No abstract

Trauma survivors who self-trigger, or seek reminders of their traumatic events, have been noted in the clinical literature but have not yet been the subject of a systematic empirical inquiry. This article presents the results of two exploratory studies of self-triggering. In Study 1 ( N = 545), we estimated the behavior’s clinical relevance among trauma survivors. In Study 2 ( N = 360), we examined descriptive characteristics of self-triggering as well as potential motivations for the behavior. We found that self-triggering is uniquely associated with more severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Self-triggering takes place via a wide variety of methods and can become compulsive for many individuals. Reasons endorsed for self-triggering comprised several broad motives, but the desire to make meaning of one’s trauma was most predictive of self-triggering frequency. Limitations, clinical implications, and directions for further research are discussed.

No abstract

Trigger warnings notify people that content they are about to engage with may result in adverse emotional consequences. An experiment by Bellet, Jones, and McNally (2018) indicated that trigger warnings increased the extent to which trauma-naïve crowd-sourced participants see themselves and others as emotionally vulnerable to potential future traumas but did not have a significant main effect on anxiety responses to distressing literature passages. However, they did increase anxiety responses for participants who strongly believed that words can harm. In this article, we present a preregistered replication of this study in a college student sample, using Bayesian statistics to estimate the success of each effect’s replication. We found strong evidence that none of the previously significant effects replicated. However, we found substantial evidence that trigger warnings’ previously nonsignificant main effect of increasing anxiety responses to distressing content was genuine, albeit small. Interpretation of the findings, implications, and future directions are discussed.

The centrality of a loss to a bereaved individual’s identity is associated with greater symptomatology, whereas meaning made of a loss is associated with positive outcomes. This article examines meaning made as a moderator of the relationship between event centrality and symptomatology. Our sample consisted of 204 bereaved undergraduate university students. Centrality was assessed using the Centrality of Events Scale, meaning made was assessed using the Integration of Stressful Life Experiences Scale, and symptomatology was assessed using the posttraumatic stress disorder Checklist-Civilian and Inventory of Complicated Grief-Revised. Meaning made had a significant moderating effect on the relationship between centrality and both measures of symptomatology. At lower levels of meaning made, centrality had a strong and positive association with symptomatology; at higher levels of meaning made, this association became weaker. These results suggest that meaning made is the key to understanding how centrality affects bereavement outcomes.