ArticlePloS one2025
The use of trigger warnings on social media: a text analysis study of X.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trigger warnings are placed at the beginning of potentially distressing content to provide individuals with the opportunity to avoid the content before exposure. Social media platforms use artificial intelligence to add automatic trigger warnings to certain images and videos, but are less commonly applied to textual content. This leaves the responsibility of adding trigger warnings to the authors, and a failure to do so may expose vulnerable users to sensitive or upsetting content. Due to limited research attention, there is a lack of understanding concerning what content is or is not considered triggering by social media users. To address this gap, we examine the use of trigger warnings in tweets on X, previously known as Twitter. We used a large language model (LLM) for zero-shot learning to identify the types of trigger warnings (e.g., violence, abuse) used in tweets and their prevalence. Additionally, we employed sentiment and emotion analysis to examine each trigger warning category, aiming to identify prevalent emotions and overall sentiment. Two datasets were collected: 48,168 tweets with explicit trigger warnings and 4,980,466 tweets with potentially triggering content. The analysis of the smaller dataset indicates that users have applied trigger warnings more frequently over the years and are applying them to a broader range of content categories than they did in the past. These findings may reflect users' growing interest in creating a safe space and a supportive online community that is aware of diverse sensitivities among users. Despite these findings, our analysis of the larger dataset confirms a lack of trigger warnings in most potentially triggering content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.