They Were There for People Who Needed Them : Student Attitudes Toward the Use of Trigger Warnings in Victimology Classrooms

Over the last five years, vigorous debate has been waged about the purpose, use, and impact of trigger warnings in courses offered at institutions of higher education. This debate has been largely uninformed by research findings. This study fills this gap using quantitative and qualitative data collected via surveys in a large undergraduate victimology course to explore student attitudes toward trigger warnings. Findings revealed considerable, but nuanced support for trigger warning use in victimology courses. Support does not appear to differ between crime victims and non-victims; support is higher among females than males. These findings underscore that universal decisions mandating or advocating for or against the use of trigger warnings are premature. Further study is needed with a diverse range of samples to gain a fuller picture of student attitudes about trigger warnings as well as to assess any impact of trigger warnings use on student behavior and learning

For or Against?: Criminal Justice and Criminology Faculty Attitudes toward Trigger Warnings

Since 2014, a debate has raged over trigger warnings in college courses. Proponents see trigger warnings (oral or written advance notification of course content with the potential to trigger adverse health responses, and therefore, inhibit academic performance) as supportive of students, particularly those who have experienced trauma. Critics see them as harmful to those same students, and as a threat to learning and academic freedom. Using data from a survey of criminal justice and criminology faculty (N = 791), this study found three domains of faculty attitudes, with trigger warnings as a student-centered teaching practice, an academic harm, and compromising content. Female faculty, those who had taught victimology, those in criminal justice departments, and those who identified as more liberal had more positive views of trigger warnings. Only attitudes viewing trigger warnings as a student-centered teaching practice predicted use of trigger warnings. Future research should undertake inter-disciplinary comparisons

“The Subject Matter Should Be an Adequate Trigger Warning”: How and Why Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Use (and Don’t Use) Trigger Warnings

Trigger warnings are written or oral notifications of course content meant to provide students advance notice of sensitive material that may produce adverse health responses and, therefore, inhibit academic performance. This study examined trigger warning use in an academic discipline that includes a substantial amount of graphic content regarding violence and victimization using survey data from criminal justice and criminology faculty (N = 791). Trigger warning use was widespread − 61.9% of faculty had used a trigger warning. They were largely used to allow students to prepare for upcoming material and because in the faculty’s judgment, the content warranted a trigger warning. Use was highest in Victimology courses, but trigger warnings were used in a wide array of courses. Most faculties had not changed anything in their teaching over concerns about potentially triggering material. Research is needed to see if trigger warnings are helpful to students in criminal justice and criminology courses