(PS11-A6) Warning - This Content May Trigger Temporary Discomfort, Which Is Expected and Manageable: The Effect of Modified Trigger Warning Language on Distress and Coping With Emotionally-provocative Content

Despite their common use in educational and public settings, a growing body of research indicates that trigger warnings are generally ineffective in preventing or reducing distress associated with exposure to emotionally-provocative content (Bridgland et al., 2022). Traditional trigger warnings often include countertherapeutic messaging that conflicts with the aims of efficacious exposure-based interventions, encouraging experiential avoidance that can worsen emotional reactivity over time. Indeed, preliminary findings suggest that traditional trigger warnings may enhance the centrality of traumatic events in survivors’ identities and worsen anxiety among those experiencing more severe posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS; Jones et al., 2020). Further research is needed on the potential harms and benefits of trigger warnings, particularly when used with vulnerable groups, in order to make more evidence-based decisions on utilizing trigger warnings in different contexts. Research is also needed on the clinical utility of modified trigger warning language that includes therapeutically-consistent messaging encouraging adaptive, resilient responding to distressing content.

This mixed-methods study examined whether using modified traditional trigger warning language to encourage more adaptive, resilient responding to emotionally-provocative content would reduce participants’ negative affect and increase engagement with distressing content, particularly among those potentially more vulnerable to experiencing distress. Canadian and American university students (N = 289; 14% non-White) were randomly assigned to receive a traditional trigger warning, modified trigger warning (relabeled as a “Content Note” with a statement about the potential for temporary, normal, manageable emotional discomfort), or no trigger warning prior to viewing two piloted stimuli shown to increase negative affect (NA). NA was assessed before (pre-stimulus NA) and after each stimulus presentation (post-stimulus NA). Avoidant attention, reactions to research participation, anxiety sensitivity, PTSS, and coping strategies used during stimuli presentations were also measured.

No group differences in pre- and post-stimuli NA, avoidant attention, or reactions to research participation were identified. Anxiety sensitivity and PTSS both had a significant main effect on pre- (b = .12; b = .10, respectively) and post-stimuli NA (b = .19; b = .15, respectively) but no moderating group effects were observed for NA or avoidant attention. Qualitative analyses suggested participants used a wide range of coping strategies during the study; however, no group differences in coping strategies were observed. Study findings are consistent with prior research showing little to no benefit of using trigger warnings, even for those who may be more vulnerable to experiencing distress when engaging with emotionally-provocative content. The study was limited to university students from regions of the United States and Canada with limited racial diversity. Future research with diverse populations is warranted to better understand the potential risks and benefits of using different types of trigger warnings with vulnerable groups.