JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Who are Dominant Communicators on Twitter? A Study of Korean Twitter Users
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Who are Dominant Communicators on Twitter? A Study of Korean Twitter Users
Cho, Seong Eun; Park, Han Woo;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study explores how Twitter users perceive their socio-communication attitudes as well as those who users follow. From the theoretical perspective of communication styles in interpersonal communication, this study focuses on the positions and roles of users and their partners in Twitter conversations by conducting a survey and a content analysis. The results demonstrate that the respondents tended to perceive their communication attitudes to be more passive on Twitter than in the real world. In addition, they tended to perceive that their most trusted followees were more likely to show dominant communication attitudes than they did. These results indicate that ordinary users are more likely to play a role as listeners than as speakers on Twitter while entrusting several trusted users with the role of a dominant communicator and that their perception of their own and their followees' communication styles tends to influence their actual behavior on Twitter.
 Keywords
Communication Style;Dominant;Microblog;Twitter;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Social Media for Socially Responsible Firms: Analysis of Fortune 500’s Twitter Profiles and their CSR/CSIR Ratings, Journal of Business Ethics, 2013, 118, 4, 791  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Analysis of a Korea-based Language Teacher Organization Public Social Networking Service, International Journal of Contents, 2016, 12, 2, 66  crossref(new windwow)
3.
Analysing and evaluating the task of automatic tweet generation: Knowledge to business, Computers in Industry, 2016, 78, 3  crossref(new windwow)
4.
Network Analysis of East Asian Research in South Korea for the 2004-2013 Period, International Journal of Contents, 2015, 11, 1, 52  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
C. L. Hsu & H. W. Park, "Sociology of Hyperlink Networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A Case Study of South Korea," Social Science Computer Review, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 354-368, 2011. crossref(new window)

2.
C. L. Hsu, S. J. Park, & H. W. Park, "Identifying Influential Users on Twitter: A Case of Sejong City in South Korea," Presented at 5th Annual Conference of COREN. Seoul: Chung-Ang University, South Korea, 2010.

3.
B. J. Jansen, K. Sobel, & G. Cook, "Classifying Ecommerce Information Sharing Behavior by Youths on Social Networking Sites," Journal of Information Science, vol. 37, pp. 120-136, 2011. crossref(new window)

4.
D. McManus, "Did tweeting topple Tunisia?," Los Angeles Times (January 23, 2011). Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/opinion/la-oemcmanus- column-tunisia-twitter-20110123, 2011.

5.
C. Honeycut & S. C. Herring, "Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter," Paper presented at the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press, 2009.

6.
G. Goggin & M. McLelland (Eds), Internationalizing Internet Studies: Beyond Anglophone Paradigms. Routledge, New York, NY. 2008.

7.
M. S. Lee & H. W. Park, "Exploring the Web Visibility of World-Class Universities," Scientometrics, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 201-218, 2012. crossref(new window)

8.
Y-O, Lee & H. W. Park, "The Reconfiguration of Ecampaign Practices in Korea: A Case Study of the Presidential Primaries of 2007," International Sociology, vol. 25, pp. 29-53, 2010. crossref(new window)

9.
H. W. Park, C. S. Kim, & G. A. Barnett, "Socio- Communicational Structure among Political Actors on the Web in South Korea: The Dynamics of Digital Presence in Cyberspace," New Media & Society, vol. 6, pp. 403-423, 2004. crossref(new window)

10.
J. K. Kim & M. J. Kim, Understanding of Digital Korean Society. Jipmondang: Seoul, Korea, 2006.

11.
B. Heil & M. Piskorski, "New Twitter Research: Men Follow Men and Nobody Tweets," Harvard Business Blog, June 1st, 2009. Available at http://blogs.hbr.org/ cs/2009/06/new_twitter_reserch_men_follo.html.

12.
Y. S. Lim & H. W. Park, "Webometric Analysis of Blog Campaign at 10.28 Assembly re-and by-Election, Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, vol. 12, pp. 539-551, 2010.

13.
Y. C. Kim & S. Y. Yoon, E-democracy: New Political Paradigm, Seoul, Korea: Oh-Rm, 2005.

14.
H. W. Park & A. J. Bae, "How 17th Members of the National Assembly Use Websites: Optimistic and Pessimistic Views of Digital Politics," Digital Communication Review, vol. 3, pp. 57-93, 2007.

15.
A. L. Hughes & L. Palen, "Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence and Emergency Events," International Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 6, pp. 248-260, 2009. crossref(new window)

16.
M. Naaman, J. Boase, & C-H. Lai, "Is it Really about Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams," CSCW'10 Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 2010.

17.
W. J. Ng & B. H. Detenber, "The Impact of Synchronicity and Civility in Online Political Discussions on Perceptions and Intentions to Participate," Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, Vol. 10, available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/ng.html, 2005.

18.
M. J. Kim & H. W. Park, "Measuring Twitter-Based Political Participation and Deliberation in the South Korean Context by Using Social Network and Triple Helix Indicators," Scientometrics, vol. 90, no. 1, 2012, pp. 121-140. crossref(new window)

19.
M. Castells, Communication power. NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.

20.
L. M. Humphreys, B. Krishnamurthy, & P. Gill, "How Much is Too Much? Privacy Issues on Twitter," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre, Suntec City, Singapore, 2010.

21.
D. Boyd , S. Golder, & G. Lotan, "Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. HICSS-43. IEEE: Kauai, HI, vol. 6, pp. 1-10, 2010.

22.
A. E. Marwick & D. Boyd, "I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience," New Media & Society (online version), 2010, pp. 1-20.

23.
J. Comm, "Twitter Power 2.0: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time," Wiley, 2010.

24.
A. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959.

25.
B. K. Koo, "Netizens Comment on MB's thinking of Twitter Use," Hankyoreh, June 19th, 2009. Available at http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/3613 13.html, 2009.

26.
H. S. Song, "Defeated by SNS, Noting Positive Participation of Mobile Generation in Election," News finder, April, 28th, 2011. Available at http://inde1. mynews3.kr/news/article.html?no=3736.

27.
B. S. Son, "The Remarkable Growth of Korean Twitter Users for One Year," The KyunghyangSinmum, January 18, 2011. Available at http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=2011011816433 91&code=930100.

28.
Chun, K. Y. (2011). Na Kyung Won was defeated in the outcome of retweets, Sisain, November 1, 2011. Available at http://www.sisainlive.com/news/article View.html?idxno=11482.

29.
Y. H. Chang & J. G. Park, "Adoption Model of Microblog: An Integrated Approach to Media Adoption Studies," The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies, vol. 54, no. 5, 2010, pp. 32-5.

30.
S. Lee & G. Nai, "Audience Activity in Micro-Blog: Exploring Production Activity in Twitter and Me2day," Korean Association for Broadcasting & Telecommu nication Studies, vol. 73, 2010, pp. 171-200.

31.
A. Smith, "13% of Online Adults Use Twitter: Half of Twitter Users Access the Service on the Go via Mobile Phone," Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. Available at http://pewInternet.org/ Reports/2011/ Twitter-Update-2011.aspx, 2011.

32.
R. W. Norton, "Foundation of a Communicator Style Construct," Human Communication Resarch, vol. 4, 1978, pp. 99-112. crossref(new window)

33.
A. P. Rovai, "The relationships of communicator style, personality-based learning style, and classroom community among online graduate students," Internet and Higher Education, vol. 6, 2003, pp. 347-363. crossref(new window)

34.
R. E. Rice, S. J. Chang, & J. Torobin, "Communicator Style, Media Use, Organizational Level, and Use and Evaluation of Electronic Messaging," Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 6, 1992, pp. 3-33. crossref(new window)

35.
Y. Hwang, & H. J. Shim, "Opinion Leadership on Twitter and Twitter Use: Motivations, and Patterns of Twitter Use and Case Study of Opinion Leaders on Twitter," Journal of Korean Association for Broadcasting & Telecommunication Studies, vol. 24, 2010, pp. 365-403.

36.
J. H. Kim, G. A. Barnett, & H. W. Park, "A Hyperlink and Issue Network Analysis of the United States Senate: A Rediscovery of Web as a Relational and Topical Medium," Journal of American Society for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61, 2010, pp. 1598-1611.

37.
J. K. Burgoon, M. L. Johnson, & P. T. Koch, "The Nature and Measurement of Interpersonal Dominance," Communication Monographs, vol. 65, 1998, pp. 308- 335. crossref(new window)

38.
J. K. Burgoon & N. E. Dunbar, "An Interactionist Perspective on Dominance-Submission: Interpersonal Dominance as a Dynamic, Situationally Contingent Social Skill," Communication Monographs, vol. 67, 2000, pp. 96-121. crossref(new window)

39.
M. Schimid-Mast, "Dominance as Expressed and Inferred through Speaking Time: A Meta-Analysis," Human Communication Research, vol. 28, 2002, pp. 420-450.

40.
S. Kiesler, J. Siegel, & T. W. McGuire, "Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication," American Psychologist, vol. 39, 1984, pp. 1123-1134. crossref(new window)

41.
J. B. Walther & U. Bunz, "The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer- Mediated Communication," Journal of Communication, vol. 55, 2005, pp. 828-846. crossref(new window)

42.
U. Matzat, "Disciplinary Differences in the Use of Internet Discussion Groups: Differential Communication Needs or Trust Problems?" Journal of Information Science, vol. 35, No. 5, 2009, pp. 613-631. crossref(new window)

43.
J. Peña, J. B. Walther, & J. T. Hancock, "Effects of Geographic Distribution on Dominance Perceptions in Computer-Mediated Groups," Communication Research, vol. 34, 2007, pp. 313-331. crossref(new window)

44.
S-M. Ko, B-H. Hwang, & Y-G. Ji, "A Study on Social Network Service and Online Social Capital: Focusing on a Korean and Chinese Case," The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2010, pp. 103- 118.

45.
B. Hogan, "The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 30, 2010, pp. 377-386. crossref(new window)

46.
J. B. Walther, "Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction, Communication Research, vol. 23, 1996, pp. 3-13.

47.
J. B. Walther & M. R. Parks, "Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered In: Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

48.
G. H. Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001.

49.
E. T. Hall, Beyond Culture, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1976.

50.
Y. C. Hwang & W. C. Shiau, "A Study on Trends of Social Network Services and Applications: A Review from 2000 to 2009 on SpringerLink Presented 2011 e- CASE & e-Tech International Conference. January 18- 20, 2011, Toshi Center Hotel, Tokyo, Japan.

51.
H. F. Kaiser, "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, vol. 23, pp. 187-200.

52.
L. J. Cronbach, "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, vol. 16, pp. 297-334, 1951. crossref(new window)