Discussing Trigger Warnings - WorkingitThrough2

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

@SunShineAlwaysGrateful

Thanks for the support❤️

🙌🙌🙌💕💕💕

@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

@VioletVeritas

I agree with you; using Content Advisory is much less triggering. Thank you for your input.

Thank you for your reply and I hope you are doing well❤️

@VioletVeritas

Thank you for your input! I'll definitely consider changing the wording in the forum and discussions if that would support you better. Would you prefer "Warning" or "Content Advisory"?

@VioletVeritas

“Being a pacifist, the word "trigger" evokes a gun image to me.”

Sorry that happens for you. Appreciate learning and WOW I would have never thought of that.

I see the word and think of programmatic terms.
Like in the olden days of M.U.D.s , it is something like

‘<character> enters the room. ‘ and ‘<Mobile> waves at <Character>’
As another example would be an ‘ANDing’ process. When things are NOT equal it issues a STOP

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.

@WendyBird14 - This is a super good point and something to take into consideration for sure

@WendyBird14

What would you propose as best practice on this, WendyBird?

@WendyBird14

Do you have an idea how we could avoid this negative response completely?

@audienta

tbh i dont think we can avoid that because its about associations, not everything is avoidable sadly. I think we just have to find a way to learn to regulate our emotions when triggered. Although i think a tw or warning has more effect if the triggerinf content would be censored and the reader can decide whether and when they want to read it

If I understood well, we might mark the potentially triggering part (with something similar to the "underline" formatting tool).

Then the reader, with a button at the top of the post (or group chat message), might hide or reveal the triggering part at will.

I can make a formal proposal to 7 Cups once I am sure I understand well the idea, @WendyBird14

@HealingTalk basically yes

Thank you, @WendyBird14 !

@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.

@wontwakewontsleep

Thank you for sharing your reflections and proposals! I think, once this discussion has had some time, I'll create a survey with all the options to find out which is preferred. I personally like the "Gentle Advisory" idea - it feels somehow comforting to me. "Proceed With Care" makes me tense up, but also, that's just me. I'm curious what will come out in the end.

@audienta - I appreciate your response! I agree once enough time has passed, I think a survey form with some potential options is a great idea.

@wontwakewontsleep

I liked your alternative verbiage:

-gentle advisory

-proceed with care

Nice thinking.

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

@Jaeteuk

Thank you, You are so right. I feel the same way about using TW.❤️

@Jaeteuk

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

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.

@HealingTalk

Thank you, It is an Honor to have you validate the post and for tag others to take a look.😊❤️

@WorkingitThrough2

You are welcome!

It's a genuinely valuable contribution to a very relevant issue.

@HealingTalk

I agree, @WorkingitThrough2 really did an amazing job with this research! Thank you for tagging the leaders, I'll talk to them anyway once we've got some results.

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.

@WharfRat

Thank you for sharing your opinion! Do the terms make any difference to you? Like, do you prefer "Trigger Warning" or "Content Advisory" or something else?

@audienta

"Trigger Warning" is a good phrase for me. I should have added in my first comment that because my abuse was unusual, what triggers some people doesn't trigger me. I have to be careful in what I say because I may think it's harmless, but it's not for other people.

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.

@Lilibuth12 Very sorry about the font size, this was accidental, I hope it didn't make the content inaccessible to anyone, if I could edit it I would!

@Lilibuth12

edited it for you ❤️

@Lilibuth12

ugh, changing the size destroyed the formatting. I tried to redo it as it was before, I hope, it's okay.

@Lilibuth12 EDIT: They did not write most of the previously referenced papers. I am sorry I over-egged that. They wrote 2 of the 5 previous main studies they reference.

@Lilibuth12

Thank you for adding this additional information. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't make changes based on this one study but based on the experience and needs of the members of 7 Cups. That's why we have this discussion here. I also agree that the way a trigger warning is written plays an important role and that the one in the study is a really bad example. I'm pretty sure that we won't remove trigger warnings from cups, that sounds like a horrible idea, but I'm wondering if other terms like "Content Advisory" might be more helpful. What do you think?

@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.

@darkiya

my point exactly too! I think a trigger warning in general has more use when we can actually censor the content. And the reader can decide when and if they want to read it. When i see a message with a tw or any warning i already seen the content because its just there. (Unless the trigger warning was given prior the message) thats also why i give my listeners a trigger warning or ask if its okay to discuss xyz :)

@darkiya

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that the association plays a huge role and that the new term could become triggering after a while as well. But I could also imagine that the word "trigger" itself is more triggering than other words like "content". I don't know the answer, that's why we have the discussion... But I'm glad to hear that it doesn't matter to you as long as there's some warning in place.

@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.

@Barltik2065

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the topic!