#weaponization | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 years ago

Text

By: Stuart Vyse

Published: Dec 25, 2023

Many social programs are implemented with the best of intentions and later discovered to be either ineffective or, in the worst cases, counterproductive. At the height of its popularity in the 1980s and ’90s, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program was used in 75 percent of American schools at a taxpayer expense of an estimated $200 million, but subsequent evaluations revealed that it didn’t work. Drug abuse was just as high in schools that received the program as those that did not. To add insult to injury, in the 2010s, the iconic D.A.R.E. t-shirt was adopted as an ironic emblem by members of the drug subculture (Wright 2017).

Similarly, after a decade or more of use, there is growing evidence that trigger warnings in college classes do not work as intended, but, for reasons I will explain later, I don’t think they are going away soon.

The Basics of Triggers and Warnings

Trigger warnings, content warnings, or content notes are “alerts about upcoming content that may contain themes related to past negative experiences,” and they are designed to “protect individuals whose unique experiences have left them emotionally vulnerable to specific material” (Bridgland et al. 2023, 1). Supporters of the use of such warnings suggest they empower vulnerable students1 to prepare for or avoid altogether the negative material. Critics argue that trigger warnings violate free speech, promote weakness, and sustain mental health problems in a generation of young people who are suffering at alarming rates (Lukianoff and Haidt 2015). Interestingly, these are directly opposing views of the psychological effects of these warnings: both the proponents and critics suggest their views promote mental health.

[ Figure 1. A Google Trends graph of searches of the phrase “trigger warning” for the years 2004–2023 (obtained on December 12, 2023). Ignoring the two spikes in August 2016 and December 2018, interest in the phrase has been steady or slightly increasing over the past ten years. ]

Although they have received some backlash, particularly in the conservative media, trigger warnings seem to be as popular as ever. The Google Trend graph in Figure 1 shows a steady—perhaps slightly increasing—number of searches for the phrase “trigger warning” over the past ten years. The anecdotal observations of one Chapman University faculty member suggest that student concerns about triggering material increased during the pandemic with the shift to spending many hours online “where the use of Trigger Warnings (TWs) and Content Warnings (CWs) on social media, particularly on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, have made the conversation far more visible” (Read-Davidson 2023). In addition, many university documents about trigger warnings can be found online. Most of these make a nod to the professor’s academic freedom by not requiring the use of warnings, but these documents also give extensive guidance on how and when to employ trigger warnings and strongly suggest that instructors should use them. For example, this statement from the office of the provost at the University of Connecticut includes the following: “These resources are for faculty use if you deem their benefit appropriate to your learning objectives and the classroom culture you seek to establish. This language is in no way intended to impede academic freedom, but to offer another opportunity for you to support your student’s ability to learn and engage in your class.”

This passage is followed by several paragraphs of recommendations for “best practices” in the use of trigger warnings and examples of warnings for use on the course syllabus. After reading this statement, I know that if I were an untenured professor at the University of Connecticut, I would feel all but compelled to use trigger warnings for any course material that might conceivably upset a student in my class. More about this later.

But Do Trigger Warnings Work?

There has been some doubt about the effectiveness of trigger warnings almost from the start, but as more research has been conducted, the picture has become clearer. The most extensive study to date is a meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science in August 2023 (Bridgland et al. 2023). The authors hoped to answer four questions:

Do trigger warnings change the emotional response to the material?

Do trigger warnings increase the avoidance of the warned-about material?

Do trigger warnings affect anticipatory emotions before the material arrives?

Do trigger warnings affect educational outcomes (e.g., comprehension)?

In a preregistered investigation, the authors searched for studies in which a trigger warning was given and one or more of the four effects described above was measured. In addition, the type of warning had to make it clear that the forthcoming material might trigger emotions about past experiences. As a result, more general notices, such as PG-13 ratings or “not safe for work” messages, were excluded. They found twelve studies that fit their inclusion criteria, and in the majority of these (ten out of twelve) some participants had previous traumatic experiences. One study was restricted to participants with a history of trauma.

The results did not support the psychological benefits of trigger warnings. Summing the studies together, the meta-analysis revealed a “negligible” effect of warnings on the experience of the material, when compared to that of participants who were not warned. Similarly, the use of trigger warnings had “trivial or null” effect on comprehension and a “negligible” effect on avoidance of the material, which was typically measured by allowing participants to choose between readings that did and did not contain warnings. One study found that the presence of a warning increased the likelihood of selecting a reading in a kind of “forbidden fruit” effect. The one reliable effect that emerged from the analysis was on anticipatory emotions experienced prior to exposure to the material, and unfortunately it was in the wrong direction. Participants were reliably more anxious in the period after the warning was given but before the material was presented.

I found a more recent study, published just five days ago as I write this, that looked at the reactions of students—a substantial proportion of whom had previously experienced sexual assault or unwanted sex—to a nonfiction account of a campus sexual assault drawn from Jon Krakauer’s 2016 book Missoula (Kimble et al. 2023). When warned about the content of the reading and offered an alternative passage without such material, fully 94 percent of participants still chose to read the potentially triggering passage. Furthermore, those who had a previous traumatic experience were no less likely to read the sexual assault passage than those who had not. As might be expected, sexual assault victims had a stronger reaction to the passage from the Krakauer book, but there was no measurable effect of providing a warning.

The stated purpose of trigger warnings in the classroom is to promote the psychological wellbeing of vulnerable students, but a growing body of evidence suggests they are ineffective at that goal and, in the case of anticipatory anxiety, do more harm than good. Given this track record, one might expect widespread calls to eliminate them from college campuses. Indeed, some people have made these calls. Writing in The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt (2015) argued that “universities should also officially and strongly discourage trigger warnings.” In a statement against the use of warnings, the American Association of University Professors suggests “the presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual.” Nonetheless, as I suggested at the beginning of this article, there is little evidence that trigger warnings are going away soon, and their importance may actually be growing.

Follow the Power

I am speculating here, but I think the use of trigger warnings is supported, in part, by changes in the power structure on college campuses, and as a result their use is more about campus politics than it is about student mental health. Before going further, I should say that, in my view, some forms of warnings can communicate respect and good manners. For example, a simple statement on the first day of class that some of the material in the course will be potentially upsetting can communicate an appropriate concern for students without promoting a kind of victim status. Similarly, I have no objection to statements at the beginning of a radio news piece, such as “this story contains discussions of rape.” I can think of any number of reasons—other than having been raped in the past—that might make someone averse to hearing that story. Such warnings can be simply a matter of politeness and good taste. But the more elaborate use of trigger warnings is likely to continue despite the mounting evidence that they are ineffective.

Today college students have far more power on campus than they did in previous eras. In the distant past when I went to college, it seemed all but unthinkable to complain to the administration about something in my classes. The only time I can recall doing so was when a group of graduate school classmates approached the chair of the department because our professor was not addressing any of the topics listed on the syllabus. He would just come to class and ramble on about whatever was on his mind that day. Furthermore, as dramatic as that case seemed to us, the department chair brushed us off, saying there was nothing he could do, and that was the end of that. Of course, this was long before the age of the internet and social media.

Today, parents are paying enormous sums to send their children to college, and for all but the richly endowed elite schools, bad publicity can have serious financial consequences. The loss of just a few students at $70,000 per year quickly adds up. Furthermore, today’s institutions have made it exceedingly easy for students to complain. Many schools now have mechanisms for students to report “bias incidents” to the administration. These programs typically allow for the anonymous reporting of any member of the college community by any member of the college community. See, for example, this program designed to accept anonymous reports of any act or communication “that reasonably is understood to demean, degrade, threaten, or harass an individual or group based on an actual or perceived identity” whether the acts are intentional or unintentional. If you Google the phrase “report a bias incident,” you will find a long list of colleges and universities with similar programs.

In this environment, even the most truth-seeking professor who is fully aware of the research on trigger warnings is likely to feel a strong pull to use them nonetheless. Or to avoid any class material that might conceivably warrant their use. A recent study of criminal justice professors found that the majority used trigger warnings, and among those who did, the most popular reason was “to allow students to prepare for upcoming material.” However, 27 percent of those who used trigger warnings said they did so “to protect against student complaints” (Cares et al. 2022, 604). Furthermore, if you are an instructor in a vulnerable untenured position, even the full embrace of trigger warnings may not save you. A recent example of this was the Hamline University art history professor who gave extensive warnings before showing a fourteenth-century painting of the Prophet Muhammad and still lost her job when a student complained to the administration. So much for the free expression of ideas.

My hypothesis about the power structure in higher education is further supported by recent events in elementary and secondary education where the power is coming from the right rather than the left. In several red states, a new focus on parents’ rights has had a similarly chilling effect on instruction, but the protected group is primarily white students rather than minorities or trauma victims. According to the Washington Post, a parent in a North Carolina school objected to a reading about Christopher Columbus’s treatment of Native peoples because it would make her white son feel guilty. The parent contacted the school administration, and an administrator told the teacher to “stop pushing your agenda” (Natanson 2023). The same article reported on an Iowa law passed in 2021 that prohibited teaching “that the United States of America and the state of Iowa are fundamentally or systemically racist or sexist.” In light of this law, Greg Wickenkamp, an eighth-grade social studies teacher, asked his district’s superintendent: “Is it acceptable for me to teach students that slavery was wrong?” The superintendent was unable to say whether that statement was allowed or not under state law.

Of course, these are only the cases we hear about because the teachers involved were among the few to question authority or stick to their lesson plans. Undoubtedly many others quietly altered their lesson plans to avoid anything that might anger a conservative parent.

Out in the real world, we do things for a multitude of reasons. Today, a text or work of art that might make educational sense may not show up in the classroom for reasons that are more political than pedagogical. In the case of trigger warnings, they are likely to remain part of many college courses despite the evidence that they fail at their stated purpose. It is a traditional skeptic’s lament that evidence is often not enough to sway people toward reason, and I am sorry to say that this is one of those cases. Reason and evidence alone will not strengthen our educational system. The political winds need to change before that can happen.

Note

1. Although trigger warnings and similar kinds of notices are used in many other contexts, in this article, I am primarily concerned with their use in secondary schools and universities.

Trigger warnings are pseudoscience. They don't do what they claim to do, and what they claim to do isn't even a good idea in the first place.

#Stuart Vyse #trigger warnings #weaponization #censorship #content warnings #content notes #pseudoscience #academic integrity #free expression #academic freedom #discredited #safetyism #religion is a mental illness

5 notes · View notes