Correcting Misperceptions About Cognitive Processing Therapy to Treat Moral Injury: A Response to Gray and Colleagues (this issue)

Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Katherine A Dondanville, Patricia A. Resick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We respond to the commentary by Gray, Nash, and Litz (this issue) regarding the use of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) to address moral injury as described in our previous publication (Wachen et al., 2016). In their commentary, Gray et al. posit that CPT is inappropriate when applied to the treatment of war-related traumas involving "real moral and ethical transgressions" (i.e., moral injuries). However, Gray and colleagues' assertions are centered on a premise that is incorrect, namely that CPT is based on the idea that "self-blame and guilt are inherently illogical or inaccurate," and that CPT assumes that all beliefs associated with moral injury are erroneous. On the contrary, we acknowledge that self-blame and guilt may be accurate responses to warzone trauma, yet disagree that CPT is not suitable in these situations. This response serves to clarify some of the inaccurate interpretations of the treatment as stated by Gray and colleagues, and reiterates the position of CPT on many of the issues that were raised. Specifically, we discuss the use of Socratic questioning within CPT to address the issue of moral injury. Furthermore, we highlight the strong evidence base for the use of CPT in treating veterans and active military. Until it has been determined through empirical study, it is premature to assert that CPT is insufficient in addressing moral injury in combat personnel.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCognitive and Behavioral Practice
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Cognitive Therapy
Wounds and Injuries
Guilt
Veterans
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Cognitive processing therapy
  • Combat
  • Guilt
  • Moral injury
  • Shame

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Correcting Misperceptions About Cognitive Processing Therapy to Treat Moral Injury : A Response to Gray and Colleagues (this issue). / Wachen, Jennifer Schuster; Dondanville, Katherine A; Resick, Patricia A.

In: Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{17cea29fe7ab44d691425f052973ab1e,
title = "Correcting Misperceptions About Cognitive Processing Therapy to Treat Moral Injury: A Response to Gray and Colleagues (this issue)",
abstract = "We respond to the commentary by Gray, Nash, and Litz (this issue) regarding the use of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) to address moral injury as described in our previous publication (Wachen et al., 2016). In their commentary, Gray et al. posit that CPT is inappropriate when applied to the treatment of war-related traumas involving {"}real moral and ethical transgressions{"} (i.e., moral injuries). However, Gray and colleagues' assertions are centered on a premise that is incorrect, namely that CPT is based on the idea that {"}self-blame and guilt are inherently illogical or inaccurate,{"} and that CPT assumes that all beliefs associated with moral injury are erroneous. On the contrary, we acknowledge that self-blame and guilt may be accurate responses to warzone trauma, yet disagree that CPT is not suitable in these situations. This response serves to clarify some of the inaccurate interpretations of the treatment as stated by Gray and colleagues, and reiterates the position of CPT on many of the issues that were raised. Specifically, we discuss the use of Socratic questioning within CPT to address the issue of moral injury. Furthermore, we highlight the strong evidence base for the use of CPT in treating veterans and active military. Until it has been determined through empirical study, it is premature to assert that CPT is insufficient in addressing moral injury in combat personnel.",
keywords = "Cognitive processing therapy, Combat, Guilt, Moral injury, Shame",
author = "Wachen, {Jennifer Schuster} and Dondanville, {Katherine A} and Resick, {Patricia A.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.06.001",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Cognitive and Behavioral Practice",
issn = "1077-7229",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correcting Misperceptions About Cognitive Processing Therapy to Treat Moral Injury

T2 - A Response to Gray and Colleagues (this issue)

AU - Wachen, Jennifer Schuster

AU - Dondanville, Katherine A

AU - Resick, Patricia A.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - We respond to the commentary by Gray, Nash, and Litz (this issue) regarding the use of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) to address moral injury as described in our previous publication (Wachen et al., 2016). In their commentary, Gray et al. posit that CPT is inappropriate when applied to the treatment of war-related traumas involving "real moral and ethical transgressions" (i.e., moral injuries). However, Gray and colleagues' assertions are centered on a premise that is incorrect, namely that CPT is based on the idea that "self-blame and guilt are inherently illogical or inaccurate," and that CPT assumes that all beliefs associated with moral injury are erroneous. On the contrary, we acknowledge that self-blame and guilt may be accurate responses to warzone trauma, yet disagree that CPT is not suitable in these situations. This response serves to clarify some of the inaccurate interpretations of the treatment as stated by Gray and colleagues, and reiterates the position of CPT on many of the issues that were raised. Specifically, we discuss the use of Socratic questioning within CPT to address the issue of moral injury. Furthermore, we highlight the strong evidence base for the use of CPT in treating veterans and active military. Until it has been determined through empirical study, it is premature to assert that CPT is insufficient in addressing moral injury in combat personnel.

AB - We respond to the commentary by Gray, Nash, and Litz (this issue) regarding the use of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) to address moral injury as described in our previous publication (Wachen et al., 2016). In their commentary, Gray et al. posit that CPT is inappropriate when applied to the treatment of war-related traumas involving "real moral and ethical transgressions" (i.e., moral injuries). However, Gray and colleagues' assertions are centered on a premise that is incorrect, namely that CPT is based on the idea that "self-blame and guilt are inherently illogical or inaccurate," and that CPT assumes that all beliefs associated with moral injury are erroneous. On the contrary, we acknowledge that self-blame and guilt may be accurate responses to warzone trauma, yet disagree that CPT is not suitable in these situations. This response serves to clarify some of the inaccurate interpretations of the treatment as stated by Gray and colleagues, and reiterates the position of CPT on many of the issues that were raised. Specifically, we discuss the use of Socratic questioning within CPT to address the issue of moral injury. Furthermore, we highlight the strong evidence base for the use of CPT in treating veterans and active military. Until it has been determined through empirical study, it is premature to assert that CPT is insufficient in addressing moral injury in combat personnel.

KW - Cognitive processing therapy

KW - Combat

KW - Guilt

KW - Moral injury

KW - Shame

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021839826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021839826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.06.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85021839826

JO - Cognitive and Behavioral Practice

JF - Cognitive and Behavioral Practice

SN - 1077-7229

ER -