Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68 , No. 1
[Paper List]

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 92-138
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2022
Received 08 Apr 2022 Revised 01 Jun 2022 Accepted 12 Jun 2022
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.3.003

메타버스 이용자의 자아정체성 인식에 관한 연구 : 상징적 상호작용이론 관점
이지혜* ; 주정민**
*전남대학교 신문방송학과 박사과정, 한국방송통신전파진흥원 선임연구원 (win_1@naver.com)
**전남대학교 신문방송학과 교수 (truejoo77@daum.net)

A Study on the Perception of Self-Identity of Metaverse Users : Focusing on Symbolic Interactionist Theory
Jihye Lee* ; Chungmin Joo**
*Ph.D. student, Dept. of Communication, Chonnam National University (win_1@naver.com)
**Professor, Dept. of Communication, Chonnam National University, corresponding author (truejoo77@daum.net)
초록

메타버스의 개념과 특징을 밝히고, 상징적 상호작용이론을 바탕으로 메타버스 내에서의 자아정체성과 그 특징에 관해 탐구했다. 선행연구에 따르면, 이용자는 가상공간에 현실의 삶을 투영하고, 현실을 넘어 또 다른 삶의 모습을 구현하기도 한다. 그렇다면 새로운 가상공간 유형인 메타버스에서 이용자는 자아정체성을 어떻게 인식하고 표현하고 있는가에 대한 물음을 제기할 수 있다. 이에 ‘메타버스 이용자는 메타버스를 하나의 무대로 생각하고 자아정체성을 구성·수정·유지하고 있는가?’, ‘메타버스에서 자아정체성을 구성하고 있는 이용자는 메타버스를 ‘연극의 전면과 후면’ 중 어떤 곳으로 인식하고 행동하는가?’, ‘메타버스의 ‘인간 커뮤니케이션 효과’ 특징이 메타버스에서의 자아정체성 표현과 인상관리에 정적 영향을 미치는가?’, ‘메타버스의 ‘아바타를 통한 상호작용’, ‘샌드박스 극대화’ 특징이 메타버스에서의 자아정체성 표현과 인상관리에 정적 영향을 미치는가?’라는 연구문제를 설정하고, ‘제페토’ 이용자 15명을 대상으로 심층인터뷰를 실시했다. 연구 결과, 대부분의 이용자는 메타버스에서 자아정체성을 형성하고 있었고, 그 유형은 ‘이상향의 나’와 ‘현실의 나’, ‘제3의 인물’ 유형으로 구분할 수 있었다. ‘이상향의 나’ 범주의 대상자는 현실에서 실현하고 싶은 모습이나 행동을 제페토에서 실현함으로써 이상적인 자아정체성을 구성하고 있다고 답변했으며, ‘현실의 나’ 범주의 대상자는 제페토에서 현실공간과 거의 차이가 없는 자아정체성을 구성하고 있다고 답변했다. 반면, ‘제3의 인물’ 범주의 대상자는 제페토에 자아정체성을 구성한 적이 없으며, 인형 놀이처럼 자신과는 전혀 다른 대상물로 생각한다고 답변했다. 메타버스에서 자아정체성을 형성하고 있는 이용자를 대상으로 메타버스를 연극의 전면과 후면 중 어떤 곳으로 인식하고 행동하는지 살펴본 결과, ‘전면-후면’, ‘전면’, ‘후면’의 유형으로 구분할 수 있었다. 이러한 차이는 ‘지속해서 소통하는 타인’의 유무에 따른 것으로 추측할 수 있었다. ‘전면-후면’, ‘전면’ 범주의 대상자는 친구, 팔로워 등 지속해서 소통하는 대상이 있었지만, ‘후면’의 대상자는 그러한 사람이 없었다. 한편, 메타버스를 자기표현과 인상관리 수단으로 활용하고 있었다. 다수의 이용자가 메타버스의 ‘인간 커뮤니케이션 효과’와 ‘아바타를 통한 상호작용’ 특성이 자기표현과 인상관리에 도움이 된다고 답했다. 제페토에서는 언어적 소통뿐 아니라 비언어적 소통을 할 수 있으므로, 자기표현과 인상관리를 하는 데 다른 가상공간보다 훨씬 쉽다고 답변했다. 또한, 아바타의 얼굴과 체형, 스타일 등을 자유자재로 꾸미고 표현할 수 있다는 점에서 자아정체성 표현이 용이하다고 공통으로 말했다. 나아가 현실의 제약을 초월할 수 있어 더욱 진실한 자아정체성을 발현하고 있다는 답변도 있었다.

Abstract

This study clarifies the concept and characteristics of the metaverse, and explores self-identity and its characteristics within the metaverse based on symbolic interaction theory. According to previous studies, users project their real lives into virtual spaces, and sometimes implement another aspect of life beyond reality. Then, in the metaverse—a new type of virtual space—a question can be raised about how the user recognizes and expresses his or her identity. Four research questions were set: “Do users view the metaverse as a stage, and construct, modify, and maintain their own identities?”; “Do users who constitute their self-identity in the metaverse perceive and act on the metaverse as the front or the back of the play?”; “Do 'human communication effects' of the metaverse have a positive effect on self-identity expression and impression management?”; and Do 'interaction through an avatar' or ‘maximization of sandbox' have a positive effect on self-identity expression and impression management?” As a result of the study, most users were found to form their own identities in the metaverse, most of which could be categorized into three types: ‘ideal self’, ‘real self’, and ‘third person’. Subjects in the 'ideal self' category answered that they constitute the ideal self-identity they want to become by realizing the image or behavior they want to realize in reality. They answered that they constituted a self-identity with little difference. On the other hand, the subjects of the ‘third person’ category answered that they had never constituted their identities in ZEPETO and thought of them as objects completely different from their own, as if playing with dolls. As a result of examining whether the metaverse was recognized and acted on as frontstage or backstage for users who are forming their identities in the metaverse, the three types of 'front-back', 'front', and 'back' were identified. It could be inferred that this difference was due to the presence or absence of continuous communication with others. Subjects in the 'front-back' and 'front' categories had subjects with whom they continuously communicated, such as friends, acquaintances, and followers. But subjects in the 'back' did not have such people.

Meanwhile, metaverse users were using the metaverse as a means of self-expression and impression management. A large number of users answered that the metaverse's 'human communication effects' and 'interaction through an avatar' characteristics were helpful for self-expression and impression management. They answered that ZEPETO was much easier for self-expression and impression management than other virtual spaces because verbal and non-verbal communication was possible. In addition, the subjects shared that it was easy to express their self-identity in that they could freely decorate and express the face, body type, and style through their avatars. Furthermore, some answered that it was possible to transcend the constraints of reality and express a truer self-identity.

KeywordsMetaverse, Self-identity, Virtual reality, Symbolic Interactionist Theory, Goffman
키워드: 메타버스, 자아정체성, 가상공간, 상징적 상호작용 이론, 고프만
References
1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2008). The cyber worlds of self‐injurers: Deviant communities, relationships, and selves. Symbolic Interaction, 31(1), 33-56.
2. Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. California: Sage.
3. Baptista, L. C. (2003). Framing and cognition. In A. J. Treviño (Ed.), Goffman’s legacy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield., 197-215.
4. Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335.
5. Bélisle, J. F., & Bodur, H. O. (2010). Avatars as information: Perception of consumers based on their avatars in virtual worlds. Psychology & Marketing, 27(8), 741-765.
6. Bessière, K., Seay, A. F., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The ideal elf: Identity exploration in World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 530-535.
7. Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. California: Univ of California Press.
8. Bowman, T. D. (2010, February). Backstage or front stage with YouTube. Paper presented at iConference 2010, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
9. Bullingham, L., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101-112.
10. Carter, R. (2015). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.
11. Chae, S. (2020, 6, 15). 1 in 3 people in their 20s "Animal Forest, Own"... Switch open hot. <Bloter>. Retrieved 11/1/21 from https://www.bloter.net/newsView/blt202006150008
12. Choi, E., & Lee, Y. (2021). A study on the planning of Minhwa museum utilizing the metaverse platform: Focusing on Zepeto case. Journal of Korea Game Society, 21(6), 63-74.
13. Choi, S., & Um, I. (2006). Impression management and information control in “Cyworld”. Information Society & Media, 10, 1-30.
14. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribners.
15. Coulmas, F. (2019). Identity: A very short introduction (Vol. 593). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
17. Data, I. Q., & Silverman, D. (2011). A guide to the principles of qualitative research. California: Sage.
18. Dewey, J. (1930) Individualism: Old and new. New York: Milton Balch & Company.
19. Donath, J. (2001, August). Mediated faces. Paper presented at International Conference on Cognitive Technology, Coventry, UK..
20. Elliott, A. (2001). Concepts of the self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
21. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Theory of identity development. In E. Erikson (Ed.), Identity and the life cycle. Nueva York: International Universities Press, 42-57.
22. Erikson, E. H. (1968). On the nature of psycho-historical evidence: In search of Gandhi. Daedalus, 97(3), 695-730.
23. Featherstone, M., & Burrows, R. (1995). Cultures of technological embodiment: An introduction. Body & Society, 1(3-4), 1-19.
24. Gabbiadini, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2017). Uncovering the association between strategy video games and self-regulation: A correlational study. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 129-136.
25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20.
26. Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., & Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752-763.
27. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Routledge.
28. Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.
29. Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 211.
30. Griebel, T. (2006). Self-portrayal in a simulated life: Projecting personality and values in The Sims 2. Game Studies, 6(1).
31. Han, H. W. (2008). A study on typology of virtual world and its development in metaverse. Journal of Digital Contents Society, 9(2), 317-323.
32. Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (2012). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
33. Hongladarom, S. (2011). Personal identity and the self in the online and offline world. Minds and Machines, 21(4), 533-548.
34. Hooi, R., & Cho, H. (2014). Avatar-driven self-disclosure: The virtual me is the actual me. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 20-28.
35. James, W. (1890). The perception of reality. Principles of Psychology, 2, 283-324.
36. Jang, H. (2014). The effects of SNS writing on empathic experiences and prosocial behavior : Focusing on Facebook users. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 58(3), 5-35.
37. Jang, H., & Song, E. (2019). Analysis of Qualitative Research Published in Nursing Journals in a Recent 10-year Period: Focused on JKAN and ANR. J Qual Res, 20(2), 100-112.
38. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.
39. Jeong, B. (2010). Humanistic approach of mind and body on cyberspace. The Journal of Humanities, 17, 329-366.
40. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177-192.
41. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 1(1), 231-262.
42. Jordan, T. (2002). Cyberpower: The culture and politics of cyberspace and the Internet. London: Routledge.
43. Jun, Y. (2017). Comparative review study between interview and in-depth interview for qualitative research. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 25(1), 147-168.
44. Kim, D. (2012). A study on self identity in cyberspace. Journal of Korean Ethics Studies, 86, 219-242.
45. Kim, J. (2008). Self-recognition in cyberspace and performing the multiple identity. Korean Journal of Social Theory, 33, 201-247.
46. Kim, J. (2021, 10, 25). “The future of the metaverse is OOOOO”… The future of ZEPETO. Joongangilbo. Retrieved 2/3/22 from https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25000145#home
47. Kim, J., & Song, S. (2011). An analysis on discourses of SIMS2 players in Korea. Journal of Korea Game Society, 11(5), 53-65.
48. Kim, S. (2018). Cyberself as transhumanism. Studies in Philosophy East-West, 90, 517-542.
49. Kim, S. (2021). Theoretical research for the study of popular culture consumers’ trans-boundary selves : from Mead’s intersubjective self to online multiple selves. Humanities Contents, 60, 9-32.
50. Kim, Y. (2004). Everyday practice of mobile teclmologies cyber mobility and belonging. Media & Society, 12(3), 55-89.
51. Kim, Y. (2005). Exploring values of blog users - Using laddering technique. Advertising Research, 68, 9-35.
52. Kim, Y. (2008a). Qualitative research : Bricoleur. Seoul: Moonumsa.
53. Kim, Y. (2008b). Web self-disclosure. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 52(6), 78-99.
54. Ko, C. (2005). The ontology of cyber world : An analysis on ontological relation of virtuality·actuality·reality and a comparison with another worlds. Journal of Korean Philosophical Society, 93, 1-25.
55. Ko, S., Chung, H., Kim, J., & Shin, Y. (2021). A study on the typology and advancement of cultural leisure-based metaverse. KIPS Transactions on Software and Data Engineering, 10(8), 331-338.
56. Lee, B. (2021). The metaverse world and our future. The Korea Contents Association Review, 19(1), 13-17.
57. Lee, J. (2021). A legal study on the effectiveness and legal issues of metaverse for future generations. The Law Reasearch Institutute of Hongik Univ., 22(3), 49-82.
58. Lee, J., Hong, J., & Eune, J. (2013). A study on the types of multiple identity based on KakaoTalk profile images. Archives of Design Research, 26(4), 181-204.
59. Lee, S. (2021). Log in metaverse: Human × space × time revolution(IS-115). Seongnam: Software Policy Research Institute.
60. Lee, S., Han, J., & Ha, H. (2014). Presentation of self and impression management in Facebook. Korean Journal of Social Theory, 46, 293-335.
61. Lim, J. (2011). The mode of life in actual-virtual convergence age. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 28(2), 53-98.
62. Lim, T., Yang, E., Kim, K., & Ryu, J. (2021). A study on user experience analysis of high school career education program using metaverse. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 21(15), 679-695.
63. Lyles, T. (2020, 7, 21). Over half of US kids are playing Roblox, and it’s about to host Fortnite-esque virtual parties too. The Verge. Retrieved 11/1/21 from https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/21/21333431/roblox-over-half-of-us-kids-playing-virtual-parties-fortnite
64. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551.
65. McFarland, L. A., Yun, G. J., Harold, C. M.,Viera, Jr. L, & Moore, L. G. (2005). An examination of impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role of competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 949-980.
66. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
67. Mennecke, B. E., Triplett, J. L., Hassall, L. M., Conde, Z. J., & Heer, R. (2011). An examination of a theory of embodied social presence in virtual worlds. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 413-450.
68. Merola, N., & Peña, J. (2009). The effects of avatar appearance in virtual worlds. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 2(5).
69. Messinger, P. R., Ge, X., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Smirnov, K., & Bone, M. (2008). On the relationship between my avatar and myself. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 1(2).
70. Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
71. Na, E. (2006). Internet communication: Anonymity, interactivity and group polarization. Communication Theories, 2(1), 93-127.
72. Nunes, M. (2006). Cyberspaces of everyday life (Vol. 19). Minnesota: U of Minnesota Press.
73. Oh, Y. (2021). The metaverse is coming again. Retrieved 1/15/22 from https://aihub.or.kr/node/23710
74. Park, D. (2010). Articles : A study on identity in cyber-community. Journal of Korean Ethics Studies, 79, 133-159.
75. Park, H. (2016). A study on the characteristics of new generation with life style - Focus on Generation Z -. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(6), 753-767.
76. Park, S. (2004). From deviance To normality : Avatars as agent of self in cyberspace. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 48(5), 375-405.
77. Park, S. (2005). Self identity and Internet community site using behavior. Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunications Research, 61, 255-285.
78. Park, S. (2010). A mediated experience of instant messenger. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 27(1), 5-51.
79. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. California: Sage.
80. Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3).
81. Persson, A. (2012). Front-and backstage in social media. Language, Discourse & Society, 1(2), 11-31.
82. Rhee, H. (2021a). Expanded role of empathy in metaverse environment where AI is applied. Journal of The Korea Contents Association, 21(11), 87-99.
83. Rhee, H. (2021b). Necessity of establishing new concept of empathy across metaverse for AI era. Journal of Korea Game Society, 21(3), 79-89.
84. Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. London: Penguin.
85. Ryan, M. L. (2015). Narrative as virtual reality 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
86. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers college press.
87. Shin, K., Jo, M., & Yang, J. (2004). Qualitative research. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.
88. Sifa, R., Srikanth, S., Drachen, A., Ojeda, C., & Bauckhage, C. (2016, September). Predicting retention in sandbox games with tensor factorization-based representation learning. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, 1-8.
89. Smart, J. M., Cascio, J., & Paffendorf, J. (2007). Metaverse roadmap overview. CA: Acceleration Studies Foundation.
90. Song, D., (2019). Critical Analysis of Gaming Disorder/Addiction Researches on Neuroimages, Measurement Tools, and Research Processes. Journal of Korea Game Society, 19(1), 135-145.
91. Song, W., & Chung, D. (2021). Explication and rational conceptualization of metaverse. Informatization Policy, 28(3), 3-22.
92. Suh, K. S., Kim, H., & Suh, E. K. (2011). What if your avatar looks like you? Dual-congruity perspectives for avatar use. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 711-729.
93. The Learning Network (2020, 6, 19). How animal crossing will save Gen Z. The New York Times. Retrieved 11/1/21 from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/learning/how-animal-crossing-will-save-gen-z.html
94. Thompson, C. (2016, 4, 14). The Minecraft generation. The New York Times. Retrieved 11/1/21 from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/magazine/the-minecraft-generation.html
95. Tilak, S., Glassman, M., Kuznetcova, I., Peri, J., Wang, Q., Wen, Z., & Walling, A. (2020). Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) as alternative lifeworlds: Transformative learning in cyberspace. Journal of Transformative Education, 18(4), 310-337.
96. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Touchstone.
97. Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the screen. New York: Simon and Schuster.
98. Vaast, E. (2007). Playing with masks: Fragmentation and continuity in the presentation of self in an occupational online forum. Information Technology & People, 20(4), 334-351.
99. Wallace, P., & Maryott, J. (2009). The impact of avatar self-representation on collaboration in virtual worlds. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(5).
100. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer‐mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.
101. Whang, S., Kim, J., & Cho, H. (2008). Self and community experiencem in cyber space: The evolvement of social networking in Cyworld. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 9(2), 285-303.
102. Wolfendale, J. (2007). My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 111-119.
103. Yoon, G., & Vargas, P. T. (2014). Know thy avatar: The unintended effect of virtual-self representation on behavior. Psychological Science, 25(4), 1043-1045.
104. Yoon, M., & Son, S. (2015). Social network and identity play : On Twitter Bot. Korean Journal of Cultural Sociology, 18, 287-328.
105. Yu, J. (2021). Metaverse, a space that opens ‘business expansion’ and ‘innovation’. Webzine Munhwagwangwang. Retrieved 1/15/22 from http://www.kcti.re.kr/webzine2/webzineView.action?issue_count=121&menu_seq=3&board_seq=1
106. Zepeto Homepage(2022). Retrieved 3/26/22 from https://zepeto.me/
부록 Ⅰ
1. 고선영·정한균·김종인·신용태 (2021). 문화 여가 중심의 메타버스 유형 및 발전 방향 연구. <정보처리학회논문지: 소프트웨어 및 데이터 공학>, 10권 8호, 331-338.
2. 고창택 (2005). 사이버세계의 존재론: 가상·현실·실재의 존재론적 관계 분석 및 다른 세계들과의 비교를 중심으로. <철학연구>, 93권, 1-25.
3. 김대군 (2012). 사이버 공간에서의 자아정체성 확립 방안. <윤리연구>, 86권, 219-242.
4. 김성수 (2018). 트랜스휴머니즘으로서의 사이버자아. <동서철학연구>, 90권, 517-542.
5. 김소영 (2021). 대중문화 수용자의 탈경계적 자아 연구를 위한 이론적 탐색: ‘미드의 이중 자아’에서 ‘온라인의 다중 자아’로의 확장. <인문콘텐츠>, 60권, 9-32.
6. 김연정 (2005). 한국형 블로그'이용자의 가치체계에 관한 연구: 래더링 기법을 중심으로. <광고연구>, 68권, 9-35.
7. 김영천 (2008). 질적연구방법론: Bricoleur. 서울: 문음사.
8. 김예란 (2004). 가상공간의 공동체 문화 탐색-사이월드 문화를 중심으로. <언론과 사회>, 12권 3호, 55-89.
9. 김유정 (2008). 웹 개인미디어에서의 사이버 자기표현. <한국언론학보>, 52권 6호, 78-99.
10. 김정민 (2021, 10, 25). “메타버스의 미래는 OOOOO다”…제페토의 미래. <중앙일보>. Retrieved 2/3/22 from https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25000145#home
11. 김종길 (2008). 사이버공간에서의 자아인식과 복합정체성 수행. <사회이론>, 33권, 201-247.
12. 김종덕·송수현 (2011). 국내 플레이어들의 담론분석. <한국게임학회 논문지>, 11권 5호, 53-65.
13. 나은영 (2006). 인터넷 커뮤니케이션: 익명성, 상호작용성 및 집단극화 (極化) 를 중심으로. <커뮤니케이션 이론>, 2권 1호, 93-127.
14. 박동준 (2010). 사이버 공동체의 정체성에 관한 연구. <윤리연구>, 79권, 133-159.
15. 박석철 (2005). 자아 정체성과 인터넷 커뮤니티 이용행위: 구조방정식 모형분석을 통한 상징적 상호작용의 경험적 측정. <방송통신연구>, 255-285.
16. 박석철 (2010). 인스턴트 메신저 매개 경험 분석: 고프만 (Goffman) 의 ‘인상관리’ 관점에서. <사이버커뮤니케이션학보>, 27권 1호, 5-51.
17. 박성희 (2004). 사이버 공간의 대리자아 아바타의 역할 유형분석. <한국언론학보>, 48권 5호, 375-405.
18. 박혜숙 (2016). 신세대 특성과 라이프 스타일 연구 - Z세대를 중심으로 -. <인문사회 21>, 7권 6호, 753-767.
19. 송두헌. (2019). 게임 장애/중독 연구에 대한 비판적 분석: 뇌 사진, 판단 척도 및 연구 절차를 중심으로. <한국게임학회 논문지>, 19(1), 135-145.
20. 송원철·정동훈 (2021). 메타버스 해석과 합리적 개념화. <정보화정책>, 28권 3호, 3-22.
21. 신경림·조명옥·양진향 (2004). 질적 연구 방법론. 서울: 이화여자대학교 출판부.
22. 오연주 (2021). 메타버스가 다시 오고 있다. Retrieved 1/15/22 from https://aihub.or.kr/node/23710
23. 유진희 (2021). 메타버스(Metaverse), ‘비즈니스의 확장’과 ‘혁신’을 여는 공간. Retrieved 1/15/22 from http://www.kcti.re.kr/webzine2/webzineView.action?issue_count=121&menu_seq=3&board_seq=1
24. 윤명희·손수빈 (2015). 소셜네트워크와 정체성 놀이: 트위터 봇 사례연구를 중심으로. <문화와 사회>, 18권, 287-328.
25. 이병권 (2021). 메타버스(Metaverse)세계와 우리의 미래. <한국콘텐츠학회지>, 19권 1호, 13-17.
26. 이수현·한준·하홍규 (2014). 페이스북에서의 자아 연출과 인상 관리. <사회이론>, 46권, 293-335.
27. 이승환 (2021). <로그인(Log In) 메타버스 : 인간×공간×시간의 혁명> (IS-115). 성남: 소프트웨어정책연구소.
28. 이종윤·홍장선·윤주현 (2013). 카카오톡 프로필 이미지를 통한 다중적 자아의 유형 연구. <Archives of Design Research>, 26권 4호, 181-204.
29. 이준복 (2021). 미래세대를 위한 메타버스(Metaverse)의 실효성과 법적 쟁점에 관한 논의. <홍익법학>, 22권 3호, 49-82.
30. 이현정 (2021a). AI 가 적용될 메타버스 시대를 위한 확장된 공감의 역할. <한국콘텐츠학회논문지>, 21권 11호, 87-99.
31. 이현정 (2021b). AI 시대, 메타버스를 아우르는 새로운 공감개념 필요성에 대한 담론. <한국게임학회 논문지>, 21권 3호, 79-89.
32. 임종수 (2011). 현실-가상세계 컨버전스 시대의 삶의 양식. <사이버커뮤니케이션학보>, 28권 2호, 53-98.
33. 임태형·양은별·김국현·류지헌 (2021). 메타버스를 활용한 고등학생 진로체험 프로그램 사용자 경험 분석. <학습자중심교과교육연구>, 21권 15호, 679-695.
34. 장현미 (2014). SNS에서 글쓰기가 공감경험과 친사회행동에 미치는 효과: 페이스북 이용자를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 58권 3호, 5-35.
35. 장혜영·송은옥 (2019). 최근 10년간 간호학술지에 게재된 질적연구 분석: JKAN과 ANR 중심으로. <질적연구>, 20권 2호, 100-112.
36. 제페토 홈페이지(2022). Retrieved 3/26/22 from https://zepeto.me/
37. 전영국 (2017). 질적 연구에서 사용되는 면담 및 심층면담에 관한 비교 고찰. <열린교육연구>, 25권 1호, 147-168.
38. 정복철 (2010). 사이버 공간의 정신과 육체의 유형학-인문학적 탐색. <인문학연구>, 17권, 329-366.
39. 채성오 (2020, 6, 15). 日 20대 3명중 1명 "동물의 숲, 보유"…스위치 열기 뜨겁다. <블로터>. Retrieved 11/1/21 from https://www.bloter.net/newsView/blt202006150008
40. 최샛별·엄인영 (2006). 싸이월드에서의 인상관리와 정보의 통제. <정보사회와 미디어>, 10권, 1-30.
41. 최은진·이영숙 (2021). 메타버스 플랫폼을 활용한 민화 미술관 기획 연구-제페토 사례를 중심으로. <한국게임학회 논문지>, 21권 6호, 63-74.
42. 한혜원 (2008). 메타버스 내 가상세계의 유형 및 발전방향 연구. <한국디지털콘텐츠학회 논문지>, 9권 2호, 317-323.
43. 황상민·김지연·조희진 (2008). 사이버공간 속의 관계 맺기: 싸이월드 이용행동에 나타난 소셜 네트워크 활동 양상에 대한 탐색. <한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고>, 9권 2호, 285-303.