Examining the relationship of person factors and attributions with body-related shame and guilt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Tracy & Robins' (2004) model of self-conscious emotions, the purpose of this study was to examine (a) physical self-concept (PSC) and shame and guilt proneness as predictors of body-related shame and guilt and (b) the mediating role of specific attributions on the relationship in (a). Based on the model, it was hypothesized that shame would be related to stable, global, and uncontrollable attributions whereas guilt would be related to unstable, specific and controllable attributions. Female participants (N=284; Mean age=20.6 ± 1.9 yrs) completed measures of PSC and shame and guilt proneness before reading a hypothetical scenario designed to elicit a negative body-related emotional response, followed by assessment of state shame and guilt and attributions. Shame proneness and PSC were significant predictors of shame ( ? =.49; ? =-.11) and guilt ( ? =.41; ? =-.14). Control attributions mediated the relationship of PSC with shame and guilt and shame-proneness with shame. Global attributions mediated the relationship of shame proneness with shame. Control ( ? =-.16), stability ( ? =.16), and global ( ? =.20) attributions were significant predictors of guilt, while global ( ? =.30) and control ( ? =-.19) attributions were significant predictors of shame. The study provides partial support for Tracy & Robins' model for predicting shame, but little support for predicting guilt. Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".