Trigger warnings do not work, according to recent meta-analysis

Trigger warnings are statements designed to forewarn viewers about potentially distressing content. A recent meta-analysis of 12 studies concluded trigger warnings have no effect on emotional responding to negative material or educational outcomes. This research was published in Clinical Psychological Science.

While some advocate for trigger warnings as a way to emotionally prepare or shield individuals from unwanted content, critics argue they might exacerbate negative reactions or promote avoidance behaviors. The debate has led to empirical studies examining the impact of trigger warnings on emotional reactions, material avoidance, anticipatory emotions, and educational outcomes.

Originally appearing in early internet feminist forums to flag content about trauma, the use of trigger warnings has expanded to various contexts including university classrooms and media, with a broadened scope of experiences warranting warnings. Most studies suggest that trigger warnings have minimal impact on emotional response or material comprehension, with some indication of increased anticipatory anxiety.

Victoria Bridgland and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of trigger warning. To be included in the meta-analysis, research had to include the provision of a warning to participants, measurement of psychological or behavioral responses, and a warning intended to alert participants about content that might trigger memories or emotions related to past experiences.

Excluded were general audience warnings like PG-13 ratings. Studies also needed to present results that allowed for the calculation of a standardized mean difference between a test condition with a warning and a control condition without one. The meta-analytic search strategy involved databases like PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, and Web of Science, and the search yielded 407 records, eventually narrowed down to 12 studies.

The researchers found that trigger warnings have no significant impact on response affect, avoidance, or comprehension of material. However, trigger warnings consistently increase anticipatory anxiety. This suggests that while warnings might initially affect emotions, this effect dissipates upon exposure to the actual content. The anticipation period likely does not involve effective emotional preparation, as indicated by limited use of coping strategies among individuals.

Further, trigger warnings do not seem to increase avoidance of material. Instead, they may even enhance engagement, possibly due to a “forbidden fruit” effect. Trigger warnings do not enhance learning or comprehension. On the contrary, they might increase anxiety about attending classes, contradicting claims that they create a safer learning environment.

Overall, the current research indicates that trigger warnings are not effective and might only induce a short-term increase in negative anticipatory emotions.

The authors write, “Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.”

The meta-analysis, “A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Trigger Warnings, Content Warnings, and Content Notes”, was authored by Victoria M. E. Bridgland. Payton J. Jones, and Benjamin W. Bellet.