Trigger warnings ‘have no meaningful impact' on students
Researchers tested the effects of trigger warnings and other pre-lecture notices on 738 students in the US who listened to a talk on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
They found no evidence that a trigger warning improved students' sense of psychological safety or trust in the lecturer, or their willingness to discuss controversial topics.
However, when a speaker said their classroom was a 'safe space' and that students could leave if they felt distressed, students later reported having felt more comfortable. They also rated the lecturer more positively, albeit while also perceiving them as more politically liberal and supportive of censorship.
The results may stir debate in universities. For years, trigger warnings have been used in an effort to help students, particularly trauma survivors, brace for potentially disturbing material. The new findings, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, suggest that they may be more symbolic than effective.
Despite widespread support among students, trigger warnings simply did not achieve very much, according to Dr Victoria Bridgland, lead author of the study and a psychology lecturer at Flinders University in South Australia. 'Some people believe trigger warnings help students feel supported by the teacher,' she said. 'But our research shows they fail to do that.'
Safe-space messages, by contrast, appeared to foster trust and openness. However, they also carried political signals that seemed to affect how students interpreted the instructor's political leanings. 'It's not just about the content being taught,' Bridgland said. 'It's also about the emotional and psychological climate in the classroom.
'This matters because small cues at the start of a lesson can shape how students feel and behave. Instructors need to be thoughtful about how they frame these messages.'
• Giles Coren: I'm having doublethink over trigger warnings• We must be 'tougher' and confront historical racism, author says• Disney waters down content warnings in retreat from diversity
In the experiment, students were shown short video lectures on PTSD, each introduced with one of four messages. The trigger warning said: 'Before we begin today's lecture, I want to issue a trigger warning. The content we're about to cover includes discussions about interpersonal trauma, such as sexual violence. This content may evoke a distressing emotional reaction for some people, particularly those with a history of trauma.'
The safe-space notification took a different tone: 'Before we begin today's lecture, I want to emphasise to everyone that this classroom is a safe space. If at any point the material becomes too distressing, please feel free to disengage as necessary. It's essential to prioritise your emotional safety.'
A third group of students received both messages, and a fourth received neither — just a neutral introduction to the topic. The lectures themselves were otherwise identical and professionally recorded, allowing researchers to isolate the effects of the introductory notices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
4 people die in crash of medical transport plane on Navajo Nation in northern Arizona
A small medical transport plane crashed and caught fire Tuesday on the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona, killing four people, the tribe said in a statement. A Beechcraft 300 from the CSI Aviation company left Albuquerque, New Mexico, with four medical personnel on board, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies. It crashed in the early afternoon near the airport in Chinle, about 300 miles (483 kilometers) northeast of Phoenix. 'They were trying to land there and unfortunately something went wrong,' district Police Commander Emmett Yazzie said. The crew was planning pick up a patient who needed critical care from the federal Indian Health Service hospital in Chinle, said Sharen Sandoval, director of the Navajo Department of Emergency Management. She said the plan was to return to Albuquerque. The patient's location and condition were not known Tuesday evening. Tribal authorities began receiving reports at 12:44 p.m. of black smoke at the airport, Sandoval said. The cause of the crash wasn't known, the tribe said. The National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA are investigating. Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said in a social media post that he was heartbroken to learn of the crash. 'These were people who dedicated their lives to saving others, and their loss is felt deeply across the Navajo Nation,' he said. Medical transports by air from the Navajo Nation are common because most hospitals are small and do not offer advanced or trauma care. The Chinle airport is one of a handful of airports that the tribe owns and operates on the vast 27,000 square-mile (70,000 square-kilometer) reservation that stretches into Arizona, New Mexico and Utah -- the largest land base of any Native American tribe. In January, a medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, killing eight people. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash, has said the voice recorder on that plane was not working. ___ Associated Press journalists Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City and Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, contributed to this report.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Fragmented and febrile - is threat of nuclear war worse than ever?
Why you can trust Sky News Eighty years ago today, an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It was the dawn of the atomic age, but the birth of the bomb can be traced beyond the deserts of New Mexico to Britain, five years earlier. A copy of a hand-typed document, now in the Bodleian library in Oxford, is the first description of an atom bomb small enough to use as a weapon. The Frisch-Peierls Memorandum was written by two nuclear physicists at the University of Birmingham in 1940. Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls don't feature in the film Oppenheimer, but their paper is credited with jump-starting the Manhattan Project that ultimately built the bomb. Both Jewish scientists who had both fled Nazi Germany, they built on the latest understanding of uranium fission and nuclear chain reactions, to propose a bomb made from enriched uranium that was compact enough to be carried by an aircraft. The document, so secret at the time only one copy was made, makes for chilling reading. Not only does it detail how to build a bomb, but foretells the previously unimaginable power of its blast. "Such an explosion would destroy life in a wide area," they wrote. "The size of this area is difficult to estimate, but it will probably cover the centre of a big city." Radioactive fallout would be inevitable "and even for days after the explosion any person entering the affected area will be killed". Both lethal properties of the bombs that would subsequently fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing around 100,000 instantly and more than 100,000 others in the years that followed - most of them civilians. 'The most terrifying weapons ever created' Those bombs had the explosive power of around 16 and 20 kilotonnes of TNT respectively - a force great enough to end the Second World War. But compared to nuclear weapons of today, they were tiny. "What we would now term as low yield nuclear weapons," said Alexandra Bell, president of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which campaigns for nuclear disarmament. "We're talking about city destroyers…these really are the most terrifying weapons ever created." Many of these "high yield" nuclear weapons are thermonuclear designs first tested in the 1950s. They use the power of nuclear fission that destroyed Hiroshima to harness yet more energy by fusing other atoms together. Codenamed "Mike", the first test of a fusion bomb in 1952 yielded at least 500 times more energy than those dropped on Japan. Impractically devastating, but proof of lethal principle. Variants of the W76 thermonuclear warhead currently deployed by the US and UK are around 100Kt, six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Just one dropped on a city the size of London would result in more than a quarter of a million deaths. The largest warhead in America's current arsenal, the B83 has the explosive equivalent of 1.2 megatonnes (1.2 million tonnes of TNT) and would kill well over a million instantly. But modern intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are designed to carry multiple warheads. Russia's Sarmat 2, for example, is thought to be capable of carrying 10 megatonnes of nuclear payload. They're designed to strike multiple targets at once, but if all were dropped on a city like London most of its population of nine million would be killed or injured. If that kind of power is incomprehensible, consider how many nuclear warheads there now are in the world. Nine countries - the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - have nuclear weapons. Several others are interested in having them. The US and Russia have around 4,000 nuclear warheads each - 90% of the global nuclear arsenal and more than enough to destroy civilisation. According to analysis from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China us thought to have around 600 warheads, but has indicated a desire to catch up. Beijing is believed to be building up to 100 new warheads a year and the ICBMs to deliver them. Five more nuclear powers, including the UK, plan to either increase or modernise their existing nuclear stockpiles. The nuclear arms race that created this situation was one imagined by Frisch and Peierls in their 1940 memorandum. Given the mass civilian casualties it would inevitably cause, the scientists questioned whether the bomb should ever be used by the Allies. They wrote, however: "If one works on the assumption that Germany is, or will be, in the possession of this weapon… the most effective reply would be a counter-threat with a similar bomb." What they didn't believe was that the bomb they proposed, and went on to help build at Los Alamos, would ever be used. Devastated by its use on Japan, Peierls disavowed the bomb and later campaigned for disarmament. But that work is now as unfinished as ever. Non-proliferation treaties helped reduce the expensive and excessive nuclear arsenals of Russia and the US, and prevent more countries from building nuclear bombs. 'Everything trending in the wrong direction' But progress ground to a halt with the invasion of Ukraine, as nuclear tensions continued elsewhere. "After all the extremely hard, tedious work that we did to reduce nuclear risks everything is now trending in the wrong direction," said Alexandra Bell. "The US and Russia refuse to talk to each other about strategic stability. "China is building up its nuclear arsenal in an unprecedented fashion and the structures that were keeping non-proliferation in place stemming the spread of nuclear weapons are crumbling around us." 'New risks increasing the threat' The world may have come closer to nuclear conflict during the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, but the fragmented and febrile state of geopolitics now is more dangerous, she argues. Conflict regularly flares between nuclear armed India and Pakistan; Donald Trump's foreign policy has sparked fears that South Korea might pursue the bomb to counter North Korea's nuclear threat; some states in the Middle East are eyeing a nuclear deterrent to either nuclear-wannabe Iran or nuclear armed Israel. Add to the mix the military use of AI and stressors like climate change, and the view of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the situation is more precarious than in 1963. "It's more dangerous, but in a different way," said Alexandra Bell. "The confluence of all these new existential risks are increasing the threat worldwide."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
OpenAI stops ChatGPT from telling people to break up with partners
ChatGPT will not tell people to break up with their partner and will encourage users to take breaks from long chatbot sessions, under new changes to the artificial intelligence tool. OpenAI, ChatGPT's developer, said the chatbot would stop giving definitive answers to personal challenges and would instead help people to mull over problems such as potential breakups. 'When you ask something like: 'Should I break up with my boyfriend?' ChatGPT shouldn't give you an answer. It should help you think it through – asking questions, weighing pros and cons,' said OpenAI. The US company said new ChatGPT behaviour for dealing with 'high-stakes personal decisions' would be rolled out soon. OpenAI admitted this year that an update to ChatGPT had made the groundbreaking chatbot too agreeable and altered its tone. In one reported interaction before the change, ChatGPT congratulated a user for 'standing up for yourself' when they claimed they had stopped taking their medication and left their family – who the user had thought were responsible for radio signals emanating from the walls. In the blog post, OpenAI admitted that there had been instances where its advanced 4o model had not recognised signs of delusion or emotional dependency – amid concerns that chatbots are worsening people's mental health crises. The company said it was developing tools to detect signs of mental or emotional distress so ChatGPT can direct people to 'evidence-based' resources for help. A recent study by NHS doctors in the UK warned that AI programs could amplify delusional or grandiose content in users vulnerable to psychosis. The study, which has not been peer reviewed, said the programs' behaviour could be because the models were designed to 'maximise engagement and affirmation'. The study added that even if some individuals benefited from AI interactions, there was a concern the tools could 'blur reality boundaries and disrupt self-regulation'. OpenAI added that from this week it would send 'gentle reminders' to take a screen break to users engaging in long chatbot sessions, similar to screen-time features deployed by social media companies. OpenAI also said it had convened an advisory group of experts in mental health, youth development and human-computer-interaction to guide its approach. The company has worked with more than 90 doctors, including psychiatrists and paediatricians, to build frameworks for evaluating 'complex, multi-turn' chatbot conversations. 'We hold ourselves to one test: if someone we love turned to ChatGPT for support, would we feel reassured? Getting to an unequivocal 'yes' is our work,' said the blog post. The ChatGPT alterations were announced amid speculation that a more powerful version of the chatbot is imminent. On Sunday Sam Altman, OpenAI's chief executive, shared a screenshot of what appeared to be the company's latest AI model, GPT-5.
