Why Seeing Others Clearly Begins with You

Misunderstandings derail teams, strain families, and make therapy harder than it needs to be. At the heart of many of these struggles is mentalization—the capacity to make sense of our own thoughts and feelings and to grasp what might be going on in someone else’s mind. It’s a skill that shapes how we read a coworker’s tone, interpret a partner’s silence, or recognize our own stress signals before they erupt. But to study and support this capacity, we need tools that are accurate, culturally appropriate, and stable over time.

The Validation of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) in francophone control and clinical samples research paper delivers precisely that: a rigorous check of the French translation of a widely used self-report questionnaire that measures mentalizing. The MentS covers three core abilities—self-mentalizing (making sense of your own mind), mentalizing others (inferring others’ mental states), and motivation to mentalize (the willingness to try). The study enrolled 711 participants, including a community group and clinical patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or both. By examining how well the tool works across these groups, this research shows whether French-speaking clinicians and researchers can rely on the MentS to assess mentalization accurately.

Why this matters: mentalization problems are linked to impulsivity, relationship conflicts, emotional storms, and mental health symptoms. If a French version of this scale performs well, it becomes a practical way to screen difficulties, tailor treatment, and track progress across time and diagnoses.

What the Data Say About How We Read Minds

The study found that a 27-item version of the MentS worked best in both the community sample and clinical groups. Keeping almost all of the original items, this version preserved the three subscales—Self, Other, and Motivation—and showed strong reliability (the items hang together well) and excellent stability (scores remain consistent over time). In simple terms: the French MentS is both precise and dependable.

Importantly, the scale could distinguish between general population participants and those with psychiatric diagnoses, while still working consistently across groups. Scores mapped in sensible ways to related measures: better mentalization went along with stronger reflective functioning and healthier emotion regulation, and it was lower among people reporting more childhood trauma, general psychological distress, or borderline symptoms. This pattern supports the scale’s validity—it measures what it should.

One practical highlight: lower scores on self-mentalizing were tied to more mental health symptoms. Think of a busy parent who notices only the anger in a frustrating moment with a child but misses the fear underneath; or a manager who senses a drop in team morale but can’t identify their own defensiveness fueling it. These are self-mentalizing gaps. The MentS helps spot them.

Everyday translation: if you often misread your partner’s silence as contempt instead of fatigue, or rush to judgment about a colleague without considering their pressures, your mentalizing others may be thin in that moment. If you rarely pause to check what you or others might be feeling, your motivation to mentalize might be low. The MentS captures these tendencies reliably in French speakers.

A Cross-Diagnostic Lens on How Minds Meet

The implications are striking. First, the scale’s performance across both control and clinical samples suggests that mentalization is a useful dimension that cuts across diagnoses. This aligns with longstanding clinical theory: people don’t just have symptoms—they also vary in how well they think about minds. Whether someone has BPD, ADHD, both, or neither, their ability and willingness to mentalize matters for daily functioning and treatment outcomes.

Second, the fact that a 27-item version fit best signals careful cultural and linguistic calibration. Translation is not just about swapping words; it’s about making sure each item resonates similarly in another language community. Dropping a single item to improve fit means the French tool captures the construct cleanly without unnecessary noise. For practitioners, that translates to fewer misleading scores and clearer targets for intervention.

Third, the study’s strong test–retest results over roughly a year support using the MentS to track change. In therapy, this matters. Imagine a person in mentalization-based treatment or cognitive behavioral therapy: if their MentS scores improve alongside fewer blowups at home or smoother conversations at work, the numbers reflect genuine, lived change—not just momentary mood.

Perhaps most clinically meaningful is the link between low self-mentalizing and higher psychopathology. Many therapies start by helping clients name and organize inner experiences: “I was anxious, not angry,” or “I feared rejection, so I lashed out.” Better self-mentalizing can calm reactivity and increase perspective-taking. The study’s pattern of associations—more trauma and distress tied to lower mentalization—fits with research showing that stress narrows our focus and crowds out curiosity about what we and others think and feel.

Of course, like any self-report, the MentS relies on how accurately people can judge themselves—a known limitation. Still, the consistent structure, reliability, and links to related measures make a strong case: this French version is a trustworthy lens on a crucial human skill.

From Therapy Rooms to Team Meetings: Putting Mentalization to Work

In clinical care, the French MentS can be used to screen patients for mentalization difficulties and to target treatment. A therapist might see that a client’s self-mentalizing score is particularly low and focus early sessions on naming feelings, spotting triggers, and building a habit of pausing before reacting. Over months, repeated MentS assessments can track whether insight is translating into calmer conflicts and better emotion regulation.

In primary care or university counseling centers, brief MentS screenings could help triage: a student with high distress and low motivation to mentalize might benefit from interventions that increase curiosity about emotions, like mindfulness exercises or short mentalization-focused workshops.

Workplaces can apply the insights to leadership training. Teams falter when people assume bad intent or fail to consider pressures others face. A manager learning to strengthen mentalizing others might practice specific behaviors: asking open questions before judging, summarizing what they heard (“It sounds like you were worried about missing the deadline”), and checking their own emotional state before giving feedback.

Couples and families can use MentS-informed coaching to defuse spirals. If one partner tends to shut down, the other can learn to consider exhaustion before assuming rejection. Parents can strengthen a child’s mentalization by naming emotions in the moment: “You look frustrated that the game ended; I feel disappointed too.” Over time, this builds both self-mentalizing and empathy.

For researchers, the validated tool opens doors to cross-diagnostic studies in French-speaking contexts: How does mentalization shift with stress? Which therapies most efficiently boost it? How does trauma recovery affect each subscale? Because the scale is reliable and stable, it can serve as a solid outcome measure in trials and program evaluations.

Measuring the Space Between Minds, in a Language That Fits

The core message of the Validation of the Mentalization Scale (MentS) in francophone control and clinical samples is simple and encouraging: French-speaking clinicians and researchers now have a dependable way to measure how people think about minds—their own and others’. The 27-item MentS is consistent, stable over time, and meaningfully connected to mental health and life stress. The biggest red flag—low self-mentalizing—points to a tractable target: helping people name, tolerate, and make sense of inner experience.

At home, at work, and in therapy, curiosity about minds softens defensiveness and invites repair. If you could measure your willingness to pause and ask, “What else might be going on—for me and for them?”, would you want to track it? This research paper offers a clear, culturally tuned yardstick, and a gentle challenge: build mentalization, and the rest of life often gets a little easier.

Data in this article is provided by PLOS.

Related Articles

• From Coaching to Connection: How a Hong Kong Parent Program Transformed Caregivers and Relationships
• Belonging to Breathe: How Group Identity Shapes NHS Staff Engagement with Mindfulness
• When Parent Mental Health Echoes Across Generations: Insights from a Swedish Twin Family Study
• When Psychologists Need Support Too
• Drums, Discipline, and Development: What Brazil’s Guri Program Teaches Us About Growing Smarter and Kinder
• Screens That Calm, Screens That Worry: What Parents of Autistic Children Say About Digital Media
• Likes, Labels, and the Self: What Reddit’s ADHD Community Teaches Us About Validation
• Calming the Night: What a Korean Pre-Sleep Arousal Measure Tells Us About Sleeplessness
• Brains, Noise, and the Hidden Cost of Conversation for Neurodivergent People
• The Impact of Pregnancy Hypertension on Childhood Development: Unveiling Connections and Insights
• Unseen Connections: Visual Perception and Participation in Children with Autism**
• Why Some Mental Health Apps Stick While Others Don’t: Lessons from People Using PolarUs for Bipolar Self‑Management
• When Movement Meets Focus What Brain Signals Reveal About Attention and Repetitive Behaviors
• When Mindfulness Meets Movement Online: What Lasts a Year Later for People Living With Chronic Pain