2007 TheConstructofCourageCategoriza
- (Woodard & Pury, 2007) ⇒ Cooper R Woodard, and Cynthia LS Pury. (2007). “The Construct of Courage: Categorization and Measurement..” In: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2). doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.2.135
Subject Headings: Courage, Courage Scale.
Notes
Cited By
Quotes
Author Keywords
Abstract
The original courage scale developed by Woodard (2004) measured courage as the product of the willingness to take action and the fear experienced while taking the action. Recent findings suggest that fear may not be a necessary part of courageous action. Items from the original courage scale were reanalyzed using only the "willingness to act" scores. A four-factor structure -- work/employment, patriotic/religion-based belief system, specific social-moral, and independent courage or family based -- was found. This factor solution was replicated in a slightly revised version of the scale administered to a new participant sample. Interpretation of these factors suggested that courage may be classified by more complex, context-based situations. A revised version of the scale, the Woodard Pury Courage Scale-23, is included for further research and investigation.
Introduction
…
Defining Courage: The Question of Fear
One reason why courage has not received more attention and inquiry may be attributed to difficulties in establishing a clear and concise definition. Early research on courage made great strides in forming a foundational definition, although the question of fear continued to be a complex dimension of this construct. Shelp (1984) proposed four components of courage: (1) free choice to accept or not accept the consequences of acting, (2) risk or danger, (3) a worthy end, and (4) uncertainty of outcome. He indicated that fear may or may not be present in the courageous act. Specifically, should we not label someone courageous if they take part in a dangerous act for a worthy end, but show no fear? Shelp explained that the person who shows courage is not necessarily fearless or fearful, but rather respects fear, attempts to master fear, and acts despite some level of fear being present. He offered this definition: “Courage is the disposition to voluntarily act, perhaps fearfully, in a dangerous circumstance, where the relevant risks are reasonably appraised, in an effort to obtain or preserve some perceived good for one self or others recognizing that the desired perceived good may not be realized” (p. 354).
Rachman (1984), in his research on fear acquisition, fearlessness, and the effects of trauma, suggested that courage was related to resilience in the face of threat or danger, and perseverance or the capacity to act despite stress and fear. However, he noted the ability for phobic patients to act courageously despite exhibiting extreme fear, and questioned whether or not this represented a lack of courage. Rachman discussed both sides of this issue, questioning whether courage was mastery of fear and hence fearlessness, or if courage in its purest form necessitated fear. He concludes by suggesting that training or exposure to the fearful situation may move the person along on a type of continuum, from courage to fearlessness. This seems to suggest that courage required some element of fear, until one arrives at a different state of fearlessness in the face of threat for a worthy purpose, end, or outcome.
More recent reviews and research have focused on possible definitions for courage, although the question of the role of fear remains complex. (For a comprehensive listing of selected scholarly definitions of courage, the reader is referred to p. 191 of Lopez, O’Byrne, and Peterson (2003).) For example, Woodard (2004) developed a courage scale by administering a pool of 108 situation-based questions to 200 participants. Using a cognitive-vulnerability conceptualization of fear (Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985), Woodard defined courage as “the ability to act for a meaningful (noble, good, or practical) cause, despite experiencing the fear associated with perceived threat exceeding the available resources” (p. 174). Using the theoretical base of fear and the definition identified for courage, a courage score was calculated by multiplying the rating of the participant’s willingness to act in the situation by the participant’s fear rating. This method ensured that fear was a part of a participant’s courage, and discounted the participant who was as willing as the fearful participant, but with lessened levels of fear.
Pury, Kowalski, and Spearman (2007) gave open-ended questions on courage (as well as a variety of scale-based questions) to 250 participants. Findings suggested that actions considered courageous compared to the individual’s typical actions, or “personal” courage, might alternatively be thought of as fearful courage. On the other hand, actions considered courageous compared with the way most people typically act, or “general” courage, might be consistent with the concept of fearless or confident courage. Such a reference-based conceptualization of courage as a construct perhaps being modified by fear-reducing familiarity, ignorance, or training explains how what is courageous for one person may or may not be courageous for another.
For the purposes of the present research project, we chose to focus on willingness to act in threatening situations for a worthy outcome, without including the added question of fear. We established the following definition of courage: Courage is the voluntary willingness to act, with or without varying levels of fear, in response to a threat to achieve an important, perhaps moral, outcome or goal. This definition acknowledges that fear may or may not be present to any significant degree for an act to be considered courageous, and makes evident the two generally agreed upon components of courage: threat and worthy or important outcome.
Identifying Types of Courage
As the definition of courage has continued to evolve, nonempirical information on various types of courage has surfaced in the literature. While very early discussions of courage were often tied to physical courage (or courage when the risk is one of physical harm), discussions of moral courage became more prevalent (Walton, 1986). Moral courage represented action when the threat was one of moral or ethical integrity, or perhaps (as suggested by Putman, 1997) when there is an element of social disapproval. Or is this social courage (e.g., Larsen & Giles, 1976)? What about existential courage (e.g., Maddi, 2004)? Putman (1997) also suggested there might be psychological courage, or the courage displayed when one encounters one’s own irrational fears and anxieties, or fear of loss of psychological stability. Lopez et al. (2003) suggested that psychological courage is related to vital courage, where the threat is illness and side effects of medical treatment.
It remains unclear how many types of courage exist, and research supporting any suggested type of courage is limited. Part of the difficulty of categorization may stem from the multiple components identified in the definition of courage, including (1) the presence of a threat, and (2) an important or worthy end or outcome. The threat may produce varying degrees of fear, including perhaps none at all, and the worthy goal may have varying degrees of moral importance. When creating a type of courage, should situations be categorized by the threat (“I would run into a burning building. . .” as physical, for example) or by the outcome (“. . .to save the lives of trapped and fearful children” as moral, for example)? Traditionally, courage has been categorized based on the threat (e.g., Putman’s psychological courage and most discussions of physical courage), but this remains a slippery aspect of courage categorization. Moral courage, for example, is more often identified in situations where there is a morally desirable goal. It is rarely identified for threats to a person’s moral well-being or integrity.
Lopez et al. (2003) suggested that there were three types of courage: physical, moral, and vital. However, this categorization or division is based on reviews of previous studies, most of which only examined courage in a specific, predefined context, such as courageous medical patients (Finfgeld, 1999) or decorated bomb disposal operators (Cox, Hallam, O’Connor, & Rachman, 1983). Further support for the physical, moral, and vital division was proposed in a literature review and research study conducted by O’Byrne, Lopez, and Petersen (2000). In this research, five openended and five scaled questions were administered to 38 participants. The researchers selected and identified major themes in the responses. However, although some responses could be classified into one of the three proposed categories (e.g., physical; continuing to play soccer despite breaking an arm), others were not so easily categorized (e.g., trying out for cheerleading in front of others). Pury et al. (2007) reported that the most common themes (threats and outcomes) of courage in their sample were threefold: physical, moral, and trying something new. Limited themes of vital courage were reported, although trying something new may be a common, nonpathological example of a threat to the psyche covered by psychological courage (Putman, 1997).
Few research studies have tried to empirically derive types or categorizations of courage. In the process of exploring hardiness, Woodard (2004) used factor analysis to examine responses to the previously discussed scale he developed. Results suggested a four-factor solution: general courage, dealing with groups, acting independently, and a combination of physical and moral situations. However, some items loaded on more than one factor, and as noted previously, the scoring method favored the high fear– high willingness-to-act participant. The purpose of the present research is to add to our current understanding of the various types of courage that may exist by categorizing the Personal Perspectives Survey (PPS-31) created by Woodard (2004), reexamine Woodard’s (2004) factor structure without the added dimension of fear, and compare this information to the factor structure of the Woodard Pury Courage Scale (WPCS-30).
Method
…
}}
References
;
| Author | volume | Date Value | title | type | journal | titleUrl | doi | note | year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 TheConstructofCourageCategoriza | Cooper R Woodard Cynthia LS Pury | The Construct of Courage: Categorization and Measurement. | 10.1037/1065-9293.59.2.135 | 2007 |