Trigger Warnings ~ Helpful or Harmful?

Research findings might surprise you. Do we need community consensus on adding tags to content, or do trauma survivors need to accept that the media landscape is an emotional minefield?

I was in grad school earning a master’s degree in writing in 1999, and I don’t remember seeing visual tags accompanying course content—though I do remember my first encounter with a very vocal classmate who demanded sensitivity from everyone in every class we attended together. I admired his assertiveness and simultaneously regretted how uncomfortable he made everyone feel. He embodied the “disturb the comfortable” half of one of my favorite idioms, “disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed.” I’d bet we all know at least one activist who pushes for everyone in their constellation to think twice about the language they use. Maybe a reader here is that activist.

I wanted to research the efficacy of trigger warnings, and I would love to hear your comments on this.

Trigger warnings became the subject of heated debate in 2015 on college campuses. Trigger warnings and content warnings are still in regular use in the online writing forums I participate in and many of the periodicals I read.

Surprisingly, there is evidence that trigger warnings can do harm.

A 2018 Harvard study found three salient problems with trigger warnings:

·      Trigger warnings increase people’s perceived emotional vulnerability to trauma.

·      Trigger warnings increase people’s belief that trauma survivors are vulnerable.

·      Trigger warnings increase anxiety to written material perceived as harmful.

Various reports tell about college professors who rebelled against the use of trigger warnings in academia—or perhaps more against being dictated to regarding their freedom to select and deliver their course material without scrutiny.

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) conducted a survey of college educators, and the results suggested that while trigger warnings may help a segment of readers, requiring trigger warnings in an academic community felt oppressive and counterproductive to those who administer courses.

From my own research on this subject, I gather that the overarching attitude in both academia and publishing is that the onus falls on the individual and not on the institution to safeguard one’s emotional well-being.

The reports I found first were from 2015 and 2018. The New Yorker explored this fraught topic for us in 2021, and drew the same conclusions.

Illustration by Nicholas Konrad/The New Yorker

I hunted for the most up-to-date findings. This 2023 meta-analysis of extant research still confirms predominantly negative outcomes with trigger warnings, content warnings, and content notes. I believe the researchers asked good questions: 

“First, do trigger warnings change emotional reactions in response to material? Second, do trigger warnings increase the avoidance of warned-of material? Third, do trigger warnings have any effects on anticipatory emotions before seeing material (e.g., anxiety)? And fourth, do trigger warnings change educational outcomes (i.e., the comprehension of warned-of material)?”

In the report’s intro, content warnings are compared with Motion Picture Association ratings—I hadn’t thought of that before, but it’s an apt comparison. There is the real possibility of a “boomerang” or “forbidden fruit” effect that actually compels people toward viewing restricted content.

If content has the potency to induce a panic attack, and trigger warnings save that reader from discomfort, a concern identified in the literature is that root causes of reactive emotions remain unaddressed. To sum up what current research shows, avoidance may not build resiliency, and may perpetuate PTSD; the highly sensitive reader is encouraged to seek therapeutic interventions, rather than avoid triggering content.

Nevertheless, “despite most articles concluding trigger warnings are not helpful, they continue to be widely used by the public” (8/18/23).

I asked a colleague in my co-writing group, Sven Hosford (whose Substack, Choose a Better Truth, touches on a broad array of subjects, including trauma), for his opinion. He’s weathered trauma and has come out stronger for having worked through it. He writes:

“I say all this as someone who has spent my adult years actively overcoming childhood trauma. I finally did, and became a ‘whole’ person by my late 50s with the help of an amazing shamanic healer.

“I joined the Navy at age 18. Any perceived triggers were delightfully pounced upon by superiors as lessons to toughen you up. There are no trigger warnings when you hear, ‘Battle stations. This is not a drill.’ You need to be tough enough to handle the situation. The safety of the crew and the ship depend on it. 

“So, put me in the camp of ‘let’s spend less time and energy on trigger warnings, and put more time and energy into helping people be less triggered.’ Trauma can be overcome as long as the person has a positive intention to heal, finds the right healing method, and persists. It’s better for the individual and for society as a whole. 

“I despair that many young people seem to have thin skins and an attitude that their issues should cause a change in my behavior. This doesn't solve the problem.

“Healing is the answer, not mandatory TWs.” 

I’m lucky to have two impartial sources at the ready—my daughters. I asked my children, ages 10 and 14, whether they see trigger warnings in their media. They most certainly do. They typically see “TW” followed by “gore” or “animal death” (they watch a lot of anime). The 10-year-old says, “Trigger warnings aren’t just for sensitive people, they’re for children who may be sensitive because they’re young.” Children should be protected from exposure to inappropriate content. However, many children see content that’s too sophisticated for their age, by virtue of having an older sibling (and parents who want to watch shows that are stimulating for them, too). 

The 14-year-old confirms the pitfall called out in several articles, and says, “I do believe that putting trigger warnings on sensitive content should be a given. This is for the safety of those potentially triggered by sudden shows of gore, death, abuse, and the like. The term ‘sensitive content’ can be interpreted in different ways, though, so sometimes it’s difficult to figure out what needs to be tagged. It’s expected that the consumers of the content can make a responsible decision to avoid something that might be disturbing or harmful to them, but oftentimes young viewers are even more compelled to view the content because of the warnings.”

Labeling something as taboo can tempt curious readers seeking a spike in stimulation. Repeated exposure and normalization can make something not so taboo anymore. But keeping certain deviant behaviors and subjects in the taboo category protects society from harm. The sensation of being triggered signals that an emotional wound needs tending to. Suggesting a trauma survivor develop a callous where the pain resides is distinct from holding space or facilitating healing. Perhaps content that comes with warnings could also supply resources for support. The Trauma-Sensitive Editor seeks a balance between sensitivity and encouragement toward the hurdles; between passivity and proactive help.   

Once again, I find it hard to land on a fixed conclusion. I’m just opening the field for discussion. Please scroll down for a prompt to spark contemplation on this topic.

PROMPT: Are you easily triggered, and do you value content warnings? Or are you more laissez-faire with your stance? Where does free speech enter the picture? Take some time now to write about how a trigger warning influences your response to the content that follows, and your choices, whether you’re reading, writing, or editing.