Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 154 posts

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#11

Post by everforward »

civilized wrote: post #4
sbf501 wrote: post #2

"Overall, we found that warnings have no effect on affective responses to negative material nor on educational outcomes (i.e., comprehension). However, warnings reliably increase anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material, or that they increase engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implicat…

I imagine the things people consider NSFL depend on their personality and background. These studies seem like they'd be more illuminating if they looked at e.g. rape content warnings for rape survivors. Effects on the rest of us matter as well, but shouldn't be considered the whole story.

I typically see content flagged NSFL when it's generally repulsive regardless of background (excepting those seeking out the content). Stuff like graphic videos of beheadings or people set on fire that's upsetting even to people with no traumatic background. It's kind of like a trigger warning for an average person; background doesn't matter if the content is bad enough.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#12

Post by Pxtl »

drewpc wrote: post #6
sbf501 wrote: post #2

"Overall, we found that warnings have no effect on affective responses to negative material nor on educational outcomes (i.e., comprehension). However, warnings reliably increase anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material, or that they increase engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implicat…

Does NSFL mean "Not Safe For Life"? I wasn't familiar with this term before and have never seen content labeled with it.

I usually hear it as "not safe for lunch", as in something so horrifying it will make it difficult to keep food down.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#13

Post by all2well »

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.”

Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category?

(This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#14

Post by kadoban »

all2well wrote: post #13

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.” Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category? (This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

[flagged]

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#15

Post by Filligree »

all2well wrote: post #13

“To many conservatives, trigger warnings are a symptom of a world gone mad: a fragilizing ritual meant to insulate the delicate worldview of a weak-minded generation.” Conservatives routinely get upset about the presence of gay people in media, among many other things. Is that somehow in a different category? (This is in reply to the article linked by the author of the study in that Twitter thread)

No post body was provided.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#16

Post by [deleted] »

zug_zug wrote: post #8

What the heck is this? The presumption of this article is that trigger warnings get you emotionally ready for an adverse subject, but I'm pretty sure that's not what they are for. I figure most people often want warnings on their books/videos/etc "e.g. this is a live-leak of somebody dying" so they can avoid the material. --- Per his twitter "Well, too bad for all y'all. Trigger warnings do not seem to encourage avoi…

[deleted]

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#17

Post by phkahler »

Pxtl wrote: post #12
drewpc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does NSFL mean "Not Safe For Life"? I wasn't familiar with this term before and have never seen content labeled with it.

I usually hear it as "not safe for lunch", as in something so horrifying it will make it difficult to keep food down.

>> I usually hear it as "not safe for lunch",

Decades ago, I was having lunch at my parents house. There was a newspaper on the table, unopened, just brought in. I looked over the top of page 1. Unfolded it, and there was a picture of a dead body in the street. It was a story about some conflict in another country (Bosnia perhaps). I'm OK with seeing that if I'm already reading about it and in the right frame of mind, but "not safe for lunch" really hit me that day. So much that I called the newspaper to complain about "being surprised with a dead body on the front pafe during lunch". I've never done that before or since. ;-)

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#18

Post by romwell »

This study seems to be pretty limited regardless of how it's carried out.

People seem to be hung up on the new term "trigger warning" when we've had content warnings since time immemorial.

Nobody seems to be writing the articles on "efficacy" of movie ratings, or putting "18+" labels on content. We, as a society, understand that not all content is suitable for all audiences... when it comes to sex, and sex only, it seems.

Then there's the issue of trust. Any source that gives a heads-up of what's coming and doesn't spring 2girls1cup on you without a warning is going to be more trusted than the one that does.

Why is that even a question when the same principles applies to content other than an unclothed female nipple or (gasp) genitals? Is it so hard to make the leap to other subjects, such as vivid depictions of rape and violence?

Why isn't it common sense that, regardless of studies of "efficacy", giving a heads-up about shit that some people in the audience might not want to see unprompted is, like, polite, and is universally a good thing?

It's frankly exhausting to even have these discussions, again and again. Trigger warnings are about not being an asshole to the people who choose to listen to you.

The effect is they might choose to listen to you again, because you're not a dick. End of story.

_______

TL;DR: the study focuses on nebulous "effects", whereas they should be looking at bounce rates.

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#19

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

all2well wrote: post #10

What about stuff like movie and game ratings? What about things like restricting sexually explicit material to minors? Seems like a weird point to make. What I like about content warnings is that I can choose whether I want to engage with something that might upset me in a more granular fashion than “entire profile.” It’s not like I’d stop avoiding content if there were no CWs anywhere.

This is a fascinating concept to me. How granular should we get? Say.. in original Star Wars, should we add "Contains scenes of hand mutilation" or "Character may discover he is not, in fact, a child of a loving parental unit"?

I get what you are getting at, but I am curious how much of that profile should be fleshed out in your view?

Re: A meta-analysis of the effects of trigger warnings and content notes

#20

Post by vorpalhex »

romwell wrote: post #18

This study seems to be pretty limited regardless of how it's carried out. People seem to be hung up on the new term "trigger warning" when we've had content warnings since time immemorial. Nobody seems to be writing the articles on "efficacy" of movie ratings, or putting "18+" labels on content. We, as a society, understand that not all content is suitable for all audiences... when it comes to sex, and sex only, it s…

The study was about content warnings and anxiety triggers.
Post reply on HN