{ "agent": "caption", "paper_slug": "gadeke-2026-guilt-insula", "model": "supplied:runs/gadeke-2026-guilt-insula/caption-reader.answer.v4.json", "claims": [ { "claim": "Participants chose the risky option (lottery) slightly more often in the Solo condition than in the Social condition in Study 1, but not in Study 2.", "panel": "fig2a, fig2d", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Participants chose the risky option slightly more often in the Solo condition than in the Social condition in Study 1 ( A ) but not in Study 2 ( D ).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Risk premiums did not differ between the Solo and Social conditions in either study.", "panel": "fig2b, fig2e", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( B, E ) Risk premiums did not differ between Solo and Social conditions.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Null result presented as evidence against social-context-driven changes in risk aversion.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Values of the risk aversion parameter ρ were broadly consistent with risk premiums but showed that participants were slightly more risk averse in the Social than in the Solo condition in Study 1 only.", "panel": "fig2c, fig2f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Values of the risk aversion parameter ρ in the Solo and Social conditions were broadly consistent with Risk premium values, but showed that participants were slightly more risk averse in the Social than in the Solo condition in Study 1 only (see Results).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Participant momentary happiness varied with the rewards received by the participant.", "panel": "fig3a, fig3e", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Happiness varied with rewards received by the participant ( A, E ) and by the partner ( B, F ).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Participant momentary happiness varied with the rewards received by the partner.", "panel": "fig3b, fig3f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Happiness varied with rewards received by the participant ( A, E ) and by the partner ( B, F ).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "The Responsibility Redux model, taking into account expected, previous and current rewards, reward prediction errors for both participant and partner, and decision-maker, predicted the variations in participants' momentary happiness well.", "panel": "fig3c, fig3g", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "A computational model taking into account expected, previous and current rewards, reward prediction errors for both participant and partner, and decision-maker (Responsibility Redux model, see Results) predicted the variations in participants’ momentary happiness well", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Model fit also referenced to Table 1; the model-based regressors used in the fMRI analyses depend on this fit.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Responsibility for low lottery outcomes for the partner decreased participant happiness more than the same outcomes following partner choices, fitting the definition of interpersonal guilt.", "panel": "fig3d, fig3h", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Crucially, responsibility for low lottery outcomes for the partner decreased participant happiness more than the same outcomes following partner choices (see Results), which fits the definition of interpersonal guilt.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Significance of the guilt effect indicated by stars: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; numeric coefficients are not in the caption.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "The parameters of the Responsibility Redux model could be recovered from synthetic data generated from each participant's estimated parameters, supporting the stability of the fitted parameters.", "panel": "fig3s1", "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Stability of the estimated parameters of the temporal difference models was evaluated by attempting to recover parameters from synthetic data created using each participant’s real estimated parameters.", "confidence": "tentative", "span": null, "notes": "The caption describes the recovery procedure and the regression of recovered on actual parameters but does not state the recovery result numerically.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "A set of regions showed a greater BOLD response when participants chose the risky (lottery) rather than the safe option, irrespective of Social or Solo condition.", "panel": "fig4a", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( A ) Regions showing a greater response when participants chose the risky (lottery) rather than the safe option, irrespective of Social or Solo condition.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Regions showed a greater BOLD response when participants chose for both themselves and their partner rather than just for themselves (Social > Solo).", "panel": "fig4b", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( B ) Regions showing a greater response when participants chose for both themselves and their partner rather than just for themselves (Social > Solo).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Linear mixed model coefficients indicate that precuneus and TPJ were most active when participants chose the lottery in the Social condition.", "panel": "fig4c", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Coefficients of linear mixed models (LMMs) indicate that two of these regions, precuneus and TPJ, were most active when participants chose the lottery in the Social condition.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Caption states all coefficients and differences are significantly different from 0 (see Appendix 1—table 4).", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Brain regions were more active during receipt of the outcomes of lotteries than of safe choices across all conditions.", "panel": "fig4d", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( D ) Brain regions more active during receipt of the outcomes of lotteries than safe choices (all conditions).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Insula ROIs mirrored the behavioural guilt effect: voxels responded more to low lottery outcomes for the partner when these resulted from the participant's rather than the partner's choices, even when responses to high outcomes were subtracted.", "panel": "fig4e", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "voxels here responded more to low lottery outcomes (L) for the partner when these resulted from participant’s rather than the partner’s choices, even when responses to high outcomes were subtracted (L–H).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Caption states all coefficients and differences are significantly different from 0 (see Appendix 1—table 6).", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "A mass-univariate, voxel-wise analysis showed a cluster within the left insula ROI with higher responses to low lottery outcomes for the partner when these resulted from participant rather than partner choices.", "panel": "fig4f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "evidence": "A cluster of voxels within the left insula ROI showed higher responses to low lottery outcomes for the partner if these resulted from participant rather than partner choices.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Convergent voxel-wise confirmation of the ROI-based insula guilt effect in panel E, described as a compatible result.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Activation in bilateral ventral striatum was explained by a computational model-based regressor coding participant rewards.", "panel": "fig4g", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( G ) Activation in bilateral ventral striatum explained by a computational model-based regressor coding participant rewards.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": null, "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "A cluster in the left superior temporal sulcus region showed a higher response to partner reward prediction errors resulting from participant rather than partner choices.", "panel": "fig4h", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "one cluster in the left superior temporal sulcus region showed a higher response to partner reward prediction errors resulting from participant rather than partner choices.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Restricted to brain regions sensitive to outcomes of risky choices.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "The left superior temporal sulcus cluster responded to model-based regressors coding participant reward prediction resulting from participant and partner choices across both sessions of the experiment.", "panel": "fig4i", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "( I ) Response in this cluster to the computational-model-based regressors coding participant reward prediction resulting from participant and partner choices, for both sessions of the experiment.", "confidence": "tentative", "span": null, "notes": "Caption describes what is plotted (coefficients with 95% confidence intervals) rather than stating a directional result.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Functional connectivity between the left anterior insula (seed) and a cluster in the right inferior frontal gyrus at the time of choice varied as a function of condition (Social vs. Solo) and choice (Risky or Safe).", "panel": "fig5", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Changes in functional connectivity between the left anterior insula (seed) and a cluster in the right inferior frontal gyrus at the time of the choice as a function of condition (Social vs. Solo) and choice (Risky or Safe).", "confidence": "tentative", "span": null, "notes": "Caption states the analysis but not the direction or significance of the connectivity effect.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Connectivity between the left superior temporal sulcus (seed) and a cluster in the left inferior frontal gyrus was highest when participants made Safe choices for themselves and Risky choices for both players, an opposite pattern that did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.", "panel": "fig5s1", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "evidence": "connectivity was highest when participants made Safe choices for themselves and Risky choices for both players (p uncorrected = 0.001, T = 4.44, Z = 4.30, 35 voxels, peak at MNI [–48 14 6]).", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "This cluster did not survive corrections for multiple tests; reported at an uncorrected threshold.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Among the computational models fitted to momentary happiness data, the Responsibility Redux model achieved the best (lowest) AIC in both studies (Study 1 AIC –1499; Study 2 AIC –1195).", "panel": "table1", "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Responsibility Redux 4 0.361 0.331 –999 –1499", "confidence": "tentative", "span": null, "notes": "Table lists R2, adjusted R2, BIC and AIC for five models per study; the best-fitting model is inferred from the lowest AIC values (Study 2 Responsibility Redux AIC –1195).", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "In mixed-effects regressions on choices, the Social condition significantly increased choice of the risky option in Study 1 but not in Study 2.", "panel": "app1table1", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Condition Social 0.14* 0.03^ 0.01 0.01", "confidence": "tentative", "span": null, "notes": "Row values are Study 1 probit (0.14*), Study 1 linear (0.03^), Study 2 probit (0.01), Study 2 linear (0.01); column identity is read from the table header.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "The linear mixed model containing all three two-way interaction terms (Model 5) best explained the happiness data in both studies, and its crucial partnerHigh:participantDecided (guilt) interaction was significant.", "panel": "app1table2", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "In both studies, Model 5 ( Equation 9 in the Results section of the main text), which contained all three two-way interaction terms, explained the data best, so its parameters for the crucial partnerHigh:participantDecided interaction are reported in the main text.", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Model 5 partnerHigh:participantDecided coefficient is 0.39*** in Study 1 and 0.31** in Study 2.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "During the outcome phase, responses to low lottery outcomes were higher in the Social than the Partner condition in both left and right insula and lower in the right middle temporal cortex.", "panel": "app1table9", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Social 0.41*** 0.18*** –0.12**", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Columns are InsulaL (0.41***), InsulaR (0.18***) and MidTempR (–0.12**).", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "The difference in response between low and high lottery outcomes was greater in the Social than the Partner condition in left insula, right insula, and right middle temporal cortex.", "panel": "app1table10", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "evidence": "Social 0.44*** 0.19*** 0.67***", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Columns are InsulaL (0.44***), InsulaR (0.19***) and MidTempR (0.67***).", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" }, { "claim": "Participants rated their partners highly on sympathy, cooperation, honesty, openness, and sociability in both studies.", "panel": "app1table11", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "evidence": "How honest did they seem? 9.05 (1.11) 9.34 (1.10)", "confidence": "high", "span": null, "notes": "Manipulation check on partner perception; ratings across the five items range roughly 8.35–9.34 across Studies 1 and 2.", "evidence_verified": true, "evidence_verified_against": "slice" } ] }