{ "paper_slug": "gadeke-2026-guilt-insula", "paper_doi": "10.7554/eLife.105391", "paper_title": "Contributions of insula and superior temporal sulcus to interpersonal guilt and responsibility in social decisions", "extraction_path": "jats", "extraction_path_note": "JATS-XML from https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/105391/elife-105391-v1.xml", "per_agent_counts": { "results": 46, "caption": 25, "structure": 10 }, "model": "supplied:runs/gadeke-2026-guilt-insula/reconcile.answer.v5.json", "claims": [ { "claim": "Responsibility for a social choice that yields a low (negative) outcome for a partner produces interpersonal guilt, experienced by the decision-maker as a larger decrease in momentary happiness than when the partner made the same choice.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "hypothesis", "role": "hypothesis", "addresses": "Does responsibility for a social choice that yields a bad outcome for a partner produce interpersonal guilt?", "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "This study investigated the neural mechanisms involved in feelings of interpersonal guilt and responsibility evoked by social decisions in humans." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "abstract-001" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The anterior insula is the neural substrate of the guilt effect, increasing its BOLD response when participants are responsible for low outcomes affecting their partner.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "hypothesis", "role": "hypothesis", "addresses": "Which neural substrate tracks the guilt effect?", "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Next, we sought to uncover the neural mechanisms associated with our guilt effect and those involved in tracking consequences of participants’ decisions on their partner." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-086" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Functional connectivity between guilt- and responsibility-related outcome-phase regions and prefrontal cortex changes depending on whether participants decide for themselves alone or also for their partner, and on the type of choice (Safe or Risky).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "hypothesis", "role": "hypothesis", "addresses": "Does functional connectivity with the outcome-phase guilt and responsibility regions change with whom the decision is for and with the type of choice?", "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We hypothesized that connectivity with regions that showed guilt- and responsibility-related responses during the outcome phase (see previous paragraph) might change depending on whether participants made decisions for themselves only or for themselves and their partner, and depending on the type of choice (Safe or Risky)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-140" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "If responsibility for outcomes generates guilt, then participant happiness should decrease more after low lottery outcomes for the partner when the participant rather than the partner chose the lottery.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "prediction", "role": "prediction", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "In our definition, guilt occurs due to responsibility for low lottery outcomes for the partner." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-119" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "If the anterior insula tracks guilt, then insula BOLD should be higher in the Social than the Partner condition and show a significant Social-by-low-outcome interaction.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "prediction", "role": "prediction", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "To identify regions likely to be involved in the guilt effect, we selected those satisfying two conditions: higher activity in the Social compared to the Partner condition, and a significant Social:LowOutcome interaction." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-124" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Participants’ probability of choosing the risky option (lottery) increased with the difference between the expected value of the lottery and the value of the safe option (Study 1: t(4796) = 9.26, p < 3.1e–20, β = 0.074; Study 2: t(3829) = 10.62, p < 5.3e–26, β = 0.093).", "panel": "fig2a,fig2d", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "As expected, participants’ probability of choosing the risky option (lottery) increased with the difference between the expected value of the lottery and the value of the safe option (Study 1: Figure 2A, t(4796) = 9.26, p < 3.1e–20, β = 0.074, 95% CI = [0.059 0.090]; Study 2: Figure 2D, t(3829) = 10.62, p < 5.3e–26, β = 0.093, 95% CI = [0.075 0.110])." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-005" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Participants chose the lottery more often in the Solo condition than in the Social condition in Study 1 (t(4796) = 2.54, p = 0.011, β = 0.164) but not in Study 2 (t(3829) = 0.23, p = 0.82, β = 0.015).", "panel": "fig2a,fig2d", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Participants chose the lottery more often in the Solo condition than in the Social condition in Study 1 (t(4796) = 2.54, p = 0.011, β = 0.164, 95% CI = [0.038 0.291]), but this difference was not found in Study 2 (t(3829) = 0.23, p = 0.82, β = 0.015, 95% CI = [–0.109 0.138]).", "caption": "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 )." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "There was no significant interaction between the difference in expected values and experimental conditions in either study (p > 0.52).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "There was no significant interaction between the difference in expected values and experimental conditions in either study (p > 0.52)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-007" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Risk premiums did not differ between Social and Solo conditions in either study (Study 1: t(39) = 1.53, p = 0.134, d = 0.24, BF10 = 0.49; Study 2: t(43) = –0.21, p = 0.84, d = –0.03, BF10 = 0.17).", "panel": "fig2b,fig2e", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Risk premiums did not differ between Social and Solo conditions (Study 1: Figure 2B, t(39) = 1.53, p = 0.134, Cohen’s d = 0.24, BF10 = 0.49; Study 2: Figure 2E, t(43) = –0.21, p = 0.84, d = –0.03, BF10 = 0.17).", "caption": "( B, E ) Risk premiums did not differ between Solo and Social conditions." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "One measure (the risk premium) of the broader risk-preference finding in the synthesis; a part of it, not an independent null.", "part_of": "Participants showed very similar risk preferences whether deciding only for themselves (Solo) or for themselves and their partner (Social), with only a tendency toward higher risk aversion in the Social condition in Study 1." }, { "claim": "The risk-aversion parameter ρ did not differ between gain and loss trials (Study 1: t(17) = 0.21, p = 0.84, d = 0.05; Study 2: t(15) = –0.61, p = 0.55, d = 0.15).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "As ρ did not vary between gain and loss trials (Study 1: t(17) = 0.21, p = 0.84, d = 0.05; Study 2: t(15) = –0.61, p = 0.55, d = 0.15; paired t-test), we then pooled across gain and loss trials." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Participants were slightly more risk averse (higher ρ) in the Social than the Solo condition in Study 1 (t(39) = 2.27, p = 0.03, d = 0.36, BF10 = 1.69) but not in Study 2 (t(43) = 1.40, p = 0.17, d = 0.21, BF10 = 0.41).", "panel": "fig2c,fig2f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We found that participants were slightly more risk averse in the Social than in the Solo condition in Study 1 (Figure 2C, t(39) = 2.27, p = 0.03, d = 0.36, BF10 = 1.69) but not in Study 2 (Figure 2F, t(43) = 1.40, p = 0.17, d = 0.21, BF10 = 0.41).", "caption": "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)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "The CARA risk-aversion measure behind the synthesis's 'tendency toward higher risk aversion in Study 1'; a part of the risk-preference finding.", "part_of": "Participants showed very similar risk preferences whether deciding only for themselves (Solo) or for themselves and their partner (Social), with only a tendency toward higher risk aversion in the Social condition in Study 1." }, { "claim": "Participants showed very similar risk preferences whether deciding only for themselves (Solo) or for themselves and their partner (Social), with only a tendency toward higher risk aversion in the Social condition in Study 1.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "synthesis", "role": "synthesis", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "In sum, participants showed very similar risk preferences when making decisions affecting only themselves (Solo condition) or themselves and their partner (Social condition), with a tendency towards higher risk aversion in the Social condition in Study 1." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": "Whole for the risk-premium (g9) and risk-aversion-parameter (g11) results.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "In both studies, participant momentary happiness correlated with the rewards obtained in the current trial by both the participant and the partner.", "panel": "fig3a,fig3b,fig3e,fig3f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Across all trials, in both studies, participant momentary happiness correlated with rewards obtained in the current trial by the participant and by the partner.", "caption": "Happiness varied with rewards received by the participant ( A, E ) and by the partner ( B, F )." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-029" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span", "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Rutledge and colleagues established that changes in momentary happiness during a probabilistic reward task are explained by recent reward expectations and the prediction errors arising from them.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "literature-context", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Following Rutledge and colleagues’ methodology, which considers that changes in momentary happiness in response to outcomes of a probabilistic reward task are explained by the combined influence of recent reward expectations and prediction errors arising from those expectations, we fitted computational models to each participant’s happiness data." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-046" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "A likelihood ratio test showed the Responsibility model fitted the happiness data better than all other models, including the Responsibility Redux model (Study 1: all LR ≥ 47.36, p < 0.0001; Study 2: all LR ≥ 77.83, p < 0.0001).", "panel": "table1", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "a likelihood ratio test (Equation 9) revealed that the Responsibility model fitted better than all the other models, including the Responsibility Redux model (Study 1: all LR ≥47.36, p < 0.0001; Study 2: all LR ≥77.83, p < 0.0001)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The Responsibility model yielded higher R2 values than all other models (Study 1: all t > 3.6, p < 0.007; Study 2: all t > 2.9, p < 0.034), except the Guilt-envy model in Study 1 (t = 2.19, p = 0.17).", "panel": "table1", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The Responsibility model yielded higher R2 values than all the other models (Study 1: all t > 3.6, p < 0.007; Study 2: all t > 2.9, p < 0.034; Bonferroni-corrected t-tests) except for the Guilt-envy model in the data of Study 1 (t = 2.19, p = 0.17)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Participants’ own reward prediction errors (sRPE) influenced happiness more than the partner’s reward prediction errors (social_pRPE and partner_pRPE) (Study 1: all Z > 6.0, p < 0.001; Study 2: all Z > 3.7, p < 0.003).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "weights for sRPE were higher than for social_pRPE or partner_pRPE (Study 1: all Z > 6.0, p < 0.001; Study 2: all Z > 3.7, p < 0.003)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-067" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The partner’s reward prediction errors resulting from the participants’ own choices (social_pRPE) had weights greater than 0 (Responsibility model: Study 1: Z = 2.85, p = 0.004; Study 2: Z = 3.26, p = 0.001), contributing to explaining participants’ momentary happiness.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "weights for social_pRPE were greater than 0: Responsibility model: Study 1: Z = 2.85, p = 0.004, Study 2: Z = 3.26, p = 0.001; ResponsibilityRedux model: Study 1: Z = 2.93, p = 0.003, Study 2: Z = 3.30, p = 0.001." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The stability of the estimated computational-model parameters was verified with a parameter recovery procedure.", "panel": "fig3s1", "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption", "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The stability of these estimated parameters was verified using a parameter recovery procedure (see Methods and Figure 3—figure supplement 1).", "caption": "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.", "structure": "We then compared these new estimated parameters to the actual parameters from which the synthetic data were generated, as follows: For each parameter, we calculated the mean of each participant’s recovered parameters and regressed these means on the participants’ actual parameters (see Figure 3—figure supplement 1 ). The results show that the estimated parameters could be reliably recovered from noisy synthetic data." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-068" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true, "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice", "structure": "slice" }, "notes": "Parameter recovery: all three readers surfaced it — results and structure as the validation, caption as the panel.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The ‘Responsibility’ computational model was used to generate expected BOLD responses per participant for the model-based fMRI analysis.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We used the model to create expected BOLD responses for each participant (see Methods) and as a manipulation check searched for responses in ventral striatum evoked by participant rewards (O’Doherty et al., 2004; O’Doherty et al., 2007).", "structure": "In addition, we created another GLM (GLM2) with regressors designed to identify brain regions whose activation reflected the variables of the best-fitting computational model (see above)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-133" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": "The model-based GLM (GLM2): the results reader named the Responsibility model as its source, the structure reader named the GLM that entered its regressors.", "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "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" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Participant happiness was lower when the participant was the decision-maker (Social + Solo vs. Partner), independent of outcome (Study 1: t(3600) = –3.92, p < 0.0001, β = –0.14; Study 2: t(2870) = –6.07, p < 0.0001, β = –0.24).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "we assessed whether happiness varied depending on the participant’s agency (Social + Solo vs. Partner), and found happiness to be lower when the participant chose, independent of the outcome (Study 1: t(3600) = –3.92, p < 0.0001, β = –0.14, 95% CI = [−0.20 to 0.07]; Study 2: t(2870) = –6.07, p < 0.0001, β = –0.24, 95% CI = [−0.31 to 0.16])." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The lower happiness when the participant is the decision-maker may reflect responsibility aversion, a cost of the ‘weight of the responsibility’.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "interpretation", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "This is interesting in itself and may reflect the drive behind responsibility aversion reported by Edelson et al.’s 2018 study: being assigned the role of the decider in a social setting may make people slightly unhappy, perhaps due to ‘weight of the responsibility’." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-073" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The interaction between partner outcome and decision-maker was significant (Study 1: t(1180) = 3.52, p = 0.0004, β = 0.37; Study 2: t(937) = 2.85, p = 0.0045, β = 0.33): when the partner received the low outcome, participant happiness was lower when the participant rather than the partner had chosen the lottery.", "panel": "fig3d,fig3h", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Crucially, the interaction between partner outcome and decision-maker was significant (Study 1: t(1180) = 3.52, p = 0.0004, β = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.16 0.58]; Study 2: t(937) = 2.85, p = 0.0045, β = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.10 0.56]). When the partner received the low lottery outcome, participant happiness was lower when they rather than the partner had chosen the lottery (Figure 3D, H).", "caption": "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." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "The guilt effect. The same partner-outcome x decision-maker interaction the results reader also stated as a cross-study synthesis (\"in both studies, participants felt worse ...\") and the caption reader anchored to fig3d,fig3h; merged, keeping the wording with the coefficients.", "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "caption", "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "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.", "structure": "In both studies, the model reported in Equation 10 fitted the data significantly better (p < 2e−5) than the simpler models without interactions (higher total and adjusted R 2 , see Appendix 1—table 2 ), but not significantly worse than the model with all interactions (p > 0.5; tested with the ANOVA function in R)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true, "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice", "structure": "slice" }, "notes": "Model selection for the happiness LMM: Equation 10 / Model 5 with all three two-way interactions fit best, licensing the guilt interaction term reported in g24.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The behavioural guilt effect (larger happiness decrease after low partner outcomes following participant rather than partner choices) is compatible with ‘simple guilt’.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "interpretation", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "This behavioural effect (difference in happiness obtained when the partner received low lottery outcomes after participant rather than partner choices) is thus compatible with ‘simple guilt’, and we will thus refer to it as ‘guilt effect’." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-080" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The guilt effect occurred whether the participant received the high lottery outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.56; Study 2: t(43) = –2.68, p = 0.01, d = 0.4) or the low outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.39, p = 0.002, d = 0.54; Study 2: t(43) = –3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.54).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The ‘guilt effect’ occurred whether the participant received the high lottery outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.56, BF10 = 32; Study 2: t(43) = –2.68, p = 0.01, d = 0.4, BF10 = 3.8) or the low lottery outcome (Study 1: t(39) = –3.39, p = 0.002, d = 0.54, BF10 = 19; Study 2: t(43) = –3.58, p < 0.001, d = 0.54, BF10 = 33.5)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Responsibility for choices did not influence happiness following positive (high) lottery outcomes for the partner (both studies, all |t| < 1.3, p > 0.2, BF10 < 0.2).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Responsibility for choices did not influence happiness following positive lottery outcomes for the partner (both studies, all |t| < 1.3, p > 0.2, BF10 < 0.2)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-083" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "All BOLD/fMRI results derive from Study 2 (the fMRI study), whereas the behavioural results come from both Study 1 and Study 2.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "scope", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We analysed the BOLD responses of brain regions engaged during decision-making and at the time of receiving the outcomes of the choice using conventional as well as computational model-based analyses, using the fMRI data collected in Study 2.", "structure": "Forty healthy participants (14 male, mean age 26.1, range 22–31) participated in Study 1 (behaviour only study), and 44 healthy participants (19 male, mean (SD) age = 30.6 (6.5), range 23–50) participated in Study 2 (fMRI study)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-087" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true, "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span", "structure": "slice" }, "notes": "Scope: the fMRI results are Study 2 only, the behaviour is both studies (Study 1 N=40, Study 2 N=44 with four fMRI exclusions, sample size fixed a priori).", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The bilateral ventral striatum was more active when participants chose the risky rather than the safe option (Cohen’s d = 0.72 left, 0.85 right), replicating previous findings.", "panel": "fig4a", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We searched for brain regions engaged more when participants chose the risky instead of the safe option and found such responses in the bilateral ventral striatum (Cohen’s d = 0.72 and 0.85 in the left and right clusters, respectively; Figure 4A and Appendix 1—table 3), which replicates previous findings (Cui et al., 2022; Preuschoff et al., 2006).", "caption": "( A ) Regions showing a greater response when participants chose the risky (lottery) rather than the safe option, irrespective of Social or Solo condition." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-088" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Decisions in the Social compared with the Solo condition engaged three clusters — the precuneus (d = 0.79), left temporo-parietal junction (d = 0.59), and medial prefrontal cortex (d = 0.54).", "panel": "fig4b", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Three significant clusters of voxels were identified (Figure 4B and Appendix 1—table 3), in the precuneus (d = 0.79), the left temporo-parietal junction (TPJ; d = 0.59) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC; d = 0.54).", "caption": "( B ) Regions showing a greater response when participants chose for both themselves and their partner rather than just for themselves (Social > Solo)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Only the precuneus and TPJ showed positive Risky–Safe differences in both the Social>Solo and Social>Partner comparisons, being most active when participants chose the lottery in the Social condition.", "panel": "fig4c", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Only the precuneus and TPJ showed positive differences in both comparisons (Figure 4C), indicating that these regions were most active when participants chose the lottery in the Social condition, the critical situation in which participants assume responsibility over others.", "caption": "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." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "During receipt of lottery versus safe outcomes, clusters were more active in the bilateral anterior insula, dmPFC, right STS, bilateral ventral striatum, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and bilateral inferior parietal lobe.", "panel": "fig4d", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "A cluster of voxels more active during receipt of lottery outcomes than outcomes of safe choices was identified in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal mPFC (dmPFC), right superior temporal sulcus (STS), bilateral ventral striatum, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and bilateral inferior parietal lobe (Figure 4D).", "caption": "( D ) Brain regions more active during receipt of the outcomes of lotteries than safe choices (all conditions)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-117" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span", "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The insula ROIs responded more to low lottery outcomes for the partner in the Social than the Partner condition (even after subtracting responses to high outcomes), mirroring the behavioural guilt effect.", "panel": "fig4e", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Thus, activation in our insula ROIs increased in situations during which participants experienced guilt for low outcomes impacting their partner, compared to similar outcomes resulting from the partner’s choices.", "caption": "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)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-127" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span", "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "A mass-univariate voxel-wise analysis found a small left anterior insula cluster (peak T = 3.95, d = 0.59, 22 voxels) responding more to low partner outcomes following participant than partner choices, which survived small-volume family-wise-error correction (p = 0.024).", "panel": "fig4f", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We found a weak response in a small cluster within the left anterior insula (peak T = 3.95, d = 0.59, 22 voxels, peak intensity at [–28 24 –4]; Figure 4F).", "caption": "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." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-129" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "Voxel-wise confirmation of the ROI insula guilt result; the results reader read it as empirical, the caption reader as a convergent control.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Prior literature documents an association between the anterior insula and guilt.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "literature-context", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Given the documented association between anterior insula and guilt (see Introduction), we proceeded to test whether this result survived correction for family-wise errors due to multiple comparisons restricted to the left anterior insula grey matter." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-130" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "As a manipulation check, bilateral ventral striatum activation increased with expected certain rewards and the expected values of chosen lotteries (left: pFWE = 0.002, T = 5.63, d = 0.75; right: pFWE = 0.005, T = 5.46, d = 0.70).", "panel": "fig4g", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We found that activation in bilateral ventral striatum indeed increased with the amount of expected certain rewards and the expected values of chosen lotteries (left: pFWE = 0.002, T = 5.63, d = 0.75, Z = 5.41, 110 voxels, peak at MNI [–14 8 –8], right: pFWE = 0.005, T = 5.46, d = 0.70, Z = 5.26, 80 voxels, peak at MNI [10 10 −4]).", "caption": "( G ) Activation in bilateral ventral striatum explained by a computational model-based regressor coding participant rewards." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-134" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "One cluster in the left STS responded more to partner reward prediction errors resulting from participant rather than partner choices (pFWE = 0.022, T = 4.70, d = 0.53, 100 voxels, peak MNI [−52 –32 0]).", "panel": "fig4h", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We found this effect in one cluster within the left STS (pFWE = 0.022, T = 4.70, d = 0.53, Z = 4.57, 100 voxels, peak at MNI [−52 –32 0]; Figure 4H).", "caption": "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." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "One directional contrast (participant- above partner-caused pRPE, fig4h) of the STS cluster's response profile stated whole in g39.", "part_of": "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." }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "( 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." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "The STS cluster's full response profile across both sessions (fig4i); whole for the directional contrast in g38.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "The authors suggest this left STS region tracks a partner’s unexpected outcomes less when they do not follow from the participant’s decisions.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "interpretation", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "This finding suggests that this region of the left STS tracks a partner’s unexpected outcomes less when they do not follow from the participant’s decisions." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-138" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Prior functional connectivity work has shown network differences between social and self-only choices, midbrain–anterior cingulate interactions during guilt compensation, and links between insula connectivity and responsibility aversion.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "interpretive", "role": "literature-context", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "Functional connectivity analyses have revealed differences in networks engaged by social and self-only choices (Jung et al., 2013; Ogawa et al., 2018), interactions between midbrain and anterior cingulate during compensation for guilt (Yu et al., 2014), and links between insula connectivity and responsibility aversion (Edelson et al., 2018)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Left anterior insula connectivity with a right IFG cluster was highest when participants made Risky choices for themselves and Safe choices for both players (pFWE = 0.020, T = 4.34, d = 0.80, 115 voxels, peak MNI [46 16 22]).", "panel": "fig5", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The first analysis revealed a cluster in the right IFG whose connectivity to the insula (the seed region) was highest when participants made Risky choices for themselves and Safe choices for both players (pFWE = 0.020, T = 4.34, d = 0.80, Z = 4.21, 115 voxels, peak at MNI [46 16 22]; Figure 5).", "caption": "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)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-142" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": "The insula-IFG connectivity result. The results reader also stated it as an interpretation (\"... suggesting this part of prefrontal cortex is sensitive to guilt-related information\") and the caption reader anchored it to fig5; merged, keeping the empirical wording with the coefficients, the interpretive gloss noted.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "A left IFG cluster showed the opposite pattern of connectivity with the left STS seed — highest for Safe-self / Risky-both-players choices — but did not survive correction for multiple comparisons (p uncorrected = 0.001, T = 4.44, 35 voxels).", "panel": "fig5s1", "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "results", "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The second analysis revealed a smaller cluster in the left IFG that did not survive corrections for multiple tests, where connectivity with the left STS (the seed region) showed the opposite pattern: 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]; Figure 5—figure supplement 1).", "caption": "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])." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-144" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true, "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span", "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Dot products between individual neural guilt responses and the Yu et al. (2020) guilt-related brain signature (GRBS) were overall positive (mean = 5.22, median = 6.97, sign test p = 0.017, Cliff’s Delta = 0.4).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "empirical", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "The dot products between individual responses and the GRBS varied between –40.1 and 36.7, but overall these values were positive (mean = 5.22; median = 6.97; sign test: p = 0.017; Cliff’s Delta = 0.4 = medium effect size; data are not normally distributed)." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-152" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "results": "span" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Individual GRBS dot-product values did not correlate with the behavioural guilt responses (Spearman’s Rho = –0.058, p = 0.725).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "empirical", "role": "control", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "results" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "results": "We assessed whether inter-individual differences in these dot product values correlated with the behavioural guilt responses, but did not find a significant association [Spearman’s Rho = –0.058, p = 0.725]." }, "span_by_agent": { "results": "results-153" }, "evidence_verified": { "results": false }, "evidence_verified_against": {}, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "Responsibility Redux 4 0.361 0.331 –999 –1499" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "Condition Social 0.14* 0.03^ 0.01 0.01" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "Social 0.41*** 0.18*** –0.12**" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "caption" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "Social 0.44*** 0.19*** 0.67***" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "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, "confidence": "high", "sources": [ "caption", "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "caption": "How honest did they seem? 9.05 (1.11) 9.34 (1.10)", "structure": "Results of a brief questionnaire indicate that this approach was successful: participants’ average ratings of their partners in terms of sympathy, cooperativity, honesty, openness and sociability were all above 8 on a scale of 1–10, in both studies ( Appendix 1—table 11 )." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "caption": true, "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "caption": "slice", "structure": "slice" }, "notes": "The icebreaker manipulation check: the structure reader surfaced the procedure and its success, the caption reader the partner ratings in Appendix 1—table 11.", "part_of": null }, { "claim": "On each trial participants chose between a safe monetary option and a risky lottery, under three conditions: deciding for themselves (Solo), for themselves and the partner (Social), and for the partner deciding for both (Partner).", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "scope", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "structure": "There were three kinds of trials: decisions by the participant only for themselves ( Solo condition), decisions by the participant for themselves and the partner ( Social condition), and decisions by the partner for both themselves and the participant ( Partner condition)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Study 2 reproduced the Study 1 design inside the fMRI scanner with otherwise identical parameters, except for longer inter-stimulus intervals (3–11 s) and a fixed experimenter partner.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "scope", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "structure": "In Study 2, participants performed two sessions of the experiment described above inside the fMRI scanner. All parameters were identical except that ISIs varied from 3 to 11 s (drawn randomly from a gamma distribution)." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "To hold the partner's behaviour constant across participants, the partner's decisions were simulated by an algorithm that always chose the option with the highest expected value.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "structure": "In order to ascertain constant decisions by the partner, the partner’s decisions were simulated using a simple algorithm that always selected the option with the highest expected value; i.e., it selected the lottery if EV diff >0" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Momentary happiness was modelled with five computational models (Basic, Inequality, Guilt-envy, Responsibility, and Responsibility Redux) sharing separate, exponentially decaying terms for certain rewards, expected value, and reward prediction errors.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "structure": "All models contained separate terms for certain rewards, expected value for lotteries and reward prediction errors, with influences that decayed exponentially over trials. We ran five models" }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null }, { "claim": "Model selection among the happiness models used likelihood ratio tests comparing the Responsibility model pairwise against each of the other models.", "panel": null, "claim_type": "assessment", "role": "methodological", "addresses": null, "confidence": "single-source", "sources": [ "structure" ], "evidence_by_agent": { "structure": "To formally assess which of our models fitted the data best, we supplemented the AIC, BIC, R 2 and adjusted R 2 values reported in Table 1 with a series of likelihood ratio tests : we compared pair-wise the likelihoods of the Responsibility model given the data to the likelihoods of all the other models." }, "span_by_agent": {}, "evidence_verified": { "structure": true }, "evidence_verified_against": { "structure": "slice" }, "notes": null, "part_of": null } ], "config_snapshot": { "model_results": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_caption": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_structure": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "model_reconcile": "claude-opus-4-6", "prompt_variant": "default", "reconcile_strategy": "confidence-tagged" } }