Talk:Light triad

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/CIiPP/article/view/4729. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MolecularPilot _Talk 04:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead conflates two different constructs (Johnson 2018 vs. Kaufman et al. 2019)

The current lead is internally inconsistent. It says the light triad "quantifies empathy, compassion and altruism" and was "first suggested by Laura Johnson in her 2018 master's thesis," but then says it "comprises Faith in Humanity, Humanism and Kantianism." Those are two different constructs, presented as if they were one. To be precise: * Johnson (2018, unpublished master's thesis) proposed an early "light triad" measure built around empathy, compassion, and altruism. * Kaufman, Yaden, Hyde & Tsukayama (2019) — the first peer-reviewed study to define and validate the construct — defined the Light Triad in terms of Kantianism, Humanism, and Faith in Humanity, describing high scorers as "everyday saints" (Frontiers in Psychology, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link)). So the three traits named in the lead (Kantianism/Humanism/Faith in Humanity) come from Kaufman et al. (2019), not from Johnson's thesis, whose components were empathy/compassion/altruism. As written, the lead attributes Kaufman et al.'s components to Johnson's measure, which is inaccurate. Proposed fix: revise the lead to describe the Light Triad as the prosocial counterpart to the dark triad, comprising Kantianism, Humanism, and Faith in Humanity (per the peer-reviewed Kaufman et al. 2019 source), and note Johnson's 2018 thesis in a separate section (as it currently reads) as an earlier, differently operationalized proposal — rather than merging the two. That keeps both contributions credited while removing the contradiction. Happy to suggest specific wording.

There's also a due-weight reason the lead should center the peer-reviewed construct, beyond the contradiction (see WP:LEAD and WP:DUE). Kaufman, Yaden, Hyde & Tsukayama (2019) is the first peer-reviewed study to define and validate the Light Triad, and it established this line of research. Every other source currently cited in the article concerns that construct: Lukić & Živanović (2021) is an explicit cross-validation and extension of it, and the −0.48 correlation with the dark triad, the predictive-validity findings, the "everyday saints" characterization, and Geher's (2019) coverage all describe the Kaufman et al. Kantianism/Humanism/Faith-in-Humanity model. Johnson's 2018 unpublished master's thesis is an earlier precursor that used the term but operationalized it differently (empathy/compassion/altruism) and has not generated comparable secondary literature. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize what the body and the cited sources are actually about — the Kaufman et al. construct — with Johnson credited as a precursor in a separate section. Framing the lead around the thesis is undue, because it is not the construct this research investigates. Philosopher427 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested edit

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest-- I am one of the co-authors of a light triad paper cited in this article. Per WP:COI I am not editing the article directly, and am asking an uninvolved editor to weigh this on its merits. Following up on my comment above, with no objections raised.

Proposed: replace the current lead paragraph with —

In psychology, the Light Triad is a model of prosocial personality, conceived as the benevolent counterpart to the dark triad. It comprises three traits — Kantianism (treating people as ends in themselves rather than as means), Humanism (valuing the dignity and worth of each individual), and Faith in Humanity (believing that people are fundamentally good) — as defined and validated by Scott Barry Kaufman, David Yaden, Elizabeth Hyde, and Eli Tsukayama in their 2019 study in Frontiers in Psychology, the first peer-reviewed work to operationalize the construct.

Rationale: the current lead is internally contradictory — it credits Johnson's 2018 thesis as the origin while listing the Kaufman et al. facets (Kantianism / Humanism / Faith in Humanity), which are not Johnson's components (empathy / compassion / altruism). Johnson's separate proposal is already covered in full in the "Other proposed measures" section, so the lead does not need to introduce it. Centering the lead on the Kaufman et al. construct aligns with WP:LEAD and WP:DUE, as it is the most widely used and cited version and every other source in the article concerns it. Happy to adjust wording. Philosopher427 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I can do that,  Done Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What about now? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast turnaround — and for adding the "everyday saints" detail and the correlation point; both are real improvements.

Two small wording notes, accuracy rather than substance:

1. The sentence calls the 2019 paper "the first peer-reviewed study to define the construct and provide a validated measure of it," so "popularized" sits a little oddly beside that — you don't popularize something you're simultaneously defining and validating for the first time. Would "introduced" (or "developed") read more precisely? e.g., "The construct was introduced in 2019 by…"

2. Minor grammar note: the first sentence doubles a verb — "a model of personality comprising three prosocial traits that comprises Faith In Humanity, Humanism and Kantianism." It could read more cleanly as "a model of personality comprising three prosocial traits: Faith in Humanity, Humanism, and Kantianism."

Thanks again for taking this on. Philosopher427 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, and  Done Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 22:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Philosopher427 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I should be the one thanking you! The article is far better in every way. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 22:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Edits

Philosopher427, do you suggest any further changes to the lede?