Comparing the associations between body appearance and fitness self-conscious emotions across physical activity modalities: A multi-part study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body appearance and fitness self-conscious emotions have been identified as antecedents to aerobic physical activity. Including resistance training and statistically accounting for the co-occurrence of appearance and fitness emotions is essential for identifying which emotion facet may be more beneficial to target to facilitate different physical activities. This two-part study compared the associations among appearance and fitness self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt, envy, embarrassment, authentic pride, hubristic pride) and physical activity (strenuous, moderate, mild, resistance) among young adults. Participants in Study 1 ( N = 401 women, M age ± SD = 25.66 ± 5.36) and 2 ( N = 510, 70.4 % women, M age ± SD = 28.09 ± 5.87) completed validated measures and data were analyzed using Path models. Fitness but not appearance emotions were significantly related to physical activity when in the same model across studies. Fitness shame and guilt were associated with lower physical activity (significant b = −.15 to −.49) whereas fitness authentic and hubristic pride were associated with higher physical activity ( b =.11 to.53). Inconsistent associations were noted for fitness embarrassment and envy. Findings suggest that person-level interventions should target fitness-related emotions and highlight that interpersonal and system-level influences via fitness environments and content should avoid fostering fitness shame and guilt and foster fitness pride. • Fitness shame and guilt related to lower physical activity across modalities. • Fitness authentic and hubristic pride related to lower physical activity modalities. • Inconsistent patterns were noted for fitness embarrassment and envy. • Appearance emotions were insignificant when also accounting for fitness emotions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".