From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

Flagging up distressing content does not seem to change peoplerCOs
behaviour rCo and could make them more intrigued, a study finds


Trigger warning: this article might offend people who like trigger warnings.

A study is just the latest to suggest that telling people they are about
to experience offensive content does not seem to change their behaviour
rCo and could even make them want to watch it.

Researchers in Australia found that during the course of a normal week,
young people came across trigger warnings on social media dozens of
times. Sometimes these came in the form of text, cautioning them that a
post contained distressing content. Sometimes it was blurred images or
video that they had to then consent to see.

Whatever the variety of sources of the warnings, the response to them
was largely the same: irrespective of whether or not people said they
suffered from trauma, they were ignored.

The study, published in the Journal of Behaviour Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, found that of the 261 participants, 90 per cent
of them happily clicked through, and some said they were more likely to
do so precisely because of the warning.

Crucially, those who reported suffering from trauma were no less likely
to click. One even told the researchers it was an inducement, saying: rCLSometimes my brain wants to be triggered, so it grabs my attention more.rCY

Victoria Bridgland, from Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia,
said that she was not surprised by the findings.

rCLThererCOs a lot of political baggage in this conversation. This typically skews between two viewpoints. On one side itrCOs that trigger warnings are coddling people, and students are snowflakes. On the other side, itrCOs
that we need to make accommodations for trauma survivors.rCY

Her interest, she said, was simpler: do they work? Do they change
behaviour, and do they help when they do?

There has now been a decade of research into this, of which her study is
just the latest. rCLThey all come to the same conclusion. Trigger warnings donrCOt really change peoplerCOs behaviours or emotions at all. IrCOm quite certain that the warnings donrCOt emotionally prepare people.rCY

Work in laboratory studies has found that among the most consistent
responses to trigger warnings is, as in their real-world study, to be intrigued.

rCLThe problem with most trigger warnings in the studies that werCOve done
so far is that most of the time, in practice, trigger warnings are quite vague, and so they create curiosity.rCY

But, she suspects, amid the proliferation of trigger warnings there is
one constituency they do serve: the organisations that post the content.

rCLWhatrCOs the utility of sharing a beheading video, for instance? ItrCOs not going to raise awareness more than telling people a beheading happen,
but itrCOll get clicks.

rCLSo they put a warning on it, to be like, rCyWe warned you, if yourCOre going to watch the graphic content and be disturbed by it, thatrCOs on
you.rCO But theyrCOre going to show you this graphic stuff because they know itrCOs going to get clicks.

rCLTrigger warnings are there to put the onus back on the consumer.
Instead of a news organisation being responsible, they put a warning on it.rCY


Tom Whipple
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 01:24:59 +0100, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:

Flagging up distressing content does not seem to change peopleAs
behaviour u and could make them more intrigued, a study finds

Trigger warning: this article might offend people who like trigger warnings.

A study is just the latest to suggest that telling people they are about
to experience offensive content does not seem to change their behaviour
u and could even make them want to watch it.

Researchers in Australia found that during the course of a normal week, >young people came across trigger warnings on social media dozens of
times. Sometimes these came in the form of text, cautioning them that a
post contained distressing content. Sometimes it was blurred images or
video that they had to then consent to see.

Whatever the variety of sources of the warnings, the response to them
was largely the same: irrespective of whether or not people said they >suffered from trauma, they were ignored.

The study, published in the Journal of Behaviour Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, found that of the 261 participants, 90 per cent
of them happily clicked through, and some said they were more likely to
do so precisely because of the warning.

Crucially, those who reported suffering from trauma were no less likely
to click. One even told the researchers it was an inducement, saying: >oSometimes my brain wants to be triggered, so it grabs my attention more.o

Victoria Bridgland, from Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia,
said that she was not surprised by the findings.

oThereAs a lot of political baggage in this conversation. This typically >skews between two viewpoints. On one side itAs that trigger warnings are >coddling people, and students are snowflakes. On the other side, itAs
that we need to make accommodations for trauma survivors.o

Her interest, she said, was simpler: do they work? Do they change
behaviour, and do they help when they do?

There has now been a decade of research into this, of which her study is >just the latest. oThey all come to the same conclusion. Trigger warnings >donAt really change peopleAs behaviours or emotions at all. IAm quite >certain that the warnings donAt emotionally prepare people.o

Work in laboratory studies has found that among the most consistent >responses to trigger warnings is, as in their real-world study, to be >intrigued.

oThe problem with most trigger warnings in the studies that weAve done
so far is that most of the time, in practice, trigger warnings are quite >vague, and so they create curiosity.o

But, she suspects, amid the proliferation of trigger warnings there is
one constituency they do serve: the organisations that post the content.

oWhatAs the utility of sharing a beheading video, for instance? ItAs not >going to raise awareness more than telling people a beheading happen,
but itAll get clicks.

oSo they put a warning on it, to be like, aWe warned you, if youAre
going to watch the graphic content and be disturbed by it, thatAs on
you.A But theyAre going to show you this graphic stuff because they know >itAs going to get clicks.

oTrigger warnings are there to put the onus back on the consumer.
Instead of a news organisation being responsible, they put a warning on it.o

Tom Whipple

Margaret Atwood said when people want to burn and ban her books,
people are more likely to read them so they can know what the fuss was
all about.

So, please do, she said.
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2