Attachment Theory 1

Mediated vs. Parasocial Relationships:

An Attachment Perspective
Gayle S. Stever, Ph.D.
Empire State College/SUNY
Online Publication Date: Jan. 2, 2013
Journal of Media Psychology, Volume 17, No. 3, Winter, 2013

Abstract
This article delineates the distinctions between mediated and parasocial relationships
before outlining the key aspects of parasocial theory and suggesting that the theory be
expanded to consistently include parasocial attachment as a category distinct from
parasocial relationships. Parasocial theory involves interactions, relationships and
attachments between people of differing status such that one person is well known to the
other but that knowing is not reciprocated. As media become more pervasive in the day-
to-day lives of individuals, it becomes more and more important to understand the
mechanisms whereby parasocial interaction, relationships, and attachments function in
both development and social life. This paper proposed an integrated theory of parasocial
dynamics, drawing principally from communications studies and psychology, while also
recognizing the contributions of sociology and anthropology. Parasocial attachment is
proposed to be a form of classical human attachment as defined by Bowlby (1969) and
Ainsworth (1978), and the qualities and characteristics that define the other two identified
forms of attachment, infant-caregiver and adult romantic, apply equally well to parasocial
attachment.
Keywords: Parasocial, Attachment, Romantic Attachment, Fan Studies, Media
Psychology.
 Attachment Theory 2

Introduction
Interest in the influence of mass media has continued to grow across all of the

social sciences beginning in the twentieth and continuing into the twenty-first century. A

number of these disciplines have published extensive research related to mass media and

these include psychology, sociology, communications, and anthropology. Because

academic research tends to be written for an audience in only one of these disciplines,

finding a way to integrate areas of research among the social sciences and also

standardize the terminology used is a problem. Such has been the case in the area of

parasocial theory, the theory of parasocial interaction proposed by Horton and Wohl

(1956) wherein unreciprocated relationships were developing between media figures and

audience members. While extensive research has been done in the area of parasocial

interaction, particularly by communication scholars, scholars in the other social sciences

have had minimal exposure to parasocial theory and how it differs from theories about

other mediated relationships.

While research on relationships of all types has traditionally been the purview of

social psychology and social development, communications researchers (Levy, 1979;

Rubin & McHugh, 1987; Rubin, Perse & Powell, 1985) have taken the lead in this area of

parasocial relationships. In order to have a complete understanding of these phenomena,

terminologies used in mass communications research need to be integrated more into the

psychology literature. To do this is one of the purposes of this article. Specifically, a

distinction needs to be made between a mediated relationship and a parasocial

relationship as these terms are easy to confuse. The other task of this article is to propose

the marriage of parasocial theory with classical attachment theory into a recognized

category of parasocial attachment, a term that has been used in the literature (Cohen,
 Attachment Theory 3

2004; Stever, 2009) but is not universally recognized as having a theoretical grounding in

the classical attachment literature (described later in this article). This lack of grounding

of parasocial theory in existing developmental theory on relationships has been

recognized as a weakness of the theory by communications scholars (Hataway, 2008) and

psychologists alike (Giles, 2002).

Mediated relationships are communications and connections between individuals

that are transmitted through media rather than face-to-face (Hardey, 2004; Jiang et al,

2010; Yum and Hara, 2005). This includes computer mediated relationships, referred to

in the literature as CMC. Anything from books and newspapers to television and the

Internet would fall into the category of a mediated communication. More recent research

has focused on other media such as cell phones, blackberries, and other forms of personal

communication devices (Bergdall et al, 2012; Humble-Thaden, 2011; Naz et al, 2011).

The broad category of mediated relationships covers all relationships that are conducted

over media, but much of the focus in the literature has been on CMC (Hu et al, 2004;

Patterson & Gojdycz, 2000; Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007).

Parasocial Interaction (PSI) and Parasocial Relationships (PSR) first were

discussed by Horton and Wohl (1956) who suggested that there was a very special type

of mediated relationship that had been made more prominent through the medium of

television. In a PSR, there are a number of defining characteristics (Giles, 2002; Giles,

2003; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011; Horton & Wohl, 1956; Rubin and McHugh, 1987).

 Most notably, a PSR lacks reciprocity (Schramm & Hartmann, 2008). An

individual consumes media about a particular individual or character in media,

but the communication is not reciprocated. In the case of fictional characters,

 Attachment Theory 4

this is because they are not real. In the case of celebrities, the reciprocity is

missing because the two individuals in the PSR don’t have access to one

another. Most PSR’s involve a status difference, with the parasocial object

being a person of higher status, most often through wealth, fame or power,

than the viewer. Often referred to as a “fan,” originally short for “fanatic,” this

term has come to mean any devoted follower of a form of media or person in

media.

 Another defining feature of PSR’s is that the object is known by the viewer

but the knowing is one-way, such that the celebrity object doesn’t know much,

if anything at all, about the viewer. The fan has access to public information

about the celebrity as that celebrity chooses to reveal it, or in some cases as

those who know the celebrity have revealed.

It is important to recognize that not all mediated relationships are parasocial, and

not all parasocial relationships are mediated. Many mediated relationships are between

equals who reciprocate, are of equal status, and are known to each other in the face-to-

face social world. Those on our Facebook pages, those with whom we text-message on

our phones, or those with whom we E-mail regularly can be counted among our mediated

relationships. It is perfectly plausible to know someone through media in a completely

reciprocated fashion.

Conversely, a parasocial relationship is possible in a situation where someone is

admired from afar, perhaps in a small town situation, where someone in the community

has a public presence that allows him or her to be known by people that she or he doesn’t

know in return. For example, in a very large church, the congregation members all know
 Attachment Theory 5

the pastor from weekly sermons, and public speaking, but the pastor may not know all the

congregation members personally if there are thousands of them.

Parasocial Attachment and its Place in Parasocial Theory

This paper proposes that while most literature in parasocial theory discusses the

distinction between PSI and PSR, a third category, parasocial attachment (PSA) needs to

be included in discussions of parasocial theory. PSI, PSR, and PSA are progressive states

such that what begins as PSI has the potential to become a PSR (Schmid & Klimmt,

2011) and then a PSA. The term attachment has been used to describe PSR’s in the

literature (Cohen, 2004; Stever, 1994, 2009) and it is proposed here that PSA is actually

an additional form of attachment that belongs next to infant/caregiver attachment and

adult romantic attachment as a part of the developmental attachment literature.

Communications scholars have done much of the work in parasocial theory since

it was proposed by Horton & Wohl in 1956. As many studies have been done outside of

psychology, a solid connection to psychological theory and developmental theory has

been missing (Hataway, 2008).

Attachment Theory

PSA is explained by classical attachment theory as defined by Bowlby (1969) and

Ainsworth (1978), with characteristics that define the other two identified forms of

attachment, infant-caregiver and adult romantic (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Humans are

born with a biologically based instinct to be socially attracted to other humans (Bowlby,

1969, Muir, et al., 1994; Schore, 2000). Part of this instinct is to seek proximity to others

for safety as well as to meet social needs. Infants focus on caregivers to meet these needs.

Bowlby (1969) called this proximity seeking behavior “attachment.” He based the initial
 Attachment Theory 6

theory on ethology, control systems theory, and psychoanalytic thinking (Bretherton,

1992). His early training as a psychiatrist had grounded him in the object-relations

tradition of psychoanalysis. This became the basis for his emphasis on early relationships

as a basis of later development.

Ainsworth (1978) studied the quality of the infant’s relationship to a caregiver by

analyzing infant responses to “The Strange Situation,” a series of seven three-minute

episodes measuring the infant’s reaction to a stranger, both in the presence and absence

of a caregiver. Three patterns of responses to this experiment were identified from her

work. The securely attached infant responded to the presence of a stranger and

subsequent absence of the mother with a balance of proximity seeking and also

exploration of the new environment. The anxious-avoidant infant responded very little to

the mother, exploring the toys throughout most parts of the experiment. The anxious-

ambivalent infant became clingy with the mother at the first sign of social stress and

rarely re-engaged the toys once upset. The quality of attachment is a characteristic of the

dyad. Infants can be securely attached to one caregiver while insecurely attached to

another. The attachment system itself is part of the behavioral system of the infant alone.

Sroufe (2005) looked at adolescents whose attachment style had been assessed multiple

times in infancy, and found a high correlation between earlier and later attachment styles

in the same individuals.

Later work on attachment extended the idea to include adult romantic partners,

wherein the adults took turns being the caregiver and the care receiver, and adult sexual

behavior was affected by the quality of early infant attachment patterns. Infants who had
 Attachment Theory 7

a pattern of secure attachments were more successful in their later social and intimate

relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1994).

To date the focus in the developmental attachment literature has been on these

two forms of attachment, infant-caregiver (Ainsworth, 1978; Bowlby, 1969) and adult

romantic (Hazan and Shaver, 1994).

Parasocial Theory

Social interaction was limited to persons known in real life to the individual until

the advent of visual media, television and movies meant that the images and voices of a

wide array of other people known through media became available. In 1956, Horton and

Wohl described such interaction with the word “parasocial.” Their article dealt

principally with television, through which intimate personal information about other

people was transmitted, information previously available only through face-to-face

interaction. Viewers came to know the mannerisms, behaviors, sense-of-humor, facial

expressions and other personal details learned through this medium. They felt personally

connected to such people, indeed if someone known only through media were to die, they

experienced profound grief as with the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Stever (2009, 1994) described levels of fandom, a concept clearly linked to PSI,

along with the intensity of the attraction shown for a celebrity. The highest levels of

fandom were obsessive pathological (interferes with the ability to live a normal life), and

obsessive non-pathological (intense interest by a person with a normal life of work,

family and other aspects). Beneath those two levels were people focused on a particular

celebrity such that it defined their entertainment life, and below that were several levels

of average interest in a celebrity. These levels were described based on 150 case vignettes
 Attachment Theory 8

written by fans and coded by five coders with a .92 level of inter-rater reliability. The

documents were also coded for fan motivations with the three most frequent categories

being 1) task attraction (I like the celebrity because (s)he is the best at what they do), 2)

romantic attraction (I like the celebrity based on sexual/romantic feelings), and 3)

identification/social attraction (I like the celebrity because (s)he is like me or because I

want to be like him/her). Romantic attraction was the best predictor of the higher

intensity levels of fandom as documents were also rated as “high intensity” and “low

intensity” with intensity being defined as the degree of focus on and time spent engaging

parasocially with the celebrity (Stever, 1991, 1994). The same or similar three categories

of attraction to celebrities have appeared elsewhere in the literature (Caughey, 1978;

Hoffner & Cantor, 1991; Rubin & McHugh, 1987).

Giles (2002), a social psychologist, described three categories of PSR, one with a

fictional character, a second with an actor as a fictional character, and a third with the

actual actor. His extensive and detailed review of the early communication literature in

PSI affirms the point that psychologists had done little to that point to contribute to the

discussion. Communication scholars did the first research using PSI and were the ones

who defined the term more completely. Uses and Gratifications research, from mass

communications, caused PSI to resurface (McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972). Uses and

Gratifications proposed that media users are goal directed and deliberate in their choice

of media consumption, contrary to earlier views that saw viewers as passive consumers.

Early studies defined PSI/PSR (Levy, 1979; Rubin & McHugh, 1987; Rubin et al, 1985)

as “a one-sided interpersonal relationship that television viewers establish with media

characters” (Rubin & McHugh, 1987, p. 280). The definition was later elaborated on such
 Attachment Theory 9

that “parasocial interaction occurs when we respond to a media figure as if he/she/it were

a real person” (Giles, 2003, p. 188).

Giles (2003) proposed that we can form a PSR with a real celebrity, a fictional

character, or even a cartoon figure. It is important to note that PSR’s cover a range of

interactions that can be both real and imagined. For example I might have a PSR with the

president of the United States and know this person very well through media. While some

would argue that all that is known is the public persona, Babcock (1989) has argued

persuasively that all people have public and private selves, and this is not something that

is unique to public figures. So it is a given, that when we say we “know” a person, what

we know is that person’s public self, whether the relationship is parasocial or not. My

knowledge of President Obama’s public self is real and not imagined and whether or not I

choose to vote for him is based on that knowledge. The voting is a real behavior with real

implications, so the argument that PSR’s are always imaginary misses this important

point. The “real” nature of PSR’s is not limited to politicians. I might know a public

figure through television, perhaps someone like Oprah Winfrey, and might be inspired in

some way by her example to be public minded and philanthropic. This results in real

behavior that has been influenced by the real life of a real person. However, if I feel a

connection with a television character, e.g. Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs on NCIS

(CBS television series), and I “talk” to him during or after viewing as if he were a real

person, this relationship is imaginary and not possible in the real world. The actor who

plays Gibbs, Mark Harmon, is someone I could know in real life, but such actual real

knowing is rare on the part of the average viewer. Actors commonly experience the

confusion viewers have between fantasy and reality when a fan approaches them on the
 Attachment Theory 10

street and speaks to them as if they were they character they portray. For example,

Alexander Siddig (personal interview), who played Dr. Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space

Nine, recounted that people often wrote to him or asked him in person about things one

would ask a doctor, even though Siddig is an actor who only played a doctor on

television. This is something that actors frequently report in interviews about fans.

PSA’s are formed by individuals at all stages of the life cycle from childhood

through later adulthood. There has been some literature focused on adolescent PSA’s

although sometimes the terminology used is varied such that theorists have talked about

Imaginary Social Relationships (Caughey, 1988, 1984) and Secondary Attachments

(Adams-Price & Greene, 1990). Looking at how these terms are defined, clearly the

theories in those articles are very closely linked, if not identical, to PSA. Studies on

PSA’s in adolescence have recognized that such relationships with distant attachment

objects allow for the safe exploration of romantic feelings with a partner who will not

place any demands on the young person (Theran et al, 2010). While such exploration is

within the realm of normal adolescent behavior, an adolescent having difficulty making

such a transition might become overly focused on one celebrity and have difficulty

moving on to face-to-face relationships (Giles & Maltby, 2004). One consequence of

adolescents growing up in a media saturated culture where new forms of media dominate

the lives of young people is that values are affected by such saturation. One group of

children ages 10-12 indicated that their highest aspiration was fame-seeking and this

focus of values was attributed to interactive communication technologies (Uhls &

Greenfield, 2012). Morimoto and Friedland (2011) found that media has become central

among the ways that adolescents form identity. Rapid change in media along with
 Attachment Theory 11

enormous increases in use among adolescents has created a risk environment for youth.

As an example, by 2009 58% of 12 year olds and 83% of 18 year olds owned cell phones.

Increasing competency in technology may be at the expense of a loss of face-to-face

social skills with a resulting lack of success in career and school.

A key component of attachment theory is proximity seeking (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007) and fans exhibit many proximity seeking behaviors when acting on their

PSAs. Sometimes fans find ways to meet their favorite celebrities in real life, a quite

obvious form of proximity seeking. In addition, “secure base” and “safe haven” are

components of the attachment behavioral system (Hazan & Shaver, 1994) that can be

argued to have relevance in the parasocial realm as well. Examples from previous

research (Stever, 2009) illustrated how this might work:

A Josh Groban fan in her mid-50’s reported that she was suffering from stage four

cancer. Josh Groban’s music, and later Josh Groban himself, had become a source of

tremendous comfort to her during her chemotherapy and radiation treatments. She used a

recording of his song, Believe, while receiving her treatments, and found herself

strengthened by the song and what it represented to her. In this case, the song created

proximity to Groban while the lyrics and meaning of the song contributed to both a

secure base and safe haven from pain and discomfort.

In a second case, an eighteen year-old Michael Jackson fan reported that after her

father left her family (and went from being very close to this young woman to being

totally absent from her life according to her mother), Jackson became a substitute source

of comfort for her and she recounted to her therapist, and again later to the researcher,

that ‘I love Michael Jackson and he can never leave me.’ In addition to using
 Attachment Theory 12

memorabilia and music to create proximity, this fan also found a secure base and source

of personal comfort in Jackson and his music. This became a safe haven for her as she

dealt with the abandonment of her father.

In a third case, a Bruce Springsteen fan described her relationship with the fan

community, referring to it as ‘our own small town’ and indicating that it was to

Springsteen and also his fans that she turned to in times of crisis, this matching almost

exactly the definition of safe haven (Hazan and Shaver, 1994). This last example,

wherein not only the celebrity but also the “community of fans” becomes the source of

felt security, was commonly reported in every fan community studied. These fan

communities included Star Trek, Josh Groban, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson and

numerous others (Stever, 2009).

More recently, an interviewee gave this account of how watching television at the

end of a long day provided him with comfort and felt security:

The Andy Griffith Show always had a great lesson to teach, and I loved this show
as a child, and still do today. I believe this is a wonderful show for kids, and more
importantly for adults because of our forgetfulness of the "golden rule." I wish I
could have turned my kids on to this show when they were young. The show's
writers had a penchant for writing extraordinary and timeless messages that
taught viewers a moral lesson, or helped to resolve an ethical dilemma. The
interesting thing too was that it wasn't just the child character receiving a weekly
lesson, but every adult character who was a regular, or guest on the show. Sooner
or later each received their very own homespun lesson each episode that anyone
could understand. Recently, as in the past month or so, I began to watch Griffith's
show on Youtube, I suppose as a result of boredom. What a joy it still is to watch.
The fascinating thing to me is that on occasion I find that it still provides a
psychological comfort to me, especially since I've been living alone for the past
few years. It's funny, I would almost equate Andy, Opie, Barney, Aunt Bea, and
 Attachment Theory 13

the rest of the gang to being my surrogate family. I have a very palpable
awareness of feeling emotionally secure when I think of how I feel as I watch, and
learn. I imagine that the feelings I describe have their roots in my very young days
at home, and a sense of feeling safe. I still do have real family that I love, and
spend time with of course. However, now and then I've noticed of myself that,
during my dinner time, and it’s rare for me to dine with anyone because of my
schedule, I find myself watching the show frequently.

This participant’s experience illustrates the point that PSAs often get connected

with and related to real life attachments. He feels attached to the characters on the show,

in part because they elicit important memories from his childhood and attachments he felt

to family members.

Another group of studies has sought to connect early attachment styles

(Ainsworth, 1978) with later parasocial relationships. Cohen (1997) identified “working

models of attachment” and related these to the likelihood that viewers would apply their

own model to a PSR with a television character. He found that these models of

attachment influenced the way we think about symbolic relationships. Cole and Leets

(1999) found that individuals with an anxious-ambivalent style of attachment (Ainsworth,

1978) were the most likely viewers to form parasocial bonds with their favorite

celebrities, while anxious-avoidants were the least likely to form such bonds. This study

of 115 college undergraduates (median age of 21) suggested that attachments beliefs

appeared to be a reliable predictor for willingness to form bonds with parasocial figures.

Cohen (2004), in a follow-up study, also found that anxious-ambivalent viewers

anticipated more negative consequences for the loss of a favorite television character, a

reflection of the intensity of those relationships, and that those anticipated responses

mirrored the loss of real relationships in their own lives. The anticipated loss for the
 Attachment Theory 14

anxious ambivalent viewer was greater than it was for individuals with other attachment

styles. This study showed “evidence of the similarity between parasocial relationships

and close social relationships” (p. 187). Greenwood and Long (2011), in their study of

173 college undergraduates, found that those with close real world friends were more

likely to feel close to parasocial figures in the media, while the opposite was true for

those with close real world romantic partners. The reported attraction to parasocial

romantic figures was greater for viewers who had no real life romantic partners. This

suggests that PSR's play differing roles in parasocial friendship compared to parasocial

romantic love. The link between PSR and attachment was theorized and believed to

influence the findings of this study. Tuvachinsky (2010) also found distinct differences in

the reporting of these two kinds of parasocial relationships in her series of three studies

on the subject. These studies suggest a clear difference between PSRs motivated by

feelings of friendship compared to those motivated by feelings of romantic love. More

work is needed to further determine the links between quality of attachment in infancy

and the propensity for forming parasocial connections later as an adult.

Cohen (2001) presented the argument that identification with a character is

distinct from parasocial interaction with the character. “Identification with a television

character is based on a psychological attachment between the viewer and a character but

rather than leading to interaction with the character, it leads to imagining 'being like' the

character.” (p. 253). Stever (2009) found three primary motivations for attraction and

attachment to a celebrity and identification was one of these three. In the study,

attachment was measured via behavioral criteria that signaled proximity seeking to the

celebrity, for example, attending events where the celebrity would appear, joining the
 Attachment Theory 15

celebrity's fan club, and collecting memorabilia related to the celebrity. In the three types

of motivation: identification, task attraction, and hero/role model attraction;, there was

significant overlap among these categories. This suggested that while identification is a

separate construct from other types of parasocial interaction, it might also be a good

predictor for the other types, i.e. parasocial friendship and parasocial love, as well as hero

worship. Stever (1991, 2008) found that task attraction, role model attraction and

romantic attraction as measured by the Celebrity Appeal Questionnaire, were all equally

good predictors of a self-report as to how big a fan the viewer perceived himself or

herself to be.

An important point is that while some psychologists emphasize fandom as

pathology (Dietz et al, 1991; Maltby et al, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005), the developmental

perspective on fans is more likely to see fandom/PSI as a normal part of development

throughout the life course (Stever, 2010, 2011). While developmentalists recognize that

fandom has the potential to bring out troubling behaviors, they also see fandom as a

potentially legitimate expression of interests and feelings. Much is made in the fan

studies psychological literature of the concept of “obsession.” Fiction writer Penzler

(1999) made this relevant observation: “Where is the line, that narrow border crossing

that separates the areas of normal drive, or desire, and obsession? My best answer is that

it is impossible to know. What seems entirely normal, planned, and reasonable to one

person seems obsessive to another” (p. 2). This quote is relevant because it is exactly this

issue that seems to separate those who find most fan behavior to be normal and those who

find it to be strange. By showing how PSA is simply an extension of the attachment

 Attachment Theory 16

system that Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth (1978) identified as being common to all

human beings, a theoretical framework is offered for explaining attachment to celebrities.

Not all PSI involves attachment. Attachment theory addresses a very specific type

of relationship, one in which individuals look to an attachment figure for “felt security”

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). Individuals also look to attachment figures for a “safe

haven” and “secure base" (Hazan and Shaver, 1994). These researchers proposed that

while early research focused on parent-child attachment, it is now found in much broader

social situations and in relation to many more people than originally proposed

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). Further they recognize that “…it can also include

activation of mental representations of relationship partners who regularly provide care

and protection…the mental representations of attachment figures can become symbolic

sources of protection, and their activation can establish what might be called ‘symbolic

proximity’ to supportive others” (p. 13). While these authors are talking about real social

relationships between adults, it is proposed here that this idea would apply equally well to

PSAs.

Is the parasocial realm merely a fantasy, an imagined connection that only exists

in the mind of the viewer? If the viewer never meets the object (or celebrity), is the

relationship to that object “not real?” Examples illustrate that, at least in many cases, PSIs

are very real in spite of the two people never meeting. A personal example might clarify

this: As an American citizen, John F. Kennedy was my president from 1960 when he was

elected until his death in 1963. The things he did as president had both direct and indirect

effects on me. When he died, the world I was living in changed. I was deeply saddened

by his passing. The effect he had on me was very real in spite of my never having met
 Attachment Theory 17

him. This is PSI at its most basic. At the age of nine, I didn't have any kind of PSA or

PSR with JFK. I was most likely less affected by the loss than others who did have PSRs

or PSAs with him.

There are two patterns to be considered here. Adams-Price and Greene (1990)

talked about secondary attachment, where the attachment is to the internal representation

the fan has created of some mediated person. The primary attachment object, the

celebrity, is not the true focus of attachment. A person fantasizes about a celebrity,

idealizes them, and finds comfort from that idealized internal image. However, other

work has focused on primary PSAs where it is just as possible to focus attention on the

real person who is admired, to emulate and feel connected to them, and to make that real

person the object of attachment (Stever, 2010).

In another example, 1988 was the beginning of participant-observer work within

the Michael Jackson fan community. Interviews with over 1000 fans in that community

with data collected that included questionnaires, interviews, plus extended interactions

with a subsample showed that almost all fans had relationships with Jackson that

qualified as parasocial. None of them knew him in their daily lives or had regular access

to him. However, many of them had met him, many of them had spoken with him, and

quite a few of them were known to him. The PSA was based, at least in part, on a

relationship that involved encounters that were real and outside of the fan’s imagination

(Stever, 1994, 2011). When Michael Jackson died in 2009, thousands of his fans who

were attached to him exhibited their grief by attending gatherings and exchanging

condolences with other fans. I had not been active in the Jackson fandom for over 15
 Attachment Theory 18

years, but at least a dozen former contacts in that fandom found me on Facebook to share

their grief. One participant said "I feel as if the sound track of my life is over."

In Josh Groban fandom, this popular singer was observed to be very “fan

friendly.” In November, 2011, a charity function was held to celebrate the raising of $1

million by the fans for Groban’s charity foundation. In a room of over 200 fans, most

were known to Groban, all by face, some by name, and most of them had met him

multiple times. Groban did many autograph sessions and he had a very good memory for

fans he had met before. On many occasions he answered “Do you remember me?” with

the name of the fan and where they had previously met (Stever, 2011).

Additionally it is important to recognize the role of the Internet and Social Media

in the reinforcement of these attachments. Groban, a 31 year old popular singer, has lived

in the public eye as a celebrity for over 10 years. He is best known for his song “You

Raise Me Up” and for various high profile appearances in places like the Olympics, the

World Series, the Super Bowl, the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies, as well as hundreds of

hours of various televised specials. In 2009, Groban opened a Twitter account and since

then has Tweeted to his fans an average of 2-3 times per day. A study of Twitter

fan/celebrity interaction has shown that Groban frequently Tweeted to individual fans,

and on several occasions has recognized fans in autograph lines as “frequent posters” to

Twitter (Stever, 2012). One very active fan was recognized by name in an autograph line

following an airing of Jimmy Kimmel in late 2010. Another fan mentioned her Twitter

handle to Groban in an autograph line and was greeted with a big smile and a hug. These

observations suggest the question: When does the parasocial cross over to being social?

Does any reciprocation at all qualify? Or does the continued status differential, lack of
 Attachment Theory 19

access, and the return to lack of reciprocity after a reciprocal encounter mean that the

relation continues to be a PSR?

While the qualitative data presented here is preliminary, it points to the need for

further study of parasocial interaction, parasocial relationships and parasocial attachment.

To really understand these phenomena, samples of convenience (i.e. surveys of college

students!) do not yield the necessary data. Celebrities are a vast array of unique

individuals, and each of them has a unique relationship to a fan base (if they choose to

have one at all; some don’t). Observing and interviewing behaviorally identified fans

(Stever, 2009) about their encounters, both real and imagined, with a diversity of

celebrities is foundational to understanding the nature of parasocial dynamics.

An important part of any discussion on this topic includes the viewer's ability to

distinguish fantasy from reality and to recognize the role that fantasy relationships are

playing in his or her social life. Interview data from a previous study (Stever, 2009)

showed that many fans are well able to distinguish between what is real and what is not

real in their media lives. However, it is also true that the lines between fantasy and reality

are easy to blur, particularly when it comes to the relationship between actors and the

characters they play. It has already been recounted that actors are often asked questions

that are more in line with the expertise of the character they play than with their own

expertise as an actor. If the PSR is with a character and a viewer happens to meet the

actor in real life, those lines are often difficult to distinguish, especially if the character is

a "nice person" and the celebrity is dismissive or rejecting. If the viewer asks the

celebrity a "fannish" question, the stereotypical "get a life" reaction as portrayed by

William Shatner on Saturday Night Live in 1986 is likely to cause the fan to pull back
 Attachment Theory 20

and reassess the connection. In the absence of such a reality check, the PSR is most likely

to persist.

Media dependency research has explored motivation for Internet use and

concluded that the locus of involvement is within the individual and not the message.

Individual Media Dependency Theory (IMD) was developed to explain how people

become dependent in order to achieve their goals (Sun et al, 2008). Wang et al (2012)

also found that dependency on social media was driven by unmet individual needs.

Additionally, there is a growing literature on Internet and Gaming addiction

wherein reasons why people become attached and addicted to life on social media and

gaming sites is explored (Griffiths, 2012; Kuss & Griffiths, 2012; NG & Wiemer-

Hastings, 2005; Yen et al, 2011). While much of this interaction is not parasocial and

thus not a primary part of this discussion, it is still important to note that mediated

relationships are as vulnerable to confusion between fantasy and reality as are parasocial

relationships. Does a person who has an underdeveloped social life begin to see his or her

Facebook page as a safe haven from the real social world? Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012)

found that Facebook participation is motivated by two primary needs, one for belonging

and one for self-presentation.

Further work is needed to develop this idea and those also related to gaming and

the relationships formed in gaming worlds like Farmville, Cafe World and other

Facebook games as well as the social worlds of World of Warcraft, League of Legends

and similar massive multi-player online role playing games (MMORPG's) where players

network with other players, most of whom they have never met in a face-to-face

environment. While these gaming relationships are reciprocal and thus not parasocial,
 Attachment Theory 21

understanding them still might contribute more to the understanding of mediated

relationships of all types.

Related to this is the question of a player's relationship to their online gaming

character or avatar. Dong et al (2013) found that Player-Avatar Identification (PAI) is

both a cognitive and emotional process. Participants were 1,263 adolescents from

Singapore. Looking at four factors (feelings during play, absorption during play, positive

attitudes toward avatar, and importance to identity) they found that those gamers who

have a diffused identity style (Erickson, 1968) were more likely to score high on both

absorption and importance to identity. Subjects in the study had spent months or, in some

cases, years developing their gaming avatar. Vasalou and Joinson (2009) found that

when online participants create avatars in three contexts, blogging, dating and gaming,

they are more likely to create them to resemble themselves in the blogging context while

in the dating context the avatars were made to be more attractive and in the gaming

context they were made to look more intellectual. These researchers found that all avatars

were perceived by their creators to be highly similar to themselves. In these studies,

relationships to avatars were more likely to indicate identification than PSI.

Games like the ones studied in Dong et al (2013) require one to create an avatar

and many players create the character to resemble them physically. A further example

would be my Farmville avatar, which I created to be female and have the same eye and

hair color that I have. Additionally, she dresses the way I would and represents me in the

game. As such it could be argued that my relationship with that avatar could be described

as identification and thus not parasocial. But some gaming avatars represent a character

in the game that is not the player. League of Legends is an example of such a game where
 Attachment Theory 22

players work with characters already created for the game. Relationships with these

characters could be viewed as similar to PSRs with cartoon characters (Giles, 2002) and

it would be possible to describe the relationship with that gaming avatar as parasocial.

One research question that could be explored is how gamers relate to their gaming

avatars, either parasocially or by identifying with them. Does one kind of relationship

better predict gaming addiction? If the character is "me," am I more or less likely to

become addicted to the gaming experience?

Hataway (2008), in his critical review of PSI, suggested that more psychological

research is needed in order to develop parasocial theory. Specific issues cited were “how

parasocial relationships are derived from parasocial interaction and the way those

relationships further influence media usage as well as a social construction of reality, and

how parasocial interaction is cognitively produced” (p. 18). He saw as a weakness in the

field the fact that most research in the parasocial area was being done by communication

scholars. The present discussion of PSI and attachment theory addressed this need and

pointed to future directions for attachment research and other research in both parasocial

and mediated relationships.

 Attachment Theory 23

References

Adams-Price & Greene (1990). Adolescents’ secondary attachments to celebrity figures.

Sex Roles, 22(3-4), 187-198.

Ainsworth, M (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange

situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Babcock, M.K. (1989). The dramaturgical perspective: Implications for the study of

person perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 297-309.

Bergdall, A.R., Kraft, J.M., Andes, K., Carter, M., Hatfield-Timajchy, K. & Hock-Long,

L. (2012). Love and hooking up in the new millennium: Communication

technology and relationships among urban African American and Puerto Rican

young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 49(6), 570-582.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1, Attachment. London: Hogarth.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary

Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.

Caughey, J.L. (1978). Artificial social relations in modern America. American Quarterly,

30, 70-89.

Caughey, J. L. (1984). Imaginary social worlds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Caughey, J. L. (1988). Masking the self: Fictional identities and the construction of self

in adolescence. Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 319-322.

 Attachment Theory 24

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

attachment styles and relationship intensity. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 21(2), 187-202.

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of

audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society 4(3), 245-264.

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

differences. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41(4), 516-529.

Cole, T. & Leets, L. (1999). Attachment styles and intimate television viewing:

Insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial way. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 16(4), 495-511.

Dietz, P. E., Matthews, D.B., Van Duyne, C., Martell, D.A., Parry, C., Stewart, T.,

Warren, J., & Crowder, J.D. (1991). Threatening and otherwise inappropriate

letters to Hollywood celebrities.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36 (1): 185-209.

Dong D.L., Liau, A.K. & Khoo, A. (2013). Player-avatar identification in video gaming:

Concept and measurement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 257-263.

Erickson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Giles, D. C. (2002) Para-social interaction: a review of the literature and a model for

future research. Media Psychology, 4(III), 279-305.

Giles, D.C. (2003). Media Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Attachment Theory 25

Giles & Maltby (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations

between autonomy, attachment and interest in celebrities. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36, 813-822.

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

relationship status predict imagined intimacy with media figures. Communication

Research, 38(2) 278-297.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Facebook addiction: Concerns, criticisms, and recommendations--

a response to Andreassen and colleagues. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 518.

Hardey, M. (2004). Mediated relationships. Information, Communication and Society,

7(2) 207-222.

Hartmann, T. & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’

experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61, 1104-1121.

Hataway, J. (2008). Audience media figure relationships: A critical review of parasocial

Interaction. Paper presented at the National Communication Association,

November 21-24, 2008, San Diego, CA.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research

on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.

 Attachment Theory 26

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hoffner & Cantor, (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters.

In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and

reaction processes (pp. 63-101 ). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:

Observations on intimacy at a distance.” Psychiatry, 19 (3) 215-30.

Hu, Y., Wood, J.F., Smith, V. & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM:

Examining the relationship between Instant Messaging and intimacy. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), article 6.

Humble-Thaden, M. B. ( 2011) Student reflective perceptions of High School

educational cell phone technology usage. The Journal of Technology Studies,

37(1), 10-16.

Jiang, L.C., Bazarova, N.N. & Hancock, J.T. (2010). The disclosure-intimacy link in

computer mediated communication: An attributional extension of the

hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research, 37, 58-77.

Kuss, D., & Griffiths, M. Internet gaming addiction: A systematic review of empirical

research. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction. 10(2), 278-296.

 Attachment Theory 27

Levy, M. (1979). Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting,

23 (1): 177-187.

Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L.E., Gillett, R., Houran, J. & Ashe, D.D. (2004).

“Personality and coping: A context for examining celebrity worship and

mental health.” British Journal of Psychology, 95 (4): 411-428.

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 (1): 17-32.

Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L.E. (2003). A clinical interpretation of attitudes

and behaviors associated with celebrity worship. The Journal of Nervous

and Mental Disease, 191 (1), 25-29.

Maltby, J., McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D.D. & Houran, J. (2001). The self-reported

psychological well-being of celebrity worshippers.” North American Journal of

Psychology, 3 (3): 441.

McQuail, D., Blumler, J.G., & Brown, J.R. (1972). The television audience: A revised

perspective. In D. Mcquail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communications: Selected

Readings (pp. 135-165). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, &

change. New York: The Guilford Press.

Morimoto, S.A. & Friedland, L.A. (2011). The lifeworld of youth in the information

society. Youth and Society, 43(2) 549-567.

 Attachment Theory 28

Muir D.W., Humphrey, E.E. & Humphrey, G.K. (1994). Pattern and space perception in

young infants. Spatial Vision, 8 (1), pp. 141-165.

Nadkarni, A. & Hofmann, S.G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and

Individual Differences, 52, 243-249.

Naz, A. Khan, W., Phil, M., & Daraz, U. (2011). The malevolence of technology: An

invenstigation into the various socio-economin impacts of excessive cell phone

use among university students. International Journal of Academic Research in

Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 321-336.

Ng, B.D. & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2005). Addiction to the Internet and online gaming.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(2), 110-113.

Patterson, B. R. & Gojdycz, T. K. (2000). The relationship between computer-mediated

communication and communication related anxieties. Communication Research

Reports, 17, 278–287.

Penzler, O. (1999). Murder and obsession. New York: Delacorte Press.

Rubin, R., & McHugh, M.P. (1987) Development of para-social interaction

relationships. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31(III): 279-292.

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

and local television news viewing.” Human Communication Research, 12

(2): 155-180.

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

Harry Potter across different cultures. The International Communication Gazette,

73(3) 252-269.
 Attachment Theory 29

Schore, A.N. (2000). Attachment and the regulation of the right brain. Attachment and

Human Development, 2 (1), 23-47.

Schramm, H. & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI Process Scales. A new measure to assess

the utility and breadth of parasocial processes. Communication 33, 385-401.

Sroufe, L.A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study

from birth to adulthood. Attachment and Human Development, 7(4), 349-367.

Stever, G. (2012). The role of Twitter in parasocial interactions between celebrities and

fans. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Orlando, FL

August 4-7, 2012.

Stever, G. (2011). 1989 vs. 2009: A comparative analysis of music superstars Michael

Jackson and Josh Groban, and their fans. Journal of Media Psychology, 16 (1),

Downloaded from http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/.

Stever, G. (2010). Fan behavior and lifespan development theory: Explaining para-social

and social attachment to celebrities. Journal of Adult Development. DOI:

10.1007/s10804-010-9100-0

Stever, G. (2009). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities: Classification of

Media fans. Journal of Media Psychology, 14, Downloaded from

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/.

Stever, G. (2008). ). The celebrity appeal questionnaire: Sex, entertainment or

leadership. Psychological Reports, 103, 113-120.

Stever, G. (1994). Para-social attachments: Motivational antecedents. Dissertation

Abstracts International, B55/07, 3039, January 1995.

 Attachment Theory 30

Stever, G. (1991). The celebrity appeal questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 68 (3),

859-866.

Sun, S., Rubin, A., & Haridakis, P.M. (2008). The role of motivation and media

involvement in explaining Internet dependency. Journal of Broadcasting and

Electronic Media, 52(3), 408-431.

Theran, S.A., Newberg, E.M., & Gleason, T.R. (2010). Adolescent girls’ parasocial

interactions with media figures. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171(3), 270-

277.

Tuvachinsky, R. (2010). Para-romantic love and para-friendships: Development and

assessment of a multiple parasocial relationships scale. American Journal of

Media Psychology, 3(1/2), 73-94.

Uhls, Y.T. & Greenfield, P.M. (2012). The value of fame: Preadolescent’s perceptions of

popular media and their relationship to future aspirations. Developmental

Psychology, 48(2), 315-326.

Vasalou, A. & Joinson, A.N. (2009). Me, myself and I: the role of interactional context

on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 510-520.

Wang, Z., Tchernev, J.,& Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of

social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in

Human Behavior, 28, 1829-1839.

Wrench, J.S. & Punyanunt-Carter, N.R. (2007). The relationship between Computer-

Mediated-Communication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived

confidence, and social presence. Southern Communication Journal, 72(4), 355-

378.
 Attachment Theory 31

Yen, J., Yen, C., Wu, H., Huang, C. & Ko, C. (2010). Hostility in the real world and

online: The effect of Internet addiction, depression, and online activity.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(11), 649-655.

Yum, Y.-O., and Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A

cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

11(1),

article 7. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html

Return to home page

Correspondence should be sent to:

Gayle S. Stever, Ph.D.
gayle.stever@esc.edu