Printer Friendly

Creating and validating the shame in sport questionnaire.

Despite the benefits of participating in sports, young athletes do not always have positive experiences. According to Coakley (2004), young people who choose to stop participating in sport sometimes do so because of negative experiences they have had with athletes, coaches, and parents. Research suggests that lack of enjoyment is a primary reason for athletes to stop playing sport (Butcher, Lindner, & Johns, 2002; Gould, 1987). Experiences leading to low enjoyment may include overtraining, not having friends on the team, not feeling a sense of autonomy and relatedness, disliking of the coach, not having fun, and sensing parental pressure (Boiche & Sarrazin, 2009; Fraser-Thomas, Cote & Deakin, 2008; Molinero, Salguero, Tuero, Alvarez, & Marquez, 2006; Salguero, Gonzalez-Boto, Tuero, & Marquez, 2003; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Wall & Cote, 2007). All of these experiences are examples of what can happen when athletes are in a negative sports environment.

While there is evidence that negative environments can lead to a higher likelihood of athlete dropout (Cervello, Escarti, & Guzman, 2007; Sarrazin et al., 2002) less work has been done exploring what athletes are feeling internally, and specifically how negative sport experiences may have an impact on self-conscious emotions such as shame. Shame is a critical emotion to understand because it can cause people to be more resentful, angry, hostile, and less empathetic (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). To date, research on shame in sport is limited, and the measures used in sport to assess shame assume that the emotion results after a poor performance

outcome. The purpose of this study was to develop a shame in sport measure for adolescent athletes to assess the reasons (e.g., performed poorly, didn't give full effort) and extent that adolescent athletes experience shame when participating in sport.

The most prominent work on shame in sport is Conroy's (2001; 2003) development of and work with the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI), which measures the degree that athletes fear having a poor performance when playing sport. One of the PFAI's subscales is The Fear of Experiencing Shame and Embarrassment Subscale, which assesses the extent that athletes feel shame or embarrassment when they are performing poorly in sport. Specifically, Conroy (2001) states that items dealing with shame on the PFAI involve "personal diminishment" and "embarrassing self-presentational failure." He adds that measuring fear of failure should "assess how strongly individuals believe or anticipate that certain aversive consequences will occur when they perceive that they are failing (p. 433)." The Fear of Experiencing Shame and Embarrassment subscale often has the highest mean scores of the four subscales of the PFAI (Conroy, Kaye, & Fifer, 2007; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009). The subscales' items include "When I am failing, I worry about what others think of me," and "When I am not succeeding, I am less valuable then when I succeed." There is ambiguity in the measure as it is unclear how athletes are defining failure and success, and individuals can have very different views of these constructs (Nicholls, 1989).

Researchers have used the PFAI to explore the relationship between Fear of Failure and other constructs relevant to sport. Conroy and Elliot (2004), for example, reported that athletes who feared shame and embarrassment were more likely to have avoidance goals (i.e., goals involving not doing worse than a previous norm or avoiding demonstrating low ability in public view). Other researchers have linked Fear of Failure to perfectionism. Athletes who have perfectionistic tendencies, whether those tendencies are aimed at fulfilling the self or meeting the perceived expectations of others around them, tend to also report having a higher fear of shame and embarrassment (Conroy, et al., 2007; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009). However, few studies have specifically examined why athletes may be experiencing shame. The Fear of Experiencing Shame and Embarrassment Subscale items are limited in that the items only consider that an athlete may experience shame or embarrassment when not performing up to expectations (i.e., their own or others) in the sport, but the items do not differentiate the emotions and do not allow researchers to identify the causes of shame. Additionally, Tangney, Miller, Flicker, and Barlow (1996) suggested that shame and embarrassment are distinct emotions that have very different effects on the human psyche. Understanding Tangney's work on shame is critical to properly measuring it among athletes.

According to Tangney and Dearing (2002), people can confuse shame with other self-conscious emotions such as guilt and embarrassment. However, shame is a distinct self-conscious emotion, and defining shame using Lewis's (1971) theoretical framework on shame and guilt, Tangney, Miller, Flicker, and Barlow (1996) wrote the following:

In Shame, an objectionable behavior is seen as reflecting, more generally, a defective, objectionable self ('I did that horrible thing, and therefore I am an unworthy, incompetent or [a] bad person'). With this painful self-scrutiny comes a sense of shrinking or of "being small" and feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness ... Finally, shame often leads to a desire to escape or to hide--to sink into the floor and disappear, (p. 1257)

Understanding how athletes process shame is important because it is likely that athletes prone to shame could also be prone to experiencing other negative consequences that may be unforeseen by coaches but which could negatively impact athletes' sport experience. Tangney (2003) reported that experiencing shame can lead to a higher likelihood of experiencing depression and anxiety, both of which could be detrimental to athletes' experience and performance. Interestingly, the causes of shame may vary widely across athletes. For example, one athlete that makes a critical mistake in a game may feel shame while another may feel guilt. Tangney, Flicker, Miller, and Barlow (1996) defined guilt as an experience that is "generally less painful and devastating than shame because [it] does not directly affect one's core self-concept." According to Tangney, people experiencing guilt tend to feel bad about specific wrongdoings and wish to repair the damage done, rather than feel the urge to shrink away.

In an effort to measure how to identify whether individuals are prone to shame or guilt, Tangney and Dearing (2002) created the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA), that includes scenarios (e.g., waiting until the last minute to plan a project) that have participants put themselves in real-life situations and answer questions that indicate their tendency to feel shame versus guilt. The researchers assert that no single scenario definitively leads individuals to feel shame or guilt. While the shame and guilt proneness of individuals may possibly be influenced by parents or loved ones, the only way to predict whether or not individuals will be shame prone in the future is to know whether or not they were previously prone to either emotion. This information suggests that shame prone athletes who place a high value on successful performance may be more likely to experience shame when playing sport. While the TOSCA is helpful in measuring the extent to which individuals experience shame, work has not been conducted to examine specific causes of shame when partaking in sport.

Nicholls' (1989) Achievement Goal Perspective Theory (AGPT) provides a critical framework for understanding athletes' motivation and experiences in sport, including those that are shame inducing. According to Nicholls (1984; 1989), individuals acquire goal orientations whereby they feel successful when they are working toward mastery of skills and giving maximum effort (high task orientation), or when they have higher ability than others, win, and demonstrate higher normative performance in comparison to other competitors (high ego orientation; Duda, Chi, Newton & Walling, 1995; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). Goal orientations are orthogonal, so athletes can be high and/or low in both (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2000; Nicholls, 1989; Roberts & Treasure, 2012).

While goal orientation combinations vary across individuals, Nicholls (1989) suggested that there are drawbacks to being predominately ego-oriented. He predicted that individuals higher in ego orientation and lower in task orientation would persist less when the challenge of a task increased or when they did not perceive that their skill levels were normatively higher than others in a group. Research has supported that those higher in task orientation are more likely to persist and adapt, while those higher in ego orientation are more likely to have lower perceived competence and perceptions of success (Roberts & Treasure, 2012; Van Yperen & Duda, 1999). It may be that athletes with a high ego orientation who judge their success based on uncontrollable criteria (i.e., normative ability and performance outcomes) may be more likely to experience shame than those who gauge their success on factors that are within their volition such as a high work ethic. However, to date there has been little research exploring the relationship between goal orientations and shame.

Just as athletes may adopt different goal orientations (task or ego), they also may be experiencing shame for different reasons. In fact, athletes may experience different types of shame based on their goal orientations. For example, highly task-oriented athletes could experience shame because they perceive that their effort levels were not high enough or they are not displaying adequate improvement. Additionally, highly ego-oriented athletes could experience shame because they feel like they are not performing up to their coaches' or teammates' expectations. Thus, there is a need to explore whether two types of shame exist: (a) Process Shame may occur when athletes have not met the perceived process expectations of their teammates and coaches (e.g., given high effort, worked to improve skills) and as a result they experience reduced self worth, (b) Result Shame may occur when athletes have not met the perceived performance outcome expectations of their teammates and coaches (e.g, performed at a high level in the game, led a team to victory, made key plays, won) and as a result they experience reduced self worth. While the end effects of experiencing shame are usually the same (e.g. feeling small, experiencing lowered self-worth), it is critical to investigate whether or not athletes experience shame for varying reasons.

The purpose of this study was two-fold: (a) to develop a sport specific shame measure for use with adolescent athletes that assesses process and result shame; (b) to consider the extent that adolescent athletes' goal orientations are related to their levels of process and result shame. It was hypothesized that the Shame in Sport Questionnaire (SSQ) would result in a two-factor model featuring result and process shame. Further, it was hypothesized that task orientation would have a positive relationship with process shame and negative relationship with result shame. Finally, it was hypothesized that ego orientation would have a positive relationship with result shame and a negative relationship with process shame. This research contributes to the literature in sport psychology with regard to understanding the complexity of experiencing shame in sport and examining how goal orientations are related to how individuals process shame.



The participants in this study were high school wrestlers in the Midwestern United States, (N = 216, 212 males, M = 15.9 years). The athlete sample was comprised of 119 varsity wrestlers, 90 junior varsity wrestlers, four freshman team wrestlers, and three wrestlers who chose not to report their competitive level. Athletes reported their race/ethnicity as Caucasian (71.3%), African American (11.1%), Hispanic/Latino (8.3%), and Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other (9.5%).

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board, the athletes, and their coaches. Athletes provided their assent to participate in the study. The survey took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.


Surveys were administered to the athletes before a team practice, and coaches were not present. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and the players were informed that their responses were anonymous and confidential.


Task and ego in sport questionnaire (TEOSQ). The TEOSQ (Duda and Nicholls, 1992) assessed athletes' task- and ego goal orientation (13 items). The measure employs a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The stem for each item states, "I feel most successful in wrestling when ..." and sample items include, "I am the best" (ego), and "I learn a new skill" (task). The TEOSQ has demonstrated internal reliability for both task and ego orientations ([alpha] = .79 and .81, respectively; Duda & Whitehead, 1998)

Shame in sport questionnaire (SSQ). The SSQ was developed for this study and is comprised of two scales, one measuring process shame and the other measuring result shame. Specifically, the SSQ explores whether athletes experience shame because of the progression leading up to and through games played and/or because of the outcome(s) involved with their participation. Based on Nicholls' (1989) AGPT framework and Tangney and Dearing's (2002) conceptual framework of understanding shame and its difference from guilt, over 20 items were created by the authors in an effort to distinguish between the two hypothetical forms of shame. A panel of sport and exercise psychology faculty and graduate students debated and discussed how each of the items fit with the conceptual frameworks that they were based on and each item's quality and clarity. Because guilt and embarrassment are sometimes confused with shame (Eisenberg, 2000; Silfver, Helkama, Lonnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2008; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tangey, Flicker, Miller, & Barlow, 1996) a panel of researchers convened prior to administering the survey to assure that all of the questions focus solely on situations where the athletes are feeling shame (e.g., feel as if they have violated cultural standards, are experiencing diminished self worth, feel as if they have let important others down) and not necessarily situations where they simply feel as if they've made a mistake that they want to correct (i.e., felt guilt) or did something which made them feel awkward in front of a group (i.e., felt embarrassment).

Several of the original items were dropped or re-worded based on the recommendation of the panel while additional items were created based on the discussion. After re-working the questionnaire, the researchers met again to create a finalized version of the scale. Additionally, a tentative decision was made to make all items on the scale hypothetical, as it is possible for athletes to believe as if they have never violated the basic tenets of process shame (work ethic and preparation). There may be athletes who truly don't believe that they have ever failed to give maximum effort or preparation. As such, it seems unlikely that those athletes could definitively answer the process shame items. The final SSQ had 18 items exploring whether an athlete is experiencing shame due to substandard preparation (e.g., not practicing hard enough, not giving maximum effort, not working to improve) or because of poor outcomes during play (e.g., making mistakes on the field, not performing up to expectations of themselves or others). Athletes respond to the measure using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely to feel shame) to 5 (extremely likely to feel shame).


Means, standard deviations, and descriptive information were calculated for each of the scales via SPSS 22 (see Table 1). Factor analyses and correlation matrices were calculated in Mplus 7.0. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with a randomly selected half of the sample on the SSQ to determine which items best account for the variance in the hypothesized process and result shame constructs.

The EFA was employed in order to verify the proposed two-factor model of process and result shame. The analysis explored different models ranging from one to six factors, while a scree plot was used to identify the optimal number of factors to best account for statistical variance (see Figure 1). The scree plot indicated that a two- or three-factor model would be sufficient in exploring the proposed construct. Additionally, using 1.0 as the cutoff, eigenvalues revealed that a two- or three-factor model would be most appropriate for the items. When considering the hypothesized model of process and result shame, the two-factor model was selected as the most parsimonious and appropriate solution. It revealed each of the nine items to be significant in their respective factors (result and process shame; see Table 2). The two-factor model had a comparative fit index (CFI; Hu & Bentler, 1998) of .93, Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973) of .91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980) of .06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1998) of .05. These values all represent acceptable model fit. The three-factor model represented better model fit, but the additional factor only had two significant rotated loadings, and lacked theoretical support when compared to the result and process shame factors, and thus the decision was made to accept the two-factor model.

After the EFA revealed a plausible two-factor model of the SSQ, the second half of the sample was used for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the measure. The purpose of the CFA was to examine the validity of process and result shame scales using the items from the EFA (see Table 2) that best accounted for the variance. After exploring the factor loadings from the EFA, a CFA was conducted with the top 12 items. Modification indices revealed that several items were either sharing residual variance or cross loading on the opposite factor. Because the 12-item model was over-identified, the decision was made to reduce the model to 10 items. The final CFA featured items 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 for the result shame factor and items 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 for the process shame factor. The CFA had a RMSEA and SRMR of .07. Hu and Bentler (1998) stated that values lower than .08 represent acceptable model fit. The RMSEA tends to be more stringent when power is low, making an acceptable model fit with a 108-person sample particularly meaningful (see Figure 2).

After confirming model fit with the SSQ and TEOSQ, a structural equation model (SEM) was run in order to account for the relationship between goal orientation and shame levels. Confirmatory factor analyses on the goal orientation items revealed abnormalities among a few of the items of the TEOSQ. One of the items measuring task orientation ("I feel most successful in wrestling when a skill I learn really feels right") had a loading of .17. Additionally, modification indices revealed that ego-orientation items 5 ("I feel most successful in wrestling when I have the best stats") and 6 ("I feel most successful in wrestling when I am the best") were sharing residual variance. Previous literature has shown items on the TEOSQ to be consistently reliable, but for this study the decision was made to remove the task-orientation item from the model based on its poor loading and allow the two ego-orientation items to correlate.

The final SEM exploring goal orientation's relationship with shame had an acceptable model fit, with a RMSEA of .08 and a SRMR of .06 (see Figure 3). The SEM revealed that task orientation had a strong positive relationship (.97) with athletes' process shame and a negative relationship (-.49) with athletes' result shame. Additionally the SEM revealed that ego orientation has a positive relationship with result shame (.75) and a negative relationship with process shame (-.30). Additionally, it was revealed that process and result shame have a positive correlation (.77).


The intent of this study was to create and validate a scale that measured adolescent athletes' proneness to experience shame in sport. Additionally, this study explored the relationship between athletes' goal orientations and their proneness to shame. The results generally supported the hypothesized structure of shame in sport and its relationship to athlete goal orientation. Specifically, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported a two-factor shame construct.

Results supporting the two-factor SSQ with process and result shame scales are consistent with Nicholls' (1989) Achievement Goal Perspective Theory and will advance sport psychology professionals' understanding of shame in sport. The results suggest that athletes are prone to experiencing shame when playing sport; not just because their performance on the playing field is not up to expectations, but also when they believe that their effort and dedication are lacking. These results extend the work of Conroy (2001), Elison, Lennon, and Pulos (2006), Partridge and Wiggins (2008), and Sagar and Stoeber (2009), who previously considered more generally athletes' experiences with feeling fear of failure in sport. The benefit of the SSQ is that the items identify specific reasons athletes might experience shame and make no assumption that a poor or disappointing performance automatically results in athletes' experience of shame. The EFA and CFA were important in establishing the process and result shame constructs, providing discriminant construct validity with two separate factors. The final 10-item version of the measure appears to have solid support in this initial study, and length of the survey appears reasonable for capturing the two types of shame in a thorough but abbreviated process. In summary, initial validation of the SSQ presents clear evidence that athletes may report experiencing shame in sport beyond perceived performance outcome failures.

A second purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the athletes' goal orientations to their experience of process and result shame in sport. Structural equation modeling revealed several important findings when considering goal orientations and shame proneness. First, the model revealed a significant relationship between both forms of shame, suggesting that an athlete prone to process shame would also be prone to result shame. This matches Tangney and Dearing's (2002) assertion that individuals who are more prone to shame are likely to experience shame in a variety of situations, rather than very specific circumstances. More interesting, though, are the relationships that emerged between the goal orientations and shame scales. Task orientation, as expected, had a positive relationship with process shame and a negative relationship with result shame. These results suggest that athletes who value hard work, effort, and improvement would be less likely to experience result shame if they performed poorly, but may be more inclined to experience process shame if they failed to work as hard as possible to achieve success. It may be that such athletes understand that sport outcomes (i.e., winning, outperforming others) can be completely out of their control, regardless of their effort or preparation. Athletes high in task orientation value giving maximum effort and showing up as prepared as possible and they see value in doing so because it will help them perform to the best of their ability. It follows that these athletes would not experience result shame because they would not place as much importance or value on winning and being normatively considered the best, but they would put a huge emphasis on the importance of hard work and doing everything they could to succeed. Because athletes have volitional control over their work ethic, they are likely to display high effort and if so would not report high process shame. It is important to note that the process shame items ask athletes to imagine how they would feel if they did not give their best effort. Because athletes high in task orientation value high effort the likelihood of them reporting process shame is minimal. Further, there was a strong negative relationship between task orientation and result shame indicating the improbability of athletes reporting shame for any reason. Thus, promoting high task orientation among young athletes may be an important strategy for preventing the negative outcomes related to experiencing shame in sport.

In contrast to task orientation SEM results, ego orientation was positively associated with result shame. Results support the hypothesis that those athletes who gauge their success based on normative comparison, (i.e., winning and being considered the best) would feel shame if they failed to accomplish those ideals. Because athletes have little control over sport outcomes, concern is raised for athletes who experience result shame after a sub-optimal performance. There was also a negative relationship between ego orientation and process shame. Athletes high in ego orientation and lower in task orientation do not prioritize the importance of effort. These results suggest that athletes who are prone to shame and high in ego orientation would be less likely to take solace in exceptional effort or preparation if competition results were unfavorable.

Overall the results support Nicholls' (1989) assertion that high ego orientation and low task orientation can be detrimental to individuals' enjoyment and overall experience in achievement settings. Stephens (1998) has highlighted that high ego goal orientations combined with low task orientations have been shown to decrease enjoyment and perceived value in sport. This study further reveals that athletes who define success based on uncontrollable outcomes may set themselves up for negative sport experiences by internalizing shame when they do not perform well in comparison to others. Shame can bring adverse conditions to individuals and harmful health effects over time, such as poorer physical health (Dickerson, Gruenewald & Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson, Kemeny, Aziz, Kim & Fahey, 2004), posttraumatic stress (Jonsson & Segesten, 2004; Street & Arias, 2001), and anger and depression (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Additionally, in a recent climate intervention study, Hogue, Fry, Fry, & Pressman (2013) found that individuals in an ego-involving climate reported experiencing higher shame, which was accompanied with increased physiological stress responses as measured via salivary Cortisol. There is little research to suggest that individuals benefit from experiencing shame. The link between shame and ego goal orientation therefore offers additional support that highly ego-oriented people may experience fewer benefits when partaking in sport.

Nicholls' (1989) theory also suggested that those high in task-orientation are likely to persist when challenged. A high task orientation may help buffer individuals' experience with shame. If their actions are consistent, athletes would be less likely to experience shame. Shame can be an emotion that can cause individuals to shut down or withdraw (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). However, these results suggest that individuals high in task orientation would limit experiencing shame, which might in turn limit or minimize the likelihood of withdrawal from sport. Only failing to give maximum effort or striving toward improvement would result in shame for those athletes. Athletes high in task orientation and low in ego orientation place less value on uncontrollable outcomes such as winning, and therefore would be less likely to experience shame should outcomes not fall in their favor or should they not perform up to their hopes or expectations.

This study has some limitations that should be noted. High school wrestling teams mostly consist of male athletes, as was observed in this study. Although Tangney and Dearing (2002) stated that shame proneness is consistent across gender, it will be important to examine shame with female athletes in the future.

It will also be important to survey athletes across a variety of sports. Wrestling is an individual sport (although teams compete against each other in dual meets with overall scoring in tournaments) where performance is evident to those watching (e.g., an athlete is pinned). In other sports, performance may be less obvious due to more athletes being involved at one time and mistakes may be less noticeable. It is possible that some of the items could have more powerful loadings in a team sport where athletes are more likely to feel the pressure of meeting the expectations of their teammates. It will be important in future research using the SSQ in team sports for researchers to examine differences in athletes' responses on the measure, and the relationship of the SSQ to other outcome variables.

While limitations are evident, this research provides a valuable start to understanding shame in sport with adolescent athletes. Continuing research will be necessary to further validate the SSQ as a reliable instrument for measuring shame in sport. In addition to goal orientations, Duda and Nicholls (1992) stated that motivational climate is an important predictor of sport enjoyment. It stands to reason that athletes' proneness to shame would also be largely affected by the motivational climate on teams. Though Tangney and Dearing (2002) stated that shame proneness is mostly stable in individuals, it will be important to look at athletes' proneness to shame over the course of a season or the course of multiple seasons to consider the long-term effects of shame on athletes. This study sets the stage for continued work examining how young athletes' negative sport experience can be minimized over time.


Boiche, J. C. S., & Sarrazin, R G. (2009). Proximal and distal factors associated with dropout versus maintained participation in organized sport. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 8(1), 9-16.

Butcher, J., Lindner, K. J., & Johns, D. P. (2002). Withdrawal from competitive youth sport: A retrospective ten-year study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(2), 145-164.

Cervello, E. M., Escarti, A., & Guzman, J. F. (2007). Youth sport dropout from the achievement goal theory. Psicothema, 19(1), 65-71.

Coakley, J. (2004). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Conroy, D. E. (2001). Progress in the development of a multidimensional measure of fear of failure: the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI). Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 14(4), 431-452. doi: 10.1080/10615800108248365 Conroy, D. E. (2003). Representational models associated with fear of failure in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Personality, 71(5), 757-784. doi: 10.1111/14676494.7105003

Conroy, D. E., & Elliot, A. J. (2004). Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: Addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(3), 271-285.

Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P., & Fifer, A. M. (2007). Cognitive links between fear of failure and perfectionism. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25(4), 237-253. doi: 10.1007/s 10942-007-0052-7

Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191-1216. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-6494.2004.00295.x

Dickerson, S. S., Kemeny, M. E., Aziz, N., Kim, K. H., & Fahey, J. L. (2004). Immunological effects of induced shame and guilt. American Psychosomatic Society, 66(1), 124-131.

Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. L., & Walling, M. D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 40-63.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290-299. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.290

Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). The measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in measurement sport and exercise psychology (pp. 21-48). Morgantown, WV: FIT.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 665.

Elison, J., Lennon, R., & Pulos, S. (2006). Investigating the compass of shame: the development of the Compass of Shame Scale. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 34(3), 221-238. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.3.221

Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Examining adolescent sport dropout and prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(3), 318-333.

Gould, D. (1987). Understanding attrition in children's sport (Vol. 2). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hogue, C. M., Fry, M. D., Fry, A. C., & Pressman, S. D. (2013). The influence of a motivational climate intervention on participants' salivary Cortisol and psychological responses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 55(1), 85-97.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

Jonsson, A., & Segesten, K. (2004). Guilt, shame and need for a container: a study of post-traumatic stress among ambulance personnel. Accident & Emergency Nursing, 12(4), 215-223. doi:10.1016/j.aaen.2004.05.001

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

Molinero, O., Salguero, A., Tuero, C., Alvarez, E., & Marquez, S. (2006). Dropout reasons in young spanish athletes: Relationship to gender, type of sport and level of competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(3), 255-269.

Partridge, J. A., & Wiggins, M. S. (2008). Coping styles for trait shame and anxiety intensity and direction in competitive athletes Psychological Reports, 103(3), 703-712. doi: 10.2466/pr0.103.3.703-712

Pensgaard, A. M., & Roberts, G. C. (2000). The relationship between motivational climate, perceived ability and sources of distress among elite athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(3), 191-200. doi: 10.1080/026404100365090

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. A. a. C. Ames (Ed.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 39-73.). New York: Academic Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. London, England: Harvard University Press.

Roberts, G. C., & Treasure, D. C. (2012). Advances in motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sagar, S. S., & Stoeber, J. (2009). Perfectionism, fear of failure, and affective responses to success and failure: The central role of fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(5), 602-627.

Salguero, A., Gonzalez-Boto, R., Tuero, C., & Marquez, S. (2003). Identification of dropout reasons in young competitive swimmers. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43(4), 530-534.

Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 395-418. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.98

Silfver, M., Helkama, K., Lonnqvist, J. E., & Verkasalo, M. (2008). The relation between value priorities and proneness to guilt, shame, and empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 32(2), 69-80. doi:

Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, May.

Stephens, D. E. (1998). The relationship of goal orientation and perceived ability to enjoyment and value in youth sport. Pediatric Exercise Science, 10(3), 236.

Street, A. E., & Arias, I. (2001). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder in battered women: Examining the roles of shame and guilt. Violence and Victims, 7(5(1), 65-78.

Tangney, J. P., (2003). Self-relevant emotions. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 384 - 400). New York: 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(6), 1256-1269. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256

Tangney, J. P. & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and Guilt. New York: The Guilford Press.

Tucker L. R. & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

Van-Yperen, N. W., & Duda, J. L. (1999). Goal orientations, beliefs about success, and performance improvement among young elite Dutch Soccer players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 9(6), 358.

Wall, M., & Cote, J. (2007). Developmental activities that lead to dropout and investment in sport. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(1), 77-87.

Mario Fontana

Northern State University

Mary Fry

University of Kansas

Address correspondence to: Dr. Mario Fontana, Northern State University, Department of Health and Physical Education, Gerber 118, 1200 S. Jay St., Aberdeen, SD 5740. Email:

Caption: Figure 1: EFA Scree Plot

Caption: Figure 2: Shame CFA
Table 1: Item Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Item      PS2     PS5     PS7     PS8     PS9     RS3     RS4     RS6

PS2       1.00
PS5        .34    1.00
PS7        .40     .48    1.00
PS8        .39     .47     .31    1.00
PS9        .26     .29     .29     .35    1.00
RS3        .06     .19     .14     .18     .22    1.00
RS4        .07     .14     .15     .14     .24     .37    1.00
RS6        .15     .30     .40     .25     .29     .33     .40    1.00
RS7        .20     .37     .34     .21     .33     .35     .30     .54
RS8        .17     .21     .22     .22     .41     .32     .34     .36
El         .05     .20     .17     .18     .12     .25     .08     .16
E2         .14     .21     .29     .15     .21     .19     .05     .18
E3         .04     .20     .12     .08     .23     .18     .12     .23
E4        -.05     .01     .10    -.04     .12     .14     .16     .19
E5        -.03     .03     .12    -.04     .04     .07     .06     .15
E6         .13     .19     .23     .14     .19     .15     .10     .15
T1         .15     .19     .09     .24     .23    -.07     .03     .10
T2         .01     .04     .09     .01     .01    -.08    -.13    -.02
T3         .16     .11     .00     .12     .02    -.12    -.02    -.06
T4         .29     .18     .18     ,18     .15    -.09     .03    -.03
T5         .12     .12     .03     .16     .09    -.15    -.09     .00
T7         .14     .09     .18     .21     .02    -.19    -.12    -.05

Mean      4.05    4.16    3.73    3.72    3.17    2.47    2.16    3.05
SD         .77     .85     .99    1.01    1.22    1.04    1.08    1.14
Min-Max    1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5

Item      RS7     RS8     El      E2      E3      E4      E5      E6

RS7       1.00
RS8        .23    1.00
El         .22     .12    1.00
E2         .22     .07     .45    1.00
E3         .21     .18     .39     .50    1.00
E4         .19     .18     .37     .36     .44    1.00
E5         .19     .07     .25     .44     .36     .44    1.00
E6         .20     .20     .46     .57     .47     .42     .59    1.00
T1         .05     .14     .15     .10     .04    -.12    -.02    -.02
T2         .03    -.14     .11     .04     .05    -.05    -.02    -.05
T3        -.13     .02    -.01     .01     .02    -.11    -.03    -.01
T4        -.04     .07    -.01     .10    -.03    -.13    -.01     .05
T5        -.08     .01     .00    -.03    -.01    -.08     .08    -.02
T7        -.11    -.08    -.04     .04    -.01    -.03     .03     .09

Mean      3.11    2.29    3.32    3.94    3.25    2.72    3.34    3.59
SD        1.14    1.06    1.20     .97    1.18    1.22    1.25    1.28
Min-Max    1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5

Item      T1      T2      T3      T4      T5      11

T1        1.00
T2         .32    1.00
T3         .46     .31    1.00
T4         .49     .16     .46    1.00
T5         .60     .39     .45     .47    1.00
T7         .24     .30     .25     .33     .25    1.00

Mean      4.08    4.10    4.25    4.49    3.93    4.50
SD         .77     .87     .81     .74     .89     .77
Min-Max    1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5     1-5

Table 2
EFA Factor Loadings

Item                                               Factor 1   Factor 2

Result Shame Items

1. I would feel ashamed if 1 made a big mistake    .42 *      .23
in competitions that could affect whether the
team wins or loses

2. If I make a mistake, I feel like my coaches     .45 *      -.02
and teammates think less of me.

3. I wouldn't want to face my coaches and/or       .76 *      -.15
teammates if I made a mistake.

4. If I were to mess up, I would wish I could      .73 *      -.10

5. If I didn't perform to the expectations of      .46 *      .30 *
coaches and teammates, I would feel small.

6. If I didn't have a strong performance, I        .60 *      .15
would feel like a failure.

7. If things didn't go well for me in a            .56 *      .13
competition, I would feel as if I've let
everybody down.

8. If I didn't perform well, I would feel alone    .49 *      .19

9. If I didn't perform to my expectations, I       .25 *      .44 *
would feel low.

Process Shame Items

1. I would not deserve to wrestle if I didn't      .06        .45 *
try as hard as possible.

2. I would feel shame if I didn't keep working     -.22 *     .83 *
hard to improve my skills.

3. If I didn't work as hard as I could, I would    .37 *      .35 *
want to shrink away

4. If I didn't give my best effort during the      .31 *      .24 *
preseason, 1 would feel like I shouldn't be part
of the team.

5. I would feel like I let teammates and coaches   .01        .63 *
down if I didn't try my hardest.

6. If I didn't work hard, it would be difficult    .46 *      .38 *
to look my coaches and team- mates in the eye.

7. I would feel like a failure if I didn't do      .09        .65 *
everything I could to reach my potential.

8. I would feel ashamed if I did not give full     .13        .69 *
effort when in practice or competitions.

9. I would feel alone if I did not do everything   .22        .50 *
possible to improve.
COPYRIGHT 2017 University of South Alabama
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Fontana, Mario; Fry, Mary
Publication:Journal of Sport Behavior
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2017
Previous Article:Athletic competence as a central facet of sport orientation among collegiate athletes.
Next Article:The relationship of sex and sport skill type on imagery use among division III athletes.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters