Students' Psychophysiological Reactions to Trigger Warnings and Aversive Literature

Trigger warnings, originally developed to protect populations with relevant trauma and PTSD, have been normalized in many academic settings. In the past decade, the merit of such warnings in academic contexts has been called into question. This debate is predominantly centralized, however, around questions of academic freedom or over-protection of students rather than considering the potential efficacy (or lack thereof) in protecting the individuals they were initially designed to. Characterizations of how students, including those with relevant trauma and PTSD, respond to aversive literature and trigger warnings is limited and predominantly focused on subjective, self-report data. This study was designed with the goal of confirming past-self report findings, as well as extending characterizations of student responses to trigger warnings and aversive literature by examining physiological reactivity (heart rate, respiration rate, and blood pressure). Students' self-reported stress patterns replicate past research: students are distressed by aversive literature, this distress is short-lived, students with relevant trauma and/or P-PTSD are not disproportionately stressed by aversive literature, and trigger warnings do not buffer or exacerbate that distress. Our findings of students' physiological responses to trigger warnings and aversive literature suggest: content warnings may generate anticipatory anxiety, students experience physiological relief after trauma-relevant literature is completed and this does not differ based on trauma or PTSD status, and trigger warnings do not impact physiological reactivity to aversive literature.