Cargando…

‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI

Guilt is thought to maintain social harmony by motivating reparation. This study compared two methodologies commonly used to identify the neural correlates of guilt. The first, imagined guilt, requires participants to read hypothetical scenarios and then imagine themselves as the protagonist. The se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mclatchie, Neil, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Derbyshire, Stuart W. G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26746179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw001
_version_ 1782429251012657152
author Mclatchie, Neil
Giner-Sorolla, Roger
Derbyshire, Stuart W. G.
author_facet Mclatchie, Neil
Giner-Sorolla, Roger
Derbyshire, Stuart W. G.
author_sort Mclatchie, Neil
collection PubMed
description Guilt is thought to maintain social harmony by motivating reparation. This study compared two methodologies commonly used to identify the neural correlates of guilt. The first, imagined guilt, requires participants to read hypothetical scenarios and then imagine themselves as the protagonist. The second, recollected guilt, requires participants to reflect on times they personally experienced guilt. In the fMRI scanner, participants were presented with guilt/neutral memories and guilt/neutral hypothetical scenarios. Contrasts confirmed a priori predictions that guilt memories, relative to guilt scenarios, were associated with significantly greater activity in regions associated with affect [anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), Caudate, Insula, orbital frontal cortex (OFC)] and social cognition [temporal pole (TP), precuneus). Similarly, results indicated that guilt memories, relative to neutral memories, were also associated with greater activity in affective (ACC, amygdala, Insula, OFC) and social cognition (mPFC, TP, precuneus, temporo-parietal junction) regions. There were no significant differences between guilt hypothetical scenarios and neutral hypothetical scenarios in either affective or social cognition regions. The importance of distinguishing between different guilt inductions inside the scanner is discussed. We offer explanations of our results and discuss ideas for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4847697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48476972016-04-28 ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI Mclatchie, Neil Giner-Sorolla, Roger Derbyshire, Stuart W. G. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Original Articles Guilt is thought to maintain social harmony by motivating reparation. This study compared two methodologies commonly used to identify the neural correlates of guilt. The first, imagined guilt, requires participants to read hypothetical scenarios and then imagine themselves as the protagonist. The second, recollected guilt, requires participants to reflect on times they personally experienced guilt. In the fMRI scanner, participants were presented with guilt/neutral memories and guilt/neutral hypothetical scenarios. Contrasts confirmed a priori predictions that guilt memories, relative to guilt scenarios, were associated with significantly greater activity in regions associated with affect [anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), Caudate, Insula, orbital frontal cortex (OFC)] and social cognition [temporal pole (TP), precuneus). Similarly, results indicated that guilt memories, relative to neutral memories, were also associated with greater activity in affective (ACC, amygdala, Insula, OFC) and social cognition (mPFC, TP, precuneus, temporo-parietal junction) regions. There were no significant differences between guilt hypothetical scenarios and neutral hypothetical scenarios in either affective or social cognition regions. The importance of distinguishing between different guilt inductions inside the scanner is discussed. We offer explanations of our results and discuss ideas for future research. Oxford University Press 2016-05 2016-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4847697/ /pubmed/26746179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw001 Text en © The Author (2016). Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Mclatchie, Neil
Giner-Sorolla, Roger
Derbyshire, Stuart W. G.
‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title_full ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title_fullStr ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title_full_unstemmed ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title_short ‘Imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fMRI
title_sort ‘imagined guilt’ vs ‘recollected guilt’: implications for fmri
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26746179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw001
work_keys_str_mv AT mclatchieneil imaginedguiltvsrecollectedguiltimplicationsforfmri
AT ginersorollaroger imaginedguiltvsrecollectedguiltimplicationsforfmri
AT derbyshirestuartwg imaginedguiltvsrecollectedguiltimplicationsforfmri