Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67, No. 6, pp.298-323
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2023
Received 13 Aug 2023 Accepted 22 Nov 2023 Revised 27 Nov 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2023.67.6.009

대민지원활동 관련 육군 소셜미디어 게시물에서의 당위성 언급과 병사 증언이 육군 신뢰에 미치는 영향 : 심리적 저항과 육군에 대한 기존 태도의 조절된 매개 모형

이정관** ; 김현석***
**서울대학교 언론정보학과 석사 wjdrhks465@gmail.com
***서울대학교 언론정보학과 부교수, 현 육군 인사사령부 대위 hyunsuk.kim@snu.ac.kr
Effects of Justification Mentions and Soldier Testimonials in Army Social Media Posts Related to Civil Support Activities on Trust in the Army : A Moderated Mediation Model of Psychological Reactance and Prior Attitudes Toward the Army
Jeong Gwan Lee** ; Hyun Suk Kim***
**Master, Department of Communication, Seoul National University, now a captain at the Republic of Korea Army Personnel Command wjdrhks465@gmail.com
***Associate Professor, Department of Communication, Seoul National University, corresponding author hyunsuk.kim@snu.ac.kr

초록

본 연구는 대민지원활동 관련 육군의 소셜미디어 게시물에서 대민지원활동의 당위성을 언급하는 것과 해당 활동에 참여한 병사의 증언을 제시하는 것이 이용자의 선택의 자유 위협 지각과 심리적 저항의 순차적 매개를 거쳐 육군에 대한 신뢰에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 검증했다. 아울러 이용자의 육군에 대한 기존 태도가 이러한 간접효과 과정을 어떻게 조절하는지 또한 탐색했다. 연구질문에 답하기 위해 2(대민지원활동 당위성: 언급 vs. 미언급) × 2(대민지원활동 참여 병사 증언: 제시 vs. 미제시) 피험자 간 요인 설계 실험을 온라인상에서 실시했다(N = 742). 연구 결과, 대민지원활동의 당위성을 명시적으로 언급한 게시물은 그렇지 않은 게시물과 비교해 수용자가 선택의 자유가 위협받는다는 지각을 덜 하게 했고, 이를 통해 심리적 저항을 감소시킴으로써 결국 육군에 대한 신뢰를 높이는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 이러한 순차적 매개 과정을 거친 간접효과는 육군에 대한 기존 태도가 부정적일수록 더욱 커지는 것으로 확인되었다. 연구 결과의 이론적·실천적 함의를 논의했다.

Abstract

This study aimed to examine how two intrinsic message features of the South Korean Army’s social media posts—the presentation of (a) a justification for the Army's involvement in civil support activities, and (b) a soldier’s testimony about such activities—indirectly affect users' trust in the Army by influencing their perceived threats to freedom of choice and, subsequently, their psychological reactance to the posts. The study also sought to explore how users’ prior attitudes toward the Army moderate these indirect effects. To this end, we conducted an online experiment using a 2 (justification mention: absent vs. present) x 2 (soldier testimonial: absent vs. present) between-subjects design. A total of 742 South Korean adults in their 20s and 30s participated in the experiment. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions, each featuring a different Instagram post promoting the Army's snow removal effort. The variations in these posts were based on (a) whether the post explained why such a civil support activity is a key mission of the Army, citing the names and numbers of the relevant law clauses, and (b) whether the post included a soldier’s personal testimonial about his experience in the activity. The results revealed that the participants who viewed an Instagram post providing justification information were less likely to perceive the post as threatening to their freedom of choice compared to those who were exposed to a post without such information. This reduction in perceived threats to freedom of choice, in turn, decreased their psychological reactance to the post, ultimately leading to an increase in trust in the Army. Furthermore, the positive indirect effect of justification mention on trust in the Army was contingent upon the participants’ prior attitudes toward the Army: the effect was statistically significant among those with unfavorable or moderate attitudes, but not among those with favorable attitudes. In contrast, the presence of a soldier’s testimonial in an Instagram post did not affect the extent to which the participants perceived the post as threatening to their freedom of choice; consequently, its indirect effect on their trust in the Army was not significant. Moreover, the effect of presenting a soldier’s testimonial did not hinge on the participants’ pre-existing attitudes toward the Army. The findings are discussed in light of their insights for both (a) theoretical implications for justification explicitness and psychological reactance, and (b) practical applications in military communication strategies on social media.

Keywords:

Justification Mention, Perceived Threats to Freedom of Choice, Psychological Reactance, Trust in the Army, Social Media

키워드:

당위성 언급, 선택의 자유에 대한 위협 지각, 심리적 저항, 육군에 대한 신뢰, 소셜미디어

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on the master’s thesis of Jeong Gwan Lee at Seoul National University(이 논문은 이정관의 서울대학교 석사학위논문의 일부를 수정‧보완한 것임). This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(이 논문은 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임): NRF-2021S1A3A2A02090597

References

  • Allen, M. (1991). Meta‐analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one‐sided and two‐sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390-404. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374395]
  • Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Briñol, P., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: The role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 83-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [https://doi.org/10.1037/t88807-000]
  • Cappella, J. N., Kim, H. S., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology, 18(3), 396-424. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.941112]
  • Chang, Y. (2013). Causes of public trust: A comparative analysis. Journal of Governmental Studies, 19(3), 189-214.
    장용진 (2013). 정부신뢰의 원인: 국가간 비교연구. <정부학연구>, 19권3호, 189-214.
  • Choi, S.-R., & Jeon, B. (2019). An analysis of influential factors on government trust: On the basis of individual trust factors. Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 19(12), 238-248.
    최성락·전별 (2019). 정부신뢰에 미치는 영향요인분석: 정부 요소 및 개인적 요소를 중심으로. <한국콘텐츠학회논문지>, 19권 12호, 238-248.
  • Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [https://doi.org/10.1037/e633872013-232]
  • Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144-168. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815]
  • Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S163-S183. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x]
  • Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691188690]
  • Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., & Linders, Y. (2020). The importance and use of normative criteria to manipulate argument quality. Journal of Advertising, 49(2), 195-201. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1663317]
  • Hornik, R. C., & Yanovitzky, I. (2003). Using theory to design evaluations of communication campaigns: The case of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Communication Theory, 13(2), 204-224. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00289.x]
  • Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
  • Keele, L. (2007). Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 241-254. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00248.x]
  • Keer, M., van den Putte, B., de Wit, J., & Neijens, P. (2013). The effects of integrating instrumental and affective arguments in rhetorical and testimonial health messages. Journal of Health Communication, 18(9), 1148-1161. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.768730]
  • Kim, H. S. (2015). Attracting views and going viral: How message features and news-sharing channels affect health news diffusion. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 512-534. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12160]
  • Kim, H. S., Bigman, C. A., Leader, A. E., Lerman, C., & Cappella, J. N. (2012). Narrative health communication and behavior change: The influence of exemplars in the news on intention to quit smoking. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 473-492. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01644.x]
  • Kim, J., & Kim, H. S. (2021). How message vividness and recommendation specificity affect diffusion and persuasion. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 65(6), 202-248.
    김지수·김현석 (2021). 메시지의 생생함과 권고 구체성이 확산과 설득에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 65권 6호, 202-248. [ https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.6.005 ]
  • Kim, M., & Cho, S. (2015). How Korean government agencies use SNS and how visitors respond? A content analysis of 18 Korean government agencies’ Facebook and visitors’ comments. Journal of Public Relations, 19(3), 1-37.
    김민경·조수영 (2015). 정부기관의 SNS 활용 및 수용자 반응 분석: 청와대와 17부 페이스북을 중심으로. <PR연구>, 19권 3호, 1-37. [ https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2015.19.3.1 ]
  • Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2013). Perceptionization study on effective communication plan of government public-relation through social network service. Advertising Research, 96, 172-193.
    김성훈·이제영 (2013). SNS를 통한 정부 홍보의 효율적 커뮤니케이션 방안에 관한 주관성 연구. <광고연구>, 96권, 172-193.
  • Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 3-9). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609816]
  • Kwon, L. S., & Yi, S. C. (2012). The study of public relations policy of the military using the social media. Journal of Social Science, 21, 125-140.
    권이섭·이승철 (2012). 소셜미디어를 이용한 군 홍보정책에 관한 연구. <사회과학연구>, 21권, 125-140.
  • Lee, S., & Moon, Y. (2013). A study on the general public’s trust in the military. Proceedings of the Annual Winter Conference of the Korean Association for Policy Studies, 2013, 1151-1169.
    이성주·문영세 (2013). 일반 국민의 대군(對軍)신뢰도 연구. <한국정책학회 동계학술발표논문집>, 2013권, 1151-1169.
  • Lee, S. C., & Kim, H. C. (2017). A study on the effects of army promotional contents on intention to apply for professional soldier. Military Research and Development, 11(2), 25-53.
    이성춘·김희철 (2017). 육군 홍보 콘텐츠가 직업군인 지원의사 결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. <군사발전연구>, 11권 2호, 25-53.
  • Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951-972. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1959140]
  • Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x]
  • O'Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35(2), 61-75. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1998.11951621]
  • O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), 209-249. [https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1999.11678963]
  • O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251-274. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x]
  • O'Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2023). Comparison conditions in research on persuasive message effects: Aligning evidence and claims about persuasiveness. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(3), 187-204. [https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2214949]
  • Park, J. W., & Kim, J. M. (2023). Effects of Army YouTube’s contents characteristics on reliability of armed forces: Contents satisfaction as mediation variable. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture, 29(1). 79-89.
    박재원·김종무 (2023). 육군 유튜브 콘텐츠 특성이 대군(對軍) 신뢰도에 미치는 영향: 콘텐츠 만족도를 매개 변인으로. <한국디자인문화학회지>, 29권 1호, 79-89. [ https://doi.org/10.18208/ksdc.2023.29.1.79 ]
  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316]
  • Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013). Reactance theory and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 167-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n11]
  • Reynolds-Tylus, T. (2019). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 56. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00056]
  • Reynolds-Tylus, T., Bigsby, E., & Quick, B. L. (2021). A comparison of three approaches for measuring negative cognitions for psychological reactance. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(1), 43-59. [https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1810647]
  • Schank, R. C., & Berman, T. R. (2002). The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 287-313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Shen, F., Sheer, V. C., & Li, R. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105-113. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467]
  • Slater, M. D. (2002). Entertainment-education and the persuasive impact of entertainment narratives. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 157-181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x]
  • StataCorp (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge university press.
  • Zuwerink Jacks, J., & Cameron, K. A. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 145-161. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5]