Contributions of insula and superior temporal sulcus to interpersonal guilt and responsibility in social decisions

Article activity feed

1. 

   eLife

   Mar 24, 2025

   eLife Assessment

   This manuscript provides valuable novel insights into the role of interpersonal guilt in social decision-making by showing that responsibility for a partner's bad lottery outcomes influences happiness. Through the integration of neuroimaging and computational modelling methods, and by combining findings from two studies, the authors provide solid support for their claims.

   Read the original source
2. 

   eLife

   Mar 24, 2025

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   The authors aimed to characterize neurocomputational signals underlying interpersonal guilt and responsibility. Across two studies, one behavioral and one fMRI, participants made risky economic decisions for themselves or for themselves and a partner; they also experienced a condition in which the partners made decisions for themselves and the participant. The authors also assessed momentary happiness intermittently between choices in the task. Briefly, results demonstrated that participants' self-reported happiness decreased after disadvantageous outcomes for themselves and when both they and their partner were affected; this effect was exacerbated when participants were responsible for their partner's low outcome, rather than the opposite, reflecting experienced guilt. Consistent with previous … More

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   The authors aimed to characterize neurocomputational signals underlying interpersonal guilt and responsibility. Across two studies, one behavioral and one fMRI, participants made risky economic decisions for themselves or for themselves and a partner; they also experienced a condition in which the partners made decisions for themselves and the participant. The authors also assessed momentary happiness intermittently between choices in the task. Briefly, results demonstrated that participants' self-reported happiness decreased after disadvantageous outcomes for themselves and when both they and their partner were affected; this effect was exacerbated when participants were responsible for their partner's low outcome, rather than the opposite, reflecting experienced guilt. Consistent with previous work, BOLD signals in the insula correlated with experienced guilt, and insula-right IFG connectivity was enhanced when participants made risky choices for themselves and safe choices for themselves and a partner.

   Strengths:

   This study implements an interesting approach to investigating guilt and responsibility; the paradigm in particular is well-suited to approach this question, offering participants the chance to make risky v. safe choices that affect both themselves and others. I appreciate the assessment of happiness as a metric for assessing guilt across the different task/outcome conditions, as well as the implementation of both computational models and fMRI.

   Weaknesses:

   In spite of the overall strengths of the study, I think there are a few areas in which the paper fell a bit short and could be improved.

   (1) While the framing and goal of this study was to investigate guilt and felt responsibility, the task implemented - a risky choice task with social conditions - has been conducted in similar ways in past research that were not addressed here. The novelty of this study would appear to be the additional happiness assessments, but it would be helpful to consider the changes noted in risk-taking behavior in the context of additional studies that have investigated changes in risky economic choice in social contexts (e.g., Arioli et al., 2023 Cerebral Cortex; Fareri et al., 2022 Scientific Reports).

   (2) The authors note they assessed changes in risk preferences between social and solo conditions in two ways - by calculating a 'risk premium' and then by estimating rho from an expected utility model. I am curious why the authors took both approaches (this did not seem clearly justified, though I apologize if I missed it). Relatedly, in the expected utility approach, the authors report that since 'the number of these types of trials varied across participants', they 'only obtained reliable estimates for [gain and loss] trials in some participants' - in study 1, 22 participants had unreliable estimates and in study 2, 28 participants had unreliable estimates. Because of this, and because the task itself only had 20 gains, 20 losses, and 20 mixed gambles per condition, I wonder if the authors can comment on how interpretable these findings are in the Discussion. Other work investigating loss aversion has implemented larger numbers of trials to mitigate the potential for unreliable estimates (e.g., Sokol-Hessner et al., 2009).

   (3) One thing seemingly not addressed in the Discussion is the fact that the behavioral effect did not replicate significantly in study 2.

   (4) Regarding the computational models, the authors suggest that the Reponsibility and Responsibility Redux models provided the best fit, but they are claiming this based on separate metrics (e.g., in study 1, the redux model had the lowest AIC, but the responsibility only model had the highest R^2; additionally, the basic model had the lowest BIC). I am wondering if the authors considered conducting a direct model comparison to statistically compare model fits.

   (5) In the reporting of imaging results, the authors report in a univariate analysis that a small cluster in the left anterior insula showed a stronger response to low outcomes for the partner as a result of participant choice rather than from partner choice. It then seems as though the authors performed small volume correction on this cluster to see whether it survived. If that is accurate, then I would suggest that this result be removed because it is not recommended to perform SVC where the volume is defined based on a result from the same whole-brain analysis (i.e., it should be done a priori).

   Less

   Read the original source
3. 

   eLife

   Mar 24, 2025

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   Summary

   This manuscript focuses on the role of social responsibility and guilt in social decision-making by integrating neuroimaging and computational modeling methods. Across two studies, participants completed a lottery task in which they made decisions for themselves or for a social partner. By measuring momentary happiness throughout the task, the authors show that being responsible for a partner's bad lottery outcome leads to decreased happiness compared to trials in which the participant was not responsible for their partner's bad outcome. At the neural level, this guilt effect was reflected in increased neural activity in the anterior insula, and altered functional connectivity between the insula and the inferior frontal gyrus. Using computational modeling, the authors show that trial-by-trial … More

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   Summary

   This manuscript focuses on the role of social responsibility and guilt in social decision-making by integrating neuroimaging and computational modeling methods. Across two studies, participants completed a lottery task in which they made decisions for themselves or for a social partner. By measuring momentary happiness throughout the task, the authors show that being responsible for a partner's bad lottery outcome leads to decreased happiness compared to trials in which the participant was not responsible for their partner's bad outcome. At the neural level, this guilt effect was reflected in increased neural activity in the anterior insula, and altered functional connectivity between the insula and the inferior frontal gyrus. Using computational modeling, the authors show that trial-by-trial fluctuations in happiness were successfully captured by a model including participant and partner rewards and prediction errors (a 'responsibility' model), and model-based neuroimaging analyses suggested that prediction errors for the partner were tracked by the superior temporal sulcus. Taken together, these findings suggest that responsibility and interpersonal guilt influence social decision-making.

   Strengths

   This manuscript investigates the concept of guilt in social decision-making through both statistical and computational modeling. It integrates behavioral and neural data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological mechanisms. For the behavioral results, data from two different studies is included, and although minor differences are found between the two studies, the main findings remain consistent. The authors share all their code and materials, leading to transparency and reproducibility of their methods.

   The manuscript is well-grounded in prior work. The task design is inspired by a large body of previous work on social decision-making and includes the necessary conditions to support their claims (i.e., Solo, Social, and Partner conditions). The computational models used in this study are inspired by previous work and build on well-established economic theories of decision-making. The research question and hypotheses clearly extend previous findings, and the more traditional univariate results align with prior work.

   The authors conducted extensive analyses, as supported by the inclusion of different linear models and computational models described in the supplemental materials. Psychological concepts like risk preferences are defined and tested in different ways, and different types of analyses (e.g., univariate and multivariate neuroimaging analyses) are used to try to answer the research questions. The inclusion and comparison of different computational models provide compelling support for the claim that partner prediction errors indeed influence task behavior, as illustrated by the multiple model comparison metrics and the good model recovery.

   Weaknesses

   As the authors already note, they did not directly ask participants to report their feelings of guilt. The decrease in happiness reported after a bad choice for a partner might thus be something else than guilt, for example, empathy or feelings of failure (not necessarily related to guilt towards the other person). Although the patterns of neural activity evoked during the task match with previously found patterns of guilt, there is no direct measure of guilt included in the task. This warrants caution in the interpretation of these findings as guilt per se.

   As most comparisons contrast the social condition (making the decision for your partner) against either the partner condition (watching your partner make their decision) or the solo condition (making your own decision), an open question remains of how agency influences momentary happiness, independent of potential guilt. Other open questions relate to individual differences in interpersonal guilt, and how those might influence behavior.

   This manuscript is an impressive combination of multiple approaches, but how these different approaches relate to each other and how they can aid in answering slightly different questions is not very clearly described. The authors could improve this by more clearly describing the different methods and their added value in the introduction, and/or by including a paragraph on implications, open questions, and future work in the discussion.

   However, taken together, this study provides useful insights into the neural and behavioral mechanisms of responsibility and guilt in social decision-making, and how they influence behavior.

   Less

   Read the original source
4. 

   eLife

   Mar 24, 2025

   Author response:

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   The authors aimed to characterize neurocomputational signals underlying interpersonal guilt and responsibility. Across two studies, one behavioral and one fMRI, participants made risky economic decisions for themselves or for themselves and a partner; they also experienced a condition in which the partners made decisions for themselves and the participant. The authors also assessed momentary happiness intermittently between choices in the task. Briefly, results demonstrated that participants' self-reported happiness decreased after disadvantageous outcomes for themselves and when both they and their partner were affected; this effect was exacerbated when participants were responsible for their partner's low outcome, rather than the opposite, reflecting experienced guilt. Consistent …

   More

   Author response:

   Reviewer #1 (Public review):

   Summary:

   The authors aimed to characterize neurocomputational signals underlying interpersonal guilt and responsibility. Across two studies, one behavioral and one fMRI, participants made risky economic decisions for themselves or for themselves and a partner; they also experienced a condition in which the partners made decisions for themselves and the participant. The authors also assessed momentary happiness intermittently between choices in the task. Briefly, results demonstrated that participants' self-reported happiness decreased after disadvantageous outcomes for themselves and when both they and their partner were affected; this effect was exacerbated when participants were responsible for their partner's low outcome, rather than the opposite, reflecting experienced guilt. Consistent with previous work, BOLD signals in the insula correlated with experienced guilt, and insula-right IFG connectivity was enhanced when participants made risky choices for themselves and safe choices for themselves and a partner.

   Strengths:

   This study implements an interesting approach to investigating guilt and responsibility; the paradigm in particular is well-suited to approach this question, offering participants the chance to make risky v. safe choices that affect both themselves and others. I appreciate the assessment of happiness as a metric for assessing guilt across the different task/outcome conditions, as well as the implementation of both computational models and fMRI.

   We thank Reviewer 1 for their positive assessment of our manuscript.

   Weaknesses:

   In spite of the overall strengths of the study, I think there are a few areas in which the paper fell a bit short and could be improved.

   We are looking forward to improving our manuscript based on the Reviewers’ comments. According to eLife’s policy, here are our provisional replies as well as plans for changes.

   (1) While the framing and goal of this study was to investigate guilt and felt responsibility, the task implemented - a risky choice task with social conditions - has been conducted in similar ways in past research that were not addressed here. The novelty of this study would appear to be the additional happiness assessments, but it would be helpful to consider the changes noted in risk-taking behavior in the context of additional studies that have investigated changes in risky economic choice in social contexts (e.g., Arioli et al., 2023 Cerebral Cortex; Fareri et al., 2022 Scientific Reports).

   We certainly agree that several previously published studies have relied on risky choice tasks with social conditions. We will happily refer to the studies mentioned when discussing changes in risk-taking behaviour in our revised manuscript.

   (2) The authors note they assessed changes in risk preferences between social and solo conditions in two ways - by calculating a 'risk premium' and then by estimating rho from an expected utility model. I am curious why the authors took both approaches (this did not seem clearly justified, though I apologize if I missed it). Relatedly, in the expected utility approach, the authors report that since 'the number of these types of trials varied across participants', they 'only obtained reliable estimates for [gain and loss] trials in some participants' - in study 1, 22 participants had unreliable estimates and in study 2, 28 participants had unreliable estimates. Because of this, and because the task itself only had 20 gains, 20 losses, and 20 mixed gambles per condition, I wonder if the authors can comment on how interpretable these findings are in the Discussion. Other work investigating loss aversion has implemented larger numbers of trials to mitigate the potential for unreliable estimates (e.g., Sokol-Hessner et al., 2009).

   We agree that we have not clearly justified why we have taken two approaches to assess risk preferences. In short, both approaches have advantages and inconveniences when applied to our experiment. We will happily detail our reasons in the revised manuscript. Regarding the second point of this comment: the small number of reliable estimates is one of the reasons that we have used another approach to assess risk preferences. We would certainly have obtained more reliable estimates if we had implemented more trials. We will discuss the interpretability of all the risk preference estimates we used in the revised Discussion.

   (3) One thing seemingly not addressed in the Discussion is the fact that the behavioral effect did not replicate significantly in study 2.

   We agree that we could have discussed more the fact that there were (slight but significant) differences in risk preferences between the Solo and Social conditions in Study 1 but not in Study 2. While the absence of a significant difference in Study 2 is helpful to compare the neural mechanisms involved in making decisions for oneself vs. for oneself and another person (because any differences could not be explained by differences in risk preferences), we certainly should expand our discussion of the differences in findings between the two studies, which we will do in the revised manuscript.

   (4) Regarding the computational models, the authors suggest that the Reponsibility and Responsibility Redux models provided the best fit, but they are claiming this based on separate metrics (e.g., in study 1, the redux model had the lowest AIC, but the responsibility only model had the highest R^2; additionally, the basic model had the lowest BIC). I am wondering if the authors considered conducting a direct model comparison to statistically compare model fits.

   We agree that we should run formal, direct model comparison tests using for example chi-square or log-likelihood-ratio tests. We will do so in the revised manuscript.

   (5) In the reporting of imaging results, the authors report in a univariate analysis that a small cluster in the left anterior insula showed a stronger response to low outcomes for the partner as a result of participant choice rather than from partner choice. It then seems as though the authors performed small volume correction on this cluster to see whether it survived. If that is accurate, then I would suggest that this result be removed because it is not recommended to perform SVC where the volume is defined based on a result from the same whole-brain analysis (i.e., it should be done a priori).

   As indicated in the manuscript, the small insula cluster centered at [-28 24 -4] and shown in Figure 4F survived corrections for multiple tests within the anatomically-defined anterior insula (based on the anatomical maximum probability map described in Faillenot et al., 2017), which is independent of the result of our analysis. We agree that one should not (and we did not) perform multiple corrections based on the results one is correcting – that would indeed be circular and misleading “double-dipping”. The anterior insula is one of the regions most frequently associated with guilt (see the explanations in our Introduction, which refers for example to Bastin et al., 2016; Lamm & Singer, 2010; Piretti et al., 2023). Thus we feel that performing small-volume correction within the anatomically-defined anterior insula is an acceptable approach to correct for multiple tests in this case. We fully acknowledge that, independently of any correction, the effect and the cluster are small. We will clarify these explanations in the revised manuscript.

   Reviewer #2 (Public review):

   Summary

   This manuscript focuses on the role of social responsibility and guilt in social decision-making by integrating neuroimaging and computational modeling methods. Across two studies, participants completed a lottery task in which they made decisions for themselves or for a social partner. By measuring momentary happiness throughout the task, the authors show that being responsible for a partner's bad lottery outcome leads to decreased happiness compared to trials in which the participant was not responsible for their partner's bad outcome. At the neural level, this guilt effect was reflected in increased neural activity in the anterior insula, and altered functional connectivity between the insula and the inferior frontal gyrus. Using computational modeling, the authors show that trial-by-trial fluctuations in happiness were successfully captured by a model including participant and partner rewards and prediction errors (a 'responsibility' model), and model-based neuroimaging analyses suggested that prediction errors for the partner were tracked by the superior temporal sulcus. Taken together, these findings suggest that responsibility and interpersonal guilt influence social decision-making.

   Strengths

   This manuscript investigates the concept of guilt in social decision-making through both statistical and computational modeling. It integrates behavioral and neural data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological mechanisms. For the behavioral results, data from two different studies is included, and although minor differences are found between the two studies, the main findings remain consistent. The authors share all their code and materials, leading to transparency and reproducibility of their methods.

   The manuscript is well-grounded in prior work. The task design is inspired by a large body of previous work on social decision-making and includes the necessary conditions to support their claims (i.e., Solo, Social, and Partner conditions). The computational models used in this study are inspired by previous work and build on well-established economic theories of decision-making. The research question and hypotheses clearly extend previous findings, and the more traditional univariate results align with prior work.

   The authors conducted extensive analyses, as supported by the inclusion of different linear models and computational models described in the supplemental materials. Psychological concepts like risk preferences are defined and tested in different ways, and different types of analyses (e.g., univariate and multivariate neuroimaging analyses) are used to try to answer the research questions. The inclusion and comparison of different computational models provide compelling support for the claim that partner prediction errors indeed influence task behavior, as illustrated by the multiple model comparison metrics and the good model recovery.

   We thank Reviewer 2 very much for their comprehensive description of our study and the positive assessment of our study and approach.

   Weaknesses

   As the authors already note, they did not directly ask participants to report their feelings of guilt. The decrease in happiness reported after a bad choice for a partner might thus be something else than guilt, for example, empathy or feelings of failure (not necessarily related to guilt towards the other person). Although the patterns of neural activity evoked during the task match with previously found patterns of guilt, there is no direct measure of guilt included in the task. This warrants caution in the interpretation of these findings as guilt per se.

   We fully agree that not directly asking participants about feelings of guilt is a clear limitation of our study. While we already mention this in our Discussion, we will happily expand our discussion of the consequences on interpretation of our results along the lines described by the reviewer in the revised manuscript. We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for proposing these lines of thought.

   As most comparisons contrast the social condition (making the decision for your partner) against either the partner condition (watching your partner make their decision) or the solo condition (making your own decision), an open question remains of how agency influences momentary happiness, independent of potential guilt. Other open questions relate to individual differences in interpersonal guilt, and how those might influence behavior.

   We fully agree that the way agency influences happiness has not been much discussed in our manuscript so far, and we would happily do so in the revised manuscript. The same goes for individual differences in interpersonal guilt which we have not investigated due to our relatively small sample sizes but would certainly be worth investigation in subsequent work.

   This manuscript is an impressive combination of multiple approaches, but how these different approaches relate to each other and how they can aid in answering slightly different questions is not very clearly described. The authors could improve this by more clearly describing the different methods and their added value in the introduction, and/or by including a paragraph on implications, open questions, and future work in the discussion.

   We again thank the reviewer for their praise of our approach and fully agree that we can improve the description of the benefit of combining methods in the Introduction, which we will do in the revised manuscript. We will also include a paragraph on implications, open questions, and future work in the Discussion of the revised manuscript.

   However, taken together, this study provides useful insights into the neural and behavioral mechanisms of responsibility and guilt in social decision-making, and how they influence behavior.

   We again thank Reviewer 2 for their attentive reading and thoughtful comments and look forward to submitting our revised and improved manuscript.

   Less

   Read the original source
5. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.105391.1 on eLife

   Mar 24, 2025
6. 

   Version published to 10.7554/elife.105391 on eLife

   Mar 24, 2025
7. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.107300v5 on bioRxiv

   Nov 22, 2024
8. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.107300v4 on bioRxiv

   Nov 21, 2024
9. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.107300v3 on bioRxiv

   Oct 26, 2024
10. 

    Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.107300v2 on bioRxiv

    Oct 23, 2024
11. 

    Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.25.107300v1 on bioRxiv

    May 25, 2020