Journal article
Hannah Willems, J. Glombiewski, Richard J McNally, Philipp Herzog
Psychological Trauma, 2025
Psychological Trauma, 2025
Semantic Scholar
DOI
PubMed
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Willems, H., Glombiewski, J., McNally, R. J., & Herzog, P. (2025). Trigger warning ≠ trigger warning: A comparison of differentially worded trigger warnings on negative versus positive outcomes. Psychological Trauma.
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Willems, Hannah, J. Glombiewski, Richard J McNally, and Philipp Herzog. “Trigger Warning ≠ Trigger Warning: A Comparison of Differentially Worded Trigger Warnings on Negative versus Positive Outcomes.” Psychological Trauma (2025).
MLA
Click to copy
Willems, Hannah, et al. “Trigger Warning ≠ Trigger Warning: A Comparison of Differentially Worded Trigger Warnings on Negative versus Positive Outcomes.” Psychological Trauma, 2025.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{hannah2025a,
title = {Trigger warning ≠ trigger warning: A comparison of differentially worded trigger warnings on negative versus positive outcomes.},
year = {2025},
journal = {Psychological Trauma},
author = {Willems, Hannah and Glombiewski, J. and McNally, Richard J and Herzog, Philipp}
}
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Trigger warnings (TWs) are designed to warn vulnerable people about potentially stressful content they may encounter. Most experiments testing the efficacy of TWs have failed to confirm beneficial effects. However, warnings may be formulated in diverse ways, and the aim of this experiment was to investigate differential effects of varied formulations of warnings on negative (e.g., expected threat) and positive outcomes (e.g., felt sense of respect and autonomy).
METHOD This cross-national online study included a total of N = 409 people (N = 288 German-speaking, N = 121 English-speaking). All participants rated differentially detailed warnings in randomized order in terms of expected threat, anticipatory fear, feeling of emotional preparedness, and intention to avoid content. Felt sense of autonomy and respect related to TWs was assessed to determine potential positive outcomes.
RESULTS The results indicated significant differences among the warnings in all outcomes across both samples. Compared to general, nonspecific content warnings, detailed warnings about the content and potential emotional consequences prompted greater expected threat, anticipatory fear, and avoidance intentions. Although participants felt more respected by these warnings compared to general ones, they did not experience heightened feelings of emotional preparedness as intended by those detailed warnings. TWs did, however, result in participants reporting feeling a sense of respect for their autonomy.
CONCLUSIONS The findings highlight that various formulations of TWs have differential effects on negative and positive outcomes. According to our findings, the design of a TW, if used at all, should be adapted to the context and the objective pursued (e.g., strengthening the experience of autonomy vs. reducing the experience of threat). Possible effects (e.g., avoidance) should also be carefully considered with regard to the group of people addressed (e.g., people with posttraumatic stress disorder vs. healthy people). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).