Page 1

Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture

Volume 38 (2019) No. 2

Parasocial Interactions and

Relationships with Media

Characters–An Inventory of 60

Years of Research

Nicole Liebers and Holger Schramm

University of W�rzburg, Germany

A QUARTERLY REVIEW OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

ISSN: 0144�4646

IN THIS

ISSUE

When the anthropologist Donald Horton and the

sociologist R. Richard Wohl published their essay on

parasocial interactions (PSI) and parasocial relation�

ships (PSR), titled “Mass Communication and Para�

Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a

Distance,” in the journal Psychiatry in 1956, they could

not have guessed that they had laid the foundation for

one of the most popular research fields in media recep�

tion and effects research. A year later, in 1957, Wohl

died at the age of 36 and, although Horton had pub�

lished another essay on PSI and PSR with his colleague

Anselm Strauss (Horton & Strauss, 1957) just before

that, the subject seemed to have died along with Wohl

(Hartmann, 2010). Beyond their working group, the

subject met with no interest and was forgotten for the

next 15 years, left to stagnate like Sleeping Beauty.

Only a change of paradigm in media effects

research—or rather, when researchers began to ask

“What do people do with the media?” and initiated

research on the uses�and�gratifications of the media—

led Rosengren and Windahl to bring the neglected con�

cept back to life in their 1972 article “Mass media con�

sumption as a functional alternative” (Rosengren &

Windahl, 1972). More specific works emerged over the

following decade, peaking with the publication of the

Parasocial Interactions (PSI) scale by Rubin, Perse, and

Powell in 1985. The scale went on to become the quasi�

standard in the measurement of parasocial phenomena

and its multiple variations and adaptions are still used

frequently today. In this article, we use the label

parasocial phenomena to summarize all different kinds

of parasocial responses of audiences to media charac�

ters (e.g., Parasocial Interactions, Parasocial Relation�

ships, Parasocial Break� ups, and so on).

Parasocial phenomena currently constitute some

of the most popular and widely researched topics with�

in the field of communication studies (Giles, 2002). By

now, not only entertainment researchers but also those

investigating advertising effectiveness and journalism

incorporate the interactions and relationships between

media characters and audience in their studies. Given

the enormous number of studies coming from different

scientific backgrounds and differing in methodological

approaches, researchers face some difficulties in get�

ting an overview on how and to what extent scholars

have investigated parasocial phenomena so far. This

essay aims to provide such an overview of research

practice in this area by structurally collecting and ana�

lyzing metadata of more than 250 studies. It addresses

the temporal development of the research field, the

types of media and media characters that people have

investigated so far, as well as the methodological

aspects of this research. Moreover, with a view to pro�

viding better understanding of the contexts of research

on parasocial phenomena, we offer a short general

view regarding the overall results and patterns of the

studies. Finally, this overview will address the limita�

tions of research on parasocial phenomena and offer

some new ideas on how to investigate parasocial phe�

nomena in the future.

4— VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Parasocial Interactions and Relationships

with Media Characters–

An Inventory of 60 Years of Research

Nicole Liebers & Holger Schramm

nicole.liebers@uni�wuerzburg.de holger.schramm@uni�wuerzburg.de

A. Definition of concepts

In the past 60 years, and especially at the

beginning of research into parasocial phenomena,

different definitions and usages of the terms

“parasocial interaction” (PSI) as well as “parasocial

relationship” (PSR) emerged that led to a broad

understanding of the construct but also to some

ambiguity. One common ambiguity in the context of

parasocial phenomena results from the definitional

equation of PSI and PSR and the—with regard to

current definitions—exchangeable use of these two

labels (e.g., Rubin et al., 1985; Sherman�Morris,

2005). Therefore, we propose the following concep�

tual clarification as an inevitable basis for the sys�

tematic inventory we propose.

Originally introduced by Horton and Wohl

(1956), the term “parasocial interaction” describes a

one�sided mediated form of social interaction

between the audience and media characters. In doing

so, they assume PSI to be similar to face�to�face

interactions between two individuals except that PSI

lacks mutuality while real social interactions feature

bidirectional communication. By assuming not only

interaction during reception but also a long�term

relation between media characters and the audience,

researchers expanded the concept of PSI to PSR.

Whereas, by definition, PSI limits itself to the inter�

action between a media character and the audience

and can therefore only take place during media

reception, PSR exceeds this limit and leads to or

encompasses cross�situational relationships between

the audience and media characters. Hence, unlike

PSI, PSR can—much like real social relationships—

endure beyond a single reception and develop into a

long�term relationship between a media user and a

media character (e.g., Schramm, 2008). This rela�

tionship between a media character and a media user

in turn can end as, for example, when the media char�

acter of a TV series suddenly dies; researchers call

this “parasocial breakup” (PSBU) (for more details

on PSBU see Cohen, 2003). All of these phenomena

(PSI, PSR, and PSBU) describe parasocial responses

of the audience to media characters; we will refer to

them as “parasocial phenomena” in the following.

B. Desideratum and research foci

Over 60 years have passed since the introduction

of the concept of parasocial phenomena by Horton and

Wohl (1956), and their original idea of audiences inter�

acting and bonding with media characters has evolved

in many ways, with scholars investigating it from

diverse perspectives. This wide scope of research on

parasocial phenomena makes it very hard to validly

assess how the research field grows and develops, and

even to determine which parasocial phenomena

researchers have investigated in which ways so far.

This essay attempts to answer some of these questions

by addressing the following research questions.

One of the first questions that arises when

attempting to get an overview of a research field is

“How much research has been done?” To better under�

stand the dynamic of the practices of research in a

given area, we need to investigate the number of stud�

ies done on the subject, as well as the topic’s develop�

ment over time. This includes, then, not only temporal

information on publications but also content�related

information. In this essay we want take a first step to

close this research gap in parasocial phenomena stud�

ies by answering questions about the development of

popular research topics over time. To do so, we will

take a closer look at the number of studies published

over time, the media contexts in which researchers

investigated parasocial phenomena, and the kind of

media characters that they studied in the context of

parasocial phenomena.

Second, after we know, as far as possible, the

temporal development of a research field as well as the

topics that occupied center stages in the studies, we

need to examine how researchers actually conducted

the research work. This leads to our second research

focus: “How was the research on parasocial phenome�

na done?” More specifically, we focus on the methods

used to investigate parasocial phenomena, the particu�

lar constructs studied, how researchers measured these

constructs, and the samples and participants

researchers used to investigate parasocial phenomena.

Finally, after determining the research foci and the

approaches, we want to take a closer look at the insights

we gained on parasocial phenomena since Horton and

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 5

1. Background

Wohl (1956) introduced this concept. Given the massive

number of studies on parasocial phenomena, addressing

every single result would go beyond the scope of this

article. Therefore, we decided to concentrate on overall

results by trying to draw a big picture. And so, our last

research focus concentrates on the question: “Which

insights on parasocial phenomena did we gain due to

these studies?” We will address this question by taking

a closer look at the characteristics of the media users

and of the media characters that influence the develop�

ment of parasocial phenomena. Moreover, we will

attend to other reception phenomena that accompany

parasocial phenomena and the effects mediated or influ�

enced by parasocial phenomena.

6— VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

2. Methodological procedure

The following section describes the methodolog�

ical procedure, from the initial search up to the selec�

tion and exclusion of certain publications, and the sub�

sequent categorization and arrangement of the studies.

A. Literature search methods

We began with an inevitable but necessary exten�

sive literature search. From its beginning, research on

parasocial phenomena took place at an international

level, which explains why most of the relevant studies

appeared in English. However, some important theo�

retical contributions (see, for example, the two�level

model of PSI by Hartmann, Schramm, and Klimmt,

2004, and the summary in English by Klimmt,

Hartmann, and Schramm, 2006) and essential empiri�

cal findings (e.g., Gleich, 1997b) appear in German.

While the academic tradition of the German scientific

community is to publish not only in English but also in

German, other scientific communities that have con�

tributed to PSI and PSR research (as for an example the

Scandinavian or Dutch community) prefer to directly

publish in English instead of their national language.

Therefore, we conducted the literature search for this

inventory using English and German sources.

To order to identify all published studies on

parasocial phenomena, we conducted the searches

using German and English terms. This matters because

the precise naming or spelling of parasocial phenome�

na varies across different publications (e.g., “para�

social” in Horton and Wohl, 1956, versus “parasocial”

in Rubin et al., 1985, and “para�friendship” in

Tukachinsky, 2010). Correspondingly, we used the fol�

lowing terms for the research: “parasocial,” “para�

social,” “parasozial,” “para�sozial,” “para�love,”

“para�friendship,” and “para�romantic.”

We used the following databases: PsycINFO,

Science Direct, and Google Scholar. We entered each

term into the search field individually, separately for

each of the 60 years from 1956 up to and including

2015. We examined each hit and made the decision

about whether we should include the publication in the

analysis, according to the precise selection criteria out�

lined in the following subsection.

B. Selection and exclusion of publications

To objectively select the studies to be included in

the analysis, we formulated formal and content�related

criteria at the beginning of the research.

To ensure certain quality standards and reduce

the duplication of studies as far as possible, we includ�

ed only those studies published in a classical sense.

Primarily, this meant journal articles and contributions

to compilations and anthologies, although we also

included dissertations published as monographs. We

excluded unpublished Bachelor and Master theses and

dissertations early on. Similarly, we also excluded con�

ference talks and contributions to proceedings because

they would have resulted in numerous duplicates; e.g.,

studies initially presented at a conference and pub�

lished as journal article afterwards. In addition, the ini�

tial publication date of articles had to fall between

1956 and 2015; hence, we included studies in the

analysis with a publication date of 2016 or even 2017,

if they were published “Online First” in 2015 (e.g.,

Madison & Porter, 2016).

We established several central content�related

criterion. First, the publication must include an original

empirical study. Purely theoretical contributions,

reviews, and meta�analyses were accordingly excluded

from the analysis. A second, additional, requirement

for inclusion was that one of the search terms must

appear in the title, keywords, abstract, or—if nonexist�

ent—in the introduction of the publication. This

ensured that a parasocial phenomenon formed a central

part of the study. The last content�related criterion

refers to the understanding of parasocial phenomena in

the published study. Horton and Wohl (1956) describe

parasocial phenomena as medially conveyed interac�

tions or relationships between real people and media

characters. Following this basic assumption, we includ�

ed only those publications that investigated parasocial

phenomena in the context of recipients and media char�

acters. Publications that met the formal and content�

related criteria but investigated, for example, the

“parasocial behavior” of bees (e.g., Michener, 1969)

were accordingly excluded. Similarly we excluded

studies that investigated, for example, the “Web�PSI”

that a user has with a website due to this criterion,

because these studies do not define PSI as an interac�

tion with a media character (e.g., Hoerner, 1999).

Application of these criteria resulted in the iden�

tification of 261 publications for further analysis (see

Appendix A for a full list of publications).

C. Categorization and processing of the studies

The following sections briefly sketch the dimen�

sions and categories on which we based the systematic

processing and classification of the studies.

General information. The first dimension of the sys�

tematization of each publication rests on formal details,

including the authors and the year and place of publi�

cation. This makes it possible to draw conclusions

about the research activity, and thus the popularity, of

the subject throughout the years, on the modes of pub�

lication, and on how groups of researchers cooperate

and work together.

Object of investigation. It is also important to consid�

er the object of investigation in each publication to

understand the exploratory focus and, if applicable, the

academic voids. The initial formulation of hypotheses

can often lead to conclusions about the central con�

structs investigated in the study, the assumed relation�

ships between them, and the methodical approach that

was considered suitable.

Besides the research focus, the media context in

which scholars investigate a parasocial phenomenon is

highly relevant. We divided the studies into five cate�

gories: “film and television,” “radio and music,” “print

media,” “new media,” and “intermedia.” The first cat�

egory, “film and television,” includes all studies

addressing the classical film (e.g., theatrical release

films) and television (e.g., TV shows and talk shows).

It also includes studies that use audiovisual film�like

stimuli not initially produced for commercial film and

television (e.g., Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011). The

second category, “radio and music,” includes studies

on parasocial phenomena in the context of radio shows,

radio hosts, and music. The third category, “print

media,” contains studies centered around simple texts,

including journals and novels. The fourth category,

“new media,” contains studies in contexts ranging from

computer games to social media. The last category

“intermedia” includes all studies that do not relate to a

precise media context. For example, a study that com�

pares parasocial phenomena between different types of

media or a study that does not fixate on certain media

contexts would fall into this category. This often occurs

when, for example, researchers investigate the PSR

with a favorite celebrity and do not make it clear in

which medium the PSI between the celebrity and the

recipient took place.

Besides the research focus and the medium inves�

tigated, we categorized publications according to the

media character with whom the parasocial interaction

takes place. The focal media character can differ wide�

ly depending on the study, and investigations often

define a specific character (e.g., PSR with Barack

Obama). Another category consists of studies that offer

participants a number of characters to choose from,

usually their favorite (e.g., favorite character of the TV

show “Friends”). Some studies also restrict the choice

of character to a particular medium, such as a favorite

TV character. Furthermore, researchers sometimes

investigate parasocial phenomena with a choice of

character in any medium (e.g., favorite celebrity). In

contrast, some studies do not focus on a specific media

character, but propose their own category (e.g., PSI

while watching TV in general). Finally, the last catego�

ry consists of publications that investigate various

kinds of characters not limited to a single medium (e.g.,

Michael Jackson in substudy 1, and favorite celebrity

in substudy 2).

Following the specification of the investigated

media character, we further classified the studies by

the fictionality of the media content. In this work we

divide the studies into three possible categories: “fic�

tional,” “non�fictional,” and “fictional and non�fic�

tional.” The fictional category includes, for example,

investigations of parasocial phenomena with charac�

ters from favorite TV shows. A study on favorite

politicians is a classic example from the non�fictional

category. The fictional and non�fictional category pri�

marily includes studies that do not restrict the fiction�

ality of media characters; for example, an investiga�

tion of PSR in which the participants remain free to

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 7

choose either their favorite fictional character (such

as a character from a TV show), or a non�fictional

character (such as a talk show host).

Further categorization rests on the type of paraso�

cial phenomenon under investigation. Classically,

scholars divided studies according to whether the stud�

ies investigate PSI or PSR. Studies on a certain facet of

PSI or PSR remain possible and thus constitute an extra

category (e.g., romantic or negative PSR). Parasocial

break�up comes into play here; we identified it sepa�

rately. Studies that investigate many different paraso�

cial phenomena or no particular construct also have

their separate category. Overall, we base the classifica�

tion on the main construct under investigation. Due to

the blurred definitions, particularly in early research on

parasocial phenomena, this is not necessarily the same

construct as the one initially indicated by the respective

authors. A typical example comes from a questionnaire

that measures parasocial phenomena using the PSI�

Scale (Rubin et al., 1985). Based on current definitions,

the name of the scale misleads the reader because the

scale primarily includes items that measure PSR, not

PSI (see also Dibble & Rosaen, 2011). The conclusion

that a study investigated PSR (although it indicated

PSI) is even more obvious if the data collection occurs

post�reception and remains detached from a reception

situation, which is normally the case with surveys. In

such a case, we classify the study as PSR in our analy�

sis, even though its authors may initially refer to PSI

(see, e.g., Sherman�Morris, 2005).

Data collection. Following the categorization of the

articles, we processed them according to the type of

data collection using the following three sub�dimen�

sions: method, sample, and measuring instrument. The

details of the data collection make the system of inves�

tigation within the study comprehensible and offer

clues on how to interpret the results.

Investigation of the method focused on the data

collection procedure. We classified a study consisting

of an experiment made up of a manipulation and a

subsequent questionnaire as an experiment.

Experiments linked to a subsequent observation hold

a special position, however; because this applies to

only a few studies, they do not merit an extra catego�

ry, but we will mention it in the relevant subsection.

We developed four categories covering the method�

ological approaches specified in the publications

(“survey,” “experiment,” “observation,” and “content

analysis”). Because some publications, especially

those made up of many sub�studies, can lead to a

connection between various methodical approaches,

these make up a separate category. Furthermore, we

divided the publications into “qualitative,” “quantita�

tive,” and “both qualitative and quantitative” accord�

ing to their general methodological approach.

Next, we classified the studies according to

whether their samples consisted of people (classically

in surveys, observations, and experiments) or of

media content (classically in content analyses). To

provide a better comparison of studies that imple�

mented human samples, we further classified them

according to age and gender. When classifying age,

developmental psychology served as an orientation.

Developmental psychology often divides the stages of

life based on the interaction between an organism’s

biological changes (e.g., puberty), tasks that are given

to the organism by society (e.g., education and work),

and individual values such as the pursuit of self�pro�

claimed goals (e.g., starting a family). The different

models propose very similar divisions, starting with

early childhood, childhood, school, adolescence up to

youth; and finally, early, middle, and late adulthood

(see, e.g., Havighurst, 1952). Following this basic

idea, we classified the samples in the analysis in a

simplified form: “infants” (0–4 years), “children”

(5–12 years), “teenager” (13–17 years), “adults to�be”

(18–24 years), “young adults” (25–34 years), “full

adults” (35–59 years), and “older adults” (60+ years).

The classification does not imply that all of the par�

ticipants fell within that age range, but rather that a

large majority of them did. If a study did not state the

age of the participants in detail, but the description of

the study led to the assumption that it must have

revolved around adults, we simply classified the age

as “adults.”

We also noted gender in the analysis. Different

from the just�mentioned division of age into reasonable

stages of life, there is no established systemization to

characterized the gender ratio of the participants.

Therefore, we developed an original category system

to capture the gender ratio of the samples: “only male”

(0% female), “mainly male” (1–24% female), “rather

male” (25–44% female), “balanced” (45–55% female),

“rather female” (56–75% female), “mainly female”

(76–99% female), and “only female” (100% female).

Not all studies stated the gender ratio of their partici�

pants explicitly; however, if we could ascertain from

the context that more than one gender participated in a

study, we classified the sample as “mixed” without fur�

ther specification.

8— VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

After categorizing the samples in these ways, the

last issue concerning data collection for us had to do

with the measurement instrument used to gather data

on the parasocial phenomenon. Analogously to the dis�

tinction of qualitative versus quantitative research, a

distinction can be made between studies that captured

parasocial phenomena quantitatively and those that did

not. If the investigated parasocial construct used quan�

titative methods, we classed the measurement accord�

ing to the following categories: “development of an

original scale,” “development of an original scale and

use of an established measurement instrument,” “use of

an established measurement instrument or an adapted

version of it,” “use of different measurement instru�

ments,” and “use of one or more established measure�

ment instruments and formulation of original items.”

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 9

3. Results

We divide the results of our analysis of 261 pub�

lished empirical studies on parasocial phenomena into

three sections reflecting our research foci. The first

section concerns the development of the research,

starting with Horton and Wohl (1956) until 2015, cen�

tering around the question, “What research topics were

popular at what time?” The second section includes the

introduction of the different methodical approaches of

the studies, as well as the answer to the question “How

was the research done?” The third section of the meta�

analysis reports general patterns, research trends, and

the subject�related state of research.

A. Research topics then and now

This section concentrates on the temporal and con�

tent�related development of the research field, focusing

on the essential question “What research topics were

popular at what time?” To answer this question, we

address: the number of publications over time, the media

contexts of the studies, the media characters as well as

the role parasocial phenomena play in the studies.

Publications over the course of time. Viewing the

publications that include original empirical studies on

parasocial phenomena of the last 60 years, it is notice�

able that there is a rising tendency in the number of

publications per year (see Figure 1). Following the

pioneering work of Horton and Wohl (1956), it took a

further 16 years before Rosengren and Windahl (1972)

published the first quantitative study in the form of

two surveys. Over the next 20 years, the state of

research remained rather manageable, with a maxi�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 1. Number of original empirical studies on parasocial phenomena published each year since 1956

mum of three published studies per year. There was a

substantial increase in 1996, with a total of seven

empirical studies. This can be partly explained by the

high increase in the number of German publications in

which Uli Gleich and Peter Vorderer played a leading

role. It was also the year in which the first edited vol�

ume addressing parasocial phenomena was published:

Fernsehen als Beziehungskiste: Parasoziale

Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV�Personen

[Television as relationship: Parasocial relationships

and interactions with TV characters] (Vorderer, 1996).

Subsequently, the number of published works ranges

from three to 11 studies a year up to and including

2007. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of publica�

tions rises distinctly and evens out at approximately 15

studies per year.

The doubling of the number of publications to

30 a year in 2014 and 2015 is especially remarkable.

A possible reason for this sudden increase, besides the

rising interest in the research topic, comes from the

increasing number of studies concerning parasocial

phenomena with regard to social networks such as

Facebook and Twitter (e.g., Frederick, Hamrick, &

Clavio, 2014; Tsiotsou, 2015). We can assume that

this trend will continue throughout the next years. The

cumulative number of publications (see Figure 2),

reinforces the impression that a large proportion of

the studies on parasocial phenomena have appeared in

the past few years. Only approximately 10% of the

empirical studies were published in the first 40 years

after Horton and Wohl (1956), and about a third with�

in 50 years, whereas two thirds appeared during the

last 10 years.

Parasocial phenomena in different types of media.

Along with the increasing number of published empiri�

cal studies on different aspects of parasocial phenome�

na, our investigation concerning interactions and rela�

tionships between the audience and characters shows an

increase of studies of parasocial phenomena in different

types of media. Half (50.6%) of the empirical studies

focus on the original medium “film and television” and

a quarter (24.3%) on “intermedia.” Because this catego�

ry does not specify the media context (e.g., research on

parasocial relationships with favorite celebrities),

parasocial phenomena with characters from television

may also appear here. In addition to studies in the con�

text of film and television and intermedia, we have seen

a recent increase in research concerning parasocial phe�

nomena on new media such as social networks.

Nevertheless, this category does not account for even a

quarter of the studies (18.6%). The other two cate�

gories—“print media” (3.1%) and “radio and music”

(3.4%)—barely register. A possible reason for the dis�

proportionate lack of research on parasocial phenomena

in the context of print, radio, and music could be the

lack of potential for media characters to address the

audience visually and, to an extent, auditorily.

10 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Figure 2. Cumulative number of original empirical studies on parasocial phenomena published since 1956

0

20

40

60

80

100

1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Parasocial phenomena with fictional versus non�fic�

tional media characters. This section examines publi�

cations concerning parasocial phenomena with fiction�

al versus non�fictional media characters. Across all cat�

egories, nearly one half of the studies dealt with

parasocial phenomena with non�fictional media char�

acters (47.3%). The other two categories, “fictional”

(25.2%) and “fictional and non�fictional” (27.5%), are

approximately on a par.

Furthermore, considerable differences emerge

between media categories (see Figure 3). While the

“film and television” category appears relatively bal�

anced between studies that differentiate between fic�

tional and non�fictional characters and those that do

not, the “new media” and “intermedia” categories

appear strongly biased towards non�fictional media

characters. In the “new media” category, we can

explain this finding, inter alia, by the growing trend of

researching parasocial phenomena in social networks.

The research methods of such studies often include

content analyses of the websites of real celebrities (e.g.,

Frederick, Lim, Clavio, Pedersen, & Burch, 2014).

Only a few fictional media characters maintain their

own Twitter or Facebook pages, which makes a focus

on non�fictional characters in this media category seem

logical. In the “intermedia” category, most of the pub�

lications studied do not specify the medium under

examination. The reason for this is that researchers

usually ask participants for their “favorite celebrity”—

a non�fictional media character (e.g., Giles & Maltby,

2004)—because, amongst other things, only a few fic�

tional media characters have intermedia parasocial

contact with their audience. With most of the fictional

characters the contact occurs only in one medium.

B. Methodological approach and data analysis

While the previous subsection focused on the

development of research on parasocial phenomena, this

section concentrates on the methodological implemen�

tations of the empirical studies, focusing on the essen�

tial question “How was which research done?” To

answer this question, we assessed the publications

under the following criteria: the methods used, the

specification of the studied construct, the measurement

instruments used, and the composition of the sample.

Research methods used to study parasocial phe�

nomena. Before taking a closer look at the precise

method of data collection and the research logic of the

studies, let us consider the general methodological

approaches. The majority of the publications on

parasocial phenomena (81.3%) utilize a purely quanti�

tative approach. This seems logical when considering

that such research takes place primarily in that area of

communication studies where quantitative empirical

research predominates. Some studies on parasocial

phenomena use qualitative approaches (13.7%), and

only a small fraction (5.0%) combine both quantitative

and qualitative research methods.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

film and television radio and music

print media

new media

intermedia

fictional

nonrfictional

fictional and nonrfictional

Figure 3. Number of publications according to the fictionality of the media character and media category

A look at the precise method of data collection

shows a strong preference for surveys (64.4%), fol�

lowed by experiments (16.8%), although 93.2% of the

experimental studies also include surveys (e.g., So &

Nabi, 2013) and only a few studies (6.8%) include

subsequent observation (e.g., Junger & Witte, 2008;

Gola, Richards, Lauricella, & Calvert, 2013). Content

analyses rank as the third most popular method

(12.6%). A few studies use observation without an

experiment (2.3%) or use several methods of data col�

lection (4.2%).

When examining how the methodological

approaches and research methods differ between media

categories, we find both similarities and differences.

Both quantitative and qualitative research occurs in all

media categories, with the ratio fluctuating just a little.

There is an overall predominance of quantitative meth�

ods in studies of parasocial phenomena in all media

contexts except “print media,” and “radio and music.”

The majority of studies in all categories use surveys.

However, the share of other research methods differs

between media categories. For example, studies on

parasocial phenomena in the context of film and televi�

sion exclusively use observations while studies in the

new media category employ a combination of methods.

Content analyses appear relatively frequently in this

medium, which seems rather logical because parasocial

interactions and relationships in this medium often

appear in a written and publicly accessible form, such

as posts on celebrity fan sites (e.g., Kassing &

Sanderson, 2009) or tweets (e.g., Stever & Lawson,

2013). Basically, these approaches basically form the

follow�ups of the earlier content analyses of fan letters

(e.g., Sood & Rogers, 2000).

Specifications of the investigated construct. Beyond

the different methods used, the investigated construct

also distinguishes publications. More than half (53.1%)

of the empirical publications on parasocial phenomena

focus on parasocial relationships, which coheres with

the fact that most studies employ surveys.

Approximately a third of the publications (30.5%)

focused on parasocial interactions, with a remarkably

high share of experiments. The link to a reception situ�

ation—the case in most experiments—explains this. In

contrast, only a handful of studies addresses parasocial

break�ups (1.1%). In addition, some publications do

not limit themselves to the investigation of one specif�

ic construct, but shed light on several constructs

(12.6%). This commonly occurs in the case of studies

that focus on certain facets of parasocial phenomena,

such as romantic or negative parasocial relationships.

Usually, the researchers investigate a certain facet as an

addition or as a means to enable a comparison with

other facets (e.g., Pitout, 1998; Tian & Hoffner, 2010).

Rarely will a publication limit itself to that particular

facet (1.6%; e.g., Song & Fox, 2016). Only some iso�

lated cases do not investigate any particular construct

(1.1%), usually because parasocial phenomena do not

form the focus of the research but appear simply as an

explanatory theory (e.g., Auter & Moore, 1993; Perloff

& Krevans, 1987; Stever, 2009).

Finally, differences between the constructs

become apparent with regard to the way researchers

investigated these parasocial phenomena. Whereas

research on PSI equally employs surveys, experiments,

or content analyses, PSR as well as the other constructs

almost exclusively use surveys (see Figure 4). One rea�

son for the disproportional number of surveys here

might stem from the fact that studies on PSR are usu�

ally conducted post�reception and, in most cases, do

not refer to a specific reception situation, but investi�

gate the general bond with a media character. This does

not suggest that researchers do not investigate paraso�

cial interactions, but that they usually find parasocial

relationships more salient (e.g., Jeong, Candidate, &

Park, 2015).

Measurement instruments. Once researchers have

defined the investigated construct, the focus turns to its

measurement. Here we must distinguish between two

kinds of studies: those that measure parasocial phe�

nomena quantitatively and those that do not. Most of

studies that do not measure parasocial phenomena

quantitatively use qualitative data collection and con�

tent analysis, which generally makes the quantitative

measurement of the intensity of the parasocial phe�

nomenon impossible. Among the studies that record

one or more parasocial phenomena quantitatively, a

large proportion (62.0%) rely on an established scale or

an adapted version of one. A small proportion (9.4%)

also use various established scales or parts of them.

Another option, though rarely applied, uses an estab�

lished scale in combination with additional items

exclusively developed for the study (5.3%). The num�

ber of studies (15.3%) that use an individually devel�

oped scale or combine an individually developed scale

with an established one (8.0%) is remarkably high.

The number of studies that develop their own

scale allows some conclusions regarding the hetero�

geneity of the measurement of parasocial phenomena.

Various measurement instruments differ widely; for

12 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

example, the Drinking�Buddy Scale (Powell,

Richmond, & Cantrell�Williams, 2012) versus the

Multiple� Parasocial Relationships Scale (Tukachinsky,

2010). While the Drinking�Buddy Scale measures a

parasocial phenomenon with only one item, which asks

the participant which of a selection of celebrities they

would rather “have a drink” with, the Multiple�

Parasocial Relationships Scale consists of 24 items that

record various facets of parasocial relationships in mul�

tiple dimensions. The advantage of these differences

lies in the possibility of choosing a custom�fit meas�

urement instrument for a specific study. At the same

time, this heterogeneity complicates the comparison of

different studies.

Despite the large number of measurement instru�

ments for researching parasocial phenomena, one

appears remarkably often: the PSI�Scale by Rubin et al.

(1985), and its short version by Rubin and Perse

(1987). Fully 95 of the publications in this review use

the PSI�Scale to measure parasocial phenomena. To

better understand the classification of this large number

of publications, the following list shows the three most

commonly used scales along with the number of publi�

cations using them:

• Short and long version of the PSI�Scale (Rubin

et al., 1985; Rubin & Perse, 1987), used in 95 pub�

lications;

• Audience�Persona Interaction Scale (Auter &

Palmgreen, 2000), used in 11 publications; and

• PSI�Process Scales (Schramm & Hartmann,

2008), used in 8 publications.

A possible reason for the popularity of the PSI�

Scale is that its wide use creates a spiral�effect accord�

ing to the belief that “An instrument that so many have

used so often cannot be wrong so I will use it for my

own research.” Another positive feature of the PSI�

Scale is that the ready availability of the items because

Rubin et al. (1985) published them in full from the

beginning and thus researchers do not need to access

them through the author. The relatively low number of

items, especially in its short version, increases the

appeal of the scale, considering that approximately two

thirds of the empirical studies operationalize parasocial

phenomena with 10 items or less. Only 12.6% of the

studies measure a parasocial phenomenon with 20 or

more items.

Typical composition of samples. To answer the ques�

tion, “How was the research done?” we must look at

the composition of the samples. Therefore, we only

include publications that employ data collection with

people, which applies to 227 of the 261 publications in

this review. Regarding the average age of the partici�

pants, most research took place with adults to�be aged

18–24 years (42.3%). In striking contrast, only a few

studies use toddlers or children (6.6%), adolescents

(3.5%), or older adults (2.6%).

A clear gender bias appears in the composition of

the samples. Only 17.6% of the samples include a bal�

anced ratio of male and female participants, whereas

43.6% have a surplus of female participants compared

with only 7.5% with a surplus of male participants. The

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 13

Figure 4. Number of publications according to the investigated construct and method of data collection

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PSI

PSR

other

survey

experiment

content analysis

other

gender ratio is unclear in many cases (20.3%) or the

researchers tested the hypothesis on several samples

and thus included different gender ratios (11.0%).

In conclusion, many of the empirical studies on

parasocial phenomena feature young and predominant�

ly female samples. This combination is often accompa�

nied by an above�average educational level because

researchers recruit their samples from their own study

programs, and communication studies tends to be pop�

ular with young, female students (e.g., Cummins &

Cui, 2014; Eyal & Cohen, 2006; Greenwood, 2008;

Tukachinsky, 2010). The strongly limited representa�

tiveness limits or even prevents generalization of the

results to the general public.

C. Overall results and patterns

Finally, this last research focus attends to the

insights we gained by the studies presented here.

Looking at the results of the more than 250 studies, a

diverse and selectively inconsistent picture of the caus�

es and effects of PSI and PSR and the accompanying

reception phenomena emerges as expected. To ensure

this review does not obscure the overall picture by

over�focusing on the details, this section aims to create

a clear image of the central results, factors, and aspects

that have appeared relevant in several studies. We will

illustrate each of these items by one example study.

The resulting image is obviously simplified and cannot

do justice to each individual study. Nevertheless, a

clear image should provide a better understanding and

a better sense of the “general principles” of parasocial

phenomena. This could lead to future PSI and PSR

research resting more strongly on previous findings to

further improve our understanding of parasocial phe�

nomena. Due to the surplus of studies on film and tele�

vision, we acknowledge that this image will first and

foremost show the functioning of parasocial phenome�

na in audiovisual media. Future research will need to

show to what extent this image must be adjusted for

print media or for the newest interactive media.

Influence of media users’ characteristics on paraso�

cial phenomena. Overall, the probability and intensity

of parasocial phenomena seem to increase with age

(Levy, 1979). However, this is actually related to vari�

ous factors associated with age, such as high television

consumption (Grant, Guthrie, & Ball�Rokeach, 1991);

increased habitual television use (Gleich, 1997a), or

rather, a strong bond to specific shows and media char�

acters (Nordlund, 1978); and the progressive loss of

social contacts and activities or limited health among

those of post�retirement age (Eggermont &

Vandebosch, 2001). Adolescents also show very strong

PSI and PSR (Maltby, Giles, Barber, & McCutcheon,

2005); in this case, researchers assume the causes to be

puberty and the discovery of one’s sexuality and iden�

tity, which is often associated with a profound rapture

for media stars, accompanied by fandom and idoliza�

tion (Giles & Maltby, 2004). Women show more

intense parasocial phenomena than men (Eyal &

Cohen, 2006), which the researchers trace to women’s

generally greater empathic capacity and emotionality.

PSI and PSR often appear as very distinct in people

with low education levels and incomes (or rather, low

socioeconomic status) (Auter, Arafa, & Al�Jaber,

2005). Research that shows that dissatisfaction and

hopelessness increase the intensity of parasocial con�

tacts (Chory�Assad & Yanen, 2005) could explain this.

Numerous results support the alleged compensa�

tional function of parasocial phenomena, which

researchers explain by “deficits” in the personality

structure of the media users (Tsao, 1996): the less

agreeable (Tsay & Bodine, 2012), the more shy

(Vorderer & Knobloch, 1996) and neurotic the recipi�

ents are (Sun, 2010), the more pronounced their PSI

and PSR. Do people with these personality traits devel�

op particularly intensive PSR with media entities

because they find it hard to establish and maintain rela�

tionships in real life? Although the findings regarding

loneliness are mixed, some results indicate that PSR

with media entities increases with loneliness

(Greenwood & Long, 2009), current relationship status

(i.e., single) (Greenwood & Long, 2011), the perceived

cost of real (also romantic) relationships (Adam &

Sizemore, 2013), and unattractive relationship alterna�

tives (Eyal & Dailey, 2012).

Influence of media characters’ characteristics on

parasocial phenomena. The traits and aspects of

media characters that can influence the nature and

intensity of parasocial phenomena appear as diverse as

the fertile ground on which they can unfold. In other

words, because media users turn to media characters

with different needs, motives and preferences, the

diverse traits and features of media entities can lead to

intensive PSI and PSR. This resembles real life: Every

Jack has his Jill. Accordingly, results show that the

strength of parasocial phenomena increases with the

level of sympathy (Kronewald, 2008), identification

(Tian & Hoffner, 2010), and perceived similarity with

the media character (Turner, 1993). The strength of

parasocial phenomena is also reinforced by a high level

14 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

of perceived attractiveness—physical, character, or

task�related (Knoll, Schramm, Schallhorn, &

Wynistorf, 2015)—as well as a high level of personal

address (Schramm & Wirth, 2010) and interactivity

(Thorson & Rodgers, 2006).

In most cases, the intensity of a parasocial phe�

nomenon increases when people perceive the media

character as humorous (Kronewald, 2008), intelligent

(Hoffner, 1996), and credible (Bae�ler, 2009). This

has special relevance in persuasive contexts that aim

to persuade media users of something (advertise�

ments, politics, health communications) (Phua,

2016). Although parasocial phenomena generally

appear as positively valenced, “negative” factors can

presumably increase the parasocial experience, as for

example, when a media entity is involved in a scan�

dal (Hu, 2016).

A highly relevant factor is the fictionality of the

media entity. When researchers ask people to name

their favorite media entity, many name fictional char�

acters (Tukachinsky, 2010). Hence, it is not surprising

that the results indicate that parasocial phenomena with

fictional characters are more intensive than with non�

fictional characters (Hu, 2016). Film and TV show

characters appear as particularly attractive for project�

ing the wishes and needs of many media users.

Children, especially boys, find animated or cartoon

characters parasocially appealing. In particular, abused

children flee into parasocial confrontations with ani�

mated human characters, whereas non�abused children

tend to interact with non�animated, seemingly real

media characters—presumably because they do not

have similar negative experiences with human beings

(Rosaen, Sherry, & Smith, 2011).

Reception phenomena accompanying parasocial

phenomena. Intensive interactions between media

users and media characters, based on an initial contact

or a consistent parasocial relationship, show associa�

tions with other reception phenomena. High attention

(Rubin & Perse, 1987), more intensive information

processing (Calvert, Richards, & Kent, 2014), stronger

emotional experiences (e.g., higher suspense or enter�

tainment experiences, if allowed by the medium)

(Hartmann, Stuke, & Daschmann, 2008), and more

intensive physical activities—in short, an increased

cognitive, emotional and conative involvement—are

typical side effects (Kim & Rubin, 1997). Some results

show that intensified PSI could correlate with high

relaxation and decreased emotional stress (Madison &

Porter, 2015). This correlation would be plausible if the

media content and the media character were so strong�

ly involving that the receivers could become complete�

ly submerged in the media world, enabling them to for�

get about their real problems and completely relax.

Strong PSI is often associated with a high level

of presence—the feeling of being completely present

in a media world—which supports this plausible

assumption (Chung & Kim, 2009). The reactance of

the media user to persuasive communication also

decreases as the intensity of the parasocial relation�

ship with the media entity strengthens, thus providing

further support (Moyer�Gus� & Nabi, 2010). In other

words, PSI and PSR decrease the (critical) distance to

the media content.

Effects mediated or influenced by parasocial phe�

nomena. PSI and PSR not only contribute to a better

understanding of media content, but can also change the

attitudes of media users and intensify their cognitive

and emotional engagement with the content and mes�

sage conveyed by the media entity. The results of stud�

ies on persuasive effects show that the parasocial con�

frontation with corresponding persuasive media entities

or ambassadors in the media can influence media users’

voting decisions (Centeno, 2010), donation behavior

(even in their willingness to donate organs) (Lee, Park,

Choi, & Kim, 2010), and assessments of and purchasing

intentions towards advertised products (Colliander &

Dahl�n, 2011). Because PSI and PSR interact with the

perception of reality during the reception, that this

effect can also change users’ ideas about reality and the

world as well as their attitudes towards medially con�

veyed aspects post�reception should not surprise us.

Studies show, for example, that PSI and PSR can also

affect political views (Wen & Cui, 2014), prejudices

(Hoffner & Cohen, 2015), attitudes about gender stereo�

types (Kistler & Lee, 2010), and trust (e.g., in the

weather forecast) (Sherman�Morris, 2005), depending

on how positive or negative the media entity’s influence

is on the media user.

When looking at the abovementioned “deficits”

of some media users and the associated instrumental

use of media offerings to counteract these deficits,

many studies indicate that parasocial confrontations

and bonding with media entities have potentially posi�

tive effects. In particular, media users’ identification

with media characters shows connections to higher

self�confidence (Greenwood, 2008), a higher self�effi�

cacy expectation (Phua, 2016), a stronger perception of

problem�focused coping strategies (Hoffner & Cohen,

2012), and a stronger sense of belonging (Derrick,

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 15

Gabriel, & Hugenberg, 2009). As examples of poten�

tially negative effects, which the results also indicate,

an unrealistic body�image can reduce self�esteem (Eyal

& Te’eni�Harari, 2013) and increase media consump�

tion and media addiction (Grant, Guthrie, & Ball�

Rokeach, 1991).

16 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

4. 60 years of research—A conclusion

When Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl laid

the foundation for research on parasocial phenomena

in 1956, neither of them would have guessed that their

idea about recipients interacting and forming relation�

ships with TV characters would form the starting point

for more than 250 empirical studies over the next 60

years. In the course of these studies, and with the help

of numerous theoretical works, scholars refined, made

measurable, and transferred the concept to other media

subjects. This inventory provides a first overview on

anchor points and along the way discloses some central

shortcomings of this body of research: A recurring key

issue in the discussion about parasocial phenomena

research arises with the measurement of the phenome�

non itself, or rather, its individual constructs. This is

not only indicated by the heterogeneity of the method�

ological approaches used within the studies, but also

by the lack of differentiation between parasocial phe�

nomena at the beginning of the research. A good exam�

ple appears in the PSI�Scale developed by Rubin et al.

(1985), the title of which indicates that it measures PSI.

On the contrary, however, the majority of the individ�

ual items focus on PSR (see, e.g., Dibble & Rosaen,

2011). The consequences of this blurred definition are

especially severe considering that the PSI�scale is by

far the most widely used instrument for measuring

parasocial phenomena. The widespread disagreement

about the dimensions that make up parasocial phenom�

ena (c.f., Branch, Wilson, & Agnew, 2013; Rubin et al.,

1985; Tukachinsky, 2010) only worsens the inaccuracy

in the measurement of parasocial phenomena. The

need for standardized and better differentiated meas�

urement instruments becomes evident, for example,

when looking at the number of studies that still expend

great efforts in developing their own scales (e.g.,

Banks & Bowman, 2016; Hartmann & Goldhoorn,

2011). Another common procedure that hints at the

lack of appropriate measurement instruments is the

piecing together of items from different scales to

achieve a fitting operationalization (e.g., Claessens &

van den Bulck, 2015; Hu, 2016). To ensure the approx�

imate comparability of empirical findings in parasocial

research, researchers must achieve a consensus on the

definition and dimensions of constructs.

We also view the methodological approach used

to study parasocial phenomena as critical. At present, a

large proportion of results come from surveys with a

correlative design. Researchers can only assume

effects, and especially the directions of effects, from

theoretical considerations or reasonable intuition.

Further investigations of parasocial phenomena and

their reciprocal actions with other factors would there�

fore be desirable. We also note that with very few

exceptions, all of the studies are based on a cross� sec�

tional design (one exception uses a longitudinal�sec�

tion design: Rosengren, 1994). Although exciting

snapshots can emerge from such research, knowledge

about the dynamic development of parasocial phenom�

ena and their interactions with other influencing fac�

tors over time cannot be generated. Currently, for

example, research cannot answer questions such as

“Does the relevance of a media character’s physical

attractiveness decrease over the course of a PSR?” and

“Does a PSR become weaker when the recipient finds

a real new friend?” Despite the considerable challenge

in conducting longitudinal studies, the results would be

exciting and indispensable if they could reveal a uni�

fied understanding of parasocial phenomena.

Although this first inventory can and should not

fulfil the function of a detailed and deep review on the

status quo of PSI/PSR research findings and topics

(this forms the second step in analyzing these 250 and

more studies), we would like to point at some first

impressions that have become clear: Many studies on

parasocial phenomena remain problem oriented, as

indicated by the keyword “negative psychology.”

Researchers postulate that parasocial phenomena occur

especially in those who are lonely (e.g., Ashe &

McCutcheon, 2001), dissatisfied (e.g., Eggermont &

Vandebosch, 2001), emotionally unstable (e.g.,

Maltby, Houran, & McCutcheon, 2003), and less intel�

ligent (e.g., McCutcheon, Ashe, Houran, & Maltby,

2003). Parasocial phenomena can, for example,

become a substitute for insufficient social contact (e.g.,

Tsao, 1996). In contrast, researchers rarely consider

potential associations between parasocial phenomena

and positive recipient traits. Questions such as “Do

people who are more creative and imaginative form

stronger parasocial bonds?” are investigated much less

than “Do less formally educated people form stronger

parasocial bonds?” A better balance and more thinking

out of the box, in which parasocial phenomena appear

as more than just a potential compensation for various

deficits, would be desirable in future research.

Just as widespread is the assumption that paraso�

cial phenomena are of a friendly nature. The vast

majority of studies assume, without further explana�

tion, that the interactions and bonds between recipients

and media characters resemble those that occur in

friendships (e.g., Kassing & Sanderson, 2009). Very

few studies explicitly assume that other processes, such

as negative PSR (e.g., Hartmann, Stuke, &

Daschmann, 2008) or romantic bonds (e.g., Adam &

Sizemore, 2013), may be involved. Following the basic

idea that parasocial processes resemble in many ways

real social processes, researchers should introduce a

wider range of parasocial phenomena apart from those

of a friendly nature into their research.

Cultural differences form another neglected area

of research. Just as interpersonal interactions and the

development of relationships in collectivistic cultures

differ from those in individualistic cultures, parasocial

processes could also differ. Although a few studies con�

sider intercultural effects (e.g., Ramasubramanian &

Kornfield, 2012), only three studies that include the

respective data collection of participants in multiple

cultures focus on the actual comparison of different

cultures (Auter, Ashton, & Soliman, 2008; Gleich,

1997a; Schmid & Klimmt, 2011). Given that these

studies showed initial differences between cultures,

cross�cultural studies seem to offer a meaningful future

research direction.

The comparison of different media appears just as

crucial as the comparison of different cultures. We can�

not at present answer the question of whether paraso�

cial phenomena develop in the same way in media that

offer audiovisual interactions with a media character

and those that only offer auditory contact. Is the phys�

ical attractiveness of a book character as important for

PSR as the physical attractiveness of a TV character?

Can parasocial phenomena with radio or book charac�

ters ever become as intensive as with TV characters?

The general focus on parasocial phenomena in the con�

text of film and television is also crucially related to the

neglect of media comparisons. Further studies on the

as�yet neglected media contexts as well as the compar�

ison of different media would contribute to a unified

understanding of parasocial phenomena.

The suggested directions for future research dis�

cussed here constitute only some of the current

research gaps. Many more remain still to be uncovered

and, building on the ever�expanding popularity of this

research topic, the upcoming years promise both rele�

vant and interesting work.

References

Adam, A., & Sizemore, B. (2013). Parasocial romance: A

social exchange perspective. Interpersona, 7, 12–25.

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106

Ashe, D. D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Shyness, loneli�

ness, and attitude toward celebrities. Current Research

in Social Psychology, 6, 124–132.

Auter, P. J., Arafa, N., & Al�Jaber, K. (2005). Identifying

with Arabic journalists: How Al Jazeera tapped

parasocial interaction in the Arab world. Gazette, 67,

189–204. doi:10.1177/0016549205050131

Auter, P. J., Ashton, E., & Soliman, M. R. (2008). A study of

Egyptian and American young adult parasocial rela�

tionships with music video personae. Journal of Arab

& Muslim Media Research, 1, 131–144. doi:10.1386/

jammr.1.2.131_1

Auter, P. J., & Moore, R. L. (1993). Buying from a friend: A

content analysis of two teleshopping programs.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70,

425–436. doi:10.1177/107769909307000217

Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and vali�

dation of a parasocial interaction measure: The audi�

ence�persona interaction scale. Communication

Research Reports, 17, 79–89. doi:10.1080/

08824090009388753

Bae�ler, B. (2009). Medienpersonen als parasoziale

Beziehungspartner. Ein theoretischer und empirischer

Beitrag zu personazentrierter Rezeption [Media char�

acters as parasocial partners. A theoretical and empiri�

cal contribution to persona�centered reception].

Baden�Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016). Avatars are (sometimes)

people too: Linguistic indicators of parasocial and

social ties in player�avatar relationships. New Media &

Society,

18,

1257–1276.

doi:10.1177/

1461444814554898

Branch, S. E., Wilson, K. M., & Agnew, C. R. (2013).

Committed to Oprah, Homer, or House: Using invest�

ment model to understand parasocial relationships.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 17

Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 96–109.

doi:10.1037/a0030938

Calvert, S. L., Richards, M. N., & Kent, C. C. (2014).

Personalized interactive characters for toddlers’ learn�

ing of seriation from a video presentation. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 148–155.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.03.004

Centeno, D. G. (2010). Celebrification in Philippine politics:

Exploring the relationship between celebrity

endorsers’ parasociability and the public’s voting

behavior. Social Science Diliman, 6, 66–85.

Chory�Assad, R. M., & Yanen, A. (2005). Hopelessness and

loneliness as predictors of older adults’ involvement

with favorite television performers. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 182–201.

doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4902_3

Chung, D., & Kim, C. H. (2009). Causal links of presence.

In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human�Computer Interaction.

Interacting in Various Application Domains (pp.

279–286). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/

978�3�642� 02583�9_31

Claessens, N., & van den Bulck, H. (2015). Parasocial rela�

tionships with audiences’ favorite celebrities: The role

of audience and celebrity characteristics in a represen�

tative Flemish sample. Communications, 40, 43–65.

doi:10.1515/commun�2014�0027

Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual

differences in responses to the dissolution of paraso�

cial relationships. Mass Communication and Society,

6, 191–202. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0602_5

Colliander, J., & Dahl�n, M. (2011). Following the fashion�

able friend: The power of social media—Weighing

publicity effeciveness of blogs versus online maga�

zines. Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 313–320.

doi:10.2501/JAR�51�1�313�320

Cummins, R. G., & Cui, B. (2014). Reconceptualizing

address in television programming: The effect of

address and affective empathy on viewer experience of

parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 64,

723–742. doi:10.1111/jcom.12076

Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social

surrogacy: How favored television programs provide

the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 45, 352–362. doi:10.1016/j.jesp

.2008.12.003

Dibble, J. L., & Rosaen, S. F. (2011). Parasocial interaction

as more than friendship. Evidence for parasocial inter�

actions with disliked media figures. Journal of Media

Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23,

122–132. doi:10.1027/1864�1105/a000044

Eggermont, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2001). Television as a

substitute: Loneliness, need intensity, mobility, life�

satisfaction, and the elderly television viewer.

Communicatio,

27,

10–18.

doi:10.1080/

02500160108537902

Eyal, K., & Cohen, J. (2006). When good friends say good�

bye: A parasocial breakup study. Journal of

Broadcasting and Media, 50, 502–523. doi:10.1207

/s15506878 jobem5003_9

Eyal, K., & Dailey, R. M. (2012). Examining relational

maintenance in parasocial relationships. Mass

Communication and Society, 15, 758–781. doi:10

.1080/15205436.2011 .616276

Eyal, K., & Te’eni�Harari, T. (2013). Explaining the rela�

tionship between media exposure and early adoles�

cents’ body image perceptions: The role of favorite

characters. Journal of Media Psychology, 25,

129–141. doi:10.1027/1864�1105/a000094

Frederick, E., Hamrick, M. E., & Clavio, G. (2014). Bypass

and broadcast: Utilizing parasocial interaction to

examine @nhl communication on twitter during the

2012–2013 lockout. Journal of Sports Media, 9,

25–44. doi:10.1353/jsm.2014.0009

Frederick, E., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., Pedersen, P. M., &

Burch, L. (2014). Choosing between the one�way or

two�way street: An exploration of relationship promo�

tion by professional athletes on Twitter.

Communication & Sport, 2, 80–99. doi:10.1177

/2167479512466387

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/S1532785

XMEP0403_04

Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures

in adolescent development: Relations between autono�

my, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality

and Individual Differences, 36, 813–822. doi:10.1016/

S0191�8869(03)00154�5

Gleich, U. (1997a). Parasocial interaction with people on the

screen. In P. Winterhoff�Spurk & Van der Voort, T. H.

A. (Eds.), New horizons in media psychology:

Research cooperation and projects in Europe (pp.

35–55). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. doi:10.

1007/978�3�663�10899�3_3

Gleich, U. (1997b). Parasoziale Interaktionen und

Beziehungen von Fernsehzuschauern mit Personen auf

dem Bildschirm: Ein theoretischer und empirischer

Beitrag zum Konzept des aktiven Rezipienten

[Parasocial interactions and relationships between tel�

evision viewers and personae on the screen: A theoret�

ical and empirical contribution to the concept of the

active media user]. Landau: Verlag Empirische

P�dagogik.

Gola, A. A. H., Richards, M. N., Lauricella, A. R., & Calvert,

S. L. (2013). Building meaningful parasocial relation�

ships between toddlers and media characters to teach

early mathematical skills. Media Psychology, 16,

390–411. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.783774

Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball�Rokeach, S. J. (1991).

Television shopping: A media system dependency per�

18 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

spective. Communication Research, 18, 773–798. doi:

10.1177/009365091018006004

Greenwood, D. N. (2008). Television as escape from self:

Psychological predictors of media involvement.

Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 414–424.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.001

Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R. (2009). Psychological pre�

dictors of media involvement: Solitude experiences

and the need to belong. Communication Research, 36,

637–654. doi:10.1177/0093650209338906

Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R. (2011). Attachment,

belongingness needs, and relationship status predict

imagined intimacy with media figures.

Communication Research, 38, 278–297. doi:10.1177/

0093650210362687

Hartmann, T. (2010). Parasoziale Interaktionen und

Beziehungen [Parasocial interactions and relation�

ships]. Baden�Baden: Nomos.

Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl

revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of paraso�

cial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61,

1104–1121.

doi:10.1111/j.1460�2466.2011

.01595.x

Hartmann, T., Schramm, H., & Klimmt, C. (2004).

Personenorientierte Medienrezeption: Ein Zwei�

Ebenen�Modell parasozialer Interaktionen [Person�

oriented media reception: A two�level�model of

parasocial interactions]. Publizistik, 49, 25–47. doi:10.

1007/s11616�004�0003�6

Hartmann, T., Stuke, D., & Daschmann, G. (2008).

Parasocial relationships with drivers affect suspense in

racing sport spectators. Journal of Media Psychology,

20, 24–34. doi:10.1027/1864�1105.20.1.24

Havighurst, R. J. (1952). Developmental tasks and educa�

tion. New York: David McKay.

Hoerner, J. (1999). Scaling the web: A parasocial interaction

scale for world wide web sites. In D. W. Schumann &

E. Thorson (Eds.), Advertising and the World Wide

Web (pp. 135–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and

parasocial interaction with favorite television charac�

ters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40,

389–402. doi:10.1080/08838159609364360

Hoffner, C. A., & Cohen, E. L. (2012). Responses to obses�

sive compulsive disorder on Monk among series fans:

Parasocial relations, presumed media influence, and

behavioral outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 56, 650–668. doi:10.1080/

08838151.2012.732136

Hoffner, C. A., & Cohen, E. L. (2015). Portrayal of mental

illness on the TV series Monk: Presumed influence and

consequences of exposure. Health Communication,

30, 1046–1054. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.917840

Horton, D., & Strauss, A. (1957). Interaction in audience�

participation shows. American Journal of Sociology,

62, 579–587. doi:10.1086/222106

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and

para�social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a

distance. Psychiatry, 19, 188–211. doi:10.1080/

00332747.1956.11023049

Hu, M. (2016). The influence of a scandal on parasocial rela�

tionship, parasocial interaction, and parasocial

breakup. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5,

217–231. doi:10.1037/ppm0000068

Jeong, H., Candidate, D., & Park, H. S. (2015). The effect of

parasocial interaction on intention to register as organ

donors through entertainment�education programs in

Korea. Asia�Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27,

2040–2048. doi:10.1177/1010539512472359

Junger, L. T., & Witte, E. H. (2008). Media and the con�

tact hypothesis: An experimental study on the

impact of parasocial contact. In E. H. Witte (Ed.),

Hamburger Forschungsbericht zur Sozialpsycholo�

gie Nr. 83 (pp. 1–29). Hamburg: Arbeitsbereich

Sozialpsychologie.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2009). “You’re the kind of

guy that we all want for a drinking buddy”:

Expressions of parasocial interaction on

Floydlandis.com. Western Journal of Communication,

73, 182–203. doi:10.1080/10570310902856063

Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of

audience activity on media effects. Communication

Research,

24,

107–135.

doi:10.1177/

009365097024002001

Kistler, M. E., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Does exposure to sexu�

al hip�hop music videos influence the sexual attitudes

of college students? Mass Communication and Society,

13, 67–86. doi:10.1080/15205430902865336

Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006).

Parasocial interactions and relationships. In B.

Jennings & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of enter�

tainment (pp. 291–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Knoll, J., Schramm, H., Schallhorn, C., & Wynistorf, S.

(2015). Good guy vs. bad guy—The influence of

parasocial interactions with media characters on brand

placement effects. International Journal of

Advertising: The Review of Marketing

Communications, 34, 720–743. doi:10.1080/02650487

.2015.1009350

Kronewald, E. (2008). Fernsehnutzung von Singles und

Liierten: Die Relevanz des Merkmals Beziehungsstand

f�r Fernsehnutzungsmotive und parasoziale

Beziehungen [Television usage of singles and lovers:

The relevance of relationship status for motives of tel�

evision usage and parasocial relationships]. M�nchen:

Verlag Reinhard Fischer.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 19

Lee, B. K., Park, H. S., Choi, M. I., & Kim, C. S. (2010).

Promoting organ donation through an entertainment�

education TV program in Korea: Open your eyes.

Asia�Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22, 89–97.

doi:10.1177/1010539509352117

Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as parasocial inter�

action. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 177–187.

doi:10.1080/08838157909363919

Madison, T. P., & Porter, L. V. (2015). The people we meet:

Discriminating functions of parasocial interactions.

Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 35, 47–71.

doi:10.1177/0276236615574490

Madison, T. P., & Porter, L. V. (2016). Cognitive and

imagery attributes of parasocial relationships.

Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 35, 359–379.

doi:10.1177/0276236615599340

Maltby, J., Giles, D. C., Barber, L., & McCutcheon, L. E.

(2005). Intense personal celebrity worship and body

image: Evidence of a link among female adolescents.

British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 17–32.

doi:10.1348/135910704X15257

Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2003). A clin�

ical interpretation of attitudes and behaviors associat�

ed with celebrity worship. Journal of Nervous and

Mental Disease, 191, 25–29.

McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., Houran, J., & Maltby, J.

(2003). A cognitive profile of individuals who tend to

worship celebrities. The Journal of Psychology, 137,

309–322. doi:10.1080/00223980309600616

Michener, C. D. (1969). Comparative social behavior of

bees. Annual Review of Entomology, 14, 299–342.

doi:10.1146/annurev.en.14.010169.001503

Moyer�Gus�, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the

effects of narrative in an entertainment television pro�

gram: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human

Communication Research, 36, 26–52. doi:10.1111/

j.1468� 2958.2009.01367.x

Nordlund, J. E. (1978). Media interaction. Communication

Research,

5,

150–175.

doi:10.1177/

009365027800500202

Perloff, R. M., & Krevans, J. (1987). Tracking the psy�

chosocial predictors of older individuals’ television

uses. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 365–372.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1987.9712677

Phua, J. (2016). The effects of similarity, parasocial identifi�

cation, and source credibility in obesity public service

announcements on diet and exercise self�efficacy.

Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 699–708.

doi:10.1177/1359105314536452

Pitout, M. (1998). Reception analysis: A qualitative investi�

gation of the parasocial and social dimensions of soap

opera viewing. Communicatio, 24, 65–82.

doi:10.1080/02500169808537891

Powell, L., Richmond, V. P., & Cantrell�Williams, G. (2012).

The “Drinking�Buddy” Scale as a measure of para�

social behavior. Psychological Reports, 110,

1029–1037. doi:10.2466/07.17.28.PR0.110.3.1029�

1037

Ramasubramanian, S., & Kornfield, S. (2012). Japanese

anime heroines as role models for U.S. youth: Wishful

identification, parasocial interaction, and intercultural

entertainment effects. Journal of International and

Intercultural Communication, 5, 189–207. doi:10

.1080/17513057.2012.679291

Rosaen, S. F., Sherry, J. L., & Smith, S. L. (2011).

Maltreatment and parasocial relationships in US chil�

dren. Journal of Children and Media, 5, 379–394. doi:

10.1080/17482798.2011.599520

Rosengren, K. E. (1994). Media use under structural change.

In K. E. Rosengren (Ed.), Media effects and beyond:

Culture, socialization, and lifestyles (pp. 49–75).

London: Routledge.

Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media con�

sumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail

(Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp.

166–194). Hamondsworth: Penguin.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and

soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investiga�

tion. Human Communication Research, 14, 246–292.

doi:10.1111/j.1468�2958.1987.tb00129.x

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985).

Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local televi�

sion news viewing. Human Communication

Research, 12, 155–180. doi:10.1111/j.1468�

2958.1985.tb00071.x

Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy:

Parasocial relationships with Harry Potter across dif�

ferent cultures. International Communication Gazette,

73, 252–269. doi:10.1177/1748048510393658

Schramm, H. (2008). Parasocial interactions and relation�

ships. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The Blackwell

Internation Encyclopedia of Communication (pp.

3501–3506). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI�Process

Scales. A new measure to assess the intensity and

breadth of parasocial processes. Communications, 33,

385–401. doi:10.1515/COMM.2008.025

Schramm, H., & Wirth, W. (2010). Testing a universal tool

for measuring parasocial interactions across different

situations and media. Journal of Media Psychology:

Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22, 26–36.

doi:10.1027/1864�1105/a000004

Sherman�Morris, K. (2005). Tornadoes, television, and trust:

A closer look at the influence of the local weathercast�

er during severe weather. Global Environmental

Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6, 201–210.

doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2006.10.002

So, J., & Nabi, R. (2013). Reduction of perceived social dis�

tance as an explanation for media’s influence on per�

sonal risk perceptions: A test of the risk convergence

20 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

model. Human Communication Research, 39,

317–338. doi:10.1111/hcre.12005

Song, W., & Fox, J. (2016). Playing for love in a romantic

video game: Avatar identification, parasocial relation�

ship, and Chinese women’s romantic beliefs. Mass

Communication and Society, 19, 197–215.

doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1077972

Sood, S., & Rogers, E. (2000). Dimensions of parasocial

interaction by letter�writers to a popular entertain�

ment�education soap opera in india. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 386–414.

doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4403_4

Stever, G. S. (2009). Parasocial and social interaction with

celebrities: Classification of media fans. Journal of

Media Psychology, 14, 1–39.

Stever, G. S., & Lawson, K. (2013). Twitter as a way for

celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for

the study of parasocial interaction. North American

Journal of Psychology, 15, 339–354.

Sun, T. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of parasocial

interaction with sport athletes and identification with

sport teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 194–217.

Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between

blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactiv�

ity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive

Advertising, 6, 34–44. doi:10.1080/15252019.2006

.10722117

Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction

with liked, neutral, and disliked characters on a popu�

lar TV series. Mass Communication and Society, 13,

250–269. doi:10.1080/15205430903296051

Tsao, J. (1996). Compensatory media use: An exploration of

two paradigms. Communication Studies, 47, 89–109.

doi:10.1080/10510979609368466

Tsay, M., & Bodine, B. M. (2012). Exploring parasocial

interaction in college students as a multidimensional

construct: Do personality, interpersonal need, and tel�

evision motive predict their relationships with media

characters? Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1,

185–200. doi:10.1037/a0028120

Tsiotsou, R. H. (2015). The role of social and parasocial rela�

tionships on social networking sites loyalty.

Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 401–414. doi:

10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.064

Tukachinsky, R. (2010). Para�romantic love and para�friend�

ships: Development and assessment of a multiple�

parasocial relationships scale. American Journal of

Media Psychology, 3, 73–94.

Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predic�

tors of parasocial interaction with different television

performers. Communication Quarterly, 41, 443–453.

doi:10.1080/01463379309369904

Vorderer, P. (Ed.). (1996). Fernsehen als ‘Beziehungskiste’:

Parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV�

Personen [Television as relationship: Parasocial rela�

tionships and interactions with TV characters].

Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Vorderer, P., & Knobloch, S. (1996). Parasoziale

Beziehungen zu Serienfiguren: Erg�nzung oder

Ersatz? [Parasocial relationships with soap characters:

Complement or compensation?]. Zeitschrift f�r

Medienpsychologie, 8, 201–216.

Wen, N., & Cui, D. (2014). Effects of celebrity involvement

on young people’s political and civic engagement.

Chinese Journal of Communication, 7, 409–428.

doi:10.1080/ 17544750.2014.953964

Appendix A

Complete list of publications according to their

media context

The following appendix contains all of the publi�

cations included in the meta�view of the current arti�

cle—hence, it contains empirical studies focusing on

parasocial phenomena initially published between

1956 and 2015. To provide a better overview, we sepa�

rated the publications according to the media contexts

in which they took place. Moreover, they are ordered

by their year of publication, so readers get an idea of

the development of the research field. If multiple pub�

lications within one media context with the same year

of publication exist, we listed them alphabetically.

1. Film and Television

The following list includes all studies that can be

assigned to the classical film and television. It also

includes studies that use audiovisual film�like stimuli

that were not initially produced for commercial film

and television.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and

para�social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a

distance. Psychiatry, 19, 188–211.

Rosengren, K. E., Windahl, S., Hakansson, P., & Johnsson�

Smaragdi, U. (1976). Adolescents’ TV relations: Three

scales. Communication Research, 3, 347–366.

Duck, J. M., & Noble, G. (1979). ‘Sesame Street’ & ‘Play

School’: A comparison and contrast of the two pro�

grams suitable for a four year�old target audience.

Media Information Australia, 13, 15–23.

Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as parasocial inter�

action. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 177–187.

Noble, G. (1983). ‘Sesame Street’ and ‘Playschool’ revisited.

Media Information Australia, 28, 26–32.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 21

Wenner, L. A. (1983). Political news on television: A recon�

sideration of audience orientations. Western Journal of

Speech Communication, 47, 380–395.

Houlberg, R. (1984). Local television news audience and the

para�social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 28,

423–429.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985).

Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television

news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12,

155–180.

Piccirillo, M. S. (1986). On the authenticity of televisual

experience: A critical exploration of para�social clo�

sure. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3,

337–355.

Perloff, R. M., & Krevans, J. (1987). Tracking the psy�

chosocial predictors of older individuals’ television

uses. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 365–372.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and

soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investiga�

tion. Human Communication Research, 14, 246–292.

Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of

parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 279–292.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Attribution in social and

parasocial relationships. Communication Research,

16, 59–77.

Perse, E. M. (1990). Media involvement and local news

effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

34, 17–36.

Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological pre�

dictors of television viewing motivation. Communi�

cation Research, 18, 443–463.

Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball�Rokeach, S. J. (1991).

Television shopping: A media system dependency per�

spective. Communication Research, 18, 773–798.

Auter, P. J. (1992). TV that talks back: An experimental val�

idation of a parasocial interaction scale. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36, 173–181.

Auter, P. J., & Moore, R. L. (1993). Buying from a friend: A

content analysis of two teleshopping programs.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70,

425–436.

Fabian, T. (1993). Fernsehen und Einsamkeit im Alter. Eine

empirische Untersuchung zu parasozialer Interaktion.

M�nster: LIT.

Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological pre�

dictors of parasocial interaction with different televi�

sion performers. Communication Quarterly, 41,

443–453.

Dittmar, M. L. (1994). Relations among depression, gender,

and television viewing of college students. Journal of

Social Behavior & Personality, 9, 317–328.

Gleich, U. (1995). Die Beziehung von Fernsehzuschauern zu

Medienpersonen—Eine explorative Untersuchung. In

R. Arbinger, & R. S. J�ger (Eds.), Zukunfts�perspektiv�

en empirisch�p�dagogischer Forschung (pp.

363–381). Landau: Verlag Empirische P�dagogik.

Gleich, U. (1996). Sind Fernsehpersonen die “Freunde” des

Zuschauers? Ein Vergleich zwischen parasozialen und

realen sozialen Beziehungen. In P. Vorderer (Ed.),

Fernsehen als “Beziehungskiste”: Parasoziale

Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV�Personen (pp.

113–144). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Gleich, U., & Burst, M. (1996). Parasoziale Beziehungen

von Fernsehzuschauern mit Personen auf dem

Bildschirm. Medienpsychologie, 8, 182–200.

Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and

parasocial interaction with favorite television charac�

ters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40,

389–402.

Stephens, D. L., Hill, R. P., & Bergman, K. (1996).

Enhancing the consumer�product relationship:

Lessons from the QVC home shopping channel.

Journal of Business Research, 37, 193–200.

Tsao, J. (1996). Compensatory media use: An exploration of

two paradigms. Communication Studies, 47, 89–109.

Vorderer, P. (1996). Picard, Brinkmann, Derrick und Co. als

Freunde der Zuschauer. Eine explorative Studie �ber

parasoziale Beziehungen zu Serienfiguren. In P.

Vorderer (Ed.), Fernsehen als “Beziehungskiste”:

Parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV�

Personen (pp. 153–171). Opladen: Westdeutscher

Verlag.

Vorderer, P., & Knobloch, S. (1996). Parasoziale

Beziehungen zu Serienfiguren: Erg�nzung oder

Ersatz? Zeitschrift f�r Medienpsychologie, 8,

201–216.

Cohen, J. (1997). Parasocial relations and romantic attrac�

tion: Gender and dating status differences. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 516–529.

Gleich, U. (1997a). Parasocial interaction with people on the

screen. In P. Winterhoff�Spurk & Van der Voort, T. H.

A. (Eds.), New horizons in media psychology:

Research cooperation and projects in Europe (pp.

35–55). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Gleich, U. (1997b). Parasoziale Interaktionen und

Beziehungen von Fernsehzuschauern mit Personen auf

dem Bildschirm: Ein theoretischer und empirischer

Beitrag zum Konzept des aktiven Rezipienten. Landau:

Verlag Empirische P�dagogik.

Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of

audience activity on media effects. Communication

Research, 24, 107–135.

Pitout, M. (1998). Reception analysis: A qualitative investi�

gation of the parasocial and social dimensions of soap

opera viewing. Communicatio, 24, 65–82.

Skumanich, S. A., & Kintsfather, D. P. (1998). Individual

media dependency relations within television shop�

ping programming: A causal model reviewed and

revised. Communication Research, 25, 200–219.

22 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Visscher, A., & Vorderer, P. (1998). Freunde in guten und

schlechten Zeiten. Parasoziale Beziehungen von

Vielsehern zu Charakteren einer Daily Soap. In H.

Wilhelms, & M. Jurga (Eds.), Inszenierungs�

gesellschaft (pp. 453–469). Opladen: Westdeutscher

Verlag.

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, 495–511.

May, R. A. B. (1999). Tavern culture and television viewing:

The influence of local viewing culture on patrons’

reception of television programs. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 69–99.

Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and vali�

dation of a parasocial interaction measure: The audi�

ence�persona interaction scale. Communication

Research Reports, 17, 79–89.

Six, U., & Gleich, U. (2000). Sozio�emotionale und kogni�

tive Reaktionen auf Ereignisszenarien mit TV�

Personen. Ein Experiment zur parasozialen

Beziehung. In A. Schorr (Ed.), Publikums� und

Wirkungsforschung (pp. 363–383). Wiesbaden:

Westdeutscher Verlag.

Sood, S., & Rogers, E. (2000). Dimensions of parasocial

interaction by letter�writers to a popular entertain�

ment�education soap opera in India. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 386–414.

Eggermont, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2001). Television as a

substitute: Loneliness, need intensity, mobility, life�

satisfaction, and the elderly television viewer.

Communicatio, 27, 10–18.

Jordan, J. M., & Bahk, C. M. (2001). The cognitive bases

and social consequences of communication involve�

ment. Communication Research Reports, 18, 11�25.

McCourt, A., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2001). The role of personal

characteristics and romantic characteristics in paraso�

cial relationships: A pilot study. Journal of Mundane

Behavior, 2, 42–58.

Thallmair, A., & R�ssler, P. (2001). Parasoziale Interaktion

bei der Rezeption von Daily Talk shows. Eine

Befragung von �lteren Talk�Zuschauern. In C.

Schneiderbauer (Ed.), Daily Talkshows unter der Lupe

(pp. 179–208). M�nchen: Fischer.

Gudelunas, D. (2002). QVC: Television retail & ritual. The

Journal of American Culture, 25, 105–118.

Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual

differences in responses to the dissolution of paraso�

cial relationships. Mass Communication and Society,

6, 191–202.

Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Viewer aggression and

homophily, identification, and parasocial relationships

with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 47, 77–98.

Lystig Fritchie, L., & Johnson, K. K. (2003). Personal sell�

ing approaches used in television shopping. Journal of

Fashion Marketing and Management: An Internation�

al Journal, 7, 249–258.

Rubin, A. M., Haridakis, P. M., & Eyal, K. (2003). Viewer

aggression and attraction to television talk shows.

Media Psychology, 5, 331–362.

Annese, S. (2004). Mediated identity in the parasocial inter�

action of TV. Identity, 4, 371–388.

Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break�up from favorite televi�

sion characters: The role of attachment styles and rela�

tionship intensity. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 21, 187–202.

Park, J. H., & Lennon, S. J. (2004). Television apparel shop�

ping: Impulse buying and parasocial interaction.

Clothing and Textiles Journal, 22, 135–144.

Auter, P. J., Arafa, N., & Al�Jaber, K. (2005). Identifying

with Arabic journalists: How Al Jazeera tapped

parasocial interaction in the Arab world. Gazette, 67,

189–204.

Chory�Assad, R. M., & Yanen, A. (2005). Hopelessness and

loneliness as predictors of older adults’ involvement

with favorite television performers. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 182–201.

Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2005). Ursachen und Effekte

Parasozialer Interaktionen im Rezeptionsprozess: Eine

Fragebogenstudie auf der Basis des PSI�Zwei�Ebenen�

Modells. Zeitschrift f�r Medienpsychologie, 17,

88–98.

Kline, S. L. (2005). Interactive media systems: Influence

strategies in television home shopping. Text & Talk,

25, 201–231.

Matthews, P., & Barrett, L. (2005). Small�screen social

groups: Soap operas and social networks. Evolution,

Mind and Behavior, 3, 75–86.

Roberts, S., & Howard, S. (2005). Watching Teletubbies:

Television and its very young audience. In J. Marsh

(Ed.), Popular culture, new media and digital literacy

in early childhood (pp. 91–107). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The

parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication

Monographs, 72, 92–115.

Sherman�Morris, K. (2005). Tornadoes, television and

trust: A closer look at the influence of the local

weathercaster during severe weather. Global

Environmental Change Part B: Environmental

Hazards, 6, 201–210.

Eyal, K., & Cohen, J. (2006). When good friends say good�

bye: A parasocial breakup study. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 502–523.

Gudelunas, D. (2006). Shopping with friends: Audience per�

spectives on television shopping. Popular

Communication, 4, 229–252.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 23

Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J., & Finnerty, K. L. (2006).

Emotional and cognitive predictors of the enjoyment

of reality�based and fictional television programming:

An elaboration of the uses and gratifications perspec�

tive. Media Psychology, 8, 421–447.

Russell, C. A., & Stern, B. B. (2006). Consumers, characters,

and products. A balance model of sitcom product

placement effects. Journal of Advertising, 35, 7–21.

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one

TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the

parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of

Homosexuality, 51, 15–37.

Briggs, M. (2007). Meaning, play and experience: Audience

activity and the “ontological bias” in children’s media

research. Participations: Journal of Audience and

Reception Studies, 4, 48–63.

Stern, B. B., Russell, C. A., & Russell, D. W. (2007). Hidden

persuasions in soap operas: Damaged heroines and

negative consumer effects. International Journal of

Advertising, 26, 9–36.

Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2008). Love makes you

real: Favorite television characters are perceived as

“real” in a social facilitation paradigm. Social

Cognition, 26, 156–168.

Greenwood, D. N. (2008). Television as escape from self:

Psychological predictors of media involvement.

Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 414–424.

Greenwood, D. N., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Long, C. R.

(2008). Young women’s attachment style and interper�

sonal engagement with female TV stars. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 387–407.

Hartmann, T., Stuke, D., & Daschmann, G. (2008).

Parasocial relationships with drivers affect suspense in

racing sport spectators. Journal of Media Psychology,

20, 24–34.

Junger, L. T., & Witte, E. H. (2008). Media and the con�

tact hypothesis: An experimental study on the

impact of parasocial contact. In E. H. Witte (Ed.),

Hamburger Forschungsbericht zur Sozialpsycho�

logie Nr. 83 (pp. 1–29). Hamburg: Arbeitsbereich

Sozialpsychologie.

Kronewald, E. (2008). Fernsehnutzung von Singles und

Liierten: Die Relevanz des Merkmals Beziehungsstand

f�r Fernsehnutzungsmotive und parasoziale

Beziehungen. M�nchen: Verlag Reinhard Fischer.

Marmor�Lavie, G., & Weimann, G. (2008). Intimacy appeals

in Israeli televised political advertising. Political

Communication, 25, 249–268.

Rosaen, S. F., & Dibble, J. L. (2008). Investigating the rela�

tionships among child’s age, parasocial interactions,

and the social realism of favorite television characters.

Communication Research Reports, 25, 145–154.

Rossmann, C. (2008). Fiktion Wirklichkeit. Wiesbaden: VS

Verlag f�r Sozialwissenschaften.

Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008a). Die Messung

von parasozialen Interaktionen als mehrdimension�

ales Konstrukt. Entwicklung und Validierung von

PSI�Prozess�Skalen auf Basis des Zwei�Ebenen�

Modells parasozialer Interaktionen. In J. Matthes,

W. Wirth, G. Daschmann, & A. Fahr (Eds.),

Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommuni�

kationswissenschaft. Die Br�cke zwischen Theorie

und Empirie—Operationalisierung, Messung und

Validierung in der Kommunikationswissenschaft

(pp. 48–69). K�ln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.

Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008b). The PSI�Process

Scales. A new measure to assess the intensity and

breadth of parasocial processes. Communications, 33,

385–401.

Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2008). Loneliness, gen�

der, and parasocial interaction: A uses and gratifica�

tions approach. Communication Quarterly, 56,

87–109.

Casper, M. F., & Child, J. T. (2009). Embedded reporting and

audience response: Parasocial interaction and per�

ceived realism in embedded reporting from the Iraq

war on television news. In P. M. Haridakis, B. S.

Hugenberg, & S. T. Wearden (Eds.), War and the

media: Essays on news reporting, propaganda and

popular culture (pp. 205–221). North Carolina:

McFarland.

Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social

surrogacy: How favored television programs provide

the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 45, 352–362.

Greenwood, D. N. (2009). Idealized TV friends and young

women’s body concerns. Body Image, 6, 97–104.

Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R. (2009). Psychological pre�

dictors of media involvement: Solitude experiences

and the need to belong. Communication Research, 36,

637–654.

Henkel, S., & Walter, B. von. (2009). Markante

Pers�nlichkeiten � Prominente als Marken der

Gegenwartsgesellschaft. In H. Willems (Ed.),

Theatralisierung der Gesellschaft. Band 2:

Medientheatralit�t und Medientheatralisierung (pp.

309–327).

Wiesbaden:

VS

Verlag

f�r

Sozialwissenschaften.

R�ssler, P., Germanus, E., Gruschwitz, S., & Kalch, A.

(2009). Wie werden aus Zuschauern Mitspieler?

Zwischen parasozialer und sozialer Interaktion:

Resonanz auf Call�In�Shows im Fernsehen. In S.

Trepte, U. Hasebrink, & H. Schramm (Eds.),

Strategische Kommunikation und Mediengestaltung �

Anwendung und Erkenntnisse der Rezeptions� und

Wirkungsforschung (pp. 165–183). Baden�Baden:

Nomos.

24 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Cortese, J., & Rubin, A. M. (2010). Uses and gratifications

of television home shopping. Atlantic Journal of

Communication, 18, 89–109.

Jeffres, L. W., Bracken, C. C., Atkin, D., & Neuendorf, K.

(2010). Moving from theorizing to application:

Predicting audience enjoyment of TV formats.

American Journal of Media Psychology, 3,

156–179.

Kistler, M. E., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Does exposure to sexu�

al hip�hop music videos influence the sexual attitudes

of college students? Mass Communication and

Society, 13, 67–86.

Lee, B. K., Park, H. S., Choi, M. I., & Kim, C. S. (2010).

Promoting organ donation through an entertainment�

education TV program in Korea: Open your eyes.

Asia�Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22, 89–97.

Moyer�Gus�, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the

effects of narrative in an entertainment television pro�

gram: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human

Communication Research, 36, 26–52.

Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction

with liked, neutral, and disliked characters on a popu�

lar TV series. Mass Communication and Society, 13,

250–269.

Curr�s�P�rez, R., Miquel�Romero, M. J., Ruiz�Maf�, C., &

Sanz�Blas, S. (2011). The role of parasocial interaction

and teleparticipation on teleshopping behaviour. In S.

Okazaki (Ed.), Advances in Advertising Research (2nd

Volume., pp. 191–213). Wiesbaden: Springer.

Dibble, J. L., & Rosaen, S. F. (2011). Parasocial interaction

as more than friendship. Evidence for parasocial inter�

actions with disliked media figures. Journal of Media

Psychology, 23, 122–132.

Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl

revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial

interaction. Journal of Communication, 61,

1104–1121.

Lim, C. M., & Kim, Y.�K. (2011). Older consumers’ TV

HomeShopping: Loneliness, parasocial interaction,

and perceived convenience. Psychology & Marketing,

28, 763–780.

Rosaen, S. F., Sherry, J. L., & Smith, S. L. (2011).

Maltreatment and parasocial relationships in US chil�

dren. Journal of Children and Media, 5, 379–394.

Su, H. J., Huang, Y. A., Brodowsky, G., & Kim, H. J. (2011).

The impact of product placement on TV�induced

tourism: Korean TV dramas and Taiwanese viewers.

Tourism Management, 32, 805–814.

Hoffner, C. A., & Cohen, E. L. (2012). Responses to obses�

sive compulsive disorder on Monk among series fans:

Parasocial relations, presumed media influence, and

behavioral outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 56, 650–668.

Lather, J., & Moyer�Gus�, E. (2012). How do we react when

our favorite characters are taken away? An examina�

tion of a temporary parasocial breakup. Mass

Communication and Society, 14, 196–215.

Ramasubramanian, S., & Kornfield, S. (2012). Japanese

anime heroines as role models for U.S. youth: Wishful

identification, parasocial interaction, and intercultural

entertainment effects. Journal of International and

Intercultural Communication, 5, 189–207.

Shim, C., Zhang, Y. B., & Harwood, J. (2012). Direct and

mediated intercultural contact: Koreans’ attitudes

toward US Americans. Journal of International and

Intercultural Communication, 5, 169–188.

Spreckels, J. (2012). ‘I wanna become a real rock star’: Para�

social interaction of German adolescent girls with tel�

evision talent shows. In R. Aya�, & C. Gerhardt (Eds.),

The appropriation of media in everyday life (pp.

161–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Tsay, M., & Bodine, B. M. (2012). Exploring parasocial

interaction in college students as a multidimensional

construct: Do personality, interpersonal need, and tel�

evision motive predict their relationships with media

characters? Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1,

185–200.

Bal, E. (2013). An evaluation about television serials in

Turkey in the context of parasocial interaction.

Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3,

767–773.

Branch, S. E., Wilson, K. M., & Agnew, C. R. (2013).

Committed to Oprah, Homer, or House: Using invest�

ment model to understand parasocial relationships.

Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 96–109.

Eyal, K., & Te’eni�Harari, T. (2013). Explaining the rela�

tionship between media exposure and early adoles�

cents’ body image perceptions: The role of favorite

characters. Journal of Media Psychology, 25,

129–141.

Gola, A. A. H., Richards, M. N., Lauricella, A. R., & Calvert,

S. L. (2013). Building meaningful parasocial relation�

ships between toddlers and media characters to teach

early mathematical skills. Media Psychology, 16,

390–411.

Khan, M. A., & Manzoor, S. (2013). Television viewing and

schoolgirls of Multan: A uses and gratifications

approach. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 33,

297–310.

So, J., & Nabi, R. (2013). Reduction of perceived social dis�

tance as an explanation for media’s influence on per�

sonal risk perceptions: A test of the risk convergence

model. Human Communication Research, 39,

317–338.

Aubrey, J. S., Behm�Morawitz, E., & Kim, K. (2014).

Understanding the effects of MTV’s 16 and Pregnant

on adolescent girls’ beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral

intentions toward teen pregnancy. Journal of Health

Communication, 19, 1145–1160.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 25

Bond, B. J., & Drogos, K. L. (2014). Sex on the shore:

Wishful identification and parasocial relationships as

mediators in the relationship between Jersey Shore

exposure and emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and

behaviors. Media Psychology, 17, 102–126.

Calvert, S. L., Richards, M. N., & Kent, C. C. (2014).

Personalized interactive characters for toddlers’ learn�

ing of seriation from a video presentation. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 148–155.

Cummins, R. G., & Cui, B. (2014). Reconceptualizing

address in television programming: The effect of

address and affective empathy on viewer experience of

parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 64,

723–742.

Curnalia, R. M. (2014). Frugal reality TV during the great

recession: A qualitative content analysis of the TLC’s

extreme couponing. In A. F. Slade, A. J. Narro, & B. P.

Buchanan (Eds.), Reality television: Oddities of cul�

ture (pp. 101–121). Lanham: Lexington Books.

Lei�ner, L., Stehr, P., R�ssler, P., D�ringer, E., Morsbach,

M., & Simon, L. (2014). Parasoziale Meinungs�

f�hrerschaft. Beeinflussung durch Medienpersonen im

Rahmen parasozialer Beziehungen: Theoretische

Konzeption und erste empirische Befunde. Publizistik,

59, 247–267.

Ortiz, R. R., & Brooks, M. E. (2014). Getting what they

deserve? Consequences of sexual expression by central

characters in five popular television teen dramas in the

United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8, 40–52.

Schallhorn, C., Knoll, J., & Schramm, H. (2014). Die

Bedeutung der parasozialen Interaktion (PSI) f�r die

Wirkung von Product Placements auf Erwachsene. In

H. Schramm, & J. Knoll (Eds.), Innovation der

Persuasion. Die Qualit�t der Werbe� und

Markenkommunikation in neuen Medienwelten (pp.

16–33). K�ln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.

Stehr, P., Lei�ner, L., Sch�nhardt, F., & R�ssler, P. (2014).

Parasoziale Meinungsf�hrerschaft als methodische

Herausforderung: Entwicklung eines Fragebogen�

instruments zur Messung des Einflusses von

Medienpersonen auf die politische Meinungs� und

Einstellungsbildung. Medien & Kommunikationswis�

senschaft, 62, 395–416.

Bond, B. J., & Compton, B. L. (2015). Gay on�screen: The

relationship between exposure to gay characters on tel�

evision and heterosexual audiences’ endorsement of

gay equality. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 59, 717–732.

Harwood, J., & Vincze, L. (2015). Ethnolinguistic identifi�

cation, vitality, and gratifications for television use in

a bilingual media environment. Journal of Social

Issues, 71, 73–89.

Hoffner, C. A., & Cohen, E. L. (2015). Portrayal of mental

illness on the TV series Monk: Presumed influence and

consequences of exposure. Health Communication,

30, 1046–1054.

Jeong, H., Candidate, D., & Park, H. S. (2015). The effect of

parasocial interaction on intention to register as organ

donors through entertainment�education programs in

Korea. Asia�Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27,

2040–2048.

Knoll, J., Schramm, H., Schallhorn, C., & Wynistorf, S.

(2015). Good guy vs. bad guy: The influence of

parasocial interactions with media characters on brand

placement effects. International Journal of

Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communi�

cations, 34, 720–743.

Madison, T. P., & Porter, L. V. (2015). The people we meet:

Discriminating functions of parasocial interactions.

Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 35, 47–71.

Parashar, S. (2015). Television connectedness: A compara�

tive study of television programs. International

Journal of Applied Services Marketing Perspectives,

4, 1737–1746.

Semmler, S. M., Loof, T., & Berke, C. (2015). The influence

of audio�only character narration on character and nar�

rative engagement. Communication Research Reports,

32, 63–72.

Stehr, P., R�ssler, P., Sch�nhardt, F., & Lei�ner, L. (2015).

Parasocial opinion leadership: Media personalities’

influence within parasocial relations: Theoretical con�

ceptualization and preliminary results. International

Journal of Communication, 9, 982–1001.

Tian, Y., & Yoo, J. H. (2015). Connecting with the biggest

loser: An extended model of parasocial interaction and

identification in health�related reality TV shows.

Health Communication, 30, 1–7.

Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016).

Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship:

Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of

measures. Human Communication Research, 42,

21–44.

Hu, M. (2016). The Influence of a scandal on parasocial rela�

tionship, parasocial interaction, and parasocial

breakup. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5,

217–231.

Madison, T. P., & Porter, L. V. (2016). Cognitive and

imagery attributes of parasocial relationships.

Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 35, 359–379.

Madison, T. P., Porter, L. V., & Greule, A. (2016). Parasocial

compensation hypothesis: Predictors of using paraso�

cial relationships to compensate for real�life interac�

tion. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 35,

258–279.

Phua, J. (2016). The effects of similarity, parasocial identifi�

cation, and source credibility in obesity public service

announcements on diet and exercise self�efficacy.

Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 699–708.

26 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Rosaen, S. F., & Dibble, J. L. (2016). Clarifying the role of

attachment and social compensation on parasocial

relationships

with

television

characters.

Communication Studies, 67, 147–162.

2. Radio and Music

The following list includes all studies on paraso�

cial phenomena in the context of radio shows, radio

hosts, and music.

Hofstetter, C. R., & Gianos, C. L. (1997). Political talk radio:

Actions speak louder than words. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 501–515.

Papa, M. J., Singhal, A., Law, S., Pant, S., Sood, S., Rogers,

E., & Shefner�Rogers, C. (2000). Entertainment� edu�

cation and social change: An analysis of parasocial

interaction, social learning, collective efficacy, and

paradoxical

communication.

Journal

of

Communication, 50, 31–55.

Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of motivation,

attraction, and parasocial interaction on talk radio lis�

tening. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

44, 635–654.

Kawamura, Y., Ivankova, N. V., Kohler, C. L., & Perumean�

Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed methods to assess

parasocial interaction of an entertainment�education

program audience. International Journal of Multiple

Research Approaches, 3, 88–104.

Papa, M. J., & Singhal, A. (2009). How entertainment�edu�

cation programmes promote dialogue in support of

social change. Journal of Creative Communications, 4,

185–208.

Bentley, J. M. (2014). Best practices in noncommercial radio

fundraising: A practitioner perspective. International

Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,

19, 250–261.

Savage, M. E., & Spence, P. R. (2014). Will you listen? An

examination of parasocial interaction and credibility in

radio. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 21, 3–19.

Tanganika, F. (2014). The role of “Musekeweya,” an enter�

tainment�education radio soap opera in the promotion

of reconciliation in Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of

Education, 1, 55–68.

Wolfenden, H. (2014). “I know exactly who they are”: Radio

presenters’ conceptions of audience. Radio Journal:

International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 12,

5–21.

3. Print Media

The following list includes all studies centered

around simple texts, including journals and novels.

Burnett, A., & Beto, R. R. (2000). Reading romance novels:

An application of parasocial relationship theory. North

Dakota Journal of Speech & Theatre, 13, 28–39.

Appel, M., Koch, E., Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (2002).

Aspekte des Leseerlebens: Skalenentwicklung.

Zeitschrift f�r Medienpsychologie, 14, 149–154.

R�ssler, P., & Veigel, A. (2005). Was interessiert an Stars und

Sternchen? Publizistik, 50, 438–461.

Wegener, C. (2008). Medien, Aneignung und Identit�t:

“Stars” im Alltag jugendlicher Fans. Wiesbaden: VS

Verlag f�r Sozialwissenschaften.

Hinnant, A., & Meyers Hendrickson, E. (2014). Negotiating

normalcy in celebrity health behavior: A focus group

analysis. Journal of Magazine & New Media

Research, 15, 1–20.

Phua, J. (2014). The influence of Asian American

spokesmodels in technology�related advertising: An

experiment. Howard Journal of Communications, 25,

399–414.

Gries, P., Sanders, M. A., Stroup, D. R., & Cai, H. (2015).

Hollywood in China: How American popular culture

shapes Chinese views of the “beautiful imperialist”—

An experimental analysis. The China Quarterly, 224,

1070–1082.

Szpitalak, M., Polak, M., Polczyk, R., & Dukała, K. (2015).

The influence of social, para�social, and nonsocial

misleading post�event sources on memory perform�

ance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46,

185–197.

4. New Media

The following list includes all studies in contexts

ranging from computer games to social media.

Paechter, M., Schweizer, K., & Weidenmann, B. (2000).

Parasoziale Beziehungen zu einer Dozentin im Netz.

Medienpsychologie, 12, 242–259.

Hartmann, T., Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2001). Avatare:

Parasoziale Beziehungen zu virtuellen Akteuren.

Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 49, 350–368.

Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2002). “Lara ist mein Medium.”

Parasoziale Interaktionen mit Lara Croft im Vergleich

zur Lieblingsfigur aus Film und Fernsehen. In P.

R�ssler, S. Kubisch, & V. Gehrau (Eds.), Empirische

Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung (pp. 177–192).

M�nchen: Fischer.

Luo, J. T., McGoldrick, P., Beatty, S., & Keeling, K. A.

(2006). On�screen characters: Their design and influ�

ence on consumer trust. Journal of Services

Marketing, 20, 112–124.

Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between

blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactiv�

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 27

ity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive

Advertising, 6, 34–44.

Sanderson, J. (2008). Spreading the world: Emphatic inter�

action displays on blogmaverick.com. Journal of

Media Psychology, 20, 156–167.

Chung, D., & Kim, C. H. (2009). Causal links of presence.

In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human�Computer Interaction.

Interacting in Various Application Domains (pp.

279–286). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Jin, S.�A. A., & Park, N. (2009). Parasocial interaction with

my avatar: Effects of interdependent self�construal and

the mediating role of self�presence in an avatar�based

console game, Wii. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12,

723–727.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2009a). “Is this a church?

Such a big bunch of believers around here!”: Fan

expressions of social support on Floydlandis.com.

Journal of Communication Studies, 1, 308–330.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2009b). “You’re the kind of

guy that we all want for a drinking buddy”: Expressions

of parasocial interaction on Floydlandis.com. Western

Journal of Communication, 73, 182–203.

Sanderson, J. (2009). “You are all loved so much”:

Exploring relational maintenance within the context of

parasocial relationships. Journal of Media Psychology,

21, 171–182.

Jin, S.�A. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with an avatar in

second life: A typology of the self and an empirical test

of the mediating role of social presence. Presence, 19,

331–340.

Colliander, J., & Dahl�n, M. (2011). Following the fashion�

able friend: The power of social media—Weighing

publicity effectiveness of blogs versus online maga�

zines. Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 313–320.

Jin, S.�A. A. (2011). Leveraging avatars in 3D virtual envi�

ronments (Second Life) for interactive learning: The

moderating role of the behavioral activation system vs.

behavioral inhibition system and the mediating role of

enjoyment. Interactive Learning Environments, 19,

467–486.

Powell, L., Richmond, V. P., & Williams, G. C. (2011).

Social networking and political campaigns:

Perceptions of candidates as interpersonal constructs.

North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 331–342.

Bowman, N. D., Schultheiss, D., & Schumann, C. (2012).

“I’m attached, and I’m a good guy/gal!”: How charac�

ter attachment influences pro� and anti�social motiva�

tions to play massively multiplayer online role�playing

games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 15, 1–6.

Frederick, E. L., Lim, C. M., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012).

Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interac�

tion and fan motivations for following athlete arche�

types on Twitter. International Journal of Sport

Communication, 5, 481–502.

Ophir, Y., & Weimann, G. (2012). From terrorist to persona:

Para�social interaction and the ETA website.

Perspectives on Terrorism, 6, 23–35.

Baek, Y. M., Bae, Y., & Jang, H. (2013). Social and paraso�

cial relationships on social network sites and their dif�

ferential relationships with users’ psychological well�

being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 16, 512–517.

Lavelle, K. E. (2013). Cullen Jones is my friend!: Increasing

diversity in swimming through parasocial relation�

ships on Facebook. In B. Brummet, & A. Ishak (Eds.),

Sports and Identity: New Agendas in Communication

(pp. 44–59). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.

Lee, E.�J., & Jang, J.�W. (2013). Not so imaginary interper�

sonal contact with public figures on social network

sites: How affiliative tendency moderates its effects.

Communication Research, 40, 27–51.

Lin, H.�Y., & Chiang, C.�H. (2013). Analyzing behaviors

influencing the adoption of online games from the per�

spective of virtual contact. Social Behavior and

Personality, 41, 113–122.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2013a). Beyond liking or fol�

lowing: Understanding public engagement on social

networking sites in China. Public Relations Review,

39, 13–22.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2013b). Toward an integrated

model of public engagement on corporate social net�

working sites: Antecedents, the process, and relational

outcomes. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 7, 257–273.

Stever, G. S., & Lawson, K. (2013). Twitter as a way for

celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for

the study of parasocial interaction. North American

Journal of Psychology, 15, 339–354.

Dunn, S. G. S., & Nisbett, G. S. (2014). Parasocial interac�

tions online: Candidate intimacy in webpages and

Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 3,

26–41.

Frederick, E., Hamrick, M. E., & Clavio, G. (2014). Bypass

and broadcast: Utilizing parasocial interaction to

examine @nhl communication on Twitter during the

2012�2013 lockout. Journal of Sports Media, 9,

25–44.

Frederick, E., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., Pedersen, P. M., &

Burch, L. (2014). Choosing between the one�way or

two� way street: An exploration of relationship promo�

tion by professional athletes on Twitter. Communi�

cation & Sport, 2, 80–99.

Gong, N. Z., & Xu, W. (2014). Reciprocal versus parasocial

relationships in online social networks. Social Network

Analysis and Mining, 4, 1–14.

Sanderson, J., & Emmons, B. (2014). Extending and with�

holding forgiveness to Josh Hamilton: Exploring for�

giveness within parasocial interaction. Communi�

cation & Sport, 2, 24–47.

28 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Sanderson, J., & Truax, C. (2014). “I hate you man!”:

Exploring maladaptive parasocial interaction expres�

sions to college athletes via Twitter. Journal of Issues

in Intercollegiate Athletics, 7, 333–351.

Chiu, C. M., & Huang, H. Y. (2015). Examining the

antecedents of user gratification and its effects on indi�

viduals’ social network services usage: The moderat�

ing role of habit. European Journal of Information

Systems, 24, 411–430.

Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the

bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised product

placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 21, 110–124.

Kim, H., Ko, E., & Kim, J. (2015). SNS users’ para�social

relationships with celebrities: Social media effects on

purchase intentions. Journal of Global Scholars of

Marketing Science, 25, 279–294.

Klastrup, L. (2015). “I didn’t know her, but…”: Parasocial

mourning of mediated deaths on Facebook RIP pages.

New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 21,

146–164.

Lin, L. C. S. (2015). Facebook politics: Strategic network

campaigning in the 2012 Taiwan presidential election.

Media International Australia, 155, 54–65.

Lueck, J. A. (2015). Friend�zone with benefits: The paraso�

cial advertising of Kim Kardashian. Journal of

Marketing Communications, 21, 91–109.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.�H. S. (2015). Infusing social media

with humanity: Corporate character, public engage�

ment, and relational outcomes. Public Relations

Review, 41, 395–403.

Richards, M. N., & Calvert, S. L. (2015). Toddlers’ judge�

ment of media character source credibility on touch�

screens. American Behavioral Scientist, 59,

1755–1775.

Tsiotsou, R. H. (2015). The role of social and parasocial rela�

tionships on social networking sites loyalty.

Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 401–414.

Yates, B. L. (2015). It’s social, not parasocial: Understanding

the impact of the Internet on building community

among Bruce Springsteen fans. Atlantic Journal of

Communication, 23, 254–268.

Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016a). Avatars are (some�

times) people too: Linguistic indicators of parasocial

and social ties in player�avatar relationships. New

Media & Society, 18, 1257–1276.

Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016b). Emotion, anthropo�

morphism, realism, control: Validation of a merged

metric for player�avatar interaction (PAX). Computers

in Human Behavior, 54, 215–223.

Chen, C.�P. (2016). Forming digital self and parasocial rela�

tionships on YouTube. Journal of Consumer Culture,

16, 232–254.

Song, W., & Fox, J. (2016). Playing for love in a romantic

video game: Avatar identification, parasocial relation�

ship, and Chinese women’s romantic beliefs. Mass

Communication and Society, 19, 197–215.

5. Intermedia

The following list includes all studies that do not

relate to a precise media context. For example, studies

that compare parasocial phenomena between different

types of media or studies that do not fixate on certain

media contexts are listed here.

Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media con�

sumption as a functional alternative. In D. McQuail

(Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp.

166–194). Hamondsworth: Penguin.

Nordlund, J. E. (1978). Media interaction. Communication

Research, 5, 150–175.

Salamon, E. D. (1985). The radio religion of the Barry

Manilow international fan club�UK. Studies in

Popular Culture, 8, 86–104.

Stever, G. S. (1991). The celebrity appeal questionnaire.

Psychological Reports, 68, 859–866.

Rosengren, K. E. (1994). Media use under structural change.

In K. E. Rosengren (Ed.), Media effects and beyond:

Culture, socialization, and lifestyles (pp. 49–75).

London: Routledge.

Brown, W. J., & Basil, M. D. (1995). Media celebrities and

public health: Responses to “Magic” Johnson’s HIV

disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and high�risk

behaviors. Health Communication, 7, 345–370.

Auter, P. J., & Lane, R. (1999). Locus of control, parasocial

interaction, and usage of radio or TV ministry pro�

grams. Journal of Communication & Religion, 22,

93–120.

Ashe, D. D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Shyness, loneli�

ness, and attitude toward celebrities. Current Research

in Social Psychology, 6, 124–132.

McCutcheon, L. E. (2002). Are parasocial relationship styles

reflected in love styles? Current Research in Social

Psychology, 7, 82–93.

Brown, W. J., Basil, M. D., & Bocarnea, M. C. (2003). The

influence of famous athletes on health beliefs and

practices: Mark McGwire, child abuse prevention, and

androstenedione. Journal of Health Communication,

8, 41–57.

Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2003). A clin�

ical interpretation of attitudes and behaviors associat�

ed with celebrity worship. Journal of Nervous and

Mental Disease, 191, 25–29.

McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., Houran, J., & Maltby, J.

(2003). A cognitive profile of individuals who tend to

worship celebrities. The Journal of Psychology, 137,

309–322.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 29

Bae, H.�S., & Lee, B. (2004). Audience involvement and its

antecedents: An analysis of the electronic bulletin

board messages about an entertainment�education

drama on divorce in Korea. Asian Journal of

Communication, 14, 6–21.

Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures

in adolescent development: Relations between autono�

my, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality

and Individual Differences, 36, 813–822.

Maier, J. H. (2005). Bestehen parasoziale Beziehungen zu

Politikern?: Eine empirische Exploration mit der

Repertory Grid Technik.

Zeitschrift f�r

Medienpsychologie, 17, 99–109.

Maltby, J., Giles, D. C., Barber, L., & McCutcheon, L. E.

(2005). Intense personal celebrity worship and body

image: Evidence of a link among female adolescents.

British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 17–32.

Hartmann, T., Daschmann, G., & Stuke, D. (2006).

Parasoziale Beziehungen zu Sportlern. Eine

empirische Studie am Beispiel von Formel�1�Fahrern.

In H. Schramm, W. Wirth, & H. Bilandzic (Eds.),

Empirische Unterhaltungsforschung: Studien zur

Rezeption und Wirkung von medialer Unterhaltung

(pp. 149–168). M�nchen: R. Fischer.

De Backer, C. J. S., Nelissen, M., Vyncke, P., Braeckman, J.,

& McAndrew, F. T. (2007). Celebrities: From teachers

to friends: A test of two hypotheses on adaptiveness of

celebrity gossip. Human Nature, 18, 334–354.

Auter, P. J., Ashton, E., & Soliman, M. R. (2008). A study of

Egyptian and American young adult parasocial rela�

tionships with music video personae. Journal of Arab

& Muslim Media Research, 1, 131–144.

Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Tippin, B. (2008). Parasocial

relationships and self�discrepancies: Faux relation�

ships have benefits for low self�esteem individuals.

Personal Relationships, 15, 261–280.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2008). Fanning the

flames of fandom: Celebrity worship, parasocial inter�

action, and stalking. In J. R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, & J.

Hoffmann (Eds.), Stalking, threatening and attacking

public figures: A psychological and behavioral analy�

sis (pp. 287–321). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bae�ler, B. (2009). Medienpersonen als parasoziale

Beziehungspartner. Ein theoretischer und empirischer

Beitrag zu personazentrierter Rezeption. Baden�

Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

L�bler, H. (2009). My relationship to Scarlett O’Hara—

Characterising para�social relationships using the

repertory grid technique. Journal of Customer

Behaviour, 8, 29–50.

Spinda, J. S., Earnheardt, A. C., & Hugenberg, L. W. (2009).

Checkered flags and mediated friendships: Parasocial

interaction among NASCAR fans. Journal of Sports

Media, 4, 31–55.

Stever, G. S. (2009). Parasocial and social interaction with

celebrities: Classification of media fans. Journal of

Media Psychology, 14, 1–39.

Robinson, J. D., & Agne, R. (2009). Audience replies to

character blogs as parasocial relationships. In T.

Dumova (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social

Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software:

Concepts and Trends (pp. 302–312). Hershey, PA: IGI

Global.

Brown, W. J., & De Matviuk, M. A. C. (2010). Sports

celebrities and public health: Diego Maradona’s influ�

ence on drug use prevention. Journal of Health

Communication, 15, 358–373.

Centeno, D. G. (2010). Celebrification in Philippine politics:

Exploring the relationship between celebrity

endorsers’ parasociability and the public’s voting

behavior. Social Science Diliman, 6, 66–85.

Cohen, E. L. (2010). Expectancy violations in relationships

with friends and media figures. Communication

Research Reports, 27, 97–111.

Schramm, H., & Wirth, W. (2010). Testing a universal tool

for measuring parasocial interactions across different

situations and media. Journal of Media Psychology,

22, 26–36.

Sun, T. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of parasocial

interaction with sport athletes and identification with

sport teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 194–217.

Theran, S. A., Newberg, E. M., & Gleason, T. R. (2010).

Adolescent girls’ parasocial interactions with media

figures. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research

and Theory on Human Development, 171, 270–277.

Tukachinsky, R. (2010). Para�romantic love and para�friend�

ships: Development and assessment of a multiple�

parasocial relationships scale. American Journal of

Media Psychology, 3, 73–94.

Bae, H.�S., Brown, W. J., & Kang, S. (2011). Social influ�

ence of a religious hero: The late Cardinal Stephen

Kim Sou�hwan’s effect on cornea donation and volun�

teerism. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 62–78.

Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R. (2011). Attachment,

belongingness needs, and relationship status predict

imagined intimacy with media figures.

Communication Research, 38, 278–297.

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2011). Celebrity worship and inci�

dence of elective cosmetic surgery: Evidence of a link

among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health

Care, 49, 483–489.

Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy:

Parasocial relationships with Harry Potter across dif�

ferent cultures. International Communication Gazette,

73, 252–269.

Droog, S. M. de, Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2012).

Use a rabbit or a rhino to sell a carrot? The effect of

character�product congruence on children’s liking of

30 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

healthy foods. Journal of Health Communication, 17,

1068–1080.

Eyal, K., & Dailey, R. M. (2012). Examining relational

maintenance in parasocial relationships. Mass

Communication and Society, 15, 758–781.

Powell, L., Richmond, V. P., & Cantrell�Williams, G. (2012).

The “Drinking�Buddy” scale as a measure of para�

social behavior. Psychological Reports, 110,

1029–1037.

Sun, T., & Wu, G. (2012). Influence of personality traits on

parasocial relationship with sports celebrities: A hier�

archical approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,

11, 136–146.

Young, A. F., Gabriel, S., & Sechrist, G. B. (2012). The skin�

ny on celebrities: Parasocial relationships moderate

the effects of thin media figures on women’s body

image. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 3,

659–666.

Adam, A., & Sizemore, B. (2013). Parasocial romance: A

social exchange perspective. Interpersona, 7, 12–25.

Goode, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2013). Linguistic synchrony in

parasocial interaction. Communication Studies, 64,

453–466.

Lee, E.�J. (2013). Effectiveness of politicians’ soft campaign

on twitter versus TV: Cognitive and experiential

routes. Journal of Communication, 63, 953–974.

Young, A. F., Gabriel, S., & Hollar, J. L. (2013). Batman to

the rescue! The protective effects of parasocial rela�

tionships with muscular superheroes on men’s body

image. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

49, 173–177.

Bond, B. J., & Calvert, S. L. (2014a). A model and measure

of US parents’ perceptions of young children’s paraso�

cial relationships. Journal of Children and Media, 8,

286–304.

Bond, B. J., & Calvert, S. L. (2014b). Parasocial breakup

among young children in the United States. Journal of

Children and Media, 8, 474–490.

Courbet, D., & Fourquet�Courbet, M. P. (2014). When a

celebrity dies… Social identity, uses of social media,

and the mourning process among fans: The case of

Michael Jackson. Celebrity Studies, 5, 275–290.

Hung, K. (2014). Why celebrity sells: A dual entertainment

path model of brand endorsement. Journal of

Advertising, 43, 155–166.

Lee, E.�J., & Shin, S. Y. (2014). When the medium is the

message: How transportability moderates the effects

of politicians’ Twitter communication. Communi�

cation Research, 41, 1088–1110.

Powell, L., Hickson, M., Amsbary, J. H., Richmond, V. P., &

McCroskey, J. C. (2014). The “Drinking�Buddy” scale

and perceptions of assertiveness, responsiveness and

authenticity. Political Science & Public Affairs, 2, 1–4.

Shedlosky�Shoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., & Arkin, R. M.

(2014). Self�expansion through fictional characters.

Self and Identity, 13, 556–578.

Stehr, P. (2014). Der parasoziale Meinungsf�hrer als Akteur

der politischen Willensbildung: Quantitative Pr�fung

eines Modellentwurfs. In D. Friess, J. Jax, & A.

Michalski (Eds.), Sprechen Sie EU? Das kommunika�

tive Versagen einer gro�en Idee: Beitr�ge zur 9.

Fachtagung des DFPK (pp. 219–237). Berlin: Frank

& Timme.

Wen, N., & Cui, D. (2014). Effects of celebrity involvement

on young people’s political and civic engagement.

Chinese Journal of Communication, 7, 409–428.

Androutsopoulos, J., & Weidenh�ffer, J. (2015). Zuschauer�

Engagement auf Twitter: Handlungskategorien der

rezeptionsbegleitenden Kommunikation am Beispiel

von #tatort. Zeitschrift f�r Angewandte Linguistik, 62,

23–59.

Brown, C. M., Shilling, A. A., & Young, S. G. (2015).

Acceptance and rejection of pets and parasocial others

cause corresponding changes in the self’s perceived

relational value. Self and identity, 14, 233–251.

Centeno, D. G. (2015). Constructing celebrities as political

endorsers: Parasocial acts, cultural power, and cultural

capital. Philippine Political Science Journal, 36,

209–232.

Chung, K., & Hwang, G. (2015). Antecedents and conse�

quences of Formular One spectators’ fanship: The case

of inaugural Grand Prix. Journal of Physical

Education and Sport Management, 6, 38–46.

Claessens, N., & van den Bulck, H. (2015). Parasocial rela�

tionships with audiences’ favorite celebrities: The role

of audience and celebrity characteristics in a represen�

tative Flemish sample. Communications, 40, 43–65.

DeGroot, J. M., & Leith, A. P. (2015). R.I.P. Kutner:

Parasocial grief following the death of a television

character. OMEGA�Journal of Death and Dying.

[Online first],

Tukachinsky, R. (2015). When actors don’t walk the talk:

Parasocial relationships moderate the effect of actor�

character incongruence. International Journal of

Communication, 9, 3394–3410.

Boehmer, J. (2016). Does the game really change? How stu�

dents consume mediated sports in the age of social

media. Communication & Sport, 4, 460–483.

Fogel, J. (2016). Reality television programs are associated

with illegal drug use and prescription drug misuse

among college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 51,

62–72.

Bui, N. H. (2017). Exploring similarity characteristics, iden�

tification and parasocial interactions in choice of

celebrities. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6,

21–31.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 2— 31

View publication stats