Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2025
Tactile Vibrating Toolkit and Driving Simulation Platform for Driving-Related Research
Published on: December 18, 2020
Trigger warning ≠ trigger warning: A comparison of differentially worded trigger warnings on negative versus positive
Hannah Willems1, Julia A Glombiewski1, Richard J McNally2
1Department of Psychology, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau.
Objective:
Trigger warnings (TWs) are designed to warn vulnerable people about potentially stressful content they may encounter. Most experiments testing the efficacy of TWs have failed to confirm beneficial effects. However, warnings may be formulated in diverse ways, and the aim of this experiment was to investigate differential effects of varied formulations of warnings on negative (e.g., expected threat) and positive outcomes (e.g., felt sense of respect and autonomy).
Method:
This cross-national online study included a total of N = 409 people (N = 288 German-speaking, N = 121 English-speaking). All participants rated differentially detailed warnings in randomized order in terms of expected threat, anticipatory fear, feeling of emotional preparedness, and intention to avoid content. Felt sense of autonomy and respect related to TWs was assessed to determine potential positive outcomes.
Results:
The results indicated significant differences among the warnings in all outcomes across both samples. Compared to general, nonspecific content warnings, detailed warnings about the content and potential emotional consequences prompted greater expected threat, anticipatory fear, and avoidance intentions. Although participants felt more respected by these warnings compared to general ones, they did not experience heightened feelings of emotional preparedness as intended by those detailed warnings. TWs did, however, result in participants reporting feeling a sense of respect for their autonomy.
Conclusions:
The findings highlight that various formulations of TWs have differential effects on negative and positive outcomes. According to our findings, the design of a TW, if used at all, should be adapted to the context and the objective pursued (e.g., strengthening the experience of autonomy vs. reducing the experience of threat). Possible effects (e.g., avoidance) should also be carefully considered with regard to the group of people addressed (e.g., people with posttraumatic stress disorder vs. healthy people). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
More Related Videos
11:18Using the Threat Probability Task to Assess Anxiety and Fear During Uncertain and Certain Threat
Published on: September 12, 2014
08:05A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers
Published on: January 5, 2018
Related Concept Videos
03:26Framing Effects
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
00:58Positive, Negative, and Zero Work
01:14Avoidance Learning and Learned Helplessness
Avoidance learning occurs when an organism learns that a specific behavior can prevent an unpleasant outcome. For example, a student who receives a bad grade may start studying harder to avoid future poor grades. This behavior persists even when the negative outcome is no longer present. Avoidance learning is powerful because it maintains behavior in the absence of the...
02:09Stereotype Threat and Self-fulfilling Prophecies
01:23Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed by the presentation of a rewarding stimulus, increasing the frequency of that behavior. For example: