Meanwhile, detailed warnings, while not protective against initial anxiety, may at least provide clearer expectations and a greater sense of control.
Notably, despite the negative cognitive effects associated with vague warnings, the researchers found that participants across all groups reported feeling a high sense of respect and autonomy. This suggests that people generally appreciate the provision of warnings, even if the warnings do not effectively reduce distress.
“Our findings suggest that a brief trigger warning that lacks specific information about upcoming content or potential emotional responses may be counterproductive,” the authors concluded.
The study does have limitations. For instance, even though the warnings were made visually prominent and a manipulation check was conducted, it was unclear how carefully participants actually read them.
The study, “How to design a trigger warning: An experimental study on the impact of trigger warning wording on affect, expectations, intrusions, and felt respect,” was authored by Hannah Willems, Julia A. Glombiewski, Richard J. McNally, and Philipp Herzog.
