(1/1) Another excellent #triggerwarning study out in JEP-Applied by @Toribridgland and colleagues. Five more experiments, 1600 more participants, preregistration, and basically the same pattern of results (!) -- trigger warnings don't seem to help psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-11…
(2/2) This study makes a crtical distinction that we missed in our study -- the period of *anticipation* before the stimulus vs. the interpretation after the stimulus is seen. Trigger warnings consistently generate negative anticipations, but don't influence interpretation 
(3/3) In retrospect, this makes a ton of sense, given the literature on priming/expectation effects/stereotypes etc. Human anticipations are initially heavily shaped by biases, but once we have access to individuating information, we are fairly good at moving past initial bias
(4/4) Trigger warnings appear to follow a similar pattern-- they shape what we expect, but have only a trivial effect on our reactions to stimuli. Still lots of open questions for trigger warnings research, but at least some questions seem to be reaching very consistent answers!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
