Body-Related Self-Conscious Emotions Relate to Physical Activity Motivation and Behavior in Men

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the associations between the body-related self-conscious emotions of shame, guilt, and pride and physical activity motivation and behavior among adult males. Specifically, motivation regulations (external, introjected, indentified, intrinsic) were examined as possible mediators between each of the body-related self-conscious emotions and physical activity behavior. A cross-sectional study was conducted with adult men (N = 152; M_age = 23.72, SD = 10.92 years). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing body-related shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride, motivational regulations, and leisure-time physical activity. In separate multiple mediation models, body-related shame was positively associated with external and introjected regulations and negatively correlated with intrinsic regulation. Guilt was positively linked to external, introjected, and identified regulations. Authentic pride was negatively related to external regulation and positively correlated with both identified and intrinsic regulations and directly associated with physical activity behavior. Hubristic pride was positively associated with intrinsic regulation. Overall, there were both direct and indirect effects via motivation regulations between body-related self-conscious emotions and physical activity (R² shame = .15, guilt = .16, authentic pride = .18, hubristic pride = .16). These findings highlight the importance of targeting and understanding self-conscious emotions contextualized to the body and links to motivation and positive health behavior among men.

Keywords

shame guilt pride body image self-determination theory men’s health

Body image disturbance has been traditionally viewed as a concern for women, fueled by consistent findings in the literature that women experience greater negative emotions and dissatisfaction with their body than men across age and culture (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998; Frederick, Jafary, Gruys, & Daniels, 2012). However, this belief was based largely on empirical findings measuring body image disturbance specific to weight loss and body shape at the expense of muscularity—a prevalent concern of men (Cafri et al., 2005; McCreary & Sasse, 2000). Furthermore, most studies tend to focus on women only, which perpetuates the pathological problem for women more so than men. Indeed, some researchers using multidimensional measures tapping muscularity have reported that over 90% of men experience some degree of body dissatisfaction and negative emotions (Frederick et al., 2007; Frederick et al., 2012). This research is in its infancy and is limited in scope to general negative emotions tied to the body. A comprehensive look at a range of body-related emotions in men may be valuable to understanding health-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The current study focuses on self-conscious emotions.

Self-Conscious Emotions

Self-conscious emotions are elicited by self-reflection and self-evaluation (Fischer & Tangney, 1995; Tracy & Robins, 2004). It has been argued that self-conscious emotions are fundamental in motivating and regulating most of people’s cognitions, feelings, and actions (Fischer & Tangney, 1995). Specifically, this set of emotions serves to motivate people to behave in moral and socially responsible ways (Leith & Baumeister, 1998) as well as foster perseverance in task and achievement domains (Stipek, 1995). Shame, guilt, and pride are the primary emotions studied within the context of self-conscious emotions and body image theories (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), and are likely to be associated with health relevant processes such as physical activity behavior (Castonguay, Gilchrist, Mack, & Sabiston, 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010).

Body-Related Shame and Guilt

Body-related shame is an acutely painful emotion that individuals experience when they fail to meet internalized social standards in relation to the body with a focus on deeply rooted global causes of the self (e.g., “I am a fat person”; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2004). Body-related guilt is elicited in response to a specific behavioral transgression and involves a sense of tension and regret over the failure (e.g., “I didn’t exercise for three months and that’s why I gained weight”; Sabiston & Castonguay, 2014; Tracy & Robins, 2004). As shame is elicited in response to global failures of the self and results in motivations to escape or hide (e.g., avoiding the fitness center), it is a difficult emotion to alter (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). Therefore, shame in relation to the body has the potential to be a devastating painful experience. In fact, the pathological consequences of shame have been captured by self-objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which was developed as a framework to position self-conscious emotions, such as body-related shame, within the broader context of body image and behavioral health outcomes in women. Essentially, body-related shame is recognized as a key emotional consequence within objectification theory and is thought to mediate the relationship between self-objectification (i.e., scrutinizing the body from an external perspective) as well as body-monitoring (i.e., preoccupation with one’s appearance) and maladaptive behaviors (i.e., disordered eating, sexual dysfunction). Researchers have since challenged the assertion that self-objectification is limited to women, based on findings that men are equally vulnerable to experiences of self-objectification and its associated consequences, such as body-related shame (Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004; Schenk & Everingham, 1995, 2005; Stevens-Aubrey, 2006). In support of this contention, emerging research has applied this theory to men (e.g., Wiseman & Moradi, 2010).

Researchers have confirmed the positive links between body-related shame and disordered eating symptomatology (e.g., Jankauskiene & Pajaujiene, 2012; Martins, Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004; Tiggemann & Williams, 2012) and sexual dysfunction (e.g., sexual pleasure, arousability; Calogero & Thompson, 2009; Sanchez & Kiefer, 2007) mostly in samples of women. Recent investigations have extended this theory to the important health behavior of physical activity. Sabiston et al. (2010) explored the relationship of body-related self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt, and authentic pride) with motivation regulations and behavior for physical activity in a large sample of adult females (18-68 years of age). The authors reported that body-related shame was positively related to maladaptive forms of motivation, negatively related to adaptive forms of motivation, and unrelated to physical activity behavior. In another recent study (Jankauskiene & Pajaujiene, 2012), female university students high in body-related shame reported higher levels of maladaptive appearance-related exercise motives. Although these inquiries provide insight into the relationships between body-related shame experiences and physical activity motivation and behavior in women, no studies have been conducted in men. Targeted studies on male populations are important given that they may also feel pressure to conform to normative body ideals (Stevens-Aubrey, 2006) and are far from achieving sufficient levels of physical activity for optimal health and well-being (Colley et al., 2011).

In addition to extending self-objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) to men and the relevant health behavior of physical activity, a limited set of researchers have applied the theoretical framework to the negative emotion of guilt (Burney & Irwin, 2000; Calogero & Pina, 2011; Sabiston et al., 2010). Given that guilt arises in response to a specific behavior, and not the person as a whole, as is the case for shame, guilt is typically less painful than shame and may motivate reparative action in attempt to fix the transgression (Conradt et al., 2007; Sabiston et al., 2010). Consistent with this notion and generalized self-conscious emotion research, body-related guilt has been shown to be weakly or unrelated with psychopathological indicators (e.g., depression; Castonguay, Sabiston, Crocker, & Mack, 2014; Conradt et al., 2007; Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011), and guilt has demonstrated positive associations with the prosocial behavior of physical activity (e.g., Sabiston et al., 2010; Teixeira, Carraca, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, 2012). Hence, guilt may predict positive health behaviors. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about guilt contextualized to the body or its implications for physical activity participation in adult males.

Body-Related Pride

In addition to shame and guilt, examining the positive emotion of pride may offer another and unique understanding of physical activity behavior. Pride is conceptualized as an emotion that results from an individual engaging in socially valued behaviors (e.g., exercising) or presenting with positive characteristics (e.g., being physically fit and attractive; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Pride can be experienced as two facets authentic and hubristic. These facets are differentiated by their cognitive attributions (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Authentic pride is elicited in response to specific behaviors (e.g., “I finished the marathon I trained for”), whereas hubristic pride arises from global aspects of the self (e.g., “I am a fit person”) typically involving feelings of personal grandiosity and superiority to others (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Although rarely studied in the context of the body, authentic pride has been linked to motivation to engage in specific goal-directed behaviors including physical activity (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008). In contrast, hubristic pride has been associated with narcissistic self-aggrandizement (e.g., arrogance, conceit) and both adaptive and maladaptive behaviors (e.g., motivating physical activity but to show off motor skills; Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Considering the differential role of each facet of pride in behavior engagement, there is merit in understanding this emotion in the context of the body and how it may relate to physical activity motivation and behavior (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). No research has sought to assess hubristic pride as a potential factor contributing to physical activity motivation and behavior, which thus warrants empirical attention. Body-related pride has received scant empirical attention, in part due to traditional research paradigms focused on pathology and lack of published measures that assess theoretically (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007) and empirically (Castonguay et al., 2013) based authentic and hubristic facets of pride (Castonguay et al., 2014). Investigating the associations between the two facets of pride and physical activity motivations and behavior also holds the potential to broaden theoretical frameworks. Specifically, this research may extend self-objectification theory by including positive body-related emotions and linking theories of emotion, motivation and behavior.

Theoretical Premises Linking Self-Conscious Emotions to Motivation and Behavior

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) provides scientists with a greater understanding of individual’s motivation toward volitional behaviors and has been used frequently to link body-related emotions, motivation, and health behavior (Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Cox, Ullrich-French, & Sabiston, 2013). Based on the subtheory of organismic integration theory, motivation is a multidimensional construct that comprises several qualitatively distinct motivational regulations that lie on a continuum of self-determination. This continuum ranges from amotivation (i.e., lack of intention to engage in behavior), external (i.e., participate to fulfill external demands), introjected (i.e., participate to avoid feeling guilty or to protect one’s self-worth), identified (i.e., participate due to the personal importance affixed to the outcome of the activity), and integrated (i.e., participate to achieve benefits that are considered important and are in line with core values and beliefs), to intrinsic (i.e., participate for inherent enjoyment or interest in the activity) regulations (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). Higher levels of self-determined motivation (e.g., identified, integrated, and intrinsic regulations) emerge when an individual’s perceived locus of causality is internal and engagement in behavior is a result of a sense of willingness and choice. In contrast, lower levels of self-determined motivation are observed when an individual’s perceived locus of causality is external and the behavior is undertaken because they feel a sense of pressure originating from either the self or others. Consequently, higher levels of self-determined forms of regulation are positively linked to more positive behavioral outcomes such as physical activity, compared with lower levels of self-determination (Teixeira et al., 2012).

Proponents of organismic integration theory further suggest that individuals interpret social cues differently and that this interpretation influences the initiation and regulation of behavior. The pressures placed on men to portray an ideal physique are prominent social cues in today’s society (Cafri & Thompson, 2004; Grogan, 2008; Pope, Olivardia, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2001). A failure to meet these unrealistic standards may induce negative emotions (e.g., guilt, shame), which in turn may provoke external and introjected regulations (Castonguay, Brunet, Ferguson, & Sabiston, 2012; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Georgiadis, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2001). On the other hand, meeting such standards may lead to positive emotions (e.g., authentic pride, hubristic pride), which may then promote more self-determined identified and intrinsic regulations (Castonguay et al., 2012; Sabiston et al., 2010). In fact, positive links have been documented between authentic pride and intrinsic and identified regulations in both mixed and female samples (Castonguay et al., 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010). Studies using constructs that exhibit moderate to high correlations with pride, such as physical self-worth (Georgiadis et al., 2001; Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006) and physical self-esteem (Wilson, Rodgers, & Fraser, 2002), have also demonstrated similar positive relations to more self-determined regulations in mixed-sex samples. In addition to associations between shame, guilt, and less self-determined regulations reported among women (Sabiston et al., 2010), the negative body-related emotion of social physique anxiety has been associated with lower levels of motivation on the continuum of self-determined regulations in mixed samples primarily composed of women (Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Cox et al., 2013). Despite the preliminary examination of body-related emotions in this literature, little is known about these associations in men.

A significant contribution to this literature would be to examine the associations among a full range of body-related self-conscious emotions including shame, guilt, and both facets of pride, physical activity regulations, and behavior in men. Such research could examine the contention that motivation serves as a mechanism linking emotion and behavior (Lazarus, 1999). It is important to target the proposed associations in men given that men are pressured to conform to societal body ideals (Stevens-Aubrey, 2006), report experiences of body-related self-conscious emotions (Castonguay et al., 2013; Martins et al., 2007), and less than 50% engage in sufficient physical activity levels to achieve optimal health and well-being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007; Colley et al., 2011). Furthermore, combining constructs from different theories in an integrated approach may provide complementary explanations of the processes that underlie motivation and health-related behavior and may account for greater variation in physical activity (Hagger, 2009; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2009). In addition, drawing from recent work linking positive body image cognitions and emotions to more self-determined motivation (e.g., exercising for health reasons) and physical activity (Frisén & Holmqvist, 2010; Wood-Barcalow, Tylka, & Augustus-Horvath, 2010), a focus on positive and negative emotions may be informative in the context of physical activity.

The Current Study

The primary aim of this study was to examine the associations between the body-related self-conscious emotional experiences of shame, guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride and physical activity motivation regulations and behavior. A secondary objective was to test separate multiple mediation models in which motivational regulations were thought to mediate the associations between each body-related self-conscious emotion and physical activity. Based on previous conceptual and theoretical research (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), it was expected that reports of body-related shame and guilt would be differentially related to the motivation regulations. Specifically, experiences of shame (focused on deeply rooted global causes of the self) could be positively associated with the least self-determined (i.e., external and introjected) regulations and negatively linked to the most self-determined (i.e., identified regulation and intrinsic) regulations and behavior. Given the reparative function of guilt (focused on behavioral transgressions), it was further examined whether body-related guilt would be positively associated to regulations along the self-determination continuum and positively related to physical activity behavior. Body-related authentic pride was expected to exert positive associations with the most self-determined regulations and behavior and negative or no relationships with the least self-determined regulations. Based on limited empirical results from past studies, no a priori hypotheses were established for hubristic pride. According to Lazarus’s (1999) contentions, organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and self-objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), it was finally hypothesized that motivational regulations would mediate the relationship between body-related self-conscious emotions and physical activity behavior.

Method

Participants

Adult males (N = 152) completed an online questionnaire. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 66 years (M = 23.72 ± 10.92). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from self-reported weight and height and ranged from 16.28 to 33.27 (M = 23.98 ± 3.81) kg/m². Participants self-identified as Caucasian (73.03%), Asian (18.42%), Black (7.89%), and First Nations/Aboriginal (1.32%) and reported English (59%) and French (23%) as their first language. Of the total sample, 51.7% reported household income of less than $50,000, with 88.8% of the sample holding at least an undergraduate university degree, and 86.2% reported never being married.

Procedures

After obtaining university research ethics board approval, adult males were recruited via university alumni and workplace e-mail list servers. Poster advertisements were also placed around various community centers and around the university campus. Interested participants contacted the researchers for more information via telephone or e-mail and were provided with a link to the consent form and a secured online questionnaire.

Instrumentation

Demographics

Information was collected on participants’ self-reported age, height and weight (used to calculate BMI), household income, ethnicity, primary language of communication, highest level of education, and marital status.

Body-Related Shame and Guilt

The Weight-and Body-Related Shame and Guilt scale (WEB-SG; Conradt et al., 2007) is a 12-item measure assessing shame concerned about the body, figure, and weight (6 items; e.g., “I am ashamed of myself when others get to know how much I really weigh”) and guilt concerned about eating habits, exercising, and weight control (6 items; e.g., “When I can’t manage to work out physically, I feel guilty”). Item responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always). An average score was calculated for each subscale. Previous evidence of internal consistency for the WEB-SG subscale scores include Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .92, and convergent and discriminant validity evidence have been documented with men (Conradt et al., 2007). Cronbach alpha coefficients for the current sample scores for the shame and guilt subscales were .75 and .81, respectively.

Body-Related Authentic and Hubristic Pride

Body-related authentic and hubristic facets of pride were assessed using the Body-Related Pride Scale (Sabiston et al., 2010) that was developed based on Tracy and Robin’s (2007) Pride Scale. Participants rated their level of agreement with descriptive adjectives of authentic pride (n_items = 7; accomplished, successful, fulfilled, confident, productive, achieving, self-worth) and hubristic pride (n_items = 7; egotistical, arrogant, snobbish, stuck-up, pompous, conceited, smug). Responses were rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored at the extremes of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Evidence of internal consistency of scale scores has been demonstrated (Sabiston et al., 2010). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the current study items was .93 for authentic pride and .71 for hubristic pride.

Motivation

The Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ; Mullen, Markland, & Ingledew, 1997) was used to assess physical activity motivation. The BREQ is a 15-item scale, with 4 items assessing extrinsic regulation (e.g., “I exercise because other people say I should”), 3 items assessing introjected (e.g., “I feel like a failure when I haven’t exercised in a while”), 4 items assessing identified (e.g., “I value the benefits of exercise”), and 4 items assessing intrinsic (e.g., “I exercise because it’s fun”) regulations. Participants rated their responses to each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not true for me) to 4 (very true for me). Previous research in physical activity has reported evidence for the reliability and validity of the BREQ scale scores (e.g., Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2007). In the present study, alpha coefficient values were .73 for extrinsic, .75 for introjected, .74 for identified, and .92 for intrinsic regulations. While an instrument tool has been developed to assess amotivation (Markland & Tobin, 2004), the subscale scores are typically skewed and demonstrate weak predictive validity evidence for behavior (Markland & Tobin, 2004; Wilson, Sabiston, Mack, & Blanchard, 2012). Moreover, amotivation is a construct that is assessed in sedentary samples and/or physically active initiates and is not of interest for the present study sample (Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime, 2006). Integrated regulation is difficult to discriminate from identified regulation and thus not often assessed (Markland & Tobin, 2004; Mullen et al., 1997). Although there is an instrument available that taps integrated regulation in the context of organismic integration theory (Wilson et al., 2006), further evidence of reliability and validity is necessary (Sabiston et al., 2010).

Physical Activity Behavior

The Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ; Godin & Shephard, 1985) was utilized to assess self-reported physical activity behavior. The LTEQ consists of three open-ended questions assessing the average frequency of mild, moderate, and strenuous physical activities engaged in during free time in a typical week for at least 15 minutes. Each participant was assigned a total physical activity score, which was calculated by multiplying the weekly frequencies of mild, moderate, and strenuous activity by three, five, and nine, respectively, and summing the scores. The second item on the LTEQ asks about the frequency of regular physical activity during a typical 7-day period that results in a fast heartbeat and sweating and was used for descriptive purposes only.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were examined and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated in SPSS (Version 20.0). Reliability estimates using Cronbach’s alpha were estimated. Age and BMI were examined as potential covariates among main study variables. Age was significantly (ps < .05) associated with shame (r = .21), guilt (r = .27), authentic pride (r = −.29), hubristic pride (r = −.23), and physical activity (r = −.19). BMI was related (ps < .05) to body-related shame (r = .26), guilt (r = .29), authentic (r = −.22) and hubristic pride (r = −.22), and intrinsic regulation (r = −.19). As a result of the significant associations between independent variables and select mediator/or dependent variables, age and BMI were included as covariates (Rothman, Greenlans, & Lash, 2008).¹ Multiple mediation models with bootstrapping (i.e., nonparametric resampling; k = 5,000) procedures were used to examine the effect of the motivation regulations as mediators of the associations between body-related self-conscious emotions and physical activity behavior while controlling for age and BMI (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Arrangement of variables in the mediation models were based on theoretical contentions that outline directionality of effects between emotion, motivation, and behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Lazarus, 1999). Bootstrapping procedures were used to obtain estimates and confidence intervals around the indirect effects to overcome potential problems caused by unmet assumptions in meditational analysis (see Hayes, 2009; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; J. Williams & MacKinnon, 2008, for a discussion on approaches to testing mediation). An SPSS macro that accompanies the article by Preacher and Hayes (2008) on testing multiple mediation models was utilized to conduct the main analyses.

The total indirect effects were calculated in accordance with widely accepted methods (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). If a zero was not included in the 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval of the estimate, it was concluded that the indirect effect was statistically significant (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Based on the SPSS macro, separate models were estimated for each of the self-conscious emotions (i.e., shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride).

Results

Means, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, and skewness and kurtosis values are presented in Table 1. Participants on average reported low-to-moderate levels of shame and moderate feelings of guilt and authentic and hubristic pride. Table 2 displays the correlations among the study variables. Body-related shame and guilt were positively related to the least self-determined motivation regulations and negatively associated with more self-determined regulations and physical activity behavior. Reverse correlation patterns were observed for authentic pride. Hubristic pride was unrelated to motivation regulations, yet positively related to physical activity. Shame and guilt were positively and highly correlated. Authentic and hubristic pride were positively and moderately related.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Measured Study Variables.

Variable	α	Score range	Mean (SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis
Body-related shame	.75	1-5	1.59 (0.56)	1.06	0.98
Body-related guilt	.81	1-5	2.06 (0.81)	0.72	0.06
Body-related authentic pride	.93	1-5	3.02 (0.97)	−0.16	−0.60
Body-related hubristic pride	.71	1-5	1.69 (0.88)	1.44	1.90
External regulation	.74	0-4	1.43 (0.49)	1.48	2.38
Introjected regulation	.75	0-4	2.26 (0.80)	0.19	−0.67
Identified regulation	.74	0-4	3.21 (0.64)	−0.96	0.87
Intrinsic Regulation	.92	0-4	3.28 (0.77)	−1.21	0.93
LTEQ	—	0-193	44.46 (30.22)	1.76	4.99

Note. LTEQ = Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. LTEQ is the physical activity measure in METS.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Body-Related Self-Conscious Emotions, Physical Activity Regulations and Behaviors.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Body-related shame	—
2. Body-related guilt	.61**	—
3. Body-related authentic pride	−.52**	−.35**	—
4. Body-related hubristic pride	−20*	−.18*	.39**	—
5. External regulation	.45**	.27**	−.20*	−.06	—
6. Introjected regulation	.18*	.45**	−.06	−.06	.13	—
7. Identified regulation	−.12	.17*	.19*	.05	−.06	.51**	—
8. Intrinsic Regulation	−.38**	−.23**	.26**	.15	−.23**	.13	.64**	—
9. LTEQ	−.18*	−.10	.31**	.14	−.24**	.22**	.32**	.26**	—
10. MVPA	−.25**	−.15	.35**	.18*	−.29**	.16*	.33**	.33**	.94**

Note. LTEQ = Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire; MVPA = moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The mediation models tested the indirect effect of body-related self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride) on physical activity behavior via motivation regulations (external, introjected, identified, intrinsic), beyond the impact of age and BMI. Table 3 displays the bootstrapped estimates, confidence intervals, and amount of variance explained for the indirect effects with age and BMI as covariates.

Table 3.

Bootstrap Estimates, Confidence Intervals, and Explained Variances for Tests of the Indirect Effects of Body-Related Self-Conscious Emotions on Physical Activity Behavior via Physical Activity.

IV	DV	M	Effect of IV on M (a)	Effect of M on DV (b)	Direct effects (c′)	Indirect effect (a × b), 95% BCa CI
Body-related shame	PA: R² = .15	External	1.59 (0.28)**	−3.20 (1.38)*	−1.92 (5.24)	−9.37, −1.60*
		Introjected	0.87 (0.38)*	1.66 (1.26)		−0.13, 4.45
		Identified	−0.61 (0.40)	2.60 (1.49)*		−6.03, 0.08
		Intrinsic	−1.80 (0.45)**	0.35 (1.13)		−4.40, 4.10
Body-related guilt	PA: R² = .16	External	0.56 (0.21)*	−3.15 (1.28)*	−5.65 (3.73)	−3.94, −0.59*
		Introjected	1.58 (0.23)**	2.35 (1.33)^a		0.25, 7.41*
		Identified	0.68 (0.28)*	2.89 (1.48)*		0.41, 5.12*
		Intrinsic	−0.55 (0.33)	0.05 (1.13)		−1.42, 1.60
Body-related authentic pride	PA: R² = .18	External	−0.36 (0.18)*	−3.03 (1.26)*	6.21 (2.71)*	0.89, 2.81*
		Introjected	−0.08 (0.23)	1.93 (1.22)		−1.50, 0.69
		Identified	0.62 (0.23)*	2.03 (1.48)		−0.09, 4.08
		Intrinsic	0.70 (0.28)*	0.38 (1.09)		−1.59, 2.02
Body-related hubristic pride	PA: R² = .16	External	−0.13 (0.20)	−3.43 (1.29)*	2.98 (2.97)	−0.83, 1.83
		Introjected	−0.13 (0.25)	1.81 (1.26)		−1.56, 0.71
		Identified	−0.17 (0.27)	2.58 (1.50)		−0.79, 2.97
		Intrinsic	0.59 (0.31)*	0.31 (1.12)		−1.30, 1.94

Note. Values within parentheses indicate standard error. IV = independent variable; M = mediator; DV = dependent variable; R² = adjusted R². BCa CI = bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.

p < .05. **p < .001. ^ap = .07.

External motivation regulation was a significant mediator in all body-related self-conscious emotion models except for the link between hubristic pride and physical activity. As predicted, shame and guilt were positively, while authentic pride was negatively, related to external regulation. Moreover, external regulation was negatively related to physical activity. Introjected and identified regulations also mediated the associations between guilt and physical activity. That is, guilt was positively associated with introjected and identified regulations, which were in turn, positively related to physical activity. Furthermore, body-related shame was positively associated with introjected regulation and negatively correlated with intrinsic regulation. Authentic pride was positively related to both identified and intrinsic regulations and directly positively associated with physical activity behavior. In this model, hubristic pride was unrelated to motivation regulations and physical activity.²

Discussion

Guided by scientists’ conceptual and theoretical conjectures of emotion, body image, and organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), this study examined the direct and indirect associations between men’s body-related self-conscious emotional experiences of shame, guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride, and physical activity motivation and behavior. The main hypotheses were supported in that each body-related self-conscious emotion was uniquely associated with physical activity regulations and behavior. Moreover, external and identified regulations were significantly related to physical activity. The present findings highlight the importance of broadening the scope of body image research from general negative affect to specific negative and positive self-conscious emotions. This study also illustrates the value of body-related self-conscious emotions in contributing to health-related motives and behaviors in men.

Consistent with study hypotheses, body-related shame was a significant positive correlate of less self-determined motivation regulations (i.e., external and introjected) and a negative correlate of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, body-related shame was negatively related to physical activity via external regulation. These associations are not surprising given that shame contextualized to the body has been consistently linked to social comparison focused on weight and body shape (Castonguay et al., 2012; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tiggemann & Williams, 2012). Based on the current findings, intervention strategies that reduce body-related shame experiences among men are needed. Strategies may include decreasing the value that men place on their physical appearance and helping them to abandon an observer’s perspective of their bodies (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Martins et al., 2007). This may be facilitated through psychoeducational programs that help individuals recognize and challenge cultural messages focused on appearance and enhancing skills for rejecting media (Levin & Murnen, 2009; Posavac, Posavac, & Weigel, 2001). Such strategies may be helpful in transforming shame about the body into a sense of acceptance and even pride (Sanftner & Tantillo, 2011). Based on the process model of self-conscious emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004) and empirical work (Bessenoff & Snow, 2006; Castonguay et al., 2012), interventions may also focus on manipulating cognitive appraisals that elicit shame. That is, men could be encouraged to hold realistic expectations of their bodies to lessen the difference between their actual and ideal body. Furthermore, rather than blaming the self for a negative situation (e.g., narrow shoulders from low muscularity), men who are prone to shame feelings may be directed to attribute the cause of the event to an external factor (e.g., genetic disposition for body type). Alternatively, men can be encouraged to target appraisals directed toward a specific modifiable behavior and not the overall person (i.e., reframe “I am a fat person” to “I gained weight because I did not exercise”) in attempt to decrease external and introjected regulations, and thus indirectly increase physical activity behavior (e.g., Levine, Piran, & Stoddard, 1999; Posavac et al., 2001).

In further support of study hypotheses, body-related guilt was positively associated with external regulation, which in turn, was negatively related to physical activity. This indirect association corroborates the findings of research targeting more general body-related affect (Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Cox et al., 2013; Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006). This more maladaptive nature of body-related guilt is consistent with frequent descriptions of noncontextualized guilt in the literature (e.g., Stuewig & McCloskey, 2005). Furthermore, this evidence supports Calogero and Pina’s (2011) research extending self-objectification framework to guilt and disordered eating behavior. Yet, body-related guilt was also positively correlated with both introjected and identified regulations, which in turn, were positively related to physical activity behavior. These associations imply that feelings of body-related guilt may also have reparative qualities via regulations positioned in the center of the self-determination continuum. As such, intervention strategies specifically designed to target introjected and identified regulations should be provided to men who experience guilt about their body. Interventions targeting introjected regulation may include promoting the need to relieve the sense of guilt, while interventions for identified regulation may involve teaching men the health benefits and value of engaging in physical activity. Nonetheless, while these strategies may be effective for initiating physical activity among men, their effectiveness in maintaining long-term participation is questionable because they are externally focused (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). An alternative perspective relating to the positive associations between body-related guilt and introjected and identified regulations is that guilt may foster maladaptive forms of physical activity. Previous research investigating the motivating forces behind maladaptive forms of exercise such as dependence, has reported introjection as the strongest predictor of maladaptive activity (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006). This is the first study to extend self-objectification framework to examine the relations among body-related guilt, physical activity motivation, and behavior. As such, researchers need to examine changes in guilt, regulations and physical activity over time to determine if the emotion’s motivational power leads to destructive or positive health behavior change.

As hypothesized, body-related authentic pride was a significant negative correlate of external regulation and a positive correlate of identified and intrinsic regulations. This facet of pride was also directly and positively associated with physical activity behavior. The positive relations between body-related authentic pride and the more self-determined motives suggest that this emotional experience may be an incentive for men to pursue action and behavior in a valued domain (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Interestingly, previous research did not find this association in women (Sabiston et al., 2010), suggesting that authentic pride may be particularly useful for increasing physical activity in men. A promising approach toward enhancing authentic pride would be to focus on men’s unstable and global cognitive attributions (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2004). Specifically, allied health professions may facilitate a realization that effort, building competence, and setting manageable goals (e.g., in exercise participation) are related to goal achievement and accomplishments (e.g., shaping body). Alternatively, the discrepant findings between the current study and those previously reported may be attributed to the hypothesis testing procedure. Although the Preacher and Hayes (2008) approach to mediation is superior with moderate sample sizes and controls for Type I error rate within each analysis, several models were tested without controlling for overall Type I error (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Interestingly, body-related hubristic pride was positively linked to intrinsic regulation in the present study. It could be argued that hubristic pride is an external contingency for individuals to engage in physical activity because there are tangible benefits that are separable from the behavior itself (e.g., being the target for upwards comparisons, impressing others; Castonguay et al., 2013). Therefore, it is not clear how effective promotion of hubristic pride over time would be for the maintenance of physical activity. This emotion may be a key strategy to get individuals to initiate physical activity, but these incentives may not be sufficient by themselves to motivate long-term behavior change (Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013). As Ingledew and Markland (2008) call attention to, it is possible that holding controlled motivations such as body-related hubristic pride (an extrinsic regulation) may not necessarily be troublesome for affecting behavioral outcomes, provided that the person also holds self-determined regulations. It has been proposed (Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010), for instance, that a man may aim to achieve a physically appealing body because his partner compliments his good looks (controlled motivation) and at the same time he may personally value a fit appearance (autonomous motivation). Therefore, although intrinsic motives are typically pursued for autonomous reasons and extrinsic motives are typically pursued for controlled reasons, the grounds for pursuing goals may overlap. Thus, physical activity promotion programs should adopt a needs-supportive approach and not necessarily disparage body-related hubristic tendencies, which may lead men to perceive that their autonomy is threatened and possibly lead to dropout (Ingledew & Markland, 2008; Teixeira et al., 2012).

Consistent with the univariate findings of Sabiston et al. (2010) and a recent meta-analysis (Teixeira et al., 2012), external regulation was significantly negatively linked to men’s physical activity behavior. It should be noted however, that just over half of the studies examined in the meta-analysis reported no associations between external regulation and behavior in the context of physical activity and health. Negative associations were also reported more frequently among males than females, particularly in the latter stages of change (i.e., maintenance). Based on reported gender differences presented in the meta-analysis and lack of an association between external regulation and physical activity behavior in Sabiston et al.’s (2010) multivariate analysis using a female sample, future work in this area is encouraged to consider potential gender differences in the relations between physical activity motivation and behavior. In line with previous investigations, identified regulation was positively linked to participation. Identified regulation has been reported as a stronger predictor of physical activity behavior compared with intrinsic regulation in research with men and women (Teixeira et al., 2012). This mounting empirical evidence suggests that individuals need to value physical activity to participate and that enjoyment may be more difficult to achieve (Ekkekakis & Petruzzello, 1999; Sabiston et al., 2010).

Not surprisingly, moderate to high bivariate correlations and a similar pattern of findings between shame and guilt as well as between authentic and hubristic pride were observed in the current study. Correlation coefficients of such magnitude have been consistently reported in previous work (e.g., Conradt et al., 2007). This covariation likely reflects the fact that both shame and guilt tend to occur simultaneously and share several features in common as do the pride emotions (i.e., valence, self-evaluative processes, direction of discrepancy between self-representations, and types of eliciting events; Castonguay et al., 2012; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2006). Despite the moderate to high correlation coefficients reported in this study, these values did not indicate multicolliniarity based on bivariate correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Collectively, the slightly divergent relationships between the main study variables in the present study, and extant research that has linked these emotions to distinct correlates (e.g., Castonguay et al., 2013; Castonguay et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2011; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996), points to the presence of meaningful unique variance among the emotions, and thus, should be examined as distinct constructs (Castonguay et al., 2014). It is likely that a more discrete pattern of findings would emerge between the constructs examined in studies employing longitudinal designs.³

Limitations and Future Directions

As with any research, the current study has limitations. First, the data are cross section-sectional and interpretations are not based on change across time or directionality of effects. Therefore, it is possible that relations between self-conscious emotions and physical activity may be bidirectional and should be examined using longitudinal designs. Nonetheless, the sequence of tested relations was guided by the theoretical conceptualization of motivation as a mechanism in the association between emotion and health behavior (Lazarus, 1999) and has been instrumental in past research testing these relationships in women (Sabiston et al., 2010). Second, the findings of this study are limited to the current sample primarily consisting of young, single, middle-class males, and it is therefore recommended to investigate these relationships in other more diverse male samples. Since age was statistically controlled for in the current study analyses, it is unknown whether constructs in the current study have a linear relationship with age across the entire lifespan. In addition to longitudinal research, inquiries that compare young, middle-aged, and older adults would be fruitful. Similarly, this sample had low ethnic variability. Although supplemental analyses indicated that there were no mean differences in main study variables by ethnicity, it is unknown how cultural diversity may influence the tested relations. Third, several of the hubristic pride subscale items had low endorsement rates, which makes it possible that evidence of reliability and validity could have contributed to the fact that scores on this subscale did not contribute significantly in the multiple mediation models. Fourth, the WEB-SG scale was developed to assess weight-related shame and guilt. The use of an instrument tapping more general appearance and fitness-related body-related self-conscious emotions is likely to relate more strongly to physical activity motivation regulations and predict a greater percentage of the variance in physical activity behavior. Finally, physical activity was assessed using self-report. It may be worth examining the links between body-related self-conscious emotions, motivation regulations, and physical activity using objectives measure (accelerometer or pedometers) given that self-report measures may be biased and may not tap dimensions of physical activity known to relate to health outcomes (Schmidt, Cleland, Thomson, Dwyer, & Venn, 2008).

Conclusion

This investigation significantly contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it demonstrated support for integrating self-objectification and self-determination theories to explain variance in physical activity in men—a population that is typically understudied, yet insufficiently active to attain optimal health and well-being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007; Colley et al., 2011). Second, this study highlighted the importance of investigating both positive and negative emotional experiences that extend beyond general negative affect and social physique anxiety. Third, it identified body-related self-conscious emotions as unique correlates of physical activity motivation and behavior. Future research should expand on these relations by including additional body-related self-conscious emotions such as envy and embarrassment. Furthermore, longitudinal research is needed to explore the short and long-term effects of body-related self-conscious emotions on physical activity. Such collective efforts may contribute to an integrated theoretical approach linking body-related affect to motivation and health relevant behavior.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by FQRSC and SSHRC grants awarded to the last author. Completion of this article was further supported by a CIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship and a WOLFE Fellowship in Scientific and Technological Literacy to the first author and SSHRC and CIHR grants to the third author.

Notes

References

Bessenoff

G. R.

Snow

(2006). Absorbing society’s influence: Body image self-discrepancy and internalized shame. Sex Roles, 54, 727-731.

Brunet

Sabiston

(2009). Social physique anxiety and physical activity: A self-determination theory perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 329-335.

Burney

Irwin

H. J.

(2000). Shame and guilt in women with eating disorder symptomatology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 51-61.

Cafri

Thompson

J. K.

(2004). Measuring male body image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 18-29.

Cafri

Thompson

J. K.

Ricciardelli

L. A.

McGabe

Smolack

Yesalis

(2005). Pursuit of the muscular ideal: Physical and psychological consequences and putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 215-239.

Calogero

R. M.

Pina

(2011). Body guilt: Preliminary evidence for a further subjective experience of self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 428-440.

Calogero

R. M.

Thompson

J. K.

(2009). Potential implications of the objectification of women’s bodies for women’s sexual satisfaction. Body Image, 6, 145-148.

Carver

C. S.

Sinclair

Johnson

S. L.

(2010). Authentic and hubristic pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 698-703.

Castonguay

A. L.

Brunet

Ferguson

Sabiston

C. M.

(2012). Weight-related actual and ideal self-states, discrepancies, and shame, guilt, and pride: Examining associations within the process model of self-conscious emotions. Body Image, 9, 488-494.

10.

Castonguay

A. L.

Gilchrist

Mack

D. E.

Sabiston

C. M.

(2013). Body-related pride in young adults: An exploration of the triggers, contexts, outcomes and attributions. Body Image, 10, 335-343.

11.

Castonguay

A. L.

Sabiston

C. M.

Crocker

P. R. E.

Mack

D. E.

(2014). Development and validation of the Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES). Body Image, 11, 126-136.

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Prevalence of regular physical activity among adults-United States, 2001 and 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56, 1209-1212.

13.

Colley

R. C.

Garriguet

Janssen

Craig

C. L.

Clarke

Tremblay

M. S.

(2011). Physical activity of Canadian adults: Accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Report, 22(1), 7-14.

14.

Conradt

Dierk

Schlumberger

Rauh

Hebebrand

Rief

(2007). Development of the Weight- and Body-Related Shame and Guilt scale (WEB-SG) in a nonclinical sample of obese individuals. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 317-327.

15.

Cox

A. E.

Ullrich-French

Sabiston

C. M.

(2013). Using motivation regulations in a person-centered approach to examine the link between social physique anxiety in physical education and physical activity-related outcomes in adolescents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 461-467.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2002). Handbook of self-determination. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

18.

Edmunds

Ntoumanis

Duda

J. L.

(2006). Examining exercise dependence symptomatology from a self-determination perspective. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 887-903.

19.

Ekkekakis

Petruzzello

S. J.

(1999). Acute aerobic exercise and affect: Current status, problems, and prospects regarding dose-response. Sports Medicine, 28, 337-374.

20.

Feingold

Mazzella

(1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190-195.

21.

Fischer

K. W.

Tangney

J. P.

(1995). Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview. In Tangney

J. P.

Fischer

K. W.

(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Frederick

D. A.

Buchanan

G. M.

Sadehgi-Azar

Peplau

L. A.

Haselton

M. G.

Berezovskaya

Lipinski

R. E.

(2007). Deserting the muscular ideal: Men’s body satisfaction in the United States, Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 103-117.

23.

Frederick

D. A.

Jafary

A. M.

Gruys

Daniels

E. A.

(2012). Surveys and the epidemiology of body image dissatisfaction. In Cash

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 766-774). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

24.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

(1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.

25.

Frisén

Holmqvist

(2010). What characterizes early adolescents with a positive body image? A qualitative investigation of Swedish girls and boys. Body Image, 7, 205-212.

26.

Georgiadis

Biddle

Chatzisarantis

(2001). The mediating role of self-determination in the relationship between goal orientations and physical self-worth in Greek exercisers. European Journal of Sport Science, 1, 1-9.

27.

Godin

Shephard

R. J.

(1985). A simple method to assess exercise behaviour in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 141-146.

28.

Grogan

(2008). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women, and children. New York, NY: Psychology.

29.

Hagger

(2009). Theoretical integration in health psychology: Unifying ideas and complementary explanation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 189-194.

30.

Hagger

M. S.

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(2009). Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 275-302.

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Barron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

32.

Hebl

M. R.

King

E. B.

Lin

(2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331.

33.

Ingledew

D. K.

Markland

(2008). The role of motives in exercise participation. Psychology and Health, 23, 807-828.

34.

Jankauskiene

Pajaujiene

(2012). Disordered eating attitudes and body shame among athletes, exercisers and sedentary female college students. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 52, 92-101.

35.

Kim

Thibodeau

Jorgensen

R. S.

(2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 68-96.

36.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer.

37.

Leith

K. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66, 1-37.

38.

Levin

M. P.

Murnen

S. K.

(2009). “Everybody knows that mass media are/are not [pick one] a cause of eating disorders”: A critical review of evidence for a causal link between media, negative body image, and disordered eating in females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 9-42.

39.

Levine

M. P.

Piran

Stoddard

(1999). Mission more probable: Media literacy, activism, and advocacy in the prevention of eating disorders. In Piran

Levine

M. P.

Steiner-Adair

(Eds.), Preventing eating disorders: A handbook of interventions and special challenges (pp. 3-25). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.

40.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

41.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

42.

Markland

Tobin

(2004). A modification of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 191-196.

43.

Martins

Tiggemann

Kirkbride

(2007). Those speedos become them: The role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634-647.

44.

McCreary

D. R.

Sasse

D. K.

(2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297-304.

45.

Mullen

Markland

Ingledew

D. K.

(1997). A graded conceptualization of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 745-752.

46.

Pope

H. G.

Olivardia

Borowiecki

J. J.

Cohane

G. H.

(2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A longitudinal survey of advertising in women’s magazines. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 70, 189-192.

47.

Posavac

H. D.

Posavac

S. S.

Weigel

R. G.

(2001). Reducing the impact of media images on women at risk for body image disturbance: Three targeted interventions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 324-340.

48.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

49.

Rothman

Greenlans

Lash

T. L.

(2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

50.

Sabiston

C. M.

Brunet

Kowalski

K. C.

Wilson

Mack

D. E.

Crocker

P. R. E.

(2010). The role of body-related self-conscious emotions in motivating physical activity among women. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 417-437.

51.

Sabiston

C. M.

Castonguay

A. L.

(2014). Self-conscious emotions. In Eklund

Tenenbaum

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 623-626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Sanchez

D. T.

Kiefer

A. K.

(2007). Body concerns in and out of the bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 808-820.

53.

Sanftner

J. L.

Tantillo

(2011). Body image and eating disorders: A compelling source of shame for women. In Dearing

R. L.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Shame in the therapy hour (pp. 277-303). Washington, DC: APA Books.

54.

Schenk

R. U.

Everingham

(1995). Men healing shame: An anthology. New York, NY: Springer.

55.

Schenk

R. U.

Everingham

(2005). Breaking the shackles: Bringing joy into our lives. Madison, WI: MPC-BEP Press.

56.

Schmidt

Cleland

Thomson

Dwyer

Venn

(2008). A comparison of subjective and objective measures of physical activity and fitness in identifying associations with cardiometabolic risk factors. Annals of Epidemiology, 18, 378-386.

57.

Stevens-Aubrey

(2006). Effects of sexually objectifying media on self-objectification and body surveillance in undergraduates: Results of a 2-year panel study. Journal of Communication, 56, 366-386.

58.

Stipek

(1995). The development of pride and shame in toddlers. In Tangney

J. P.

Fischer

K. W.

(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 237-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

59.

Stuewig

McCloskey

L. A.

(2005). The relation of child maltreatment to shame and guilt among adolescents: Psychological routes to depression and delinquency. Child Maltreatment, 10, 324-336.

60.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

61.

Tangney

J. P.

Miller

R. S.

Flicker

Barlow

D. H.

(1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256-1269.

62.

Tangney

J. P.

Tracy

J. L.

(2012). Self-conscious emotions. In Leary

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 446-478). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

63.

Teixeira

P. J.

Carraca

E. V.

Markland

Silva

M. N.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78.

64.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Ntoumanis

(2006). The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions, and physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393-404.

65.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Ntoumanis

(2007). A self-determination theory approach to the study of body image concerns, self-presentation and self-perceptions in a sample of aerobic instructors. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 301-315.

66.

Tiggemann

Kuring

J. K.

(2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299-311.

67.

Tiggemann

Williams

(2012). The role of self-objectification in disordered eating, depressed mood, and sexual functioning among women: A comprehensive test of objectifiction theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 66-75.

68.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103-125.

69.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339-1351.

70.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525.

71.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

C. P.

Soenens

(2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In Urdan

T. C.

Karabenick

S. A.

(Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16, pp. 105-165). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

72.

Williams

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23-51.

73.

Williams

L. A.

DeSteno

(2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1007-1017.

74.

Wilson

P. M.

Rodgers

W. M.

Fraser

S. N.

(2002). Examining the psychometric properties of the Behavioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 1-21.

75.

Wilson

P. M.

Rodgers

W. M.

Loitz

C. C.

Scime

(2006). “It’s who I am . . . really!” The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11, 79-104.

76.

Wilson

P. M.

Sabiston

C. M.

Mack

D. E.

Blanchard

C. M.

(2012). On the nature and function of scoring protocols used in exercise motivation research: An empirical study of the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 614-622.

77.

Wiseman

M. C.

Moradi

(2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 154-166.

78.

Wood-Barcalow

N. L.

Tylka

T. L.

Augustus-Horvath

C. L.

(2010). “But I like my body”: Positive body image characteristics and a holistic model for young women-adult women. Body Image, 7, 106-116.