Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41144495›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Types of decorations, their social meaning and influence on moral injury: A mixed methods approach.

Ruud Lathouwers, Tine Molendijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ruud LathouwersDepartment of Social Psychology, and Academic Collaborative Center for an Inclusive Labor Market, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9147-2516
Tine MolendijkFaculty of Military Sciences, Netherlands Defense Academy, Breda, and Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0325-5087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on moral injury has thus far paid little attention to social factors and cultural elements. This study addresses this gap by examining the effects of one particular cultural artefact on moral injury that is typical of armed forces, (military) decorations, including awards and medals. Through a preregistered experiment involving two scenarios-omission of helping behavior and commission of mortar fire-resulting in civilian deaths, we manipulated the factors self-attribution versus attribution of blame to others/the system and the presence or absence of a decoration. Moreover, we conducted seven qualitative interviews. Contrary to our expectations, none of the experimental conditions within the scenarios yielded significant differences. However, the scenarios themselves differed significantly from each other, indicating that wrongful inaction may have a stronger effect on moral injury than wrongful action. The subsequent qualitative interviews (N = 7) revealed nuanced insights, suggesting that the effects of decorations on moral injury may vary. Cases were discerned in which military decorations demonstrated the potential to either alleviate or exacerbate moral injury. This dynamic depended on factors such as an individual's assessment of the justifiability of the act for which they received the decoration, and the perceived authenticity of the decoration's bestowal - whether it was experienced as a genuine acknowledgment or merely a superficial gesture. These findings indicate a possibly complex interplay of cultural artifacts and moral injury within military contexts.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelMoralsAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41144495
PMCPMC12558466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.