Update Latest

Associate Degree/PSYG2504 Social Psychology/12.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# 12. Chinese Social Psychology
+
+> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
+
+## 12.1 Lian  Vs. Mianzi 
+
+Hu (1944) proposed that there are 2 basic categories of face in Chinese culture: 
+Lian (臉) and mianzi (面子). 
+
+### 12.1.1 Lian
+
+*An individual’s lian can be preserved by faithful compliance with ritual or social norms.*
+
+Having lian “represents the confidence of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly in the community”.  
+Both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and an internalized sanction.
+
+- Bu yao lian (‘doesn’t want face’; 不要臉) means that he or she is nasty, shameless, and immoral: A great insult to his or her moral character.
+- Diulian (shame; 丟臉) is a result of wrong-doing regardless of the presence of an audience.
+
+### 12.1.2 Mianzi
+
+*Mianzi stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in a particular place*
+*Similar to the western face concept.*
+
+Mianzi stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in a particular place
+Similar to the western face concept: Chinese – with hierarchical structure of society with its permanency of statues.
+
+- A reputation achieved through success, e.g. career or interpersonal relationship.
+- Lian has no relationship with successFace behavior
+
+## 12.2 Enhancing one’s own face
+
+Knowing what kind of qualities are most appreciated by others in one’s social network, a person may deliberately do face-work to enhance one’s social or positional status by showing off these most appreciated qualities.
+
+## 12.3 Enhancing others’ face
+
+A person may adopt some tactics of ingratiation to enhance the resource allocators’s face so that the latter might reciprocate by allocating the resources in a way to benefits the ingratiator.
+
+Tactics include presenting compliments of sufficient credibility, conforming with his/her opinions and behavior, giving gifts or doing other pleasant and rewarding things for others
+
+## 12.4 Losing one’s own face
+
+The losing of face may bring serious consequences for an individual, especially when he/she loses the so-called ‘moral face’.
+
+‘Not-wanting face’ (pu-yao lien) or ‘having no face’ (mei-yu lien) implying the actor has **lost all claims to being a person**.
+
+Losing face for someone or some group with whom he/she is closely connected
+
+## 12.5 Hurting others’ face
+
+When a man wants to ask for a favor from a resource allocator of some prestige, he first assesses his position relative to the allocator and the likelihood that he may be successful.
+
+If the request is accepted, then the allocator ‘gave him mianzi’ and his face is increased.
+
+If the request is rejected, the allocator does not give him ‘mianzi’, which then reflects badly on his own mianzi and blame the allocator, especially when the allocator occupies a lower social status.
+
+## 12.6 Saving one’s own face
+
+Losing face may cause embarrassment, shame or shyness
+
+Possible reactions:
+
+- Compensatory actions: terminating the face-losing behavior, reinterpreting the situation, apologizing, working hard to enhance the social status
+- Retaliatory actions: express dissatisfaction in a subtle and indirect way
+- Self-defensive reactions: devalue the opponent, deemphasize the seriousness of the face-losing event and pretend nothing happened
+
+## 12.7 Saving others’ face
+
+Bond and Lee (1978) studied the face-saving behavior of 100 CUHK students.
+
+> Participants were told the study was about public speaking.
+> 1 participant in a group of 5 students was chosen to give a 3-minute talk.
+
+**Four experimental conditions:**
+
+1. Speaker uninformed condition: comments and ratings would be seen only by the experimenter
+2. Informed anonymous condition: speakers would read the evaluations later alone
+3. Informed face-to-face condition: they would read their comments and their ratings to the speaker privately
+4. Informed-audience condition: they would read their comments and ratings to the speaker in the presence of the next group of 5 students
+
+ANOVA revealed significant difference across all experimental conditions
+Subsequent test revealed more negative ratings in condition 1 (speaker uninformed condition) than in condition 4 (informed audience condition).