ON CAMPUS
campusreview.com.au
Trigger
point
Still from John Waters’
controversial 1972 film Pink
Flamingos. Photo: supplied
Many institutions are adopting
trigger warnings, but are they
doing more harm than good?
By Kate Prendergast
A
new paper has added to a growing
body of research suggesting trigger
warnings have little to no benefit
for those they’re meant to help.
Published as a pre-print version online, 1
the Harvard study found that trigger
warnings could even have detrimental
effects on survivors of serious trauma, in
that they could “countertherapeutically
reinforce survivors’ view of their trauma as
central to their identity”.
While there was no data to suggest
warnings were harmful, “because trigger
warnings are consistently unhelpful, there
is no evidence-based reason to use them”,
the authors conclude.
Previous studies have consistently called
into doubt the efficacy of the warning
device, which has become notorious in its
association with so-called ‘snowflakes’ in
the culture war brouhahas.
A March study published in Clinical
Psychological Science found trigger
warnings to be “trivially helpful” at reducing
distress, intrusive thoughts and avoidance. 2
Another published last year found they
made people believe both themselves and
others would be “emotionally vulnerable
if they were to experience trauma”, and
could even heighten anxiety for some. 3
Caring or Coddling, an Australian study,
looked at trigger warnings just for students
24
in health professions, and put forth some
unsettling conclusions. 4 Not only could
trigger warnings negatively impact student
mental health and resilience, the authors
stated, it could lead to “adverse outcomes
in patient care”.
What makes the latest study distinct
is that it limits its population sample to
survivors of trauma; previous studies did
not impose this constraint.
Trigger warnings are a relatively new
phenomenon, related but separate
to content warnings in that they are
intended as a precautionary alert for
people affected by trauma, rather than
the general population. Originating
in online communities as a way to
limit harm towards survivors of sexual
abuse through mindful practice, they
have since expanded into various areas
and platforms, from theatre stages to
the education sector. The scope of
what may constitute a trigger has also
been expanded. What’s more, ‘content
warning’ has drifted semantically in
the direction of ‘trigger warning’.
The rapidity of their institutional uptake
has been alarming for some.
“Interventions that are devised by
clinicians are usually tested before they
are disseminated,” notes Payton Jones,
a researcher at Harvard University’s
Department of Psychology who co-
authored the latest study.
“In this case, it wasn’t clinicians or
scientists who developed the idea.”
Trigger warnings on campus have been,
well, a trigger point for many. They are
just one facet in a growing debate over
whether Western universities are reneging
on their principles of free thought and
intellectual inquiry, and instead ‘coddling’
hyper-sensitised students, restricting
discussion to ‘inoffensive’ topics, and
policing the free flow of ideas. American
professors have described the trigger
warning movement as “chilling”.
Criticism doesn’t just come from
conservative commentators in the free
speech debates either. Experts from the
fields of social science and psychology
point out that avoiding traumatic cues is
a very bad way of helping individuals to
overcome their trauma.
Jonathan Haidt, an American social
scientist who recently completed a
speaking tour of Australia and New
Zealand, has written extensively about
what he believes to be the intellectually
and emotionally stultifying effects
when universities are transformed into
safe spaces.
On the subject of trigger warnings,
“I think it’s an empirical question”, he told
Campus Review.
“One can make theoretical arguments
either way, so it’s crucial that researchers
do experiments.”
Until an empirical study comes out
proving their clear benefits, “professors
and universities should discourage the
use of trigger warnings, based on the
available evidence (while leaving individual
professors free to make choices about
how to teach)”, he says.
Matthew Lesh, adjunct fellow at
Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs, has
also been a vocal critic.
“If someone has a serious mental
reaction to class content, they should
seek professional help. It is not the role of
lecturers to pre-empt the feelings of their
students,” he told Campus Review.
“Concerningly, some lecturers
are increasingly opting not to teach
challenging content because they fear
negative student reactions.
“Universities should totally reject making
their academics responsible for student
mental health.”
While trigger/content warnings are not
as widespread in Australia as they are
in the United States, students continue
to campaign for their universities to
implement them as policy. In a recent
example, the UWA Student Guild pushed
for content warnings to be given before
lectures. UWA has officially declined to
take up this request.