Trigger Warnings

The term “Trigger Warning” seems to have been an emergent topic since the second half of the 20th century and has now become widely used across contemporary culture, applied across the most distinct spaces (Bellet et al., 2018).

This subject has massively impacted the new “politically correct” debate as some see their academic freedom and right to open debate threatened by young people’s concerns about mental health and racial and gender equality (Nelson, 2016).

A variety of question arises. What are “Trigger Warnings”? What do they intend to do? Should we really use them? And if so, in what circumstances?

Bellet (2018) states that trigger warnings are widely used in order to ‘notify people of the distress that written, audio-visual, or other material may evoke’ as to prepare the audience for a possibly debilitating emotional reaction (Nelson, 2015). These warnings are then used to make the audience previously aware of the presence of potentially disturbing content. The practice started in Internet communities, in benefit of those who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Manne, 2015).

Trigger Warnings apply to any kind of sensitive content. They are usually exposed by a “TW” for trigger warning. The expression “Content Warning” is often used interchangeably and refers to the introduction of a description for the potentially distressing content itself (Bridgland et al., 2019).

An example of the latter would be “TW: Sexual Assault” in the caption of a social media or blog post, or on the top corner in the start of a film.

Trigger warnings have been likened to the film ratings some are used to. Journalism, public television and radios have been using content warnings such as "viewer discretion is advised", "what you're about to hear/see is graphic" in media for a long time. This gives anyone a way of, before watching a film, being aware of what kind of sensitive content they might come across and whether it is appropriate to watch with children.

Many argue that this is a product of an overly sensitive generation who is not able to handle their emotions, but these warnings aim to work in the way as ratings in movies and television shows have always done (G, PG13, M15, etc.) (Revanche, 2016).

From education to media and entertainment, Trigger Warnings have been accused of sheltering young people, threatening resilience to stress and boost sensitivity to psychopathology. Nevertheless, their use is applauded as it provides safe spaces and empowers vulnerable people by allowing them to mentally prepare for or avoid disturbing subjects (Bellet et al., 2018).

Education

By being previously notified of what one is about to view, they are given the time to embrace themselves emotionally, giving space for one to respond in an efficient way, one that will match their rational thinking.

However, trigger warnings may encourage avoidance of cues related to trauma. (McNally, 2014, 2016). Libby Nelson (2015) affirms that avoiding this possibly disturbing content is not considered to be a healthy copying mechanism for people who suffer from PTSD; indeed, reducing people’s sensitivity to triggers is the core purpose of therapy who suffer from this disorder. Opposite to this statement, Kate Manne (2015) specifies that the point of this practice is not to present, “let alone encourage”, the option of opting out but it is to instead, give individuals the chance to brace themselves for a sensitive topic, in order to better regulate their feelings towards the content.

According to the Institute of Medicine (2008), the most efficacious treatment for PTSD is prolonged exposure therapy as the continuous exposure strengths regular exposure to the trigger, this way accustoming patients and reclaiming function. This exposure is avoided by some when given a warning to a subject they may be sensitive to. The abstinence from these subjects may significantly reduce distress in the short run but worsen “symptom severity in the long term” (Rosenthal, Hall, Palm, Batten, & Follette, 2005). Trigger warnings should then not be about opting out but of becoming aware of what one is getting into and then carrying on and facing the sensitive material.

Bellet (2018) raises the question: “Is it better to warn people about potentially distressing material or allow them to deal with it on their own terms?”. One could argue this question places the matter as if one only happens in the eventual impossibility of the other but isn’t a warning the same as to give the audience an option to decide how to handle the issue?

British journalist and author, Mick Hume (2015), attacks the practice, claiming these to be the enemies of freedom of expression and open discussion.

Trigger warnings became a thing in academic spaces around 2011 and have stayed popular and gained popularity along the way. Boysen (2017) describes trigger warnings in the classroom as “the practice of teachers offering prior notification of an educational topic so that students may prepare for or avoid distress that s automatically evoked by that topic due to clinical mental health problems”.

Evidently, people with “PTSD can experience painful recollections of trauma in response to reminders of their experience” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Trigger warnings may help those with PTSD, and even those without I might add, to choose the time and place of their exposure to reminders, or psychologically brace for them (Boysen, 2017).

Attacking this idea, Greg Lukianoff (2017), American journalist, author and activist, states that this is “undermining student’s preparation” for what he calls “the real world beyond the campus gates”.

Entertainment

Netflix released the world-famous series ‘13 Reasons Why” on March 31st, 2017. The show become highly controversial and raised public concern not long after. The debate intensified around exposing young people to “fictional portrayals of adolescent suicide” (McKenzie et al., 2021) and the risks that this might carry.

For context, the 13-part series is based on an American high school female student who commits suicide after being bullied and assaulted by the people in her life. She records 13 cassettes to be delivered to the people who she blames for her suicide.

Critiques aim at the glamorisation of suicide, a challenging content, that although well intentioned, is targeted at “unsupervised and unrestricted adolescent audience” (Quinn & Ford, 2018) who may not be able to handle the story's complexity.

Adolescents' behaviour can be influenced by media reports and portrayals of certain topics (Gould et al., 2003) and so, concern around the fact that this show may also trigger actual suicidal behaviour has also been a hot topic for discussion. The question then is - what should be done about this? Should we provide trigger and content warnings? Are these enough to protect those who are not capable of dealing with such sensitive issues? Who would be responsible for providing them? Should we, as creatives, abstain from content that might provoke such reactions in fear that some might be triggered by it?

Quinn & Ford (2018) challenge the idea of whether and how entertainment media can expand awareness of mental health issues amongst teenagers without motivating damage. The duo also alerts to the need for research on strategies and opportunities to advocate for young people’s health in order to diminish the risk of unintended harm in this faction as their exposure to controversial content will increase alongside the evolution of media outlets.

The major concern with 13 Reasons Why and other shows of similar content is the fact that these can be watched by anyone without any supervision. How can we then guide this briskly growing media and enforce strategies in order to promote discussions around mental health and young people? Trigger warnings is the current worldwide accepted answer.

Even though trigger warnings seem to come from a good place, a place of concern and well-intentioned, some evidence points to the fact that trigger warnings might in fact be counterproductive.

Trigger warnings have shown to increase feelings of distress, the opposite of its goal. These send a message and tell our brains to sound the alarms that the content is going to be dangerous, anxiety inducing and scary. It seems that the call to prepare ourselves mentally has the the opposite effect of what it intends to do (Manne, 2015).

The conversation about their use now goes further than PTSD as we start using them in multiple spaces across the entertainment media in a way to honour the feelings and emotions of those who suffer from oppression in some way.

People cannot control what is in their social media feed and sometimes, it can be a lot, too much for some to absorb in a short period of time. Beecham (2022) defends this phenomenon can make us feel overwhelmed or even numb, once we get used to tragedies and easily start seeing these as normal by how often we interact with them.

Trigger warnings can then be used as queues to fathom the Internet chaos, placing expectations and providing with information so what can make a decision to whether they want to be emersed in a possible disturbing issue at that time and place. Often people are not in the position to safely confront emotions or have the resources to deal with the reactions something they see provokes in them.

Revanche (2016) accuses those who are in wealthiest positions of non-sensically turning this into a war about free speech without addressing censorship, but by attaching one’s legitimacy in a way to elevate theirs by targeting young people and implicate them for being unsteady, powerless and useless. He goes on to call this a calculated way to diminish young people’s self-esteem.

It would be fair to say that trigger warnings are killing free speech if these were in fact stopping creativity and the spread of information, but this does not happen. In the entertainment industry, trigger warnings do not stop conversations. What these do instead is warn people of a potentially disturbing content and it seeks to include people with trauma and those who are aware that particular subjects will activate a series of experiences and memories that they might not be able to deal with right then and there.

Entertainment is exactly that, and everyone has the option of choosing not to engage with something that will cause different reactions other than to entertain. This does not compare to real life when everyone is aware they are constantly exposed to sensitive topics they cannot escape and, in some cases, therapy is the right course of action.

The use of trigger warning can therefore not be equal to censorship. They do not create forbidden topics. They give a choice to everyone.

Netflix, the most popular streaming service, adopts the use of Maturity Ratings. They advertise in their website: “Make informed viewing choices for you and your family with maturity ratings for TV shows and movies on Netflix”. Furthermore, it is affirmed that Netflix sets their own ratings, that these are determined by frequency and impact of mature content. In addition to the rating, you’ll also find details about the content of the title that determined the rating (for example: sex, language, drugs, nudity) in the top corner of the screen at the start of a title.

Trigger warnings are a complex, high heated debate that I believe will pursue for years to come. Questions on whose responsibility it is to provide these warnings; and how we, as creatives across the multiple entertainment devices, can give the audience the choice of, when and where to engage with certain pieces without spoiling the drama.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).

Bellet, B. W., Jones, P. J., & McNally, R. J. (2018). Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 61, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.07.002

Boysen, G. A. (2017). Evidence-based answers to questions about trigger warnings for clinically based distress: A review for teachers. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000084

Bridgland, V. M., Green, D. M., Oulton, J. M., & Takarangi, M. K. (2019). Expecting the worst: Investigating the effects of trigger warnings on reactions to ambiguously themed photos. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(4), 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000215

Charles, A., Hare-Duke, L., Nudds, H., Franklin, D., Llewellyn-Beardsley, J., RennickEgglestone, S., Gust, O., Ng, F., Evans, E., Knox, E., Townsend, E., Yeo, C., & Slade, M. (2022). Typology of content warnings and trigger warnings: Systematic review. PLOS ONE, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266722

Gerdes, K. (2018). Trauma, trigger warnings, and the rhetoric of sensitivity. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 49(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2018.1479767

Gould, M., Jamieson, P., & Romer, D. (2003). Media contagion and suicide among the young. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764202250670

Greg Lukianoff, J. H. (2017, July 31). How trigger warnings are hurting mental health on campus. The Atlantic. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-americanmind/399356/

Hume, M. (2015). Trigger Warning: Is the fear of being offensive killing free speech? William Collins.

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2008). Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: An assessment of the evidence. National Academies Press.

Manne, K. (2015, September 19). Why I use trigger warnings. The New York Times. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/why-i-use-trigger-warnings.html

McKenzie, S. K., Jenkin, G., Steers, D., Magill, R., & Collings, S. (2021). Young people's perspectives and understanding of the suicide story in 13 Reasons Why. Crisis, 42(1), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000688

McNally, R. J. (2014, May 20). Hazards ahead: The problem with trigger warnings. Pacific Standard. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://psmag.com/education/hazardsahead-problem-trigger-warnings-according-research-81946

Nelson, L. (2015, September 10). Why trigger warnings are really so controversial, explained. Vox. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/2015/9/10/9298577/trigger-warnings-college

Quinn, S. M., & Ford, C. A. (2018). Why we should worry about “13 reasons why.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(6), 663–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.09.009

Revanche, J. (2016, March 17). A history of trigger warnings, and the price and diversity of pain. Medium. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://medium.com/the-vocal/ahistory-of-trigger-warnings-and-the-price-and-diversity-of-pain-ac8e796d0d70

Rosenthal, M. Z., Hall, M. L., Palm, K. M., Batten, S. V., & Follette, V. M. (2005). Chronic avoidance helps explain the relationship between severity of childhood sexual abuse and psychological distress in adulthood. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(4), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/j070v14n04_02

Scalvini, M. (2020). 13 Reasons Why: Can a TV show about suicide be ‘dangerous’? What are the moral obligations of a producer? Media, Culture & Society, 42(7-8), 1564– 1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720932502

Why Trigger Warnings are Controversial (And Even Counterproductive). (2022, November 8). The Changemaker. episode.

This essay was submitted on November 29th 2022, by Lara Soares for the module 'Contemporary Issues in the Entertainment Industry' as part of my degree English and Creative Writing BA.