Value of goal predicts accolade courage: more evidence that courage is a taking a worthwhile risk
Cynthia L. S. Pury a, Charles B. Starkey b and Laura R. Olson
Department of Psychology, Clemson University Clemson, SC United States; bDepartment of Philosophy and Religion, Clemson UniversityClemson, SC United States; cDepartment of Political Science, Clemson University Clemson, SC United States
The paper's central argument is that the common understanding of courage extends beyond simply confronting fear. The authors distinguish between courage as a clinical process (acting despite fear) and what they term "accolade courage"—the act of an observer evaluating and labeling another's action as courageous.
The core hypothesis posits that when an observer judges an action, the perceived value of the goal is a more significant predictor of accolade courage than the perceived risk to the actor. This re-frames courage not just as a risky act, but as the act of "taking a worthwhile risk." In essence, for an observer to call something courageous, they must believe the goal of the action was noble, valuable, and worthy of the risk involved.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers designed a study that capitalized on the polarized sociopolitical climate of the United States. They surveyed two distinct groups—undergraduate students and a broader sample of U.S. residents recruited online—about their perceptions of two highly publicized, controversial actions:
1. Caitlyn Jenner's public gender transition.
2. Kim Davis's refusal, as a county clerk, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Participants were presented with a scenario about either Jenner or Davis and then asked to rate the action based on four key variables: Accolade Courage (how brave or courageous the action was), Risk of Action (the degree of danger or harm faced), Value of Goal (whether the action was admirable or right), and their own Moral Traditionalism.
The study's results were remarkably consistent across both case studies (Jenner and Davis) and both sample populations. The analysis revealed that the Value of Goal was the strongest and most consistent predictor of whether an action was rated as courageous. While the perceived Risk of Action was also a predictor, its influence was smaller.
The paper concludes that calling an action courageous is not a neutral observation of risk-taking; it is a value-laden judgment. It signifies that the observer fundamentally agrees with the goal for which the risk was taken.
How it relates to our work:
Our art installations create high-stakes moral dilemmas that force participants to engage directly in the calculus of "worthwhile risk." In Headspace #1, the participant is plunged into an audio-visual narrative where they hear someone drowning and must choose 'YES' or 'NO' to intervention. Regardless of their choice, they are immediately cast into a police interrogation where an AI detective systematically dismantles their version of reality, making them question the value and consequence of their initial act. In Tokens of Decency, participants are forced to make difficult and at times impossible choices. Some of these choices directly tap into civil courage and bravery.
The paper uses "Moral Traditionalism" as a key variable for measuring a participant's pre-existing value system to predict their judgment. Ladder of Life goes a step further by forcing the construction of a value system in real-time. The courage tests in The Ladder of Life are not designed to simply reveal a participant's values, but to compel them to build a value-of-life hierarchy from the ground up, one agonizing choice at a time. This methodological distinction shifts the focus from passively measuring values to actively forging them under duress, demonstrating how a moral framework is not just a static belief but a dynamic process.
Viktor Frankl argued that the freedom to choose one's attitude and actions exists even in the most controlled and dehumanizing environments. This is a thesis we try to explore. Similarly the paper says that the goal of an action, whether it is survival or the defense of a principle, is what imbues the choice with meaning.
While the research paper is explicitly focused on accolade courage—the act of observing and judging the actions of others from a detached perspective_, our installations, in contrast, are an exploration of process courage. It places the participant directly into the decision-making process, forcing them to become the actor who must weigh the risks and values firsthand, rather than a spectator who judges the choices of others.
In the real-world examples studied by the paper, actors committed to a path to achieve a tangible goal. A central theme in Headspace #1, however, is that the link between choice and outcome is deliberately severed. The narrative is "hijacked" by a programmed environment; every choice leads to an interrogation where the AI detective works to make the participant confess to a crime. Yet, this futility is not the final message. The installation's goal is to provoke a "rebellion," challenging the participant to realize that "the only way to regain control over a situation that's out of control is by regaining control over the narrative. The experience is a test not of achieving an external goal, but of achieving internal freedom by owning one's story.
If the connection between a courageous choice and a successful outcome is broken, where does courage reside? We suggest it resides not in the external act but in an internal one. Courage may be redefined as an act of narrative self-possession. It is the Frankl-esque choice to maintain one's internal stance and own one's story, even in the face of programmed failure. Traditional psychological models must evolve to account for a form of courage defined not by worthwhile risks, but by the will to assert one’s truth when risk and worth have been rendered meaningless by the system itself.