A study published in Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts suggests that content warnings on visual art can lower viewers’ aesthetic appreciation while increasing negative emotional responses. The research found that when participants were shown paintings accompanied by content warnings, they rated the artwork as less attractive and pleasant compared to when no warning was provided. The presence of warnings also heightened feelings of sadness, anger, and anxiety.
Content warnings, also known as trigger warnings, are alerts provided before content that may contain themes related to traumatic or distressing experiences. These warnings are intended to prepare viewers, readers, or listeners for potentially upsetting material, allowing them to either brace themselves emotionally or choose to avoid exposure. Originally used in online forums and academic settings, content warnings have since become common in various domains, including art galleries, museums, and social media.
Despite their widespread adoption, research on their effectiveness has produced mixed results. Prior studies suggest that content warnings increase anticipatory anxiety but have little to no effect on avoidance behavior or emotional responses to the content itself. However, most of this research has focused on literature, films, and academic material, leaving open the question of how content warnings influence aesthetic appreciation and emotional reactions to visual art.
The researchers conducted this study to investigate whether content warnings alter the way people experience and evaluate art. Art appreciation involves both cognitive interpretation and emotional engagement, meaning that a preemptive warning could shape how viewers process an artwork’s meaning and impact. While some theories suggest that content warnings might help people engage with challenging art in a more thoughtful way, others propose that they could bias viewers toward focusing on distressing elements, reducing their ability to appreciate the work as a whole.
“I’m a PTSD researcher. I became interested in trigger warnings when I read a New York Times article by my advisor, in which he argued that trigger warnings were countertherapeutic for PTSD because they encourage people to avoid their traumatic memories — the exact opposite of what we do in therapy. At that moment I had the epiphany that many debates about trigger warnings were perfectly suitable for being studied scientifically,” explained study author Payton Jones, an independent research psychologist who wrote his PhD dissertation about the “Neurotic Treadmill.”
To test this, the researchers conducted an experiment with 213 participants. Each person was shown six randomly assigned pieces of visual art, some of which were preceded by a content warning that described its potentially sensitive subject matter. For example, the 1861 painting Phryne before the Areopagus by Jean-Léon Gérôme was sometimes prefaced with the label: “content warning: sexual assault.” In other cases, no warning was given, and only the artist’s name and the year of creation were displayed.
Participants were asked to rate each piece on various aspects of aesthetic appreciation, such as attractiveness and interestingness, as well as to report their emotional responses. They were also given the option to skip viewing the artwork if they wished.
The study found that content warnings had a noticeable effect on how people engaged with the artwork. When a warning was included, participants rated the art as less aesthetically pleasing, particularly in terms of attractiveness and pleasantness. While some aspects of appreciation, such as how innovative or interesting a piece was, were less affected, there were no cases in which a content warning enhanced artistic appreciation.
In addition to lowering aesthetic ratings, content warnings significantly altered participants’ emotional reactions. Those who viewed art with warnings reported stronger negative emotions, including sadness, anger, and anxiety, while also experiencing less positive emotion, such as happiness or excitement. This suggests that warnings may prime viewers to focus on the distressing aspects of an artwork rather than appreciating it holistically.
“At this point there are many studies on trigger warnings, and almost all of them show that trigger warnings are inert, or that they have a very weak effect,” Jones told PsyPost. “So I was surprised that we found substantial effects in this study that made a tangible difference in how people view art. We can’t be completely sure why this study was different, but I’d speculate it has to do with how ambiguous art can be compared to materials used in other studies. Unlike, say, a scary movie clip, it’s relatively easy to shape how people feel about art based on the way it’s presented.”
Despite these emotional effects, no participants avoided viewing any of the artworks, even though they were explicitly given the option to do so. This aligns with previous research indicating that content warnings do not generally encourage avoidance behavior. People may feel compelled to engage with the material regardless of the warning, or they may not interpret the warning as a genuine invitation to opt out.
“I was also surprised that literally not a single participant avoided viewing any of the artwork in the study,” Jones said. “To see the artwork in our study, you had to actively click through the trigger warning. I knew from previous studies that avoidance was rare, even with a trigger warning — but with such a large sample size, I was surprised it was a literal zero.”
The findings highlight how “seemingly-kind actions often have unintended consequences,” he explained. “People who put trigger warnings on art never intend to take away from the art’s beauty — but that’s the result.”
But the study, like all research, has some limitations. For instance, while it showed that content warnings impact artistic appreciation and emotional response, it did not determine why this occurs. One possibility is that warnings direct viewers’ attention to the most distressing aspects of an artwork, shifting their focus away from other elements such as technique or symbolism.
Another factor could be the ambiguity of art itself—because art is open to interpretation, warnings might shape viewers’ perceptions in ways that would not occur with more straightforward content like news articles or film clips. Further studies could also explore alternative ways of contextualizing challenging artwork without diminishing its aesthetic impact.
“This is the first study to look at trigger warnings for artwork specifically,” Jones said. “So I’d give the same advice I give for all social science studies — you should absolutely wait for replications before you form a strong opinion.”
“That said, the research on trigger warnings more broadly (not just for artwork) is much larger, and so far has replicated quite well. So I feel somewhat more confident in, say, the general conclusion that trigger warnings lack substantial positive benefits.”
“When we published our first study on trigger warnings, there had already been several years of fierce political debate, but zero studies!” Jones added. “My hope is that for similar contentious topics in the future, scientists can act a little faster. I’m also proud that trigger warnings research has involved researchers with a wide variety of political viewpoints who have collaborated and approached the topic in a way that attempts to separate the empirical issues from the moral ones.”
“I think at the moment, the American public feels they cannot trust social science to deliver answers they can trust. Sadly, as a social scientist, I’m inclined to agree that my field is truly unworthy of trust. So while I’m proud of this line of research, I think we have a very long way to go. I’d love it if we could restore some of that trust, but it has to be earned.”
The study, “Content Warnings Reduce Aesthetic Appreciation of Visual Art,” was authored by Payton J. Jones, Victoria M. E. Bridgland, and Benjamin W. Bellet.
