In many clinical spaces, "Trauma-Informed Care" has become a catch-all phrase—well-intentioned, but often vague, overly pathologizing, and conceptually inconsistent with a functional contextualist worldview. From an ACT, FC, and RFT lens, we must pause and ask: What are we actually pointing to when we use the term “trauma-informed,” and how useful is that label in guiding clinical action?
Trauma is Not an Outlier—It’s a Human Constant
Functional Contextualism views behavior as historically and situationally shaped. From this stance, trauma is not an anomaly or diagnostic exception—it is part of the human condition. The goal is not to identify trauma as a special category, but to understand how its impact functions in the present context. Trying to develop a "trauma-specific" model risks narrowing our focus to content (the traumatic event) rather than process (how behavior functions in the current context). In this way, “trauma-informed” easily becomes just another conceptual formulation, distancing us from a more pragmatic, workable analysis.
Reinforcing the Frame
From an RFT perspective, repeatedly labeling someone as “traumatized” can reinforce a rigid relational frame around the self—“I am broken,” “I am a victim,” “My past defines me.” While intended to validate and support, these frames can become verbal cages. Good intentions aside, we may inadvertently strengthen the very networks that sustain suffering. Our job is to support flexible relational responding, not to solidify identity around past events.
Mechanical Versus Functional
Too often, “trauma-informed” interventions devolve into lists of techniques—grounding exercises, emotion regulation skills, breathing protocols—divorced from their contextual function. These strategies are valuable if they serve a larger aim: fostering psychological flexibility, increasing contact with the present moment, or supporting movement toward chosen values. When applied mechanically, they can become just another avoidance strategy.
Clarifying the Confusion
Clarifying the Confusion
I am often asked about incorporating trauma-informed care when working with clients experiencing suicidal ideation. What is often being referred to in this situation is emotional regulation—specifically, grounding techniques to help stabilize the client’s physiology and attention. This is a common and important distinction: “trauma-informed” language often masks what is actually a conversation about safety, regulation, or contact with the present moment. Clarifying this helps clinicians orient to function over form.
A More Useful Lens
Instead of adopting “trauma-informed care” as a standalone framework, a more precise and functional approach might involve:
- Asking: What is the function of this behavior in this context?
- Supporting clients in building broader behavioral repertoires that allow them to respond flexibly to internal experiences.
- Avoiding labels that reinforce unworkable relational frames.
- Ensuring that interventions—whether grounding or cognitive—are connected to meaningful change processes, not rote protocol.
In short, trauma matters—but how we talk about and respond to trauma matters more. A functional contextual approach doesn’t reduce trauma to a label or a set of techniques. It holds space for the pain, while inviting the client into new patterns of responding that restore choice, vitality, and direction.
Leave a comment