	The PCL-R is a widely used instrument to assess psychopathy and has shown high validity and reliability in myriad adult populations, even when broken into different factors. This hierarchical, three-factor structure begins with psychopathy—the superordinate factor—which is comprised of three correlated factors: Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style; Deficient Affective Experience; and Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style. The 20 measures of the PCL-R are divided into these three different factors. Each item is scored on a 3-point scale relative to the degree to which an individual displays each characteristic. Individual scores are summed to a total score ranging from 0 to 40. Individuals with a PCL-R total score of 30 are typically designated as psychopaths.
	Because manipulation and deception are integral components of the PCL-R diagnosis of psychopathy, researchers in the deception detection field have been interested in the interplay between psychopaths and deception for decades. Many of the first studies of psychopathic lying involved prisoners and polygraphs.  These initial studies found that psychopathic prisoners performed no differently on the polygraph than non-psychopathic prisoners. Furthermore, psychopaths appeared to score no differently on self-report measures of anxiety than non-psychopaths. While these early studies appeared to promise a panacea for catching liars in the act, critics were quick to point out flaws with making such sweeping claims. Namely, the authors used uneven numbers of liars and truth-tellers and did not account for the use of counter-measures in a non-incarcerated sample. 
	As the polygraph fell out of trend, so did investigating psychopaths’ deception abilities. Eventually, as psychopathy—and psychological disorders in general—became considered to exist on a spectrum instead of a dichotomy, investigation spread beyond prison confines. One study designed a self-report scale of psychopathy based off the PCL-R and found sufficient variance in an undergraduate sample to run multiple regression analyses. The variance found suggests that psychopathy does exist on a spectrum, but the strongly worded response items may have restricted the variance by causing people to answer in more pro-social ways—otherwise known as faking good. 
More recent research has examined whether psychopathic traits assist participants in lying on self-report measures. Here, respondents were asked to either fake-good or fake-bad, and their success was analyzed in relation to the individuals’ results on the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Again, a self-report measure of psychopathy was used and sufficient variability was found in an undergraduate sample. People who scored higher on the LSRP were better at faking good than faking bad, and they were better at faking good than people who scored lower on the LSRP.  
The LSRP is not the only available self-report measure of psychopathy. Recently, the newest edition of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy scale has been analyzed to test the reliability and validity of the new factor structure of the Hare SRP-III, and has been found valid and reliable in multiple populations, including community samples. 
	Up until recently, the behaviors of psychopaths in an interrogation setting had not been examined. In 2004, Billings discovered that naïve people were more easily duped by people who scored higher on the psychopathy scale than those who scored lower. Follow-up research examined what, in particular, about psychopaths’ behavior in the interrogation setting may have led to this discrimination difference. Investigation into the nonverbal behavior of incarcerated psychopaths suggests that psychopaths move their heads more than non-psychopaths when lying than when telling the truth. Additional research into the verbal aspects of psychopathic truth- or lie-telling suggest that psychopathic offenders provided more spontaneous corrections and appropriate details when lying than their non-psychopathic counterparts.
