In forensic psychology, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is the dominant tool for assessing psychopathy, yet its scientific and ethical reach remains contested. Canadian psychologist Robert Hare originally developed the checklist in the 1970s for use in psychiatric experiments. Inspired by his work with inmates and influenced by the work of American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley, Hare designed the checklist to identify key attributes of psychopathic individuals.

This 20-item checklist assigns scores for personality traits and antisocial behaviors, with a score of 30 out of 40 often used as a diagnostic threshold. The checklist includes the following possible traits: glibness/superficial charm, egocentricity/grandiose sense of self-worth, proneness to boredom/low frustration tolerance, pathological lying and deception, conning/lack of sincerity, lack of remorse or guilt, lack of affect and emotional depth, callous/lack of empathy, parasitic lifestyle, short-tempered/poor behavioral controls, history of promiscuous sexual relations, history of early behavior problems, lack of realistic, long-term plans, impulsivity, irresponsible behavior, frequent marital relationships, history of juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, failure to accept responsibility for own actions, and many types of offense. Individuals are scored on a 0, 1, or 2 scale with 0 meaning definitely no presence of the trait, 1 meaning some presence of the trait, and 2 meaning an absolute presence of the trait.

A core debate centers around the structure of the checklist. As researcher Jennifer L. Skeem and her colleagues argue, “There may also be agreement that criminal behavior is not a core or essential feature of psychopathy, notwithstanding the PCL-R’s heavy emphasis on such behavior” (Skeem, Jennifer et al. “Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest vol. 12 no. 13, Dec. 2011). This critique, along with concerns about evaluator variability and pseudo-operationalism, questions whether the tool accurately measures a personality construct or simply codifies criminality. Psychiatric and cultural debate also exists around how the checklist is used to label individuals with a Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD), to ensure indefinite internment at criminal or psychiatric facilities.

In The Psychopathy Test, Ronson dramatizes the checklist’s seductive authority during a training session he attends with its creator, Bob Hare. For example, as a part of the training, Ronson watches an inmate interview, where a seemingly minor action is imbued with diagnostic weight: “Do you see what he just did?” Hare asks of the subject. “He moved his chair to right below the panic button. He did it to intimidate my researcher […] Just a little display of control” (99). This moment exemplifies how clinicians or researchers might translate ordinary behaviors into scored traits that carry immense carceral consequences, as seen in Ronson’s interview subject Tony’s decade-long confinement in a DSPD unit based on his score. Ronson’s own post-training impulse to use the checklist to determine psychopathy in his acquaintances illustrates the tool’s potential for overreach. Ultimately, The Psychopathy Test positions the PCL-R as a double-edged sword to explore The Allure and Risk of Armchair Diagnosis. While the checklist offers a shared language to more clearly identify and mitigate psychopathy, it also confers a durable, high-stakes label, transforming the act of diagnosis into an instrument of power.