Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40735827›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2025

The evolutionary advantage of guilt: co-evolution of social and non-social guilt in structured populations.

Theodor Cimpeanu, Luis Moniz Pereira, The Anh Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Theodor CimpeanuDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7503-0368
Luis Moniz PereiraDepartment of Computer Science, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7880-4322
The Anh HanSCEDT, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3095-7714

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and Innovation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building ethical machines may involve bestowing upon them the emotional capacity to self-evaluate and repent for their actions. While apologies represent potential strategic interactions, the explicit evolution of guilt as a behavioural trait remains poorly understood. Our study delves into the co-evolution of two forms of emotional guilt: social guilt entails a cost, requiring agents to exert efforts to understand others' internal states and behaviours; and non-social guilt, which only involves awareness of one's own state, incurs no social cost. Resorting to methods from evolutionary game theory, we study analytically, and through extensive numerical and agent-based simulations, whether and how guilt can evolve and deploy, depending on the underlying structure of the systems of agents. Our findings reveal that in lattice and scale-free networks, strategies favouring emotional guilt dominate a broader range of guilt and social costs compared to non-structured well-mixed populations, leading to higher levels of cooperation. In structured populations, both social and non-social guilt can thrive through clustering with emotionally inclined strategies, thereby providing protection against exploiters, particularly for less costly non-social strategies. These insights shed light on the complex interplay of guilt and cooperation, enhancing our understanding of ethical artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGuiltGame TheoryHumansagent-based modellingcomplex networksemotion modellingethical AIevolutionary game theoryevolution of cooperationguiltpopulation dynamicssocial dilemmastructured populations

Identifiers

PMID40735827
PMCPMC12308525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.