Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead
Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.07.002
复制
发表时间：
2018-12-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
McNally, Richard J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bellet, Benjamin W.;Jones, Payton J.;McNally, Richard J.
背景和目标：触发警告告知人们书面、视听或其他材料可能引起的痛苦，最初用于满足创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）患者的需求。从一开始，触发警告就在当代文化中得到了越来越广泛的应用，在学术界和其他领域引发了激烈的争议。一些人认为，它们通过允许他们在心理上准备或避免令人不安的内容来增强弱势个体的能力，而另一些人则认为，这种警告破坏了对压力的适应力，并在限制学术自由的同时增加了对精神病理学的脆弱性。我们实验的目的是调查心理影响发出触发warning.Methods：我们随机分配在线参与者接收（n = 133）或不接收（n = 137）触发警告之前阅读文学段落，在潜在的干扰内容不同。结果：触发警告组的参与者认为，如果他们经历创伤，他们自己和一般人在情感上更容易受到伤害。收到警告的参与者报告说，当他们阅读可能令人痛苦的段落时，他们会感到更大的焦虑，但前提是他们相信这些文字会造成伤害。ESTA没有影响参与者的内隐自我认同为脆弱的，或随后的焦虑反应不那么令人痛心的contents.Limitations：该样本只包括非创伤的参与者，观察到的效果可能会有所不同的创伤population.Conclusions：触发警告可能会无意中破坏某些方面的情绪韧性。我们的研究结果的普遍性需要进一步的研究，特别是对大学生群体和那些有创伤史的人。
Background and objectives: Trigger warnings notify people of the distress that written, audiovisual, or other material may evoke, and were initially used to provide for the needs of those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since their inception, trigger warnings have become more widely applied throughout contemporary culture, sparking intense controversy in academia and beyond. Some argue that they empower vulnerable individuals by allowing them to psychologically prepare for or avoid disturbing content, whereas others argue that such warnings undermine resilience to stress and increase vulnerability to psychopathology while constraining academic freedom. The objective of our experiment was to investigate the psychological effects of issuing trigger warnings.Methods: We randomly assigned online participants to receive (n = 133) or not receive (n = 137) trigger warnings prior to reading literary passages that varied in potentially disturbing content.Results: Participants in the trigger warning group believed themselves and people in general to be more emotionally vulnerable if they were to experience trauma. Participants receiving warnings reported greater anxiety in response to reading potentially distressing passages, but only if they believed that words can cause harm. Warnings did not affect participants' implicit self-identification as vulnerable, or subsequent anxiety response to less distressing content.Limitations: The sample included only non-traumatized participants; the observed effects may differ for a traumatized population.Conclusions: Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.