Social and Parasocial Relationships on Social Network Sites

Social and Parasocial Relationships on Social Network Sites and Their Differential Relationships

with Users’Psychological Well-Being

Young Min Baek,PhD,1

Young Bae,PhD,2and Hyunmi Jang,MS 3

Abstract

With the advent of social network sites (SNSs),people can ef?ciently maintain preexisting social relationships

and make online friendships without of?ine encounters.While such technological features of SNSs hold a variety of potential for individual and collective bene?ts,some scholars warn that use of SNSs might lead to socially negative consequences,such as social isolation,erosion of social cohesion,or SNS addiction.This study distinguishes types of SNS relationships,and investigates their relationships with social isolation,interpersonal trust,and SNS addiction.We classify SNS relationships into two types:(a)social relationships based on reci-procity between a user and his/her friends,and (b)parasocial relationships in which an ordinary user is aware of activities of a celebrity (e.g.,famous actors,athletes,and others)but not vice versa.Based on achievements in studies of media effect and social psychology,we constructed a set of hypotheses,and tested them using a subsample of SNS users drawn from representative survey data in South Korea.We found that dependency on parasocial relationships is positively related with loneliness but negatively correlated with interpersonal distrust,while dependency on social relationship is negatively correlated with loneliness but positively related with trust.However,more dependency on both social and parasocial relationships are positively related with SNS ad-diction.Implications based on ?ndings are also discussed.

Introduction

S

ocial network sites (SNSs)such as Twitter,Facebook,Cyworld,or MySpace provide mediated social relation-ships enabling users to share their thoughts with friends,re-store old relationships with acquaintances,and make online friendships without of?ine encounters.1,2SNSs are different from conventional mass media,in terms of interactivity,and instant and personalized communication based on social networks.2While social media are different from mass media,both are dominant platforms for mediated communication in a modern society.Since people interact with others using communication technologies,the emergence of a new me-dium is expected to change existing social interaction.3Human relationships are an important factor in?uencing constructs often used to de?ne the quality of psychological well-being,such as loneliness or belongingness,trust towards others,and technology addiction.Therefore,diffusion of a new medium changes how people interact with others,which in turn in?uences people’s psychological well-being.

In this vein,it is natural to observe scholastic controversies over the effect of SNS use on psychological well-being.On one hand,some scholars expect that frequent message ex-change between SNS friends helps people to form stronger membership 2,4and also to obtain so-called ‘‘weak ties’’5that provide users with a greater volume and higher quality of news.Conversely,others contend that these newly available SNS relationships are super?cial or ephemeral,and that they displace authentic face to face relationships,which in turn leads to social isolation and dismantles social cohesion.6,7The goal of this study is to explain why SNS use can result in such opposite in?uences by distinguishing types of SNS mediated relationships.

Two types of SNS relationship

Basically put,SNSs comprise a new type of online service.In order to evaluate SNSs’effects on users’psychological well-being,it is helpful to refer to previous studies examining people’s different usage of the Internet and its social

1Department of Communication,Yonsei University,Seoul,Republic of Korea.

2

Department of Information Sociology,Soongsil University,Seoul,Republic of Korea.3

Department of Communication,Seoul National University,Seoul,Republic of Korea.

C YBERPSYCHOLOGY ,B EHAVIOR ,AN

D S OCIAL N ETWORKING Volume 16,Number 7,2013ªMary Ann Liebert,Inc.

DOI:10.1089/cyber.2012.0510

512

psychological consequences.Past scholarship of the issue has concluded that the Internet effect is neither positively nor negatively monolithic.For example,studies have found that networking oriented Internet uses(e.g.,e-mail,instant chat-ting,online forums)help build expansive human networks, strengthen social bonding,and promote social trust,but en-tertainment oriented Internet use leads to loneliness,social distrust,or Internet addiction.8–12In this sense,it can be in-ferred that the effect of SNSs on psychological well-being might change,depending on the type of SNS use. Regarding the type of SNS use,Kwak et al.’s study found that some Twitter users mutually follow each other,while others only follow other users without mutual interaction.13 Put differently,some Twitter users’interaction is symmetric, like interpersonal conversation,but others’interaction is asymmetric,that is,one user follows the other but not vice versa,like an audience consuming mass media content.Re-lying on data from Facebook users,Burke et al.also found that mutual relationships with Facebook friends increase so-cial capital(i.e.,quality of social networks)and decrease loneliness,but asymmetric relationships(e.g.,more receiving but less giving messages)hurt social capital and increase loneliness.14In short,whether a SNS relationship is inter-personal(i.e.,reciprocal)is a diverging condition to differ-entiate the effect of SNSs on psychological well-being. Parasocial relationships and their relationships

with psychological well-being

This study thus distinguishes reciprocal relationships from unidirectional ones,where an ordinary SNS user receives messages from celebrities,such as movie stars,singers,ath-letes,or politicians.1516In the literature of media psychology, such unilateral relationships have been conceptualized as parasocial relationships,de?ned as‘‘simulacrum of conversa-tional give and take’’between the mass media performers and the audience.17(p215)For example,SNS users making ‘‘SNS friendships’’with celebrities hold imaginary unilateral relationships,which are clearly distinguished from reciprocal ones where two(or more)users know one another.For a parasocial relationship to be effective,according to Horton and Wohl,17(p125)the audience should form the‘‘illusion of[a] face-to-face relationship[with a performer].within which much may be added by fantasy’’because the performer is not aware of the audience and their reactions.

Because parasocial relationships between the audience and performers lack reciprocity and authenticity,past scholarship tested whether the audience of parasocial relationships shows symptoms of poor psychological well-being,such as loneli-ness,alienation,or life dissatisfaction.For example,McQuail et al.argue that people’s desire for parasocial relationships leads to de?ciency in social life because such relationships are merely illusionary compensation for unsatisfactory real world relationships.18,19Thus,indulgence in parasocial rela-tionships leads to social isolation,detaches the audience from real relationships,and results in heavy mass media con-sumption.20–22Although some studies have found that neg-ative effects of parasocial relationships might be overcome if audience members successfully identify themselves with media performers,23,24many studies have con?rmed that parasocial relationships with celebrities whose lives are very distant from those of ordinary people more or less result in life dissatisfaction,frustration,alienation,or loneliness,17,25,26 and serious indulgence in media use to escape from the re-ality(i.e.,obsessed media use,loss of control).7,17If such reasoning is accurate,we can expect that:

H1:Dependency on parasocial relationships with celebrities on SNSs is positively related with loneliness and SNS

addiction,but negatively related with interpersonal trust

among SNS users.

Reciprocal relationships and their relationships

with psychological well-being

While parasocial SNS relationships between users and ce-lebrities resemble the mass media model,mutually interac-tive SNS friendships are akin to conversations via phones, e-mail exchange,or online chatting.13Since mutually inter-active online communication is interpersonal,like face to face interaction,a past studies have demonstrated that reciprocal interaction on the Internet strengthens existing friend-ships10,12,27and even facilitates of?ine meetings,which in turn lowers loneliness and forti?es social bonding.11Thus,we can anticipate that:

H2a:Reciprocal social relationships on SNSs are negatively related with loneliness but positively related with in-

terpersonal trust.

However,in terms of SNS addiction(i.e.,obsessed SNS use):

H2b:Dependency on reciprocal social relationships on SNSs could be positively correlated with SNS addiction.

This is because active interaction with SNS friends means users are more attentive on the given SNS,and users might be afraid that SNS abstinence might hurt the ongoing reciprocal relationship.

Methods

Sample

To test the hypotheses,national representative survey data were used.Survey respondents were recruited from the Ko-rean Ipsos panel,which is an online survey service based on national samples of Internet users in South Korea.There are about660,000people on the Ipsos panel.Out of these,a total of 404Korean adults who use at least one SNS(e.g.,Twitter, Facebook,me2day,Cyworld,or other services)were recruited to test our hypotheses.The survey was conducted in January 2012.On average,selected respondents utilized two SNSs (M=2.20,SD=1.10;median=2)and reported they used SNSs about six days per week(M=5.62,SD=2.28,median=6).

Types of SNS relationship

We distinguish social(i.e.,reciprocal)relationships from parasocial ones.To measure both types of relationship,we asked respondents for the number of their mutual SNS friendships and the number of their nonmutual ones with celebrities,such as movie stars,athletes,or politicians.In the case of Twitter,we distinguished mutual following from mere following.The distribution of social relationships was skewed,indicating that some respondents reported to have many relationships(M=51.03,SD=179.69,range0–3,000).

SOCIAL AND PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES513

However,the median number of reciprocal relationships was 10,which corresponds to previous?ndings on the number of acquaintances per person.28In the case of parasocial rela-tionships,the problem of skewed distribution was also found (M=9.03,SD=12.77,median=4,range0–80).

To adjust for the skewed distribution,the number of each relationship was log transformed(M social=1.16,SD social= 0.65,range0–3.48;M parasocial=0.70,SD parasocial=0.55,range 0–1.91).The two types of SNS relationship are slightly cor-related with each other(r=0.25,p<0.001).b

Measures of psychological well-being

This study examined three constructs of psychological well-being:(a)loneliness,(b)interpersonal trust,and(c)SNS addiction.First,the UCLA loneliness scale29was modi?ed and shortened for the SNS context in Korea.There were?ve statements in the loneliness scale:‘‘When using SNS,I feel isolated from others’’;‘‘SNS friends are not‘with’me’’;‘‘When using SNS,I feel sometimes left out’’;‘‘No SNS friends know the‘real’me’’;and‘‘SNS relationships are super?cial.’’Based on a conventional5-point Likert scale(1=‘‘strongly disagree,’’5=‘‘strongly agree’’),respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement(Cronbach’s a=0.89,M=2.70,SD=0.74).

Second,interpersonal trust was measured using Rotter’s interpersonal trust scale,30which was modi?ed for the SNS context in Korea.There were?ve statements in the inter-personal trust scale:‘‘Online users in general try to take advantage of others’’;‘‘Generally speaking,online users are sel?sh’’;‘‘You can’t be too careful when dealing with online users’’;‘‘Online users in general are fair’’;and‘‘Generally speaking,online users can be trusted.’’Respondents were asked to estimate their agreement with the?ve statements, based on a5-point Likert scale.After reversely coding the ?rst three statements,respondents’agreement on the?ve

statements was averaged(Cronbach’s a=0.84,M=3.55, SD=0.66).

Finally,SNS addiction was measured by modifying the Korean Internet addiction scale for the SNS context.31Basi-cally,SNS addiction aims to measure the degree of perceived obsession of SNS use or withdrawal symptoms from SNS abstinence.There were four statements on the SNS addiction scale:‘‘Whenever I have time,I log on to my SNS account’’;‘‘Frequently,I regret I consume too much time using SNS services’’;‘‘If I could not use SNS services,I would be de-pressed’’;and‘‘If I stopped using SNS,my social relationships would be ruined.’’Using the same scale as for the other constructs,respondents’agreement on the four statements was averaged(Cronbach’s a=0.83,M=2.94,SD=0.86). Statistical controls

Socio-demographical variables and SNS behaviors were additionally controlled for statistical adjustment.The socio-demographical variables were the respondents’gender,age (measured in years),monthly income,and educational achievement.Regarding SNS behaviors,a self-report of daily SNS use(measured by the hour)and number of SNS accounts was included.A dichotomous variable for whether a re-spondent used Twitter was also added because Twitter is the most popular SNS for forming parasocial interactions with celebrities.Descriptive statistics of socio-demographics and SNS behaviors can be found in Table1.

Results

To test the hypotheses,three outcome variables were re-gressed on two types of SNS relationships as well as seven statistical controls.Results of ordinary least square regression analyses are provided in Table2.As shown in the column under loneliness,SNS users’subjective loneliness is nega-tively related with social relationships(b=-0.18,p<0.01).By contrast,users’loneliness is positively related with depen-dency on parasocial relationship(b=0.14,p<0.001). Interpersonal trust,however,shows opposite patterns. SNS users’interpersonal trust is positively related with de-pendency on social relationships on SNSs(b=0.15,p<0.01), but it is negatively correlated with dependency on parasocial relationships with celebrities(b=-0.16,p<0.05).

Unlike loneliness and interpersonal trust,the number of social relationships on SNS addiction shows positive rela-tionships with both social and parasocial relationships on SNS(b=0.41,p<0.001in social relationships;b=0.36, p<0.001in parasocial relationships).

To sum up,higher reliance on social relationships is neg-atively related with subjective loneliness and interper-sonal trust,but positively related with indulgence in SNS use. Table1.Descriptive Statistics of Statistical Controls

Frequency Percentage Gender

Male22957% Female17543% Age

19–2913233% 30–3913433% 40–498421% q505413% Educational achievement

Less than high school graduate61% High school graduate5915% College/BA30074% Advanced degree over BA3910% Monthly income{

<$1,00011729% $1,000–$2,00011027% $2,000–$3,0009123% $3,000–$4,0004110% $4,000–$5,000184% $5,000–$6,000154% q$7,000123% Time use for SNS(hour)M=2.19(SD=3.12) Number of SNS accounts

1account14536%

2accounts10225%

3accounts9022% q4accounts6717% Twitter users

Users16040% Nonusers24460% Note.N=404.Monthly income{was measured by Korean Won but is translated to U.S.dollars here.

514BAEK ET AL.

However,higher dependency on parasocial relationships is positively related with feelings of isolation,lowers interper-sonal distrust,and addictive SNS use.In short,our research hypotheses (H1,H2a,and H2b)are supported by the em-pirical results.Discussion

The goal of this study was to test the effect of SNS use on users’psychological well-being,in terms of subjective lone-liness,interpersonal trust,and SNS addiction.Past scholar-ship shows controversy over the nature of SNSs’effect on psychological well-being.Some argue that SNSs fortify pre-existing human networks and go beyond constrained of?ine relationships,which in turn reduces loneliness and promotes interpersonal trust.Others,however,focus on the quality of relationships formed via SNSs,and argue that SNS relation-ships reduce authentic face to face interaction,which in-creases social isolation and erodes interpersonal trust.

By focusing on types of relationships formed via SNS,this study distinguishes reciprocal relationships where two users know each other from unidirectional ones where one parti-cipant knows the other but not vice versa.Borrowing the concept of parasocial relationships from media psychology,we focus on unidirectional SNS relationships in which an ordinary user watches the SNS activities of celebrities but the celebrities are not aware of the user’s activities.Results show that higher reliance on parasocial SNS relationships is posi-tively related with loneliness and distrust,with which de-pendency on social relationships is negatively related.However,both types of SNS relationship are correlated with addictive SNS use.

Our ?ndings clearly show that a monolithic view of the

effect of SNSs is na?

¨ve and unrealistic.From the perspective of psychological well-being,what matters is whether SNS related relationships are reciprocal (i.e.,interpersonal).De-pending on the type of SNS mediated relationship,SNS use may either enhance or harm users’psychological well-being.Despite the difference between SNS mediated and face to face interaction,the psychological functions of SNS relationships,if reciprocal ,would be similarly bene?cial to those of face to face ones.As far as SNS mediated rela-tionships are mutual,our ?ndings suggest that SNS effects seem to be positive for both individual mental health and social cohesion.However,if a person does not use SNSs reciprocally,s/he might not accrue mental bene?ts.There-fore,psychological research and/or clinical studies in the future should be oriented to such users,rather than SNS users in general.

Despite yielding interesting ?ndings about the effects of SNSs on users’psychological well-being,this study suffers from several limitations.First,causality based on cross-sectional survey might not be determined,and thus descrip-tion of our ?ndings fails to adopt causal terms.While prior studies assume the effect of media use on psychological well-being,cross-sectional survey data do not tell whether media use affects psychological well-being or vice versa.To solve this causality issue,future studies should replicate this one while relying on longitudinal panel data.

Second,this study lacks a mediating psychological state between dependency on SNS relationships and measures of psychological well-being.Prior studies found that people form different attachment styles,32,33which mediates para-social relationships with psychological outcomes examined in this study.Psychological mediators are imperative,especially for SNS addiction.While this study found that both social and parasocial relationships are related with SNS addiction,each relationship could be differently mediated.For example,SNS users highly dependent on social relationships may tend toward addiction in order to fortify their existing

Table 2.Results of Ordinary Least Square Regressions Testing the Effects of Types of SNS Relationships

on Loneliness,Interpersonal Trust,and SNS Addiction

Loneliness

Interpersonal trust SNS addiction

Baseline model

Test model

Baseline model Test model

Baseline model

Test model

Intercept 2.35***(0.25) 2.48***(0.26) 3.57***(0.23) 3.49***(0.24) 2.62***(0.29) 1.86***(0.28)

Gender (female =1)0.06(0.08)0.05(0.08)0.01(0.07)0.02(0.07)0.04(0.09)0.13(0.08)Age (unit =10years)0.13**(0.04)0.10*(0.04)-0.05(0.04)-0.02(0.04)0.04(0.05)0.05(0.04)Educational achievement 0.02(0.07)0.04(0.07)0.10(0.06)0.08(0.06)0.08(0.08)0.05(0.07)Household income 0.01(0.02)0.02(0.02)-0.03(0.02)-0.04(0.02)-0.02(0.03)-0.04(0.03)Time use for SNS (hour)0.02(0.01)0.01(0.01)-0.03**(0.01)-0.03*(0.01)0.04**(0.01)0.03*(0.01)Number of SNS accounts -0.06(.04)-0.07(0.04)-0.02(0.03)-0.01(0.04)-0.08(0.04)0.01(0.04)Twitter-only users (1if yes)0.04(0.08)0.04(0.08)

-0.01(0.08)

0.01(0.08)0.15(0.10)0.04(0.09)Number of social

relationships (log transformed)

-0.18**(0.06)0.15**(0.06)0.41***(0.07)Number of parasocial relationships (log transformed)0.14*(0.07)-0.16*(0.06)

0.36***(0.08)

R 20.040.070.040.060.050.20

D R 20.03**0.02**0.15***Adj.R 20.030.05

0.020.04

0.03

0.18

Note .*p <0.05,**p <0.01,***p <0.001.Columns indicate unstandardized regression coef?cients with standard errors in parentheses.Social relationship indicates that a user and the user’s SNS friends know each other,while parasocial relationship indicates that a user knows celebrities but not vice versa.

SOCIAL AND PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 515

friendships.However,those highly relying on parasocial re-lationships might tend toward addiction in order to escape from their existing friendships.Conceptualizing those miss-ing mediators may empirically solve why different types of relationships are similarly related with addictive SNS use. Third,this study focuses only on the number of relation-ships of each type,but not the intensity of each relationship. For example,assume two SNS users,one of whom forms10 reciprocal relationships while the other has100relationships. In terms of intensely interactive relationships,the two users might not be different because most SNS activities happen around a few selected friends.5Even if a person forms100 reciprocal relationships,she mainly exchanges messages with her close friends or family members.While the number of relationships is still a meaningful measure of SNS use,future studies might derive interesting?ndings by conceptualizing different dimensions of SNS use that are not examined here, such as relationship intensity.

Fourth,parasocial relationships can be further divided.For example,SNS users can form parasocial relationships with noncelebrities(e.g.,famous bloggers).Also experience of parasocial relationships with celebrities might not be homo-geneous because some are responsive while others not.Based on previous studies,20,23,25parasocial relationships with noncelebrities or highly interactive celebrities reduces psy-chological distance between audience and target,which in turn increases identi?cation and results in psychological less negative or even positive outcomes.In other words,further classi?cation of parasocial relationships remains an interest-ing research question in the future.

Finally,intercultural differences should be critically considered.Given that the Korean culture is strongly char-acterized by collectivism,a strong association between dependency on SNS relationships and SNS addiction might re?ect the uniqueness of Korean society.Since people in a collectivistic culture feel a strong obligation to give prompt responses to others’communicative overtures,users main-taining more social relationships are more likely to be ad-dicted to SNSs.To assess whether?ndings from this study hold true elsewhere,replicating this study in a different cul-ture(e.g.,an individualistic culture like that of the United States)would be necessary.

Despite several limitations,our study’s?ndings are novel and demonstrate that the psychological effects of SNSs differ, depending on the way users form relationships with other users.This study also shows that interactive media originally designed for social interaction can be used like old-fashioned mass media,as exempli?ed by an audience’s imaginary re-lationship with celebrities.Most importantly,reciprocal SNS mediated relationships contribute to increases in social trust and belongingness,in the same way that face to face rela-tionships do.In terms of psychological well-being,this study advises that close examination of potentially problematic usages of SNSs(e.g.,parasocial relationships highlighted in this study),rather than SNSs themselves,would be more productive both theoretically and practically.

Notes

a.This study has no intention to argue reciprocal online mediated interaction is inferior or superior to a face to face one.Social presence theory,3,10for example,might argue that online mediated interaction is inferior to a face to face one because its social cues are limited.However,social informa-tion processing theory may argue that online mediated interaction could be more advantageous because users can engage in more selective self-presentation.

b.While the correlation between two types of SNS rela-tionships is not huge,the observed0.25correlation is not totally ignorable.In fact,time for SNS use shows a correlation between dependency on parasocial relationships(r=0.17, p<0.001)and dependency on social relationships(r=0.11, p<0.05),indicating that heavy SNS users are active in form-ing both types of relationships.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr.June Woong Rhee,Dr.Eunmee Kim, and Dr.Irkwon Jeong for their valuable comments on the?rst draft of this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing?nancial interests exist.

References

1.boyd dm,Ellison NB.Social network sites:de?nition,his-

tory,and scholarship.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2007;13:210–30.

2.Ellison NB,Stein?eld C,Lampe C.The bene?ts of Facebook

‘‘friends’’:social capital and college students’use of online social network sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-munication2007;12:1143–68.

3.Baym NK.(2010)Personal connections in the digital age.

Cambridge:Polity.

4.Freberg K,Adams R,McGaughey K,et al.The rich get ri-

cher:online and of?ine social connectivity predicts subjec-tive loneliness.Media Psychology Review2010;3.

5.Granovetter MS.The strength of weak ties.American Jour-

nal of Sociology1973;78:1360–80.

6.Gentzler AL,Oberhauser AM,Westerman D,et al.College

students’use of electronic communication with parents: links to loneliness,attachment,and relationship quality.

Cyberpsychology,Behavior,&Social Networking2011;

14:71–4.

7.Turkle S.(2011)Alone together:why we expect more from

technology and less from each other.New York:Basic Books.

8.Kraut R,Patterson M,Lundmark V,et al.Internet paradox:a

social technology that reduces social involvement and psy-chological well-being?American Psychologist1998;59:1017–

31.

9.Putnam RD.(2000)Bowling alone:the collapse and revival of

American community.New York:Simon&Schuster.

10.Stepanikova I,Nie NH,He X.Time on the Internet at home,

loneliness,and life satisfaction:evidence from panel time-diary puters in Human Behavior2010;26:329–38.

11.Wellman B,Haase AQ,Witte J,et al.Does the Internet in-

crease,decrease,or supplement social capital?American Behavioral Scientist2001;45:436–55.

12.Zhao S.Do Internet users have more social ties?A call for

differentiated analyses of Internet use.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2006;11:844–62.

13.Kwak H,Lee C,Park H,et al.(2010)What is Twitter,a social

network or a news media?Proceedings of the19th International Conference on World Wide Web.Raleigh,NC:ACM.

516BAEK ET AL.

14.Burke M,Marlow C,Lento T.(2010)Social network activity

and social well-being.Proceedings of the28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Atlanta, GA:ACM.

15.Lee E,Jang J.Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with

public?gures on social network sites:how af?liative tendency moderates its munication Research 2013;40:27–51.

16.Marwick A,boyd d.To see and be seen:celebrity practice on

Twitter.Convergence:The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies2011;17:139–58.

17.Horton D,Wohl RR.Mass communication and para-social

interaction:observations on intimacy at a distance.Psy-chiatry1956;19:215–29.

18.McQuail D.(2005)McQuail’s mass communication theory.

Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.

19.McQuail D,Blumer JG,Brown J.(1972)The television

audience:a revised perspective.In McQuail D,ed.Sociology of mass communication.Harmondsworth:Penguin,pp.135–65.

20.Giles DC.Parasocial interaction:a review of the literature

and a model for future research.Media Psychology2002;

4:279–305.

21.McCutcheon LE,Lange R,Houran J.Conceptualization and

measurement of celebrity worship.British Journal of Psy-chology2002;93:67–87.

22.Rosengren KE,Windahl S.(1972)Mass media consumption

as a functional alternative.In McQuail D,ed.Sociology of mass communication.Harmondsworth:Penguin,pp.166–94.

23.Rubin AM,Perse EM.Audience activity and soap opera

involvement:a uses and effects investigation.Human Communication Research1987;14:246–68.

24.Rubin AM,Perse EM,Powell RA.Loneliness,parasocial

interaction,and local television news viewing.Human Communication Research1985;12:155–80.

25.Ashe DD.Shyness,loneliness,and attitude toward celebri-

ties.Current Research in Social Psychology2001;6:124–33.

26.Hoffner C.Children’s wishful identi?cation and parasocial

interaction with favorite television characters.Journal of Broadcasting&Electronic Media1996;40:389–402.27.Braithwaite DO,Waldron VR,Finn munication of

social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities.Health Communication1999;11:123–51.

28.Brewer DD,Webster CM.Forgetting of friends and its effects

on measuring friendship networks.Social Networks2000;

21:361–73.

29.Russell D,Peplau LA,Cutrona CE.The revised UCLA Lone-

liness Scale:concurrent and discriminant validity evidence.

Journal of Personality&Social Psychology1980;39:472–80.

30.Rotter JB.Interpersonal trust,trustworthiness,and gullibil-

ity.American Psychologist1980;35:1–7.

31.National Information Society Agency.(2005)A study of

Internet Addiction Proneness Scale for Adults.Seoul:National Information Society Agency.

32.Nordlund JE.Media munication Research

1978;5:150–5.

33.Cole T,Leets L.Attachment styles and intimate television

viewing:insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial way.

Journal of Social&Personal Relationships1999;16:495–511.

Address correspondence to:

Dr.Young Min Baek

Department of Communication

Yonsei University

50Yonsei-ro,Seodaemun

Seoul

Republic of Korea(120-749)

E-mail:ymbaek@

or

Dr.Young Bae

Department of Information Sociology

Soongshil University

511Sangdo-Dong,Dongjak-gu

Seoul

Republic of Korea(156-743)

E-mail:ybae@ssu.ac.kr

SOCIAL AND PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES517

Copyright of CyberPsychology,Behavior&Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann Liebert,Inc.and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However,users may print, download,or email articles for individual use.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/1plj.html