Media Psychology

ISSN: 1521-3269 (Print) 1532-785X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmep20

Parasocial Relationships with Media Personae:

Why They Matter and How They Differ Among
Heterosexual, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Adolescents

Bradley J. Bond

To cite this article: Bradley J. Bond (2018): Parasocial Relationships with Media Personae: Why
They Matter and How They Differ Among Heterosexual, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents,
Media Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2017.1416295

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1416295

Published online: 17 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmep20
MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1416295

Parasocial Relationships with Media Personae: Why They

Matter and How They Differ Among Heterosexual, Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents
Bradley J. Bond
Department of Communication Studies, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA

ABSTRACT
Parasocial relationships are social bonds audiences develop with
media personae. Parasocial relationships may be particularly mean-
ingful for those who experience obstacles developing real-life
social bonds. The objective of this study was to examine parasocial
relationships among a relationally vulnerable population by sur-
veying lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents (n = 106).
Heterosexual adolescents (n = 321) were surveyed for comparison
purposes. Results suggest that LGB adolescents have more
other-gender favorite media personae than heterosexual male
adolescents. LGB adolescents were more likely to select LGB
media personae as their favorites, particularly if they lacked
real-life LGB friends. Repeated media exposure, perceived similar-
ity, and attraction were positively correlated with parasocial rela-
tionship strength for all adolescents, but loneliness contributed to
parasocial relationship strength for LGB adolescents only. LGB
adolescents were more likely to report their favorite media perso-
nae as important sources of information on a range of issues
related to socialization. Though previous research suggests that
parasocial relationships supplement real-life social relationships,
parasocial relationships may be compensatory for LGB adolescents
attempting to fill a relational void left by the absence of real-life
LGB peers. Scholars must better dissect parasocial relationships
with media characters when considering media’s influence on
special populations like LGB adolescents.

The concept of parasocial relationships (PSRs) has received substantial atten-

tion from interpersonal and media scholars. Horton and Wohl (1956) first
wrote of PSRs as lasting, one-sided intimate connections that television view-
ers develop with television personalities that are similar to real-life social
relationships. Scholars have since studied the characteristics of media personae
(i.e., celebrities and fictional characters) with whom audiences develop PSRs,
the parallels between real-life social relationships and PSRs, the variables that
predict PSR strength, and the cognitive and behavioral effects of PSRs on
audiences. Nearly all published studies on PSRs draw conclusions from general
population samples. However, PSRs may differ in their development or

CONTACT Bradley J. Bond [email protected] Department of Communication Studies, University of San

Diego, 5998 Alcalà Park, San Diego, CA 92110.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. J. BOND

perceived importance for special populations who have difficulty developing

real-life social relationships with like-others, have a strong desire to escape
from their real-life experiences, or feel socially isolated (Madison, Porter, &
Greule, 2016; Rosaen, Sherry, & Smith, 2011; Stever, 2017). Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual (LGB) adolescents compose one such special population, susceptible
to obstacles in relationship development, whose experience with PSRs may
differ from the general population.
LGB adolescents often report that developing and maintaining friendships
during adolescence is an onerous undertaking, given the stigma attached to
LGB sexual identities in a heteronormative society (Meyer, 2003). Fear that
heterosexual peers will ostracize LGB adolescents for their sexual identities
leads many LGB youth to worry about their friendships, particularly younger
LGB adolescents (Diamond & Lucas, 2004). Moreover, the absence of LGB
peers with whom LGB youth identify can feel alienating (Bond, 2011). LGB
adolescents are thus more likely to experience social isolation than hetero-
sexual adolescents (Meyer, 2003). When LGB adolescents are able to make
interpersonal connections with real-life LGB others, a sense of community and
resilience are built that can help LGB youth learn how to cope with their
otherness and guard against further developmental obstacles (DiFulvio, 2011).
What if interpersonal connections with real-life LGB others are impractical?
The PSR literature suggests that media personae can augment audiences’
perceived social networks by becoming important attachment figures
(Stever, 2017). Can PSRs serve as a functional alternative for LGB adolescents
seeking social bonds with like others? This study examines PSRs among both
heterosexual and LGB adolescents in an effort to more closely dissect how
PSRs with media personae may differ for special populations with relationship
vulnerabilities.

PSRs
PSRs are enduring socioemotional bonds of intimacy that audiences develop
with media personae similar to real-life social relationships. Audiences often
react to, and talk about, their favorite media personae as if they are real-life
friends (Stever, 2017), evaluate media personae with similar criteria used to
assess real-life others (Tian & Hoffner, 2010), and experience similar emotions
when real-life social relationships and PSRs dissolve (Cohen & Hoffner, 2016).
Unlike real-life social relationships, PSRs generally lack reciprocity. Television
characters’ actions are observable to viewers, but viewers’ actions are not
observable to characters. Despite the absence of reciprocity, audiences’ PSRs
can be strengthened by their perceptions that media personae are interacting
with them. This episodic pseudo-engagement is referred to as parasocial
interaction (PSI). PSIs are relatively short-term opportunities for engagement
with media personae during exposure; PSRs are the lasting feelings of
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 3

connectedness that audiences have with media personae beyond momentary

exposure (Cohen, 2009). For example, a socioemotional bond that a Will &
Grace viewer perceives between her and the character Will Truman may be
influenced by watching one episode of the show where the viewer learns
something new about the character (PSI), but will endure beyond the 30-min
exposure period (PSR).
Communication scholars have traditionally employed the uses and gratifica-
tions perspective when investigating PSRs. PSRs have been argued to serve the
essential functions of companionship and personal identity (Giles, 2002; Schmid
& Klimmt, 2011; Wang, Fink, & Cai, 2008). Media personae can satisfy the need
for attachment to others and can remind audiences of individuals with whom
they have established real-life social relationships. Interpersonal communication
theories have informed studies examining the similarities between real-life social
relationships and PSRs. For example, the strength of PSRs has been predicted by
uncertainty reduction theory (Perse & Rubin, 1989), strategies used to maintain
PSRs are presumed to mirror the investment model (Eyal & Dailey, 2012), and
audiences’ responses to fictional media personae can be predicted by accom-
modation theory (Goode & Robinson, 2013). Collectively, these studies show
that PSRs are integral components of individuals’ social networks and mimic
real-life social relationships in notable ways. The similarities between real-life
social relationships and PSRs are further highlighted by the importance of
exposure to the relational other, attraction and perceived similarity, and person-
ality attributes of audiences.
PSR strength has been correlated with time spent with media personae, much
like the development of real-life social relationships is related to time spent with
others (Schiappa, Allen, & Gregg, 2007; Tsay & Bodine, 2012). Repeated exposure
to media personae on television allows the viewer to learn more about the media
personae. Much like continued interpersonal communication in real-life social
relationships, consistent exposure to media personae may increase PSIs, reduce
uncertainty, and ultimately strengthen PSRs (Perse & Rubin, 1989).
Attraction and perceived similarity are two principal antecedents of PSR
development (Cohen, 2009). Individuals are more likely to develop relation-
ships with real-life others deemed attractive. Attractive others are those who
possess physical, relational, or social characteristics that individuals deem
desirable (Schiappa et al., 2007). PSRs function in much the same way.
Media personae often exhibit attributes perceived as attractive by audiences
(Hoffner & Buchanan, 2005). Studies show that physical, social, and task
attraction can contribute to the quality and intensity of PSRs (Klimmt,
Hartmann, & Schramm, 2006; Schiappa et al., 2007). In a study using an
internationally diverse sample, attraction was the strongest predictor of PSR
strength with the globally popular fictional character Harry Potter, regardless
of participants’ country of origin (Schmid & Klimmt, 2011).
4 B. J. BOND

Perceived similarity between audiences and media personae also increases

PSR strength. Perceived similarity is conceptualized as the recognition of
shared characteristics judged as meaningful by relational partners (Schiappa
et al., 2007). In real-life relationships, perceived similarity can increase inter-
personal liking (Duck & Barnes, 1992). Interactions between individuals
deemed similar are interpreted as personally relevant and subsequently lead
to greater satisfaction than interactions with dissimilar others. Like real-life
others, media personae who share backgrounds, cultures, taste preferences,
and attitudes with the audience are more likely to be perceived as sound
relational investments (Klimmt et al., 2006). Individuals also perceive greater
similarity between themselves and liked media characters than disliked media
characters (Tian & Hoffner, 2010). In line with perceived similarity, youth
have also been shown to develop PSRs with same-gender media personae more
frequently than with other-gender personae (Hoffner, 2011).
Individuals’ personality attributes known to influence real-life social relation-
ships have also been associated with PSRs. Loneliness is one such trait, defined as
a global sense of isolation and feelings of being alone (Rosaen & Dibble, 2016). A
positive correlation between PSR strength and loneliness was hypothesized in
much of the early literature on PSRs. The hypothesis stemmed from the func-
tional alternative perspective, a belief that PSRs may supplant real-life social
relationships for individuals who do not have strong social skills or real-life
social networks. Though Wang and colleagues (2008) found complex relation-
ships between various types of loneliness and PSR strength, most studies have
concluded that no relationship exists between PSRs with liked characters and
trait loneliness (Eyal & Cohen, 2006; Madison & Porter, 2015; Rosaen & Dibble,
2016). Conversely, sociable individuals who are more likely to develop strong
real-life interpersonal bonds can also develop PSRs with greater ease (Klimmt
et al., 2006). It seems that PSRs complement real-life social relationships, rather
than supplant them, arguably because developing and maintaining a relation-
ship requires the same psychosocial skills regardless of the reality status of the
relationship partner. PSRs are thus characterized by their similarity to real-life
social relationships and their lack of reciprocity. PSRs can contribute to the
social networks of audiences regardless of age, but PSRs may be markedly
important for adolescent audiences (Giles & Maltby, 2004).

Adolescents’ PSRs
An interpersonal shift occurs during adolescence whereby same-gender
friends displace parents as primary relational partners (Brown, 2004).
Studies show that adolescents are significantly more likely to turn to friends
for information, guidance, and support than from other potential sources,
particularly if the friends are considered close and trustworthy (Berndt, 1996).
As time spent with close friends displaces time spent with parents, interactions
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 5

with friends begin to have a greater influence on adolescents’ socialization

(Brown, 2004). If adolescents are transitioning their relational investment
from parents to friends, they may also be susceptible to the influence of
media personae whom they designate as friends.
The potential influence of PSRs on adolescents parallels the concept of
referent power in the social relationship literature (Berndt, 1996).
Adolescents strive to establish friendships with others perceived as popular
and influential. As Berndt (1996) wrote,
After these friendships are formed, adolescents continue to use the friends
as referent others. That is, adolescents take the friends’ behavior as a guide
for behavior. . . . When friends have referent power, adolescents accept their
suggestions without any need for coercion. (p. 74)
One study investigated PSRs with the cast of Jersey Shore, a popular
unscripted television program following the lives of alcohol-induced, sexually
promiscuous New Jersey young adults (Bond & Drogos, 2014). Adolescents who
reported strong PSRs with the cast of Jersey Shore had sexual attitudes that
mirrored those of the cast more so than adolescents who did not have PSRs with
cast members. Though sexually permissive adolescents may have developed
PSRs with the Jersey Shore cast, an alternative explanation is that adolescents
may indeed be influenced by media personae similar to the ways they are
influenced by real-life friends. The likelihood that adolescents are being socia-
lized by media personae only increases when one considers that the average
American adolescent spends 9 hours a day with media (Rideout, 2015).
Giles and Maltby (2004) argued that media personae may be especially
important relational partners for adolescents who have started to gain autonomy
from their parents but have not yet solidified their real-life social bonds with
peers. Thus, PSRs may be even more salient for adolescents who face obstacles to
developing strong, trusted real-life friendships such as LGB adolescents.

PSRs among LGB adolescents

LGB adolescents experience unique obstacles to identity development in addition
to the typical stumbling blocks heterosexual adolescents must overcome.
Accepting, labeling, and integrating LGB identities in a heteronormative society
can add stress to the development process for LGB adolescents (Sullivan
& Wodarski, 2002). The excess stress that LGB youth are exposed to as a result
of their social status can be defined as minority stress. Meta-analysis research
suggests that LGB adolescents are at a greater risk of depression, anxiety, adjust-
ment problems, and engagement in risky behaviors as a result of minority stress
(Meyer, 2003). Moreover, 2016 CDC data collected from 1,749 LGB youth across
the United States revealed that LGB adolescents are significantly more likely to
report attempting suicide (30%) than heterosexual adolescents (6%). According to
6 B. J. BOND

the minority stress model, real-life social relationships with peers, or lack thereof,
may contribute to the developmental difficulties of LGB adolescents (Meyer, 2003).
Peer relationships can buffer negative life events and stressors by acting as
support systems for adolescents (Berndt, 1996). Peer relationships may be even
more crucial for LGB adolescents who fear rejection from families and close
others as a result of their sexual identities (Bond, 2011). The lack of close familial
ties strengthens the importance of peer connections for LGB adolescents. Yet,
LGB adolescents paradoxically experience more difficulty maintaining close
real-life social relationships with peers for fear that they will not fit in or that
platonic closeness will be misinterpreted as romantic intimacy (Bond, 2011).
Young LGB adolescents have smaller real-life social networks than young
heterosexual adolescents, worry about their social networks, and fear losing
friends (Diamond & Lucas, 2004). Though peer connections are vital informa-
tion and support resources during adolescence, LGB adolescents’ real-life social
relationships may not satisfy their relational needs.
Media personae could fulfill the role of confidants for LGB adolescents lacking
real-life interactions with LGB others. Research suggests that LGB individuals seek
out media inclusive of LGB characters and storylines (Kivel & Kleiber, 2000),
retrospectively recall LGB media personae as important sources of pride, inspira-
tion, and comfort (Gomillion & Giuliano, 2011), and understand their own sexual
identities through the depictions of LGB sexualities in the media (Bond, 2015).
The PSR construct could be an underlying mechanism able to explain how LGB
adolescents interact and engage with media. Though loneliness has not consis-
tently been linked with PSR strength, a need to belong and a desire to feel included
have been positively correlated with PSR strength (Rosaen & Dibble, 2016; Tsay &
Bodine, 2012). Such findings indicate that PSRs may develop and maintain among
relationally vulnerable populations like LGB adolescents in novel ways that
warrant further investigation.

This study
The goal of this study was to investigate PSRs among a relationally vulnerable
population by comparing the PSRs of heterosexual and LGB adolescents.
Gender has consistently predicted PSR development among young people.
Adolescents are more likely to develop PSRs with same-gender media personae
than with other-gender media personae, but girls are more likely to report
PSRs with other-gender personae than boys (Hoffner, 2011). LGB adolescents,
however, may not ascribe to societal gender norms when developing PSRs,
given that they often develop strong real-life friendships with other-sex indi-
viduals, especially gay and bisexual male adolescents (Diamond & Dubé, 2002).
LGB adolescents are also likely to be more attracted to LGB media personae
than heterosexual adolescents and, thus, more likely to develop PSRs with LGB
media personae.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 7

H1: LGB adolescents and heterosexual females will be more likely to report
other-sex favorite media personae than heterosexual males.

H2: LGB adolescents will be more likely to report LGB favorite media
personae than heterosexual adolescents.

Early research on PSRs utilized uncertainty reduction theory to predict that

media exposure would correlate with PSR strength. The more time individuals
spend with media personae, the more likely they are to be exposed to novel,
personal information and to engage in PSI. Exposure can increase feelings of
connectedness and strengthen PSRs (Auter & Palmgreen, 2000).

H3: Repeated exposure to favorite media personae will be positively related

to PSR strength regardless of sexual identity.

Individuals are more likely to establish strong PSR with media personae
whom they perceive to be like them and whom they perceive to be attractive
(Giles, 2002; Rubin & McHugh, 1987; Tian & Hoffner, 2010). The consistency
with which these relationships are reported in the literature lends credibility to
the hypothesis that PSRs are, in many ways, similar to real-life social relation-
ships. This study tested these assumptions about PSR development.

H4: Perceived similarity to favorite media personae will be positively related

to PSR strength regardless of sexual identity.

H5: Attraction to favorite media personae will be positively related to PSR

strength regardless of sexual identity.

Most studies examining PSRs find no significant relationship between

their development and participants’ loneliness (Eyal & Cohen, 2006;
Rosaen & Dibble, 2016; Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). For the general
population, PSRs complement real-life social relationships, rather than sup-
plant them. For relationally vulnerable populations that struggle to establish
connections with like-others, however, PSRs may act as a proxy for strong
real-life social relationships (Stever, 2017).

H6: Loneliness will be positively related to parasocial relationship strength

only among LGB adolescents.

H7: LGB adolescents who do not have real-life LGB friends will be more
likely to report having PSRs with LGB media personae than LGB
adolescents who have real-life LGB friends.
8 B. J. BOND

H8: LGB adolescents who do not have real-life LGB friends will have stron-
ger PSRs than LGB adolescents who have real-life LGB friends.

Adolescents increasingly turn to peers, rather than parents, for informa-

tion, guidance, and support (Berndt, 1996). However, young LGB adoles-
cents’ social networks are less developed than heterosexual adolescents’ social
networks, potentially because of the absence of openly LGB peers or fears of
ostracism from close heterosexual peers (Diamond & Lucas, 2004). If LGB
adolescents are supplanting real-life social relationships with PSRs, then PSRs
may be perceived to be of greater social importance among LGB adolescents.

H9: LGB adolescents will be more likely to report their favorite media personae
as important socialization agents than heterosexual adolescents.

Method
Participants
Participant recruitment and data collection occurred online. Vice-principals of
nine Pacific-coast middle and high schools sent e-mails to their students on
behalf of the researchers. Faculty advisors of gay-straight alliances at the same
schools also sent e-mails directly to the gay-straight alliance members in an
effort to bolster the LGB subsample (n = 106). Parental consent was waived by
the approving institutional review board for all participants, given concerns that
LGB adolescents may keep their participation in gay-straight alliances hidden
from their parents and, as such, disclosing how they were recruited for the study
may cause more harm to the LGB participants than benefit to the study. Instead,
vice-principals reviewed the questionnaire and provided consent. Participants
then provided online assent before beginning the survey. Of the 624 students
who visited the assent page, 68% (N = 427) participated in the study. Though a
majority of participants identified as heterosexual (75%), one-quarter of the
sample identified as either lesbian (2%), gay (5%), bisexual (10%), or queer
(8%),1 Demographic compositions of the heterosexual and LGB subsamples are
provided in Table 1. Participants were provided with contact information for
various emotional support resources following completion of the questionnaire
should participation in the study have caused any distress.

Measures
The first item on the online questionnaire asked participants to report their
favorite media persona, a common practice in the data collection procedures of
studies examining PSR based on the assumption that if individuals experience
PSRs, they will most likely have PSRs with media personae that they consider to
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 9

Table 1. Demographic composition of sample by sexual identity.

Heterosexual LGB
n = 321 n = 106
Mean Age 15.61 (1.20) 15.62 (1.45)
Sex
Male 26% (82) 40% (42)
Female 74% (239) 60% (64)
Race
White 75% (241) 85% (90)
Black 1% (4) 2% (2)
Hispanic or Latino/a 8% (24) 8% (8)
Asian or Pacific Islander 6% (19) 3% (4)
Mixed Race 8% (27) 0% (0)
Other 2% (6) 2% (2)
Geography
Rural 1% (2) 6% (6)
Small Town 17% (55) 30% (32)
Suburban 59% (189) 38% (40)
Urban 23% (75) 26% (28)

be their favorites (e.g., Tian & Hoffner, 2010; Tsay & Bodine, 2012). Participants
then responded to items on the parasocial relationship scale. All other scales
were randomly ordered following the parasocial relationship scale to control for
order effects. Participants were also asked to report if they have any LGB friends
using a single-item measure. Participant age, sex, race, and sexual identity were
single-item measures that completed the online questionnaire. Participants
selected the sexual identity with which they most identified; options included
straight/heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, and questioning.

PSRs
The 15-item parasocial scale quantifies the strength of one-way emotional
connections that television audiences experience with television characters
(Rosaen & Dibble, 2008). The measure was altered for the purpose of this
study to include media channels beyond television and to allow the question-
naire to electronically insert the names of the participants’ favorite media
personae into each item. For example, the item, “I look forward to watching
this character when his/her show is on” was altered to read, “I look forward to
watching, listening to, or reading about [name of media persona].” Other
example items include, “If I could, I would like to meet [name of media persona]
in person” and “If [name of media persona] lived in my neighborhood, we
would be friends.” Responses to the items were measured on a 5-point scale from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Mean scores were calculated for the 15
items (α = .86) and ranged from 2.20 to 5.00 (M = 4.11, SD = .57).

Media exposure
Participants were asked how often they are exposed to their favorite media
persona on television, in film, in magazines, in music, on the internet, and on
10 B. J. BOND

social media platforms on six separate scales ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (at
least once/day). Mean scores were calculated to create a single media expo-
sure item (α = .79). Scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 2.60, SD = 1.47).

Perceived similarity
Five items were taken from Auter and Palmgreen’s (2000) audience-persona
interaction scale to measure perceived similarity, an operationalization of the
variable identical to that employed by Tian and Hoffner (2010). Examples
include, “[Name of media persona] reminds me of myself,” and “I seem to
have the same beliefs and attitudes as [name of media persona].” Participants
responded to the items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Mean scores were calculated to create a single perceived
similarity score (α = .85) and ranged from 1.40 to 5.40 (M = 4.32, SD = .87).

Attraction
Attraction was measured using three items from the character attributes scale
(Hoffner & Buchanan, 2005) that asked participants to report attraction to
media personae on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree; α = .86). Mean scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 4.04,
SD = 1.21).

Loneliness
A three-item short form of the R-UCLA loneliness scale was used to measure
loneliness (Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2004). The three items asked
participants to report how often they generally feel a lack of companionship,
left out, and isolated from others on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5
(always; α = .86). Though the scale is brief, it has been argued to have similar
reliability and validity to the full R-UCLA loneliness scale (Hughes et al., 2004).
Mean scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 2.87, SD = .85).

Socialization agents’ perceived importance

The perceived importance of various socialization agents was operationalized
by asking participants to rank order how likely they would be to turn to each of
Arnett’s (1995) socialization agents for guidance, advice, or information if they
were dealing with various problems or issues commonly faced by adolescents.
Participants were reminded that they may not have the option to go to each of
the people listed in real life, but were asked to report their ideal preferences if
they needed to talk to someone about religion, problems in school, sex, drugs
and alcohol, being social and popular, and romantic relationships. Participants
rank ordered my mom or dad, my best friends, my favorite teacher, a liked coach
or community leader, the name of their favorite media persona, a trusted police
officer, and my religious leader from 7 (least important) to 1 (most important)
for each of the six topics listed previously. For each topic, participants were
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 11

told to use each number 1–7 once and only once. The socialization agents were
selected for the questionnaire because these options represent Arnett’s (1995)
socialization agents: family, peers, schools, communities, media, the legal
system, and cultural belief systems, respectively.

Characteristics of media personae

Two research assistants who were blind to the purpose of the study coded
each of the media personae cited by participants for sex and sexual identity.
Coders were exposed to one still image and one short video clip of each
persona. Coders were allowed to utilize search engines on the web to find
more information on each persona as needed. Coders used both physical
appearance and talk to determine the demographics of each favorite media
persona. The entire sample was double-coded and Fleiss kappa was used to
determine inter-coder reliability for sex (.94) and sexual identity (.99).

Results
Descriptive analyses
A majority of favorite media personae reported by heterosexual adolescents were
nonfictional (60%) adult characters (73%) whom they knew from television
(42%) or film (28%). The most frequently reported favorite media personae
among heterosexual adolescents were Jennifer Lawrence (11%), Taylor Swift
(3%), Harry Styles (2%), The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper (2%), and Miley
Cyrus (2%). LGB adolescents, on the other hand, were equally likely to report
nonfictional (51%) and fictional (49%) media personae. LGB adolescents echoed
heterosexual adolescents in their preference for adult media personae (68%)
whom they knew from television (49%) or film (23%). The most frequently
reported favorite media personae among LGB adolescents were Jennifer
Lawrence (8%), Tom Daley (6%), Doctor Who’s doctor (6%), Queer As Folk’s
Randy Harrison (6%), and Supernatural’s Dean Winchester (4%). Only 20% of
the heterosexual participants and 30% of the LGB participants reported a
favorite media personae among the top 5 most frequently cited, suggesting
considerable variance among the media personae with whom young people
potentially develop PSRs. All media personae reported as favorites by partici-
pants are listed in the appendix.

Hypotheses
H1 predicted that LGB adolescents and heterosexual girls would be more likely to
report other-sex favorite media personae than heterosexual males. A chi-square
analysis was conducted on the sex of favorite media personae and sex/sexual
identity of participant. The chi-square was significant, χ2(3, N = 427) = 93.60,
12 B. J. BOND

p < .001, Cramer’s V = .47. The Bonferroni method for post-hoc analyses revealed
that heterosexual boys were significantly more likely to report same-gender
favorite media personae (98%, n = 80/82) than heterosexual girls (60%, n = 142/
239), LGB boys (81%, n = 34/42), and LGB girls (34%, n = 22/64). H1 was
supported.
The sexual identity of adolescents’ favorite media personae was the focus of
the second hypothesis. H2 expected LGB adolescents to report more LGB
favorite media personae than heterosexual adolescents. The chi-square analysis
examining the sexual identity of participants and the sexual identity of favorite
media personae was significant, χ2 (1, N = 427) = 36.88, p < .001, Φ = .29.
According to the Bonferroni method for post-hoc analyses, LGB adolescents
were significantly more likely to report having LGB favorite media personae
(23%, n = 24/106) than heterosexual adolescents (4%, n = 13/321). H2 was
supported.
The next three hypotheses predicted that repeated exposure, perceived simi-
larity, and attraction would be positively correlated with PSR strength for all
adolescents regardless of sexual identity. H6 predicted a positive correlation
between loneliness and PSR strength only for LGB adolescents. A regression
analysis was run to test these hypotheses. The regression model not only
included predictors known or hypothesized to correlate with PSR strength in
step one, but also interaction terms between sexual identity (0 = heterosexual,
1 = LGB) and repeated exposure, perceived similarity, attraction, and loneliness
in step two. All variables were mean-centered before interaction terms were
created. Collinearity diagnostics suggested no multicollinearity concerns. The
regression model was significant, F(13, 405) = 26.39, p < .001, R2 = .46 (Table 2).

Table 2. Regression analysis predicting Parasocial relationship strength.

B SE β
Step 1 (R2 = .44)
Age -.01 .02 -.01
Sex .11 .05 .09*
Sexual Identity .09 .05 .07
Race .04 .05 .03
Geography -.01 .05 -.01
Exposure .07 .03 .09*
Perceived Similarity .31 .03 .48***
Attraction .15 .03 .26***
Loneliness .01 .03 .02
Step 2 (ΔR2 = .02)
Sex ID x Exposure .11 .07 .07
Sex ID x Similarity -.06 .06 -.05
Sex ID x Attraction .01 .05 .01
Sex ID x Loneliness .17 .06 .17**
Note. F (13, 405) = 26.39, p < .001. R2 = .46. Sex ID (1 = heterosexual, 2 = LGB), sex (1 = male, 2 = female),
and race (1 = White, 2 = racial minority) were dichotomously coded, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 13

Sex (β = .09, p < .05) was significantly related to PSR strength such that females
had stronger PSRs than boys. Repeated exposure (β = .09, p < .05), perceived
similarity (β = .48, p < .001), and attraction (β = .26, p < .001) contributed to PSR
strength. Interactions between these predictor variables and sexual identity were
not significant, suggesting that sexual identity did not moderate these relation-
ships. As predicted, repeated exposure, perceived similarity, and attraction
significantly contributed to PSR strength regardless of adolescent sexual identity.
H3, H4, and H5 were supported.
Loneliness (β = .02, p = .75) did not contribute to PSR strength. However,
the interaction between sexual identity and loneliness was significant
(β = .17, p < .01). When examined separately, no correlation existed between
loneliness and PSR strength among heterosexual adolescents (r = .04,
p = .46), but a moderate correlation was present between loneliness and
PSR strength for LGB adolescents (r = .39, p < .001). The interaction is
visualized in Figure 1; loneliness was only correlated with PSR strength for
LGB adolescents. H6 was supported.
The foci of several hypotheses were on comparisons within the LGB
adolescent subsample. H7 predicted that LGB adolescents who did not
have real-life LGB friends would be more likely to report having PSRs with
LGB media persona than LGB adolescents who had real-life LGB friends. A
chi-square analysis was significant, χ2(1, N = 106) = 7.20, p < .01, Φ = .26.
The Bonferroni method for post-hoc analyses showed that LGB adolescents

Figure 1. Visual representation of the interaction between sexual identity and loneliness on
parasocial relationship strength. The heterosexual sample (n = 321) is represented by the dashed
line (β = .04, p = .46); the LGB sample (n = 106) is represented by the solid line (β = .39,
p < .001).
14 B. J. BOND

who reported no real-life LGB friends were more likely to report LGB
favorite media personae (40%, n = 12/30) than LGB adolescents who
reported having real-life LGB friends (16%, n = 12/76). H7 was supported.
H8 predicted that LGB adolescents who did not have real-life LGB friends
would also have stronger PSRs than LGB adolescents who had real-life LGB
friends. Results from a t-test suggest that LGB adolescents who reported
having no LGB friends had significantly stronger PSRs (M = 4.38, SD = .48)
than LGB adolescents who reported having at least one LGB friend
(M = 4.07, SD = .61), t(104) = 2.41, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .56. H8 was
supported; LGB adolescents without LGB real-life friends reported stronger
PSRs than LGB adolescents with real-life LGB friends. An ANOVA was also
conducted to examine mean differences in PSR strength among LGB adoles-
cents based on the combination of their self-reported real-life friendship
status and the sexual identity of their favorite media personae to examine
the prediction of H8 in even more detail. Though the ANOVA model was
not significant, F(3, 102) = 2.34, p = .07, η2 = .06. LSD post-hoc analyses
revealed that the difference between these two groups was noteworthy (mean
difference = .41, p < .05). As displayed in Figure 2, LGB adolescents who did
not report any LGB real-life friends and who reported LGB favorite media
personae had the strongest PSRs (M = 4.47, SD = .31). LGB adolescents who
reported having LGB real-life friends and heterosexual favorite media perso-
nae had the weakest PSRs (M = 4.05, SD = .61).
The final hypothesis predicted that LGB adolescents would be more likely
than heterosexual adolescents to report their favorite media personae as
important socialization agents. Adolescents rank-ordered seven socialization
agents from least important to most important for six issue areas. A percen-
tage was calculated for each socialization agent within each issue area that
indicated the proportion of the sample listing the socialization agent among
the top two most important. The test for equality of proportions was used to
examine potential differences between heterosexual and LGB adolescents’
likelihood of listing media personae as important socialization agents.
Figure 3 depicts the percentage of participants who listed their favorite
media personae as one of their two most important socialization agents for
the six issue areas. LGB adolescents were more likely than heterosexual
adolescents to report media personae as an important socialization agent
for problems dealing with religion χ2 = 21.38, p < .001 (CI: 13.74, 28.67),
school χ2 = 39.86, p < .001 (CI: 19.29, 40.67), social life χ2 = 14.08, p < .001
(CI: 9.77, 31.27), substance use χ2 = 27.42, p < .001 (CI: 16.73, 38.78),
romantic relationships χ2 = 23.28, p < .001 (CI: 15.72, 37.35), and sex
χ2 = 15.39, p < .001 (CI: 10.69, 32.41). In an effort to provide more detail
about important socialization agents for adolescents, Table 3 lists the two
most important socialization agents for each issue area for heterosexual and
LGB adolescents separately. Friends were the most important socialization
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 15

Figure 2. Bars represent strength of PSRs among the LGB subsample (n = 106). Subscripts
without a matching letter are different as determined by LSD post-hoc analyses (p < .05) for the
ANOVA model, F (3, 102) = 2.34, p = .07.

Figure 3. Bars represent the proportion of the sample that listed their favorite media personae
among their top two sources of information or guidance for each topic. Differences in the
proportions by sexual identity were significant for every topic as determined by tests for equality
of proportions, ***p < .001. Heterosexual n = 321; LGB n = 106.

Table 3. Perceived importance of socialization agents by participant sexual identity.

Heterosexual Adolescents LGB Adolescents
Problems with. . . Socialization Agent % Socialization Agent %
Religion Friends 71 Friends 79
Religious Leaders 56 Family 56
School Friends 87 Friends 98
Family 69 Media Personae 46
Social Life Friends 92 Friends 98
Media Personae 48 Media Personae 69
Substance Use Friends 86 Friends 96
Family 58 Media Personae 56
Romantic Relationships Friends 91 Friends 99
Family 47 Media Personae 67
Sex Friends 92 Friends 96
Media Personae 45 Media Personae 67
Note. Participants were asked to rank-order the importance of family, friends, schools, community leaders, religious
leaders, the government, and media personae as sources of information and guidance for the topics listed.
Percentages represent the proportion of participants who listed the socialization agent among their top two
choices. The table displays the two most cited socialization agents among adolescents for each topic.
16 B. J. BOND

agent for every issue area regardless of sexual identity. Media personae were
the second most important socialization agent for issues with social lives and
sex among heterosexual adolescents. For LGB adolescents, media personae
were the second most important socialization agent for issues with school,
social lives, substance use, romantic relationships, and sex. The data imply
that LGB adolescents are more reliant on their PSRs for information, gui-
dance, and support than heterosexual adolescents. H9 was supported.

Discussion
The objective of this study was to examine the PSRs of a population known to
experience adversities in relationship development and to compare those to
PSRs among their social majority counterparts, in this case LGB and hetero-
sexual adolescents. Results indicate that LGB adolescents are more likely to
develop PSRs with LGB media personae than heterosexual adolescents, and
are more likely to base PSRs with characters on factors other than gender.
Repeated exposure, perceived similarity, and attraction were correlated with
PSR strength among all adolescents in the sample, but loneliness was also
positively associated with PSR strength for LGB adolescents. LGB adolescents
developed more PSRs with LGB media personae than heterosexual adolescents,
and established stronger PSRs if they did not have real-life social relationships
with LGB others. LGB adolescents also perceived their favorite media personae
to be more salient socialization agents than heterosexual adolescents.
PSRs among young people have consistently been tied to gender. Studies
show that individuals are more likely to be attracted to media personae of the
same gender; this is particularly true of male children and adolescents (Hoffner,
2011). LGB adolescents do not seem as bound to rigid gender norms. LGB boys
were more likely to report female favorite media personae than heterosexual
boys and LGB girls were more likely to report male favorite media personae than
heterosexual girls. Gender may play a more minor role in determining attraction
to a media character for adolescents who do not identify with societal standards
of heteronormativity.
LGB adolescents were also more likely to report LGB favorite media personae
than heterosexual adolescents. The only LGB media personae that were reported
by heterosexual adolescents as favorites were Ellen DeGeneres, Miley Cyrus, and
Harry Potter’s Dumbledore. Miley Cyrus had proclaimed her pansexual identity
during data collection for this study, and Dumbledore was revealed to be gay by
J. K. Rowling years after the height of Harry Potter’s popularity, suggesting that
heterosexual adolescents did not take sexuality into consideration when they
developed PSRs with Miley Cyrus or Dumbledore. Though LGB adolescents
were significantly more likely to report favorite LGB media personae than
heterosexual adolescents, less than one-quarter of LGB adolescents did so. The
most cited LGB fictional character among LGB adolescents was Randy Harrison
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 17

from Queer As Folk, a television program that ran from 2000 to 2005. The dated
reference suggests that LGB adolescents may seek out LGB media personae with
whom to identify (Kivel & Kleiber, 2000), but the dearth of LGB representation
in mainstream media may limit the possibilities for PSR development with LGB
media personae.
It is noteworthy that Jennifer Lawrence (known at the time of data collection
for The Hunger Games), Doctor Who’s doctor, Tris from Divergent, Harry
Potter characters, and Marvel’s Agent X were among LGB adolescents’ favorite
heterosexual media personae. LGB adolescents often perceive personal con-
nections with characters in sci-fi and fantasy genres because, although they
may not be portrayed as LGB, they are often depicted as outsiders who must
surmount personal hardships and societal setbacks to prevail in a world that is
otherwise against them. The overcoming adversity archetype prevalent in
many sci-fi and fantasy narratives parallels the experiences of many LGB
adolescents. LGB adolescents interpret these media personae in alternative
ways that create personal meaning for them, and potentially increases per-
ceived similarity and attraction to the media personae (Gomillion & Giuliano,
2011; Nylund, 2007), variables that were correlated with PSR strength in the
present study.
Research findings that suggest PSRs develop and maintain similarly to
real-life social relationships were reinforced in this study. Frequency of exposure
was correlated with PSR strength, bolstering the utility of uncertainty reduction
theory in explaining the development of PSRs. Perceived similarity and attrac-
tion, variables that are associated with the development of real-life social rela-
tionships, were correlated with PSR strength. There was no interaction effect
among these predictor variables and sexual identity, suggesting the claim that
PSRs mirror real-life social relationships is valid regardless of the relationship
vulnerabilities of the audience.
Loneliness was related to PSR strength only for the LGB subsample. Most
studies have concluded that no relationship exists between PSRs with liked
media personae and loneliness (Eyal & Cohen, 2006; Rosaen & Dibble, 2016;
Rubin et al., 1985). In a book chapter reviewing the extant literature on
children and adolescents’ PSRs, Hoffner (2011) concluded, “There is little
evidence that lonely or isolated adults are more likely to form parasocial
bonds” (p. 314). The results of this study support the functional alternative
perspective that has otherwise received little support in the PSR literature
(Cohen, 2009), implying that the relationship between loneliness and PSRs is
more complex than previously assumed. The dominant explanation in the
literature for the absence of a relationship between loneliness and PSRs is
rooted in extraversion; individuals who have the social skills required to form
strong real-life social relationships are also likely to form strong PSRs. This
justification seems warranted among the general population. However, LGB
adolescents are relationally vulnerable. They are likely to feel as if a significant
18 B. J. BOND

aspect of their identities is isolating because they have difficulty discovering

LGB peers or role models with whom to engage in real-life interactions
(Meyer, 2003). LGB adolescents’ real-life social relationships may not satisfy
their relational needs. Consequently, they seek functional alternatives to rela-
tional satisfaction. Not only was loneliness correlated with PSR strength
among LGB adolescents, but LGB adolescents who did not have real-life social
relationships with other real-life LGB individuals also had stronger PSRs and
were more likely to have PSRs with LGB media personae. Madison and
colleagues (2016) argued that PSRs as compensation for real-life interaction
may also assist with identity development. LGB adolescents could use their
PSRs with LGB media personae to rehearse their own social roles, using
imaginative worlds as safe spaces to develop a deeper understanding of how
they fit into their real-life social worlds. Taken together, these findings suggest
that PSRs with media personae compensate, rather than complement, real-life
social relationships for LGB adolescents by providing them with personal
connections to like-others on screens and in print that they yearn for in their
real-life social networks. Future research should continue to explore the
relationships between age, LGB individuals’ real-life social networks, and
their PSRs to understand the value of these relationships as LGB individuals’
real-life social networks change over time.
Friends were the most important socialization agents cited for all topics
among all adolescents in this study, regardless of sexual identity. Yet, the
potential influence of PSRs cannot be understated. Results from the study
suggest that adolescents find their favorite media personae to be among the
two most important sources of information about social life and sex regardless of
participant sexual identity. Traditionally, media have been used by adolescents
to learn about popular culture and to craft attitudes and beliefs about sexual
norms (Arnett, 1995). It follows that the sample in this study would find media
personae to be credible informants on these topics. However, the LGB subsam-
ple also found their favorite media personae to be among the two most impor-
tant sources of information about school, romantic relationships, and substance
use. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 3, LGB adolescents identified their
favorite media personae as important socialization agents significantly more
often than heterosexual adolescents for all topics listed on the questionnaire. If
PSRs psychologically function in a manner similar to real-life friendships, then
referent power would assert that media personae become models for behavioral
imitation among those who consider the media personae to be friends (Berndt,
1996). Scholars have postulated that PSRs serve two primary functions from a
uses and gratifications perspective: They provide audiences with companionship
and a sense of personal identity (Giles, 2002). The results of this study expand
the application of the uses and gratifications perspective by revealing that
adolescents may also engage with favorite media personae to learn from them,
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 19

especially if adolescents deem media personae as trustworthy, credible infor-

mants on the topic, such as sex and social lives.
For individuals who may be relationally deficient, PSRs may provide
even more opportunities for learning. In this study, for example, LGB
adolescents perceived their favorite media personae to be useful sources of
information about their romantic relationships; heterosexual adolescents
did not. LGB adolescents may feel that they cannot disclose information
about their romantic relationships to parents or friends because doing so
would reveal their sexualities and put them at risk. Thus, LGB adolescents
reported the desire to learn about romantic relationships from their favor-
ite media personae instead of any real-life relational other beside their
friends.
Understanding how LGB adolescents may develop and maintain PSRs to
fulfill relational needs not only contributes to the parasocial literature, but
could also provide insight for parents and schools attempting to improve the
lived experiences of LGB adolescents. Parents should be aware of their LGB
adolescents’ favorite media personae and stay familiar with the way the
celebrities or characters are being portrayed, just as they would with their
children’s real-life friends. Studies have shown that parents can also use
media narratives as a bridge to discuss sensitive sexual topics with their
children (Collins, Elliott, Berry, Kanouse, & Hunter, 2003). Parents might
consider actively employing favorite media personae as catalysts for engaging
in sensitive conversations about their children’s sexual identities. The find-
ings also justify more diverse, complex LGB narratives produced by the
media industry that might provide LGB adolescents with healthy alternatives
for information and social connectedness.

Limitations
Though the results provide insight into the perceived value of PSRs for
adolescents, this study did not examine attitudinal or behavioral change as
a result of PSRs. Bond and Drogos (2014) reported correlational data sug-
gesting that PSRs were related to attitudes. Brown and colleagues (2003)
reported that individuals were more likely to change their behavior if they
had PSRs with celebrities endorsing the behavioral change. Adolescents in
this study reported that they valued information from their favorite media
personae on a range of topics. Thus, it stands to reason that the strength of
PSRs may influence adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors, especially if the
adolescents may have difficulty developing real-life social relationships.
Future research should examine the potential effects of PSRs.
The findings of this study would also be strengthened if replicated with
other special populations who have difficulty developing real-life social
relationships with like-others, have a strong desire to escape from their
20 B. J. BOND

real-life experiences, or feel socially isolated. Might individuals with disabil-

ities, for example, find PSRs with characters with disabilities enriching,
important components of their social lives that can serve as functional
alternatives to real-life social relationships? Might those hypothetical PSRs
be especially strong if individuals with disabilities do not have others with
disabilities in their real-life social networks? Future research should examine
other special populations that could be considered relationally vulnerable to
examine if the findings reported here can be replicated.
Research suggests that PSI can create, alter, or reinforce PSRs. The
concept of PSI was not examined in this study. Future research should
not only measure PSRs among special populations, but should also quan-
tify the frequency and richness of PSIs between media personae and
audiences to further shed light on the importance and impact of PSRs
among the relationally vulnerable. Engagement beyond PSI should also be
examined by future research. Social media are changing the way that
media audiences engage with media personae (Marwick & Boyd, 2011).
Reciprocity, traditionally lacking in PSRs, is decidedly more likely when
media personae can retweet on Twitter or send quick responses on
Instagram. Investigating how brief moments of reciprocity afforded by
social media are altering the development and maintenance of adolescents’
PSRs seems warranted.
Additional limitations to this study were in the recruitment procedures,
measurement, and cross-sectional design. LGB adolescents who actively
volunteered to complete the questionnaire may be qualitatively different
from sexually questioning adolescents or from those who saw the recruit-
ment message and chose not to participate. Future research should consider
drawing more diverse samples of LGB youth using different recruitment
strategies. The cross-sectional design only allows for correlational claims to
be made; directional or causal arguments would be inappropriate. Future
research should examine the relationship between loneliness and PSR
strength overtime to make stronger causal claims. The wording of the
items measuring importance of socialization agents is potentially proble-
matic. The questionnaire asked participants to select the sources they would
ideally turn to for information. It is possible that LGB adolescents selected
friends as the ideal other, but in reality cannot turn to their friends for fear
of rejection as previously noted. Future research could collect qualitative
data to more richly investigate how adolescents engage with their favorite
media personae as socialization agents. Despite these limitations, the study
makes important contributions to the understanding of PSRs, why they
matter, and how they differ for adolescents who may experience vulner-
abilities in developing real-life social relationships.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 21

Conclusion
PSRs with media personae may serve as functional alternatives, compensating
for inadequate real-life social relationships among special populations consid-
ered relationally vulnerable such as LGB adolescents. Celebrities and characters
become integral components of social networks of individuals who do not feel
that their real-life social relationships gratify their relational needs. In turn,
media personae with whom special populations have PSRs serve as meaningful
socialization agents providing support, information, and guidance.

Notes
1. Sexual identity response options were not defined for the participants. However, hetero-
sexual is generally defined as an adjective used to describe people who are romantically and
physically attracted to the other-sex. Gay is used to define those who are attracted to the
same-sex. Lesbian is the preferred term for gay women. Bisexual is used to define those who
are attracted to both same- and other-sex individuals. Queer is a label used by those who do
not identify as heterosexual, but feel limited by the implications and connotations of the
more frequently employed gay, lesbian, and bisexual labels.

Acknowledgments
I thank Kat Pfost and Hayley West for their assistance coding. Color versions of one or more
of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/HMEP.

References
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 24, 519–533. doi:10.1007/BF01537054
Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation of a parasocial interaction
measure: The audience-persona interaction scale. Communication Research Reports, 17,
79–89. doi:10.1080/08824090009388753
Berndt, T. J. (1996). Transitions in friendship and friends’ influence. In J. A. Graber, J.
Brooks-Gunn, & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence (pp. 57–84).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bond, B. J. (2011). Sexual alienation: A review of factors influencing the loneliness of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual adolescents. In S. J. Bevinn (Ed.), Psychology of loneliness (pp.
123–135). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Bond, B. J. (2015). The mediating role of self-discrepancies in the relationship between media
exposure and well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. Media Psychology,
18, 57–73. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.917591
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. doi:10.1080/
15213269.2013.872039
Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg
(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 363–394). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
22 B. J. BOND

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. doi:10.1080/10810730305733
Centers for Disease Control. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related
behaviors among students in grades 9-12. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Cohen, E. L., & Hoffner, C. (2016). Finding meaning in a celebrity’s death: The relationship
between parasocial attachment, grief, and sharing educational health information related to
Robin Williams on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 643–650.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.042
Cohen, J. (2009). Mediated relationships and media effects: Parasocial interaction and
identification. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes
and effects (pp. 223–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., & Hunter, S. B. (2003).
Entertainment television as a healthy sexual educator: The impact of condom-efficacy
information in an episode of Friends. Pediatrics, 112, 1115–1121. doi:10.1542/
peds.112.5.1115
Diamond, L. M., & Dubé, E. M. (2002). Friendship and attachment among heterosexual and
sexual-minority youths: Does the gender of your friend matter? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 155–166. doi:10.1023/A:1014026111486
Diamond, L. M., & Lucas, S. (2004). Sexual-minority and heterosexual youths’ peer relation-
ships: Experiences, expectations, and implications for well-being. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 14, 313–340. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.00077.x
DiFulvio, G. T. (2011). Sexual minority youth, social connectedness, and resilience: From
personal struggle to collective identity. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 1611–1617.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.045
Duck, S., & Barnes, M. K. (1992). Disagreeing about agreement: Reconciling differences about
similarity. Communication Monographs, 59, 199–208. doi:10.1080/03637759209376262
Eyal, K., & Cohen, J. (2006). When good friends say goodbye: A parasocial breakup study.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 502–523. doi:10.1207/
s15506878jobem5003_9
Eyal, K., & Dailey, R. M. (2012). Examining relational maintenance in parasocial relation-
ships. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 758–781. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.616276
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future
research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development:
Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 813–822. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00154-5
Gomillion, S. C., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay,
lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 330–354. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2011.546729
Goode, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2013). Linguistic synchrony in parasocial interaction.
Communication Studies, 64, 453–466. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.773923
Hoffner, C. (2011). Parasocial and online social relationships. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson
(Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 309–333). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television
characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7,
325–351. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 23

Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for
measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research
on Aging, 26, 655–672. doi:10.1177/0164027504268574
Kivel, B. D., & Kleiber, D. A. (2000). Leisure in the identity formation of lesbian/gay youth:
Personal, but not social. Leisure Sciences, 22, 215–232. doi:10.1080/01490409950202276
Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Parasocial interactions and relationships.
In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 291–312). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Madison, T. P., & Porter, L. V. (2015). The people we meet: Discriminating functions of
parasocial interactions. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality: Consciousness in Theory,
Research, and Clinical Practice, 35, 47–71. doi:10.1177/0276236615574490
Madison, T. P., Porter, L. V., & Greule, A. (2016). Parasocial compensation hypothesis:
Predictors of using parasocial relationships to compensate for real-life interaction.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality: Consciousness in Theory, Research, and Clinical
Practice, 35, 258–279. doi:10.1177/0276236615595232
Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter.
Convergence, 17, 139–158. doi:10.1177/1354856510394539
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Nylund, D. (2007). Reading Harry Potter: Popular culture, queer theory, and the fashioning
of youth identity. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26, 13–24. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.2.13
Perse, E. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships.
Communication Research, 16, 59–77. doi:10.1177/009365089016001003
Rideout, V. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. San Francisco,
CA: Common Sense Media.
Rosaen, S. F., & Dibble, J. F. (2008). Investigating the relationships among child’s age,
parasocial interactions, and the social realism of favorite television characters.
Communication Research Reports, 25, 145–154. doi:10.1080/08824090802021806
Rosaen, S. F., & Dibble, J. L. (2016). Clarifying the role of attachment and social compensa-
tion on parasocial relationships with television characters. Communication Studies, 67,
147–162. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1121898
Rosaen, S. F., Sherry, J. L., & Smith, S. L. (2011). Maltreatment and parasocial relationships in
US children. Journal of Children and Media, 5, 379–394. doi:10.1080/
17482798.2011.599520
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and
local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155–180. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 279–292. doi:10.1080/08838158709386664
Schiappa, E., Allen, M., & Gregg, P. B. (2007). Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-
analysis of the effects. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.),
Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 301–314). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy: Parasocial relationships with Harry
Potter across different cultures. The International Communication Gazette, 73, 252–269.
doi:10.1177/1748048510393658
Stever, G. S. (2017). Evolutionary theory and reactions to mass media: Understanding
parasocial attachment. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6, 95–102. doi:10.1037/
ppm0000116
24 B. J. BOND

Sullivan, M., & Wodarski, J. S. (2002). Social alienation in gay youth. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 5, 1–17. doi:10.1300/J137v05n01_01
Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with liked, neutral, and disliked
characters on a popular TV series. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 250–269.
doi:10.1080/15205430903296051
Tsay, M., & Bodine, B. M. (2012). Exploring parasocial interaction in college students as a
multidimensional construct: Do personality, interpersonal need, and television motive
predict their relationships with media characters? Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
1, 185–200. doi:10.1037/a0028120
Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2008). Loneliness, gender, and parasocial interaction: A
uses and gratifications approach. Communication Quarterly, 56, 87–109. doi:10.1080/
01463370701839057

Appendix
Characters and Celebrities Reported as Favorite Media Personae
Heterosexual Adolescents
Abby Sciuto
Adam Sandler
Alex Gaskarth
Alex Morgan
Anna Sophia Robb
Applejack
Augustus Waters (2)
Austin Mahone
Barney Stinson (4)
Batman (2)
Beatrice “Tris” Prior (3)
Bella Swan
Benedict Cumberbatch (3)
Bethany Mota
Beyoncé (2)
Blair Waldorf (4)
Blake Henderson
Blake Lively
Bo Burnham
Brett Favre
Brooke Davis
Bruce Wayne
Bruno Mars
Bryan Cranston
Callie Foster
Calvin Johnson
Cameron Dallas (2)
Caroline Forbes
Carrie Bradshaw (2)
Carrie Underwood
Chandra Wilson
Chloë Mortez
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 25

Chris Evans
Christofer Drew
Cinderella
Clint Dempsey
Cloud Strife
Cristiano Ronaldo
Daenerys Targaryen
Damon Salvator
Darth Revan
Darth Vader
Daryl Dixon
Dave Franco
Dean Winchester
Demi Lovato (2)
Demoman
Denzel Washington
Derek Shepard
Donnie Yen
Dr. Spencer Reid
Drizzt Do’Urden
Dumbledore
Dwayne “the Rock”
Dwight Schrute
Ed Sheeran (2)
Elena Gilbert
Elle Woods
Ellen DeGeneres (4)
Emily Thorne (2)
Eminem
Emma Watson (3)
Emmet Bledsoe
Eric Decker
Erick Cartman
Fat Amy
G-Dragon
Garou
Hanna Marin
Harry Potter (4)
Harry Styles (7)
Hatsune Miku
Hazel Grace
Hermione Granger
Hillary Duff
Hope Solo
Hunter Hayes
Ian Eastwood
Icardi
Ingwë the High Elf
Jace Lightwood
Jack Bauer
26 B. J. BOND

Jackie Francois
James Hetfield
James Lafferty
Jenna Hamilton
Jennifer Anniston
Jennifer Lawrence (36)
Jensen Ackles
Jeremy Clarkson
Jessica Chastain
Jim Carrey (2)
JJ Watt
Johnny Depp (2)
Josh Huterson
Joshua Lyman
Julie Andrews
Justin Bieber (5)
Justin Timberlake (2)
Karl Marx
Katniss Everdeen (5)
Katy Perry
Kendall Jenner (3)
Kevin Hart (2)
Kim Kardashian
Kobe Bryant (3)
Kylar Stern
Kyle Harrison
Kylie Jenner
Lady Fire
Lana Del Rey
Laura Osnes
Lauryn Hill
Lea Michele
Lena Dunham
Leo Valdez
Leonard Hofstadter
Leonardo Dicaprio
Liam Hemsworth
Lionel Messi (2)
Lorde
Louie CK
Lucy Hale
Luna Lovegood
Mariano Rivera
Marilyn Monroe
Mario Balotelli
Mary Stuart
Master Chef (3)
Matt Damon
Matty McKibben
Maximum Ride
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 27

Meredith Grey (2)

Mia Hamm
Michael Bluth
Michael Scott
Michael Westen
Michelle Rodriguez
Miley Cyrus (6)
Milia Kunis
Milo Ventimiglia
Mina Harker
Misha Collins
Missy Franklin
Molly Ringwald
Naruto Uzumaki
Nathan Scott
Nelson Mandela
Niall Horan (2)
Norman Bates
Oprah
Patrick Dempsey
Patrick Jane
Paul Walker (2)
Paul Wesley
Peeta Melarck (2)
Peter Griffin
Princess Zelda
R Lee Ermey
Ray Lewis
Reed Kessler
Robbie Kay
Robert Downey Jr.
Rowan Atkinson
Sai Roberson
Sailor Moon
Sara Bareilles
Scout Finch
Selena Gomez (3)
Serena van der Woodsen (2)
Shannon Hale
Shawn Mendes
Shawn Spencer
Sheldon Cooper (7)
Sherlock Holmes (2)
Sonny Moore
Spencer Hastings
Spike Spiegel
Stephen Colbert
Stephen Salvadore
Steve Rogers
Taylor Swift (9)
28 B. J. BOND

Ted Mosby (2)

The Doctor (5)
The Incredible Hulk
Tina Fey
Tobias Eaton
Tom Hanks
Tom Hiddleston (2)
Troian Bellisario
Tyler, The Creator
Walter White (4)
Wesley Chan
Will Ferrel
Will Treaty
Wiz Khalifa
Zane Donovan
LGB Adolescents
Agent X
Alfred F. Jones
Andy Biersack
Ashley Benson
Barney Stinson (3)
Beatrice “Tris” Prior (3)
Benedict Cumberbatch (2)
Billie Joe Armstrong
Bo Burnham
Bo Jackman
Borat
Cristiano Ronaldo (2)
Damon Salvatore
Daniel Middleton
Darren Criss (2)
Dave Strider
Deadpool
Dean Winchester (4)
Derren Brown
Edd, Double D
Effy
Elena Gilbert
Gabbie Hanna
Gandalf
Gina Rodriguez
Hannibal Lecter
Harry Potter
Hayley Williams
Hermione Granger (2)
House
Jack Andraka
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jennifer Lawrence (8)
Jessica Pearson
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 29

John Green
Johnny Depp (2)
Justin Timberlake (2)
Katniss Everdeen (2)
Kate Winslet
Kellin Quinn
Lady Gaga (2)
Lana Del Rey (2)
Leonardo DiCaprio
Molly Tarlov
Oliva Pope
Patrick Stump
Peeta Mellark
Pete Wentz
Peter Griffin
Pink (2)
Randy Harrison (6)
Rob Ryan
Roger the Alien
Ryan Reynolds
Serena van der Woodsen
Shailene Woodley (3)
Shane Dawson
Shay Mitchell
Spongebob Squarepants
The Doctor (6)
Tinky Winky
Tom Daley (6)
Winnie the Pooh
Zac Efron (2)