Exposure therapy should always be voluntary because humans have dignity and should have choices over how they live their lives. Forcing involuntary exposure irreparably damages the therapeutic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that involuntary exposure doesn't *work*
In fact, all the evidence suggests that it *does* work (in terms of reducing fear regarding the target stimulus).
All of our foundational research on fear learning comes from rats, and we never exactly gave them a choice about whether they wanted to be in the experiments.
Imagine you are an evil villain who locked a spider phobic in some kind of nightmare prison and forced them to have many close encounters with tarantulas.
Eventually, it's almost certain this person would lose their fear of tarantulas.
Why?
The reason is simple: humans are pretty smart and tarantulas are not, in fact, very dangerous (it takes some serious dedication to provoke them to even bite, and their bites aren't dangerous).
With enough exposure, every human will figure out that truth.
But importantly, the former spider phobic will rightly learn to fear YOU. After all, you are an evil villain who locked them in a nightmare prison.
*Forcing* someone to confront their fear is unethical and wrong-headed for several reasons.
But it's important to simultaneously remember that exposure in any form is not dangerous, risky, or likely to backfire. Strongly encouraging exposure is caring and healing.
(Of course when I say "exposure in any form" I'm referring to exposure to non-dangerous stimuli such as interoceptive cues, social mishaps, trauma triggers, and other common targets of exposure therapy. Don't expose people to lions)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Studies consistently show a near-zero effect, with trigger warnings making no meaningful difference on "response affect" to potentially triggering material.
Notice that even the most extreme point doesn't reach a medium effect
As the world becomes safer around us, are we shifting our standards to be tuned in to smaller and smaller provocations?
That's the question we tested in a new paper just published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-20… (open link @ end)
In a world of ambiguous signals and noise, we constantly shift our standards to preserve optimal detection.
Psychologists and rationalists have studied these effects for years under the umbrellas of range-frequency theory, signal detection, Bayesian reasoning, etc.
But what about cases where there is no clear "true" distribution we can lean on? Ambiguous, human-made concepts such as "rudeness", "morality", "threat", "trauma", or "the color blue"?
What's your favorite weird story in the history of psychology?
Mine has to be the history of EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing)...
It all started one day when Francine Shapiro, an PhD-dropout in English literature, was walking through the park. As her eyes went back and forth looking at the beautiful scenery, she noticed her thoughts calm down and become more pleasant.
You may want to reconsider your use of trigger warnings. Our new paper, just appearing in Clinical Psychological Science, suggests they may do more harm than good.
) versions of this paper, before the published version was available.
To start, let's review what being "triggered" means. Far from the slang that generally refers to an overly sensitive person who becomes angry when their values are challenged, being "triggered" has a quite different meaning for those with PTSD.