Deb Tate

So that's definitely a good thing, I think.

But I think we have to balance out the positive effects and unwanted side effects because we are not wanting trigger warnings to do any harm, I think.

That's a difficult question.

I would say regarding the experience of intrusive memories or to form realistic expectations, detailed warnings appear to be less harmful, but more research is needed to recommend them with confidence.

It should also be taken into account that an overly detailed warning may have side effects, for example, by inducing stress themselves.

And additionally, there remains the hypothetical possibility that a very, very detailed warning, if there's a lot of anticipation of potential emotional reactions, could amplify those reactions.

Yeah, we thought about this.

The fear of the unknown is a very, very basic human fear and maybe a very vague warning signaled the presence of a potential threat, but without specifying its nature, so thereby confronting people with uncertainty.

And such uncertainty may have elicited high-end threat monitoring as an attempt to reduce the anxiety associated with the unknown.

increasing, maybe increasing, attentional sensitivity to potential cues and consequently the accessibility of intrusive memories.

Yes, and I think we have to consider that trigger warnings are meant for trauma survivors.

So I think for them it could be useful really to know, okay, what will happen so I'm not exposing myself to distressing content.

Good question.

People don't avoid the content due to a trigger warning.

In some cases, there are psychological effects like the forbidden fruit effect that can make people even more curious about the content, especially when it's labeled as potentially disturbing content.

So research suggests there is no avoidance behavior due to trigger warnings.

Thank you very much.