Development and validation of the Harm Concept Breadth Scale: Assessing individual differences in harm inflation

Abstract

Three studies (Ns = 350, 301 & 341) examined the reliability, validity, and correlates of a new measure of harm inflation, the individual differences counterpart of ‘concept creep’. The Harm Concept Breadth Scale (HCBS) assesses variability in the expansiveness of concepts of harm (i.e., bullying, mental disorder, prejudice, trauma), such that these concepts refer to a wider range of phenomena among people scoring high on the scale. Study 1 developed 66 vignettes representing potential instances of the four concepts, selected optimal subsets of 10 vignettes for each concept, and demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency of the subscales. Study 2 demonstrated that the HCBS had excellent internal consistency, and established construct validity through associations with measures of moral foundations, justice sensitivity, general category inclusiveness, and political orientation. Study 3 employed participants from a different national background and further clarified the correlates of the HCBS via measures of empathy, moral expansiveness, and the Big Five personality traits. The findings indicate that concept breadth is a reliably measurable individual difference variable with weak to moderate associations with harm-based morality, prosocial concern, political liberalism, female gender, and negative emotionality. The HCBS is a valid psychometric instrument for examining the causes and implications of harm inflation.