Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회 (World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Transnational Effects of Sharing on Social Capital among Young Adults: How the acts of sharing strengthen relationships between givers and recipients

  • Kim, Jiwon (Department of Psychology and Communication, Texas A&M International University) ;
  • Bang, Hyejin (School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Kansas)
  • 발행 : 2017.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Cross-culturally, acts of sharing are recognized as an effective method to initiate and maintain human relationships in real-life situations by promoting continuous reciprocal exchanges between donors and recipients. Specifically, this study examines the effects of sharing a media product from the perspective of the givers, as compared to effects on the receivers. "Gangnam Style," a Korean music video, is of interest because it was spontaneously shared worldwide by young adults who used it as a vehicle to build and strengthen social relationships, among young adults. While both the givers and receivers of the "Gangnam Style" benefited from bridging new relationships, the results of this study found that those who gave "Gangnam Style" benefited more in terms bonding already existing relationships, compared to those who received materials. This study provides further evidence in support of the "sender-effect" paradigm and enhances our understanding of how online sharing contributes to the construction of social capital among the young adults.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Belk, R. (2007). Why Not Share Rather than Own?. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(May), 126-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206298483
  2. Belk, R. W. & G. S. Coon (1993). Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Para-digm Based on Dating Experiences. The Journal of Consumer Research 20, 393-417. https://doi.org/10.1086/209357
  3. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological review, 74(3), 183. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835
  4. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 1-62.
  5. Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B., & Iacobucci, D. (1998). New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. Journal of advertising research, 38, 23-32.
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
  7. Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011, May). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 571-580). ACM.
  8. Choi, J., & Lee, J. K. (2015). Investigating the effects of news sharing and political interest on social media network heterogeneity. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 258-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.029
  9. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
  10. Darr, A. (2003). Gifting Practices and Inter-Organiza-tional Relations: Constructing Obligations Networks in the Electronics Sector. Sociological Forum 18(1), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022650627892
  11. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, doi:10.1177/1461444810385389
  12. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Bachmann, I., Hsu, S.H., & Brundidge, J. (2013). Expressive vs. Consumptive Blog Use: Implications for Interpersonal Discussion and Political Participation. International Journal of Communication. 7, 1538-1559.
  13. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. . https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
  14. Ha, L., & Kim, M. (2008). An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online media. International Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 569-592. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048708080153
  15. Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press
  16. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press
  17. John, N. A. (2012). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New media & society, 15(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812450684
  18. Larsen, D. & Watson, J. J. (2001). A Guide Map to the Terrain of Gift Value. Psychology and Marketing 18, 889-906. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1034
  19. Lawler, E. J., Yoon, J. & Thye, S. R. (2000). Emotion and Group Cohesion in Productive Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 106, 616-657. https://doi.org/10.1086/318965
  20. Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 3-13.
  21. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024
  22. Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
  23. Poindexter, P. M., & McCombs, M. E. (2000). Research in mass communication: A practical guide. Bedford: St Martins.
  24. Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Appli-cations in Modern Sociology, Annual Review of Sociology 24, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
  25. Putnam, R.D. (1993). The Prosperous Community - Social capital and public life, The American Prospect 4(13), 35-42,
  26. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster.
  27. Rojas, H., & Puig‐i‐Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 14(4),902-927
  28. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
  29. Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1086/208956
  30. Skageby, J. (2010). Gift-giving as a conceptual framework: framing social behavior in online networks', Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.5
  31. Shim, D. (2006). Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, Culture & Society, 26 (1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443704038203
  32. Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.003
  33. van den Hooff, B., & de Leeuw van Weenen, F. (2004). Committed to share: Commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.187
  34. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the 'net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 593-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x
  35. Yoo, S. W., Kim, J. W., & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2017). Cognitive Benefits for Senders: Antecedents and Effects of Political Expression on Social Media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654438