Experimental Neuroscience and Emotional Processes in CBT
4 - (OP17) Face It or Fix It? An Investigation of the Effects of Moral Repair and Exposure on Experimentally Induced Moral Pain
Friday, June 26, 2026
11:56 AM - 12:13 PM PDT
Location: Yerba Buena Salon 6, B3 Level
Keywords: Trauma, Change Process / Mechanisms, Exposure Recommended Readings: Litz, B. T. (2025). Moral injury: State of the science. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 38 (2), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.23125, , , ,
Student University of Ottawa ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Background: Researchers increasingly recognize the influence of moral stressors on the posttraumatic stress response. Standard treatments like prolonged exposure may inadequately target moral distress. Moral repair, which emphasizes aligning moral values with future actions, shows theoretical promise as an alternative. This study investigated the differences in emotions associated with moral and life-threat stressors, and the theoretical basis for moral repair and exposure in attenuating moral pain.
Method: Undergraduate students (n=194, 60.83% female, 38.14% Caucasian) were randomly assigned to a moral-stress or life-threat stress-induction protocol designed to simulate moral or life-threat stress. They were then randomized to an emotion regulation task based on moral repair, exposure, or a control task (i.e., distraction). Participants provided cognitive and emotional ratings at baseline, post stress-induction, and post emotion regulation.
Results: Participants in the moral-stress condition reported greater guilt (BF+0 = 1.472 x 108 Cohen’s d = .98) and shame (BF+0 = 48.049, rpb = -.29), but no difference in anxiety (BF10 = 1.055,) following stress-induction compared to the life-threat condition. Within the moral-stress condition, moral repair was associated with larger reductions in guilt (BF+0 = 1.70, rrb = .33) and shame (BF+0 = 31.69, Cohen’s d = 1.37) than exposure. Within the life-threat condition, there was no statistical evidence of a difference between the emotion regulation tasks on their ability to attenuate guilt (BF10 = .476), shame (BF10 = .304), or anxiety (BF10 = .868). Exposure intensified appraisals of moral wrongdoing to a greater degree in the moral-stress condition compared to the life-threat condition (BF+0 = 214480.535, Cohen’s d = 1.46).
Conclusion: Findings support the distinction between moral and life-threat stressors and highlight the potential of moral repair as a therapeutic approach for moral distress.
Learning Objectives:
Upon completion, participants will have greater knowledge about how different trauma contexts impact response to different interventions, such as moral repair and exposure.