Page 1

Articles

Parasocial Romance: A Social Exchange Perspective

Aimee Adam*a, Brittany Sizemoreb

[a] Department of Psychology, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, Indiana, United States. [b] Department of Psychology, Bowling

Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, United States.

Abstract

Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships that people hold with media figures. Although it has been previously demonstrated that

people often feel strong friendships with people that they have never met, parasocial romantic attachments have not been well-studied. In the

current study, we examined reasons why people form parasocial romances from a social exchange perspective by surveying participants on

perceived costs and benefits of both real-life and parasocial romantic relationships (PSROMs), and on the strength of their PSROMs. We

found that participants who reported stronger PSROMs also reported greater perceived benefits (relative to costs) of PSROMs, and that these

benefits are surprisingly similar to those received from real-life relationships (RLRs). The results suggest that parasocial relationships are

formed for similar reasons as real-life relationships, but that there are some unique costs associated with PSROMs. This research helps to

explain why people form romantic attachments with media characters.

Keywords: parasocial relationships, romantic relationships, social exchange

Interpersona, 2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25, doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Received: 2012-12-01. Accepted: 2013-05-27. Published: 2013-06-28.

*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Indiana University Southeast, School of Social Sciences - Crestview (CV), 4201 Grant Line Rd.

New Albany, IN 47150, United States. E-mail: asedison@ius.edu

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

Parasocial relationships (PSRs) are one-sided, perceived friendships with media figures (Horton & Wohl, 1956).

These attachments can be with real-life celebrities, the fictional characters portrayed by actors, or even cartoon

or animated characters. Like real-life social relationships, PSRs can involve strong emotional attachments, and

grief upon dissolution (Cohen, 2003), which is, perhaps, unsurprising. For example, Americans age 15 and older

spend 2.8 hours per day on average watching television (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2012), and thus may spend more time viewing characters from their favorite TV shows than with their real-life

friends and family members. However, researchers still do not fully understand why people form close relationships

that lack reciprocity. The purpose of the current study was to examine the possible benefits received from these

relationships to help answer the question of why people form perceived relationships with celebrities and fictional

characters.

PSRs versus Real-Life Relationships

Although perceived friendships with media figures that one will never meet or that don’t actually exist might be

considered strange to some, it is apparent that PSRs are common and can be viewed as an extension of real-life

social relationships (Giles, 2002). The development of PSRs may actually be quite similar to the development of

real-life relationships (RLRs). Factors that influence real-life interpersonal attraction are also related to PSRs.

Common determinants of interpersonal attraction include perceived similarity (Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968;

Interpersona | An International Journal on Personal Relationships

interpersona.psychopen.eu | 1981-6472

Sheffield & Byrne, 1967), and attractiveness (Byrne et al., 1968), which are variables that have also been

demonstrated to influence PSRs. For example, PSR strength is related to perceived physical attractiveness of

characters (Eyal & Cohen, 2006; Rubin & McHugh, 1987) and perceived similarity to characters (Turner, 1993).

In addition, people also respond to the loss of their favorite characters (the character leaves the program or the

show is taken off the air) similarly to the loss of close real-life relationships (Cohen, 2003; Cohen, 2004; Eyal &

Cohen, 2006). As Cohen (2003) suggests, although the physical aspect present in RLRs may be missing in PSRs,

these types of relationships share many of the emotional aspects of RLRs. However, most research on PSRs has

focused on parasocial friendships with media figures. Although Horton and Wohl (1956) proposed a variety of

PSRs, very little research has looked at other types of relationships with media figures, such as romantic attach-

ments.

Parasocial Romance

Although interest in PSRs is growing, little research has focused on romantic PSRs, or what we call parasocial

romances (PSROMs). Romantic relationships are characterized by positive affect or passion, commitment and

physical intimacy in a reciprocal relationship (Moss & Schwebel, 1993; Sternberg, 1986). PSROMs are also

characterized by physical attraction, commitment and positive affect, and lack only reciprocity. Tuchakinsky (2010)

suggests that PSROMs are indeed similar to real-life romantic attachments, in that both are generally based on

physical or sexual attraction, marked by a need for physical and emotional closeness, and accompanied by intense

emotions. However, unlike real-life romances, PSROMs are formed with media figures.

PSROMs do not appear to be a new phenomenon; an example was described in Horton and Wohl’s (1956) ori-

ginal article. The Lonesome Gal, the star of a self-titled radio program aired in 1951, received offers of marriage

from thousands of listeners (Horton & Wohl, 1956). The willingness of thousands of listeners to propose marriage

to a complete stranger, known only by her voice, might indicate that these listeners had strong romantic feelings

toward The Lonesome Gal. More recently, the incredible popularity of the Twilight movie series and the extreme

romantic attachment of some fans to characters from these series, indicates that people can, and do, form strong

romantic relationships with media figures, as well as friendships. Indeed, parasocial romances may be quite

common. These examples also suggest that PSROMs can be formed not only with real-life celebrities, but fictional

characters (e.g., Edward from Twilight) as well. However, the research on why people might form either friendships

or parasocial romantic attachments is still unclear. Loneliness was originally proposed to be the driving force behind

parasocial attachments, but was not found to be correlated with parasocial relationship strength (Rubin, Perse,

& Powell, 1985). However, the ability of a media figure to provide company when lonely is only one of the many

possible benefits that people may receive from relationships with those figures. In the current study, other possible

benefits of PSROMs with media figures were explored from a social exchange perspective.

Social Exchange

Social exchange theory suggests that people form and maintain relationships based on what benefits or resources

those relationships can bring them (Blau, 1964). Love, status, information, money, goods, and services have been

identified as basic exchangeable resources in general social relationships (Foa & Foa, 1976), although resources

exchanged in romantic partnerships are acknowledged to be more specific and include sex and companionship

(Sedikides, Oliver, & Campbell, 1994; Sprecher, 1985). In general, social relationships are pursued when the

transaction of benefits is rewarding to both parties. When pursuing relationships, people maximize relationship

benefits while minimizing relationship costs (Rusbult, 1980; Sprecher, 1998). Social exchange theory has been

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

13

used to predict commitment in intimate relationships. Commitment increases with increases in relationship satis-

faction, which is based in part on perceived benefits of that relationship (Rusbult, 1983).

For both men and women, commonly identified benefits of real-life romantic relationships include companionship,

sexual gratification, and feelings of love and intimacy (Sedikides et al., 1994). However, romantic relationships

are acknowledged to come at a price; commonly perceived costs of real-life relationships include stress and worry

about the relationship, loss of freedom to socialize with other friends and family members, loss of independence

or self-esteem, loss of time and other resources (such as money), and the impact of these losses on other aspects

of life (Sedikides et al., 1994).

From a social exchange perspective, parasocial relationships are formed because people derive benefits from

them, as with any other relationship, which outweigh any perceived costs. However, it is unknown whether the

costs and benefits that PSROMs provide are similar to those of real-life relationships. Specific costs, such as loss

of time and loss of money, and certain benefits, such as companionship, seem to be more applicable to PSRs;

however, certain benefits, such as sexual gratification, and certain costs, such as stress and worry over the rela-

tionship, seem less applicable to PSROMs. This leads to our first research question:

RQ1: How do perceived benefits and costs of PSROMS compare to perceived costs and benefits of RLRs?

A social exchange perspective would also predict that as with real-life relationships, parasocial relationships are

formed and maintained because the benefits that are offered outweigh any costs of the relationship, and that the

more benefits derived from a relationship, the stronger or more committed that relationship should be (Rusbult,

1983). This may be particularly true for parasocial relationships, assuming that costs of the relationship are relatively

minimal. Thus, we predicted that:

H1: PSROM benefits will be positively correlated to PSROM strength

Other Predictors of PSROMs

Sex. Sex differences in the strength of PSRs have previously been examined. However, although some research

has found that women experience stronger parasocial relationships than men (Cohen, 1997; Cohen, 2003; Eyal

& Cohen, 2006), other research has found no sex differences (e.g., Cole & Leets, 1999; Schmid & Klimmt, 2011;

Tian & Hoffner, 2010; Turner, 1993). One explanation for these conflicting findings may be the type of parasocial

relationship explored. For example, Greenwood and Long (2011) found no sex difference in PSRs for opposite-

sex media figures, but found that women reported stronger PSRs for same-sex media figures. Sex differences in

the strength of PSRs may be related to whether these relationships represent friendships or romantic attachments.

This leads to our second research question:

RQ2: Do men and women differ in PSROM strength?

It has also been shown that men and women perceive costs and benefits of real-life romantic relationships differently.

Women rank intimacy and increased self-growth, self-understanding, and self-esteem as significantly more important

benefits of real-life romantic relationships than men, but men rank sexual gratification as a more important benefit

of RLRs than women (Sedikides et al., 1994). Men and women also rank the costs of RLRs differently. Women

are more likely to perceive loss of personal identity and innocence as more serious costs of romantic relationships,

whereas men rank monetary loss as more important (Sedikides et al., 1994). Better understanding sex differences

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

14

in perceived costs and benefits of PSROMs might help researchers to better explain why people form parasocial

attachments. This leads to our third research question:

RQ3: Do men and women perceive the benefits and costs of PSROMs differently?

Dating Status. Although few studies have investigated the impact of dating status on PSRs, it seems reasonable

that romantic parasocial attachments would be more satisfactory for those lacking a real-life romantic relationship,

because the relative benefits would be greater compared to those who are already in relationships. Although

Cohen (1997) found no overall difference in the strength of PSRs between single and dating participants, the focus

of this study was on favorite television characters, which could have reflected either romantic or friendly parsocial

relationships. On the other hand, Greenwood and Long (2011) found that single participants had more intense

PSRs with opposite-sex media figures than did those who were dating, which may have indicated romantic attach-

ments. This leads us to our second hypothesis:

H2: Single participants will have stronger PSROMs than participants who were in real-life romantic relationships.

Social exchange theory might suggest that single participants would be more likely to form opposite-sex PSRs

because perceived benefits of these relationships would be greater than for dating participants. However, it is

unknown if costs and benefits would be perceived differently for single vs. dating participants. This leads to our

next research question:

RQ4: How does relationship status affect perceptions of costs and benefits of PSROMs?

Finally, we have previously acknowledged that little research has focused on romantic PSRs. In addition, little

research has examined differences in the types of parasocial relationships that can be formed. As Giles (2002)

acknowledged, PSRs can be formed with real-life celebrities, fictional fantasy characters, or even cartoon characters,

but the qualitative differences in these relationships has not yet been explored. This dimension of a media figure’s

identity is described as authenticity (Giles, 2002), and the degree of authenticity of a relationship may influence

multiple aspects of the relationship. In particular, it is unknown whether or not the authenticity of the relationship

would be related to relationship strength. This leads to our final research question:

RQ5: Is the strength of the PSROM related to the degree of authenticity of the relationship?

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 86 undergraduate college students (44 women, 41 men) from a medium-sized regional

university in the Midwestern United States. One participant did not identify his/her sex. Participants’ ages ranged

from 18 to 36 (M = 20.45 years, SD = 3.87 years). The majority of participants were Caucasian. Less than half of

participants identified as single (n = 35), while the rest reporting being in a relationship (n = 51).

Procedure

Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from psychology classes and received extra-credit for

their participation. Study procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. College students

were thought to be appropriate for this study as frequent consumers of television and movies. Printed surveys

were administered to participants in a class-room setting during regularly scheduled class times. Surveys contained

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

15

questions regarding perceived costs and benefits of participants’ real-life relationships, perceived costs and benefits

of participants’ parasocial relationships, parasocial relationship strength, and demographic information.

Measures

Parasocial relationships. Participants were asked to think of a favorite media character that they personally

found physically attractive, and to describe what media outlet (i.e., what movie, television show, etc.) that figure

was known from. These instructions are similar to those used by other researchers in the area of parasocial rela-

tionships (e.g., Cohen, 1997).

Eighty-two of the 86 participants identified a favorite media figure that they found physically attractive (the four

who did not were dropped from analyses). The most commonly cited media figures included Jacob Black (n = 7),

Edward Cullen (n = 6), and Bella Swan (n = 4), all fictional characters from the Twilight movie series. Another

commonly identified media figure was identified both as herself, Megan Fox (n = 4) and as her character from the

Transformers series (n = 2). Jessica Alba (an actress) and the fictional character Jackie from That 70s Show were

each identified twice; no other media figure was mentioned more than once.

After identifying their media figure, participants completed the Multiple Parasocial Relationships Scale (the MPRS;

Tuchakinsky, 2010) regarding this media figure. This scale was developed to distinguish between parasocial

friendships and parasocial romantic attachments. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements

such as “I would be able to count on X in times of need” and “For me, X could be the ideal romantic partner” on

five-point Likert scales (the complete list of items and their means and standard deviations are presented in Table

1).

In the current study, ten questions taken from the MPSR (Tuchakinsky, 2010) that were related to romance were

averaged to create a composite PSROM score between 1 and 5, which represented the intensity of a participant's

romantic attachment, both emotional and physical, to their identified media figure. The same was done for the 12

items for the parasocial friendship subscale. Higher scores indicated either greater PSROMs or parasocial

friendships. For PSROMs, scores ranged from 1 to 5, with an average score of 3.19 (SD = .83). Inter-item reliab-

ilities were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α = .89). For parasocial friendships, scores ranged from 1 to 4.8,

with an average of 2.90 (SD = .96, α = .93). We used a paired-samples t-test to compare scores on these subscales.

Scores on the PSROM subscale were significantly higher than scores on the parasocial friendship subscale, t(81)

= 3.48, p = .001. The higher score on the PSROM subscale of the MPRS indicates that participants were, as in-

structed, reporting on a parasocial romantic attachment.

Costs and benefits. Participants were asked to think about their current or last relationship partner. Using five-

point Likert scales, participants rated their level of agreement with 17 statements of perceived relationship costs

and benefits, such as “When I spend time with X, I don’t feel so alone.” The 17 statement items were previously

identified as important benefits or costs of romantic relationships (Sedikides et al., 1994). Other possible benefits

included sexual gratification, increased happiness and elevated mood, increased understanding of one’s self and

of romantic relationships, perceived control in a relationship, and the unique fulfillment of needs by that relationship.

Possible costs of romantic relationships included the loss of time spent in other relationships, loss of time and

money, loss of self-esteem and privacy, increased stress, and increased worry about the possible loss of the ro-

mantic relationship.

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

16

Table 1

The Multiple Parasocial Relationships Scale

Mean (SD)

Parasocial Friendship Items

I could reveal negative things about myself honestly and fully (deeply) to him/her.

(1.24)

2.46

Sometimes, I wish I knew what X would do in my situation.

(1.22)

2.46

I could reveal positive things about myself honestly and fully (deeply) to him/her.

(1.31)

3.26

Sometimes, I wish I could ask X for advice.

(1.33)

2.62

I think X could be a friend of mine.

(1.16)

3.63

I would be able to count on X in times of need.

(1.30)

2.34

I would give him/her emotional support.

(1.30)

3.30

X would be able to count on me in times of need.

(1.32)

3.43

I would will to share my possessions with him/her.

(1.36)

3.06

I could trust him/her completely.

(1.31)

2.48

I could have a warm relationship with him/her.

(1.23)

3.20

I want to promote the well-being of X.

(1.32)

3.07

Parasocial Romance Items

I find X very attractive physically.

(.88)

4.46

I think X is quite handsome/pretty.

(.82)

4.55

X is very sexy.

(1.11)

4.28

X fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomeness.

(1.14)

3.96

I want X physically, emotionally, mentally.

(1.38)

2.88

For me, X could be the perfect romantic partner.

(1.43)

2.91

Sometimes I think that X and I are just meant for each other.

(1.19)

2.01

I wish X could know my thoughts, my fears, and my hopes.

(1.04)

1.89

X influences my mood.

(1.29)

2.22

I adore X.

(1.39)

2.68

Scores for the eight perceived benefits of RLRs and PSROMs were averaged for each type of relationship. The

average benefits score for RLRs was 3.68 (SD = .84; α = .89). For PSROMs, the average benefits score was 2.11

(SD = .81; α = .86).

Scores for the nine perceived costs of both RLRs and PSROMS were also averaged for each type of relationship.

The average perceived relationship costs score for RLRs was 2.80 (SD = .73; α = .74). For PSROMs, the average

costs score was 1.40 (SD = .65; α = .92).

Results

RQ1: How do perceived benefits and costs of PSROMS compare to perceived costs and benefits of RLRs?

We first examined differences in perceived benefits between PSROMs and real-life romantic relationships. The

results of a paired-samples t-test indicated that the average perceived benefits score for PSROMS (M = 2.11, SD

= .81) was significantly lower than for RLRs (M = 3.68, SD = .84); t(81) = 11.29, p < .001. For both RLRs and

PSROMs, however, participants rated benefits similarly. Top benefits for both types of relationships included in-

creased happiness, decreased loneliness, and feeling better after interacting with the person or character (see

Table 2). These items also mirrored the most important benefits of romantic relationships identified in previous

research (Sedikides et al., 1994).

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

17

Table 2

Perceived Benefits of Real-Life Relationships (RLRs) and Parasocial Romances (PSROMs)

PSROM

RLR

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Benefit

Makes me happy

(1.21)

2.84

(1.05)

4.27

Makes me not feel alone

(1.31)

2.55

(.98)

4.17

Makes me feel better

(1.32)

2.51

(1.02)

4.01

Is sexually gratifying

(1.20)

2.31

(1.17)

3.87

Helps me learn about relationships

(1.13)

1.99

(1.14)

3.74

Fulfills needs that can’t be met by other people

(.92)

1.44

(1.39)

3.62

Helps me understand myself

(1.20)

1.93

(1.24)

3.44

Do what I want them to

(.84)

1.41

(1.09)

2.23

We found that the average perceived costs score for PSROMS (M = 1.39, SD = .65) was also significantly lower

than for RLRs (M = 2.80, SD = .73); t(81) = 12.45, p < .001. However, the individual perceived costs of RLRs and

PSROMs differed greatly (see Table 3).

For real-life relationships, the top perceived costs included less time to date others, having less time in general

due to the relationship, and added stress about the relationship, which again closely mirrored previous findings

(Sedikides et al., 1994). For PSROMs, however, the top perceived costs included making the participant feel

worse about himself or herself, spending less time with friends and family, and having less time in general. Although

people perceive similar benefits of PSROMs compared to RLRs, the costs of PSROMs appear to be different from

those incurred in RLRs.

H1: PSROM benefits will be positively correlated to PSROM strength

Although the majority of people in this study (95%) did identify a favorite media character they found physically

attractive, the intensity of their relationship with their character varied. Social exchange theory would predict that

the more benefits and fewer costs perceived with PSROMs, the more intense or stronger the romantic attachment

with media figures should be. The benefit-to-cost ratio was calculated for PSROMs by dividing participants’ average

perceived benefits score by their average perceived costs score, and we examined the correlation between this

ratio and PSROM strength. Strength of PSROMs was indeed positively correlated with the benefit-to-cost ratio

for PSROMs, r(80) = .46, p < .001. Hypothesis 1 was supported. PSROMs were stronger for participants who

also perceived greater benefits (relative to costs) of that relationship.

We used correlations to explore which perceived benefits of PSROMs were associated with stronger PSROMs

to better understand the reasons why people form PSROMs. Strength of PSROMs was significantly, positively

correlated to all benefits except for “I like X because they do what I want them to do” (see Table 4). The benefits

that had the strongest correlations with PSROM strength included feelings of happiness and companionship,

feeling better about one’s self, and sexual gratification.

RQ2: Do men and women differ in PSROM strength?

One goal of the current study was to investigate whether there was a sex difference in the strength of romantic

parasocial relationships. An independent-samples t-test was used to analyze sex differences in mean PSROM

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

18

Table 3

Perceived Costs of Real-Life Relationships (RLRs) and Parasocial Romances (PSROMs)

PSROM

RLR

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Cost

Less time dating other people

(.83)

1.38

(1.51)

3.68

Loss of time in general

(.85)

1.48

(1.28)

3.66

Stress about relationship

(.79)

1.35

(1.32)

3.37

Less time with friends and family

(.93)

1.52

(1.30)

3.23

Less money

(.89)

1.39

(1.33)

2.60

Worry about end of relationship

(.68)

1.26

(1.35)

2.45

Less privacy

(.68)

1.26

(1.14)

2.27

Makes me feel worse about self

(.93)

1.54

(1.15)

1.96

Loss of control

(.86)

1.38

(1.08)

1.95

Table 4

Correlations between PSROM Strength and Perceived Benefits

B7

B6

B5

B4

B3

B2

B1

PSL

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

Not feel alone (B1)

.60***

-

-

-

-

-

1

Sexual grat. (B2)

.35**

.50***

-

-

-

-

1

Makes me happy (B3)

.59***

.56***

.62***

-

-

-

1

Understand Relations (B4)

.33**

.07

.48***

.30**

-

-

1

Understand self (B5)

.72***

.42***

.12

.53***

.22

-

1

Feel better (B6)

.50***

.39***

.76***

.53***

.55***

.57***

1

Do what I want (B7)

.25*

.49***

.53***

.22*

.17

.32**

.15

Fulfills needs (B8)

.59***

.41***

.59***

.42***

.34**

.24*

.47***

.24*

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

scores. There was no difference in the strength of PSROMs between men (n = 38, M = 3.02, SD = .84) and women

(n = 44, M = 3.33, SD = .82); t(80) = -1.68, p = .098. On average, men and women appear to have equally strong

romantic PSRs.

RQ3: Are there sex differences in perceived benefits and costs of PSROMs?

We also wanted to know if, as with real-life relationships, men and women perceived different benefits and costs

of PSROMs. We first used an independent-samples t-test to examine sex differences in average perceived benefits

and average perceived costs. There was no difference in the average benefits score between men (M = 2.09, SD

= .87) and women (M = 2.13, SD = .76); t(80) = -.24, p = .816. There was also no difference in the average perceived

costs of PSROMs between men (M = 1.43, SD = .71) and women (M = 1.36, SD = .59); t(80) = .50, p = .621.

We further explored any possible sex differences in ratings of specific benefits and costs using individual inde-

pendent-samples t-tests. There were no sex differences in any perceived benefits of PSROMs (see Table 5), and

only one significant sex difference in perceived costs of PSROMs between men and women (see Table 6). As a

whole, men and women appear to derive similar benefits from and perceive similar costs of romantic parasocial

relationships.

H2: Dating status will be related to PSROM strength

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

19

Table 5

Differences in Perceived Benefits of PSROMs by Sex

Women

Men

t

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Benefit

Makes me happy

.09

-1

(1.12)

2.95

(1.34)

2.66

Makes me not feel alone

.76

-

(1.26)

2.39

(1.11)

2.18

Feel better

.40

-

(1.35)

2.59

(1.29)

2.47

Sexually gratifying

.87

(1.27)

2.43

(1.38)

2.68

Helps me learn about relationships

.09

-1

(1.18)

2.09

(1.09)

1.82

Fulfills needs that can’t be met by other people

.16

1

(.74)

1.32

(1.08)

1.55

Helps me understand myself

.24

-

(1.23)

1.93

(1.17)

1.87

Do what I want them to

.72

(.67)

1.32

(.95)

1.45

Table 6

Differences in Perceived Costs of PSROMs by Sex

Women

Men

t

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Benefit

Less time dating other people

.41

-

(.82)

1.42

(.85)

1.34

Loss of time in general

.80

-

(.85)

1.55

(.86)

1.39

Stress about relationship

.44

(.74)

1.32

(.86)

1.39

Less time with friends and family

.49

(.76)

1.48

(1.11)

1.58

Less money

.21

-

(1.00)

1.41

(.75)

1.37

Worry about end of relationship

.74

(.55)

1.20

(.81)

1.32

Less privacy

.41

(.57)

1.23

(.80)

1.29

Makes me feel worse about self

.62

(.88)

1.48

(1.00)

1.61

Loss of control

.30*

2

(.54)

1.18

(1.08)

1.61

*p < .05.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants who were single would have stronger PSROMS than would participants

who were in relationships. The results of an independent-samples t-test revealed that there was not a significant

difference in PSROM intensity between single participants (n = 34, M = 3.36, SD = .75) and participants in long-

term relationships (n = 48, M = 3.06, SD = .88); t(80) = 1.57, p = .12. This hypothesis was not supported.

RQ4: How does relationship status affect perceptions of costs and benefits of PSROMs?

This research question was about potential differences in how participants who were either single or in a real-life

romantic relationship felt about the costs and benefits of PSROMs. We conducted an independent-samples t-test

to examine relationship status differences in average perceived benefits of PSROMs. Participants who were single

reported significantly higher average benefits of PSROMs (n = 34, M = 2.38, SD = .82) than did dating participants

(n = 38, M = 1.94, SD = .76); t(78) = 2.53, p = .013. Additional independent-samples t-tests showed that single

and dating participants differed on specific benefits (see Table 7). Specifically, single participants were more likely

to feel better after interacting with their media figure, have unique needs fulfilled by that media figure, and have

increased self-understanding due to their media figure, compared to dating participants.

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

20

Table 7

Perceived Benefits of PSROMs by Dating Status

Dating

Single

t

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Benefit

Makes me happy

.16

1

(1.27)

2.66

(1.10)

3.09

Makes me not feel alone

.73

1

(1.12)

2.12

(1.23)

2.57

Feel better

.65**

2

(1.25)

2.20

(1.31)

2.94

Sexually gratifying

.12

1

(1.33)

2.42

(1.22)

2.74

Helps me learn about relationships

.46

1

(1.10)

1.84

(1.16)

2.20

Helps me understand myself

.56*

2

(1.06)

1.66

(1.30)

2.31

Fulfills needs that can’t be met by other people

.41*

2

(.80)

1.24

(1.02)

1.71

Do what I want them to

.42

(.90)

1.38

(.74)

1.46

*p < .05. **p < .01.

We used an independent-samples t-test to examine dating status differences in average perceived costs of

PSROMs. There was no difference in the perceived costs of PSROMs between single participants (M = 1.52, SD

= .71) and dating participants (M = 1.31, SD = .60; t(80) = 1.44, p = .153). We also conducted multiple independent-

samples t-tests to further compare perceived costs of PSROMs for single versus dating participants (see Table

8). There were no differences in any of the perceived costs of PSROMs between single and dating participants.

RQ5: Is the strength of the PSROM related to the degree of authenticity of the relationship?

Overall, 57 participants identified fictional characters, and 23 identified real-life celebrities. The origin of the media

figures of two participants could not be determined. Interestingly, more participants identified fictional media

characters compared to real-life celebrities. In fact, two of the participants in the current study named animated

characters as their favorite media figure they found physically attractive. We used an independent samples t-test

to compare PSROM scores for real-life celebrities (more authentic) versus fictional media figures (less authentic).

There was no difference in the strength of PSROMs with fictional characters (M = 3.21, SD = .82) compared to

PSROMs with real-life celebrities (M = 3.19, SD = .90); t(78) = -.07, p = .947. This indicates that the one-sided

attachments people form to fictional characters are just as strong as those formed with actual celebrities, and the

degree of authenticity of parasocial relationships does not influence the strength of those relationships.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to try to explain why people form parasocial relationships using a social exchange

perspective. Specifically, we examined how dating status and sex might be related to perceived costs and benefits

of romantic PSRs and how these variables are related to parasocial relationship strength. The results of this study

indicate that people do perceive benefits of PSROMs and that these benefits are similarly ranked to those received

from real-life romantic relationships (see Sedikides et al., 1994). In addition, the strength of PSROMs is related

to perceived benefits, again, similarly to real-life reciprocal relationships (Rusbult, 1983). Sometimes these benefits

were surprising; for example, sexual gratification was the fourth ranked benefit of both RLRs and PSROMs, and

sexual gratification derived from PSROMs was strongly correlated with PSROM strength. These findings suggest

that parasocial relationships function similarly to real-life relationships regarding social exchange. People form

PSROMs because they perceive relationship benefits that outweigh any apparent costs.

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

21

Table 8

Perceived Costs of PSROMs by Dating Status

Dating

Single

t

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Benefit

Less time dating other people

.36

1

(.77)

1.26

(.90)

1.53

Loss of time in general

.83

1

(.66)

1.33

(1.04)

1.68

Stress about relationship

.42

1

(.73)

1.25

(.86)

1.50

Less time with friends and family

.25

1

(.82)

1.42

(1.07)

1.68

Less money

.94

(.80)

1.31

(.86)

1.50

Worry about end of relationship

.75

(.72)

1.23

(.64)

1.32

Less privacy

.42

(.72)

1.23

(.63)

1.29

Makes me feel worse about self

.15

1

(.90)

1.44

(.97)

1.69

Loss of control

.82

(.88)

1.31

(.83)

1.47

Relationship status was found to be related to certain benefits of PSROMs. Specifically, single participants were

significantly more likely than dating participants to report feeling better after interacting with their chosen media

figure, that their media figure helped them understand themselves better, and that their media figure met needs

in their lives that were unfulfilled by other relationships. These results support the conclusion drawn by Greenwood

and Long (2011) that opposite-sex (and likely romantic) parasocial relationships may compensate for absent real-

life romantic attachments. This also suggests that the benefits derived from PSROMs are different than perceived

benefits of friendly parasocial attachments. Future research could explore perceived benefits from friendly PSRs

using what is known about social exchange of resources in real-life friendships. However, relationship status was

not directly related to PSROM strength. Although being single was related to increased perceived benefits of

PSROMs, relationship status is obviously not the only factor that is related to PSROM strength. For example,

participants high in Need to Belong, a construct regarding people’s need to be around and involved with others

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) were found to have greater perceived intimacy with opposite-sex media figures only

if they were single (Greenwood & Long, 2011). Future research should examine other factors that may explain

the indirect relationship between relationship status and PSROM strength.

Although there were no differences in the ranking of the benefits received from RLRs and PSROMs, the perceived

costs differed by relationship type. Although still not perceived as a great cost of PSROMs, participants most

strongly agreed that their identified media figure sometimes made them feel worse about themselves. A possible

explanation for this finding is that there may be a degree of social comparison regarding PSROMs (Festinger,

1954). Participants may compare themselves to overly idealistic relationships or relationship partners (as are often

portrayed in the media), which may lead to feelings of self-discrepancy and dissatisfaction (Higgins, 1987). However,

if the benefits of PSROMs (and the ease with which PSROMs can be maintained) outweigh these costs, participants

may simply accept increased feelings of dissatisfaction about themselves. Future research should further explore

potential costs and possible effects of PSROMS, and the role of social comparison in forming and maintaining

these relationships.

Interestingly, the degree of authenticity of a PSROM was not related to the strength of that relationship. Most

participants (70%) identified the name of a fictional media character rather than the name of a real-life celebrity.

In addition, PSROMs with fictional characters were just as strong as those with real-life celebrities. This is an aspect

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

22

of parasocial relationships that is not well explained by the social psychology literature. Future research should

further examine how PSRs differ qualitatively based on the type of media figure (real-life or fictional).

There were some limitations to this study. First, we did not ask participants their sexual orientation – rather, we

asked participants which sex they primarily identified with, and asked them to answer questions about a favorite

media figure that they were physically attracted to. It is possible that heterosexual participants identified a physically

attractive same-sex media figure that they were not romantically attracted to, which would influence their PSROM

scores. The sample size of the current study was also small and the sample was composed of college students,

which limited the types of analyses that could be run and the generalizations that could be drawn from the results.

To address these issues, future researchers should increase and diversify the sample size and address the issue

of sexual orientation.

Another possible limitation of the current study may be the benefits statements used. The means for all perceived

PSROM benefits were low, indicating that in general, these benefits were not perceived as good reasons for at-

tachment to a media figure. However, as previously discussed, perceived benefits of PSROMs were higher for

those who had stronger PSROMs, suggesting that at least some of these benefits are involved in perceived, as

well as real, romantic relationships. On the other hand, there may be other, unexplored benefits of PSROMS that

are simply not comparable to RLRs. Future researchers may want to further explore benefits specific to PSROMs.

Finally, the role of reciprocity may be of interest to future researchers. A basic characteristic of romantic relationships

is reciprocity, or equity of exchange (Moss & Schwebel, 1993), which is thought to be lacking in parasocial rela-

tionships. Researchers have found that a lack of reciprocity or imbalance in relationships (such that one party is

overbenefitted while the other is underbenefitted) is related to dissatisfaction in the relationship (e.g., Sprecher,

2001). People may differ in their feelings of reciprocity in their PSROMs, which may influence the strength of and

satisfaction with those relationships. For example, the person with the PSROM may perceive that their identified

media figure receives financial support through merchandise expenses incurred, or emotional support through

activity such as fan letters, or other ways in which a fan may express their appreciation using technology (e.g.,

blogs, audience voting, or social media sites). These actions may be interpreted as investments in the relationship,

which could change how equitable the relationship is perceived to be, thus influencing satisfaction and commitment

(Rusbult, 1983). Future research should investigate perceptions of reciprocity and satisfaction in parasocial rela-

tionships and determine whether feelings of reciprocity relate to PSROM strength.

Conclusion

The current study contributes to the field of research on parasocial relationships. More specifically, we have helped

to clarify why people form romantic parasocial attachments. Our findings support a social exchange perspective

of parasocial relationships, suggesting that the benefits perceived from these faux relationships are similar to the

ones involved in RLRs, and that the costs are perceived to be lower. Our results also indicate that PSROM strength

is directly related to the perception of benefits. People appear to form PSROMs for the same reasons they form

real life relationships; because of the drive to maximize benefits while minimizing costs (Rusbult, 1980).

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

23

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human

motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal

attraction. Journal of Personality, 36, 259-271. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01473.x

Cohen, J. (1997). Parasocial relations and romantic attraction: Gender and dating status differences. Journal of Broadcasting

& Electronic Media, 41, 516-529. doi:10.1080/08838159709364424

Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in responses to the dissolution of parasocial

relationships. Mass Communication & Society, 6(2), 191-202. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0602_5

Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television characters: The role of attachment styles and relationship

intensity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 187-202. doi:10.1177/0265407504041374

Cole, T., & Leets, L. (1999). Attachment styles and intimate television viewing: Insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial

way. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(4), 495-511. doi:10.1177/0265407599164005

Eyal, K., & Cohen, J. (2006). When good "Friends" say goodbye: A parasocial breakup study. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 50(3), 502-523. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5003_9

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.

doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In K. T�rnblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social

resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications (pp. 15-32). New York, NY: Springer.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4,

279-305. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04

Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R. (2011). Attachment, belongingness needs, and relationship status predict imagined intimacy

with media figures. Communication Research, 38(2), 278-297. doi:10.1177/0093650210362687

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance.

Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.

Moss, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1993). Defining intimacy in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 42(1), 31-37.

doi:10.2307/584918

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human

Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Parasocial Romance

24

Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 31(3), 279-292. doi:10.1080/08838158709386664

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and

commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101-117.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101

Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy: Parasocial relationships with Harry Potter across different cultures.

International Communication Gazette, 73(3), 252-269. doi:10.1177/1748048510393658

Sedikides, C., Oliver, M. B., & Campbell, W. K. (1994). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for women and

men: Implications for exchange theory. Personal Relationships, 1, 5-21. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00052.x

Sheffield, J., & Byrne, D. (1967). Attitude similarity-dissimilarity, authoritarianism, and interpersonal attraction. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 71(1), 117-123. doi:10.1080/00224545.1967.9919772

Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 12(3-4), 449-462.

doi:10.1007/BF00287608

Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32-43.

doi:10.1080/00224499809551915

Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 599-613. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00599.x

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. (2010). Parasocial interaction and identification with liked, neutral and disliked characters. Mass

Communication & Society, 13, 250-269. doi:10.1080/15205430903296051

Tuchakinsky, R. (2010). Para-romantic love and para-friendships: Development and assessment of a multiple parasocial

relationships scale. American Journal of Media Psychology, 3(1-2), 73-94.

Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of parasocial interaction with different television performers.

Communication Quarterly, 41(4), 443-453. doi:10.1080/01463379309369904

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). American time use survey summary – 2011 results

(USDL-12-1246). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm/

Interpersona

2013, Vol. 7(1), 12–25

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Adam & Sizemore

25