November 28, 2023 • 40 mins
Today, trigger or content warnings pop up in much of the media we consume, and have spread to universities and classrooms. But are these warnings actually helping us? Do they make us avoid triggering material, or at least minimise the potential harm involved, if we do see it? This episode, featuring Dr Ella Moeck, invites you to rethink trigger warnings and how we might best deal with confronting topics in our everyday lives. Hosted by Associate Professor Cassie Hayward and Professor Nick Haslam. Produced by Carly Godden and Louise Sheedy. Mixed by David Calf.
Discover more about this topic:
Featuring Dr Ella Moeck, Research Fellow in the Functions of Emotion in Everyday Life (FEEL) Lab at the University of Melbourne's School of Psychological Sciences. Ella’s research focuses on the intersection between cognition and emotion.
Episode credits: Hosted by Associate Professor Cassie Hayward and Professor Nick Haslam. Produced by Carly Godden and Louise Sheedy. Mixed by David Calf. Music by Chris Falk.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Cassie Hayward (00:00):
This podcast was made on the lands of the Wurundjeri people,
the Woi Wurrung and the Bunurong, and we would like to pay
respects to their elders, past and present and emerging.
From the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at the University
of Melbourne. This is PsychTalks.
(00:21):
Hi there. And welcome to PsychTalks where we look under
the hood of some of the latest research in psychology.
Nick Haslam (00:27):
We chat to experts here at the Melbourne School of
Psychological Sciences about their discoveries and what these insights might
mean for you or your family or friends. I'm associate
Professor Cassie Hayward and I'm joined by my co host,
Professor Nick Haslam.
Cassie. So last time we talked about just how powerful
new generation social media algorithms have become at knowing us,
and we wanted to revisit social media again. But this
(00:49):
time we're delving into content warnings or trigger warnings
In some way, these warnings have become almost mandatory when
it comes to sharing material that may upset people. But
if you ever stop to wonder about whether these warnings
actually work, do they A. stop people looking at this
upsetting stuff in the first place and B help them
to feel less upsetif they actually see it,
Cassie Hayward (01:09):
or as we'll discuss today, can they actually backfire To
shine a light on this? We're joined by Dr Ella Moeck,
who specialises in the interplay between cognition and emotion.
Nick Haslam (01:21):
Ella. Welcome to the show. Uh, delighted to be able
to talk to you today. Um, can you tell us
a bit about your work on future oriented emotions and
emotion regulation as a sort of backup and scene setting
before we get into trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (01:35):
Yeah, for sure. And thank you so much for having
me my pleasure to be here. Um, so broadly, my
research kind of focuses on how our emotions influence the
way we think about the past and the future.
Um, and I think I find, uh, anticipated emotions or
emotions about future experiences particularly fascinating because it seems to
be like they're the ones that people have the most
(01:57):
trouble dealing with. Um, so, yeah, I'm very interested in
kind of characterising those and also understanding how we can
help people manage them through, uh, emotion regulation. So
Nick Haslam (02:07):
what is emotion? Regulation?
Ella Moeck (02:09):
Yes. So emotion regulation are the ways that people try
and change or maintain their emotions. So various strategies that
people use. For example, maybe you're in a bad mood,
and you want to put on your favourite episode of
Friends to distract yourself from that mood. That would be
an example of emotion regulation.
Nick Haslam (02:29):
Wouldn't that make it worse?
Ella Moeck (02:31):
Depends which episode you choose, I guess.
Cassie Hayward (02:35):
Ella, What are trigger warnings? And I know we'll talk
more about how that relates to anticipatory emotions. But can
you just give us a little bit of a definition
of a trigger warning and what it is and how
they've come to be?
Ella Moeck (02:46):
Yeah, so trigger warnings are actually quite tricky to define.
Merriam Webster, uh, apparently defines it as a statement at
the start of a piece of writing or video or image. Um,
that alerts the person to the fact that it might
contain distressing material,
and that's kind of the way that I think most
(03:06):
of us think about them. But for a more scientific definition,
it's kind of any statement that intends to help someone
to either avoid content that's likely to trigger them, to
think of a past experience or to trigger like negative
emotions related to their past experience.
Cassie Hayward (03:25):
So people probably recognise them from content on social media.
Where else do we typically see trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (03:33):
Yeah, so these days we see them in a lot
of places. Um, social media is a big one. There's
the social media companies now have their own kind of
trigger warning systems, like sensitive content screens on Instagram. But
we also commonly see them, uh, on our on our TV, uh,
before even in the news, um, on the radio
(03:54):
Netflix, when you go and watch a movie and also, uh,
in the education domain. So in the 2010s, they really
sprung onto the scene of college campuses. So a recent
study actually found that over half of US college professors
felt inclined to use a trigger warning or did use
a trigger warning on their content.
Cassie Hayward (04:14):
And so what benefits are they intended to have? And
we can talk about their actual impact. But what's the
intention behind a trigger warning?
Ella Moeck (04:21):
So trigger warnings are proposed to have two main benefits.
The first is to allow people to avoid content that
they don't want to see. So by knowing that it's
coming up, you can make a decision to say, turn
off the news bulletin. The second proposed benefit is that
they allow people to emotionally prepare for seeing that content.
(04:42):
Um, so by being warned about it, the idea is
that you can then kind of engage in emotion, regulation strategies, um, that,
you know, help you, uh, if you then either have
to view the content or you want to view the content,
that kind of thing. So they're the two benefits they're
proposed to have.
Nick Haslam (05:00):
So where did this idea come from? So you you've
said that it's sort of taken off in the last
decade or so, but, uh, has it got a deeper
history than that?
Ella Moeck (05:08):
Yeah. So, um, trigger warnings themselves actually date back to
the 1990s. Uh, and they first appeared on feminist messaging forums. Um,
and they started quite simple, it would simply say, at
the top of a post trigger warning.
And it was usually to alert, uh, readers to content
around sexual assault and other types of trauma. So the
(05:30):
the kind of origins comes from the literature on post
traumatic stress disorder. And this idea that when you encounter
something that reminds you
of your trauma, it can elicit what's called re-experiencing symptoms.
So this includes things like thinking about the event, experiencing
the same emotions you had when that event occurred and
(05:52):
up to as as extreme as, uh, having flashbacks about
the event as well. Um, so, yeah, that's kind of
where they first appeared was on these, uh, feminist messaging boards.
And then, in the early 2000s, they started to appear
on other internet sites like Tumblr. Um, Facebook, I think,
(06:13):
was around the late 2000,
2007, maybe 2008. There we go, Um, and on Twitter
around those same time. Yeah.
Nick Haslam (06:24):
So it sounds like one of the things that's happened
is the idea has evolved. So you mentioned how it
started off with a fairly narrow meaning to do with
trauma and assault.
Uh, the impression I get is that over time it's
broadened to cover a whole range of more objectionable sorts
of things. Is that true? Yeah,
Ella Moeck (06:41):
that's definitely true. Um, the the first warnings also used
to appear commonly on, uh, like self harm and suicide content. So, um,
those kind of things. But now it's pretty much anything
that
anyone decides might be remotely distressing. Um, which, of course,
is just impossible to ever, uh, constrain. And I think
(07:02):
that's why we've really seen this kind of, um, creep
of trigger warnings into so many different, uh, domains.
Nick Haslam (07:10):
So is distress the idea that trigger warning is meant
to be? Um, uh, avoiding or dampening or preparing you for?
Or is it specifically, or was it specifically anxiety or
anxiety related emotion? Because it seems like some of the
things we now have trigger warnings for are more upsetting
in a moral way that generate moral outrage. Or they're
(07:30):
upsetting it for reasons other than personal anxiety or personal trauma. Again,
is that more or less correct?
Ella Moeck (07:36):
Yeah, I would say that's more or less correct. I
think distress is kind of a catch all term for
any kind of negative emotion
that people might experience when they view content that maybe
those kind of prototypical traumatic event related, but could also
just be something like discrimination. We often see it on now. Oppression. Yeah,
even like very historical events will be preceded by trigger warnings.
(08:00):
So
Nick Haslam (08:01):
and I guess that's probably what makes it so hard
to talk about or challenging to talk about because it
does seem to get sucked into this culture war polarisation
between people who talk about snowflakes, on the other hand,
versus those who really want to be protecting people, vulnerable people,
especially from, um, the ill effects of gratuitous, uh, content. Uh,
is what's your feeling about the whole way in which
(08:23):
this seems to have been politicised?
Ella Moeck (08:25):
Yeah, So I think in the 2010s, it just became
absolutely part of the culture war. And we kind of
developed these two camps, the people who are pro warnings
and see it as you know, an an important part of, uh,
being respectful or advocates for people's mental health and then the, um,
(08:46):
anti trigger warning camp, which, um,
uh, you know, people who see them as coddling and
as overprotective. And also, I think important to note about
that camp is that, um, you know, one of the
key things that trigger warnings intend to do is allowed
people to avoid content. But avoiding content actually goes against
(09:07):
the like. Therapeutic advice for post traumatic stress disorder.
It's not always helpful to be avoiding things that remind
you of your traumatic event. That's a key claim that
the anti trigger warning people make. Um, but these camps
are very much developed before we had any kind of
empirical evidence on the topic.
Cassie Hayward (09:28):
And do we have better empirical evidence now?
Ella Moeck (09:32):
Yeah. So, um, it was around 2018 that the first
kind of empirical studies on trigger warnings and their effectiveness, uh,
really started to emerge. Yeah. So we've got now five
years of research on this topic, and there's been
a really great increase in the prevalence of the research.
Cassie Hayward (09:52):
And what are the main findings out of the research?
And I know there's been a recent meta analysis. Is
that a useful way to think about where the empirical
research sits at the moment?
Ella Moeck (10:03):
Yeah. So the, um,
the meta analysis, uh, that was recently led by Dr
Victoria Bridgland. It focused on kind of synthesising the studies
that have been conducted to date, but focusing particularly on
kind of the experiments that have been conducted. So studies
that have compared, uh, giving people a trigger warning to
(10:24):
giving them no warning and then exposing them to the
same content and seeing how having a warning versus no warning,
uh, impacts those two proposed benefits of the trigger warning.
So does having a warning make people more likely to
avoid content? And does it change the way that they
respond to the content?
Cassie Hayward (10:46):
And what were the findings from that research?
Ella Moeck (10:49):
So the meta analysis focused on 12 studies that have
been conducted to date. Um, and what they found was
that for if we first look at the two proposed benefits,
when people are exposed to a warning relative to no warning,
it actually has no effect on how likely they are
to avoid content,
so it doesn't make people more likely to avoid. Nor
(11:13):
does it make them less likely to avoid. There is
no strong evidence, it kind of sits in the middle.
And if we turn to the second proposed benefit of
trigger warnings, which, as a reminder is to allow people
to emotionally prepare for the content, the idea being that
if you are more emotionally prepared, you should be less
affected by the content.
Um, they also found no evidence for this idea. So
(11:36):
when people saw the content and they either saw a
warning or no warning, there was no difference in the
emotional responses to that content. Um, between those two groups
and just to clarify.
Cassie Hayward (11:48):
So a meta analysis is a synthesis of a whole
bunch of research projects that have been completed. So in
many ways, this is kind of a gold standard of
looking at whether those effects of trigger warnings actually play out.
And you're saying that they kind of don't?
Ella Moeck (12:04):
Yes. Uh, it is the gold standard. And, um, you know,
although it was only 12 studies, what they do is
they take every effect size from those studies. So there's
for the emotional responses to content. They analysed 86 different
effect sizes. Um, so it's quite a good estimate, particularly
for that question. I think that's our best best estimate um,
(12:25):
is that they do nothing, so they neither make people
feel worse, nor do they make them feel better.
Cassie Hayward (12:30):
And was this on a range of different types of
content or places where people would see trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (12:38):
Yeah. So this is mostly, uh, images and films and
text passages. A lot of the research has been conducted
using online studies. Um, so there is that kind of
caveat to it, but
yeah, it was over a range of content, both neutral
content or ambiguous content as well as negative content itself.
(13:00):
And the authors also, um, looked at kind of our
trigger warnings, perhaps having some unintended consequences. So there's these
two benefits we've got. Not really much evidence for either
of those, but, uh, is it possible that they're actually
creating some harms themselves? Um, and one way that they
looked at this was by looking at, uh, people's anticipatory emotions.
(13:23):
So how did they feel when they saw the warning
before they saw the content?
And here we do find some evidence that trigger warnings
are actually creating anticipatory anxiety and making people feel distressed, uh,
when they encounter a warning. And this is across both
kind of self reported measures. So right now, how distressed
(13:44):
you feel as well as, um, physiological measures like heart
rate and, you know, people feeling sweaty, that kind of thing.
So, yeah, I think that's a really important piece of
the puzzle is to consider. You know, we don't have
evidence for the benefits, but we also are perhaps creating
a negative effect that wouldn't have otherwise been there.
Nick Haslam (14:06):
And that negative effect would be all right, wouldn't it,
if it was balanced by a positive effect afterwards? But
the point is, it isn't so. It's preparation, which is
making you more anxious or miserable without any longer term benefit.
Ella Moeck (14:18):
Yes, that's right. And, um,
one of the ideas behind trigger warnings is that, you know,
you might be creating this anticipatory anxiety, but then that
could be offset when things aren't as bad as you
thought they would be. And then you end up feeling better.
But we don't really see that kind of evidence for
this idea. That bracing for the worst by expecting the
(14:39):
bad content is a helpful thing to be doing.
Nick Haslam (14:43):
Is that a more general truth? I mean, getting off
the topic of trigger warnings briefly. I know people say
one strategy when you're facing the future is defensive pessimism.
You know, expect the worst and you'll be protected from
bad things happening. You'll never be disappointed. I mean, that's
not a great strategy either, is it?
Ella Moeck (14:59):
No. And, um, some work that research that I've been
involved in, uh, we've been looking at this idea more generally, Um,
and what we find in our studies in one particular
study we followed students who were waiting for exam results,
and we found that the students who felt more negative
in anticipation of getting their grades felt worse once they
(15:19):
got their grades.
There's no real evidence broader than trigger warnings that there's
these kind of bounce back effects. So if you're someone
who likes to brace for the worst, I suggest you
think twice about it.
Cassie Hayward (15:30):
I'm still really surprised by that idea that the research
findings that you spoke about and I think it will
surprise others as well that not only does the trigger
warning not seem to work, but even before they see
the content that was supposed to be triggering for them,
they're already feeling worse just by reading the trigger warning.
Is that Is that what's going on?
Ella Moeck (15:51):
Yeah, I think even the term now trigger warning like
you don't even need to see it in full. You
can just see TW capitalised and you know, straight away
what that TW is referring to. I think, um, the
term itself has kind of taken on a meaning of
its own,
and I think we can probably all relate to the
experience of seeing that written and going Oh, what am
(16:13):
I gonna see? Like? It's very, uh, it's very immediate
to have this kind of, uh, anxious response.
Cassie Hayward (16:19):
And it taps into that kind of desire that we
have to see something that's maybe not allowed or edgy
or whatever. It's almost making it more, um, kind of
desired from us to to see that content.
Ella Moeck (16:32):
Yeah. So this is what's known as the forbidden fruit effect.
So when something uh is preceded by a warning or
is kind of off limits in a way, we want
to see it more. And we see this in particular
in the social media domain. So,
um, some work that wasn't included in the, um, meta
analysis because it's just come out some really great work
(16:54):
being led by Erin Simister Looking at Instagram sensitive content screens. Um,
and for those who aren't aware what they look like,
they're essentially a blurred version of whatever negative image they're
trying to screen and then overlaid with that is the
text sensitive content. This photo may contain graphic or violent content.
(17:16):
Now, that is a very ambiguous kind of statement and
paired with the, uh, blurred image. We it just piques
our curiosity. Um, and we want to uncover, which is
what's known as the, uh, Pandora box effect. And what
these studies have shown is that, uh, over 80% of
(17:36):
people either say they would uncover or when actually given
the opportunity to do uncover
these images. So I think this is kind of an
extreme case of a trigger warning, but one that really,
like amplifies this tendency to want to see it.
Cassie Hayward (17:54):
And it's also kind of the social media companies can say, Oh,
we we put these warnings out, but it in if anything,
it's making it more likely that people are actually going
through and looking at that content.
Ella Moeck (18:04):
Yes, that is what the current, um studies are suggesting. Yeah.
Cassie Hayward (18:10):
Ella on those social media posts which people are probably
familiar with seeing the blurred out content, who decides that
that post needs the blurred out trigger warning screen? Is
it the user who's posting it? Or is it the
social media company itself, saying this is a post that
has been flagged and is now blurred out?
Ella Moeck (18:29):
It's the social media company themselves. So a lot of
of the big social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram. I
guess Meta is their, uh, broader company. They have, uh,
content moderators. So content moderators are a pool of workers
who spend hours every day going through the things that
(18:49):
people are posting
and deciding is this does this violate guidelines, in which
case it should be taken down. So then you would
see the post removed, uh, or is it it doesn't
violate guidelines, but we should flag it and that they're
the ones that get overlaid with the sensitive content screen.
And then, of course, the other option is that it
(19:11):
just stays up, Uh, as it is. So yeah, it's
it's people. It's AI a little bit, but not entirely. Um,
there are, Yeah, these huge bodies of workers making these decisions.
Cassie Hayward (19:24):
Ella, just to clarify. So we're talking about trigger warnings,
specific content warnings around things that people might see. But
how is that different to, you know, sitting down to
watch a movie and you have a rating system. This
isn't appropriate for kids under 15 or or whatever those, um,
those age limits are on different um uh, rating classifications.
(19:45):
How are trigger warnings different to those rating classification systems?
Ella Moeck (19:50):
So the rating classification systems have been around since the 1960s,
so they're, you know, very well established. And I think
I don't know too much about the rating classification system,
but I think they're, um, much more legislated. Uh, and
you have to use them in, like, a set way. Uh,
(20:11):
and there's very clear guidelines. I think around what, um,
gets a certain rating. Whereas we don't really have that
yet for trigger warnings. Um, and I think it's it's
like very much up to the person adding the warning.
Nick Haslam (20:26):
Was the idea, though there with the rating systems, is
it so much that we're concerned that children, uh, will
be distressed by the content that they might see? Or
is it more just, we think it'll be bad for them.
Ella Moeck (20:39):
Yeah, I think the rating systems is more like deeming
something inappropriate for a certain age group, Um, rather than
kind of making a judgement about distress.
Nick Haslam (20:48):
But going back, I mean, Cassie said it is surprising
these findings. I mean, the meta analysis is very solid,
and you described it really clearly.
But I think it is still a surprise to many
of us that we sort of come out because it's
so intuitive that, you know, you prepare something, someone for
some bad thing that's going to happen, they will cope
with it better. I mean, why do we have this
common sense? Is it because psychologists have taught us that
(21:09):
that these sorts of things ought to work? Or is
it some other reason?
Ella Moeck (21:12):
Yeah, So I think what is a key driver of
the effects, particularly in terms of the, um, the lack
of effect on emotions, uh is that people see these warnings.
We think that it's gonna
allow them to kind of bring up some coping strategies
to help themselves. But in actual fact, very few people
(21:33):
have these strategies on hand or know how to use them.
And I think that's what we're seeing here is like
there's this assumption that you will do something to help yourself.
But in actual fact, um, most people don't. And in
one study, participants were asked to imagine they encountered a
trigger warning for their most negative life event
(21:55):
and asked, What would you do in this scenario? And
there was very, very few of them who said anything
to do with coping strategies. Most people said something like,
I don't know. So, yeah, I think, um, the assumption
that people have kind of tools ready to whip out
and use is a little bit, um, misguided.
Nick Haslam (22:18):
But are there effective tools? I mean, are people just
not coming up with them? Because, basically, there's not much
we can do as human beings. We just have to
face stuff.
Ella Moeck (22:25):
Yes. So there are a wide range of effective tools
and skills. Um, and that's where the emotion regulation literature
comes in. Um, so we know from decades of research
that there are things that people can do, and one
promising avenue then is going OK, Well, what if we
give people the tools? What if we teach them how
(22:49):
to use emotion? Regulation on these kind of warnings, whatever
form they're in,
might that be effective? This is actually something that, uh,
I have started to be doing with, uh, some collaborators
at Flinders University, and we are seeing really promising results. Um,
So what we have done in the first instance is
(23:10):
got the sensitive content screens that Instagram uses and adding
to them a instruction for how someone could, uh, use
an emotion regulation strategy.
So we trained our participants in two strategies. Distraction. So
shifting your attention to something else other than what you're
viewing and reappraisal. Uh, so seeing the content from a
(23:34):
slightly different perspective, for example, you could imagine that the
image that you're seeing is a faked image.
Um, and what we found is that, uh, when participants
saw the warning screen with the instruction to use an
emotion regulation strategy, their distress levels lowered relative to when
they just saw the warning screen alone. Um, and we
(23:56):
just replicated these findings, uh, yesterday, actually, we found out
that they replicated
when we, uh, taught one group of participants how to
use distraction and the other group Nothing. We found a
very large effect, uh, of distraction in terms of decreasing
their distress.
Cassie Hayward (24:13):
And it doesn't sound like that took too much effort
to train them in that technique.
Ella Moeck (24:18):
No. So this, um they did I mean, important to
note that they did receive some training,
and I think the challenge now will be going OK, Well,
how can we make this something that people don't need
training in because you know the likelihood of being able
to do that at a large scale, um, is quite low.
But I think that's what makes something like distraction particularly
(24:40):
promising and why we're focusing on that strategy um, is because,
you know, it's pretty easy to tell someone to, you know,
shift their attention slightly away or,
you know, keep keep scrolling like something that we often
all do. Um, but, you know, maybe something that simple
could help make these screens more effective if the social
(25:01):
media giants insist on continuing to use them.
Nick Haslam (25:04):
So, I mean, distraction is great. I mean, I think
it's often thought of as being a pretty primitive way
of dealing with things. But it's effective, right? So why
can't people figure it out for themselves? Why do they
need to be trained to distract themselves? I'm just curious.
Ella Moeck (25:18):
Yeah, it's a good question. I think it is it's
a surprisingly beneficial strategy, really. But perhaps people aren't thinking
of it as something that would help. I also think
sometimes it gets a bit of a bad rap, and
it's seen more like avoidance. So perhaps people shy away
from it for that reason. Um, yeah, but I'm not
(25:40):
too sure.
Nick Haslam (25:41):
So going back to the meta analysis, Uh, even if
it seems to show that there are no real benefits
on average and maybe a bit of a cost in
terms of anticipatory anxiety might not be, or might they
not be beneficial for at least some people or in
some settings? So, for instance, maybe they're not beneficial for
most people. But maybe just for those with PTSD, they're terrific.
(26:05):
And so you might still want to persist with trigger
warnings in order to,
um, protect if you like, the whatever percent of people
who have been traumatised. Is there any merit to that argument?
Ella Moeck (26:16):
I think, um, we wouldn't even with all this research,
we will never be able to say that warnings aren't
going to be beneficial for someone in some setting. That's
really important to keep in mind that what we're focusing
here is on average effects. But the studies that have
looked at vulnerable people, um, people who have been exposed
to traumas but also traumas that match the content of
(26:39):
the trigger warning.
There's very little evidence that they kind of act any differently,
behave any differently, and even some evidence that, um, they
may be more likely to approach, uh, the content as well.
And there was one study that found that trigger warnings
actually kind of reinforce the idea, um, that your trauma
(27:00):
is central to your identity if you're someone who has PTSD.
And I think something else that's really useful to consider
is that like
it's not just traditionally negative content that might trigger someone. Uh,
it could be something that we all see as completely neutral.
But for someone who's perhaps gone through a sexual assault,
(27:21):
even smelling something that is remotely similar could trigger them.
And we're not ever gonna be able to put trigger
warnings on everything. Um, when it could be such a
wide range of content.
Nick Haslam (27:35):
It's great. We have this big body of research now
or growing body of research now and this meta analysis
that summarises it all for us. But in the end,
it's still just 12 studies, right? So what are the
new directions that research needs to take to advance the field?
Cassie Hayward (27:50):
So the the meta analysis was on the 12 studies.
There's since been quite a lot of stuff coming out, um,
around social media and Instagram sensitive content screens because they
were only put in place in 2017. So quite a
recent initiative. But yeah, there's a lot more, uh, important
questions to answer. Um, I think we know very little
(28:10):
about the effects of different types of warnings, so trigger
warnings can take lots of different forms. Um, it can
just be the word trigger warning.
Ella Moeck (28:19):
It can be trigger warning and the type of content,
or it can specify how people will react. Uh, so
an example would be this content, uh, may be distressing
for some viewers. So there you've got a particular emotional reaction. Uh,
it can specify which groups it might be bad for,
and then it even goes so far to specify how
(28:40):
people should respond. Um, so in one example, I think
it was in an art gallery or a museum. It
said you can exit toward the left
so trigger warnings can be any combination or, uh, just
one of those things. And so they vary vastly in
terms of how vague they are and how specific they
(29:00):
can be. And there's really not been much research looking at. Well,
what are the effects of different combinations of these things. Um,
besides one study, uh, that use the sensitive content screens
and then provided people a description
of what the image was that was blurred. Um, and
they found that providing people a bit more detail led
(29:22):
them to, uh, uncover quite a bit less so suggesting
that there might be something there about giving a little
bit more detail rather than just the vague, uh, kind
of statements. But yeah, in general, warning type is something
that we need to
know a lot more about, I think. And then, yeah,
what I touched on before of if social media platforms
(29:43):
insist on using these and they likely will because there's
now laws around it, then how can we make them
a little bit better? Um, and I think that's where
the emotion regulation studies might come in. And lastly, almost
all the research has been done
online or in labs. Um, and I think we really
need to get out in the real world. We've got
(30:06):
the ability now through people's smartphones to be asking them
how they're feeling as they may be, encountering negative content,
trigger warnings, that kind of thing. And so, for example,
I think you know,
testing the effectiveness of true warnings in a real environment,
like in a museum or something, Um, would be a
really great study, uh, to be doing and also looking
(30:29):
more at, like, the longer term effects. So everything so
far has been immediately warning content. But maybe there's something
to be understood by seeing how this affects people over time.
Cassie Hayward (30:42):
Ella. I saw some memes recently around the Oppenheimer movie
with teenagers saying this needed a trigger warning to remind
me that this sex scene was going to be uncomfortable
to watch with my parents. So that might be another
type of trigger warning that you can look at.
Nick Haslam (30:57):
Speaking of museums, I vaguely remember some study that looked
at trigger warnings with people looking at art and how
it somehow reduced aesthetic appreciation or something like that. Is that,
Did I hallucinate that study?
Ella Moeck (31:09):
No, that's a real study. It's just come out a
couple of months ago and yeah, they found, um so
I think maybe for the first time, trigger warnings
were having an impact on people's responses to the warned
content and in this case, yeah, reduce their appreciation of
the art. So this can could include things like how
(31:30):
well done it is the brush strokes like, you know,
all those kind of I don't know too much about
all the art words, but, um, the general appreciation of
the artwork.
Uh, and I think that's because, like by saying what
it's depicting, you're kind of taking people's ability to just, like,
imagine things about it or to appreciate it because, you know,
(31:51):
if you're told that it's depicting some kind of sexual assault,
you're probably not going so think so kindly on the
artist than if you were able to kind of enjoy that.
Cassie Hayward (32:02):
So, Ella, should we should we stop using trigger warnings?
Should we use them? Only in some situations? Um, And
for those of us who work in education, should we
avoid using them in lecture theatres at university or in schools?
I know there's a lot there to unpack, but if
you wanna walk through some of those examples, yeah, I
(32:22):
so you know, university campuses are a place where they
are used a lot, and there is a lot of
pressure from students to use them.
Ella Moeck (32:31):
There was a survey done that found 86% of UK
students wanted to see trigger warnings in the classroom, so
I think we're under quite a lot of pressure to
be using them. But I think we should be resisting
this pressure, particularly in terms of kind of slapping a
trigger warning onto anything that could be remotely distressing for
(32:53):
someone in your classroom
when there's a potential harm that could go with using that.
So it's not just that they're not achieving what they intend,
but they could be making your students more anxious when
they may not need to be. So I think you know,
as educators but in general, when we're posting on social media,
perhaps you feel inclined to put a trigger warning you
(33:14):
should think twice about what it is you're trying to achieve.
So is it that you're trying to signal that you, uh,
care about mental health? Is it that you're
trying to be seen as a good person? You know,
these are kind of motivations that we don't really want
to consider in ourselves, but very much drive people to
engage in this behaviour. Um, and if it's because you
(33:36):
want to, you know, achieve the the commendable aims that
trigger warnings have, then what are some other ways that
you could, uh, do that? Or what are some things
that you could do as well as just having a
warning if you do want to have one?
So, for example, uh, is it if you're using a
trigger warning? Is it perhaps stopping you from engaging in
(33:58):
conversations with your students about why some people are more
distressed by certain topics than others? Or, you know, stopping
you from giving helpful strategies or actually perhaps teaching your
students what? What's something they could do if they go
home and they're feeling a little unsettled by the content?
And I think more practically just being upfront with your students,
(34:19):
perhaps in your syllabus or in the course description, exactly
what kinds of topics are going to be discussed. So
I think it's important not to say
these may make you feel distressed, but rather just give
a simple list of the kind of topics, and then
they can make a decision for themselves if they want
to enrol in that course, and then you know, not
(34:41):
giving these constant reminders through the semester.
Cassie Hayward (34:44):
So, Ella I, I want your personal um, help on this.
So I teach a lot in the Master of Applied
Psychology where we're doing a lot of content
around behaviour change strategies. But to do that, we look
at advertisements that look at road safety issues. So we're
looking at traffic accidents. We're looking at, uh, health messages
around cancer. We're looking at how to get people to
(35:05):
eat healthier, how to exercise all these sorts of things,
which all could be and have been. You know, students say,
I think we need a trigger warning on this content.
But how to say in those instances where pretty much
everything in our course could typically be defined as a
trigger warning-relevant topic? How do we broach that with students
(35:27):
and say we're going to be covering a lot of
sensitive topics? And do I just list them all? Or
how do I approach that with students?
Ella Moeck (35:36):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think we have a set
like this is the gold standard way, But I think
you know, certainly listing the topics in a very neutral
way would be a good place to start. And, um,
you know, so they know that information up front doesn't
catch them off guard. And then, you know, we could
use it as an opportunity to actually explain why we're
not going to be using a trigger warning and then
(35:59):
use that as an opportunity to educate them about that,
um
or, you know, providing uh, a list of resources or
places they can learn about emotion, regulation strategies, either in
the syllabus or at the end of the lecture, that
kind of thing.
Nick Haslam (36:15):
I mean, a lot of this stuff seems to hinge
on the extent to which
education institutions should be caring about the mental health of
students at some level. Of course, we should. Of course,
we need to be concerned about their welfare, not just
their education. But is there a chance that we sort
of go too far and try to be too therapeutic
and try to anticipate mental health costs in ways that
(36:36):
might endanger the way we teach challenging material? Like what
Cassie was saying?
Ella Moeck (36:41):
Yeah, definitely. I think, um, the trigger warning debate is
a prime example of, uh, of this and
you know, there's there's other things like, I'm not sure
how much it happens here, but certainly in the US
with content itself being censored and you know students no
longer having the opportunity to learn about challenging topics. And
then I think that brings up the question of
(37:03):
If we're so scared to educate about certain topics, then
are they really getting the education that they deserve when
coming to university? And I think that's part of coming
to university and even going through school as well is
learning how to deal with and talk about challenging topics
rather than just saying We can't talk about this? Yes, definitely.
Nick Haslam (37:24):
But in terms of the tools your own research is
helping to to establish as being effective like distraction. I mean,
is there a
role for some sort of education about that at universities
or schools? Um, you know, obviously not turning them into, um,
CBT institutions, cognitive behaviour therapy, sorry. Uh, but you know,
(37:45):
if that's if that's one of the things that would
help students deal with challenging things, maybe we ought to, um,
tell them a trigger. Warnings don't work and B, here's
something that does work.
Ella Moeck (37:55):
Yeah, and I think especially in the digital age, like
we're as a collective facing this challenge now of negative
content is far more available now than it ever was before.
And that's a challenge that I don't think we're yet
kind of equipped to deal with. And,
you know, talking to students about digital literacy and what
to do when you do encounter something that may upset
(38:18):
you because it's kind of inevitable that they will, and
whether that's taking the form of teaching them about emotion regulation,
which I think would be great, especially in schools or, uh,
whether it's something else, I think, yeah, we do need
to turn our attention to kind of accepting this and
then going, OK, what's the evidence based things that we
can do
(38:39):
and you know, not just putting a warning on it.
Assuming people will have those skills themselves because it doesn't
seem like they do.
Cassie Hayward (38:46):
And to your point around the availability of negative content
it that also might be playing into a reason why
trigger warnings aren't having any impact, either, because people are
seeing
stuff that they've told is going to be distressing. But
it's actually not as bad as other stuff they've seen.
That doesn't have a warning and then they're kind of
not distressed, and the trigger warning isn't doing anything. So
(39:06):
I think that desensitisation idea as well is interesting in
in terms of why trigger warnings might not, especially with
with younger generations, who kind of see everything on social media.
Ella Moeck (39:17):
Yeah, that it's a really good point. I think that
there is this kind of dilution.
Um, and this potential mismatch sometimes for you. Like, if
you think, Oh, it's gonna be really bad, it's not
that bad. Then you might not take the next warning
so seriously. And then, you know, it's just a big
kind of muddle. Um, of what? What? How should I
really set up my expectations? Um, and that could be
(39:40):
contributing to why they're ineffective.
Nick Haslam (39:43):
Well, given that there's this big muddle, it's so good
we've got researchers to come and sort it all out.
And obviously, your research on future oriented emotions and emotion
regulation is going to be a large part of that.
So thanks so much for talking to us about it.
Ella Moeck (39:55):
Thanks for having me.
Nick Haslam (39:58):
You've been listening to PsychTalks with me, Nick Haslam and
Cassie Hayward. Huge thanks to our guest today, Dr Ella Moeck,
This episode was produced by Carly Godden, with production assistance
from Louise Sheedy. Our sound engineer was David Calf.
We always include links to extra materials in our show notes. And,
of course, you can find more episodes of PsychTalks from
(40:19):
wherever you get your podcasts.
This podcast was made on the lands of the Wurundjeri people,
the Woi Wurrung and the Bunurong, and we would like to pay
respects to their elders, past and present and emerging.
From the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at the University
of Melbourne. This is PsychTalks.
(00:21):
Hi there. And welcome to PsychTalks where we look under
the hood of some of the latest research in psychology.
Nick Haslam (00:27):
We chat to experts here at the Melbourne School of
Psychological Sciences about their discoveries and what these insights might
mean for you or your family or friends. I'm associate
Professor Cassie Hayward and I'm joined by my co host,
Professor Nick Haslam.
Cassie. So last time we talked about just how powerful
new generation social media algorithms have become at knowing us,
and we wanted to revisit social media again. But this
(00:49):
time we're delving into content warnings or trigger warnings
In some way, these warnings have become almost mandatory when
it comes to sharing material that may upset people. But
if you ever stop to wonder about whether these warnings
actually work, do they A. stop people looking at this
upsetting stuff in the first place and B help them
to feel less upsetif they actually see it,
Cassie Hayward (01:09):
or as we'll discuss today, can they actually backfire To
shine a light on this? We're joined by Dr Ella Moeck,
who specialises in the interplay between cognition and emotion.
Nick Haslam (01:21):
Ella. Welcome to the show. Uh, delighted to be able
to talk to you today. Um, can you tell us
a bit about your work on future oriented emotions and
emotion regulation as a sort of backup and scene setting
before we get into trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (01:35):
Yeah, for sure. And thank you so much for having
me my pleasure to be here. Um, so broadly, my
research kind of focuses on how our emotions influence the
way we think about the past and the future.
Um, and I think I find, uh, anticipated emotions or
emotions about future experiences particularly fascinating because it seems to
be like they're the ones that people have the most
(01:57):
trouble dealing with. Um, so, yeah, I'm very interested in
kind of characterising those and also understanding how we can
help people manage them through, uh, emotion regulation. So
Nick Haslam (02:07):
what is emotion? Regulation?
Ella Moeck (02:09):
Yes. So emotion regulation are the ways that people try
and change or maintain their emotions. So various strategies that
people use. For example, maybe you're in a bad mood,
and you want to put on your favourite episode of
Friends to distract yourself from that mood. That would be
an example of emotion regulation.
Nick Haslam (02:29):
Wouldn't that make it worse?
Ella Moeck (02:31):
Depends which episode you choose, I guess.
Cassie Hayward (02:35):
Ella, What are trigger warnings? And I know we'll talk
more about how that relates to anticipatory emotions. But can
you just give us a little bit of a definition
of a trigger warning and what it is and how
they've come to be?
Ella Moeck (02:46):
Yeah, so trigger warnings are actually quite tricky to define.
Merriam Webster, uh, apparently defines it as a statement at
the start of a piece of writing or video or image. Um,
that alerts the person to the fact that it might
contain distressing material,
and that's kind of the way that I think most
(03:06):
of us think about them. But for a more scientific definition,
it's kind of any statement that intends to help someone
to either avoid content that's likely to trigger them, to
think of a past experience or to trigger like negative
emotions related to their past experience.
Cassie Hayward (03:25):
So people probably recognise them from content on social media.
Where else do we typically see trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (03:33):
Yeah, so these days we see them in a lot
of places. Um, social media is a big one. There's
the social media companies now have their own kind of
trigger warning systems, like sensitive content screens on Instagram. But
we also commonly see them, uh, on our on our TV, uh,
before even in the news, um, on the radio
(03:54):
Netflix, when you go and watch a movie and also, uh,
in the education domain. So in the 2010s, they really
sprung onto the scene of college campuses. So a recent
study actually found that over half of US college professors
felt inclined to use a trigger warning or did use
a trigger warning on their content.
Cassie Hayward (04:14):
And so what benefits are they intended to have? And
we can talk about their actual impact. But what's the
intention behind a trigger warning?
Ella Moeck (04:21):
So trigger warnings are proposed to have two main benefits.
The first is to allow people to avoid content that
they don't want to see. So by knowing that it's
coming up, you can make a decision to say, turn
off the news bulletin. The second proposed benefit is that
they allow people to emotionally prepare for seeing that content.
(04:42):
Um, so by being warned about it, the idea is
that you can then kind of engage in emotion, regulation strategies, um, that,
you know, help you, uh, if you then either have
to view the content or you want to view the content,
that kind of thing. So they're the two benefits they're
proposed to have.
Nick Haslam (05:00):
So where did this idea come from? So you you've
said that it's sort of taken off in the last
decade or so, but, uh, has it got a deeper
history than that?
Ella Moeck (05:08):
Yeah. So, um, trigger warnings themselves actually date back to
the 1990s. Uh, and they first appeared on feminist messaging forums. Um,
and they started quite simple, it would simply say, at
the top of a post trigger warning.
And it was usually to alert, uh, readers to content
around sexual assault and other types of trauma. So the
(05:30):
the kind of origins comes from the literature on post
traumatic stress disorder. And this idea that when you encounter
something that reminds you
of your trauma, it can elicit what's called re-experiencing symptoms.
So this includes things like thinking about the event, experiencing
the same emotions you had when that event occurred and
(05:52):
up to as as extreme as, uh, having flashbacks about
the event as well. Um, so, yeah, that's kind of
where they first appeared was on these, uh, feminist messaging boards.
And then, in the early 2000s, they started to appear
on other internet sites like Tumblr. Um, Facebook, I think,
(06:13):
was around the late 2000,
2007, maybe 2008. There we go, Um, and on Twitter
around those same time. Yeah.
Nick Haslam (06:24):
So it sounds like one of the things that's happened
is the idea has evolved. So you mentioned how it
started off with a fairly narrow meaning to do with
trauma and assault.
Uh, the impression I get is that over time it's
broadened to cover a whole range of more objectionable sorts
of things. Is that true? Yeah,
Ella Moeck (06:41):
that's definitely true. Um, the the first warnings also used
to appear commonly on, uh, like self harm and suicide content. So, um,
those kind of things. But now it's pretty much anything
that
anyone decides might be remotely distressing. Um, which, of course,
is just impossible to ever, uh, constrain. And I think
(07:02):
that's why we've really seen this kind of, um, creep
of trigger warnings into so many different, uh, domains.
Nick Haslam (07:10):
So is distress the idea that trigger warning is meant
to be? Um, uh, avoiding or dampening or preparing you for?
Or is it specifically, or was it specifically anxiety or
anxiety related emotion? Because it seems like some of the
things we now have trigger warnings for are more upsetting
in a moral way that generate moral outrage. Or they're
(07:30):
upsetting it for reasons other than personal anxiety or personal trauma. Again,
is that more or less correct?
Ella Moeck (07:36):
Yeah, I would say that's more or less correct. I
think distress is kind of a catch all term for
any kind of negative emotion
that people might experience when they view content that maybe
those kind of prototypical traumatic event related, but could also
just be something like discrimination. We often see it on now. Oppression. Yeah,
even like very historical events will be preceded by trigger warnings.
(08:00):
So
Nick Haslam (08:01):
and I guess that's probably what makes it so hard
to talk about or challenging to talk about because it
does seem to get sucked into this culture war polarisation
between people who talk about snowflakes, on the other hand,
versus those who really want to be protecting people, vulnerable people,
especially from, um, the ill effects of gratuitous, uh, content. Uh,
is what's your feeling about the whole way in which
(08:23):
this seems to have been politicised?
Ella Moeck (08:25):
Yeah, So I think in the 2010s, it just became
absolutely part of the culture war. And we kind of
developed these two camps, the people who are pro warnings
and see it as you know, an an important part of, uh,
being respectful or advocates for people's mental health and then the, um,
(08:46):
anti trigger warning camp, which, um,
uh, you know, people who see them as coddling and
as overprotective. And also, I think important to note about
that camp is that, um, you know, one of the
key things that trigger warnings intend to do is allowed
people to avoid content. But avoiding content actually goes against
(09:07):
the like. Therapeutic advice for post traumatic stress disorder.
It's not always helpful to be avoiding things that remind
you of your traumatic event. That's a key claim that
the anti trigger warning people make. Um, but these camps
are very much developed before we had any kind of
empirical evidence on the topic.
Cassie Hayward (09:28):
And do we have better empirical evidence now?
Ella Moeck (09:32):
Yeah. So, um, it was around 2018 that the first
kind of empirical studies on trigger warnings and their effectiveness, uh,
really started to emerge. Yeah. So we've got now five
years of research on this topic, and there's been
a really great increase in the prevalence of the research.
Cassie Hayward (09:52):
And what are the main findings out of the research?
And I know there's been a recent meta analysis. Is
that a useful way to think about where the empirical
research sits at the moment?
Ella Moeck (10:03):
Yeah. So the, um,
the meta analysis, uh, that was recently led by Dr
Victoria Bridgland. It focused on kind of synthesising the studies
that have been conducted to date, but focusing particularly on
kind of the experiments that have been conducted. So studies
that have compared, uh, giving people a trigger warning to
(10:24):
giving them no warning and then exposing them to the
same content and seeing how having a warning versus no warning,
uh, impacts those two proposed benefits of the trigger warning.
So does having a warning make people more likely to
avoid content? And does it change the way that they
respond to the content?
Cassie Hayward (10:46):
And what were the findings from that research?
Ella Moeck (10:49):
So the meta analysis focused on 12 studies that have
been conducted to date. Um, and what they found was
that for if we first look at the two proposed benefits,
when people are exposed to a warning relative to no warning,
it actually has no effect on how likely they are
to avoid content,
so it doesn't make people more likely to avoid. Nor
(11:13):
does it make them less likely to avoid. There is
no strong evidence, it kind of sits in the middle.
And if we turn to the second proposed benefit of
trigger warnings, which, as a reminder is to allow people
to emotionally prepare for the content, the idea being that
if you are more emotionally prepared, you should be less
affected by the content.
Um, they also found no evidence for this idea. So
(11:36):
when people saw the content and they either saw a
warning or no warning, there was no difference in the
emotional responses to that content. Um, between those two groups
and just to clarify.
Cassie Hayward (11:48):
So a meta analysis is a synthesis of a whole
bunch of research projects that have been completed. So in
many ways, this is kind of a gold standard of
looking at whether those effects of trigger warnings actually play out.
And you're saying that they kind of don't?
Ella Moeck (12:04):
Yes. Uh, it is the gold standard. And, um, you know,
although it was only 12 studies, what they do is
they take every effect size from those studies. So there's
for the emotional responses to content. They analysed 86 different
effect sizes. Um, so it's quite a good estimate, particularly
for that question. I think that's our best best estimate um,
(12:25):
is that they do nothing, so they neither make people
feel worse, nor do they make them feel better.
Cassie Hayward (12:30):
And was this on a range of different types of
content or places where people would see trigger warnings?
Ella Moeck (12:38):
Yeah. So this is mostly, uh, images and films and
text passages. A lot of the research has been conducted
using online studies. Um, so there is that kind of
caveat to it, but
yeah, it was over a range of content, both neutral
content or ambiguous content as well as negative content itself.
(13:00):
And the authors also, um, looked at kind of our
trigger warnings, perhaps having some unintended consequences. So there's these
two benefits we've got. Not really much evidence for either
of those, but, uh, is it possible that they're actually
creating some harms themselves? Um, and one way that they
looked at this was by looking at, uh, people's anticipatory emotions.
(13:23):
So how did they feel when they saw the warning
before they saw the content?
And here we do find some evidence that trigger warnings
are actually creating anticipatory anxiety and making people feel distressed, uh,
when they encounter a warning. And this is across both
kind of self reported measures. So right now, how distressed
(13:44):
you feel as well as, um, physiological measures like heart
rate and, you know, people feeling sweaty, that kind of thing.
So, yeah, I think that's a really important piece of
the puzzle is to consider. You know, we don't have
evidence for the benefits, but we also are perhaps creating
a negative effect that wouldn't have otherwise been there.
Nick Haslam (14:06):
And that negative effect would be all right, wouldn't it,
if it was balanced by a positive effect afterwards? But
the point is, it isn't so. It's preparation, which is
making you more anxious or miserable without any longer term benefit.
Ella Moeck (14:18):
Yes, that's right. And, um,
one of the ideas behind trigger warnings is that, you know,
you might be creating this anticipatory anxiety, but then that
could be offset when things aren't as bad as you
thought they would be. And then you end up feeling better.
But we don't really see that kind of evidence for
this idea. That bracing for the worst by expecting the
(14:39):
bad content is a helpful thing to be doing.
Nick Haslam (14:43):
Is that a more general truth? I mean, getting off
the topic of trigger warnings briefly. I know people say
one strategy when you're facing the future is defensive pessimism.
You know, expect the worst and you'll be protected from
bad things happening. You'll never be disappointed. I mean, that's
not a great strategy either, is it?
Ella Moeck (14:59):
No. And, um, some work that research that I've been
involved in, uh, we've been looking at this idea more generally, Um,
and what we find in our studies in one particular
study we followed students who were waiting for exam results,
and we found that the students who felt more negative
in anticipation of getting their grades felt worse once they
(15:19):
got their grades.
There's no real evidence broader than trigger warnings that there's
these kind of bounce back effects. So if you're someone
who likes to brace for the worst, I suggest you
think twice about it.
Cassie Hayward (15:30):
I'm still really surprised by that idea that the research
findings that you spoke about and I think it will
surprise others as well that not only does the trigger
warning not seem to work, but even before they see
the content that was supposed to be triggering for them,
they're already feeling worse just by reading the trigger warning.
Is that Is that what's going on?
Ella Moeck (15:51):
Yeah, I think even the term now trigger warning like
you don't even need to see it in full. You
can just see TW capitalised and you know, straight away
what that TW is referring to. I think, um, the
term itself has kind of taken on a meaning of
its own,
and I think we can probably all relate to the
experience of seeing that written and going Oh, what am
(16:13):
I gonna see? Like? It's very, uh, it's very immediate
to have this kind of, uh, anxious response.
Cassie Hayward (16:19):
And it taps into that kind of desire that we
have to see something that's maybe not allowed or edgy
or whatever. It's almost making it more, um, kind of
desired from us to to see that content.
Ella Moeck (16:32):
Yeah. So this is what's known as the forbidden fruit effect.
So when something uh is preceded by a warning or
is kind of off limits in a way, we want
to see it more. And we see this in particular
in the social media domain. So,
um, some work that wasn't included in the, um, meta
analysis because it's just come out some really great work
(16:54):
being led by Erin Simister Looking at Instagram sensitive content screens. Um,
and for those who aren't aware what they look like,
they're essentially a blurred version of whatever negative image they're
trying to screen and then overlaid with that is the
text sensitive content. This photo may contain graphic or violent content.
(17:16):
Now, that is a very ambiguous kind of statement and
paired with the, uh, blurred image. We it just piques
our curiosity. Um, and we want to uncover, which is
what's known as the, uh, Pandora box effect. And what
these studies have shown is that, uh, over 80% of
(17:36):
people either say they would uncover or when actually given
the opportunity to do uncover
these images. So I think this is kind of an
extreme case of a trigger warning, but one that really,
like amplifies this tendency to want to see it.
Cassie Hayward (17:54):
And it's also kind of the social media companies can say, Oh,
we we put these warnings out, but it in if anything,
it's making it more likely that people are actually going
through and looking at that content.
Ella Moeck (18:04):
Yes, that is what the current, um studies are suggesting. Yeah.
Cassie Hayward (18:10):
Ella on those social media posts which people are probably
familiar with seeing the blurred out content, who decides that
that post needs the blurred out trigger warning screen? Is
it the user who's posting it? Or is it the
social media company itself, saying this is a post that
has been flagged and is now blurred out?
Ella Moeck (18:29):
It's the social media company themselves. So a lot of
of the big social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram. I
guess Meta is their, uh, broader company. They have, uh,
content moderators. So content moderators are a pool of workers
who spend hours every day going through the things that
(18:49):
people are posting
and deciding is this does this violate guidelines, in which
case it should be taken down. So then you would
see the post removed, uh, or is it it doesn't
violate guidelines, but we should flag it and that they're
the ones that get overlaid with the sensitive content screen.
And then, of course, the other option is that it
(19:11):
just stays up, Uh, as it is. So yeah, it's
it's people. It's AI a little bit, but not entirely. Um,
there are, Yeah, these huge bodies of workers making these decisions.
Cassie Hayward (19:24):
Ella, just to clarify. So we're talking about trigger warnings,
specific content warnings around things that people might see. But
how is that different to, you know, sitting down to
watch a movie and you have a rating system. This
isn't appropriate for kids under 15 or or whatever those, um,
those age limits are on different um uh, rating classifications.
(19:45):
How are trigger warnings different to those rating classification systems?
Ella Moeck (19:50):
So the rating classification systems have been around since the 1960s,
so they're, you know, very well established. And I think
I don't know too much about the rating classification system,
but I think they're, um, much more legislated. Uh, and
you have to use them in, like, a set way. Uh,
(20:11):
and there's very clear guidelines. I think around what, um,
gets a certain rating. Whereas we don't really have that
yet for trigger warnings. Um, and I think it's it's
like very much up to the person adding the warning.
Nick Haslam (20:26):
Was the idea, though there with the rating systems, is
it so much that we're concerned that children, uh, will
be distressed by the content that they might see? Or
is it more just, we think it'll be bad for them.
Ella Moeck (20:39):
Yeah, I think the rating systems is more like deeming
something inappropriate for a certain age group, Um, rather than
kind of making a judgement about distress.
Nick Haslam (20:48):
But going back, I mean, Cassie said it is surprising
these findings. I mean, the meta analysis is very solid,
and you described it really clearly.
But I think it is still a surprise to many
of us that we sort of come out because it's
so intuitive that, you know, you prepare something, someone for
some bad thing that's going to happen, they will cope
with it better. I mean, why do we have this
common sense? Is it because psychologists have taught us that
(21:09):
that these sorts of things ought to work? Or is
it some other reason?
Ella Moeck (21:12):
Yeah, So I think what is a key driver of
the effects, particularly in terms of the, um, the lack
of effect on emotions, uh is that people see these warnings.
We think that it's gonna
allow them to kind of bring up some coping strategies
to help themselves. But in actual fact, very few people
(21:33):
have these strategies on hand or know how to use them.
And I think that's what we're seeing here is like
there's this assumption that you will do something to help yourself.
But in actual fact, um, most people don't. And in
one study, participants were asked to imagine they encountered a
trigger warning for their most negative life event
(21:55):
and asked, What would you do in this scenario? And
there was very, very few of them who said anything
to do with coping strategies. Most people said something like,
I don't know. So, yeah, I think, um, the assumption
that people have kind of tools ready to whip out
and use is a little bit, um, misguided.
Nick Haslam (22:18):
But are there effective tools? I mean, are people just
not coming up with them? Because, basically, there's not much
we can do as human beings. We just have to
face stuff.
Ella Moeck (22:25):
Yes. So there are a wide range of effective tools
and skills. Um, and that's where the emotion regulation literature
comes in. Um, so we know from decades of research
that there are things that people can do, and one
promising avenue then is going OK, Well, what if we
give people the tools? What if we teach them how
(22:49):
to use emotion? Regulation on these kind of warnings, whatever
form they're in,
might that be effective? This is actually something that, uh,
I have started to be doing with, uh, some collaborators
at Flinders University, and we are seeing really promising results. Um,
So what we have done in the first instance is
(23:10):
got the sensitive content screens that Instagram uses and adding
to them a instruction for how someone could, uh, use
an emotion regulation strategy.
So we trained our participants in two strategies. Distraction. So
shifting your attention to something else other than what you're
viewing and reappraisal. Uh, so seeing the content from a
(23:34):
slightly different perspective, for example, you could imagine that the
image that you're seeing is a faked image.
Um, and what we found is that, uh, when participants
saw the warning screen with the instruction to use an
emotion regulation strategy, their distress levels lowered relative to when
they just saw the warning screen alone. Um, and we
(23:56):
just replicated these findings, uh, yesterday, actually, we found out
that they replicated
when we, uh, taught one group of participants how to
use distraction and the other group Nothing. We found a
very large effect, uh, of distraction in terms of decreasing
their distress.
Cassie Hayward (24:13):
And it doesn't sound like that took too much effort
to train them in that technique.
Ella Moeck (24:18):
No. So this, um they did I mean, important to
note that they did receive some training,
and I think the challenge now will be going OK, Well,
how can we make this something that people don't need
training in because you know the likelihood of being able
to do that at a large scale, um, is quite low.
But I think that's what makes something like distraction particularly
(24:40):
promising and why we're focusing on that strategy um, is because,
you know, it's pretty easy to tell someone to, you know,
shift their attention slightly away or,
you know, keep keep scrolling like something that we often
all do. Um, but, you know, maybe something that simple
could help make these screens more effective if the social
(25:01):
media giants insist on continuing to use them.
Nick Haslam (25:04):
So, I mean, distraction is great. I mean, I think
it's often thought of as being a pretty primitive way
of dealing with things. But it's effective, right? So why
can't people figure it out for themselves? Why do they
need to be trained to distract themselves? I'm just curious.
Ella Moeck (25:18):
Yeah, it's a good question. I think it is it's
a surprisingly beneficial strategy, really. But perhaps people aren't thinking
of it as something that would help. I also think
sometimes it gets a bit of a bad rap, and
it's seen more like avoidance. So perhaps people shy away
from it for that reason. Um, yeah, but I'm not
(25:40):
too sure.
Nick Haslam (25:41):
So going back to the meta analysis, Uh, even if
it seems to show that there are no real benefits
on average and maybe a bit of a cost in
terms of anticipatory anxiety might not be, or might they
not be beneficial for at least some people or in
some settings? So, for instance, maybe they're not beneficial for
most people. But maybe just for those with PTSD, they're terrific.
(26:05):
And so you might still want to persist with trigger
warnings in order to,
um, protect if you like, the whatever percent of people
who have been traumatised. Is there any merit to that argument?
Ella Moeck (26:16):
I think, um, we wouldn't even with all this research,
we will never be able to say that warnings aren't
going to be beneficial for someone in some setting. That's
really important to keep in mind that what we're focusing
here is on average effects. But the studies that have
looked at vulnerable people, um, people who have been exposed
to traumas but also traumas that match the content of
(26:39):
the trigger warning.
There's very little evidence that they kind of act any differently,
behave any differently, and even some evidence that, um, they
may be more likely to approach, uh, the content as well.
And there was one study that found that trigger warnings
actually kind of reinforce the idea, um, that your trauma
(27:00):
is central to your identity if you're someone who has PTSD.
And I think something else that's really useful to consider
is that like
it's not just traditionally negative content that might trigger someone. Uh,
it could be something that we all see as completely neutral.
But for someone who's perhaps gone through a sexual assault,
(27:21):
even smelling something that is remotely similar could trigger them.
And we're not ever gonna be able to put trigger
warnings on everything. Um, when it could be such a
wide range of content.
Nick Haslam (27:35):
It's great. We have this big body of research now
or growing body of research now and this meta analysis
that summarises it all for us. But in the end,
it's still just 12 studies, right? So what are the
new directions that research needs to take to advance the field?
Cassie Hayward (27:50):
So the the meta analysis was on the 12 studies.
There's since been quite a lot of stuff coming out, um,
around social media and Instagram sensitive content screens because they
were only put in place in 2017. So quite a
recent initiative. But yeah, there's a lot more, uh, important
questions to answer. Um, I think we know very little
(28:10):
about the effects of different types of warnings, so trigger
warnings can take lots of different forms. Um, it can
just be the word trigger warning.
Ella Moeck (28:19):
It can be trigger warning and the type of content,
or it can specify how people will react. Uh, so
an example would be this content, uh, may be distressing
for some viewers. So there you've got a particular emotional reaction. Uh,
it can specify which groups it might be bad for,
and then it even goes so far to specify how
(28:40):
people should respond. Um, so in one example, I think
it was in an art gallery or a museum. It
said you can exit toward the left
so trigger warnings can be any combination or, uh, just
one of those things. And so they vary vastly in
terms of how vague they are and how specific they
(29:00):
can be. And there's really not been much research looking at. Well,
what are the effects of different combinations of these things. Um,
besides one study, uh, that use the sensitive content screens
and then provided people a description
of what the image was that was blurred. Um, and
they found that providing people a bit more detail led
(29:22):
them to, uh, uncover quite a bit less so suggesting
that there might be something there about giving a little
bit more detail rather than just the vague, uh, kind
of statements. But yeah, in general, warning type is something
that we need to
know a lot more about, I think. And then, yeah,
what I touched on before of if social media platforms
(29:43):
insist on using these and they likely will because there's
now laws around it, then how can we make them
a little bit better? Um, and I think that's where
the emotion regulation studies might come in. And lastly, almost
all the research has been done
online or in labs. Um, and I think we really
need to get out in the real world. We've got
(30:06):
the ability now through people's smartphones to be asking them
how they're feeling as they may be, encountering negative content,
trigger warnings, that kind of thing. And so, for example,
I think you know,
testing the effectiveness of true warnings in a real environment,
like in a museum or something, Um, would be a
really great study, uh, to be doing and also looking
(30:29):
more at, like, the longer term effects. So everything so
far has been immediately warning content. But maybe there's something
to be understood by seeing how this affects people over time.
Cassie Hayward (30:42):
Ella. I saw some memes recently around the Oppenheimer movie
with teenagers saying this needed a trigger warning to remind
me that this sex scene was going to be uncomfortable
to watch with my parents. So that might be another
type of trigger warning that you can look at.
Nick Haslam (30:57):
Speaking of museums, I vaguely remember some study that looked
at trigger warnings with people looking at art and how
it somehow reduced aesthetic appreciation or something like that. Is that,
Did I hallucinate that study?
Ella Moeck (31:09):
No, that's a real study. It's just come out a
couple of months ago and yeah, they found, um so
I think maybe for the first time, trigger warnings
were having an impact on people's responses to the warned
content and in this case, yeah, reduce their appreciation of
the art. So this can could include things like how
(31:30):
well done it is the brush strokes like, you know,
all those kind of I don't know too much about
all the art words, but, um, the general appreciation of
the artwork.
Uh, and I think that's because, like by saying what
it's depicting, you're kind of taking people's ability to just, like,
imagine things about it or to appreciate it because, you know,
(31:51):
if you're told that it's depicting some kind of sexual assault,
you're probably not going so think so kindly on the
artist than if you were able to kind of enjoy that.
Cassie Hayward (32:02):
So, Ella, should we should we stop using trigger warnings?
Should we use them? Only in some situations? Um, And
for those of us who work in education, should we
avoid using them in lecture theatres at university or in schools?
I know there's a lot there to unpack, but if
you wanna walk through some of those examples, yeah, I
(32:22):
so you know, university campuses are a place where they
are used a lot, and there is a lot of
pressure from students to use them.
Ella Moeck (32:31):
There was a survey done that found 86% of UK
students wanted to see trigger warnings in the classroom, so
I think we're under quite a lot of pressure to
be using them. But I think we should be resisting
this pressure, particularly in terms of kind of slapping a
trigger warning onto anything that could be remotely distressing for
(32:53):
someone in your classroom
when there's a potential harm that could go with using that.
So it's not just that they're not achieving what they intend,
but they could be making your students more anxious when
they may not need to be. So I think you know,
as educators but in general, when we're posting on social media,
perhaps you feel inclined to put a trigger warning you
(33:14):
should think twice about what it is you're trying to achieve.
So is it that you're trying to signal that you, uh,
care about mental health? Is it that you're
trying to be seen as a good person? You know,
these are kind of motivations that we don't really want
to consider in ourselves, but very much drive people to
engage in this behaviour. Um, and if it's because you
(33:36):
want to, you know, achieve the the commendable aims that
trigger warnings have, then what are some other ways that
you could, uh, do that? Or what are some things
that you could do as well as just having a
warning if you do want to have one?
So, for example, uh, is it if you're using a
trigger warning? Is it perhaps stopping you from engaging in
(33:58):
conversations with your students about why some people are more
distressed by certain topics than others? Or, you know, stopping
you from giving helpful strategies or actually perhaps teaching your
students what? What's something they could do if they go
home and they're feeling a little unsettled by the content?
And I think more practically just being upfront with your students,
(34:19):
perhaps in your syllabus or in the course description, exactly
what kinds of topics are going to be discussed. So
I think it's important not to say
these may make you feel distressed, but rather just give
a simple list of the kind of topics, and then
they can make a decision for themselves if they want
to enrol in that course, and then you know, not
(34:41):
giving these constant reminders through the semester.
Cassie Hayward (34:44):
So, Ella I, I want your personal um, help on this.
So I teach a lot in the Master of Applied
Psychology where we're doing a lot of content
around behaviour change strategies. But to do that, we look
at advertisements that look at road safety issues. So we're
looking at traffic accidents. We're looking at, uh, health messages
around cancer. We're looking at how to get people to
(35:05):
eat healthier, how to exercise all these sorts of things,
which all could be and have been. You know, students say,
I think we need a trigger warning on this content.
But how to say in those instances where pretty much
everything in our course could typically be defined as a
trigger warning-relevant topic? How do we broach that with students
(35:27):
and say we're going to be covering a lot of
sensitive topics? And do I just list them all? Or
how do I approach that with students?
Ella Moeck (35:36):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think we have a set
like this is the gold standard way, But I think
you know, certainly listing the topics in a very neutral
way would be a good place to start. And, um,
you know, so they know that information up front doesn't
catch them off guard. And then, you know, we could
use it as an opportunity to actually explain why we're
not going to be using a trigger warning and then
(35:59):
use that as an opportunity to educate them about that,
um
or, you know, providing uh, a list of resources or
places they can learn about emotion, regulation strategies, either in
the syllabus or at the end of the lecture, that
kind of thing.
Nick Haslam (36:15):
I mean, a lot of this stuff seems to hinge
on the extent to which
education institutions should be caring about the mental health of
students at some level. Of course, we should. Of course,
we need to be concerned about their welfare, not just
their education. But is there a chance that we sort
of go too far and try to be too therapeutic
and try to anticipate mental health costs in ways that
(36:36):
might endanger the way we teach challenging material? Like what
Cassie was saying?
Ella Moeck (36:41):
Yeah, definitely. I think, um, the trigger warning debate is
a prime example of, uh, of this and
you know, there's there's other things like, I'm not sure
how much it happens here, but certainly in the US
with content itself being censored and you know students no
longer having the opportunity to learn about challenging topics. And
then I think that brings up the question of
(37:03):
If we're so scared to educate about certain topics, then
are they really getting the education that they deserve when
coming to university? And I think that's part of coming
to university and even going through school as well is
learning how to deal with and talk about challenging topics
rather than just saying We can't talk about this? Yes, definitely.
Nick Haslam (37:24):
But in terms of the tools your own research is
helping to to establish as being effective like distraction. I mean,
is there a
role for some sort of education about that at universities
or schools? Um, you know, obviously not turning them into, um,
CBT institutions, cognitive behaviour therapy, sorry. Uh, but you know,
(37:45):
if that's if that's one of the things that would
help students deal with challenging things, maybe we ought to, um,
tell them a trigger. Warnings don't work and B, here's
something that does work.
Ella Moeck (37:55):
Yeah, and I think especially in the digital age, like
we're as a collective facing this challenge now of negative
content is far more available now than it ever was before.
And that's a challenge that I don't think we're yet
kind of equipped to deal with. And,
you know, talking to students about digital literacy and what
to do when you do encounter something that may upset
(38:18):
you because it's kind of inevitable that they will, and
whether that's taking the form of teaching them about emotion regulation,
which I think would be great, especially in schools or, uh,
whether it's something else, I think, yeah, we do need
to turn our attention to kind of accepting this and
then going, OK, what's the evidence based things that we
can do
(38:39):
and you know, not just putting a warning on it.
Assuming people will have those skills themselves because it doesn't
seem like they do.
Cassie Hayward (38:46):
And to your point around the availability of negative content
it that also might be playing into a reason why
trigger warnings aren't having any impact, either, because people are
seeing
stuff that they've told is going to be distressing. But
it's actually not as bad as other stuff they've seen.
That doesn't have a warning and then they're kind of
not distressed, and the trigger warning isn't doing anything. So
(39:06):
I think that desensitisation idea as well is interesting in
in terms of why trigger warnings might not, especially with
with younger generations, who kind of see everything on social media.
Ella Moeck (39:17):
Yeah, that it's a really good point. I think that
there is this kind of dilution.
Um, and this potential mismatch sometimes for you. Like, if
you think, Oh, it's gonna be really bad, it's not
that bad. Then you might not take the next warning
so seriously. And then, you know, it's just a big
kind of muddle. Um, of what? What? How should I
really set up my expectations? Um, and that could be
(39:40):
contributing to why they're ineffective.
Nick Haslam (39:43):
Well, given that there's this big muddle, it's so good
we've got researchers to come and sort it all out.
And obviously, your research on future oriented emotions and emotion
regulation is going to be a large part of that.
So thanks so much for talking to us about it.
Ella Moeck (39:55):
Thanks for having me.
Nick Haslam (39:58):
You've been listening to PsychTalks with me, Nick Haslam and
Cassie Hayward. Huge thanks to our guest today, Dr Ella Moeck,
This episode was produced by Carly Godden, with production assistance
from Louise Sheedy. Our sound engineer was David Calf.
We always include links to extra materials in our show notes. And,
of course, you can find more episodes of PsychTalks from
(40:19):
wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.