The viability and validity of the Authentic and Hubristic Pride scales

Dickens and Murphy (see record 2023-63008-001) claim that the Authentic and Hubristic Pride (i.e., AP/HP) scales (see record 2007-02840-009), which we developed and validated over 15 years ago, do not validly assess the theoretical constructs of authentic and hubristic pride (e.g., Tracy & Robins, 2004a, 2007). These authors further call for the development of new measures based on a top-down approach, which would incorporate the theory into scale items. Although we appreciate Dickens and Murphy's emphasis on the need for valid assessment tools in this important research domain, we disagree with their conclusion that the extant scales are "fundamentally invalid." Here, we explain why a top-down approach would not be preferable to the bottom-up one we used and review the relatively large body of evidence supporting the validity of the extant AP/HP scales. Dickens and Murphy also raised several concerns regarding the HP scale specifically; most of these, as we explain, are either incorrect, exaggerated, or valid concerns but not ones that invalidate the HP scale. Nonetheless, we agree with Dickens and Murphy's suggestion that the AP/HP scales could be improved, and we echo their call for future research in this vein. Finally, we recommend that scholars seeking to advance the field in this way adopt the "living document" approach advocated by Gerasimova (2022). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Extant taxon · Geography · MEDLINE · Pride · PsycINFO · Scale (ratio · History, Medicine, and Leadership · Impulse Buying and Technology Impacts · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Sociopolitical Dynamics in Russia

• Pride and moral disengagement

  Manuel Rengifo, Simon M Laham•Cognition & Emotion•2025

  Add to list