Current issue

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

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 193-230
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 29 Feb 2024
Received 13 Oct 2023 Accepted 29 Jan 2024 Revised 31 Jan 2024
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.1.006

인스타그램 이용자의 독자 의식 탐색 : ‘상상하는 독자’ 개념을 중심으로
김지영*** ; 이수영****
***서강대학교 신문방송학과 박사과정 (jycomm@sogang.ac.kr)
****서강대학교 지식융합미디어대학 교수 (sooyoung@sogang.ac.kr)

Exploring ‘Audience Awareness’ Among Instagram Users : Focusing on the Concept of the Imagined Audience
Ji-Young Kim*** ; Sooyoung Lee****
***Doctorial Student, Department of Mass Communication, Sogang University (jycomm@sogang.ac.kr)
****Professor, School of Media, Arts, and Science, Sogang University, corresponding author (sooyoung@sogang.ac.kr)
Funding Information ▼
초록

본 연구는 생산 활동이 기반이 되는 SNS 환경에서 생산하는 이용자들이 전문적인 생산자와 같이 독자 의식을 하고 있는지를 ‘상상하는 독자’ 개념을 통해서 탐색했다. 이를 위해서 인스타그램 이용자를 대상으로 상상하는 독자를 가진 집단과 갖지 않은 집단의 이용행태의 차이와 상상하는 독자를 가진 이용자의 특성을 발견함으로써, SNS에서 독자를 의식하는 상상하는 독자를 가진 이용자가 더욱 적극적으로 SNS를 이용하고 있다는 결과를 도출하였다. 특히 본 연구는 오프라인 맥락의 관계를 인스타그램에 적용한 정도에 따라 오프라인 중심 네트워크, 온᠂오프라인 혼재 네트워크, 인스타그램 중심 네트워크로 구분하여 관계적 특성을 파악하고 상상하는 독자에 접근하였다. 또한, 좋아요, 댓글, 공유, 아이디태그와 같은 상호작용적 기능 이용 및 수신 만족감을 통해 행동적 측면을 분석하였다. 연구 대상은 인스타그램의 주 이용자로 구분되는 성인 20대부터 40대 중 전체 공개로 이용하고, 1달 이내 게시물을 게시한 이용자로 제한하였다. 온라인 설문을 진행하였으며, 759명의 데이터를 분석에 활용하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 인스타그램 이용자들은 그들의 독자를 상상하며 게시물을 생산하지만 네트워크 구조에 따라서 차이가 있다. 오프라인 중심, 온·오프라인 혼재 네트워크에서는 오프라인 친한 친구, 인스타그램 중심 네트워크에서는 온라인 친한 친구와 오프라인 친한 친구를 가장 많이 상상한다. 둘째, 상상하는 독자가 있는 집단은 상호작용적 기제 이용이 많고, 기제 수신에서 오는 만족감도 더 높게 나타났다. 또한 상상하는 독자를 가진 집단과 갖지 않은 집단을 구분하는데 가장 영향을 미친 변인은 상호작용적 기제 수신 만족감, 즉 상상하는 독자로부터의 피드백이다. 본 연구는 전문 생산자들의 독자 의식을 ‘상상하는 독자’ 개념을 통해서 인스타그램의 이용자들에게 적용해 봄으로써, 이용자의 생산 행위를 독자 기반의 생산으로 논의할 수 있게 됐다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Abstract

Focusing on Instagram, this study examines the content creation and consumption practices of prosumers within the Korean social networking landscape. It focuses on the relational and behavioral aspects of their interactions, with particular emphasis on audience awareness, which refers to the identity of professional creators and its influence on user behavior in an environment where everyone produces content, such as social networking sites(SNS). The concept of the 'imagined audience' is employed to explore users' awareness of their audience. To investigate the differences between Instagram users with and without an imagined audience, this study examines their usage behavior and characteristics. The relational characteristics of users are identified by categorizing the Instagram network structure into three categories: offline-centric network, hybrid offline-online network, and Instagram-centric network. Additionally, the study analyzes the behavioral aspect by measuring interactive features such as likes, comments, shares, ID tags, and satisfaction with reception.

Data for this study was gathered through an online survey completed by 759 adults, aged 20 to 40. The participants were primarily Instagram users who had posted public content in the past month and had experience following others. This study reveals a significant influence of network structure on audience perception: users within offline-dominant and mixed online-offline networks primarily envision close friends from their physical social circles, while those in Instagram-focused networks conceptualize their audience as encompassing both online and offline relationships. Furthermore, the group that imagines their audience tends to utilize interactive features more frequently and experiences a higher level of satisfaction when receiving feedback from their imagined audience. One significant finding is that the satisfaction of receiving interactive features, especially feedback from the imagined audience, distinguishes the groups with and without an imagined audience the most. This study highlights that users actively seek engagement within the network structure, anticipate responses, initiate multiple interactions with their audience, and derive a high level of satisfaction from the responses they receive. The study's significance lies in several aspects. Firstly, by exploring the concept of the imagined audience, this study investigates the audience awareness among Instagram users, a key identity of professional creators. This approach expands the understanding of user behavior beyond self-presentation, suggested by the existing Impression Management perspective, to a audience-based production approach. Moreover, the findings enhance the explanatory power of the imagined audience concept by identifying the characteristics of users with imagined audiences and illustrating their more active usage behaviors compared to those without.

KeywordsProsumer, Imagined Audience, Audience Awareness, Interactive Features, Instagram
키워드: 생산하는 이용자, 상상하는 독자, 독자 의식, 상호작용적 기제, 인스타그램
Acknowledgments

This paper is a study that revised and re-analyzed some of the basis of the first author’s 2023 master’s thesis(advisor: corresponding author) in the Department of Mass Communication at Sogang University, permitted by IRB(본 연구는 첫 번째 저자의 2023년 서강대학교 신문방송학과 석사학위 논문(지도교수: 교신저자)에 근거 일부를 수정 및 재분석한 연구로 IRB 승인 이후 진행되었음)[SGUIRB-A-2210-58].

This paper is supported by the research grant of Metaverse Graduate School(Sogang University) funded by Institute for Information & communication Technology Planning & evaluation(본 연구는 과학기술정보통신부 및 정보통신기획평가원의 메타버스 융합대학원의 지원으로 수행되었음)[IITP-2023-RS-2022-00156318].

References
1. Bazarova, N., Choi, Y. H., Sosik, V., Cosley, D., & Whitlock, J. (2015, February). Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. Paper presented at the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 154-164).
2. Berkenkotter, C. (1981). Understanding a writer’s awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 388-399.
3. Bernstein, M., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., & Karrer, B. (2013, April). Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 21-30).
4. boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
5. Brake, D. R. (2012). Who do they think they’re talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1056-1076.
6. Brema, C., Temmerman, M., Graham, T., & Broersma, M. (2016). Personal branding on Twitter: How employed and freelance journalists stage themselves on social media. Digital Journalism, 5(4), 1-17.
7. Carr, C. T., & Foreman, A. C. (2016). Identity shift III: Effects of publicness of feedback and relational closeness in computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology, 19(2), 334-358.
8. Chong, H. M. (2012). Perelman`s universal audience and audience theory of writing. Research on Writing, 15, 159-187.
정희모 (2012). 페렐만의 보편청중 개념과 작문의 독자 이론. <작문연구>, 15호, 159-187.
9. Coddington, M., Lewis, S., & Belair-Gagnon, V. (2021). The imagined audience for news: Where does a journalist’s perception of the audience come from?. Journalism Studies, 22(8), 1028-1046.
10. Cover, R. (2023). Identity and digital communication: Concepts, theories, practices. Taylor & Francis.
11. Egebark, J., & Ekström, M. (2011). Like what you like or like what others like? Conformity and peer effects on Facebook (IFN Working Paper, No. 886). Stockholm, Sweden: Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN).
12. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
13. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873-892.
14. Ellison, N. B., & Vitak, J. (2015). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 203-227). John Wiley & Sons.
15. Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855-870.
16. Ferrucci, P., Nelson, J., & Davis, M. (2020). From “public journalism” to “engaged journalism”: Imagined audiences and denigrating discourse. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1586-1604.
17. Fox, J., & Vendemia, M. A. (2016). Selective self-presentation and social comparison through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(10), 593-600.
18. French, M., & Bazarova, N. N. (2017). Is anybody out there?: Understanding masspersonal communication through expectations for response across social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 303-319.
19. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348-1365.
20. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
21. Hagen, I. (1999). Slaves of the ratings tyranny? Media images of the audience. In P. Alasuutari (Ed.), Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda (pp. 130-150). SAGE.
22. Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016a). It’s the audience: Differences in social support across social media. Social Media+ Society, 2(4), 2056305116678894.
23. Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016b). One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 171-187.
24. Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). Share, like, recommend: Decoding the social media news consumer. Journalism studies, 13(5-6), 815-824.
25. Hoynes, W. (1994). Public television for sale: Media, the market, and the public sphere. Routledge.
26. Kangur, K. (2021). Top 15 most popular social networking sites and apps. Dreamgrow. www.dreamgrow.com/feinternational
27. Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., & Millette, D. (2020). Seeking safer spaces: The mitigating impact of young adults’ Facebook and Instagram audience expectations and posting type on fear of negative evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106333.
28. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241-251.
29. Kim, H. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2020). Exploring the MMORPG play experiences on social capital. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 34(6), 272-312.
김한영·이수영 (2020). MMORPG 플레이 경험이 온·오프 사회적 자본에 미치는 영향. <한국방송학보>, 34권 6호, 272-312.
30. Kim, J., Lewis, S. C., & Watson, B. R. (2018). The imagined audience for and perceived quality of news comments: Exploring the perceptions of commenters on news sites and on Facebook. Social Media+Society, 4(1), 2056305118765741.
31. Kim, J. Y., & Na, E. Y. (2022). Anxious instagrammer : The effect of anxiety and social comparison on ideal self-presentation behavior. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 36(6), 80-120.
김지영·나은영. (2022). 불안한 인스타그래머: 불안과 사회 비교가 이상적 자기표현 행동에 미치는 영향. <한국방송학보>, 36권 6호, 80-120.
32. Kim, M. S. (2022). A study on the web novel writer’s identity as a media content producer: An in-depth interview and self-description. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 22(10), 658-675.
김미숙 (2022). 미디어 콘텐츠 생산자로서 웹소설 작가의 정체성 연구: 심층 인터뷰와 자기기술지를 중심으로. <한국콘텐츠학회논문지>, 22권 10호, 658-675.
33. Kim, S. H., Lee, S. Y., & Chung, J. I. (2020). Exploring the formation of social networking service social capital. Journal of Speech, Media & Communication Research, 19(1), 247-279.
김승현·이수영·정지인 (2020). SNS 사회적 자본 형성에 관한 탐색적 연구: 페이스북 친구유형을 중심으로. <한국소통학보>, 19권 1호, 247-279.
34. Kim, Y. R. (2020). Platform producers and everydayness : Daily vloggers’ life and work. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 101, 153-199.
김예란 (2020). 플랫폼 생산자와 일상성: 일상 브이로거의 삶과 노동. <한국언론정보학보>, 101호, 153-199.
35. Korea Press Foundation. (2021). Social media users in Korea (Research 2021-03). Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.
한국언론진흥재단 (2021). <2021 소셜미디어 이용자 조사> (조사분석 2021-03). 서울: 한국언론진흥재단.
36. Lee, S. D., Lee, S. Y., & Kim, G. J. (2015). Social media and social support experiences. Korean Telecommunications Policy Review, 22(1), 85-121.
이상돈·이수영·김군주 (2015). 소셜미디어와 사회적 지지 경험: 페이스북의 게시글에 대한 타 이용자의 반응유형을 중심으로. <정보통신정책연구>, 22권 1호, 85-121.
37. Lee, S. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2018). A study on the factors affecting changes in Facebook behaviors. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 32(6), 124-159.
이서윤·이수영 (2018). 페이스북 이용 초기와 비교해서 이용 행태의 변화에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구. <한국방송학보>, 32권 6호, 124-159.
38. Li, J. (2017). The factors affecting intimacy of interpersonal relationship and user behaviors at SNS. Master’s thesis, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea.
리지아싱(2017). <SNS 대인관계 친밀감과 이용행태에 영향을 미치는 요인>. 동국대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.
39. Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330-345.
40. Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media+Society, 2(1), 2056305116633482.
41. Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: the anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369.
42. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133.
43. McQuail, D. (1965). ‘Uncertainty about the audience and the organization of mass communications’, Sociological Review Monograph, 13, 75-84.
44. Min, I. (2004). Perceptions of the audience by the alternative press producers: A case study of the Texas Observer. Media, Culture & Society, 26(3), 450-458.
45. Nam, D. H. (2013). The influence of the interaction on Facebook on the perceived intimacy. Master’s thesis, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
남덕현 (2013). <소셜 네트워킹 사이트(SNS)에서의 상호작용이 친밀감에 미치는 영향>. 고려대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.　
46. Nasmedia. (2022). 2022 Survey of internet users NPR. Seoul: Nasmedia.
나스미디어 (2022). <2022 인터넷 이용자 조사 NPR>. 서울: 나스미디어.
47. Scissors, L., Burke, M., & Wengrovitz, S. (2016, February). What's in a like? Attitudes and behaviors around receiving likes on Facebook. Paper presented of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1501-1510).
48. Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. MIT Press.
49. West, A., Lewis, J., & Currie, P. (2009). Students’ Facebook ‘friends’: Public and private spheres. Journal of Youth Studies, 12(6), 615-627.
50. Zeggelink, E. (1994). Dynamics of structure: An individual oriented approach. Social Networks, 16(4), 295-333.