바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN0023-3900
  • E-ISSN2733-9343

“Chemyeon,” the Korean Face: Finalizing the Scale and Validity through Self-Construal

Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2018, v.58 no.3, pp.102-127
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2018.58.3.102

(Michigan State University)
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Even though the term chemyeon encompasses its own cultural uniqueness, there have only been a small number of attempts to develop a scale which embraces the characteristics of chemyeon. This scale has not been previously fully checked for validity and theoretical applicability. The purpose of this study is to test the validity of the existing scale and to check its theoretical applicability in relation to selfconstrual. This study confirms the previous presumption that chemyeon consists of six factors with ethics, competence, demeanor, social performance, social personality, and social pride. This study also verifies that the concept of chemyeon consists of two dimensions: social chemyeon and personal chemyeon. As the predictive validity of the two-dimension model was anticipated, the correlation between social chemyeon and independent self-construal was found to be negative. However, the correlation between personal chemyeon and independent self-construal was found to be positive.Theoretical implications and ramifications for future study are discussed based on the results.

keywords
chemyeon personal chemyeon social chemyeon self-construal face predictive validity scale

Reference

1.

Arundale, Robert B. 1999. “An Alternative Model and Ideology of Communication for an Alternative to Politeness Theory.” Pragmatics 9: 119–153.

2.

Arundale, Robert B. 2010. “Constituting Face in Conversation: Face, Facework, and Interactional Achievement.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2078–2105.

3.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 2003. “Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts).”Journal of Pragmatics 35.10–11: 1453–1469.

4.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5.

Choi, Sang-Chin, and Suk-Jae Lee. 2002. “Two-Component Model of Chemyon-Oriented Behaviors in Korea: Constructive and Defensive Chemyon.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33.3: 332–345.

6.

Cocroft, Beth-Ann K., and Stella Ting-Toomey. 1994. “Facework in Japan and the United States.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18.4: 469–506.

7.

Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18.1: 39–50.

8.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:Doubleday.

9.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY:Doubleday.

10.

Gudykunst, William B., et al. 1996. “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles across Cultures.” Human Communication Research 22: 510–543.

11.

Hair, Joseph F., et al. 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

12.

Harré, Rom, and Grant Gillett. 1994. The Discursive Mind. London: Sage.

13.

Hodgins, Holley S., Elizabeth Liebeskind, and Warren Schwartz. 1996. “Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71.2: 300–314.

14.

Jia, Wenshan. 1997. “Facework as a Chinese Conflict-Prevent Mechanism: A Cultural/Discourse Analysis.” Intercultural Communication Studies 8: 43–58.

15.

Kapoor, Suraj, et al. 2003. “The Relationship of Individualism-Collectivism and Self-Construals to Communication Styles in India and the United States.”International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27: 683–700.

16.

Kim, Min-Sun, et al. 2009. “The Relationship between Self-Construals, Perceived Face Threats, and Lacework during the Pursuit of Influence Goals.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 2.4: 318–343.

17.

Kim, Yungwook, and Jungeun Yang. 2011a. “The Impact of Cultural Variables and Third-Party Mediation on Conflict Resolution.” Korean Journal of Communication Studies 19.4: 5–28.

18.

Kim, Yungwook. 2011b. “The Influence of Chemyon on Facework and Conflict Styles.” Public Relations Review 37: 60–67.

19.

Kim, Yungwook. 2013. “Impact of Chemyeon on Koreans’ Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness.” Korea Journal 53.3: 48–77.

20.

Kim, Yungwook. 2015a. “Chemyon, Relationship Building and Conflicts.” In Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. 2nd ed., edited by John A. Ledingham et al, 240–257. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Kim, Yungwook. 2015b. “The Effect of Culture on Korean Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making: Focusing on the Moderating Role of Chemyon.” Korean Journal of Communication Studies 23.4: 29–54.

22.

Lim, Tae-Seop. 1990. “Politeness Behavior in Social Influence Situations.” In Seeking Compliance: The Production of Interpersonal Influence Messages. edited by James P. Dillard, 75–86. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

23.

Lim, Tae-Seop. 1994. “A Study on the Structure of Chemyon and the Factors Deciding the Chemyon Needs.” Korean Journal of Management 30.4: 1093–1114.

24.

Lim, Tae-Seop, and John W. Bowers. 1991. “Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact.” Human Communication Research 17.3: 415–450.

25.

Lim, Tae-Seop, and S. Choi. 1996. “Interpersonal Relationships in Korea.” In Communication in Personal Relationships across Cultures. edited by William B. Gudykunst, Stella Ting-Toomey, and Tsukasa Nishida, 122–136. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Markus, Hazel R., and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 2: 224–253.

27.

Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

28.

Oetzel, John, et al. 2001. “Face and Facework in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States.” Communication Monograph 68.3: 235–258.

29.

Scollon, R., and S. B. K. Scollon 1983. “Face in Interethnic Communication.” In Language and Communication. Edited by Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt, 156–188. London: Longman.

30.

Shim, Theresa Youn-ja, Min-Sun Kim, and Judith N. Martin. 2008. Changing Korea:Understanding Culture and Communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

31.

Singelis, Theodore M. 1994. “The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20.5: 580–591.

32.

Singelis, Theodore M., and William J. Brown. 1995. “Culture, Self and Collectivist Communication: Linking Culture to Individual Behavior.” Human Communication Research 21: 354–389.

33.

Sue, David, Steve Ino, and Diane M. Sue. 1983. “Nonassertiveness of Asian Americans:An Inaccurate Assumption?” Journal of Counseling Psychology 30: 581–588.

34.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1988. “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory.”In Theories in Intercultural Communication, edited by Young Yun Kim and William B. Gudykunst, 213–235. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

35.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2012. Communicating across Cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

36.

Ting-Toomey, Stella, and Atsuko Kurogi. 1998. “Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22: 187–225.

37.

Ting‐Toomey, Stella, John G. Oetzel, and Kimberlie Yee‐Jung. 2001. “Self-Construal Types and Conflict Management Styles.” Communication Reports 14.2: 87–104.

38.

Triandis, Harry. C. 1989. “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts”. Psychological Review 96: 506–520.

Korea Journal