The LSRP measures psychopathic personality traits in non-institutionalized adults, separating a callous, manipulative primary dimension from an impulsive, antisocial secondary dimension, and treating both as continuous traits rather than a diagnosis.
Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick developed it in the mid-1990s from a large undergraduate sample as a self-report alternative to clinician-rated forensic instruments; the full item set is printed in the original article and is free for non-commercial research use with citation.
The primary scale is reliably internally consistent and converges strongly with Machiavellianism; the secondary scale is more modest, and while the two-factor structure replicated well in college samples, work in incarcerated and community samples increasingly supports a three-factor alternative.
It is a research instrument only: no validated cutoffs or interpretation bands exist, scores are compared against published sample descriptives, and it should not be used for clinical diagnosis, forensic decisions, or employment screening.
Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick (1995), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Introduction
The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) is a 26-item self-report measure of psychopathic traits in non-institutionalized populations. Developed by Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995), it provides a questionnaire-based method for studying psychopathic characteristics in community and college samples, where clinician-rated forensic instruments are impractical or inappropriate. The 26 retained items (of 30 piloted) were developed in a sample of 487 undergraduates aged 17-49 at the University of California, Davis (Levenson et al., 1995).
Understanding Psychopathy in Non-Criminal Populations
While psychopathy is most often studied in criminal and forensic contexts, psychopathic traits exist on a continuum and can be observed at subclinical levels in the general population. Individuals with elevated psychopathic traits who have not engaged in serious criminal behavior may still exhibit the interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics associated with the construct (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The LSRP was constructed precisely to assess this continuum outside institutional settings (Levenson et al., 1995).
Theoretical Foundation
The LSRP distinguishes primary psychopathy from secondary psychopathy, a two-factor structure that parallels distinctions made in clinical psychopathy research (Levenson et al., 1995). Primary items were written to assess “a selfish, uncaring, and manipulative posture toward others,” whereas secondary items capture “impulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle” (Levenson et al., 1995). The two dimensions show distinct patterns of correlates: the secondary scale relates to negative emotionality and low conscientiousness, while the primary scale does not relate to negative emotionality and relates significantly less strongly to conscientiousness (Lynam et al., 1999).
⚖️ Key insight: By separating a callous, manipulative orientation (primary psychopathy) from an impulsive, self-defeating lifestyle (secondary psychopathy), the LSRP made psychopathic traits measurable as continuous dimensions in ordinary, non-forensic samples.
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
26 items measuring primary and secondary psychopathy factors
About 5 minutes administration time
4-point agreement scale (disagree strongly to agree strongly)
Recommended for adult respondents (developed in an undergraduate sample aged 17-49)
Free for non-commercial research use with citation; no commercial licensor
Distinct correlate patterns for each factor (Lynam et al., 1999)
Focus on personality traits rather than criminal behavior
Versions & Adaptations
Original 26-item, two-factor form (Levenson et al., 1995) – the version described and implemented on this page
19-item, three-factor configuration (egocentric, callous, antisocial) – an item subset arising from cross-validation work in which the two-factor model failed confirmatory factor analysis in female inmates (Brinkley et al., 2008); it is common in subsequent validation research, including an 18-month longitudinal validation in a high-risk Dutch community sample (Wissenburg et al., 2022)
No other published versions or short forms were verified during the audit of this page
Research Applications
Personality psychology research on subclinical psychopathy
Organizational research on workplace manipulation
Relationship research on interpersonal exploitation
Neuroscience studies of empathy and moral processing
Behavioral genetics research on psychopathic traits
Assess personality characteristics associated with psychopathic traits in non-clinical populations.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Participants rate their agreement with each statement on a 4-point Likert scale (Levenson et al., 1995):
1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree somewhat
3 = Agree somewhat
4 = Agree strongly
Sample Items by Factor
All 26 items are printed in Table 1 of the development article (Levenson et al., 1995); the items below illustrate the content of each factor.
Primary Psychopathy (16 items):
“Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers”
“For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with”
“In today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed”
“My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can”
Secondary Psychopathy (10 items):
“I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people”
“I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time”
“I am often bored”
“I quickly lose interest in tasks I start”
“Before I do anything, I carefully consider the possible consequences” (reverse-scored)
Scoring Procedure
Reverse-score the 7 reverse-keyed items (5 primary, 2 secondary) by subtracting the response from 5 (Levenson et al., 1995, Table 1)
Sum the 16 Primary Psychopathy items (range: 16-64)
Sum the 10 Secondary Psychopathy items (range: 10-40)
The two factors are scored separately; a total score (range 26-104) is sometimes reported in later research but was not used in the original article
Population Norms
The LSRP has no validated clinical cutoffs or interpretation bands; none exist in the published literature. Scores are interpreted relative to published sample descriptives, not against a diagnostic threshold. Reported subscale descriptives (on the summed 16-item and 10-item metrics) include:
Sample
N
Subscale
M
SD
Source
Undergraduates (development sample)
487
Primary
29.13
6.86
Levenson et al. (1995), Table 2
Undergraduates (development sample)
487
Secondary
19.32
4.06
Levenson et al. (1995), Table 2
Incarcerated males
549
Primary
32.99
8.19
Brinkley et al. (2001), Table 1
Incarcerated males
549
Secondary
21.68
5.05
Brinkley et al. (2001), Table 1
These values are descriptive sample statistics, not normative standards. In the development sample, means differed by sex (men vs. women: Primary M = 32.96 vs. 27.67; Secondary M = 20.04 vs. 19.03; Levenson et al., 1995).
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency, Primary scale: α = .82 in the development sample (Levenson et al., 1995); .82-.85 in later college and incarcerated samples (McHoskey et al., 1998; Lynam et al., 1999; Brinkley et al., 2001; Brinkley et al., 2008)
Internal consistency, Secondary scale: α = .63 in the development sample (Levenson et al., 1995); .64-.69 in the same later samples
Test-retest reliability: r = .83 for the total scale over an average of 8 weeks (n = 70; Lynam et al., 1999); subscale-level retest coefficients were not reported in that study
Adequate internal consistency for the Primary scale; modest for the Secondary scale
Validity Evidence
Factor structure:
Two-factor structure strongly replicated by confirmatory factor analysis in a large college sample (n = 1,958; Lynam et al., 1999)
Only modest support in male inmates, requiring model modifications (Brinkley et al., 2001); not supported in female inmates (n = 430), where a three-factor model (egocentric, callous, antisocial) fit better (Brinkley et al., 2008)
Primary and secondary factors show moderate correlation (r = .40 in the development sample, Levenson et al., 1995; r = .43 in Lynam et al., 1999)
Convergent validity:
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: r = .35 for total scores in 549 incarcerated males (Primary r = .34; Secondary r = .27; Brinkley et al., 2001)
Machiavellianism (Mach-IV): Primary r = .54-.65, Secondary r = .46-.51 across three college samples (McHoskey et al., 1998; the paper reports the Study 2 Primary correlation as .54 in Table 7 but .64 in its text)
Discriminant patterns:
Factors show differential Big Five correlates: the Secondary factor relates to Neuroticism (r = .37) and low Conscientiousness (r = -.59), while the Primary factor does not relate to Neuroticism (r = -.05, ns) (Lynam et al., 1999)
Both factors relate negatively to Agreeableness (Primary r = -.41, Secondary r = -.42; Lynam et al., 1999)
Trait anxiety differentiates the factors, but not as low-anxiety theories predict: the Secondary scale correlated substantially with trait anxiety (r = .41), while the Primary scale showed only a small, positive correlation (r = .09) rather than the theorized negative one (Levenson et al., 1995)
Behavioral Correlates
Primary psychopathy associations:
Strong association with Machiavellianism and a manipulative, self-interested orientation (McHoskey et al., 1998)
Secondary psychopathy associations:
Impulsive, disinhibited lifestyle (Levenson et al., 1995; Lynam et al., 1999)
Substance abuse (alcohol-screening r = .28, with Primary r = .08, ns; Brinkley et al., 2001; history of substance abuse related to the antisocial factor, Brinkley et al., 2008)
Higher negative emotionality (Neuroticism r = .37; Lynam et al., 1999)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Research Applications
Personality research in non-forensic populations
Studies of empathy and moral decision-making
Organizational research on workplace behavior
Relationship research on interpersonal exploitation
Behavioral genetics studies of antisocial traits
Research Considerations
The LSRP is designed for research purposes in non-institutionalized populations. It assesses personality traits associated with psychopathy rather than providing clinical diagnosis. Elevated scores indicate presence of psychopathic characteristics but do not indicate psychopathology requiring clinical intervention in the absence of other indicators (Levenson et al., 1995). Because the two subscales carry different correlates, researchers should analyze and report them separately rather than relying on a total score.
Cultural Considerations
The scale was developed and initially validated with U.S. college students; item wording reflects that context
The factor structure varies across populations: three-factor solutions have been supported in female inmates (Brinkley et al., 2008) and in a high-risk Dutch community sample (Wissenburg et al., 2022), so researchers should verify the structure in their own population before interpreting subscale scores
Ethical Considerations
Research using psychopathy measures requires careful attention to ethical issues including informed consent, confidentiality, and appropriate use of results. The LSRP should not be used for employment screening, forensic decision-making, or other high-stakes applications without additional comprehensive assessment.
Limitations
Self-report format may be influenced by social desirability
Lower reliability for the Secondary subscale
Two-factor structure not supported in some incarcerated samples, where a three-factor model fits better
Not suitable for forensic or clinical diagnosis
Designed for research rather than applied decision-making
Cultural factors may influence item interpretation
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
The LSRP has no commercial licensor. All 26 items appear in Table 1 of the development article, whose copyright rests with the American Psychological Association, and the scale is conventionally treated as free for non-commercial research use with citation of that article. For specific licensing or commercial use questions, consult the original authors or your institution’s research guidelines.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
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
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
Validation Studies:
McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.192
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
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1021-1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1
Brinkley, C. A., Diamond, P. M., Magaletta, P. R., & Heigel, C. P. (2008). Cross-validation of Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale in a sample of federal female inmates. Assessment, 15(4), 464-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108319043
Wissenburg, S. A., Garofalo, C., Blokland, A. A. J., Palmen, H., & Sellbom, M. (2022). Longitudinal validation of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) Scale in a high-risk Dutch community sample. Assessment, 29(3), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120975130
Additional Reference:
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 (Background on subclinical psychopathy; measured psychopathy with the SRP-III, not the LSRP.)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the LSRP measure?
The LSRP measures psychopathic personality traits in non-institutionalized populations along two dimensions. Primary psychopathy captures a selfish, uncaring, and manipulative posture toward others (callousness, egocentricity, lack of empathy); secondary psychopathy captures impulsivity and a self-defeating, antisocial lifestyle. It assesses these traits on a continuum rather than diagnosing clinical psychopathy.
How is the LSRP scored?
The 26 items are rated 1-4 (disagree strongly to agree strongly). Seven reverse-keyed items (five primary, two secondary) are reverse-scored by subtracting the response from 5. The 16 Primary Psychopathy items are summed (range 16-64) and the 10 Secondary Psychopathy items are summed (range 10-40). The two factors are scored separately; a total score (range 26-104) is sometimes reported in later research but was not used in the original article.
Is the LSRP free to use?
There is no commercial licensor. All 26 items are printed in the original development article (Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick, 1995), and the scale is conventionally treated as free for non-commercial research use with citation of that article. For commercial use questions, consult the original authors or your institution's research guidelines.
How does the LSRP differ from the PCL-R?
The LSRP is a brief self-report questionnaire designed for non-institutionalized samples, whereas the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised) is a clinician-administered instrument for forensic settings that requires extensive training, an interview, and file review. In 549 incarcerated males, LSRP total scores correlated r = .35 with PCL-R total scores (Brinkley et al., 2001), a moderate convergence; the LSRP is intended for research, not clinical or forensic decision-making.
How reliable is the LSRP?
Internal consistency is adequate for the Primary scale (alpha = .82 in the development sample and .82-.85 across later studies) and modest for the Secondary scale (alpha = .63 in development, .64-.69 later). Total-scale test-retest reliability was r = .83 over an average of 8 weeks (Lynam et al., 1999); no subscale-level retest coefficients were reported in that study.
Does the LSRP have clinical cutoffs or score bands?
No. No validated cutoffs or high/moderate/low interpretation bands have been published for the LSRP. Scores are interpreted relative to published sample descriptives, such as the development-sample means (Primary M = 29.13, Secondary M = 19.32; Levenson et al., 1995), and elevated scores do not indicate a clinical condition.
Is the two-factor structure of the LSRP settled?
No. The two-factor structure replicated strongly in a large college sample (Lynam et al., 1999) but received only modest support in male inmates (Brinkley et al., 2001) and failed confirmatory factor analysis in female inmates, where a three-factor model (egocentric, callous, antisocial) fit better (Brinkley et al., 2008). A 19-item three-factor configuration is now common in validation research, including longitudinal work in a Dutch community sample (Wissenburg et al., 2022).
