Development and validation of the Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES)

Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Development and validation of the Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES) Andrée L. Castonguay a,b , Catherine M. Sabiston c,∗ , Peter R.E. Crocker d , Diane E. Mack e a

Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal Canada Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal Canada Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto Canada d School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada e Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines Canada b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 September 2013 Received in revised form 28 December 2013 Accepted 29 December 2013

The purpose of these studies was to develop a psychometrically sound measure of shame, guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride for use in body and appearance contexts. In Study 1, 41 potential items were developed and assessed for item quality and comprehension. In Study 2, a panel of experts (N = 8; M = 11, SD = 6.5 years of experience) reviewed the scale and items for evidence of content validity. Participants in Study 3 (n = 135 males, n = 300 females) completed the BASES and various body image, personality, and emotion scales. A separate sample (n = 155; 35.5% male) in Study 3 completed the BASES twice using a two-week time interval. The BASES subscale scores demonstrated evidence for internal consistency, itemtotal correlations, concurrent, convergent, incremental, and discriminant validity, and 2-week test–retest reliability. The 4-factor solution was a good fit in confirmatory factor analysis, reflecting body-related shame, guilt, authentic and hubristic pride subscales of the BASES. The development and validation of the BASES may help advance body image and self-conscious emotion research by providing a foundation to examine the unique antecedents and outcomes of these specific emotional experiences. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shame Guilt Pride Body image Instrument development

Introduction Over 70% of older adolescents and 80% of adults report negative emotions and dissatisfaction with their body size, shape, and appearance (Dohnt & Tiggemann, 2005; Neighbors & Sobal, 2007). Prevalence of negative body-related emotions has incited many researchers to examine the cognitive and behavioral antecedents and outcomes of negative body-related emotional experiences specific to body anxiety (Martin, Rejeski, Leary, McAuley, & Bane, 1997; Sabiston, Sedwick, Crocker, Kowalski, & Mack, 2007) or negative affect (Hrabosky et al., 2009; Zajac & Katarzyna, 2011). Nonetheless, negative body-related emotional experiences are likely represented as a range of emotions such as shame and guilt that may have unique symptomatology and maladaptive behavioral outcomes compared to anxiety and negative affect (Fleming et al., 2006; Sabiston et al., 2007). The central focus on negative body-related emotions has been undertaken at the expense of understanding the role of the more

positive emotional experiences (Frith & Gleeson, 2008; Sabiston, Brunet, Kowalski, Wilson, Mack, & Crocker, 2010; Silva, 2009). The limited focus on positive emotion is surprising since most women and men can identify physical attributes that they appraise as positive (Avalos, Tylka, & Wood-Barcalow, 2005) and may report appreciation for their bodies (Swami, Hadji-Michael, & Furnham, 2008). Targeting positive emotional experiences may be central to understanding optimal functioning, growth, and development (McCraty & Tomasino, 2006). As such, advancing body image research and theory by studying the array of possible body-related emotional experiences and their respective unique psychological, physical, and behavioral outcomes is warranted. However, investigating these specific emotions requires the development and use of valid and reliable scale scores of a measurement tool designed to effectively capture both positive and negative body and appearancerelated self-conscious emotional experiences. This study attempts to fill this knowledge gap by developing a self-report measure of body and appearance-related shame, guilt, and pride. Body-Related Shame, Guilt, and Pride

∗ Corresponding author at: University of Toronto, 55 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2W6, Canada. Tel.: +1 416 978 3244. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.L. Castonguay), [email protected] (C.M. Sabiston). 1740-1445/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.12.006

Shame, guilt, and pride are considered self-conscious emotions that are evoked by self-reflection and self-evaluation (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). It has been argued that these emotions play a

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

central role in motivating and regulating people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions (Fischer & Tangney, 1995). Body-related shame is an acutely painful emotion that individuals experience when they fail to meet internalized social standards, with a focus on stable, uncontrollable, and deeply rooted global causes (e.g., “I am an ugly person”; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2004). Despite being traditionally viewed as a public emotion (e.g., Buss, 1980), shame can occur in response to both public or private elicitors (Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996), yet it is more commonly elicited in public contexts (Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002). As shame is elicited in response to global failures of the self and results in motivations to escape or hide (e.g., avoiding being seen without make-up), 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-objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). This framework was developed to help position self-conscious emotions within the broader context of body image to help understand the potential deleterious mental and behavioral health outcomes of body-related shame. Essentially, body-related shame is recognized as a key emotional consequence and is thought to mediate the relationship between self-objectification (i.e., scrutinizing the body from an external perspective), body-monitoring (i.e., preoccupation with one’s appearance) and maladaptive outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, disordered eating, sexual dysfunction; Calogero & Thompson, 2009; Chen & Russo, 2010; Conradt, Dierk, Schlumberger, Rauh, Hebebrand, & Rief, 2007; Jankauskiene & Pajaujiene, 2012; Tiggemann & Williams, 2012). Researchers have further identified psychological and behavioral correlates of body-related shame (e.g., social physique anxiety, global self/bodyesteem; Conradt et al., 2007; Thompson, Dinnel, & Dill, 2003). Body-related guilt occurs in response to internal, unstable, controllable, and specific attributions of failure (e.g., “I didn’t eat properly for two months and gained weight”; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2004) and involves a sense of tension, remorse, and regret. Although guilt was traditionally viewed as a private emotion (e.g., Buss, 1980), it can be activated by public or private selfrepresentations (Tangney et al., 1996). Researchers have applied the self-objectification theoretical framework to guilt (Burney & Irwin, 2000; Calogero & Pina, 2011). Because guilt arises in response to a specific behavior, and not the person as a whole, this emotion is typically less painful than shame and may motivate reparative action in attempt to fix the “bad behavior” (e.g., going on a diet after eating too much; Conradt et al., 2007; Sabiston et al., 2010). Consistent with this notion, and generalized self-conscious emotion research, body-related guilt has been implicated in psychopathology characterized by increased depressive symptoms, social physique anxiety, eating disorder symptomology and decreased self-esteem (Burney & Irwin, 2000; Calogero & Pina, 2011; Conradt et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2003). Yet, when shame and guilt feelings are statistically separated (i.e., using partial correlations or regression analysis), shame-free guilt has not been correlated with psychopathology indicators (e.g., depression; Conradt et al., 2007; Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011) and positively associated with pro-social behaviors (healthy physical activity; Sabiston et al., 2010). For instance, Calogero, Boroughs, and Thompson (2007) reported moderate correlations between body-related guilt and depressive symptoms and self-esteem among older adolescents and adults, yet partial correlations (i.e., shame-free guilt) were unrelated to these variables. Indeed, it is likely that guilt becomes maladaptive when it merges with shame (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). Pride is conceptualized as a positive emotion that results from an individual engaging in valued behaviors or presenting with positive characteristics (e.g., being attractive; Fischer & Tangney, 1995; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Two facets of pride have been

127

consistently identified in the generalized and body-specific literature: authentic and hubristic pride. Like shame and guilt, the triggers and causal attributions distinguish the two facets. Body-related authentic pride is focused on specific, controllable achievements and behaviors (e.g., “I am satisfied with eating healthy to maintain my weight”), whereas body-related hubristic pride is experienced as uncontrollable and global aspects of the self (e.g., “I have a great body”) typically involving feelings of personal grandiosity and superiority to others (Castonguay, Gilchrist, Mack, & Sabiston, 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Authentic and hubristic pride may also be distinguished in terms of psychological and behavioral correlates. Generalized and body-related authentic pride has been linked to feelings of achievement (e.g., successful, ability), increased self-esteem, adaptive personality factors, and motivation to engage in goal-directed behavior (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Sabiston et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007; Williams & DeSteno, 2008). In contrast, hubristic pride has been associated with narcissistic self-aggrandizement (e.g., self-centered, arrogant) and both maladaptive and adaptive functions (e.g., increased and desreased self-esteem, poor dyadic adjustment; Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). This recent understanding of the distinction between authentic and hubristic pride has been accomplished with little regard to understanding pride specific to the body (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). Although empirical support has begun to accumulate for contextualized self-conscious emotions, relatively little is known about these emotions, and in particular body-related guilt and pride (authentic and hubristic facets). What is currently understood about the extent to which individuals experience self-conscious body-related emotions and their antecedents and consequences are limited by the current conceptualization of these emotions and associated measures. Measurement of Body-Related Shame, Guilt, and Pride To date, a few published scales have been developed to assess constructs of body-related self-conscious emotions, yet they have been predominantly limited to emotions of shame and guilt. Such scales include: (a) the Shame and Guilt Eating Scale (SG; Frank, 1990); (b) the Body Image Guilt and Shame Scale (BIGGS; Thompson et al., 2003); (c) the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS; McKinley & Hyde, 1996); (d) the Weight and Body-Related Shame and Guilt Scale (WEB-SG; Conradt et al., 2007); and (e) the Experience of Shame scale (ESS; Andrews, Mingyi, & Valentine, 2002). While these instruments have utility for elucidating the consequences of self-conscious emotional experiences linked to the body/appearance, there are limitations. First, many of the existing scales (e.g., SG, ESS, WEB-SG) integrate behavioral components such as eating or exercise behavior in the scale items. Including behavioral components within scale items may lead to item overlap with measures intended to predict behavioral antecedents and outcomes of the specific emotion, which is likely to inflate the relationships under investigation (Spector & Brannick, 2009). Second, some of the shame items may be confounded with phenomenological ratings of embarrassment – a distinct emotion from shame (e.g., “the appearance of my body is embarrassing for me in front of others”; WEB-SG). Third, the current conceptualization of body shame and guilt do not capture many factors (e.g., skin tone, hair texture, facial features) given the narrow focus on body weight of existing measures (e.g., BIGGS, WEB-SG; Moradi, 2010; Moradi & Huang, 2008), limiting its application with men and women who are not sensitive to this aspect of appearance. Instruments with more globally worded items may more fully represent the content and may help to better understand the full extent of these emotional experiences. Fifth, the strong concentration on weightfocused items introduces issues with invariance (OBCS; Chen &

128

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Russo, 2010). Indeed, items that differ in meaning between men and women may propagate gender difference in the literature. A more appropriate measure of body-related self-conscious emotions reflecting general appearance that is likely to reflect both men and women’s experiences is needed (Chen & Russo, 2010). There are no existing published measures specifically designed to assess body and appearance-related authentic and hubristic pride and modification of existing generalized scales are problematic. One recent investigation attempted to tap into body-related pride (Sabiston et al., 2010) using an instrument modified from the generalized Pride Scale (Tracy & Robins, 2007). However, low internal consistency of scale scores and minimal endorsement across the range of response options for several of the items were reported for the hubristic pride subscale (Sabiston et al., 2010). Items with low frequency of endorsement supply the investigator with little information and may negatively influence the scale’s psychometric properties (Streiner & Norman, 2008). An instrument that addresses this methodological shortcoming by including subscales that assess theoretically (Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007) and empirically (Castonguay et al., 2013) based authentic and hubristic facets of pride is needed. Based on the limitations of previous measures, the development of a scale assessing body-related shame, guilt, authentic and hubristic facets of pride in body and appearance contexts holds the potential to advance self-conscious emotion and body image research. The Current Study The overall aim of this study was to develop and evaluate select psychometric properties of a trait self-report measure of body and appearance-related self-conscious emotions (BASES) assessing shame, guilt, and authentic and hubristic facets of pride for use with men and women. To address this purpose, four studies were conducted to develop items designed to effectively capture the four intended constructs and to provide validity evidence based on content, internal structure, test-criterion relationships (concurrent), and relations to other variables (convergent, discriminant) derived from BASES scores (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999). Study 1: Construction of Initial Questionnaire The purpose of Study 1 was to develop the initial pool of items comprising the BASES. Following item generation, preliminary refinement of the BASES items using quantitative and qualitative responses on item quality and content from colleagues and a sample of older adolescents and adults was conducted. Item Generation The first stage in the instrument development process was to develop a set of suitable items that reflect shame, guilt, authentic and hubristic pride body and appearance-related self-conscious emotional experiences. The items for the initial set were identified using three main sources. First, open-ended narrative responses and phenomenological ratings of body-related self-conscious emotion of shame, guilt, and pride with older adolescent and young adult (Mage = 18.9, SD = 2.4 years) males (n = 134) and females (n = 187) were collected. Participants were asked to describe a personal experience for each body-related self-conscious emotion and rate the experience according to 25 phenomenological adjectives (Tangney et al., 1996) designed to target each of shame, guilt, and pride (and filler adjectives). The narrative responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis (see Castonguay et al., 2013). That

is, three researchers independently read each transcribed narrative and made notes (i.e., memoing). Following the initial coding and note-taking, the researchers met and discussed all codes. Each coder re-read all narratives while identifying and making note of all codes as they emerged, as well as possible connections between codes. New codes were identified in the re-reading, and upon discussion, were merged with existing codes. The coders then met and discussed possible groupings of the codes into categories and themes, which were then labeled. The second source of items was derived from body image and self-conscious emotions theories including models of the physical-self (Fox, 1998; Marsh, 1990; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976), the process model of selfconscious emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2004), the structural model for the elicitation of self-conscious evaluative emotions (Lewis, 1992), and conceptual foundations of body image (Cash & Smolak, 2011). Items were also drawn from established non-contextualized selfconscious emotions (Guilt and Shame Proneness scale, State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS), Test of Self-Conscious Affect-3, Pride Scale; Cohen, Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011; Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tracy & Robins, 2004) and bodyrelated self-conscious emotions measures (WEB-SG, Body Pride Scale; Conradt et al., 2007; Sabiston et al., 2010). Formulation of the items was based on established guidelines for wording, literacy, and comprehension (Fowler, 1995; Streiner & Norman, 2008). The initial version of the scale contained 43 items reflecting body-related shame (nitems = 11; e.g., “ashamed of the way I look”), guilt (nitems = 10; e.g., “guilty that I do not do enough for my appearance”), authentic pride (nitems = 12; e.g., “proud of my efforts to improve my appearance”) and hubristic pride (nitems = 10; e.g., “proud of my superior appearance”). Each of the self-conscious emotion constructs contained many items based on anticipation that some would be deleted as part of the refinement process (Morey, 2003). Consistent with Tracy and Robins (2007) and Conradt et al. (2007), all items were prefixed by: “generally, I have felt. . .” to reflect a global measure of the frequency of emotions. They were also written to be consistent with the 7-point Likert-type response format: 1 (never), 2 (very rarely), 3 (rarely), 4 (occasionally), 5 (frequently), 6 (very frequently), 7 (always). Preliminary Item Analyses Colleagues (N = 4) with extensive knowledge on body-related self-conscious emotions, body image, physical self, and scale development (10 to 20 years of research and practice) reviewed the initial set of items and scale for wording, comprehension, and content. Further, a snowball sample of men (n = 6) and women (n = 26) between the ages of 18 and 59 years (Mage = 31.06, SD = 8.13; 90.6% Caucasian; 9.4% high school, 56.2% university educated) provided informed consent and completed the BASES and questions assessing item quality and comprehension (i.e., interpretation of the item and thoughts on item clarity). Participants were encouraged to provide feedback on items rated as being low in quality (Morey, 2003). Following Streiner and Norman (2008), item analyses of these responses were carried out to inform potential modifications, including percentage of respondents selecting each response option, item mean and standard deviation, inter-item correlations, corrected item-to-total correlations, and the estimate of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951). Item revision. Based on the results of the two preliminary item analyses (i.e., colleague review and results of the participant questionnaire), problematic items included those that had low means and variability, and those that were double barreled (i.e., asked more than one question), narrow in focus (e.g., weight, body shape, muscularity, particular body part), and/or difficult for some participants to understand (e.g., “disgraced about my looks”). Consequently, many scale items were modified and the response

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

stem was changed to a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = frequently, 5 = always) due to low endorsement of the end points and qualitative feedback. Overall, the instrument was comprised of 43 items at this stage in the development process. Study 2: Content Validity The aim of Study 2 was to examine item content relevance and representation of the initial pool of BASES items. Content domain experts completed an item matching task, and content validity index and representation scales. Findings from this study provide validity evidence based on content of the BASES measure. Method and Results Participants and procedures. Following approval from the University Research Ethics Board, twenty-nine prospective experts (none of the reviewers from Study 1) were identified and contacted via email from the broader fields of psychology and kinesiology. Eight experts (27.6% response rate) agreed to participate in the study. All experts completed the online survey within three weeks of initial contact and consent. Reviewers reported having a mean of 10.6 (SD = 6.5) years of research experience in self-conscious emotions (45.5%), body image (36.4%), or both (18.2%). Close to half of the experts (45.5%) reported publishing over 16 peer-reviewed articles in at least one of these areas of research. Experts were provided with concise operational definitions of each of the self-conscious emotions. An item/content-matching task (Hambleton, 1984) was then completed in which experts linked each item to the underlying self-conscious emotion (i.e., shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride, or none). All items were presented randomly. Frequencies for correct matches were tabulated and inspected for each item. Overall, experts correctly classified the majority of items for shame (78.8%, range = 44.4–100%), guilt (60.0%, range = 22.2–100%), authentic pride (75.0%, range = 55.6–100%), and hubristic pride (62.8%, range = 33.3–100%). Twenty items received less than a 75% correct classification (Osterland, 2002). The Instrument Item Relevance Check Sheet (Davis, 1992) was then completed. Experts rated the relevance of each item of each scale (shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride) using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not relevant to 4 = highly relevant. The item content validity index (I-CVI) was computed and, based on the recommendations of Polit, Back, and Owen (2007), a Kappa-like index adjusting each I-CVI for chance agreement was examined for each of the 43 items. The adjusted I-CVI ranged from k = .16 to 1.00 for each self-conscious emotion and these values were compared to a standard table (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981; Polit et al., 2007) for assessment of fair (k = .40–.59), good (k = .60–.74), or excellent (k = >.74) content relevance. Twenty-four out of 43 items received expert panelist ratings of at least .78, indicating excellent content validity. Thirteen out of the 19 items that did not receive a rating of at least .78 also did not receive a correct classification rate of at least 75% (i.e., there was an overlap of 13 items that did not meet either criteria). Overall, 18 items were deleted because they received a low classification rating and adjusted I-CVI scores. Eight items were modified given that they were slightly below the recommended criterion for retention and/or they received acceptable scores for the second criteria (e.g., the item received a correct classification rate of 65% and an I-CVI of .88). Scale level content validity indexes (S-CVI) were also calculated by averaging the I-CVI values (S-CVI/Ave). A S-CVI/Ave value of .90 or higher is typically evaluated as demonstrating excellent evidence of content validity, while .80 is viewed as adequate (Polit et al., 2007). S-CVI/Ave values for the scales were .94, .84, .94, and .87 for shame, guilt, authentic pride

129

and hubristic pride, respectively (excluding the 18 items previously deleted). Finally, reviewers completed a 4-point Likert-type scale assessing content representativeness (1 = not representative, 2 = somewhat representative, 3 = quite representative, 4 = highly representative) for each self-conscious emotion subscale. Reviewers also provided qualitative comments on the BASES items and subscales to determine the degree to which the item pool adequately sampled content from all important aspects of the target constructs of shame, guilt, authentic and hubristic pride in appearance orientations of the self (Messick, 1989). The frequency in which reviewers provided a content representation rating of ≥3 (quite representative) was tabulated. Experts generally evaluated the subscales as being at least “quite representative” of intended constructs (shame 100%, guilt 87.5%, authentic pride 100%, hubristic pride 72.5%). Inspection of reviewers’ comments guided the modification of the 8 items that received a low classification rate and/or adjusted I-CVI score in addition to the wording of 14 other items. Modifications included the elimination of cross emotion terms (e.g., the use of fear instead of shame) and adjusting the wording for several of the hubristic pride items so that they would reflect personal grandiosity without involving a comparison to another individual. One item was deleted because it was redundant with another. In total, 19 items were deleted and 22 items were modified. The end result of these content analysis processes was a third version of the questionnaire that consisted of 24 items (6 items for each shame, guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride).

Study 3: Item Quality and Validation Evidence The aims of the third study were to: (a) test the BASES with adolescents and adults to examine endorsement frequency, item means, variability, scale distributions, inter-item and item-total correlations, (b) examine the factor structure of the BASES, and (c) investigate evidence of the internal consistency and concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the BASES subscale scores. In detail, the internal structure of the BASES subscale scores was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which a correlated 4-factor model was specified. Concurrent validity was evidenced by comparing scores on proxy measures (i.e., WEB-SG, Body Pride Scale). Convergent validity was evidenced by investigating the relations of scores on the BASES to constructs that should theoretically be related. Based on theoretical perspectives and empirical findings (e.g., Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Conradt et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2003; Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2007), it was expected that BASES shame, guiltfree shame, and guilt would be positively related to negative affect and the maladaptive constructs of depressive symptoms and social physique anxiety and negatively related to more adaptive ones of self-esteem and appearance-related physical self-perceptions. Shame-free guilt would be unrelated to psychological symptoms (e.g., depressive symptoms, low self-esteem) and positively related to negative affect given its negative valence. Consistent with the dual model of pride (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007), BASES authentic pride would be positively correlated to positive affect, and adaptive constructs (i.e., self-esteem, physical self-perceptions) and personality characteristics (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness) and negatively related to less favorable constructs such as depressive symptoms, social physique anxiety, and neuroticism. BASES hubristic pride would be positively linked to adaptable psychological functions and negatively related to positive personality traits. Discriminant validity was evidenced by examining the relationships between the BASES subscale scores and generalized self-conscious emotion measures that purportedly assess different constructs (i.e., State Shame and Guilt Scale, Pride

130

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Scale). Finally, incremental validity was evidenced by comparing the strength of correlations between the BASES subscale scores and relevant constructs such as depressive symptoms and other measures designed to assess body-related self-conscious emotions and these same constructs. Method Participants and procedures. Following approval from the University Research Ethics Board, students from a wide range of college and university disciplines were briefed on the study during class by the first author and were provided with a letter of information and a consent form and informed that they would be entered into a draw for a gift certificate. Select students were informed that they would receive course credit. Interested students either (a) signed the consent form and completed the self-report questionnaire package during regular class time approximately 1 week later, or (b) accessed a website address that contained additional information about the study, a consent form, and the secured online survey. A snowball sample was also recruited through the aforementioned participants and social networking sites. These participants were provided with information about the study and accessed the secured online survey. The self-report questionnaire package included demographics, the 24-item BASES, and measures required to provide additional support for concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity of scores. Items used to develop a second questionnaire assessing fitness-related self-conscious emotions were also completed at this time and presented elsewhere. Questionnaires were presented to participants in random order to control for order effects (Krosnick & Presser, 2010). One hundred and thirty-eight men and 327 women were recruited. Because 30 participants (90.0% female) reported being previously diagnosed with a psychiatric illness (e.g., anorexia nervosa, generalized anxiety disorder), the analytic sample is based on 135 males and 300 females (M = 22.4, SD = 6.1; 78.2% Caucasian; 68.8% English, 13.6% French; 56.7% high school or college educated, 43.3% university educated; 30% household income ≥$100,000; MBMI male = 23.9, SD = 3.9; MBMI female = 22.9, SD = 4.2 kg/m2 ). The participants excluded from the analyses reported statistically (ps < .05) higher levels of BASES shame (t = 4.80) and lower authentic pride (t = 3.04) from the analytic sample, but did not differ statistically from the analytic sample (ps > .05) in terms of age, education, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), BASES guilt, BASES hubristic pride or other main study variables. A separate sample of 155 participants (37.5% male) completed the BASES on two occasions approximately 2 weeks apart for the test–retest portion of this study. Measures. Demographics. Age, household income, highest level of education, ethnicity, first language, and psychiatric history was assessed as part of the questionnaire. The physical characteristics of reported height (meters) and weight (kilograms) were also assessed, which were used to calculate BMI. Body-related self-conscious emotions. Several measures were used to assess various aspects of body related self-conscious emotion. The newly developed 24-item BASES assesses body and appearance-related shame (e.g., “ashamed of my appearance”), guilt (e.g., “guilty that I do not do enough to improve the way I look”), authentic (e.g., “proud of my appearance efforts”) and hubristic (e.g., “proud that I am a great looking person”) pride on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (always). The 6item WEB-SG scale (Conradt et al., 2007) assesses trait body-related shame (e.g., “I am ashamed of myself when others get to know how much I really weigh”) and guilt (e.g., “When I can’t manage to work out physically, I feel guilty”) on a 0 (never) to 4 (always) Likerttype scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .92

and convergent and discriminant validity for both men and women have been reported (Conradt et al., 2007). Scores on the WEB-SG shame were used to establish concurrent validity evidence with BASES shame, while WEB-SG guilt scores were used to investigate concurrent validity evidence with BASES guilt. The Body Pride scale (Sabiston et al., 2010) assesses body-related authentic and hubristic pride. Participants rated their level of bodyspecific authentic (7 items; e.g., “accomplished”) and hubristic (7 items; e.g., “arrogant”) pride using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (extremely). Sabiston et al. (2010) reported an alpha coefficient of .93 for scores on body-related authentic and .70 for hubristic pride. Scores on the authentic pride subscale of the Body Pride scale were used to establish concurrent validity evidence with BASES authentic pride, while scores on the hubristic pride subscale of the Body Pride scale were used to investigate concurrent validity evidence with BASES hubristic pride. General self-conscious emotions. Two 5-item subscales of the State Shame and Guilt Scale (Marschall et al., 1994) were used to assess shame (e.g., “I want to sink into the floor and disappear”) and guilt (e.g., “I feel remorse”) in the moment, on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (not feeling this way at all) to 5 (feeling this way very strongly). The scale scores have Cronbach’s alpha of shame ˛ = .89 and guilt ˛ = .82 (Marschall et al., 1994). Scores on the SSGS shame subscale were used to establish divergent validity evidence with BASES shame. SSGS guilt subscale scores were used to investigate divergent validity evidence with BASES guilt. General feelings of authentic and hubristic facets of pride were assessed using the 14-item Pride Scale (Tracy & Robins, 2007) with responses rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Previous researchers have supported the psychometric properties of the scale scores (authentic pride ˛ = .88; hubristic pride ˛ = .90; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Scores on the authentic and hubristic pride subscales of the Pride scale were used to investigate divergent validity evidence with BASES authentic and hubristic pride, respectively. Physical self-perceptions. Participants completed the appearance and body fat subscales of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire-short form (PSDQ-S; Marsh, Martin, & Jackson, 2010) by indicating the extent to which they agreed with 3 statements reflecting appearance (e.g., “I have a nice looking face”) and 3 statements reflecting body fat (e.g., “I have too much fat on my body”) on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (false) to 6 (true). Items assessing body fat were reverse-scored, such that higher scores represent more positive perceptions of self. The scale scores on the PSDQ-S have shown internal validity, test–retest reliability, and convergent and divergent validity evidence (Marsh et al., 2010). Physical self-perception scale scores were used to investigate convergent source validity with all BASES subscale scores. Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) with responses to items (e.g., “On the whole I am satisfied with myself”) rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). For interpretational reasons, all scores were reverse-coded such that higher scores reflected greater self-esteem. Evidence for various sources of reliability and validity of the scale scores have been reported (Rosenberg, 1965; Schmitt & Allik, 2005). The RSE scale scores were used to investigate convergent source validity. Depression. The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale short form (CES-D10; Andersen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994) consists of 10 items (e.g., “I felt depressed”) rated on a 4point scale ranging from 0 (rarely) to 3 (most of the time). Responses reflected how the participant felt or behaved during the past week. Evidence of internal consistency and validity of scale scores has been demonstrated (e.g., Andersen et al., 1994). The CES-D scale scores were used in to investigate convergent validity sources with the BASES subscale scores.

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) measures positive (10 items, e.g., “Interested”) and negative (10 items, e.g., “Upset”) affect. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they had experienced each particular emotion within the last week, with reference to a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (very much). The reliability and validity of the PANAS scores has been supported (e.g., Crawford & Henry, 2004). Scores on the negative affect subscale were used to provide evidence of convergent validity with BASES shame and guilt, while scores on the positive affect subscale were used to provide validity evidence for BASES authentic and hubristic pride scores. Personality. Three subscales of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) were used to assess conscientiousness (9 items, e.g., “I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”), neuroticism (8 items, e.g., “I see myself as someone who is depressed, blue”), and agreeableness (9 items, e.g., “I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish with others”) rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Previous researchers have provided evidence of the psychometric properties of the BFI scores (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999). Scores on this instrument were used to provide evidence of convergent validity evidence with BASES authentic and hubristic facets of pride. Social physique anxiety. The 9-item Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS; Martin et al., 1997) measures the degree of anxiety experienced when individuals perceive that others are or may be negatively evaluating their physiques (e.g., “It would make me uncomfortable to know others were evaluating my figure”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) characteristic of me. The reliability and validity of the scale scores has been reported (e.g., Martin et al., 1997; Molt & Conroy, 2000). Scores on the SPAS were used to provide evidence of convergent validity evidence with all BASES subscale scores. Data Analyses and Results Scale description. Endorsement frequency, item means, variability, scale distributions, and inter-item and item-total correlations were computed using SPSS (Version 20.0; see Table 1). There were no univariate outliers (z = <3.0). Missing data were minimal (≤1.3 on any one variable), and multiple imputation (expectationmaximization algorithm) was used to estimate and replace missing observations. No item stems or intermediate points were endorsed by few (<.05%) or many participants (>95%; Streiner & Norman, 2008). One shame (“ashamed that I am unattractive”) item had a mean that was near the bottom end of the response options for the scale. This item was not deleted following careful inspection of the wording. One guilt item (“guilty that I do not do enough for my appearance”) had low variability and was deleted. No items or subscales were skewed (scores were below the suggested value of |2|) or kurtotic (values were below |7|; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All corrected item-total correlations were within the recommended range of .20 to .80 with the exception of one shame item “inadequate about my looks” and one authentic pride item “proud of my appearance accomplishments” (Streiner & Norman, 2008). Interitem correlations ranged from .55 to .75 (shame), .55 to .80 (guilt), .47 to .72 (authentic pride) and .57 to .80 (hubristic pride). Items were also inspected for their correlations with other subscale totals and ranged from .54 to .71 for shame and guilt and .54 to .70 for the two facets of pride. High inter-item and/or item to other subscale totals (r = ≥.70) led to the removal of one item for shame (“bad about myself when I think about my appearance”, and two items for guilt (“guilty that I do not do enough for my appearance; this item also had low variability”, “guilty when I see the way I look in a mirror”), authentic pride (“proud that I maintain my desired appearance”, “proud of my appearance accomplishments”), and

131

hubristic pride (“proud of my great looks”, “proud when I compare my appearance to others”). Together, these processes resulted in a fourth 16-item version of the questionnaire. Deleted items were not included in subsequent relations to other variables and internal structure validity analyses. Internal consistencies, descriptive statistics, and subscale correlations. Internal consistency, scale means and standard deviations, and scale ranges were computed among the 16 BASES items and main study variables (see Table 1). BASES subscale means were on average moderate in strength, as were the means for all scales used to investigate validity. Finally, BASES shame was highly positively correlated with BASES guilt and moderately negatively related to BASES authentic and hubristic facets of pride. BASES guilt was moderately and negatively associated with BASES authentic pride and low and negatively linked to hubristic pride. Both facets of pride were highly positively correlated (see top portion of Table 2). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Maximum likelihood CFAs were utilized to test the theoretically based correlated 4-factor model of the BASES scores (i.e., body and appearance-related shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride) using EQS (Version 6.2; Bentler & Wu, 1995). Model goodness of fit was estimated using Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.90), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.06), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR < 0.08; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Markland, 2007). Given the multivariate non-normality estimate (Mardia’s Normalized coefficient = 22.38, p = <.001), the model was tested using Satorra-Bentler scaled chi square (S-B2 ) and ML ROBUST fit indices. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the 4-factor model were: SB2 (98) = 115.51, p = >.05, Robust CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03 (90% CI = .00–.06), SRMR = .05, representing an excellent fit of the data. All estimated parameters for the factor model were statistically significant (z > 1.96), all factor loadings were in excess of .70 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), and error variances ranged from .46 to .67 (Fig. 1). Concurrent validity. Based on the bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients (bottom portion of Table 2), the BASES shame, guilt, and authentic pride were highly positively correlated to respective subscales of pre-existing body-related self-conscious emotions measures. That is, BASES shame was highly correlated with WEB-SG shame, BASES guilt was highly associated with WEB-SG guilt, and authentic pride was highly related to Body Pride scale-authentic. BASES hubristic pride was moderately associated with the Body Pride scale-hubristic. Convergent validity. BASES shame and guilt were positively related to negative affect, depressive symptoms, and social physique anxiety and negatively related to self-esteem and appearance-related physical self-perceptions. Shame-free guilt remained positively related to negative affect, yet it was unrelated to maladaptive functions (e.g., depressive symptoms). Furthermore, using Steiger-z calculations for comparison of Pearson correlation coefficients, BASES guilt-free shame scores were more highly negatively related to self-esteem (z = 8.84) and physical selfperceptions of appearance (z = 6.13) and body fat (z = 9.36), and positively linked to depressive symptoms (z = 11.38) and social physique anxiety (z = 11.91) than shame-free guilt scores (p < .001). Authentic pride was positively correlated with positive affect, selfesteem, physical self-perceptions regarding appearance and body fat, and adaptive personality traits (e.g., agreeableness) and negatively linked to depressive symptoms and social physique anxiety. A similar pattern of relations was found for hubristic pride except this facet was unrelated to adaptive personality characteristics (see Table 3). Discriminant validity. Based on the bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients, BASES shame, guilt, authentic and hubristic pride were moderately correlated with respective subscales from generalized self-conscious emotions measures (SSGS, Pride Scale;

132

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Table 1 Item means and standard deviations, ranges, distributions, and endorsement frequencies (Study 3). Item

Mean

SD

Range

Variance

Shame Bad about myself when I think about my appearance Ashamed of the way I look Inadequate when I think about my appearance Ashamed of my appearance Inadequate about my looks Ashamed that I am a person who is unattractive

2.67 2.22 2.34 2.06 2.24 1.97

1.01 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.02 0.99

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

1.03 1.08 1.00 1.09 1.05 0.98

Guilt Guilty that I do not do enough for my appearance Guilty that I do not do enough to improve the way I look Guilty that I look the way I do Guilty when I see the way I look in the mirror Regret that I do not work on improving my appearance Regret that I do not put effort into my appearance

2.31 2.34 2.08 2.07 2.20 2.21

0.99 1.08 1.19 1.10 1.07 1.03

1–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

Authentic pride Proud that I maintain my desired appearance Proud of the effort I place on maintaining my appearance Proud of my appearance accomplishments Proud about my effort to improve the way I look Proud that I have achieved my appearance goals Proud of my appearance efforts

3.11 2.82 2.83 2.87 2.65 2.79

1.03 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.97

Hubristic pride Proud that I am more attractive than others Proud of my great looks Proud that I am a great looking person Proud of my superior appearance Proud that I am an attractive person Proud of myself when I compare my appearance to others

2.78 2.75 2.68 2.29 2.74 2.68

1.08 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.06 0.98

Skewness

Kurtosis

% endorsing 1

% endorsing 5

0.21 0.58 0.44 0.78 0.55 1.07

−0.52 −0.34 −0.25 −0.13 −0.27 0.42

12.1 21.7 15.8 28.3 26.7 43.4

3.5 3.0 3.4 3.4 2.4 2.4

0.99 1.08 1.42 1.21 1.15 1.05

0.40 0.46 1.04 0.83 0.59 0.53

−0.53 −0.55 0.18 −0.16 −0.44 −0.50

24.4 20.8 42.1 38.9 30.5 27.9

0.0 5.4 5.1 2.8 3.7 2.7

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

1.05 1.03 1.01 1.03 1.06 0.94

−0.16 0.00 −0.03 0.04 0.30 −0.09

−0.15 −0.43 −0.50 −0.56 −0.36 −0.48

6.4 10.7 10.2 7.4 14.8 10.8

7.6 3.7 3.8 5.1 3.7 2.0

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

1.16 1.11 1.12 1.18 1.12 0.96

0.11 0.19 0.17 0.47 0.04 0.02

−0.65 −0.48 −0.53 −0.59 −0.57 −0.50

13.0 12.1 14.7 28.3 15.4 12.6

4.3 5.7 3.3 1.3 3.0 2.4

Table 2 Concurrent validity evidence of BASES scores, score ranges, means and standard deviations (Study 3). Variable

1.

2.

3.

Correlations among BASES subscales – – .76** −.30** −.32** – ** −.24** .72** −.31 Concurrent validity evidence – – .70** – – .52** – – .53** – – –

1. BASES shame 2. BASES guilt 3. BASES authentic pride 4. BASES hubristic pride WEB-SG shame WEB-SG guilt Body pride scale authentic Body pride scale hubristic

4.

Score range

Mean (SD)

˛

–

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

2.04 (0.86) 2.08 (0.88) 2.80 (0.86) 2.63 (0.98)

.88 .89 .88 .91

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

2.23 (0.89) 2.79 (0.99) 1.52 (0.68) 1.52 (0.70)

.88 .90 .92 .92

– – – .38**

*Note: BASES = Body and Appearance-related Self-conscious Emotions Scale; WEB-SG = Weight and Body-related Shame and Guilt Scale; SSGS = State Shame and Guilt Scale. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 3 Zero-order and partial correlations for convergent validity evidence, score ranges, and means and standard deviations (Study 3). Variable

RSE CES-D PANAS positive PANAS negative BFI conscientiousness BFI neuroticism BFI agreeableness PSDQ appearance PSDQ body fat SPA

Zerro-order correlations

Partial correlations

BASES shame

BASES guilt

BASES authentic pride

BASES hubristic pride

BASES shame

BASES guilt

−.56 .58 −.35 .49 −.18 .26 −.15 −.42 −.49 .66

−.32 .38 −.32 .41 −.21 .23 −.17 −.30 −.43 .54

.16 −.25 .39 −.20 .12 −.17 .12 .40 .27 −.33

.15 −.17 .30 −.13 −.03 −.13 .07 .56 .32 −.36

−.35 .42 −.27 .25 −.11 .30 −.05 −.29 −.34 .46

−.08 .08 −.07 .20 −.13 .08 −.11 .00 −.10 .11

Score range

Mean (SD)

˛

1–4 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–6 1–6 1–5

3.10 (0.59) 1.93 (0.55) 3.32 (0.77) 2.17 (0.77) 3.72 (0.71) 2.79 (0.46) 3.82 (0.61) 4.21 (1.07) 4.25 (1.47) 2.83 (1.01)

.92 .82 .89 .89 .81 .82 .79 .86 .92 .92

Note: BASES = Body and Appearance-related Self-conscious Emotions Scale; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; BFI = Big Five Inventory; PSDQ = Physical Self-Description Questionnaire. Partial correlations represent guilt-free shame and shame-free guilt scores. All rs greater than .11 are significant at p < .05 and .14 are significant at p < .01.

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

133

Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor analysis standardized factor loadings, error variances, and factor correlations for the first-order BASES (Study 3). Note: E = error variance; D = disturbance. Instructions: we are interested in people’s emotions. Listed below are a variety of statements. Using a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = frequently, 5 = always), please indicate how often you have generally experienced the emotions. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. In general, I have felt. . . Scoring for the BSE scale: •Shame – Items 1, 5, 8, 16; Guilt – Items 4, 7, 11, 13; Authentic pride – Items 3, 10, 12, 14; Hubristic pride – Items 2, 6, 9, 15. The BASES is scored by averaging items in each subscale. All items are scored in a positive direction. *p < .05.

see Table 4). Using Steiger’s z-test, it was determined that BASES shame (z = 5.51) and BASES guilt (z = 2.03) test scores were related less closely (discriminant evidence) to measures of generalized self-conscious emotions (i.e., SSGS) than to existing body-related measures (i.e., WEB-SG; p < .05). BASES authentic pride (z = 3.52) and hubristic pride (z = 3.18) subscale scores were also related less closely to the Pride Scale than to the Body Pride Scale (p < .001). Incremental validity. Using Steiger’s z tests to compare the correlation coefficients between BASES shame and guilt and WEB-SG shame and guilt, BASES shame had statistically (p < .05) stronger correlations to RSE (z = 5.77), CES-D (z = 3.84), PDSQ appearance (z = 1.75), and negative affect (z = 2.14) than WEB-SG shame. BASES guilt was more strongly (p < .05) related to PDSQ appearance (z = 2.55) than WEB-SG guilt. Given specific weight focus of the WEB-SG scale, scores on this instrument were more strongly (p < .05) related to PDSQ body fat (zshame = −5.35, zguilt = −2.94) and SPA (zshame = −3.37, zguilt = −3.33) than BASES shame and guilt.

Using Fisher-z calculations for comparison of Pearson correlation coefficients, BASES shame scores were statistically (p < .05) more highly related to depressive symptoms and self-esteem than other independent studies using the OBCS (zdepressive symptoms = 4.87, zself-esteem = 4.70, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Ntoumanis, Cumming, Bartholomew, & Pearce, 2011; zdepressive symptoms Sample 1 = 5.59, zdepressive symptoms Sample 2 = 6.28, Chen & Russo, 2010) and WEB-SG (zdepressive symptoms = 1.92; Conradt et al., 2007). Although BASES shame and guilt were more highly correlated with depressive symptoms and self-esteem compared to other studies using the ESS, these differences were not statistically significant (p > .05). Temporal stability. The intraclass correlations and 95% confidence intervals assessing 2-week test–retest reliability using a 2-way random effects model for shame (.88, 95% CI = .70–.95), guilt (.75, 95% CI = .36–.90), authentic pride (.85, 95% CI = .65–.94), and hubristic pride (.78, 95% CI = .45–.91) were all significant (p ≤ .001), showing that the scores on the BASES are relatively stable over time.

Table 4 Discriminant validity evidence, score ranges, and means and standard deviations (Study 3). Variable

BASES shame

BASES guilt

BASES authentic

BASES hubristic

Score range

Mean (SD)

WEB-SG shame SSGS shame WEB-SG guilt SSGS guilt Body pride scale authentic Pride scale authentic Body pride scale hubristic Pride scale hubristic

.70** , a .50** – – – – – –

– –

– – – –

– – – – – –

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

2.23 (0.89) 1.52 (0.70) 2.79 (0.99) 1.77 (0.84) 1.52 (0.68) 1.43 (0.60) 1.52 (0.70) 1.43 (0.62)

.52** , a .43** – – – –

.53** , a .42** – –

.38** , a .29**

˛ .85 .91 .93 .91

*Note: BASES = Body and Appearance-related Self-conscious Emotions Scale; WEB-SG = Weight and Body-related Shame and Guilt Scale; SSGS = State Shame and Guilt Scale. a Significant (p < .05) Steiger’s z coefficient indicating differences between correlations on the BASES and measures of generalized self-conscious emotion and body-specific self-conscious emotion. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

134

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

General Discussion The aim of this study was to develop and explore the psychometric properties of a comprehensive measure of body and appearance-related shame, guilt, authentic pride and hubristic pride. The BASES subscale scores were reliable and valid in a sample of older adolescents and adults. To date, body-related research has primarily focused on anxiety and negative affect (e.g., Sabiston et al., 2007; Zajac & Katarzyna, 2011) at the expense of also understanding specific emotional experiences. The BASES enables the assessment of a range of emotional experiences including shame, guilt, and pride. Furthermore, most body-related emotion focused research has adopted a pathological approach by focusing on negative emotional experiences at the cost of examining experiences of positive emotions (Sabiston et al., 2010; Silva, 2009). Grounded in the broader psychological literature of self-conscious emotions, the BASES comprehensively assesses both the negative and positive body and appearance self-conscious emotional experiences of shame, guilt, authentic pride, and hubristic pride. As expected, confirmatory factor analysis of the responses on the BASES supported the correlated 4-factor conceptualization of the scale. Nonetheless, high inter-factor and bivariate intercorrelations of the BASES shame and guilt subscale scores and pride subscale scores were observed in the current study. Correlation coefficients of such magnitude have been consistently reported in other studies using the SG (r = .75; Marschall et al., 1994), WEBSG (r = .64; Conradt et al., 2007), BIGGS (r = .59; Thompson et al., 2003), and Body Pride scale (r = .29; Sabiston et al., 2010). This covariation likely reflects the fact that both shame and guilt cooccur (Tangney & Tracy, 2012) and share a number of features in common as do the pride emotions (i.e., self-evaluative processes, valence, direction of discrepancy between self-representations, and types of eliciting events; Castonguay, Brunet, Ferguson, & Sabiston, 2012; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2004, 2006). Regardless of the high correlation coefficients observed in this study, these values did not indicate multicolliniarity or singularity based on bivariate correlations and the CFA covariance matrix (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Collectively, the 4-factor structure of the BASES, divergent correlations with other relevant variables (e.g., agreeableness, depressive symptoms), and extent research that has linked these self-conscious emotions to distinct phenomenological experiences and correlates (e.g., Castonguay et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2011; Tangney et al., 1996; Tracy & Robins, 2007), highlight that each body and appearance-related self-conscious emotion has meaningful unique variance and should be assessed as distinct constructs. As such, the use of a combined positive (i.e., pride) score and a combined negative (shame and guilt) score is cautioned. The pattern of relations among BASES subscales, as well as the relationships with respective generalized and extent measures of body-related self-conscious emotions, suggest that generalized and body specific self-conscious emotions may be distinct constructs. Based on these findings, it would be important for researchers to continue to utilize specific measures when assessing bodyrelated self-conscious emotions. The current study showed sources of validity and reliability evidence and may enable researchers to adequately explore distinct experiences of negative and positive emotions specific to appearance and body. Convergent validity was evidenced by examining the relationships between the four BASES subscales and theoretically related constructs. Several points are worthy of note regarding the pattern and strength of correlations observed. First, the BASES may provide greater predictive strength over existing WEB-SG, OBCS, and ESS instruments, particularly for self-esteem (e.g., ThøgersenNtoumani, Ntoumanis, Cumming, Bartholomew, & Pearce, 2011), depressive symptoms (e.g., Andrews et al., 2002; Chen & Russo, 2010) and appearance specific physical self-perceptions, showing

preliminary evidence of incremental validity. This result most likely stems from the fact that the BASES covers broader appearancerelated concepts of shame, guilt, and the two facets of pride compared to these extant body-related self-conscious emotions measures. Second, consistent with theoretical conceptualizations (the dual model of pride; Tracy & Robins, 2007), BASES authentic pride was linked to positive psychological and personality correlates. Provided that extant body-related research has linked authentic pride to a host of adaptive factors (e.g., decreased appearance management and risk of pathogenic weight control behaviors, and increased self-esteem, feelings of positivity about the self, physical activity; Castonguay et al., 2013; French, Story, Downes, Resnick, & Blum, 1995; Frith & Gleeson, 2008; Sabiston et al., 2010), and that it may be easier to alter one’s feelings associated with a specific action than overall self (Tangney & Tracy, 2012), it would make sense to target this self-conscious emotion in interventions and clinical settings for the promotion of mental health. More longitudinal and experimental research designs are needed to examine this self-conscious emotion and its applicability in clinical practice. Third, BASES hubristic pride was unrelated to constructive personality characteristics (agreeableness, conscientiousness) and positively associated with adaptive psychological correlates despite the combination of adaptive and maladaptive functions that have been associated with this self-conscious emotion in the past (Carver et al., 2010; Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). These findings are consistent with the evolutionary view (Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010) that hubristic pride reflects dominance strategies (Carver et al., 2010), which may serve to produce resources and increase social status and mental health at least in the short term, with little emphasis on interpersonal connectivity. Investigators are urged to uncover the conditions under which appearance-related hubristic pride may be considered adaptive or lead to maladjustment. For instance, attributing a positive event to global aspects of the self (i.e., hubristic pride) may lead to short-term gains in narcissistic inflated self-esteem but may eventually lead to relationship conflicts due to the superiority associated with this self-conscious emotion (Castonguay et al., 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2007). The development and validation of the BASES provides a platform for furthering research on the relatively unexplored pride emotions. Fourth, it is noteworthy that in the current study sample, BASES shame and guilt were related to indexes of psychopathology similar to that described in the clinical literature (Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1992). However, guilt residuals (the unique variance in guilt) were virtually unrelated to maladjustment. The more adaptive nature of guilt in comparison to shame is reflective of current self-conscious emotions literature (Tangney & Tracy, 2012) and appears to be less maladaptive when feelings of shame do not co-occur and then become merged with guilt (e.g., feeling guilty about gaining weight because of not exercising and then generalizing the weight gain toward being a lazy person). As such, clinicians may wish to target appraisals so that they are directed toward a specific behavioral transgression (guilt) and not the person as a whole (shame). Most importantly, the current findings provided preliminary support for the effectiveness of the BASES in effectively distinguishing between body and appearance-related shame and guilt. Limitations and Future Directions There are limitations of the current study that should be acknowledged. Participation in this study was self-selected and volunteer, and individuals may have been biased by monetary incentives and/or course credit. Second, the results are crosssectional (with the exception of the test–retest portion) and no conclusions regarding causality can be drawn. Studies using longitudinal research designs are warranted to establish the predictive

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

validity of the BASES subscale scores. Third, generalized shame and guilt were assessed using a temporally different instrument (i.e., state measure). The extent to which instrument-based differences impacted the findings of discriminant validity evidence remains unclear at this stage but warrants investigation. Fourth, the extent to which the BASES scores will be valid in other populations including clinical samples (e.g., eating disorder patients, overweight/obese individuals) remains unclear. Fifth, the samples used to develop and test the psychometric properties of the current scale were representations of different ethnicities, a wide age range, and both men and women, however the meaning of the items may vary by these factors and the BASES should be subjected to invariance testing. Sixth, BASES authentic and hubristic pride were highly correlated as were BASES shame and guilt. Future research should aim to explore the extent to which these self-conscious emotions co-occur as related to appearance and determine the extent to which they predict differing outcomes using fine-grained longitudinal analyses. Conclusion In conclusion, the BASES is the first published instrument to effectively capture more generalized body and appearance aspects of shame, guilt, and the positive emotional experiences of authentic and hubristic pride. Scores from the BASES were reliable, showed good concurrent and convergent validity, and the shame, guilt, and both pride subscales displayed discriminant validity correlational patterns to other respective subscales. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that validation is an on-going process (Zhu, 2012), thus further investigations using the BASES are encouraged. Its brevity and ease of use along with potential increases in item response and utility as a population based screening tool, make the BASES ideal for use in both research and practice. This newly developed scale also distinguished among the four self-conscious emotional constructs and predicted unique correlates without embedded specific behavioral components (e.g., jogging) within the items. As such, it may be used to examine unique psychological and behavioral antecedents and outcomes of these self-conscious emotions without artificially inflating relationships (Spector & Brannick, 2009). Overall, the development and validation of this scale may have strong implications for the advancement of body image and body-related self-conscious emotion research by providing a foundation in which scientists can examine the unique antecedents and mental and physical health outcomes associated with these emotions so that they can be targeted in intervention. Note *All details not presented in the manuscript are available upon request from the first author. Acknowledgements Andree Castonguay was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and Population Intervention in Chronic Disease Prevention (PICDP) doctoral fellowships and a WOLFE fellowship in scientific and technological literacy. References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Andersen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D (Center

135

for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 77–84, doi.apa.org/?uid=1994-43563-001. Andrews, B., Mingyi, Q., & Valentine, J. D. (2002). Predicting depressive symptoms with a new measure of shame: The Experience of Shame Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466502163778 Avalos, L., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2005). The Body Appreciation Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2, 285–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002 Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1995). EQS for Windows: User’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. Burney, J., & Irwin, H. J. (2000). Shame and guilt in women with eating disorder symptomology. 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 Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-conciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Calogero, R. M., Boroughs, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2007). The impact of Western beauty ideals on the lives of women and men: A sociocultural perspective. In V. Swami & A. Furnham (Eds.), Body beautiful: Evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives (pp. 259–298). New York: NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311408564 Calogero, R. M., & Thompson, J. K. (2009). Potential implications of the objectification of women’s bodies for women’s sexual satisfaction. Body Image, 6, 145–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.01.001 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.004 Cash, T. F. & Smolak, L. (Eds.). (2011). Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Castonguay, A. L., Brunet, J., Ferguson, L., & Sabiston, C. M. (2012). Weight-related actual and ideal self-states, discrepancies, and shame, guilt, and pride: Examining associations within the process model of self-conscious emotions. Body Image, 9, 488–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.07.003 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.03.001 Chen, F. F., & Russo, N. F. (2010). Measurement invariance and the role of body consciousness in depressive symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 405–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01585.x Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Application to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127–137. Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 947–966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022641 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 nonclinical sample of obese individuals. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 317–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701331856 Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4 Dohnt, H. K., & Tiggemann, M. (2005). Peer influences on body dissatisfaction and dieting awareness in young girls. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 103–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151004X20658 Fischer, K. W., & Tangney, J. P. (1995). Self-conscious emotions and the affect revolution: Framework and overview. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Fleming, T. L., Kowalski, K., Humbert, M. L., Fagan, K. R., Cannon, M. J., & Girolami, T. M. (2006). Body-related emotional experiences of young aboriginal women. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 517–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732306286846 Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (Vol. 38) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fox, K. R. (1998). Advances in the measurement of the physical self. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (2nd ed., Vol. 38, pp. 295–310). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Frank, E. S. (1990). Shame and guilt in eating disorders (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 3896A. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x French, S. A., Story, M., Downes, B., Resnick, M., & Blum, R. (1995). Frequent dieting among adolescents: Psychosocial and health behavior correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 695–701. Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2008). Dressing the body: The role of clothing in sustaining body pride and managing body distress. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 249–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780880701752950

136

A.L. Castonguay et al. / Body Image 11 (2014) 126–136

Hambleton, R. K. (1984). Validating the test scores. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion-referenced test construction (pp. 199–230). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hrabosky, J. I., Cash, T. F., Veale, D., Neziroglu, F., Soll, E. A., Garner, D. M., StrachanKinser, M., Bakke, B., Clauss, L. J., & Phillips, K. A. (2009). Multidimensional body image comparisons among patients with eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and clinical controls: A multisite study. Body Image, 6, 155–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.001 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventianal criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Jankauskiene, R., & Pajaujiene, S. (2012). Disordered eating attitudes and body shame among athletes, exercisers and sedentary female college students. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 52, 92–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.140.3.187-198 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 68–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021466 Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P. V. Marsden & J. D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 263–314). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York, NY: Free Press. Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 851–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.023 Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt Scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01322177 Marsh, H. W., Martin, A., & Jackson, S. (2010). Introducing a short version of the Physical Self Description Questionnaire: New strategies, short-form evaluative criteria, and applications of factor analyses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 438–482. Martin, K. A., Rejeski, W. J., Leary, M. R., McAuley, E., & Bane, S. (1997). Is the social physique anxiety scale really multidimensional? Conceptual and statistical arguments for a uni-dimensional model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 359–367. McCraty, R., & Tomasino, D. (2006). Emotional stress, positive emotions, and psychophysiology coherence. In B. B. Arnetz & R. Ekman (Eds.), Stress in health and disease. Weinheim, DE: Wiley-VCH. McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education & Macmillan. Molt, R. W., & Conroy, D. E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of the social physique anxiety scale. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 1007–1017. Moradi, B. (2010). Addressing gender and cultural diversity in body image: Objectification theory as a framework for integrating theories and grounding research. Sex Roles, 63, 138–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9824-0 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 Morey, L. C. (2003). Measuring personality and psychopathology (Vol. 2) New Jersey, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Neighbors, L. A., & Sobal, J. (2007). Prevalence and magnitude of body weight and shape dissatisfaction among university students. Eating Behaviors, 8, 429–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2007.03.003 Osterland, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Polit, D. F., Back, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 459–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 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., Sedwick, W., Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K., & Mack, D. E. (2007). Social physique anxiety in adolescents: An examination of influences, coping strategies and health behaviours. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 78–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558406294628 Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culturespecific features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623–642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623 Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407 Silva, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014632 Smith, H. S., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.138 Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 346–362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their deveopment and use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swami, V., Hadji-Michael, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and individual difference correlates of positive body image. Body Image, 5, 322–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.03.007 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256 Tangney, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Self-conscious emotions. In M. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 446–478). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Proneness to shame, proneness to guilt, and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 469–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.101.3.469 Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ntoumanis, N., Cumming, J., Bartholomew, K. J., & Pearce, G. (2011). Can self-esteem protect against the deleterious consequences of self-objectification for mood and body satisfaction in physically active female university students? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 289–307. Thompson, T., Dinnel, D. L., & Dill, N. J. (2003). Development and validation of a Body Image Guilt and Shame Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 59–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00026-0 Tiggemann, M., & Williams, E. (2012). The role of self-objectification in disordered eating, depressed mood, and sexual functioning among women: A comprehensive test of objectifiction theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 66–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311420250 Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: 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: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339–1351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290212 Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506 Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion Review, 2, 163–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073909354627 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). A development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1007–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007 Zajac, A. U., & Katarzyna, S. (2011). Body image dysphoria and motivation to exercise: A study of Canadian and Polish women participating in yoga or aerobics. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 4, 67–72. Zhu, W. (2012). Measurement practice in sport and exercise psychology: A historical comparitive, and psychometric view. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund & A. Kamata (Eds.), Measurement in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 293–302). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.