From controversy to confusion: A commentary on how Marcus et al.'s (2025) Psychopathic Boldness Scale further muddies the boldness construct.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Mojtaba Elhami Athar,Joshua D Miller,Donald R Lynam
{"title":"From controversy to confusion: A commentary on how Marcus et al.'s (2025) Psychopathic Boldness Scale further muddies the boldness construct.","authors":"Mojtaba Elhami Athar,Joshua D Miller,Donald R Lynam","doi":"10.1037/pas0001442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Psychopathic Boldness Scale (see record 2025-96918-001) is a newly developed 21-item self-report measure intended to assess boldness as it manifests within psychopathy. In this commentary, we raise concerns about the PBS's construct validity, particularly its conceptual and empirical overlap with antagonism-related traits. Drawing on theoretical analysis and results from Marcus et al., we evaluated how PBS items function relative to the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Intraclass correlations of overall correlational profiles revealed that the nomological network of the PBS more closely aligns with Triarchic Psychopathy Measure meanness than with boldness. Rather than clarifying the role of boldness within psychopathy, the PBS repackages maladaptive content typically captured by meanness/antagonism under the boldness label and results in a case of the jingle fallacy. We argue that this conflation undermines theoretical precision and sets the stage for a more difficult-to-integrate literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"16 1","pages":"332-338"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001442","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Psychopathic Boldness Scale (see record 2025-96918-001) is a newly developed 21-item self-report measure intended to assess boldness as it manifests within psychopathy. In this commentary, we raise concerns about the PBS's construct validity, particularly its conceptual and empirical overlap with antagonism-related traits. Drawing on theoretical analysis and results from Marcus et al., we evaluated how PBS items function relative to the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Intraclass correlations of overall correlational profiles revealed that the nomological network of the PBS more closely aligns with Triarchic Psychopathy Measure meanness than with boldness. Rather than clarifying the role of boldness within psychopathy, the PBS repackages maladaptive content typically captured by meanness/antagonism under the boldness label and results in a case of the jingle fallacy. We argue that this conflation undermines theoretical precision and sets the stage for a more difficult-to-integrate literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
从争议到困惑:Marcus等人(2025)的精神病态大胆度量表如何进一步混淆了大胆度的概念。
精神病患者大胆度量表(见记录2025-96918-001)是一项新开发的21项自我报告测量,旨在评估精神病患者表现出的大胆度。在这篇评论中,我们提出了对PBS结构效度的关注,特别是它与对抗相关特征的概念和经验重叠。根据Marcus等人的理论分析和结果,我们评估了PBS项目相对于三重型精神病量表的功能。总体相关概况的类内相关性显示,PBS的法理学网络与三型精神病测量平均值的关系比与大胆度的关系更密切。PBS没有澄清大胆在精神病中的作用,而是将典型的由刻薄/对抗所捕捉到的不适应内容重新包装在大胆的标签下,从而导致了一个广告谬误的案例。我们认为,这种合并破坏了理论的准确性,并为更难以整合的文献奠定了基础。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书