The Role of Empathy and Alexithymia Dimensions in Predicting Psychopathy Traits: A Cross-Cultural Study

Abstract

Psychopathy is a complex personality trait involving emotional and behavioral deficits that often overlap with alexithymia and reduced empathy. While it is reasonable to assume that the cognitive and behavioral traits associated with this construct may be influenced by specific sociocultural factors, research examining these cross-cultural variations remains scarce. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the relationship between psychopathy traits, empathy, and alexithymia in Brazilian (n = 171) and British (n = 167) adults. Participants completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, the Basic Empathy Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. British participants scored significantly higher on primary, secondary, and total psychopathy, as well as on difficulties describing feelings, compared to Brazilians. Regression analyses indicated that affective empathy and alexithymia dimensions were statistically associated with psychopathy scores in both groups. The regression models accounted for substantially more variance in primary psychopathy, marked by narcissism, grandiosity, and emotional detachment, in the British group than in the Brazilian one (36.4% vs. 13.4%, p < 0.05). Our findings are consistent with sociocultural differences in psychopathy traits and highlight the importance of investigating these constructs from a cross-cultural perspective to better characterize contextual differences and refine assessment and intervention.

1. Introduction

Psychopathy is understood as a constellation of personality traits ranging from adaptive to maladaptive levels marked by core deficits in affect and behavior [1,2,3]. Most notably, this construct is associated with impairments in the recognition and experience of distress emotions, including fear and sadness. Psychopathy is also characterized by a paucity of affective empathy—the emotional resonance with others’ feelings—while cognitive empathy refers to the ability to infer others’ mental states [4]. Perhaps as a result of this profile, individuals with high psychopathic traits are prone to deceit and manipulation, often displaying versatile criminal behavior [5]. The societal burden is immense; a recent bottom-up cost-of-illness model estimated that the annual crime-related costs attributable to psychopathic personality traits in the United States range from $245.5 billion to $1.59 trillion [6].

While forensic contexts often require a categorical approach to differentiate individuals with high levels of psychopathy from general offenders, contemporary research advocates for a dimensional approach. Here, psychopathic personality is understood as a continuum ranging from adaptive to maladaptive traits [7]. Modern conceptualizations view psychopathy as a heterogeneous disorder with multifactorial etiology [8,9,10]. Empathy, however, remains a domain of consensus. In other words, deficits in emotional empathy are evident across one’s lifespan. While early childhood data remain equivocal, adolescent and adult studies point to relatively unimpaired cognitive empathy alongside significant affective deficits [11]. This specific pattern of empathic functioning, that is, an intact Theory of Mind with blunted affective resonance, is a phylogenetic capacity that differentiates psychopathy from other psychiatric conditions [12,13].

Psychopathy shares phenotypic variance with alexithymia, a subclinical construct encompassing difficulties in identifying and describing feelings, and an externally oriented thinking style [14,15]. Empirical evidence links alexithymia to limited affective empathy [16,17] and psychopathy [18,19]. Despite symptomatologic overlap, the conditions are distinct; conformity to social norms and high anxiety typically differentiate alexithymia from the fearlessness associated with psychopathy [20].

To better understand these nuances, we utilize the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy [21]. Primary psychopathy is marked by narcissism, grandiosity, and emotional detachment, often with intact cognitive functioning [22,23]. Secondary psychopathy, conversely, is characterized by impulsivity, reactive aggression, and higher anxiety [22].

Crucially, most of the psychopathy research is derived from “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples, primarily from North America and Europe [24,25]. This limits the generalizability of findings to the Global South. Cultural values may predispose individuals to exhibit or suppress certain features of the psychopathic personality [25]. Validating this construct in diverse community samples is a necessary step toward utilizing psychopathy in global public health research [26]. Adopting an etic approach [27], this study aims to: (a) investigate the associations between psychopathy traits, empathy, and alexithymia among Brazilian and British participants; (b) explore how empathy and alexithymia are differentially associated with primary and secondary psychopathy in these cultures; and (c) examine cross-cultural differences in the mean levels of these traits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design, Participants, and Procedures

The sample of this cross-sectional study comprised 338 adults. The Brazilian subsample consisted of 171 participants (80.7% female; M = 32.09, SD = 11.14), while the British subsample consisted of 167 participants (73.1% female; M = 22.80, SD = 8.22). This was a nonprobability convenience sample. The sample was highly educated, with over 70% of participants possessing or pursuing a university degree. Brazilian participants were significantly older than their British counterparts, t(302) = 8.19, p < 0.001.

Participants were recruited via university research participation schemes in the UK and Brazil. All participants provided informed consent regarding their rights, data privacy, and anonymity. Data were collected via Qualtrics in English and Portuguese, respectively. Filling out the psychological assessment instruments took approximately 15 min. Participants did not receive any form of compensation. Data collection took place between June and October of 2023.

2.2. Measures

Basic Empathy Scale (BES) [28]. This 20-item measure assesses affective and cognitive empathy on a 5-point scale. The BES has demonstrated structural invariance across Portuguese and English speakers [29]. In the current study, internal consistency was robust for the Brazilian sample (α_total = 0.87, α_cognitive = 0.86, α_affective = 0.82) and the British sample (α_total = 0.88, α_cognitive = 0.81, α_affective = 0.85).

Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP). This 26-item instrument assesses psychopathic traits in non-institutionalized populations. It comprises a Primary Psychopathy subscale (16 items; e.g., manipulation, lack of remorse) and a Secondary Psychopathy subscale (10 items; e.g., impulsivity, intolerance) [21]. The two-factor structure has been validated in Brazil [30]. Cronbach’s alphas were acceptable for the Brazilian sample (α_total = 0.70, α_primary = 0.72, α_secondary = 0.64) and good for the British sample (α_total = 0.86, α_primary = 0.84, α_secondary = 0.65).

Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). The TAS-20 is a 20-item measure using a 5-point Likert scale to assess three factors: difficulties identifying feelings (DIF), difficulties describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT) [31]. A validated Brazilian version was used [32]. Reliability in the Brazilian sample was α_total = 0.89, α_DIF = 0.89, α_DDF = 0.82, and α_EOT = 0.53. In the UK sample, reliability was α_total = 0.83, α_DIF = 0.81, α_DDF = 0.79, and α_EOT = 0.65.

Sociodemographic Questionnaire: developed by researchers to characterize the sample with information such as age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, academic qualifications, place of residence, socioeconomic status, and professional/occupational status.

2.3. Data Analysis

To address cross-cultural differences (Aim 3), Student’s t-tests or Welch’s t-tests were employed based on Levene’s test for equality of variances. To investigate relationships (Aim 1) and multivariable associations (Aim 2), we utilized Pearson correlations and multiple linear regression. Assumptions for regression were rigorously checked. The Breusch-Pagan (BP) test indicated homoscedasticity for Brazilian (BP(5) = 4.03, p = 0.54) and British data (BP(5) = 9.98, p = 0.07). Linearity was confirmed via Harvey-Collier’s test (Brazil: p = 0.91; UK: p = 0.96). Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) indicated no multicollinearity issues. All VIF values were well below the conservative threshold of 3.0. Missing data were handled using listwise deletion, resulting in final analytical samples of n = 156 for the regression models in the Brazilian group and n = 142 in the British group. Normality of residuals was supported by skewness and kurtosis values falling within acceptable ranges (Brazil skewness 0.32–1.26; UK skewness −0.02–0.52). To control for Type I errors in multiple correlations, the Benjamini and Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure was applied [33].

2.4. Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Goldsmiths, University of London ethics committee. All procedures were conducted in accordance with ethical standards to safeguard participants’ rights, safety, and well-being. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were provided with clear information about the study aims, procedures, potential risks, and expected benefits. The study was scientifically warranted, with anticipated benefits outweighing the minimal risks involved. Data confidentiality and participant privacy were strictly protected. Recruitment and selection were carried out fairly and without discrimination. Results were reported transparently, in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

3. Results

3.1. Associations Between Psychopathy, Empathy, and Alexithymia

In both samples, primary and secondary psychopathy were strongly correlated with total psychopathy (Brazil: r = 0.79 and 0.69; UK: r = 0.93 and 0.80), while the association between primary and secondary psychopathy differed markedly by country, being non-significant in Brazil (r = 0.10, p = 0.16) but moderate and significant in the UK (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). Regarding empathy, the UK sample displayed consistent positive correlations between psychopathy and cognitive, affective, and total empathy (e.g., total psychopathy with cognitive/affective/total empathy: r = 0.55/0.46/0.56; all p < 0.001), whereas in Brazil these associations were smaller and more heterogeneous (e.g., total psychopathy with cognitive and total empathy: r = 0.21, p = 0.003 and r = 0.19, p = 0.01; total psychopathy with affective empathy: r = 0.12, p = 0.12). In the Brazilian sample, primary psychopathy correlated positively with affective and total empathy (r = 0.34 and 0.31; both p < 0.001), whereas secondary psychopathy correlated negatively with affective empathy (r = −0.18, p = 0.02). Finally, alexithymia (total and facets) was positively associated with psychopathy, particularly secondary psychopathy, in both countries (total alexithymia with secondary psychopathy: r = 0.49 in both samples; p < 0.001), but the UK sample also showed stronger and broader associations with primary psychopathy, especially for externally oriented thinking (EOT with primary psychopathy: r = 0.44, p < 0.001), a pattern not observed in Brazil (EOT with primary psychopathy: r = 0.06, p = 0.38). Correlations between study variables are presented in

Table 1. Correlations between the study’s variables.

		1		2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9		10
1 Primary psychopathy	r	—		0.10		0.79	***	0.18	*	0.34	***	0.31	***	0.11		0.09		0.06		0.11
	p	—		0.16		<0.001		0.02		<0.001		<0.001		0.15		0.21		0.38		0.14
2 Secondary psychopathy	r	0.54	***	—		0.69	***	0.13		−0.18	*	−0.04		0.57	***	0.41	***	0.16	*	0.49	***
	p	<0.001		—		<0.001		0.08		0.02		0.55		<0.001		<0.001		0.03		<0.001
3 Total psychopathy	r	0.93	***	0.80	***	—		0.21	**	0.12		0.19	*	0.43	***	0.32	***	0.15		0.38	***
	p	<0.001		<0.001		—		0.007		0.12		0.01		<0.001		<0.001		0.05		<0.001
4 Cognitive empathy	r	0.52	***	0.45	***	0.55	***	—		0.45	***	0.81	***	0.22	**	0.26	**	0.25	**	0.30	***
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		—		<0.001		<0.001		0.006		0.001		0.002		<0.001
5 Affective empathy	r	0.47	***	0.29	***	0.46	***	0.53	***	—		0.88	***	−0.20	*	−0.06		−0.02		−0.13
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		—		<0.001		0.011		0.40		0.77		0.10
6 Total empathy	r	0.55	***	0.41	***	0.56	***	0.81	***	0.92	***	—		−0.01		0.09		0.11		0.07
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		—		0.82		0.26		0.16		0.38
7 Difficulties in identifying feelings	r	0.16		0.32	***	0.25	**	0.10		−0.07		−0.00		—		0.72	***	0.26	***	0.84	***
	p	0.05		<0.001		0.003		0.22		0.38		0.96		—		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001
8 Difficulties in describing feelings	r	0.28	***	0.45	***	0.39	***	0.30	***	0.12		0.22	**	0.46	***	—		0.52	***	0.92	***
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		0.13		0.009		<0.001		—		<0.001		<0.001
9 Externally oriented thinking	r	0.44	***	0.32	***	0.45	***	0.53	***	0.26	**	0.42	***	0.08		0.33	***	—		0.67	***
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		0.002		<0.001		0.34		<0.001		—		<0.001
10 Total alexithymia	r	0.39	***	0.49	***	0.48	***	0.39	***	0.11		0.25	**	0.71	***	0.81	***	0.63	***	—
	p	<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		0.17		0.002		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001		—

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Table presents raw, unadjusted p-values. The FDR procedure was applied to guide the narrative interpretation of significance.

.

3.2. Regression Models of Psychopathy

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the independent associations of empathy and alexithymia domains with psychopathy dimensions (see

Table 2. Regression Models for Primary, Secondary and Total Psychopathy for Brazil and U.K. Samples.

	Brazil				U. K.
	B	SE	β	p	B	SE	β	p
Primary Psychopathy
Cognitive empathy	−0.08	0.07	−0.10	0.252	0.29	0.13	0.21	0.027
Affective empathy	0.29	0.05	0.44	0.001	0.28	0.07	0.31	0.001
Difficulties identifying feelings	0.27	0.10	0.30	0.011	0.19	0.12	0.12	0.116
Difficulties describing feelings	−0.10	0.13	−0.09	0.458	0.09	0.14	0.05	0.519
Externally oriented thinking	0.22	0.12	0.16	0.067	0.39	0.15	0.21	0.009
Model fit	F(5,150) = 6.84, p < 0.001. R2 Adj = 13.4%; Durbin-Watson = 2.011; RMSE = 4.554				F(5,136) = 16.54, p < 0.001. R2 Adj = 36.4%; Durbin-Watson = 1.948; RMSE = 5.740
Secondary Psychopathy
Cognitive empathy	0.04	0.06	0.06	0.419	0.22	0.08	0.26	0.006
Affective empathy	−0.06	0.04	−0.12	0.149	0.06	0.04	0.12	0.145
Difficulties identifying feelings	0.38	0.08	0.48	0.001	0.17	0.07	0.19	0.020
Difficulties describing feelings	0.05	0.10	0.05	0.627	0.26	0.08	0.25	0.004
Externally oriented thinking	0.00	0.09	0.00	0.974	0.05	0.09	0.04	0.567
Model fit	F(5,150) = 14.25, p < 0.001. R2 Adj = 30.6%; Durbin-Watson = 1.714; RMSE = 3.692				F(5,136)=14.27, p < 0.001. R2 Adj=32.8%; Durbin-Watson = 2.033; RMSE = 3.524
Total Psychopathy
Cognitive empathy	−0.03	0.10	−0.03	0.721	0.51	0.17	0.26	0.004
Affective empathy	0.22	0.07	0.24	0.005	0.35	0.10	0.27	0.001
Difficulties identifying feelings	0.65	0.14	0.52	0.001	0.37	0.16	0.16	0.026
Difficulties describing feelings	−0.04	0.17	−0.03	0.793	0.35	0.19	0.14	0.070
Externally oriented thinking	0.22	0.16	0.12	0.162	0.44	0.20	0.17	0.028
Model fit	F(5,150) = 11.20, p < 0.001. R2 Adj = 25.4%; Durbin-Watson = 1.838; RMSE = 6.050				F(5,136) = 21.30, p < 0.001. R2 Adj = 42.7%; Durbin-Watson = 2.136; RMSE = 7.716

). For Primary Psychopathy (PP), the model for the UK sample accounted for more variance (36.4%) than the Brazilian model (13.4%). In the UK sample, higher cognitive (B = 0.21) and affective empathy (B = 0.31) scores were positively associated with primary psychopathy scores, alongside externally oriented thinking (B = 0.21). Conversely, in the Brazilian sample, affective empathy (B = 0.44) and difficulties identifying feelings (B = 0.30) showed unique positive associations with primary psychopathy. For Secondary Psychopathy (SP), the models accounted for substantial variance in both groups (>30%). In the Brazilian sample, difficulties identifying feelings (B = 0.48) was the only variable with a significant unique association. In the UK sample, cognitive empathy (B = 0.26), difficulties describing feelings (B = 0.25), and difficulties identifying feelings (B = 0.19) showed significant associations with secondary psychopathy.

Total psychopathy was significantly associated with affective empathy and difficulties identifying feelings in both cultural groups. In the UK sample, however, cognitive empathy (B = 0.26) and externally oriented thinking (B = 0.17) were additionally significant correlates.

3.3. Cross-Cultural Differences

Table 3. Comparison of Mean Scores on Psychopathy, Empathy, and Alexithymia Measures Between Brazilian and British Samples.

Variable	Test Type	t	df	p	Means (SD)	Cohen’s d	95% CI for Mean Diff. (Lower)	95% CI for Mean Diff. (Upper)
Psychopathy
Primary psychopathy	Welch’s	−13.00 ***	244.1	<0.001	20.42 (5.17)1/ 29.85 (7.16)2	−1.53	−10.85	−7.99
Secondary psychopathy	Student’s	−3.32 ***	308.0	0.001	19.84 (4.40)1/ 21.49 (4.27)2	−0.37	−2.62	−0.67
Total psychopathy	Welch’s	−10.86 ***	239.9	<0.001	40.26 (7.13)1/ 51.34 (10.14)2	−1.28	−13.08	−9.06
Empathy
Cognitive empathy	Student’s	0.32	288.0	0.74	17.79 (6.12)1/ 17.57 (5.12)2	0.03	−1.09	1.52
Affective empathy	Student’s	−1.19	288.0	0.23	25.24 (7.68)1/ 26.33 (7.79)2	−0.14	−2.88	0.70
Total empathy	Student’s	−0.64	288.0	0.52	43.03 (11.81)1/ 43.90 (11.39)2	−0.07	−3.56	1.81
Alexithymia
Diff. identifying feelings	Welch’s	1.20	306.9	0.23	19.76 (5.49)1/ 19.08 (4.56)2	0.13	−0.44	1.81
Diff. describing feelings	Welch’s	−3.10 **	304.3	0.002	13.09 (4.60)1/ 14.63 (4.13)2	−0.35	−2.52	−0.56
Externally oriented thinking	Student’s	−1.31	307.0	0.19	18.06 (3.77)1/ 18.64 (4.01)2	−0.15	−1.45	0.29
Total Alexithymia	Welch’s	−1.65	306.9	0.10	49.50 (12.74)1/ 51.65 (10.20)2	−0.18	−4.71	0.42

Note. 1 = Brazil, 2 = U.K.; Significance: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

details the comparison of mean scores. British participants scored significantly higher than Brazilians on Primary Psychopathy (t = −13.00, p < 0.001), Secondary Psychopathy (t = −3.32, p = 0.001), and Total Psychopathy (t = −10.86, p < 0.001). Regarding alexithymia, British participants reported significantly higher difficulties in describing feelings (DDF) than Brazilians. No statistically significant differences were found for empathy dimensions.

4. Discussion

This study used an etic approach to examine the cross-cultural stability of the relationships between psychopathy, empathy, and alexithymia. Our results highlight both universal patterns and distinct cultural nuances in how these personality structures interact. Regarding our first aim, we identified significant correlations between empathy and psychopathy. While traditional models suggest a negative link, our data revealed positive associations between specific empathy dimensions and psychopathy subtypes, particularly in the regression models. This pattern is consistent with the “successful psychopath” hypothesis, which proposes that relatively intact cognitive empathy may be associated with a greater capacity for strategic interpersonal behaviors (e.g., manipulation) [34]. Furthermore, the positive association with cognitive empathy may directly reflect the grandiosity and narcissism inherent to primary psychopathy [22]. Rather than true empathic concern, these individuals might overestimate their own proficiency at ‘reading’ others, a cognitive skill essential for their strategic and manipulative interpersonal behaviors [4,34], which naturally leads to inflated scores on self-report measures.

Crucially, a strong competing explanation for this counterintuitive positive link, particularly concerning affective empathy, is the influence of response style and social desirability [8]. Because the BES relies on self-report, individuals with elevated primary psychopathy traits, driven by grandiosity and impression management, might artificially inflate their scores to project a normative, virtuous, or socially acceptable image [3,22]. Therefore, differing cultural pressures regarding self-presentation and social desirability may push self-reported empathy upward, serving as a primary driver for these unexpected associations in community samples [24,25].

Our findings regarding alexithymia are consistent with and extend recent literature. We found that total alexithymia was positively correlated with primary and secondary psychopathy in the Brazilian sample. This replicates recent findings by Lima-Costa et al. [23], who reported strong positive correlations between total alexithymia and both primary (r = 0.35) and secondary (r = 0.65) psychopathy in a Brazilian cohort [23].

However, divergences emerge regarding empathy. Lima-Costa et al. [23] reported that affective empathy was negatively correlated with secondary psychopathy (r = −0.19) in Brazil [23]. In contrast, our univariate analysis (Table 1) showed a non-significant negative trend for affective empathy and secondary psychopathy in Brazil (r = −0.18, p = 0.02, prior to FDR correction), but our regression models indicated a more complex pattern in which affective empathy showed a unique association with primary psychopathy after accounting for the alexithymia dimensions. This discrepancy suggests that the relationship between secondary psychopathy (the more “neurotic” variant) and affective resonance may be highly sensitive to sample characteristics or measurement variance within the Brazilian context.

A striking finding is the difference in explanatory power across the two samples. The included variables accounted for 36.4% of the variance in primary psychopathy in the UK sample, compared to 13.4% in the Brazilian sample. This pattern may reflect additional, unmeasured factors related to primary psychopathy in Brazil and/or cross-cultural differences in the strength or form of the associations between empathy/alexithymia and primary psychopathy. Sullivan and Kosson [24] argued that culture is linked to variation in how psychopathy manifests; our results are consistent with this view in that the observed associations between primary psychopathy and emotional-processing variables differed between the UK and Brazilian samples. However, it is crucial to note that this pattern may also strongly reflect the substantial demographic differences between our samples, particularly the older average age of the Brazilian participants compared to the younger British cohort. Given that psychopathy-related traits and emotional processing are known to vary with age and gender, these differences in explanatory power and predictive patterns could be partially driven by the developmental composition and gender imbalance of the samples rather than solely by sociocultural factors.

This study has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the cross-sectional design does not allow inferences about temporal ordering or causality among psychopathy, empathy, and alexithymia. Second, our reliance on convenience community samples resulted in significant demographic imbalances, most notably a heavily female-skewed composition in both groups and a significant age difference between the Brazilian and British cohorts. Because we did not model age and gender as covariates in our primary regression analyses, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the observed cross-country differences are confounded by these demographic variables. Consequently, our findings must be interpreted strictly as differences between these specific samples rather than definitive evidence of cultural stability or variation. Future cross-cultural research should address this by employing age- and gender-matched subsamples, or by robustly controlling for these demographic covariates, to properly isolate the effect of sociocultural context. Third, all constructs were assessed using self-report instruments, which are susceptible to shared method variance, response styles, social desirability, and limited insight, potentially inflating or attenuating the observed associations. Moreover, the relatively low internal consistency of the TAS-20 externally oriented thinking subscale in the Brazilian sample suggests increased measurement error and may have weakened relationships involving this facet. Additionally, the use of listwise deletion for missing data resulted in a non-trivial case loss in both samples, and the lack of multiple-imputation sensitivity checks means we cannot fully rule out potential biases introduced by this missingness. Finally, because formal tests of measurement equivalence across languages and cultures were not conducted for all instruments, some between-country differences may reflect differential item functioning or culturally specific interpretations rather than true variation in the underlying constructs. Taken together, these limitations indicate that the findings should be interpreted as correlational patterns within specific samples, and that cross-cultural comparisons and effect sizes should be viewed with caution.

Future research could address these limitations through longitudinal and multi-wave designs to clarify temporal sequencing and stability of the observed associations, and by recruiting larger, more diverse, and more representative samples with broader educational backgrounds and balanced gender composition. Cross-cultural comparisons would benefit from conducting systematic measurement invariance analyses for all scales across languages and countries before interpreting group differences. Multi-method assessment strategies including behavioral tasks of empathy, informant reports, clinician ratings, and performance-based measures of alexithymia could reduce shared method variance and improve construct coverage. Given the psychometric concerns surrounding externally oriented thinking in some contexts, replication with alternative measures or revised items, as well as reliability-enhancing approaches such as latent variable modeling, would be valuable.

5. Conclusions

Although the core deficits associated with psychopathy may be broadly universal, our findings indicate that specific sample characteristics, which likely encompass a complex interplay of demographic factors (such as age and gender) and sociocultural context, may be associated with differences in psychopathy levels and in the pattern of associations between psychopathy, empathy, and alexithymia. British participants reported higher levels of psychopathy traits and greater difficulties describing feelings, and emotional-processing variables accounted for substantially more variance in primary psychopathy in the British sample than in the Brazilian sample. Together, these results underscore the value of a cross-cultural perspective when studying psychopathy and may inform the development of culturally sensitive models of antisocial personality phenomena, with implications for assessment and intervention across different contexts.