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

Abstract

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.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Connor Burch, Alondra Garza, Amanda Goodson, Hae Rim Jin, and Michelle Wojcik for their assistance supporting this study, as well as the undergraduates who participated in our survey.

Notes

¹ One student who identified as genderqueer was excluded from analysis.

² Three additional multivariate regression models were estimated for each of the trigger warnings scales using alternate measures of victimization, limiting victimization to (1) a dichotomous measure of sexual assault and rape, (2) a dichotomous measure of intimate partner violence, and (3) a dichotomous measure of any victimization, including property victimization. Results were not substantively different from what is presented in this paper (results available from the first author).

³ The statistical significance of the skewness was calculated by dividing the skewness statistic by its standard error to yield a z score, with p < .05 (Warner, 2013, p. 153).