Make yourself proud: Exploring behavioural regulations as serial mediators of the pride - well-being relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feelings of pride are thought to play a central role in motivating and regulating individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (Campos, 1995; Fischer & Tangney, 1995). Grounded in self-conscious emotions literature (Tangney & Tracy, 2012) and Organismic Integration Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), the purpose of the present study was to examine the role of self-determined motives as one mechanism though which fitness-related pride is associated with well-being. Participants (N = 119) were young adults (nwomen = 57; Mage = 20.34 years; SDage = 1.48 years) who completed self-report questionnaires pertaining to pride in fitness contexts, behavioural regulations for exercise, and subjective vitality at two time points separated by 4-weeks. A single score was computed for each time point using the subscales of the BREQ-2R to form an overall index of relative autonomy (RAI; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Using tests of serial mediation, the specific indirect effect of pride through RAI at Time 1 and Time 2 on subjective vitality was significant for authentic pride (BC CI = .0966-.5388) and hubristic pride (BC CI = .1171-.4794). Taken together, these results speak to the importance of the causal flow of more self-determined motivation in the relationship between pride and well-being. Results are in line with previous findings (Fredrickson, 2001) that positive emotions promote well-being not simply in the present moment, but over time through building enduring personal resources. Contrary to previous research (Tracy et al., 2009) hubristic pride, at least in the context of fitness, may be adaptive for psychological health.Acknowledgments: Support for this research was provided 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) | 0.004 | 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".