CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES Political Violence and Disruptions in the Development of Moral Agency

Researchers have studied the effects of exposure to long-term political violence on children largely in terms of adverse mental health outcomes, typically measured in relation to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This study argues that for children, the important aftereffects of exposure to political violence extend beyond emotional distress to influence the development of morality. It points to 2 specific disruptions likely to occur in the development of moral agency and concludes by outlining future research directions and speculating about implications for policy and intervention. KEYWORDS—political violence; moral development; PTSD In the last decade, wars killed 2 million children, injured 6 million, and displaced nearly 30 million; 300,000 children serve as soldiers (United Nations, 2006). Psychologists have long been concerned with the effects of chronic exposure to political violence. Most research has used a trauma model, measuring the consequences of violence exposure in terms of mental health outcomes, such as anxiety, depression, dissociation, avoidance, psychosomatic disturbances, and other symptoms associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Fremont, 2004; Shaw, 2003). This research has demonstrated that risks increase when the violence is proximal, intense, and chronic. Conversely, the meanings that children attribute to violence can act as a protective factor by rendering the violence justifiable. For example, Palestinian youth, who have available a wealth of religious and historical justifications for their engagement in political violence, display less psychological distress than Bosnian youth, who lack Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cecilia Wainryb, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530 East, Salt Lake City, UT; e-mail: wainryb@psych. utah.edu. a 2010, Copyright the Author(s) Journal Compilation a 2010, Society for Research in Child Development Volume 4, Number similarly coherent belief systems for explaining their engagement in violence (Barber, Schluterman, Denny, & McCouch, 2006; Laor et al., 2006; Punamaki, 1996). And yet, in spite of evidence for very high rates of PTSD among these youth (Boyden, 2003), the trauma model has come under criticism. One concern, voiced largely by psychologists involved in the delivery of services in war-torn areas, is that in addition to psychological trauma, these youth face grave psychosocial stresses including chronic poverty, poor health, and lack of education (Wessells, 2006; Williamson & Robinson, 2006). Their assumption is that children are resilient and adjust quite well if their psychosocial needs are met, but the excessive emphasis on risk and trauma magnifies these children’s vulnerabilities while restricting the attention and resources devoted to meeting their psychosocial needs. But assessing, or even simply defining, resilience is far from simple. We cannot merely infer children’s long-term psychological health from what seems like well-adjusted behavior. Nor can we take at face value the fact that war-affected children typically articulate needs of a pragmatic, rather than a psychological, nature. These youth’s reliance on avoidance strategies (Jones, 2002; Wessells, 2006) is unsurprising given that the focus on distressing experiences recreates distress in the short term (e.g., Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999). Although such strategies may be adaptive in the short term, it is unknown whether children are capable of leaving awful experiences behind or what consequences doing so may have for their future development. Thus, although it is undeniably important that we not overstate the vulnerabilities of war-affected youth, and essential—indeed, a matter of basic human rights—that we address their psychosocial needs fully and promptly, it is equally critical that we not overestimate their resilience. An overly optimistic focus on resilience can unwittingly lead to overlooking what may be significant and enduring adverse psychological effects of war exposure (Betancourt & Khan, 2008; Dawes, Tredoux, & Feinstein, 1989). That there is wisdom in considering both risks and resilience when researching the impacts of war exposure does not, however,