Trigger warnings are now a staple of academic life. Many college or secondary-school courses (nearly all non-STEM courses in some schools) offer a caveat on their syllabi or before class, letting students know when there is material that may be “triggering”: that is, could reactivate student traumas around violence sex, or things like food—or even create those traumas. The object, of course, is to preserve the students’ psychological health.
But do these warnings work? In the new issue of Skeptical Inquirer, which is moving into areas where political ideology creates empirical falsehoods, psychologist and author Stuart Vyse gives a definitive “no”, based on recent research on the topics. This conclusion about trigger warnings has been bruited about for some time, though I don’t know the literature. Here we get some new data.
First, the meta-analysis in Clinical Psychological Science Vyse cites below gives a very brief history of trigger warnings:
Trigger warnings emerged in the early days of the Internet on feminist message forums (e.g., Ms Magazine) and were attached to posts to help readers prepare for or avoid material likely to remind them of memories of trauma (e.g., sexual assault; Vingiano, 2014). The use of trigger warnings has since expanded to the university classroom (Bentley, 2017; National Coalition Against Censorship, 2015) and media writ large (Wyatt, 2016). The types of experiences that may warrant a trigger warning have also expanded past canonical traumatic events to include a wide array of experiences, including being a member of a historically marginalized group or having experienced less severe events such as microaggressions or teasing (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015; Wilson, 2015).
But although studies show that trigger warnings are useless, and may even be harmful, Vyse sees little chance that they’re going to disappear.
Click to read: 
Using Google, Vyse determined that searches for “trigger warning” began to rise in 2013, spiked in August 2016 and December 2018 (no reason is given for those spikes), and then has remained steady ever since. He then summarizes the results of two studies trying to answer the question of whether such warnings really do decrease existing trauma or prevent it from arising.
Both studies came up negative, with one showing that the warnings actually increase “anticipatory anxiety”. Further, putting trigger warnings on material doesn’t deter students from reading or seeing it. Indeed, in a kind of “Streisand effect,” it can increase exposure to supposedly traumatic material. I quote from Vyse:
There has been some doubt about the effectiveness of trigger warnings almost from the start, but as more research has been conducted, the picture has become clearer. The most extensive study to date is a meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science in August 2023 (Bridgland et al. 2023). The authors hoped to answer four questions:
- Do trigger warnings change the emotional response to the material?
- Do trigger warnings increase the avoidance of the warned-about material?
- Do trigger warnings affect anticipatory emotions before the material arrives?
- Do trigger warnings affect educational outcomes (e.g., comprehension)?
The paper by Bridgland et al. summarizes the previous studies, concluding that their effects are either mixed or negligible. Therefore a meta-analysis is warranted. There were a dozen studies that provided usable data.
And the outcome of one study—trigger warnings are in general useless, but can have negative effects (bolding is mine):
There has been some doubt about the effectiveness of trigger warnings almost from the start, but as more research has been conducted, the picture has become clearer. The most extensive study to date is a meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science in August 2023 (Bridgland et al. 2023). The authors hoped to answer four questions:
In a preregistered investigation, the authors searched for studies in which a trigger warning was given and one or more of the four effects described above was measured. In addition, the type of warning had to make it clear that the forthcoming material might trigger emotions about past experiences. As a result, more general notices, such as PG-13 ratings or “not safe for work” messages, were excluded. They found twelve studies that fit their inclusion criteria, and in the majority of these (ten out of twelve) some participants had previous traumatic experiences. One study was restricted to participants with a history of trauma.
The results did not support the psychological benefits of trigger warnings. Summing the studies together, the meta-analysis revealed a “negligible” effect of warnings on the experience of the material, when compared to that of participants who were not warned. Similarly, the use of trigger warnings had “trivial or null” effect on comprehension and a “negligible” effect on avoidance of the material, which was typically measured by allowing participants to choose between readings that did and did not contain warnings. One study found that the presence of a warning increased the likelihood of selecting a reading in a kind of “forbidden fruit” effect. The one reliable effect that emerged from the analysis was on anticipatory emotions experienced prior to exposure to the material, and unfortunately it was in the wrong direction. Participants were reliably more anxious in the period after the warning was given but before the material was presented.
. . . And a more redcent analysis:
I found a more recent study, published just five days ago as I write this, that looked at the reactions of students—a substantial proportion of whom had previously experienced sexual assault or unwanted sex—to a nonfiction account of a campus sexual assault drawn from Jon Krakauer’s 2016 book Missoula (Kimble et al. 2023). When warned about the content of the reading and offered an alternative passage without such material, fully 94 percent of participants still chose to read the potentially triggering passage. Furthermore, those who had a previous traumatic experience were no less likely to read the sexual assault passage than those who had not. As might be expected, sexual assault victims had a stronger reaction to the passage from the Krakauer book, but there was no measurable effect of providing a warning.
Here’s that second study, which you can read by clicking on the title below:
The only effect was this (from the paper):
However, unlike the two previous studies, those with a sexual assault history reported more distress right before and just after the reading. They also reported being more emotional during the study.
But again, the warning didn’t lessen these effects. Conclusion: yes, some material does “trigger” people, but a warning about material neither mitigates this effect nor deters people from reading/viewing the “triggering” stuff.
The data, then, all suggest that trigger warnings are useless. I would use them (and so would Vyse) to convey “respect and good manners” if the material is very graphic and could upset even those lacking a history of trauma. For example, I warned people this morning about the graphic descriptions of Hamas’s sexual violence in a new NYT article. But trigger warnings in universities have gone way beyond that—to the extent that Harvard Law students have asked Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen not to teach anything about rape law, because the whole subject is triggering. But that’s palpably harmful, for a lawyer prosecuting or defending people accused of rape won’t do a good job if she hasn’t been taught the law.
Nevertheless, like sightings of Bigfoot, trigger warnings persist. Why? Vyse suggests two reasons: students pay a lot of dosh for their education and want schools to act in loco parentis, and professors, intimidated by the new woke atmosphere in colleges (and the proliferation of anonymous “bias reporting”), will employ trigger warnings as a default to keep themselves from being reported, disciplined, or fired.
Today, parents are paying enormous sums to send their children to college, and for all but the richly endowed elite schools, bad publicity can have serious financial consequences. The loss of just a few students at $70,000 per year quickly adds up. Furthermore, today’s institutions have made it exceedingly easy for students to complain. Many schools now have mechanisms for students to report “bias incidents” to the administration. These programs typically allow for the anonymous reporting of any member of the college community by any member of the college community. See, for example, this program designed to accept anonymous reports of any act or communication “that reasonably is understood to demean, degrade, threaten, or harass an individual or group based on an actual or perceived identity” whether the acts are intentional or unintentional. If you Google the phrase “report a bias incident,” you will find a long list of colleges and universities with similar programs.
In this environment, even the most truth-seeking professor who is fully aware of the research on trigger warnings is likely to feel a strong pull to use them nonetheless. Or to avoid any class material that might conceivably warrant their use.
When Luana and I wrote our long Skeptical Inquirer article on the pollution of evolutionary biology by ideology, some letters came in to the magazine saying that it was going off the rails, deviating from its traditional emphasis on things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, homeopathy, and spoon-bending. But our piece, like Vyse’s, really is in the purview of the magazine. Although the venue was started to investigate and debunk false claims about the paranormal, Wikipedia notes that its mission later expanded “to include topics less paranormal and more that were an attack on science and critical thinking.” That is what we did, and that is what Vyse is doing. The only new bit is that the attacks on science and critical thinking come from ideology—usually but not always from the Left. When palpable harm to society is wrought by ideology—just like the harm of homeopathy comes from superstition and scientific ignorance—it’s time to call it out. And that’s how Vyse ends his piece:
Out in the real world, we do things for a multitude of reasons. Today, a text or work of art that might make educational sense may not show up in the classroom for reasons that are more political than pedagogical. In the case of trigger warnings, they are likely to remain part of many college courses despite the evidence that they fail at their stated purpose. It is a traditional skeptic’s lament that evidence is often not enough to sway people toward reason, and I am sorry to say that this is one of those cases. Reason and evidence alone will not strengthen our educational system. The political winds need to change before that can happen.
As a teacher, I am aware that some texts that I may think of assigning can make a reader feel as if he has been slapped in the face with a wet kipper. Matthew Arnold on The Prioress’s Tale made me feel slapped in the face by a wet kipper. (Arnold really admired the language in which Chaucer treats the blood libel.). So one should, as a teacher, be aware of this sort of issue, though “trigger warnings” are hardly the obvious way to deal with it. University students in history or literary studies should be able to work with some pretty awful stuff, and since they themselves may go on to teach at secondary school level, it may be useful to spend class time discussing the pedagogy of awful stuff.
When I was teaching, I always thought that statements about course content, both in the syllabus and the first day’s class, were highly appropriate. Thus, I always included the sentence “Genetics is hard.” in my syllabus for that course. In contrast, I didn’t include anything about offending religious beliefs in my Evolution class. If asked, I explained that this was a science class and would be taught as such, free of religious (AKA supernatural) beliefs.
In contrast, an egregious example comes from my wife, who spent many years on the council that approves liberal education courses at Miami University. The course was a study abroad one about the Holocaust, which of course involved visits to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. The syllabus actually gave student the alternative of sitting in a village coffee house observing people if they thought they would be too traumatized. Alice (and I) thought that this is absurd. Make it explicit that those visits are a required part of the course (perhaps even by using visual material in orientation meetings), so that students can make an informed choice about taking the course, but don’t give them the option of altering the content to protect themselves.
Finally, I must say that these warnings rapidly get absurd. Case and point: a wonderful podcast series entitled “The History of Rock and Roll in 500 Songs.” Do we really need a trigger warning about drug use in an episode about the Rolling Stones (read Brian Jones, Keith Richard)? That is truly laughable.
“Don’t give them the option of altering the content to protect themselves.” I get this in one of my courses on animal anatomy: occasionally students will object to dissections to study internal anatomy, despite this being the whole point of the course. The animals are not mammals (or even vertebrates), but some students say they can’t deal with it. We’ve always tried to accommodate this: seems better for the student to get some contact with the ideas even if the contact with the material is indirect or limited (better than not taking the course at all). But we tell the students clearly that we think they’re short-changing themselves. IDK whether this is a good compromise.
Not only do trigger warnings not work to avoid harm, it’s now clear that they don’t even provide legal cover to those who use them, since the easily triggered still complain anyway, as in the infamous Hamline case. I can see faculty in the future simply announcing at the beginning of a course that they won’t be providing trigger warnings at all, and that those who can’t live with that degree of “risk” can leave now so they don’t waste their or anyone else’s time.
“Context” is a newer variant of the subversion of speech and thought.
YouTube videos push “Context” but not for every video – only certain videos.
Another piece of evidence that trigger warnings make things worse: Every time I see one I become angry. Does that count?
Young adults need to develop the resilience to navigate the slings and arrows of life. Sheltering them from every discomfort cannot be good for them in the long run. Glad that the evidence against trigger warnings is starting to come in. We’ll see if anybody listens.
I have long wondered if the reason that these students are so delicate is because of over protective parents. Taken to and from school, forbidden to wander far, warned about talking to strangers, they are let loose at university with little self confidence and the emotional age of 10-year-olds, if that.
If you haven’t already, check out Lenore Skenazy’s work (website, book) about “Free Range Kids.” She makes the case you speculate about with vigor and clarity.
This hits the nail on the head here: “program designed to accept anonymous reports of any act or communication “that reasonably is understood to demean, degrade, threaten, or harass an individual or group based on an actual or perceived identity” “. The elevation of anonymous bellyaching to an institution, with funding, procedures, committees that ponder each anonymous snitch, etc., reveals the current atmosphere the academic world designed for itself. One has to wonder what led academies to add encouraging hypochondria to those old-fashioned functions that had something to do with discovering and imparting knowledge.
I think the problem is that psychology is such a soft science. Conpared to something like biology we just have no idea how to predict the effect of something like trigger warnings before implementing them. There were all kinds of hypotheses about how sickness spread before the microscope but then the microscope allowed people to actually look at pathogens. We need a breakthrough like that for psychology, until then its just guesswork based on ideology.
Stuart Vyse’s Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition is excellent. I’m not surprised that he’s finding a lot to work with in areas outside of superstition: our brains work the way they work.
Most people who’ve dealt with young children quickly learn that excessive warnings about possible emotional damage in some upcoming event can put fear into heads that would have otherwise been blithely stoic due to ignorance. Lukianoff and Haidt have pointed out that trigger warnings work against the process of desensitization and the proven therapeutic benefit of being exposed to stimuli and developing inner coping strategies. As they put it, “Fit the child to the road and not the road to the child.”
What I’d be particularly interested in seeing then is a study which examined how trigger warnings affect how students view other students who’ve undergone traumatic or distressing circumstances. Does it encourage them to see them as more fragile and less resilient than the control group who hasn’t been presented with trigger warnings? If they’re hijacking people’s nurturing and protective instincts that would make it even harder for trigger warnings to be discarded.
Don’t forget that anxiety disorders are already maintained by internal trigger warnings (“oh my god, what does that sound mean? got to keep my eyes peeled at all times in case I miss signs of danger”). Even without suffering real diagnoses, we are often driven to acute anxiety by expectations of failure or misery about our forthcoming speech, meeting, family gathering, and so on, so it’s obvious that adding trigger warnings to the environment provides those types of expectations. To counter them, we must, as people probably do all the time on their own without professional advice, remember that we are capable of facing those situations, and will even perform in them with success, possibly even enjoy them. Such thinking is part of coping. Life is a difficult road, covered in painful emotions, tragedies, and challenges (and the good stuff). To rob students or the public of coping mechanisms seems cruel. So many of these cultural phenomena are I’m sure well intentioned, applied by good people, so I am confident that in time the truth will out.
Trigger warnings have inserted themselves deeply into the arts as well as academia. The missus and I recently went to a performance of Harold Pinter’s ‘The Homecoming’ at the Young Vic on the South Bank. The theatre website’s synopsis was stuffed full of trigger warnings, ranging from racist, sexist and violent language to the shocking fact that one of the characters appears to die on stage! If anything, we thought that the production pulled its punches: it could have been much more ‘triggering’ (and was almost certainly written to be) than it actually was.
One of the functions of art is to trigger a response in its audience, to make them think. If this means shocking or upsetting them, so much the better. It shows it’s working.
I should add that this trend is all too widespread. I have lost count of the number of theatre managements who seem to think it is their job to warn their audiences that, say, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ contains scenes of violence, premarital sex, and suicide; or that ‘Othello’ involves racial stereotyping and prejudice. What are they worried about? That they might be sued for causing emotional distress? Most people really are more intelligent and resilient than that.