Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 65 , No. 1

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication StudiesVol. 65, No. 1, pp.190-235
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2021
Received 07 Aug 2020 Revised 15 Jan 2021 Accepted 01 Feb 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.1.190

자기정체성 기반 동기 접근에서의 인터넷 펨버타이징 커뮤니케이션 활성 및 유력 집단의 특성 탐색 : 사회정체성 이론 관점에서 본 ‘짜가’와 ‘찐(眞)’ 사이
차유리** ; 최선영***
**숙명여자대학교 미디어학과 초빙대우교수 (yuri@sogang.ac.kr)
***연세대학교 커뮤니케이션대학원 객원교수 (pighairs@gmail.com)

Exploring the Active and Influential Groups in South Korean Digital Femvertising based on Approach to Motivation of Self-Identity : Between “the Faux” and “the Real” Focused on the Perspective of Social Identity Theory
Yuri Cha** ; Sun Young Choi***
**Invited Teaching Professor, Department of Communication & Media, Sookmyung Women's University (yuri@sogang.ac.kr)
***Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Communication & Arts, Yonsei University, corresponding author (pighairs@gmail.com)
Funding Information ▼

초록

이 연구는 인터넷 펨버타이징 커뮤니케이션이 활발한 국내 대학생 집단은 누구이고 일상에서 그 집단의 사회정의 행동적 양태는 어떠한지를 동기 접근에서 탐색하기 위한 것이다. 사회정의 행동주의의 일환이자 다중적 영역에 중첩된 개념인 인터넷 펨버타이징 커뮤니케이션을 사회정체성 이론(social identity theory) 관점에서 대안 전략적 커뮤니케이션으로도 개념화한 가운데 이들 집단의 특성을 알아보고자 했다. 수도권에 거주하고 일반 4년제 대학에 재학 중인 20대 대상 온라인 조사 데이터(N = 400)가 분석에 활용됐다. 인터넷 펨버타이징 수용 태도에 대한 관련 동기 성향요인의 상대적 영향력을 알아본 회귀분석 결과, 비교적 강력한 요인은 ‘인터넷 펨버타이징 비 진정성 지각’, ‘페미니스트 자기명명’인 것으로 나타났다. 이어서 인터넷 펨버타이징 이용 태도의 주요 요인별 인터넷 이용자 집단이 어떻게 유형화될 수 있는지를 알아보기 위해 군집분석을 실시했고, 이용자 집단은 ‘불만페미형’·‘페미적대형’·‘현상유지형’·‘만족페미형’으로 나뉘었다. 이들 중 인터넷 펨버타이징 커뮤니케이션의 양적 활성 집단은 페미니스트 집단들(‘불만페미형’, ‘만족페미형’)이었고. 사회정의 커뮤니케이션 양태를 통해 알아본 진정성 측면의 질적 유력집단은 ‘불만페미형’인 것으로 밝혀졌다. 끝으로, 연구결과의 학술적·실무적 시사점 및 제한점 등을 논의했다.

Abstract

Femvertising, a compound word for ‘feminist’ and ‘advertising’, has gained traction in Korean marketing as well as around the world, but concerns have been raised over the authenticity of digital femvertising communication as a form of social justice activism communication. Specifically, critiques surrounding the substance of digital femvertising communication note that it represents ‘faux’ activism, rather than comprising a legitimate source of social justice communication that involves authentic, or ‘real’ intent of social impact. In spite of the concerns raised about the impact of digital femvertising communication on society, previous studies have not empirically explored different types of digital femvertising users’ authenticity aspects in relation to social justice communication. The purpose of this research is to understand the characteristics of young internet users’ social justice communication and to identify the active and influential groups in South Korean digital femvertising. Based on a review of literature on femvertising, digital femvertising communication is defined as an alternative communication strategy grounded in identity-based motivational factors to reform feminist groups or/and general society. The survey respondents were residents of the Seoul metropolitan area who were attending universities in Korea, aged 18-29(N = 400). A professional online research company was recruited for quota sampling and conducting an online survey. The first research question about the relative influences of motivational factors on digital femvertising accepting attitudes was addressed by conducting a regression model analysis. Results indicated relatively strong explanatory factors as unauthenticity perceptions of digital femvertising (β = -.42, p < .001) and feminist self-labeling(β = .42, p < .001). Also, there was a relatively weaker influence of true self on the net and feminism anxiety. The second research question asked how respondents could be categorized according to the main factors. By employing cluster analysis and ANOVA, we found that the respondents were divided into the following four groups: Feminist Self-Unsatisfaction, Hostile Group against Feminists, Status-Quoite, Feminist Self-Satisfaction. The third research question inquired into the state of active and influential groups, which found that two feminist groups (Feminist Self-Unsatisfaction and Feminist Self-Satisfaction types) were active groups, while the Feminist Self-Unsatisfaction group was the most influential. We found that the Feminist Self-Unsatisfaction was more consistent than other types, and morality was less self-centered. The Feminist Self-Satisfaction type had a lower level of participation in general activism than the Feminist Self-Unsatisfaction type, but the degree of social justice knowledge and moral conviction was high. The results revealed that the amount and quality of digital femvertising communication are not the same. The main findings contribute to extending theoretical explanations of communication psychology in terms of social justice activism, especially addressing the relations among psychological, behavioral aspects of self-transcendence based personal identity and user types by motivational variables in regards to digital femvertising. The paper discusses its academic contribution as well as practical implications for developing and implementing not only feminist but also social justice activist strategies. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.


Keywords: Digital Femvertising, Social justice Activism, Self-identity, Authenticity
키워드: 인터넷 펨버타이징, 사회정의 행동주의, 자기 정체성, 진정성

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2018S1A5B5A07073657)(이 논문은 2018년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2018S1A5B5A07073657)).


References
1. Abedi, E., Ghorbanzadeh, D., & Rahehagh, A. (2019). Influence of eWOM information on consumers’ behavioral intentions in mobile social networks. Journal of Advances in Management Research. DOI 10.1108/JAMR-04-2019-0058.
2. Abitbol, A., & Sternadori, M. M. (2020). Consumer location and ad type preferences as predictors of attitude toward femvertising. Journal of Social Marketing, 10(2).
3. Abitbol, A., & Sternadori, M. (2016). You Act Like a Girl. Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines, 3(2), 117-138.
4. Abitbol, A., & Sternadori, M. (2018). Championing Women’s Empowerment as a Catalyst for Purchase Intentionsg. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1552963
5. Ahmad, T., Alvi, A., & Ittefaq, M. (2019). The Use of Social Media on Political Participation Among University Students. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019864484.
6. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
7. Akestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlen, M. (2017). Advertising “like a girl”. Psychology & Marketing, 34(8), 795-806.
8. Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.
9. Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). When the bases of social hierarchy collide. Organization Science, 27(1), 123-140.
10. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? . Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33-48.
11. Becker-Herby, E. (2016). The rise of femvertising. Twin Cities: University of Minnesota.
12. Broome, B. J., Carey, C., de la Garza, S. A., Martin, J., & Morris, R. (2005). In the thick of things. In W. J. Starosta & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Taking stock in intercultural communication (pp. 145-175). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
13. Bue, A. C. C., & Harrison, K. (2019). Empowerment Sold Separately. Sex Roles,81(9-10), 627-642.
14. Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex roles, 42(11), 1081-1089.
15. Cabrera, N. L., Matias, C. E., & Montoya, R. (2017). Activism or slacktivism?. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 400.
16. Campos, I., & Marin-Gonzalez, E. (2020). People in transitionse. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101718.
17. Cha, Y. (2018). Exploring the existing state of late adolescent college students in SNS helping. Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 32(4), 184-224.
18. Cha, Y. & Han, C. (2018). Validation of the rumors improving behaviors. Information Society & Media, 19(3), 65-103.
19. Cho, Y. & Yoo, J. (2016). Factors Influencing cyberbullying. Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 30(1), 111-136.
20. Chun, H., Park, N., & Lee, H. (2014). The impact of multimedia news use and political discussion on civic political participation, Korean Journal of Broadcasting, 28(5), 197-236.
21. Ciambriello, R. (2014, October 3). How ads that empower women are boosting sales and bettering the industry. Adweek, Retrived 07/01/02020 from URL: https://adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-ads-empower-women-are-boosting-sales-and-bettering-industry-160539/
22. Coleman, C., & Tuncay Zayer, L. (2015). Ban the word feminist? control and subversion of stigma in social movements and consumer culture. Advances in Consumer Research, 43, 257-259.
23. Curtin, N., & McGarty, C. (2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to understand activism in context. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 227-241.
24. Davidson, L. (2015.1.12), “Femvertising: advertisers cash in on #feminism,” The Telegraph, Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11312629/Femvertising-Advertisers-cash-in-on-feminism.html
25. Drake, V. E. (2017). The impact of female empowerment in advertising. Journal of Research in Marketing, 7(3), 593-599.
26. De Choudhury M, Jhaver S, Sugar B, et al. (2016, May) Social media participation in an activist movement for racial equality. Paper presented at the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Cologne, Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL: http://www.munmund.net/pubs/BLM_ICWSM16.pdf
27. Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist online identity. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(7), 34-40.
28. Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect. In J. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 247-296). New York, NY: Elsevier.
29. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions. Child Development, 70(6), 1360-1372.
30. Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.
31. Estevan-Reina, L., de Lemus, S., & Megias, J. L. (2020). Feminist or paternalistic. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2988.
32. Feng, Y., Chen, H., & He, L. (2019). Consumer responses to femvertisinge. Journal of Advertising, 48(3), 292-301.
33. Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. W. (2007). Mentalizing and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Mental Health, 16(1), 83-101.
34. Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Cengage.
35. Gawronski, B. (2007). Attitudes can be measured! but what is an attitude?. Social Cognition, 25(5), 573-581.
36. Golombisky, K. (2019). Feminist Perspectives on Advertising. Maryland, Rowman & Littefield.
37. Gregoire, C. (2015, November 16). Explaining the ‘empathy gap’ in our reactions to Paris and Beirut. Huffingtonpost. Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-beirut-response_us_5649d707e4b08cda34898202
38. Haidt (2012). The Righteous Mind. New York, NY: Pantheon.
39. Hance, M. A., Blackhart, G., & Dew, M. (2018). Free to be me. The Journal of social psychology, 158(4), 421-429.
40. Hernandez-Wolfe, P. (2011). Altruism born of suffering. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(2), 229-249.
41. Hewitt, J. P. (1997). Self and Society, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
42. Hill, G., & Howell, R. T. (2014). Moderators and mediators of pro-social spending and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 69-74.
43. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137.
44. Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy. In A White Paper on the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Aspen Institute. 1 Dupont Circle NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036.
45. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications. London, UK: Routledge.
46. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156.
47. Jang, D. (2019, September 9). Misogyny and gender discrimination stem from accumulated problems in Korean society. JoongAng Ilbo. Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL: http://news.joins.com/article/23573673
48. Jang, H. M. (2014). The effects of SNS writing on empathic experiences and prosocial behavior. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 58(3). 5-35.
49. Jeong, H. & Jo, K. (2019). An empirical study on ‘Gapjil’ culture in Korean society. Korean Political Science Review. 53(1), 105-125.
50. Jin, Y., & Pang, A. (2010). Future directions of crisis communication research. Handbook of Crisis Communication, 677-682.
51. Joo, H. & Baek, Y. (2016). How and under what condition does the company-cause fit improve customers’ attitudes? Journal of Public Relations. 20(3), 1-32.
52. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
53. Kang, M., Kim, J. R., & Cha, H. (2018). From concerned citizens to activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(5-6), 202-229.
54. Kabacooff, R. I. (2015). R in Action. Shelter Island, NY: Manning Pulications.
55. Kapoor, D., & Munjal, A. (2017). Self-consciousness and emotions driving femvertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–21.
56. Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective self‐aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19-48.
57. Kim, J. & Han, K. H. (2020). An exploratory study on femvertising. The Journal of Asian Women, 59(1), 7-41.
58. Kim, K. & Han, D. (2001). Relationship between women`s social identity and collective competition strategy. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 6(2), 15-38.
59. Kim, S. & Kim, S. (2017). A Post-Feminist Outlook on Advertisement and Female Representation. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 19(2), 135-172.
60. Kim, Y. (2019). Persuasion. Seoul: Nanam.
61. Kirsh, S. Duffy, K., Atwater, E. (2014). Psychology for Living. Boston: Pearson.
62. Korean Women's Development Institute (2019). KWDI Brief. 5.
63. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber Bullying. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
64. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
65. Kwon, Y. & Cha, Y. (2020). The relationship between the amount of usage by media and programme types, attitudes of ambivalent sexism, and subjective well-Being. The Women‘s Studies, 125-151.
66. Lalot, F., Quiamzade, A., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2019). When does self-identity predict intention to act green?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 79-92.
67. Latane, B. and Darley, J.M. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.
68. Lee, M. (2010). Introduction to Advertising. Seoul: Communication books.
69. Lee, H., Kim, E., Lee, M. (2003). A validation study of Korea positive and negative affect schedule. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(4), 935-946.
70. Lee, J. (2009). In Canada, Green Image’s just full of it. Kotra overseas market News of KOTRA. Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL:https://news.kotra.or.kr/user/globalBbs/kotranews/3/globalBbsDataView.do?setIdx=242&dataIdx=88320
71. Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 771-779.
72. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31.
73. Min, H. & Yun, S. (2016). Emotions and political participation. Korean Political Science Review, 50(1), 271-294.
74. Moberg, D. J. (2000). Role models and moral exemplars. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 675-696.
75. Moore, A., & Stathi, S. (2019). The impact of feminist stereotypes and sexual identity on feminist self-identification and collective action. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-15.
76. Morozov, E. (2009). From slacktivism to activism. Foreign Policy, 6 May.
77. Motta, M., Callaghan, T., & Sylvester, S. (2018). Knowing less but presuming more. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 274-281.
78. Murray, D. P. (2013). Branding “real” social change in Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty. Feminist Media Studies, 13(1), 83-101.
79. Myers, D. G. (2014). Exploring psychology with update on DSM-5. New York, NY: Worth.
80. Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(5), 823.
81. Nam, H. & Park, G., Lee, J., Yu, S. (2018). I buy brands that support the feminist cause and watch Feminist Movie. Money Today, Retrieved 07/01/2020 from URL: https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2018112521002675404
82. Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D. L., & Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action. Sex Roles, 58(9–10), 721-728.
83. Park, E. & Park, M. (2018). Who participate in a boycott?. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 19(1), 121-138.
84. Park, H. & Lee, J. (2016). A validation study of Korean Version of PANAS-Revised. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 35(4), 617-641.
85. Park, K. & Cheon, H. (2019). How women’s breasts have been consumed. Media, Gender & Culture. 34(3), 53-103.
86. Park, N. & Lee, E. (2014). Collective identity, social exchange relationship and prosocial behaviors. Korean Journal of Business Administration. 27(6). 955-977.
87. Perez, M. P. R., & Gutierrez, M. (2017). Femvertising. Investigaciones feministas, 8(2), 337-351.
88. Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Cengage advantage ethics. Nelson Education.
89. Rhee, J. (2007). Emotional responses to the presidential candidates in the 2002 election. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 51(6), 111-137.
90. Rhee, J. W. (2007). Emotional responses to the presidential candidates in the 2002 Election. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 5(5), 111-137.
91. Rodgers, K. (2010). Anger is why we're all here. Social Movement Studies, 9(3), 273-291.
92. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
93. Schumann, S., & Klein, O. (2015). Substitute or stepping stone?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 308-322.
94. Shen, H., & Kim, J. N. (2012). The authentic enterprise. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 371-389.
95. Shepherd, L., & Evans, C. (2019). From gaze to outrage. Sex Roles, 1-16.
96. Simon, B., Loewy, M., Sturmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., et al. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 646–658.
97. Sobande, F. (2019). Woke-washing. European Journal of Marketing, 54(11), 2723-2745.
98. Sohn, S. (2019). How women are represented in the ‘New World’ created by technology. Media, Gender & Culture, 34(4), 5-51.
99. Sternadori, M., & Abitbol, A. (2019). Support for women’s rights and feminist self-identification as antecedents of attitude toward femvertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 740-750.
100. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433.
101. Szymanski, D. M. (2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 51(3-4), 145-159.
102. Tai, K. T., Porumbescu, G., & Shon, J. (2019). Can e-participation stimulate offline citizen participation. Public Management Review, 1-19.
103. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups. London: Academic Press.
104. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp.33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
105. Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfe