Trigger warnings - what are they really for?

[Hibush]

Following up on the rubric discussion, here's another challenging topic of teaching practice.

CHE has a review article by history prof Amna Khalid and education prof Jeffery Snyder on the use of trigger warnings for course material. It is sure to trigger discussion.

The authors agree strongly with the intent, to limit debilitating trauma for those with post-traumatic stress syndrome, they find that the data from the decade of use shows the warnings to be counter productive.

First, they harm students with PTSD. "Trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress. They do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts, two hallmarks of PTSD. Trigger warnings actually increased the anxiety of individuals with the most severe PTSD, prompting them to 'view trauma as more central to their life narrative.'"

Second, they tend to reduce learning by other students.  "Trigger warnings impede meaningful engagement with difficult topics and reinforce the idea that students are inherently fragile." Teachers are removing such material from their curricula rather than deal with the warnings and their consequences.

"By contributing to a misguided safety-and-security model of education, trigger warnings ultimately deprive all students of the most powerful learning opportunities."

Third, they endorse Harvard researchers' recommendation that trigger warnings are "unvetted interventions" and their use is "irresponsible to victims of trauma."

Well that is sure to stir things up!

Have trigger warnings seen their day on your campus? What is current praxis in the education curriculum on using them?

There was some discussion in the Old Fora before research was done on the topic, so feel free to mention whether your assessment in that (now unsearchable) venue has been supported by subsequent research.

My initial sense was that they were infantilizing students, not empowering them. But I have never had a situation where there was a question about using them. What does real experience tell?

[Puget]

Yep, people in psychology who actually study trauma have been screaming this for years at this point. People in other fields however somehow think they know more about "trauma" than we do, so no one listens. What I *will* do is provide information on available resources when talking about issues that may bring up stuff for students in class. What I absolutely won't do is issue trigger warnings that suggest students are too fragile to handle it. For the reasons you've noted in your summary, that absolutely is harmful.

And don't get me started on using the word "trauma" for anything stressful. e.g., I can't count how many times some no doubt well-intentioned administrator or other non-psych person has referenced us "all experiencing trauma over the past year". No, we didn't. Some people did (people who had loved-ones die, front-line medical workers), most of us were just stressed. It both disrespects the experience of people who were actually traumatized and decreases resilience for everyone else to misuse the word that way.

[mamselle]

As someone who left an abusive marriage and prefers not to be exposed to scenes with wanton, gratuitous violence, such warnings let me decide a) when/whether to read/listen to/watch the material in question, and b) to put my "internal force field" up to be able to distance myself emotionally from it: i.e., say to myself, "ok, this is not happening to you, nor is it going to." (Violence can beget boundary loss, can beget a sense of experienced personal immediacy.)

When organizing a worship service/workshop program for survivors of domestic violence, incest, and abuse, we always made sure to have counselors on hand in a safe room for those who had thought they could handle the material and suddenly found themselves hyperventilating, shaking or feeling sweaty and nauseous.

If one has been fortunate enough never to have dealt with such situations, this may seem like an extravagant precaution to take, and my first take on all the "proofs" of its counterproductivity were just, "Well, yeah, that gets them off the hook for having to be considerate of others less fortunate than themselves."

I generally handle such references well enough on my own, but I was "only" in that marriage for two years before I was able to get out.

Others who were either exposed to it from birth, were forcrd into a situation they were unable to leave, or witnessed unremitting violence in a war zone, may have flashbacks, nightmares, a sudden onset of tremors or other stress responses, and may even need temporary hospitalization to recover.

So, no, I don't think a couple of kindly-worded sentences is too much to ask, and I don't see how consideration for others' often horrific experiences "infantilizes" them.

Not to recognize mistreatment of others as exceptional is to normalize it.

And I hope no-one wants that.

M.

[Diogenes]

There are some issues with that article and research, as pointed out in this twitter thread by an expert https://twitter.com/metzpsych/status/1438553017243013124
I am with Puget though that much of the evidence of their benefit is not there

[marshwiggle]

But what about the safe spaces?

And PUPPIES?????

[mamselle]

Excuse me?

M.

[marshwiggle]

Excuse me?

M.

The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.

[Hibush]

Excuse me?

M.

The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.

One of the points made is that such overzealousness makes a mockery of the kind of care that is actually needed and useful.

[Parasaurolophus]

We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.

I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.

And that's it.

[Langue_doc]

Excuse me?

M.

The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.

One of the points made is that such overzealousness makes a mockery of the kind of care that is actually needed and useful.

Such overzealousness also negatively affects enrollment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html

[dismalist]

Reality sucks. Trigger warning that reality can thoroughly upset one.

[marshwiggle]

Reality sucks. Trigger warning that reality can thoroughly upset one.

I seem to recall that a few years back, there was an issue with Microsoft popup warnings basically whenever someone chose to open virtually any email attachment about the potential danger. Not only was it annoying, but people just came to ignore the warnings completely.

Bottom line: "Warnings" are only useful to the extent that they are limited enough to only be given when there is a real need for them. The lower the bar for sending them, the more they undermine their own value.

I would imagine the topics that could legitimately have them applied would be those that would be sobering to ordinary people. Having a respectful discussion would probably be as much or more useful than the warning.

[jerseyjay]

We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.

I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.

And that's it.

Most of my courses cover such stuff. I taught a course on World War II, which discussed, inter alia, the Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also taught a course on comparative slavery, which discussed, inter alia, rape, violence, torture, etc. And then I taught a course on race relations from Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which discussed, inter alia, lynching, rape, torture, etc. I put on the syllabus, and mention the first class, that we will be covering such topics. I would understand why somebody might not want to take such a class. I mean, when I was an undergrad, I decided not to take an entire class on the Holocaust, just because it seemed like a hellish way to spend a semester.

On trauma: I think this is a case where the scientific meaning of a word and its common usage diverge. I think that the last period has been traumatic and depressing. I am, not however, traumatized or depressed in a clinical sense.

[dismalist]

We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.

I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.

And that's it.

Most of my courses cover such stuff. I taught a course on World War II, which discussed, inter alia, the Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also taught a course on comparative slavery, which discussed, inter alia, rape, violence, torture, etc. And then I taught a course on race relations from Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which discussed, inter alia, lynching, rape, torture, etc. I put on the syllabus, and mention the first class, that we will be covering such topics. I would understand why somebody might not want to take such a class. I mean, when I was an undergrad, I decided not to take an entire class on the Holocaust, just because it seemed like a hellish way to spend a semester.

On trauma: I think this is a case where the scientific meaning of a word and its common usage diverge. I think that the last period has been traumatic and depressing. I am, not however, traumatized or depressed in a clinical sense.

Got any syllabi?

[Parasaurolophus]

I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.

The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.