Environment and Social Psychology

Analysis of the promoting and hindering pathways of socio-psychological factors in the cultural heritage environment on the development of Sichuan opera facial makeup

Xiaoyi Li

Department of Architectural Education and Design, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, KingMongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

Somchai Seviset

Department of Architectural Education and Design, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, KingMongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

Thanate Piromgarn

Department of Architectural Education and Design, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, KingMongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i3.4465

Keywords: Sichuan opera facial makeup; cultural heritage environment; socio-psychological factors; sustainable development; promoting pathways; hindering pathways

---

Abstract

As a core carrier of China's intangible cultural heritage, Sichuan Opera Facial Makeup (SOFM) is subject to the interactive influence of the cultural heritage environment (material, institutional, and socio-cultural environments) and socio-psychological factors. Currently, it faces dilemmas such as the imbalance between traditional preservation and modern innovation, as well as insufficient inheritance motivation. This study aims to systematically identify key socio-psychological factors affecting SOFM's development within the cultural heritage environment, and analyze their promoting and hindering pathways, thereby providing theoretical and practical support for the sustainable inheritance of intangible cultural heritage. A mixed-methods approach was adopted: First, Quantitative research: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 300 participants, including SOFM inheritors, cultural scholars, the public, and policy implementers, with structural equation modeling (SEM) used to verify the correlation between socio-psychological factors and SOFM development indicators; Second, Qualitative research: In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 senior inheritors and intangible cultural heritage managers, combined with three typical cases (e.g., modern SOFM innovative design, commercial transformation failure) to explore the pathway mechanisms. The core results indicate five types of promoting factors (e.g., cultural identity, professional identity, innovative self-efficacy) and four types of hindering factors (e.g., traditional awe anxiety, aesthetic cognitive bias, perceived unfairness in resource allocation). The cultural heritage environment acts on SOFM's development through the "psychological perception-behavioral decision-making" chain, with policy support intensity and public cultural participation exerting moderating effects. This study further addresses key deficiencies in existing research from the interdisciplinary perspective of social psychology and cultural heritage studies, by conducting a granular analysis of the socio-psychological factors' promoting and hindering pathways for SOFM development, and provides empirical evidence for formulating targeted cultural heritage protection policies and optimizing inheritance mechanisms.

---

References

[1]. 1.UNESCO. Global Report on the State of Intangible Cultural Heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2021.

[2]. 2.Li M, Zhang Q. Conceptualizing the cultural heritage environment: A multidimensional framework. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2023; 29(7): 890–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2156789

[3]. 3.Wang Y, Chen L, Huang Z. Aesthetic symbolism and cultural narratives in Sichuan Opera Facial Makeup. Journal of Folklore Research 2024; 61(1): 78–99. https://doi.org/10.5406/jfolkrese.61.1.0078

[4]. 4.Chen Y, Liu H, Zhang J. Socio-psychological drivers of intangible cultural heritage inheritance: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 2023; 86(2): 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221143689

[5]. 5.Taylor C, Lee J. Challenges facing traditional artistic heritage in the digital age: A case study of Sichuan Opera. Journal of Cultural Heritage 2022; 56: 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.03.008

[6]. 6.Garcia M, Rodriguez L, Martinez S. The missing link: Socio-psychological factors in cultural heritage policy implementation. Environment and Behavior 2024; 56(3): 412–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165231183452

[7]. 7.Zhang H, Wang S. Public cultural identity and participation in heritage protection: Evidence from China. Journal of Cultural Heritage 2022; 53: 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.11.005

[8]. 8.Wang L, Brown A. Research on Sichuan Opera Facial Makeup: A systematic review. Cultural Trends 2021; 30(2): 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954586820987654

[9]. 9.Garcia M, Martinez S. Cultural identity and heritage protection behavior: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Cultural Heritage 2024; 62: 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2023.11.004

[10]. 10.Lee S, Kim H. Interdisciplinary research on cultural heritage: Trends and gaps. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2023; 29(4): 456–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2107894

[11]. 11.Liu X, Wang Y, Zhang Z. The psychological effects of cultural heritage policies: Evidence from China. Policy Sciences 2023; 56(2): 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09567-x

[12]. 12.Li M, Zhang Q. Conceptualizing the cultural heritage environment: A multidimensional framework. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2021; 27(5): 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1789654

[13]. 13.Wang Y, Chen L, Huang Z. Socio-psychological factors in cultural heritage inheritance: A conceptual framework. Social Psychology and Society 2023; 14(3): 56–72. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140304

[14]. 14.Chen H, Huang Z. Operationalizing intangible cultural heritage development: A multidimensional indicator system. Journal of Folklore Research 2022; 59(3): 289–312. https://doi.org/10.5406/jfolkrese.59.3.0289

[15]. 15.Tajfel H. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 1979; 30(1): 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.30.020179.000245

[16]. 16.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991; 50(2): 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

[17]. 17.Lee S, Kim H, Park J. Applying the theory of planned behavior to predict public participation in cultural heritage protection. Cultural Trends 2023; 32(1): 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/09545868221136789

[18]. 18.Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.

[19]. 19.Zhang H, Liu J. Diffusion of innovative cultural heritage products: Evidence from China. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2022; 28(6): 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1945678

[20]. 20.Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press; 1986.

[21]. 21.Wang L, Chen Y. Conversion of cultural capital in intangible cultural heritage: The role of psychological perceptions. Environment and Behavior 2025; 57(2): 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165241234567

[22]. 22.Zhang J, Wang S. Public participation in cultural heritage protection: The role of cultural identity and perceived responsibility. Cultural Trends 2023; 32(3): 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/09545868231167890

[23]. 23.Chen J, Liu Y, Zhang H. The double-edged sword of traditional awe: Implications for cultural heritage innovation. Social Psychology Quarterly 2022; 85(4): 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221115678

[24]. 24.Wang S, Chen L. Traditional awe and cultural heritage preservation: A balanced perspective. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2024; 30(2): 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2187654

[25]. 25.Brown A, Taylor C. Factors influencing the sustainable development of traditional art: A systematic review. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 2023; 53(1): 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221148654

[26]. 26.Wang L, Liu H. Artistic characteristics and historical evolution of Sichuan Opera Facial Makeup. Journal of Chinese Traditional Opera 2021; 42(3): 89–96. (In Chinese)

[27]. 27.Chen L. Inheritance dilemmas and countermeasures of Sichuan Opera Facial Makeup. Ethnic Art Studies 2024; 37(2): 120–128. (In Chinese)

[28]. 28.Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 4th ed. SAGE Publications; 2023.

[29]. 29.Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2023; 17(2): 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221118836

[30]. 30.Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 1989; 14(4): 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

[31]. 31.Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 6th ed. SAGE Publications; 2018.

[32]. 32.Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill; 1978.

[33]. 33.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling1999; 6(1): 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118