Psychopathy, which is characterized by a constellation of antisocial behavioral traits, may be subdivided on the basis of etiology: “primary” (low-anxious) psychopathy is viewed as a direct consequence of some core intrinsic deficit, whereas “secondary” (high-anxious) psychopathy is viewed as an indirect consequence of environmental factors or other psychopathology. Theories on the neurobiology of psychopathy have targeted dysfunction within ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as a putative mechanism, yet the relationship between vmPFC function and psychopathy subtype has not been fully explored. (...) In this study, we administered two laboratory decision-making tasks (the Ultimatum Game and the Dictator Game) to a group of prisoners (n=47) to determine whether the different subtypes of psychopathy (primary vs. secondary) are associated with characteristic patterns of economic decision-making, and furthermore, whether either subtype exhibits similar performance to patients with vmPFC lesions. Comparing primary psychopaths (n=6) to secondary psychopaths (n=6) and non-psychopaths (n=22), we found that primary psychopathy was associated with significantly lower acceptance rates of unfair Ultimatum offers and lower offer amounts in the Dictator Game. Moreover, primary psychopaths were quantitatively similar to vmPFC lesion patients in their response patterns. These results support the purported connection between psychopathy and vmPFC dysfunction, bolster the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy, and demonstrate the utility of laboratory economic decision-making tests in differentiating clinical subgroups. (shrink)

We share with Anderson & Lebiere (A&L) (and with Newell before them) the goal of developing a domain-general framework for modeling cognition, and we take seriously the issue of evaluation criteria. We advocate a more focused approach than the one reflected in Newell's criteria, based on analysis of failures as well as successes of models brought into close contact with experimental data. A&L attribute the shortcomings of our parallel-distributed processing framework to a failure to acknowledge a symbolic level of thought. (...) Our framework does acknowledge a symbolic level, contrary to their claim. What we deny is that the symbolic level is the level at which the principles of cognitive processing should be formulated. Models cast at a symbolic level are sometimes useful as high-level approximations of the underlying mechanisms of thought. The adequacy of this approximation will continue to increase as symbolic modelers continue to incorporate principles of parallel distributed processing. (shrink)