Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

Abstract

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) is a 26-item self-report questionnaire developed by Michael R. Levenson, Kent A. Kiehl, and Christine M. Fitzpatrick in 1995. It was engineered specifically to assess psychopathic personality traits within noninstitutionalized, community, and collegiate populations, addressing the historical limitation of measuring psychopathy solely through forensic, clinician-rated interviews such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Grounded theoretically in Benjamin Karpman’s dual-process taxonomy and Hervey Cleckley’s classic clinical conceptualization, the LSRP partitions psychopathy into two distinct, correlated phenotypes: Primary Psychopathy (16 items), which measures emotional detachment, interpersonal callousness, superficial charm, manipulativeness, and a remorseless willingness to exploit others for self-advancement; and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items), which captures an impulsive, emotionally dysregulated, reactive, antisocial lifestyle characterized by short-term planning, low frustration tolerance, and frequent interpersonal conflict.

Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Over nearly three decades of empirical investigation, the LSRP has demonstrated solid psychometric qualities across forensic, university, workplace, and general population cohorts. Internal consistency estimates typically range from moderate to strong, with Cronbach’s alpha values running between α = .78 and .85 for the Primary Psychopathy subscale, and between α = .63 and .75 for the Secondary Psychopathy subscale, alongside total scale reliabilities frequently exceeding .82. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validities are reinforced by systematic correlations with the Five-Factor Model of personality (marked by low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness alongside variable Neuroticism), indices of aggression, empathy deficits, moral disengagement, and distinct neurobiological and behavioral correlates. Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses support its canonical two-factor structure, while also prompting contemporary debates regarding alternative three-factor solutions that differentiate egocentricity from callous affect. The LSRP remains one of the most widely implemented instruments in modern experimental and personality psychopathology.

Keywords

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, LSRP, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, psychopathy assessment, antisocial personality, callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity, Five-Factor Model, construct validity

Authors

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale was designed and validated in 1995 by a team of psychometricians and behavioral researchers:

• Michael R. Levenson, Ph.D. — Principal investigator and primary author; affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and later Oregon State University. Levenson’s scholarship centers on personality structure, adult development, wisdom, and the dimensionality of unconventional social attitudes and antisocial personality variants.
• Kent A. Kiehl, Ph.D. — Co-author and cognitive neuroscientist; currently Professor of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Law at the University of New Mexico, and Executive Director of the Mind Research Network. Kiehl is a preeminent global authority on the neurobiology and neuroimaging of psychopathy, paralimbic system dysfunction, and mobile magnetic resonance imaging in correctional populations.
• Christine M. Fitzpatrick, M.A. — Co-author and researcher; affiliated with the University of California, Davis during the scale’s initial psychometric conceptualization and community field trials.

Correspondence regarding the foundational validation can be traced to the Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California, or via archival indices associated with the original 1995 publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Purpose

Historically, psychopathy was conceptualized and assessed almost exclusively within forensic environments, psychiatric institutions, and maximum-security penitentiaries. The dominant assessment paradigm, exemplified by Robert D. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), required exhaustive semi-structured collateral interviews and institutional file reviews conducted by trained clinicians. While exceptionally reliable in penal settings, this framework imposed severe methodological bottlenecks: it was resource-intensive, practically unfeasible for large-scale epidemiological investigations, and heavily confounded with overt criminal behavior and law enforcement contact. This institutional bias constrained developmental and personality psychologists from investigating how subclinical psychopathic traits manifest across civil society, corporate leadership, academic settings, and general community cohorts.

Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995) engineered the LSRP to resolve this methodological gap. Their primary objective was to construct a brief, theoretically anchored, transparent, self-report inventory capable of capturing the core interpersonal, affective, and behavioral phenotypes of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized samples without relying on criminal records as a prerequisite indicator of pathology. The scale was purposefully formulated to operate along a dimensional continuum, operationalizing psychopathy not as a categorical, qualitative brain disease or legal entity, but as a continuous personality construct distributed across the normal population.

In contemporary clinical, social, and organizational psychology, the LSRP serves multiple vital functions:

• Non-Forensic Personality Assessment: It enables researchers to sample hundreds or thousands of community participants rapidly, delineating how psychopathic tendencies affect normal social functioning, romantic relationship quality, career trajectories, academic dishonesty, and counterproductive work behaviors.
• Disentangling Phenotypic Subtypes: The LSRP provides empirical operationalization of the distinction between emotionally callous, predatory behavior (Primary Psychopathy) versus emotionally unstable, impulsive behavioral deviance (Secondary Psychopathy), permitting experimental designs to test whether cognitive or affective deficits stem from emotional insensitivity or poor behavioral inhibition.
• Laboratory and Neurocognitive Probing: The instrument is extensively used in cognitive neuroscience to investigate autonomic reactivity, startle reflex modulation, facial affect recognition, moral dilemma decision-making, and neuroeconomic games (such as the Ultimatum Game and Prisoner’s Dilemma).
• Screening and Longitudinal Research: It acts as an efficient screening mechanism in epidemiological surveys examining risk factors for substance abuse, intimate partner aggression, white-collar financial deceit, and hazardous driving behaviors.

Psychological Construct

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale is constructed upon a multidimensional architectural framework that reflects the core phenotypic divisions of psychopathy. The 26 items map onto two distinct psychological dimensions: Primary Psychopathy and Secondary Psychopathy.

Primary Psychopathy (Psychopathic Emotional Affect and Interpersonal Style)

Comprising 16 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26), the Primary Psychopathy subscale captures the cold, callous, manipulative, and selfish interpersonal disposition traditionally viewed as the hallmark of the disorder. This dimension operationalizes a fundamental deficit in prosocial affect and moral engagement. Individuals scoring high on this factor display:

• Callous Lack of Empathy and Guilt: A striking absence of remorse, sympathy, or concern for others’ distress, exemplified by reverse-scored items such as “I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain” and “I would be upset if my success came at someone else’s expense.”
• Interpersonal Exploitativeness and Deceit: A strategic, instrumental view of interpersonal relationships wherein human beings are perceived merely as tools to be leveraged for personal enrichment or amusement, captured by items like “I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do” and “I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings.”
• Machiavellian and Social-Darwinian Worldview: The philosophical rationalization that life is a zero-sum struggle where power justifies exploitation, reflected in items such as “Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers” and “People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it.”
• Egocentric Materialism and Moral Relativism: Unchecked self-interest and utilitarian pragmatism prioritizing personal gain over ethical norms, indicated by statements like “For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with” and “Looking out for myself is my top priority.”

Secondary Psychopathy (Psychopathic Lifestyle and Behavioral Dysregulation)

Comprising 10 items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20), the Secondary Psychopathy subscale captures the impulsive, chaotic, sensation-seeking, and emotionally reactive lifestyle features of psychopathy. Unlike the serene, unflappable demeanor associated with primary traits, secondary psychopathy reflects underlying distress, poor impulse control, and self-defeating behavior:

• Impulsivity and Poor Planfulness: A chronic failure to consider future consequences, set long-term objectives, or maintain disciplined pursuit of goals, operationalized through items like “I don’t plan anything very far in advance” and reverse-scored items such as “Before I do anything, I carefully consider the possible consequences.”
• Proneness to Boredom and Low Frustration Tolerance: A persistent subjective state of restlessness coupled with an inability to tolerate routine tasks, seen in “I am often bored” and “I quickly lose interest in tasks I start.”
• Reactive Aggression and Emotional Volatility: Poorly controlled anger and high negative emotionality that erupts into outward hostility, measured by “When I get frustrated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top” and “I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people.”
• Externalization of Blame and Alienation: A tendency to disavow personal responsibility for life failures, attributing interpersonal conflicts to external persecution or social misunderstanding, captured by “Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just don’t understand me.”
• Cynical Detachment: A rejection of emotional vulnerability, represented by “Love is overrated.”

Theoretical Framework

The structural underpinnings of the LSRP emerge directly from two classic psychiatric traditions: Hervey Cleckley’s clinical observations published in The Mask of Sanity (1941) and Benjamin Karpman’s (1941, 1948) theoretical bifurcations of psychopathy into idiopathic (primary) and symptomatic (secondary) variants.

Cleckleyan Psychopathy and the Mask of Sanity

Cleckley described psychopathy as an insidious constellation of clinical traits masked behind an outward appearance of robust mental stability, charm, and intelligence. Cleckley highlighted severe affective poverty: psychopathic patients possessed an intellectual grasp of language, morals, and social norms (the “mask”), but suffered from complete “semantic dementia” regarding the emotional resonance of words and deeds. They could discuss love, honor, and remorse without experiencing the underlying feelings. Levenson and colleagues designed the Primary Psychopathy subscale to capture this Cleckleyan profile: an emotionally cool individual unburdened by guilt, anxiety, or internal distress, navigating life with untroubled interpersonal predation.

Karpman’s Dual-Etiology Framework

Benjamin Karpman posited that clinically indistinguishable antisocial outcomes could arise from two radically divergent etiopathogenic pathways:

• Primary (Idiopathic) Psychopathy: Conceptualized as an innate, constitutional, constitutional deficit characterized by true affective flatness, hereditary underarousal, lack of anxiety, and cold calculation. Primary psychopaths do not suffer from internal neurotic conflict; they manipulate and exploit with minimal autonomic arousal.
• Secondary (Symptomatic) Psychopathy: Conceptualized as an acquired or psychodynamically reactive disturbance. Secondary psychopaths engage in antisocial, chaotic, and aggressive actions driven by underlying emotional turmoil, chronic anxiety, unresolved environmental trauma, or affective dysregulation. They experience subjective suffering, social alienation, and guilt, but their severe impulsivity and emotional volatility repeatedly trigger disruptive behaviors.

Convergence with Modern Dimensional Taxonomies

In modern personality science, the LSRP maps cleanly onto contemporary dimensional paradigms. Within the Five-Factor Model (FFM), Primary Psychopathy represents extreme antagonism (exceptionally low Agreeableness, including low straightforwardness, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness), combined with low Neuroticism (absence of vulnerability and social anxiety). Secondary Psychopathy reflects a hybrid of low Conscientiousness (low deliberation, order, and self-discipline), elevated Antagonism, and high Neuroticism (specifically angry hostility, depression, and impulsiveness). Furthermore, within the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), the LSRP’s Primary factor correlates robustly with Meanness and Boldness, whereas the Secondary factor aligns with Disinhibition.

Validity

The construct validity of the LSRP has been evaluated across hundreds of empirical investigations examining convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and experimental validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity with Established Scales

The LSRP demonstrates robust convergence with gold-standard clinician assessments and parallel self-report inventories. In a seminal evaluation among incarcerated and collegiate cohorts, Martin Sellbom (2011) observed that LSRP Primary Psychopathy correlated strongly with Factor 1 of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; r ≈ .40 to .55) and the Fearless Dominance / Coldheartedness scales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Conversely, LSRP Secondary Psychopathy correlated prominently with PCL-R Factor 2 (antisocial/lifestyle deviance; r ≈ .50 to .62) and PPI Impulsive Antisociality.

Discriminant validity between the two LSRP scales is evident when examining their relationships with emotional distress and internalizing psychopathology. Gaughan, Miller, and Pryor (2008) established that while Secondary Psychopathy correlates positively with generalized anxiety, depression, borderline personality features, and negative emotionality, Primary Psychopathy exhibits zero or small negative correlations with internalizing disorders, confirming Karpman’s premise that primary psychopathic traits remain emotionally stable.

Behavioral and Criterion-Related Validity

The LSRP demonstrates high predictive utility across diverse behavioral and clinical criteria:

• Aggression Paradigms: Primary Psychopathy selectively predicts proactive, premeditated, and predatory aggression, where violence or deceit is executed instrumentally for personal profit. Secondary Psychopathy selectively predicts reactive, affective aggression provoked by perceived insults or immediate frustration (Falkenbach et al., 2007).
• Moral Cognition and Decision-Making: High scorers on Primary Psychopathy show a heightened propensity to endorse utilitarian solutions in sacrificial moral dilemmas (e.g., the classic Trolley and Footbridge problems), driven by blunted emotional aversion to inflicting personal physical harm rather than elevated utilitarian benevolence (Koenigs et al., 2012).
• Antisocial and Unethical Behavior: Secondary Psychopathy reliably predicts substance use disorders, academic cheating, reckless driving, and recurrent disciplinary infractions. Primary Psychopathy predicts calculated financial fraud, Machiavellian workplace exploitation, and intimate partner manipulation.

Taxometric Analyses

Using taxometric procedures (MAMBAC, MAXCOV, and MAXEIG), Walters, Brinkley, Magaletta, and Diamond (2008) examined whether the latent structure of the LSRP reflects a categorical taxon (a discrete pathological group) or a continuous dimension. Across multiple large-scale correctional and community datasets, the taxometric curves converged uniformly on a dimensional interpretation. This indicates that psychopathic attributes exist along a graded continuum throughout the general population, validating the LSRP’s utility in subclinical, workplace, and non-forensic contexts.

Reliability

Extensive psychometric investigations have established satisfactory to high reliability indices for the LSRP across diverse cross-cultural, nonclinical, and forensic samples.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of the LSRP scales has remained stable over decades of empirical usage:

• Primary Psychopathy: Across university, general community, and incarcerated samples, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently range from α = .78 to .85. McDonald’s omega values (ω_t) generally mirror these findings (.80 to .86), reflecting coherent item intercorrelations centered around interpersonal exploitation and lack of empathy.
• Secondary Psychopathy: The 10-item Secondary scale typically exhibits lower, yet psychometrically acceptable, internal consistency estimates, with Cronbach’s alpha values running from α = .63 to .75. The slightly lower alpha is attributable to the brief item count and the structural heterogeneity of the factor, which pools impulsivity, reactive anger, low frustration tolerance, and external attribution into a single subscale.
• Total LSRP Scale: When combined to yield a global index of psychopathic traits, the composite 26-item scale exhibits strong overall reliability, with alpha coefficients regularly spanning α = .82 to .88.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations demonstrate that the LSRP captures enduring personality traits rather than transient psychological states. Over test-retest intervals ranging from 4 weeks to 6 months, stability coefficients consistently range between r = .75 and .86 for Primary Psychopathy, and between r = .68 and .80 for Secondary Psychopathy. These findings affirm that the LSRP measures stable trait configurations across time.

Factor Analysis

The latent factor architecture of the LSRP has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, moving from initial Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) to complex multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA).

The Original Two-Factor Solution

In their original derivation, Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995) performed principal-components analysis with oblique rotation on data gathered from 487 university students. Their analyses converged on a clean two-factor model:

• Factor 1 (Primary Psychopathy): Accounted for the largest proportion of common variance, with 16 items exhibiting high primary pattern loadings (> .40) reflecting emotional callousness, manipulative tendencies, and predatory attitudes.
• Factor 2 (Secondary Psychopathy): Captured the impulsive, unstable lifestyle component across 10 items, demonstrating minimal cross-loadings with Factor 1. The correlation between the two latent factors in original and subsequent samples generally falls between r = .30 and .45, demonstrating related yet distinct behavioral dimensions.

Empirical Fit Indices and Alternative Factor Models

When subjected to rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis in subsequent decades, the strict orthogonal or oblique two-factor model occasionally exhibited sub-optimal fit statistics in complex community samples (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .06). These fit challenges prompted psychometricians to re-examine the internal structure of the instrument:

• Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman (2001): Investigating incarcerated adult males, Brinkley and colleagues identified specific item anomalies, highlighting that items loading onto Secondary Psychopathy such as Item 20 (“Love is overrated”) or Item 12 (“Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just don’t understand me”) often exhibit low communalities or unstable loadings.
• The Three-Factor Model (Sellbom, 2011): Martin Sellbom conducted comprehensive CFA evaluations contrasting one-, two-, and three-factor solutions. Sellbom demonstrated that the 16-item Primary Psychopathy dimension reliably fractures into two distinct sub-components: Egocentricity (narcissistic self-advancement, ruthless ambition, and materialism; e.g., Items 5, 7, 9, 11, 15) and Callous Affect (active cruelty, absence of empathy, and interpersonal deceit; e.g., Items 1, 3, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). The remaining 10 items comprise the third factor, labeled Antisocial / Impulsive Lifestyle. This tripartite solution consistently provides superior model fit (CFI > .93, TLI > .91, RMSEA ≤ .048).

Despite the analytical advantages of the three-factor model in nuanced psychometric settings, the canonical two-factor scoring schema formulated by Levenson remains the standard convention across contemporary literature.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters, structural design, and scoring algorithms for the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (abbreviated as LSRP).
• Methodological Format: Self-administered, paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report questionnaire.
• Total Item Count: 26 declarative first-person statements.
• Target Population: Adults and older adolescents (aged 16 and older) across collegiate, general community, workplace, and non-forensic settings, as well as institutionalized correctional populations.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Primary Psychopathy: 16 items — Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.
  • Secondary Psychopathy: 10 items — Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
• Scoring and Reverse Coding Instructions:
  • Items are coded from 1 to 5 points. Seven items reflect prosocial attitudes or behavioral caution and MUST be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale and total indices (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
  • Reverse-Scored Items in Primary Psychopathy (5 items): Item 19, Item 22, Item 24, Item 25, and Item 26.
  • Reverse-Scored Items in Secondary Psychopathy (2 items): Item 6 and Item 14.
  • Primary Psychopathy Score: Sum of all 16 primary items (theoretical range: 16 to 80). Higher scores denote elevated callousness, interpersonal manipulation, and lack of empathy.
  • Secondary Psychopathy Score: Sum of all 10 secondary items (theoretical range: 10 to 50). Higher scores indicate elevated impulsivity, behavioral dysregulation, and reactive hostility.
  • Total Psychopathy Score: Sum of all 26 items (theoretical range: 26 to 130).
• Administration Duration: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale was published in 1995 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The authors placed the scale items in the public academic domain for non-commercial scholarly and educational research. No licensing fees or proprietary royalties are required to administer the instrument in non-profit empirical investigations.

Researchers wishing to incorporate the LSRP into institutional studies, digital testing batteries, or dissertations may freely utilize the published items, provided that appropriate bibliographic citation is granted to the original 1995 validation study (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Commercial organizations, consulting entities, or developers designing proprietary commercial software tools incorporating the LSRP should secure copyright clearance and written permissions from the original copyright holder, the American Psychological Association (APA), or the primary authors.

References

• Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validity of a self-report psychopathy scale: Investigating strength and limitations in incarcerated and college samples. Assessment, 8(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110100800408
• Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. C. V. Mosby Company.
• Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2007). The exploration of subclinical psychopathy in a college student sample: A comparison of two self-report measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 30(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-007-9074-0
• Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., & Pryor, L. R. (2008). The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: An examination of the personality traits and disorders associated with the LSRP factors. Assessment, 15(4), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108316281
• Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
• Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
• Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 104(9), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.104.9.523
• Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr048
• Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151
• Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488–524. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
• Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492
• Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(5), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.008
• Walters, G. D., Brinkley, C. A., Magaletta, P. R., & Diamond, P. M. (2008). Taxometric analysis of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248828

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)