I Will ‘Go for it’ even if it Scares me! How Psychological Courage Relates to Well-being at Work through Reinforcement Sensitivity Systems

I Will ‘Go for it’ even if it Scares me! How Psychological Courage Relates to Well-being at Work through Reinforcement Sensitivity Systems | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article I Will ‘Go for it’ even if it Scares me! How Psychological Courage Relates to Well-being at Work through Reinforcement Sensitivity Systems Grzegorz Pajestka, Katarzyna Skałacka This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Feb, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Psychological courage (PC) is believed to help individuals in dealing with fear and anxiety, allowing them to confront obstacles and discover purpose in their careers. This study investigated the relationship between PC, job satisfaction, meaning in work, perceived stress, and behavioral systems (BAS, BIS, FFFS) using structural equation modeling (SEM). A sample of 805 employees from various industries participated in the study. Results revealed a positive correlation between PC and both job satisfaction and meaning in work, while a negative correlation was found with perceived stress. SEM analysis further indicated that the behavioral activation system (BAS) mediates the relationship between PC and positive well-being outcomes. Conversely, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) was associated with increased stress and decreased job satisfaction and meaning in work. These findings highlight the importance of PC in promoting positive work experiences. By activating the BAS and inhibiting the BIS, PC can contribute to greater job satisfaction, increased meaning in work, and reduced stress. Organizations can benefit from implementing interventions that foster psychological courage among employees, leading to improved overall well-being and job performance. Biological sciences/Psychology Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Psychological courage Employee well-being Job satisfaction Behavioral Activation System (BAS) Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) Mediation analysis Figures Figure 1 Theoretical background Psychological courage (PC) is the term coined by Putman [1] to describe the act of confronting irrational fears and anxieties. This type of courage is different from two other types of courage often listed in literature: physical and moral courage. Physical courage adheres to risking one’s own health or life for greater good, such as rescuing someone’s life from fire [2]. Moral courage is defined as integrity or authenticity, i.e., standing for one’s values or beliefs, risking rejection, other social consequences, or even a physical threat [3]. In literature, the overlapping constructs are civil courage [4] and social courage [5]. The core differences between PC and other types of courage are the purpose of risk-taking and involved emotions. Whereas moral and physical courage, by definition, relate to prosocial behaviors, specifically taking a substantial risk for the benefit of others, PC relates to one’s own good. In this case, individuals are taking the risk of losing emotional well-being to pursue personal growth or wellness [6]. Overcoming fear or anxiety is the definitional characteristic of PC, whereas other types of courage may or may not involve these emotions [7]. PC is therefore a unique form of courage, displayed in everyday situations by people facing fears of different natures, as opposed to physical or moral courage, displayed rather by those described as heroes [8]. The construct of PC corresponds to the concepts of personal courage [9] and courage as a process [6], both of which are used to describe individuals struggling with overcoming their own limitations (e.g., public speaking fear). It also corresponds to the definition of courage proposed by Rachman [10]: the “persistence of approach behavior in the face of subjective and physical sensations of fear” (p. 152). This definition was used by Norton and Weiss [11] to create the Courage Measure. With items referring to overcoming fear (e.g., “I tend to face my fears”) and anxiety (e.g., “If I am worried or anxious about something, I will do or face it anyway"), the scale is the most relevant operationalization of Putman’s concept of PC, understood as a trait-like characteristic. Although authors did not refer to the measured phenomenon as PC, we propose the use of this label to consequently differ among different types and concepts of courage, especially between PC and definitions derived from Rate et al.'s [7] concept of courage. The definitional ambiguity of courage has led some authors to challenge the concept of PC [e.g., 12–14]. First, by emphasizing the prosocial facet of courageous behaviors. Second, by reducing the significance of facing negative emotions as inherent for courage, which in turn is the primary characteristic of PC. At the same time, studies using the Courage Measure support the relevance of Putman’s conceptualization. Importantly, a growing body of evidence shows that PC is related to actual behavior. For example, in a recent study, it predicted individual speech duration in individuals with public speaking fear [15]. In studies on individuals with elevated fear of spiders, PC predicted behavioral approach to fearful stimuli [11,16] or moderated the relationship between fear and the behavioral approach [17]. Furthermore, these studies show that PC explains additional variance in behavior above and beyond that provided by different measures of fear, anxiety, or distress. Thus, it could be interpreted as a psychological resource, similar to resiliency, with which it shares a common variance, but at the same time, it is far from redundant [14,17]. While resiliency refers to stressful situations and the potential to overcome adversity, PC refers to challenging situations, which can be easily avoided by withdrawing from them (i.e., not taking the opportunity to act). Facing fear and anxiety to achieve desirable goals should result in positive psychological outcomes, for example, greater well-being, understood as satisfaction with life, flourishing, or lower perceived stress. The results of studies conducted to date indicate that this is indeed the case [18,19]. Mediating mechanism If PC contributes to well-being by enabling the pursuit of desired goals in the presence of a threat (internal or external), approach and avoidance motivations are plausible mechanisms underlying this relationship. Specifically, we propose three basic motivational systems: the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), the flight-fight-freeze system (FFFS), and the behavioral activation system (BAS) [20]. In short, according to revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST), the BAS mediates all appetitive reactions (conditioned and unconditioned); hence, it is essential for reward-oriented approaching behaviors. It underlies the personality characteristics of optimism, reward orientation, and impulsiveness. The FFFS is responsible for the avoidance behavior of threatened stimuli (both unconditioned and conditioned) and is associated with the emotion of fear and fear-proneness as the associated personality trait. Conflict between avoidance and approach motivation (or BAS and FFFS) triggers BIS, which is responsible for its resolution. The BIS generates the emotion of anxiety accompanied by the engagement of risk assessment processes. The associated personality includes a propensity for worry and anxious rumination, which results in a state of constant vigilance for potential threats [21]. With respect to the PC, both BIS and FFFS may be activated during the process, with perhaps a potential predominance of BIS in anticipation of danger and FFFS in the real presence of danger. Owing to PC, individuals experiencing BIS activation may overcome the anxiety it generates and cope more effectively with situations that would otherwise result in avoidance behaviors. This adheres particularly to situations where threats are more symbolic (e.g., related to professional or social risks) rather than direct physical dangers. Similarly, courageous individuals may have the ability to suppress FFFS responses when their health or life is at stake (e.g., in high-risk occupations such as firefighting or the military). PC is also likely to be associated with BAS, as courageous individuals engage in actions aimed at positive outcomes despite potential fear or uncertainty. PC enhancing BAS activation may help people navigate challenges through positive emotions and a focus on desired goals that give meaning to their endeavors. In summary, to display PC, the suppression of BIS and FFFS along with an increase in the activation of BAS are needed. The results of the study conducted by Wang et al. [19] provide some initial evidence supporting this hypothesis. In the sample of high-risk employees, PC played a buffering role against stress by inhibiting the BIS. Furthermore, three dimensions of BAS, responsiveness, drive, and fun seeking, showed some relationship with PC, although they were less conclusive than for BIS. PC was positively correlated with responsiveness and drive and negatively correlated with fun seeking. The latter was the only BAS dimension that mediated the relationship between PC and stress. Since the study of Wang et al. [19] was based on the original version of the RST and used operationalization of BIS (as a punishment-sensitive system comprising behaviors related to FFFS) and BAS in the form of the Carver and White [22] questionnaire, we refrained from interpreting the complexity of their results. In general, they are in line with our reasoning, showing the relationship between PC and the BIS/BAS and the role of these systems as mechanisms underlying the relationship between PC and well-being at work. Considering that PC is a psychological resource that plays a role in everyday life, we argue that its relationship with employee well-being can be observed not only in high-risk situations but also in regular occupations, as people are likely to face psychologically challenging situations regardless of their workplace. Furthermore, PC may foster the interpretation of some stressors not as a risk of harm or loss of well-being but as challenges and opportunities for growth. By seizing these opportunities, employees may experience greater satisfaction and meaning in their work. As we propose, BIS, BAS, and FFFS mediate the relationship between PC and employee well-being, operationalized as lower perceived stress at work, greater job satisfaction, and greater meaning of work. In summary, we aimed to test the following hypotheses: H1) PC is negatively linked to perceived stress at work. H2) BIS mediates the relationship between PC and perceived stress at work. The second plausible mediator in this relationship is FFFS (H2a). H3) PC is positively associated with job satisfaction and work meaning. H4) BAS mediates the relationships between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning. On the basis of the Joint Sub-systems Hypothesis (JSH; [23]), we decided to test our hypotheses in one model. According to JSH, BIS, FFFS, and BAS may be activated concurrently due to the weakness of activating stimuli or variations in memories currently recalled. The cause could also be changing task demands or environments that contain mixed appetitive and aversive stimuli, which seems typical in everyday life and work. For example, deciding to take on a challenging task could be driven primarily by BAS, but as obstacles begin to arise, confronting negative emotions (suppressing BIS and/or FFFS) becomes essential to achieving the goal. Or, as another example, promotion at work may be seen as both rewarding and threatening at the same time because new responsibilities may be seen as overwhelming. Testing all sub-systems as mediators in one model allows us to control the complex interplay between them and analyze their joint effect on our outcome variables. Moreover, including both negative and positive measures of well-being in the model increases its ecological validity because, we believe, it accurately resembles the reality of working people, which is a mix of stressful as well as pleasant or rewarding events. Methods and materials Participants Participants were recruited through one of the largest nationwide research panels in Poland. We gathered data from representatives of various professions via the CAWI procedure. In accordance with the guidelines for conducting online surveys [24], two attention checks (e.g., "Please select two for this item") were included to ensure the quality of the collected data. Only individuals who answered both attention questions correctly were included in the final sample. Additionally, eight individuals were excluded as a result of inspecting the data in search of univariate outliers. The final sample comprised 805 participants, 423 women (M age = 40.53; SD age = 12.98) and 382 men (M age = 42.99; SD age = 12.74), aged 18-65 years (M = 41.70; SD = 12.92). Most participants received higher education (44.8%; n = 361) and lived in a large or very large city (over 100,000 inhabitants; 42.1%; n = 339). Basic descriptive statistics, grouped by sex, can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the study population Characteristics Men (n=382) Women (n=423) n (%) n (%) Age group (years) 18-24 32 (8.4) 66 (15.6) 25-34 82 (21.5) 87 (20.6) 35-44 90 (23.6) 95 (22.5) 45-54 89 (23.3) 94 (22.2) 55-65 89 (23.3) 81 (19.1) Education Primary 6 (1.6) 6 (1.4) Secondary 172 (45.0) 185 (43.7) Vocational 40 (10.5) 35 (8.3) Higher 164 (42.9) 197 (46.6) Residential area Rural area 110 (28.8) 123 (29.1) Small to medium city 107 (28.0) 126 (29.8) Big city 165 (43.1) 174 (41,1) Each participant provided informed consent (online) to take part in this research after being informed about the goals and methods of the study. The participants were notified of their rights during their engagement, and their decision to participate was completely optional. Ethical approval for the study was granted from the institutional review board at the author's university (no. 32/2023). Measures Psychological Courage The Courage Measure [11] was administered to assess self-perceived courage, defined as perseverance or persistence despite experiencing fear or anxiety. In the present study, a shortened version of the scale was used [12,17]. The scale consists of six items rated on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The higher the total score is, the greater the perceived courage. The scale shows very good internal consistency, with the current study's Cronbach’s α = .90. Reinforcement sensitivity systems The behavioral inhibition system (BIS), behavioral activation system (BAS), and fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS) were assessed with the Polish version of the reinforcement sensitivity theory-personality questionnaire (RST-PQ; [25]) in a shortened form (RST-PQ-S) proposed by Vecchione and Corr [26]. The RST-PQ-S consists of 22 items rated from 1 (none) to 4 (very well). The BIS and FFFS are measured with five items each. The BAS comprises four subscales: Reward Interest (RI), Goal-Driven Persistence (GDP), Reward Interest (RI) and Impulsivity (Imp), each measured by three items. The reliability of the Polish version of the RST-PQ-S resembles the reliability of the original questionnaire, ranging from acceptable (FFFS α = .62) to good (BIS α = .82, BAS α = .84). Well-being at work We define well-being at work broadly as higher job satisfaction and work meaning and lower perceived stress. Job satisfaction was assessed with the Satisfaction with Job Scale (SSP; [27]). The scale enables the assessment of the cognitive component of general job satisfaction, as it is based on Diener's SWLS scale. The SSP scale consists of 5 statements to which respondents must respond on a 7-point scale (1–strongly disagree to 7–strongly agree). The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α of 0.93 in the current study sample. The meaning of work was measured via the Polish version of the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI; [28,29]). The WAMI consists of 10 statements rated from 1 to 5 (from absolutely untrue to absolutely true) covering the meaning of work from the self-perspective (α = .93) and the world perspective (α = .84). The internal consistency of the total WAMI scale in the current study sample was high (α = .94). Perceived stress at work was assessed with the Perceived Stress at Work scale (PSaW; [30]) based on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) [31]. The PSaW is an instrument for assessing job-related stress and is defined as the subjective evaluation of the compatibility between the employee and the work environment. It consists of 10 items rated from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The scale has very good internal consistency and validity (α: 0.84–0.87 in the current study sample). Data analysis To test our hypothesis, we used structural equation modeling (SEM). The data were analyzed via SPSS version 26 and R software with the Lavaan package. We conducted a sensitive power analysis via the Monte Carlo simulation method on Webpower [32]. A total of 1000 replications were generated. Various effect sizes were set for indirect paths (starting conservatively with small effect sizes, r =.1) while keeping the direct effect size of PC on dependent variables fixed at zero. With N = 805 and α = .05, this study had 80% power to detect an indirect effect size as small as β = .04. For model simplicity and readability, a parceling procedure was used. Following previous authors [e.g., 33], we created two indicators for scales with five items and three indicators for scales comprising six or more items. For unidimensional scales, parcels were constructed by randomly assigning items to parcels. For BIS, FFFS, and BAS, homogenous parcels were constructed; each parcel consisted of items (subscales in the case of BAS) that loaded onto the attributed factor. For WAMI, following previous authors [34], we used a balancing approach, resulting in two parcels composed of three items and one parcel of four items. The same approach was used for the PSaW scale. Data analysis was performed using a two-step analytical approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing [35], i.e., the analysis of the hypothesized structural model was preceded by validation of the measurement model. A bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (5000 replicates) was employed to test the mediating effects in the hypothesized model. The significance of indirect effects was assessed on the basis of a 95% confidence interval (CI). The following fit indices were used to determine the fit of the measurement and structural models: relative/normed chi-square (χ 2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI). The following conventional cut-off criteria were applied: χ2/df ≤ 5:1, CFI ≥.92, SRMR ≤.08, and RMSEA ≤.08 [36,37]. The measurement model was additionally assessed on the basis of the criteria of internal consistency, convergent, and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was assessed using factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The discriminant validity was established in accordance with the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker [38] and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation [39]. The Fornell and Larcker criterion requires the square root of each construct’s AVE to have a greater value than the correlations with other latent constructs. For the HTMT criterion, we adopted the threshold of .85 as the upper boundary, suggesting discriminant validity of the construct. Finally, we tested for common method bias (CMB) using Harman’s single factor test (HSF). The HSF method assesses the extent of CMB by determining whether a single latent factor accounts for the majority of the variance (>50%) in the variables [40]. Although this method has been criticized as a CMB test, each of the popular statistical techniques has serious limitations [41]. We decided to report its results in our study only for informational purposes, taking into account its simplicity and popularity, as well as some evidence about its credibility [40]. Furthermore, as suggested by Fueller et al. [40], concerns of CMB in a single data source are likely overstated, as a relatively high amount of common method variance (rarely present in such studies) is needed to actually bias the results. This does not mean that taking the a priori procedural steps to prevent CMB should be out of concern. Thus, during the design stage of the study, we took some standard remedies to prevent this. They included clear questionnaire instructions for respondents, assured anonymity, and kept the survey concise by selecting short scales with a limited number of items. We also controlled for lack of motivation (inattention) using the previously described attention check procedure. We did not recognize other sources of CMB, such as task difficulties or a lack of respondents’ ability to answer survey questions, as significant threats to the validity of our research findings. Results Initial analysis A correlation analysis of latent variables revealed that PC is most strongly and positively associated with the BAS, followed by positive associations with work meaning and job satisfaction. Additionally, BAS itself was positively correlated with both work meaning and job satisfaction. These findings indicate that PC and BAS jointly contribute to promoting a sense of positive meaning and rewarding emotions in the work undertaken. Essentially, PC and BAS complement each other in enhancing employee well-being by transforming challenges into opportunities for personal and professional satisfaction and growth. In contrast, the BIS was found to be positively associated with perceived stress at work and negatively associated with both job satisfaction and work meaning. This correlation underscores the role of BIS in avoidance behavior and anxiety, where activation leads individuals to focus more on potential threats and negative outcomes, thereby increasing stress levels and diminishing satisfaction and meaning in their work. These findings suggest that the BIS impairs well-being by amplifying negative emotions and stress responses in the workplace. Further details can be found in Table 3. Measurement model All indicator variables showed a univariate normal distribution, with values of skewness ranging between -.451 and .260 and kurtosis between -.722 and .426. However, because multivariate normality (assessed through Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis; [42]) was not satisfied, a robust maximum likelihood method was used for measurement model estimation. In the tested model, we allowed the mediators as well as the dependent variables to covariate. The results showed an acceptable fit to the data, except for the RMSEA, which slightly exceeded its cut-off value: χ2/df = 4.552, CFI = .940, SRMR ≤.065, RMSEA = .072, 90% CI [.067, .078]. Following the modification indices, we let two parcels of WAMI (p1 and p3) and two parcels of BAS (GDP and Imp) covary, which improved the model fit (Model 2): χ2/df = 3.605, CFI =.961, SRMR ≤.064, RMSEA =.062, 90% CI [.056, .068]. All factor loadings were statistically significant. Their values were above the recommended threshold of .5 [36]. Table 2 shows AVE and CR for all latent variables, except FFFS, exceeded the recommended values of .5 and .7, respectively [36]. Despite the AVE (.445) and CR (.615) values for FFFS being lower than expected, they might be considered sufficient. According to Hair et al. [36], “Reliability between .6 and .7 may be acceptable, provided that other indicators of a model’s construct validity are good” (p. 619). Moreover, as posited by Fornell and Larcker [38], if the AVE is less than .5 but the CR is greater than .6, the construct's convergent validity may be considered satisfactory. With respect to discriminant validity, Table 3 shows that the AVE square root for each latent variable was greater than the correlation between it and the other variable, which met the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Additionally, all HTMT values were below the .85 threshold, supporting construct discriminant validity (see Table 4). The results of the principal component analysis revealed that a single factor accounts for 22% of the variance, substantially beneath the HSF 50% threshold. Table 2. Results of convergent validity and reliability assessment. Constructs and indicators (parcels) Convergent validity Reliability Standardized factor loading Average variance extracted Internal consistency Composite reliability PC .78 .91 .91 PC 1 .883 PC 2 .850 PC 3 .910 BIS .72 .84 .84 BIS 1 .824 BIS 2 .876 BAS .50 .76 .80 BAS 1 .698 BAS 2 .785 BAS 3 .789 BAS 4 .527 FFFS .44 .61 .62 FFFS 1 .639 FFFS 2 .693 PSaW .71 .88 .88 PSaW 1 .846 PSaW 2 .886 PSaW 3 .798 JS .87 .93 .93 JS 1 .962 JS 2 .903 WAMI .80 .94 .92 WAMI 1 .867 WAMI 2 .978 WAMI 3 .835 Note. PC – Psychological Courage; BIS – Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS – Behavioral Activation System; FFFS – Fight–Flight–Freeze System; JS – Job Satisfaction; PSaW – Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI – Meaning of Work. Numbered acronyms indicate corresponding parcels. Table 3. Results of discriminant validity assessment through the Fornell–Larcker criterion and values of latent mean correlations. Variable PC BIS BAS FFFS JS PSaW WAMI PC .881 BIS -.176*** .850 BAS .606*** .124** .708 FFFS -.146** .595*** .332*** .666 JS .376*** -.171*** .439*** .030 .933 PSaW -.248*** .549*** -.124** .220*** -.467*** .844 WAMI .398*** -.099* .448*** .003 .767*** -.335*** .896 Note. The values in diagonal represent the AVE square root for each latent variable. Other values represent latent mean correlations. PC – Psychological Courage; BIS – Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS – Behavioral Activation System; FFFS – Fight–Flight–Freeze System; JS – Job Satisfaction; PSaW – Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI – Meaning of Work. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Table 4. Results of discriminant validity assessment through HTMT method. Construct PC BIS FFFS JS PSaW WAMI PC BIS 0.177 FFFS 0.143 0.583 JS 0.393 0.171 0.020 PSaW 0.255 0.560 0.227 0.471 WAMI 0.404 0.096 0.008 0.731 0.312 BAS 0.563 0.217 0.352 0.402 0.123 0.433 Note. PC – Psychological Courage; BIS – Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS – Behavioral Activation System; FFFS – Fight–Flight–Freeze System; JS – Job Satisfaction; PSaW – Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI – Meaning of Work. Hypothesized model The structural model included all seven latent variables previously tested in the measurement model. SEM analysis confirmed its satisfactory fit to the data: χ2/df = 3.605, CFI = .961, SRMR ≤.064, RMSEA = .062, 90% CI [.056, .068]. The results of the multipath mediation analysis are presented in Table 5 and Figure 1. The analysis of total effects supported hypotheses regarding the relationship between PC and well-being: PC was positively correlated with job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively correlated with perceived stress at work. The links between PC and BIS, BAS, and FFFS were statistically significant (Fig. 1). BIS was positively linked with perceived stress at work and negatively related to job satisfaction. The BAS was positively associated with job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively associated with perceived stress at work. The links between the FFFS score and the dependent variables were not significant. As we hypothesized, the indirect effect of PC on perceived stress at work through BIS was significant. Furthermore, as expected, BAS was a mediator in the relationships between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning. Surprisingly, BIS was the significant mediator, next to the BAS, in the relationship between PC and job satisfaction. With respect to FFFS, no significant mediation effects were observed. The detailed data can be found in Table 5. Table 5. The results of multipath mediation analysis Path β CI Path β CI Path β CI Psychological courage – perceived stress at work Psychological courage – job satisfaction Psychological courage – work meaning Total effect -.248 -.332 -.164 Total effect .376 .298 .455 Total effect .398 .326 .469 Direct effect -.099 -.229 .032 Direct effect .115 -.011 .240 Direct effect .133 .014 .252 Indirect effects: Indirect effects: Indirect effects: Psychological courage-BIS-perceived stress at work -.109 -.166 -.053 Psychological courage-BIS-job satisfaction .041 .012 .070 Psychological courage-BIS-work meaning .016 -.006 .039 Psychological courage-BAS-perceived stress at work -.059 -.148 .029 Psychological courage-BAS-job satisfaction .229 .142 .317 Psychological courage-BAS-work meaning .240 .157 .324 Psychological courage-FFS-perceived stress at work .019 -.010 .048 Psychological courage-FFFS-job satisfaction -.009 -.032 .014 Psychological courage-FFFS-work meaning .008 -.015 .031 Discussion The current study aimed to examine the associations between psychological courage (PC) and employees’ well-being and to explore the potential mechanisms underlying these associations. For that purpose, we analyzed data gathered from 805 participants employed in different organizations and from diverse professions. We posed the hypotheses that PC is negatively related to perceived stress at work and positively related to job satisfaction and work meaning. Furthermore, we tested whether basic behavioral systems understood in accordance with revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) would mediate these relationships. Specifically, we predicted that PC would be indirectly linked to stress through the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and, perhaps, through the fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS). We also predicted the indirect relationships between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning through the behavioral activation system (BAS). Compared with previous studies, the novelty of our project lies in testing all focal variables in one model using SEM, as well as employing the revised RST, operationalized through the questionnaire proposed by Vecchione and Corr [ 26 ]. The latter allowed us to include FFFS in our predictions and analyses, which no one has done thus far in the context of the variables we tested. The novelty of our approach also includes the use of the BAS, BIS, and FFFS as parallel mediators in the relationship between courage and employees’ well-being. Our study was based on the assumption that both stress and PC are universal phenomena, i.e., they are experienced by all human beings. Thus, we hypothesized that PC may buffer stress not only among high-risk workers but also among employees from different sectors/organizations. Furthermore, taking into account the definition of PC, we assumed that being able to face one’s own fears and anxieties would help individuals seize opportunities that arise in their workplace, which would result in greater job satisfaction and work meaning. By testing different outcome variables together, we controlled for the interplay between them, which allowed us to capture a more holistic view of employees' well-being. Our predictions received support. PC was positively related to job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively related to perceived stress at work. The BIS was a significant mediator of the relationship between PC and stress. Thus, we confirmed previous findings that PC plays a buffering role against stress through the suppression of BIS. The BAS, as we hypothesized, was a significant mediator in the relationship between PC and positive outcomes: job satisfaction and work meaning. Surprisingly, BIS accounted for the indirect effect of PC on job satisfaction. This result suggests that negative emotions generated by BIS are to some degree necessary for overall job satisfaction, for example, by signaling the importance of the task or by providing the emotional context for BAS-generated positive emotions. This interpretation is in accordance with studies showing that the effects of negative emotions are not always detrimental. For example, negative emotions related to perceived task challenges improved performance (measured as automotive engineering course exam scores) among individuals with low neuroticism [ 43 ]. Therefore, as can be inferred, they contributed to the satisfaction derived from taking on the challenge and achieving good results. In this context and in light of our results, one may conclude that the mechanisms through which PC contributes to well-being involve not only overcoming negative emotions and fostering positive emotions. Surprisingly, it can also involve acting owing to negative emotions because, for example, they highlight the importance of the task in which one is engaged. However, because this interpretation is based on a single result of relatively weak magnitude, we refrain from more in-depth interpretation, summarizing it only in the form of the above hypothesis. FFFS did not mediate any tested relationship between PC and outcome variables. In the context of our dependent variables, it is plausible that the role of BIS may be more pronounced than that of FFFS. Although both systems are part of the punishment axis, BIS is the system that, in some particular situations, amplifies the activation of FFFS [ 44 ]. Hence, it is involved in the behavioral effects that FFFS produces. Consequently, when both systems are included in a single model, BIS prevails, taking the variance that is otherwise captured by FFFS (in a single mediator model). The particular situations mentioned are approach‒avoidance conflicts, with a close balance between competing goals. As we argued, these types of conflicts are salient in workplace settings (e.g., the case of promotion as both a rewarding and a threatening situation). Practical implications The findings of the present study indicate that both the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and the behavioral activation system (BAS), when controlling for other mediators, are responsible for significant indirect effects of PC on well-being at work. As postulated in our model, the triggering of BAS and simultaneous inhibition of BIS by PC is associated with increased job satisfaction, increased work meaning, and reduced perceived stress in workers across different fields. In light of these findings, we propose that PC may be regarded as a universal psychological resource, akin to other psychological resources such as resilience or psychological capital, and, as such, worthy of development. Given that our model operationalizes PC in accordance with Norton and Weiss's [ 11 ] proposition as a trait-like tendency, enhancing it through interventions designed to alter personality traits appears to be particularly relevant [e.g., 45]. However, our results may be equally interpreted as relevant for PC understood behaviorally or as a process [ 6 ]. This statement holds under the assumption that both dispositional and situational approaches to behavior are complementary to each other [e.g., 46]. Thus, people differ in the probability that they will display PC, with those with higher levels of a trait-PC doing so more consistently across time and situations than those with lower levels of this trait. According to this proposition, in some conditions, people may display PC (and perhaps other types of courage) even if they are not courageous in terms of personality traits. For example, if a goal is particularly valuable and desired by an individual, even lowly courageous people may act despite fear of achieving it. A study conducted by Chockalingam and Norton [ 16 ] supports this reasoning. Under conditions of high task importance, people display courageous behavior at all levels of trait PC. Thus, one possibility to promote PC would be enhancing the rewarding value of challenging tasks to provide a sense of fulfillment for employees engaging in them. For example, in military settings, for a soldier facing a decision about deployment into a combat zone, viewing it as gaining one’s spurs could enhance PC. The mechanism could be similar in less extreme situations, in any organization where employees face tasks where fear and/or anxiety are inherent, especially among people interested in self-development. PC may also be enhanced through a growing mindset, i.e., induced belief that any trait may be improved through practice. Research shows that through either experimental manipulations or intensive interventions, people may alter their mindsets in a variety of domains, including entrepreneurial self-efficacy [ 47 ], self-regulation [ 48 ], and different personality traits [ 49 ]. As shown by Mrazek et al. [ 48 ], a growth mindset of self-regulation can significantly alter attributions and effort allocation, affecting the willingness to engage in demanding tasks and the persistence necessary to complete them. We hypothesize that PC could be induced analogously, resulting in effects similar to those of self-regulation interventions, but in the unique context of fear- or anxiety-evoking situations. We showed that PC relates to well-being through BIS and BAS, inhibiting the former, as assumed in our model, and triggering the latter. Viewing PC as a means of self-regulation may be particularly fruitful, helping individuals face challenging tasks, leading to greater job satisfaction and work meaning, and lowering perceived stress at work. However, similar to any interventions oriented toward changing behaviors or traits, those designed to enhance PC should be carried out with caution. First, because courageous behaviors involve risk-taking, individuals should be aware of those risks and their consequences, both positive and negative. Second, the negative consequences of PC or other types of courage (especially so-called bad courage ; [ 14 ]) have not yet been empirically tested. Limitations Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, it was not possible to empirically demonstrate the causal directions of the model pathways. The causal inferences presented in this study have been based solely on the theoretical assumptions outlined throughout the text. This approach has been deemed acceptable by some [ 50 ]. However, there has been substantial criticism of this method [e.g., 51]; thus, the relationships depicted in the study require further substantiation through longitudinal or experimental investigations. This study aims to facilitate such investigations. Another limitation refers to FFFS subscale reliability. We decided to use the short version of the RST-PQ to keep our survey concise. The consequence was a compromise in the internal consistency of some subscales, which affected the FFFS subscale the most. Thus, the results referring to this subscale should be interpreted with caution. Another limitation refers to our study sample size. The power analysis showed that it was adequate to detect indirect effect sizes close to moderate [ 52 ]. Taking into account the indirect effect of PC on perceived stress at work through FFFS (.019), our study could be considered slightly underpowered to detect such small effects. Final conclusions Despite its limitations, the present study offers significant insights into the relationship between psychological courage (PC) and employee well-being, with potential practical implications for workplace interventions. Our findings demonstrate that both the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and the behavioral activation system (BAS) are key mediators of the relationship between PC and well-being at work. Specifically, PC is related to greater job satisfaction, a sense of work meaning, and lower perceived stress at work by activating BAS and inhibiting BIS. This finding supports the idea that PC can be viewed as a universal psychological resource, similar to resilience or psychological capital, and is valuable across various industries. Future research and workplace interventions should explore how best to develop PC while taking into account the inherent risks associated with courageous behavior. Abbreviations PC – Psychological Courage; BIS – Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS – Behavioral Activation System; FFFS – Fight–Flight–Freeze System; JS – Job Satisfaction; PSaW – Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI – Meaning of Work. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board at the author's university (Committee for the Assessment of the Quality of Scientific Research at the Institute of Psychology, University of Opole, no. 32/2023 ). Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Consent for publication Availability of data and materials Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding The researcher received financial support through internal grants at the author's university. This research received no external funding. Author Contribution G.P. developed the research idea, conceptualized, and designed the research. G.P. was also responsible for the SEM analysis and was a major contributor to the manuscript's writing. K.S. reviewed and edited the paper, conducted basic statistical analysis, and prepared the initial interpretation of the data. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Data Availability The data supporting this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. References Putman D. Psychological Courage. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. 1997;4:1–11. Howard MC, Reiley PJ. Physical courage predicts relevant outcomes in associated contexts: The creation of a measure and empirical analysis into the construct. Journal of Business Research. 2020;110:80–94. Osswald S, Greitemeyer T, Fischer P, Frey D. What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In: Pury CLS, Lopez SJ, editors. The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2010 [cited 2023 Apr 5]. p. 149–64. Available from: http://content.apa.org/books/12168-008 Greitemeyer T, Osswald S, Fischer P, Frey D. Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:115–9. Howard MC, Farr JL, Grandey AA, Gutworth MB. The Creation of the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS): An Investigation of Internal Consistency, Psychometric Properties, Validity, and Utility. J Bus Psychol. 2017;32:673–90. Pury CLS, Starkey CB. Is courage an accolade or a process? A fundamental question for courage research. 2010; Rate CR, Clarke JA, Lindsay DR, Sternberg RJ. Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:80–98. Franco ZE, Blau K, Zimbardo PG. Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation between Heroic Action and Altruism. Review of General Psychology. 2011;15:99–113. Pury CLS, Kowalski RM, Spearman J. Distinctions between general and personal courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:99–114. Rachman SJ. Fear and Courage: A Psychological Perspective. Social Research. 2004;71:149–76. Norton PJ, Weiss BJ. The role of courage on behavioral approach in a fear-eliciting situation: A proof-of-concept pilot study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2009;23:212–7. Howard MC, Alipour KK. Does the courage measure really measure courage? A theoretical and empirical evaluation. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2014;9:449–59. Pury CLS, Starkey CB, Olson LR. Value of goal predicts accolade courage: more evidence that courage is a taking a worthwhile risk. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2024;19:236–42. Pury CLS, Saylors S. Courage, Courageous Acts, and Positive Psychology. In: Dunn DS, editor. Positive Psychology [Internet]. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. | Series: Frontiers of social psychology: Routledge; 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 24]. p. 153–68. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351603744/chapters/10.4324/9781315106304-10 McKinlay ML, Norton PJ. The role of courage in predicting behavior: replication in a public-speaking fearful sample. Motiv Emot. 2023;47:1–6. Chockalingam M, Norton PJ. Facing fear-provoking stimuli: The role of courage and influence of task-importance. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2019;14:603–13. Pajestka G. Facing Fear with Courage: Psychometric and Behavioral Evidence of the Courage Measure (CM) in Poland. rpsych [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 18];26. Available from: https://czasopisma.tnkul.pl/index.php/rpsych/article/view/349 Ginevra MC, Magnano P, Lodi E, Annovazzi C, Camussi E, Patrizi P, et al. The role of career adaptability and courage on life satisfaction in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence. 2018;62:1–8. Wang J, Sun D, Jiang J, Wang H, Cheng X, Ruan Q, et al. The effect of courage on stress: The mediating mechanism of behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in high-risk occupations. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13. Gray JA, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2003 [cited 2023 Apr 28]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/7532 Corr PJ. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST): introduction. In: Corr PJ, editor. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2008 [cited 2023 Apr 28]. p. 1–43. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511819384A010/type/book_part Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1994;67:319. Corr PJ. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2004;28:317–32. Berinsky AJ, Margolis MF, Sances MW. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self‐administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science. 2014;58:739–53. Wytykowska A, Fajkowska M, Domaradzka E, Jankowski KS. Construct validity of the Polish version of the reinforcement sensitivity theory-personality questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;109:172–80. Vecchione M, Corr PJ. Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ-S). Journal of Personality Assessment. 2021;103:535–46. Zalewska A. Skala Satysfakcji z Pracy – Pomiar poznawczego aspektu ogólnego zadowolenia z pracy. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Psychologica. 2003;49–61. Steger MF, Dik BJ, Duffy RD. Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment. 2012;20:322–37. Puchalska-Kamińska M, Czerw A, Roczniewska M. Work Meaning in Self and World Perspective: A New Outlook on the WAMI Scale. SPB. 2019;14:e30207. Chirkowska-Smolak T, Grobelny J. Konstrukcja i wstępna analiza psychometryczna Kwestionariusza Postrzeganego Stresu w Pracy (PSwP) [The design and preliminary psychometric analysis of the Preceived Stress at Work questionnaire]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne-Psychological Journal. 2016;22:131–9. Cohen S, Janicki‐Deverts D. Who’s Stressed? Distributions of Psychological Stress in the United States in Probability Samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009 1 . J Applied Social Pyschol. 2012;42:1320–34. Zhang Z, Yuan K-H. Practical statistical power analysis using Webpower and R [Internet]. ISDSA Press; 2018 [cited 2024 Oct 7]. Available from: https://archive.org/download/webpower/WebPower-ISDSA.pdf Fetvadjiev VH, He J. The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave study of a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019;117:448–64. Duffy RD, Autin KL, Douglass RP. Examining how aspects of vocational privilege relate to living a calling. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016;11:416–27. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103:411–23. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Pearson new international edition: Multivariate data analysis. Exploratory Data Analysis in Business and Economics. 2014;23–60. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic journal of business research methods. 2008;6:pp53‑60-pp53‑60. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18:39–50. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43:115–35. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69:3192–8. Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP, Williams LJ, Huang C, Yang J. Common Method Bias: It’s Bad, It’s Complex, It’s Widespread, and It’s Not Easy to Fix. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2024;11:17–61. Cain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan K-H. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res. 2017;49:1716–35. Wood RE, Beckmann N, Ren S, Guan B. Situation contingent negative emotions and performance: The moderating role of trait neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;197:111788. Corr PJ, McNaughton N. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and personality. In: Corr PJ, editor. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2008 [cited 2024 Oct 8]. p. 155–87. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511819384A014/type/book_part Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143:117–41. Van Lange PAM. Beyond Self-interest: A Set of Propositions Relevant to Interpersonal Orientations. European Review of Social Psychology. 2000;11:297–331. Burnette JL, Pollack JM, Forsyth RB, Hoyt CL, Babij AD, Thomas FN, et al. A Growth Mindset Intervention: Enhancing Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Career Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2020;44:878–908. Mrazek AJ, Ihm ED, Molden DC, Mrazek MD, Zedelius CM, Schooler JW. Expanding minds: Growth mindsets of self-regulation and the influences on effort and perseverance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018;79:164–80. Hudson NW, Fraley RC. Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015;109:490–507. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications; 2018. Maxwell SE, Cole DA, Mitchell MA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate behavioral research. 2011;46:816–41. Kenny DA. Mediation [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 5]. Available from: https://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm#DI Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Feb, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Dec, 2024 Reviews received at journal 14 Dec, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Dec, 2024 Reviews received at journal 12 Dec, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Nov, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 20 Nov, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 20 Nov, 2024 Editor invited by journal 16 Nov, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Nov, 2024 First submitted to journal 02 Nov, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5377885","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":390319754,"identity":"0731c2ee-b65e-46d9-a004-776779473462","order_by":0,"name":"Grzegorz Pajestka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Opole","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Grzegorz","middleName":"","lastName":"Pajestka","suffix":""},{"id":390319755,"identity":"e309aab6-a0bc-4d08-b908-ebeb539e6afc","order_by":1,"name":"Katarzyna Skałacka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Opole","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katarzyna","middleName":"","lastName":"Skałacka","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-02 11:08:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-89838-9","type":"published","date":"2025-02-12T15:57:31+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":71492897,"identity":"1a8a1cde-63cc-4b66-8323-8ef71feb7b1d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-16 07:48:45","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":365632,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM results of the tested model. The coefficients are standardized. The solid lines represent significant paths; the dashed lines represent nonsignificant paths.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05; **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01; ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5377885/v1/84024290365187b8d2d076ee.jpeg"},{"id":76487491,"identity":"81fb71e4-d430-45d9-a07a-4b9337059b37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-17 16:08:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1310275,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5377885/v1/889ef530-b268-4097-bee6-8e117f91b209.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"I Will ‘Go for it’ even if it Scares me! How Psychological Courage Relates to Well-being at Work through Reinforcement Sensitivity Systems","fulltext":[{"header":"Theoretical background","content":"\u003cp\u003ePsychological courage (PC) is the term coined by Putman [1] to describe the act of confronting irrational fears and anxieties. This type of courage is different from two other types of courage often listed in literature: physical and moral courage. Physical courage adheres to risking one\u0026rsquo;s own health or life for greater good, such as rescuing someone\u0026rsquo;s life from fire [2]. Moral courage is defined as integrity or authenticity, i.e., standing for one\u0026rsquo;s values or beliefs, risking rejection, other social consequences, or even a physical threat [3]. In literature, the overlapping constructs are civil courage [4] and social courage [5]. The core differences between PC and other types of courage are the purpose of risk-taking and involved emotions. Whereas moral and physical courage, by definition, relate to prosocial behaviors, specifically taking a substantial risk for the benefit of others, PC relates to one\u0026rsquo;s own good. In this case, individuals are taking the risk of losing emotional well-being to pursue personal growth or wellness [6]. Overcoming fear or anxiety is the definitional characteristic of PC, whereas other types of courage may or may not involve these emotions [7]. PC is therefore a unique form of courage, displayed in everyday situations by people facing fears of different natures, as opposed to physical or moral courage, displayed rather by those described as heroes [8]. The construct of PC corresponds to the concepts of personal courage [9] and courage as a process [6], both of which are used to describe individuals struggling with overcoming their own limitations (e.g., public speaking fear). It also corresponds to the definition of courage proposed by Rachman [10]:\u0026nbsp;the \u0026ldquo;persistence of approach behavior in the face of subjective and physical sensations of fear\u0026rdquo; (p. 152). This definition was used by Norton and Weiss\u0026nbsp;[11]\u0026nbsp;to create the Courage Measure. With items referring to overcoming fear (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I tend to face my fears\u0026rdquo;) and anxiety (e.g., \u0026ldquo;If I am worried or anxious about something, I will do or face it anyway\u0026quot;), the scale is the most relevant operationalization of Putman\u0026rsquo;s concept of PC, understood as a trait-like characteristic. Although authors\u0026nbsp;did not\u0026nbsp;refer to the measured phenomenon as PC, we propose\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;use\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;this label to consequently differ among different types and concepts of courage, especially between PC and definitions derived from\u0026nbsp;Rate\u0026nbsp;et al.\u0026apos;s\u0026nbsp;[7]\u0026nbsp;concept of courage. The definitional ambiguity of courage has led some authors to challenge the concept of PC\u0026nbsp;[e.g., 12\u0026ndash;14]. First, by emphasizing the prosocial facet of courageous behaviors. Second, by reducing the significance of facing negative emotions as inherent for courage, which in turn is the primary characteristic of PC. At the same time, studies using\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;Courage Measure\u0026nbsp;support\u0026nbsp;the relevance of Putman\u0026rsquo;s conceptualization. Importantly, a growing body of evidence shows that PC is related to actual behavior. For example, in a recent study, it predicted individual speech duration in individuals with public speaking fear\u0026nbsp;[15]. In studies on individuals with elevated fear of spiders, PC predicted behavioral approach to fearful stimuli\u0026nbsp;[11,16]\u0026nbsp;or moderated the relationship between fear and\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;behavioral approach\u0026nbsp;[17]. Furthermore, these studies show that PC explains additional variance in behavior above and beyond that provided by different measures of fear, anxiety, or distress. Thus, it could be interpreted as a psychological resource, similar to resiliency, with which it shares a common variance, but at the same time,\u0026nbsp;it is far from redundant\u0026nbsp;[14,17].\u0026nbsp;While resiliency refers to stressful situations and the potential to overcome adversity, PC refers to challenging situations, which\u0026nbsp;can\u0026nbsp;be easily avoided by withdrawing from them (i.e., not taking the opportunity to act). Facing fear and anxiety to achieve desirable goals should result in positive psychological outcomes, for example, greater well-being, understood as satisfaction with life, flourishing, or lower perceived stress. The results of studies conducted to date indicate that this is indeed the case\u0026nbsp;[18,19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediating mechanism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf PC contributes to well-being by enabling the pursuit of desired goals in the presence of a threat (internal or external), approach and avoidance motivations are plausible mechanisms underlying this relationship. Specifically, we propose three basic motivational systems: the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), the flight-fight-freeze system (FFFS), and the behavioral activation system (BAS) [20]. In short, according to revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST), the BAS mediates all appetitive reactions (conditioned and unconditioned); hence, it is essential for reward-oriented approaching behaviors. It underlies the personality characteristics of optimism, reward orientation, and impulsiveness. The FFFS is responsible for the avoidance behavior of threatened stimuli (both unconditioned and conditioned) and is associated with the emotion of fear and fear-proneness as the associated personality trait. Conflict between avoidance and approach motivation (or BAS and FFFS) triggers BIS, which is responsible for its resolution. The BIS generates the emotion of anxiety accompanied by the engagement of risk assessment processes. The associated personality includes a propensity for worry and anxious rumination, which results in a state of constant vigilance for potential threats [21].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to the PC, both BIS and FFFS may be activated during the process, with perhaps a potential predominance of BIS in anticipation of danger and FFFS in the real presence of danger. Owing to PC, individuals experiencing BIS activation may overcome the anxiety it generates and cope more effectively with situations that would otherwise result in avoidance behaviors. This adheres particularly to situations where threats are more symbolic (e.g., related to professional or social risks) rather than direct physical dangers. Similarly, courageous individuals may have the ability to suppress FFFS responses when their health or life is at stake (e.g., in high-risk occupations such as firefighting or the military). PC is also likely to be associated with BAS, as courageous individuals engage in actions aimed at positive outcomes despite potential fear or uncertainty. PC enhancing BAS activation may help people navigate challenges through positive emotions and a focus on desired goals that give meaning to their endeavors. In summary, to display PC, the suppression of BIS and FFFS along with an increase in the activation of BAS are needed. The results of the study conducted by Wang et al. [19] provide some initial evidence supporting this hypothesis. In the sample of high-risk employees, PC played a buffering role against stress by inhibiting the BIS. Furthermore, three dimensions of BAS, responsiveness, drive, and fun seeking, showed some relationship with PC, although they were less conclusive than for BIS. PC was positively correlated with responsiveness and drive and negatively correlated with fun seeking. The latter was the only BAS dimension that mediated the relationship between PC and stress. Since the study of Wang et al. [19] was based on the original version of the RST and used operationalization of BIS (as a punishment-sensitive system comprising behaviors related to FFFS) and BAS in the form of the Carver and White [22] questionnaire, we refrained from interpreting the complexity of their results. In general, they are in line with our reasoning, showing the relationship between PC and the BIS/BAS and the role of these systems as mechanisms underlying the relationship between PC and well-being at work. Considering that PC is a psychological resource that plays a role in everyday life, we argue that its relationship with employee well-being can be observed not only in high-risk situations but also in regular occupations, as people are likely to face psychologically challenging situations regardless of their workplace. Furthermore, PC may foster the interpretation of some stressors not as a risk of harm or loss of well-being but as challenges and opportunities for growth. By seizing these opportunities, employees may experience greater satisfaction and meaning in their work. As we propose, BIS, BAS, and FFFS mediate the relationship between PC and employee well-being, operationalized as lower perceived stress at work, greater job satisfaction, and greater meaning of work. In summary, we aimed to test the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1) PC is negatively linked to perceived stress at work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH2) BIS mediates the relationship between PC and perceived stress at work. The second plausible mediator in this relationship is FFFS (H2a).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3) PC is positively\u0026nbsp;associated with\u0026nbsp;job satisfaction and work meaning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH4) BAS mediates the\u0026nbsp;relationships\u0026nbsp;between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of the Joint Sub-systems Hypothesis (JSH; [23]), we decided to test our hypotheses in one model. According to JSH, BIS, FFFS, and BAS may be activated concurrently due to the weakness of activating stimuli or variations in memories currently recalled. The cause could also be changing task demands or environments that contain mixed appetitive and aversive stimuli, which seems typical in everyday life and work. For example, deciding to take on a challenging task could be driven primarily by BAS, but as obstacles begin to arise, confronting negative emotions (suppressing BIS and/or FFFS) becomes essential to achieving the goal. Or, as another example, promotion at work may be seen as both rewarding and threatening at the same time because new responsibilities may be seen as overwhelming. Testing all sub-systems as mediators in one model allows us to control the complex interplay between them and analyze their joint effect on our outcome variables. Moreover, including both negative and positive measures of well-being in the model increases its ecological validity because, we believe, it accurately resembles the reality of working people, which is a mix of stressful as well as pleasant or rewarding events.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods and materials","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through one of the largest nationwide research panels in Poland. We gathered data from representatives of various professions via the CAWI procedure. In accordance with the guidelines for conducting online surveys [24], two attention checks (e.g., \u0026quot;Please select two for this item\u0026quot;) were included to ensure the quality of the collected data. Only individuals who answered both attention questions correctly were included in the final sample. Additionally, eight individuals were excluded as a result of inspecting the data in search of univariate outliers. The final sample comprised 805 participants, 423 women (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 40.53; SD\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 12.98) and 382 men (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 42.99; SD\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 12.74), aged 18-65 years (M = 41.70; SD = 12.92). Most participants received higher education (44.8%; n = 361) and lived in a large or very large city (over 100,000 inhabitants; 42.1%; n = 339). Basic descriptive statistics, grouped by sex, can be found in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Characteristics of the study population\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=382)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=423)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge group (years)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(15.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25-34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(21.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(20.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35-44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(23.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(22.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45-54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(23.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(22.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55-65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(23.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(19.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(1.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecondary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(45.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(43.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVocational\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(10.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigher\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(42.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e197\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(46.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidential area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRural area\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(28.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(29.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall to medium city\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(28.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(29.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBig city\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(43.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(41,1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach participant provided informed consent (online) to take part in this research after being informed about the goals and methods of the study. The participants were notified of their rights during their engagement, and their decision to participate was completely optional. Ethical approval for the study was granted from the institutional review board at the author\u0026apos;s university (no. 32/2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePsychological Courage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Courage Measure [11] was administered to assess self-perceived courage, defined as perseverance or persistence despite experiencing fear or anxiety. In the present study, a shortened version of the scale was used [12,17]. The scale consists of six items rated on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The higher the total score is, the greater the perceived courage. The scale shows very good internal consistency, with the current study\u0026apos;s Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = .90.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReinforcement sensitivity systems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe behavioral inhibition system (BIS), behavioral activation system (BAS), and fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS) were assessed with the Polish version of the reinforcement sensitivity theory-personality questionnaire (RST-PQ; [25]) in a shortened form (RST-PQ-S) proposed by Vecchione and Corr [26]. The RST-PQ-S consists of 22 items rated from 1 (none) to 4 (very well). The BIS and FFFS are measured with five items each. The BAS comprises four subscales: Reward Interest (RI), Goal-Driven Persistence (GDP), Reward Interest (RI) and Impulsivity (Imp), each measured by three items. The reliability of the Polish version of the RST-PQ-S resembles the reliability of the original questionnaire, ranging from acceptable (FFFS \u0026alpha; = .62) to good (BIS \u0026alpha; = .82, BAS \u0026alpha; = .84).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWell-being at work\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe define well-being at work broadly as higher job satisfaction and work meaning and lower perceived stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJob satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e was assessed with the Satisfaction with Job Scale (SSP; [27]). The scale enables the assessment of the cognitive component of general job satisfaction, as it is based on Diener\u0026apos;s SWLS scale. The SSP scale consists of 5 statements to which respondents must respond on a 7-point scale (1\u0026ndash;strongly disagree to 7\u0026ndash;strongly agree). The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; of 0.93 in the current study sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe meaning of work\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewas measured via the Polish version of the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI; [28,29]). The WAMI consists of 10 statements rated from 1 to 5 (from absolutely untrue to absolutely true) covering the meaning of work from the self-perspective (\u0026alpha; = .93) and the world perspective (\u0026alpha; = .84). The internal consistency of the total WAMI scale in the current study sample was high (\u0026alpha; = .94).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived stress at work\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewas assessed with the Perceived Stress at Work scale (PSaW; [30]) based on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) [31]. The PSaW is an instrument for assessing job-related stress and is defined as the subjective evaluation of the compatibility between the employee and the work environment. It consists of 10 items rated from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The scale has very good internal consistency and validity (\u0026alpha;: 0.84\u0026ndash;0.87 in the current study sample).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test our hypothesis, we used structural equation modeling (SEM). The data were analyzed via SPSS version 26 and R software with the Lavaan package.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a sensitive power analysis via the Monte Carlo simulation method on Webpower [32]. A total of 1000 replications were generated. Various effect sizes were set for indirect paths (starting conservatively with small effect sizes, r =.1) while keeping the direct effect size of PC on dependent variables fixed at zero. With N = 805 and \u0026alpha; = .05, this study had 80% power to detect an indirect effect size as small as \u0026beta; = .04.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor model simplicity and readability, a parceling procedure was used. Following previous authors [e.g., 33], we created two indicators for scales with five items and three indicators for scales comprising six or more items. For unidimensional scales, parcels were constructed by randomly assigning items to parcels. For BIS, FFFS, and BAS, homogenous parcels were constructed; each parcel consisted of items (subscales in the case of BAS) that loaded onto the attributed factor. For WAMI, following previous authors [34], we used a balancing approach, resulting in two parcels composed of three items and one parcel of four items. The same approach was used for the PSaW scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis was performed using a two-step analytical approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing [35], i.e., the analysis of the hypothesized structural model was preceded by validation of the measurement model. A bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (5000 replicates) was employed to test the mediating effects in the hypothesized model. The significance of indirect effects was assessed on the basis of a 95% confidence interval (CI). The following fit indices were used to determine the fit of the measurement and structural models: relative/normed chi-square (\u0026chi; 2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI). The following conventional cut-off criteria were applied: \u0026chi;2/df \u0026le; 5:1, CFI \u0026ge;.92, SRMR \u0026le;.08, and RMSEA \u0026le;.08 [36,37]. The measurement model was additionally assessed on the basis of the criteria of internal consistency, convergent, and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was assessed using factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The discriminant validity was established in accordance with the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker [38] and the heterotrait\u0026ndash;monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation [39]. The Fornell and Larcker criterion requires the square root of each construct\u0026rsquo;s AVE to have a greater value than the correlations with other latent constructs. For the HTMT criterion, we adopted the threshold of .85 as the upper boundary, suggesting discriminant validity of the construct. Finally, we tested for common method bias (CMB) using Harman\u0026rsquo;s single factor test (HSF). The HSF method assesses the extent of CMB by determining whether a single latent factor accounts for the majority of the variance (\u0026gt;50%) in the variables [40]. Although this method has been criticized as a CMB test, each of the popular statistical techniques has serious limitations [41]. We decided to report its results in our study only for informational purposes, taking into account its simplicity and popularity, as well as some evidence about its credibility [40]. Furthermore, as suggested by Fueller et al. [40], concerns of CMB in a single data source are likely overstated, as a relatively high amount of common method variance (rarely present in such studies) is needed to actually bias the results. This does not mean that taking the a priori procedural steps to prevent CMB should be out of concern. Thus, during the design stage of the study, we took some standard remedies to prevent this. They included clear questionnaire instructions for respondents, assured anonymity, and kept the survey concise by selecting short scales with a limited number of items. We also controlled for lack of motivation (inattention) using the previously described attention check procedure. We did not recognize other sources of CMB, such as task difficulties or a lack of respondents\u0026rsquo; ability to answer survey questions, as significant threats to the validity of our research findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA correlation analysis of latent variables revealed that PC is most strongly and positively associated with the BAS, followed by positive associations with work meaning and job satisfaction. Additionally, BAS itself was positively correlated with both work meaning and job satisfaction. These findings indicate that PC and BAS jointly contribute to promoting a sense of positive meaning and rewarding emotions in the work undertaken. Essentially, PC and BAS complement each other in enhancing employee well-being by transforming challenges into opportunities for personal and professional satisfaction and growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the BIS was found to be positively associated with perceived stress at work and negatively associated with both job satisfaction and work meaning. This correlation underscores the role of BIS in avoidance behavior and anxiety, where activation leads individuals to focus more on potential threats and negative outcomes, thereby increasing stress levels and diminishing satisfaction and meaning in their work. These findings suggest that the BIS impairs well-being by amplifying negative emotions and stress responses in the workplace. Further details can be found in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurement model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll indicator variables showed a univariate normal distribution, with values of skewness ranging between -.451 and .260 and kurtosis between -.722 and .426. However, because multivariate normality (assessed through Mardia\u0026rsquo;s multivariate skewness and kurtosis; [42]) was not satisfied, a robust maximum likelihood method was used for measurement model estimation. In the tested model, we allowed the mediators as well as the dependent variables to covariate. The results showed an acceptable fit to the data, except for the RMSEA, which slightly exceeded its cut-off value: \u0026chi;2/df = 4.552, CFI = .940, SRMR \u0026le;.065, RMSEA = .072, 90% CI [.067, .078]. Following the modification indices, we let two parcels of WAMI (p1 and p3) and two parcels of BAS (GDP and Imp) covary, which improved the model fit (Model 2): \u0026chi;2/df = 3.605, CFI =.961, SRMR \u0026le;.064, RMSEA =.062, 90% CI [.056, .068]. All factor loadings were statistically significant. Their values were above the recommended threshold of .5 [36]. Table 2 shows AVE and CR for all latent variables, except FFFS, exceeded the recommended values of .5 and .7, respectively [36]. Despite the AVE (.445) and CR (.615) values for FFFS being lower than expected, they might be considered sufficient. According to Hair et al. [36], \u0026ldquo;Reliability between .6 and .7 may be acceptable, provided that other indicators of a model\u0026rsquo;s construct validity are good\u0026rdquo; (p. 619). Moreover, as posited by Fornell and Larcker [38], if the AVE is less than .5 but the CR is greater than .6, the construct\u0026apos;s convergent validity may be considered satisfactory. With respect to discriminant validity, Table 3 shows that the AVE square root for each latent variable was greater than the correlation between it and the other variable, which met the Fornell\u0026ndash;Larcker criterion. Additionally, all HTMT values were below the .85 threshold, supporting construct discriminant validity (see Table 4). The results of the principal component analysis revealed that a single factor accounts for 22% of the variance, substantially beneath the HSF 50% threshold.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Results of convergent validity and reliability assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructs and indicators (parcels)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 242px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConvergent validity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 242px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardized\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efactor loading\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003evariance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eextracted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternal consistency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.850\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.824\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.876\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.698\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.785\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.527\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.639\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.693\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.846\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.886\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.798\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.962\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.903\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.867\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.835\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. PC \u0026ndash; Psychological Courage; BIS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Activation System; FFFS \u0026ndash; Fight\u0026ndash;Flight\u0026ndash;Freeze System; JS \u0026ndash; Job Satisfaction; PSaW \u0026ndash; Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI \u0026ndash; Meaning of Work. Numbered acronyms indicate corresponding parcels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Results of discriminant validity assessment through the Fornell\u0026ndash;Larcker criterion and values of latent mean correlations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"537\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.881\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.176***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.850\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.606***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.124**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.708\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.146**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.595***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.332***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.666\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.376***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.171***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.439***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.933\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.248***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.549***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.124**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.220***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.467***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.844\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.398***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.099*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.448***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.767***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.335***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.896\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. The values in diagonal represent the AVE square root for each latent variable. Other values represent latent mean correlations. PC \u0026ndash; Psychological Courage; BIS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Activation System; FFFS \u0026ndash; Fight\u0026ndash;Flight\u0026ndash;Freeze System; JS \u0026ndash; Job Satisfaction; PSaW \u0026ndash; Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI \u0026ndash; Meaning of Work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01; ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Results of discriminant validity assessment through HTMT method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.177\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFFFS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.583\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.393\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePSaW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.255\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.560\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.227\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.471\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWAMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.404\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.731\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.312\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.563\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.352\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.402\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.433\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. PC \u0026ndash; Psychological Courage; BIS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Activation System; FFFS \u0026ndash; Fight\u0026ndash;Flight\u0026ndash;Freeze System; JS \u0026ndash; Job Satisfaction; PSaW \u0026ndash; Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI \u0026ndash; Meaning of Work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesized model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structural model included all seven latent variables previously tested in the measurement model. SEM analysis confirmed its satisfactory fit to the data: \u0026chi;2/df = 3.605, CFI = .961, SRMR \u0026le;.064, RMSEA = .062, 90% CI [.056, .068]. The results of the multipath mediation analysis are presented in Table 5 and Figure 1. The analysis of total effects supported hypotheses regarding the relationship between PC and well-being: PC was positively correlated with job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively correlated with perceived stress at work. The links between PC and BIS, BAS, and FFFS were statistically significant (Fig. 1). BIS was positively linked with perceived stress at work and negatively related to job satisfaction. The BAS was positively associated with job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively associated with perceived stress at work. The links between the FFFS score and the dependent variables were not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs we hypothesized, the indirect effect of PC on perceived stress at work through BIS was significant. Furthermore, as expected, BAS was a mediator in the relationships between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning. Surprisingly, BIS was the significant mediator, next to the BAS, in the relationship between PC and job satisfaction. With respect to FFFS, no significant mediation effects were observed. The detailed data can be found in Table 5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. The results of multipath mediation analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"709\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological courage \u0026ndash; perceived stress at work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological courage \u0026ndash; job satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological courage \u0026ndash; work meaning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.248\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.332\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.298\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.455\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.398\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;.469\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.099\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.229\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;.252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect effects:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect effects:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect effects:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BIS-perceived stress at work\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BIS-job satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BIS-work meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BAS-perceived stress at work\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BAS-job satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.229\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-BAS-work meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-FFS-perceived stress at work\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-FFFS-job satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological courage-FFFS-work meaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study aimed to examine the associations between psychological courage (PC) and employees’ well-being and to explore the potential mechanisms underlying these associations. For that purpose, we analyzed data gathered from 805 participants employed in different organizations and from diverse professions. We posed the hypotheses that PC is negatively related to perceived stress at work and positively related to job satisfaction and work meaning. Furthermore, we tested whether basic behavioral systems understood in accordance with revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) would mediate these relationships. Specifically, we predicted that PC would be indirectly linked to stress through the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and, perhaps, through the fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS). We also predicted the indirect relationships between PC and job satisfaction and work meaning through the behavioral activation system (BAS). Compared with previous studies, the novelty of our project lies in testing all focal variables in one model using SEM, as well as employing the revised RST, operationalized through the questionnaire proposed by Vecchione and Corr [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The latter allowed us to include FFFS in our predictions and analyses, which no one has done thus far in the context of the variables we tested. The novelty of our approach also includes the use of the BAS, BIS, and FFFS as parallel mediators in the relationship between courage and employees’ well-being. Our study was based on the assumption that both stress and PC are universal phenomena, i.e., they are experienced by all human beings. Thus, we hypothesized that PC may buffer stress not only among high-risk workers but also among employees from different sectors/organizations. Furthermore, taking into account the definition of PC, we assumed that being able to face one’s own fears and anxieties would help individuals seize opportunities that arise in their workplace, which would result in greater job satisfaction and work meaning. By testing different outcome variables together, we controlled for the interplay between them, which allowed us to capture a more holistic view of employees' well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur predictions received support. PC was positively related to job satisfaction and work meaning and negatively related to perceived stress at work. The BIS was a significant mediator of the relationship between PC and stress. Thus, we confirmed previous findings that PC plays a buffering role against stress through the suppression of BIS. The BAS, as we hypothesized, was a significant mediator in the relationship between PC and positive outcomes: job satisfaction and work meaning. Surprisingly, BIS accounted for the indirect effect of PC on job satisfaction. This result suggests that negative emotions generated by BIS are to some degree necessary for overall job satisfaction, for example, by signaling the importance of the task or by providing the emotional context for BAS-generated positive emotions. This interpretation is in accordance with studies showing that the effects of negative emotions are not always detrimental. For example, negative emotions related to perceived task challenges improved performance (measured as automotive engineering course exam scores) among individuals with low neuroticism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, as can be inferred, they contributed to the satisfaction derived from taking on the challenge and achieving good results. In this context and in light of our results, one may conclude that the mechanisms through which PC contributes to well-being involve not only overcoming negative emotions and fostering positive emotions. Surprisingly, it can also involve acting owing to negative emotions because, for example, they highlight the importance of the task in which one is engaged. However, because this interpretation is based on a single result of relatively weak magnitude, we refrain from more in-depth interpretation, summarizing it only in the form of the above hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFFFS did not mediate any tested relationship between PC and outcome variables. In the context of our dependent variables, it is plausible that the role of BIS may be more pronounced than that of FFFS. Although both systems are part of the punishment axis, BIS is the system that, in some particular situations, amplifies the activation of FFFS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Hence, it is involved in the behavioral effects that FFFS produces. Consequently, when both systems are included in a single model, BIS prevails, taking the variance that is otherwise captured by FFFS (in a single mediator model). The particular situations mentioned are approach‒avoidance conflicts, with a close balance between competing goals. As we argued, these types of conflicts are salient in workplace settings (e.g., the case of promotion as both a rewarding and a threatening situation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of the present study indicate that both the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and the behavioral activation system (BAS), when controlling for other mediators, are responsible for significant indirect effects of PC on well-being at work. As postulated in our model, the triggering of BAS and simultaneous inhibition of BIS by PC is associated with increased job satisfaction, increased work meaning, and reduced perceived stress in workers across different fields. In light of these findings, we propose that PC may be regarded as a universal psychological resource, akin to other psychological resources such as resilience or psychological capital, and, as such, worthy of development. Given that our model operationalizes PC in accordance with Norton and Weiss's [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] proposition as a trait-like tendency, enhancing it through interventions designed to alter personality traits appears to be particularly relevant [e.g., 45]. However, our results may be equally interpreted as relevant for PC understood behaviorally or as a process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This statement holds under the assumption that both dispositional and situational approaches to behavior are complementary to each other [e.g., 46]. Thus, people differ in the probability that they will display PC, with those with higher levels of a trait-PC doing so more consistently across time and situations than those with lower levels of this trait. According to this proposition, in some conditions, people may display PC (and perhaps other types of courage) even if they are not courageous in terms of personality traits. For example, if a goal is particularly valuable and desired by an individual, even lowly courageous people may act despite fear of achieving it. A study conducted by Chockalingam and Norton [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] supports this reasoning. Under conditions of high task importance, people display courageous behavior at all levels of trait PC. Thus, one possibility to promote PC would be enhancing the rewarding value of challenging tasks to provide a sense of fulfillment for employees engaging in them. For example, in military settings, for a soldier facing a decision about deployment into a combat zone, viewing it as gaining one’s spurs could enhance PC. The mechanism could be similar in less extreme situations, in any organization where employees face tasks where fear and/or anxiety are inherent, especially among people interested in self-development. PC may also be enhanced through a growing mindset, i.e., induced belief that any trait may be improved through practice. Research shows that through either experimental manipulations or intensive interventions, people may alter their mindsets in a variety of domains, including entrepreneurial self-efficacy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e], self-regulation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e], and different personality traits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. As shown by Mrazek et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e], a growth mindset of self-regulation can significantly alter attributions and effort allocation, affecting the willingness to engage in demanding tasks and the persistence necessary to complete them. We hypothesize that PC could be induced analogously, resulting in effects similar to those of self-regulation interventions, but in the unique context of fear- or anxiety-evoking situations. We showed that PC relates to well-being through BIS and BAS, inhibiting the former, as assumed in our model, and triggering the latter. Viewing PC as a means of self-regulation may be particularly fruitful, helping individuals face challenging tasks, leading to greater job satisfaction and work meaning, and lowering perceived stress at work. However, similar to any interventions oriented toward changing behaviors or traits, those designed to enhance PC should be carried out with caution. First, because courageous behaviors involve risk-taking, individuals should be aware of those risks and their consequences, both positive and negative. Second, the negative consequences of PC or other types of courage (especially so-called \u003cem\u003ebad courage\u003c/em\u003e; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]) have not yet been empirically tested.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the cross-sectional nature of the study, it was not possible to empirically demonstrate the causal directions of the model pathways. The causal inferences presented in this study have been based solely on the theoretical assumptions outlined throughout the text. This approach has been deemed acceptable by some [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. However, there has been substantial criticism of this method [e.g., 51]; thus, the relationships depicted in the study require further substantiation through longitudinal or experimental investigations. This study aims to facilitate such investigations. Another limitation refers to FFFS subscale reliability. We decided to use the short version of the RST-PQ to keep our survey concise. The consequence was a compromise in the internal consistency of some subscales, which affected the FFFS subscale the most. Thus, the results referring to this subscale should be interpreted with caution. Another limitation refers to our study sample size. The power analysis showed that it was adequate to detect indirect effect sizes close to moderate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Taking into account the indirect effect of PC on perceived stress at work through FFFS (.019), our study could be considered slightly underpowered to detect such small effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Final conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite its limitations, the present study offers significant insights into the relationship between psychological courage (PC) and employee well-being, with potential practical implications for workplace interventions. Our findings demonstrate that both the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and the behavioral activation system (BAS) are key mediators of the relationship between PC and well-being at work. Specifically, PC is related to greater job satisfaction, a sense of work meaning, and lower perceived stress at work by activating BAS and inhibiting BIS. This finding supports the idea that PC can be viewed as a universal psychological resource, similar to resilience or psychological capital, and is valuable across various industries. Future research and workplace interventions should explore how best to develop PC while taking into account the inherent risks associated with courageous behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003ePC \u0026ndash; Psychological Courage; BIS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Inhibition System; BAS \u0026ndash; Behavioral Activation System; FFFS \u0026ndash; Fight\u0026ndash;Flight\u0026ndash;Freeze System; JS \u0026ndash; Job Satisfaction; PSaW \u0026ndash; Perceived Stress at Work; WAMI \u0026ndash; Meaning of Work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board at the author\u0026apos;s university (Committee for the Assessment of the Quality of Scientific Research at the Institute of Psychology, University of Opole, no. 32/2023 ).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewas obtained from all participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researcher received financial support through internal grants at the author\u0026apos;s university. This research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG.P. developed the research idea, conceptualized, and designed the research. G.P. was also responsible for the SEM analysis and was a major contributor to the manuscript\u0026apos;s writing. K.S. reviewed and edited the paper, conducted basic statistical analysis, and prepared the initial interpretation of the data. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePutman D. Psychological Courage. Philosophy, Psychiatry, \u0026amp;amp; Psychology. 1997;4:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoward MC, Reiley PJ. Physical courage predicts relevant outcomes in associated contexts: The creation of a measure and empirical analysis into the construct. Journal of Business Research. 2020;110:80\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsswald S, Greitemeyer T, Fischer P, Frey D. What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In: Pury CLS, Lopez SJ, editors. The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2010 [cited 2023 Apr 5]. p. 149\u0026ndash;64. Available from: http://content.apa.org/books/12168-008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreitemeyer T, Osswald S, Fischer P, Frey D. Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:115\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoward MC, Farr JL, Grandey AA, Gutworth MB. The Creation of the Workplace Social Courage Scale (WSCS): An Investigation of Internal Consistency, Psychometric Properties, Validity, and Utility. J Bus Psychol. 2017;32:673\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePury CLS, Starkey CB. Is courage an accolade or a process? A fundamental question for courage research. 2010;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRate CR, Clarke JA, Lindsay DR, Sternberg RJ. Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:80\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranco ZE, Blau K, Zimbardo PG. Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation between Heroic Action and Altruism. Review of General Psychology. 2011;15:99\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePury CLS, Kowalski RM, Spearman J. Distinctions between general and personal courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2007;2:99\u0026ndash;114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRachman SJ. Fear and Courage: A Psychological Perspective. Social Research. 2004;71:149\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorton PJ, Weiss BJ. The role of courage on behavioral approach in a fear-eliciting situation: A proof-of-concept pilot study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2009;23:212\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoward MC, Alipour KK. Does the courage measure really measure courage? A theoretical and empirical evaluation. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2014;9:449\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePury CLS, Starkey CB, Olson LR. Value of goal predicts accolade courage: more evidence that courage is a taking a \u003cem\u003eworthwhile\u003c/em\u003e risk. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2024;19:236\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePury CLS, Saylors S. Courage, Courageous Acts, and Positive Psychology. In: Dunn DS, editor. Positive Psychology [Internet]. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. | Series: Frontiers of social psychology: Routledge; 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 24]. p. 153\u0026ndash;68. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351603744/chapters/10.4324/9781315106304-10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKinlay ML, Norton PJ. The role of courage in predicting behavior: replication in a public-speaking fearful sample. Motiv Emot. 2023;47:1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChockalingam M, Norton PJ. Facing fear-provoking stimuli: The role of courage and influence of task-importance. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2019;14:603\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePajestka G. Facing Fear with Courage: Psychometric and Behavioral Evidence of the Courage Measure (CM) in Poland. rpsych [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 18];26. Available from: https://czasopisma.tnkul.pl/index.php/rpsych/article/view/349\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGinevra MC, Magnano P, Lodi E, Annovazzi C, Camussi E, Patrizi P, et al. The role of career adaptability and courage on life satisfaction in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence. 2018;62:1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang J, Sun D, Jiang J, Wang H, Cheng X, Ruan Q, et al. The effect of courage on stress: The mediating mechanism of behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in high-risk occupations. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGray JA, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2003 [cited 2023 Apr 28]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/7532\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorr PJ. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST): introduction. In: Corr PJ, editor. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2008 [cited 2023 Apr 28]. p. 1\u0026ndash;43. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511819384A010/type/book_part\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1994;67:319.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorr PJ. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience \u0026amp; Biobehavioral Reviews. 2004;28:317\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerinsky AJ, Margolis MF, Sances MW. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self‐administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science. 2014;58:739\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWytykowska A, Fajkowska M, Domaradzka E, Jankowski KS. Construct validity of the Polish version of the reinforcement sensitivity theory-personality questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;109:172\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVecchione M, Corr PJ. Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ-S). Journal of Personality Assessment. 2021;103:535\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZalewska A. Skala Satysfakcji z Pracy \u0026ndash; Pomiar poznawczego aspektu og\u0026oacute;lnego zadowolenia z pracy. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Psychologica. 2003;49\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteger MF, Dik BJ, Duffy RD. Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment. 2012;20:322\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePuchalska-Kamińska M, Czerw A, Roczniewska M. Work Meaning in Self and World Perspective: A New Outlook on the WAMI Scale. SPB. 2019;14:e30207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChirkowska-Smolak T, Grobelny J. Konstrukcja i wstępna analiza psychometryczna Kwestionariusza Postrzeganego Stresu w Pracy (PSwP) [The design and preliminary psychometric analysis of the Preceived Stress at Work questionnaire]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne-Psychological Journal. 2016;22:131\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen S, Janicki‐Deverts D. Who\u0026rsquo;s Stressed? Distributions of Psychological Stress in the United States in Probability Samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009 \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. J Applied Social Pyschol. 2012;42:1320\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang Z, Yuan K-H. Practical statistical power analysis using Webpower and R [Internet]. ISDSA Press; 2018 [cited 2024 Oct 7]. Available from: https://archive.org/download/webpower/WebPower-ISDSA.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFetvadjiev VH, He J. The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave study of a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019;117:448\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuffy RD, Autin KL, Douglass RP. Examining how aspects of vocational privilege relate to living a calling. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2016;11:416\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103:411\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Pearson new international edition: Multivariate data analysis. Exploratory Data Analysis in Business and Economics. 2014;23\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic journal of business research methods. 2008;6:pp53‑60-pp53‑60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18:39\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43:115\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69:3192\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP, Williams LJ, Huang C, Yang J. Common Method Bias: It\u0026rsquo;s Bad, It\u0026rsquo;s Complex, It\u0026rsquo;s Widespread, and It\u0026rsquo;s Not Easy to Fix. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2024;11:17\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan K-H. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res. 2017;49:1716\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood RE, Beckmann N, Ren S, Guan B. Situation contingent negative emotions and performance: The moderating role of trait neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;197:111788.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorr PJ, McNaughton N. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and personality. In: Corr PJ, editor. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2008 [cited 2024 Oct 8]. p. 155\u0026ndash;87. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511819384A014/type/book_part\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143:117\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Lange PAM. Beyond Self-interest: A Set of Propositions Relevant to Interpersonal Orientations. European Review of Social Psychology. 2000;11:297\u0026ndash;331.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurnette JL, Pollack JM, Forsyth RB, Hoyt CL, Babij AD, Thomas FN, et al. A Growth Mindset Intervention: Enhancing Students\u0026rsquo; Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Career Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2020;44:878\u0026ndash;908.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMrazek AJ, Ihm ED, Molden DC, Mrazek MD, Zedelius CM, Schooler JW. Expanding minds: Growth mindsets of self-regulation and the influences on effort and perseverance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018;79:164\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHudson NW, Fraley RC. Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015;109:490\u0026ndash;507.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications; 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaxwell SE, Cole DA, Mitchell MA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate behavioral research. 2011;46:816\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKenny DA. Mediation [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 5]. Available from: https://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm#DI\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Psychological courage, Employee well-being, Job satisfaction, Behavioral Activation System (BAS), Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), Mediation analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePsychological courage (PC) is believed to help individuals in dealing with fear and anxiety, allowing them to confront obstacles and discover purpose in their careers. This study investigated the relationship between PC, job satisfaction, meaning in work, perceived stress, and behavioral systems (BAS, BIS, FFFS) using structural equation modeling (SEM).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA sample of 805 employees from various industries participated in the study. Results revealed a positive correlation between PC and both job satisfaction and meaning in work, while a negative correlation was found with perceived stress. SEM analysis further indicated that the behavioral activation system (BAS) mediates the relationship between PC and positive well-being outcomes. Conversely, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) was associated with increased stress and decreased job satisfaction and meaning in work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the importance of PC in promoting positive work experiences. By activating the BAS and inhibiting the BIS, PC can contribute to greater job satisfaction, increased meaning in work, and reduced stress. Organizations can benefit from implementing interventions that foster psychological courage among employees, leading to improved overall well-being and job performance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"I Will ‘Go for it’ even if it Scares me! How Psychological Courage Relates to Well-being at Work through Reinforcement Sensitivity Systems","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-12-16 07:48:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5377885/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-12-17T15:11:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-12-14T16:58:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"246400082858508108032546180173189908037","date":"2024-12-14T16:51:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-12-12T17:30:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"37138298386439559695728646627045440333","date":"2024-11-21T10:59:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-11-20T09:47:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-11-20T09:32:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-11-16T13:10:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-11-16T13:06:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-11-02T10:57:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7d952c5a-1d20-428c-b308-9aa2a79c5a2f","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 16th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":41605256,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":41605257,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-02-17T16:01:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5377885","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-89838-9","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2025-02-12 15:57:31","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 12th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-12-16 07:48:40","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-025-89838-9","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-89838-9","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5377885","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5377885","identity":"rs-5377885","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}