When exploring the psychological functions for attack and defense, De Dreu and Gross suggest a theoretical relationship between individual psychological characteristics and behavioral profiles in attack-and-defense contexts. More specifically, the authors ultimately infer that propensities for attack and defense are intrinsically associated with the psychological characteristics of psychopathy and paranoia, respectively. This assertion seems to be based on a psychopathologically oriented conception of psychopathy that assumes psychopathy as unitary in nature. This classic view has been extensively challenged by a taxometric analysis of the distribution of self-reported psychopathic scores, suggesting psychopathy as a dimensional construct (Edens et al. Reference Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld and Poythress2006; Guay et al. Reference Guay, Ruscio, Knight and Hare2007). Therefore, psychopathy is better conceptualized as a constellation of personality traits, with distinct etiological pathways (e.g., low fear and externalizing vulnerability) that may predispose individuals toward the manifestation of antisocial behaviors (Patrick et al. Reference Patrick, Fowles and Krueger2009; Woodworth & Porter Reference Woodworth and Porter2002). It is then theoretically plausible that the distinct traits that constitute the psychopathic personality structure modulate different components of individual behavior in attack-and-defense contexts. The distinction between psychopathic traits and expected outcomes is relevant not only for formulating psychological profiles of attackers and defenders, but also for the prediction of response patterns and strategies used in asymmetric economic tasks.

The Triarchic Model of Psychopathy (Patrick Reference Patrick2010; Patrick & Drislane Reference Patrick and Drislane2015; Patrick et al. Reference Patrick, Fowles and Krueger2009) defines psychopathy as a constellation of personality traits grouped into three distinct phenotypic expressions (boldness, meanness, and disinhibition) that represent biobehavioral liability factors for psychopathology (Somma et al. 2018). The expressions of boldness and meanness emerge from the same etiological dimension, which is related with the low fear models of psychopathy. According to these models, psychopathic individuals do not exhibit a fearful response to the anticipation of punishment when facing situations involving rewards and punishments that are contingent to a specific behavior (Fowles & Dindo Reference Fowles, Dindo, Patrick and Patrick2006). Evidence in favor of the low fear hypothesis arises from classic psychophysiological studies showing reduced skin response to a conditioned stimulus associated with the presentation of an electric shock, along with reduced avoidance of punished responses during an avoidance learning task (e.g., see Lykken Reference Lykken1957). Interestingly, several brain regions implicated in aversive associative learning, and part of the integrated emotion systems, have been suggested as the core mechanism implied in psychopathy, including the central and basolateral nuclei of the amygdala, the insula, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), the sensory association cortex, the posterior thalamus, and the motor cortex (Blair Reference Blair and Patrick2006; Blair et al. Reference Blair, Meffert, Hwang, White and Patrick2018). Disinhibition, on the other hand, is thought to reflect a general externalizing proneness involving lack of planfulness and foresight, poor emotional regulation, reliance on immediate gratification, and deficient behavioral restraint (Patrick et al. Reference Patrick, Fowles and Krueger2009). It is thought that externalizing vulnerability is expressed by prefrontal-based differences in inhibitory control (Fowles Reference Fowles and Patrick2018; Patrick & Drislane Reference Patrick and Drislane2015). In the context of attack and defense, boldness and meanness attributes are closer to an attacker profile, whereas the disinhibition phenotypic component can be expected to influence both attack and defense mechanisms.

Boldness, as a low fear disposition reflecting audacity, social dominance, and low stress reactivity, maps onto overconfidence, feelings of superiority, and reward sensitivity (Drislane & Patrick Reference Drislane and Patrick2017). These characteristics are straightforwardly connected to the authors’ descriptions of an attacker, along with the meanness that has lack of empathy as the main defining characteristic (Almeida et al. Reference Almeida, Seixas, Ferreira-Santos, Vieira, Paiva, Moreira and Costa2015). It is not obvious, however, what role disinhibition traits would have in a specific profile. On the one hand, alterations in prefrontal cortex (PFC) function may compromise strategic patterns of behavior and increase reactive attack performances through facilitation of behavioral approach and willingness for risk-taking (Blair Reference Blair2007). On the other hand, when it comes to defensive profiles, disinhibition is also associated with anxiety and the related features of high sensitivity to punishment and hostility bias, predicting increased defensive behavior (Nelson & Foell Reference Nelson, Foell and Patrick2018).

The concepts of behavioral approach and avoidance are recurring themes in the literature on psychopathy (Baskin-Sommers et al. Reference Baskin-Sommers, Wallace, MacCoon, Curtin and Newman2010). From a behavioral and neuroeconomics standpoint, both loss aversion and reward-seeking behaviors are conceptualized in the context of motivational based behavior. At the brain level, several brain structures have been implicated in loss aversion, including the ventral striatum, the VMPFC, and the superior PFC (Tom et al. Reference Tom, Fox, Trepel and Poldrack2007). The same goes for brain activity associated with gains, which increase the activity of the dopaminergic reward circuitry that includes the dorsal and ventral striatum, VMPFC, ventrolateral PFC, and the anterior cingulate cortex (Tom et al. Reference Tom, Fox, Trepel and Poldrack2007). These regions overlap with other brain regions relevant for the etiological pathways associated with psychopathy. In this light, we may hypothesize that psychopathic traits are associated with distinct behavioral patterns in attack-and-defense contexts by modulating the utility functions associated with rewards and losses. More specifically, on the one hand, boldness and meanness are expected to decrease loss aversion, increasing the frequency of unsuccessful attack behaviors. On the other, disinhibition is expected to modulate both an increase in loss aversion (hostility bias) and reward sensitivity, increasing defensive aggression in defensive contexts (De Dreu & Kret Reference De Dreu and Kret2016) and the disposition for attack in attack contexts, due to the lack of impulse control (Nelson & Foell Reference Nelson, Foell and Patrick2018).

Most research on loss aversion and reward-seeking behaviors comes from game theory approaches to symmetric game interactions. In this sense, it seems fundamental to extend the relations between psychopathic traits, behavioral patterns in attack-and-defense contexts, and associated brain and etiological mechanisms in asymmetric economic games that, as suggested by the authors, are a more ecological setting for real-life conflict interactions. It is also important to rethink the proposed linear associations between psychopathy and attack proneness, considering the dimensional approaches that highlight the need for a comprehensive framework, given the heterogeneity of the psychopathic personality structure.