Individuals who are exposed to traumatic events that violate their moral values may experience severe distress and functional impairments known as “moral injuries.” Over the last decade, moral injury has captured the attention of mental health care providers, spiritual and faith communities, media outlets, and the general public. Research about moral injury, especially among military personnel and veterans, has also proliferated. For this article, we reviewed scientific research about moral injury. We identified 116 relevant epidemiological and clinical studies. Epidemiological studies described a wide range of biological, psychological/behavioral, social, and religious/spiritual sequelae associated with exposure to potentially morally injurious events. Although a dearth of empirical clinical literature exists, some authors debated how moral injury might and might not respond to evidence‐based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) whereas others identified new treatment models to directly address moral repair. Limitations of the literature included variable definitions of potentially morally injurious events, the absence of a consensus definition and gold‐standard measure of moral injury as an outcome, scant study of moral injury outside of military‐related contexts, and clinical investigations limited by small sample sizes and unclear mechanisms of therapeutic effect. We conclude our review by summarizing lessons from the literature and offering recommendations for future research.

No abstract

A recent qualitative review by Wood, Froh, and Geraghty (2010) cast doubt on the efficacy of gratitude interventions, suggesting the need to carefully attend to the quality of comparison groups. Accordingly, in a series of meta-analyses, we evaluate the efficacy of gratitude interventions (ks = 4-18; Ns = 395-1,755) relative to a measurement-only control or an alternative-activity condition across 3 outcomes (i.e., gratitude, anxiety, psychological well-being). Gratitude interventions outperformed a measurement-only control on measures of psychological well-being (d = .31, 95% confidence interval [CI = .04, .58]; k = 5) but not gratitude (d = .20; 95% CI [-.04, .44]; k = 4). Gratitude interventions outperformed an alternative-activity condition on measures of gratitude (d = .46, 95% CI [.27, .64]; k = 15) and psychological well-being (d = .17, 95% CI [.09, .24]; k = 20) but not anxiety (d = .11, 95% CI [-.08, .31]; k = 5). More-detailed subdivision was possible on studies with outcomes assessing psychological well-being. Among these, gratitude interventions outperformed an activity-matched comparison (d = .14; 95% CI [.01, .27]; k = 18). Gratitude interventions performed as well as, but not better than, a psychologically active comparison (d = -.03, 95% CI [-.13, .07]; k = 9). On the basis of these findings, we summarize the current state of the literature and make suggestions for future applied research on gratitude. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract