Trigger Warnings in Higher Education: Concerns, Pushback, & Non-Clinical Implementation
Jae Ji
Introduction
With the dawn of the modern era emerged an unprecedented surge of mental health diagnoses in the United States, especially among its youth population. Consequently, awareness about the mental health epidemic has never been so prevalent. Countless civilians and professionals alike have been calling for a more proactive approach to casual, everyday mental healthcare, and trigger warnings are a prominent result of this movement. A 2018 study conducted at Harvard University under Professor Richard McNally, a world expert in anxiety disorders, defines trigger warnings as tools that “notify people of the distress that written, audiovisual, or other material may evoke.”1 Though originally intended to cater to the needs of those with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), trigger warnings have evolved into a commonplace instrument in literary texts, social media and online publications, and even college settings. However, research proves that trigger warnings generally fail to shield individuals from distress upon forcible exposure to the content. To this end, a comprehensive analysis illustrates that despite their large ineffectiveness in preventing anxiety or trauma responses, trigger warnings should continue to be implemented as a sign of mental health awareness in higher education.
The Empirical Ineffectiveness of Trigger Warnings
Although people utilize trigger warnings with principled intentions, the vast majority of clinical research demonstrates that they do not aid in any “preparation” for distressing material. For example, the aforementioned 2018 Harvard study was the first randomized controlled trial to ever evaluate the influence of trigger warnings on individual resilience factors.1 Bellet et al. executed this by gathering trauma-naïve individuals, to whom they either did (experimental condition) or did not (control condition) present passages of world literature depicting events of trauma (e.g., rape, natural disaster). Trauma-naïve participants were of specific interest due to the fact that they would have to imagine their own resilience in the event of trauma occurring; this is pivotal in the 21st-century, when trigger warnings have become no longer meant for exclusively trauma survivors and are implemented under a broad range of circumstances. Members of the experimental group who believed that words could harm mental health reported greater anxiety after reading the passages than those who did not believe that words could harm mental health. This proves that trigger warnings do not display face validity; because they are not able to invoke the effect that they are supposed to, they should not be considered effective in these measures. Overall, they have no significant positive impact on individuals’ ability to compartmentalize or control their reactions to graphic material.
However, as previously stated, a major limitation of this study is that its participants were not victims of trauma, which deviates from the original intentions of trigger warnings. Thus, scholars were hesitant to widely apply its results. To remedy this, the same team of Harvard researchers replicated their 2018 experiment two years later, this time recruiting participants with PTSD diagnoses.2 Again, they could not conclude that trigger warnings had any psychological benefit, even when the content of the literature passage matched the survivor’s trauma. This suggests that trigger warnings are ineffectual even among those whom they were specifically meant for. At the University of Waikato, Professor Maryanne Garry of Psychology and her colleagues also addressed this shortcoming, but they, too, discovered that even people with a history of trauma experienced similar cognitive and emotional responses to distressing content regardless of whether or not the presence of a trigger warning.3 Other experiments concluded similar results when participants viewed ambiguous photos and movie clips.4,5 Such evidence seems to indicate that trigger warnings are neither particularly beneficial nor harmful; if so, it is likely preferable to continue adopting them in the hopes that a select few will find them rewarding. However, trigger warnings may actually be evoking—rather than curbing—anxiety, although the magnitude of the anxiety response is modest and does not persist.1 Instead of encouraging people to embrace healthier coping mechanisms, they can cause a prolonged torment that starts with seeing the warning itself, and concern with how trigger warnings can hinder prolonged exposure therapy—one of the most reputable treatments for PTSD—has exacerbated debate over their use.
As of now, there is little research on the psychological mechanisms behind the ineffectiveness of trigger warnings. However, there is some evidence that suggests that trigger warnings have a nocebo effect (wherein the belief that intervention will be unhelpful produces a negative outcome), as physiological markers of anticipatory anxiety are heightened in the presentation of trigger warnings compared to that of “PG-13” warnings or of none at all.5 This seems to address hypotheses regarding how trigger warnings might have a more salient effect on those who already are of the opinion that exposure to distressing media can cause powerful emotional affliction. On the other hand, it is a long-standing result in psychological research that one’s perception of their own control over stressors (i.e., an internal versus external locus of control) influences the severity of their stress reactions. Thus, evidence shows that individuals with a more internal locus of control had reduced cortisol (stress hormone) levels when encountering a stressful element.6 Contradicting findings like these warrant further investigation.
Societal Reasons for the Opposition to Trigger Warnings
More relevant to recent discourse is the opinion that the normalization of trigger warnings is encouraging the burgeoning of an overly sensitive generation. In their book The Coddling of the American Mind, activist Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt assert that today’s college professors “may have had children’s best interests at heart” but “often did not give them the freedom to develop their antifragility.”7 PTSD is rare; the great majority of trauma survivors do not develop trauma disorders, largely due to the resilience that they are able to gain from leading an unsheltered life in the “real world.”1 Thus, critics maintain that trigger warnings nurture unreasonable expectations about what most societal environments (such as workplaces) will be willing to accommodate, subsequently hindering people’s ability to self-manage. Furthermore, a parallel argument is that trigger warnings perpetuate anti-intellectualism in the classroom, as it proposes the notion that students should be protected from, not challenged by, new knowledge. Indeed, a commitment to academic freedom would typically imply increased diversity in learning circles, including perspectives and topics that may be controversial or harrowing.
Given this, then, why are numerous experts still advocating for their widespread utilization?
Trigger Warnings as a Conduit for Mental Health Awareness
One claim could be that trigger warnings are not truly harmful in higher education settings because, even with their ineffectiveness, they contribute to a healthy and welcoming environment of psychiatric awareness. Over the past decade, college students all over the country have been requesting that trigger warnings be implemented in courses, and professors have responded in kind, resulting in a surge of tagged lectures and syllabi. In one NPR survey, approximately half of American undergraduate professors have shown trigger warnings before potentially difficult material.8 This illustrates the sweeping movement towards trigger warnings in education. Because they are not typically institutional guidelines, individual professors have to implement them, providing a variety of accommodations. For example, the University of Michigan’s Equitable Teaching division issued the instructor resource “An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings” to advocate for inclusive practices in the classroom.9
At its core, these sanctions originate from instructors’ desire to be conscious of their students. Dr. Kristin Jacobson, a Professor of American Literature at Stockton University, states that she stands behind her decision to continue using trigger warnings because they broaden her students’ conceptualization of how to study and evaluate the literary arts.10 In this case, professors may wish to invite their students to be more careful about the content they consume, hoping that they analyze their readings in ways that consider the sensitivities of others. In another example, Professor Onni Gust, who teaches History and Gender Studies at the University of Nottingham, praises trigger warnings for reminding not only them to be mindful of how to frame certain topics in a respectful manner but also their students to think “compassionately” about the learning material that they consume every day.11 Again, although trigger warnings have no significant effect, they are serviceable in constructing a safe space in which students can open up. Moreover, a study conducted at Warwick Medical School showed that medical professors use trigger warnings to “[signal] that self-care is valued and should be prioritized.”12 There is an ideal that is common in all of these views: Professors aim to establish that they are pillars on which students can rely on, and by utilizing trigger warnings, they are able to send a message of encouragement and support. Even if trigger warnings do not serve any true practical purpose, the positive impact that they have on educational camaraderie and students’ comfort is invaluable.
Conclusion & Implications
In conclusion, the primary role of trigger warnings—no matter how ineffective they are—in 21st-century community interactions should be to maximize students’ everyday well-being by functioning as a sign of mental health awareness in collegiate spheres. Although trigger warnings do not always guarantee safety and should not be relied on as the only solution to address trauma, they empower individuals to take control of their health and make informed decisions about the content they choose to consume. By acknowledging the potential for harm and offering the opportunity for self-care, they can also make spaces more inclusive for individuals with trauma or mental health histories and facilitate deeper conversations about sensitive topics.
Trauma is exceedingly common, more than what many would assume. Of course, it is undeniable that trigger warnings may solidify trauma centrality—the idea that a survivor’s trauma is integral to their identity or individualization—and hamper the efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy. However, with that said, it is also important to acknowledge that as previously stated, PTSD is rare. Trigger warnings are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in today’s culture, and it would be a disservice to both students and educators to completely remove their autonomy in academic liberation and media consumption. Furthermore, studies have found that only a marginal number of people, including those with trauma triggers and/or PTSD, actually choose to avoid distressing content, thereby eliminating the obstruction to fostering exposure resilience.11,12 This serves to corroborate the opinion of Rebecca Stringer, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work at the University of Otago, that the students who request trigger warnings are the ones who most desire to learn about the disturbing material.13 Ultimately, that is why they are advocating for the implementation of trigger warnings: to extend the limits of their own educational pursuits by enlarging the space in which they can rationally engage with challenging, uncomfortable, and perhaps even immoral content.
Creating a culture of openness and safety around difficult subject matters is of utmost priority. Trigger warnings may not yet be widely adopted, but their increasing recognition highlights that mental health is an issue that cannot be ignored by faculty, pupils, or institutions. While discomfort is often a catalyst for growth, student safety should never be put at risk. Although trigger warnings are not working as intended, the fact that they do not increase distress for trauma-afflicted individuals is enough to justify their usage, and the anxiety that it may cause in some trauma-naïve individuals—however minimal—also provides an opportunity to gain a newfound empathy and sensitivity. It is most pivotal to continuously engage in discussions to strike a balance between creating a safe learning environment and promoting intellectual development.
References
[1] Bellet, Benjamin W., et al. Trigger Warning: Empirical Evidence Ahead. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Therapy [Internet]. 2018 Dec [cited 2024 Jun 4];61:134–41. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.07.002]
[2] Jones, Payton J., et al. Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories. Clinical Psychological Science [Internet]. 2020 Sep [cited 2024 Jun 4];8(5):905-17. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620921341]
[3] Sanson, Mevagh, et al. Trigger Warnings Are Trivially Helpful at Reducing Negative Affect, Intrusive Thoughts, and Avoidance. Clinical Psychological Science [Internet]. 2019 Jul [cited 2024 Jun 4];7(4):778-93. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619827018]
[4] Bridgland, Victoria M. E., et al. Expecting the Worst: Investigating the Effects of Trigger Warnings on Reactions to Ambiguously Themed Photos. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied [Internet]. 2019 Dec [cited 2024 Jun 4];25(4):602-617. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000215]
[5] Bruce, Madeline J. Does Trauma Centrality Predict Trigger Warning Use? Physiological Responses To Using a Trigger Warning. ILLOWA Conference [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Jun 4]. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29292.77440]
[6] Bollini, Annie M., et al. The Influence of Perceived Control and Locus of Control on the Cortisol and Subjective Responses to Stress. Biological Psychology [Internet]. 2004 Nov [cited 2024 Jun 4];67(3):245-60. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.11.002]
[7] Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press [Print]. 2018 [cited 2024 Jun 4].
[8] Kamenetz, Anya. Half of Professors in NPR Ed Survey Have Used “Trigger Warnings.” NPR [Internet]. 2016 Sep 7 [cited 2024 Jun 4]. Available from: [https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/07/492979242/half-of-professors-in-npr-ed-survey-have-used-trigger-warnings]
[9] Equitable Teaching at University of Michigan. An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings — Inclusive Teaching. University of Michigan [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Jun 4]. Available from: [https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/equitable-teaching/an-introduction-to-content-warnings-and-trigger-warnings/]
[10] Khazan, Olga. The Real Problem with Trigger Warnings. The Atlantic [Internet]. 2019 Mar 28 [cited 2024 Jun 4]. Available from: [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/do-trigger-warnings-work/585871/]
[11] Gust, Onni. I Use Trigger Warnings — but I’m Not Mollycoddling My Students. The Guardian [Internet]. 2016 Jun 16 [cited 2024 Jun 4]. Available from: [https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/jun/14/i-use-trigger-warnings-but-im-not-mollycoddling-my-students]
[12] Nolan, Helen Anne, and Lesley Roberts. Medical Educators’ Views and Experiences of Trigger Warnings in Teaching Sensitive Content. Medical Education [Internet]. 2021 Nov [cited 2024 Jun 4];55(11):1273-83. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14576]
[13] Kimble, Matthew, et al. Student Reactions to Traumatic Material in Literature: Implications for Trigger Warnings. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2021 Mar [cited 2024 Jun 4];16(3):e0247579. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247579] [13]: https://www.wsanz.org.nz/journal/docs/WSANZ302Stringer62-66.pdf
In 2023, the number of undocumented immigrants, or UIs, crossing the U.S.-Mexico border was at an all-time high, with 250,000 border crossings in December alone. Upon arriving in the United States, however, many migrants are met with a harsh reality: they have little to no access to medical care.