537517

research-article2014
JMHXXX10.1177/1557988314537517American Journal of Men’s HealthCastonguay et al.

Article
American Journal of Men’s Health

Body-Related Self-Conscious Emotions

2015, Vol. 9(3) 209­–221
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Relate to Physical Activity Motivation sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1557988314537517

and Behavior in Men ajmh.sagepub.com

Andree L. Castonguay, PhD1,2, Eva Pila, MSc3, Carsten Wrosch, PhD2,

and Catherine M. Sabiston, PhD3

Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the associations between the body-related self-conscious emotions of shame,
guilt, and pride and physical activity motivation and behavior among adult males. Specifically, motivation regulations
(external, introjected, indentified, intrinsic) were examined as possible mediators between each of the body-related
self-conscious emotions and physical activity behavior. A cross-sectional study was conducted with adult men (N = 152;
Mage = 23.72, SD = 10.92 years). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing body-related shame, guilt, authentic
pride, hubristic pride, motivational regulations, and leisure-time physical activity. In separate multiple mediation models,
body-related shame was positively associated with external and introjected regulations and negatively correlated with
intrinsic regulation. Guilt was positively linked to external, introjected, and identified regulations. Authentic pride was
negatively related to external regulation and positively correlated with both identified and intrinsic regulations and
directly associated with physical activity behavior. Hubristic pride was positively associated with intrinsic regulation.
Overall, there were both direct and indirect effects via motivation regulations between body-related self-conscious
emotions and physical activity (R2 shame = .15, guilt = .16, authentic pride = .18, hubristic pride = .16). These findings
highlight the importance of targeting and understanding self-conscious emotions contextualized to the body and links
to motivation and positive health behavior among men.

Keywords
shame, guilt, pride, body image, self-determination theory, men’s health

Body image disturbance has been traditionally viewed as
a concern for women, fueled by consistent findings in
the literature that women experience greater negative
emotions and dissatisfaction with their body than men
across age and culture (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998;
Frederick, Jafary, Gruys, & Daniels, 2012). However,
this belief was based largely on empirical findings mea-
suring body image disturbance specific to weight loss
and body shape at the expense of muscularity—a preva-
lent concern of men (Cafri et al., 2005; McCreary &
Sasse, 2000). Furthermore, most studies tend to focus on
women only, which perpetuates the pathological prob-
lem for women more so than men. Indeed, some research-
ers using multidimensional measures tapping muscularity
have reported that over 90% of men experience some
degree of body dissatisfaction and negative emotions
(Frederick et al., 2007; Frederick et al., 2012). This
research is in its infancy and is limited in scope to gen-
eral negative emotions tied to the body. A comprehensive
look at a range of body-related emotions in men may be
valuable to understanding health-related attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors. The current study focuses on self-
conscious emotions.
Self-Conscious Emotions
Self-conscious emotions are elicited by self-reflection
and self-evaluation (Fischer & Tangney, 1995; Tracy &
Robins, 2004). It has been argued that self-conscious
emotions are fundamental in motivating and regulating
most of people’s cognitions, feelings, and actions (Fischer
& Tangney, 1995). Specifically, this set of emotions
serves to motivate people to behave in moral and socially
responsible ways (Leith & Baumeister, 1998) as well as
1
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Catherine M. Sabiston, 55 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5S 2W6.
Email: catherine.sabiston@utoronto.ca
210 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)
foster perseverance in task and achievement domains
(Stipek, 1995). Shame, guilt, and pride are the primary
emotions studied within the context of self-conscious
emotions and body image theories (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), and are likely to
be associated with health relevant processes such as
physical activity behavior (Castonguay, Gilchrist, Mack,
& Sabiston, 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010).
Body-Related Shame and Guilt.  Body-related shame is an
acutely painful emotion that individuals experience when
they fail to meet internalized social standards in relation
to the body with a focus on deeply rooted global causes of
the self (e.g., “I am a fat person”; Sabiston et al., 2010;
Tracy & Robins, 2004). Body-related guilt is elicited in
response to a specific behavioral transgression and
involves a sense of tension and regret over the failure
(e.g., “I didn’t exercise for three months and that’s why I
gained weight”; Sabiston & Castonguay, 2014; Tracy &
Robins, 2004). As shame is elicited in response to global
failures of the self and results in motivations to escape or
hide (e.g., avoiding the fitness center), it is a difficult
emotion to alter (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). Therefore,
shame in relation to the body has the potential to be a
devastating painful experience. In fact, the pathological
consequences of shame have been captured by self-objec-
tification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which
was developed as a framework to position self-conscious
emotions, such as body-related shame, within the broader
context of body image and behavioral health outcomes in
women. Essentially, body-related shame is recognized as
a key emotional consequence within objectification the-
ory and is thought to mediate the relationship between
self-objectification (i.e., scrutinizing the body from an
external perspective) as well as body-monitoring (i.e.,
preoccupation with one’s appearance) and maladaptive
behaviors (i.e., disordered eating, sexual dysfunction).
Researchers have since challenged the assertion that self-
objectification is limited to women, based on findings
that men are equally vulnerable to experiences of self-
objectification and its associated consequences, such as
body-related shame (Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004; Schenk &
Everingham, 1995, 2005; Stevens-Aubrey, 2006). In sup-
port of this contention, emerging research has applied this
theory to men (e.g., Wiseman & Moradi, 2010).
Researchers have confirmed the positive links between
body-related shame and disordered eating symptomatol-
ogy (e.g., Jankauskiene & Pajaujiene, 2012; Martins,
Tiggemann, & Kirkbride, 2007; Tiggemann & Kuring,
2004; Tiggemann & Williams, 2012) and sexual dysfunc-
tion (e.g., sexual pleasure, arousability; Calogero &
Thompson, 2009; Sanchez & Kiefer, 2007) mostly in
samples of women. Recent investigations have extended
this theory to the important health behavior of physical
activity. Sabiston et al. (2010) explored the relationship
of body-related self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt,
and authentic pride) with motivation regulations and
behavior for physical activity in a large sample of adult
females (18-68 years of age). The authors reported that
body-related shame was positively related to maladaptive
forms of motivation, negatively related to adaptive forms
of motivation, and unrelated to physical activity behavior.
In another recent study (Jankauskiene & Pajaujiene,
2012), female university students high in body-related
shame reported higher levels of maladaptive appearance-
related exercise motives. Although these inquiries pro-
vide insight into the relationships between body-related
shame experiences and physical activity motivation and
behavior in women, no studies have been conducted in
men. Targeted studies on male populations are important
given that they may also feel pressure to conform to nor-
mative body ideals (Stevens-Aubrey, 2006) and are far
from achieving sufficient levels of physical activity for
optimal health and well-being (Colley et al., 2011).
In addition to extending self-objectification theory
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) to men and the relevant
health behavior of physical activity, a limited set of
researchers have applied the theoretical framework to the
negative emotion of guilt (Burney & Irwin, 2000;
Calogero & Pina, 2011; Sabiston et al., 2010). Given that
guilt arises in response to a specific behavior, and not the
person as a whole, as is the case for shame, guilt is typi-
cally less painful than shame and may motivate repara-
tive action in attempt to fix the transgression (Conradt et
al., 2007; Sabiston et al., 2010). Consistent with this
notion and generalized self-conscious emotion research,
body-related guilt has been shown to be weakly or unre-
lated with psychopathological indicators (e.g., depres-
sion; Castonguay, Sabiston, Crocker, & Mack, 2014;
Conradt et al., 2007; Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen,
2011), and guilt has demonstrated positive associations
with the prosocial behavior of physical activity (e.g.,
Sabiston et al., 2010; Teixeira, Carraca, Markland, Silva,
& Ryan, 2012). Hence, guilt may predict positive health
behaviors. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about
guilt contextualized to the body or its implications for
physical activity participation in adult males.
Body-Related Pride.  In addition to shame and guilt, exam-
ining the positive emotion of pride may offer another and
unique understanding of physical activity behavior. Pride
is conceptualized as an emotion that results from an indi-
vidual engaging in socially valued behaviors (e.g., exer-
cising) or presenting with positive characteristics (e.g.,
being physically fit and attractive; Tracy & Robins,
2007). Pride can be experienced as two facets authentic
and hubristic. These facets are differentiated by their cog-
nitive attributions (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy &
Castonguay et al. 211
Robins, 2007). Authentic pride is elicited in response to
specific behaviors (e.g., “I finished the marathon I trained
for”), whereas hubristic pride arises from global aspects
of the self (e.g., “I am a fit person”) typically involving
feelings of personal grandiosity and superiority to others
(Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007).
Although rarely studied in the context of the body,
authentic pride has been linked to motivation to engage in
specific goal-directed behaviors including physical activ-
ity (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Castonguay et al.,
2013; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007; L. A.
Williams & DeSteno, 2008). In contrast, hubristic pride
has been associated with narcissistic self-aggrandizement
(e.g., arrogance, conceit) and both adaptive and maladap-
tive behaviors (e.g., motivating physical activity but to
show off motor skills; Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et
al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Considering the dif-
ferential role of each facet of pride in behavior engage-
ment, there is merit in understanding this emotion in the
context of the body and how it may relate to physical
activity motivation and behavior (Tangney & Tracy,
2012). No research has sought to assess hubristic pride as
a potential factor contributing to physical activity motiva-
tion and behavior, which thus warrants empirical atten-
tion. Body-related pride has received scant empirical
attention, in part due to traditional research paradigms
focused on pathology and lack of published measures that
assess theoretically (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007) and
empirically (Castonguay et al., 2013) based authentic and
hubristic facets of pride (Castonguay et al., 2014). Inves-
tigating the associations between the two facets of pride
and physical activity motivations and behavior also holds
the potential to broaden theoretical frameworks. Specifi-
cally, this research may extend self-objectification theory
by including positive body-related emotions and linking
theories of emotion, motivation and behavior.
Theoretical Premises Linking Self-Conscious
Emotions to Motivation and Behavior
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) provides
scientists with a greater understanding of individual’s
motivation toward volitional behaviors and has been used
frequently to link body-related emotions, motivation, and
health behavior (Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Cox, Ullrich-
French, & Sabiston, 2013). Based on the subtheory of
organismic integration theory, motivation is a multidi-
mensional construct that comprises several qualitatively
distinct motivational regulations that lie on a continuum
of self-determination. This continuum ranges from amo-
tivation (i.e., lack of intention to engage in behavior),
external (i.e., participate to fulfill external demands),
introjected (i.e., participate to avoid feeling guilty or to
protect one’s self-worth), identified (i.e., participate due
to the personal importance affixed to the outcome of the
activity), and integrated (i.e., participate to achieve ben-
efits that are considered important and are in line with
core values and beliefs), to intrinsic (i.e., participate for
inherent enjoyment or interest in the activity) regulations
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). Higher levels of self-deter-
mined motivation (e.g., identified, integrated, and intrin-
sic regulations) emerge when an individual’s perceived
locus of causality is internal and engagement in behavior
is a result of a sense of willingness and choice. In con-
trast, lower levels of self-determined motivation are
observed when an individual’s perceived locus of causal-
ity is external and the behavior is undertaken because
they feel a sense of pressure originating from either the
self or others. Consequently, higher levels of self-deter-
mined forms of regulation are positively linked to more
positive behavioral outcomes such as physical activity,
compared with lower levels of self-determination
(Teixeira et al., 2012).
Proponents of organismic integration theory further
suggest that individuals interpret social cues differently
and that this interpretation influences the initiation and
regulation of behavior. The pressures placed on men to
portray an ideal physique are prominent social cues in
today’s society (Cafri & Thompson, 2004; Grogan, 2008;
Pope, Olivardia, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2001). A failure
to meet these unrealistic standards may induce negative
emotions (e.g., guilt, shame), which in turn may provoke
external and introjected regulations (Castonguay, Brunet,
Ferguson, & Sabiston, 2012; Deci & Ryan, 2002;
Georgiadis, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2001). On the other
hand, meeting such standards may lead to positive emo-
tions (e.g., authentic pride, hubristic pride), which may
then promote more self-determined identified and intrin-
sic regulations (Castonguay et al., 2012; Sabiston et al.,
2010). In fact, positive links have been documented
between authentic pride and intrinsic and identified regu-
lations in both mixed and female samples (Castonguay et
al., 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010). Studies using constructs
that exhibit moderate to high correlations with pride, such
as physical self-worth (Georgiadis et al., 2001; Thøgersen-
Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006) and physical self-esteem
(Wilson, Rodgers, & Fraser, 2002), have also demon-
strated similar positive relations to more self-determined
regulations in mixed-sex samples. In addition to associa-
tions between shame, guilt, and less self-determined reg-
ulations reported among women (Sabiston et al., 2010),
the negative body-related emotion of social physique
anxiety has been associated with lower levels of motiva-
tion on the continuum of self-determined regulations in
mixed samples primarily composed of women (Brunet &
Sabiston, 2009; Cox et al., 2013). Despite the preliminary
212 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)
examination of body-related emotions in this literature,
little is known about these associations in men.
A significant contribution to this literature would be to
examine the associations among a full range of body-
related self-conscious emotions including shame, guilt,
and both facets of pride, physical activity regulations, and
behavior in men. Such research could examine the con-
tention that motivation serves as a mechanism linking
emotion and behavior (Lazarus, 1999). It is important to
target the proposed associations in men given that men
are pressured to conform to societal body ideals (Stevens-
Aubrey, 2006), report experiences of body-related self-
conscious emotions (Castonguay et al., 2013; Martins et
al., 2007), and less than 50% engage in sufficient physi-
cal activity levels to achieve optimal health and well-
being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007;
Colley et al., 2011). Furthermore, combining constructs
from different theories in an integrated approach may
provide complementary explanations of the processes
that underlie motivation and health-related behavior and
may account for greater variation in physical activity
(Hagger, 2009; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2009). In addi-
tion, drawing from recent work linking positive body
image cognitions and emotions to more self-determined
motivation (e.g., exercising for health reasons) and physi-
cal activity (Frisén & Holmqvist, 2010; Wood-Barcalow,
Tylka, & Augustus-Horvath, 2010), a focus on positive
and negative emotions may be informative in the context
of physical activity.
The Current Study
The primary aim of this study was to examine the asso-
ciations between the body-related self-conscious emo-
tional experiences of shame, guilt, authentic pride, and
hubristic pride and physical activity motivation regula-
tions and behavior. A secondary objective was to test
separate multiple mediation models in which motiva-
tional regulations were thought to mediate the associa-
tions between each body-related self-conscious emotion
and physical activity. Based on previous conceptual and
theoretical research (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002;
Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), it
was expected that reports of body-related shame and guilt
would be differentially related to the motivation regula-
tions. Specifically, experiences of shame (focused on
deeply rooted global causes of the self) could be posi-
tively associated with the least self-determined (i.e.,
external and introjected) regulations and negatively
linked to the most self-determined (i.e., identified regula-
tion and intrinsic) regulations and behavior. Given the
reparative function of guilt (focused on behavioral trans-
gressions), it was further examined whether body-related
guilt would be positively associated to regulations along
the self-determination continuum and positively related
to physical activity behavior. Body-related authentic
pride was expected to exert positive associations with the
most self-determined regulations and behavior and nega-
tive or no relationships with the least self-determined
regulations. Based on limited empirical results from past
studies, no a priori hypotheses were established for
hubristic pride. According to Lazarus’s (1999) conten-
tions, organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985),
and self-objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997), it was finally hypothesized that motivational regu-
lations would mediate the relationship between body-
related self-conscious emotions and physical activity
behavior.
Method
Participants
Adult males (N = 152) completed an online question-
naire. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 66 years (M =
23.72 ± 10.92). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated
from self-reported weight and height and ranged from
16.28 to 33.27 (M = 23.98 ± 3.81) kg/m2. Participants
self-identified as Caucasian (73.03%), Asian (18.42%),
Black (7.89%), and First Nations/Aboriginal (1.32%) and
reported English (59%) and French (23%) as their first
language. Of the total sample, 51.7% reported household
income of less than $50,000, with 88.8% of the sample
holding at least an undergraduate university degree, and
86.2% reported never being married.
Procedures
After obtaining university research ethics board approval,
adult males were recruited via university alumni and
workplace e-mail list servers. Poster advertisements were
also placed around various community centers and
around the university campus. Interested participants
contacted the researchers for more information via tele-
phone or e-mail and were provided with a link to the con-
sent form and a secured online questionnaire.
Instrumentation
Demographics.  Information was collected on participants’
self-reported age, height and weight (used to calculate
BMI), household income, ethnicity, primary language of
communication, highest level of education, and marital
status.
Body-Related Shame and Guilt. The Weight-and Body-
Related Shame and Guilt scale (WEB-SG; Conradt et al.,
2007) is a 12-item measure assessing shame concerned
Castonguay et al. 213
about the body, figure, and weight (6 items; e.g., “I am
ashamed of myself when others get to know how much I
really weigh”) and guilt concerned about eating habits,
exercising, and weight control (6 items; e.g., “When I
can’t manage to work out physically, I feel guilty”). Item
responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always). An aver-
age score was calculated for each subscale. Previous evi-
dence of internal consistency for the WEB-SG subscale
scores include Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from
.86 to .92, and convergent and discriminant validity evi-
dence have been documented with men (Conradt et al.,
2007). Cronbach alpha coefficients for the current sample
scores for the shame and guilt subscales were .75 and .81,
respectively.
Body-Related Authentic and Hubristic Pride. Body-related
authentic and hubristic facets of pride were assessed
using the Body-Related Pride Scale (Sabiston et al.,
2010) that was developed based on Tracy and Robin’s
(2007) Pride Scale. Participants rated their level of agree-
ment with descriptive adjectives of authentic pride
(nitems = 7; accomplished, successful, fulfilled, confident,
productive, achieving, self-worth) and hubristic pride
(nitems = 7; egotistical, arrogant, snobbish, stuck-up,
pompous, conceited, smug). Responses were rated using
a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored at the extremes of 1
(not at all) to 5 (extremely). Evidence of internal consis-
tency of scale scores has been demonstrated (Sabiston
et al., 2010). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the cur-
rent study items was .93 for authentic pride and .71 for
hubristic pride.
Motivation.  The Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Ques-
tionnaire (BREQ; Mullen, Markland, & Ingledew, 1997)
was used to assess physical activity motivation. The
BREQ is a 15-item scale, with 4 items assessing extrinsic
regulation (e.g., “I exercise because other people say I
should”), 3 items assessing introjected (e.g., “I feel like a
failure when I haven’t exercised in a while”), 4 items
assessing identified (e.g., “I value the benefits of exer-
cise”), and 4 items assessing intrinsic (e.g., “I exercise
because it’s fun”) regulations. Participants rated their
responses to each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 0
(not true for me) to 4 (very true for me). Previous research
in physical activity has reported evidence for the reliabil-
ity and validity of the BREQ scale scores (e.g., Thøgersen-
Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2007). In the present study,
alpha coefficient values were .73 for extrinsic, .75 for
introjected, .74 for identified, and .92 for intrinsic regula-
tions. While an instrument tool has been developed to
assess amotivation (Markland & Tobin, 2004), the sub-
scale scores are typically skewed and demonstrate weak
predictive validity evidence for behavior (Markland &
Tobin, 2004; Wilson, Sabiston, Mack, & Blanchard,
2012). Moreover, amotivation is a construct that is
assessed in sedentary samples and/or physically active
initiates and is not of interest for the present study sample
(Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime, 2006). Integrated reg-
ulation is difficult to discriminate from identified regula-
tion and thus not often assessed (Markland & Tobin,
2004; Mullen et al., 1997). Although there is an instru-
ment available that taps integrated regulation in the con-
text of organismic integration theory (Wilson et al.,
2006), further evidence of reliability and validity is nec-
essary (Sabiston et al., 2010).
Physical Activity Behavior.  The Leisure Time Exercise Ques-
tionnaire (LTEQ; Godin & Shephard, 1985) was utilized to
assess self-reported physical activity behavior. The LTEQ
consists of three open-ended questions assessing the aver-
age frequency of mild, moderate, and strenuous physical
activities engaged in during free time in a typical week for
at least 15 minutes. Each participant was assigned a total
physical activity score, which was calculated by multiply-
ing the weekly frequencies of mild, moderate, and strenu-
ous activity by three, five, and nine, respectively, and
summing the scores. The second item on the LTEQ asks
about the frequency of regular physical activity during a
typical 7-day period that results in a fast heartbeat and
sweating and was used for descriptive purposes only.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were examined and Pearson correla-
tion coefficients were calculated in SPSS (Version 20.0).
Reliability estimates using Cronbach’s alpha were esti-
mated. Age and BMI were examined as potential covari-
ates among main study variables. Age was significantly
(ps < .05) associated with shame (r = .21), guilt (r = .27),
authentic pride (r = −.29), hubristic pride (r = −.23), and
physical activity (r = −.19). BMI was related (ps < .05) to
body-related shame (r = .26), guilt (r = .29), authentic (r =
−.22) and hubristic pride (r = −.22), and intrinsic regula-
tion (r = −.19). As a result of the significant associations
between independent variables and select mediator/or
dependent variables, age and BMI were included as
covariates (Rothman, Greenlans, & Lash, 2008).1 Multiple
mediation models with bootstrapping (i.e., nonparametric
resampling; k = 5,000) procedures were used to examine
the effect of the motivation regulations as mediators of the
associations between body-related self-conscious emo-
tions and physical activity behavior while controlling for
age and BMI (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Arrangement of
variables in the mediation models were based on theoreti-
cal contentions that outline directionality of effects
between emotion, motivation, and behavior (Deci & Ryan,
2002; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Lazarus, 1999).
Bootstrapping procedures were used to obtain estimates
214 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Measured Study Variables.

Variable α Score range Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis

Body-related shame .75 1-5 1.59 (0.56) 1.06 0.98
Body-related guilt .81 1-5 2.06 (0.81) 0.72 0.06
Body-related authentic pride .93 1-5 3.02 (0.97) −0.16 −0.60
Body-related hubristic pride .71 1-5 1.69 (0.88) 1.44 1.90
External regulation .74 0-4 1.43 (0.49) 1.48 2.38
Introjected regulation .75 0-4 2.26 (0.80) 0.19 −0.67
Identified regulation .74 0-4 3.21 (0.64) −0.96 0.87
Intrinsic Regulation .92 0-4 3.28 (0.77) −1.21 0.93
LTEQ — 0-193 44.46 (30.22) 1.76 4.99

Note. LTEQ = Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. LTEQ is the physical activity measure in METS.

Table 2.  Correlations Among Body-Related Self-Conscious Emotions, Physical Activity Regulations and Behaviors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 1. Body-related shame —  
 2. Body-related guilt .61** —  
  3.  Body-related authentic pride −.52** −.35** —  
  4.  Body-related hubristic pride −20* −.18* .39** —  
 5. External regulation .45** .27** −.20* −.06 —  
 6. Introjected regulation .18* .45** −.06 −.06 .13 —  
 7. Identified regulation −.12 .17* .19* .05 −.06 .51** —  
 8. Intrinsic Regulation −.38** −.23** .26** .15 −.23** .13 .64** —  
 9. LTEQ −.18* −.10 .31** .14 −.24** .22** .32** .26** —
10. MVPA −.25** −.15 .35** .18* −.29** .16* .33** .33** .94**

Note. LTEQ = Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire; MVPA = moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

and confidence intervals around the indirect effects to
overcome potential problems caused by unmet assump-
tions in meditational analysis (see Hayes, 2009;
MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher &
Hayes, 2008; J. Williams & MacKinnon, 2008, for a dis-
cussion on approaches to testing mediation). An SPSS
macro that accompanies the article by Preacher and Hayes
(2008) on testing multiple mediation models was utilized
to conduct the main analyses.
The total indirect effects were calculated in accor-
dance with widely accepted methods (Preacher & Hayes,
2008). If a zero was not included in the 95% bias cor-
rected and accelerated confidence interval of the esti-
mate, it was concluded that the indirect effect was
statistically significant (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Based
on the SPSS macro, separate models were estimated for
each of the self-conscious emotions (i.e., shame, guilt,
authentic pride, hubristic pride).
Results
Means, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, and skew-
ness and kurtosis values are presented in Table 1.
Participants on average reported low-to-moderate levels
of shame and moderate feelings of guilt and authentic and
hubristic pride. Table 2 displays the correlations among
the study variables. Body-related shame and guilt were
positively related to the least self-determined motivation
regulations and negatively associated with more self-
determined regulations and physical activity behavior.
Reverse correlation patterns were observed for authentic
pride. Hubristic pride was unrelated to motivation regula-
tions, yet positively related to physical activity. Shame
and guilt were positively and highly correlated. Authentic
and hubristic pride were positively and moderately
related.
The mediation models tested the indirect effect of
body-related self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt,
authentic pride, hubristic pride) on physical activity
behavior via motivation regulations (external, introjected,
identified, intrinsic), beyond the impact of age and BMI.
Table 3 displays the bootstrapped estimates, confidence
intervals, and amount of variance explained for the indi-
rect effects with age and BMI as covariates.
External motivation regulation was a significant medi-
ator in all body-related self-conscious emotion models
Castonguay et al. 215

Table 3.  Bootstrap Estimates, Confidence Intervals, and Explained Variances for Tests of the Indirect Effects of Body-Related
Self-Conscious Emotions on Physical Activity Behavior via Physical Activity.

Effect of IV on Effect of M on Direct effects Indirect effect

IV DV M M (a) DV (b) (c′) (a × b), 95% BCa CI
Body-related PA: R2 = .15 External 1.59 (0.28)** −3.20 (1.38)* −1.92 (5.24) −9.37, −1.60*
shame Introjected 0.87 (0.38)* 1.66 (1.26) −0.13, 4.45
Identified −0.61 (0.40) 2.60 (1.49)* −6.03, 0.08
Intrinsic −1.80 (0.45)** 0.35 (1.13) −4.40, 4.10
Body-related guilt PA: R2 = .16 External 0.56 (0.21)* −3.15 (1.28)* −5.65 (3.73) –3.94, −0.59*
Introjected 1.58 (0.23)** 2.35 (1.33)a 0.25, 7.41*
Identified 0.68 (0.28)* 2.89 (1.48)* 0.41, 5.12*
Intrinsic −0.55 (0.33) 0.05 (1.13) −1.42, 1.60
Body-related PA: R2 = .18 External −0.36 (0.18)* −3.03 (1.26)* 6.21 (2.71)* 0.89, 2.81*
authentic pride Introjected −0.08 (0.23) 1.93 (1.22) −1.50, 0.69
Identified 0.62 (0.23)* 2.03 (1.48) −0.09, 4.08
Intrinsic 0.70 (0.28)* 0.38 (1.09) −1.59, 2.02
Body-related PA: R2 = .16 External −0.13 (0.20) −3.43 (1.29)* 2.98 (2.97) −0.83, 1.83
hubristic pride Introjected −0.13 (0.25) 1.81 (1.26) −1.56, 0.71
Identified −0.17 (0.27) 2.58 (1.50) −0.79, 2.97
Intrinsic 0.59 (0.31)* 0.31 (1.12) −1.30, 1.94

Note. Values within parentheses indicate standard error. IV = independent variable; M = mediator; DV = dependent variable; R2 = adjusted R2.
BCa CI = bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.
*p < .05. **p < .001. ap = .07.

except for the link between hubristic pride and physical
activity. As predicted, shame and guilt were positively,
while authentic pride was negatively, related to external
regulation. Moreover, external regulation was negatively
related to physical activity. Introjected and identified reg-
ulations also mediated the associations between guilt and
physical activity. That is, guilt was positively associated
with introjected and identified regulations, which were in
turn, positively related to physical activity. Furthermore,
body-related shame was positively associated with intro-
jected regulation and negatively correlated with intrinsic
regulation. Authentic pride was positively related to both
identified and intrinsic regulations and directly positively
associated with physical activity behavior. In this model,
hubristic pride was unrelated to motivation regulations
and physical activity.2
Discussion
Guided by scientists’ conceptual and theoretical conjec-
tures of emotion, body image, and organismic integration
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002; Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004), this study examined the
direct and indirect associations between men’s body-
related self-conscious emotional experiences of shame,
guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride, and physical
activity motivation and behavior. The main hypotheses
were supported in that each body-related self-conscious
emotion was uniquely associated with physical activity
regulations and behavior. Moreover, external and identi-
fied regulations were significantly related to physical
activity. The present findings highlight the importance of
broadening the scope of body image research from gen-
eral negative affect to specific negative and positive self-
conscious emotions. This study also illustrates the value
of body-related self-conscious emotions in contributing
to health-related motives and behaviors in men.
Consistent with study hypotheses, body-related shame
was a significant positive correlate of less self-determined
motivation regulations (i.e., external and introjected) and
a negative correlate of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore,
body-related shame was negatively related to physical
activity via external regulation. These associations are
not surprising given that shame contextualized to the
body has been consistently linked to social comparison
focused on weight and body shape (Castonguay et al.,
2012; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Tiggemann &
Williams, 2012). Based on the current findings, interven-
tion strategies that reduce body-related shame experi-
ences among men are needed. Strategies may include
decreasing the value that men place on their physical
appearance and helping them to abandon an observer’s
perspective of their bodies (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997;
Martins et al., 2007). This may be facilitated through psy-
choeducational programs that help individuals recognize
and challenge cultural messages focused on appearance
and enhancing skills for rejecting media (Levin &
Murnen, 2009; Posavac, Posavac, & Weigel, 2001). Such
216 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)
strategies may be helpful in transforming shame about
the body into a sense of acceptance and even pride
(Sanftner & Tantillo, 2011). Based on the process model
of self-conscious emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004) and
empirical work (Bessenoff & Snow, 2006; Castonguay et
al., 2012), interventions may also focus on manipulating
cognitive appraisals that elicit shame. That is, men could
be encouraged to hold realistic expectations of their bod-
ies to lessen the difference between their actual and ideal
body. Furthermore, rather than blaming the self for a neg-
ative situation (e.g., narrow shoulders from low muscu-
larity), men who are prone to shame feelings may be
directed to attribute the cause of the event to an external
factor (e.g., genetic disposition for body type).
Alternatively, men can be encouraged to target appraisals
directed toward a specific modifiable behavior and not
the overall person (i.e., reframe “I am a fat person” to “I
gained weight because I did not exercise”) in attempt to
decrease external and introjected regulations, and thus
indirectly increase physical activity behavior (e.g.,
Levine, Piran, & Stoddard, 1999; Posavac et al., 2001).
In further support of study hypotheses, body-related
guilt was positively associated with external regulation,
which in turn, was negatively related to physical activity.
This indirect association corroborates the findings of
research targeting more general body-related affect
(Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Cox et al., 2013; Thøgersen-
Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006). This more maladaptive
nature of body-related guilt is consistent with frequent
descriptions of noncontextualized guilt in the literature
(e.g., Stuewig & McCloskey, 2005). Furthermore, this
evidence supports Calogero and Pina’s (2011) research
extending self-objectification framework to guilt and dis-
ordered eating behavior. Yet, body-related guilt was also
positively correlated with both introjected and identified
regulations, which in turn, were positively related to
physical activity behavior. These associations imply that
feelings of body-related guilt may also have reparative
qualities via regulations positioned in the center of the
self-determination continuum. As such, intervention
strategies specifically designed to target introjected and
identified regulations should be provided to men who
experience guilt about their body. Interventions targeting
introjected regulation may include promoting the need to
relieve the sense of guilt, while interventions for identi-
fied regulation may involve teaching men the health ben-
efits and value of engaging in physical activity.
Nonetheless, while these strategies may be effective for
initiating physical activity among men, their effective-
ness in maintaining long-term participation is question-
able because they are externally focused (Deci & Ryan,
1985, 2002). An alternative perspective relating to the
positive associations between body-related guilt and
introjected and identified regulations is that guilt may
foster maladaptive forms of physical activity. Previous
research investigating the motivating forces behind mal-
adaptive forms of exercise such as dependence, has
reported introjection as the strongest predictor of mal-
adaptive activity (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006).
This is the first study to extend self-objectification frame-
work to examine the relations among body-related guilt,
physical activity motivation, and behavior. As such,
researchers need to examine changes in guilt, regulations
and physical activity over time to determine if the emo-
tion’s motivational power leads to destructive or positive
health behavior change.
As hypothesized, body-related authentic pride was a
significant negative correlate of external regulation and a
positive correlate of identified and intrinsic regulations.
This facet of pride was also directly and positively associ-
ated with physical activity behavior. The positive rela-
tions between body-related authentic pride and the more
self-determined motives suggest that this emotional
experience may be an incentive for men to pursue action
and behavior in a valued domain (Williams & DeSteno,
2008). Interestingly, previous research did not find this
association in women (Sabiston et al., 2010), suggesting
that authentic pride may be particularly useful for increas-
ing physical activity in men. A promising approach
toward enhancing authentic pride would be to focus on
men’s unstable and global cognitive attributions
(Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2004).
Specifically, allied health professions may facilitate a
realization that effort, building competence, and setting
manageable goals (e.g., in exercise participation) are
related to goal achievement and accomplishments (e.g.,
shaping body). Alternatively, the discrepant findings
between the current study and those previously reported
may be attributed to the hypothesis testing procedure.
Although the Preacher and Hayes (2008) approach to
mediation is superior with moderate sample sizes and
controls for Type I error rate within each analysis, several
models were tested without controlling for overall Type I
error (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,
2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Interestingly, body-related hubristic pride was posi-
tively linked to intrinsic regulation in the present study.
It could be argued that hubristic pride is an external con-
tingency for individuals to engage in physical activity
because there are tangible benefits that are separable
from the behavior itself (e.g., being the target for upwards
comparisons, impressing others; Castonguay et al.,
2013). Therefore, it is not clear how effective promotion
of hubristic pride over time would be for the mainte-
nance of physical activity. This emotion may be a key
strategy to get individuals to initiate physical activity,
but these incentives may not be sufficient by themselves
to motivate long-term behavior change (Carver et al.,
Castonguay et al. 217
2010; Castonguay et al., 2013). As Ingledew and
Markland (2008) call attention to, it is possible that hold-
ing controlled motivations such as body-related hubristic
pride (an extrinsic regulation) may not necessarily be
troublesome for affecting behavioral outcomes, provided
that the person also holds self-determined regulations. It
has been proposed (Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens,
2010), for instance, that a man may aim to achieve a
physically appealing body because his partner compli-
ments his good looks (controlled motivation) and at the
same time he may personally value a fit appearance
(autonomous motivation). Therefore, although intrinsic
motives are typically pursued for autonomous reasons
and extrinsic motives are typically pursued for controlled
reasons, the grounds for pursuing goals may overlap.
Thus, physical activity promotion programs should
adopt a needs-supportive approach and not necessarily
disparage body-related hubristic tendencies, which may
lead men to perceive that their autonomy is threatened
and possibly lead to dropout (Ingledew & Markland,
2008; Teixeira et al., 2012).
Consistent with the univariate findings of Sabiston et
al. (2010) and a recent meta-analysis (Teixeira et al.,
2012), external regulation was significantly negatively
linked to men’s physical activity behavior. It should be
noted however, that just over half of the studies examined
in the meta-analysis reported no associations between
external regulation and behavior in the context of physi-
cal activity and health. Negative associations were also
reported more frequently among males than females, par-
ticularly in the latter stages of change (i.e., maintenance).
Based on reported gender differences presented in the
meta-analysis and lack of an association between external
regulation and physical activity behavior in Sabiston et
al.’s (2010) multivariate analysis using a female sample,
future work in this area is encouraged to consider poten-
tial gender differences in the relations between physical
activity motivation and behavior. In line with previous
investigations, identified regulation was positively linked
to participation. Identified regulation has been reported
as a stronger predictor of physical activity behavior com-
pared with intrinsic regulation in research with men and
women (Teixeira et al., 2012). This mounting empirical
evidence suggests that individuals need to value physical
activity to participate and that enjoyment may be more
difficult to achieve (Ekkekakis & Petruzzello, 1999;
Sabiston et al., 2010).
Not surprisingly, moderate to high bivariate correla-
tions and a similar pattern of findings between shame and
guilt as well as between authentic and hubristic pride
were observed in the current study. Correlation coeffi-
cients of such magnitude have been consistently reported
in previous work (e.g., Conradt et al., 2007). This covari-
ation likely reflects the fact that both shame and guilt tend
to occur simultaneously and share several features in
common as do the pride emotions (i.e., valence, self-eval-
uative processes, direction of discrepancy between self-
representations, and types of eliciting events; Castonguay
et al., 2012; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins,
2004, 2006). Despite the moderate to high correlation
coefficients reported in this study, these values did not
indicate multicolliniarity based on bivariate correlations
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Collectively, the slightly
divergent relationships between the main study variables
in the present study, and extant research that has linked
these emotions to distinct correlates (e.g., Castonguay et
al., 2013; Castonguay et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2011;
Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996), points to the
presence of meaningful unique variance among the emo-
tions, and thus, should be examined as distinct constructs
(Castonguay et al., 2014). It is likely that a more discrete
pattern of findings would emerge between the constructs
examined in studies employing longitudinal designs.3
Limitations and Future Directions
As with any research, the current study has limitations.
First, the data are cross section-sectional and interpreta-
tions are not based on change across time or directionality
of effects. Therefore, it is possible that relations between
self-conscious emotions and physical activity may be
bidirectional and should be examined using longitudinal
designs. Nonetheless, the sequence of tested relations was
guided by the theoretical conceptualization of motivation
as a mechanism in the association between emotion and
health behavior (Lazarus, 1999) and has been instrumen-
tal in past research testing these relationships in women
(Sabiston et al., 2010). Second, the findings of this study
are limited to the current sample primarily consisting of
young, single, middle-class males, and it is therefore rec-
ommended to investigate these relationships in other more
diverse male samples. Since age was statistically con-
trolled for in the current study analyses, it is unknown
whether constructs in the current study have a linear rela-
tionship with age across the entire lifespan. In addition to
longitudinal research, inquiries that compare young, mid-
dle-aged, and older adults would be fruitful. Similarly, this
sample had low ethnic variability. Although supplemental
analyses indicated that there were no mean differences in
main study variables by ethnicity, it is unknown how cul-
tural diversity may influence the tested relations. Third,
several of the hubristic pride subscale items had low
endorsement rates, which makes it possible that evidence
of reliability and validity could have contributed to the
fact that scores on this subscale did not contribute signifi-
cantly in the multiple mediation models. Fourth, the
WEB-SG scale was developed to assess weight-related
shame and guilt. The use of an instrument tapping more
218 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)
general appearance and fitness-related body-related self-
conscious emotions is likely to relate more strongly to
physical activity motivation regulations and predict a
greater percentage of the variance in physical activity
behavior. Finally, physical activity was assessed using
self-report. It may be worth examining the links between
body-related self-conscious emotions, motivation regula-
tions, and physical activity using objectives measure
(accelerometer or pedometers) given that self-report mea-
sures may be biased and may not tap dimensions of physi-
cal activity known to relate to health outcomes (Schmidt,
Cleland, Thomson, Dwyer, & Venn, 2008).
Conclusion
This investigation significantly contributes to the litera-
ture in several ways. First, it demonstrated support for
integrating self-objectification and self-determination
theories to explain variance in physical activity in men—a
population that is typically understudied, yet insuffi-
ciently active to attain optimal health and well-being
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007;
Colley et al., 2011). Second, this study highlighted the
importance of investigating both positive and negative
emotional experiences that extend beyond general nega-
tive affect and social physique anxiety. Third, it identified
body-related self-conscious emotions as unique corre-
lates of physical activity motivation and behavior. Future
research should expand on these relations by including
additional body-related self-conscious emotions such as
envy and embarrassment. Furthermore, longitudinal
research is needed to explore the short and long-term
effects of body-related self-conscious emotions on physi-
cal activity. Such collective efforts may contribute to an
integrated theoretical approach linking body-related
affect to motivation and health relevant behavior.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this arti-
cle: This study was funded by FQRSC and SSHRC grants
awarded to the last author. Completion of this article was fur-
ther supported by a CIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship and a
WOLFE Fellowship in Scientific and Technological Literacy to
the first author and SSHRC and CIHR grants to the third author.
Notes
1. MANOVA results indicated there were no significant
(p > .05) mean differences among ethnic groups (Caucasian,
Asian, Black) on shame, F(2, 129) = 0.42, guilt F(2, 129) =
0.06, authentic pride, F(2, 129) = 0.44, hubristic pride, F(2,
129) = 2.28, external regulation, F(2, 129) = 1.52, intro-
jected regulation, F(2, 129) = 0.14, identified regulation,
F(2, 129) = 0.52, intrinsic regulation, F(2, 129) = 1.30, or
physical activity, F(2, 129) = 1.51. Native American was
not included as an ethnic group in the MANOVA given that
only two participants comprised of this category.
2. The covariate of age was negatively associated with PA in
the multiple mediation model for shame (p = .05). There
were no other significant associations for age or BMI in
the models. A separate regression model was run excluding
age and BMI, and was compared with the original model.
There were no differences in results between the two
regression models with the exception of a change in the
direction of the relationship between hubristic pride and
identified regulation so adjusted results are presented.
3. Based on empirical self-conscious emotions research (e.g.,
Castonguay et al., 2014; Conradt et al., 2007; Kim et al.,
2011; Sabiston et al., 2010), and the high magnitude of
relations between shame and guilt in the current study,
guilt-free shame and shame-free guilt scores were created
using regression analysis to partial out the shared vari-
ance between shame and guilt. Separate regression mod-
els indicated that there were few differences between the
original model and the model using residualized scores.
Specifically, there was a change in the direction of the
relationship between shame-free guilt and external and
intrinsic regulations. Also, the association between shame-
free guilt and external regulation was not significant nor
was the indirect relationship between shame-free guilt
and physical activity via external regulation in the latter
model. Given theoretical and empirical justification for
the distinction between authentic pride and hubristic pride
(Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007),
the moderate bivariate correlation coefficient (r = .39),
and different pattern of findings that emerged between the
authentic and hubristic pride in the current study, a residual
score was not calculated for the two facets of pride.
References
Bessenoff, G. R., & Snow, D. (2006). Absorbing society’s
influence: Body image self-discrepancy and internalized
shame. Sex Roles, 54, 727-731.
Brunet, J., & Sabiston, C. (2009). Social physique anxiety and
physical activity: A self-determination theory perspective.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 329-335.
Burney, J., & Irwin, H. J. (2000). Shame and guilt in women
with eating disorder symptomatology. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56, 51-61.
Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2004). Measuring male body
image: A review of the current methodology. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 5, 18-29.
Cafri, G., Thompson, J. K., Ricciardelli, L. A., McGabe, M.,
Smolack, L., & Yesalis, C. (2005). Pursuit of the muscu-
lar ideal: Physical and psychological consequences and
putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25,
215-239.
Castonguay et al. 219
Calogero, R. M., & Pina, A. (2011). Body guilt: Preliminary
evidence for a further subjective experience of self-
objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,
428-440.
Calogero, R. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2009). Potential implica-
tions of the objectification of women’s bodies for women’s
sexual satisfaction. Body Image, 6, 145-148.
Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Authentic
and hubristic pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal
regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of Research in
Personality, 44, 698-703.
Castonguay, A. L., Brunet, J., Ferguson, L., & Sabiston, C. M.
(2012). Weight-related actual and ideal self-states, discrep-
ancies, and shame, guilt, and pride: Examining associations
within the process model of self-conscious emotions. Body
Image, 9, 488-494.
Castonguay, A. L., Gilchrist, J., Mack, D. E., & Sabiston, C. M.
(2013). Body-related pride in young adults: An exploration
of the triggers, contexts, outcomes and attributions. Body
Image, 10, 335-343.
Castonguay, A. L., Sabiston, C. M., Crocker, P. R. E., & Mack,
D. E. (2014). Development and validation of the Body and
Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES).
Body Image, 11, 126-136.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Prevalence
of regular physical activity among adults-United States,
2001 and 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
56, 1209-1212.
Colley, R. C., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Craig, C. L., Clarke, J., &
Tremblay, M. S. (2011). Physical activity of Canadian adults:
Accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian
Health Measures Survey. Health Report, 22(1), 7-14.
Conradt, M., Dierk, J., Schlumberger, P., Rauh, E., Hebebrand,
J., & Rief, W. (2007). Development of the Weight- and
Body-Related Shame and Guilt scale (WEB-SG) in a non-
clinical sample of obese individuals. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 88, 317-327.
Cox, A. E., Ullrich-French, S., & Sabiston, C. M. (2013). Using
motivation regulations in a person-centered approach
to examine the link between social physique anxiety in
physical education and physical activity-related outcomes
in adolescents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14,
461-467.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determina-
tion. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Examining
exercise dependence symptomatology from a self-deter-
mination perspective. Journal of Health Psychology, 11,
887-903.
Ekkekakis, P., & Petruzzello, S. J. (1999). Acute aerobic exer-
cise and affect: Current status, problems, and prospects
regarding dose-response. Sports Medicine, 28, 337-374.
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in
body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9,
190-195.
Fischer, K. W., & Tangney, J. P. (1995). Self-conscious emo-
tions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview.
In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious
emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrass-
ment, and pride (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Frederick, D. A., Buchanan, G. M., Sadehgi-Azar, L., Peplau,
L. A., Haselton, M. G., Berezovskaya, A., & Lipinski, R. E.
(2007). Deserting the muscular ideal: Men’s body satisfac-
tion in the United States, Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 8, 103-117.
Frederick, D. A., Jafary, A. M., Gruys, K., & Daniels, E. A.
(2012). Surveys and the epidemiology of body image dis-
satisfaction. In T. Cash (Ed.), Encyclopedia of body image
and human appearance (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 766-774). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification the-
ory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and
mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173-206.
Frisén, A., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). What characterizes early
adolescents with a positive body image? A qualitative
investigation of Swedish girls and boys. Body Image, 7,
205-212.
Georgiadis, M., Biddle, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2001). The
mediating role of self-determination in the relationship
between goal orientations and physical self-worth in Greek
exercisers. European Journal of Sport Science, 1, 1-9.
Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess
exercise behaviour in the community. Canadian Journal of
Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 141-146.
Grogan, S. (2008). Body image: Understanding body dissat-
isfaction in men, women, and children. New York, NY:
Psychology.
Hagger, M. (2009). Theoretical integration in health psychol-
ogy: Unifying ideas and complementary explanation.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 189-194.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2009). Integrating
the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination the-
ory in health behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 14, 275-302.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Barron and Kenny: Statistical
mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication
Monographs, 76, 408-420.
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit
becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender and vulnerability to
self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331.
Ingledew, D. K., & Markland, D. (2008). The role of motives
in exercise participation. Psychology and Health, 23,
807-828.
Jankauskiene, R., & Pajaujiene, S. (2012). Disordered eat-
ing attitudes and body shame among athletes, exercisers
and sedentary female college students. Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 52, 92-101.
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame,
guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 137, 68-96.
220 American Journal of Men’s Health 9(3)
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis.
New York, NY: Springer.
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt,
and narratives of interpersonal conflicts: Guilt-prone peo-
ple are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality,
66, 1-37.
Levin, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2009). “Everybody knows that
mass media are/are not [pick one] a cause of eating disor-
ders”: A critical review of evidence for a causal link between
media, negative body image, and disordered eating in
females. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 9-42.
Levine, M. P., Piran, N., & Stoddard, C. (1999). Mission more
probable: Media literacy, activism, and advocacy in the
prevention of eating disorders. In N. Piran, M. P. Levine,
& C. Steiner-Adair (Eds.), Preventing eating disorders: A
handbook of interventions and special challenges (pp. 3-
25). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West,
S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods
to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004).
Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the
product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99-128.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification of the
Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include
an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 26, 191-196.
Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those
speedos become them: The role of self-objectification in
gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634-647.
McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the
drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal
of American College Health, 48, 297-304.
Mullen, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded
conceptualization of self-determination in the regulation
of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using
confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and
Individual Differences, 23, 745-752.
Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Borowiecki, J. J., & Cohane, G. H.
(2001). The growing commercial value of the male body: A
longitudinal survey of advertising in women’s magazines.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 70, 189-192.
Posavac, H. D., Posavac, S. S., & Weigel, R. G. (2001).
Reducing the impact of media images on women at risk
for body image disturbance: Three targeted interventions.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 324-340.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resa-
mpling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 879-891.
Rothman, K., Greenlans, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epi-
demiology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins.
Sabiston, C. M., Brunet, J., Kowalski, K. C., Wilson, P., Mack,
D. E., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2010). The role of body-related
self-conscious emotions in motivating physical activity
among women. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
32, 417-437.
Sabiston, C. M., & Castonguay, A. L. (2014). Self-conscious
emotions. In R. Eklund & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 623-
626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Body concerns in and
out of the bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and
problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 808-820.
Sanftner, J. L., & Tantillo, M. (2011). Body image and eating
disorders: A compelling source of shame for women. In R.
L. Dearing & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Shame in the therapy
hour (pp. 277-303). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Schenk, R. U., & Everingham, J. (1995). Men healing shame:
An anthology. New York, NY: Springer.
Schenk, R. U., & Everingham, J. (2005). Breaking the shackles:
Bringing joy into our lives. Madison, WI: MPC-BEP Press.
Schmidt, M., Cleland, V., Thomson, R., Dwyer, T., & Venn, A.
(2008). A comparison of subjective and objective measures
of physical activity and fitness in identifying associations
with cardiometabolic risk factors. Annals of Epidemiology,
18, 378-386.
Stevens-Aubrey, J. (2006). Effects of sexually objectifying
media on self-objectification and body surveillance in
undergraduates: Results of a 2-year panel study. Journal of
Communication, 56, 366-386.
Stipek, D. (1995). The development of pride and shame in
toddlers. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-
conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment, and
pride (pp. 237-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stuewig, J., & McCloskey, L. A. (2005). The relation of child
maltreatment to shame and guilt among adolescents:
Psychological routes to depression and delinquency. Child
Maltreatment, 10, 324-336.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H.
(1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emo-
tions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
1256-1269.
Tangney, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Self-conscious emotions.
In M. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity (2nd ed., pp. 446-478). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraca, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., &
Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-
determination theory: A systematic review. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). The role of
self-determined motivation in the understanding of exer-
cise-related behaviours, cognitions, and physical self-eval-
uations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393-404.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). A self-
determination theory approach to the study of body image
concerns, self-presentation and self-perceptions in a sample
of aerobic instructors. Journal of Health Psychology, 12,
301-315.
Castonguay et al. 221
Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objec-
tification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299-311.
Tiggemann, M., & Williams, E. (2012). The role of self-objec-
tification in disordered eating, depressed mood, and sexual
functioning among women: A comprehensive test of objec-
tifiction theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 66-75.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-
conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological
Inquiry, 15, 103-125.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal anteced-
ents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339-
1351.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological struc-
ture of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The
development of the five mini-theories of self-determination
theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future
directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The
decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and
achievement (Vol. 16, pp. 105-165). Bingley, England:
Emerald Group.
Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and dis-
tribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects
in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15,
23-51.
Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance:
The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94, 1007-1017.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., & Fraser, S. N. (2002).
Examining the psychometric properties of the Behavioral
Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 1-21.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., & Scime, G.
(2006). “It’s who I am . . . really!” The importance of inte-
grated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied
Biobehavioral Research, 11, 79-104.
Wilson, P. M., Sabiston, C. M., Mack, D. E., & Blanchard, C.
M. (2012). On the nature and function of scoring protocols
used in exercise motivation research: An empirical study
of the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 614-622.
Wiseman, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Body image and eat-
ing disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and
extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 57, 154-166.
Wood-Barcalow, N. L., Tylka, T. L., & Augustus-Horvath,
C. L. (2010). “But I like my body”: Positive body image
characteristics and a holistic model for young women-adult
women. Body Image, 7, 106-116.