Resource Roundup: Content Statements

By Sally Otis

Note: Some links may require a subscription to access the full article or content.

The global outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 became a flash point for talking about mental health, trauma, and its impact on many people’s lives. Interpretation professionals recognized our responsibility to visitors and considered what a trauma-informed practice might look like. For many, content statements became a tool for supporting visitor choice and well-being. However, deciding when, why, and what content statements should or shouldn’t address brings an additional layer of complexity to our work.

Below are a selection of articles and resources to help colleagues better understand the evolution of content statements, some of the debate surrounding their use, and suggested guidelines and considerations for implementing. The need for our empathy and understanding of museum visitors has never been greater and continues to grow in complexity. There is no single right way; we hope this helps you find the best answer for you in the moment.

While the terms content warnings, advisories, and trigger warnings are sometimes used interchangeably, trigger warnings specifically address the potential for psychological and/or physiological harm related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Jeet Heer’s 2015 article in The New Republic, “Generation PTSD: What the ‘Trigger Warning’ Debate Is Really About,” provides a succinct understanding of how the trigger warnings and PTSD are intertwined and validates the use of trigger warnings in an academic setting. The broader term “content statement” will be used throughout to include trigger warnings and other types of advisories.

Practical How-To Resources

Margaret Middleton and Jackie Armstrong have each written two of the most applicable resources for museum professionals. Middleton’s 2022 blog post, “Museums and Content Warnings,” outlines when to use them, what makes a statement effective, as well as images of museums’ posted statements.

Armstrong’s 2024 article on AAM’s blog, “Content Warnings in Museums and Galleries: Taking a Proactive Approach,” builds on her previous writing about trauma-informed museum practices and how content statements supports a visitor’s sense of welcome and safety. Additionally, she explores arguments against content statements, where they might be helpful, and best practices.

Created for university professors, An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings (posted in 2020) on the University of Michigan’s website for Equitable Teaching, provides a downloadable guide with some relevance to museum work. The guide addresses arguments that statements are restrictive and over-protective, clarifies how they support student learning, and provides additional readings about content statements.

Opposition to Content Statements

In addition to the critiques discussed in Armstrong’s article and the University of Michigan’s guide, Jill Filipovic’s article from 2014, “We’ve Gone Too Far with ‘Trigger Warnings’,” in The Guardian highlights the potential of content statements to create a “hierarchy of trauma” and skew literary interpretation. Although much of the article frames such statements as signaling “wokeness” and pandering to students, one point is particularly relevant to museums and interpretation:

A trigger warning . . . “sets the tone for reading and understanding the book. It skews students’ perceptions. It highlights particular issues as necessarily more upsetting than others, and directs students to focus on particular themes that have been singled out by the professor as traumatic.”

A valid concern and consideration for art interpretation.

Support for Museum Content Statements

Directly relevant to art museums, Hettie Judah advocates for warning labels in her Artnet article, “Warning Labels at Museums Make Art More Accessible to All – But They Should Stop Short of Telling Us How to Think” (2022). Drawing from her personal experience visiting an art museum with her young children, she writes about how content warnings function and who they may help. She states:

 “…a content warning offers a choice. It allows us to say ‘Not for me. Not today,’ rather than ‘Not for anyone. Not ever.’ A content warning is also part of the framing voice of the institution. It offers a context that anticipates a variety of human responses, all of them valid.”

Additional Resources

In addition to the previously mentioned articles and guides, the following may be useful for further learning about content statements and related subjects.

Trauma-informed practices, museums, and mental health:

• Three Trauma-Informed Practices for Museums by Jackie Armstrong (2023)
• Mental Health Considerations for Museums by Ross Laird (2021)
• Museums Must Become More Trauma Informed by Jackie Armstrong (2020)

Museum discussion boards about content statements:

• Reddit.com, r/MuseumPros, Advisories/Content Warnings for Museum Displays & Exhibitions (posted 2021)
• Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, Warning Labels for Difficult Content (2020)
• Museum-ed.org, Signage advice warning families of mature content in art (2017)

Additional Support of Content Statements:

• “My Students Need Trigger Warnings—and Professors do too” by Aaron R. Hanlon, The New Republic (2015)
• “Why I Use Trigger Warnings” by Kate Manne, The New York Times (2015)
• “I Use Trigger Warnings – but I’m Not Mollycoddling My Students” by Dr. Onni Gust, The Guardian (2016)

Content Statements for Online Collections:

• Content Warnings for Online Collections, Kathleen Lawther
• Example: Online Content Warning, Royal BC Museum
• Example: Online Sensitive Content Warning, London Museum

Trauma and Media:

• LanguagePlease.org: Content, Advisory, and Trigger Warnings
• Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma, a project of Columbia Journalism School: “Trigger Warnings” in the Media by Autumn Slaughter and Elana Newman