Understanding Trigger Warnings: Are They Beneficial for Mental Health?
Written on
Chapter 1: The Evolution of Trigger Warnings
The concept of warnings for potentially distressing content is not new. For years, television programs have utilized phrases like "viewer discretion is advised." Today, these warnings, commonly referred to as trigger warnings, emerged initially within feminist online spaces, often preceding discussions of sexual or domestic violence. The aim was to alert individuals that the ensuing content could provoke anxiety in those suffering from PTSD.
Suddenly, what began as a niche idea in internet circles became mainstream, especially in American colleges where students began demanding such warnings for potentially upsetting academic material. Given the high cost of education, university officials felt pressured to comply with the requests of a vocal minority, leading to increasingly extreme demands.
As trigger warnings lack a universally accepted definition, they have been co-opted by a growing trend of political correctness. The parameters for what constitutes triggering content have expanded, particularly within academia. For instance, law professors are being urged to avoid terms like "violate" due to fears it might upset someone.
The pressures on educators are palpable, with many fearing repercussions from students who file complaints for not utilizing trigger warnings. Consequently, some instructors opt to eliminate any material that could potentially offend more sensitive students, transforming trigger warnings into a form of censorship, contrary to their original intent.
Section 1.1: The True Purpose of Trigger Warnings
If we consider trigger warnings in their intended role—as accommodations for mental health conditions—we see that the Disabilities Act requires a condition to "substantially limit one or more major life activities." According to Boysan, this suggests that issues deemed "sensitive but non-traumatic" do not align with PTSD symptoms. Without a formal diagnosis, they do not qualify for protections typically afforded to disabilities.
Therefore, if trigger warnings are employed, they should be specifically aimed at providing legitimate support for individuals diagnosed with PTSD, rather than simply addressing content that might disturb anyone.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Psychological Impact of Trigger Warnings
Section 1.2: Are Trigger Warnings Effective?
Psychiatrist Sarah Roff cautions that the widespread use of trigger warnings could foster an environment where discussing challenging topics is perceived as harmful. But are these warnings genuinely effective?
Recent research suggests otherwise. A 2018 study by Bellet, Jones, and McNalley, titled "Trigger Warning: Empirical Evidence Ahead," discovered that individuals who believed in the harmful potential of words exhibited heightened anxiety when trigger warnings preceded distressing content. Additionally, the study indicated that these warnings reinforced the notion of trauma survivors' vulnerability.
Critics have pointed out that this initial study did not include participants with a history of trauma. Responding to this critique, the researchers conducted a follow-up study in 2020, focusing solely on trauma survivors. They randomly assigned 451 participants to either receive or not receive a trigger warning before reading a potentially distressing historical text. The findings revealed "no evidence that trigger warnings were beneficial for trauma survivors," even when the warnings aligned with the participants' traumatic experiences.
Other studies, including those by Sanson, Strange, Garry, Bridgland, Greene, Oulton, and Takarangi, also concluded that trigger warnings had minimal overall effects. Given these findings, should we eliminate trigger warnings entirely?
Chapter 2: The Debate on Trigger Warnings
While researchers have not definitively stated why trigger warnings appear ineffective, it is clear that the only alternative currently available is to forgo them altogether. This raises the question: should individuals with PTSD have a say in what content they engage with?
Critics argue that abolishing trigger warnings could be beneficial, as exposure to triggering content can be a form of treatment for anxiety disorders. However, research consistently indicates that such exposure is most effective in a therapeutic context. Involuntary memories triggered by PTSD are often more vivid and emotionally damaging compared to memories that individuals confront intentionally.
Until a viable alternative is established, one could argue that the use of trigger warnings provides at least a minor benefit for those with PTSD, helping to avert involuntary memory triggers related to common trauma sources, such as assault. Since only about 7% of the population qualifies for PTSD, narrowing the application of trigger warnings would diminish their use while still accommodating those with legitimate disabilities.
The primary concern lies not with the concept of trigger warnings themselves, but with how they have been misappropriated and exploited.
Conclusion: The Future of Trigger Warnings
Trigger warnings represent a grassroots initiative that has only recently begun to be scrutinized for its effectiveness. While existing research indicates that trigger warnings may not be effective, current literature on PTSD supports some arguments in favor of their use. The core issues surrounding trigger warnings today stem not from their application, but from the increasingly broad definition of what constitutes triggering content, resulting in their misuse as a tool for censorship. By restricting the use of trigger warnings to individuals with diagnosed PTSD, we could alleviate the current trend of excessive triggering and content censorship.