When Trauma Becomes Trendy: The Risk of Over-Simplification

With increased awareness of mental health, the word trauma has entered everyday language in a way that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. Greater understanding of psychological suffering has certainly helped many people recognize traumatic experiences, reduce stigma, and seek help. However, this wider diffusion of the term also brings significant downsides.

Across social media, it is common to find content creators and influencers speaking about trauma in generalized or oversimplified ways. While often well-intentioned, these interpretations can create misunderstandings, spread confusion, and trivialize a concept that is far from simple.

// So, what is trauma?

Trauma is a psychological response to an event or series of events that overwhelm a person’s ability to cope, leaving them feeling intensely threatened, helpless, or terrified.

It is defined not only by the nature of the event, but by its impact -how deeply it disrupts someone’s sense of safety, stability, and ability to function.

Trauma often includes:

• abuse (physical, emotional, or sexual)

• violence or threat to life

• severe accidents or medical crises

• disasters

• long-term neglect

• or chronic exposure to unsafe environments

It leaves deep emotional, cognitive, and physiological imprints that can shape how a person feels, behaves, and relates to themselves and others.

// What trauma is not?

Not every painful or emotionally intense experience qualifies as trauma. Disagreements, criticism, disappointment, conflict in relationships, or feeling hurt or rejected are part of the normal range of human emotional experience.

Labelling these situations as “trauma” dilutes the meaning of the concept and can unintentionally minimize the experiences of those who have truly gone through traumatic events.

The importance of distinguishing between emotional discomfort and genuine trauma becomes even clearer when we look at the research.

One notable example is the first study ever conducted in the United Arab Emirates on child maltreatment and its psychological consequences: Child maltreatment and neglect in the United Arab Emirates and relationship with low self-esteem and symptoms of depression.

The study conducted among adolescents in Al Ain found that 33.9% of participants reported emotional abuse, underscoring its substantial impact on psychological well-being. This research is a good example that clear definitions of maltreatment and neglect are crucial for accurately identifying and addressing these experiences. By establishing precise criteria, the study ensures that the findings truly reflect the prevalence and effects of abuse, supporting evidence-based interventions. The UAE’s commitment to such research not only advances mental-health knowledge but also promotes improved psychological care and reduces stigma, fostering services that respond effectively to real traumatic experiences.

But what are the risks of oversimplifying the concept of trauma?

When the idea of trauma becomes oversimplified, two major risks emerge:

• Over-pathologizing normal emotional reactions, and

• Invalidating those who have truly experienced trauma

Oversimplification encourages us to interpret ordinary conflict, frustration, or emotional discomfort as a “trauma response,” blurring the line between everyday emotional challenges and clinical trauma.

How mislabelling emotional discomfort affects relationships?

Labelling every emotional discomfort as “trauma” can distort our relationships. We may develop an altered sense of responsibility, especially regarding our role in managing our own emotions, and we may come to believe that emotional discomfort is harmful in itself.

This belief can lead to avoidance of emotionally intense situations - such as difficult conversations- and can change how we interpret our partner’s feelings or needs. Normal frustrations or relational challenges may start to feel unsafe or may be misinterpreted as emotional abuse.

Mislabelling our internal reactions as trauma or “trauma responses” can also become a way to avoid accountability. 

For example:

• we may see the other person’s behavior as a “trigger,”

• feel entitled to silence them because “we are traumatized,”

• or prevent them from setting healthy boundaries because their limits activate our feelings of unsafety

// The risk of pathologizing the partner can act as a boomerang

The dynamic can also reverse: a partner may pathologize us by labelling us as traumatized instead of listening and trying to understand. This can lead to reductive interpretations - calling someone “avoidant,” “anxious,” or “emotionally distant” based solely on presumed trauma, ignoring the real complexity of their personality and context.

Pathologizing a partner can severely damage communication. It creates defensive patterns, blocks genuine understanding, and may shut down dialogue altogether. Above all, it erodes empathy-because when we relate to someone as a diagnosis rather than a person, we lose the capacity to truly connect.

// Dr Manuela Paone at Thrive Wellbeing

Cited article: Shah SM, Nowshad G, Dhaheri FA, Al-Shamsi MH, Al-Ketbi AM, Galadari A, Joshi P, Bendak H, Grivna M, Arnone D. Child maltreatment and neglect in the United Arab Emirates and relationship with low self-esteem and symptoms of depression. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2021 May;33(3):326-336. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2021.1895086. Epub 2021 Jun 9. PMID: 34102933.