Dual-process model of courage

Aakash A Chowkase; Fabio Andrés Parra-Martínez; Mehdi Ghahremani; Zoe Bernstein; Gabrielle Finora; Robert J Sternberg

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376195

Dual-process model of courage

Front Psychol. 2024 Mar 22:15:1376195. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376195. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Aakash A Chowkase¹, Fabio Andrés Parra-Martínez², Mehdi Ghahremani³, Zoe Bernstein⁴, Gabrielle Finora⁵, Robert J Sternberg⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.
² Department of Education Reform, College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
³ Department of Counseling, Higher Education Leadership, Educational Psychology, and Foundations, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, United States.
⁴ Department of Psychology, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
⁵ Division of Nutritional Sciences, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.

Abstract

Courage is one of the most significant psychological constructs for society, but not one of the most frequently studied. This paper presents a process model of courage consisting of decision-based pathways by which one comes to enact a courageous action. We argue the process of courage begins with a trigger involving an actor(s) and a situation(s). The actor(s) then engage(s) in four key assessments concerning (a) immediacy of the situation, (b) meaningfulness, value, and relevance to the actor, (c) adequacy of efficacy to act, and (d) decision to act with courage. The central component of this process entails an approach-avoidance conflict involving assessments of perceived risks and potential noble outcomes of acting with courage. The decision to act may result in courageous actions assuming it satisfies the four elements: intentionality, objective and substantial risk, a noble purpose, and meaning in time and place. Courageous actions have consequences. Finally, the consequences shape the actors' experience, which feeds into the trigger, closing the loop. Potential moderators of the courage process as well as potential tests of the model have been discussed.

Keywords: approach-avoidance conflict; courage; dual-system theory; expectancy-value theory; noble purpose; risk assessment; type I thinking; type II thinking.

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Publication made possible in part by support from the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII) sponsored by the UC Berkeley Library.