The Psychological Correlates of Courage in the Workplace: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Function of Courageous Altruism

Abstract

In the workplace, there are situations that arise where an individual can make courageous decisions in the face of adversity. This research used an evolutionary-based personality approach to examine the dispositional predictors of the tendency to make courageous decisions in the workplace. More specifically, this study examined personality, risk-taking propensity, and resilience as predictor variables for courageous decision-making in the workplace. We presented participants (N = 1343) with Behavioral Courage Scales designed for this study (one was completely self-report and the other was a behavioroid measure), along with the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, which taps the Big Five personality traits (TIPI), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), and the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS). Correlational analyses demonstrated significant positive relationships between courageous decision-making and extraversion, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and risk-taking propensity. Importantly, when it came to self-reported courage, we found that risk-taking propensity was negatively correlated with dispositional courage, whereas risk-taking propensity was positively related to intentions of courageous action. Overall, these findings suggest that traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness might predict courageous and altruistic behaviors that benefit coworkers, even when it might cause conflict that brings a net reduction to the benefits of the individual.

1. Introduction

1.1. What Is Courage?

In the renowned autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom detailing Nelson Mandela’s experiences leading South Africa out of apartheid, he is known to have said “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it… The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” (Mandela 1995, p. 115). The American Psychological Association, APA Dictionary of Psychology (2018) defines courage as the ability to meet a difficult challenge despite the physical, psychological, and moral risks involved in doing so. This ability is not solely represented in action, word, or thought, but rather a myriad of expressions demonstrating the desire for human progression.

To contextualize the psychological study of courage, researchers have conceptualized courage into three major classes: (1) Physical courage, (2) Psychological or Vital courage and (3) Moral courage (Lopez et al. 2003). Physical courage is the classic depiction of courage and can be defined as the willingness to sacrifice the corporeal self in the face of tangible danger (Lopez et al. 2003; Putman 1997, as cited in Rate 2010). Psychological courage, also referred to as Vital courage, is the choice to persevere through physical and mental illness when the outcome is unclear, or facing inner barriers preventing growth (Lopez et al. 2003, as cited in Rate 2010). Moral courage is the act of defending personal views, characterized by authenticity and integrity despite social rejection and conflict (Putman 1997; Lopez et al. 2003, as cited in Rate 2010).

Other researchers have defined courage not by its manifestations, but by core strengths driving courageous behavior. Positive psychologists, Peterson and Seligman (2004), identified Values of Action, or character strengths, using the VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS). Courage here is operationally defined as a core human virtue consisting of four core emotional strengths permitting the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of external or internal opposition: (1) bravery, (2) perseverance, (3) honesty, and (4) zest. They describe bravery as not shrinking from threat, difficulty, pain, or opposition; perseverance as finishing what one starts in spite of obstacles; honesty as being without pretense; and zest as an enthusiastic and vigorous approach to life. Additionally, a study done by Pury and Kowalski (2007) found that people described their own courageous actions as characterized by two strengths not intrinsically included in the VIA-IS definition of courage: (1) hope, the belief and dedication of positive future and (2) kindness, doing something good for the benefit of others (Pury and Kowalski 2007, in Kelley et al. 2019).

In one of the most comprehensive studies investigating the components of courage to date, Rate et al. (2007) identified core behaviors of the ideal courageous person. In this work, the researchers categorized prototypical courageous behaviors and vignette responses from empirical studies and integrated these findings with expert analyses of various published definitions of courage from psychological literature. The conclusion was that courage is characterized by being “(a) a willful, intentional act, (b) executed after mindful deliberation, (c) involving objective substantial risk to the actor, (d) primarily motivated to bring about a noble good or worthy end, (e) despite, perhaps, the presence of the emotion of fear.” (Rate 2010, p. 95). Rate encapsulates these into three core features: (1) risk to the actor, (2) motivation toward excellence, and (3) volition, the act of making a choice (Rate 2010, as cited in Kelley et al. 2019).

In Pury and Starkey’s (2010) view of courage, the construct of courage is often defined as an accolade or a process. That is, courage is defined as an accolade when courageousness is assigned to an actor utilizing “objective, external standards” (p. 67). This view of courage appears to align nicely with defining courage as a trait. It also seems to compliment Pury’s definition of general courage; Actions that are recognizably courageous to others and can be easily related to certain strengths or traits. Meanwhile, when courage is defined as a process, the act of being courageous is fluid and fluctuating; Individuals may have several opportunities in their lifetime to demonstrate courageous behavior. The process view of courage synergizes well with Pury’s notion of personal courage, defining an individual’s behavior as courageous based on their actions. Importantly, the concept of personal courage takes into account an individual’s baseline behavior when determining whether someone is behaving courageously, instead of cross-comparing individuals’ behavior. Both the process model of courage as well as the definition of personal courage emphasize the subjectivity of the courage experience, referring to courage as an action, rather than as a fixed trait.

An important aspect of defining courage as a trait is that attributes associated with courageousness must be readily signaled to others. Hence why, in Pury and Starkey’s (2010) model of courage, courage is described as accolade, an attribute, or merit that can be awarded to an individual. More recent work has sought to outline the factors that individuals attend to and evaluate to determine courageousness in an actor. For instance, Pury et al. (2023) show that courage is not only assigned to actors based on the perceived risk involved in the courageous action, but also by the perceived value and nobility of the goals involved. These data demonstrate the implications of morality even in accoladed courage.

Other researchers have sought to outline the various traits that highly relate to the construct of courage. For instance, Abdollahi et al. (2022) suggest that in terms of Big Five personality traits, extraversion and openness to experience appear to be conducive to courageousness, specifically in facing fears and flexibly approaching obstacles. Given the construct of courage’s implications for moral behavior (e.g., Osswald et al. 2010), character traits such as dispositional moral engagement/disengagement as well as self-efficacy also seem to underlie courage, specifically in tendencies for making moral interventions (see Baumert et al. 2024). Generally speaking, trait operationalizations of courage tend to assert that courage is stable across situations (see O’Byrne et al. 2000), directly contrasting the approach to courage as a flexible action. Our hope is that the current work will help shed light on the degree to which courageous actions are significantly related to personality traits that are known to be reliable across development.

Unlike the dispositional approach to defining courage, the psychological process approach focuses on the situational forces of courage at play. In other words, this view explores the psychological states that cultivate the action of courage and seek to predict the contexts in which courageous behavior is likely or less likely to emerge. For instance, in their work exploring individuals’ implicit theories of courageous action, Rate et al. (2007) found that common themes surrounding courage include sacrifice, fear, nobility, and perseverance. Interestingly, their research illustrates that lay people define courageous action as being motivated and intentional, as well as occurring when there is substantial risk present. Rate et al. (2007) conclude that courageous behavior is “comprised of situational (external circumstances), cognitive, volitional, affective, and motivational components” (p. 95).

Other research on courage has adopted Rate et al.’s (2007) approach by focusing on these specific components. For example, Baumert et al. (2024) suggest that different emotions or motivational states are involved in moral courage. To illustrate, approach emotions, such as anger, seem to be conducive to courageous behavior by increasing feelings of self-efficacy, whereas avoidance emotions, like substantial amounts of fear, can act as a barrier to behaving morally courageous. Other theories have focused more on the cognitive aspects of courage, such as Hannah et al.’s (2007) work on courageous mindsets. In this work, courageous mindsets are able to increase personal resources to reduce and overcome fear to produce courageous action. In other words, courage emerges when individuals are able to act despite their fear. Hannah et al. (2007) suggest that reflecting on one’s own courageous behavior should result in greater self-attributions of courage, further promoting a courageous mindset. Finally, some researchers have sought to highlight the situational aspects of courage. For example, Kugel et al. (2017) stress that external, situational demands, such as a sense of duty or expectation to be altruistic, shape courageous behavior. Kugel et al. (2017) maintain that courage is largely learned and malleable.

In short, courage, as studied by various researchers, seems to have a multi-faceted conception across multiple frameworks. As courage is a nuanced and multifaceted construct, it has often been defined in a varied number of ways in the psychological literature. In general, researchers have traditionally taken two approaches to operationalizing the construct. Courage is often either described as an attribute, assigned or described by the actor or observer, or as shaped by situational forces. Attributional operationalizations of courage refer to the dispositional features that make up and/or highly correlate with the construct. Conversely, when courage is operationalized as an action, external forces are often taken into account to describe or predict the courageous behavior.

1.2. Courage in the Ancestral Environment Versus Courage Today

Using an evolutionary framework, it is important to consider that modern humans have advanced beyond the ancestral environment; We have long diverged from hunter-gatherer societies typified by small bands of roughly 50 adults (Price 2003). With this change in social structures comes a shift in the environmental dangers that incite courage. In the ancestral environment, humans were prey to predators, to each other, and to the natural environment. Immediate concerns were hunger and the need for shelter, while common enemies were predators, sickness, and starvation. In modern industrialized environments, courage is often needed to help achieve goals that are much different from those in ancestral environments. Today, courage may be needed in educational contexts, such as when administrators take steps to make dramatic changes to long-standing curricula. Similarly, courage may be needed in work-related contexts. For instance, an employee may need courage to blow the whistle on some process within the organization that is inconsistent with the mission of the organization, etc.

Courage, like many other human traits, may have evolved under ancestral conditions. Further, courage has been an important part of the broader human experience for a long time. We posit that the experience of courage may have been adaptive at the group level both in the ancestral environment and in our modern world. To shed light on how courage may continue to impact group dynamics in the modern, advanced environment, we seek to identify the psychological correlates of human courageousness in the workplace.

1.3. Courage in the Workplace

The current work specifically addresses courage in the workplace. Consistent with our evolutionary perspective, the workplace can be considered analogous to ancestral conditions. The constant pressure of failing in work-related contexts, which may lead to all kinds of failure related to evolutionary markers such as survival, status, and reproductive success, makes courage all the more necessary to manage threats, promote cooperation, and maximize benefits in the workplace.

An optimized work environment consists of respect, trust, cooperation, and adherence to community guidelines, promoting an organized, safe environment where colleagues can depend on one another to complete a job. This is markedly similar to evolutionary ideas of successful communities. Grinde (2009) describes the evolutionary community as a tribe of 30 to 70 individuals who spent a substantial amount of their time together, relying on each other for survival, and consequently forming strong social affiliations.

Community social relations have changed dramatically since the end of the tribal lifestyle. Grinde cites the lack of a tribal setting as the most significant discrepancy between modern life and that of the human environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). We largely exist within small, nuclear families, maintain relatively shorter friendships, and regularly interact with strangers who we do not know or trust. In this study, we define the modern workplace as a source of community. The prototypical “9-5” workplace is where individuals spend the majority of their time closely working with peers unified by common goals and working against common threats to their fitness.

Workplace success is contingent upon the ability to cooperate, or to work together toward a common goal. A cooperative relationship often yields greater reward than the total that can be gained by individuals. Often, cooperation requires individuals to suppress their immediate self-interest or to equate it with that of others (Tomasello and Vaish 2013). Therefore, cooperation is reliant upon and facilitated by trust. Rousseau et al. (1998) defines trust as a vulnerable psychological state that includes the belief that others can be expected to behave in prososical ways toward others. Workplace community members who are trustworthy are reliable, which builds a more effective workplace in the long-term. In fact, institutional courage has been shown to be positively associated with increased job satisfaction, greater organizational commitment, and fewer somatic symptoms (Smidt et al. 2023). In the absence of workplace courage, community members are incapable of reliance upon each other and the community will dissipate.

In a work context, individuals work partly to benefit themselves and partly to benefit the goals of some broader community/organization. In this way, individuals find themselves needing to make decisions that parallel what has been called “the fundamental human conflict” (see Geher and Wedberg 2020). This conflict speaks to the tension between doing something that primarily benefits oneself versus taking an altruistic approach and doing something that primarily benefits the group—often at a cost to oneself. Our conception of courage in the workplace, thus, focuses largely on courage as a form of altruism.

1.4. Altruism from an Evolutionary Perspective

Behaviors related to altruism, in that they benefit conspecifics at a cost to the individual, are so defined not by the motivations behind them but by the end results of the actions and behaviors (Okasha 2020). Specifically, those actions are considered altruistic if there is a decrease in the reproductive fitness, or ability to reproduce, of the individual engaging in the act while increasing the reproductive fitness or survival of a conspecific (Hamilton 1964). This challenges the traditional views on natural selection that emphasize individual survival and reproduction. From a biological perspective, altruistic behaviors are explained and linked to underlying mechanisms such as kin selection, natural selection favoring genetically related individuals, and reciprocal altruism, a behavioral strategy whereby individuals assist each other with the expectation of receiving something in return. Kin selection puts forth that altruistic behavior towards genetically related individuals can enhance the survival or propagation of shared genes—indirectly benefiting individuals who engage in this behavior and their genetic lineage. Reciprocal altruism is comprised of behaviors that organisms have adopted and engage in with an expectation of having some form of advantage or act returned in the future (Trivers 1971). These mechanisms illustrate how seemingly selfless behaviors evolved, and persist, in populations through the benefits they confer to genetically related individuals or through long-term cooperative relationships.

1.5. Altruism in the Workplace

Altruism is commonly tied to how individuals navigate both their natural and social environments; however, another domain where it can be naturally applied is the workplace. Altruism in this environment can significantly affect both organizational culture and employee satisfaction. When employees engage in altruistic behaviors, helping colleagues with tasks; mentoring new employees; or sharing resources as examples, they can foster both a collaborative and supportive work environment. These behaviors can also lead to increased overall productivity, team cohesion, and improvements in morale. Altruism in this setting may not have a direct evolutionary explanation but can be affected by both the cultural and organizational norms and values that encourage such behavior in the workplace. For example, experienced employees who take time to mentor new employees serve to aid in the latter’s development while also promoting a culture of learning and mutual respect and support. Similarly, employees who willingly share resources or assist with workloads during peak productivity also help to prevent stress and further contribute to the likelihood of deadlines being met and projects being completed in efficient manners. Altruistic behaviors, then, are likely to be seen in workplaces where social responsibility, inclusion, and collaboration are prioritized—mirroring the underlying mechanisms of altruism. These types of environments, those that promote teamwork, mutual respect and shared responsibility, foster and motivate employees to go beyond their individual roles and responsibilities to further contribute to the collective success of the organization. Additionally, recognizing and rewarding altruistic behaviors can further reinforce positive behaviors and set standards for individuals to follow. A strategic emphasis on altruism in the workplace, then, can lead to increased cooperation and productive workforce, that ultimately serves the organization’s success.

1.6. How Courage May Facilitate Workplace Altruism

The key to fostering altruism in the workplace lies in behaviors closely tied to it, namely courage—as acts of altruism often require significant personal risk or sacrifice to the individual. Courageous altruism is apparent in situations where individuals act selflessly to help others, even when facing immediate or long-term harm or adversity. This might include acts such as rescuing individuals from life-threatening situations, firefighters, for example, or a bystander intervening to protect a stranger from harm. These acts of courage are often driven by altruistic motives and may be the peak or ideal forms of psychological altruism—acting to benefit another, ignoring personal safety, while not expecting anything in return. Such selflessness often requires not only a strong sense of empathy and concern for another but also the ability to overcome fear and personal risk. While evolutionary explanations may account for some aspects of altruistic behavior, the courage involved in these acts often transcend evolutionary embedded benefits, and highlights the profound capacity, human nature, to act selflessly.

This type of altruism, courageous altruism, then can be motivated by deeply ingrained values, moral duty, and a sense to help those who are in great need. This sense of responsibility is often shaped by cultural and societal norms—emphasizing the importance of helping others, at personal cost, even when they cannot return the act. Therefore, the psychological mechanisms underlying such acts, which enable courage and altruism, though multifaceted, include both a strong sense of empathy that prioritizes the well-being of others and a strong inclination towards helpfulness and protection. These mechanisms can help explain why courage can override the instinct for self-preservation, highlighting the extraordinary capacity for altruism in humans.

Importantly, note that while the current study is interested in the connection between altruism and courage, the materials do tend to lean more toward courageous behavior and inferences regarding altruistic actions are less direct in terms of the methodology.

1.7. The Current Study

This study focuses on understanding the correlates of courage in the workplace. From an evolutionary perspective, courage is a highly valued trait that has helped individuals, along with their broader communities, achieve important goals–often related to survival and reproductive success–for thousands of generations. Understanding factors that significantly predict courage in modern workplace contexts may shed light on ways to increase courageous actions to the benefit of both individual employees and broader organizations. The current work seeks to bridge the definitions of courage, integrating an evolutionary (e.g., courage as altruism, courage benefiting the social network) and positive psychological perspective (e.g., the potential benefits of courage) on the construct, while building upon prior work that outlines the predictors of courageous behavior in a workplace setting (e.g., Howard and Cogswell 2019). Further, the current study seeks to investigate both dispositional and situational conceptualizations of courage.

Toward this end, we created two measures of workplace courage. Our Dispositional Courage variable was created partly based on trait dimensions found to underlie courage in past research on the topic (e.g., Pury et al. 2023). Further, in order to move beyond existing dispositional conceptualizations of courage, we created a behavioroid, situational “courage in action” index which assesses the degree to which people would likely choose to make courageous decisions in workplace contexts—particularly when said decisions might carry risks of harm to oneself.

In terms of predictor variables, we included a measure of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, open-mindedness, and conscientiousness; see Gosling et al. 2003). The Big Five were included as potential predictors given their famously ubiquitous capacity in underlying so many psychological phenomena. We also included a measure of risky tendencies (e.g., The General Risk Propensity Scale by Zhang et al. 2018) as risk seems to be a core feature of courage based on various models. Finally, we predicted that resilience, which conceptually mirrors courage in many ways by speaking to how someone may do the right thing in spite of adversity, would be positively predictive of courage. As such, we included a brief resilience scale (Smith et al. 2008). The rationale for including this variable largely speaks to the fact that those who demonstrate courage likely do so on a foundation of dispositional resilience, which is necessary to deal with the fallout of courageous decisions that may have adverse consequences.

Generally, we predicted that courage, which people generally see in positive terms, would be positively related to other variables that tend to be highly valued, including extraversion, open-mindedness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and resilience.

This said, we also predicted courage (as marked by both dispositional and behavioroid indices of this construct) to be positively related to risk propensity, given the implications of risk taking in past conceptualizations of courage (see Section 1.1)

To these predictions, we conducted a large-scale online survey of more than 1000 employees from a broad array of industries.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

The study consisted of an online survey that was created and administered through Qualtrics and was distributed via various online methods. The participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and able to understand and read English. The sample consisted of over 1000 participants from across the globe (N = 1343; 636 identified as women, 699 identified as men, 11 identified as non-binary/third gender, 2 preferred not to say, and 2 identified as “other”; mean age = 37.06, SD = 12.083). Importantly, participants included people who were defined as employees at a wide range of companies and organizations. They also represented various levels of workers (e.g., entry-level workers all the way up to CEOs). Data were collected by sending the link out to the survey via various websites and social media platforms, using a snowball technique. A majority of our sample was collected through Amazon’s MTurk process. A portion of the participants were recruited from a university’s psychology department participant pool.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Behavioral Intentions Scale (Courage in Action)

The Behavioral Intentions scale comprises three vignettes created by our team that describe a real-life workplace conflict in which the participant is in a difficult position. After reading each vignette participants answered five Likert-scale items each depicting a different course of action the participant might take if actually experiencing the conflict in the vignette. Participants were asked to rate how likely they would be to do each of the items on a 1–5 scale (1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely). Each vignette was followed by the same 5 Likert-style items; speak with a supervisor or high-level administrator about this, generally ignore the situation, talk with others outside your organization about this situation to make them aware, talk with others outside your organization to solicit guidance on how to proceed, and do whatever it takes within your power to rectify this situation.

Each vignette described a different non-subjective conflict that would be considered obviously wrong and would not likely be seen as falling in a morally gray area by participants. The vignettes described workplace conflict involving sexual harassment, ongoing environmental damage, and a detrimental mistake made by a higher-up. These specific conflicts were chosen to ensure that the participants generally had similar emotions and instincts after reading the vignettes; eliminating any possible confounding reason for the responses to the 5 Likert-style questions we used as our measure of this dependent variable. The full vignettes can be found in Appendix A.

2.2.2. Dispositional Courage Scale

The Dispositional Courage scale is a 30-item Likert-scale created by our team as a measure of the different facets of dispositional courage. The scale measures 15 different facets of dispositional courage inspired by the model put forth by Be Courageous, an international business consulting company that focuses on courage within the workplace. Additionally, this Dispositional Courage scale was partly influenced by the dimensions of psychological courage put forth by Woodard and Pury (2007) and the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS) scale by Howard et al. (2017). Within the Dispositional Courage scale there are 15 domains of dispositional courage, with two scale-items for each domain. The domains are described in Appendix B.

2.2.3. Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is a brief, 10-item Likert-scale measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality (Gosling et al. 2003). The Five-Factor Model of personality is commonly referred to as the Big Five personality traits and measures extraversion (the tendency to be sociable, energetic, assertive, lively, happy, and optimistic; (McCrae and John 1992), openness to experience (the desire for curiosity, imagination, aesthetics, wisdom, enlightenment and humanism (John 1989; McCrae and John 1992), agreeableness (the desire for kindness, benevolence, confidence, empathy, obedience and sacrifice (John 1989; McCrae and John 1992)), conscientiousness (the desire for organization, discipline, autonomy, efficiency, reliability, progressiveness and reflection (John 1989; McCrae and John 1992)), and neuroticism (the desire to experience anxiety, stress, hostility, impulsiveness, shyness, irrational thinking, depression and low self-esteem (John 1989; McCrae and John 1992) emotional stability (the ability to regulate negative emotions, feelings, or behaviors such as anxiety, stress, hostility, impulsiveness, irrational thinking, depression and low self-esteem (John 1989; McCrae and John 1992). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the traits applied to them (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “Extraverted, enthusiastic” and “Disorganized, careless.”

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory has been shown to have factor structure, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Ehrhart et al. 2009; Gosling et al. 2003), although some studies have questioned the internal reliability of this measure (Thørrisen and Sadeghi 2023).

2.2.4. General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS)

The General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS) is an 8-item Likert-scale created by Zhang et al. (2018) as a brief measure of people’s general propensity to take risks across multiple situations. The GRiPS measures risk taking as a broad construct to widen its predictive ability amongst a range of broad outcomes. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with the statements on a 1–5 scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items include “Taking risks makes life more fun,” and “My friends would say that I’m a risk taker.” The GRiPS exhibited convergent validity with other self-report measures of risk taking and provided predictions of work, academic, and life outcomes over and above both the Big Five personality traits and the Domain-Specific Risk Taking Scale, another widely used risk taking scale (Zhang et al. 2018).

In addition to the convergent validity that has been documented for the GRiPS, risk taking has also been linked to courage (Pury and Saylors 2018). Pury and Saylors (2018) posit that courage can be thought of as taking a worthwhile risk with results to support this notion. Therefore, in this study, we use the GRiPS as a predictive measure of self-reported dispositional courage and courageous behaviors in participants.

2.2.5. Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a 6-item Likert-scale designed by Smith et al. (2008) as a brief measure of one’s ability to recover from stress. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with the statements on a 1–5 scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items include “It does not take me long to bounce back from a stressful event,” and “I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life.” The Brief Resilience scale has been shown to have internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity and discriminant predictive validity (Smith et al. 2008).

2.3. Procedure

All participants in this study were fully informed about their anonymity being assured, why the research is being conducted, and how their data will be used and protected. After providing their informed consent, the participants read an introductory and instructional page within the Qualtrics environment. The participants were then asked to provide demographic information about themselves, including their age, preferred gender, country and/or state they are from, highest level of education, workplace position, approximate number of employees at their place of work, industry of their company, and current and early childhood socioeconomic status. Next, participants were presented with the three vignettes describing different workplace scenarios in which one may need to display acts of courage. For each vignette, participants answered five Likert-style questions that asked how likely they would be to do each of the five actions described on a scale of 1–5. Next, participants completed a 30-item Likert-style questionnaire measuring the different facets of dispositional courage. Participants answered how much they agreed with each statement on a scale of 1–5. These two measures served as our primary indices of our dependent variables (dispositional courage and courage in action). After completing these questions, participants were presented with the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, the General Risk Propensity Scale, and the Brief Resilience Scale. They were then thanked for their participation.

3. Results

Analyses were organized as follows. First, we conducted basic descriptive statistics for all main variables. We next conducted zero-order correlations among predictor variables and the two outcome variables. We finally conducted standard multiple regression analyses to predict both (a) the dispositional courage and (b) the “courage in action” variables.

3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables

Basic descriptive statistics were computed for all the variables. In Table 1, we present the means, standard deviations, Ns, and Chronbach alphas for these variables. Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients were calculated for each measure of courage to assess the internal consistency reliability of the measures utilized in this study.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Main Variables.

	N	Mean	SD	α 1
TIPI Subscales
Extraversion	1315	8.348	2.222
Agreeableness	1316	9.056	2.204
Conscientiousness	1316	9.300	2.360
Emotional Stability	1315	8.846	2.260
Openness	1316	9.121	2.206
Courage in Action	1317	54.171	7.290	0.719
Dispositional Courage	1330	52.859	8.943	0.801
Risk Tendency Propensity	1307	28.150	6.593	0.905
Resilience	1306	18.706	3.503	0.554
Dispositional Courage Subscales
Fear of Loss	1328	6.66	1.592	0.033
Rejection	1325	6.534	1.492	0.091
Outcome	1325	6.549	1.400	0.039
Process	1327	6.684	1.678	0.264
Ruin	1325	6.688	1.596	0.145
Regret	1325	6.47	1.408	0.007
Responsibility	1327	6.491	1.559	0.161
Reputational Courage	1326	6.558	1.507	0.081
Moral Courage	1328	6.844	1.663	0.219
Self-Efficacy Courage	1324	6.799	1.593	0.032
Physical Courage	1329	6.451	1.582	0.139
Everyday Courage	1326	6.695	1.552	0.077
Reactive Courage	1326	6.453	1.335	0.270
Proactive Courage	1325	6.662	1.612	0.133
Consciousness of Courage	1325	6.491	1.460	0.214
Full Dispositional Courage	1325	52.86	8.94	0.801

¹ Cronbach alpha coefficients were only computed for newly created variables.

Regarding the measures related to courage, Courage in Action demonstrated a moderate level of internal consistency with an alpha coefficient of 0.719, while Dispositional Courage exhibited higher internal consistency with an alpha of 0.801. The analyses of this study were run using the overall Dispositional Courage scores due to the very low Cronbach alphas for the subscales of Dispositional Courage.

Overall, while some measures demonstrated strong internal consistency (e.g., Risk Tendency Propensity), others exhibited weaker reliability (e.g., Emotional Stability). Of note, both Courage in Action and Dispositional Courage Scales (both newly developed psychological measures created and introduced for this study) exhibited a robust level of internal consistency reliability, as evidenced by high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. This indicates that the items comprising the measures consistently assess the intended construct, reinforcing the validity and reliability of the instrument for future research. These findings underscore the importance of considering the reliability of measures when interpreting the results and drawing conclusions based on the data collected.

3.2. Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables

The zero-order correlations among predictor variables are presented in Table 2. As shown, significant correlations were observed among various personality traits in line with previous research. Extraversion demonstrated a significant positive correlation with agreeableness (r = 0.184, p < 0.05), conscientiousness (r = 0.200, p < 0.001), emotional stability (r = 0.210, p < 0.001), openness (r = 0.290, p < 0.001), and resilience (r = 0.248, p < 0.001). Agreeableness exhibited significant positive correlations with conscientiousness (r = 0.525, p < 0.001), emotional stability (r = 0.411, p < 0.001), openness (r = 0.494, p < 0.001), and resilience (r = 0.229, p < 0.001). Further, conscientiousness displayed significant positive correlations with emotional stability (r = 0.456, p < 0.001), openness (r = 0.492, p < 0.001), and resilience (r = 0.299, p < 0.001). Emotional stability was significantly positively correlated with openness (r = 0.384, p < 0.001) and resilience (r = 0.477, p < 0.001). Openness showed a significant positive correlation with resilience (r = 0.288, p < 0.001). Additionally, risk propensity exhibited significant negative correlations with agreeableness (r = −0.304, p < 0.001), conscientiousness (r = −0.258, p < 0.001), and emotional stability (r = −0.080, p < 0.05). Notably, resilience did not demonstrate a significant correlation with risk tendency propensity (r = −0.016, p < 0.05).

Table 2. Predictor Variables Correlated with Predictor Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Extraversion	–
2. Agreeableness	0.184 **	–
3. Conscientiousness	0.200 **	0.525 **	–
4. Emotional Stability	0.210 **	0.411 **	0.456 **	–
5. Openness	0.290 **	0.494 **	0.492 **	0.384 **	–
6. Risk Tendency Propensity	0.137 **	−0.304 **	−0.258 **	−0.080 **	−0.069 *	–
7. Resilience	0.248 **	0.229 **	0.299 **	0.477 **	0.288 **	−0.016	–

** significant at the p < 0.001 level; * significant at the p < 0.05 level.

3.3. Outcome Variable Inter-Correlation

Courage in Action demonstrated a significant positive correlation with dispositional courage (r = 0.374, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that individuals who exhibit higher levels of dispositional courage are also likely to engage in courageous actions. Yet, the moderate nature of this relationship suggests that these measures are largely independent from one another as well—a fact that comes into play in forthcoming analyses.

3.4. Predictor Variables with Outcome Variables

Table 3 displays the correlations between predictor variables and outcome variables. Significant correlations were observed between predictor variables and both the indices of Courage in Action and Dispositional Courage. Courage in Action exhibited significant positive correlations with all of our predictor variables. Dispositional Courage also exhibited significant correlations with our predictor variables. All predictor variables were positively correlated with Dispositional Courage except for risk tendency propensity, which exhibited a significant negative correlation with risk tendency propensity, contrary to our original hypothesis.

Table 3. Correlations between Predictor Variables and Each of the Two Outcome Variables.

	Courage in Action	Dispositional Courage
Extraversion	0.171 **	0.308 **
Agreeableness	0.278 **	0.552 **
Conscientiousness	0.213 **	0.604 **
Emotional Stability	0.165 **	0.496 **
Openness	0.286 **	0.592 **
Risk Tendency Propensity	0.265 **	−0.201 **
Resilience	0.138 **	0.460 **

** significant at the p < 0.001 level.

3.5. Multiple Regressions to Predict the Two Indices of Courage

A standard multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the variability in dispositional courage based on various predictor variables including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, risk tendency propensity, and resilience. The overall model accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in dispositional courage (R² = 0.588, F(7, 1291) = 262.150, p < 0.001), indicating that approximately 58.8% of the variability in dispositional courage scores can be explained by the set of predictors mentioned above. Next, semi-squared partial correlations were computed to address the unique amount of variability in dispositional courage accounted for, separately, by extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, risk propensity tendency, and resilience. This information is summarized in Table 4 The results, as shown in Table 4A, indicate that extraversion (sr² = 0.007, p < 0.001), agreeableness (sr² = 0.018, p < 0.001), conscientiousness (sr² = 0.036, p < 0.001), emotional stability (sr² = 0.061, p < 0.001), openness (sr² = 0.038, p < 0.001), and resilience (sr² = 0.035, p < 0.001) all uniquely account for a significant amount of variability in dispositional courage. Yet, it appears openness uniquely contributes to the variability in dispositional courage scores, above and beyond the other predictors. Risk tendency propensity (sr² = 0.005, p < 0.001) also uniquely accounts for a significant amount of variability in dispositional courage but exhibits a negative correlation with dispositional courage unlike the positive correlations exhibited by the other predictor variables.

Table 4. (A): Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Dispositional Courage; (B): Standard Multiple Regression Predicting Courage in Action.

(A)
	b	B	sr2
Extraversion	0.088	0.351 **	0.007
Agreeableness	0.173	0.695 **	0.018
Conscientiousness	0.250	0.935 **	0.036
Emotional Stability	0.099	0.387 **	0.061
Openness	0.246	0.987 **	0.038
Risk Propensity Tendency	0.075	−0.101 **	0.005
Resilience	0.215	0.540 **	0.035
R2 = 0.588 **
(B)
	b	B	sr2
Extraversion	0.011	0.036	0.000
Agreeableness	0.294	0.978 **	0.052
Conscientiousness	0.133	0.410 **	0.010
Emotional Stability	−0.033	−0.108	0.001
Openness	0.118	0.393 **	0.009
Risk Propensity Tendency	0.396	0.436 **	0.131
Resilience	0.010	0.020	0.000
R2 = 0.250 **

** p < 0.001.

A standard multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the variability in courage in action based on various predictor variables including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, risk tendency propensity, and resilience. The overall model accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in courage in action (R² = 0.250, F(7, 1273) = 60.313, p < 0.001), indicating that approximately 25% of the variability in courage in action scores can be explained by the set of predictors mentioned above. Importantly, this finding, while significant, does suggest that 75% of what we know about courage (in this paradigm) is left unexplained. This fact is consistent with how very multi-faceted and complex courage is. And it opens the door for research on the additional variables that explain the remainder of courageous decision-making.

Next, semi-squared partial correlations were computed to address the unique amount of variability in courage in action accounted for, separately, by extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, risk propensity tendency, and resilience. This information is summarized in Table 4B. The results show that agreeableness (sr² = 0.052, p < 0.001), conscientiousness (sr² = 0.010, p < 0.001), openness (sr² = 0.009, p < 0.001), and risk tendency propensity (sr² = 0.131, p < 0.001) all uniquely account for a significant amount of variability in courage in action scores. It appears, however, that risk propensity tendency uniquely contributes to the variability in Courage in Action scores, above and beyond the other predictors. Extraversion (sr² = 0.000, ns), emotional stability (sr² = 0.001, ns), and resilience (sr² = 0.000, ns) do not uniquely account for a significant amount of variability in courage in action scores.

Importantly, multi-collinearity is regularly an issue with the Big Five as predictor variables. The multiple regressions conducted here take this issue into account by controlling for all predictor variables along with their overlapping explained variance. Nevertheless, multi-collinearity always remains something of an issue. Further, it is important to note that some of our effects, such as the independent significant effect of openness, are very small in terms of effect magnitude. Thus, these findings must be examined with this information in mind.

4. Discussion

The current work presents perhaps the first evolutionarily informed, large-scale study on the psychological traits that underlie courageous actions in the workplace. In studying individuals from a broad array of fields and from a broad array of leadership levels, we found strong and consistent evidence suggesting that several well-validated personality traits (e.g., several of the Big Five Personality Traits, see (Gosling et al. 2003), strongly predict courage in the workplace.

Importantly, we used two measures of courage—one of which consisted of various Likert-scale items and one of which (Courage in Action) which consisted of various decision-making queries that, in combination, provided a behavioroid measure of courage. For the most part, the correlates of courage for these two scales acted quite similarly. Specifically, we found that courage, as measured by each of these outcome measures, was positively related to extraversion, agreeableness, open-mindedness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and psychological resilience. Further, we found that the two courage-based outcome measures were positively inter-correlated with one another; people, for the most part, who see themselves as courageous also tend to make courageous decisions in light of work-related scenarios.

Interestingly, the role of risk propensity was related to both indices of courage. However, our risk-propensity measure acted quite differently from all the other predictor variables across the two main outcome measures. Specifically, risk propensity was negatively related to dispositional courage (people who reported that they saw themselves as courageous tended to be risk-averse). Conversely, while, when it came to the proclivity to take actual courageous action, those who were risk-prone tended to come out on top: Those who reported being risk-takers tended to score highest on our Courage-in-Action measure. In other words, risky individuals scored low on our index of self-reported courage while they scored relatively high on our index of courageous behavioral intentions. We see this finding as, perhaps, the most provocative result in this work.

This pattern of findings, taken altogether, has major implications regarding the relationship between risk propensity and courage. Perhaps when it comes to describing one’s own risk tendencies, people who score as low in risk propensity tend to shy away from describing themselves as highly courageous. Interestingly, research on risk-taking from an evolutionary perspective (e.g., Wilke et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2017) speaks to the fact that risk-taking has always come with potential risks and benefits when it comes to one’s own survival and potential reproductive success. To this point, perhaps true courage importantly comes with the risk of failure along with various potential benefits–and a courage mindset without risk proclivity is something of a tempered form of courage–one that may be less likely to effect changes in one’s world.

Importantly, the inference we make about courage-in-action as being more predictively valid than the self-report measure of courage is, in fact, not set in empirical stone. Future research would be wise to examine whether measures that are more like the courage-in-action measure do, in fact, better predict actual courageous behaviors relative to straight-out self-report courage measures.

However, when it comes to situations that demand actual action (such as calling out a supervisor for an ethical breach), it is actually the risky folks among us who are most likely to step up and take courageous actions that may well come along with adverse consequences. And of course, at the end of the day, it is actual behavior that shapes the world that we live in. As such, while being a risk-taker, by definition, is not always a positive attribute, it seems, based on our data, that risk is potentially an important ingredient for courageous action.

One final noteworthy point speaks to the connection between courage and, potentially, altruism. Importantly, although we see important conceptual relationships between courage and altruism, the current study’s outcome measures were more directly about courage and less directly about altruism. Thus, the connection with altruism needs to take this detail into account.

Given how the courage-in-action measure was designed, it seems that courage may largely be construed as a feature that cultivates altruistic acts, or actions that ultimately are for the greater good—at a cost to oneself. From this perspective, perhaps courage, then, is a requisite feature of being a person who truly works to make the world a better place for all of us. Maybe courage evolved, in a sense, to facilitate other-oriented behaviors at a cost to oneself. In other words, maybe true acts of courage are, at the end of the day, true acts of altruism.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Limitations and Future Directions

While this study had many benefits over many modern personality studies, including (a) the use of a broad, non-convenience-based sample, (b) the use of multiple outcome measures to increase triangulation of measurement, and (c) a relatively large sample size (including more than 1000 participants), this study is not without its limitations.

First off, while the study does include a diverse array of participants, a larger study designed with a cross-cultural model might allow for an examination of whether the correlates of courage are the same across various cultural groups, further strengthening the support for the ubiquitous benefits of courage and our evolutionary perspective. Further, this study focused specifically on courage in the workplace. While this is an important sphere of life to be sure, this study does not address whether the findings generalize to other spheres such as community organizations, such as educational organizations, family relationships, intimate relationships, etc. Additionally, while this study used a behavioroid measure based on decision-making processes, this measure falls short of measuring actual behaviors. Future research that examines actual courageous behaviors in real-world scenarios might bear important fruit into the understanding of the psychology of courage.

5.2. Bottom Line

Courage is one of these attributes that people all tend to value. Yet, understanding, empirically, what courage actually is ends up being a somewhat amorphous task. The current study sought to help rectify this situation by empirically examining the psychological correlates in a large sample of various kinds of workers from around the world.

At the end of the day, we found that courageous people tend to be extraverted, emotionally stable, conscientious, open-minded, and psychologically resilient. When it comes to risk propensity, our measures of courage diverged. Riskiness demonstrated to be negatively related to self-reported indices of courage while it showed to be positively related to courage as measured by a more behavior-based decision-making measurement model. Perhaps these divergent findings speak to the fact that it is socially desirable to report that one is courageous, but it is less socially desirable to say that one frequently takes risks. On the other hand, it seems that when it comes to real, behavioral courage, a bit of riskiness seems to be necessary. Perhaps this finding might be useful for leaders of organizations who are seeking to cultivate a culture of courage within their organizations. Further, these data may also prove useful in efforts to design programs or interventions to enhance courageous behavior and yield its positive benefits, such as in a social setting (e.g., Kramer and Zinbarg 2019).

The primary contribution of this work is as follows: Courage, as measured by intended actions, is predicted by high levels of risk tolerance along with extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness, open-mindedness, and resilience.