9 Processes of Audience Involvement
DOI: 10.4324/9781003055648-9
Gayle S. Stever
Source: Image by bbernard from Shuersto
In is Chapter
• Introduction
• Transportation
• Parasocial eory
• Identification
• Fan Studies
• Is Being a Fan Stigmatized?
• Audiences as Partners and Co-Creators of Media
• Persona/Celebrity Worship and Other Problem Behaviors
Glossary
Homophily: e tendency for people to oose connections with people who are
similar to themselves in socially prominent ways.
Identification: Actively imagining becoming the aracter in a book or program
and experiencing the events happening to that aracter from the inside out.
Parasocial: A connection between media persona and viewer that is nonreciprocal.
Transportation: A metaphor for transporting into the fictional world of the
narrative, losing tra of your actual surroundings, and being immersed in that
world.
Introduction
Consider the word audience. It might suggest a level of passivity on the part of the
viewer that is only occasionally true. As society has moved into the information
age, the age of digital media, viewers have more and more become participants in
the creation of media rather than passive recipients. However, it is still true that
media consumers have a oice as to how involved they get with the media they
consume. In fact, consumption is one dimension of media studies that is
interesting to look at. If it is conceived of as a continuum on whi the cou
potato viewer–only person is on one end and the creative producer or co-producer
is on the other end (e.g., the citizen journalist), then is it possible for ea
individual to figure out where they belong on that continuum? For that individual,
does it vary from day to day?
Figure 9.1 Audiences are diverse groups of people.
Source: www.shuersto.com/image-photo/diverse-group-friends-
wates-tv-sporstbar-1031029942
Over the course of media and psyology resear, the concept of audience has
shied substantially. In what is considered to be the first theoretical
communication model, Laswell’s (1948) linear model, read “who said what to
whom, using what annel, and with what effect” (p. 216). is model implied a
linear relationship between the message and its audience. e presumption in
these early days of models of communication was that message recipients could
only respond to a message by being affected by it. Audience members were
passive receivers. Later theories and models understood this as a mu more
interactive process with audiences taking an increasingly more active role from
merely providing feedba, to being co-creators of the meaning of the message.
is shi in thinking about audiences happened even before media became
interactive. is is a shi from “media effects” (what media do to people) to
“active audience” resear (what people do with media). e active audience
paradigm shi included both the media use theories we saw in Chapter 2 (e.g.,
uses and gratifications) and interpretive and reception theories that focus on active
meaning-making, su as Radway’s (1983) theory for the way readers interact
with the text of romance novels.
is shi in the conceptualization of audiences was further exacerbated by the
increasingly interactive nature of media (Press & Livingstone, 2006). ose who
used to be simply waters are now participators and creators in many cases. is
apter explores the nature of audience participation in media creation and how
that has anged the dynamics of what we study. It is important to recognize that
information is no longer curated by a few and distributed to the many. Social
tenologies have introduced peer-to-peer connectivity, forever anging the
control of traditional media producers. In this context, people are as likely to
sear, create, and distribute as to consume.
In addition to this behavioral domain, audience studies look at the emotional
and cognitive effects of involvement with media personae. A number of terms are
used in these discussions, including engagement, absorption, and presence (also
discussed in Chapter 11 on gaming). ese culminate in four theoretical
approaes to involvement: transportation, parasocial, identification, and persona
worship (Brown, 2021).
is apter summarizes and examines these approaes. In the area of
narrative psyology, the concept of transportation is explored, a process whereby
a person is so engaged in the media being experienced that they are removed from
present physical circumstances and fully engaged in the media world observed.
is is the occasion when someone not only aends to information but goes
beyond that to also being absorbed into the narrative flow of a story in a way that
is pleasurable and active (Jonathan Cohen, Tal-Or, & Mazor-Tregerman, 2015;
Green, Bro, & Kaufman, 2004).
Parasocial theory looks at the inner workings of a specific type of interaction
with media, that being the occasion when audience members interact with a
specific media persona in spite of that interaction being unreciprocated. We
interact with media figures using our imaginations, and eventually, aer
prolonged interaction of this type, a parasocial relationship can be forged.
Many theorists beginning with Sigmund Freud (1989/1940) and Erik Erikson
(1982) have talked about identification as a process of developing one’s sense of
identity (i.e., “Who am I?”). Jonathan Cohen (2001, 2014) has done a great deal of
groundbreaking resear in this area, making a clear distinction between
identification with a media figure in contrast to having a parasocial relationship
with a media figure.
ere is a broad area of resear referred to as “fan studies” that looks at the
connections that audience members forge with various people and programs
experienced through media. Fan studies is a part of a number of disciplines, most
notably sociology, communication, cultural studies, and anthropology in addition
to psyology. While being a fan and persona worship, also called celebrity
worship, are very different constructs, it is in the context of fan studies that this
concept is explored.
Transportation
Transportation theory explains the experience of being completely involved in a
narrative through cognitive and emotional immersion as well as being involved in
imagery, although in the cases of wrien narratives, the imagery is internal and
imagined. e term transportation is a metaphor for transporting into the fictional
world of the narrative, losing tra of your actual surroundings, and being
immersed in that world. Transportation results in feeling connected with fictional
aracters and involves a certain amount of self-transformation as you
temporarily adopt the identity of a fictional persona (Green et al., 2004).
Transportation can be a means to escape, exploration, learning, or the
development of empathy (Brown, 2021).
ere is a debate about the relationship between identification and
transportation. In one scenario, identification can be the vehicle that transports
you into the narrative. But it can also happen that you transport into the story like
a fly on the wall and observe as yourself without identification (Oatley, 1999; TalOr
& Jonathan Cohen, 2010). One meta-analysis showed that identification and
transportation were the strongest predictors of media effects (including persuasion
and social learning) when compared to a parasocial relationship (PSR) and
homophily (Tukainsky & Tokunaga, 2013).
Resear by Green and her colleagues supported the idea that narrative
transportation is a key factor in persuasion. Powerful narratives have the ability to
ange beliefs, and this effect is an important one when considering the effects
that stories have on viewers (Green, 2021). By being transported into a story, that
story has the power to affect beliefs and aitudes held by the viewer aer they are
no longer immersed in the story (Green & Bro, 2000). ink of a story you have
wated or read and how it might have affected your beliefs.
Parasocial eory
Parasocial theory (Brown, 2021; Stever, 2017) is very mu related to fan studies,
but the resear literature has developed mostly among different solars and even
the definition of parasocial has been controversial. It is agreed that parasocial
interaction (PSI) involves the imaginary interaction an audience member has with
media as it is being consumed. A key point is that it is not reciprocated. at
dialogue can lead to a PSR that is an outgrowth of PSI but is conducted apart from
media consumption. In a very real sense, it is a fantasy or imagined relationship
that is an outgrowth of the connection one feels with a media persona one relates
to just as if that persona were a part of everyday life. Parasocial aament (PSA)
is when a persona becomes a source of comfort, felt security, and safe haven,
mu as a face-to-face aament is a source for those things. In aament,
proximity seeking is a key aspect of the connection. For PSA, the proximity
seeking is most oen virtual, although occasionally audience members seek out
real contact with media personalities through live audience experiences,
autograph opportunities, or meet-and-greets held at conventions or concerts.
While some controversy arises from the disagreement as to whether PSI, PSR,
and PSA are indicative of some kind of abnormality, most who work in parasocial
theory agree that it is not. It has been beer conceptualized as a developmental
process that begins with acquaintanceship and progresses in some cases to
parasocial aament, looking to a favorite media figure (fictional or real) for felt
security and safe haven (Tukainsky & Stever, 2019).
Part of the origin of this disagreement comes from a divide between
psyologists and other social scientists as to whether the fan experience or
parasocial experience has been pathologized by psyology. is is discussed in
some detail later in the Fan Studies section, so I will not rehash that discussion
here. Suffice it to say that among those who conduct resear in the various
aspects of parasocial theory, it is considered to be a normal activity, indeed one in
whi most media consumers engage. at it can transition into something
unhealthy is addressed in a later section.
Another discussion that has been conducted within the parasocial theory
resear community is whether social media and direct contact with various
celebrities might have anged the parasocial into something that looks more
social. is is a difficult question to address. Is the relationship still not
reciprocated if one has an interaction on social media? I would propose that the
question be resolved by conceptualizing the contrast between social and parasocial
as a continuum rather than a diotomy. On one end is the everyday social
relationship with a real person with whom we have interaction and complete
access. On the other end is the completely parasocial relationship in whi we
have no access whatsoever to get any kind of feedba from the person. By
definition then, all PSRs with fictional aracters have to be completely parasocial.
But a PSR with a real and living person has the potential, at some point, of
becoming interactive and therefore, social. But this is not an either/or, all-ornothing
situation.
Take the fan who tweets her favorite celebrity once and gets either a reply, a
retweet, or a “favorite”/like from the person. ey have been recognized and
anowledged. However, this is a case in whi the relationship is still clearly
parasocial. e fan still has no access to the celebrity. If she tweets again, she has
no assurance of another response (Stever & Lawson, 2013).
On the more “social” side of parasocial, there is the parishioner who aends a
huge ur with a congregation of 5,000 and hears a sermon from the same
pastor every Sunday. ey know that pastor quite well and are not known ba.
But if that parishioner is a member of the ur, theoretically they could go to
the ur and try to meet with the pastor in person for some reason. ere is a
social potential. at might be a situation whereby the relationship is in the
middle of the continuum . . . PSR but with a real potential for becoming social.
Any number of variations on these situations make it clear that the idea that all
relationships are either social or parasocial (completely) is one that does not hold
up under scrutiny. A theory of social and parasocial relationships and how they
relate to one another would resolve this question and should be further developed.
Also related to the concept of PSR is the idea of social surrogacy. Simply stated,
when our desire to interact with others is not satisfied, we look for other ways to
satisfy this need. During the “lodown” phase of COVID-19 in 2020–2021, if
people did not have someone with whom to interact, they would seek social
connection through television programs or online social outlets. is notion of
social surrogates has not had mu resear to date but should be considered in
future studies (Paravati, Naidu, Gabriel, & Wiedemann, 2019).
Another recent addition within the study of parasocial phenomena is
retrospective imaginal involvement (RII). is refers to tendencies to remain
involved with media well aer it has actually been consumed. We oen revisit
books, movies, or other programming in our imaginations when thinking about
decisions or pondering social situations (Jonathan Cohen, Appel, & Slater, 2020;
Slater, Ewoldsen, & Woods, 2018). RII is a reason that length of time actually
consuming media is not a good predictor of PSR.
Identification
Jonathan Cohen (2001) distinguished between PSR and identification: In PSR, the
media consumer interacts with the aracter as a separate entity while in
identification, the media user mentally becomes the aracter. For Cohen,
identification involved actively imagining becoming the aracter in a book or
program and experiencing the events happening to that aracter from the inside
out.
Identification in this context involves empathy. It includes merging self with the
aracter—temporarily becoming the aracter. It is a multifaceted construct that
includes sharing the aracter’s cognitive perspective (understanding the events as
the aracter does), sharing the aracter’s emotions, and sharing the aracter’s
goals and motivations (Jonathan Cohen, 2001).
Central to identification is vicarious experience, a key aspect of Bandura’s
theories. In experiencing the world through the observation of role models, media
audiences are able to expand the breadth of their own desires for various types of
activities and experiences (Jonathan Cohen, 2014).
Identification does not have to rely on similarity. Contrary to the intuitive belief
that being similar fosters identification, the power of a good story is that people
can merge with aracters that are very different from themselves. is relates to
the notion that media can be used for self-expansion, for play, or for trying on
alternative selves (Jonathan Cohen, Weimann-Saks, & Mazor-Tregerman, 2018).
It has been proposed that the relationship among these processes might be
developmental, with initial transportation growing into a PSR that eventually
sparks identification and, at its most intense levels, could even lead to persona
worship (Brown, 2021). Jonathan Cohen and Christopher Klimmt (2021) have
concurred with this idea saying, “We elaborate an improved conceptualization of
identification as dynamic over time and as a mode of reception that can shi into
other modes (and vice versa)” (p. 249).
Fan Studies
Recognizing this tendency to be absorbed in and relate to media in a deeper way, a
trend toward audience participation media has resulted in various types of
programming that seek to have the viewer engaged in a real rather than only an
imaginative way, thereby increasing audience investment in the program. In the
early days of Star Trek, fans of the show engaged in writing their own fiction
about the aracters, and rather than the producers being threatened by that, fan
fiction was embraced by the Star Trek community as a way to increase
commitment to the program.
A number of observations have been made about the general field of fan
studies. e most important may be that in studying “fans,” one is studying a very
small slice of the potential media audience. “Fandom should not be confused with
everyday media use in general. Nor does it, at first sight, provide mu help in
theorizing more mundane forms of media use” (Hermes, 2009, p. 114). Some
resear has defined fandom in behavioral terms, for example,
Figure 9.2Star Trek fandom is one of the places where fans explore their identification
with aracters through costuming, referred to as cosplay.
Source: www.shuersto.com/image-photo/san-diego-july-23-fans-
dress-34186402
188 “behaviorally identified fans” (Stever, 2009). e criteria observed included
things like collecting memorabilia, writing leers to favorite celebrities, aending
events that honored the fandom or where one was likely to meet favorite
celebrities, and joining groups (most oen called fan clubs) of like-minded
viewers. My own work identified levels of fandom ranging from a commitment to
simply wat a program regularly and enjoy it, all the way up to the person whose
life was immersed in su a program or the work of a celebrity (Stever, 1994).
With that observation in place, fan studies have a history in psyology that
begins mu later than it does in other disciplines. In my own resear, I began a
literature review for my master’s thesis in 1989 and realized that very lile had
been done in the field of psyology to understand fan behavior. With that
realization, most of the literature review for that thesis came from social science
resear in fields other than psyology. e most prominently represented fields
were sociology, communication, anthropology, and cultural studies (Stever, 1990).
Subsequent to my thesis, Lisa Lewis (1992) edited a volume called The Adoring
Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, a collection of essays that took on
important questions in fan psyology. In keeping with the literature up to that
time, most of the contributors were from communication or cultural studies in
spite of the fact that the issues in the book included fandom as pathology, and
essays on Beatlemania, and Elvis mania, questions for whi I had an interest
based in psyology, but I was finding these discussions in other than psyology
journals. It was an interest in Beatlemania that caused me to begin my journey
into fan studies in 1989, and clearly, I was not the only person who wanted to
explore the psyology of various kinds of superstar mania. My own initial study
delved into the fandom surrounding Miael Jason, arguably the superstar of
that decade.
Jenson and others in The Adoring Audience do what psyologists were not yet
doing at that point in the study of fans; they were trying to explain in a
psyological way, the meaning of fan behavior. Elvis fandom, in particular, was
analyzed through the lens of psyoanalysis (Hinerman, 1992). at this was being
done by academics who were not psyologists is significant in itself. I was told as
a graduate student in psyology that to look at things su as popular culture and
fandom was a pursuit of the “trivial” and that I ought to sti to more “serious”
topics. Before Lewis’s book was wrien, Division 46 of the American
Psyological Association (APA) was formed in 1986, and notable solars su as
Lilli Friedland, Bernard Luskin, and Stuart Fisoff decided that psyologists
pursuing a study of these topics was not trivial, indeed it warranted the forming of
this new division in the APA (www.apadivisions.org).
Two factors were pointed to as an explanation for why fandom to that point
had been pathologized. ose were elitism and a generally disrespectful aitude
toward the common life of the average person in our society (Jenson, 1992). In
academic studies up to and including the 1990s, popular culture was contrasted
with classical culture and deemed of lesser worth. us, while those who would
passionately pursue opera and classical music were deemed “patrons,” those who
passionately pursued popular music forms were labeled as “fans” and discounted
as crazed and obsessive. Jenson pointed out that academics show a similar passion
for their fields of study but that this was deemed “normal.”
Another influence that caused the slanted perspective on fan aracteristics of
the late 20th century was the analysis of crowd behavior that aributed tragic
circumstances at concerts and sporting events to the “crazed” nature of crowds. In
an analysis of some of these events, for example, e Who concert of 1979 during
whi 11 audience members were killed in a stampede, the event was initially
aributed to “selfish, drug-crazed fans” (Jenson, 1992, p. 12). is proved to be
untrue as it was mismanagement of the crowd situation (too few doors opened
during a surge of fans trying to get in) that caused the tragedy, not the fan
behavior in and of itself.
inking of this event, I was reminded of times on the Miael Jason tours
while observing fan behavior, that I witnessed the same behavior being exhibited.
Television coverage of the tour depicted fans as weeping, passing out, and frenzied
over Jason. I have wrien a number of times (e.g., Stever, 2019) about how fans
would “perform” for television cameras,
Figure 9.3 Beatlemania is one of the many manifestations of fandom that have been
studied and occasionally pathologized.
Source: www.shuersto.com/image-vector/beatlemania-word-cloud-
type-mania-made-1430367629
Figure 9.4 Fans oen are willing to wait in long lines for hours at a time for a variety
of reasons related to their commitment to something media-related.
Source: www.shuersto.com/image-photo/september-18-2014-berlin-
fans-apple-218398894
Figure 9.5 People paed into crowded venues can be a recipe for disaster if crowds
are not managed thoughtfully.
Source: www.shuersto.com/image-photo/silhouees-concert-crowd-
front-bright-stage-550489705
and as soon as the cameras passed, they would go ba to their normal
conversations, waiting for the concert to start. An expectation about how fans
were supposed to behave elicited the exact behavior these fans had seen portrayed
in media. On one occasion, at Irvine Meadows in October 1988, I was waiting for
admission to a general admission seating area when the gates were opened and
suddenly it was run or be trampled. As with e Who concert described earlier,
there was one entrance for several thousand fans, and those who desired the best
seating on the front of the lawn pushed through and started a stampede. No one
was injured on this occasion, but aer that experience, I had a healthy new respect
for the power of the crowd and the dangers inherent in crowd mismanagement.
Likewise, at Wembley Stadium in London, 1992 at another Miael Jason
concert, it was unusually hot on the day of the show. Fans were allowed onto the
field at about 2 p.m. and stood in close quarters for hours in the heat. By the time
Jason came on stage, many of the fans were passing out, and in the subsequent
media depictions, the inference was that they were swooning over the presence of
Jason instead of from heat exhaustion. I am not suggesting that there were no
fans who were emotional for being so close to Jason, but the exaggeration of the
circumstances sent a very different message to what was really happening that
aernoon and evening.
Henry Jenkins (1992) was a solar who engaged in important questions with
respect to fandom and prominent fan activity, and he was one of the first to
question the tendency to pathologize normal fan behavior as something bizarre
and dysfunctional. With his pivotal work, Textual Poachers, he recognized that at
the heart of fan activity was the essence of the araction of being a fan whi
provided an opportunity to be a co-creator with those whose work was so
admired. Jenkins explored the work of fan-fiction writers, those who used the
original texts to inspire their own creative works. Star Trek fans were members of
one of the most active of audiences. Joan Marie Verba (2003), in her book Boldly
Writing: A Trek Fan and Fanfiction History, reinforces that point by laying out a
history of fan fiction writing that gives detail to the extent to whi those who
write fan fiction are commied to both the text and the cra.
In my dissertation and further work, I analyzed the narratives of fans who
explained to me what participating in fan activity meant to them. Having those
narratives coded by five independent trained coders, there were a number of
categorizations that emerged from that analysis. e first was that there was a
myriad of motivations for being a dedicated fan. e second was that fandom
existed in a continuum of intensities ranging from the most casual of consumers
of a text and going up to the highest level of commitment possible. e end of that
continuum was an intensity that potentially led to dysfunction and illness, and
while that was fairly rare among fans interviewed and observed, it did happen. A
third observation was that fans can exist in isolation or they can be fans in groups.
e fan who pursues fan activities in isolation looks very different from the one
who is a member of a fan group (Stever, 2009). e impact of being a fan is also
very different. Fans in isolation have no one to temper their intense beliefs. A fan
who is a member of a network of likeminded fans has other fans with whom to
compare and discuss the nature of being a fan. In the one case of fandom, it is a
private journey, and in the other, it is a social activity. Both are potentially
important and formative.
A study of Bruce Springsteen fans (Yates, 2015) found that those who interacted
on Springsteen-centered websites were mu more interested in networking with
other fans than with Springsteen himself. ese websites provided a central focus
for shared interests, but the parasocial connection fans felt with him was minimal.
is suggestion that a social motivation can be more powerful than a parasocial
one in single-artist fan clubs mirrors some of my own findings in similar fandoms
(Stever, 2009).
Moving to fandoms that are centered on films and television, one aspect of
shared fandom that has been facilitated by the internet is the practice of wating
episodes of television together and doing things like live tweeting with other fans
during the program. Fans who are geographically dispersed are able to participate
in a social practice that was not possible before the advent of the various forms of
social media and advances in tenology. Using these platforms, fandoms provide
a way to publicly share things that used to be mostly private and internal, for
example, reactions to new episodes and aracter development. is is a new
manifestation of fans in groups whereby previously they might have been fans
mostly in isolation. e opportunity to share narratives with other fans while they
were being viewed was far more difficult in times past (Hills, 2017).
See Box 9.1 for another perspective on fandom.
Box 9.1 Fandom and Psyoanalytic eories
In trying to explain how psyological theories explain fandom and/or parasocial
relationships, there are a number of relevant theories to draw upon. e
aament theory of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (1992) proposed that
proximity-seeking for the sake of felt security and safe haven is fundamental to
the survival of the infant in the first years of life. Ainsworth (1969) talked about
secure and insecure aaments, depending on the consistency of caregiving by
the primary caregivers, but even insecure aament usually provides for the
survival of the infant. Human infants, without care, will not survive. us, even
if the care is inconsistent, the infant grows up and transitions into progressively
more independent stages of life. It is in these transitions to independence that
Winnico (2018) wrote about “transitional objects,” objects to whi the infant
transfers their dependency for a sense of felt security. ese are things like a
blanket or a favorite teddy bear. Many fan solars (e.g., Harrington & Bielby,
1995; Hills, 2002; Silverstone, 1994) seem to agree that, irrespective of whi
particular specialized view of psyoanalysis one ascribes to, many media objects
become transitional objects for the viewer. is is the idea that a media world or
persona can become the source of safe haven and felt security. In my own
writings, I have referred to this as parasocial aament (Stever, 2013). Ma Hills
(2005) has referred to the “aleatory object,” meaning that the source of felt
security is a random and moving target, mu as the oice of favorite blanket is
most likely a random selection for the very young ild, subject to
comfortableness, availability, and transportability. Likewise, that of whi one
becomes a fan might be a function of what the available potential targets are at
the moment of need.
Psyoanalysis from Winnico’s (2018) point of view has “offered a way of
taking seriously the emotional intensities of fandom without pathologizing them
or explaining them away as if they were the side effects of something else” (Hills,
2017, p. 19). Psyoanalysis has to do with unconscious influences on our
emotions and development. From this perspective, psyoanalysis is about
connecting us with the deep emotions that are elicited by the object of our
fandom and allowing those emotions a free rein to express themselves.
Giles (2020) applied Winnico to his discussion of the parasocial relationship
as a transitional object, stating,
e psyological function of lifelong fandom has been interpreted through the
psyoanalytic theory of Donald Winnico (1971), who devised the concept of the
‘transitional object’, typically a favourite teddy or blanket, that symbolises the mother for the
ild and creates a reassuring sense of permanence. Silverstone (1994) applies this idea to the
role that television and other media play in adult life, and Hills (2002) suggests that fan objects
play a similar role for specific individuals, with su aaments oen taking on a ‘cyclic’
role as people pass from one object to another, or return to the same object at critical
moments.
(p. 312)
Silverstone (1994) likewise stated,
Our media, television perhaps pre-eminently, occupy the potential space released by blankets,
teddy bears, and breasts.
(pp. 12–13)
Johanssen (2018) summarized it as follows:
Television can be similar to a transitional object of the young infant (e.g. a teddy bear or
blanket). It can be an emotional comforter by creating a safe space, the ‘potential space’
(Winnico, 1971) between the viewer and the television in whi the viewer can feel
comforted and held. It is unconsciously used to work through feelings of loss or anxiety.
(p. 6)
From the point of connection to the primary caregiver and forward, the fan is
constantly looking for an aesthetic connection to rival that first emotional
connection to the primary caregiver (Bollas, 1993). By turning hunger into
fullness, that caregiver created a unique aesthetic with the infant. Before thought,
there is feeling and experience, and those are intertwined in experiences with
those primary caregivers. It is not until the ild develops language that thought
becomes an ingredient in this experience. It has been argued that the objects of
dedicated fandom are transformation objects in addition to being transitional
objects (Hills, 2005).
Is Being a Fan Stigmatized?
A number of solars have addressed the question as to whether or not being a fan
is stigmatized. e earliest and best-known discussion, referenced earlier, is
Jenson’s (1992) essay on fandom as pathology. e result of potentially being
stigmatized by being a fan is that fans are oen covert about their fan activities.
is was something I have encountered frequently in my more than 30 years of
fan resear. Additional sources of stigma might include the “geek” or “nerd”
stereotype experienced by science-fiction and fantasy fans, or the previously
discussed media portrayal of various kinds of fans as overly intense, “crazy,” or out
of control.
At International Communication Association in 2020, noted researer in
parasocial theory Bradley Bond led a workshop where he talked about the
incentive for stigmatized populations to participate in resear. When a person is a
member of a marginalized group, they might potentially see their participation in
a resear study as an opportunity to represent that group in a way that expresses
the frustration at being marginalized or stigmatized. While the point was
originally made about LGBTQ youth in resear studies, it could potentially be
generalized to members of other groups who have been stigmatized in various
ways, including ethnic or other social groups.
In the early days of my own fan studies, before the internet was widespread
beginning in 1988, I used the postal service to distribute and collect data
questionnaires. I networked in a number of fan groups that included Madonna,
Bruce Springsteen, Prince, Paul McCartney, and George Miael. At one point in
my study, I obtained lists of members of fan clubs or fan “pen pal” networks. I
mailed out over 300 sets of questionnaires to all the people listed on membership
lists that were shared with me by key informants. In an unusual and frankly
stunning example of resear participation, every single one of those completed
questionnaire baeries was returned to me. A number of the respondents
indicated to me that they saw their participation as a way to push ba against the
stigma associated with being a fan. Included in that set of questionnaires was the
Celebrity Appeal estionnaire (Stever, 1991), as well as two copies of the Myers–
Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1986), one for the fan to complete for
themselves and one to fill out the way the celebrity might answer as perceived by
the fan. Fans were also asked to submit a narrative indicating why their fan
participation was important or meaningful to them. ose narratives became the
data for a qualitative analysis that resulted in my doctoral dissertation (Stever,
1994).
In a study of the relationships among variables su as identification with a fan
group, stigmatization of fan groups, and psyological needs, the finding was that
“felt stigma predicted fan group identification, and the relationship was mediated
by a psyological need for belonging” (Tague, Reysen, & Plante, 2020, p. 324).
is study improved on previous studies where the stigma of being a fan had been
explored by using a general population sample and asking those participants to
identify a fan group of whi they were a member and then asking about felt
stigma for membership in that group. While previous studies had corroborated the
phenomenon of stigmatization of fan groups, this more generalizable approa
supports the conclusion that this is a more widespread phenomenon.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, Turner, Austin, & Worel, 1979) suggests that
people seek to construct positive self-identity by belonging to various social
groups and contrasting those groups with a variety of out-groups. While it might
be expected that identification with a stigmatized group would have a negative
effect on psyological well-being, numerous researers found just the opposite,
that well-being is enhanced by increased identification with the in-group, and selfesteem
is just as high for members of those groups as it is among members of nonstigmatized
groups (for examples, see Croer & Major, 1989, or Giamo, Smi, &
Ouen, 2012).
is is explained by the rejection-identification model (Branscombe, Smi, &
Harvey, 1999). eir conclusion was that “[p]erceiving prejudice as pervasive
produces effects on well-being that are fundamentally different from those that
may arise from an unstable aribution to prejudice for a single negative outcome”
(p. 135). To put it more simply, if I am being discriminated against as an
individual, that can have negative consequences for my own self-esteem, but if I
identify with an entire group that is being discriminated against, my identification
with that group helps me not to take that discrimination personally, and thus, it
does not have the negative effect on my self-esteem that it might if the negative
experience was mine alone.
us, if my group is perceived negatively and I see my membership in that
group as fundamental to my identity, then Tajfel’s social identity theory becomes
relevant. In that model, members of the out-group are seen as homogeneous while
members of my own in-group are seen as unique individuals. e in-group/outgroup
mentality reinforces an “us against them” dynamic that favors positive
perceptions of members of the in-group. us, more positive self-esteem and a
sense of belongingness enhance the person’s experience with the fan group (or
another stigmatized group). is has also been described as in-group solidarity,
whereby fiing into a group provides a collective identity that supports well-being
(Giamo et al., 2012).
Audiences as Partners and Co-Creators of
Media
Many aca-fans (academics who are also fans) have argued that we have moved
into an era in whi fans are increasingly co-creators with those who produce
television content. Already referenced earlier is Jenkins’s (1992) Textual Poachers
and Verba’s (2003) Boldly Writing.
e writing of fan fiction, or the fan’s co-opting of aracters from an
established franise has yielded some standard formats that have undergone
close scrutiny. Two examples are Mary Sue fan fiction and slash fan fiction. In a
Mary Sue story, the author is inserted into the story as an infallible aracter who
takes over the narrative and either saves the day or ends up in a relationship with
the protagonist (Busse, 2016). Slash fan fiction is a genre wherein same-sex
aracters are wrien into a sexual relationship where none was present in the
original text (Lee, 2003; Penley, 1992). Both of these have been the object of intense
textual and psyological analysis with a number of varying conclusions drawn.
Busse engaged a discussion of the Mary Sue fan fiction in all its positive and
negative incarnations. Fundamentally, Mary Sue fan fiction is a manifestation of
the identification fan-fiction writers feel with aracters from the source text and
is the ultimate opportunity to “become” those aracters.
e appeal of slash fan fiction writing is summarized nicely by Lee (2003):
But the pleasure is more than my delight in wating the canon source and spoing slashy
subtext. ere’s the pleasure of wating a television program with a cast of incredibly
aractive, buff men. ere’s the real pleasure of creating the slash text itself. ere’s the literal
physical pleasure of arousal as one writes or reads. en there’s the giddy pleasure of geing emails
from people saying they really liked your work—emails that make me laugh out loud in
delight.
(p. 80)
An interesting counterargument to fans as producers (or influencers of producers)
is made by Cli and Bro (2016), who argue that producers have the power to
portray fans within their programs in exactly the way they want fans to be seen.
Examples used are Dr. Who and Sherlo, where the portrayal of the “acceptable”
type of fan is limited to those within the vision of the producers of the shows.
ey conclude that “[c]onvergence culture may offer possibilities for building
more equitable and interconnected relationships, but if producers and audiences
oose not to build them, we should endeavor to understand how both groups are
served by the marked lines that separate them” (p. 126). e tension comes from
fans’ aempts to influence producers to alter story lines to desirable outcomes for
fans and the producers’ persistent resistance to allowing them to do so. e
authors point out that this dynamic could be different in shows that do not have
as mu of a long-standing fan/producer relationship. ey encourage future
researers to look more closely at su programs.
Media studies have undergone a transformation during the time when the line
between producers and consumers has become blurred, some calling this
distinction a shi from media studies 1.0 to media studies 2.0. In the same way we
have audience studies 1.0 transitioning to audience studies 2.0 (Hermes, 2009). As
media grow and ange in the 21st century, the distinction between producer and
consumer becomes more and more difficult to distinguish. Hermes argues that
audience studies are produced for the creators of media rather than the consumers
of media. us, these questions are suggested:
Are audience studies only done to benefit the producers?
Should there be a distinction between fandom and everyday media use in
general?
Where is the line between audiences and producers, and has it shied for
all audience members?
Is the relationship between audiences and their researers unequal?
What is the relationship between individual audience members and the
texts they consume?
Contrary to the premise that audience resear only benefits producers, mu
audience resear is read and appropriated by audience members. Additionally,
the line between fandom and everyday media use has to be considered through
the lens of the way one defines a “fan.” If the higher level fans are the only types
considered, this is very different to a multifaceted definition of fandom whereby
differing levels of fandom are recognized. A “fan” who simply consumes a
program faithfully with ea new episode is quite different from the fan who
collects memorabilia and aends audience-oriented conventions like ComicCon or
other sci-fi fantasy conventions (Stever, 2009). It is also true that if the treatment of
participants is ethical, there should NOT be a power differential between
researers and audience members. Finally, there are as many relationships
between audience members and texts as there are individual audience members,
making it difficult to generalize audience studies as they relate to producers and
consumers.
While social media has facilitated the distribution of viewer-produced media
content, this activity is by no means unique to the internet era of media.
Beginning in the 1960s, fans began creating stories that featured their favorite
media aracters and distributed those stories to other fans via the mail (BaconSmith,
1992; Jenkins, 1992; Penley, 1992; Verba, 2003).
In the 1990s, as more media consumers accessed the internet, websites sprang
up su as fanfiction.net and later “Arive of our own.” ese are just examples,
as there are many websites that feature fan fiction.
Is fan fiction legal? “e legality of fanfiction isn’t very controversial. As a
maer of copyright and trademark law, the sort of noncommercial, transformative
works that fans make tend to fit quite well into the definitions of non-infringing
fair use,” says Betsy Rosenbla, a law professor teaing intellectual property law
at University of California, Davis Sool of Law. She goes on to say that “noncommercial,
transformative fan fiction does not infringe intellectual property
laws.” It is also what the courts say. No U.S. court has ever held that a
noncommercial, transformative fan work infringed copyright (Manente, 2019).
Persona/Celebrity Worship and Other
Problem Behaviors
While most media researers in both psyology and communication agree that
parasocial experiences are quite normal and experienced by most media
consumers, there is one category that has been found to correlate with a number
of psyological problems and behaviors. Celebrity worship was a term coined by
Lynn McCuteon (McCuteon, Ashe, Houran, & Maltby, 2003) with her
colleagues, who published a number of studies seeking to describe what happens
when the interest in a celebrity becomes so focused that dysfunction or even
pathology can be the result. However, this can be a proverbial “ien or the egg”
question (or, in this case, antecedent or consequence) as it is difficult to understand
whether the celebrity worship is the cause of mental illness or, in fact, does the
mental illness precede and become an antecedent to celebrity worship.
Various resear studies have found that borderline pathological celebrity
worship occurs in about 3% to 5% of most samples taken from various types of
sool and community samples. In addition, about 20% of sampled sool and
community groups exhibit intense personal celebrity worship. Looking at the
instrument designed to measure celebrity worship, the Celebrity Aitude Scale
(McCuteon et al., 2003), items that indicate borderline pathological celebrity
worship include “If I were luy enough to meet my favorite celebrity, and he/she
asked me to do something illegal as a favor, I would probably do it.” For intense
personal celebrity worship, sample items include “My favorite celebrity is my soul
mate” and “If my favorite celebrity were to die, I would not want to live.” e
percentages for these categories of celebrity worship have been shown to hold
within behaviorally identified fan samples as well as samples from the public,
suggesting that “fan” and “celebrity worshipper” are completely distinct and
separate constructs (Stever, 2011). Recognizing that the object of worship could be
a aracter rather than a real person, Brown (2021) used the term “persona
worship” to describe this phenomenon.
While the mainstream of both audience members and fans enjoy media and
various aracters and celebrities in a way that helps them derive normal
enjoyment from this activity, there are these particular audience members for
whom this activity is problematic. Data on mental illness in the United States
suggest that the percentage of troubled audience members could very well
coincide with those who suffer from various mental illnesses, although clearly
further resear is needed in this area (Stever, 2011).
Another abnormal outcome for viewers is erotomania, a mental illness whereby
the audience member holds the delusional belief that a celebrity (or other highstatus
individual) is in love with them. An extreme form of this is erotomanic
sizophrenia. Both of these conditions are distinguishable from celebrity worship
in that erotomanics persist in their belief that they are special to the target
celebrity, even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. In general, a person
who has a delusion will believe that delusion in the presence of disconfirming
evidence. is is true of all kinds of delusions. e sizophrenic who believes
they are a famous person (a grandiose delusion) cannot be talked out of su a
belief. It is important to understand that delusional people are not lying because
what they believe is true to them. is is an important distinction as it points to
the fact that no amount of disconfirming evidence will ever be enough to convince
the person that the delusion is not true. Erotomania is rare, but prominent cases
have been reported in the news. For example, Margaret Ray stalked David
Leerman and was arrested multiple times because she persisted in her belief that
they were married. As oen happens with this type of case, Ray ended up
commiing suicide (Bruni, 1998).
Not all erotomanics become stalkers; in fact, only about 10% of cases of
erotomania become associated with stalking. ese delusions may persist for a
lifetime. e target person is of higher status and is the first to fall in love and
make advances (i.e., the patient believes the object fell in love first). Ironically, the
patient may or may not return that love and will make excuses for what appears
to be rejection. ese disorders tend to occur in middle age, may be related to life
situations (e.g., death of a partner and resulting loneliness), and are more common
in women than men. Erotomania can exist in a patient for some time without
being noticed. Patients with these symptoms do not usually come forward for
treatment and oen go unnoticed unless they commit a crime against someone,
for example, stalking incidents (Kelly, 2005).
See Box 9.2 for more on the subject of unhealthy celebrity worship.
Box 9.2 Celebrity Worship and Pathology
e definition of borderline pathological celebrity worship is operationalized by a
series of items, one of whi says, “If I were luy enough to meet my favorite
celebrity, and he/she asked me to do something illegal as a favor, I would
probably do it” (Maltby, Day, McCuteon, Houran, & Ashe, 2006, p. 277).
On January 6, 2021, followers of Donald Trump gathered on the mall near the
capitol building in Washington D.C., having followed his messages on Twier
directing them to gather there. On December 19, he tweeted: “Big protest in D.C.
on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” On December 26, he tweeted, “Never give
up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.” He repeated multiple times his
invitation to gather in D.C. to his supporters on December 27, January 1, 3, and 4.
All this was in support of his allegation that he had really won the election in
spite of overwhelming data to the contrary. When addressing the assembled
crowd on January 6, he said,
Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through, and you have to get
your people to fight. . . . And aer this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you.
We’re going to walk down. . . . We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. . . .
(e complete transcript of what was said at this rally is at the link at the end
of this text box.)
Figure 9.6 Washington, D.C.—January 6, 2021: Trump supporters rioting at the U.S.
Capitol.
source: www.shuersto.com/image-photo/dc-january-6-2021-trump-
supporters-1888654336
Discussed in this apter is Brown’s (2021) proposal that the four processes of
audience involvement can potentially be progressive, one leading to the next.
is facilitates an understanding of how individuals who followed Donald Trump
might have been motivated to participate in the activities of January 6, 2021. As
already noted, transportation has the power to affect beliefs and aitudes held by
the viewer (Green & Bro, 2000). As a viewer is absorbed and transported into
the reality being painted by the favorite celebrity, it is possible for a parasocial
relationship (PSR) to then result. e audience member comes to “know” the
celebrity and experiences a sense of relationship, even though it is not
reciprocated. As this PSR becomes more intense, identification with the celebrity
can cause the adoption of values, beliefs, and behavior anges. If persona or
celebrity worship results at the borderline pathological level (McCuteon et al.,
2003), the results can be abnormal and harmful causing the audience members to
be willing to do anything to please the celebrity, even if these things are illegal.
is is one possible sequence of processes. Another might be that the follower,
over time, developed a parasocial relationship su that when the scenario that
the election had been “stolen” was proposed, it was easy to be transported into
the rhetoric of this perspective. Identification can follow in either case or might
be concurrent with either transportation or PSR. e important point is that these
four processes are fluid and subject to movement and ange as the interaction
and involvement with the celebrity anges over time.
Social media can facilitate the direct communication from the media celebrity
to the audience as happened on Twier when Trump invited his followers to
come to Washington, D.C. is communication enhances a feeling of belonging.
e savvy celebrity can use media to further enhance the illusion that a
relationship has formed. In the aermath of January 6, it became clear that
members of the insurrection saw themselves as doing Trump’s bidding and were
shoed when he did not come to their aid as they were arrested aer the aa
on the Capitol (Sirota, 2021).
is appears to be a case of either transportation leading to a PSR, or the PSR
leading to transportation, and identification with a media celebrity that resulted
in willingness to break the law, a defining feature of borderline pathological
celebrity worship (McCuteon et al., 2003). Note that clearly not all of Trump’s
supporters were or are engaged in this type of celebrity worship. is illustration
of the process by whi borderline pathological celebrity worship can take place
is specifically about those who aaed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. It also
should be pointed out that not all the supporters who gathered on the mall that
day participated in the aa. is would be consistent with data showing that
only 3% to 5% of people fit into that category of celebrity worshipper (Stever,
2011).
e timeline on events leading up to January 6, 2021, was taken from
www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-
riot/.
Conclusion
is apter has explored various forms of connections that audience members
form with various types of media. It is important to recognize that these states are
fluid and may morph one into the other as a viewer engages with media.
Transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and persona worship can all
be present in the same viewer and may morph from one to the other depending on
the moment and the content of the current media message (Brown, 2021; Cohen &
Klimmt, 2021). A person can be a fan at many levels, from the casual fan to the
very commied fan (Stever, 2009). It is important to remember that the line
between audience members and media producers is blurry at best.
estions for ought and Discussion
1. Have you ever been a huge fan of some media program, person, or
phenomenon? How did this affect your life at that time?
2. Have you experienced “transportation,” or becoming so immersed in a
narrative that you forgot where and who you were?
3. inking about PSR, identification, and celebrity worship, were there any
of these concepts that you thought applied to your experience?
4. How do you think the public perception of “fans” relates to the actual
experience? Have you observed or experienced a situation where being a
fan was stigmatized?
5. Has your own commitment to various forms of media been transient (i.e.,
anged along the way), or are there some things of whi you are a fan
that have been a part of your life for a long time? Have you ever joined a
fan club? Why or why not?
6. Is the public perception of a sports fan similar to that of other media
fans? Is one considered more acceptable or “normal” than the other?
7. If your very favorite band or artist were performing, how far would you
be willing to travel to see them? What factors might influence su a
decision?
8. Have you ever strongly identified with a media figure? How did this
affect you at the time? Was the influence a good one, a bad one, or a
mixed one?
9. Have you met one of your favorite celebrities? Or have you had an
interaction with a famous person on social media? What was that
experience like? Did it ange the way you thought or felt about that
celebrity?
Recommended Reading
Brown, W. J. (2015). Examining four processes of audience involvement
with media personae: Transportation, parasocial interaction,
identification, and worship. Communication Theory, 25(3), 259–283.
Giles, D. C. (2018). Twenty-first century celebrity: Fame in digital culture.
Bingley, Yorks: Emerald.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969, July). Individual differences in strangesituational
behaviour of one-year-olds. is paper was read at a
meeting of the Study Group on Human Social Relations, London.
Bacon-Smith, C. (1992). Enterprising women: Television fandom and the
creation of popular myth. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Bollas, C. (1993). Being a character: Psychoanalysis and self-experience.
London: Routledge.
Bowlby, J., & Ainsworth, M. (1992). e origins of aament theory.
Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.28.5.759
Branscombe, N. R., Smi, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving
pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for
group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(1), 135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
Brown, W. (2021). Involvement with media personae and entertainment
experiences. In P. Vorderer & C. Klimmt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of entertainment theory (pp. 285–304). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bruni, F. (1998, November 22). Behind the jokes, a life of pain and delusion;
for Leerman stalker, mental illness was family curse and scarring
legacy. The New York Times.
Busse, K. (2016). Beyond Mary Sue: Fan representation and the complex
negotiation of gendered identity. In L. Benne & P. Booth (Eds.),
Seeing fans: Representations of fandom in media and popular culture
(pp. 159–168). New York: Bloomsbury.
Cli, M., & Bro, N. (2016). Marking the line between producers and
fans: Representations of fannish-ness in Doctor Who and Sherlock. In L.
Benne & P. Booth (Eds.), Seeing fans: Representations of fandom in
media and popular culture (pp. 117–126). New York & London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Cohen, Jonathan. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the
identification of audiences with media aracters. Mass
Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264.
doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
Cohen, Jonathan. (2014). Current resear on fandom, parasocial
relationships, and identification. In M. B. Oliver & A. A. Raney (Eds.),
Media and social life (pp. 142–156). New York: Routledge.
Cohen, Jonathan, Appel, M., & Slater, M. D. (2020). Media, identity, and the
self. In M. B. Oliver, A. A. Raney, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 179–194). New York: Routledge.
Cohen, Jonathan, & Klimmt, C. (2021). Stepping in and out of media
aracters. In P. Vorderer & C. Klimmt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
entertainment theory (pp. 267–284). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Cohen, Jonathan, Tal-Or, N., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2015). e
tempering effect of transportation: Exploring the effects of
transportation and identification during exposure to controversial twosided
narratives. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 237–258.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12144
Cohen, Jonathan, Weimann-Saks, D., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2018). Does
aracter similarity increase identification and persuasion? Media
Psychology, 21(3), 506–528. doi:10.1080/15213269.2017.1302344
Croer, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: e selfprotective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608
Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Freud, S. (1989/1940). An outline of psychoanalysis (J. Straey, Trans.).
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Giamo, L. S., Smi, M. T., & Ouen, H. R. (2012). Perceived
discrimination, group identification, and life satisfaction among
multiracial people: A test of the rejection-identification model. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(4), 319.
doi:10.1037/a0029729
Giles, D. (2020). Challenges for parasocial resear: Some critiques, some
threats, and some potential solutions. In K. Shakleford (Ed.), Real
characters: The psychology of parasocial relationships with media
characters (pp. 301–322). Santa Barbara, CA: Fielding University Press.
Green, M. C. (2021). Transportation into narrative worlds. In L. B. Frank &
P. Falzone (Eds.), Entertainment-education behind the scenes (pp. 87–
102). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave McMillan.
Green, M. C., & Bro, T. C. (2000). e role of transportation in the
persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(5), 701. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Green, M. C., Bro, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media
enjoyment: e role of transportation into narrative worlds.
Communication Theory, 14(4), 311–327. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2004.tb00317.x
Harrington, C., & Bielby, D. (1995). Soap fans: Pursuing pleasure and
making meaning in everyday life. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Hermes, J. (2009). Audience Studies 2.0: On the theory, politics, and method
of qualitative audience resear. Interactions: Studies in
Communication & Culture, 1(1), 111–127. doi:10.1386/iscc.1.1.111/1
Hills, M. (2002). Fan cultures. East Sussex, UK: Psyology Press.
Hills, M. (2005). Paerns of surprise: e “aleatory object” in
psyoanalytic ethnography and cyclical fandom. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48(7), 801–821. doi:10.1177/0002764204273169
Hills, M. (2017). Psyoanalysis as an engagement with fans’ “InfraOrdinary”
experiences. In M. A. Cli & S. Sco (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to media fandom (pp. 18–26). London: Routledge.
Hinerman, S. (1992). I’ll be here with you: Fans, fantasy and the figure of
Elvis. In L. A. Lewis (Ed.), The adoring audience: Fan culture and
popular media (pp. 107–134). London: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory
culture. New York: Routledge.
Jenson, J. (1992). Fandom as pathology: e consequences of
aracterization. In L. A. Lewis (Ed.), The adoring audience: Fan
culture and popular media (pp. 9–29). London: Routledge.
Johanssen, J. (2018). Psychoanalysis and digital culture: Audiences, social
media, and big data. London: Routledge.
Kelly, B. D. (2005). Erotomania. CNS Drugs, 19(8), 657–669.
doi:10.2165/00023210-200519080-00002
Laswell, M. (1948). e structure and function of communication in
society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 216–228).
New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
Lee, K. (2003). Confronting enterprise slash fan fiction. Extrapolation, 44(1),
69–82. doi:10.3828/extr.2003.44.1.09
Lewis, L. (1992). The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media.
London: Routledge.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCuteon, L. E., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2006).
Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation:
Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship
within a clinical personality context. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40(2), 273–283. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.004
Manente, K. (2019). How to keep fanficiton legal and avoid trouble with
lawyers. Retrieved from www.syfy.com/syfywire/how-to-keep-
fanfiction-legal-and-avoid-trouble-with-lawyers
McCuteon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., Houran, J., & Maltby, J. (2003). A cognitive
profile of individuals who tend to worship celebrities. The Journal of
Psychology, 137(4), 309–322. doi: 10.1080/00223980309600616
Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1986). Manual for the Myers-Briggs type
indicator: A guide to the development and use of the MBTI. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psyologist Press.
Oatley, K. (1999). Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and
identification, in reading fiction. Poetics, 26(5–6), 439–454.
doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00011-X
Paravati, E., Naidu, E., Gabriel, S., & Wiedemann, C. (2019, December 23).
More than just a tweet: e unconscious impact of forming parasocial
relationships through social media. Psychology of Consciousness:
Theory, Research, and Practice. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1037/cns0000214
Penley, C. (1992). Feminism, psyoanalysis, and popular culture. In
Grossberg et al. (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 479–500). New York:
Routledge.
Press, A., & Livingstone, S. (2006). Taking audience resear into the age of
new media: Old problems and new allenges. In M. White & J.
Swo (Eds.), Questions of method in cultural studies (pp. 175–200).
Oxford: Blawell Publishing.
Radway, J. A. (1983). Women read the romance: e interaction of text and
context. Feminist Studies, 9(1), 53–78. doi:10.2307/3177683
Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. London: Routledge.
Sirota, D. (2021). e insurrection was predictable. Jacobin. Retrieved from
hps://jacobinmag.com/2021/01/capitol-building-storming-far-right-
election
Slater, M. D., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Woods, K. W. (2018). Extending
conceptualization and measurement of narrative engagement aer-thefact:
Parasocial relationship and retrospective imaginative
involvement. Media Psychology, 21(3), 329–351.
doi:10.1080/152123269.2017.1328313
Stever, G. (1990). Interpersonal attraction: Personality types of heroes and
their admirers (Unpublished Master’s esis). Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ.
Stever, G. (1991). e celebrity appeal questionnaire. Psychological Reports,
68, 859–866. doi:10.2466/pr0.1991.68.3.859
Stever, G. (1994). Parasocial attachments: Motivational antecedents
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ.
Stever, G. (2009). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities:
Classification of media fans. Journal of Media Psychology, 14(3), 1–39.
Stever, G. (2011). Celebrity worship: Critiquing a construct. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1356–1370. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00765.x
Stever, G. (2013). Mediated vs. parasocial relationships: An aament
perspective. Journal of Media Psychology, 17(3), 1–31.
Stever, G. (2017). Parasocial theory: Concepts and measures. In P. Rï (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of media effects. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlawell.
doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0069
Stever, G. (2019). Fan studies in psyology: A road less traveled.
Transformative Works and Cultures, 30. doi:10.3983/twc.2019.1641
Stever, G., & Lawson, K. (2013). Twier as a way for celebrities to
communicate with fans: Implications for the study of parasocial
interaction. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 597–612.
Tague, A. M., Reysen, S., & Plante, C. (2020). Belongingness as a mediator
of the relationship between felt stigma and identification in fans. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 160(3), 324–331.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2019.1667748
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worel, S. (1979). An integrative
theory of intergroup conflict. In M. J. Hat & M. Sultz (Eds.),
Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Tal-Or, N., & Cohen, Jonathan. (2010). Understanding audience
involvement: Conceptualizing and manipulating identification and
transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402–418. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.004
Tukainsky, R., & Stever, G. (2019). eorizing development of parasocial
engagement. Communication Theory, 29(3), 297–318.
doi:10.1093/ct/qty032
Tukainsky, R., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). 10 e effects of engagement
with entertainment. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 37(1), 287–322. doi:10.1080/23808985.2013.11679153
Verba, J. M. (2003). Boldly writing. Minneapolis, MN: FTL Publications.
Winnico, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Penguin.
Winnico, D. W. (2018). The maturational processes and the facilitating
environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. London:
Routledge.
Yates, B. L. (2015). It’s social, not parasocial: Understanding the impact of
the Internet on building community among Bruce Springsteen fans.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(5), 254–268.
doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.1090438