Anton, M. *†, Baskin-Sommers, A.R.

18 Pages·2012·0.52 MB·English

Differential effects of psychopathy and
antisocial personality disorder symptoms
on cognitive and fear processing in female
offenders
Marja E. Anton, Arielle R. Baskin-
Sommers, Jennifer E. Vitale, John
J. Curtin & Joseph P. Newman
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience

ISSN 1530-7026

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci
DOI 10.3758/s13415-012-0114-x
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Psychonomic
Society, Inc.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your work, please use the accepted
author’s version for posting to your own
website or your institution’s repository. You
may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
1 23
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
DOI10.3758/s13415-012-0114-x
Differential effects of psychopathy and antisocial personality
disorder symptoms on cognitive and fear processing
in female offenders
Marja E. Anton&ArielleR. Baskin-Sommers&
Jennifer E. Vitale& John J. Curtin&Joseph P. Newman
#PsychonomicSociety,Inc.2012
Abstract Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder Keywords Femaleoffenders .Attention .Cognition .Fear.
(APD) have long been considered important risk factors Fear-potentiatedstartle .Event-relatedpotential
for criminal behavior and incarceration. However, little is
known about the psychobiological underpinnings that give
rise to the disinhibited behavior of female offenders. Using Psychopathyandantisocialpersonalitydisorder(APD)have
an instructed fear-conditioning paradigm and a sample of long been considered important risk factors for criminal
incarcerated female offenders, we manipulated attentional behavior and incarceration. Increasingly, researchers are
focus and cognitive load to characterize and differentiate investigatingthesignificanceofthesesyndromesforfemale
between the dysfunctional cognitive and affective processes offender populations (Rogstad & Rogers, 2008; Verona &
associated with these syndromes. We used fear-potentiated Vitale, 2006; Warren & South, 2006). Among incarcerated
startle (FPS) and event-related potentials as measures of af- women, base rates of psychopathy have been estimated to
fective and cognitive processing, respectively. After control- rangefrom9%–11%(Loucks,1995;Neary,1990;Vitale&
ling for APD symptoms, psychopathic women displayed Newman, 2001). For APD, base rates are closer to 21 %
greaterFPSwhileattendingdirectlytothreat-relevantstimuli (Fazel & Danesh, 2002). Additionally, Warren and South
and displayed less FPS while performing a demanding task (2006)reportedthatapproximately30%offemaleoffenders
that directed attention to threat-irrelevant information. with psychopathy also qualify for an APD diagnosis. While
Conversely, controlling for psychopathy, women with high most female offenders do not qualify for these categorical
APD symptoms displayed lessoverall FPS, especially when diagnoses, women displaying higher levels of psychopathic
instructedtofocusonthreat-relevantstimuli.However,asthe and APD symptoms are at high risk for diverse conduct
demands on cognitive resources increased, they displayed problems (e.g., sexual promiscuity, pathological lying, or
greaterFPS.ForbothpsychopathyandAPD,analysisofthe manipulative behavior), both in prison and upon release. To
event-related potentials qualified these findings and further date, however, little is known about the psychobiological
specified the abnormal cognitive processes associated with underpinnings that give rise to the disinhibited behavior of
thesetwosyndromes.Overall,simultaneousanalysisofpsy- femaleoffenders.
chopathy and APD revealed distinct patterns of cognitive AlthoughAPDandpsychopathysharemanyfeatures,such
processingandfearreactivity. as pathological impulsivity, irresponsibility, aggression, and
antisocial behavior (Dolan & Völlm, 2009; Rogstad &
Rogers,2008;Warren&South,2006),theydifferinsignifi-
: : :
M.E.Anton A.R.Baskin-Sommers(*) J.J.Curtin cant ways. Psychopathy, for instance, is distinguished by
J.P.Newman callous–unemotionaltraits(e.g.,glibness,pathologicallying,
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofWisconsin–Madison,
shallowaffect,andlackofempathy)andlowlevelsofanxiety,
1202W.JohnsonSt.,
Madison,WI53706,USA depression, and general psychopathology (Patrick, 2007).
e-mail:[email protected] Conversely,womenwithAPDhavehigherratesofcomorbid
psychiatric disorders, such as substance abuse, depression,
J.E.Vitale
anxiety, and self-injurious behaviors (Mulder, Wells, &
Hampden-SydneyCollege,
HampdenSydney,VA,USA Bushnell,1994;Rogstad&Rogers,2008;Singh&Waldman,
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
2010;Warren&South,2006).Intermsofcriminalbehavior, soonafterpictureonset(i.e.,at2-sbutnotat4.5-sprobetimes),
psychopathyinwomenisassociatedwithhigherratesofincar- indicatingthatthisemotiondeficitwasconditionalratherthan
cerations and a greater likelihood of committing both violent fundamental,inanabsolutesense.Moreover,investigationsof
andnonviolentcrimes(Louth,Hare,&Linden,1998;Strachan, passiveavoidancelearningand emotionfacilitationby affec-
1995;Vitale,Smith,Brinkley,&Newman,2002).Womenwith tive word stimuli—two emotion-based deficits of particular
APD are more likely to display generally impulsive and irre- relevanceforpsychopathy—did notfindthese affectivedefi-
sponsiblebehavior(e.g.,chronicunemployment,highratesof cits in psychopathic women (Vitale, MacCoon, & Newman,
marital separation, or dependence on welfare), though this 2011;Vitale&Newman,2001).Thus,existingresearchdoes
behaviorisnotnecessarilycriminal(Mulderetal.,1994). not indicate the presence of a reliable emotional deficit in
ThedistinctionbetweenpsychopathyandAPDisfurther psychopathic female offenders, though such deficits may be
clarifiedbyfactor-analyticstudiesbasedonthePsychopathy revealed under specific circumstances (e.g., Sutton et al.,
Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), which have 2002).
identified two sets of items that are differentially associated Oneexplanationfortheinconsistentnatureofpsychopathy-
withAPD.Factor1reflectstheinterpersonal(charm,grandi- relatedemotiondeficitsmayrelatetoanabnormalityinearly
osity, and deceitfulness/conning) and affective (lack of selective attention. Using modified Stroop tasks, Vitale,
remorse, empathy, and emotional depth) featuresofpsy- Brinkley,Hiatt,andNewman(2007)demonstratedthatfemale
chopathy.Alternatively,Factor2describestheimpulsiveand psychopathicoffendersover-focusedongoal-relevantstimuli
chronic antisocial tendencies associated with psychopathy and weresignificantlylessinfluencedbyconflicting contex-
(Kennealy, Hicks, & Patrick, 2007). In comparison to those tualinformationthanwerenonpsychopathicoffenders.More
with APD, female offenders with high levels of Factor 1 generally,psychopathicindividualsappearoblivioustopoten-
constitutearecidivisticoffendersubtype(Salekin,Rogers,& tiallymeaningful peripheral information because they fail
Sewell, 1997). Factor 2, though, is primarily related to to reallocate attention while engaged in goal-directed
early behavioral problems, sexual promiscuity, and adult behavior(MacCoon,Wallace,&Newman,2004;Patterson&
antisocial behavior, which significantly overlap with APD Newman,1993).Consequently,itmaybethatanabnormality
symptoms (Patrick, Hicks, Krueger, & Lang, 2005; Salekin inearlyselectiveattentionactstolimitattentiontodominant
et al., 1997; Vaidyanathan, Hall, Patrick, & Bernat, 2011; or prepotent goal-relevant stimuli. This type of deficit may
Warren et al., 2003). The differential traits associated with play a crucial role in moderating the expression of emotion
psychopathy and APD yield important distinctions in their (i.e., fear) deficits in female psychopathic offenders; how-
behaviorpatterns,andpotentiallyintheirunderlyingpsycho- ever, this prediction has yet to be rigorously examined in a
biologicalprocesses. female sample.
Beyond characterizing and distinguishing the symptoms With regard to APD, women with APD are thought to
and personality correlates of psychopathy and APD, it is im- lack inhibitory control over affective and behavioral reac-
portant to clarify the extent to which these syndromes reflect tions and, thus, to be prone to disinhibited reactions in the
similar or distinct psychological dysfunction in female presenceofsalientemotioncues(Litt,Hien,&Levin,2003;
offenders. While research on psychopathyandAPDinmales Sylvers, Brennan, Lilienfeld, & Alden, 2010). Consistent
has elucidated important attentional, cognitive, and emotion with this view, Zlotnick (1999) found that incarcerated
processing abnormalities in these syndromes (Baskin- women with APD displayed significantly more emotion
Sommers & Newman, in press; Blair, 2003; Glenn & Yang, dysregulationthandidcontrols,especiallypoorangermod-
2012;Patrick,2007),littlehasbeendonetocharacterizethese ulation. Similarly, Lorenz and Newman (2002) found that
processesinfemaleoffenders.Thus,relativetotheliteratureon women with APD exhibited more emotion facilitation on a
males, the processes contributing to disinhibited behavior in lexicaldecisiontaskthandidfemaleoffenderswithoutAPD
female offenders are less well specified, and it is unclear and,furthermore,thathigherlevelsofemotionfacilitationin
whether psychopathy and APD reflect similar or distinct pre- women with APD were associated with higher rates of
dispositionstodisinhibitedbehavior. violent crime. While it is not possible to draw causal infer-
Existing research on psychopathy in women has gener- ences from correlational data, these findings suggest a po-
ated equivocal findings, but it has provided evidence that tential link between hyperreactivity to emotion information
deficientemotionalreactivityandabnormalitiesinselective and theirdisinhibited behavior.Also ofpotential relevance,
attention may contribute to disinhibited behavior. Sutton, Litt, Hien, and Levin (2003) found that women with adult
Vitale,andNewman(2002)foundthatpsychopathicwomen antisocial behavior had a significantly reduced capacity for
displayed significantly less emotion-modulated startle (i.e., affect tolerance and affect expression relative to women
startlepotentiation)thandidnonpsychopathicwomenwhile without adult antisocial behavior. Overall, such evidence
viewing unpleasant versus neutral pictures. However, this suggests that women with APD display hyperarousal or
effectwasobservedonlywhenstartleprobesweredelivered reactivity in response to affective information (see also
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
Ogle,Maier-Katkin,&Bernard,1995;Zahn-Waxler,Shirtcliff, (e.g., Luck, Woodman, & Vogel, 2000). Given this para-
&Marceau,2008). digm and the proposed psychobiological mechanisms con-
A straight-forward explanation for the emotional hyper- tributing to psychopathy and APD, respectively, we
reactivity of women with APD is that the intensity of their investigated hypotheses with the aim of characterizing and
emotion reactions is so powerful and pervasive that it di- disambiguating the cognitive and affective processes asso-
rectly gives rise to exaggerated emotion-related responses. ciated with these syndromes.
However, the executive-functioning perspective suggests
thatadeficitinregulatinghigh-orderprocesses(e.g.,work- Psychopathy Akeyquestionforunderstandingthepsychobi-
ing memory and cognitive control) may indirectly amplify ologyofpsychopathyinwomenistheextenttowhichattention
emotional reactivity because individuals who do not have abnormalitiescontributetotheinformation-processing(i.e.,af-
the capacity to maintain control are prone to overreact to fective information) deficits of these individuals. If attentional
emotional information (Beauchaine, Klein, Crowell, focus does not moderate the fear reactivity of psychopathic
Derbidge, & Gatzke-Kopp, 2009; Morgan & Lilienfeld, offenders,thenhighpsychopathyscoreswillbeassociatedwith
2000). Such findings are consistent with the possibility that eitheranabsolutedeficitinFPS(i.e.,acrossallthreeconditions)
antisocialbehaviorisassociatedwith differences in execu- or normal fear reactivity across conditions. Conversely, if the
tive control (e.g., Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000; Ogilvie, hypothesized attention abnormality moderates fear deficits in
Stewart,Chan,&Shum,2011)andthatwomenwithantisocial psychopathy(Newman&Baskin-Sommers,2011),weshould
tendenciesarelessadeptatmodulatingaffectivearousal(see observeasignificantPsychopathy×Conditioninteraction,with
Sargeant,Daughters,Curtin,Schuster,&Lejuez,2011). psychopathicparticipantsdisplayinggreaterFPSinthethreat-
Overall, the literature evaluating the psychobiological focusedcondition(i.e.,whenthreatcuesaretheexplicitfocusof
mechanisms contributing to psychopathy and APD in fe- attention)thaninthetwoalternative-focusconditions(i.e.,when
male offenders is, as yet, quite limited. Consistent with the threatcuesareperipheraltoanalternativegoal).Moreover,the
phenotypicdistinctionsbetweenthesesyndromes,theexist- ERP data will assist in specifying the time course of the pre-
ing literature suggests that the cognitive and affective sig- dicted attentional abnormalities. If, as proposed by Newman
natures of women with psychopathy and APD are in fact and colleagues (2011), the attention dysfunction operating in
distinct. However, to our knowledge, no study has com- psychopathyisrelatedprimarilytodysfunctionatanearlystage
pared the psychobiological mechanisms in women with of selective attention, we would expect to see psychopathy-
psychopathy versus APD in order to examine the extent to related differences starting at an early ERP (e.g., P1). More
whichtheyarethesameordifferent.Assuch,notonlywas specifically,ifpsychopathic femaleoffendershaveatendency
the present study designed to investigate the cognitive and toestablisharigidfocusongoal-relevantstimuliandtofilterout
affective (i.e., fear reactivity) dysfunctions associated with distractors, this type of processing should result in larger P1
psychopathy and APD in female offenders, but also to responses, especially during the alternative-focus conditions
contrast therespective syndrome-related processes. (i.e., when there is a need to screen out the distracting threat
More specifically, we assessed fear-potentiated startle informationinordertorespondtoinformationabouttheletter).
(FPS) and event-related potentials (ERPs) in a sample of
incarcerated female offenders under experimental condi- Antisocial personality disorder There are alternative hy-
tions that (1) focused attention directly on threat-relevant potheses regarding the mechanisms contributing to disinhi-
information (i.e., a color predicting electric shocks), (2) bitioninAPD.OnepossibilityisthatwomenwithAPDare
established an alternative attentional focus that placed min- characterized by a general hyperreactivity to threat cues,
imal demands on working memory (i.e., low load), and (3) whereas another possibility is that their hyperreactivity is
established an alternative attentional focus that placed rela- moderated by a deficit in capacity-limited processes. If the
tively high demands on working memory (i.e., high load). affectivedysregulationassociatedwithAPDreflectsamore
FPS was used as a psychophysiological measure of fear general hyperreactivity to threat cues, it follows that APD
reactivity (Davis, Falls, Campeau, & Kim, 1993) and has would be associated with greater FPS across all three con-
beenfoundtobesensitivetochangesincognitivedemands ditions. Conversely, if their affective dysregulation is mod-
(i.e.,reactivitydecreasesunderconditionsofhighcognitive erated by demands on cognitive capacity, APD-related
load; Pessoa, McKenna, Gutierrez, & Ungerleider, 2002). abnormalities in FPS would vary as a function of cognitive
Additionally, we used ERPs to probe the contributions of load. More specifically, their reaction to peripheral threat
cognitive processes at different points in the processing cues (i.e., FPS) should be larger (i.e., disinhibited) under
stream.Briefly,ERPsatanearlystage,suchasP1,generally conditions involving high versus low cognitive/working
reflectearlyselectiveattention(i.e.,filtering),whereaslater memory load. Moreover, in as much as APD is associated
ERPs, like P3, reflect capacity-limited cognitive processes with a deficit in capacity-related functions, this deficit
suchascategorizationofinformationandresponseselection should be especially apparent in ERP responses that tap
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
capacity-dependent processes (e.g., P3). That is, under the onthismeasurerangedfrom6.3to36(totalpossiblerangeis0
conditions that establish a need to focus on goal-directed to40),withameanof21.50(SD06.54).Interraterreliability
informationandtoscreenoutdistractors,P3responsesmay (intraclasscorrelation)forPCL-Rtotalscore,basedon21dual
be diminished and provide differential support for a deficit ratings,was.99.
in cognitive capacity that moderates affective reactivity in Early workwith the PCL-Rhas also revealeda replicable
high-APD female offenders. two-factor structure (Hare et al., 1990), with Factor 1 items
Finally, in addition to evaluating these process-level dys- assessinginterpersonal–affectivecharacteristics(e.g.,glibness
functions in psychopathy and APD, we also investigated the orcallousness)andFactor2itemsrelatingtoimpulsive–anti-
extent to which psychopathy-related effects pertain to the socialbehavior(e.g.,irresponsiblebehaviororcriminality).In
uniquevarianceassociatedwithPCL-RFactor1(interpersonal thepresentsample,scoresonPCL-RFactor1rangedfrom0to
and affective features) and Factor 2 (impulsive and antisocial 14 (total possible range is 0–16), with a meanof 7.74(SD 0
features). In light of previous research linking psychopathy- 3.31),andscoresonPCL-RFactor2rangedfrom1to20(total
relateddeficitstoFactor1traits(seeKennealyetal.,2007),it possiblerangeis0–20),withameanof11.70(SD03.81).The
followsthattheresultsforFactor1traitsmaycorrespondtothe interraterreliabilitiesforPCL-Rfactorscoreswere.94and.97
findings for psychopathy total score. Conversely, given the forFactors1and2,respectively.
strong association between PCL-R Factor 2 and APD, it fol-
lows that the PCL-R Factor 2 effects may resemble the APD Antisocialpersonalitydisordersymptoms(APD) Participants
effects(Verona&Vitale,2006). were also assessed for APD symptoms during the same
interview and file review used in the PCL-R assessment,
using specific questions and informationconcerninga vari-
Method etyofantisocialbehaviors(e.g.,burglary,physicalcrueltyto
animals, and vandalism). Following the Diagnostic
Participants Statistical Manual–IV (DSM-IV) criteria, APD symptom
scores were calculated by summing the number of child-
The participants were 84 Caucasian female offenders from a hood (15 years and younger) conduct disorder symptoms
minimum-security correctional center in southern Wisconsin. plus the adult criteria met for each participant. The mean
Becausethereislittleevidencethatpsychopathy-relatedlabo- number of APD symptoms in this sample was 6.14 (SD 0
ratory correlatesgeneralize across race and gender, our labo- 2.89), and scores on this measure (i.e., numbers of symp-
ratorydisaggregatesthesesamplesandreportssample-specific tomsmet)rangedfrom1to14(totalpossiblerange0to22
effects in separate studies (Baskin-Sommers, Newman, for child/adult symptoms). Cronbach’s alpha for the APD
Sathasivam, & Curtin, 2011; Vitale et al., 2011). All partici- total scorewas.73.Inthissample,theinterraterreliabilityfor
pantswerebetweentheagesof18and45,becausepsychop- thismeasurewas.95.
athyandimpulsivebehaviorhavebeenfoundtochangewith
advancingage(Hare,Harpur,&Hakstian,1990).Additionally, Procedure
aprescreenofinstitutionalfileswasusedtoexcludeindividu-
als who had performed below the fourth-grade level on a Individualsmeetingtheinclusioncriteria(seetheParticipants
standardized measure of reading or math achievement, who section) were invited to participate in an ongoing study. All
scored below 70 on a brief measure of IQ (i.e., the Shipley participants provided written informed consent according to
InstitutesofLivingScale;Zachary,1986),orwhohaddiagno- procedures approved by the University of Wisconsin–
sesofschizophrenia,bipolardisorder,orpsychosisnotother- MadisonHumanSubjectsCommittee.Onthefirstdayofthe
wisespecified.Theintelligencecutoffandexclusionofmajor study,inmateswerecalledtoaprivateofficeandcompleteda
psychopathologywereusedprimarilytoreducethecontribu- semistructuredlifehistoryinterviewwithone offiveexperi-
tions of these extraneous influences on the interview and enced interviewers. Following the interview, the examiner
psychophysiologicalassessments. reviewedtheinstitutionalfileinordertocorroborateinforma-
tion provided during the interview and to record official
Assessmentmeasures encounters with the criminal justice system. The combi-
nation of interview and file information was used to rate
Psychopathy checklist–revised (Hare, 2003) PCL-R ratings psychopathy and APD and to quantify the number and
were completed using information from prison files and a typesofcriminalcharges.Participantswerepaid$8forcom-
semistructured interview that lasted approximately 60 min. pletingtheinitialassessment.
ThePCL-Rcontains20itemsthatarerated0,1,or2,reflecting On a second day, the participants returned for an exper-
thedegreetowhichacharacteristicispresent:significantly(2), imental session. Upon arrival, participants were asked to
moderately(1),ornotatall(0).Inthepresentsample,scores washtheirfaces,andoneofthethreefemaleexperimenters
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
prepared the face and scalp for the electrode application. administered for 200 ms to adjacent fingers on the partici-
Following this setup, the experimenter administered the pant’slefthandat1,400-mspost-stimulus-onset.Atotalof48
shock sensitivity procedure (see the Shock Sensitivity sec- startle-eliciting noise probes (50-ms, 102-dB white noise
tionbelow).Followingthisprocedure,participantsreceived bursts with near instantaneous rise time) were presented
verbal instructions for the instructed fear-conditioning task. 1,400msafterstimulusonset.Thenoiseprobeswereequally
Theseinstructionsincludedtheinformation that,inallcon- distributedacrossthreat/no-threattrialsinallthreeconditions,
ditions,electricshocksmightbeadministeredonsometrials sothateachparticipantexperienced16noiseprobes:eightred
following red letters (threat), but that no shocks would (threat)andeightgreen(nothreat)percondition.Theaverage
follow green letters (no threat). Finally, participants per- time between noise probes was 28.8 s, with a minimum of
formed the instructed fear-conditioning task, which lasted 13.7s.Additionally,probesneveroccurredinthesametrialas
approximately 30 min. Participants earned $25 for their ashockadministration.
completion ofthe task. The three conditions were designed to manipulate the
focus of attention and to sequentially increase the demands
Shock sensitivity on cognitive load. In the threat-focused condition (TF),
participants were instructed to attend to the color of the
In this procedure, the intensity of shocks is calibrated to letter cue and to press one of two buttons using their right
eachparticipant’ssubjectiveshocksensitivity.More specif- hand, according to whether the letters indicated threat (red)
ically, participants are administered a series of electric or no threat (green). To further enhance the threat focus
shocks of increasing intensity to the fingers of their non- manipulation and to increase task motivation, participants
dominant hand. Participants report two intensity anchors: wereinformedthatspeedandaccuracywouldinfluencethe
The first is the intensity that they consider uncomfortable, amount of shocks that they received. In fact, however, the
andthesecondisthemaximumintensitylevelthattheycan number of shocks received was unrelated to behavioral
tolerate. The series is terminated when they reach their performance. In the alternative-focus/low-load condition
maximumintensitylevel.Theabsoluterangeofshockcurrent (AF/LL), participants had to determine whether the letter
was 0–7 mA. During the main task, participants received stimuli were upper-or lowercase and to press the appropri-
shocks calibrated at the midpoint between their first and ate button with their right hand. In the alternative-focus/
secondintensityanchors. high-load condition (AF/HL), participants performed a
The purpose of this procedure was to control for indi- two-back task in which they had to attend to each letter in
vidual differences in level of shock sensitivity during the the series and press one of the two buttons to indicate
experimental task. Of note, there was no relationship whether the current letter matched the letter presented two
between psychopathy total scores (p 0 .27), the psychop- trials back in the series. In both AF conditions, the letter
athy factors (Factor 1, p 0 .15; Factor 2, p 0 .74), or APD color (threat information) was peripheral to the primary
symptoms (p 0 .60) and the maximum intensity level of task and was not necessary to perform the task well (i.e.,
shock intensity reported. to identify the case of the letter or perform the two-back
task). Moreover, to further enhance task motivation in the
Instructed fear-conditioning task AF conditions, participants were informed that speed and
accuracy would influence the amount of reward that they
The instructed fear-conditioning task was identical to received.
the one described by Newman, Curtin, Bertsch, and
Baskin-Sommers (2010). The task involved three con- Physiological recordingand data reduction
ditions, consisting of 100 trials per condition. Each trial
involved the presentation of an upper- or lowercase letter The stimulus presentation and data collection were con-
appearing in a red or green font for 400 ms, followed by a trolled by a PC-based DMDX script (Forster & Forster,
variable(i.e.,2-to2.8-s)intertrialinterval.Becausetheletters 2003) and Neuroscan Synamps amplifiers and acquisition
were not preceded by a warning stimulus or followed by software(Compumedics,NorthCarolina).Offlinedatapro-
response feedback, these appeared as a seamless series of cessing was conducted with the PhysBox plugin (Curtin,
100letters. 2011) within the EEGLab toolbox (Delorme & Makeig,
In all three conditions, participants pressed one of two 2004) inMATLAB.
buttons according to the instructions associated with each
condition (described below). In all three conditions, electric Startle response measurement Startle eyeblink electromyo-
shockswerepresented following 20% ofthe red letters and graphic activity was sampled at 2,000 Hz with a bandpass
0%ofthegreenletterstoestablishtheredandgreenlettersas filter (30–500 Hz, 24-dB/octave roll-off) from electrodes
threat and no-threat stimuli, respectively. Shocks were placed on the orbicularis oculi muscle under the right eye.
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
Offlineprocessingincludedepoching(50–250mssurround- Helmert contrasts that compared the TF condition to the
ing noise probe), rectification and smoothing (30-Hz low- two AF conditions (attentionalfocuscontrast)andtheAF/
pass filter following rectification), and baseline correction. LL condition to AF/HL condition (cognitive load contrast).
Startle blink magnitude was scored as the peak response These two contrasts enabled us to specify the impacts of
between 20 and 120 ms post-probe-onset. Fear response to attentionalfocus(i.e.,directlyfocusingonthreatvs.focusing
threatcueswasindexedbyFPS,calculatedasthedifference on a threat-irrelevant goal) and cognitive load (i.e., low vs.
inblinkresponsemagnitudetoprobesfollowingred(threat) high working memory load), respectively, on these psycho-
ascomparedwithgreen(no-threat)trialsineachofthethree physiologicalmeasures.
task conditions. First,withFPSweusedaGLMwithCondition(TF,AF/LL,
or AF/HL) as a within-subjects categorical factor and PCL-R
Event-relatedpotentials EEG was recordedfrom Ag–AgCl Psychopathy and APD Symptom Scores (z-scored), entered
electrodesmountedinanelasticcap(ElectroCapInternational) simultaneously, as between-subjects quantitative factors.
at the standard midline positions (Fz, FCz, Cz, and Pz) and Second, we used separate GLMs to analyze P1 and P3
at the left and right occipital positions (O1 and O2) responses. These models included condition (TF, AF/LL, or
referenced to the left mastoid. Vertical eye movement was AF/HL) and cue type (threat vs. no threat) as within-subjects
measured with additional electrodes placed above and below categorical variables, and PCL-R and APD symptom scores,
the left eye. The electrode impedance for all channels was entered simultaneously, as between-subjects quantitative vari-
kept below 10 kΩ. Electroencephalography was recorded at ables.1 Again, the inclusion of psychopathy and APD in the
a 2500-Hz sampling rate. same model provided an opportunity to compare the unique
Offline processing included re-referencing to average effectsofthesesyndromesonERPresponses.Asnotedinthe
mastoids, low-pass filtering (2nd-order, 30-Hz Butterworth introduction,forallmeasureswealsoreanalyzedthedatausing
low-passfilter),epoching(–500to1,390-msepochsending thePCL-RfactorscoresinplaceofthePCL-Rtotalscore(i.e.,
prior to the onset of startle/shock), baseline correction, and PCL-RFactor1andFactor2,inthemodelwithAPD).
artifact rejection (trials with voltages exceeding ±75μV
were rejected). ERPs were averaged separately for all cor-
recttrialswithineachcuetype(threatvs.nothreat)andtask Results
condition(TF,AF/LL,andAF/HL). Aminimumofatleast
30trialsineachconditionwasestablishedandanaverageof Descriptivestatistics and correlations
42.6 (out of 50) trials remained in each category after
artifact rejection. As a result of the artifact rejection, ERP Table 1 reports the means and standard deviations for the
data were available for only 74 of the 84 participants de- PCL-R and APD symptom scores and for select behavioral
scribed above. Inspection of the grand-average ERP wave- correlates,aswellasthecorrelationsamongthesemeasures.
forms for all participants across all conditions (see Fig. 1) Though the mainanalysesquantifiedpsychopathy and APD
revealed positive potentials that peaked at 82 ms (P1) and symptomscontinuously,someworkwiththesesyndromeshas
378 ms (P3) post-stimulus-onset and were maximal at the implementedcutscorestoclassifyinmatesaspsychopathicor
occipital(averageofO1andO2) andPzsites, respectively. havingantisocialpersonalitydisorder.Anexactcutscore on
The magnitude of P1 was measured as the mean amplitude thePCL-Rhasnotbeenestablishedforwomen,butarangeof
in the window of 57–107 ms poststimulus, and the P3 was
measured as the mean amplitude in the window of 353–
1Although this experiment was designed to examine the effects of
403 ms post-stimulus-onset.
attentional and high-order processes on FPS and ERPs, participants
wererequiredtomakearesponseoneverytrialinallthreeconditions
Data analysis ofthisexperiment.Responsetimesandaccuracywereanalyzedwithin
aseparategenerallinearmodel(GLM)withCondition(TFvs.AF/LL
vs.AF/HL)andCueType(threatvs.safety)aswithin-subjects,cate-
The overall goalof our analyses was todistinguish between
goricalfactorsandPsychopathyScore(total orfactors,standardized)
the cognitive and affective processes operating inpsychopa- and APD (standardized) as between-subjects, quantitative factors.
thy and APDinfemaleoffenders.Toward thisend,weused Consistent with the increasing cognitive demands across conditions,
a significant main effect of condition was observed, F(2, 158) 0
analysesthatenabledustoparsetheindependent(i.e.,unique)
457.46, p < .001, with response times increasing from the TF (M 0
effectsofeachsyndrome.Morespecifically,foreachmeasure 438.6 ms) to AF/LL (M 0 545.0 ms) to AF/HL (M 0 875.8 ms)
(e.g., FPS and ERP), we entered continuous measures of conditions.Additionally,accuracysignificantlydecreasedascognitive
psychopathyandAPDsymptomsintothesamegenerallinear demandsincreased,F(2,160)082.34,p<.001(TF,M097.2%;AF/
LL,M093.6%;AF/HL,M076.6%).However,neitherresponsetime
model(GLM)toextracttheuniqueeffectsofthesesyndromes
nor accuracy was associated with cue type (response time, p 0 .76;
onthecognitive–affective indices.Following Newmanetal. accuracy,p0.23).Additionally,wefoundnosignificantpsychopathy,
(2010), our primary statistical focus was on two orthogonal APD,orfactor-relatedeffectsonresponsetimesoraccuracy.
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
Fig.1 Stimulus-lockedaverageevent-relatedpotentialwaveformsinthethreetaskconditionsforallparticipants.Adigitallow-passfilterwas
appliedofflinebeforeplottingthewaveformsshownhere
24–26 has been used previously (Sturek, Loper, & Warren, categorical cut for APD, 8.3 % of the present sample had
2008;Vitaleetal.,2007;Vitaleetal.,2011;Warren&South, psychopathy only, 11.9 % had APD only, and 23.8 % had
2006).Usingacutscoreof25onthePCL-RandtheDSM-IV APDandpsychopathy.Notably,inthepresentsample,therates
Author's personal copy
CognAffectBehavNeurosci
Table1 Descriptiveandbivariateinformation
Mean Std.Dev. Range Correlation Correlation
(w/PCL-RTotal) (w/APD)
Demographic
Age 32.80 6.80 19.00–45.00 –.18 –.18
Education(#years) 10.79 1.24 8.00–12.00 –.03 –.12
Estimateofintelligence 97.22 9.66 72.81–119.25 –.15 –.07
PersonalityAssessment
PCL-Rtotalscore 21.50 6.54 6.30–36.00 – .76*
APDsymptoms 6.14 2.89 0.00–14.00 .76* –
PCL-RFactor1 7.74 3.31 0.00–14.00 .78* .47*
PCL-RFactor2 11.70 3.81 1.00–20.00 .86* .73*
AdultCrimeInformation
Total#ofcrimes 16.35 89.29 0.00–82.00 .31* .30*
#oftypesofcrimes 4.39 12.66 0.00–8.00 .51* .39*
#ofnonviolentcrimes 15.27 12.62 0.00–82.00 .29* .30*
#ofviolentcrimes 1.07 3.70 0.00–33.00 .09 –.01
PCL-R,PsychopathyChecklist–Revised;APD,antisocialpersonalitydisorder.NoneoftheprimaryanalyseswerealteredwhenameasureofIQ
(estimatedWAISscore,basedonShipleymeasure),age,oryearsofeducationwereenteredintothemodels.Flagged(*)cellsindicatesignificant(p<
.05)correlations(r)involvingPCL-RorAPDscores
ofpsychopathyandAPDareinlinewiththereportedbaserates Fear-potentiated startle analyses
inavarietyofsamples(seeRogstad&Rogers,2008;Vitaleet
al.,2007;Vitaleetal.,2002;Warren&South,2006). The main effect of condition was significant ½Fð1;83Þ¼
Additionally,Tables2and3providedescriptivestatisticsfor 59:26;p:01;η2 ¼:42(cid:2). Follow-up orthogonal contrasts
p
thedependentpsychophysiologicalmeasuresusedinthisstudy. indicated that FPS was significantly larger in the TF con-
Giventhatalloftheanalysesusedcontinuousbetween-subject ditionthanintheAFconditions(attentionalfocuscontrast;
factors, these tables present point estimates at one standard p<.01)andsignificantlylargerintheAF/LLconditionthan
deviationaboveandbelowthesamplemeantorepresenthigh intheAF/HLcondition(cognitiveloadcontrast;p<.01).This
andlowestimatesonpsychopathyandAPD.Significantpartial pattern of condition effects is consistent with the existing
andzero-ordercorrelationsarealsoflaggedinthesetables. literature, which suggests that as cognitive load increases,
Table2 Generallinearmodelpointestimates(andstandarderrors)forstartleresponseassociatedwithno-threatandthreatcuesasafunctionof
PsychopathyChecklist–Revised(PCL-R)psychopathytotalscore,antisocialpersonalitydisorder(APD),andtaskcondition
LowPCL-R HighPCL-R LowAPD HighAPD
ThreatFocused
Nothreat 99.43(15.75) 94.84(15.75) 85.24(15.75) 109.03(15.75)
Threat 117.90(16.63) 134.13(16.63) 130.43(16.63) 121.59(16.63)
FPS 18.46†(6.08) 39.29†(6.08) 45.19*†(6.08) 12.55*†(6.08)
AlternativeFocus/LowLoad
Nothreat 104.63(16.43) 108.60(16.43) 102.51(16.43) 110.73(16.43)
Threat 114.46(16.69) 125.47(16.70) 124.58(16.70) 115.34(16.69)
FPS 9.82(5.72) 16.87(5.72) 22.08(5.72) 4.61(5.72)
AlternativeFocus/HighLoad
Nothreat 110.78(16.00) 115.49(16.00) 106.00(16.00) 120.27(16.00)
Threat 113.28(16.40) 110.56(16.40) 106.13(16.40) 117.71(16.40)
FPS 2.50*(4.06) –4.94*(4.06) .13(4.06) –2.57(4.06)
PointestimatesareprovidedforlowpsychopathyandAPD(1standarddeviationbelowsamplemean)andhighpsychopathyandAPD(1standard
deviation above sample mean). Flagged cells indicate significant (p<.05)zero-order(*)andpartial(†)correlationsinvolvingPCL-RorAPD
scores