Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 65 , No. 2

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.41-74
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2021
Received 07 Feb 2021 Revised 31 Mar 2021 Accepted 22 Mar 2021
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.2.002

한국 사회 의견지도자 인식과 메시지 설득력, 의견지도자의 유형별 차이
김지희**
*단국대학교 자유교양대학 강사, 서울대학교 언론정보연구소 객원연구원 (com.media.lec@dankook.ac.kr)

Recognition and Persuasiveness of Opinion Leaders, and Difference by Type
Jihee Kim**
*Lecturer, Dankook University, Researcher, Institute of Communication Research, SNU (com.media.lec@dankook.ac.kr)
Funding Information ▼

초록

커뮤니케이션학에서 의견지도자가 학술적 관심의 대상이 된 것은 20세기 중반 대중매체가 확산되던 시기부터이다. 특히 카츠와 라자스펠트는 20세기 중반 대중매체의 영향력을 연구하며 사회적 여론에 영향을 미치는 사람들이 존재한다는 사실에 주목하며 이단계 유통이론을 제안했다. 그렇다면 인터넷과 모바일 미디어를 자유롭게 이용하는 현대 한국사회에서 시민들은 어떤 인물을 의견지도자라고 인식하고, 무엇에 근거하여 의견지도자의 설득력을 평가하고 있을까? 연구결과 사람들이 의견지도자라고 인식하는 데 가장 중요한 요인은 커뮤니케이터의 ‘에토스’ 측면, 즉 매력과 공신력으로 나타났다. 그리고 의견지도자 메시지의 설득력을 예측하는 데 중요한 요인은 커뮤니케이터의 ‘의사소통 능력’, 즉 소통반응성과 소통통제성인 것으로 나타났다. 또한 의견지도자를 세 가지 유형으로 나누어 분석해 보았을 때, 독립변수들 영향력은 다른 패턴을 보여주었는데, 전통엘리트, 매체유명인, 매체활동형 리더가 각각 의견지도자로 인식되기 위해, 그리고 의견지도자로서 설득력을 증대시키기 위해 필요한 요건이 각각 다르다는 결과를 도출할 수 있다.

Abstract

In communication studies, the concept of opinion leaders became the subject of academic interest along with the growth of mass media in the mid-20th century. In particular, Katz and Lazarsfeld focused on media influence, noting that there were people who shape public opinion. Then, who are the opinion leaders active nowadays in Korea? Whom do citizens recognize as opinion leaders, and what are the factors that determine the public evaluation of the extent to which an opinion leader is persuasive? Since the advent of the mass media, we have experienced radio and television, the Internet in the 2000s, and social media platforms in the 2010s. With changes in the media environment, we realized that each time a new medium appeared, it had a great influence on the way people communicated, and the way the public perceived influential people could also change. The emergence of a new medium requires the opinion leader to use the appropriate media. Therefore, as media technology develops, the rhetoric that persuades the public can be expected to be different from the past.

In order to measure opinion leaders, I identified five variables—① media activity, ② credibility, ③ attractiveness, ④ communication responsibility, and ⑤ communication controllability—as attributes of the opinion leader. Results of analyzing two dependent variables using the same independent variable found that the most important variable in recognizing opinion leaders was ‘attractiveness’ and that the most important factor affecting the opinion leader's message persuasion was ‘communication ability'. While influence of the traditional elite played a large role in our society in the past, it can be seen that in modern society, the credibility and attractiveness of a person is an important requirement to be recognized as an opinion leader, and the communication ability of a person is an important requirement to persuade others.

In addition, I divided the opinion leaders into three types according to the source from which they were obtained. As a result of the study, the influence of the independent variable showed different patterns according to the three types of opinion leaders. In other words, it can be interpreted that traditional elites, media celebrities, and media-active leaders each hold different virtues that are necessary to be recognized as opinion leaders and to increase opinion leadership. Finally, the key conclusion of this study is that the decisive factor in people's perception of opinion leaders is the 'ethos' aspect of the communicator and that the important factor in predicting the persuasiveness of a character's message is the communicator's 'communication ability'. Understanding the factors affecting the perception of opinion leaders and the factors affecting the persuasiveness of opinion leaders can serve as an opportunity to rethink the communication of leaders in Korean society.


Keywords: Opinion Leader, Persuasiveness, Traditional Elite, Celebrity, Media-Communicative Leader
키워드: 의견지도자, 설득력, 전통엘리트, 셀러브리티, 매체활동형 리더

Acknowledgments

This research is based on the author’s 2020 Ph.D dissertation and is supported by Institute of Communication Research, SNU. 이 연구는 저자의 서울대학교 언론정보학과 박사학위논문(2020)에 근거하여 작성되었으며, 2021년 언론정보연구소의 연구지원을 받았습니다.


References
1. Ahn, C-S. (2014). The Effect of Celebrity’s Advocacy of Social Issues : An Experimental Study. Journal of Communication Science, 14(2), 184-219.
2. Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2012). Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science, 337(6092), 337-341.
3. Bartels, B. L., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Explaining processes of institutional opinion leadership. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 249-261.
4. Bennett, W. L., & Manheim, J. B. (2006). The one-step flow of communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608(1), 213-232.
5. Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. Vintage.
6. Cho, Y., Hwang, J., & Lee, D. (2012). Identification of effective opinion leaders in the diffusion of technological innovation: A social network approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(1), 97-106.
7. Choi, Y-J. (2009). Opinion Leaders of Online Communities : Motivations for Participating, Levels of Participation and Relationship. Formation. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 53(4), 372-394.
8. Dubois, E., Minaeian, S., Paquet-Labelle, A., & Beaudry, S. (2020). Who to Trust on Social Media: How Opinion Leaders and Seekers Avoid Disinformation and Echo Chambers. Social Media+ Society, 6(2).
9. Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 320-326.
10. Glaser, D., & Hastings, R. H. (2011). An introduction to multilevel modeling for anesthesiologists. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 113(4), 877-887.
11. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A. & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of advertising, 29(3), 43-54.
12. Hakim, C. (2011). Erotic capital: The power of attraction in the boardroom and the bedroom. Basic books.
13. Hong, W-S. (2014). Reexamination of the Internet Public Sphere : Communication and Universal Pragmatism. Communication Theories, 10(4), 263-300.
14. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion.
15. Hwang, J., Rhee, J-W. (2014). Who is Leading on Tweeter? : The Effects of Communicator and Message Properties on Opinion Leadership. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies. 58(5), 5-35
16. Jamieson, K. H. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age: The transformation of political speechmaking. Oxford University Press.
17. Jamieson, K. H. (1993). Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. Oxford University Press on Demand.
18. 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.
19. Jang, Y-J., Kim, H-S., Rhee, J-W. (2009). Individual Differences in the Influence of Learning Public Speech and Debate. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 53(4), 183-200.
20. Kang., S-J. (2016). Multilevel Analysis. Seoul: Hakjisa
21. Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78.
22. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
23. Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials: One American in ten tells the other nine how to vote, where to eat, and what to buy. Simon and Schuster.
24. Kim, D-Y., Kim, W-G., Jo, M-G. (2015). Online Opinion Leader and Opinion Expression of Users in SNS Mediated Political Communication. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society. 32(3), 123-170.
25. Kim, H-S., Rhee, J-W.(2007). Discursive Characteristics of the Internet Political Discussion. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 51(4), 356-384.
26. Kim, J., & Song, H. (2016). Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 570-577.
27. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. NY: Columbia Univ. Press.
28. Lee, H-Y. (2012). Network Social Movements in Digital Age and Candle-Lights Demonstration of 2008. ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, 93, 244-274.
29. Lee, W., Cha, M., Yang, H. (2011). Network Properties of Social Media Influentials : Focusing on the Korean Twitter Community. Journal of Communication Research, 48(2), 44-79.
30. Lyons, B., & Henderson, K. (2005). Opinion leadership in a computer‐mediated environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(5), 319-329.
31. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. The handbook of social psychology, 233-346.
32. Neyman, J. (1992). On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. In Breakthroughs in Statistics (pp. 123-150). Springer, New York, NY.
33. Nho, M-W. (2012). Korea’s Popular Celebrity Twitter Users and Celebrity Culture. Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society, 29(4), 95-143
34. Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures (Vol. 1). SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
35. Ognyanova, K. (2017). Multistep flow of communication: Network effects. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-10.
36. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
37. O'keefe, D. J. (2015). Persuasion. 3rd edition, The International Encyclopedia of Communication.
38. Oueslati, W., Arrami, S., Dhouioui, Z., & Massaabi, M. (2021). Opinion leaders' detection in dynamic social networks. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 33(1)
39. Park, C. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641-1648.
40. Park, M-K., Lee, G. (2011). Analysis of Online Opinion Leaders’ Discourse Patterns : Regarding Leading Opinion about ‘Sejong City’ Posted on Agora, the Discussion Board of the Portal Daum. Journal of Communication Research, 48(1), 114-149.
41. Rhee, J-W. (2001). The Ethical Dimension of Persuasion - Gorgias vs. Socrates. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies. 45(2), 349-386.
42. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.
43. Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. Penguin.
44. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations(5th ed.). Simon and Schuster.
45. Rojek, C. (2012). Fame attack: The inflation of celebrity and its consequence. A&C Black.
46. Street, J. (2004). Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation. The British journal of politics and international relations, 6(4), 435-452.
47. Street, J. (2012). Do celebrity politics and celebrity politicians matter?. The British journal of politics and international relations, 14(3), 346-356.
48. Tilly, C. (1979). Social movements and national politics. University of Michigan.
49. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535.
50. Turner, G. (2004). Understanding Celebrity. Sage.
51. Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of consumer research, 34(4), 441-458.
52. Weimann, G. (1991). The influentials: back to the concept of opinion leaders? Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 267-279.
53. Weimann, G. (1994). The influentials: People who influence people. SUNY Press.
54. Weimann, G., Tustin, D. H., Van Vuuren, D., & Joubert, J. (2007). Looking for opinion leaders: Traditional vs. modern measures in traditional societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 173-190.
55. Wood, M., Corbett, J., & Flinders, M. (2016). Just like us: Everyday celebrity politicians and the pursuit of popularity in an age of anti-politics. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(3), 581-598.

Web Sites
56. Daum Biographical dictionary http://100.daum.net/book/651/list?sort=name
57. Korea Wikepedia https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/

부록
1. 강상진. (2016). 다층모형. 서울: 학지사
2. 김규성. (2005). 표본의 대표성과 추정의 효율성. 조사연구, 6(1), 39-62.
3. 김동윤, 김위근, 조민규. (2015). 소셜미디어에서 온라인 의견지도자와 이용자의 의견표명. <사이버커뮤니케이션학보>, 32(3), 123-170.
4. 김지윤, 강충구. (2014). 여론조사의 대표성: 표집과 조사방식에 대한 연구. 평화연구, 22(2), 360-397.
5. 김현석, 이준웅. (2007). 인터넷 정치 토론의 담론적 특성. <한국언론학보>, 51(4), 356-384.
6. 노명우. (2012). 유명인의 ‘인기 트위터’와 셀러브리티 문화. 사이버커뮤니케이션 학보, 29(4), 95-143
7. 박민경, 이건호. (2011). 온라인 오피니언 리더의 담론 유형 탐구. <언론정보연구>, 48(1), 114-149.
8. 안차수. (2014). 유명인의 사회적 발언과 이슈 지지 효과. <언론과학연구>, 14(2), 184-219.
9. 이원태, 차미영, 양해륜. (2011). 소셜미디어 유력자의 네트워크 특성. <언론정보연구>, 48(2), 44-79.
10. 이준웅. (2001). 설득의 윤리적 문제. <한국언론학보>, 45(2), 349-386.
11. 이항우. (2012). 네트워크 사회운동과 하향적 집합행동. <경제와 사회>, 93호, 244-274.
12. 장윤재, 이준웅, 김현석. (2009). 공공화법과 토론교육 효과의 개인차. <한국언론학보>, 53(4), 183-200.
13. 장현미. (2014). SNS에서 글쓰기가 공감경험과 친사회행동에 미치는 효과. <한국언론학>, 58(3), 5-35.
14. 최윤정. (2009). 온라인 커뮤니티 속 오피니언 리더 집단 검증. <한국언론학보>, 53(4), 372-394.
15. 홍원식. (2014). 인터넷 공론장 돌아보기. <커뮤니케이션 이론>, 10(4), 263-300.
16. 황현정, 이준웅. (2014). 누가 어떻게 트위터에서 영향력을 행사하는가?: 커뮤니케이터 속성과 메시지 속성이 의견지도력(Opinion leadership)에 미치는 효과. <한국언론학보>, 58(5), 5-35.