Implicit theories of courage
By C. Rate, Jennifer A. Clarke, D. Lindsay, Robert J. Sternberg. 2007
204 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Applied Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ad6329d6b6bbef1a3353caa576e3f07766ce3d8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Applied Psychology
- Barbara L. Fredrickson
- M. Steger
- L. Waters
- Bruce J. Avolio
- S. Hannah
- Robert A Emmons
- Jane E. Dutton
- P. Magnano
In Cognitive Neuroscience
- S. Hannah
- Bruce J. Avolio
- Richard P. Bagozzi
- Barbara L. Fredrickson
- M. Steger
- K. Neff
- Ryan M. Niemiec
- Jane E. Dutton
In Social Psychology
- Bruce J. Avolio
- S. Hannah
- Barbara L. Fredrickson
- L. Waters
- M. Steger
- Douglas R. May
- Sara B. Algoe
- Ryan M. Niemiec
Citations in the corpus
- Facing Ethical Challenges in the Workplace: Conceptualizing and Measuring Professional Moral Courage (2009, background): “As appropriately described by Rate et al. (2007), a person who exercises a moral response is unlikely to be fearless, but knows how to endure threat.”
- Relationship between Psychological Capital and Quality of Life: The Role of Courage (2020, background): “On the other hand, Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, and Sternberg [48] underlined four dimensions of acting courageously: (a) the action is intentional, (b) feelings of fear are present, (c) a noble purpose is present, and (d) the individual perceives a personal risk.”
- Positive psychology in a pandemic: buffering, bolstering, and building mental health (2021, background): “Courage, or taking a worthwhile risk (Pury & Saylors, 2017; Rate et al., 2007), sits squarely within the virtues and strengths end of positive psychology, allowing individuals to act towards valued goals despite the possibility of personal negative consequences and resulting negative emotional…”
- Moral Maturation and Moral Conation: A Capacity Approach to Explaining Moral Thought and Action (2011, background): “As stated earlier, Rest et al. (1999) reported that moral judgment as measured by the DIT typically only explains about 20 percent of the variance in actual ethical behavior.”