Results of Bayesian GLMM for the dictator game in the rLPFC experiment. We report the upper and lower borders of the 95% HDI of the posterior distributions. SEM are in brackets. Significant effects are highlighted in bold
| Predictor . | Estimate (SE) . | 2.5% . | 97.5% . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.71 (1.25) | 4.52 | 9.40 |
| tACStheta-sham | 0.36 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.18 |
| tACSbeta-sham | −0.03 (0.42) | −0.86 | 0.80 |
| Inequityabsolute | −1.57 (0.46) | −2.46 | −0.64 |
| Efficiency | 4.06 (0.88) | 2.53 | 5.97 |
| Inequitytype | −4.56 (1.37) | −7.36 | −1.99 |
| Discomfort | −0.29 (0.33) | −0.92 | 0.37 |
| Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −2.21 (0.72) | −3.74 | −0.92 |
| Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.55 (0.52) | −1.59 | 0.47 |
| Efficiency × Inequitytype | 4.59 (1.30) | 2.34 | 7.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.14 (0.51) | −1.14 | 0.86 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.39 (0.49) | −1.35 | 0.61 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.38 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.23 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.23 (0.38) | −0.49 | 0.99 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency | −0.68 (0.51) | −1.70 | 0.30 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency | −0.57 (0.49) | −1.56 | 0.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.66 (0.59) | −1.82 | 0.48 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.17 (0.54) | −1.23 | 0.86 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.67 (0.73) | 0.22 | 3.13 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.28 (0.75) | −0.15 | 2.90 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.42 (0.62) | −1.61 | 0.81 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | 0.45 (0.56) | −0.61 | 1.58 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.49 (0.80) | −0.08 | 3.09 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 0.03 (0.73) | −1.36 | 1.48 |
| Predictor . | Estimate (SE) . | 2.5% . | 97.5% . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.71 (1.25) | 4.52 | 9.40 |
| tACStheta-sham | 0.36 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.18 |
| tACSbeta-sham | −0.03 (0.42) | −0.86 | 0.80 |
| Inequityabsolute | −1.57 (0.46) | −2.46 | −0.64 |
| Efficiency | 4.06 (0.88) | 2.53 | 5.97 |
| Inequitytype | −4.56 (1.37) | −7.36 | −1.99 |
| Discomfort | −0.29 (0.33) | −0.92 | 0.37 |
| Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −2.21 (0.72) | −3.74 | −0.92 |
| Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.55 (0.52) | −1.59 | 0.47 |
| Efficiency × Inequitytype | 4.59 (1.30) | 2.34 | 7.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.14 (0.51) | −1.14 | 0.86 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.39 (0.49) | −1.35 | 0.61 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.38 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.23 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.23 (0.38) | −0.49 | 0.99 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency | −0.68 (0.51) | −1.70 | 0.30 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency | −0.57 (0.49) | −1.56 | 0.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.66 (0.59) | −1.82 | 0.48 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.17 (0.54) | −1.23 | 0.86 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.67 (0.73) | 0.22 | 3.13 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.28 (0.75) | −0.15 | 2.90 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.42 (0.62) | −1.61 | 0.81 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | 0.45 (0.56) | −0.61 | 1.58 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.49 (0.80) | −0.08 | 3.09 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 0.03 (0.73) | −1.36 | 1.48 |
Results of Bayesian GLMM for the dictator game in the rLPFC experiment. We report the upper and lower borders of the 95% HDI of the posterior distributions. SEM are in brackets. Significant effects are highlighted in bold
| Predictor . | Estimate (SE) . | 2.5% . | 97.5% . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.71 (1.25) | 4.52 | 9.40 |
| tACStheta-sham | 0.36 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.18 |
| tACSbeta-sham | −0.03 (0.42) | −0.86 | 0.80 |
| Inequityabsolute | −1.57 (0.46) | −2.46 | −0.64 |
| Efficiency | 4.06 (0.88) | 2.53 | 5.97 |
| Inequitytype | −4.56 (1.37) | −7.36 | −1.99 |
| Discomfort | −0.29 (0.33) | −0.92 | 0.37 |
| Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −2.21 (0.72) | −3.74 | −0.92 |
| Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.55 (0.52) | −1.59 | 0.47 |
| Efficiency × Inequitytype | 4.59 (1.30) | 2.34 | 7.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.14 (0.51) | −1.14 | 0.86 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.39 (0.49) | −1.35 | 0.61 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.38 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.23 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.23 (0.38) | −0.49 | 0.99 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency | −0.68 (0.51) | −1.70 | 0.30 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency | −0.57 (0.49) | −1.56 | 0.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.66 (0.59) | −1.82 | 0.48 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.17 (0.54) | −1.23 | 0.86 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.67 (0.73) | 0.22 | 3.13 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.28 (0.75) | −0.15 | 2.90 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.42 (0.62) | −1.61 | 0.81 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | 0.45 (0.56) | −0.61 | 1.58 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.49 (0.80) | −0.08 | 3.09 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 0.03 (0.73) | −1.36 | 1.48 |
| Predictor . | Estimate (SE) . | 2.5% . | 97.5% . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.71 (1.25) | 4.52 | 9.40 |
| tACStheta-sham | 0.36 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.18 |
| tACSbeta-sham | −0.03 (0.42) | −0.86 | 0.80 |
| Inequityabsolute | −1.57 (0.46) | −2.46 | −0.64 |
| Efficiency | 4.06 (0.88) | 2.53 | 5.97 |
| Inequitytype | −4.56 (1.37) | −7.36 | −1.99 |
| Discomfort | −0.29 (0.33) | −0.92 | 0.37 |
| Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −2.21 (0.72) | −3.74 | −0.92 |
| Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.55 (0.52) | −1.59 | 0.47 |
| Efficiency × Inequitytype | 4.59 (1.30) | 2.34 | 7.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.14 (0.51) | −1.14 | 0.86 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequitytype | −0.39 (0.49) | −1.35 | 0.61 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.38 (0.41) | −0.40 | 1.23 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute | 0.23 (0.38) | −0.49 | 0.99 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency | −0.68 (0.51) | −1.70 | 0.30 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency | −0.57 (0.49) | −1.56 | 0.35 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.66 (0.59) | −1.82 | 0.48 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Inequitytype | −0.17 (0.54) | −1.23 | 0.86 |
| tACStheta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.67 (0.73) | 0.22 | 3.13 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.28 (0.75) | −0.15 | 2.90 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | −0.42 (0.62) | −1.61 | 0.81 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency | 0.45 (0.56) | −0.61 | 1.58 |
| tACStheta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 1.49 (0.80) | −0.08 | 3.09 |
| tACSbeta-sham × Inequityabsolute × Efficiency × Inequitytype | 0.03 (0.73) | −1.36 | 1.48 |
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
