Content uploaded by Nicole Liebers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicole Liebers on Jul 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
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 Würzburg, Germany
A QUARTERLY REVIEW OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
ISSN: 01444646
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 usesandgratifications 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@uniwuerzburg.de holger.schramm@uniwuerzburg.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; ShermanMorris,
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
onesided mediated form of social interaction
between the audience and media characters. In doing
so, they assume PSI to be similar to facetoface
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 longterm
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 crosssituational 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
longterm 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 contentrelated
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 twolevel
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 “parafriendship” in
Tukachinsky, 2010). Correspondingly, we used the fol
lowing terms for the research: “parasocial,” “para
social,” “parasozial,” “parasozial,” “paralove,”
“parafriendship,” and “pararomantic.”
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 contentrelated
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 contentrelated
criterion. First, the publication must include an original
empirical study. Purely theoretical contributions,
reviews, and metaanalyses 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 contentrelated 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 “WebPSI”
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 filmlike
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,” “nonfictional,” and “fictional and nonfic
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 nonfictional
category. The fictional and nonfictional 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 nonfictional
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
breakup 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
postreception 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., ShermanMorris, 2005).
Data collection. Following the categorization of the
articles, we processed them according to the type of
data collection using the following three subdimen
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 substudies, 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 selfpro
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 tobe”
(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 justmentioned 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 subjectrelated state of research.
A. Research topics then and now
This section concentrates on the temporal and con
tentrelated 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
Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϭϵϱϲ
ϭϵϱϴ
ϭϵϲϬ
ϭϵϲϮ
ϭϵϲϰ
ϭϵϲϲ
ϭϵϲϴ
ϭϵϳϬ
ϭϵϳϮ
ϭϵϳϰ
ϭϵϳϲ
ϭϵϳϴ
ϭϵϴϬ
ϭϵϴϮ
ϭϵϴϰ
ϭϵϴϲ
ϭϵϴϴ
ϭϵϵϬ
ϭϵϵϮ
ϭϵϵϰ
ϭϵϵϲ
ϭϵϵϴ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϬϬϮ
ϮϬϬϰ
ϮϬϬϲ
ϮϬϬϴ
ϮϬϭϬ
ϮϬϭϮ
ϮϬϭϰ
ϮϬϭϲ
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 TVPersonen
[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
Ϭ
ϮϬ
ϰϬ
ϲϬ
ϴϬ
ϭϬϬ
ϭϵϱϲ
ϭϵϱϴ
ϭϵϲϬ
ϭϵϲϮ
ϭϵϲϰ
ϭϵϲϲ
ϭϵϲϴ
ϭϵϳϬ
ϭϵϳϮ
ϭϵϳϰ
ϭϵϳϲ
ϭϵϳϴ
ϭϵϴϬ
ϭϵϴϮ
ϭϵϴϰ
ϭϵϴϲ
ϭϵϴϴ
ϭϵϵϬ
ϭϵϵϮ
ϭϵϵϰ
ϭϵϵϲ
ϭϵϵϴ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϮϬϬϮ
ϮϬϬϰ
ϮϬϬϲ
ϮϬϬϴ
ϮϬϭϬ
ϮϬϭϮ
ϮϬϭϰ
ϮϬϭϲ
Parasocial phenomena with fictional versus nonfic
tional media characters. This section examines publi
cations concerning parasocial phenomena with fiction
al versus nonfictional media characters. Across all cat
egories, nearly one half of the studies dealt with
parasocial phenomena with nonfictional media char
acters (47.3%). The other two categories, “fictional”
(25.2%) and “fictional and nonfictional” (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 nonfictional characters and those that do
not, the “new media” and “intermedia” categories
appear strongly biased towards nonfictional 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 nonfictional 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 nonfictional 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
Ϭ
ϭϬ
ϮϬ
ϯϬ
ϰϬ
ϱϬ
ĨŝůŵĂŶĚƚĞůĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ ƌĂĚŝŽĂŶĚŵƵƐŝĐ ƉƌŝŶƚŵĞĚŝĂ ŶĞǁŵĞĚŝĂ ŝŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂ
ĨŝĐƚŝŽŶĂů ŶŽŶͲĨŝĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨŝĐƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŶŽŶͲĨŝĐƚŝŽŶĂů
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
followups 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
breakups (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 postreception 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 DrinkingBuddy Scale (Powell,
Richmond, & CantrellWilliams, 2012) versus the
Multiple Parasocial Relationships Scale (Tukachinsky,
2010). While the DrinkingBuddy 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 customfit 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 PSIScale by Rubin et al.
(1985), and its short version by Rubin and Perse
(1987). Fully 95 of the publications in this review use
the PSIScale 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 PSIScale (Rubin
et al., 1985; Rubin & Perse, 1987), used in 95 pub
lications;
• AudiencePersona Interaction Scale (Auter &
Palmgreen, 2000), used in 11 publications; and
• PSIProcess 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 spiraleffect 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 tobe 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
Ϭ
ϮϬ
ϰϬ
ϲϬ
ϴϬ
ϭϬϬ
ϭϮϬ
W^/ W^Z ŽƚŚĞƌ
ƐƵƌǀĞLJ ĞdžƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚ ĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ ŽƚŚĞƌ
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 aboveaverage 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
overfocusing 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, & BallRokeach, 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 postretirement 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, & AlJaber,
2005). Research that shows that dissatisfaction and
hopelessness increase the intensity of parasocial con
tacts (ChoryAssad & 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
taskrelated (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 (Baeßler, 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 nonabused children
tend to interact with nonanimated, 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 (MoyerGusé & 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 &
Dahlén, 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 postreception 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) (ShermanMorris, 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
selfconfidence (Greenwood, 2008), a higher selfeffi
cacy expectation (Phua, 2016), a stronger perception of
problemfocused 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 bodyimage can reduce selfesteem (Eyal
& Te’eniHarari, 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 PSIScale 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 PSIscale 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 longitudinalsec
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,
crosscultural 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
asyet 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 everexpanding 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., & AlJaber, 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
encepersona interaction scale. Communication
Research Reports, 17, 79–89. doi:10.1080/
08824090009388753
Baeßler, 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 personacentered reception].
BadenBaden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016). Avatars are (sometimes)
people too: Linguistic indicators of parasocial and
social ties in playeravatar 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.
ChoryAssad, 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.), HumanComputer Interaction.
Interacting in Various Application Domains (pp.
279–286). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/
9783642 025839_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/commun20140027
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., & Dahlén, 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/JAR511313320
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:10.1027/18641105/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’eniHarari, 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:10.1027/18641105/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 oneway or
twoway 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/
S01918869(03)001545
Gleich, U. (1997a). Parasocial interaction with people on the
screen. In P. WinterhoffSpurk & 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.
1007/9783663108993_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
Pädagogik.
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., & BallRokeach, 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]. BadenBaden: 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.14602466.2011
.01595.x
Hartmann, T., Schramm, H., & Klimmt, C. (2004).
Personenorientierte Medienrezeption: Ein Zwei
EbenenModell parasozialer Interaktionen [Person
oriented media reception: A twolevelmodel of
parasocial interactions]. Publizistik, 49, 25–47. doi:10.
1007/s1161600400036
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:10.1027/18641105.20.1.24
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
parasocial 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 entertainmenteducation programs in
Korea. AsiaPacific 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 hiphop 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
für Fernsehnutzungsmotive und parasoziale
Beziehungen [Television usage of singles and lovers:
The relevance of relationship status for motives of tel
evision usage and parasocial relationships]. München:
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.
AsiaPacific 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
MoyerGusé, 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 selfefficacy.
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., & CantrellWilliams, G. (2012).
The “DrinkingBuddy” 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.14682958.1987.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 PSIProcess
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:10.1027/18641105/a000004
ShermanMorris, 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 letterwriters to a popular entertain
menteducation 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). Pararomantic love and parafriend
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: Ergänzung oder
Ersatz? [Parasocial relationships with soap characters:
Complement or compensation?]. Zeitschrift für
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 metaview 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 filmlike stimuli
that were not initially produced for commercial film
and television.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and
parasocial 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 yearold 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
parasocial 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 parasocial 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., & BallRokeach, 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.
Münster: 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. Jäger (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiv
en empirischpädagogischer Forschung (pp.
363–381). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
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 TVPersonen (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 consumerproduct 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 über
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: Ergänzung oder
Ersatz? Zeitschrift für 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. WinterhoffSpurk & 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 Pädagogik.
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
encepersona interaction scale. Communication
Research Reports, 17, 79–89.
Six, U., & Gleich, U. (2000). Sozioemotionale 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 letterwriters to a popular entertain
menteducation 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, 1125.
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., & Rössler, P. (2001). Parasoziale Interaktion
bei der Rezeption von Daily Talk shows. Eine
Befragung von älteren TalkZuschauern. In C.
Schneiderbauer (Ed.), Daily Talkshows unter der Lupe
(pp. 179–208). München: 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 breakup 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., & AlJaber, K. (2005). Identifying
with Arabic journalists: How Al Jazeera tapped
parasocial interaction in the Arab world. Gazette, 67,
189–204.
ChoryAssad, 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 PSIZweiEbenen
Modells. Zeitschrift für 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). Smallscreen 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.
ShermanMorris, 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 realitybased 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
für Fernsehnutzungsmotive und parasoziale
Beziehungen. München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer.
MarmorLavie, 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 für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008a). Die Messung
von parasozialen Interaktionen als mehrdimension
ales Konstrukt. Entwicklung und Validierung von
PSIProzessSkalen auf Basis des ZweiEbenen
Modells parasozialer Interaktionen. In J. Matthes,
W. Wirth, G. Daschmann, & A. Fahr (Eds.),
Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommuni
kationswissenschaft. Die Brücke zwischen Theorie
und Empirie—Operationalisierung, Messung und
Validierung in der Kommunikationswissenschaft
(pp. 48–69). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008b). The PSIProcess
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
Persönlichkeiten Prominente als Marken der
Gegenwartsgesellschaft. In H. Willems (Ed.),
Theatralisierung der Gesellschaft. Band 2:
Medientheatralität und Medientheatralisierung (pp.
309–327). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Rössler, P., Germanus, E., Gruschwitz, S., & Kalch, A.
(2009). Wie werden aus Zuschauern Mitspieler?
Zwischen parasozialer und sozialer Interaktion:
Resonanz auf CallInShows im Fernsehen. In S.
Trepte, U. Hasebrink, & H. Schramm (Eds.),
Strategische Kommunikation und Mediengestaltung
Anwendung und Erkenntnisse der Rezeptions und
Wirkungsforschung (pp. 165–183). BadenBaden:
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 hiphop 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.
AsiaPacific Journal of Public Health, 22, 89–97.
MoyerGusé, 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.
CurrásPérez, R., MiquelRomero, M. J., RuizMafé, C., &
SanzBlas, 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 TVinduced
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., & MoyerGusé, 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. Ayaß, & 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’eniHarari, 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., BehmMorawitz, 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.
Leißner, L., Stehr, P., Rössler, P., Döringer, E., Morsbach,
M., & Simon, L. (2014). Parasoziale Meinungs
führerschaft. 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) für die
Wirkung von Product Placements auf Erwachsene. In
H. Schramm, & J. Knoll (Eds.), Innovation der
Persuasion. Die Qualität der Werbe und
Markenkommunikation in neuen Medienwelten (pp.
16–33). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Stehr, P., Leißner, L., Schönhardt, F., & Rössler, P. (2014).
Parasoziale Meinungsführerschaft 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 onscreen: 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 entertainmenteducation programs in
Korea. AsiaPacific 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 audioonly character narration on character and nar
rative engagement. Communication Research Reports,
32, 63–72.
Stehr, P., Rössler, P., Schönhardt, F., & Leißner, 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 healthrelated 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 reallife 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 selfefficacy.
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., & ShefnerRogers, 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 entertainmenteducation
program audience. International Journal of Multiple
Research Approaches, 3, 88–104.
Papa, M. J., & Singhal, A. (2009). How entertainmentedu
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
tainmenteducation 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 für Medienpsychologie, 14, 149–154.
Rössler, P., & Veigel, A. (2005). Was interessiert an Stars und
Sternchen? Publizistik, 50, 438–461.
Wegener, C. (2008). Medien, Aneignung und Identität:
“Stars” im Alltag jugendlicher Fans. Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für 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 technologyrelated 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, parasocial, and nonsocial
misleading postevent 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.
Rössler, S. Kubisch, & V. Gehrau (Eds.), Empirische
Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung (pp. 177–192).
München: Fischer.
Luo, J. T., McGoldrick, P., Beatty, S., & Keeling, K. A.
(2006). Onscreen 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.), HumanComputer 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 selfconstrual and
the mediating role of selfpresence in an avatarbased
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., & Dahlén, 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 antisocial motiva
tions to play massively multiplayer online roleplaying
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:
Parasocial 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
20122013 lockout. Journal of Sports Media, 9,
25–44.
Frederick, E., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., Pedersen, P. M., &
Burch, L. (2014). Choosing between the oneway 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’ parasocial
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). Friendzone 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 playeravatar relationships. New
Media & Society, 18, 1257–1276.
Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016b). Emotion, anthropo
morphism, realism, control: Validation of a merged
metric for playeravatar 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 clubUK. 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 highrisk
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 entertainmenteducation
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 für
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 Formel1Fahrern.
In H. Schramm, W. Wirth, & H. Bilandzic (Eds.),
Empirische Unterhaltungsforschung: Studien zur
Rezeption und Wirkung von medialer Unterhaltung
(pp. 149–168). München: 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 selfdiscrepancies: Faux relation
ships have benefits for low selfesteem 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.
Baeßler, B. (2009). Medienpersonen als parasoziale
Beziehungspartner. Ein theoretischer und empirischer
Beitrag zu personazentrierter Rezeption. Baden
Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Löbler, H. (2009). My relationship to Scarlett O’Hara—
Characterising parasocial 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). Pararomantic love and parafriend
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 Souhwan’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
characterproduct 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., & CantrellWilliams, G. (2012).
The “DrinkingBuddy” 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., & FourquetCourbet, 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 “DrinkingBuddy” scale
and perceptions of assertiveness, responsiveness and
authenticity. Political Science & Public Affairs, 2, 1–4.
ShedloskyShoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., & Arkin, R. M.
(2014). Selfexpansion through fictional characters.
Self and Identity, 13, 556–578.
Stehr, P. (2014). Der parasoziale Meinungsführer als Akteur
der politischen Willensbildung: Quantitative Prüfung
eines Modellentwurfs. In D. Friess, J. Jax, & A.
Michalski (Eds.), Sprechen Sie EU? Das kommunika
tive Versagen einer großen Idee: Beiträge 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., & Weidenhöffer, J. (2015). Zuschauer
Engagement auf Twitter: Handlungskategorien der
rezeptionsbegleitenden Kommunikation am Beispiel
von #tatort. Zeitschrift für 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. OMEGAJournal 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