Title Author(s) 大学生における化粧行動と主観的幸福感に関する日韓比較研究 金, 聡希 ; 大坊, 郁夫 Citation 対人社会心理学研究. 11 P.89-P.100 Issue Date 2011 Text Version publisher URL https://doi.org/10.18910/8748 DOI 10.18910/8748 rights
, 11, 2011 1) 2) () () 1 2 = (, 2001) ( ) 2000 3%13% (Pyon, 2000) 2% (, 2000) ( ) Kim(2003) (, 2006) - 89 -
, 11, 2011 ( ) Kim(2003) Subjectless Body( ) Kang(1995) ( ) Kim(1995) Subjecthood (1994) ( SCS) SCS (Buss,1980) SCS SCS Miller & Cox(1982) SCS SCS SCS (1985) SCS (1995) 2 SCS SCS SCS SCS SCS (2007) 38-90 -
, 11, 2011 (Cash, Rissi, & Chapman, 1985;, 1999) (Subjective Well-Being: SWB ) SWB (1983) 1 2 3 SWB SWB Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita(1995) SWB SWB SWB (DuBois, Felner, Brand, Philips, & Lease, 1996; Harter, 1988;, 2010) SWB SWB SWB (Block & Richins, 1992) (, 2001) SWB SWB SWB SWB SWB (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) (, 1995) (, 1977) (2005) SWB 1 2 SCS 3 4 SWB SWB 5 SWB 1 2 161 198-91 -
, 11, 2011 20.08 ± 2.98 22.16 ± 1.64 2009 1 3 1) ( ) 28 ( ) 4 2) 14( ) 3) 8 ( ) ( ) 28 ( ) 3 (Table 1) 1 12 ( ) 2 3 ( )) ( ) 3 t (Table 2)3 (p <.001) Table1 () - 92-1 0.61-0.28 0.09 0.39 2 0.54-0.01 0.01 0.29 3 0.50-0.02-0.03 0.25 4 0.50 0.08 0.00 0.27 5 0.49 0.07 0.10 0.27 6 0.47 0.03 0.28 0.31 7 0.43-0.04-0.25 0.23 8 0.41 0.00-0.01 0.17 9-0.15 0.53 0.08 0.26 10 0.27 0.42-0.01 0.30 11 0.07 0.40 0.07 0.18 12 0.19-0.47 0.00 0.22 13 0.08 0.35-0.03 0.14 14-0.04 0.35 0.28 0.17 15-0.08-0.03 0.51 0.27 16 0.20 0.16 0.39 0.22 17 0.39 0.10-0.40 0.34
, 11, 2011 Table 2 3 () t M SD M SD 1 0.23 0.86-0.19 0.88-4.32 *** 2-0.44 0.68 0.37 0.74 10.13 *** 3 0.32 0.72-0.26 0.75-7.01 *** *** p <.001 Figure 1 ( 2 (1, N = 325) = 25.88, p <.001) ( 2 (1, N = 326) = 17.61, p <.001) ( 2 (2, N = 359) = 22.57, p <.001) (25, 12.12%) (1, 0.62%) Figure 2 ( ) ( 2 (1, N = 358) = 76.29, p <.001) ( 2 (1, N = 548) = 102.51, p<.001)( 2 (1, N = 358) = 32.26, p <.001)( 2 (1, N = 358) = 55.13, p <.001) () ( 2 (1, N = 358) = 6.01, p <.05) ( 2 (1, N = 358) = 145.72, p <.001) ( 2 (1, N = 358) = 31.09, p <.001) ( 2 (1, N = 358) = 54.51, p <.001) (%) 100 75.57 71.94 74.81 77.04 75 50 25 0 67.94 39.18 94.66 77.44 Figure 1 (%) 100 75 60.87 61.49 50 31.47 25 16.24 0 35.49 (%) 14.72 9.94 8.70 3.55 73.60 Figure 2 (%) 5.59 28.43 ( ) 3 (, 2007) (, 2005) - 93 -
, 11, 2011 (2007) (2007) (, 2007) (2005) 1 2 SCS 2 SWB SWB 2 340 174 20.29 ± 1.452 3 2010 11 12-94 -
, 11, 2011 1) 4 (1997) 13 ( )2) SCS (1984) SCS 3 ( ) 5 3) (2004) (Subjective Happiness Scale: SHS)4 (1: ( )2: ( ) 3: 4:? ) 1 2 3 4 7 SCS SCS SCS 2( : ) 2( SCS: ) 2 SCS Table 3 ( : : : SCS : SCS ) SCS SCS Table 3 () SCS SCS SCS SCS SCS SCS ( : F (1,494) = 21.53, p <.001: F (1,495) = 18.73, p <.001: F (1, 495) = 35.42, p <.001) SCS SCS ( : F (1, 497) = 7. 19, p <.05 : F (1, 495)= 59.95, p <.001) SCS SCS ( : F (1, 495) = 6.47, p <.05: F (1, 498) = 5.49, p <.05) (: F (1, 494) = 37.64, p <.001) SCSSCS ( : F (1,494) = 5.80, p <.05 : F (1,496) = 3.91, p <.05) (: F (1,492) = 25.77, p <.001) 2( : ) 2( : ) 2( : ) 3 4 5 Table 4-95 -
, 11, 2011 Table 4 ( ) ( : F (1, 495) = 5.77, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 32.89, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 31.65, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 32.96, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 30.99, p <.001) ( : F (1, 495) = 32.26, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 34.84, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 35.30, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 34.31, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 34.53, p <.001) ( F (1, 495) = 6.28, p <.05) ( : F (1,495) = 32.28, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 34.31, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 34.31, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 33.58, p <.001 : F (1, 495) = 31.08, p <.001) ( : F (1,495) = 31.41, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 34.38, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 35.55, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 33.63, p <.001 : F (1,495) = 31.54, p <.001) ( : F (1,495) = 4.20, p <.05 : F (1,495) = 11.19, p <.001) SWB 1 2 ( ) 3 2 ( (p <.10) Figure3 ( : R 2 =.11, p <.001) (R 2 =.10, p <.001) -.20*** -.14* -.13*.26*** -.19*.26** Figure 3 () - 96 -
, 11, 2011 ( : R 2 =.16, p <.001 : R 2 =.15, p <.001) SCS SCS SCS SCS (1985) 2 1 1 2 (, 2001) 4 SWB (Diener et al., 1995; Dubois et al., 1996; Harter, 1988;, 2010) SWB 4 SWB SWB 4 : : > : : > : : > : : SWB SWB (, 2001) (Kim, 2003) SWB (1983) - 97 -
, 11, 2011 SWB 1 SWB SCS SWB 1 2 1 2 (, 1983) 3 (1999) (Kim, Kim, & Cha, 2007) (56.98%) (16.28%) (11.63%) (1983) = SWB SWB - 98 -
, 11, 2011 Block, P. H., & Richins, M. N. (1992). You look Marvelous : The pursuit of beauty and the marking concept. psycho.market, 9, 3-15. Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Cash, T. F., Rissi.,J., & Chapman, R. (1985). Not just another pretty face: Sex roles, locus of control, and cosmetic use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 246-257. (2007).. (2007)., 7, 1-10. (2001). ( ) pp.1-9. (2007)., 7, 1-10. (1994)., 2, 101-123. Diener, E., Wolsic. B., & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical atractiveness and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 120-129. Dubois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Philips, R. C., & Lease, A. M. (1996). Early adolescent self-esteem: A developmental echological framework and assessment strategy. Journal of Reserchon Adolescence, 6, 543-579. (1977)., 160, 135-140. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. University of Denver, 1988. (1999). ( ) 63, 727. (2007)., 48, 59-68. Kang Mi-un (1995). Korea s not-so-pretty pretty girls Saemi kipun un mul, 6, 112-114. (2005)., 14, 42-53. Kim, B. (1995). The raging foreign model information Sesami Kipun mul, 4, 114-117. Kim, T. (2003). Neo-Confucian body techniques: Women s bodies in Korea s consumer Society Body & Society, 9, 97-113. Kim, Y., Kim, K., & Cha, R. (2007). A test of socio-cognitive model for make-up Maum of Korean women as self-conscious Experience. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 12, 213-229. (1995)., 10, 153-167. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and, motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. (1983)., 21, 30-41. Miller, L. C., & Cox, C. L. (1982). For appearance s sake: Public consciousness and makeup use. Personality and Social psychology Bulletin, 8, 748-751. (2005)., 13, 38-47. (2006). :?, 7, 74-91. (2005)., 44, 71-81. (1982). - <http://www.po-holdings.co.jp/csr/culture/bunken/rep ort/list.html> (2011 1 10 ) Pyon, Elizabeth (2000). Plastic surgery boom changing faces of Korea, Digital Korea Herald <http://www.law.columbia.edu/course_00s_l9436_ 001/2000/sugery.htm > (1999)., 48, 1-251. (2004). (Subjective Happiness Scale:SHS), 10, 845-853. (1984). (self-consciousness scale), 55, 184-188. (1985). ( ) 26, 106-107. (2010)., 10, 15-22. 1) ( 1) 14 2) ( 1) (2009 6 26 ) 3) ( ) - 99 -
, 11, 2011 A comparison of the college students in preferences of make-up and subjective well-being in Japan and Korea Chongfi KIM (Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University) Ikuo DAIBO (Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University) This study examined the differences between Japanese and Korean female college students in the appearance management, sense of beauty, some factors that would affect make-up behavior, and make-up behavior that would give subjective well-being. In those two Asian countries, people are said to have contrastive senses of beauty. The reason for this difference is often explained by the strong influence of Confucianism in Korea. Study 1 showed that the Japanese paid attention to morphological beauty of the skin. On the other hand, the Korean recognized the face as a communication tool, and they were more receptive than the Japanese to cosmetic surgical treatments. Study 2 showed that the trend of the make-up behavior was different among the two student groups and that the influence of public self-consciousness on a make-up behavior was a common denominator. The results may imply that there is a possible difference in the element which constitutes a feeling of happiness depending on one s cultural background. Keywords: make-up, subjective well-being, public self-consciousness, Japan-Korea, cultural comparison. - 100 -