Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

1. Abstract

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) is a widely utilized 26-item psychometric instrument developed by Michael R. Levenson, Kent A. Kiehl, and Cory M. Fitzpatrick in 1995. Designed explicitly to assess psychopathic personality traits within non-institutionalized, community, and collegiate populations, the LSRP operationalizes Benjamin Karpman’s classical distinction between primary psychopathy (characterized by emotional detachment, callousness, selfishness, and superficial charm) and secondary psychopathy (characterized by impulsivity, behavioral dysregulation, neuroticism, and reactive aggression). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Across decades of empirical investigation, the LSRP has demonstrated solid internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .82 to .85 for the Primary Psychopathy subscale and .63 to .70 for the Secondary Psychopathy subscale, alongside global alphas exceeding .84. Although initially conceptualized as an oblique two-factor instrument, contemporary structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses have identified a psychometrically superior three-factor structure comprising Egocentricity, Callousness, and Antisocial Lifestyle. The instrument demonstrates robust convergent validity with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP), and the Five-Factor Model (particularly low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness). This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the LSRP, detailing its historical foundations, construct operationalization, structural evolution, diagnostic utility, cross-cultural validity, and measurement properties.

2. Keywords

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, LSRP, Primary Psychopathy, Secondary Psychopathy, Psychopathy, Factor Analysis, Callous-Unemotional Traits, Egocentricity, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychometrics, Non-institutionalized Populations, Personality Assessment.

3. Authors

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale was developed and introduced by:

• Michael R. Levenson, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, and Oregon State University. Primary researcher specializing in adult personality development, personality disorders, wisdom, and the dimensional assessment of psychopathy outside forensic settings.
• Kent A. Kiehl, Ph.D.: Mind Research Network and Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico. Prominent cognitive neuroscientist known for pioneering functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electrophysiological investigations of paralimbic system dysfunction in psychopathic offenders.
• Cory M. Fitzpatrick, B.A.: Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis. Co-investigator contributing to the original empirical validation, scale construction, and psychometric operationalization of the instrument.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale is to provide a reliable, valid, cost-effective, and non-invasive dimensional measure of psychopathic traits in general population samples. Prior to the publication of the LSRP in 1995, empirical research into psychopathy was heavily restricted by the hegemony of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). While the PCL-R remains the gold standard in forensic and correctional settings, its reliance on semi-structured clinical interviews and extensive collateral institutional records makes it impractical, time-prohibitive, and conceptually inappropriate for large-scale epidemiological, subclinical, or undergraduate research.

Furthermore, early clinical theorists, including Hervey Cleckley in his seminal work The Mask of Sanity (1941), observed that individuals with pronounced psychopathic configurations do not exclusively inhabit maximum-security prisons or psychiatric institutions; many function within normative society as corporate executives, politicians, academics, and professionals. To study these “successful” or subclinical variants, behavioral researchers required an instrument that did not equate psychopathy strictly with criminal arrest records or gross institutional infractions. The LSRP satisfies this objective by assessing the psychological core of psychopathy—specifically the dispositional emotional detachment, manipulative interpersonal style, and disinhibited lifestyle—without relying on overt judicial criteria.

In applied and academic research, the LSRP is extensively utilized across:

• Social and Personality Psychology: Examining the Dark Triad (alongside Machiavellianism and narcissism), interpersonal exploitation, moral disengagement, and romantic relationship functioning.
• Criminology and Behavioral Forensics: Evaluating community offending patterns, white-collar crime, intimate partner violence, cyberbullying, and sub-institutional deviance.
• Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience: Screening participants for experimental protocols investigating empathy deficits, facial affect recognition, startle blink reflex modulation, and electrodermal hyporeactivity.
• Industrial-Organizational Psychology: Investigating counterproductive work behaviors (CWB), corporate fraud, exploitative leadership, and workplace harassment.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the LSRP is psychopathy, conceived not as a categorical mental disorder, but as a continuous, multidimensional personality constellation. The instrument draws directly on Benjamin Karpman’s (1941, 1948) theoretical differentiation between two etiologically distinct psychopathic variants:

Primary Psychopathy (Psychopathic Affect and Interpersonal Style)

Primary psychopathy encompasses the affective and interpersonal hallmarks traditionally associated with Cleckley’s classic conceptualization. It reflects intrinsic emotional hyporeactivity, a profound absence of empathy, lack of guilt, callousness, remorseless exploitation of others, and an egocentric worldview. Individuals elevated on this dimension view interpersonal relationships through an instrumental, Social Darwinist lens, perceiving social life as an arena where the strong dominate the weak. Within the original LSRP framework, this construct is indexed by 16 items reflecting:

• Instrumental Manipulation: Actively deceiving and steering social dynamics for personal gain (e.g., “I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do”).
• Affective Deficit and Callousness: An inability or unwillingness to register the emotional suffering of others (e.g., “I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain” [reverse-scored]).
• Ruthless Self-Interest: Prioritizing personal survival, power, and wealth above all collective norms (e.g., “Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers”).

Secondary Psychopathy (Psychopathic Lifestyle and Impulsivity)

Secondary psychopathy corresponds to chronic behavioral dysregulation, affective instability, impulsivity, poor self-control, and reactive hostility. Unlike primary psychopaths, who exhibit constitutional autonomic hypoarousal and low anxiety, secondary psychopaths frequently display high levels of psychological distress, emotional reactivity, neuroticism, and social alienation. Their antisocial actions stem not from cold, premeditated calculation, but from poor self-regulation, low frustration tolerance, and self-defeating impulsivity. Within the original LSRP framework, this construct is indexed by 10 items capturing:

• Impulsivity and Lack of Planfulness: Short-sighted decision-making and poor future orientation (e.g., “I don’t plan anything very far in advance”).
• Boredom Proneness and Sensation Seeking: Intolerance of monotony and an inability to maintain long-term goal pursuit (e.g., “I am often bored”; “I quickly lose interest in tasks I start”).
• Reactive Aggression and Externalization of Blame: Volatile emotional reactions and externalizing personal failures onto others (e.g., “When I get frustrated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top”; “Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just don’t understand me”).

The Modern Three-Factor Construct Configuration

Subsequent psychometric evaluations (e.g., Brinkley et al., 2001; Sellbom, 2011) demonstrated that the construct validity of the LSRP is enhanced by decomposing the 26 items into three distinct dimensions rather than two:

1. Egocentricity (10 items): Reflects grandiosity, narcissistic entitlement, and unapologetic self-aggrandizement.
2. Callousness (4–6 items): Specifically isolates emotional detachment, low empathy, and lack of affective concern for others.
3. Antisocial / Impulsive Lifestyle (6–10 items): Isolates behavioral irresponsibility, aimlessness, and reactive emotional dysregulation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the LSRP is rooted in historical clinical phenomenology, psychoanalytic psychiatry, and contemporary dimensional personality models.

Karpman’s Dual-Etiology Model

The foundational bedrock of the LSRP is Benjamin Karpman’s (1941, 1948) clinical taxonomy, which bifurcated idiopathic psychopathy into “primary” (anethopathy) and “secondary” (symptomatic) variants. Karpman argued that primary psychopathy reflects a constitutional, hereditary deficit in affective capacity and moral conscience. The primary psychopath commits antisocial acts without malice, anxiety, or guilt, acting out of profound emotional anesthesia. In contrast, secondary psychopathy is psychogenic—often emerging secondary to severe developmental trauma, environmental deprivation, or neurosis. The secondary psychopath experiences intense inner turmoil, anxiety, and remorse, yet acts out destructively due to defective emotional regulation. Levenson and colleagues designed the LSRP items to directly reflect this dual-pathway etiology, seeking to capture both emotional detachment and impulsive behavioral deviance within a single questionnaire.

Cleckley’s Clinical Criteria

The LSRP operationalizes several core characteristics outlined in Hervey Cleckley’s (1941) The Mask of Sanity. Cleckley outlined 16 clinical markers, including untruthfulness, insincerity, lack of remorse or shame, poor judgment, failure to learn by experience, pathological egocentricity, and poverty in major affective reactions. Items such as “For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with” and “Looking out for myself is my top priority” directly capture the Cleckleyan premise that the psychopath preserves an appearance of rationality while remaining fundamentally detached from the moral and emotional dimensions of human connection.

Evolutionary and Life History Theory

Modern psychometricians also interpret the LSRP through the lens of Life History Theory. Within an evolutionary biology framework, psychopathy represents an adaptive, frequency-dependent “cheater strategy” or “fast life-history strategy.” Under this model, primary psychopathy reflects an unmitigated exploitative reproductive strategy optimized for low social investment and short-term opportunism, whereas secondary psychopathy reflects erratic coping under conditions of high unpredictability and environmental threat.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the LSRP has been extensively scrutinized across clinical, forensic, and non-forensic populations over the past three decades.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been established by comparing LSRP scores against established behavioral markers of psychopathy. Sellbom (2011) examined incarcerated male offenders and non-incarcerated college students, demonstrating that the LSRP effectively discriminates between clinical and non-clinical levels of psychopathic behavior. Walters et al. (2008) conducted taxometric analyses of the LSRP across large male inmate cohorts, finding overwhelming support for a dimensional rather than taxonic (categorical) latent structure, confirming that psychopathy exists along a continuum within both institutional and community settings.

Convergent Validity

The LSRP demonstrates strong convergent validity with alternative psychopathy instruments:

• Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R): Primary psychopathy scores consistently correlate moderately to strongly (r = .40 to .55) with PCL-R Factor 1 (Interpersonal/Affective), whereas Secondary psychopathy scores correlate strongly (r = .50 to .65) with PCL-R Factor 2 (Social Deviance / Lifestyle) in correctional samples (Sellbom, 2011; Brinkley et al., 2001).
• Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III / SRP-4): Strong positive correlations (r > .65) exist between the LSRP subscales and corresponding SRP domains (Callous Affect, Interpersonal Manipulation, Erratic Lifestyle, and Criminal Tendencies).
• Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM): Primary psychopathy maps robustly onto the TriPM Meanness and Boldness constructs, whereas Secondary psychopathy demonstrates substantial alignment with TriPM Disinhibition.

Discriminant and Criterion Validity

Extensive research evaluating the LSRP against the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) has yielded clear discriminant patterns (Gaughan et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2008):

• Agreeableness: Primary psychopathy exhibits an exceptionally strong negative correlation with Agreeableness (r = -.55 to -.70), particularly with the facets of Altruism, Straightforwardness, Compliance, and Tender-Mindedness.
• Conscientiousness: Secondary psychopathy correlates strongly and negatively with Conscientiousness (r = -.45 to -.60), specifically reflecting deficits in Deliberation, Dutifulness, and Self-Discipline.
• Neuroticism: Critically supporting Karpman’s dual theory, Primary psychopathy displays non-significant or weak negative correlations with Neuroticism (low anxiety, low stress reactivity), whereas Secondary psychopathy exhibits strong positive correlations with Neuroticism (r = .40 to .55), specifically with the Angry Hostility, Impulsiveness, and Depression facets.

Predictive Validity

The LSRP reliably predicts actual antisocial behavioral outcomes, including self-reported criminal infractions, academic cheating, organizational deviance, substance abuse, aggressive driving, risky sexual behavior, and laboratory-based defection in economic games (e.g., the Prisoner’s Dilemma).

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the LSRP has been documented across hundreds of independent empirical investigations worldwide.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of the LSRP has yielded consistently acceptable to excellent reliability coefficients:

• Total Score (26 Items): Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale consistently ranges from .82 to .88 across undergraduate, community, and prison cohorts (Sellbom, 2011). McDonald’s omega total (ω_t) typically mirrors these values (.84–.89).
• Primary Psychopathy Subscale (16 Items): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .80 to .86 in both male and female samples. The mean inter-item correlation generally sits in the recommended .20 to .35 range, reflecting adequate construct breadth without excessive item redundancy.
• Secondary Psychopathy Subscale (10 Items): Internal consistency coefficients are historically more modest, typically ranging from .63 to .74. This lower reliability stems partly from fewer items and partly from item multidimensionality (combining neurotic hostility, boredom proneness, and behavioral impulsivity). When reformulated into the three-factor model, the internal consistency of the resulting subscales stabilizes markedly.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability studies demonstrate robust test-retest reliability over varying intervals. Lynam et al. (1999) reported test-retest correlations exceeding .80 over a 4-week interval in young adults. Longitudinal evaluations over periods ranging from 6 months to 2 years demonstrate stability coefficients between .65 and .75, indicating that the LSRP captures enduring trait dispositions rather than transient emotional states or situational distress.

Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance

Cross-cultural validations have confirmed substantial metric and scalar invariance. Shou, Sellbom, and Han (2016) demonstrated that the Chinese translation of the LSRP maintained acceptable internal consistency and strong convergent validity. Similar findings have been documented for French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Swedish adaptations.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the LSRP has been a subject of extensive empirical debate within contemporary psychometrics.

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis (Levenson et al., 1995)

In their initial derivation sample of 487 university students, Levenson et al. utilized principal components analysis with oblimin rotation. This yielded a two-component solution explaining approximately 32.5% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Primary Psychopathy): 16 items loading primarily on selfish, callous, and manipulative interpersonal styles (eigenvalue = 5.25).
• Factor 2 (Secondary Psychopathy): 10 items loading on impulsivity, quick-temperedness, and self-defeating behaviors (eigenvalue = 3.19).
• The inter-factor correlation was moderate (r ≈ .40), confirming that while the constructs are distinct, they share an underlying antisocial core.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Limitations

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) frequently found that Levenson’s original two-factor model demonstrated mediocre fit indices when applied to novel samples (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .85; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .08). Specifically, researchers noted cross-loadings for items addressing impulsivity, affective blunting, and social alienation.

The Superior Three-Factor Model

To resolve these structural deficiencies, Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman (2001) proposed a revised three-factor solution based on factor-analytic reassessment in incarcerated male samples. This model was later refined and validated extensively by Sellbom (2011):

• Factor 1: Egocentricity (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15): Reflects narcissistic entitlement, ruthless ambition, and Machiavellian philosophy. (CFA standardized loadings typically range from .45 to .72).
• Factor 2: Callousness (Items 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26): Reflects cold emotional insensitivity, disregard for others’ well-being, and willingness to exploit others. (CFA standardized loadings typically range from .40 to .68).
• Factor 3: Antisocial Lifestyle (Items 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 18): Captures behavioral impulsivity, boredom proneness, hot-headed reactivity, and frequent interpersonal conflict. (CFA standardized loadings typically range from .38 to .65).

Fit indices for the three-factor model consistently satisfy modern psychometric thresholds (CFI ≥ .91, TLI ≥ .90, RMSEA ≤ .055, SRMR ≤ .05), establishing it as the preferred structural configuration for granular construct modeling.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below are the structural and administrative parameters of the measurement instrument:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological rating scale / personality inventory.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; paper-and-pencil or computerized/online interface.
• Number of Items: 26 items.
• Target Population: Adults and late adolescents (ages 16 and older); non-institutionalized, collegiate, community, and correctional populations.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • (1) Strongly disagree
  • (2) Disagree
  • (3) Neither agree nor disagree
  • (4) Agree
  • (5) Strongly agree
• Subscale Allocation (Original 2-Factor Model):
  • Primary Psychopathy (16 items): Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. (Note: In the original 1995 paper, Item 20 was occasionally assigned to secondary psychopathy, but subsequent factor analyses place it firmly within the primary affective/callous dimension).
  • Secondary Psychopathy (10 items): Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20.
• Reverse-Scored Items:
  • Primary Psychopathy: Items 19, 22, 24, 25, and 26.
  • Secondary Psychopathy: Items 6 and 14.
  • Scoring transformation for reverse items: (1 = 5), (2 = 4), (3 = 3), (4 = 2), (5 = 1).
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Convert reverse-scored items.
  • Sum the item responses within each subscale to produce a subscale total, or sum all 26 items for a total psychopathy score.
  • Higher total scores indicate elevated levels of psychopathic traits. Scores should be evaluated dimensionally rather than via rigid diagnostic cutoffs.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale was published in 1995 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by the American Psychological Association (APA). The authors placed the instrument into the public domain for academic, clinical, and non-commercial scientific research purposes. As such, the scale is free to use for non-commercial educational and empirical investigations without formal written licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are accorded to Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995). Commercial adaptation, computerized assessment platforms for corporate hiring, or proprietary diagnostic integration may require permission from the copyright-holding publisher (APA) or the primary authors.

12. 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 populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76(3), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7603_11
• Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. C. V. Mosby.
• Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Pryor, L. R., & Lynam, D. 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/10.1177/1073191108316719
• Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
• Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). 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
• 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
• Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108
• Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., & Schmitt, W. A. (2008). The theoretical and empirical overlap between the create-a-game measure of primary and secondary psychopathy and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(4), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802108118
• Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and Human Behavior, 35(6), 440–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9249-x
• Shou, Y., Sellbom, M., & Han, J. Y. (2016). Evaluating the factor structure and construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in Chinese samples. Assessment, 24(7), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116634458
• 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/10.1080/00223890802248823

13. Items of the Scale