바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

외모관련 소비행동에 대한 자기해석의 영향: 자기제시의 매개와 외모강조 상황의 조절

Influences of Self-Construals on Appearance-Related Consumption Behavior: Mediation of Self-Presentation and Moderation of Appearance Emphasis Situation

초록

사람들은 자신의 사회적 이미지를 긍정적으로 나타내기 위해 소비행동을 한다. 본 연구는 자신의 외모 매력에 관심을 두게 만드는 상황과 그렇지 않은 상황에서 외모관련 소비행동에 대한 자기해석의 영향과 이 두 변인 사이에서 자기제시의 매개 역할에 대해 살펴보았다. 273명의 대학생들에게 이 두 상황에 대한 시나리오를 제시한 후 응답하도록 하였다. 분석 결과를 보면, 외모관심 강조상황에서 자기해석은 구매의도에 직접적인 영향을 미치지 않고 획득적 자기제시를 통해서만 간접적인 영향을 미치고 있었다. 반면, 외모관심 중립상황에서 자기해석은 구매의도에 직접 영향을 미칠 뿐 아니라 획득적 및 방어적 자기제시를 통한 간접적 영향도 미치고 있었다. 그러나 간접효과 분석 결과를 보면, 중립상황에서 자기해석과 외모관련 소비행동의 주된 매개 경로는 방어적 자기제시였다. 결론적으로 상황에 따라 자기해석과 외모관련 소비행동을 매개하는 자기제시 동기가 달랐다. 전반적으로 본 연구는 자기해석이라는 대인관계 관련 개인차 변인은 외모강조 상황에 따라 다른 자기제시 동기를 활성화시킴으로써 외모관련 소비행동을 유발하는 심리적 과정을 제시하고 있다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 이론적 및 실무적 시사점을 논하였다.

keywords
인상관리, 외모관리, 상황적 영향, 자기해석, 자기제시, Self-Construals, Self-Presentation, Impression Management, Appearance Management, Situational Influence, Self-Construals, Self-Presentation, Impression Management, Appearance Management, Situational Influence

Abstract

People engage in consumption behavior to present their social image positively. This study examined influences of self-construals on appearance-related consumption behavior and mediating roles of self- presentations between the two variables whether interpersonal contexts emphasize appearance concerns or not. Two hundred seventy three students have read this scenarios and responded given questions. Results showed that in appearance concern emphasis condition, self-construals did not influence on purchase intention toward products and services for appearance management directly but indirectly through acquisitive self-presentation. On the other hand, in appearance concern de-emphasis condition, self- construals influenced indirectly through acquisitive and protective self-presentation on purchase intention as well as directly. However, in analyzing indirect effect, main mediating route was protective self-presentation in relationship between self-construals and appearance-related consumption behavior of de-emphasis condition. In conclusion, self- presentation motivations mediating relationship between self-construals and appearance-related consumption behaviors differ cross conditions. On the whole the study showed psychological mechanism that self-construals of interpersonal related individual difference variable induces appearance-related consumption behavior by activating different self-presentational motivation across different appearance emphasis condition. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed based on the results.

keywords
Self-Construals, Self-Presentation, Impression Management, Appearance Management, Situational Influence

참고문헌

1.

마크 리어리, 홍성태 (2003). 자기표현의 힘. 서울: 더난출판.

2.

박은아, 김현정, 서현숙 (2009). 문화적 자기개념(self-construals)에 따른 외모중시 가치관과 외모관리행동. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 10(2), 251-274.

3.

박정현, 서은국 (2005). 사람의 내․외적인 모습에 두는 상대적 비중과 행복간의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 19(4), 19 -31.

4.

서울경제 (2004, 4, 1). ‘아웃도어 룩’ 멋쟁이.

5.

양 윤, 박선영 (2005). 자기 일치성, 자기 감시 및 사용 상황이 상표 선호에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 6(1), 43-67.

6.

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-Presentation Styles. In J. T. Tedeschi(Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychology Research (pp.311-333). New York: Academic Press.

7.

Aune, R. K. & Aune, K. S. (1994). The Influence of Culture, Gender, and Relational Status on Appearance Management. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 258-272.

8.

Christopher, A. N., Morgan, R. D., Marek, P., Keller, M., & Drummond, K. (2005). Materialism and Self-Presentational Styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 137-149.

9.

Dittmar, H. & Pepper, L. (1994). To Have is To Be: Materialism and Person Perception in Working-Class and Middle-Class British Adolescents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 233-251.

10.

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. Addison-Wesley Publication.

11.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” Value Freedom, But “We” Value Relationship: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321-326.

12.

Heine, S. H., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is There a Universal Need for Positive Self-Regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766-794.

13.

Holden, R. R & Fekken, C. G. (1989). Three Common Social Desirability Scales: Friends, Acquaintances, or Strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23(2), 180-191.

14.

Holland, R. W., Roeder, U. R., van Baaren, R. B., Brandt, A. C., & Hannover, B. (2004). Don't Stand So Close To Me: The Effects of Self-Construal in Interpersonal Closeness. Psychological Science, 15(4), 237-242.

15.

Iyengar, S. S. & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.

16.

Johnson, T. P. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2002). Social Desirability in Cross-Cultural Research. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Survey Methods (pp.193-202). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Johnson, T. W., Francis, S. K., & Burns, L. D. (2007). Appearance Management Behavior and the Five Factor Model of Personality. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(3), 230-243.

18.

Jones, E. E. & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An Attributional Approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

19.

Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearance in Context(2nd ed.). Macmillan Publishing company, New York, 157-424.

20.

Kim, H. & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800.

21.

Kim, H. S. & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express Yourself!”: Culture and the Effect of Self-Expression on Choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1-11.

22.

Kim, J., Kim, M-S., Kam, K. Y., & Shin, H-C. (2003). Influence of Self-Construals on the Perception of Different Self-Presentation Styles in Korea. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(2), 89-101.

23.

Kim, M-S, Aune, K. S., Hunter, J. E., Kim, H-J. & Kim, J-S. (2003). The Effect of Culture and Self-construals on Predispositions toward Verbal Communication. Human Communication Research, 27(3), 382-412.

24.

Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What Is the Relation between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165-178.

25.

Lalwani, A. K. & Shavitt, S. (2009). The “Me” I Claim to Be: Cultural Self-Construal Elicits Self-Presentational Goal Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 88-102.

26.

Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.

27.

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The Pleasure and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122-1134.

28.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

29.

Meleshko, K. G. A. & Alden, L. E. (1993). Anxiety and Self-Disclosure: Toward a Motivational Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 1000-1006.

30.

Mick, D. G. (1996). Are Studies of Dark Side Variable Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The Case of Materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106-119.

31.

Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus User's Guide(5th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

32.

Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., & Sellin, I. (2007). Self-Presentational Success in Daily Social Interaction. Self and Identity, 6, 361-379.

33.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds). Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp.17-59). San Diego, C: Academic Press, Inc.

34.

Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement (pp.67-88). Hilsdale; Erlbaum.

35.

Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, Coping, and Health: Assessment and Implications of Generalized Outcom Expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219-247.

36.

Schlenker, B. R. & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social Axiety and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization and Model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641-669.

37.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey. AC: Brooks/Cole.

38.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural Self-Enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60-79.

39.

Singelis, T. M. (1994) The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self- Construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-59.

40.

Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195-206.

41.

Solomon, M. R. & Rabolt, N. J. (2004). Consumer Behavior in Fashion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

42.

Stapel, D. A. & Koomen, W. (2001). I, We, and the Effects of Others on Me: How Self- Construal Level Moderates Social Comparison Effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 766-781.

43.

Tesser, A. & Campbell, J. (1982). Self-Evaluation Maintenance and the Perception of Friends and Strangers. Journal of Personality, 50(3), 261-279.

44.

van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., de Bouter, C., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It Takes Two to Mimic: Behavioral Consequences of Self-Construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1093-1102.

45.

Wegner, D. M. & Vallacher, R. R. (1980). The Self in Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

46.

Yun, R. J. & Lachman, M. E. (2006). Perceptions of Aging in Two Cultures: Korean and American Views on Old Age. Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology, 21, 55-70.

logo