New research published in cognition and emotion found that the wording of trigger warnings can have a meaningful impact on how people respond to distressing content, even if the warning itself does not reduce psychological distress. In particular, this study shows that vague warnings can unintentionally cause more negative consequences, while more detailed warnings appear to be less harmful.
Trigger warnings (short notices placed before potentially upsetting content) are becoming increasingly common across social media and entertainment platforms. These warnings are intended to help people prepare emotionally and avoid content that may cause anxiety.
Despite its widespread use, scientific studies have repeatedly shown that triggering warnings does not reduce the emotional impact of distressing content. In some cases, it can even increase anxiety before the content even begins.
Researchers have long debated why trigger warnings fail to achieve their intended effects. One possibility is that the warning itself forms expectations in a way that influences later responses. Because trigger warnings vary widely in the amount of information they provide, the team in the new study sought to determine whether the specific wording of the warning may play a role in shaping people’s experiences.
Researchers led by Hannah Willems recruited 143 healthy adults (67% women) aged 18 to 65 and randomly assigned them to one of three groups.
The first group received a detailed trigger warning explaining the upcoming film’s violent content and mentioning potential emotional reactions such as anxiety and intrusive memories. The second group received a general warning, simply that the content could be distressing. A third group received no trigger warnings at all, just standard age restriction notices.
Participants then watched a 12-minute film that included scenes of physical violence, sexual violence, and traffic fatalities. Before and after watching the movie, they rated their anxiety and expectations about how well they would be able to cope with intrusive memories. For the next three days, they kept a diary of their unwanted memories of the movie, including how often it happened and how painful it was.
The results were clear. Similar to previous studies, trigger warnings, whether detailed or vague, did not reduce the level of anxiety participants felt before or after watching the movie. Once the movie ended, all groups reported similar emotional reactions.
However, comparing the groups’ cognitive responses revealed important differences. Participants who received less specific and general warnings reported less confidence in their ability to cope with intrusive memories after watching the film. They also experienced significantly more intrusive memories in the days following the movie compared to those who received detailed warnings.
Interestingly, the control group (which received only age restriction) experienced no such spike in intrusions, suggesting that ambiguous warnings actively exacerbated the frequency of unwanted memories. However, overall psychological distress scores were not significantly different between any groups.
Willems et al. hypothesized that: “Vague warnings indicate the presence of a potential threat without specifying its nature, thereby causing participants to face anxiety. Such uncertainty may have triggered increased threat monitoring in an attempt to reduce the anxiety associated with the unknown, increasing the sensitivity of attention to potential cues and thus increasing the likelihood of access to intrusive memories.”
Detailed warnings, on the other hand, may not prevent initial anxiety, but may at least provide clearer expectations and a greater sense of control.
Notably, despite the negative cognitive effects associated with ambiguous warnings, the researchers found that participants in all groups reported feeling high respect and autonomy. This suggests that people generally value the provision of warnings, even if they do not effectively reduce distress.
“Our findings suggest that short trigger warnings that lack specific information about upcoming content or potential emotional responses may be counterproductive,” the authors conclude.
Research has limitations. For example, even if the warnings were made visually prominent and tamper-checked, it was unclear how carefully participants actually read the warnings.
The study, “How to Design Trigger Warnings: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Trigger Warning Wording on Emotions, Expectancy, Intrusion, and Feelings of Respect,” was authored by Hannah Willems, Julia A. Glombiewski, Richard J. McNally, and Philipp Herzog.
