A recent study in Behavior Therapy explored the relationship between trigger warnings and behavior related to negative stimuli. The study concluded that there is no evidence to assume that when presented with a trigger warning, people choose to avoid negative stimuli, and trigger warnings did not result in people pausing to prepare themselves emotionally. The results may further lead future research to examine the benefits of trigger warnings and if there are alternative, more beneficial tools to help those with trauma navigate unexpected triggers.
Trigger warnings are intended to prepare those consuming content that an upcoming subject may activate memories of past trauma and potentially cause someone to re-experience traumatic events. Therefore, one response to a trigger warning is to avoid the triggering content.
However, prior research on avoidance of negative stimuli and trauma has not always supported avoidance as a behavior beneficial to healing from trauma. In addition, research has revealed that when people see a trigger warning, it does not reduce emotional distress if they continue consuming the content after the warning.
The research team sought to clarify the consequences of trigger warnings; they investigated if trigger warnings cause people to avoid negative stimuli. In addition, they were curious if trigger warnings cause individuals to pause and take time to become emotionally prepared.
The 199 participants were sourced through Flinders University, Australia. The sample was 70% white. The participants did several tasks related to the study questions. First, they watched 8 minutes from a movie that portrayed a violent sexual assault; they rated this scene according to how distressing they found it.
Next, ½ of the participant group looked at still images that were preceded by a trigger warning stating, “Warning: The image you are about to view contains disturbing content that may be distressing.” The remaining ½ in the control condition just received instructions that the following images would appear on the next screen when they were ready.
Once an image appeared, they could click “stop viewing” to return to a blank screen. After these experiences, they took several assessments that collected information on their trauma experiences, coping strategies, and avoidance behaviors.
Once the results were analyzed, it became clear that trigger warnings did not result in higher rates of avoidance behavior. Only 12% of the participant group chose to cover images. This was true regardless of levels of anxiety or previous trauma related to sexual assault. In addition, participants did not, on average, spend more time on the trigger warning screens than in the control conditions.
Sometimes the reverse was true; people spent more time in the control condition on the instruction screen than those receiving the trigger warning. Also, the trigger warnings did not decrease distress at the images, providing no evidence that the trigger warning helped participants prepare for the difficult images.
The research team acknowledges that trauma is complex, and a limitation of their study is the constraints related to research. There may be other research methodologies that would garner different results. They also found such low avoidance rates that future research may be needed.
The researchers recognize trigger warnings appear valuable but worry that they may become a “sticker-fix.” They conclude with “on a more macro level, the continued beliefs about the benefits of trigger warnings could result in reduced efforts by policymakers or institutions to find efficacious mental health support strategies, because trigger warnings may be considered one such approach already in use.”
The study, “Something distressing this way comes: the effects of trigger warnings on avoidance behaviors in an analog trauma task”, was authored by Victoria Bridgland and Melanie Takarangi.
