Trigger Warning in Classrooms

[DynamicDidactic]

Very interesting study out:
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Students are requesting and professors issuing trigger warnings—content warnings cautioning that college course material may cause distress. Trigger warnings are meant to alleviate distress students may otherwise experience, but multiple lines of research suggest trigger warnings could either increase or decrease symptoms of distress. We examined how these theories translate to this applied situation. Across six experiments, we gave some college students and Internet users a trigger warning but not others, exposed everyone to one of a variety of negative materials, then measured symptoms of distress. To better estimate trigger warnings’ effects, we conducted mini meta-analyses on our data, revealing trigger warnings had trivial effects—people reported similar levels of negative affect, intrusions, and avoidance regardless of whether they had received a trigger warning. Moreover, these patterns were similar among people with a history of trauma. These results suggest a trigger warning is neither meaningfully helpful nor harmful.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting, I would have hypothesized it would have negative consequences, similar to CISD.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Interesting, I would have hypothesized it would have negative consequences, similar to CISD.

I am reading through the article and the general sense is that effects were negligible in either directions. But, depending on how you looked at the data, there were effects in the direction of helping and harming.

Perhaps most pertinent (writing in brackets is my addition)

Of the 89% of people who had experienced at least one HMS [high magnitude stressor], 53% of them... reported PPD [persistent posttraumatic distress]...We restricted our analyses to just this subset... As Table 3 shows, the effects of trigger warnings were—contrary to what some may have predicted—often in the harmful direction and mostly still small. Moreover, the CIs around these differences were wide and spanned a range of values that in all but one case included zero and effects in the opposite direction.

 

[PsyDr]

Can I ask my patients to provide trigger warnings for me?

 

[deleted343839]

Can I ask my patients to provide trigger warnings for me?

Ha! I could have used one of those today.

 

[Sanman]

Ha! I could have used one of those today.

Do they make a trigger warning for smells? I really need that.

 

[cara susanna]

Looks like they excluded students with mental disorders, including PTSD. However, there was one study that looked at that and found similar results (basically, the trigger warning itself caused distress and therefore was not helpful). It isn't published but I saw a poster of it.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I usually issue a trigger warning about myself before I introduce myself on day one.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I’ve wondered about this for awhile, as all of the talk about “trigger warnings” and the proliferation of “safe spaces”* seems to go against some/most of the research surrounding resiliency and also the research for behavioral avoidance, no?

I view the use of [most, not all] trigger warnings and safe spaces as problematic in most instances. Given what we know about behavioral avoidance, are these constructs actually helpful, or are they more harmful?

*I thought about leaving this out bc it can be a political lightning rod, but I think it is necessary to talk about within this context.

 

[erg923]

How recent is all this? I finished phd in 2012, taught full-time for a year after internship and I had never heard of "trigger warnings" until few years ago (2015?)?

 

[foreverbull]

I have only heard of this in the past 5 or so years, and have heard the extreme examples in which it seems way out of proportion to provide a “trigger warning.” I haven’t used them yet (very occasionally I do say we’re going to talk about x subject and please remain respectful since it’s a hot-button issue, but I don’t consider that a trigger warning, but a reminder to be respectful). I admittedly am pretty traditionally-minded on this issue.

Honestly I just don’t know what purpose it serves, particularly thinking about students pursuing degrees in psychology/mental health areas, but also just generally. If they can’t tolerate it now, should they be going into psychology? And do all students have coping skills if they hear something unpleasant or disturbing? I never had trigger warnings, and nothing bad seemed to happen to my generational cohort. But now I’m starting to sound like like “in MY day...!”

Anyone else want to chime in from the other side? I’m curious about the other side and why it might be seen as beneficial?

 

[bcliff]

At the start of the semester, depending on the course I'm teaching, I typically encourage students to meet with me during office hours or reach out via email if they feel uncomfortable or hesitant about reviewing a particular topic, and I also tend to provide students with a general heads up about particularly sensitive topics. For example, when teaching abnormal, I often let students know in advance that discussion of PTSD will also include some discussion about rape and sexual assault. I'd personally classify this as common courtesy and informed consent, rather than as a trigger warning, but that might be a matter of semantics.

 

[cara susanna]

I’ve wondered about this for awhile, as all of the talk about “trigger warnings” and the proliferation of “safe spaces”* seems to go against some/most of the research surrounding resiliency and also the research for behavioral avoidance, no?

I view the use of [most, not all] trigger warnings and safe spaces as problematic in most instances. Given what we know about behavioral avoidance, are these constructs actually helpful, or are they more harmful?

*I thought about leaving this out bc it can be a political lightning rod, but I think it is necessary to talk about within this context.

I worry that it could become a safety behavior and perpetuates the idea that trauma-related distress is intolerable.

 

[erg923]

I have only heard of this in the past 5 or so years, and have heard the extreme examples in which it seems way out of proportion to provide a “trigger warning.” I haven’t used them yet (very occasionally I do say we’re going to talk about x subject and please remain respectful since it’s a hot-button issue, but I don’t consider that a trigger warning, but a reminder to be respectful). I admittedly am pretty traditionally-minded on this issue.

Honestly I just don’t know what purpose it serves, particularly thinking about students pursuing degrees in psychology/mental health areas, but also just generally. If they can’t tolerate it now, should they be going into psychology? And do all students have coping skills if they hear something unpleasant or disturbing? I never had trigger warnings, and nothing bad seemed to happen to my generational cohort. But now I’m starting to sound like like “in MY day...!”

Anyone else want to chime in from the other side? I’m curious about the other side and why it might be seen as beneficial?

I was faculty (albiet "visiting") in 2012-2013 at a (smallish) Catholic college with a graduate program in psychology and social work.

The perm faculty there were certainly up on their pedagogy (it wasn't a research university afterall), and in all the faculty meetings that year about curriculum, teaching, etc. this thing was never mentioned. Culture competence/sensitivity was, as was acting, teaching, and interacting with students in a responsible manor. But I think it was understood we were teaching adults, and that if something we talked about was upsetting (as would be expected in an "abnormal psychology" course, for example), both parties would be open and willing to discuss this. This is this social contract of adulthood, no? Not walking on eggshells and/or warning of each and every possible offense in our courses?

 

[bcliff]

I completely agree with the avoidant function served by a trigger warning and the concept of trigger warning as safety behavior, but I also don't think its my place, as an instructor, to implement exposure-based strategies with students enrolled in my course.

Like I said in my last post, I view transparency (a synonym for trigger warning?) with my students as a type of informed consent -- I mean, isn't a foundational principle of exposure that individuals do it at their own pace? I want students to know what they're buying into when they come to one of my lectures, just like I want clients to know what they're signing up for when they see me for therapy -- I don't necessarily think students need to buy into an exposure-based treatment rationale to take my classes, and the 30 seconds it takes to offer a heads up during the class before a lecture involving something like sexual assault or suicide seems negligible to me. If a student has major reservations about attending one of these lectures, decides to skip that day, and still manages to earn the grade they want to in my class, then it's really not my business whether they address their anxiety or not -- If their avoidance results in them failing my course, then addressing the issue (e.g., maybe recommending psychotherapy) with them would seem much more appropriate.

I also know that nothing catastrophic would happen if I were to forget to give a heads up, and like I said, I think of it as more of a courtesy to students -- They are adults, so I provide them with information to make their own informed decisions. I honestly don't even know if this cursory of a heads up should even be described as a "trigger warning?" -- Could a syllabus with a detailed class schedule be thought of as a trigger warning? In classes like abnormal, I obviously hit the relationship between anxiety and avoidance pretty hard, and this might actually be an interesting discussion to have with students.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

@briarcliff I'll just use the google definition of trigger warning

a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).

I wonder if you would provide a similar preamble (without labeling it as a trigger warning or not) about content in other courses (e.g., discussion of sexual orientation, evolution, or examples of unethical research)?

I wouldn't consider the typical schedule on a syllabus as a description rather than a warning, not too mention that is done for all courses.

 

[bcliff]

@briarcliff I'll just use the google definition of trigger warning


I wonder if you would provide a similar preamble (without labeling it as a trigger warning or not) about content in other courses (e.g., discussion of sexual orientation, evolution, or examples of unethical research)?

I wouldn't consider the typical schedule on a syllabus as a description rather than a warning, not too mention that is done for all courses.

No, I wouldn’t — I’d limit these preambles to discussion of traumatic events (e.g., suicide, rape).

In response to your point on syllabi: It seems like you’re focusing on the topography of the syllabus, rather than its function. I’d say that a heading with the the word “suicide” or “rape” in it would likely function as a warning to students hoping to avoid discussion of those topics.

 

[foreverbull]

I completely agree with the avoidant function served by a trigger warning and the concept of trigger warning as safety behavior, but I also don't think its my place, as an instructor, to implement exposure-based strategies with students enrolled in my course.

Like I said in my last post, I view transparency (a synonym for trigger warning?) with my students as a type of informed consent -- I mean, isn't a foundational principle of exposure that individuals do it at their own pace? I want students to know what they're buying into when they come to one of my lectures, just like I want clients to know what they're signing up for when they see me for therapy -- I don't necessarily think students need to buy into an exposure-based treatment rationale to take my classes, and the 30 seconds it takes to offer a heads up during the class before a lecture involving something like sexual assault or suicide seems negligible to me. If a student has major reservations about attending one of these lectures, decides to skip that day, and still manages to earn the grade they want to in my class, then it's really not my business whether they address their anxiety or not -- If their avoidance results in them failing my course, then addressing the issue (e.g., maybe recommending psychotherapy) with them would seem much more appropriate.

I also know that nothing catastrophic would happen if I were to forget to give a heads up, and like I said, I think of it as more of a courtesy to students -- They are adults, so I provide them with information to make their own informed decisions. I honestly don't even know if this cursory of a heads up should even be described as a "trigger warning?" -- Could a syllabus with a detailed class schedule be thought of as a trigger warning? In classes like abnormal, I obviously hit the relationship between anxiety and avoidance pretty hard, and this might actually be an interesting discussion to have with students.

Interesting point. Certainly I don't want to remove students' agency. I see informed consent as part of joining the class and staying beyond the syllabus introduction on day one. Discussion of sensitive issues is specifically mentioned in my syllabus as a requirement of the course, so I think I make it very clear that it's an expectation from the start, in addition to casually mentioning the topic agenda at the beginning of class (like you).

I am not sure at this point what differentiates "transparency" from "trigger warnings." I suppose you could argue that I do trigger warnings if you consider syllabus statements/agendas as "trigger warnings?" What do you you think?

Do we "owe" it to students to inform them beforehand if a topic is sensitive?

 

[bcliff]

I don’t think it’s a matter of “owing” students a disclaimer. I agree with you that a student’s registration and decision to stay enrolled in my class after the syllabus introduction is an adequate indicator of their informed consent, and like I said, nothing catastrophic would happen if I forgot to offer a heads up one day — I keep using the word courtesy because that’s really how I think of it.

 

[Pragma]

I’ve given trigger warnings when teaching classes that involve video content like injection drug use. But I would never do it for controversial language content or things that people might be reasonably exposed to in day to day life.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

No, I wouldn’t — I’d limit these preambles to discussion of traumatic events (e.g., suicide, rape).

In response to your point on syllabi: It seems like you’re focusing on the topography of the syllabus, rather than its function. I’d say that a heading with the the word “suicide” or “rape” in it would likely function as a warning to students hoping to avoid discussion of those topics.

This isn't meant to be confrontational, just trying to better understand.

1. What makes suicide or rape a "traumatic event" while the Holocaust (in discussion of the Nuremberg Code) not?
2. Everything and anything placed on a syllabus c be considered a "warning" but is that the intent?

 

[cara susanna]

I completely agree with the avoidant function served by a trigger warning and the concept of trigger warning as safety behavior, but I also don't think its my place, as an instructor, to implement exposure-based strategies with students enrolled in my course.

Like I said in my last post, I view transparency (a synonym for trigger warning?) with my students as a type of informed consent -- I mean, isn't a foundational principle of exposure that individuals do it at their own pace? I want students to know what they're buying into when they come to one of my lectures, just like I want clients to know what they're signing up for when they see me for therapy -- I don't necessarily think students need to buy into an exposure-based treatment rationale to take my classes, and the 30 seconds it takes to offer a heads up during the class before a lecture involving something like sexual assault or suicide seems negligible to me. If a student has major reservations about attending one of these lectures, decides to skip that day, and still manages to earn the grade they want to in my class, then it's really not my business whether they address their anxiety or not -- If their avoidance results in them failing my course, then addressing the issue (e.g., maybe recommending psychotherapy) with them would seem much more appropriate.

I also know that nothing catastrophic would happen if I were to forget to give a heads up, and like I said, I think of it as more of a courtesy to students -- They are adults, so I provide them with information to make their own informed decisions. I honestly don't even know if this cursory of a heads up should even be described as a "trigger warning?" -- Could a syllabus with a detailed class schedule be thought of as a trigger warning? In classes like abnormal, I obviously hit the relationship between anxiety and avoidance pretty hard, and this might actually be an interesting discussion to have with students.

IMO, deciding which content is "traumatic" for students is just as outside of my place as implementing exposure therapy. If it's an issue for them, then that decision and resulting accommodation requests are more appropriate for DSS.

Btw, I gave content warnings for things like rape and eating disorders when I taught because to me it just seemed polite. I just worry about the message that this is sending society which already seems to be heading towards this idea that mental health advocacy means preventing people from ever experiencing distress or negative emotions. And then you go on social media and see content warnings for things like "carrots"--and the term "content warning" is often used because the term "trigger warning" is considered too "triggering."

 

[bcliff]

This isn't meant to be confrontational, just trying to better understand.

1. What makes suicide or rape a "traumatic event" while the Holocaust (in discussion of the Nuremberg Code) not?
2. Everything and anything placed on a syllabus c be considered a "warning" but is that the intent?

I honestly enjoy the discussion I mean, to be fair, in your original post you referenced sexuality and climate change -- both of which I have a hard time conceptualizing as forms of trauma. When I reference "trauma," I'm thinking of criterion A from the PTSD definition in the DSM, which has its limitations, but provides a decent rule of thumb -- To Cara's point, my understanding is that we generally define certain events as "traumatic," regardless of the impact they have on individuals, which is why we talk about some folks as being resilient, etc. in the face of trauma; do you/others disagree? -- So, I'm not "deciding" for folks what they are or are not traumatized by, I'm using clinical guidelines to inform how I introduce class discussion of traumatic events, in an attempt to make my course as accessible for the most people. Overkill? Maybe, but, like I said, I'm talking about a ~30-second preamble at the end of one of my lectures, so the cost is minimal to me.

I haven't found myself in a position to lecture on something like the Holocaust, but I imagine that I likely would offer a similar heads up. Mostly to be sensitive to a painful topic, which seems highly normative to me? In reference to your point on unethical research, I would probably do the same thing when introducing something like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study -- Again, from a place of courtesy, sensitivity, empathy, etc.

I really don't have a set of rigid rules on what I do or do not say to introduce topics in the courses I teach, and I try to stay open minded to the feedback I receive from students. So, if a student one semester were to let me know that they would have appreciated a heads up on our discussion of a particular topic, either directly or anonymously (e.g., end-of-term evaluation), then I'd probably try to make a point of incorporating more notice the next time I taught that material. Still though, I'd be flexible in my response to students -- For example, if the concern seemed highly specific (e.g.,"I have BPD and felt attacked by your decision to lecture on personality disorders without a warning"), then I'd most likely continue to teach my course without modification in future semesters.

My point about syllabi is that all instructors incorporate "warnings" into their course (both intentionally and unintentionally), so to focus on removing or eliminating warnings from a course seems like a fruitless endeavor to me. In the example I provided, that student could have figured out that the lecture would cover personality disorders by just looking at my class schedule.

 

[PsyDr]

@briarcliff

How do you synthesize the ideas of trigger warnings with the concept of education as a means to prepare someone to interact successfully with the world (or go into clinical psychology)?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm not sure I would consider the broad headers I incorporate on my abnormal syllabus as anymore of a warning than the course title. I even use the large class size to note the prevalence of disorders and probability of someone taking the class having experienced the disorder or symptom set. Besides, people are rubber balls- they'll bounce back given the chance. I dont see a need to prime avoidance if the conversation is handled appropriately and professionally, especially since we have no idea what will count as a trigger for an individual warning.

 

[bcliff]

@briarcliff

How do you synthesize the ideas of trigger warnings with the concept of education as a means to prepare someone to interact successfully with the world (or go into clinical psychology)?

I'm comfortable acknowledging to both students and clients when certain topics may be difficult to talk about, which is generally how I introduce these topics in the courses I teach (e.g., "next week, we'll review PTSD, which will include discussion of sexual assault and other violent crimes, which may be a particularly difficult topic for some students in this course," etc.). By doing so, I may actually normalize students' experiences of discomfort and signal that it's ok to feel uncomfortable in some situations; that is, discomfort does not equal actual danger (which, again, is getting more into the realm of exposure, just a little bit more circuitously) -- I completely agree with JAG's point on people being resilient, not fragile, and I know that nothing catastrophic would happen if I didn't couch my introduction of a particular topic using this type of autoclitic. However, by doing so, I still provide information to students that allows them to make their own informed decisions about their behavior with regard to my course. I view this aspect of "transparency as consent" as particularly important when lecturing on something like rape or sexual assault (e.g., crimes defined by the absence of consent).

To JAG's point on syllabi, my argument is that the intention of the instructor matters way less than the impact that our syllabi have on students -- I don't write my syllabi to necessarily be a warning to student, but I have no way of controlling whether that's how students in my course read my syllabi. I honestly think the example I included earlier, just without the comment on the difficulty of discussing a particular subject, (e.g., "next week, we'll review PTSD, which will include discussion of sexual assault and other violent crimes," etc.) would likely function as a "trigger warning" to some students, just as much it would have with the caveat re: sensitivity of the subject matter included.

Should I omit the comment on discussion of sexual assault and violent crime? Should I encourage students to attend despite (or, "with") their discomfort? This latter point seems to cross the line into the realm of providing psychotherapy, and the former seems to be a little dense and insensitive, particularly coming from a male instructor to a class consisting, more often than not, of predominantly women.

 

[foreverbull]

This is an interesting discussion, so it’s good to reflect on all of these things when teaching.

Let’s say a student experienced an acute crisis for a mental health issue during the semester in your class that briefly touches on psychopathology.
Situation 1: the student requests to not attend the lecture(s) on psychopathology.
Situation 2: the student gets angry at the teacher for not providing a trigger warning the day that psychopathology was to be covered and complains to the department chair.

How would you view these scenarios in light of our discussion? One of the scenarios actually happened, I should add.

 

[bcliff]

This is an interesting discussion, so it’s good to reflect on all of these things when teaching.

Let’s say a student experienced an acute crisis for a mental health issue during the semester in your class that briefly touches on psychopathology.
Situation 1: the student requests to not attend the lecture(s) on psychopathology.
Situation 2: the student gets angry at the teacher for not providing a trigger warning the day that psychopathology was to be covered and complains to the department chair.

How would you view these scenarios in light of our discussion? One of the scenarios actually happened, I should add.

Sit. 1 -- I'd explain the consequences of nonattendance and provide referral information for the university counseling center (UCC).
Sit. 2 -- I'd draw the attention of both the student and my chair to where in my syllabus it says that we would be discussing psychopathology on the day in question. I'd also draw both of their attention to the language I include in all of my syllabi on how to access free mental healthcare via the UCC.

 

[Groupthink]

I find the use of the term "trigger warning" to be problematic. "Trigger" traditionally has had the specific definition of an activating reminder or event that results in an individual with PTSD experiencing a retraumatizing flashback.

This cultural zeitgeist where difficult topics "trigger" people creates an unnecessary Abuser ---> Victim relationship. Suddenly these students are in this helpless victim role because the onus is now on professors to give these "warnings".

Rather, students should be learning how to manage difficult affect like adults do on a daily basis. Difficult subject matter comes up all the time in the real world, and universities are doing a disservice by coddling people. If a student has a mental health concern that becomes activated, most universities offer mental health services to be able to support that student and teach coping skills for difficult affect.

To use their own rhetoric against them, I often say that the misuse of the word "trigger" is disrespectful to individuals with PTSD who actually experience retraumatization in response to the stimulus. How can they claim to be respectful of all races, genders, sexualities, and ability status etc. if you are saying your experience of being triggered is equivalent to that which soldiers and sexual trauma survivors go through?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Trigger Warnings May Not Do Much, Early Studies Suggest

How timely.

 

[cara susanna]

I find the use of the term "trigger warning" to be problematic. "Trigger" traditionally has had the specific definition of an activating reminder or event that results in an individual with PTSD experiencing a retraumatizing flashback.

This cultural zeitgeist where difficult topics "trigger" people creates an unnecessary Abuser ---> Victim relationship. Suddenly these students are in this helpless victim role because the onus is now on professors to give these "warnings".

Rather, students should be learning how to manage difficult affect like adults do on a daily basis. Difficult subject matter comes up all the time in the real world, and universities are doing a disservice by coddling people. If a student has a mental health concern that becomes activated, most universities offer mental health services to be able to support that student and teach coping skills for difficult affect.

To use their own rhetoric against them, I often say that the misuse of the word "trigger" is disrespectful to individuals with PTSD who actually experience retraumatization in response to the stimulus. How can they claim to be respectful of all races, genders, sexualities, and ability status etc. if you are saying your experience of being triggered is equivalent to that which soldiers and sexual trauma survivors go through?

Just want to nitpick a little here: a core principle behind prolonged exposure therapy is that distress associated with trauma-related cues that are themselves objectively safe--even those related to sexual assault or combat--is NOT retraumatizing.

 

[Ollie123]

Every time I see things about this, I am reminded of one group supervisor I had for a UCC practicum in my early grad school days. She expressed concern I was "retraumatizing" someone through the use of standard cognitive therapy (thought records), because they had some mild anxiety related to their parents criticizing them over their grades. The thought record content actually had nothing to do with grades or parents, but the process of not wholeheartedly supporting beliefs even the patient acknowledged was catastrophizing was apparently sufficient for something to be a traumatic event. She felt the same way about exposure therapy, which I was not allowed to do while I was there. They were unable to offer suggestions for alternative evidence-based modalities. As much as those of us on this board love to joke about these the overuse of trigger warnings, excessive expansion of the definition of "trauma", etc....I think we (as a field) are as guilty as anyone. This isn't just students. A sizable portion of psychologists buy into it too.

Nothing wrong with a head's up before discussing something particularly controversial, gruesome, emotionally provocative, etc. in a class or any other context. I did this often when teaching. I agree with the above that we have turned triggers into a bit of a political charade at this point. A quick head's up seems quite reasonable when discussing narratives of self-harm, showing videos of life in asylums or trauma and sexual assault. One should not have to give a trigger warning before posting grades.

PS - I would have loved to avoid a move for internship if I could. I did not apply there for internship. Also this place was/is APA accredited.

 

[MCParent]

I teach a human sexuality undergrad class. Students from other majors often elect to take it to fulfill a requirement for a social sciences class, so I understand that most of them are there to learn about fetishes, LGBT stuff, relationships, and the like, and not particularly sexual assault and rape. But it's also clearly an integral part of the course. I know a handful of folks who teach similar classes and make the class on sexual assault optional. I'm not a fan of that. Because I post the syllabus with lectures topics, and use modern pedagogical methods (I audio record all my lectures and post them to the online system and I post slides in complete form. No, my attendance has not dropped at all from before I used to do this; actually I think it went up and test scores got better), if someone is exceptionally uncomfortable with the material they can just not attend live that day.

Ollie that is insanity. I was told by one of my first supervisors that I should not see anyone with trauma because my physical appearance would be threatening to them. Flash forward and it's all I do when I actually get to work with patients now and it's the thing I was best at doing clinically.

 

[Pragma]

So for those of us within academia - is there an appropriate political response? It might not be hitting everyone directly right now, but what could happen when academic policy committees start meeting about trigger warnings and don’t consult data? I ask because this is real.

 

[Ollie123]

So for those of us within academia - is there an appropriate political response? It might not be hitting everyone directly right now, but what could happen when academic policy committees start meeting about trigger warnings and don’t consult data? I ask because this is real.

This is a great question. I don't have an answer. I would like to think part of this could just be educating others about trauma, what the data show, etc. but I highly doubt that would be sufficient. Very interested to hear what others have to say.

This may open up to a broader discussion, but I do think this issue is 9 parts symptom to 1 part cause. Society is quite fractured and all sides seem to love their echo chambers more and more. I view overuse of trigger warnings as a distal manifestation of the same thing. An expansion of a justifiable head's up before extreme material to encouraging an environment where avoidance of any/all minor discomforts is permissible. Natural...perhaps. Not good. Especially not in an academic setting. Ultimately, I think it boils down to where we need to draw the line. I think we need people who aren't politicians, who put science and education first, in leadership roles. Or at least on committees making these decisions.

I remember as an undergraduate student when I had to write position papers, I would deliberately take the opposing stance to what I personally believed because: A) It forced me to craft my arguments better, learn more, and work harder than I would writing something I agreed with; and B) Its sole purpose was for my own education anyways and it wasn't going to be seen by anyone besides 1 professor so I'm not exactly concerned about negative societal consequences. So despite coming from a long line of Teamsters, a pacifist, etc. I would write about why labor unions were bad, why the US was right to nuke Japan, etc. I worry the educational environment no longer encourages such things.

 

[foreverbull]

So for those of us within academia - is there an appropriate political response? It might not be hitting everyone directly right now, but what could happen when academic policy committees start meeting about trigger warnings and don’t consult data? I ask because this is real.

I think because the topic is well within our field, psychology profs are uniquely situated to be the experts on the matter (since it touches on clinical issues and research in our field), and should be respected as such in the institution and voice their concerns. I think they should clearly summarize the data and discuss the lack of “need” when most profs are already transparent about topics in a syllabus, and of course discuss the possible implications and (faulty?) assumptions that underlie the argument for trigger warnings.

This article highlights aspects of the issue that should also be discussed/considered but isn’t accounting for the newest studies (this was from 2017):
Does Research Support Classroom Trigger Warnings?

Of course, administrators have their own view, so who knows if they’ll respect the science/argument from the people best able speak to it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think because the topic is well within our field, psychology profs are uniquely situated to be the experts on the matter (since it touches on clinical issues and research in our field), and should be respected as such in the institution and voice their concerns.

This.

I always try and bring science and research into these types of discussions whenever possible. It also provides a palatable “out” for people with differing views. Bringing in new information can provide some space to actually discuss the concerns and clarify where people agree and disagree. Some will push back bc nothing you say will change their opinion, but for other people it offers an opportunity to reach more of a consensus.

I’d be curious to see how this goes in an undergrad setting where trigger warnings and safe spaces seem to thrive (not in a good way).