To warn or not to warn: that is the question

Trigger warnings for content are the same as rain forecasts; they prepare us to face distressing experiences. In a higher education context, these prompts allow students to choose whether and how they engage with course content, for example, employing emotional management skills, refraining from a discussion, or leaving the classroom. However, the balance between benefits and risks of using trigger warnings in classrooms has become a point of contention.

Activation according to whom?

Classrooms are supposed to be judgment-free zones, but when implementing trigger warnings, the instructor subjectively defines what they consider to be a trigger, but we don’t know all of our students’ idiosyncrasies, so we can’t always know which buttons to avoid pushing.

If a student’s trigger is not preceded by a warning, they may feel like the classroom is not inclusive or safe. On the other hand, if an instructor adds warnings to all content that has the slightest potential to cause harm, it trivializes the trauma and dilutes the authenticity of those warnings.

Perhaps trigger warnings could be useful for all students, with or without a history of significant trauma, in that providing sufficient color contrast in course materials increases readability for all students, whether or not they have a visual impairment. Similar to this, we accept it when television programs and media outlets warn us that “viewer discretion is advised,” whether we personally need the warning or not.

Psychologically safe or insecure?

Rates of mental illness among students have increased. Trigger warnings can reduce stigma and increase accessibility to course content by alerting students to establish strategies for safely interacting with the content. Kate Manne in The New York Times writes that not providing trigger warnings is “akin to occasionally throwing a spider at an arachnophobe.” This resistance may be linked to the medical hierarchy, where physical illness and trauma are still seen as more legitimate than mental illness and trauma.

However, adding trigger warnings to course content does not decrease anxiety, a recent meta-analysis of studies around the world found. Warnings can even increase anxiety, activating an anticipated and fear-filled “get ready!” sensing and removing an opportunity to build resilience. Avoidance of distressing stimuli is a central symptom of anxiety disorders such as PTSD and phobias, with exposure therapy a common antidote. Furthermore, warnings will only decrease anxiety if the student has enough time between the warning and the trigger to acquire and implement the necessary supports and resources. This amount of time varies from person to person, and a student will not have their therapist sitting next to them in class.

Trigger warnings can also provide a false sense of empathy and safety. Similar to land acknowledgments, trigger warnings can seem like a mandatory and false action if the instructor has not done the work to become educated and committed to “doing better.” Additionally, they are often not equipped with sufficient skills or resources on campus to support students, nor is this within the scope of their responsibilities.

Protect whose autonomy?

Trigger warnings give students the autonomy to make informed decisions about whether and how they engage with trigger content. But what about instructors’ autonomy and freedom of expression? Universities are discourse-rich environments that encourage students to think critically and push the limits of their minds. We must separate the difference between discomfort caused by a response to trauma and cognitive dissonance, the latter being necessary to grow intellectually. We should also keep in mind that trigger warnings are intended to allow students to safely engage with, not protect them from, distressing content. Although this may mean leaving the classroom for some, which hinders learning in another way.

A sign of the times?

Perhaps trigger warnings are indicative of the fact that we have Gen Z students in our classrooms and related factors, such as rising rates of mental illness and the increased focus on consent and setting limits. However, sometimes the pendulum can swing too far toward “cancel culture,” where an instructor’s entire career can fall apart due to the inclusion of singular, subjectively triggering content.

Trigger warnings also fuel the perception that Gen Z students are being coddled and bubble-wrapped. As Harold H. Klapper’s The Harvard Crimson writes: “The real world is not organized for emotional stability.” Life doesn’t come with trigger warnings! A classroom can be a safe space for students to practice the skills needed to develop resilience and better cope with the harsh realities of our world.

A way forward…

In addition to trigger warnings, there are many other ways instructors can create safe learning environments and help promote the well-being of their students, such as the following:

• Conduct a risk-benefit analysis of your course materials. Is the content used to trap students into sensationalism, despite adding little pedagogical purpose? Can your learning outcomes be achieved with less emotionally charged alternatives?
• Reconceptualize your course materials with a universal design for learning (UDL) lens. Give students options for ways to interact with course content, such as using captions and alt text if the audio and images are too triggering, or having an online module or video of the potentially triggering content so students can work through it . at your own pace and in the privacy of your home. You can also have students choose their own topics for essays and presentations and what to read from a selection of options each week.
• Include a general statement or content note in your syllabus alerting students that the course discusses potentially distressing topics and provide a list of resources if they need help engaging with these topics.
• Reconsider including attendance and participation in course grades. A student should not be inadvertently penalized if their coping mechanisms involve needing to leave the classroom or refrain from participating in a class discussion.
• Use trauma-informed pedagogical methods such as using mindful language, building trust, and encouraging open communication.

Before sharing potentially distressing content, organize it with high-level contextualization of the topic and explain how the content relates to learning outcomes.

Allow time for breaks during or after exposure to potentially distressing content, as well as for group discussions or personal reflection activities afterwards.

If learning is supposed to light a fire in the minds of our students, then we need to ask ourselves whether our choice of course content and use of trigger warnings is like pouring gasoline on a fire, or whether it burns away the cognitive dissonance within an environment. safe. , causing enlightenment and growth.

Daniella Sieukaran is a Senior Educational Developer (Curriculum) at the Center for Learning and Teaching at Dalhousie University and teaches in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.

If you want advice and information from academics and university staff delivered straight to your inbox every week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.