Identifying antecedents and consequences of shame and embarrassment in physical activity contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embarrassment and shame are distinct self-conscious emotions that are closely tied to the physical self. The historical conceptualization of embarrassment as a derivative of shame has precluded researchers from examining the distinct properties of this emotion – despite the relevance of embarrassment in physical activity contexts. This study identified and compared the antecedents and consequences of body-related shame and embarrassment. Participants (N=324; Mage=18.97; SD=2.34 years) reported open-ended narratives of experiences with body-related embarrassment and shame and a follow-up self-report of social contexts related to these body-related emotion experiences. Using a content analysis, similar antecedents were identified for both emotions, however, experiences of embarrassment were elicited more frequently by body exposure and fear of negative evaluations from others (e.g., weight-related comments), whereas shame was triggered more by social comparison. Both emotions were experienced during participation in physical activity (e.g., sport, physical education) and in a changing room. Shame was commonly elicited in private contexts (e.g., self-reflection), whereas embarrassment almost exclusively occurred in the presence of others. Embarrassment did not frequently result in behavior change whereas shame provoked a variety of behavioral responses (e.g., concealment, change in diet). This study is the first to examine body-related embarrassment, and identify the similarities and differences between shame and embarrassment experiences related to physical activity contexts. Understanding these emotions within the realm of the physical self can have implications for physical activity as they are frequently cited as barriers to participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".