Coping with Moral Threat: Moral Judgment amid War on Terror

• DOI: 10.1177/0022002719854209
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Author: Shaul Kimhi,Michal Shamai,Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom,Shani Fachter,Daphna Canetti
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Coping with Moral

Threat: Moral Judgment

amid War on Terror

Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom

1

, Shaul Kimhi

2

, Shani Fachter

1

,

Michal Shamai

3

, and Daphna Canetti

4

Abstract

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.

Keywords

moral dilemma, war on terrorism, coping strategies, exposure to terrorism, conflict

resolution

1

Department of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

2

Department of Psychology, Tel Hai College, Tel Hai, Israel

3

School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

4

School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Corresponding Author:

Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom, Department of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus,

Jerusalem 91905, Israel.

Email: pazit.bennun@mail.huji.ac.il

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2020, Vol. 64(2-3) 231-260

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022002719854209

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

While people strive to view themselves as moral (e.g., Aronson 1992), in armed

conflicts, they repeatedly encounter dilemmas that pose threats to their moral self-

image. How do they cope with making morally compromising decisions? In partic-

ular, the war on terror, a form of asymmetrical warfare, poses moral dilemmas that

require citizens to choose between conflicting rules of morali ty (Broeders et al.

2011; Lammers and Stapel 2009). This is because in asymmetrical warfare, terror

organizations often hide among members of a civilian population (Schoenekase

2004). Under these circumstances, states can either opt for the moral rule of mini-

mizing collateral damage, thus decreasing the risk of harm to out-group civilians, or

they can follow the moral rule of ensuring the success of the military action, thus

fortifying the safety of the in-group civilians (Kamm 2005; Kasher and Yadlin

2005). This moral dissonance leads individuals to struggle in making choices and,

after making them, to find a way to calm the moral self. What coping strategies do

they use?

Moral dilemmas in the context of war on terrorism, such as the Israeli–Palestinian

conflict and the US offensive against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), may

require unique coping mechanisms because of their particular characteristics includ-

ing repeated moral choices, tangible physical threat, and intergroup dynamics. In

this work, we suggest and test two strategies for coping with morally threatening

dilemmas: trivialization of the dilemma and resentment toward the target, identified

by Bandura’s (1990) moral disengagement theory (MDT) and by Monin’s (2007)

application of social comparison theory.

The scenario we examine concerns collateral damage (i.e., physical harm to

uninvolved out-group members) perpetuated by in-group members. When individ-

uals use trivialization as a coping mechanism, they treat the dilemma as a technical,

amoral decision. With resentment, hostility toward the target can help individuals

to cope.

We tested our hypothesis in two contexts: the Israeli operation in Gaza against

Hamas (studies 1 and 2) and the US operation in Syria against ISIS (studies 3 and 4).

Both raised moral questions concerning civilian victimization similar to those often

faced by decision makers in other asymmetrical conflicts. We presented a similar

moral dilemma to Israeli Jews and to Americans: how many uninvolved civilians

can justifiably be killed when bombing a house in which three of the most-wanted

terrorists are meeting? We either measured (study 1) or induced (studies 2–4) the

coping mechanisms and choices involved in the dilemma.

The examination of these mechanisms has important theoretical implications. It

is often argued that the war on terrorism erodes the moral backbone of states.

Asymmetrical warfare requires citizens to take sides in dilemmas involving col-

lateral damage with clear moral implications. One can think of the psychological

mechanisms that enable citizens to make difficult moral decisions repeatedly

(i.e., reducing the importance of decisions that cause harm to others, emptying

them of moral significance, and transferring responsibility to the other side) as the

232 Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(2-3)