Positive Parasocial Relationships with Drivers Affect Suspense in Racing Sport Spectators

Abstract

The present study examines determinants of suspense on viewers observing sports on television. As an explanatory framework, an integrated model is proposed, linking the concept of (positive and negative) parasocial relationships (PSR) to the concept of affective dispositions as used in the affective disposition theory of drama. In the context of the popular sport of “Formula 1” racing, the hypothesized causal structure of the formation of suspense was tested in an empirical survey study. A structural equation model was calculated. Results show a significant influence of positive forms of PSR toward a favorite driver, either mediated by viewers' hopes for a positive outcome or influenced directly by the experienced level of suspense. While negative forms of PSR toward a disliked driver affect viewers' hopes for a negative outcome, they do not add to the level of suspense.

Full text

T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Susp ense, and Sports SpectatorshipJournalof Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Positive Parasocial Relationships
with Drivers Affect Suspense
in Racing Sport Spectators
Tilo Hartmann
1
, Daniela Stuke
2
, and Gregor Daschmann
3
1
VU – Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2
Deutsche Messe, Hannover, Germany,
3
Institut für Publizistik, Mainz, Germany
Abstract. The present study examines determinants of suspense on viewers observing sports on television. As an explanatory framework,
an integrated model is proposed, linking the concept of (positive and negative) parasocial relationships (PSR) to the concept of affective
dispositions as used in the affective disposition theory of drama. In the context of the popular sport of “Formula 1” racing, the hypothesized
causal structure of the formation of suspense was tested in an empirical survey study. A structural equation model was calculated. Results
show a significant influence of positive forms of PSR toward a favorite driver, either mediated by viewers’ hopes for a positive outcome
or influenced directly by the experienced level of suspense. While negative forms of PSR toward a disliked driver affect viewers’ hopes
for a negative outcome, they do not add to the level of suspense.
Keywords: suspense, sports, parasocial relationships, affective disposition theory, Formula 1, entertainment
Introduction
Around the globe, millions of people are fascinated by
sports. They are not only attracted to athletes’ skills but also
to the dramatic elements of this genre. Individuals sit in
front of their televisions and passionately root for their
team, gesticulate wildly, shout with displeasure whenever
they feel a referee has treated their team unfairly, or loudly
curse the other team to vent their discontent.
This study examines the determining factors of suspense
in the sports viewing experience. The study is based on a
central principle: Since sports come to life only via human
players as personified embodiments of the actions being
observed, it is likely that social attitudes and mechanisms
have a profound impact on feelings of suspense experi-
enced by the spectator (Hartmann, 2004). Pursuant to this
hypothesis, the current study seeks to further illuminate the
explications of suspense set forth in the affective disposi-
tion theory of drama (Zillmann, 1994, 1996) by linking
them to the realm of televised dramatic sports and inter-
preting them through the concept of parasocial relation-
ships (PSR) as defined by Horton and Wohl (1956). The
integrative approach predicts a linkage of the affective dis-
positions concept to the concept of PSR. The concept of
PSR as applied in this study is not limited solely to the
traditional meaning of positive PSR as characterized by
amicable feelings, but also includes negative PSR to dis-
liked athletes in the sense of unfriendly feelings or even
outright hostility (see also Hartmann, 2004). The theorized
relationships are empirically tested to ascertain whether
they adequately account for the suspense felt by persons
who watch sport contests in the media.
Disposition-Based Theories and Suspense
Rather than representing a single conceptualization, dispo-
sition theories reflect a class of similar explications of en-
joyment formation in different media genres (Raney,
2003a, 2004). Among all disposition theories, the affective
disposition theory of drama (Zillmann, 1994, 1996; Raney
& Bryant, 2002) tells most about the anatomy of suspense
(see Zillmann, 1980). Because the affective disposition the-
ory of drama illustrates how individuals respond to fiction-
al forms of entertainment with dramatic content (Zillmann,
1994, 1996; Raney & Bryant, 2002), an adaptation to the
realm of sports appears to be fruitful. The dramatic struc-
ture underlying sports closely resembles that of fictional
narratives (e.g., most sports contests portray the struggle of
a protagonist against an antagonist with an uncertain out-
come; cf. Bryant, Brown, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1982;
Bryant, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1977). Therefore, different
dramatic media such as fictional crime series, action mov-
ies, or sports contests generally share the same narrative
structure. As a consequence, the current study builds on an
adaptation of the causal model from the affective disposi-
tion theory of drama to the formation of suspense in sports.
Throughout the text we refer to this adapted model as the
affective disposition model of dramatic sports.
What is suspense and how does it develop in sports ex-
DOI 10.1027/1864-1105.20.1.24
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

posure? Suspense may be broadly defined as a form of em-
pathetic distress experienced by the media consumer while
watching a dramatic sports contest (cf. Zillmann et al.,
1989; Vorderer, 1996b). Strong emotional identification
with an athlete or an entire team and disapproval of one or
more competitors or teams lead to a stream of hopeful and
anxious feelings regarding possible outcomes. In turn, em-
pathetic stress occurs as a result of concurrent feelings of
hope and anxiety evoked by anticipation of the competi-
tors’ uncertain fate (Zillmann, 1996; Knobloch, 2003; in
the context of sports, see Zillmann et al., 1989). Drawing
on the rationale pursued in the affective disposition of dra-
ma, viewers, based on their underlying affective disposi-
tions, worry about the uncertain positive outcome for a fa-
vorite athlete (as they hope for a happy ending and fear a
negative ending). In addition, they worry about an uncer-
tain negative outcome for a competing athlete who is dis-
liked (because they hope for a negative ending and fear a
good ending for the disliked character). Consequently, the
basic uncertainty of sports competition causes arousal ex-
perienced in the form of suspense as long as the viewers
hold an affective disposition (i.e., favor or disfavor for at
least one of the teams or athletes involved).
Thus, the degree of suspense is supposed to vary with
the amount of sympathy felt toward the protagonist and/or
antipathy toward the antagonist. The more the struggling
athlete is liked, the more profoundly empathetic stress will
be felt. Conversely, the more the competing athlete is dis-
liked, the more distress will be felt. In turn, empathetic
stress and distress are determinants of suspense (cf. Vorde-
rer, 1994). Overall, the level of suspense in sports seems to
depend on the intensity and value of existing affective dis-
positions held by the viewer, although other factors like
game play dynamics or the interpretation of commentary
also play a role (cf. Raney, 2003b, for an overview; see also
Frueh, 2002, for the dynamics of suspense).
Why do viewers take sides? How do affective disposi-
tions toward athletes or teams develop? An affective dis-
position can be defined simply as a user’s temporary stance
toward a media character that is salient during media ex-
posure and varies between liking and disliking (Zillmann,
1996). Accordingly, disposition theories tend to stress fac-
tors that emerge during actual media exposure. Viewers are
regarded as “neutral persons” who engage in the exposure
and then start to shape their dispositions (Raney, 2004). For
example in exposure to dramatic media, which includes ex-
posure to sports contests, the moral reasoning of viewers
is regarded as a central mechanism in taking sides (Zill-
mann, 1996; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976; Comisky & Bryant,
1982; Raney, 2004). Another factor addressed particularly
in a sports context is nationality (cf. Zillmann et al., 1989),
which is likely to make ingroup/outgroup definitions sa-
lient (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) whenever two teams of dis-
tinct national backgrounds compete. Another explanation
of why viewers take sides is the genuine sympathy for an
underdog that goes on to beat a clear favorite (cf. Zillmann
& Paulus, 1993). Dispositions may also develop when fac-
tors such as attractiveness and sympathy are salient (Zill-
mann & Bryant, 1975; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). One of
the most important conditions for disposition formation
while watching sports contests is an extraordinary, or at
least sufficient, performance by the athlete; then it is plau-
sible that this success supports the viewers’ instrumental
striving to “bask in a reflected glory” when the contest is
over (Cialdini et al., 1976; Hirt, Zillmann, Erickson, &
Kennedy, 1992; Hartmann, 2004).
Although it seems most reasonable to assume that affec-
tive dispositions are shaped during exposure to sports con-
tests, in general viewers will not enter the situation as neu-
tral observers. Rather, as the many occurrences of fandom
and worship suggest (cf. Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease,
2001), viewers continue to hold a more or less stable dis-
position toward a team, likely determining the way they
take sides when exposed to a sports contest. Vorderer
(1996b) suggested broadening the concept of disposition
formation by following the general “[. . .] assumption that
viewers prefer an outcome that benefits those protagonists
[. . .] with whom they have – in their own feeling – a (para-
social) relationship [. . .]” (p. 247, 1996b; see Raney,
2003a, for a similar assumption). So far, however, PSRs
have not been integrated into the framework of affective
dispositions. In this article, we start out from the suggestion
that, while affective dispositions and PSR describe quite
similar phenomena of affective bonding, both constructs
should be distinguished, as they tap different aspects of
bonds that users tie to media characters. Therefore, the cur-
rent study aims to integrate the concept of parasocial rela-
tionships into the theoretical framework of disposition-
based formation of suspense.
Parasocial Relationships (PSR)
PSR are one-sided interpersonal relationships that televi-
sion audiences establish with media characters (Auter &
Palmgreen, 2000; Cohen, 2004; Giles, 2002; Horton &
Wohl, 1956; Perse & Rubin, 1989; Rubin, Perse & Powell,
1985; Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005; Schramm, Hart-
mann & Klimmt, 2002; Vorderer, 1996a). PSR, therefore,
need to be analytically distinguished from parasocial inter-
actions, which are asymmetrical interactions that take place
as situational processes of character perception and elabo-
ration during media exposure (Gleich, 1997; Giles, 2002).
In many facets, PSR resemble real-world relationships.
They develop similarly (Cole & Leets, 1999; Perse & Ru-
bin, 1989; Rubin & McHugh, 1987); the social supports
from PSR, although weaker, approximate social relation-
ships in breadth of distinct qualities (e.g., intimacy, trust,
passion, etc.; Gleich, 1997); and consequently the breakup
of PSR causes negative sentiments (Cohen, 2004).
In recent conceptualizations, a PSR has been defined as
an enduring mental relational schema fueled by parasocial
interactions that are conducted during media exposure
(Hartmann, Schramm, & Klimmt, 2004b, Section 2.3). Re-
T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship 25
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34

lational schemata have primarily been discussed by re-
searchers from cognitive social psychology (e.g., Baldwin,
1992, 1995; Fiske & Haslam, 1996). A relational schema
underlying a PSR is a knowledge structure consisting of an
image of self (e.g., I am liked), an image of other (e.g., he
or she is supportive), and a script for a pattern of parasocial
interaction between self and other (e.g., if I encounter the
media character, he or she will support me and foster my
well-being). A PSR schema also incorporates an affective
evaluation of the media character (e.g., I like him or her),
and this could be regarded as an enduring affective dispo-
sition. However, we think that both constructs need to be
distinguished. An affective disposition is a situational dy-
namic sentiment toward a media character that is salient in
users during media exposure and primarily builds on the
detailed perception processes inherent in parasocial inter-
actions. PSR, as construed here, is a cross-situational, sta-
ble, and schematic cognitive pattern of images and interac-
tion scripts that includes affective aspects. Thus, the pro-
posed distinction between affective dispositions and PSR
resembles the difference between states and (learned) traits
set forth in psychology (with affective dispositions as states
and PSR as traits). Accordingly, in special situations of me-
dia exposure, both constructs may differ. For example, in
case a viewer’s affective disposition toward a character im-
mediately “reacts” toward perceived disapproved behavior,
this might result in a slight modification of an underlying
positive PSR schema. But as long as the observed behavior
remains a single instance, its general direction most likely
will not change or reverse.
Assuming that PSR build on a cognitive schema, PSR
cannot be exclusively defined in terms of friendship and
must also allow for potentially hostile relationships (cf.
Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Hartmann, Schramm, & Klimmt,
2004a; Strange, 1996). Thus, positive PSR, like an affec-
tive-laden intimate friendship, need to contrast with nega-
tive PSR, which likely consist of feelings like antipathy,
hate, or disgust. Strong positive PSR toward admired media
characters might resemble the typical worship of celebrities
(cf. Giles & Maltby, 2004; McCutcheon, Ashe, Houran, &
Maltby, 2003). In contrast, strong negative PSR might re-
semble relationships of hate and disgust.
While the original conceptualization by Horton and
Wohl (1956) concentrated on newscasters, it is plausible to
apply PSR to personae in the world of sports as well (Bry-
ant & Raney, 2000; Hartmann, 2004; Slepicka, 1995; Wann
et al., 2001). Due to the repetitive nature of sporting events,
a player or team can become a constant virtual companion
in a person’s living room on a weekly or even daily basis.
Today’s sports coverage has undergone a shift from mere
event reporting to in-depth pregame and postgame features,
interviews, frequent commentaries provided by different
experts, up-close profiles of individual athletes and their
private lives, etc. This sweeping process of Entertainisie-
rung (i.e., entertainization; Gleich, 2000, p. 512) causes
journalists to put a lot of emphasis on athletes as personal-
ities in addition to their athletic abilities; today’s sports
commentators are increasingly equating athletic perfor-
mance with attitudes and character traits such as iron
nerves and determination (Brandt, 1994). This makes spec-
tators feel close to televised athletes as individuals and hu-
man counterparts. Visual dramatization drives the message
home – quite literally – by transporting human traits and
emotionality straight from the playing field to the living
room in larger-than-life Technicolor close-ups of joyful ju-
bilation, tears of desperation, emotional outbursts, and fac-
es contorted in anger or pain. In sum, today’s television
broadcast of sports events should be highly effective in
breeding intense PSR with athletes. Also, televised sports
foster social conversations to a much greater extent than
many other genres. Since the rules of the game are clear-cut
and widely understood, spectators from virtually any walk
of life can join in discussions about sports, knowing that
they are on safe terrain (Crabb & Goldstein, 1991). The
frequency of communicative interactions that address
sports themes should add to an intensification of individ-
uals’ emotional bonds toward athletes (Weiß, 1991; Zill-
mann et al., 1989).
Linking PSR to Affective Disposition Theory
As strong PSR toward athletes or teams likely exist, it is
plausible that these affect how onlookers take sides while
watching a contest. The logical conclusion is to align the
concept of affective dispositions to that of PSR (Vorderer,
1994, 1996b). We propose the notion that both constructs
overlap because, in the first instance, both imply positive
or negative toned attitudes to media characters. The differ-
ence, however, is that affective dispositions are conceptu-
alized as situational attitudes, whereas PSR are assumed to
resemble long-term affective bonds to media characters. In
this view, the perception, elaboration, and evaluation of
characters during media exposure (i.e., interpersonal in-
volvement or parasocial interactions, see Konijn & Hoorn,
2005; Rubin et al., 1985) result in affective dispositions that
contribute (among other factors, e.g., daydreaming) to the
formation of a PSR. In turn, PSR precede the formation of
affective dispositions. In technical terms, they enter as “in-
put variables” (among other factors) in the formation pro-
cess of dispositions, since they “preset” the affective tone
of the relationship between recipients and athletes while a
sports contest is watched. Figure 1 provides an illustration
of the supposed integration of PSR and disposition theory
of drama in the realm of sports exposure. In this model,
affective dispositions have been replaced by PSR. Also, the
causal structure of the disposition theory of drama has been
simplified, with only the link between “hoping” and sus-
pense being shown. Other links conceptualized in the dis-
position theory of drama, for example the influence of fear-
ing an outcome (e.g., a negative outcome of the favorite
driver) or the likelihood of an anticipated outcome (Comi-
sky & Bryant, 1982) on the suspense level, have been left
out of this study as well. On the basis of the model (Figure
26 T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

1), two pathways can be highlighted that likely lead to the
formation of suspense:
– The stronger the positive PSR that viewers hold toward
their favorite athlete or team (1a), the more intense their
hopes will be for a positive outcome for the athlete (2a).
The more viewers hope for a positive outcome for a fa-
vorite athlete, the higher their level of suspense will be
while watching a contest in the media (3).
– On the other hand, the stronger the negative PSR that
viewers hold toward the most disliked athlete or team
(1b), the more intense their hopes will be for a negative
outcome for the athlete (2b). The more viewers hope for
a negative outcome for a disliked athlete or team, the
higher their level of suspense will be while watching a
contest in the media (3).
Method
Specification
The theoretical assumptions were tested in the context of
Formula 1 – a well-known and popular sport in Germany.
Motor sports are among the most successful media offer-
ings in Germany: About 50% of all German households
with television watch races on a regular basis; Formula 1
reaches levels of audience attention comparable to base-
ball, basketball, and other major sports in the United States.
Participating drivers, especially popular ones as for exam-
ple the former world champion Michael Schumacher,
achieve enormous publicity.
The Formula 1 World Championship spans an eight-
month period each year, with generally one Grand Prix race
every two weeks. Twenty drivers compete against each oth-
er, and throughout the 2003 season, the drivers competed
in 16 different races in America, Europe, and Asia. Each
Grand Prix is a three-day event with practice and qualifying
sessions, culminating in the final race contest. Usually, all
three days of this event are covered by television.
Procedure and Participants
Within the first two weeks of October 2003, 274 respon-
dents who regularly watch Formula 1 completed either a
pencil-and-paper questionnaire or an online questionnaire.
Participants were recruited using a snowball-sampling
method. We started out by contacting 80 subjects (acquain-
tances of the researchers) who were known to watch nearly
every Formula 1 race. In total 60 respondents received the
questionnaire by E-mail. They were asked to fill out one
copy of the questionnaire and forward additional copies via
e-mail to other Formula 1 spectators they know. Each of
the remaining 20 subjects received 15 pencil-and-paper
questionnaires. They were asked to complete their ques-
tionnaires and to distribute the remaining questionnaires to
other Formula 1 fans. In total, 274 completed question-
naires were returned (e-mail: 144; pencil-and-paper: 130).
Snowball sampling is an unsystematic way of building a
sample; therefore the data cannot be taken as representative
for all viewers of Formula 1. However, for the purpose of
the present study, the creation of a homogeneous pool of
highly involved subjects was more important than sample
representation. Since the purpose of the study was to ana-
lyze the formation of suspense, the investigation focused
on correlations between several individual characteristics
(such as positive and negative PSR) within the sample.
With the snowball sampling applied, statements about such
relations can be inferred, but – due to the lack of represen-
tation – less can be said about the prevalence of these re-
lations within the universe of all Formula 1 fans. However,
with respect to the variables under observation, there was
no reason to assume that the results based on this sample
should differ strongly and systematically from other sam-
ples of Formula 1 fans. Participants’ ages ranged from 15
to 68 years, with a mean age of 31. The sample consisted
of 215 males and 59 females.
Measures
First, respondents were asked to name their favorite and
least favorite Formula 1 drivers.
Positive PSR with the favorite Formula 1 driver was
measured by a self-constructed 13-item scale. So far, com-
munication research lacks a commonly used, theory-driv-
en, empirically-tested, coherent measure of PSR. Despite
its popularity, the Parasocial Interaction Scale (PSI scale),
developed by Rubin et al. (1985) to assess positive PSR
toward a favorite media character in the sense of a friend-
ship, has been criticized for its lack of theoretical substance
(e.g., Auter & Palmgreen, 2000), its ambiguity and heter-
ogeneous nature (mix of different aspects, e.g., facets of
parasocial interactions, PSR, and selective exposure behav-
Figure 1. A disposition model of dramatic sports. The mod-
el links PSR to the process of the disposition theory of dra-
ma (simplified) to explain suspense while watching sports
contests.
T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship 27
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34

ior), and its exclusive focus on positive sentiments toward
newscasters (cf. Gleich, 1997; Hartmann & Schramm,
2006; Schramm et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the scale con-
tains a range of items that appear to be appropriate mea-
sures of a positive PSR. Therefore, the self-constructed
scale in this study builds on nine items of the 20-item Ger-
man version of the PSI-scale (Gleich, 1997) that was adapt-
ed to the specific context of Formula 1. Furthermore, four
new items were added to the item pool of the original scale
to measure relational aspects of a PSR in particular. Thus,
the final scale consisted of 13 items (Table 1). The applied
modification of the German PSI scale was the most reason-
able solution, following a common practice of German PSI
research (Hartmann & Schramm, 2006), and resulted in a
reliable measurement.
Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement, us-
ing five response options ranging from (1) “strongly dis-
agree” to (5) “strongly agree.” The reported PSR scores
ranged from 1.33 to 3.95 (M = 2.5, SD = 1.09) across the
items. Among the different aspects that were tapped by the
items (Table 1), attractiveness and likability of the favorite
driver characterized positive PSR (M = 3.95). Drivers were
admired because of their successful performance and
achievements (M = 3.42). Other aspects of positive PSR
were less relevant. For example, respondents did not report
that they felt as if they knew their favorite driver very well
(M = 1.54). Also in contrast to PSR with other media char-
acters (cf. Rubin et al., 1985), respondents did not consider
their favorite driver to be a good friend (M = 1.33). In sum,
the typical PSR with the favorite driver (and perhaps with
any other athlete) appears to be less “warm” and intimate
than other social or interpersonal relationships (cf. Horton
& Wohl, 1956). The reported PSR seem more like a dis-
tanced but respectful acknowledgment of the driver’s skills
and achievements.
The self-constructed scale had a good Cronbach’s α val-
ue of .82. To test for the dimensionality of the scale, a factor
analysis was computed (see Table 1). Quite similar to the
results obtained in many other studies that applied the Ger-
man version of the Parasocial Interaction Scale (for an
overview see Hartmann & Schramm, in 2006), the analyses
suggested a two-factor solution that explained 54.19% of
the variance (with Eigenvalues of 5.53 and 1.52).
The two factors separate items that assess an intimate
relationship and real interest in a driver from items that
reflect what we have termed a “distanced but admiring ac-
knowledgment” of a driver (see above). According to the
items loaded onto the first factor, the racing driver appears
to be like an old friend and an important companion who
is missed if he or she is absent for too long. Thus, the factor
closely resembles what could be called a deep virtual rela-
tionship (i.e., a friendship-like union with a media charac-
ter that reveals the structure and emotional relevance of
real-world relationships). This factor is labeled “virtual
friendship.” As we already pointed out, the low means of
the items loaded onto this factor indicate that such a virtual
friendship is quite atypical for PSR with racing drivers.
In contrast, the items of the second factor illustrate a
typical media-bound relationship to a character (cf. Vorde-
rer, 1996a; Hartmann & Schramm, 2006). The relationship
Table 1. Two-factor structure of (positive) PSR to most favorite driver.
Item (translated German items) Factor 1:
Virtual friendship
Factor 2: Respect-
ful interest
MSD
I think my favorite racing driver is like an old friend. .851 1.33 .73
My favorite racing driver makes me feel as comfortable as when I am with friends. .797 1.58 .92
I think about my favorite racing driver even when he is not on TV. .771 1.65 1.06
I miss my favorite racing driver if I do not see him on TV for a long time. .702 1.60 .99
I feel that I know my favorite racing driver very well. .695 1.54 .87
I try to imagine what my favorite racing driver thinks about a race. .567 2.11 1.22
The TV coverage shows me what my favorite racing driver is like. .740 3.11 1.14
I find my favorite racing driver to be likeable. .714 3.95 .95
I mostly agree with the actions of my favorite racing driver. .649 3.16 .97
If there were a story about my favorite racing driver in a newspaper or on TV, I
would read or watch it.
.646 3.14 1.28
I would like to meet my favorite racing driver in person. .606 3.18 1.45
I admire my favorite racing driver for his achievements. .541 3.42 1.31
I look forward to watching my favorite racing driver in the next race. .475 .524 2.64 1.29
M (total) 2.5 1.09
Factor Mean 1.64 3.23
Standard Deviation .73 .83
Variance Explained 42.53% 11.67%
Note. PCA (VARIMAX rotated). 5-point scale: 1 = “totally disagree,” 5 = “totally agree.” Excluded items: None. KMO of factor structure
(MSA) = .9 (“astounding”). Bartlett-Test = .000. Extraction of factors by Kaiser criterion and screeplot. Only factor loadings ≥ .40 are displayed.
28 T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

is characterized by impressions of the driver that the view-
ers have gained during exposure to media broadcasts. They
admire their favorite driver’s achievements, but this ac-
knowledgment is somewhat distanced and less affective
than, for example, in the adoration of a pop star (cf. Mc-
Cutcheon, Lange, & Houran, 2002). Nevertheless, viewers
are interested in the driver and like to read about him in the
newspapers or turn on the television to watch him in action.
We label this factor “respectful interest.”
Across all items with a loading higher than .4 onto one
of the factors (as indicated in Table 1), mean indices per
factor were calculated.
Theory also assumes that negative PSR play an impor-
tant role in the parasocial network of a viewer. In order to
measure negative PSR, the wording of the items applied to
assess positive PSR was inverted. The items, “I have the
feeling that I know my favorite racing driver very well” and
“I try to imagine what my favorite racing driver thinks
about a race,” were dropped, as their inversion did not seem
to lead to a plausible indicator of a negative relationship.
“I have the feeling that I do not know my most disliked
racing driver very well” was not considered to be a plausi-
ble item of a negative relationship, as research has shown
that a certain liking of a media character does not simply
determine how much a user knows or thinks about the me-
dia character (Konijn & Hoorn, 2005). For the same reason,
we dropped the second item. The remaining items outline
a mixture of disdain, Schadenfreude or spitefulness, and
wanting to avoid meeting the disliked character in future
media exposure.
The derived negative PSI scale yields a good internal
consistency of Cronbach’s α = .81 (see Table 2). In order
to test if the scale also has a two-dimensional structure, a
factor analysis was conducted (with two predetermined
factors explaining for 51.1% of the total variance; Eigen-
values: 3.884, 1.736, 1.048; see Table 2).
The first factor consists of a set of items that address
feelings like Schadenfreude, dislike, and a strong disap-
proval of the driver’s actions and achievements. The driver
appears to be someone who evokes negative and counter-
empathetic emotions (e.g., annoyance) as soon as he is por-
trayed in the media. We labeled the factor “antipathy.”
The items constituting the second factor resemble vari-
ous aspects of “disinterest” in the coverage about the driver.
On the one hand, this disinterest may stem from a strong
negative evaluation of the driver. Thus, it might actually be
just pretense, while in fact the user is quite involved with
the driver. On the other hand, this factor might indeed re-
flect forms of real disinterest. The underlying relationship
seems to be somewhere in between antipathy and a neutral
feeling toward the driver. Thus, this factor does not reflect
concisely a negative PSR and was therefore labeled “dis-
interest.”
Across all items with a loading higher than .4 onto one
of the factors (as indicated in Table 2), mean indices per
factor were calculated.
Hoping for a positive outcome of the favorite driver and
hoping for a bad outcome of the most disliked driver were
measured by applying newly developed three-item scales.
The scale designed to measure positive hopes yielded a sat-
isfactory internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = .77 (see Ta-
ble 3). The Cronbach’s α of the scale designed to measure
hopes for a bad outcome was also good (.87; see Table 4).
Both scales were summarized by computing mean indices.
In past research, suspense during media exposure has
often been assessed by physiological measures, e.g., heart-
Table 2. Two-factor structure of (negative) PSR to most disliked driver.
Item (translated German items) Factor 1:
Antipathy
Factor 2:
Disinterest
MSD
I am happy whenever I learn that something bad happened to this driver. .770 2.44 1.33
I never agree with the actions of this racing driver. .731 2.56 1.05
I never liked this racing driver. .692 3.59 1.38
It is annoying to see this racing driver on TV. .685 2.79 1.43
I do not want to be reminded about this racing driver. .598 2.59 1.35
I find this racing driver to be dislikable. .544 3.98 1.13
This racing driver does not perform admirable actions. .412 2.43 1.36
I am not interested in articles or coverage in the media about this racing driver. .811 3.37 1.35
I would not mind if I never saw this racing driver again. .742 3.77 1.28
I do not want to get to know this racing driver any further. .715 3.39 1.46
I am not concerned if I do not see this racing driver on TV for a long time. .634 4.00 1.21
M (total) 3.17 1.3
Factor mean 2.91 3.63
Standard deviation .86 1
Variance explained 27% 24%
Note. PCA (VARIMAX rotated). 5-point scale: 1 = “totally disagree,” 5 = “totally agree.” Excluded items: None. KMO of factor structure
(MSA) = .83 (“deserving”). Bartlett-Test = .000. Extraction of factors by Kaiser criterion and screeplot. Only factor loadings ≥ .41 are displayed.
T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship 29
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34

beat or skin conductance. For the purpose of this study, a
scale for self-assessment was developed (cf. Knobloch,
Patzig, Mende, & Hastall, 2004). The scale consists of eight
items measuring different facets of suspense while a viewer
is watching a sports contest (see Table 5). The internal con-
sistency of the scale is very good (Cronbach’s α = .91). A
mean index was computed on the basis of the scale (M =
3.04; SD = 1.29).
Results
In order to test the causal hypotheses of the proposed dis-
position model of dramatic sports (including the derived
factors of positive and negative PSI), a structural equation
model was calculated using LISREL 8.7 (maximum likeli-
hood estimation; Figure 2). The mean indices building on
the four factors of positive and negative PSR were entered
as exogenous variables; “hoping for a positive outcome”
and “hoping for a negative outcome” as well as “suspense”
were entered as endogenous variables. Missing values were
replaced by the mean score of each variable. Some of the
variables slightly violated the requirement to be normally
distributed (KS-Z virtual friendship = 3.16; p < .01; KS-Z
disinterest = 1.5; p < .05; KS-Z hoping positive = 2.09; p <
.01; KS-Z suspense = 1.55; p < .05). As the maximum like-
lihood estimation proved to be quite robust, no alternative
estimation algorithms were computed (Boomsma & Hoog-
land, 2001). The SEM following the original model pro-
vides an insufficient fit (Table 6). Therefore, the model was
revised. Modification indices were considered in the revi-
sion. However, only theoretically plausible modifications
were applied. The revised model is shown in Figure 2. The
revised model differs from the original model in that:
– the two paths from “virtual friendship” on “hoping for a
positive outcome” and from “hoping for negative out-
come” on “suspense” have been removed;
– two direct paths from “virtual friendship” and “respect-
ful interest” on “suspense” have been added;
– and a path from “hoping for a positive outcome” to “hop-
ing for a negative outcome” has been added.
The general indices indicate a good fit of the revised model
(Table 6). The model explains 22% of the variance of “hop-
ing for a positive outcome for the favorite driver,” 47% of
the variance of “hoping for a negative outcome for the most
Table 3. Hoping for a positive outcome of the favorite driver.
Item (translated German items) MSD
I hope that my favorite driver is lucky in every race
(e.g., no trouble with engines, tires, etc.).
4.09 1.06
Every time I watch a race I hope that my favorite
driver will be the winner.
3.61 1.30
While watching, the most important thing for me is
that my favorite driver does not lose the race.
3.18 1.26
M (Index) 3.63 1.21
Table 4. Hoping for a negative outcome of the disliked driver.
Item (translated German items) MSD
I am happy if this driver drops out of the race. 3.28 1.40
Every time I watch a race I hope that this driver
will lose.
2.80 1.48
I hope that this driver is unlucky in every race (e.g.,
trouble with engines, tires, etc.).
2.80 1.47
M (index) 2.96 1.45
Table 5. Suspense.
Item (translated German items) MSD
I found Formula 1 to be a very suspenseful sport. 3.55 1.14
Some races are even more dramatic than a good
thriller.
3.36 1.28
Often I can hardly wait to learn about the results of
a race.
3.25 1.23
I often become nervous while watching a race. 3.19 1.32
In decisive moments I almost hold my breath while
watching.
3.15 1.37
Some races literally get me out of my seat. 3.10 1.45
I literally suffer whenever I watch a race. 2.44 1.24
I get lost while watching a dramatic race. 2.25 1.30
M (index) 3.04 1.29
Table 6. Fit indices of the SEM of the original model vs.
the revised model.
χ² df p RMSEA SRMR GFI
Original model 107.18 15 <.01 .15 .12 .9
Modified model 10.01 14 .76 .0 .029 .99
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual, GFI = goodness-of-fit index.
Figure 2. Structural equation model of the influence of PSR
on “hoping for an outcome” and “suspense” (standardized
solution). Note: All line arrows are significant at p < .05 or
better. R² values are reported in parentheses.
30 T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

disliked driver,” and 40% of the variance of the “suspense”
typically felt during exposure to Formula 1.
Only theoretically plausible modifications were applied
in the revised model. The SEM of the revised model shows
that the more the viewers have a respectful interest in a
favorite driver, the more they hope for a positive outcome
for this driver during exposure to races. In contrast, positive
sentiments in a virtual friendship do not affect the extent to
which viewers hope for a positive outcome. While hopes
for a positive outcome for the favorite driver notably influ-
ence viewers’ hopes for a negative outcome for a disliked
driver, it only moderately affects the level of suspense dur-
ing exposure. Instead, according to the model, both dimen-
sions of a positive PSR (virtual friendship, respectful inter-
est) toward the driver directly influence the level of sus-
pense felt. Concerning negative PSR, the less the viewers
are interested in a disliked driver, the less they hope for a
negative outcome. More importantly, the stronger their an-
tipathy toward the disliked driver, the stronger are their
hopes for a negative outcome. However, hoping for a neg-
ative outcome does not affect the level of suspense. Appar-
ently, while a positive PSR toward a favorite driver has a
unique effect on felt suspense during exposure, the resent-
ment toward disliked drivers is only a side effect of a pos-
itive PSR that does not add to suspense.
Discussion
In this study the influence of PSR on the viewers’ “typical”
level of suspense while watching sports contests on televi-
sion was explored. First, the concept of PSR was enhanced
by differentiating between positive and negative PSR. Sub-
sequently, both types of PSR were conceptually linked to
the disposition theory of drama (Zillmann, 1994, 1996),
respectively to an adaptation of the theory to the realm of
sports exposure. The links hypothesized in the resulting
disposition model of dramatic sports were empirically test-
ed in the context of races of the popular sport, Formula 1.
The results show that, above all, a strong positive PSR
toward a favorite driverintensifies the experience of suspense
while watching a race. However, it is not a close and intimate
PSR (as originally conceptualized by Horton & Wohl, 1956)
that seems to be common among fans of Formula 1. Rather,
it is a more distanced acknowledgment of favorite drivers
(which we termed “respectful interest”). In this respect, the
favorite athlete is a media-bound phenomenon. Unlike a real
friend, he is not an integral part of the close social network of
the viewer (cf. Gleich, 1997; Vorderer, 1996a). Maybe the
relationships that viewers develop toward their favorite driv-
ers build on the instrumental usefulness of the athletes, rather
than on a real interest in the characters or in the psychological
life of the drivers (cf., Hartmann, 2004). Nevertheless, such
a distanced positive relationship apparently results in in-
creased hopes for a positive outcome of the favorite driver
while viewers are watching a sports contest. Such strong
hopes might be the result of the viewers’ “instrumental” wor-
ries about their chances of enjoying the experience of victory
in the end (“basking in reflected glory”; cf. Cialdini et al.,
1976; see Zillmann & Paulus, 1993, for similar assumptions).
Following this hypothesis, the viewers’ hopes for a positive
outcome for the favorite athlete would not be truly socio-em-
pathetic, but rather a type of self-centered instrumental worry
about their own psychological “stakes.” The results show that
such a process would nevertheless affect suspense.
In addition, the findings suggest a notable direct effect
of stable positive PSR (either in the sense of a “virtual
friendship” or a “respectful interest”) on the level of sus-
pense. One plausible explanation is that the direct relation-
ship between a positive PSR and suspense stems from the
fear of a negative outcome for the favorite driver. This con-
struct has not been measured in this study, but it is an inte-
gral part of the disposition theory of drama and is thought
to affect suspense as well. With the fear for a negative out-
come assessed and controlled in future studies, the direct
effect of a positive PSR on suspense might disappear.
PSR resembling an antipathy toward racing drivers were
found to be quite distinct among the viewers of Formula 1.
The study shows that such a negative, affect-laden PSR re-
sults in strong hopes for a negative outcome for this compet-
itor. However, negative hoping does not add to the level of
suspense beyond the effect of positive hoping. Apparently,
the fate of the favorite driver is key to the experience of sus-
pense, not the performance of disliked competing drivers (see
Zillmann, 1996, for a similar notion). Accordingly, other than
being conceptualized in the originaldisposition theory of dra-
ma (Zillmann, 1994, 1996), hopes for positive or negative
outcomes do not seem to play the same role in the formation
of suspense, at least in the realm of sports exposure.
The present study is the first to link parasocial relation-
ships to suspense. Some limitations weaken results and
should be overcome in future studies. First, if parasocial
relationships and dispositions are indeed distinct con-
structs, both should be assessable by distinct measures. In
the current study, affective dispositions have been concep-
tualized as part of the model but were not part of the em-
pirical assessment. Future studies should try to operation-
alize all constructs addressed in the model. Second, the pre-
sent study applied a retrospective questionnaire. Recall of
past experiential states – like the average intensity of sus-
pense – is prone to estimation and inference biases
(Schwarz & Oyserman, 2001). Future studies should there-
fore apply two questionnaires to two trials. The first would
measure parasocial relationships, and the second would as-
sess the actual level of suspense during (e.g., see Wuensch,
2006), or immediately after, exposure to a race. Thus, the
cross-sectional design applied in the current study would
be replaced by a repeated-measurements design that allows
for a more rigorous examination of causalities. A related
third limitation of the present study is that alternative ex-
planations to the causal explanation proposed in this article
cannot be ruled out. For example, reported suspense during
a Formula 1 race might also be the origin of a respectful
T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship 31
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34

interest toward a driver, while suspense itself results from
factors that were not considered here. A fourth, albeit
weaker, limitation is that the study, because it asked sub-
jects to assess their experience “in general” while watching
Formula 1, examined an estimate of the “typical” or “av-
erage” level of suspense. Future studies that wish to mea-
sure suspense in a more fine-grained manner could also
draw upon theoretical frameworks that allow for a more
differentiated dynamic examination than does the disposi-
tion theory of drama (e.g., Frueh, 2002).
Despite these limitations, the results of the study are prom-
ising for the integration of PSR and the disposition theory of
drama in the realm of sports exposure. Indeed, positive PSR
contributed to the level of suspense. Further research needs
to be conducted in order to elaborate on the theoretical inte-
gration. For example, the derived model could be enhanced
by integrating more constructs discussed in Zillmann’s (1980,
1994, 1996) anatomy of suspense,like the viewers’ perceived
likelihood that an anticipated outcome will occur (Comisky
& Bryant, 1982), the viewers’ fear for a negative outcome of
a favorite athlete or team, or the fear of a good outcome for
disliked competitors. Also, as the dimensionality of PSR to
drivers found in this study suggests, the concept of PSR to
athletes in general needs to be elaborated (Hartmann, 2004)
and then implemented in more precise terms in the proposed
disposition model of dramatic sports. It would also seem
promising to test the integrated model (or revised versions)
in the context of other sports (e.g., dramatic “zero-sum
games” like soccer). However, this task of further analyzing
the formation of suspense in sports as proposed in this study
remains for future research.
References
Auter, P.J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation
of a parasocial interaction measure: The audience-persona in-
teraction scale. Communication Research Reports, 17(1),
79–89.
Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of
social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Baldwin, M.W. (1995). Relational schemas and cognition in close
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
12, 547–552.
Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J.J. (2001). The robustness of LIS-
REL modeling revisited. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sör-
bom (Eds.), Structural equation models: Present and future. A
festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139–168). Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Brandt, J.-H. (1994). Personale und situationale Leistungsbegrün-
dungen in Fernseh- und Zeitungsberichten [Illustrations of per-
sonal and situational achievement]. Medienpsychologie, 6,
266–277.
Bryant, J., Brown, D., Comisky, P.W., & Zillmann, D. (1982).
Sports and spectators: Commentary and appreciation. Journal
of Communication, 32, 109–119.
Bryant, J., Comisky, P.W., & Zillmann, D. (1977). Drama in sports
commentary. Journal of Communication, 32(1), 109–119.
Bryant, J., & Raney, A.A. (2000). Sports on the screen. In D.
Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media entertainment. The psy-
chology of its appeal (pp. 153–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman,
S., & Sloan, L. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (foot-
ball) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 34, 366–375.
Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television char-
acters: The role of attachment styles and relationship intensity.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 187–202.
Cole, T., & Leets, L. (1999). Attachment styles and intimate televi-
sion viewing: Insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial
way. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 495–511.
Comisky, P., & Bryant, J. (1982). Factors involved in generating
suspense. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 49–58.
Crabb, P.B., & Goldstein, J.H. (1991). The social psychology of
watching sports: From illium to living room. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Fiske, A.P., & Haslam, N. (1996). Social cognition is thinking
about relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 5, 145–148.
Frueh, W. (Ed.). (2002). Unterhaltung durch das Fernsehen. Eine
molare Theorie [Television entertainment. A molar theory.].
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
Giles, D. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature
and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305.
Giles, D.C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in
adolescent development: Relations between autonomy, attach-
ment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 813–822.
Gleich, U. (1997). Parasoziale Interaktionen und Beziehungen
von Fernsehzuschauern mit Personen auf dem Bildschirm: Ein
theoretischer und empirischer Beitrag zum Konzept des akti-
ven Rezipienten [Parasocial interactions and relationships of
television viewers]. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
Gleich, U. (2000). Merkmale und Funktionen der Sportberichter-
stattung [Functions of sports broadcasting]. Media Perspekti-
ven, n.d., 511–516.
Hartmann, T. (2004). Parasoziale Interaktionen und Beziehungen
mit Sportstars [Parasocial interactions and relationships with
athletes]. In H. Schramm (Ed.), Die Rezeption des Sports in
den Medien [Sports reception in the media] (Sportkommuni-
kation III, pp. 97–120). Köln: Halem.
Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Logik der Forschung zu
parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen [A review of the
measurement of parasocial interactions and relationships]. In
W. Wirth, E. Lauf, & A. Fahr (Eds.), Forschungslogik und
-design in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Research logic
and design in the communication sciences] (Vol. 2,
pp. 264–291). Köln: Herbert van Halem Verlag.
Hartmann, T., Schramm, H., & Klimmt, C. (2004a). Personenorien-
tierte Medienrezeption: Ein Zwei-Ebenen-Modell parasozialer
Interaktionen [Person-oriented media exposure: A two-level
model of parasocial interactions]. Publizistik, 49(1), 25–47.
Hartmann, T., Schramm, H., & Klimmt, C. (2004b). Vorbereiten-
de Überlegungen zur theoretischen Modellierung parasozialer
Interaktionen im Prozess der Medienrezeption [Preliminary
thoughts toward a theoretical model of parasocial interactions]
32 T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Retrieved on January 10, 2004, from http://www.ijk.hmt-han-
nover.de/psi/.
Hirt, E.R., Zillmann, D., Erickson, G.A., & Kennedy, C. (1992).
Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed
competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Per-
sonality & Social Psychology, 63, 724–738.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-
social interaction. Journal of Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.
Knobloch, S. (2003). Suspense and mystery. In J. Bryant, D. Ros-
kos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emo-
tion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knobloch S., Patzig G., Mende, A-M., & Hastall, M. (2004). Af-
fective news: Effects of discourse structure in narratives on
suspense, curiosity, and enjoyment while reading news and
novels. Communication Research, 31, 259–287.
Konijn, E.A., & Hoorn, J.F. (2005). Some like it bad: Testing a
model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters.
Media Psychology, 7, 107–144.
McCutcheon, L.E., Ashe, D.A., Houran, J., & Maltby, H. (2003).
A cognitive profile of individuals who tend to worship celeb-
rities. The Journal of Psychology, 137, 309–322.
McCutcheon, L.E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptual-
ization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal
of Psychology, 93, 67–87.
Perse, E.M., & Rubin, R.B. (1989). Attribution in social and para-
social relationships. Communication Research, 16, 59–77.
Raney. A.A. (2003a). Disposition-based theories of enjoyment. In
J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Commu-
nication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann
(pp. 61–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raney, A.A. (2003b). Enjoyment of sports spectatorship. In J.
Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communi-
cation and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann
(pp. 397–416). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raney, A.A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsider-
ing character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Com-
munication Theory, 14, 348–369.
Raney, A.A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral Judgment and crime dra-
ma: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communi-
cation, 52, 402–415.
Rubin, R.B., & McHugh, M.P. (1987). Development of parasocial
interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electron-
ic Media, 31, 279–292.
Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., & Powell, R.A. (1985). Loneliness,
parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Hu-
man Communication Research, 12, 155–180.
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P.B., & Hewes, D.E. (2005). The parasocial
contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72(1),
92–115.
Schramm, H., Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2002). Desiderata und
Perspektiven der Forschung über parasoziale Interaktionen
und Beziehungen zu Medienfiguren [Desiderata and perspec-
tives of research on parasocial interactions and relationships].
Publizistik, 47, 436–459.
Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about
behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire con-
struction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 127–160.
Slepicka, P. (1995). Psychology of the sport spectator. In S.J.H.
Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport psy-
chology (pp. 270–289). Leeds: Human Kinetics.
Strange, J. (1996). Leben in Bildschirmwelten – Formen der narra-
tiven Involviertheit. Stellungnahme vom Beitrag von Peter Vor-
derer [Forms of narrative involvement]. In P. Vorderer (Ed.),
Fernsehen als “Beziehungskiste.” Parasoziale Beziehungen und
Interaktionen mit TV-Personen [When television becomes an
“item.” Parasocial relationships and interactions with TV charac-
ters] (pp. 173–180). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), The
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nel-
son-Hall.
Vorderer, P. (1994). “Spannung ist, wenn’s spannend ist.” Zum
Stand der (psychologischen) Spannungsforschung [A review
of the psychological research on suspense]. Rundfunk und
Fernsehen, 3, 323–339.
Vorderer, P. (1996a). Picard, Brinkmann und Co. als Freunde der
Zuschauer [Media personalities as friends of the television
viewer]. In P. Vorderer (Ed.), Fernsehen als “Beziehungskis-
te.” Parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV-Per-
sonen [When television becomes an “item.” Parasocial rela-
tionships and interactions with TV characters] (pp. 153–171).
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Vorderer, P. (1996b). Toward a psychological theory of suspense.
In P. Vorderer, H.J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense
(pp. 233–254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G. (2001).
Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators.
New York: Routledge
Weiß, O. (1991). Mediensport als sozialer Ersatz [Media sports
as a substitute]. Medienpsychologie, 3, 316–327.
Wuensch, C. (2006). Unterhaltungserleben. Ein hierarchisches
Zwei-Ebenen-Modell affektiv-kognitiver Informationsverar-
beitung [Experience of entertainment. A two-level information
processing model]. Koeln: Halem.
Zillmann, D. (1980). Anatomy of suspense. In P.H. Tannenbaum
(Ed.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 133–163).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanism of emotional involvement with
drama. Poetics, 23, 33–51.
Zillmann, D. (1996). The Psychology of suspense in dramatic expo-
sitions. In P. Vorderer, H.J. Wulff & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Sus-
pense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical
explorations (pp. 199–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum associates.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1975). Viewers’ and moral sanction
of retribution in the appreciation of dramatic presentations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 572–582.
Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolski, B.S. (1989). The enjoyment
from sports spectatorships. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports,
games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints
(pp. 241–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor.
In T. Chapman, & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: The-
ory, research, and application (pp. 93–115). London: Wiley.
Zillmann, D., & Paulus, P.B. (1993). Spectators: Reactions to
sports events and effects on athletic performance. In R.N.
Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on re-
search in sports psychology (pp. 600–619). New York. Mac-
millan.
Date of acceptance: March 17, 2007
T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship 33
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34

Tilo Hartmann, Ph.D., is a com-
munications researcher, Assis-
tant Professor at the Communi-
cation Department of the Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam, and
Vice-Chair of the Audience and
Reception Studies Division of
the European Communication
Research and Education Asso-
ciation (ECREA). Previous af-
filiations include positions at
the Hanover University of Mu-
sic and Drama (Germany)
(2001–2005), University of
Southern California (2006),
University of Erfurt (Germany) (2006), and the Institute of Mass
Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich (Swit-
zerland) (2007). His research focus lies on media use (selective
exposure, reception, effects).
Department of Communication Science
Center for Advanced Media Research Amsterdam
VU – Free University Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 20 598-6899
Fax +31 20 598-6820
E-mail t.hartmann@fsw.vu.nl
Daniela Stuke, Dipl.-Medien-
wiss., studied media manage-
ment (communication research)
at the University of Music and
Drama, Hanover, Germany. She
has been an assistant in market
research and product develop-
ment at the Deutsche Messe
AG, Hanover, Germany, since
2004.
Deutsche Messe
Messegelände
D-30521 Hannover
Germany
Tel. +49 511 893-1224
Fax +49 511 893-3699
E-mail daniela.stuke@messe.de
Gregor Daschmann, Ph.D.,
studied communications, poli-
tics and psychology; 1987–
1994 journalist for the German
radio and television stations
SWF and ZDF; 1994–2002 Re-
search Assistant and Assistant
Professor at the Johannes Gu-
tenberg University of Mainz,
Germany; 2002–2006 Profes-
sor of Communications Re-
search at the University of Mu-
sic and Drama, Hanover; since
October 2006 Professor of
Communications at the Institut
für Publizistik at the Johannes
Gutenberg University of Mainz.
Institut für Publizistik
Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2
D-55099 Mainz
Germany
Tel. +49 6131 392-5636
E-mail gregor.daschmann@uni-mainz.de
34 T. Hartmann et al.: PSR, Suspense, and Sports Spectatorship
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(1):24–34 © 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers