Coping with Moral Threat: Moral Judgment amid War on Terror

Pazit Ben Nun Bloom, Shaul Kimhi, Shani Fachter, Michal Shamai, Daphna Canetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Moral dilemmas amid war on terrorism include repeated harsh moral choices, which often pose threats to one’s moral image. Given that people strive to view themselves as moral, how do they cope with such morally compromising decisions? We suggest and test two strategies to cope with morally threatening decision-making under in-group moral responsibility amid war on terrorism: (a) trivialization of the moral dilemma and (b) resentment toward the target. Four experimental studies measured (study 1) and manipulated (studies 2–4) these hypothesized mechanisms, presenting a similar collateral damage dilemma to Israeli Jews in the context of the 2014 Gaza conflict (studies 1 and 2) and to Americans in the context of the US campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (studies 3 and 4). Results demonstrate that both trivialization and resentment facilitate harsh moral choices under conditions of moral accountability. Studying the mechanism underlying moral decision-making in conflicts is key to understanding moral injury and the process of moral repair.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)231-260
Number of pages30
JournalJournal of Conflict Resolution
Issue number2-3
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.


  • conflict resolution
  • coping strategies
  • exposure to terrorism
  • moral dilemma
  • war on terrorism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Business, Management and Accounting
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations


Dive into the research topics of 'Coping with Moral Threat: Moral Judgment amid War on Terror'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this