Trigger warnings are meant to help people emotionally prepare for or avoid potentially upsetting material. But new evidence from a week-long study of young adults suggests they often do neither. Instead, most people who encounter these warnings choose to view the content anyway. The findings also indicate that even individuals with trauma histories or mental health concerns are no more likely to avoid warned content than others. The results provide further support for the growing idea that trigger warnings, while widespread, may not function as intended in everyday digital life.
Trigger warnings are now common in both online and offline environments, appearing ahead of everything from social media posts to college course material. They are typically used to signal content that could be distressing, especially for those with past trauma or mental health challenges. Advocates argue that these warnings give vulnerable people the opportunity to prepare for or avoid harmful content.
But a growing body of lab-based studies has cast doubt on the idea that trigger warnings work in the way people hope. While many assume that warnings prompt avoidance, experiments have shown that most people choose to view the content anyway, and that warnings rarely reduce emotional distress. Until now, however, nearly all of this evidence came from controlled settings. Researchers had not yet studied how people actually respond to trigger warnings in their everyday lives.
The new study, published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, aimed to fill that gap. The researchers set out to track when and how often people encounter trigger warnings on social media, whether they choose to view or avoid the associated content, and whether certain psychological traits—such as symptoms of posttraumatic stress or depression—are linked to different patterns of behavior.
“Over the past (almost decade) my research has been concerned with cutting through online debate about trigger warnings and examining them using an experimental framework. This work has found that in the lab, warnings about upcoming negative content do not reduce people’s emotional reactions to material, nor do they seem effective in deterring the majority of people from viewing negative content when given a neutral/non-distressing alternative,” said study author Victoria Bridgland, a lecturer at Flinders University.
“We were interested in seeing if these findings, particularly about avoidance, extend outside of lab environments. Participating in a lab study is inherently coercive, however participants have no obligation to watch or avoid negative content in daily life. However, aligning with lab findings, we found that the most common response to seeing trigger warnings online in daily life was to view the content, and the most common reason given was because of curiosity—which is also something we hear in lab.”
The study followed 261 young adults between the ages of 17 and 25 over a seven-day period. Participants reported their daily experiences with social media, including whether they saw any trigger warnings and what kind of content those warnings accompanied. They also recorded whether they chose to look at or avoid the content after seeing the warning.
To explore whether psychological traits influenced avoidance behavior, participants completed several standardized assessments at the beginning of the study. These included measures of trauma exposure, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and general well-being. The researchers also asked whether participants had a tendency to deliberately seek out reminders of traumatic experiences, a behavior sometimes referred to as self-triggering.
The researchers wanted to see whether people who had higher levels of psychological distress were more likely to avoid warned content, as trigger warning advocates often suggest. They also looked at how frequently participants encountered these warnings and what motivated their decision to view or avoid the content.
Nearly half of the participants reported seeing at least one trigger warning during the week. Among those who did, the average number of warnings seen was about four. The most common platforms for encountering these warnings were Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter, and the most frequent content types were violent or aggressive material, depictions of physical injury, and sexually explicit content.
When asked how they responded to the warnings, the overwhelming majority said they chose to look at the content. On a scale from “never looked” to “always looked,” most people leaned heavily toward viewing. In fact, only around 11 percent reported consistently avoiding warned material throughout the week, while more than a third said they always approached it. When asked why they looked, more than half cited curiosity—the desire to know what was being hidden—as their main motivation.
The results were not a surprise. “We have known for some time from lab experiments that trigger warnings don’t seem to increase rates of avoidance, and we also know that people are morbidly curious and often self-expose themselves to negative material (even when it serves no real benefit),” Bridgland told PsyPost.
The researchers found no evidence that people with higher psychological vulnerability were more likely to avoid the content. Participants with greater posttraumatic stress symptoms, for example, were just as likely to view the material as those with fewer symptoms. This pattern held across several mental health measures, including depression, anxiety, and a history of trauma exposure.
Interestingly, people who did see trigger warnings tended to score higher on mental health symptom scales and lower on general well-being. The authors suggest that this could be because such individuals spend more time in online spaces where trigger warnings are common, or because the warnings feel more personally relevant and memorable to them. But even within this group, the presence of a warning did not increase the likelihood of avoidance.
The content people chose to avoid, when they did avoid it, varied widely. Some said they were simply uninterested, while others avoided it because it involved specific types of content they preferred not to see, such as animal cruelty or depictions of death. A small number of participants reported avoiding material that felt emotionally overwhelming or clashed with their current mood. Still, these decisions were the exception rather than the rule.
“I’d like for people to be conscious consumers of negative material online and be wary of extremes,” Bridgland said. “For example, if you are someone who finds they often need to avoid or becomes overly distressed or triggered by online content or someone who is deliberately searching for and binge consuming negative content in high volumes which is leading to distress—this is likely a sign that there is some underlying issue that likely warrants therapeutic attention. In either of these cases, be aware that a trigger warning may not be serving a beneficial function.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. First, the study did not measure emotional reactions after viewing the content, so it remains unclear whether the warnings helped people feel more prepared or less distressed. Prior research, however, suggests that trigger warnings tend not to influence emotional responses much, if at all.
Another limitation is that people might behave differently depending on the specific context or type of content. For example, someone might avoid a warning about sexual assault but not one about medical procedures. The study also didn’t capture real-time responses, so there may be subtle moment-to-moment factors—such as mood or fatigue—that influence decisions to view or avoid warned content.
“I’d like to clarify that me and my research team aren’t advocating that we should ban trigger warnings, but we just want people to be aware of the lack of benefits they provide,” Bridgland explained. “This way people can take other precautions to safeguard their mental health online.”
“Since it seems hard to improve antecedent based strategies to help people cope with negative content (as various recent studies have tried to “improve” trigger warnings with no success), I’m exploring ways we can help people after they are exposed. This will also help in the case where shocking/traumatic content exposure happens without warning (which is a common experience online).”
The study, “‘I’m always curious’: Tracking young adults exposure and responses to social media trigger warnings in daily life,” was authored by Victoria M.E. Bridgland, Ella K. Moeck, and Melanie K.T. Takarangi.