Gender differences in reported potentially morally injurious events among post-9/11 U.S. combat veterans, using two measures.

Abstract

Objective: Military experiences that violate one's sense of right and wrong (i.e., potentially morally injurious events [PMIEs]) may result in moral injury, characterized by shame, guilt, demoralization, self-condemnation, and social withdrawal. The objective of this study was to examine gender-related differences in the rate of reporting PMIEs.

Method: Secondary analyses were conducted on a previously collected longitudinal cohort study of postdeployment functioning among U.S. post-9/11 combat veterans in Central Texas (N = 406). As part of the parent study, participants completed two measures of PMIEs-the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES; Nash et al., 2013) and the Moral Injury Questionnaire-Military Version (MIQ-M; Currier et al., 2015). Gender differences at the item response level were analyzed in a series of Bayesian multilevel item response theory models.

Results: The most frequently endorsed responses on both the MIES and MIQ-M for both men and women were never or strongly disagree. On the MIQ-M, more veteran men endorsed experiencing PMIEs to some degree. On the MIES, more veteran women endorsed strongly agree to betrayal items.

Conclusions: Veteran men and women reported any PMIE occurring at relatively high rates. Gender differences at the item response level were found for most items on both the MIES and MIQ-M, albeit of small magnitude. Awareness of gender differences in the likelihood of experiencing a given PMIE may help inform clinical assessments and case conceptualizations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).