Enhancing Conceptual Clarity regarding the Construct of Moral Injury.

Abstract

The construct of "moral injury" is used widely in the research literature and media to broadly describe the impact of events involving perceived violations of one's sense of right and wrong (herein referred to as "potentially morally injurious events" [PMIEs]). In this theoretical review, we provided a brief overview of the "moral injury" construct and its limitations including the lack of consensus-drawn boundaries and operational definitions to guide hypothesis-driven research. We discussed whether this construct can be reliably distinguished from established psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs and the inherent challenges in separating or classifying the impact of high-magnitude stressful life events that likely form the majority of PMIEs. Assessments that purportedly measure "moral injury" are reviewed and limitations are discussed such as shared measurement variance with established psychological instruments. We identified conceptual strategies for investigating behavioral and neurobiological features of PMIEs that could be used to inform the field of traumatic stress. We concluded that the construct of "moral injury" may provide an interpretive framework for positing why someone may be beset by guilt, shame, and/or rage whereas existing psychiatric diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression provide comprehensive descriptions regarding what someone might experience following extremely stressful events. We proposed directions to better clarify the boundaries of "moral injury" versus established psychiatric categories that could be used to enhance the conceptualization and assessment of this construct.