7 ms·

The article does mention... > Consider a meta-analysis of 39 studies in 2007 by Sam Houston State University in Texas that found a ‘clear, consistent associati

The article does mention... > Consider a meta-analysis of 39 studies in 2007 by Sam Houston State University in Texas that found a ‘clear, consistent association’ between using avoidance-based coping strategies (that is, staying away from upsetting stressors or avoiding thinking about them) and increased psychological distress. ... BUT the operative word is "associated" not "caused"

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
How does it compare with not being able to avoid upsetting stressors? We're not comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "coping mechanisms that allow you to face the stressor". We're comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "being exposed to a stressor with no warning and no way to avoid it, regardless of if you do or dont have a coping mechanism in place at all".
crooked-v 7y ago
Avoidance-based coping covers a broad variety of behavior beyond just 'don't expose yourself to a stressor', so a one-sentence reference without citation or further details is basically useless anyway.
lilyball 7y ago
People who can be expected to experience increased distress from the topic are much more likely to choose to avoid it, so I'm not surprised in the least by that association. Also from the article: > critics argue that the avoidance of potentially upsetting material is actually a counterproductive approach because it offers no chance to learn to manage one’s emotional reactions. This is wrong. You don't learn to manage emotional reactions by being forced to consume triggering content. If you have a problem with emotional reactions that needs adjustment, that's what therapy is for. Or using delaying tactics such that you don't consume the content until you're more prepared to handle it. Anyone who thinks springing triggering content on people without warning is good because it forces them to react to it is literally abusive. And many times avoiding triggering content forever is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be managed. Personally, I don't have any trauma around rape but I would really prefer to avoid reading about it, so I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This isn't something that needs to be "fixed", there's no reason why I must work towards being indifferent towards rape.
- ghostpepper 7y ago
  I am no expert but it was my understanding that therapy for trauma often includes exposure to triggering stimuli precisely because it's not a realistic option to just hope you don't run into something triggering "in the wild" for the rest of your life.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, it may, particularly if it's an unavoidable trigger. That should be done safely and consensually within the context of a therapy session/plan with a professional guiding it. It's like surgery. Entirely acceptable in certain scenarios, but you'd object if your English lit prof decided to DIY it during class.
    - lmm 7y ago
      Aren't the trigger warnings a DIY treatment themselves? In the absence of specific professional advice, I'd think the default would be to treat people normally. Why are we so eager to put trigger warnings on things without any evidence that they're doing more good than harm?
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        No, they’re not a treatment. They may aid someone who is in treatment, though. I know an abuse survivor who has been in therapy for many years working on the impact of it. We avoid movies with abuse depictions as it causes severe disassociation and setbacks in that treatment. Someone for whom it’s triggering but less severely so might just opt to watch said movies with a trusted friend on a day they’re feeling emotionally sound. They allow folks to choose the level of exposure to optional, potentially damaging things. Just like an R rating on a film might make you pause before bringing an 8 year old to the theater.
  - eej2ya1K 7y ago
    It includes exposure, yes, but the idea is to encourage the patient/client to decide to seek out triggering stimuli themselves.
vincent-toups 7y ago
Right, avoidance may not be a good coping strategy at large, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be extended the courtesy of being able to choose to avoid exposure in certain contexts. Ideally exposure therapy for trauma should be done in a controlled setting, like therapy. Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. From my point of view, trigger warnings are courteous. Its not my job to tell people how to live their lives. If someone asks me in good faith to let them know before I talk about something that might disturb them, I take that seriously because I'm not a jerk. The idea that trigger warnings constitute some kind of creeping Orwellian thing is nuts to me. The whole point of them is "I'm going to say this!" try not to be one.
- nimblegorilla 7y ago
  > Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. Related to that, a lot of people prefer watching certain genres such as action, romance, sports, sci-fi, comedy, etc... If it's ok to inform people they're about to watch an Adam Sandler romcom then I don't see what's so bad about informing people they're about to encounter triggering content.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

How does it compare with not being able to avoid upsetting stressors? We're not comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "coping mechanisms that allow you to face the stressor". We're comparing "coping mechanisms of avoidance" vs "being exposed to a stressor with no warning and no way to avoid it, regardless of if you do or dont have a coping mechanism in place at all".

crooked-v 7y ago

Avoidance-based coping covers a broad variety of behavior beyond just 'don't expose yourself to a stressor', so a one-sentence reference without citation or further details is basically useless anyway.

lilyball 7y ago

People who can be expected to experience increased distress from the topic are much more likely to choose to avoid it, so I'm not surprised in the least by that association. Also from the article: > critics argue that the avoidance of potentially upsetting material is actually a counterproductive approach because it offers no chance to learn to manage one’s emotional reactions. This is wrong. You don't learn to manage emotional reactions by being forced to consume triggering content. If you have a problem with emotional reactions that needs adjustment, that's what therapy is for. Or using delaying tactics such that you don't consume the content until you're more prepared to handle it. Anyone who thinks springing triggering content on people without warning is good because it forces them to react to it is literally abusive. And many times avoiding triggering content forever is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be managed. Personally, I don't have any trauma around rape but I would really prefer to avoid reading about it, so I really appreciate trigger warnings on content that includes it. This isn't something that needs to be "fixed", there's no reason why I must work towards being indifferent towards rape.

ghostpepper 7y ago
I am no expert but it was my understanding that therapy for trauma often includes exposure to triggering stimuli precisely because it's not a realistic option to just hope you don't run into something triggering "in the wild" for the rest of your life.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Yes, it may, particularly if it's an unavoidable trigger. That should be done safely and consensually within the context of a therapy session/plan with a professional guiding it. It's like surgery. Entirely acceptable in certain scenarios, but you'd object if your English lit prof decided to DIY it during class.
  - lmm 7y ago
    Aren't the trigger warnings a DIY treatment themselves? In the absence of specific professional advice, I'd think the default would be to treat people normally. Why are we so eager to put trigger warnings on things without any evidence that they're doing more good than harm?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      No, they’re not a treatment. They may aid someone who is in treatment, though. I know an abuse survivor who has been in therapy for many years working on the impact of it. We avoid movies with abuse depictions as it causes severe disassociation and setbacks in that treatment. Someone for whom it’s triggering but less severely so might just opt to watch said movies with a trusted friend on a day they’re feeling emotionally sound. They allow folks to choose the level of exposure to optional, potentially damaging things. Just like an R rating on a film might make you pause before bringing an 8 year old to the theater.
- eej2ya1K 7y ago
  It includes exposure, yes, but the idea is to encourage the patient/client to decide to seek out triggering stimuli themselves.

vincent-toups 7y ago

Right, avoidance may not be a good coping strategy at large, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be extended the courtesy of being able to choose to avoid exposure in certain contexts. Ideally exposure therapy for trauma should be done in a controlled setting, like therapy. Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. From my point of view, trigger warnings are courteous. Its not my job to tell people how to live their lives. If someone asks me in good faith to let them know before I talk about something that might disturb them, I take that seriously because I'm not a jerk. The idea that trigger warnings constitute some kind of creeping Orwellian thing is nuts to me. The whole point of them is "I'm going to say this!" try not to be one.

nimblegorilla 7y ago
> Heck, I don't have PTSD but I don't particularly like seeing sexual violence in movies or television shows and more than once I wish I had been warned about it ahead of time. Related to that, a lot of people prefer watching certain genres such as action, romance, sports, sci-fi, comedy, etc... If it's ok to inform people they're about to watch an Adam Sandler romcom then I don't see what's so bad about informing people they're about to encounter triggering content.