Dominant communicators insna china (21 june2013)조성은 revised


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • •As of Nov 2011, there were approximately 37 million (78.0% of the population) internet users in Korea (키사 싸이트 다시 가보니 2011년 11월 데이터가 최종이라고 올라와 있습니다. 총 37,180천명 (78.0%). 그래서 고쳤음.또 같은 페이지 •Yahoo! and Google have failed to secure a substantial share of the Korean market.라는 표현에서.. 야후야 물러섰지만 구글은 크게 성장했습니다. 아래 랭키닷컴에서 지난 주 트래픽7위 기록했습니다. 구글을 빼든가 달리 표현하든가 필요할 듯. 
  • \\
  • p.11•A study by Park () supports the normalization argument that the Internet is a replication of the real world.연도가 빠져 있습니다. 그런데 ppt가 너무 긴데 빼도 되는 슬라이드가 아닐까... 싶습니다. 한국의 상황은. 그냥 제안입니다. 
  • (http://blp.13 •As of May 04, 2012, there were approximately 6.4 million Twitter users in Korea. 의 최신 버전은 2012년 5월 4일자이기 때문에 바꿨습니다 (최근에도 600만 트위터 이용자로 표현되는 것을 본거 같아서요.. 크게 이용자가 늘진 않았을 듯요)
  • Seong & Park (2012). Cross-National Comparison of Twitter Use between South Korea and Japan: AnExploratory Study. International Journal of Contents, Vol.8, No.4
  • 내용이 좀 낡았을수도 있습니다. 싸이월드가 여전히 트랙픽이 있는 것은 사실입니다 (지난 주 랭키닷컴에서4위 차지). 하지만 페이스북이 아직 싸이월드만하지 못하다는 것은 어떨지.. 랭키닷컴에서는9위이지만, 모바일앱까지 고려한다면....페이스북이 더 영향력 있는 SNS가 아닌지.... 다음 사이트 참고하세요.
  ••The participants tended to perceive their most trusted followees as skilled and dominant communicators, which is inconsistent with the results for the participants’ perception of their own attitudes.응답자가 자신이 팔로잉하는 이들 중 가장 신뢰하는 이는 대체로 영향력 있는 커뮤니케이터라고 생각하는 경향이 있는데, 그들 자신의 태도나 위치에서 영향력 없다고 낮게 평가하는 것과는 대조적으로 상대방을 높게 평가하는 경향이 있다 는 말이죠. 영어 표현이 좀 헷갈려서 다시 확인합니다. 
  •두번째 문장 첫부분이"the participants tended to define the dominant" 인데요. 하고자 하는 말이 불명한 거 같아서 아래와 같이 고쳐 넣었으나 맞는 표현인지 자신이 없습니다. 그냥 본래 문장으로 하고 설명을 덧붙이는 편이 나을 듯 합니다. dominant communicator가 실제로 어떤 인물인지와는 상관없이 트위터 이용자가 임의로 규정한다는 것이겠죠?•The participants tended to discretionarily define the dominant (regardless of real identities) and adjust their communication styles based on their perception of followees. 
  • Dominant communicators insna china (21 june2013)조성은 revised

    1. 1. Han Woo ParkYeungNam UniversityDae-dong, Gyeongsan-si,Gyeongsangbuk-do 712-749Republic of Koreahttp://www.hanpark.netSeong Eun ChoKorea Information SocietyDevelopment InstituteGwacheon 427-710Republic of KoreaDominant Communicatorson the Korean Twitter SphereCho, S.E., & Park, H. W.(2013). Who are DominantCommunicators on Twitter?A Study of Korean TwitterUsers. International Journalof Contents. 9 (1), 49-59.
    2. 2. Introduction
    3. 3. Introduction: What is Twitter?• Members post and exchange short messages (up to 140 characters).• It enables members to exert less effort and facilitates participation.• Its ability to rapidly distribute messages has sparked a fierce debate over a widerange of social issues worldwide, even in countries where internet use is relativelylow (McManus, 2011).
    4. 4. • Most of the previous studies haveanalyzed Tweets in English or English-speaking users because most Twitterusers are English speakers(Honeycutt & Herring, 2009).• However, there has been intensedebate over whether this reliance onthe English-based cyberspace couldlimit a more detailed understandingof the Internet (Goggin & McLelland,2009; Sahib et al., 2006).• Although there has been growinginterest in developed internetcultures in Asia, few studies haveexamined the sociocultural role anduse of the Internet in Korea andother regions in Asia (Lee & Park,2010; Park et al. 2004).Introduction: Twitter in English
    5. 5. Literature review
    6. 6. Literature review: Internet in Korea• As of Nov 2011, there were approximately 37million (78.0% of the population) internetusers in Korea (• The country’s high-quality infrastructure,small territory, and high population densityhave accelerated the influence of the Interneton Korean society (Kim & Kim, 2006).• Yahoo! (and Google) have failed to secure asubstantial share of the Korean market.
    7. 7. Literature review: Characteristics of Twitter• Twitter use has been classified into the information distribution andsocialization categories (Heil & Piskorski, 2009; Honeycutt & Herring,2009).• Some studies have argued the equalization of information sharing andthe realization of e-government as alternative means of directdemocracy (Lim & Park, 2010; Kim & Yoon, 2005; Park & Bae, 2007).• Other studies have suggested that only a small portion of Twitter userscontribute to information creation (Hughes & Palen, 2009; Naaman,Boase & Lai., 2010).• In addition, some studies have provided evidence that people tend tosubscribe only to those Tweets by personally or politically alike or like-minded followees (Kim, Park & Park, 2010).
    8. 8. Literature review: Characteristics of Twitter• Twitter takes a one-to-many communication form, which results fromasymmetric connections.• Users with large numbers of followers can have more influence on theirmessages than those with fewer followers.Retweet – Replies – Mentions
    9. 9. Literature review: Characteristics of Twitter• Naaman et al. (2010) found that a majority of Tweets involve currentactivities of the user.• In general, the Twitter interface facilitates many-to-manycommunication (Comm, 2010). This tends to make it difficult for usersto sustain a topic on the Twitter timeline.• Audiences determine conversational contexts and thus influencecommunication strategies (Goffman, 1959). However, Twitter’s many-to-many communication system makes it difficult to define audiences.
    10. 10. Literature review: Microblogging use in KoreaThe rise of Twitter inKorea has been attributedlargely to celebrities andpolitical events.In addition, the disseminationof mobile communicationdevices (e.g., smartphones andtablet computers) hascontributed to the increase inthe number of Twitter users(Hsu et al., 2010).
    11. 11. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea• In government-user interaction, users participate in a conversation on atopic which has been specified through the government’s social media.• The government directly listens to individuals’ informal human voice.• Decision-making process of public policy.• Recently, the Korean government has announced a policy of employingan online spokesman.• A study by Lim and Park (2013) support the normalization argumentthat the Internet is a replication of the real world.
    12. 12. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea40.6%15.6%15.6%28.1%95% 90% 80% Below 80%Percentage of some32 Korea government’sinstitutions accordingto their twitterreciprocal rate.
    13. 13. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea• As of May 04, 2012, there were approximately 6.4million Twitter users in Korea.• A vast majority of this users are located in Seoul andBusan, followed by major metropolitan areas.
    14. 14. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea• Lee and Nai (2010) considereda sample of Korean Twitterusers and found that maleparticipants were more likelythan female participants(80.9% and19.1%, respectively) to useTwitter and that the averageage of Twitter users was 31.51.
    15. 15. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea• Peña et al. (2007) found that CMC communicators from differentgeographic locations are less likely to exhibit a dominantcommunication style than those from the same location.• Those from the same geographic location are more likely to beattracted to those exhibiting the same communication styles.• Peña et al. focused on CMC collaboration to find solutions todecision-making tasks.
    16. 16. Literature review: Microblogging use in Korea• Norton (1978, 1983) proposed nine dimensions to representcommunication styles, which he defined as the “way one verbally andparaverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be takeninterpreted, filtered, or understood” (Norton, 1978, p. 99).• Dominant communicators exercisetheir influence to lead theconversation, manage theconversation, form publicopinion, and win the argument(Burgoon et al., 1998; Burgoon &Dunbar, 2000; Schmid-Mast, 2002).DominantDramatic!AnimatedOpenContentiousRelaxedFriendlyAttentiveImpression leaving
    17. 17. Literature review: What about other countries?• Government departments from other countries displaylow levels of reciprocity rate in Twitter connection.• US:- Ministries are sparsely connected, have individualisticuse, embrace uncertainty and do not follow theirfollowers (Park, ?).- Re-tweeting for a specific purpose- Private sources are hyperlinked to inform the public ofits activities.• Twitter basically holds a usage principal for informationdistribution rather than interactive communicationwith the public. Some governments, includingU.K., U.S., and Australia, have guidelines of socialmedia use by governmental organizations and officials(Park, ?).
    18. 18. Literature review: What about other countries?* IS: Information Sharing; SP: Self-Promotion; OC: Opinions/Complaints;RT: Statements/Random Thoughts; ME: Me Now; QF: Questions forFollowers; PM: Presence Maintenance; AM: Anecdotes-Me; AO:Anecdotes-Others.* Blue bar: Korea; red bar: Japan.• Japan and Singaporeconservatively managegovernment’s Twitteraccounts in that theygenerally have a few numberof following, compared tothe number of followers.• Twitter users in Korea tend toembrace their Twitterconnections within the in-group boundary.• Twitter users in Japan tend tocontrol their content andconnections to maintainclosed social relationships.
    19. 19. SP OC RT ME QF PM AM AOProportionofallMessagesKoreaJapanUSLiterature review: What about other countries?
    20. 20. Literature review: What about other countries?01020304050IS SP OC RT ME QF PM AM AO25.10.611.038.420.12.80.3 1.3 14.80.4KoreaRussia
    21. 21. Research questions• 1. In what ways do Korean usersemploy Twitter?• 2. How do Twitter users’perception of their own andtheir followees’ communicationstyles influence their socio-communication attitude andbehavior on Twitter?
    22. 22. Method
    23. 23. Method: Research procedure• We conducted the survey in September 2010.• We randomly collected IDs from the Twitter public timeline( and selected only those IDs usingKorean characters.• We repeated this process until we collected 900 accounts and thenfollowed all of them.• Of the 900 accounts, 286 followed our account back, and finally, a totalof 159 users (56% of mutual followers) accepted the request for surveyparticipation.• Further, we collected profile information and Tweets by using theTwitter API (application program interface).
    24. 24. Method: ParticipantsParticipantsGenderMale Female85.60% 14.50%(N=106) (N=18)Age 32Education level(college/postgraduate education)80.8%Account creation within one year 84.80%
    25. 25. Results
    26. 26. Results: General usage
    27. 27. Results: Relative importance of other socialmediaCompared withTwitterImportance (%)Important UnimportantCyworld 51.1 48.9Facebook 78.9 21.1Blog 87.9 12.1m2day 41.7 58.3Yozm 38 62.0Discussion boards 87.9 12.1
    28. 28. Results: Disclosure of personal information inprofile
    29. 29. Results: Disclosure of personal information inprofile
    30. 30. Results: Disclosure of personal information inprofile
    31. 31. Results: Socio communication attitudesFactor ItemsInfluential communicator(Cronbach α=.822, M=3.32)Opinion leaderNo skill to lead to conversation(reversed)Winner of argumentExpressive conversationPaid attention by othersComfortable conversationAbility to persuade othersActive communicator(Cronbach α=.724, M=3.18)Leading conversationSpeaker rather than listenerFollowing others’ conversation(reversed)
    32. 32. Results: Socio communication attitudesFactor ItemsCommunication leadership(Cronbach α=.713, M=2.59)Leading conversationOpinion leaderSpeaker rather than listenerTalkative aloneWinner of argumentPaid attention by othersConversation power(Cronbach α=.732, M=3.26)No influence on others (reversed)No skill to lead to conversation(reversed)Expressive conversationComfortable conversationAbility to persuade others
    33. 33. Results: Socio communication attitudesFactor ItemsSkilled communicator(Cronbach α=.836, M=4.04)Opinion leaderWinner of argumentExpressive conversationPaid attention by othersComfortable conversationAbility to persuade othersPassive communicator(Cronbach α=.849, M=2.44)No influence on othersNo skill to lead conversationDominant speaker(Cronbach α=.741, M=3.82)Leading conversationSpeaker rather than listenerTalkative alone
    34. 34. Results: Analysis of Tweets
    35. 35. Discussion
    36. 36. Discussion• The results of this study suggest the existence of two types of Twitterusers: mobile users (e.g., salespersons) and fixed users (those who stayput most of the time).• The dramatic growth of Twitter use is expected to continue because ofthe increasing availability of mobile communication tools such assmartphones and tablet computers (Hsu et al., 2010).• The results demonstrated that media users tend to adopt a widevariety of channels to deliver their opinions and personal episodes andcommunicate with others rather than using a couple of primary media.
    37. 37. Discussion• Twitter makes it easier for users tomaintain a wide range of informationresources.• Facebook may be better for socializingwith mutually connected friends.• Blogs are designed for reporting well-written arguments and episodes.• Discussion boards enable users to discusswith members who share similar interests.• Results suggest that individuals willingly adopt multiple media if they canobtain unique benefits from each. However, if benefits overlap, they maywillingly choose only one channel and be loyal to it.
    38. 38. Discussion• Cyworld, despite its recent stagnation, has remained meaningfulas a social networking site for communicating with friends.• Facebook, despite its rapid growth in Korea, has yet to overtake it.• Given its complexity, the current market status of Cyworldindicates that it may be a mature “killer application”.• More than 70% of all Koreans have an account.
    39. 39. Discussion: Disclosure of Personal Informationon Twitter and Communication Purposes.• The participants tended to disclose personal information ontheir Twitter profile, such as their age, location,hobbies/personal interests, and job/social status.• Such information allows one to provide other users with a betterunderstanding of oneself and can empower one to shape publicopinion, lead the debate, and take a dominant position in certaintopics of conversation by employing one’s expertise.
    40. 40. Discussion: Disclosure of Personal Informationon Twitter and Communication Purposes.• The participants tended to upload a photo of themselves anduse real names, which revealed their identity to other users.• This straightforward self-introduction may enhance theauthenticity of the user and provide him or her with a high levelof social presence (Walther, 1992, Peña et al., 2007), which inturn can increase the influence of the user’s Tweets.
    41. 41. Discussion: Self-Reported CommunicationAttitudes on Twitter and in the Real World• The results indicate that the participants tended to positionthemselves as slightly passive communicators. Such attitudestoward socio-communication on Twitter contrasted with those inthe real world (slightly active attitudes), which suggests thatmost users tend to play a communication role as a listener thana speaker on Twitter.
    42. 42. Discussion: Perception of the Most TrustedFollowees’ Communication Attitudes• Face-to-face communicators are more likely to interactin specific communication contexts than Twittercommunicators.• The easily collapsed communication context encouragesTwitter users to develop imagined audiences.• Whom the users perceive as theirprimary communication partnershas considerable influence ontheir communication strategiesand attitudes.• Twitter users’ followees, whomthey follow voluntarily, are morelikely to influence theircommunication attitudes thantheir followers.
    43. 43. Discussion: Perception of the Most TrustedFollowees’ Communication Attitudes• The participants tended to perceive their most trusted followees asskilled and dominant communicators, which is inconsistent withthe results for the participants’ perception of their own attitudes.• In addition, the participants tended to perceive that their mosttrusted followees were socially famous and had socially influentialjobs and high social status and that these followees were activeTwitter users with many followers and Tweets.• Twitter users may have a stereotyped image of their followees andsuch an image is grounded on the stereotype of the trendsetter inthe real world.
    44. 44. Discussion: Perception of the Most TrustedFollowees’ Communication Attitudes• Given asymmetricalcommunication, a small number ofdominant communicators on Twitter(Naaman et al., 2010) can affect alarge number of Twitter users takingrelatively passive communicationattitude.• This is supported by Power laweffect that refers to dominantcommunication by a small portion ofa total population under the conceptof “the rich get richer and the poorget poorer” (Kim et al., 2010).
    45. 45. Discussion: Types of Tweets• Most of the participants’ Tweets belonged to the statements/randomthoughts category, which involves little need for social interaction,followed by the opinions/complaints and me now categories.• Most of the Tweets were monologic and self-oriented than relation-oriented and dialogic.• Most users participate in broadcasting information in a relatively passivemanner by using retweets (Boyd et al., 2010).
    46. 46. Discussion: Types of Tweets• We suggest that group-oriented values and self-effacing attitude inKorean collectivistic culture (Hofstede, 2001) discourage users tocreate self-oriented messages and instead, Korean users adoptindirect way to express themselves.• Self-oriented messages would be more created and more directlypresented in individualistic cultures where individuals asindependent entities are valued and inspiring self-esteem is animportant part of education.
    47. 47. Conclusion
    48. 48. Conclusion• The results predict the continued growth of Twitter use with theincreasing availability of mobile devices and suggest the coexistenceof multiple communication channels.• The participants tended to discretionarily define the dominant(regardless of real identities) and adjust their communication stylesbased on their perception of followees.• This study suggests a cross-cultural or a cross-national studycomparing between the majority of Twitter users who belong toEnglish-speaking countries and those who do not, considering thelocality of Twitter use.
    49. 49. Conclusion: Limitation• This study has a sampling limitation.• Despite a random sampling process, heavy reliance on voluntaryparticipation and the absence of a researcher can result in biasedsamples.• For more reliable results, future Twitter research should develop abetter sampling process.