title: "Trigger warnings" are trivially effective at reducing distress

authors: Sanson, Mevagh

abstract: University students are requesting, and many of their professors are issuing, “trigger warnings.” Trigger warnings are a kind of content warning; they give a précis of the material to follow and caution that it may cause a reader or viewer to experience symptoms of distress. The use of these trigger warnings in higher education is controversial: Their purpose is to reduce or eliminate the distress students may otherwise experience in response to “triggering” course content, but no data exist regarding how effective they are at achieving this purpose. Moreover, there is reason to suspect these warnings may backfire and exacerbate the very symptoms they are intended to alleviate. We conducted the first investigation into the effects of trigger warnings: We gave some subjects a trigger warning, but not others, then exposed all of them to negative material, and measured the analogue symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder they experienced. Meta-analyses on data gathered across our six experiments revealed that trigger warnings had trivial effects—regardless of if subjects had seen a trigger warning beforehand, they judged the material to be similarly negative, and reported similar levels of negative affect, intrusions, and avoidance. These results suggest that trigger warnings are neither meaningfully helpful nor harmful, and that students and professors should not rely on them to mitigate students’ distress.

text: "Trigger warnings" are trivially effective at reducing distress University students are requesting, and many of their professors are issuing, “trigger warnings.” Trigger warnings are a kind of content warning; they give a précis of the material to follow and caution that it may cause a reader or viewer to experience symptoms of distress. The use of these trigger warnings in higher education is controversial: Their purpose is to reduce or eliminate the distress students may otherwise experience in response to “triggering” course content, but no data exist regarding how effective they are at achieving this purpose. Moreover, there is reason to suspect these warnings may backfire and exacerbate the very symptoms they are intended to alleviate. We conducted the first investigation into the effects of trigger warnings: We gave some subjects a trigger warning, but not others, then exposed all of them to negative material, and measured the analogue symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder they experienced. Meta-analyses on data gathered across our six experiments revealed that trigger warnings had trivial effects—regardless of if subjects had seen a trigger warning beforehand, they judged the material to be similarly negative, and reported similar levels of negative affect, intrusions, and avoidance. These results suggest that trigger warnings are neither meaningfully helpful nor harmful, and that students and professors should not rely on them to mitigate students’ distress.

year: 2018

title: An Evaluation of the Aboistop Citronella-Spray Collar as a Treatment for Barking of Domestic Dogs

authors: Sargisson, Rebecca J.

subjects: citronella-spray collars

abstract: The aim of our study was to investigate whether citronella-spray collars offer a humane alternative to electric-shock collars to reduce the barking of domestic dogs. The Aboistop collar was applied to seven dogs with problematic barking behaviour by the dogs’ owners in a series of case studies concurrently run. Vocalisation of the dogs was recorded in the problem context under baseline conditions, inactive collar conditions, and active collar conditions. The Aboistop collar was effective at reducing problem vocalization for only three of seven dogs and appeared to be most effective for dogs whose problem barking had developed more recently. The collar may be more humane than other punishment methods, but it did produce stress reactions which varied in severity across the dogs. Clinical Relevance. In our study, the collar was applied by the dogs’ owners in order to test whether the collar would be effective when used by members of the public. While the results here are preliminary, they suggest that the collar may be effective for some dogs, but not for others, when applied by dog owners for the treatment of problem vocalisation. Further research is required to determine whether the collar could be effective when administered by a trained professional.

text: An Evaluation of the Aboistop Citronella-Spray Collar as a Treatment for Barking of Domestic Dogs The aim of our study was to investigate whether citronella-spray collars offer a humane alternative to electric-shock collars to reduce the barking of domestic dogs. The Aboistop collar was applied to seven dogs with problematic barking behaviour by the dogs’ owners in a series of case studies concurrently run. Vocalisation of the dogs was recorded in the problem context under baseline conditions, inactive collar conditions, and active collar conditions. The Aboistop collar was effective at reducing problem vocalization for only three of seven dogs and appeared to be most effective for dogs whose problem barking had developed more recently. The collar may be more humane than other punishment methods, but it did produce stress reactions which varied in severity across the dogs. Clinical Relevance. In our study, the collar was applied by the dogs’ owners in order to test whether the collar would be effective when used by members of the public. While the results here are preliminary, they suggest that the collar may be effective for some dogs, but not for others, when applied by dog owners for the treatment of problem vocalisation. Further research is required to determine whether the collar could be effective when administered by a trained professional.

year: 2011

title: Maori land in Hauraki

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Imagining the Hauraki Peninsula to contain payable goldfields and knowing that land to the south of Thames had great agricultural potential, Pakeha were determined to acquire it, and were frustrated by what was considered to be ‘Maori intransigence’. For their part, Maori landowners were justifiably concerned about losing their land, and hindered and delayed opening it to settlement for as long as possible. A major difficulty for officials seeking to acquire land was how to determine boundaries between different blocks and how to identify the true owners when there were rival claims put forward by hapu and individuals. Land purchase agents used a variety of means to get blocks through the land court and then to individualize the title, notably the controversial ‘raihana’ policy, which benefited some landowners at the expense of others. The expensive legal process involved often forced those who had proved their ownership to sell land to pay for their success, a success which resulted in grantees treating the land as their personal property rather than tribal property. Some Pakeha as well as many Maori protested at the unfair process; even James Mackay, the most effective practitioner of raihana, came to lament his success and its consequences for the younger generation of Maori (he blamed the system, not himself). When far too late, it was urged that land should have been leased rather than sold and that proceeds from sales should not have been squandered.
Instead of having commissions of enquiry, as some suggested, the land court system meant that judges determined ownership on the evidence presented to them, even though some owners were not present nor had their interests represented. Sometimes the evidence was false, as was admitted by some witnesses when their perjury was exposed. And in the case of the Ohinemuri district, for which the records survive, when the land was sold to the Crown some Maori received too much money, some too little, and some missed out altogether. The struggles to open Ohinemuri to miners and settlers is examined in detail, revealing that some rangatira expected economic gain and that Te Hira’s party, who opposed the opening, were undermined by some of Te Hira’s followers: being ‘Hauhau’, they refused to take money from the Crown but instead took raihana, meaning goods which were charged against their land in a way they did not understand. Nor did anyone fully understand the system apart from Mackay, whose policy was eventually repudiated by the politicians who had encouraged it previously. Not all land was lost, but because the government did not assist landowners with advice and finance until well into the twentieth century what land that was retained could not be developed adequately.

text: Maori land in Hauraki Imagining the Hauraki Peninsula to contain payable goldfields and knowing that land to the south of Thames had great agricultural potential, Pakeha were determined to acquire it, and were frustrated by what was considered to be ‘Maori intransigence’. For their part, Maori landowners were justifiably concerned about losing their land, and hindered and delayed opening it to settlement for as long as possible. A major difficulty for officials seeking to acquire land was how to determine boundaries between different blocks and how to identify the true owners when there were rival claims put forward by hapu and individuals. Land purchase agents used a variety of means to get blocks through the land court and then to individualize the title, notably the controversial ‘raihana’ policy, which benefited some landowners at the expense of others. The expensive legal process involved often forced those who had proved their ownership to sell land to pay for their success, a success which resulted in grantees treating the land as their personal property rather than tribal property. Some Pakeha as well as many Maori protested at the unfair process; even James Mackay, the most effective practitioner of raihana, came to lament his success and its consequences for the younger generation of Maori (he blamed the system, not himself). When far too late, it was urged that land should have been leased rather than sold and that proceeds from sales should not have been squandered.
Instead of having commissions of enquiry, as some suggested, the land court system meant that judges determined ownership on the evidence presented to them, even though some owners were not present nor had their interests represented. Sometimes the evidence was false, as was admitted by some witnesses when their perjury was exposed. And in the case of the Ohinemuri district, for which the records survive, when the land was sold to the Crown some Maori received too much money, some too little, and some missed out altogether. The struggles to open Ohinemuri to miners and settlers is examined in detail, revealing that some rangatira expected economic gain and that Te Hira’s party, who opposed the opening, were undermined by some of Te Hira’s followers: being ‘Hauhau’, they refused to take money from the Crown but instead took raihana, meaning goods which were charged against their land in a way they did not understand. Nor did anyone fully understand the system apart from Mackay, whose policy was eventually repudiated by the politicians who had encouraged it previously. Not all land was lost, but because the government did not assist landowners with advice and finance until well into the twentieth century what land that was retained could not be developed adequately.

year: 2016