The Role of Generative AI in Coping with Trauma Dumping: A Comprehensive Exploration

In today’s column, I am continuing my ongoing series about the impact of generative AI in the health and medical realm. The focus this time is on the use of generative AI to aid in coping with so-called trauma dumping.

Trauma dumping, which is also referred to simply as TD, has caught on and generally refers to circumstances whereby someone opts to pour out their heart and “dump” their traumatic experiences for others to see or hear. Sometimes trauma dumping is done on a one-to-one basis with another person, known as face-to-face (F2F) trauma dumping. I’m sure we have all had personal encounters of conversing with a friend or even at times a stranger and had a trauma-dumping encounter arise.

Perhaps the most prominent and increasingly popular means of trauma dumping occurs on social media. There is a substantial amount of trauma dumping that takes place online. A casual perusal of postings on TikTok, Instagram, etc. showcases plenty of trauma-dumping instances. You might not have realized that the lengthy narratives had a name, but nonetheless, they are indeed a considered particular phenomenon and have received a great deal of psychological and sociological research analysis and scrutiny.

My interest here is whether generative AI can potentially aid in coping with trauma dumping considerations.

Let me say upfront that I believe the answer is a resounding Yes.

I ardently suggest that generative AI is indeed a helpful and vital tool in this use case. To explain why, I will walk you through the details of trauma dumping and then intertwine how it is that generative AI comes to the fore. I will showcase the ways that generative AI is helpful. The showcase consists of using ChatGPT, the widely and wildly successful generative AI app by OpenAI (note that any of the popular generative AI apps such as GPT-4, Bard, Gemini, Claude, and others would similarly illuminate the same precepts; ChatGPT is the elephant in the room as it were).

Various examples of the use of ChatGPT as a helpful tool for dealing with trauma dumping are presented for enlightenment on this heady topic. I want you to see that the use of generative AI is a real-world contender and not just a pie-in-the-sky idea. That being said, we will also cover some of the downsides of using generative AI for this notable purpose.

Before we get deeper into the topic, you might like to know that I have been covering the realm of generative AI in mental health quite extensively. For example, I have assessed whether the emergence of mental health chatbots bolstered by generative AI is something we should be concerned about and explored the rapidly changing nature of the client-therapist relationship due to generative AI, among other topics.

You might find my prior coverage of relevant reading.

The Rundown On Trauma Dumping

Let’s begin at the beginning.

Trauma dumping typically involves two major parties:

(a) Dumper. The person that is “dumping” or reciting their trauma-pertinent experience(s).
(b) Dumpee. The person or persons that are receiving the recited dumping.

Any of us can end up on either end of the trauma-dumping side of things.

Perhaps you are with a close friend and have had a recent trauma-inducing experience that you want to get off your chest. You decide to open up and recite the traumatic facets. In this instance, you are said to be the dumper and your friend is the dumpee.

Switch hats. You are meeting with a work acquaintance for a Friday afternoon lunch. During lunch, your colleague decides to confide in you about a traumatic experience they have had. The bulk of the luncheon get-together is consumed by trauma dumping. You are the dumpee and your colleague is the dumper.

Those are the face-to-face or F2F kinds of instances.

Contrast this with the online world. When someone posts their trauma rendition online, the person-to-person properties change somewhat. The person who is posting their experience would still be considered a dumper. Anyone who perchance comes upon and reads the posting would be construed as a dumpee. The dumpee might be completely unknown to the dumper.

The online version of trauma dumping can be dicey since the trauma dumping now can become quite publicly exposed. When doing trauma dumping face-to-face, there is a less risky chance of having the trauma shared with others, though there is still a possibility since the other person might tell others or might be making a secret recording of the discussion.

Posting online ratchets up the question of whether trauma dumping is principally a private matter or a public matter. Some twists and turns enter into the picture. For example, what is the motivation for someone who opts to post their traumatic experience online and in a means that makes the experience publicly accessible?

One argument is that the person is more interested in garnering views than they are in trying to resolve their traumatic experience. A retort is that the person is trying to do good by sharing as widely as they can. They hope to touch the lives of many others and aid them by having observed the traumatic experience of a fellow human being.

You can go round and round on the pros and cons of where and how to share traumatic experiences.

Therapists certainly know about trauma dumping. Many of their mental health therapy consultations likely include some range of trauma dumping. They ask the patient or client to reveal what they are feeling or what concerns they have. The odds are that this will elicit a trauma-dumping session.

Notice that I mentioned that there is a range of trauma dumping.

Consider this spectrum:

(i) No trauma dumping. The potential dumper doesn’t emit their traumatic experience.
(ii) Minimal trauma dumping. The dumper keeps the trauma dumping to a minimum.
(iii) Modicum trauma dumping. The dumper actively engages in trauma dumping.
(iv) Maximal trauma dumping. The dumper fully engages in trauma dumping.

You might meet with a friend, and they only minimally do trauma dumping. The next day, you meet with the friend again, and this time, they shift into maximal trauma dumping. One might say that perhaps the prior instance helped to open the floodgates upon meeting with the friend a second time.

A consideration that also comes up is whether the person realizes they are, in fact, trauma dumping. Sometimes a dumper has no self-awareness of this. They do the trauma dumping and have absolutely no cognizance of what they are doing. The dumpee might let the dumper know what is happening or might decide to be a silent listener and not say anything about the trauma dumping per se.

I’ll include these additional parameters to further illuminate the nature of trauma dumping.

About the dumper:

(a) Dumper aware. The dumper is aware of their trauma dumping and realizes what they are doing.
(b) Dumper unaware. The dumper is unaware of their trauma dumping and seems oblivious to what they are doing.

About the dumpee:

(a) Dumpee informs dumper. The dumpee informs the dumper about the trauma dumping act.
(b) Dumpee does not inform the dumper. The dumpee does not inform the dumper about the trauma dumping act.

Finally, a rather contentious issue entails whether the trauma that is being related constitutes, in a sense, a bona fide trauma. This takes things into murky and controversial territory. What is a trauma? When is a trauma “worthy” of being trauma dumped? Are all traumas of equal worth for trauma dumping?

From a related angle, some assert that trauma dumping gets a bad rap. The moniker implies that the person is doing something inappropriate. They are dumping. The thing is, some would insist that trauma dumping can be very useful and helpful to both the dumper and the dumpee. Perhaps a better name ought to be derived that would help to overcome the perceived dourness or stigma.

We can next see what research has to say overall about this significant topic.

Exploring Research On Trauma Dumping

In an article published in Psychology Today entitled “Why Some People Dump Their Trauma On Us” by Nelisha Wickremasinghe, November 26, 2021, these salient points were made about trauma dumping (excerpts):

“Trauma dumping is a term used to describe intense oversharing, which can leave everyone involved feeling more distressed and helpless.”
“People who trauma dump or ‘over-emote’ find it hard to process, filter, and regulate emotions, especially when their threat brain gets involved.”
“It is not surprising that trauma dumping is on the increase. Over-emoting is encouraged and has become the norm on social media and in talk and reality shows. What’s more, there’s now a mountain of self-help manuals and messages instructing us to get in touch with our feelings and tell each other about them.”
“Trauma dumping describes people in the general population who have a tendency to over-emote. It is not an appropriate term to describe people who have experienced genuine trauma and find themselves overwhelmed because of it.”

A few quick highlights about those excerpts might be handy to cover.

First, the informal definition given of trauma dumping is that it is an act consisting of intense oversharing. This might help you to distinguish between the simpler act of briskly sharing about a trauma versus the substance of trauma dumping. The essence is that trauma dumping is usually construed as an over-the-top oversharing that goes far beyond a conventional semblance of sharing.

A related term used is to say that the person over-emotes.

Another related point is that the person receiving the trauma dump might end up feeling distressed and out of sorts. Thus, the dumpee is more than a non-impacted listener. There is a solid chance that the dumpee is going to be adversely affected. Contrarily, there is an argument made that the dumpee is possibly going to be better off if they perhaps learn something from the dump or interactively aid the dumper and feel better for doing so.

One intriguing puzzle is that since trauma dumping seems to be rising, what is the basis or reason for this rise?

A possibility is that society has culturally morphed toward accepting and actively encouraging people to not hold back on vocalizing their experiences. Let it out, some proclaim. Don’t hold it in. This would seem a logical basis for people having a willingness to do trauma dumping.

An additional possibility is that social media and the online world ardently invite the use of trauma dumping. People appear to be eager to click on trauma dump instances. Views are to be had. The dumper gets the views and perhaps feels better to know that they have lots of readers or listeners. There is a potential monetary incentive too if the views are being monetized.

I’d like to next look at some insights on trauma dumping as posted by the Cleveland Clinic Health online blog (excerpts sourced from “When Venting Turns Toxic: What Is Trauma Dumping”, Cleveland Clinic Health Essentials, July 25, 2022):

“Sometimes, oversharing can cause more harm than good.”
“So, how do you recognize trauma dumping? The biggest red flag is if the dumpee (the person getting trauma dumped on) has no chance to talk or share their emotions.”
“For example, you might say the following to a loved one who’s trauma dumping on you: ‘Whenever you speak to me about your concerns, I often feel overwhelmed because I’m not sure how to help. Have you thought about speaking to a professional about your stressors?’”
“Not all trauma dumping looks identical because it can stem from a variety of reasons. And in some cases, it can cause a strain on relationships. If you’ve noticed trauma dumping in yourself, there’s still a way to get better and learn more healthy venting practices. If you’re struggling with a trauma dumper in your life, try to be honest about your own feelings and what you want to get out of your relationship.”

A common concern about trauma dumping is that it often is a principally one-way street. The dumper does the dumping. The dumpee does not especially respond or react. They are flooded with traumatic renditions.

According to the above points, a dumper that doesn’t give airtime for the dumpee is showcasing a considered red flag. They aren’t seemingly seeking feedback on what they are saying. There is debate about this consideration since it is conceivable that a time delay in wanting feedback might be occurring. A person might want to divulge their story in one fell swoop, and only after having done so are they able to enter an input mode or interactive dialogue.

A research article recently noted that trauma dumping can be found in literature and films. One such famous example involves The Joy Luck Club. The research paper entitled “The Representation of Trauma in Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club (1989)” by Samar Sayed Mohamed, Transcultural Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, April 2023, said this (excerpts):

“The main aim of this present paper is to analyze and investigate Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club in the light of a psychological approach. The selected novel is regarded as an interlocking collection of traumatic narratives.”
“Discussing such traumatic stories suddenly can have a negative effect on the daughter’s mental health, as this is described as trauma dumping.
“In such situations, the person listening to the traumatic events feels overwhelmed and is not sure how to react or respond. Trauma dumping could harm the other person’s mental health as it adds to their stress and increases their anxiety levels.
“This practice is usually executed by people suffering from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.”

A crucial point made is that the dumper might be immersed in a mental health condition such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and other maladies.

This takes us to a research study that examined peer support workers (PSW) who provide mental health guidance and that they might have earlier had various mental health issues. In that way of thinking, the PSWs might have been using trauma dumping and the question arises whether they might continue this practice inadvertently when working with clients or patients.

In the research study “‘You Just Treat Me Like a Human Being’: Using Lived Experience to (Re)imagine Boundary Practices in Mental Health Settings” by Aimee Sinclair, Lyn Mahboub, Sue Gillieatt, Christina Fernandes, British Journal of Social Work, 2023, they make these points (excerpts):

“We aim to further this unsettling by drawing on the lived experience of mental health peer support workers (PSWs). We consider the effects enacting, and unsettling, that the dichotomy has for service users, and whether professional boundaries might be (re)imagined.”
“PSWs are uniquely placed; they possess both lived experience as service users within mental health settings, as well as knowledge as workers, drawing on their own and collective lived experiences of distress, oppression, and the use of mental health services.”
“Rather than ‘trauma dumping,’ such sharing is bounded by the purpose of the sharing, a commitment to mutuality, connection, and validation, recognizing worker and service users’ positioning and desires, and how these may shift and change over time.”
“Here, for example, a PSW describes limits around their sharing of self: (I say) trust me, I was more of a mess than you and I’m fine, but not in a condescending way but to validate their experience, to build a relationship with them. I only say stuff if there’s a reason; if there’s an agenda. So that’s why, when we talk, it’s more about you. It’s a mutual unpacking. I don’t just come up and blurt out my whole life at you for like three weeks in a row. And then we do you. Do you know what I mean? I do that to everyone else, but not in peer support!”

Those are certainly important points.

I had mentioned that the act of trauma dumping via the use of social media has been on the rise. There aren’t many in-depth research studies yet that closely examine the specifics associated with trauma dumping in a social media context.

One such innovative study that served as a master’s thesis took a look at trauma dumping expressed on TikTok. The thesis is entitled “Loose Lips Sink Ships: Investigating The Phenomenon Of Trauma Dumping On TikTok And Its Effects”, Joi Johnson, Master’s Thesis, Northern Arizona University, May 2023, and proffers these salient points (excerpts):

“This present study investigated the phenomenon of trauma dumping on TikTok and measured its effects for users who participate in this behavior.”
“This particular research is fairly novel because there is a lack of research regarding trauma dumping on TikTok despite the behavior becoming more prominent on social media over the last few years.”
“When people trauma dump on TikTok, they are making the conscious choice to self-disclose personal, traumatic information to an audience that they may or may not know.”
“Social media can be a coping tool after stress has been evoked, and the effectiveness of social media use depends on how well this use and the chosen coping strategy fits situational circumstances.”
“The majority of participants said they would rather vent in-person than online (90.9%), so it can be determined that social media users may prefer to share this type of personal, traumatic information using face-to-face communication (F2F) rather than computer-mediated communication (CMC).”

Mull over those points.

A limitation associated with conventional social media and trauma dumping is that the dumper typically does not get one-to-one interactive responses. The usual avenue is that the dumper posts their trauma rendition and then waits to see what responses come forth. People who later opt to read or watch the trauma rendition will then post comments. These respondents are at times unnamed and anonymous.

You undoubtedly know or have seen the at times vicious verbalized attacks people make on social media. Those acrid attacks are often more pronounced due to being able to remain anonymous. If the attacking comments are made without attribution, the person making the remarks can go scot-free. They will say whatever they want and not face any particular repercussions. The things people express online can be entirely without merit.

Okay, that covers some of the research and matters associated with modern-day trauma dumping.

Introduction Generative AI Into The Trauma Dumping Equation

I’d ask you to momentarily go into a mode right now of trying to solve a thorny problem.

Are you ready?

Is there a means to allow people to do trauma dumping at a time of their choosing and get instantaneous real-time interactive responses that are befitting to their trauma-expressing experiences?

Hint: Yes.

Is there an approach that can do this without having to engage a fellow human as the dumpee, such that we can forego the potential adverse effects on a human that is bombarded with the expressed trauma?

Another hint: Yes.

And can the approach potentially aid the dumper to grasp that they are trauma dumping?

And can we use that approach to assist in training others who serve as a dumpee on how to cope with someone who is a trauma dumper?

I contend that those questions are answered as a Yes and that the solution entails making use of generative AI. Generative AI is available 24×7. It is easy to use. By and large, the cost is either free or relatively low.

Before I leap into showcasing how generative AI can be useful in this endeavor, I want to emphasize that generative AI is not a silver bullet in this case. Generative AI has all sorts of limitations and problems, including the potential for emitting falsehoods, errors, and so-called AI hallucinations. Generative AI might be used on a standalone basis, meaning that a person who wants to do trauma dumping could log in and engage in a trauma dumping interactive session. Generative AI would respond and interact with the dumper. No one else would know of the circumstances.

A person who finds themselves often being a dumpee might wonder how they are to contend with situations when interacting with a