I feel like the only times I listen to trigger warnings are when they warn against a heavily violent media (like filmed police brutality, war crimes...) but elseway i'll definitely just become more aware that this *should* trigger me as I was triggered by something similar in the past
An area where I frequently see content warnings deployed is in front of content that’s hateful to a particular group or has content that’s disturbing in a more specific way; I would love to see research around whether these kinds of warnings function better for avoidance. I rarely heed content warnings for general violence eg a car crash, but as a new mom frequently clicked away from anything that had a cw for say, infant death.
I’d also wager that instagram’s sensitive content screens function terribly because they offer zero context - could be graphic violence, could be birth photos 🤷🏼♀️
Trigger warnings remind me of the time when health warnings were added to cigarette packs in the 1960s. They didn’t reduce smoking. However, they were legalistic kinds of informed consent. “We are telling you this product can cause serious harm to your health.” It wasn’t until the 1990s when secondhand smoke studies showed increased harm and smoking was eventually ostracized from restaurants and most indoor gathering spaces as we see today.
Only an anecdote but I'm the same in that I cannot remember a single time when an Instagram content warning caused me to click away from the piece of media in question. I'm always a bit more eager to view it.
This is one of those cases where the research shows very counterintuitive findings. I remember when the research started coming out, some people argued that there might not be a measurable benefit, but surely it can't hurt. Well, turns out that might not be true too.
Has there been any research into the effect of the actual term "trigger warning"? We're used to seeing "WARNING" in stressful situations, like in big red letters on a signpost next to something dangerous, so it's a word with a lot of baggage. Similarly "trigger" has a lot of baggage, and as you say, a lot of people seem to define themselves by their triggers, so I wonder if that's also an unhelpful word. What about neutral terms like "content notice" or something along those lines?
This is a great question - I think there's some debate about this! On the one hand it definitely seems like more neutral words would be helpful -- but some researchers argue that culturally, we're so used to seeing these types of messages as "trigger warnings" that even if they're called something different, we'd still view them the same way. I don't know! I think we need more research really experimentally testing out minor variations in wording to see what works!
I agree in that when there is a content warning I become more curious and more likely to watch. And I’m a trauma survivor. So the research marries with my own experience. However if there is a ‘graphic’ warning for blood/gore I definitely listen to the warning and keep scrolling. Weak stomach 😂 I think everyone has a different line in the sand for what they do want to see and not see. Very interesting to see the research on this!
Loved writing this piece with you!
I feel like the only times I listen to trigger warnings are when they warn against a heavily violent media (like filmed police brutality, war crimes...) but elseway i'll definitely just become more aware that this *should* trigger me as I was triggered by something similar in the past
Yes. When the warnings are about heavily violent videos I tend to listen as well.
An area where I frequently see content warnings deployed is in front of content that’s hateful to a particular group or has content that’s disturbing in a more specific way; I would love to see research around whether these kinds of warnings function better for avoidance. I rarely heed content warnings for general violence eg a car crash, but as a new mom frequently clicked away from anything that had a cw for say, infant death.
Yes - I definitely think we need more research on the nuances of more specific, targeted trigger warnings versus more general ones.
Aleka, I have not seen research on avoidance but I will continue to look.
I’d also wager that instagram’s sensitive content screens function terribly because they offer zero context - could be graphic violence, could be birth photos 🤷🏼♀️
That is a great point!
Trigger warnings remind me of the time when health warnings were added to cigarette packs in the 1960s. They didn’t reduce smoking. However, they were legalistic kinds of informed consent. “We are telling you this product can cause serious harm to your health.” It wasn’t until the 1990s when secondhand smoke studies showed increased harm and smoking was eventually ostracized from restaurants and most indoor gathering spaces as we see today.
That's really interesting!
Only an anecdote but I'm the same in that I cannot remember a single time when an Instagram content warning caused me to click away from the piece of media in question. I'm always a bit more eager to view it.
This is one of those cases where the research shows very counterintuitive findings. I remember when the research started coming out, some people argued that there might not be a measurable benefit, but surely it can't hurt. Well, turns out that might not be true too.
Great article, thanks!
It is always important to go back and see what the research says.
Has there been any research into the effect of the actual term "trigger warning"? We're used to seeing "WARNING" in stressful situations, like in big red letters on a signpost next to something dangerous, so it's a word with a lot of baggage. Similarly "trigger" has a lot of baggage, and as you say, a lot of people seem to define themselves by their triggers, so I wonder if that's also an unhelpful word. What about neutral terms like "content notice" or something along those lines?
This is a great question - I think there's some debate about this! On the one hand it definitely seems like more neutral words would be helpful -- but some researchers argue that culturally, we're so used to seeing these types of messages as "trigger warnings" that even if they're called something different, we'd still view them the same way. I don't know! I think we need more research really experimentally testing out minor variations in wording to see what works!
I agree in that when there is a content warning I become more curious and more likely to watch. And I’m a trauma survivor. So the research marries with my own experience. However if there is a ‘graphic’ warning for blood/gore I definitely listen to the warning and keep scrolling. Weak stomach 😂 I think everyone has a different line in the sand for what they do want to see and not see. Very interesting to see the research on this!
Thank you for sharing your experience and your thoughts on TW. People do need to set their own line in the sand.