We take a deep dive into the use of trigger warnings and its effectiveness, with help from a global medical director and therapist
Most of us will have come across a trigger warning before – whether you’re about to watch a gripping new TV show or scrolling through social media. Depending on the warning, you may choose not to engage, proceed with caution, or maybe even dive in, quietly anticipating the thrill of the unknown.
Critics argue that trigger warnings infantilise adults and promote avoidance, while supporters claim that they inform people and better prepare them for what lies ahead. But what are they really for, and do they actually work?
The purpose of trigger warnings
“In psychology, a trigger isn’t just something that upsets you – it’s a specific stimulus that sets off an intense emotional or physical response,” explains Dr Kultar Garcha, a GP and global medical director at Flow Neuroscience, “and it’s usually closely linked to a past trauma.”
When someone is triggered, the brain’s threat detector (the amygdala) activates a stress response, often leading to a cascade of physiological changes. According to Dr Garcha: “This can cause flashbacks, panic attacks, or that awful feeling of reliving the original trauma.”
The intention behind a trigger warning – a pre-content message alerting individuals to upcoming material that might be distressing – seems not only plausible, but prudent when we consider the impact a trigger can have on an individual. It stands to reason that if we can, in some way, prevent undue harm, we should, right?
“But here’s where it starts to get tricky,” explains Dr Garcha.“The term ‘trigger’ has expanded way beyond clinical trauma. Now, people use it for anything that makes them uncomfortable.”
Where trigger warnings originated in online support groups to warn victims of sexual violence about potentially triggering content, they now relate to a much broader type of content, including adult humour or human bodily functions.
This expansion isn’t surprising, given our increased exposure to potentially upsetting or offensive content. As therapist Georgina Sturmer says: “The rise of social media and our connection with devices means that it’s easier than ever for us to accidentally stumble across content that has the potential to leave us feeling upset, frightened, or offended.”
But not necessarily triggered – at least not according to the psychological definition.
Is there an overuse of trigger warnings?
Increasing our awareness of psychological concepts has marked benefits – we can reduce stigma and develop greater understanding and empathy for those who might be affected. However, as Dr Garcha references, there is a concern from mental health professionals around losing the precise meaning of clinical terms.
“We hear words like trigger, trauma, and PTSD in everyday language now. And when everything becomes a trigger, the word loses some of its punch. Someone might say they’re triggered by pineapple on a pizza, while someone else uses the same word to describe their response to content that reactivates severe trauma. These are not equivalent experiences.”
If I take a step back to consider where I sit on this spectrum, I am acutely aware that I avoid content that might be upsetting, although I cannot claim that it relates to trauma – it seems to originate more from my sensitive disposition. In cases like this, Dr Garcha would argue that we should try to learn to cope with uncomfortable emotions. “If we constantly avoid anything that might cause upset, we never develop the emotional muscles needed to handle life’s inevitable difficulties,” he says.
This ties in with the principle of avoidance where trigger warnings run counter to clinical practice. Dr Garcha explains: “Studies consistently show that people who avoid their anxiety triggers have worse treatment outcomes.”
He also believes that overuse of trigger warnings might teach people they’re more fragile than they are. “People who receive trigger warnings may consider themselves as more emotionally vulnerable – even if the content didn’t upset them that much.”
That, however, is very different from trauma-informed care, and the challenge lies in distinguishing between the two.
The power of choice
“We’re living through an era of constant exposure to distressing content,” says Dr Garcha. For example, your gran never had to worry about accidentally seeing distressing videos while reading the morning news.
This is where it becomes hard to discredit trigger warnings, and we see a valid place for them in protecting the public from unexpected and potentially harmful content.
As Georgina Sturmer notes: “They offer us the power of choice; the autonomy to decide whether we might want to view, or read, something that could leave us with difficult feelings. It also makes us think twice about whether we share that content further.”
There are a few things we can positively assert about being given a trigger warning, according to Dr Garcha. “We are given a chance to brace ourselves – like knowing a horror movie jump scare is coming; you’re still startled, but not completely blindsided,” he explains. “Viewers are also able to create space to implement coping strategies to counteract any discomfort such as deep breathing or grounding techniques. Most importantly, trigger warnings have the potential to prevent unexpected trauma responses in genuinely vulnerable people.”
He calls it a “reasonable human courtesy” to offer this form of basic consideration around disturbing content, while Georgina says: “The prevalence of trigger warnings is a small price to pay in order to avoid constantly absorbing content that has the potential to shock or frighten us.”
What the science says
In theory, the principle behind a trigger warning makes sense, however in practice, the evidence doesn’t always stack up. Dr Garcha notes that “posts with trigger warnings often get higher engagement”, indicating a potential counter-effect.
In a meta-analysis carried out in 2023, published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science, researchers found that, in some cases, the presence of a trigger warning increased the likelihood of people engaging with content, demonstrating that people might be further enticed when they see a warning.
Similarly, the analysis showed that participants were more likely to have an anticipatory emotional response when trigger warnings were in place, indicating that even uncomfortable anticipation was not enough to dissuade them.
The overall conclusion drawn by the authors of the study was that “warnings were ineffective at their proposed goals”.
So, while research into this relatively new concept remains limited, what has been thus far evidenced demonstrates that trigger warnings, while well-intentioned, might actually fail to serve their intended purpose.
What this means for us as a culture consumed by content is hard to say. Do we adhere and avoid, or ignore the warnings at our own risk?
What is clear from the research, though, is that there is a distinction between triggers and discomfort, and that trigger warnings alone shouldn’t be relied on as a mental health tool. Instead, seeking professional support or guidance can give us techniques and a space to explore trauma safely, while warnings may bring the comfort of having a level of autonomy in our daily lives. Whether we read more into it, is up to us.
Comments