Discussing Trigger Warnings - WorkingitThrough2

Incredible research done thank you appreciate this work! Curious what everyone’s thoughts are on this … great job 👏!!

@audienta

Yes! I like "content advisory" so much more.

This is the spiel I give when I facilitate.

"Please post warnings if you’re going to cover what you think may be sensitive information for others in the room."

I never liked the word "trigger." Being a pacifist, the word "trigger" evokes a gun image to me.

Those are my thoughts about this matter.

Love and Courage, Tas

I think the word trigger warning can be triggering for some because they know something triggering will come next, changing the word for the warning therefore has little to no use. All of the cons mentioned will not change when you use a different word for it because they eventually will associate it to the triggering topic. The alternative mentioned has the same affects as a trigger warning and is even described as one.

@audienta - so happy about this post! Words have power.

How do you feel when you see the words Trigger Warning?

1. It makes me feel grateful the person is considerate of others.

2. It makes me feel like I am maybe in a safe space and I relax a little.

3. It also makes me feel a tiny bit hypervigilant about what comes next. I guess it does bring invasive thoughts of possible traumas.

Do you feel they are helpful or not?

1. On a mental health platform where triggers abound they are not only helpful, but necessary.

2. Having said that, in our Trauma Community, I think probably any of our content will be triggering to at least one of us. The community is a group of healing people, with many nuances we are still striving to understand. Discussions like these are so useful for that reason.

3. They are able to summarize content without potentially retraumatizing. They provide freedom of choice to both the author and the audience.

How would you feel about using Content Advisory instead of Trigger Warning?

I like where this is going a lot! Normally, making a change in communications requires a lot of teaching and explaining. However, I think what you've suggested is a simple change. Others can see it in use and learn from that. Great initiative.

Content Advisory would have a different affect on me.

1. I would still be grateful for the warning.

2. I would feel like it was a safeish area (but less focused on trauma, so, not as safe, which I think is a strange distinction for me that I'll reflect on more later).

3. I would be still be a little hypervigilant about what comes next, but without invasive trauma scenario thoughts. So better on that count.

4. I would still have the opportunity to choose to continue or back away.

5. It feels very impersonal and rigid. This could have its benefits. I wonder if there's something in-between? But I tend to overthink things, so please feel free to disregard!

- Gentle Advisory: Topic

- Proceed With Care: Topic

I'm not sure! Just brainstorming. I'm sorry to clutter your thoughts about it if it's too much!

I have never really thought about if Trigger Warning is triggering to me before. Thank you for this conversation!

All in all, I like this idea. I would be okay and warmly accept Content Advisory if the community agrees.

I agree using the Content Advisory instead. The word "trigger warning" is already a trigger in itself. I makes me feel anxious even before clicking in to check what the post is all about.

@audienta

Congratulations, @WorkingitThrough2 on your thorough and so relevant research of his important topic across all 7 Cups, and particularly the Trauma Support Community.

Your contribution has immediately promoted a thorough debate.

I am tagging @Heather225 @ASilentObserver and @CheeryMango as you referenced scientific research criticizing TWs as hurtful, and suggesting alternative ways to deal with potentially triggering content, ways which might make a difference in the supportive and therapeutic result of such messages and interactions.

Trigger Warnings -

I appreciate trigger warnings. They help me prepare for what's to come. I don't avoid it, I just change my mindset. I often find that what is triggering for one person is not triggering for another. My abuse seemed to be a very rare sort of experience, not like others' abuse, so I find some things triggering that others don't, such as male doctors.

Has anyone read the actual study? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702620921341

I have some concerns about how the study is being represented and how it it was carried out. To be honest I think these two issues overlap alot.

The study presents itself as a fair representative test of trigger warning usage, and honestly uses a deliberately controversial title; “Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories”. It obviously wants to be treated as a more generalised test on trigger warnings.

When I read through the article a number of things stood out to me:

• This study is looking at the effect of trigger warnings when used for potentially triggering material in academic texts. I do not know what material they chose to share but the setting is not online in day to day life.
• The trigger warning that was used was: “TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma”. Unsure about you but reading that does cause me anxiety. It does not give me adequate information to avoid the potential trigger as I have no idea if the content relates to me or not. It also is a leading statement, telling me I may have an anxiety response. I honestly think it is a completely useless and unhelpful trigger warning, and if that is representative of what is being used in academia then I agree with the studies conclusions in the sense that it is unlikely to be helpful and possibly would become harmful.
• The primary focus of the study was on if a trigger warning prepared people so they could read triggering material with a lower level of anxiety than they would have otherwise, however they also were doing a secondary test of drop off rate. A very low percentage of people were shown to avoid the content after the trigger warning, however I would argue that is because the trigger warning itself is inadequate and not that it is representative of how many people, including myself use them.
• Finally, attention tests were also done throughout the study, one part of which requiring people to recall parts of what they just read. These attention tests were then used to disqualify people from the study. I think this will have missed out a large subsection of people who found the material triggering and thus either glazed over the information or dissociated. All of the authors of the study are all psychology professors and thus may well have extensive biases of their own on the subject. These biases I did not see discussed at any point in this paper. They also reference their own previous papers from their previous studies regularly throughout this paper. Infact most of the previous referenced work is their own.

Tldr;

• This study was for trigger warnings used in academia.
• The trigger warning they gave did not actually warn of what triggers the content contained and enforced that people with PTSD may feel anxiety reading the content.
• The drop out rate stat is invalidated by the above statement as without knowing what the triggering content maybe it is hard to make the decision to leave.
• Attention tests were used to exclude those who did not recall what they just read which may exclude those with extensive trauma. The authors of the study may well have considerable biases as they are all psychology professors and wrote most of the previously referenced papers.

Additional note: The sample group was randomised 600 people taken from a crowd sourcing website. Only a minority were college undergrads. I do not think that is overly relevant to the study but its good to get your facts correct.

Conclusion: I would not be making decisions based off of this study, I do not think it is a valid representation of the use of Trigger Warnings in cups. This is not to invalidate anyone else’s responses, it may well be a valid concern, but this paper should not be the basis of that discussion.

Note: Am I baised? Yes of course ahha. I find trigger warnings exceeding useful as they allow me to avoid content I do not feel up to, which is something I do regularly. I do not find the wording itself an issue personally, content warning is in essence the same thing. There is also a bunch more stuff I could have picked apart about how they reference trauma surviors and how they think exposure therapy in a controlled environment is the same as reading triggering content in a lecture but hey. I won't go there ahah. I think it falls down enough on its own without that.

@audienta

I think we learn emotional associations with words. Trigger Warning was benign for a time because we didn't readily associate it with the trauma that a trigger can make us think of. Every time you're faced with content that might be triggering it forces you to self-reflect, go to the head space where the trauma lives and ask yourself "am I okay with this?"

It only takes a few times of seeing a Trigger Warning, and maybe associating that combination with words with that negative head-space to then be triggered by the words themselves. I think if people shift to Content Advisory eventually those words will also be negatively associated.

For me it doesn't matter. I appreciate the forewarning of the nature of the potentially controversial or triggering material so I can try my best to navigate it if I'm not feeling healthy enough to cope at the time. Yes, the advisory can be triggering.

Often enough if I see a TW I have to read the content 9/10 because otherwise it's like a horror movie I walked away from and my imagination fills in the gap with the worst things. Still, better to have the warning so I can brace for it.

@audienta

@WorkingitThrough2

Great Job!!

Enjoyed seeing a different perception\perspective and appreciate the difference.

“How do you feel when you see the words Trigger Warning?”

Doesn’t bother me at all.

“Do you feel they are helpful or not?”

I think they are helpful

“How would you feel about using Content Advisory instead of Trigger Warning?”

I don’t see (for me) the difference between one versus the other. Words are a grouping of letters which has no value until it is assigned a value. So in my world, meaning doesn’t change, just the grouping of letters.