Intrapersonal characteristics of body-related self-conscious emotion experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on meta-analytic evidence (Else-Quest et al., 2012), theory (Tangney, 1996), and gaps in the literature (Tracy & Tangney, 2012), the purpose of this study was to examine differences in body-related self-conscious emotions across intrapersonal characteristics of gender, age, body mass index (BMI) and physical activity (PA). Participants (N = 571; 28% male) completed questionnaires assessing authentic and hubristic pride, guilt, shame, embarrassment and envy. Participants ranged from 17 to 87 years (Mage = 28.9 ± 15.4) with self-reported BMI (M = 24.1 ± 4.87) and PA (M = 36.1 ± 25.2). MANOVA and follow-up univariate analyses reveal significant (p < .01) main effects for gender, age, BMI, and PA. Males reported higher pride with lower shame, guilt and embarrassment. Pride was highest for young adults, while guilt and shame were highest for middle age adults. Envy was highest for young adults, followed by middle and older adults, respectively. Pride was most endorsed by normal weight adults, while shame, guilt and embarrassment by overweight and obese adults. Pride was highest in active adults, while shame was highest in inactive adults. These intrapersonal characteristics were significant predictors in multiple linear regression models for hubristic pride (R2adj = .07), authentic pride (R2adj = .14) guilt (R2adj = .24), shame (R2adj = .33), embarrassment (R2adj = .11), and envy (R2adj = .08). Combined, findings reveal unique profiles of individuals who are likely to experience body-related self-conscious emotions. Recognizing individual differences in body-related emotion is an important step in improving emotional health and well-being.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".