THE lEFT DOESN'T LIKE SCIENCE ANY BETTER THAN THE rIGHT:

The origins of trigger warnings date to the 1970s, when post-traumatic stress disorder was codified as a psychiatric condition, the symptoms of which include flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and social withdrawal. The term "trigger" signified any stimulus that set off a post-traumatic stress reaction, from particular sights, sounds, and smells to certain foods, faces, and calendar dates.

When debates about trigger warnings first erupted, there was little-to-no research on their effectiveness. Today we have an emerging body of peer-reviewed research to consult.

The consensus, based on 17 studies using a range of media, including literature passages, photographs, and film clips: Trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress. They do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts, two hallmarks of PTSD. Notably, these findings hold for individuals with and without a history of trauma. (For a review of the relevant research, see the 2020 Clinical Psychological Science article "Helping or Harming? The Effect of Trigger Warnings on Individuals With Trauma Histories" by Payton J. Jones, Benjamin W. Bellet, and Richard J. McNally.)

We are not aware of a single experimental study that has found significant benefits of using trigger warnings. Looking specifically at trauma survivors, including those with a diagnosis of PTSD, the Jones et al. study found that trigger warnings "were not helpful even when they warned about content that closely matched survivors' traumas."

What's more, they found that 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." "Trigger warnings," they concluded, "may be most harmful to the very individuals they were designed to protect."

Tweet   @brothersjudd