To Look or Not to Look: Instagram's Sensitive-Content Screens Do Not Deter Vulnerable People From Viewing Negative Content.

By blurring sensitive images and providing a warning, Instagram's sensitive-content screens seek to assist users-particularly vulnerable users-in making informed decisions about what content to approach or avoid. Yet, prior research found most people (∼85%) chose to uncover a single screened negative image (Bridgland, Bellet, et al., 2022). Here, we extended on and addressed shortcomings of this previous research. Across two studies, we presented participants with a series of sensitive-content screens covering negative content that appeared among neutral and positive images; participants could choose to uncover screens (or not). We found most participants opted to uncover the first screen they came across, and many continued to uncover screens over a series of images. We also found no evidence suggesting vulnerable people (e.g., people with higher rates of depression) are more likely to avoid sensitive content: people similarly uncovered sensitive-content screens irrespective of their vulnerabilities. Thus, sensitive-content screens may be ineffective in deterring people from exposing themselves to sensitive content. Additionally, avoidance behavior, information seeking behavior, negative affect driven behavior, and positive affect driven behavior appeared to underpin participants' decisions to uncover screened content.

A nervous wait: Instagram's sensitive-content screens cause anticipatory anxiety but do not mitigate reactions to negative content.

Online platforms like Instagram cover potentially distressing imagery with a sensitive-content screen (blurred imagery plus a content warning). Previous research suggests people typically choose to "uncover" and view screened content. In three studies, we investigated whether the presence of screens mitigates the negative emotional impact of viewing content. In Study 1, participants viewed positive and neutral images, and screens (with an option to view the negative images beneath) for a 5-minute period. In Study 2, half the participants saw a grey mask in place of the typical sensitive-content screen. In addition, each image appeared for a fixed period (5 s) and participants had no option to uncover it. Study 3 was like Study 2 except half the participants saw negative images preceded by a sensitive-content screen and half saw negative images without screens. Overall, participants reported a significant increase in state anxiety and negative affect from pre-to post task when they were exposed to sensitive-content screens, whether or not they were also exposed to the negative imagery beneath. Our data suggest sensitive-content screens cause negative responses - state anxiety and negative affect - that do not translate to an emotional benefit when people view negative content.

Something Distressing This Way Comes: The Effects of Trigger Warnings on Avoidance Behaviors in an Analogue Trauma Task.

Avoidance is one of the purported benefits and harms of trigger warnings-alerts that upcoming content may contain traumatic themes. Yet, previous research has focused primarily on emotional responses. Here, we used a trauma analogue design to assess people's avoidance behavior in response to stimuli directly related to an analogue trauma event. University undergraduates (n = 199) watched a traumatic film and then viewed film image stills preceded by either a trigger warning or a neutral task instruction. Participants had the option to "cover" and avoid each image. Apart from a minor increase in avoidance when a warning appeared in the first few trials, we found that participants did not overall avoid negative stimuli prefaced with a trigger warning any more than stimuli without a warning. In fact, participants were reluctant overall to avoid distressing images; only 12.56% (n = 25) of participants used the option to cover such images when given the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, we did not find any indication that trigger warning messages help people to pause and emotionally prepare themselves to view negative content. Our results contribute to the growing body of literature demonstrating that warnings seem trivially effective in achieving their purported goals.

Food for thought: Commentary on Burnette et al. (2021) "Concerns and recommendations for using Amazon MTurk for eating disorder research".

Burnette et al. aimed to validate two eating disorder symptom measures among transgender adults recruited from Mechanical Turk (MTurk). After identifying several data quality issues, Burnette et al. abandoned this aim and instead documented the issues they faced (e.g., demographic misrepresentation, repeat submissions, inconsistent responses across similar questions, failed attention checks). Consequently, Burnette et al. raised concerns about the use of MTurk for psychological research, particularly in an eating disorder context. However, we believe these claims are overstated because they arise from a single study not designed to test MTurk data quality. Further, despite claiming to go "above and beyond" current recommendations, Burnette et al. missed key screening procedures. In particular, they missed procedures known to prevent participants who use commercial data centers (i.e., server farms) to hide their true IP address and complete multiple surveys for financial gain. In this commentary, we outline key screening procedures that allow researchers to obtain quality MTurk data. We also highlight the importance of balancing efforts to increase data quality with efforts to maintain sample diversity. With appropriate screening procedures, which should be preregistered, MTurk remains a viable participant source that requires further validation in an eating disorder context.

Unprepared: Thinking of a trigger warning does not prompt preparation for trauma-related content.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Trigger warnings have been described as helpful-enabling people to "emotionally prepare" for upcoming trauma-related material via "coping strategies." However, no research has asked people what they think they would do when they come across a warning-an essential first step in providing evidence that trigger warnings are helpful. METHODS: Here, participants from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (n = 260) completed one of two future thinking scenarios; we asked half to think about coming across a warning related to their most stressful/traumatic experience; the others thought about actual content (but no warning) related to their most stressful/traumatic experience. RESULTS: The warning condition did not produce differences in coping strategies, state anxiety, or phenomenology (e.g., vividness, valence) relative to the content condition. Only one key difference emerged: participants who imagined encountering a warning used fewer positive words, when describing how they would react. LIMITATIONS: Although measuring actual behavior was not our aim, hypothetically simulating the future may not capture what actual future behavior would look like (i.e., an intention-behaviour gap). CONCLUSIONS: One potential explanation for the consistent finding in the literature that trigger warnings fail to ameliorate negative emotional reactions is that these warnings may not help people bring coping strategies to mind. Although, further empirical work is necessary to fully substantiate this potential interpretation.

Danger! Negative memories ahead: the effect of warnings on reactions to and recall of negative memories.

A trigger warning is an alert that upcoming material containing distressing themes might "trigger" the details and emotion associated with a negative memory to come to mind. Warnings supposedly prevent or minimise this distress. But, do warnings really have this effect? To simulate the experience described above, here, we examined whether warning participants-by telling them that recalling a negative event would be distressing-would change characteristics associated with the immediate and delayed recall of a negative event (such as phenomenology e.g., vividness, sense of reliving), compared to participants who we did not warn. Generally, we found that time helps to heal the "emotional wounds" associated with negative memories: negative characteristics-such as emotion, vividness etc.-faded over time. However, the event's emotional impact (the frequency of experiences related to the event such as "I had trouble staying asleep"), subsided less over a two-week delay for participants who were warned in the first session. Our findings suggest that warning messages may prolong the negative characteristics associated with memories over time, rather than prepare people to recall a negative experience.

Why the COVID-19 pandemic is a traumatic stressor.

The COVID-19 pandemic does not fit into prevailing Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) models, or diagnostic criteria, yet emerging research shows traumatic stress symptoms as a result of this ongoing global stressor. Current pathogenic event models focus on past, and largely direct, trauma exposure to certain kinds of life-threatening events. Yet, traumatic stress reactions to future, indirect trauma exposure, and non-Criterion A events exist, suggesting COVID-19 is also a traumatic stressor which could lead to PTSD symptomology. To examine this idea, we asked a sample of online participants (N = 1,040), in five western countries, to indicate the COVID-19 events they had been directly exposed to, events they anticipated would happen in the future, and other forms of indirect exposure such as through media coverage. We then asked participants to complete the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5, adapted to measure pre/peri/post-traumatic reactions in relation to COVID-19. We also measured general emotional reactions (e.g., angry, anxious, helpless), well-being, psychosocial functioning, and depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. We found participants had PTSD-like symptoms for events that had not happened and when participants had been directly (e.g., contact with virus) or indirectly exposed to COVID-19 (e.g., via media). Moreover, 13.2% of our sample were likely PTSD-positive, despite types of COVID-19 "exposure" (e.g., lockdown) not fitting DSM-5 criteria. The emotional impact of "worst" experienced/anticipated events best predicted PTSD-like symptoms. Taken together, our findings support emerging research that COVID-19 can be understood as a traumatic stressor event capable of eliciting PTSD-like responses and exacerbating other related mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, psychosocial functioning, etc.). Our findings add to existing literature supporting a pathogenic event memory model of traumatic stress.

Expecting the worst: Investigating the effects of trigger warnings on reactions to ambiguously themed photos.

Trigger warnings are messages alerting people to content containing themes that could cause distressing emotional reactions. Advocates claim that warnings allow people to prepare themselves and subsequently reduce negative reactions toward content, while critics insist warnings may increase negative interpretations. Here, we investigated (a) the emotional impact of viewing a warning message, (b) if a warning message would increase or decrease participants' negative evaluations of a set of ambiguous photos, and (c) how participants evaluated overall study participation. We meta-analyzed the results of 5 experiments (N = 1,600) conducted online, and found that trigger warnings did not cause participants to interpret the photos in a more negative manner than participants who were unwarned. However, warned participants experienced a negative anticipatory period prior to photo viewing that did little to mitigate subsequent negative reactions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).