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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |