G

B

Bmp

PPa

b

c

d

a

ARRA

KBBSGP

t2asSad1b&2l

a

6f

1h

ARTICLE IN PRESS Model

ODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

Body Image xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image

j o ur nal ho me page: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /bodyimage

ody-related state shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributionsediate the influence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt

roneness�

eter R.E. Crockera,∗,1, Sara M. Brunea,1, Kent C. Kowalskib, Diane E. Mackc,hilip M. Wilsonc, Catherine M. Sabistond

School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaCollege of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, CanadaDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, CanadaFaculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 8 February 2013eceived in revised form 6 August 2013ccepted 9 August 2013

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

Guided by the process model of self-conscious emotions, this study examined whether physical self-concept (PSC) and shame and guilt proneness were associated with body-related self-conscious emotionsof state shame and guilt and if these relationships were mediated by attributions of stability, globality,and controllability. Female participants (N = 284; Mean age = 20.6 ± 1.9 years) completed measures of PSCand shame and guilt proneness before reading a hypothetical scenario. Participants completed measures

ody-related emotionsody imagehameuilthysical self-concept

of attributions and state shame and guilt in response to the scenario. Significant relationships werenoted between state shame and attributions of globality and controllability, and shame proneness, guiltproneness, and PSC. Similar relationships, with the additional predictor of stability, were found for stateguilt. Mediation analysis partially supported the process model hypotheses for shame. Results indicatePSC and shame proneness are important in predicting body-related emotions, but the role of specificattributions are still unclear.

Introduction

Body image is a complex multifaceted psychological experiencehat involves evaluative thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Cash,004; Cash & Smolak, 2012). Self-schemas related to body appear-nce are thought to influence how individuals respond in variousocial and private contexts (Cash, Melnyk, & Hrabosky, 2004; Cash,antos, & Williams, 2005). Women are under constant pressure tochieve and maintain unrealistic slim and toned bodies in accor-ance with the Western cultural ‘ideal’ (Thompson & Heinberg,999) which increases the likelihood of negative emotions andody image disturbance (Brunet, Sabiston, Castonguay, Ferguson,

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

Bessette, 2012; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Fox, 2000; Monro & Huon,005). Although negative body-related emotions may not always

ead to clinical psychopathologies such as eating disorders, body

� Research was supported by a standard research grant from the Social Sciencesnd Humanities Research Council of Canada.∗ Corresponding author at: School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia,

081 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC, Canada B6T 1Z1. Tel.: +1 604 822 5580;ax: +1 604 822 6842.

E-mail address: peter.crocker@ubc.ca (P.R.E. Crocker).1 Contribution of the first two authors was equal.

740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

dysmorphic disorder, and depression, they are associated withreduced overall psychological well-being (Davidson & McCabe,2005; McKinley, 2006; Moradi & Huang, 2008).

Several theorists have drawn links among body image andperceptions, emotions, and health related behavior (e.g., Cash,2004; Fox, 2000; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Harter, 2012). Onetheory that has generated much research is objectification the-ory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), which posits that women’sgender-role socialization and life experiences of sexual objectifi-cation cause them to view themse1ves as objects and to engagein increased body surveillance (Moradi & Huang, 2008). This self-objectification process leads to increased risk for body shame andanxiety and lower internal bodily (introceptive) awareness, whichhas the potential to contribute to increased likelihood of eating dis-orders, depression, and sexual dysfunction (Fredrickson & Roberts,1997; Moradi & Huang, 2008). Researchers in the self-conceptand self-esteem field have also argued that discrepancies betweeninternalized standards and perceived self-perceptions of appear-ance can produce negative emotions and trigger both adaptive and

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

maladaptive behaviors such as exercise, healthy eating, excessivecaloric restriction, social avoidance, and seeking cosmetic surgery(Brunet et al., 2012; Castonguay, Brunet, Ferguson, & Sabiston,2012; Fox, 2000; Harter, 2012).

ING Model

B

2 dy Ima

srirq2atjacttScotiGiR2amaot&

si(acstbfiacMsrssdstlS

si(estiibritt

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

Given that body image and related constructs such as bodyelf-objectification require a person to direct attention to self-epresentations of “body” and engage in an evaluative processnvolving societal and personal standards, it is not surprising thatesearchers are more closely examining the antecedents and conse-uences of body-related self-conscious emotions (Castonguay et al.,012; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998). Self-conscious emotions, suchs shame, guilt, and pride, involve a complex evaluative processhat consists of activating attention to stable self-representations, audgment of congruence of the situation with valued self-identities,nd the appraisals of causal attributions that seek to explain spe-ific outcomes (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Shame is a painful emotionhat leads to feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and a desireo shrink or hide, disappear (Lewis, 2008; Tracy & Robins, 2004).hame occurs whenever individuals fail to achieve internalized orultural ideals, and attribute the failure to stable and global aspectsf self (e.g., “I am an undesirable person”). Shame may be relatedo self-disgust, although H. B. Lewis (1971) notes that self-disgusts a part of the subjective experience of shame (see Roberts &oldenberg, 2007). Guilt is typically a less painful emotion that

s associated with specific negative actions of the self (Tracy &obins, 2006) and reparative behavior (Lewis, 2008; Tracy & Robins,004). Thus the experience of guilt is associated with more unstablend specific attributions related to behavior (e.g., “I shouldn’t haveissed my exercise session”). Self-conscious emotions like shame

nd guilt are thought to motivate individuals to engage in morallyr socially appropriate ways to maintain or enhance social interac-ions and intimate relationships and to avoid social rejection (Leith

Baumeister, 1998; Tracy & Robins, 2007a).Researchers have found that self-conscious emotions such as

hame and guilt are important in understanding various bodymage facets. For example, Markham, Thompson, and Bowling2005) found that body image esteem, global self-worth, appear-nce comparison, and internalization of the thin ideal wereollectively a strong predictor of body shame in female universitytudents. Bessenoff and Snow (2006) established that internaliza-ion of cultural norms regarding body image were predictive ofody shame in female college students. Castonguay et al. (2012)ound that not only was actual weight (assessed as body massndex) moderately correlated with both trait body-related shamend guilt but that these experiences increased as the discrepan-ies between actual and ideal body weight increased in women.osewich, Kowalski, Sabiston, Sedwick, and Tracy (2011) demon-

trated that guilt proneness in female athletes was negativelyelated to fear of failure, body shame, and objectified body con-ciousness. Noll and Fredrickson (1998) found evidence that bodyhame mediated the relationship between self-objectification andisordered eating in university women. Overall, these findingstrongly suggest that processes related to the self-conscious emo-ions of shame and guilt can facilitate our understanding of factorsinked to the multidimensional facets of body image (Cash &molak, 2012).

Given the motivational and regulating features of body-relatedelf-conscious emotions, it is important to identify the processnvolved in the generation of such emotions. Tracy and Robins2004) developed a theoretical process model of self-consciousmotions that can facilitate our understanding of emotions inpecific situations. In terms of the body, the model postulateshat self-conscious emotions are activated when an eliciting eventnitiates self-awareness of self-representations such as current,dealized or hoped for, and ought to have body appearance andehavior (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). This self-awareness of self-

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

epresentations is followed by appraisal of whether the event ismportant and congruent with identity goals. A key last step inhe self-conscious emotion process is determining the cause ofhe event and as such the process model holds that self-conscious

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

emotions should be predicted by a specific pattern of attributions.Internal, stable, and uncontrollable attributions are proposed tobe associated with shame whereas internal, unstable, controllable,attributions are associated with guilt. Furthermore shame is asso-ciated with global attributions (reflect part of self) whereas guilt isassociated with situational attributions (behaviors by self). Accord-ing to the process model, attributions will mediate the effects ofself-representation activation and identity processes on generat-ing specific self-conscious emotions. While there is little researchtesting the mediating effects of attribution in body image contexts,research by Tracy and Robins (2006) generally supports the modeltenets in academic settings, suggesting attributions are a key com-ponent in the self-conscious emotion process.

One aspect of identity that is highly relevant to emotionalexperiences related to the body is physical self-concept (Crocker,Sabiston, Kowalski, McDonough, & Kowalski, 2006; Fox, 2000).People who have negative physical self-concept are likely to be self-critical of their bodies, be subject to more negative body-relatedcriticism by others, and are more likely to experience negativeemotional states (Crocker et al., 2006; Sabiston, Sedgwick, Crocker,Kowalski, & Mack, 2007). Physical self-concept is also a moderateto strong correlate of global self-esteem (Fox, 2000; Harter, 2012).Since perceptions of self-concept influence how people appraisethemselves in the world (Harter, 2012), individuals’ perceptionsof their physical self-concept are likely to influence the types ofattributions and subsequent self-conscious emotions experiencedin any particular setting where the body is salient. While most of theresearch on physical self-concept and emotion has focused on socialphysique anxiety (Crocker et al., 2006; Hagger & Stevenson, 2010),the research on body image and shame indirectly supports theimportance of body self-concept in the self-conscious emotion pro-cess. More research is needed to examine the association betweenphysical self-concept and self-conscious emotions. As suggested inthe process model (Tracy & Robins, 2004), physical self-conceptmay be an antecedent to the appraisals associated with experiencesof shame and guilt.

Much of the body-related research guided by the Tracy andRobins (2004) process model has focused on dispositional self-conscious emotions (see Castonguay et al., 2012; Mosewich et al.,2011). However, the model depicts a process that is triggeredby an eliciting event that produces either basic or self-consciousemotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007b). Thus, researchers needto evaluate the model in terms of state self-conscious emo-tions. However, emotional dispositions are important predictors ofstate experience of self-conscious emotions and stable and unsta-ble behaviors in various contexts (Covert, Tangney, Maddux, &Heleno, 2003; Tracy & Robins, 2007a). Given the empirical literatureshowing that dispositional shame and guilt impact maladaptivebehaviors, cognitions, and emotional experiences (Lewis, 2008;Mosewich et al., 2011; Tangney & Dearing, 2002), these disposi-tions should be considered as factors that likely influence the causalattribution process and the subsequent experience of body-relatedstate guilt and shame.

Tangney and Tracy (2012) argued there is a need to examineself-conscious emotions contextualize to the physical self. Muchof the literature on body-related emotions of shame and guilt,however, has focused on dispositional aspects rather than stateexperiences. The Tracy and Robins’ process model provides a guid-ing framework to examine how identity related variables such asphysical self-concept, emotional dispositions such as proneness toguilt and shame, as well as causal attributions related to a specificcontext, predict body-related state shame and guilt. To fill some of

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

the gaps in the knowledge we examined body-related state shameand guilt experiences in young women using a scenario method-ology. Tracy and Robins’ model implies that dispositional (shameand guilt proneness) and identity (physical self-concept) effects on

ING Model

B

dy Ima

bcbast

P

(n3p

P

rtladpspli

ftsias

smyotgcdnhycytsoph

eopatdl

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

ody-related state shame and guilt should be mediated by specificausal attributions. State shame should be positively related to sta-le and global attributions, and negatively related to controllablettributions. State guilt would be negatively related to global andtable attributions and positively related to controllable attribu-ions.

Method

articipants

The final sample of 284 females had an average age of 20.6 yrs.SD = 1.9), with an average BMI of 22.2 (SD = 3.64). Reported eth-icity was 35% Caucasian, 31% Chinese, 8% South/South-east Asian,% Korean, 11% mixed ethnicity, 7% others, and 5% unreported. Allarticipants could read English at a Canadian university standard.

rocedure

Ethics approval was granted by the university behavioralesearch ethics board. Participants were recruited by study adver-isements posted on two department of psychology websites at aarge western Canadian university. The advertisements containedll necessary information for women to access the secure studyocuments online. Participants were also recruited from classroomresentations. Handouts detailing further information about thetudy, as well as a direct link to the online study documents, wererovided to those who expressed an interest in participating fol-

owing the classroom presentation. All participants were enteredn a draw to win one of 12 $50 bookstore gift certificates.

The study was questionnaire-based and delivered in an onlineormat. Participants first completed basic demographical ques-ions, followed by completing measures of physical self-concept,hame proneness, and guilt proneness. Participants were thennstructed to read a hypothetical scenario designed to elicit a neg-tive emotional response regarding the body.2 The hypotheticalcenario was as follows:

“You feel panic as you realize that summer, the season of bathinguits and body-revealing clothing, is almost here. Over the past fewonths you’ve been busy with schoolwork and studying for exams,

ou haven’t been physically active, and you’ve been eating a lotf junk food and fast food. Most of your clothing has gotten tooight and you feel it no longer looks good on you. You decide too on a shopping trip with your best friend Emily. While trying onlothes you are shocked to discover that you’ve gone up two wholeress sizes, and you feel that nothing you try on looks good on yourew larger body. Dismayed, you turn to Emily, while grabbing aandful of your flabby stomach for emphasis, and complain thatou need to get in shape. Emily laughs and nods in agreement, andonvinces you to go with her to an aerobics class that night. Whenou arrive at aerobics class, you immediately begin to have secondhoughts as you notice how toned everyone is, but you decide totick it out. In the change room, you feel like everyone’s eyes are

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

n you, scrutinizing your body, and you try to change as quickly asossible. A few minutes into the aerobics class and you’re sure youear someone behind you making a negative comment about your

2 The scenario was developed based on a preliminary study used to gather open-nded narrative responses and phenomenological ratings of body-related emotionf shame and guilt with young adult males and females. Participants described aersonal experience for each body-related emotion. The narrative responses werenalyzed using inductive content analysis and the wording used by female par-icipants, coupled with the identified themes, were used to inform the scenarioevelopment. A detailed description of the study is available upon request from the

ast author.

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx 3

body shape. When the class finally ends, you change quickly andleave”.

After reading the scenario, participants completed a manipula-tion check which assessed whether they were effectively able toenvision themselves in the scenario. Participants then completedmeasures of causal attributions in response to the hypotheticalscenario, and state shame and guilt.

Measures

Physical self-concept. Physical self-concept was assessedusing the 6-item global self-concept subscale of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire (PSDQ, Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche,& Tremayne, 1994). Participants reported on the items on a scale of1 (false) to 6 (true). An example item is “I feel good about the wayI look and what I can do physically”. Scores from the PSDQ scalehave shown strong reliability and construct validity (Marsh et al.,1994). Cronbach’s alpha scale reliability coefficient in the presentstudy was .96.

Shame and guilt proneness. Participants’ proneness to shameand guilt were measured by the Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3 short version (TOSCA-3S, Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tangney,Dearing, Wagner, & Gramzow, 2000). The TOSCA-3 is a scenario-based measure of shame and guilt proneness, with responses ratedon a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not likely) to 5 (very likely)(Tracy, Robins, & Tangney, 2007). Items 3, 4, 9, and 11 were mod-ified slightly to better reflect the study population. Specifically,this meant changing the hypothetical situations in the specifieditems from work-related to school-related. For example, item 4 ofthe original scale reads: “You make a mistake at work and findout a co-worker is blamed for the error”, responses for this iteminclude: (a) You would think the company did not like the co-worker, (b) You would think: “life is not fair”, (c) You would keepquiet and avoid the co-worker, (d) You would feel unhappy andeager to correct the situation (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). This itemwas modified to read: You make a mistake at school and find outa fellow student is blamed for the error. Responses for this iteminclude: (a) You would think the teacher did not like the student,(b) You would think: “life is not fair,” (c) You would keep quietand avoid the student, (d) You would feel unhappy and eager tocorrect the situation. Scores from the TOSCA-3 have shown ade-quate reliability and validity (Mullins-Nelson, Salekin, & Leistico,2006). In the present study, scale reliability for shame pronenesswas ̨ = .75. However, scale reliability was relatively low for guiltproneness ( ̨ = .62). Many of the items in the guilt scale were nega-tively skewed, with high means. Dropping items 3 and 8 improvedscale reliability to ̨ = .66. This coefficient was similar, albeit higher,to previous reports of the scale reliability among women (Rusch,Corrigan, Bohus, Hacob, Brueck, & Lieb, 2007). The low-moderatecorrelation (r = .33) between the guilt proneness and shame prone-ness scales was similar to previous studies (Dearing, Stuewig, &Tangney, 2005).

Attributions. Causal attributions were measured using a mod-ified version of the Controllability, Stability, Globality, andUniversality CSGU instrument (Coffee & Rees, 2008). Only the con-trollability (e.g., “you could control in the future”), stability (e.g.,you feel remain constant over), and globality (e.g., affect a widevariety of outcomes for you) subscales of the CSGU were utilizedin this research as there is no empirical evidence or theoreticalpropositions to support universality as a factor in the elicitation

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

of self-conscious emotions. Respondents rated their responses ona scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Items 12, 14, 15, 21 and 24of the original scale were modified slightly for this study to changethe emphasis from that of performance to a context reflective of

ING Model

B

4 dy Ima

t“arsfC

S1ioitoAsfta

piamtftd(r

D

mlMptaslawdeta

p(siompss

w

image, physical self-concept, and proneness for guilt and shamewere tested as predictors of state body-related shame and guilt,and causal attributions were tested as mediators of the associationsin the current study. The findings provided partial support for the

3 We also analyzed if the interaction effects of attributions contributed to the

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

he scenario situation. For instance, item 14 was modified fromdoes not fluctuate across performances” to “does not fluctuatecross situations.” The scores from the CSGU have shown scale goodeliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the four subscalecores ranging from ̨ = .79 to ̨ = .91 (Coffee & Rees, 2008). Scoresrom all scales had acceptable reliability in the present study, withronbach’s alpha values ranging from ̨ = .80 to ̨ = .87.

State shame and guilt. The shame and guilt subscales of thetate Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS, Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney,994) were adopted. Participants were instructed to answer the

tems on the SSGS while reflecting on their emotional state basedn the hypothetical body-related emotion-eliciting scenario. Tentems were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not feelinghis way at all) to 5 (feeling this way very strongly). An examplef a shame item is “I want to sink into the floor and disappear”.n item from the guilt scale is “I feel remorse, regret”. The SSGScores have been shown to have acceptable scale reliability ( ̨ = .89or shame, ̨ = .82 for guilt; Tracy et al., 2007). In the present studyhe estimates of scale reliabilities were acceptable for guilt ( ̨ = .85)nd shame ( ̨ = .79).

Manipulation check. Immediately after reading the scenario,articipants were asked two questions pertaining to the hypothet-

cal scenario in an effort to assess: (a) whether participants wereble to envision themselves in the scenario, “I was able to pictureyself in the scenario”, and (b) whether participants would feel dis-

ress if the events in the scenario were to happen to them, “I wouldeel distress if the events in the scenario were to happen to me.” Par-icipants rated their responses on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 = stronglyisagree, and 7 = strongly agree. Those participants who scored a 5somewhat agree) or above on an average of the two scores wereetained for the analysis.

ata Analysis

Following data screening for missing responses and for theanipulation check, Pearson correlation coefficients were calcu-

ated to examine associations among the study variables. Usingplus software version 7.1, multiple mediation with bootstrap-

ing procedures (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was usedo examine the mediating role of all three causal attributions in thessociations of shame/guilt proneness, physical self-concept, withtate shame/guilt. Bootstrapping does not assume normal samp-ing distributions. For bootstrapping (k = 5000), point estimatesnd 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence level (BCa CI)ere requested, with the absence of zero in the BCa CIs as evi-ence for mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Specific indirectffects were examined by using the BCa CIs to analyze the con-ribution of each attribution variable in the multiple mediationnalysis.

Results

Out of 492 initial responses to the online survey, a number ofarticipants (N = 78; 15.6%) were excluded for excessive missingmore than 50% of items missing in a scale) or incomplete dataets (i.e., registered and then decided to decline to finish partic-pation). Participants were excluded if they did not meet criterian the manipulation check (N = 130; 26.4%). There were also 43issing data points (<0.01%) which were replaced using the within-

erson median value for that particular scale. Descriptive statistics,

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

cale reliabilities, and correlations for all measures in the analyticalample (N = 284) are summarized in Table 1.

Shame and guilt proneness and physical self-concept variablesere related to state shame and guilt in expected directions.

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Physical self-concept showed a negative relationship with bothstate shame (r = −.29; p < .01) and guilt (r = −.28; p < .01). Shameproneness was positively related to both state shame (r = .53;p < .01) and guilt (r = .43; p < .01). Guilt proneness showed a posi-tive significant relationship with state shame (r = .16; p < .05), butcontrary to expectations, the relationship between guilt pronenessand guilt was not significant (r = .04, p > .49). As predicted, control-lability attributions (r = −.26; p < .01) and globality (r = .35; p < .01)attributions were related to shame. Contrary to expectations, stableattributions were not significantly related to shame (r = .04, p > .53).For state guilt, the nature of the relationships were in the directionopposite to expectations, likely due to the high moderate positiverelationship between state shame and state guilt (r = .64, p < .01).Guilt showed a negative relationship with controllable attributions(r = −.22; p < .01), and a positive significant relationship with stable(r = .22; p < .01) and global attributions (r = .32; p < .01).

Testing for Mediation

A summary of the mediation results predicting shame is pre-sented in Table 2. There was evidence for mediation of physicalself-concept on state shame through attributions. Based on inter-pretation of the specific indirect effects, controllability attributionscontributed to the model. Mediation was also evident in the modelincluding shame proneness, with both controllability and global-ity attributions emerging as significant independent contributors.Mediation analysis for guilt proneness on state shame throughattributions indicated that neither the total indirect effects northe specific indirect effects of these models were significant, pro-viding no support for this hypothesis. Overall, the results providepartial support for expectations that the relationship of physicalself-concept and shame proneness with state shame would bemediated by causal attributions.

A summary of results of the total and specific indirect effectsand bootstrap results of the relationship of the person factors withguilt through the mediators of stability, globality, and controllabil-ity attributions is presented in Table 3. For physical self-concept,the mediation model was supported but only controllability was asignificant independent contributor. However, the direction of theestimate was counter to expectations. None of the specific indirecteffects of the model with shame proneness were significant; how-ever, the total indirect effect of all three attributions was significant.There were no significant results for the prediction of guilt prone-ness. Overall, there was little support for the hypothesis that causalattributions should mediate the relationship between the indepen-dent variables and state guilt.3 Significant direct and indirect effectsfor all variables in the model are shown in Fig. 1.

Discussion

The process model of self-conscious emotions (Tracy & Robins,2004, 2006) provides a framework to study identity-goal relevanceand congruence and causal attributions as primary predictors ofexperiences of shame and guilt. Examined in the context of body

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

prediction of state shame and guilt. This analysis is based on the proposition thatspecific self-conscious emotions (e.g., shame) would be predicted by the interactiveeffects of stability, controllability, and globality. We found no evidence that twoway or three way interactions involving attributions contributed to the predictionof either state shame or state guilt beyond simple main effects.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

BODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Body Image xxx (2013) xxx– xxx 5

Table 1Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and correlations for all variables.

Variable M SD ̨ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Physical self-concept 21.4 7.58 .962. Shame proneness 36.6 7.18 .75 −.38*

3. Guilt proneness 39.5 3.86 .66 −.09 .33*

4. Stability 11.1 2.53 .82 .01 .04 .065. Globality 12.5 3.24 .80 −.18* .23* .11 .38*

6. Controllability 12.7 3.37 .87 .30* −.24* .03 .14* .14*

7. State Shame 15.8 4.74 .79 −.30* .53* .17* .04 .35* −.26*

8. State Guilt 13.1 5.10 .85 −.28* .43* .04 .22* .32* −.22* .64*

Note. Possible scale range: Physical self-concept 6–36, shame proneness 11–55, guilt proneness 9–45, stability, globality, and controllability attributions 4–20, State shameand state guilt 5–25.

* p < .05.

Table 2Bootstrapped standardized specific indirect, total indirect, direct, and total effects of physical self-concept, shame proneness, and guilt proneness on body related state shamethrough causal attribution mediators.

Physical Self-Concept Shame Proneness Guilt Proneness

Variable PE 95% BCa CI PE 95% BCa CI PE 95% BCa CI

Stability −.003 [−.015, .010] −.006 [−.019, .008] .005 [−.007, .018]Globality −.033 [−.076, .010] .051 [.003, .098] .013 [−.022, .049]Controllability −.046 [−.082, .010] .033 [.004, .063] −.021 [−.047, .005]Total indirect effect −.081 [−.131, −.032] .078 [.030, .127] −.002 [−.043, .039]Total effect −.106 [−.216, .004] .477 [.370, .527] .004 [−.098, .105]Direct Effect −.025 [−.136, .087] .398 [.293, .504] .006 [−.093, .104]

Note. PE: Point estimate; BCa CI: Bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals at 95%.

Table 3Bootstrapped standardized specific indirect, total indirect, direct, and total effects of physical self-concept, shame proneness, and guilt proneness on body related state guiltthrough causal attribution mediators.

Variable Physical self-concept Shame proneness Guilt proneness

PE 95% BCa CI PE 95% BCa CI PE 95% BCa CI

Stability −.006 [−.017, .029] .013 [−.012, .038] −.012 [−.032, .008]Globality −.022 [−.054, .009] .034 [−.001, .070] .009 [−.016, .034]Controllability −.040 [−.075, −.005] .029 [−.001, .059] −.018 [−.042, .006]

Total indirect effect −.056 [−.107, −.006] .076 [.023, .129] −.021 [−.060, .018]Total effect −.136 [−.257, −.015] .413 [.295, .532] −.107 [−.213, .001]

.3

N s at 95

pSaapt

Direct effect −.080 [−.204, .044]

ote. PE: Point estimate; BCa CI: Bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval

rocess model, primarily for the prediction of body-related shame.tate body-related shame was related to uncontrollable and globalttributions, and also related to shame proneness, guilt proneness,

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

nd physical self-concept. There was little evidence for the modelropositions related to the prediction of body-related guilt. Givenhe moderately high correlation between state guilt and shame, it is

Fig. 1. Standardized coefficients for multiple mediation mod

37 [.220, .454] −.086 [−.189, .018]

%.

not surprising that similar patterns of relationships for attributions,proneness to guilt and shame, and physical self-concept were foundfor both negative body-related self-conscious emotions.

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

Body-related shame is a painful emotional state that mayemanate from a fear of eliciting disgust and social rejection fromothers (Roberts & Goldenberg, 2007). As such, it is often more

el. Note. Only statistically significant paths are shown.

ING Model

B

6 dy Ima

snGtIss&saitDpbptssit&igifarvrh

ssrm2ba2iaebagaoAtsibrtma(

tTrhass

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

trongly associated with a variety of maladaptive somatic, cog-itive, psychobiological, and behavioral experiences (Dickerson,ruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004; Gilbert, 2007) and is an impor-

ant emotion for intervention in body image research and practice.n the current study, we focus on potential predictors of bodyhame experiences. As hypothesized in the current study and con-istent with the process model of self-conscious emotions (Tracy

Robins, 2004), physical self-concept and shame proneness wereignificantly associated with experiences of body-related shame,s well as the causal attributions of uncontrollability and global-ty. Since shame proneness arises from a negative evaluation ofhe self and implies a tendency to devalue the self (Tangney &earing, 2002; Tangney & Tracy, 2012) it is not surprising thathysical self-concept was significantly negatively associated withoth trait and state facets of shame. Furthermore, self-evaluativerocesses influence self-attributions and are deemed to play a cen-ral role in the experience of shame (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Asuch, the finding that global and uncontrollable attributions areignificant predictors of state shame and mediators of the phys-cal self-concept and state shame relationship is consistent withhe process model and previous findings (e.g., Tangney, Wagner,

Gramzow, 1992). Specifically, Tangney et al. (1992) found thatndividuals high in shame proneness tended to make internal andlobal attributions for negative events. Taken together, the find-ngs suggest that intervention strategies may be warranted toocus on manipulating the modifiable factors in the model, suchs the appraisals of causal attributions. There is some interventionesearch (e.g., Van Vliet, 2009) demonstrating efforts to help indi-iduals appraise attributions as specific (and unstable) helped toeduce shame and enhance self-concept. This type of research focusas not been highlighted in the context of body image.

Contrary to the model propositions, stable attributions were notignificantly related to body shame. There are several possible rea-ons for the unexpected results. First, some self-conscious emotionesearch has focused on measuring shame primarily in achieve-ent or morally salient contexts (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek,

007; Tracy & Robins, 2006). These contexts might be different fromody-related shame experiences. The body is constantly on displaynd subject to constant social evaluation, especially in females (Fox,000; Sabiston et al., 2007). Any situation that raises the possibil-

ty of social exclusion or social ridicule might trigger shame. Thus,ttributions of stability might not always be required for shamexperiences. Second, some research has examined the relationshipetween shame and stability by examining shame proneness andttribution styles (e.g., Tangney et al., 1992), rather than investi-ating attributions to a specific situation. Shame proneness andttribution styles may reflect a common link to hopelessness andther maladaptive psychological states (Abramson, Metalsky, &lloy, 1989; Tangney et al., 1992). A third factor that might explain

he absence of stability attributions in predicting state body-relatedhame relates to the hypothetical scenario methodology. Partic-pants might have attributed emotional states to the situationut appraised that the situation would not likely happen on aegular basis. Thus, stability was not a relevant factor. An alterna-ive methodology that might overcome the limitations of scenario

ethods is to ask people to recall past situations that evoked shamend then used content analysis to determine causal attributionssee Tracy & Robins, 2006).

For state guilt, the nature of the relationships were in the direc-ion opposite to expectations and similar to the findings for shame.his finding is in part likely due to the high moderate positiveelationship between state shame and state guilt. The moderately

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

igh correlation between these two measures suggests that youngdult women are not clearly distinguishing between these twotates. Many researchers have recognized that shame and guilthare a number of features such as dysphoric affective processes

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

and internal attributions (Tangney et al., 1992) but there is evidencethat shame and guilt have marked different dynamics and out-comes (Castonguay et al., 2012; Sabiston, Brunet, Kowalski, Wilson,Mack, & Crocker, 2010; Tangney, 1995). Nonetheless, uncontrol-lable, global, and stable attributions were predictive of higherbody-related guilt experiences, and the indirect effect of physicalself-concept on state guilt was significant through uncontrollableattributions. Shame-proneness was also significantly related tostate guilt, whereas guilt proneness was not.

Previous work has consistently demonstrated that poor physi-cal self-concept is linked to body-related anxiety and a number ofpotentially maladaptive behaviors such as drive for thinness, dis-ordered eating behavior, and exercise avoidance (Cash & Strachan,1999; Crocker et al., 2006; Crocker, McEwen, & Mosewich, 2013).This research adds to the emerging work demonstrating thatdispositional and state self-conscious emotions have meaning-ful relationships with many psychological aspects of the bodyincluding objectified body consciousness, idealized weight, andmotivation for exercise (Castonguay et al., 2012; Mosewich et al.,2011; Sabiston et al., 2010). Future research needs to considerother aspects of identity and body image that could influence self-conscious emotions in situations where a person perceives her bodyis under scrutiny.

In spite of the strengths of this study, there are limitationsthat need to be addressed. First, this was a self-selective volunteerand convenience sample of women which limits generalizability.The data were collected in a cross-sectional design and there-fore directionality of effects cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, theguilt proneness scale had a low internal consistency coefficient.This subscale of the TOSCA-3 has received criticism in the litera-ture because it often has marginal scale reliability (Giner-Sorolla,Piazza, & Espinosa, 2011). In addition, some researchers have sug-gested that the guilt proneness subscale of the TOSCA-3 assessesmotivation to amend one’s actions in response to a guilt inducingevent rather than the affective state associated with the emotion(Giner-Sorolla et al., 2011; Kugler & Jones, 1992). Additionally, thehypothetical scenario methodology may have limited the reportingof state body shame and guilt emotional experiences. It is possiblethat the scenario may be eliciting more basic emotions such as dis-gust which is likely to be experienced when one fails to maintaincertain societal standards (e.g., attractive features of the body) andis the result of self-evaluation against internalized cultural stan-dards (Tracy & Robins, 2004) such as the self-objectification processpertaining to appearance, body shape, and weight (Fredrickson &Roberts, 1997; Roberts & Goldenberg, 2007). As such, additionalmethodologies used to induce such emotions may need to be con-sidered. Finally, this study was limited to exploring two negativeself-conscious emotions (state body guilt and shame). There is aneed to expand research in body image theory and practice tofocus on more positive emotional experiences such as body pride(Castonguay et al., 2012) and to expand beyond the pathology-driven research in this area. The process model of self-consciousemotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2006) is a framework to under-stand such positive emotions.

Conclusions

Limitations notwithstanding, it is important to identify key pre-dictors of self-conscious emotions since emotional schema havemotivational and regulatory functions in many adolescent andadult experiences (Izard, 2009; Lazarus, 1999). Negative emotions

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

such as body-related anxiety, shame, and guilt are associated withpotential maladaptive behaviors and cognitions such as exces-sive self-criticism, disordered eating, excessive exercise, dieting,smoking, extrinsic motivation for physical activity, and body image

ING Model

B

dy Ima

dC2raiisimcrepae

afat

C

A

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

issatisfaction (Bessenoff & Snow, 2006; Burney & Irwin, 2000;astonguay et al., 2012; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998; Sabiston et al.,010). The findings from the current study suggest that body-elated shame was significantly related to global and uncontrollablettributions. Body-related guilt showed similar patterns, a findingnconsistent with the model (Tracy & Robins, 2004). The data alsondicated that relatively stable person factors including physicalelf-concept, and shame proneness are an important considerationn predicting these body-related emotions. There was evidence of

ediation by attributions but shame-proneness also made signifi-ant direct contributions to both state shame and guilt. Overall, thisesearch provided some support for the model of self-consciousmotions contextualized to body image and provides a startingoint for the exploration of a complex set of body image vari-bles and causal attributions linked to the powerful self-consciousmotions.

Acknowledgements

The first two authors made equal contributions to the paper. Theuthors wish to thank Dr. Cash, Dr. Hildebrandt, and two reviewersor helpful comments that significantly improved the paper. Welso thank Coralie Riendeau for assisting in preparing tables andhe figure.

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Researchouncil of Canada.

References

bramson, L. Y., Metalsky, F. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression:A theory based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372,doi.apa.org/journals/rev/96/2/358.pdf.

essenoff, G. R., & Snow, D. (2006). Absorbing society’s influence: Body-image self-discrepancy and internalized shame. Sex Roles, 54, 727–731.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9038-7

runet, J., Sabiston, C. M., Castonguay, A., Ferguson, L., & Bessette, N. (2012). The asso-ciation between physical self-discrepancies and women’s physical activity: Themediating role of motivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 102–123.

urney, J., & Irwin, H. J. (2000). Shame and guilt in women with eating disor-der symptomatology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 51–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200001)56:1<51::AID-JCLP5>3.0.CO;2-W

ash, T. F. (2004). Body image: Past, present, and future. Body Image: An InternationalJournal of Research, 1, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00011-1

ash, T. F., Melnyk, S. E., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2004). The assessment of body invest-ment: An extensive revision of the Appearance Schemas Inventory. InternationalJournal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10264

ash, T. F., Santos, M. T., & Williams, E. F. (2005). Coping with body-image threats and challenges: Validation of the Body Image CopingStrategies Inventory. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 191–199.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.07.008

ash, T. F., & Smolak, L. (2012). Body image: A handbook of science, practice, andprevention. New York: Guilford Press.

ash, T. F., & Strachan, M. D. (1999). Body images, eating disorders, and beyond. InR. Lemberg (Ed.), Eating disorders: A reference sourcebook (pp. 27–36). Phoenix,AZ: Oryx Press.

astonguay, A., Brunet, J., Ferguson, L., & Sabiston, C. M. (2012). Weightrelated actual and ideal self-states, discrepancies, and shame, guilt, andpride: Examining associations within the process model of self-consciousemotions. Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 9, 488–494.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.07.003

offee, P., & Rees, T. (2008). The CSGU: A measure of controllability, stability, glob-ality, and universality attributions. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30,611–641.

overt, M. V., Tangney, J. P., Maddux, J. E., & Heleno, N. M. (2003). Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and interpersonal problem solving: A socialcognitive analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 1–12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.22.1.1.22765

rocker, P. R. E., McEwen, C., & Mosewich, A. D. (2013). Physical activity and self-perceptions among adults. In P. Ekkekakis (Ed.), Handbook of physical activityand mental health (pp. 200–211). London: Routledge.

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

rocker, P. R. E., Sabiston, C. M., Kowalski, N., Kowalski, K. C., & McDonough,M. H. (2006). Longitudinal assessment of the relationship betweenphysical self-concept and health related behavior and emotion inadolescent girls. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 185–200.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200600830257

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx 7

Davidson, T. E., & McCabe, M. P. (2005). Relationships between men’s and women’sbody image and their psychological functioning. Sex Roles, 52, 463–475.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3712-z

Dearing, R. L., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2005). On the importance of distinguish-ing shame from guilt: Relations to problematic alcohol and drug use. AddictiveBehaviors, 30, 1392–1404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.02.002

Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self isthreatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1191–1216.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x

Fox, K. R. (2000). Self-esteem, self-perceptions, and exercise. International Journal ofSport Psychology, 31, 228–240.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understand-ing women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x

Gilbert, P. (2007). The evaluation of shame as a marker for relationship security: Abiopsychosocial approach. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Theself-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 283–309). New York: Guilford.

Giner-Sorolla, R., Piazza, J., & Espinosa, P. (2011). What do the TOSCA Guilt and ShameScales really measuring: Affect or action? Personality and Individual Differences,51, 445–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.010

Hagger, M. S., & Stevenson, A. (2010). Social physique anxiety and physi-cal self-esteem: Gender and age effects. Psychology & Health, 25, 89–110.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440903160990

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foun-dations. New York: Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation anal-ysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research highlights, unansweredquestions and emerging issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 1–25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163539

Kugler, K., & Jones, W. H. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessingguilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 318–327.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.318

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Springer.Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of inter-

personal conflict: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal ofPersonality, 66, 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00001

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International UniversitiesPress.

Lewis, M. (2008). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt.In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions(3rd ed., pp. 742–756). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Markham, A., Thompson, T., & Bowling, A. (2005). Determinants of body-image shame. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1529–1541.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.018

Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt Scale.Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., & Tremayne, P. (1994). PhysicalSelf Description Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology, 16, 270–305.

McKinley, N. M. (2006). Longitudinal gender differences in objectified bodyconsciousness and weight-related attitudes and behaviors: Cultural and devel-opmental contexts in the transition to college. Sex Roles, 54, 159–173.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9335-1

Monro, F., & Huon, G. (2005). Media-portrayed idealized images, body shame,and appearance anxiety. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 38, 85–90.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.20153

Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women:A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,377–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x

Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., Sabiston, C. M., Sedgwick, W. A., & Tracy, J. L. (2011).Young women athletes’ self-conscious emotions and self-compassion. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 103–123.

Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. R. (2006). Psychopathy, empa-thy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for thesuccessful psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,5, 133–149.

Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model linking self-objectification, body shame and disordered eating. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 22, 623–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies forassessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 40, 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Roberts, T. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2007). Wrestling with Nature: An existential per-spective on the body and gender in self-conscious emotions. In J. L. Tracy, R. W.Robins & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research(pp. 389–406). New York: The Guilford Press.

Rusch, N., Corrigan, P. W., Bohus, M., Hacob, G. A., Brueck, R., & Lieb, K. (2007). Mea-suring shame and guilt by self-report questionnaires: A validation study. Psychi-

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

atry Research, 150, 313–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2006.04.018Sabiston, 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 motivatingphysical activity among women. The Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32,417–437.

ING Model

B

8 dy Ima

S

T

T

T

T

T

T

ARTICLEODYIM-577; No. of Pages 8

P.R.E. Crocker et al. / Bo

abiston, C. M., Sedgwick, W. A., Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., & Mack, D. E. (2007).Social physique anxiety in adolescence: An exploration of influences, copingstrategies, and health behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 78–101.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558406294628

angney, J. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study ofshame and guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 1132–1145.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764295038008008

angney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: The GuilfordPress.

angney, J. P., Dearing, R. L., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (2000). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect–3 (TOSCA-3). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

angney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotionsand moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

angney, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Self-conscious emotions. In M. Leary & J. P.

Please cite this article in press as: Crocker, P. R. E., et al. Body-related stinfluence of physical self-concept and shame and guilt proneness. Body Im

Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 446–478). New York:Guilford.

angney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Proneness to shame, pronenessto guilt and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 469–478.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.101.3.46

PRESSge xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Thompson, K. J., & Heinberg, L. J. (1999). The media’s influence on body image dis-turbance and eating disorders: We’ve reviled them, now can we rehabilitatethem? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 339–353.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-consciousemotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502 01

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Supportfor a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290212

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). Self-conscious emotions: Where self and emotionmeet. In C. Sedikides & S. Spence (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: The self (pp.187–209). New York: Psychology Press.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). The self into self-conscious emotions: A cognitiveappraisal approach. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 3–20). New York: The Guilford Press.

ate shame and guilt in women: Do causal attributions mediate theage (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.08.002

Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). The self-conscious emotions: Theoryand research. New York: The Guilford Press.

Van Vliet, K. J. (2009). The role of attributions in the process of overcoming shame: Aqualitative analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,82, 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/147608308X38939