1
FAMILY COMMUNICATION AND THE PARASOCIAL PHENOMENON: EXPLORING IDENTITY
SALIENCE AND CONNECTIONS WITH MEDIA FIGURES
Introduction
Interpersonal relationships come in many forms and are not limited to
face-to- face interactions as they may be mediated through a variety of
channels. Research shows that interpersonal communication is paramount
for creating a sense of self and building social networks (McDermott, 2009).
And patterns of interpersonal communication are learned from socializing
forces that shape children’s interaction. The family is one of the primary
socializing forces for children and interaction patterns and communication
that occurs within the family can shape subsequent interactions, both face-
to-face and online. One of the interactions that may be shaped by family
communication patterns are parasocial relationships and interactions which
may mimic interpersonal relationships. Parasocial relationships are one-
sided interactions with a media figure and extant research suggests that
they may function in ways that mimic other types of interpersonal
relationships (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987). If parasocial interactions can mimic
interpersonal interactions broadly, then it is important to consider the way
sense-of-self can impact interaction patterns, both face-to-face and
perceived. The Communication Theory of Identity suggests that there are
four types of identity dimensions that shape the way we see the world:
personal, enacted, relational, and communal. These dimensions are reflexive
in that we use them to shape not only one’s sense of self, but also the way
2
we understand and categorize others (Stets & Burke, 2000). This study seeks
to bridge these research areas by considering the role of family
3
communication on parasocial relating through the lens of identity salience,
specifically salience of the four dimensions of identity.
Broadly, the present study investigates the influence of family
communication patterns on the types of parasocial relationships into which
media audiences enter, and whether this relationship is mediated by
identity salience. The family unit is one of the primary socializing forces for
individuals and teaches one how to develop and maintain interpersonal
relationships that extend beyond the family (Ozmete, 2011). While a
parasocial relationship is one that takes place with a media figure and is not
interpersonal in a face-to-face traditional sense, it can be experienced as a
meaningful relationship on the part of the viewer (Horton & Wohl, 1956).
There is a large body of research examining the impact that family
communication has on face-to-face interpersonal relationship development
(e.g., Barbato, Graham, & Perse, 2009; Elwood & Schrader, 1998; Koesten,
2003; Koesten & Anderson, 2009), but the extant literature has failed to
consider how family communication influences parasocial relationship
development.
This examination is composed of three studies which build upon each
other to develop an understanding of how identity salience is related to
parasocial relating and the way family communication can shape these
relationships by impacting one’s sense of identity. Study 1 utilizes a created
measure of parasocial relating and identity salience to understand how
respondents perceive themselves as similar to a parasocial figure on
4
dimensions of identity. Study 1 also asks respondents to describe
themselves and how they think their parasocial figure would describe
themselves. I expect that
5
respondents will perceive themselves and their parasocial media figure in
similar terms representing similar dimensions of identity.
Study 2 is an extension of Study 1 and seeks to confirm the measure
of parasocial relating and identity salience tested in Study 1 and also
consider the role of family communication patterns. Like Study 1, Study 2
uses an online survey to measure respondent’s sense-of-self and perceived
sense-of-self of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, Study 2 utilizes a measure of family communication, namely
conversation orientation and conformity orientation, to understand the role
that these family conversation patterns may have on identity salience and
parasocial relating. I expect that families that emphasize uniformity in
beliefs and that family functioning is of highest importance will also be more
likely to perceive similarity to parasocial figures on relational and communal
aspects of identity as these aspects of identity emphasize group functioning
and interpersonal relationships/structure. Conversely, families with a more
democratic style that emphasize diverse opinions and beliefs will be more
likely to perceive similarity to parasocial figures on personal and enacted
aspects of identity as these aspects of identity emphasize individuality and
expression.
Study 3 will use an experiment to advance the findings from Study 2
by considering how family communication salience influences perceived
similarity to a new media character. This is a departure from Studies 1 and 2
which considered similarity to a parasocial figure, but may shed light on how
6
these relationships form. By looking at perceived similarity to a new
character, we might begin to understand how a new character is perceived
when a particular family communication pattern is made salient. Specifically,
I expect the findings from Study 3 to advance the findings from Study 2 and
7
show that families with more democratic communication styles are more
likely to perceive similarity to the new character on personal and enacted
aspects of identity whereas families that emphasize uniformity of beliefs is
more likely to perceive similarity to the new character on relational and
communal aspects of identity.
Because different family communication patterns emphasize different
dimensions of identity (e.g., whether one has an increased focus on personal
identity characteristics, communal/group characteristics, etc.), it is possible
that particular family communication patterns make specific identity aspects
more/less salient, thereby influencing the ways we view parasocial
relationships and media figures. To examine the interaction between family
communication, identity salience, and parasocial relationships, I will
highlight each of these concepts individually, with a detailed focus on the
proposed interaction of family communication and identity salience in order
to show how these variables impact parasocial relationship development. I
will begin with a conceptualization of parasocial relationships to
contextualize the interaction and proposed model.
8
Literature Review
Parasocial Relationships: What they are and how they
Function
For many individuals, interpersonal relationships are not limited to
face-to-face interactions but may also extend to online relationships. This
may be true even in situations when relationships are one-sided and lack
dyadic interaction. A parasocial relationship (PSR) is one that takes place
between a user of mass media and a media figure or persona that appears
in the media (Horton & Wohl, 1956). These relationships are formed
because mass media often create an illusion of a face-to-face relationship
between the spectator and the media figure (Horton & Wohl, 1956). There
are a variety of considerations that may impact the types of character with
which one forms a parasocial relationship. Relatedly, the way we view these
characters may be shaped partly by environment and also by one’s own
perspective on others, suggesting that both personal identity as well as
interpersonal interactions may shape our parasocial interactions.
The parasocial phenomenon broadly encompasses a variety of
parasocial concepts, including PSRs, parasocial interaction (PSI), and
parasocial break-up (Shackleford, 2020). Parasocial interaction is the
interaction that happens between a media persona and user during media
exposure, whereas parasocial relationships refer to a “cross-situational
relationship” that a viewer continues to feel even after the media exposure
9
has ended (Schmid & Klimmt, 2011; Schramm & Hartmann, 2008).
Therefore, PSI is restricted to the specific media exposure whereas PSR can
endure beyond the exposure and create a long-lasting, albeit one-sided,
relationship. There are conceptual
10
distinctions between the different parasocial phenomena, but they have
largely been treated similarly in the literature. PSI interactions are often
studied beyond the moment of exposure using traditional PSR measures,
justifying my examination of these concepts (PSI and PSR) interchangeably
as they relate to family communication and identity salience. Parasocial
relating is a common phenomenon, but it is important to highlight that
merely watching a television program is not evidence that a parasocial
relationship is developing. A viewer may watch a program with a low level of
empathy towards the show and/or characters, thereby failing to create a
meaningful relationship; or a viewer may be engaged while watching a
program but lose this feeling upon the shows completion (Horton & Wohl,
1956), a relationship more akin to parasocial interaction.
Although PSI and PSRs are distinct types of involvement with media
figures, many of the conclusions drawn by modern PSI research may hold
true for PSRs. This is because much of the existing PSI literature actually
examines parasocial relating broadly, not limiting the examination to the
time of media exposure. For example, a number of studies have shown that
attraction to a media figure is highly correlated with PSI and have suggested
that media users evaluate media personalities using comparable standards
to individuals they encounter in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Rubin,
Perse, & Powell, 1985; Rubin & Perse, 1987; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011).
Conway and Rubin (1991) build on this idea by suggesting that the more
one feels attracted to a media personality, the more one will ascribe
11
importance to the relationship. Just like in interpersonal relationships,
viewers also likely feel a certain level of comfort and affinity with media
personalities with whom they are developing a
12
parasocial relationship. Conway and Rubin (1991) even go so far as to
suggest that the parasocial interaction may be a more important component
of viewing intention than a program’s content. These feelings of
interpersonal liking and media figure attraction should not be limited to one
type of parasocial relating, as both PSI and PSR require similar attraction
and affinity with media figures.
As PSR is more cross-situational, many of the PSI research findings
may be extended to PSR. The concept of parasocial relating generally
includes both of these concepts of PSR and PSI. Furthermore, several of the
PSI studies (including Conway & Rubin, 1991) include measures that are
more akin to examining PSR rather than PSI, showing how intermingled the
PSI and PSR literature is and the necessity for considering previous PSI
literature when examining new PSR avenues. The significant role that
parasocial relationship development may have on one’s media experience is
similar to other types of social interaction and highlights the need for greater
research to survey the features that contribute to its formation and
development.
Many of the characteristics of parasocial relating are similar to
interpersonal social interaction, and many scholars have previously
compared both PSI and PSR to other types of interaction. For example, Rubin
and Perse (1987) suggested that PSI may stem from an intrinsic human
motivation to form attachments with others, regardless of the distance
between those individuals. Reeves and Nass (1996) furthered this idea by
13
suggesting that actions and reactions to media figures are related to innate
responses to human characteristics. They stated that this is an example of
the “media equation,” where social responses by individuals are elicited due
to cues related to human characteristics from the media figures, such as a
human face on the screen
14
(Reeves & Nass, 1996). Additionally, Hartmann and Goldhoorn (2011) found
that a parasocial experience was intensified when a media figure addressed
viewers head-on as if the media figure was speaking directly to the media
viewer. It is therefore apparent that human characteristics of the media
figure may have a large impact on the development of a parasocial
relationship, specifically the strength of the relationship may be intensified
when we perceive the character as more human or similar to ourselves.
Therefore, it is important to weigh the considerations that individuals make
when reacting to a media personality, including similarity to the self, and
overall likeability.
The way we determine how similar or dissimilar people, including
media figures, are to ourselves is complicated and can be based on a
variety of considerations. It is likely that these considerations are based
upon fundamental conceptualizations of the self, for how we view ourselves
often provides the templates for how we evaluate others, and how we view
ourselves is likely shaped by the way we are socialized to communicate in
our family.
Why Family Matters - Socialization
Before examining exactly how particular types of family
communication impact identity salience and the development of PSRs, it is
important to highlight why the family matters and how family communication
and socialization processes can impact subsequent socialization and general
relationship formation.
15
Socialization is often defined broadly as the process through which an
individual becomes a “social being” that lives in and takes part in social
groups (see Grusec & Lytton, 1988). Family socialization is often considered
one of the most important means
16
of socialization and has been associated with long-term developmental
outcomes and interpersonal relationship development. This is due, in large
part, to the development of one’s self-identity and self-representation which
provide templates for future interaction (Ozmete, 2011). Because childhood
socialization can have a large impact on how children perceive themselves
and others, it is important to examine the factors that contribute to
socialization.
There are several different types of socialization, and they work
together and independently to foster growth. The foundation of socialization
is referred to as primary socialization, which occurs as a child acquires the
basic attitudes, actions, and beliefs typical of their culture, laying the
foundations for secondary socialization (Ozmete, 2011). The ability of the
family to contribute to socialization stems from two primary factors: control
and an emotional bond. Because the family has nearly exclusive control of a
child during the first years of life, and because they are spurred by an
emotional bond to motivate the child to be socialized, the family unit,
especially parents, is often responsible for primary socialization (Rusconi &
Tummons, 1975). Other caregivers may impact children, but the parental
role is unique in that children tend to be most highly socialized with their
parents and turn to their parents to build their own sense of self.
Primary socialization begins a process through which individuals learn
and develop into adults. The development that occurs in primary
socialization is carried into secondary socialization. Secondary socialization
17
involves smaller changes than those that occur in primary socialization; it
teaches individuals about the type of behavior that is considered
appropriate as a member of a group within society at large (Ozmete,
18
2011). Because primary socialization provides a template for future
interactions, it is important to consider how family communication patterns
that exist in the family might be related to interpersonal relationships
(including those with media figures) and the development of one’s identity.
Family communication and socialization teaches children how to prioritize
certain characteristics and aspects of communication by making salient
specific identity aspects. The way socialization impacts one’s identity may
shape how we view media figures with whom we form relationships.
Identity
There are a number of definitions of identity (see Schwartz,
Zamboanga, & Weisskirch, 2008), but most conceptualize identity as the way
an individual thinks of or experiences the self. In both identity theory and
social identity theory, the self is viewed as reflexive, as it can view, classify,
and categorize itself as an object in relation to other classifications and social
categories/groups (Stets & Burke, 2000). Because we think of ourselves in
relation to several evolving groups/categories, identity can be made up of a
number of different aspects or roles at any given time.
Identity refers to the way we view ourselves in relation to others and
other groups of people. Identity is a multilayered construct as people have a
variety of identity dimensions that may be salient at any given time (Hecht &
Phillips, 2022). The salience of a particular aspect of identity may be due to
either internal or external factors and cues. Understanding how family
communication may shape the salience of particular identity dimensions is
19
important to understanding how identity can subsequently shape our
interpersonal interactions, including our parasocial interactions.
20
Family communication may influence the types of PSRs that one
engages in by activating particular aspects of identity and, therefore,
shaping the way we perceive ourselves as similar to potential objects of
parasocial relationships. When family communication follows particular
patterns, individuals in these families may be accustomed to thinking of
themselves in particular terms which leads to seeing others with these same
characteristics. For example, if a family is focused on their collective
experience (e.g., we are football-playing family) rather than personal
attributes (e.g., I am smart) one may be more likely to think about
themselves and others in similar collective/group terms or personal terms.
Previous examinations have found that family communication patterns may
influence both general family relationships and also lay the groundwork for
how individuals create relationships outside of the family. Research has
examined family communication patterns and various interpersonal
relationships, including romantic partner and friend relationship
development (Barbato, Graham, & Perse, 2009; Elwood & Schrader, 1998;
Koesten, 2003; Koesten & Anderson, 2009).
One of the ways the family relationship may impact subsequent interactions
is by making certain aspects of a family member’s identity more or less
salient. By emphasizing particular identity dimensions, the family unit may
shape the way individuals view others and build interpersonal relationships,
including parasocial-type relationships.
Communication Theory of Identity
21
This multifaceted view of identity is highlighted by the Communication
Theory of Identity, which proposes a “layered” perspective of identity where
communication is viewed as identity enactment through four primary layers:
personal, relational, enacted,
22
and communal (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). The personal identity layer address
how an individual defines themselves; relational identity deals with how
identities are defined in terms of particular relationships and in relation to
other identities; the enacted layer of identity is the performance of identity
and how one may express who they are; and finally, the communal layer of
identity examines how society defines identities and how these identities
are related to culture/society (Hecht & Phillips, 2022).
Identity Salience
At any given time, how we view ourselves is likely informed by which
of these interconnected identities is most salient. Identity salience is an
individual-level construct representing how prominent a category is in the
mind of an individual and how that prominence informs subsequent
thoughts/decisions/interactions (Randel, 2002). There are a number of cues
related to human characteristics which may elicit a social response from an
individual, but some are more salient than others. The elements of one’s
identity that are salient shape how one categorizes others as similar or
dissimilar based on the characteristics and self-categorizations that matter
most. Randel (2002) acknowledges that the salience of some aspects of
identity may change from time-to- time, but the salience of group
membership identities is more stable and consistent over time. This is
echoed in research that highlights the way identity aspects may be
situational or stable, but that many group-based identities, like ethnicity, are
generally stable (e.g., Shelton & Sellers, 2000).
23
Identity salience has the ability to impact social interactions and the
choices we make. Research by McLeish and Oxoby (2011) found that
individuals were more likely to cooperate on social tasks with others whom
they perceived as being similar to
24
themselves in identity salience. Perceived similarity in identity salience
suggests that they view others as similar in either personal, enacted,
communal, or relational aspects of identity. In addition to impacting
perceptions and interactions with others, identity salience may impact
behavior more broadly. A meta-analysis examining the relationship between
identity salience and marketing success found that identity salience plays an
important mediating role in nonprofit relationships (i.e., donating and
promoting goods/services) (Michalski & Helmig, 2008). The potential for
identity salience to influence various aspects of one’s life can be extended to
other dimensions, including media exposure and evaluations of parasocial
figures. The way we conceptualize the self may impact which of the four
levels of identity, as proposed by the Communication Theory of Identity,
namely personal, relational, enacted, and communal, we view with greater
prominence and therefore ascribe more importance to. This suggests, for
example, that if one views their personal identity as most salient, then they
may view their parasocial character in terms of their personal identity
dimension. This might shape the way we view others as similar or dissimilar
to ourselves and shape our sense of homophily with others.
To better understand if parasocial relationships are reflective of salient
identity dimensions, I will develop a multidimensional measurement of PSR
and Identity Salience. The measure will seek to examine an individual’s level
of perceived similarity with a parasocial character on the four dimensions of
identity outlined by the Communication Theory of Identity: personal,
25
enacted, relational, and communal. For each of the four dimensions, I
derived eight items that are supported by the literature for
26
an initial measure of 32 items. To assess the structure and reliability of the
items I propose the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the factor structure of the PSR and Identity Salience
measure?
RQ2: What are the overall reliability and validity of the instrument and of
any subscales that might be derived?
Homophily
Identity salience rests on the idea that we have multiple identities that
make up our sense of self but that certain identities may be more or less
salient at any given time. If identity, then, is thought of as being made up of
multiple parts with varying levels of significance for oneself, homophily may
explain why we are drawn to certain individuals and even parasocial figures
(McPherson et al., 2001).
The categorization process of identity is informed by those identity
aspects that are more or less salient. The greater the prominence of a
particular category in the mind of an individual, the more salient that
category of identity. When we perceive others as similar on important
aspects of identity, then a sense of homophily may draw individuals
together. Homophily is the idea that similarity brings people together (Stets
et al., 2021) and shapes the way we interact with one another (e.g., Haun &
Over, 2014). It refers to the tendency for people to be drawn to those they
perceive as similar to themselves (McPherson, et al., 2001). Homophily rests
on the idea that social networks are both limited and amplified by perceived
27
similarity as we develop deeper social connections with individuals we
perceive as similar on aspects of the self that are of particular importance
(McPherson, et al. 2001).
28
If a particular identity category is high in salience, then one may be more
likely to experience homophily with others they perceive as being similar in that
dimension.
Although identity dimensions are not exclusive and we may cycle through
different dimensions as identity salience changes, many aspects of identity
are stable across time (e.g., Shelton & Sellers, 2000), and family
communication may shape how we perceive our own identity. When we
encounter others, we have a natural tendency to place them into categories
based on similarities and differences within and between self-established
category boundaries, thereby determining if they are more or less like us
on a particular dimension, and consequently, overall (Randel, 2002).
Because identity salience can shape aspects of identity that we perceive to
be most important, it can be used to develop a sense of homophily as we
develop interpersonal social connections on dimensions that are most
important to one’s sense of self (McPherson et al., 2001). To associate with
others whom we perceive as similar on specific
dimensions of identity may develop increased liking and homophily, thereby
shaping the types of interpersonal relationships that are formed, including
parasocial relationships.
Homophily is the tendency for people to be attracted to those who
they perceive as being similar to themselves and can occur on a number of
different levels, including appearance, background, and attitude (as seen in
Turner, 1993). For example, if one’s religion or occupation is particularly
29
salient, then you may be more likely to experience homophily with others
who are similar in their religious views or occupation type/status. While
appearance and background are visible and readily identifiable, homophily
can be built on a number of other factors. For example, Turner (1993) finds
that attitude homophily is clearly related to PSR with media figures and may
be more important than
30
physical characteristics. This suggests that the way a character looks and
other obvious targets for homophily (such as gender, age, and ethnicity)
may not be as important for the development of parasocial interaction as
other, less visible, factors (Turner, 1993). Therefore, homophily should be
defined more generally as the idea that liking and affiliation between similar
people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people and may occur
in a number of different types of relationships (McPherson et al., 2001).
Homophily is the tendency to be attracted to those we perceive as
similar on one or more levels. If one of these layers is more salient for an
individual, then we may be more likely to experience a sense of affinity
derived from perceived similarity with those who also view this dimension
similarly.
Homophily and PSR. A sense of homophily between oneself and others
is likely dependent on which elements of one’s identity are most salient
because when a particular dimension of identity is perceived as more
important than an individual will be more likely to search for others that are
similar on the same dimension. The finding that similarity in attitude
dimensions influences the development of PSRs (Conway & Rubin, 1991)
suggests that the salience of specific identity dimensions for a viewer may
result in homophily with characters that are perceived as being similar in the
same identity dimension. This increase in homophily may be related to the
intensity of the parasocial relationships one builds with media figures.
Therefore, I hypothesize that salience in particular identity dimensions for
31
oneself will be related to salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure,
such that an increase in any identity dimension for oneself will be related to
an increase in the same identity dimension for a parasocial figure. In other
words, if a certain dimension of identity is salient for an individual, then that
person may
32
be more likely to develop a PSR with a character they perceive as similar in
that particular dimension. For example, if personal identity salience is
increased for oneself we posit that for the parasocial figure, personal
identity salience will be perceived to be increased; that is, there will be a
positive correlation between self-reported identity salience and the salience
of perceived identity of a parasocial figure. This brings me to my first
hypothesis:
H1: Media viewers will tend to describe themselves and the object of a
parasocial relationship using terms representing the same dimension of
identity (personal, enacted, relational, or communal).
For different individuals, different layers of identity may be more/less
salient. To understand the relationship between parasocial relating and
identity salience, it is important to understand what element or elements of
that audience member’s identity are most salient and important factors that
may shape identity salience. One aspect that may influence the salience of a
particular dimension of identity is family communication.
Family Communication and Relationship to Identity Salience
As discussed previously, families are the primary context of
socialization for individuals. Traits learned in childhood are often carried into
secondary socialization and the development of interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Lubbers et al., 2009). Families differ from one another in the patterns
of communication that characterize their interaction. These differences may
33
cause some identities to be more habitually salient. This, in turn, may shape
perceived homophily with media figures, thereby influencing the
development of PSR. Individuals from families with particular family
communication
34
patterns are more likely to create parasocial relationships with media figures
that they perceive as similar on each of these particular dimensions of identity.
Family Communication Patterns
There are several different types of family communication patterns
that may impact how both parents and children perceive media figures, but
for this research, two major foci will be examined in depth. Existing research
on FCPs has identified conversation and conformity orientations within
families as central characteristics of how families communicate (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002). Definitions of conversation orientation and conformity
orientation have evolved over time, and Koerner & Fitzpatrick (2002)
developed an aggregate of these definitions based on prior research by
McLeod and Chaffee (1972), Fitzpatrick and Richie (1994), and Koerner and
Fitzpatrick (1997); this aggregate view will inform the present investigation.
The FCP dimensions are a broad way of examining a variety of
communication that takes place within a home and is not limited to any one
interaction but rather speaks to communication norms in a household.
Existing research on FCPs suggests that these norms may impact
subsequent interpersonal communication and are therefore stable across
communication types.
Conformity orientation. Conformity orientation is the degree to which
family communication emphasizes uniformity of expressed attitudes, beliefs,
and values within the family (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). A key component
of high conformity orientation families is, “a clear hierarchical family
35
structure and a belief that family member interests are superior to individual
interests” (Ball, Wanzer, & Servoss, 2013, p. 618).
Families with high conformity orientation exhibit more limited communication
on a
36
narrow range of topics because they are working to maintain a given family
structure (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Furthermore, because harmony and
interdependence within the family is essential to families with high
conformity orientation, conflict is often avoided (Koerner & Fitzpatrick,
2002). Avoiding conflict generally suggests that individuals within this family
structure avoid disagreement and are less likely to find faults in their other
family members, thereby increasing interpersonal liking and
interdependence (Ball et al., 2013; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). High-
conformity families have a focus on family functioning and require that each
member of the family contribute to the family unit by fulfilling their
individual roles and, clearly, an awareness of the roles of others.
The fulfillment of these individual roles is essential to creating a stable
family unit, therefore resulting in a relational co-dependency to maintain the
family structure and functioning. This is highlighted in research by Reuter
and Koerner (2008) that examines adolescents adopted by high conformity
families; these adolescents seem to struggle with assimilation into an
existing family structure more so than adolescents adopted by high
conversation oriented families. This research suggests that because high
conformity families emphasize individual family roles and the way these
roles come together to create a stable family unit, individuals who join high
conformity families may have difficulty assimilating in a structurally sound
family unit. Functioning within a family characterized by clear, established,
mutually-interdependent roles may lead to their family role identities
37
becoming more pronounced as they view themselves as having a shared,
interdependent family reality. Research by Reuter and Koerner (2008) finds
that adolescents adopted by protective families (those low in conversation
orientation but
38
high in conformity orientation) have a higher frequency of externalizing
behavior, including delinquency, behavioral disorders, conflictual relations
with parents, and trouble at school, compared to those adopted by high
conversation oriented families. The authors suggest that this could be, in
part, because when adolescents are adopted into an existing
interdependent family structure, they are unable to assimilate into the
shared social reality of the family (Rueter & Koerner, 2008). A consequence
of high conformity families who stress a shared, interdependent family
reality, is an emphasis on communal and relational family roles and the
relationship of these roles to one- another.
Because high conformity orientation families rely on interdependence
within the family to maintain family structure (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002),
it is likely that this family structure would result in individuals for whom
relational identity is particularly salient (e.g., viewing themselves as a
father, daughter, mentor, etc.). This relational identity might manifest itself
in relationships, both interpersonal as well as parasocial as those high in
conformity orientation may be more likely to develop relationships with
those they perceive as being similar in a relational way (e.g., this character
is a good partner, like me). It is not that an individual overtly perceives a
character as being similar to them in relational aspects, rather they form
relationships with characters and then perceive them as similar in those
aspects that they perceive as most salient.
Families that are high in conformity orientation rely on
39
interdependence to maintain harmony within the group. This
interdependence often means that they view themselves in reference to
others within the family structure as they work together to achieve goals
and maintain family functioning (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). For
40
example, an older child from a high conformity family is likely to be highly
aware that child-care chores are carried out - both for the well-being of
their younger sibling and also for parents’ peace of mind. This focus on
their role in relation to other family members is necessary to ensure
effective family functioning. This increased focus on family functioning
suggests that for those from high conformity orientated families, relational
aspects of their identity (how they view themselves in reference to
others/relationships) are more salient. For these individuals, then, they are
more likely to view their favorite media characters in similar relational
terms as they build their parasocial relationships with these characters. If
one perceives oneself as being a father, they may be more likely to view
their favorite media figure in relational terms as well (e.g., my favorite media
figure is a sister).
H2: Individuals from high conformity orientation families are more likely to
perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of relational identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
relational identity salience of oneself and perceived relational identity
salience of a parasocial figure. Individuals from high conformity orientation
families are more likely to perceive their parasocial media figures in
relational identity terms when mediated by their own increased relational
identity salience.
The communal layer of identity involves how one views oneself in
relation to a larger community. The communal identity layer is the broadest
41
layer of the Communication Theory of Identity and is linked with how society
defines identity and
42
describes cultures within society (for example, what we value, perhaps as it
connects to our religious beliefs) (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). This layer is less
about how we personally view ourselves and more about how we view
ourselves in relation to others in the community. This connects to high
conformity orientation as it similarly emphasizes commonalities in expressed
views, beliefs, etc. An emphasis on communal identity might manifest itself
in parasocial relationships, as those high in conformity orientation may be
more likely to develop relationships with those they perceive as being similar
in communal characteristics (i.e., this character is of the same faith).
Like the relational layer of identity, the communal layer also
emphasizes the self in relation to others. While the relational layer
emphasizes the self in reference to another individual, the communal layer
emphasizes the self in reference to a larger social or collective identity. The
emphasis on interdependence and group needs for high conformity families
suggest that in addition to the relational layer of identity, the communal
layer of identity is more salient for individuals from these families. For these
individuals, then, they are more likely to view their favorite media characters
in communal terms. For example, if one perceives oneself as being Asian,
they may be more likely to view their favorite media figure in relational
terms as well (e.g., my favorite media figure is Catholic).
H3: Individuals from high conformity orientation families are more likely to
perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of communal identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
communal identity salience of oneself and perceived communal identity
43
salience of a parasocial figure. Individuals from high conformity orientation
44
families are more likely to perceive their parasocial media figures in
communal identity terms when mediated by their own increased communal
identity salience.
Conversation orientation. Conversation orientation refers to an open
communication environment with little to no restriction on topics discussed.
Because families that exhibit high conversation orientation view
communication as a crucial way of socializing and educating their children
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), children in these types of families view
communication as “a means of gaining control, alleviating isolation, and
seeking affection from others” (Ball et al., 2013, p. 618). Families with a
high conversation orientation believe that open communication is essential
for building an enjoyable family life and parents often see frequent
communication as the primary way they socialize and educate their children
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), essentially viewing high conversation as
inversely related to high conformity orientation. Families with low
conversation orientation often limit the amount and details of private
information conveyed and thus share less with other members of their
family regarding personal thoughts and feelings (Ball et al., 2013). In these
low conversation oriented families, there is less exchange of private
thoughts and a greater emphasis on family functioning as a whole, akin to
high conformity families (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). One of the
fundamental differences between conversation- and conformity- oriented
families is that conformity oriented families are more likely to focus on the
45
group and overall family well-being whereas conversation oriented families
focus on individual differences and autonomy. It is important to note that
conversation and conformity
46
orientation are conceptually independent and it is possible to be high or low
in both constructs, but research suggests that they are often inversely
correlated (see, Keating, 2016). Essentially, families with high conversation
orientation tend to have an open communication environment while families
with high conformity orientation emphasize uniformity of beliefs and
attitudes (Ball et al., 2013). Therefore, when considering dimensions of
identity and the way it may relate to family communication, conversation
orientation is more likely to be related to aspects of identity that stress
individual beliefs and differences rather than group-based or interdependent
qualities.
The personal layer of identity is how an individual defines him or
herself and includes ethnic and gender identities (Hecht & Phillips, 2022).
High conversation oriented families tend to focus on individual needs and
individual differences rather than focusing on the group. This emphasis on
the individual suggests that those from high conversation oriented families
are more likely to be high in personal identity salience.
H4: Individuals from high conversation orientation families are more likely
to perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of personal identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
personal identity salience of oneself and perceived personal identity
salience of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, high conversation oriented families extend the emphasis
on the individual beyond just one’s own perceptions but also to include how
47
one may act upon their beliefs. These families encourage voicing opinions,
even if they differ from parental opinions, and view communication as a way
for individuals to gain control. The enacted
48
layer of identity is the performance of identity or the way in which actions
express who we are. Because high conversation oriented families encourage
self-expression, the enacted layer of identity is likely to be more salient for
individuals from these family structures.
H5: Individuals from high conversation orientation families are more likely
to perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of enacted identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by enacted
identity salience of oneself and perceived enacted identity salience of a
parasocial figure.
49
Proposed Model and Testing
Individuals from different families engage in conversation and
interpersonal interaction in distinct ways. These differences may extend to
their engagement in parasocial relationships and the way they view their
parasocial media figures. Because family socialization is such a critical factor
in many areas of one’s life, it is essential that we consider the ways family
socialization may impact media use. In order to examine the relationship
between family communication/socialization and parasocial relationship
development, it is important to consider the types of PSRs that may be
taking place.
Previous research (i.e., Lull, 1980) suggests different family
communication styles are indicative of different media use patterns for a
variety of reasons, but have failed to consider how family communication
patterns may impact parasocial relationships. I posit here that identity
salience impacts parasocial relationships, especially in terms of the way we
perceive the identities of a parasocial figure and the similarities to our own
identity salience. Therefore, any model examining the relationship between
family communication and the parasocial phenomena must consider how
family communication impacts identity salience.
The extant literature fails to consider how deeply rooted family
socialization is in our media choices, particularly in our likelihood of
developing and maintaining parasocial relationships. The proposed model
seeks to bridge this gap by examining the relationship between FCP and PSR
50
as mediated by identity salience. The model proposed herein suggests that
FCP, whether high in conversation orientation or conformity orientation, impacts
the dimensions of one’s identity that are the most salient. That is, individuals
high in conversation or conformity orientation are
51
more likely to think of themselves and therefore their parasocial character in
specific identity terms, which, in turn, impact perceived similarity with the
parasocial character.
To examine the proposed model, there are first a number of
considerations that need to be made. The model suggests that FCP and the
degree to which families are high in either conversation orientation or
conformity orientation may impact the parasocial relationship that is
developed by making particular identity dimensions more/less salient. Thus,
my research design examining the types of media figures with which
participants choose to engage in a parasocial relationship, must consider
the FCP of the individual and a measure of identity salience.
52
Overview of Studies
To examine the proposed model and address the hypotheses, I
conducted three studies. The first study, a survey, considers identity salience
of the respondent and relationship between one’s identity and the salience
of perceived identity of a parasocial character. The first study also
establishes a measure of parasocial relating based on the Communication
Theory of Identity and the four dimensions of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and communal.
The second study extends this research by also considering the
relationship family communication patterns may have on identity salience
and parasocial relationships. The second study also tightens the PSR
measure established in Study one by considering the identity dimensions
and the reliability of the subscales.
Finally, the third study, an experiment, considers how salience of a
particular family communication pattern might impact a respondent’s
reaction to an ambiguous character, specifically their perceived similarity to
this character. This study seeks to extend the PSR focus by considering how
family communication might shape the way we immediately think of a
character. For each of these studies, overall media use is considered and
basic demographic information is collected.
53
Study 1
The primary purpose of Study 1 was to examine the relationship of
self-concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character. Based
on the Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht & Phillips, 2022), I expected
that the way an individual defines themselves may be related to the way
they define a character with whom they have a parasocial relationship. That
is, an individual will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial
character using the same dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and/or communal. Therefore, Study 1 had two primary purposes,
it
(1) sought to examine similarities between one’s identity salience and
perceived salience of a parasocial figure and (2) it sought to create and
validate a measure of PSR and identity salience.
Methods
To obtain data for the first study, a cross-sectional survey was carried
out in 2020 at a large, public university on the U.S. west coast. Institutional
Review Board approval was received prior to data collection, and the survey
utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate college students enrolled in
an introductory Communication course. The online survey was optional, with
extra-credit offered to any student who attempted the survey. For the full
survey, see Appendix A.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
54
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 439. Of the 439
respondents, the mean age was 20.5 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.51), 27.3%
identified as male (n =120),
55
71.8% identified as female (n = 315) and four participants (0.9%) identified
as other. Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices
possible. The majority of participants identified as Asian (51.9%, n = 228),
26.4% identified as White (n = 116), 16.2% (n = 71) identified as
Latino/Hispanic, 3.6 % (n = 16) identified as Black/African American, 2.5%
(n = 11) identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and the remaining 6.6% (n = 29) identified as
other.
Measures
Identity salience/dimensions of identity. To measure identity salience,
participants completed a revised version of the Twenty Statements Test
(TST) (developed by Kuhn & McPartland, 1954). The TST asks participants to
answer the question, “Who am I” by completing twenty sentences beginning
with “I am…” and allowing participants to self-represent, highlighting those
aspects of their identity that they deem to be most important or salient. The
TST has previously been used to examine self-concept and identity salience
(including religious identity, cultural identity, personal identity, etc.) (see
Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Murdock, Hirt, & Ferring, 2014; Hong et al. 2001).
The revised version presented herein was adapted such that participants
were first asked to complete ten statements to describe themselves and,
after a set of questions about media use and recently watched programs,
participants completed another ten statements to describe their favorite
media figure. This allowed us to consider salient dimensions of each
56
participant’s identity/self-concept as well as perceived identity dimensions of
a parasocial media character. The two sets of TST statements were not
presented back-to-back to avoid a priming effect of participant TST
responses on perceived character TST responses.
57
To examine the four identity dimensions articulated by the
Communication Theory of Identity, the responses to the TST were grouped
into four categories: personal - how an individual defines themselves, any
characterization that is not in reference to another and not an outright
expression of identity (e.g., I am… brave/smart/happy); enacted – the
performance of identity and how one may express who they are, must be an
action of performance that can be interpreted by another person/group (e.g.,
I am… a driven); relational – how identities are defined in terms of particular
relationships or a title conferred upon others (e.g., I am… a boyfriend/sister);
and communal -how society defines identities and how these identities are
related to culture/society (e.g., I am… Jewish). Coding of the responses into
the four categories was performed by the author and a trained coder using a
detailed codebook highlighting the identity dimension groupings. The second
coder was trained on the dataset and codebook. After multiple rounds of
reliability checking, we achieved inter-coder reliability for both the ten
statements examining the respondent’s own identity salience (kappa =
0.922) and the ten statements examining salience of perceived identity of a
media figure (kappa = 0.952). For a detailed codebook, see Appendix D.
To calculate identity salience for each category (personal, enacted,
relational, communal) for both the self-identity and perceived identity of a
parasocial figure, the proportion of all responses coded as falling within
each category was calculated. See Table 1 for proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of overall self-identity and Table 2 for proportions
58
of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial
media character.
59
Table 1: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Self-Identity TST (Study 1)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.456 0.273 0.194 0.076
SD 0.186 0.191 0.198 0.102
Table 2: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Perceived Self-Identity of
Parasocial Media Character TST (Study 1)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.381 0.332 0.256 0.032
SD 0.198 0.218 0.229 0.063
PSR & Identity Salience. A second measure of PSR was also used
specifically to measure the identity overlap between the media figure and
the respondent, as perceived by the respondent. This measure was created
by the author and is, to the author’s knowledge, the only measure that
considers similarity to a parasocial character on specific dimensions of
identity, based on the CTI. The creation of this measure is meant to fill a gap
in the literature on parasocial relating. To the authors’ knowledge, there is
no existing instrument that considers PSR and identity salience in this way.
For this measure, participants rated their similarity to their favorite media
character on a number of domains. The initial measure consisted of four
subscales, each one examining perceived similarity of the participant to
60
their parasocial media figure on a
61
different layer of identity (personal, enacted, relational, communal), with
eight items each.
To develop the items for each subscale, I reviewed the main goals and
features of the CTI (as explained by Hecht & Phillips, 2022) and established
items that were consistent with descriptions of each dimension. For
example, a key element of the relational layer of identity is that it considers
who you are in reference to another specific person or group of people. To
examine this concept, the relational subscale included items like, “In
relation to your favorite character/celebrity [character name], would you say
you are more similar or dissimilar to [character name] in terms of… your
relationship with those around you.” Similar considerations were made for
the other identity measures and the total scale with 32 items was included
in Study 1. For a full list of measure items, see Appendix E.
Items asked participants to rate similarity to their favorite character
on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different
to the character in terms of how you see yourself”), enacted identity (e.g.,
“are you more alike or more different to the character in terms of how you
act on your beliefs”), relational identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you care about other people”),
and communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the
character in terms of your group identification”). Responses were anchored
from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely Similar).
Media use. In addition to the coded measures examining salient
62
identity dimensions of the respondent and perceived identity dimensions of
the parasocial media figure, I also examined media use. Participants were
asked to indicate the
63
number of hours spent per day (a) watching TV shows, either on TV or
online, (b) watching movies, (c) using social media (like Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook, etc.), and
(d) playing video games. Responses were anchored from 0 hours per day to
10 hours per day and an aggregate score of overall media use was
calculated by totaling each of the four media use categories (M = 9.04, SD =
5.11).
Results
RQ1 addressed the factor structure of the PSR and Identity Salience
measure.
An EFA was performed using principal axis factoring and promax oblique
rotation. I used an oblique rotation on an assumption of inter-correlations
between the factors. Based on the criterion of eigenvalues over 1.0, EFA
results produced a four-factor structure with primary loadings of at least
0.48 with no secondary loadings higher than
0.45. The factor loadings are shown in Table 3.
The four-factor structure accounted for a combined 57.9% of the
variance. Of the initial 32 items, 8 items did not significantly load with any of
the factor loadings, suggesting that these eight items were not significantly
related to any of the four dimensions identified. The items that did not
significantly load were primarily created by the author as items intended to
reflect similarity in Enacted Identity Salience.
Conceptually, enacted identity refers to one’s ability to express identity.
Because the items were assessing beliefs rather than behaviors, it may be
64
that a survey measure is unable to accurately assess behaviors that are
consistent with one’s enacted identity and perceived enacted identity of
others. Six of the eight enacted identity items were, then, excluded. The
remaining items that failed to load with the four-factors could also be
considered behaviors/actions (e.g., “… your role in a group”) or perceived
outlook,
65
which may also be interpreted as an action (e.g., “your world view”). These
items may not be a good reflection of identity and should then be
excluded. The eight items were removed and 24 items remained for the
PSR and Identity Salience measure.
My interpretation of the factors was similar to three of the four that I
originally conceptualized (personal, relational, and communal), with the main
difference relating to similarity on the enacted identity dimension. The items
created to measure perceived similarity on the dimension of enacted identity
did not clearly load together. Rather, some of these items seemed to be
most similar to items assessing perceived similarity on personal dimensions
of identity. For the items examining perceived similarity on communal
aspects of identity, there seemed to be two distinct factor groupings: one
considering “personal” communal identities (e.g., similarities in a common
group quality like clubs) and the other considering “social” communal
identities (e.g., similarities in religious affiliation, race or ethnicity).
66
Table 3. Factor Loadings for the Four-Factor Conceptualization of the PSR and Identity
Salience Measure (Study 1)
Variable* Personal Relational Communa
l: Personal
Communa
l: Social
… how you see yourself .66 -.13 .19 .03
… your unique personality .81 -.10 .05 -.17
… the characteristics which make you unique .80 -.19 .16 .02
… your individuality .91 -.10 -.15 .04
… your personality .57 .17 .15 -.12
… your self-concept .60 .04 -.01 .20
… how you express yourself .77 -.19 .22 -.07
… how you act in a situation .54 .25 .07 -.04
… how you care about other people -.06 .89 -.12 .01
… how you act towards other people .03 .79 .09 -.09
… your relationship with those around you -.06 .74 .11 -.02
… the relationships you have with your
family/friends
-.00 .64 .08 .06
… how you take care of others -.10 .90 .04 -.15
… how you treat others -.21 1.01 .01 -.05
… how you interact with others .14 .62 .11 -.06
… your social system .15 .05 .63 -.01
… your membership in various groups .17 -.01 .61 .03
… your similarities to those in your group(s) .03 .30 .52 .07
… your social group .17 -.10 .74 -.06
… a group stereotype -.15 .01 .70 .27
… a common group quality .09 .24 .48 .03
… a communal identity .06 .23 .48 .15
… your background (nationality, ethnicity,
etc.)
-.31 -.13 .48 .69
… your religious affiliation .10 -.14 .02 .79
*Participants were asked to indicate whether they are more alike or more different to their
favorite media character in terms of…
In response to RQ2, I examined the overall reliability of the instrument
as well as the reliability of the four subscales derived from the overall
measure. Overall reliability was assessed because the scale can either
assess PSR, broadly, by considering average of the overall measure, or any
of the subscales can be used to assess PSR on a specific dimension of
identity. Eight items constituted the perceived similarity in personal identity
factor, representing the respondent’s perception that their favorite media
figure is similar to them in aspects that are reflective of personal identity
qualities (α = .89); seven items made up the perceived similarity in relational
67
identity factor,
68
representing the respondent’s perception that their favorite media figure is
similar to them in aspects that are reflective of the relation aspect of identity
(α = .90); seven items made up the perceived similarity in personal communal
identity factor(α = .88); and two items made up the perceived similarity in social
communal identity factor (rs(437) = .30, p <.001), based on the
Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). The overall 24-
item instrument derived a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.94. See Table 4 for the
averages and standard deviation of each subscale. Because the primary
purpose of Study 1 was an initial test of the measure, ensuring validity was
reserved for Study 2.
Table 4. Mean and SD for PSR and Identity Salience subscales
Mean SD 1. 2. 3.
1. Perceived Personal Similarity 4.23 1.06 -
2. Perceived Relational
Similarity
4.55 1.12 .68** -
3. Perceived Communal
(Personal) Similarity
3.86 1.08 .73** .68** -
4. Perceived Communal (Social)
Similarity
3.46 1.34 .33** .31* .43**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
H1 posits that one’s self-reported identity salience will be positively
related to the salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure. In
response to H1, I calculated correlations between the proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of self-identity and proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial media
character. I expected that there would be a positive correlation for
69
proportions of the specific identity dimensions (personal, enacted, relational,
communal)
70
for both self-identity and perceived identity of one’s favorite media character
(parasocial character). See Table 5 for identity dimension correlations.
Table 5. Identity Dimension Correlations – Self-selected Identity Proportion and
Perceived Identity of a Parasocial Character (Study 1)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Self-
identity:
personal
-
2. Self-
identity:
enacted
-.28** -
3. Self-
identity:
relational
-.54** -.53** -
4. Self-
identity:
communal
-.25** -.33** .03 -
5.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
personal
.30** .01 -.24** -.10* -
6.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
enacted
.07 .37** -.31** -.21** -.30** -
7.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
relational
-.30** -.33* .48** .23** -.54** -.60** -
8.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
-.09 -.13** .10* .22** -.11* -.32** .13**
71
communal
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Correlations in bold identify positive correlations in response to H1
Results show that for the personal and enacted identity dimensions,
significant and positive correlations are present when examining the same
identity dimension for oneself and the parasocial media figure. For example,
when considering the proportion of TST answers that suggest personal
aspects of identity, there is a positive and
significant correlation with TST answers that indicate perceived personal
identity of a
72
parasocial figure. Indeed, for personal and enacted self-identities, the only
positive and significant correlations are for the same identity dimension of a
parasocial character.
For relational identity, the strongest significant and positive correlation is for
perceived relational identity of a favorite media figure. For communal identity,
the relationship is positive for both relational identity and communal identity of
a parasocial figure.
Findings support H1 by suggesting that, indeed, self-reported identity
salience is positively and significantly related to perceived identity of a
parasocial figure.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of
self-concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character. Based
on the Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht, 2015), I expected that the
way an individual defines themselves may be related to the way they define
a character with whom they have a parasocial relationship. That is, an
individual will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial
character using the same dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and/or communal. Therefore, the study had two primary purposes,
it
(1) sought to examine similarities between one’s identity salience and
perceived salience of a parasocial figure and (2) it sought to create and
validate a measure of PSR and identity salience.
73
The study was successful in creating a measure of PSR and identity
salience, although the dimensions found were not entirely in-line with what
was hypothesized based on the four identity dimensions. Rather, I found
that enacted identity is not distinctly represented in the data and communal
identity is represented in different ways, both as personal, or self-selected,
group identities such as clubs; and social
74
aspects, or ways that others might classify an individual, such as race or
ethnicity. It may be then, that communal identity should be viewed as two
separate categories of identity based on self-created and socially-defined
groupings.
Perhaps the most interesting finding as it relates to PSR is that the
salient identities of oneself shape the ways we view our parasocial figures.
The character with whom one has formed a parasocial relationship may be
dramatically different from oneself, but we tend to view ourselves in similar
terms. For example, a respondent might describe themselves as a mother
and sister and describe their favorite parasocial character as a husband and
friend. For each of these characterizations, the relational aspect of identity
is salient.
Study 1 helps pave an understanding of the interaction between
identity salience and parasocial relating by examining how one’s sense-of-
self is related to the salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, Study 1 developed a measure of perceived similarity and
parasocial relating based on the dimensions of identity salience. To consider
how family communication may play a role in the interaction of identity
salience and parasocial relating, Study 2 will extend this research by
incorporating conversation and conformity measures and examining
relationships between these measures and the measures considering
identity dimensions.
75
Study 2
The primary purpose of Study 2 was to extend the relationship on self-
concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character from Study
1. I continued to
76
examine the PSR and Identity Salience measure by considering the way the
created measure interacts with other measures of homophily and parasocial
relating. In addition to considering parasocial relating, Study 2 saw the
addition of a measure of family communication to consider the role of the
family in identity salience. Specifically, Study 2 sought to provide a first look
at the way family communication patterns, whether one is high in
conformity versus conversation orientation, plays a role in one’s identity
salience and perceived identity of and similarity with a parasocial media
character.
There are a variety of considerations that shape the way we form
relationships with others. Our previous examination (Study 1) considered
how identity salience is related to parasocial relating. This examination
(Study 2) considered how conversation orientation and conformity
orientation relate to perceived identity similarity to a parasocial character.
Specifically, I sought to address hypotheses 3-5 which hypothesize that
conversation orientation is positively related to perceived similarity on
personal and enacted identity dimensions and that conformity orientation is
positively related to perceived similarity on relational and communal
identities. I suspect that individuals from conversation oriented families will
be more likely to perceive similarity on personal and enacted identity
dimensions because they come from families that encourage independent
thoughts and behaviors, therefore emphasizing those aspects of their
personality that make them especially unique. Conversely, I suspect that
77
individuals from conformity oriented families will be more likely to perceive
similarity on relational and communal identities because individuals from
these families stress homogeneity in value and are dedicated to maintaining
a given family structure or
78
identity and may therefore view themselves both in relation to others and
as part of a larger social group.
Methods
To obtain data for the second study, an online, cross-sectional survey
was carried out in Fall 2020/Winter 2021 at a large, public university on the
west-coast. Institutional Review Board approval was received prior to data
collection and the survey utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate
college students enrolled in an introductory Communication course. The
survey was optional, with extra-credit offered to any student who attempted
the survey. And just like with Study 1, the survey could be terminated at any
time. The survey for Study 2 was offered during a different term from the
Study 1 survey, and although there is a possibility that there may be some
repeat respondents in Study 1 and Study 2 (e.g., participants repeating a
class), it is likely to be a very small number of the overall responses. For the
full survey instrument, see Appendix B.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 404. Of the 404
respondents, the mean age was 19.6 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.39), 32.9%
identified as male (n =133), 66.1% identified as female (n = 267) and four
participants (1%) identified as other.
Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices possible.
79
The majority of participants identified as Asian only (55.4%, n = 224), 19.6%
identified as White only (n = 79), 10.6% (n = 43) identified as
Latino/Hispanic only, 1.7 % (n = 7)
80
identified as Black/African American only, one respondent (0.2%) identified
as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only, with the remaining 12.4% (n = 50)
identifying as multiracial or other.
Measures
Identity salience/dimensions of identity. To measure identity salience,
participants completed a revised version of the Twenty Statements Test
(TST) (developed by Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) as they did in Study 1.
Coding for the TST followed the same guidelines as in Study 1 and were
grouped into the same four categories: personal, enacted, relational, and
communal. The author and trained coder from Study 1 completed the
coding for Study 2. The proportion of all responses coded as falling within
each category was calculated. See Table 6 for proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of overall self-identity and Table 7 for proportions
of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial
media character.
Table 6: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Self-Identity TST (Study 2)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.427 0.294 0.200 0.079
SD 0.178 0.218 0.191 0.097
81
Table 7: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Perceived Self-Identity of
Parasocial Media Character TST (Study 2)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.417 0.276 0.268 0.040
SD 0.204 0.199 0.225 0.077
PSR & Identity Salience. To measure PSR and identity salience, I again
included the author-created measure considering perceived similarity to a
parasocial character on specific dimensions of identity. The inclusion of this
measure in Study 2 is meant to confirm the findings from Study 1 by testing
the remaining 24 items to ensure the factor loading is consistent with the
previous findings. Participants rated their similarity to their favorite media
character on a number of domains. The measure consisted of four subscales,
each one examining perceived similarity of the participant to their parasocial
media figure on a different layer of identity, adapted from the CTI to reflect
the findings from Study 1. The 24 items that converged in four iterations in
Study 1 were retained for Study 2. Of the 24 items included in the overall
measure, eight items specifically assessed the perceived similarity in personal
identity factor, seven items made up the perceived similarity in relational identity
factor; seven items made up the perceived similarity in personal communal identity
factor; and two items made up the perceived similarity in social communal identity
factor.
Items again asked participants to rate similarity to their favorite
82
character on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you see yourself”) and relational
identity (e.g., “are you more alike or
83
more different to the character in terms of how you care about other
people”). Study 2 also considered personal communal identity (e.g., “are
you more alike or more different to the character in terms of your social
group”) and social communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of your religious affiliation”). Responses
were anchored from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely Similar).
Homophily. To consider how the created PSR & Identity Salience
measure differs from other similar measures of parasocial relating, I included
measures of homophily and parasocial breakup. For the PSR and Identity
Salience measure to be reliable and valid, I expect that it should be
correlated with the homophily subscales and highly correlated with
parasocial breakup, a measure of intensity of the parasocial relationship. To
examine homophily, participants completed the Perceived Homophily Scale
(McCroskey, Richmond & Daly, 1975). The scale is a four-factor measure and
examines four dimensions of homophily including attitude, background,
value, and appearance homophily. The measure was adapted to examine
perceived homophily with a parasocial figure indicated by each respondent.
Each of the four subscales consists of four, 7-point Likert items with
statements such as, “this person thinks like me” (attitude homophily scale)
and “this person is from a different social class” (background homophily
scale). I examined the overall reliability of the measure as well as the
reliability of the four subscales to compare the PSR and Identity Salience
measure to homophily, generally, as well as each subscale.
84
To ensure the four dimensions of homophily posited by the Perceived
Homophily Scale were consistent for this examination, an EFA was performed
using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation in line with prior uses of this
measure that assumes no
85
inter-correlations between the factors (McCroskey et al., 1975). Based on
the criterion of eigenvalues over 1.0, EFA results produced a five-factor
structure with primary loadings of at least 0.45 with no secondary loadings
higher than 0.40. The factor loadings are shown in Table 8. Because the
scale has only been used once before, an EFA was used in this situation
rather than a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA would be appropriate
to verify the factor structure of a scale that has been previously tested and
validated. EFA is appropriate in this situation because it does not assume a
set factor structure and therefore provides greater flexibility when to
classify the subscales based on how they best load together.
The five-factor structure accounted for a combined 61.4% of the variance.
Of the initial 16 items, 1 item failed to significantly load with only one of the
factor loadings.
Four items constituted the perceived homophily in attitude dimension (α = .71, M
= 3.74, SD = 1.20), three items made up the perceived homophily in value
dimension (α = .71, M = 4.68, SD = 1.34), and four items made up the
perceived homophily in appearance dimension (α = .78, M = 2.70, SD = 1.45).
The four items to assess homophily in background dimension were represented
across two factors. Two of the items represented background that I describe
here as socially imposed (e.g., “…has status similar to me” or “…has an
economic situation like mine”) (rs(404) = .52, p <.001, M = 2.58, SD = 1.66).
The other two background items represented group background (e.g., “… is
culturally similar to me”) (rs(404) = .37, p <.001, M = 3.12, SD =1.72). The
86
overall 15-item instrument derived a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.75.
87
Table 8. Factor Loadings for the Perceived Homophily Scale
Variable* Attitude
Homophil
y
Background
(Socially
Imposed)
Homophily
Backgroun
d (Group)
Homophily
Value
Homophil
y
Appearanc
e
Homophily
… is like me .76 .17 .09 .17 .21
… is similar to me .74 .20 .14 .09 .04
… thinks like me .48 .08 -.19 .33 .32
… behaves like me .70 -.07 .15 .09 .03
… has status like mine .21 .77 .01 -.15 .20
… is from the same social
class
.28 .11 .75 -.12 .06
… is culturally similar .12 -.12 .66 .04 .42
… has an economic
situation like mine
.07 .84 .06 -.06 .08
… has morals like mine .22 .01 -.05 .78 -.07
… has sexual attitudes
like mine
-.11 .28 .41 .40 .08
… treats people like I do .14 -.09 -.09 .74 .03
… shares my values .07 -.18 .10 .72 .03
… looks similar to me .03 .18 .12 -.03 .76
… is the same size I am -.07 .24 .13 .03 .71
… has an appearance like
mine
.15 -.01 .10 -.03 .82
… resembles me .36 -.03 .03 .07 .71
*Participants were asked to indicate their feelings about their favorite celebrity/character by
indicating the degree to which the character…
Parasocial Breakup. To consider how the PSR & Identity Salience scale
differs from other examinations of parasocial relating, I also examine
parasocial breakup. The Parasocial Breakup scale (adapted from Cohen,
2003), is a 13-item scale intended to measure how a respondent would feel
if their favorite television personality was removed from their show or taken
off the air. The scale was adapted to ask respondents specifically how they
would feel if their favorite media figure or character was removed from the
air. Examples of items included in the scale are “I would… feel lonely” and “I
would… feel like I lost a close friend.” Responses were anchored from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 7(Strongly Agree) such that a higher score indicates a
more intense reaction to a parasocial breakup, therefore suggesting a
88
stronger parasocial relationship
89
(α = .87, M = 4.04, SD = 1.07). The parasocial breakup scale essentially
measures the depth of a parasocial relationship by considering one’s
reaction to a favorite media figure being removed from the air. In this study,
it is used as a proxy for degree of parasocial relating.
Family Communication Pattern. To measure family communication
patterns, participants completed a version of The Revised Family
Communication Pattern Instrument, one of the most heavily used family
communication instruments available (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990, adapted
from McLeod & Chaffee, 1972). The Revised Family Communication Pattern
Instrument (RFCP) is a self-report questionnaire asking respondents to agree
or disagree with 26 statements (measured on 7-point scales) about their
family communication habits and patterns. The RFCP focuses on the
interactions between parents and children with questions that are tailored
to children/adolescent respondents as opposed to parents (e.g., “My parents
often say something like ‘you’ll know better when you grow up,’”). Despite
being tailored to child respondents, this scale is still appropriate for a young-
adult college sample as their demographic is more able to identify with
children in a family structure than parents.
The RFCP measure consists of two subscales, one 11-item scale
measuring conformity orientation (α = .85, M = 4.12, SD = 1.07). and the
other 15-item scale considering conversation orientation (α = .91, M = 4.27,
SD = 1.16). While the constructs of conformity and conversation are often
found to be inversely related (those high in conversation orientation are
90
generally low in conformity orientation and vice versa), most research
conceptualizes the two constructs as being independent (see
91
Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Because of the independence of the two subscales,
this measure allows the most complete picture of the individual's FCP.
Media use. As with Study 1, Study 2 also considered media use.
Participants were asked to indicate the number of hours spent per day (a)
watching TV shows, either on TV or online, (b) watching movies, (c) using
social media (like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc.), and (d) playing video
games. Responses were anchored from 0 hours per day to 10 hours per day
and an aggregate score of overall media use was calculated by totaling each
of the four media use categories (M = 7.08, SD = 4.11).
Results
Study 2 had two primary goals. It first sought to confirm the findings
from Study 1, especially the factor-loading and validity of the PSR and
Identity Salience measure created by the author. Additionally, Study 2
sought to extend the findings from Study 1 by examining the role of family
communication on identity salience and parasocial relating, thereby
addressing Hypotheses 2-5.
To confirm the findings from Study 1, it is first necessary to validate
the factor- loading of the PSR and Identity Salience measure before
comparing the findings to other related measures, namely perceived
homophily and parasocial breakup. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed using AMOS 26.0 (The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
version 27.0). The result for the chi-square goodness of fit test indicates that
I should reject the null hypothesis of an exact-fitting model,
92
𝜒2(246) = 573.825, p<.001. Both the Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI: 0.914) and
Comparative fit index (CFI: 0.923) are consistent with thresholds for an
acceptable model fit. The Root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) value of 0.058 also
93
indicates an acceptable fit (see Kline, 2016). Therefore, when considering
the TLI, CFA, and RMSEA, results suggest that the model is an acceptable fit
to the data.
Figure 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: PSR & Identity Salience Measure, Study 2
*For numbered item descriptions, see Appendix E
CFA results validated the four-factor structure with positive
standardized estimates greater than 0.5. See Figure 1 for the full path
diagram with estimates.
Of the 24 items retained from Study 1, eight items assessed perceived
94
similarity in personal identity (α = .88, M = 4.06, SD = 1.06), seven items
assessed perceived similarity in relational identity (α = .88, M = 4.40, SD = 1.21),
seven items assessed
95
perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity (α = .85, M = 3.56, SD = 1.06),
and two items assessed perceived similarity in communal (social) identity (rs(404)
= .40, p
<.001, M = 3.18, SD = 1.48).
To assess whether the PSR and Identity Salience measure established
by the author was related to other measures of homophily and parasocial
relating the subscales were analyzed in relation to the Parasocial Breakup
scale and the five subscale factors indicated by the Perceived Homophily
Scale (for Subscale correlations, see Table 9).
Table 9. Correlations of Parasocial Relating and Homophily Scales
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Personal
Identity
-
2. Relational
Identity
.62** -
3. Communal:
Personal
Identity
.68** .54** -
4. Communal:
Social Identity
.31** .23** .46** -
5. Attitude
Homophily
.60** .46** .50** .30** -
6. Background
(Socially
Imposed)
Homophily
.15** .08 .20** .09 .23** -
7. Background
(Group)
Homophily
.20** .15** .25** .38** .29** .17** -
8. Value
Homophily
.33** .60** .32** .17** .33** -.13* .03 -
9. Appearance
Homophily
.30** .16** .33** .40** .34** .27** .38** .03 -
10. Parasocial
Breakup
.14** .12* .12* -.02 .08 -.01 -.05 .13* .01
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
96
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
97
Results suggest that the PSR and Identity Salience measure created to
assess perceived similarity between oneself and a parasocial figure on
dimensions of identity is highly correlated with the homophily subscales.
This suggests that the measure functions similarly to the Perceived
Homophily subscales, but consistently significant and high correlation in
each dimension suggests that the new subscales are not varied enough. The
parasocial breakup scale was moderately correlated with two of the
subscales, personal identity and communal (personal) identity. Because parasocial
breakup is a measure of parasocial relationship intensity, I expect it to be
highly correlated with perceived similarity to the media figure. The positive
correlation with perceived similarity in personal attributes suggests that the
scale does, indeed, measure important aspects of relationship intensity,
particularly when the perceived similarity is related to personal attributes.
Therefore, the created measure appears to be reliable in that the subscales
are highly correlated and significantly factor together, but the validity of the
measure, the extent to which it conceptually differs from other established
and similar measures, is unclear and more analysis is needed to establish
validity.
In addition to assessing the validity of the PSR and Identity Salience
scale, Study 2 also sought to affirm the findings from Study 1 in reference to
identity salience of oneself and salience of perceived identity of a parasocial
character. Study 1 addressed H1 and found that, indeed one’s self-reported
98
identity salience is positively related to the salience of perceived identity of a
parasocial figure. To confirm H1, I again calculated correlations between the
proportions of identity dimensions as a function of self-identity
99
and proportions of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of
the parasocial media character. See Table 10 for TST correlations.
Table 10. Identity Dimension Correlations – Self-selected Identity Proportion and
Perceived Identity of a Parasocial Character (Study 2)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Self-
identity:
personal
-
2. Self-
identity:
enacted
-.39** -
3. Self-
identity:
relational
-.43** -.56** -
4. Self-
identity:
communal
-.11** -.42** .07 -
5.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
personal
.22** .06 -.22** -.11* -
6.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
enacted
-.03 .32** -.22** -.25** -.27** -
7.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
relational
-.16** -.28** .36** .19** -.59** -.56** -
8.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
-.06 -.21** .10* .38** -.23** -.24** .08
10
0
communal
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Correlations in bold identify positive correlations in response to H1
Findings in Study 2 confirmed the results from Study 1 and suggest
that self- reported identity salience is positively and significantly related to
perceived identity of a parasocial figure. Findings are significant and the
most positive when comparing the same identity dimensions of oneself and
the perceived identity dimension of the
10
1
parasocial character (e.g., salience of personal identity for oneself is positive
and significant when considering the perceived personal identity of a
parasocial character).
To examine hypotheses 2-5, I consider the relationships between
family communication and dimensions of identity by examining correlations
between the variables of interest (see Table 12).
Table 11. Correlations of Identity Salience, Parasocial Relating and Family
Communication
Conformity
Orientation
Conversation
Orientation
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Personal Identity .12 .04 - - - -
2. Relational Identity .12* .10 - - - -
3. Communal: Personal
Identity
.09 .06 - - - -
4. Communal: Social
Identity
-.01 .05 - - - -
5. Self-identity: personal .00 .05 .00 -.07 .06 .06
6. Self-identity: enacted .02 -.02 .04 .03 .00 .06
7. Self-identity: relational .00 -.04 -.02 .08 -.02 -.06
8. Self-identity: communal -.04 .02 -.05 -.10* -.07 -.12*
9. Perceived parasocial
identity: personal
-.05 -.04 .05 -.09 -.02 .02
10. Perceived parasocial
identity: enacted
-.01 .04 -.03 .08 .04 .07
11. Perceived parasocial
identity: relational
.05 -.02 .01 .03 -.01 -.08
12. Perceived parasocial
identity: communal
.00 .05 -.07 -.07 -.03 -.03
13. Media use .18** -.01 .05 .03 .11* .02
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Items 1-4 are from the PSR and Identity Salience measure. For correlations of these
items, see Table 10.
Note: Items 5-8 are from the TST and assess self-identity; items 9-12 from the TST assess
perceived identity of a parasocial figure. For correlations of these items, see Table 11.
To address Hypotheses 2 and 3, I consider the relationship between
10
2
conformity orientation and the relational (H2) and communal (H3) aspect of
identity. Hypothesis 2
10
3
predicted that conformity orientation would be positively and significantly
related to the relational aspect of identity. Indeed, results suggest that
conformity orientation is significantly and positively related to perceived
similarity on the relational aspect of identity, supporting H2. Results
examining the relationship between conformity orientation and perceived
similarity on communal aspects of identity found no significant correlations,
suggesting that H3 is not supported. To address Hypotheses 4 and 5, I
consider the relationship between conversation orientation and the personal
(H4) and enacted (H5) aspect of identity. Neither perceived similarity on the
personal level of identity nor one’s perceived enacted identity salience is
significantly related to conversation orientation, thereby not providing
support for Hypotheses 4 or 5.
To consider the role that media use might play, relationships between
media use and the variables of interest were also considered (see Table 12).
Media use was significantly and positively related to conformity orientation
and perceived similarity on communal (personal) identity dimensions. Media
use was not significantly associated with any other variables but may
suggest that individuals from conformity orientated families are more likely
to be heavy users of media. While this by itself does not clearly indicate a
stronger or more meaningful relationship with media characters, it may
suggest important differences in how they use media.
To further confirm the correlation findings and to test indirect
relationships between FCP, one’s identity salience, and perceived identity
10
4
similarity with a parasocial figure, (assessing Hypotheses 2-4), a set of linear
regression models was calculated.
To test the hypotheses, I used Model 6 of the PROCESS v. 4.0 macro for
SPSS (Hayes, 2017). This model was chosen because it assesses the direct
relationship of
10
5
family communication on perceived similarity in identity dimensions and can
consider the role of multiple mediators on the direct effect, including the role
of identity salience of oneself and salience of perceived identity of a
parasocial figure. The model was run four times to assess Hypotheses 2-4.
The model generates 95% confidence intervals following 5000 bootstrapped
samples; intervals not including ‘0’ are significant at p <.05.
The first model examined the role of conformity orientation on
perceived similarity in relational aspects of identity mediated by relational
identity salience and perceived relational identity salience of a parasocial
figure, addressing H2. The direct effect of conformity orientation on
predicting perceived similarity on relational aspects of identity was
significant; direct effect = .20, SE = .06, CI[.09 :.31]. I controlled for both
media use and conversation orientation; the same relationships were
significant when these controls were removed. There were no significant
indirect relationships of conformity orientation on perceived similarity in
relational aspects of identity via either one’s relational identity salience or
the perceived relational identity salience of a parasocial figure. The findings
from the regression model partially support H2, suggesting that conformity
orientation is related to perceived similarity with a parasocial figure on
relational aspects of one’s identity but this relationship is not significantly
mediated by one’s own relational identity salience or the salience of
perceived identity of a parasocial figure.
To test Hypothesis 3, I separately examined the direct and indirect effect
10
6
of conformity orientation on perceived similarity on the Communal (Personal)
dimension of identity and perceived similarity on the Communal (Social)
dimension of identity.
Additionally, communal identity salience of both oneself and perceived
communal
10
7
identity salience of a parasocial figure were included as mediators. Again, I
controlled for media use and conversation orientation. Results found the
direct effect of conformity orientation on predicting perceived similarity on
communal (personal) aspects of identity was significant; direct effect = .11,
SE = .05, CI[.00 :.22]. There were no significant indirect relationships of
conformity orientation on perceived similarity in communal (personal)
aspects of identity via either one’s communal identity salience or the
perceived communal identity salience of a parasocial figure. There were no
direct or indirect relationships between conformity orientation and perceived
similarity on communal (social) aspects of identity. Therefore, the findings
from the regression model partially support H3, suggesting that conformity
orientation is related to perceived similarity with a parasocial figure on
communal (personal) aspects of one’s identity but this relationship is not
significantly mediated by one’s own relational identity salience or the
salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure nor does the relationship
exist when considering perceived similarities in communal aspects that are
social.
Finally, to test Hypothesis 4, I examined the direct and indirect effect
of conversation orientation on perceived similarity on the personal
dimension of identity. Personal identity salience of oneself and perceived
personal identity salience of a parasocial figure were included as mediators.
I controlled for media use and conformity orientation. Results found the
direct effect of conversation orientation on predicting perceived similarity on
10
8
personal aspects of identity was significant; direct effect = .10, SE = .05,
CI[.00 :.20]. There were no significant indirect relationships of conversation
orientation on perceived similarity in personal aspects of identity via either
one’s personal identity salience or the perceived personal identity salience
of a parasocial
10
9
figure. Therefore, the findings from the regression model partially supported
H4, suggesting that conversation orientation is related to perceived
similarity with a parasocial figure on personal aspects of one’s identity.
Hypothesis 5 sought to examine the role of conversation orientation on
perceived similarity on the enacted dimension of identity. However, the PSR
and perceived similarity measure did not clearly establish an enacted factor,
therefore I was unable to further test Hypothesis 5. Therefore, results did not
support H5.
Discussion
Findings from Study 2 support results from Study 1 and pave the way
for considerations about family communication and the role of perceived
similarity of identity dimensions. Study 2 had two primary goals, the first
was to confirm the PSR and identity salience measure from Study 1 and
second, to determine how family communication, conceptualized as
conversation and conformity orientation, is related to perceived similarity on
identity dimensions with a chosen parasocial figure. Specifically, I predicted
that conversation orientation would be positively associated with perceived
similarity on personal and enacted dimensions of identity whereas
conformity orientation would be positively associated with perceived
similarity on relational and communal dimensions of identity.
Results from Study 2 confirm findings from Study 1 showing that
respondents conceptualize themselves and their parasocial character using
terms that are indicative of the same dimension of identity. Essentially,
11
0
Study 2 confirms there is a positive correlation with one’s identity dimension
and the perceived identity dimension of their
11
1
parasocial character. Additionally, results from this study also validated the
PSR and Identity Salience measure introduced and refined in Study 1.
Finally, the primary change from Study 1 to Study 2 was the inclusion
of the FCP scales and an examination of the relationships between family
communication pattern and parasocial relating. I hypothesized that
conformity orientation would be positively and significantly related to
perceived similarity in both relational and communal dimensions of identity
to a media figure. Results found that indeed, conformity orientation was
directly and positively related to perceived similarity in relational and
communal aspects of identity. For conversation orientation, I expected this
dimension of FCP would be positively and significantly related to perceived
similarity in both personal identity and enacted identity to a media figure.
While correlation results suggest that conversation orientation is not
significantly related to either perceived similarity in personal or enacted
identity, regression effects show a significant direct effect on perceived
similarity in personal identity.
Overall, this suggests that there is something special about the way
family communication relates to the ways we perceive ourselves as similar
to a parasocial character. Conformity orientation relates to perceived
similarity in relational and communal identity salience. Conformity
orientation, broadly, is characterized by a commitment to family functioning
and a focus on maintaining relationships. The relational aspect of identity
emphasizes interactions, especially interpersonal interactions. The
11
2
communal aspect of identity emphasizes group functioning When taken
together, this suggests that when individuals report a family communication
pattern that is high in conformity orientation, they are more likely to also
perceive
11
3
themselves as similar to media figures on relational aspects of identity. It is
very possible that the focus on family and relationships in their FCP has
shaped the way they perceive other interpersonal relationships and the ways
in which similarities are understood. To better understand how family
communication may shape identity and impact our understanding of media
characters, Study 3 seeks to understand how family communication shapes
the way we view new characters to understand how our relationships with
media figures are formed.
11
4
Study 3
When considering how individuals view their parasocial relationships,
identity salience is an important factor. Results from Studies 1 and 2 show
that we tend to think of ourselves and our parasocial figures in terms that
are reflective of similar dimensions of identity. Study 2 considers the role of
family communication and finds that for individuals from some families (i.e.,
those high in conformity orientation), they are more likely to indicate
perceived similarity with a media figure in relational aspects of identity. One
aspect of parasocial relationships that is not considered is how these
relationships initially form and how initial impressions are made of media
figures. Study 3 seeks to understand the initial perceptions of a media
character by presenting respondents with an ambiguous character
description and asking them to rate their perceived similarity to this
character. The experiment will prime individuals on a particular family
communication pattern to understand if this relates to their perceived
similarities to the media figure using the same PSR and Identity Salience
measure tested in Studies 1 and 2.
Studies 1 and 2 assessed the way parasocial relationships may be
reflective of one’s own identity. Both Study 1 and Study 2 showed that
significant and positive correlations are present when examining the same
identity dimension for oneself and a parasocial media figure. Through
Studies 1 and 2, I also created and tested a measure of PSR and Identity
Salience which attempted to measure perceived similarity on one of four
11
5
aspects of identity as adapted from the CTI: personal, relational, communal
(personal), and communal (social). Results show that the measure is similar
to perceived homophily and that perceived similarity on the relational or
communal
11
6
(personal) level of identity is significantly and positively related to conformity
orientation and perceived similarity on the personal level of identity is
significantly and positively related to conversation orientation. Study 3 offers
a different method to assess how family communication, specifically salience
of a particular family communication pattern, might shape perceived
similarity with an ambiguous character.
Studies 1 and 2 assessed interaction with a parasocial character
whereas Study 3 considers how we assess a new character. Parasocial
relationships begin with a viewer connecting to a character on some specific
element. This Study helps establish a more nuanced understanding of how
these relationships might begin and how families might shape the way we
view new characters and perceived similarities to these characters.
I expect that salience of a particular family communication pattern will
shape the way individuals perceive the new media character in line with
expectations from Study
2. Namely, I expect that individuals primed with the conversation orientation
prompt will be more likely to perceive the media character as similar on
personal dimensions and those primed with the conformity orientation
prompt will be more likely to perceive the media character as similar on
relational and communal aspects of identity.
Method
To obtain data for this study, an online survey was carried out in
Spring/Summer 2021 at a large, public university on the west-coast.
11
7
Institutional Review Board approval was received prior to data collection and
the experiment utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate college
students enrolled in an introductory Communication course.
11
8
The survey was optional, with extra-credit offered to any student who
attempted the online survey. For the full instrument, see Appendix C.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 324. Of the 324
respondents, the mean age was 20.6 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.53),
25.6% identified as male (n =83), 73.5% identified as female (n = 238) and
three participants (1%) identified as other.
Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices possible.
The majority of participants identified as Asian only (58.6%, n = 190), 15.7%
identified as White only (n = 51), 12.7% (n = 41) identified as
Latino/Hispanic only, 2.5 % (n = 8) identified as Black/African American only,
four respondents (1.2%) identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 8% (n = 26) selected two or more race
categories, and the remaining 1.2% (n = 4) identified as other.
Measures
Demographics and manipulation. Respondents were presented with a
few basic demographic questions, including one question asking respondents
to indicate their preferred pronouns with options including He/Him/His,
She/Her/Hers, They/Them/Theirs, and Other. After answering the demographic
questions, respondents were presented with a short-answer portion designed
to make family communication salient. The short answer question either
11
9
asked the participant to consider a time when their parent discussed an
important topic with them (conversation orientation), their
12
0
parent excluded them from a conversation (conformity orientation), or to
describe a room in their childhood home (control). See Table 12 for the full
Prompt and number of respondents presented with each prompt.
Participants were then asked to read a description of an ambiguous
character called, “Riley.” The participant was presented with a character
description that matched their own pronoun use, as indicated by their
demographic response (he/him/his or she/her or they/them/their). The ambiguous
character description was pre-tested prior to Study 3 to ensure that the
character was not clearly perceived as good or bad but was rather neutral
and would allow participants to connect to the character in a variety of ways.
For character descriptions, see full survey in Appendix C.
Table 12: FCP Manipulation and Prompts
Manipulation Prompt Number of
Respondent
s
Conversation
Orientation
Salient
Many parents feel that all voices in a family matter,
that difficult topics should be discussed amongst all
family members, and that everyone's ideas should be
considered. These parents may seem to care about
what their children think and the ways they feel,
especially when it comes to sensitive or difficult family
topics. In these cases, parents may discuss important
topics with their children.
Think about a specific time when your parents discussed
an important topic with you and you felt like they
listened to your thoughts or feelings. Describe that
incident here.
N=104
Conformity
Orientation
Salient
Many parents feel that they know what's best for their
children and families, and believe that difficult topics
should not be discussed among family members. They
do not value input from children, and may seem to not
care about what their children think and the ways they
feel. In these cases, parents may not discuss important
topics with their children.
N=109
12
1
Think about a specific time when your parents refused
to discuss a topic that you felt was important and you
felt like they did not listen to your thoughts or feelings.
Describe that incident here.
Neutral/Control
Group
Most people have one primary home that they
remember from when they grew up. This might be
your childhood home or the home that your parents
currently live in.
Think about a specific room in that home that meant
something to you. Describe that room here.
N=111
PSR & Identity Salience. To measure perceived similarity with an
ambiguous character on dimensions of identity salience, I employed the PSR
and Identity Salience measure created through Studies 1 and 2. The
measure consists of four subscales, each one examining perceived similarity
of the participant to their parasocial media figure on a different layer of
identity, adapted from the CTI. For Study 3, this item was used to assess
perceived similarity to the ambiguous character, Riley. The 24 items that
converged in four iterations in Study 2 were retained for Study 3. Of the 24
items included in the overall measure, eight items specifically assessed the
perceived similarity in personal identity factor, seven items made up the perceived
similarity in relational identity factor, seven items made up the perceived similarity
in personal communal identity factor; and two items made up the perceived
similarity in social communal identity factor.
Items again asked participants to rate similarity to the character
(Riley) on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you see yourself”) and relational
identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the character in
terms of how you care about other people”). Study 2 also considered
12
2
personal communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to
the character in terms of your social group”) and social communal identity
(e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the character in terms of your
religious affiliation”).
Responses were anchored from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely
Similar).
12
3
To ensure the model fit from Study 2 is applicable to Study 3, it was
first necessary to validate the factor-loading of the PSR and Identity
Salience measure before considering the relationship of the measure to
family communication patterns. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed using AMOS 26.0 (The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
version 27.0). The result for the chi-square goodness of fit test indicates
that I should reject the null hypothesis of an exact-fitting model,
𝜒2(246) = 507.12, p<.001. Both the Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI: 0.924) and
Comparative fit index (CFI: 0.937) are consistent with thresholds for an
acceptable fitting model. The Root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) value of 0.057 also indicates an acceptable fit (see Kline, 2016).
Therefore, when considering the TLI, CFA, and RMSEA, results suggest that
the model is an acceptable fit to the data. For full model, see Figure 2.
Figure 2
12
4
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: PSR & Identity Salience Measure, Study 3
12
5
*For numbered item descriptions, see Appendix E
For Study 3, this resulted in four factors, eight items assessing
perceived similarity in personal identity (α = .90, M = 4.31, SD = 1.01), seven
items assessing perceived similarity in relational identity (α = .90, M = 4.64, SD =
1.03), seven items assessing perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity
(α = .88, M = 4.11, SD = 0.91), and two items assessing perceived similarity in
communal (social) identity (rs(313) = .49, p <.001, M = 3.54, SD = 1.04).
Perceived Homophily. To again consider similarities and differences between
the PSR and Identity Salience measure, I included the Perceived Homophily
scale (McCroskey et al., 1975). A CFA using the original four subscales was
conducted to examine the fit of the original subscales to the Study 3 data.
12
6
Results show that, like in Study 2,
12
7
Background Homophily does not fit in one factor and the item assessing
similarity in sexual attitudes does not fit in any of the factors (see Figure 3
for full CFA model).
Because a CFA must be done with three or more items per factor, a second
CFA with only two factors produces invalid results. Rather, I examined the
reliability of the five subscales used in Study 2. These five subscales were
retained for Study 3.
12
8
Figure 3
CFA: Perceived Homophily Scale, Study 3
12
9
*Item Q38_10 was omitted from analyses due to low loading. For item descriptions, see
Appendix C (Study 3 Experimental Survey, Q38 Perceived Homophily Block.
Four items constituted the perceived homophily in attitude dimension (α =
.81, M
= 4.53, SD = 1.23), two items made up the perceived homophily in social
background dimension (rs(315) = .33, p <.001, M = 3.96 , SD = 1.22 ); two
items made up the perceived homophily in group background dimension (rs(315)
= .39, p <.001, M = 3.89, SD = 1.25); three items made up the perceived
homophily in value dimension (α = .63,
13
0
M = 4.51, SD = 1.08), and four items made up the perceived homophily in
appearance
dimension (α = .69, M = 3.93, SD = 0.93).
Family Communication Patterns. To examine FCP, participants
completed the RFCP Instrument, a self-report questionnaire asking
respondents to agree or disagree with statements about their family
communication habits and patterns. For a full description of the RFCP, see
Study 2. The measure consists of two subscales, one 11- item scale
measuring conformity orientation (a = .86, M = 4.10, SD = 1.11). and the
other 15-item scale considering conversation orientation (a = .92, M = 4.26,
SD = 1.20).
Results
The primary goal of Study 3 was to examine whether family
communication pattern salience shapes the perceived similarity between
oneself and a new character. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
three conditions either a neutral condition or one that made a particular
family communication pattern salient (conversation orientation or conformity
orientation). Participants were then presented with an ambiguous character
description and asked to rate their perceived similarity and homophily to the
character, along with a measure of their own FCP. To consider similarities
between oneself and the ambiguous character, I compared the effect of the
three conditions on perception of the media character and also considered
correlations between the variables of interest for those exposed to the
conversation orientation condition and those exposed to the conformity
13
1
orientation condition.
A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the three
conditions on perceived similarity on the four identity dimensions and the
five perceived homophily dimensions. Results suggested that there is a
statistically significant difference in
13
2
perceived similarity in personal and relational identity dimensions between
at least two of the experimental groups (conversation orientation prime,
conformity orientation prime, and neutral prime).
Results showed a significant difference in perceived similarity in personal
identity dimensions between at least two of the experimental groups (F(2, 309)
= [3.066], p<
0.05) with Tukey’s HSD Test for multiple comparisons showing that the mean
value of perceived similarity in personal identity dimension between oneself and
the ambiguous character approached a significant difference between the
conversation oriented primed group and the conformity orientated primed
group (p =.07, 95% C.I. = [-.64, .02]). These results suggest that for those
exposed to the conformity orientation prompt, the average score for
perceived similarity in personal identity (M = 4.42, SD = 0.98) was
significantly higher than for those in the conversation orientation primed
group (M = 4.10, SD = 1.08).
Results also showed a significant difference in perceived similarity in
relational identity dimensions between at least two of the experimental
groups (F(2, 310) = [3.29], p< 0.05) with Tukey’s HSD Test for multiple
comparisons showing that the mean value of perceived similarity in relational
identity dimension between oneself and the ambiguous character approached
significance between the conversation oriented primed group and the
neutral primed group (p =.06, 95% C.I. = [-.66, .01]). These results
suggested that for those exposed to the neutral orientation prompt, the
13
3
average score for perceived similarity in relational identity (M = 4.75, SD =
0.98) was significantly higher than for those in the conversation orientation
primed group (M = 4.42, SD = 1.06).
13
4
There was no statistically significant difference in scores of other
variables between any of the groups. This suggests that when conversation
orientation is primed, individuals are less likely to perceive themselves as
similar on personal aspects of identity to an ambiguous character than those
exposed to a conformity orientation prime. Additionally, individuals exposed
to a conversation orientation prime are less likely to perceive themselves as
similar on relational aspects of identity to an ambiguous character than
those exposed to a neutral prime.
To consider differences between the variables as a consequence of
FCP prime, I also examined correlations between the variables of interest by
condition. That is, correlations for the variables of interest were examined
when conversation orientation was primed and when conformity orientation
was primed. Correlations between the variables were fairly similar in both
conditions with a few notable differences.
When conversation orientation was primed (i.e., respondents were
exposed to the condition asking them to consider a time when their parents
asked for their opinion/advice), the FCP measure of conformity orientation
was significantly and positively correlated with attitude homophily (rs(98) =
.34, p <.001), perceived similarity on personal (rs(97) = .39, p <.001),
relational (rs(97) = .38, p <.001), and communal (personal) (rs(98) = .31, p
<.001) identity dimensions. These variables were neither significantly
correlated in the conformity oriented condition nor in the neutral condition.
When conformity orientation was primed (i.e., respondents were
13
5
exposed to the condition asking them to consider a time when their parents
refused to discuss an important topic), the FCP measure of conversation
orientation was significantly and positively correlated with perceived
similarity on the communal (social) identity
dimension (rs(108) = .37, p <.001). These variables were slightly correlated in
the
13
6
neutral condition (rs(106) = .23, p <.05) and were not correlated in the
conversation oriented condition.
The effects of the one-way ANOVA suggest that there is a statistically
significant difference in the mean score of perceived similarity in personal
identity between the conversation orientation primed group and the conformity
oriented primed group.
Additionally, there is a difference in the mean score of perceived similarity in
relational identity between the conversation oriented group and the neutral
condition. Correlations also suggest that the relationships between the
variables may change as a function of how individuals are primed to think of
others.
Discussion
Study 3 sought to extend research from Studies 1 and 2 by
considering whether conformity and conversation orientation can increase
perceived similarities in particular dimensions of identity with a new
character. Results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the way we perceive
ourselves is related to how we perceive a parasocial character (see Tables 5
& 11 for correlations between self-identity and perceived self-identity of a
parasocial figure). Further, Study 2 found that conformity orientation is
related to perceived similarity in relational identity dimension. Study 3 finds
that differences in how FCP is primed does have an effect on some aspects
of identity and the relationships between specific identity dimensions and
FCP. Namely, Study 3 finds that the mean score for perceived similarity in
13
7
personal identity is higher in the conformity orientation prime condition than
the conversation orientation condition and that perceived similarity in
relational identity is lower when conversation orientation is primed than in a
neutral
13
8
condition. These results suggest that priming family communication patterns
may shape the way we perceive ourselves as similar to new characters.
It is important to note that Study 3 found some significant differences
in correlations between the variables of interest when looking at those
exposed to the conversation orientation prime and those exposed to the
conformity orientation prime. The results show that when considering those
exposed to the conversation orientation prime, conformity orientation is
significantly related to a number of identity dimensions. Study 2 did not find
any significant relationship between conformity orientation in personal or
communal dimensions of identity, suggesting there may be some inherent
differences in assessing perceived similarity between a parasocial character
and a new media figure. The relationship between the media figure and
respondent in Study 3 might be more closely related to a construct like
impression formation rather than perceived similarity.
Overall, Study 3 provides new insight into the possible relationship
between family communication and interpersonal interaction with media
figures. Results of this study alone may not advance the research on
parasocial relating as the subject of perceived similarity is not a known
media figure, but results surely suggest some important interactions for
family communication research. By highlighting the ability of FCPs to shape
our perceived similarity with others, including known and new media
figures, we shed light on how new relationships may form.
13
9
Overall Discussion and Conclusion
As humans, we seek interpersonal relationships with others. The
relationships we build with media figures may provide many of the same
benefits that interpersonal relationships provide (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987).
Parasocial relationships may build as we form deep, albeit often one-sided,
connections with media figures. Research on parasocial relating suggests
that these relationships can have implications for how we view others and
the way we learn to form other types of relationships. Understanding how
we perceive parasocial relationships and the way family shapes perception
of others can help fill gaps in understanding interpersonal relationships
broadly as they relate to identity formation.
The studies included in this examination have three primary
objectives. The first is to determine how one’s own sense of self is related to
the way we describe our favorite media figure, a proxy for a parasocial
figure. Second, we created a scale of perceived identity similarity with a
parasocial figure and sought to validate the scale dimensions in line with CTI
research. And finally, we used both a survey and experiment to consider if
and how family communication, specifically conversation and conformity
orientation, shapes parasocial relating through identity salience.
Objective one: Identity salience and parasocial
The first objective of the research included in this examination was to
consider the relationship of self-concept or identity and the perceived self-
concept of a parasocial character. Based on the Communication Theory of
14
0
Identity (Hecht, 2015), it was expected that the way an individual defines
themselves may be related to the way they define a character with whom
they have a parasocial relationship. That is, an individual
14
1
will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial character
using the same CTI dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted, relational,
and communal. Using an adapted version of the twenty-statements-test to
examine one’s own sense of identity as well as perceived identity of a
favorite media character, high inter-coder reliability suggests that indeed,
the salient identities of oneself shape the ways we view parasocial figures.
There is a strong relationship between the way we describe ourselves
and the way we describe a parasocial figure. For example, a respondent
might describe themselves as a mother and sister and describe their
favorite parasocial character as a husband and friend. For this respondent,
the relational aspect of identity is salient for both themselves and their
parasocial media figure. Results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that personal
identity is most highly correlated with perceived personal identity of a
parasocial figure. This pattern is consistent for enacted, relational, and
communal identities as well, suggesting that while we see ourselves through
a variety of identity lenses, the way we most see ourselves is most highly
correlated to the same perceived identity dimension of a parasocial figure.
Objective two: PSR and identity salience scale
The second objective is to create and validate a scale of parasocial
relating and identity salience. The original 32 items tested in Study 1 were
created using constructs from the CTI to measure perceived similarity to a
media figure on the personal, enacted, relational, and communal
dimensions. After examining the four-factor structure, the interpretation of
14
2
the factors changed such that the enacted grouping was dropped and two
factors were established to consider communal identities. The 24 items
retained
14
3
from Study 1 were re-tested in Study 2 and a confirmatory factor analysis
confirmed the four dimensions established in Study 1. The final 24-item
measure includes eight items assessing perceived similarity in personal identity,
seven items assessing perceived similarity in relational identity, seven items
assessing perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity, and two items
assessing perceived similarity in communal (social) identity. The created scale was
not significantly related to the ways that individuals described themselves
through the TST measure, but was significantly related to measures of
perceived homophily in ways that suggest it is assessing an aspect of
parasocial relating.
Overall, the studies included in this examination provide insight into
how individuals may perceive themselves as similar to their parasocial
figure. There is not enough evidence to fully validate the measure, but the
four subscales included are reliable in their measurement. Future
examinations should compare the subscales to other measures of
homophily and parasocial relating in order to refine the items and clearly
measure PSR as a function of identity salience.
Objective three: Family communication and media-figure relationships
Finally, the third objective sought to examine the relationship that
family communication may have on parasocial relationships by shaping
identity salience and perceived similarity in identity dimensions. To examine
the relationship of family communication and parasocial relationships, those
relationships with media figures, Study 2 asked respondents to indicate
14
4
their perceived similarity to their favorite media figure and indicate their
FCP via scales assessing conversation and conformity
14
5
orientations. Study 2 confirmed that conformity orientation is significantly and
positively related to perceived similarity in relational identity dimensions with a
parasocial figure.
To extend the findings from Study 2, Study 3 sought to determine how
family communication might impact perceptions of a new media figure.
Study 3 compared conversation and conformity conditions and their effect on
perceived similarity to an ambiguous character. In particular, this study
sought to shed light on how family communication, broadly, might shape the
way we form initial impressions about new media characters in an effort to
better understand how we perceive media figures with whom we form deep
parasocial relationships. Study 3 found that when conversation orientation is
made salient, conformity orientation is positively and significantly related to
perceived similarity on personal, relational, and communal (personal)
dimensions of identity. When conformity orientation is made salient,
conversation orientation is positively and significantly related to perceived
similarity on communal (social) dimensions of identity. This is related to
findings that perceived similarity in personal identity is higher for individuals
primed by conformity orientation than conversation orientation and
relational identity is lower for those primed by conversation orientation
rather than a neutral prime.
When taken together, this suggests that indeed, family communication does
impact the way we perceive media characters and our perception of how
similar characters are to ourselves. The findings from Study 3 are not in line
with the findings from Study 2 in that Study 2 did not find any significant
14
6
relationship between conformity orientation and perceived similarity in
personal or communal identity. This suggests that perhaps one’s initial
formation of media figures is based on different considerations that
14
7
our ultimate parasocial relationships. That is, as we develop deeper
relationships with media figures, we perceive different similarities to media
figures.
Conclusion and Limitations
The three studies included in this examination advance our
understanding of both parasocial relationships and family communication in
nuanced ways. There are a variety of considerations that shape our
interpersonal relationships. Research on face- to-face communication has
examined the role of family communication but this has not extended to
research on parasocial relationships. The studies included herein consider
both direct effects of family communication on parasocial relating as well as
the way family communication shapes our perceived similarity to parasocial
characters via identity salience.
Findings suggest that respondents tend to describe themselves and
their parasocial media figure using terms that suggest the same dimension
of identity salience. This suggests that we see parasocial figures in the same
way we see ourselves. This may mean that we seek out figures who are
similar to ourselves or that we perceive the figure as similar, but either way,
it suggests the importance of identity salience in our parasocial
relationships.
We also found that respondents from high conformity oriented
families are more likely to report perceived similarity on relational aspects
of identity. This suggests that for those families in which family functioning
14
8
is stressed, individuals are more likely to perceive their parasocial figure as
similar in terms that stress interdependence and relationships with others.
Initial reactions to media figures are less clear as family communication
salience seems to shift the way communication patterns relate to
14
9
identity dimensions but not in ways that are clearly connected to the
literature. Further research in this area is needed to fully understand how
initial impressions of media figures might shape subsequent parasocial
relating. Future studies should consider how family communication shapes
initial reactions to a media figure and how this changes over time as viewers
learn more about the figure.
The studies included herein have a number of strengths including high
inter- coder reliability for the self-reported identity and perceived identity of
a parasocial character measures; and a large sample size for instrument
validation, there are also several weaknesses that should be addressed in a
follow-up study. First, the instrument for PSR and Identity salience created in
this study does not include an enacted layer of identity and the subscales
created are not clearly conceptually different from existing homophily scales.
The enacted layer of identity assesses behavior or planned behavior and
may not be appropriately measured by asking respondents about their
perceived similarity rather than action. A future examination should consider
how to measure behavior of an individual as well as behavior of the
parasocial character to assess perceived similarity in the enacted dimension
of identity. Additionally, it is important to include nuanced measures of
parasocial relating to ensure the validity of the scale items and also add
items to bolster the 2-item subscale of perceived similarity on the
communal-social dimension of identity. Future testing should consider other
items to bolster the reliability of the subscale. Finally, the majority of
15
0
respondents described themselves as Asian, potentially biasing the results.
Identity salience can be strongly tied to a variety of factors, including
demographic factors like place of origin or ethnicity. Future examinations
should strive for greater sample diversity.
15
1
The family unit is one of the primary socializing forces for interpersonal
relationships. This extends beyond our personal relationships and can also
be seen in our relationships with media figures. Family communication
patterns can shape the way we form these parasocial relationships and can
also shape the way we perceive ourselves and media figures in ways that
impact these relationships. Specifically, we find that our sense-of-self shapes
the way we see media figures and that family communication, specifically
being from a high conformity family, is related to the way we perceive
similarities between ourselves and parasocial figures.
15
2
References
Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation of a
parasocial interaction measure: The audience-persona interaction
scale. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 79-89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388753
Ball, H., Wanzer, M., & Servoss, T. (2013). Parent–child communication on
Facebook: Family communication patterns and young adults' decisions to
“friend” parents. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 615-629.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2013.822406
Barbato, C. A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E. M. (2009). Communicating in the
family: an examination of the relationship of family communication
climate and interpersonal communication motives. Journal of Family
Communication, 3(3), 123-148.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327698JFC0303_01
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective
identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in
responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass
Communication & Society, 6(2), 191-202.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0602_5
Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television
viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18(4), 443-463.
15
3
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018004001
Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and
parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical
assessment of
15
4
measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21-44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998), Family communication patterns
and communication apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 13, 493-502.
Fitzpatrick, M., & Ritchie, L. (1994). Communication schemata within the family:
multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research,
20(3), 275-
301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Socialization and the family. In Social
Development: History, Theory, and Research (pp. 161-212). New York:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3768-6_5
Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring
viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication,
61(6), 1104- 1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.
Haun, D., & Over, H. (2014). Like me: A homophily-based account of human
culture. In
P. J. Richerson & H. Morten (Eds.), Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology,
Language, and Religion (pp. 117-130). MIT Press
Hecht, M. L., & Phillips, K. E. (2022). Communication theory of identity:
Understanding the multilayered nature of identity. In D.O. Braithwaite
& P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication:
Multiple perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 217–232). New York: Routledge
Hong, Y., Ip, G., Chiu, C., Morris, M., & Menon, T. (2001). Cultural identity and
15
5
dynamic construction of the self: Collective duties and individual rights in
Chinese and
15
6
American cultures. Social Cognition, 19(3), 251-268.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.3.251.21473
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social
interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 19(3),
215-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Keating, D. M. (2016). Conversation orientation and conformity orientation are
inversely related: a meta analysis. Communication Research Reports, 33(3),
195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1186622
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.)
Guildford Press.
Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of
conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the
family. Communication Studies, 48(1), 59-75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368491
Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication.
Communication Theory, 12(1), 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2002.tb00260.x
Koesten, J. (2003). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and
communication competence. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 226-244.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775052000343417
Koesten, J., & Anderson, K. (2009) Exploring the influence of family
communication patterns, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal
competence on adolescent risk
15
7
behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 4(2), 99-121.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0402_2
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-
attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2088175 Lull, J. (1980). Family communication
patterns and the social uses of television.
Communication Research, 7(3), 319-334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028000700303
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a
measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication.
Human Communication Research, 1, 323-332.
https://doi.org/10.13072/midss.509
McDermott, V. A. (2009). Interpersonal communication networks: An
approach through the understanding of self-concept, significant
others, and the social influence process. Communication Quarterly, 28(4),
13-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378009369378
McLeish, K. N., & Oxoby, R. J. (2011). Social interactions and the salience of
social identity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 172-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.003
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J.
Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (pp. 50-59). Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:
15
8
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-
444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
15
9
Michalski, S., & Helmig, B. (2008). What do we know about the identity
salience model of relationship marketing success? A review of the
literature. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 7(1), 45-63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332660802067940
Murdock, E., Hirt, F. S., & Ferring, D. (2014). Salience of nationality in
students’ spontaneous self-concept: A comparative study of a
nationally homogeneous and heterogeneous school context. Journal of
Research in International Education, 13(2), 119-134.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240914539797
Ozmete, E. (2011). Building social capital in micro environment: The family,
attachment theory and socialization. NURTURE: Journal of Pakistan Home
Economics Association, 5(1), 1-7.
Randel, A. (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship
between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 749-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.163
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers,
television and new media like real people and places. Stanford University:
Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, L., & Fitzpatrick, M. (1990). Family communication patterns:
Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal
relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523-544.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017004007
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera
16
0
involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication
Research, 14(2), 246-
268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x
16
1
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial
interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication
Research, 12(2), 155-
80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
Rueter, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2008). The effect of family communication
patterns on adopted adolescent adjustment. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 70(3), 715-727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2008.00516.x
Rusconi, E., & Tummons, P. (1975). Introduction to “What is Socialization”,
New German Critique, 6, 48-59.
Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy: Parasocial
relationships with Harry Potter across different cultures. International
Communication Gazette, 73(3), 252-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510393658
Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI-Process scales. A new
measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes.
Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 33(4),
385-401. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2008.025
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the
study of the self: Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural
identity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 635-651.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751- 9004.2008.00077.x
16
2
Shelton, J. N., & Sellers, R. M. (2000). Situational stability and variability in
African American racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798400026001002
1
Stets, J. E., Aldecoa, J., Bloom, Q., & Winegar, J. (2021). Using identity theory
to understand homophily in groups. In P. S. Brenner, J. E. Stets, & R. T.
Serpe (Eds.), Identities in Action: Developments in Identity Theory (pp. 285-
302). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76966-6_14
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870
Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with liked, neutral,
and disliked characters on a popular TV series. Mass Communication
and Society, 13(3), 250-269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903296051
Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of parasocial
interaction with different television performers. Communication Quarterly,
41(4), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369904
2
FAMILY COMMUNICATION AND THE PARASOCIAL PHENOMENON: EXPLORING IDENTITY
SALIENCE AND CONNECTIONS WITH MEDIA FIGURES
Introduction
Interpersonal relationships come in many forms and are not limited to
face-to- face interactions as they may be mediated through a variety of
channels. Research shows that interpersonal communication is paramount
for creating a sense of self and building social networks (McDermott, 2009).
And patterns of interpersonal communication are learned from socializing
forces that shape children’s interaction. The family is one of the primary
socializing forces for children and interaction patterns and communication
that occurs within the family can shape subsequent interactions, both face-
to-face and online. One of the interactions that may be shaped by family
communication patterns are parasocial relationships and interactions which
may mimic interpersonal relationships. Parasocial relationships are one-
sided interactions with a media figure and extant research suggests that
they may function in ways that mimic other types of interpersonal
relationships (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987). If parasocial interactions can mimic
interpersonal interactions broadly, then it is important to consider the way
sense-of-self can impact interaction patterns, both face-to-face and
perceived. The Communication Theory of Identity suggests that there are
3
four types of identity dimensions that shape the way we see the world:
personal, enacted, relational, and communal. These dimensions are reflexive
in that we use them to shape not only one’s sense of self, but also the way
we understand and categorize others (Stets & Burke, 2000). This study seeks
to bridge these research areas by considering the role of family
4
communication on parasocial relating through the lens of identity salience,
specifically salience of the four dimensions of identity.
Broadly, the present study investigates the influence of family
communication patterns on the types of parasocial relationships into which
media audiences enter, and whether this relationship is mediated by
identity salience. The family unit is one of the primary socializing forces for
individuals and teaches one how to develop and maintain interpersonal
relationships that extend beyond the family (Ozmete, 2011). While a
parasocial relationship is one that takes place with a media figure and is not
interpersonal in a face-to-face traditional sense, it can be experienced as a
meaningful relationship on the part of the viewer (Horton & Wohl, 1956).
There is a large body of research examining the impact that family
communication has on face-to-face interpersonal relationship development
(e.g., Barbato, Graham, & Perse, 2009; Elwood & Schrader, 1998; Koesten,
2003; Koesten & Anderson, 2009), but the extant literature has failed to
consider how family communication influences parasocial relationship
development.
This examination is composed of three studies which build upon each
other to develop an understanding of how identity salience is related to
parasocial relating and the way family communication can shape these
relationships by impacting one’s sense of identity. Study 1 utilizes a created
measure of parasocial relating and identity salience to understand how
respondents perceive themselves as similar to a parasocial figure on
5
dimensions of identity. Study 1 also asks respondents to describe
themselves and how they think their parasocial figure would describe
themselves. I expect that
6
respondents will perceive themselves and their parasocial media figure in
similar terms representing similar dimensions of identity.
Study 2 is an extension of Study 1 and seeks to confirm the measure
of parasocial relating and identity salience tested in Study 1 and also
consider the role of family communication patterns. Like Study 1, Study 2
uses an online survey to measure respondent’s sense-of-self and perceived
sense-of-self of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, Study 2 utilizes a measure of family communication, namely
conversation orientation and conformity orientation, to understand the role
that these family conversation patterns may have on identity salience and
parasocial relating. I expect that families that emphasize uniformity in
beliefs and that family functioning is of highest importance will also be more
likely to perceive similarity to parasocial figures on relational and communal
aspects of identity as these aspects of identity emphasize group functioning
and interpersonal relationships/structure. Conversely, families with a more
democratic style that emphasize diverse opinions and beliefs will be more
likely to perceive similarity to parasocial figures on personal and enacted
aspects of identity as these aspects of identity emphasize individuality and
expression.
Study 3 will use an experiment to advance the findings from Study 2
by considering how family communication salience influences perceived
similarity to a new media character. This is a departure from Studies 1 and 2
which considered similarity to a parasocial figure, but may shed light on how
7
these relationships form. By looking at perceived similarity to a new
character, we might begin to understand how a new character is perceived
when a particular family communication pattern is made salient. Specifically,
I expect the findings from Study 3 to advance the findings from Study 2 and
8
show that families with more democratic communication styles are more
likely to perceive similarity to the new character on personal and enacted
aspects of identity whereas families that emphasize uniformity of beliefs is
more likely to perceive similarity to the new character on relational and
communal aspects of identity.
Because different family communication patterns emphasize different
dimensions of identity (e.g., whether one has an increased focus on personal
identity characteristics, communal/group characteristics, etc.), it is possible
that particular family communication patterns make specific identity aspects
more/less salient, thereby influencing the ways we view parasocial
relationships and media figures. To examine the interaction between family
communication, identity salience, and parasocial relationships, I will
highlight each of these concepts individually, with a detailed focus on the
proposed interaction of family communication and identity salience in order
to show how these variables impact parasocial relationship development. I
will begin with a conceptualization of parasocial relationships to
contextualize the interaction and proposed model.
9
Literature Review
Parasocial Relationships: What they are and how they
Function
For many individuals, interpersonal relationships are not limited to
face-to-face interactions but may also extend to online relationships. This
may be true even in situations when relationships are one-sided and lack
dyadic interaction. A parasocial relationship (PSR) is one that takes place
between a user of mass media and a media figure or persona that appears
in the media (Horton & Wohl, 1956). These relationships are formed
because mass media often create an illusion of a face-to-face relationship
between the spectator and the media figure (Horton & Wohl, 1956). There
are a variety of considerations that may impact the types of character with
which one forms a parasocial relationship. Relatedly, the way we view these
characters may be shaped partly by environment and also by one’s own
perspective on others, suggesting that both personal identity as well as
interpersonal interactions may shape our parasocial interactions.
The parasocial phenomenon broadly encompasses a variety of
parasocial concepts, including PSRs, parasocial interaction (PSI), and
parasocial break-up (Shackleford, 2020). Parasocial interaction is the
interaction that happens between a media persona and user during media
exposure, whereas parasocial relationships refer to a “cross-situational
relationship” that a viewer continues to feel even after the media exposure
10
has ended (Schmid & Klimmt, 2011; Schramm & Hartmann, 2008).
Therefore, PSI is restricted to the specific media exposure whereas PSR can
endure beyond the exposure and create a long-lasting, albeit one-sided,
relationship. There are conceptual
11
distinctions between the different parasocial phenomena, but they have
largely been treated similarly in the literature. PSI interactions are often
studied beyond the moment of exposure using traditional PSR measures,
justifying my examination of these concepts (PSI and PSR) interchangeably
as they relate to family communication and identity salience. Parasocial
relating is a common phenomenon, but it is important to highlight that
merely watching a television program is not evidence that a parasocial
relationship is developing. A viewer may watch a program with a low level of
empathy towards the show and/or characters, thereby failing to create a
meaningful relationship; or a viewer may be engaged while watching a
program but lose this feeling upon the shows completion (Horton & Wohl,
1956), a relationship more akin to parasocial interaction.
Although PSI and PSRs are distinct types of involvement with media
figures, many of the conclusions drawn by modern PSI research may hold
true for PSRs. This is because much of the existing PSI literature actually
examines parasocial relating broadly, not limiting the examination to the
time of media exposure. For example, a number of studies have shown that
attraction to a media figure is highly correlated with PSI and have suggested
that media users evaluate media personalities using comparable standards
to individuals they encounter in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Rubin,
Perse, & Powell, 1985; Rubin & Perse, 1987; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011).
Conway and Rubin (1991) build on this idea by suggesting that the more
one feels attracted to a media personality, the more one will ascribe
12
importance to the relationship. Just like in interpersonal relationships,
viewers also likely feel a certain level of comfort and affinity with media
personalities with whom they are developing a
13
parasocial relationship. Conway and Rubin (1991) even go so far as to
suggest that the parasocial interaction may be a more important component
of viewing intention than a program’s content. These feelings of
interpersonal liking and media figure attraction should not be limited to one
type of parasocial relating, as both PSI and PSR require similar attraction
and affinity with media figures.
As PSR is more cross-situational, many of the PSI research findings
may be extended to PSR. The concept of parasocial relating generally
includes both of these concepts of PSR and PSI. Furthermore, several of the
PSI studies (including Conway & Rubin, 1991) include measures that are
more akin to examining PSR rather than PSI, showing how intermingled the
PSI and PSR literature is and the necessity for considering previous PSI
literature when examining new PSR avenues. The significant role that
parasocial relationship development may have on one’s media experience is
similar to other types of social interaction and highlights the need for greater
research to survey the features that contribute to its formation and
development.
Many of the characteristics of parasocial relating are similar to
interpersonal social interaction, and many scholars have previously
compared both PSI and PSR to other types of interaction. For example, Rubin
and Perse (1987) suggested that PSI may stem from an intrinsic human
motivation to form attachments with others, regardless of the distance
between those individuals. Reeves and Nass (1996) furthered this idea by
14
suggesting that actions and reactions to media figures are related to innate
responses to human characteristics. They stated that this is an example of
the “media equation,” where social responses by individuals are elicited due
to cues related to human characteristics from the media figures, such as a
human face on the screen
15
(Reeves & Nass, 1996). Additionally, Hartmann and Goldhoorn (2011) found
that a parasocial experience was intensified when a media figure addressed
viewers head-on as if the media figure was speaking directly to the media
viewer. It is therefore apparent that human characteristics of the media
figure may have a large impact on the development of a parasocial
relationship, specifically the strength of the relationship may be intensified
when we perceive the character as more human or similar to ourselves.
Therefore, it is important to weigh the considerations that individuals make
when reacting to a media personality, including similarity to the self, and
overall likeability.
The way we determine how similar or dissimilar people, including
media figures, are to ourselves is complicated and can be based on a
variety of considerations. It is likely that these considerations are based
upon fundamental conceptualizations of the self, for how we view ourselves
often provides the templates for how we evaluate others, and how we view
ourselves is likely shaped by the way we are socialized to communicate in
our family.
Why Family Matters - Socialization
Before examining exactly how particular types of family
communication impact identity salience and the development of PSRs, it is
important to highlight why the family matters and how family communication
and socialization processes can impact subsequent socialization and general
relationship formation.
16
Socialization is often defined broadly as the process through which an
individual becomes a “social being” that lives in and takes part in social
groups (see Grusec & Lytton, 1988). Family socialization is often considered
one of the most important means
17
of socialization and has been associated with long-term developmental
outcomes and interpersonal relationship development. This is due, in large
part, to the development of one’s self-identity and self-representation which
provide templates for future interaction (Ozmete, 2011). Because childhood
socialization can have a large impact on how children perceive themselves
and others, it is important to examine the factors that contribute to
socialization.
There are several different types of socialization, and they work
together and independently to foster growth. The foundation of socialization
is referred to as primary socialization, which occurs as a child acquires the
basic attitudes, actions, and beliefs typical of their culture, laying the
foundations for secondary socialization (Ozmete, 2011). The ability of the
family to contribute to socialization stems from two primary factors: control
and an emotional bond. Because the family has nearly exclusive control of a
child during the first years of life, and because they are spurred by an
emotional bond to motivate the child to be socialized, the family unit,
especially parents, is often responsible for primary socialization (Rusconi &
Tummons, 1975). Other caregivers may impact children, but the parental
role is unique in that children tend to be most highly socialized with their
parents and turn to their parents to build their own sense of self.
Primary socialization begins a process through which individuals learn
and develop into adults. The development that occurs in primary
socialization is carried into secondary socialization. Secondary socialization
18
involves smaller changes than those that occur in primary socialization; it
teaches individuals about the type of behavior that is considered
appropriate as a member of a group within society at large (Ozmete,
19
2011). Because primary socialization provides a template for future
interactions, it is important to consider how family communication patterns
that exist in the family might be related to interpersonal relationships
(including those with media figures) and the development of one’s identity.
Family communication and socialization teaches children how to prioritize
certain characteristics and aspects of communication by making salient
specific identity aspects. The way socialization impacts one’s identity may
shape how we view media figures with whom we form relationships.
Identity
There are a number of definitions of identity (see Schwartz,
Zamboanga, & Weisskirch, 2008), but most conceptualize identity as the way
an individual thinks of or experiences the self. In both identity theory and
social identity theory, the self is viewed as reflexive, as it can view, classify,
and categorize itself as an object in relation to other classifications and social
categories/groups (Stets & Burke, 2000). Because we think of ourselves in
relation to several evolving groups/categories, identity can be made up of a
number of different aspects or roles at any given time.
Identity refers to the way we view ourselves in relation to others and
other groups of people. Identity is a multilayered construct as people have a
variety of identity dimensions that may be salient at any given time (Hecht &
Phillips, 2022). The salience of a particular aspect of identity may be due to
either internal or external factors and cues. Understanding how family
communication may shape the salience of particular identity dimensions is
20
important to understanding how identity can subsequently shape our
interpersonal interactions, including our parasocial interactions.
21
Family communication may influence the types of PSRs that one
engages in by activating particular aspects of identity and, therefore,
shaping the way we perceive ourselves as similar to potential objects of
parasocial relationships. When family communication follows particular
patterns, individuals in these families may be accustomed to thinking of
themselves in particular terms which leads to seeing others with these same
characteristics. For example, if a family is focused on their collective
experience (e.g., we are football-playing family) rather than personal
attributes (e.g., I am smart) one may be more likely to think about
themselves and others in similar collective/group terms or personal terms.
Previous examinations have found that family communication patterns may
influence both general family relationships and also lay the groundwork for
how individuals create relationships outside of the family. Research has
examined family communication patterns and various interpersonal
relationships, including romantic partner and friend relationship
development (Barbato, Graham, & Perse, 2009; Elwood & Schrader, 1998;
Koesten, 2003; Koesten & Anderson, 2009).
One of the ways the family relationship may impact subsequent interactions
is by making certain aspects of a family member’s identity more or less
salient. By emphasizing particular identity dimensions, the family unit may
shape the way individuals view others and build interpersonal relationships,
including parasocial-type relationships.
Communication Theory of Identity
22
This multifaceted view of identity is highlighted by the Communication
Theory of Identity, which proposes a “layered” perspective of identity where
communication is viewed as identity enactment through four primary layers:
personal, relational, enacted,
23
and communal (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). The personal identity layer address
how an individual defines themselves; relational identity deals with how
identities are defined in terms of particular relationships and in relation to
other identities; the enacted layer of identity is the performance of identity
and how one may express who they are; and finally, the communal layer of
identity examines how society defines identities and how these identities
are related to culture/society (Hecht & Phillips, 2022).
Identity Salience
At any given time, how we view ourselves is likely informed by which
of these interconnected identities is most salient. Identity salience is an
individual-level construct representing how prominent a category is in the
mind of an individual and how that prominence informs subsequent
thoughts/decisions/interactions (Randel, 2002). There are a number of cues
related to human characteristics which may elicit a social response from an
individual, but some are more salient than others. The elements of one’s
identity that are salient shape how one categorizes others as similar or
dissimilar based on the characteristics and self-categorizations that matter
most. Randel (2002) acknowledges that the salience of some aspects of
identity may change from time-to- time, but the salience of group
membership identities is more stable and consistent over time. This is
echoed in research that highlights the way identity aspects may be
situational or stable, but that many group-based identities, like ethnicity, are
generally stable (e.g., Shelton & Sellers, 2000).
24
Identity salience has the ability to impact social interactions and the
choices we make. Research by McLeish and Oxoby (2011) found that
individuals were more likely to cooperate on social tasks with others whom
they perceived as being similar to
25
themselves in identity salience. Perceived similarity in identity salience
suggests that they view others as similar in either personal, enacted,
communal, or relational aspects of identity. In addition to impacting
perceptions and interactions with others, identity salience may impact
behavior more broadly. A meta-analysis examining the relationship between
identity salience and marketing success found that identity salience plays an
important mediating role in nonprofit relationships (i.e., donating and
promoting goods/services) (Michalski & Helmig, 2008). The potential for
identity salience to influence various aspects of one’s life can be extended to
other dimensions, including media exposure and evaluations of parasocial
figures. The way we conceptualize the self may impact which of the four
levels of identity, as proposed by the Communication Theory of Identity,
namely personal, relational, enacted, and communal, we view with greater
prominence and therefore ascribe more importance to. This suggests, for
example, that if one views their personal identity as most salient, then they
may view their parasocial character in terms of their personal identity
dimension. This might shape the way we view others as similar or dissimilar
to ourselves and shape our sense of homophily with others.
To better understand if parasocial relationships are reflective of salient
identity dimensions, I will develop a multidimensional measurement of PSR
and Identity Salience. The measure will seek to examine an individual’s level
of perceived similarity with a parasocial character on the four dimensions of
identity outlined by the Communication Theory of Identity: personal,
26
enacted, relational, and communal. For each of the four dimensions, I
derived eight items that are supported by the literature for
27
an initial measure of 32 items. To assess the structure and reliability of the
items I propose the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the factor structure of the PSR and Identity Salience
measure?
RQ2: What are the overall reliability and validity of the instrument and of
any subscales that might be derived?
Homophily
Identity salience rests on the idea that we have multiple identities that
make up our sense of self but that certain identities may be more or less
salient at any given time. If identity, then, is thought of as being made up of
multiple parts with varying levels of significance for oneself, homophily may
explain why we are drawn to certain individuals and even parasocial figures
(McPherson et al., 2001).
The categorization process of identity is informed by those identity
aspects that are more or less salient. The greater the prominence of a
particular category in the mind of an individual, the more salient that
category of identity. When we perceive others as similar on important
aspects of identity, then a sense of homophily may draw individuals
together. Homophily is the idea that similarity brings people together (Stets
et al., 2021) and shapes the way we interact with one another (e.g., Haun &
Over, 2014). It refers to the tendency for people to be drawn to those they
perceive as similar to themselves (McPherson, et al., 2001). Homophily rests
on the idea that social networks are both limited and amplified by perceived
28
similarity as we develop deeper social connections with individuals we
perceive as similar on aspects of the self that are of particular importance
(McPherson, et al. 2001).
29
If a particular identity category is high in salience, then one may be more
likely to experience homophily with others they perceive as being similar in that
dimension.
Although identity dimensions are not exclusive and we may cycle through
different dimensions as identity salience changes, many aspects of identity
are stable across time (e.g., Shelton & Sellers, 2000), and family
communication may shape how we perceive our own identity. When we
encounter others, we have a natural tendency to place them into categories
based on similarities and differences within and between self-established
category boundaries, thereby determining if they are more or less like us
on a particular dimension, and consequently, overall (Randel, 2002).
Because identity salience can shape aspects of identity that we perceive to
be most important, it can be used to develop a sense of homophily as we
develop interpersonal social connections on dimensions that are most
important to one’s sense of self (McPherson et al., 2001). To associate with
others whom we perceive as similar on specific
dimensions of identity may develop increased liking and homophily, thereby
shaping the types of interpersonal relationships that are formed, including
parasocial relationships.
Homophily is the tendency for people to be attracted to those who
they perceive as being similar to themselves and can occur on a number of
different levels, including appearance, background, and attitude (as seen in
Turner, 1993). For example, if one’s religion or occupation is particularly
30
salient, then you may be more likely to experience homophily with others
who are similar in their religious views or occupation type/status. While
appearance and background are visible and readily identifiable, homophily
can be built on a number of other factors. For example, Turner (1993) finds
that attitude homophily is clearly related to PSR with media figures and may
be more important than
31
physical characteristics. This suggests that the way a character looks and
other obvious targets for homophily (such as gender, age, and ethnicity)
may not be as important for the development of parasocial interaction as
other, less visible, factors (Turner, 1993). Therefore, homophily should be
defined more generally as the idea that liking and affiliation between similar
people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people and may occur
in a number of different types of relationships (McPherson et al., 2001).
Homophily is the tendency to be attracted to those we perceive as
similar on one or more levels. If one of these layers is more salient for an
individual, then we may be more likely to experience a sense of affinity
derived from perceived similarity with those who also view this dimension
similarly.
Homophily and PSR. A sense of homophily between oneself and others
is likely dependent on which elements of one’s identity are most salient
because when a particular dimension of identity is perceived as more
important than an individual will be more likely to search for others that are
similar on the same dimension. The finding that similarity in attitude
dimensions influences the development of PSRs (Conway & Rubin, 1991)
suggests that the salience of specific identity dimensions for a viewer may
result in homophily with characters that are perceived as being similar in the
same identity dimension. This increase in homophily may be related to the
intensity of the parasocial relationships one builds with media figures.
Therefore, I hypothesize that salience in particular identity dimensions for
32
oneself will be related to salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure,
such that an increase in any identity dimension for oneself will be related to
an increase in the same identity dimension for a parasocial figure. In other
words, if a certain dimension of identity is salient for an individual, then that
person may
33
be more likely to develop a PSR with a character they perceive as similar in
that particular dimension. For example, if personal identity salience is
increased for oneself we posit that for the parasocial figure, personal
identity salience will be perceived to be increased; that is, there will be a
positive correlation between self-reported identity salience and the salience
of perceived identity of a parasocial figure. This brings me to my first
hypothesis:
H1: Media viewers will tend to describe themselves and the object of a
parasocial relationship using terms representing the same dimension of
identity (personal, enacted, relational, or communal).
For different individuals, different layers of identity may be more/less
salient. To understand the relationship between parasocial relating and
identity salience, it is important to understand what element or elements of
that audience member’s identity are most salient and important factors that
may shape identity salience. One aspect that may influence the salience of a
particular dimension of identity is family communication.
Family Communication and Relationship to Identity Salience
As discussed previously, families are the primary context of
socialization for individuals. Traits learned in childhood are often carried into
secondary socialization and the development of interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Lubbers et al., 2009). Families differ from one another in the patterns
of communication that characterize their interaction. These differences may
34
cause some identities to be more habitually salient. This, in turn, may shape
perceived homophily with media figures, thereby influencing the
development of PSR. Individuals from families with particular family
communication
35
patterns are more likely to create parasocial relationships with media figures
that they perceive as similar on each of these particular dimensions of identity.
Family Communication Patterns
There are several different types of family communication patterns
that may impact how both parents and children perceive media figures, but
for this research, two major foci will be examined in depth. Existing research
on FCPs has identified conversation and conformity orientations within
families as central characteristics of how families communicate (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002). Definitions of conversation orientation and conformity
orientation have evolved over time, and Koerner & Fitzpatrick (2002)
developed an aggregate of these definitions based on prior research by
McLeod and Chaffee (1972), Fitzpatrick and Richie (1994), and Koerner and
Fitzpatrick (1997); this aggregate view will inform the present investigation.
The FCP dimensions are a broad way of examining a variety of
communication that takes place within a home and is not limited to any one
interaction but rather speaks to communication norms in a household.
Existing research on FCPs suggests that these norms may impact
subsequent interpersonal communication and are therefore stable across
communication types.
Conformity orientation. Conformity orientation is the degree to which
family communication emphasizes uniformity of expressed attitudes, beliefs,
and values within the family (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). A key component
of high conformity orientation families is, “a clear hierarchical family
36
structure and a belief that family member interests are superior to individual
interests” (Ball, Wanzer, & Servoss, 2013, p. 618).
Families with high conformity orientation exhibit more limited communication
on a
37
narrow range of topics because they are working to maintain a given family
structure (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Furthermore, because harmony and
interdependence within the family is essential to families with high
conformity orientation, conflict is often avoided (Koerner & Fitzpatrick,
2002). Avoiding conflict generally suggests that individuals within this family
structure avoid disagreement and are less likely to find faults in their other
family members, thereby increasing interpersonal liking and
interdependence (Ball et al., 2013; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). High-
conformity families have a focus on family functioning and require that each
member of the family contribute to the family unit by fulfilling their
individual roles and, clearly, an awareness of the roles of others.
The fulfillment of these individual roles is essential to creating a stable
family unit, therefore resulting in a relational co-dependency to maintain the
family structure and functioning. This is highlighted in research by Reuter
and Koerner (2008) that examines adolescents adopted by high conformity
families; these adolescents seem to struggle with assimilation into an
existing family structure more so than adolescents adopted by high
conversation oriented families. This research suggests that because high
conformity families emphasize individual family roles and the way these
roles come together to create a stable family unit, individuals who join high
conformity families may have difficulty assimilating in a structurally sound
family unit. Functioning within a family characterized by clear, established,
mutually-interdependent roles may lead to their family role identities
38
becoming more pronounced as they view themselves as having a shared,
interdependent family reality. Research by Reuter and Koerner (2008) finds
that adolescents adopted by protective families (those low in conversation
orientation but
39
high in conformity orientation) have a higher frequency of externalizing
behavior, including delinquency, behavioral disorders, conflictual relations
with parents, and trouble at school, compared to those adopted by high
conversation oriented families. The authors suggest that this could be, in
part, because when adolescents are adopted into an existing
interdependent family structure, they are unable to assimilate into the
shared social reality of the family (Rueter & Koerner, 2008). A consequence
of high conformity families who stress a shared, interdependent family
reality, is an emphasis on communal and relational family roles and the
relationship of these roles to one- another.
Because high conformity orientation families rely on interdependence
within the family to maintain family structure (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002),
it is likely that this family structure would result in individuals for whom
relational identity is particularly salient (e.g., viewing themselves as a
father, daughter, mentor, etc.). This relational identity might manifest itself
in relationships, both interpersonal as well as parasocial as those high in
conformity orientation may be more likely to develop relationships with
those they perceive as being similar in a relational way (e.g., this character
is a good partner, like me). It is not that an individual overtly perceives a
character as being similar to them in relational aspects, rather they form
relationships with characters and then perceive them as similar in those
aspects that they perceive as most salient.
Families that are high in conformity orientation rely on
40
interdependence to maintain harmony within the group. This
interdependence often means that they view themselves in reference to
others within the family structure as they work together to achieve goals
and maintain family functioning (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). For
41
example, an older child from a high conformity family is likely to be highly
aware that child-care chores are carried out - both for the well-being of
their younger sibling and also for parents’ peace of mind. This focus on
their role in relation to other family members is necessary to ensure
effective family functioning. This increased focus on family functioning
suggests that for those from high conformity orientated families, relational
aspects of their identity (how they view themselves in reference to
others/relationships) are more salient. For these individuals, then, they are
more likely to view their favorite media characters in similar relational
terms as they build their parasocial relationships with these characters. If
one perceives oneself as being a father, they may be more likely to view
their favorite media figure in relational terms as well (e.g., my favorite media
figure is a sister).
H2: Individuals from high conformity orientation families are more likely to
perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of relational identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
relational identity salience of oneself and perceived relational identity
salience of a parasocial figure. Individuals from high conformity orientation
families are more likely to perceive their parasocial media figures in
relational identity terms when mediated by their own increased relational
identity salience.
The communal layer of identity involves how one views oneself in
relation to a larger community. The communal identity layer is the broadest
42
layer of the Communication Theory of Identity and is linked with how society
defines identity and
43
describes cultures within society (for example, what we value, perhaps as it
connects to our religious beliefs) (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). This layer is less
about how we personally view ourselves and more about how we view
ourselves in relation to others in the community. This connects to high
conformity orientation as it similarly emphasizes commonalities in expressed
views, beliefs, etc. An emphasis on communal identity might manifest itself
in parasocial relationships, as those high in conformity orientation may be
more likely to develop relationships with those they perceive as being similar
in communal characteristics (i.e., this character is of the same faith).
Like the relational layer of identity, the communal layer also
emphasizes the self in relation to others. While the relational layer
emphasizes the self in reference to another individual, the communal layer
emphasizes the self in reference to a larger social or collective identity. The
emphasis on interdependence and group needs for high conformity families
suggest that in addition to the relational layer of identity, the communal
layer of identity is more salient for individuals from these families. For these
individuals, then, they are more likely to view their favorite media characters
in communal terms. For example, if one perceives oneself as being Asian,
they may be more likely to view their favorite media figure in relational
terms as well (e.g., my favorite media figure is Catholic).
H3: Individuals from high conformity orientation families are more likely to
perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of communal identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
communal identity salience of oneself and perceived communal identity
44
salience of a parasocial figure. Individuals from high conformity orientation
45
families are more likely to perceive their parasocial media figures in
communal identity terms when mediated by their own increased communal
identity salience.
Conversation orientation. Conversation orientation refers to an open
communication environment with little to no restriction on topics discussed.
Because families that exhibit high conversation orientation view
communication as a crucial way of socializing and educating their children
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), children in these types of families view
communication as “a means of gaining control, alleviating isolation, and
seeking affection from others” (Ball et al., 2013, p. 618). Families with a
high conversation orientation believe that open communication is essential
for building an enjoyable family life and parents often see frequent
communication as the primary way they socialize and educate their children
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), essentially viewing high conversation as
inversely related to high conformity orientation. Families with low
conversation orientation often limit the amount and details of private
information conveyed and thus share less with other members of their
family regarding personal thoughts and feelings (Ball et al., 2013). In these
low conversation oriented families, there is less exchange of private
thoughts and a greater emphasis on family functioning as a whole, akin to
high conformity families (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). One of the
fundamental differences between conversation- and conformity- oriented
families is that conformity oriented families are more likely to focus on the
46
group and overall family well-being whereas conversation oriented families
focus on individual differences and autonomy. It is important to note that
conversation and conformity
47
orientation are conceptually independent and it is possible to be high or low
in both constructs, but research suggests that they are often inversely
correlated (see, Keating, 2016). Essentially, families with high conversation
orientation tend to have an open communication environment while families
with high conformity orientation emphasize uniformity of beliefs and
attitudes (Ball et al., 2013). Therefore, when considering dimensions of
identity and the way it may relate to family communication, conversation
orientation is more likely to be related to aspects of identity that stress
individual beliefs and differences rather than group-based or interdependent
qualities.
The personal layer of identity is how an individual defines him or
herself and includes ethnic and gender identities (Hecht & Phillips, 2022).
High conversation oriented families tend to focus on individual needs and
individual differences rather than focusing on the group. This emphasis on
the individual suggests that those from high conversation oriented families
are more likely to be high in personal identity salience.
H4: Individuals from high conversation orientation families are more likely
to perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of personal identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by
personal identity salience of oneself and perceived personal identity
salience of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, high conversation oriented families extend the emphasis
on the individual beyond just one’s own perceptions but also to include how
48
one may act upon their beliefs. These families encourage voicing opinions,
even if they differ from parental opinions, and view communication as a way
for individuals to gain control. The enacted
49
layer of identity is the performance of identity or the way in which actions
express who we are. Because high conversation oriented families encourage
self-expression, the enacted layer of identity is likely to be more salient for
individuals from these family structures.
H5: Individuals from high conversation orientation families are more likely
to perceive media figures with whom they parasocially relate as similar in
terms of enacted identity; this effect is expected to be mediated by enacted
identity salience of oneself and perceived enacted identity salience of a
parasocial figure.
50
Proposed Model and Testing
Individuals from different families engage in conversation and
interpersonal interaction in distinct ways. These differences may extend to
their engagement in parasocial relationships and the way they view their
parasocial media figures. Because family socialization is such a critical factor
in many areas of one’s life, it is essential that we consider the ways family
socialization may impact media use. In order to examine the relationship
between family communication/socialization and parasocial relationship
development, it is important to consider the types of PSRs that may be
taking place.
Previous research (i.e., Lull, 1980) suggests different family
communication styles are indicative of different media use patterns for a
variety of reasons, but have failed to consider how family communication
patterns may impact parasocial relationships. I posit here that identity
salience impacts parasocial relationships, especially in terms of the way we
perceive the identities of a parasocial figure and the similarities to our own
identity salience. Therefore, any model examining the relationship between
family communication and the parasocial phenomena must consider how
family communication impacts identity salience.
The extant literature fails to consider how deeply rooted family
socialization is in our media choices, particularly in our likelihood of
developing and maintaining parasocial relationships. The proposed model
seeks to bridge this gap by examining the relationship between FCP and PSR
51
as mediated by identity salience. The model proposed herein suggests that
FCP, whether high in conversation orientation or conformity orientation, impacts
the dimensions of one’s identity that are the most salient. That is, individuals
high in conversation or conformity orientation are
52
more likely to think of themselves and therefore their parasocial character in
specific identity terms, which, in turn, impact perceived similarity with the
parasocial character.
To examine the proposed model, there are first a number of
considerations that need to be made. The model suggests that FCP and the
degree to which families are high in either conversation orientation or
conformity orientation may impact the parasocial relationship that is
developed by making particular identity dimensions more/less salient. Thus,
my research design examining the types of media figures with which
participants choose to engage in a parasocial relationship, must consider
the FCP of the individual and a measure of identity salience.
53
Overview of Studies
To examine the proposed model and address the hypotheses, I
conducted three studies. The first study, a survey, considers identity salience
of the respondent and relationship between one’s identity and the salience
of perceived identity of a parasocial character. The first study also
establishes a measure of parasocial relating based on the Communication
Theory of Identity and the four dimensions of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and communal.
The second study extends this research by also considering the
relationship family communication patterns may have on identity salience
and parasocial relationships. The second study also tightens the PSR
measure established in Study one by considering the identity dimensions
and the reliability of the subscales.
Finally, the third study, an experiment, considers how salience of a
particular family communication pattern might impact a respondent’s
reaction to an ambiguous character, specifically their perceived similarity to
this character. This study seeks to extend the PSR focus by considering how
family communication might shape the way we immediately think of a
character. For each of these studies, overall media use is considered and
basic demographic information is collected.
54
Study 1
The primary purpose of Study 1 was to examine the relationship of
self-concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character. Based
on the Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht & Phillips, 2022), I expected
that the way an individual defines themselves may be related to the way
they define a character with whom they have a parasocial relationship. That
is, an individual will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial
character using the same dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and/or communal. Therefore, Study 1 had two primary purposes,
it
(1) sought to examine similarities between one’s identity salience and
perceived salience of a parasocial figure and (2) it sought to create and
validate a measure of PSR and identity salience.
Methods
To obtain data for the first study, a cross-sectional survey was carried
out in 2020 at a large, public university on the U.S. west coast. Institutional
Review Board approval was received prior to data collection, and the survey
utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate college students enrolled in
an introductory Communication course. The online survey was optional, with
extra-credit offered to any student who attempted the survey. For the full
survey, see Appendix A.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
55
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 439. Of the 439
respondents, the mean age was 20.5 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.51), 27.3%
identified as male (n =120),
56
71.8% identified as female (n = 315) and four participants (0.9%) identified
as other. Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices
possible. The majority of participants identified as Asian (51.9%, n = 228),
26.4% identified as White (n = 116), 16.2% (n = 71) identified as
Latino/Hispanic, 3.6 % (n = 16) identified as Black/African American, 2.5%
(n = 11) identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and the remaining 6.6% (n = 29) identified as
other.
Measures
Identity salience/dimensions of identity. To measure identity salience,
participants completed a revised version of the Twenty Statements Test
(TST) (developed by Kuhn & McPartland, 1954). The TST asks participants to
answer the question, “Who am I” by completing twenty sentences beginning
with “I am…” and allowing participants to self-represent, highlighting those
aspects of their identity that they deem to be most important or salient. The
TST has previously been used to examine self-concept and identity salience
(including religious identity, cultural identity, personal identity, etc.) (see
Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Murdock, Hirt, & Ferring, 2014; Hong et al. 2001).
The revised version presented herein was adapted such that participants
were first asked to complete ten statements to describe themselves and,
after a set of questions about media use and recently watched programs,
participants completed another ten statements to describe their favorite
media figure. This allowed us to consider salient dimensions of each
57
participant’s identity/self-concept as well as perceived identity dimensions of
a parasocial media character. The two sets of TST statements were not
presented back-to-back to avoid a priming effect of participant TST
responses on perceived character TST responses.
58
To examine the four identity dimensions articulated by the
Communication Theory of Identity, the responses to the TST were grouped
into four categories: personal - how an individual defines themselves, any
characterization that is not in reference to another and not an outright
expression of identity (e.g., I am… brave/smart/happy); enacted – the
performance of identity and how one may express who they are, must be an
action of performance that can be interpreted by another person/group (e.g.,
I am… a driven); relational – how identities are defined in terms of particular
relationships or a title conferred upon others (e.g., I am… a boyfriend/sister);
and communal -how society defines identities and how these identities are
related to culture/society (e.g., I am… Jewish). Coding of the responses into
the four categories was performed by the author and a trained coder using a
detailed codebook highlighting the identity dimension groupings. The second
coder was trained on the dataset and codebook. After multiple rounds of
reliability checking, we achieved inter-coder reliability for both the ten
statements examining the respondent’s own identity salience (kappa =
0.922) and the ten statements examining salience of perceived identity of a
media figure (kappa = 0.952). For a detailed codebook, see Appendix D.
To calculate identity salience for each category (personal, enacted,
relational, communal) for both the self-identity and perceived identity of a
parasocial figure, the proportion of all responses coded as falling within
each category was calculated. See Table 1 for proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of overall self-identity and Table 2 for proportions
59
of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial
media character.
60
Table 1: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Self-Identity TST (Study 1)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.456 0.273 0.194 0.076
SD 0.186 0.191 0.198 0.102
Table 2: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Perceived Self-Identity of
Parasocial Media Character TST (Study 1)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.381 0.332 0.256 0.032
SD 0.198 0.218 0.229 0.063
PSR & Identity Salience. A second measure of PSR was also used
specifically to measure the identity overlap between the media figure and
the respondent, as perceived by the respondent. This measure was created
by the author and is, to the author’s knowledge, the only measure that
considers similarity to a parasocial character on specific dimensions of
identity, based on the CTI. The creation of this measure is meant to fill a gap
in the literature on parasocial relating. To the authors’ knowledge, there is
no existing instrument that considers PSR and identity salience in this way.
For this measure, participants rated their similarity to their favorite media
character on a number of domains. The initial measure consisted of four
subscales, each one examining perceived similarity of the participant to
61
their parasocial media figure on a
62
different layer of identity (personal, enacted, relational, communal), with
eight items each.
To develop the items for each subscale, I reviewed the main goals and
features of the CTI (as explained by Hecht & Phillips, 2022) and established
items that were consistent with descriptions of each dimension. For
example, a key element of the relational layer of identity is that it considers
who you are in reference to another specific person or group of people. To
examine this concept, the relational subscale included items like, “In
relation to your favorite character/celebrity [character name], would you say
you are more similar or dissimilar to [character name] in terms of… your
relationship with those around you.” Similar considerations were made for
the other identity measures and the total scale with 32 items was included
in Study 1. For a full list of measure items, see Appendix E.
Items asked participants to rate similarity to their favorite character
on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different
to the character in terms of how you see yourself”), enacted identity (e.g.,
“are you more alike or more different to the character in terms of how you
act on your beliefs”), relational identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you care about other people”),
and communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the
character in terms of your group identification”). Responses were anchored
from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely Similar).
Media use. In addition to the coded measures examining salient
63
identity dimensions of the respondent and perceived identity dimensions of
the parasocial media figure, I also examined media use. Participants were
asked to indicate the
64
number of hours spent per day (a) watching TV shows, either on TV or
online, (b) watching movies, (c) using social media (like Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook, etc.), and
(d) playing video games. Responses were anchored from 0 hours per day to
10 hours per day and an aggregate score of overall media use was
calculated by totaling each of the four media use categories (M = 9.04, SD =
5.11).
Results
RQ1 addressed the factor structure of the PSR and Identity Salience
measure.
An EFA was performed using principal axis factoring and promax oblique
rotation. I used an oblique rotation on an assumption of inter-correlations
between the factors. Based on the criterion of eigenvalues over 1.0, EFA
results produced a four-factor structure with primary loadings of at least
0.48 with no secondary loadings higher than
0.45. The factor loadings are shown in Table 3.
The four-factor structure accounted for a combined 57.9% of the
variance. Of the initial 32 items, 8 items did not significantly load with any of
the factor loadings, suggesting that these eight items were not significantly
related to any of the four dimensions identified. The items that did not
significantly load were primarily created by the author as items intended to
reflect similarity in Enacted Identity Salience.
Conceptually, enacted identity refers to one’s ability to express identity.
Because the items were assessing beliefs rather than behaviors, it may be
65
that a survey measure is unable to accurately assess behaviors that are
consistent with one’s enacted identity and perceived enacted identity of
others. Six of the eight enacted identity items were, then, excluded. The
remaining items that failed to load with the four-factors could also be
considered behaviors/actions (e.g., “… your role in a group”) or perceived
outlook,
66
which may also be interpreted as an action (e.g., “your world view”). These
items may not be a good reflection of identity and should then be
excluded. The eight items were removed and 24 items remained for the
PSR and Identity Salience measure.
My interpretation of the factors was similar to three of the four that I
originally conceptualized (personal, relational, and communal), with the main
difference relating to similarity on the enacted identity dimension. The items
created to measure perceived similarity on the dimension of enacted identity
did not clearly load together. Rather, some of these items seemed to be
most similar to items assessing perceived similarity on personal dimensions
of identity. For the items examining perceived similarity on communal
aspects of identity, there seemed to be two distinct factor groupings: one
considering “personal” communal identities (e.g., similarities in a common
group quality like clubs) and the other considering “social” communal
identities (e.g., similarities in religious affiliation, race or ethnicity).
67
Table 3. Factor Loadings for the Four-Factor Conceptualization of the PSR and Identity
Salience Measure (Study 1)
Variable* Personal Relational Communa
l: Personal
Communa
l: Social
… how you see yourself .66 -.13 .19 .03
… your unique personality .81 -.10 .05 -.17
… the characteristics which make you unique .80 -.19 .16 .02
… your individuality .91 -.10 -.15 .04
… your personality .57 .17 .15 -.12
… your self-concept .60 .04 -.01 .20
… how you express yourself .77 -.19 .22 -.07
… how you act in a situation .54 .25 .07 -.04
… how you care about other people -.06 .89 -.12 .01
… how you act towards other people .03 .79 .09 -.09
… your relationship with those around you -.06 .74 .11 -.02
… the relationships you have with your
family/friends
-.00 .64 .08 .06
… how you take care of others -.10 .90 .04 -.15
… how you treat others -.21 1.01 .01 -.05
… how you interact with others .14 .62 .11 -.06
… your social system .15 .05 .63 -.01
… your membership in various groups .17 -.01 .61 .03
… your similarities to those in your group(s) .03 .30 .52 .07
… your social group .17 -.10 .74 -.06
… a group stereotype -.15 .01 .70 .27
… a common group quality .09 .24 .48 .03
… a communal identity .06 .23 .48 .15
… your background (nationality, ethnicity,
etc.)
-.31 -.13 .48 .69
… your religious affiliation .10 -.14 .02 .79
*Participants were asked to indicate whether they are more alike or more different to their
favorite media character in terms of…
In response to RQ2, I examined the overall reliability of the instrument
as well as the reliability of the four subscales derived from the overall
measure. Overall reliability was assessed because the scale can either
assess PSR, broadly, by considering average of the overall measure, or any
of the subscales can be used to assess PSR on a specific dimension of
identity. Eight items constituted the perceived similarity in personal identity
factor, representing the respondent’s perception that their favorite media
figure is similar to them in aspects that are reflective of personal identity
qualities (α = .89); seven items made up the perceived similarity in relational
68
identity factor,
69
representing the respondent’s perception that their favorite media figure is
similar to them in aspects that are reflective of the relation aspect of identity
(α = .90); seven items made up the perceived similarity in personal communal
identity factor(α = .88); and two items made up the perceived similarity in social
communal identity factor (rs(437) = .30, p <.001), based on the
Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht & Phillips, 2022). The overall 24-
item instrument derived a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.94. See Table 4 for the
averages and standard deviation of each subscale. Because the primary
purpose of Study 1 was an initial test of the measure, ensuring validity was
reserved for Study 2.
Table 4. Mean and SD for PSR and Identity Salience subscales
Mean SD 1. 2. 3.
1. Perceived Personal Similarity 4.23 1.06 -
2. Perceived Relational
Similarity
4.55 1.12 .68** -
3. Perceived Communal
(Personal) Similarity
3.86 1.08 .73** .68** -
4. Perceived Communal (Social)
Similarity
3.46 1.34 .33** .31* .43**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
H1 posits that one’s self-reported identity salience will be positively
related to the salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure. In
response to H1, I calculated correlations between the proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of self-identity and proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial media
character. I expected that there would be a positive correlation for
70
proportions of the specific identity dimensions (personal, enacted, relational,
communal)
71
for both self-identity and perceived identity of one’s favorite media character
(parasocial character). See Table 5 for identity dimension correlations.
Table 5. Identity Dimension Correlations – Self-selected Identity Proportion and
Perceived Identity of a Parasocial Character (Study 1)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Self-
identity:
personal
-
2. Self-
identity:
enacted
-.28** -
3. Self-
identity:
relational
-.54** -.53** -
4. Self-
identity:
communal
-.25** -.33** .03 -
5.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
personal
.30** .01 -.24** -.10* -
6.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
enacted
.07 .37** -.31** -.21** -.30** -
7.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
relational
-.30** -.33* .48** .23** -.54** -.60** -
8.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
-.09 -.13** .10* .22** -.11* -.32** .13**
72
communal
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Correlations in bold identify positive correlations in response to H1
Results show that for the personal and enacted identity dimensions,
significant and positive correlations are present when examining the same
identity dimension for oneself and the parasocial media figure. For example,
when considering the proportion of TST answers that suggest personal
aspects of identity, there is a positive and
significant correlation with TST answers that indicate perceived personal
identity of a
73
parasocial figure. Indeed, for personal and enacted self-identities, the only
positive and significant correlations are for the same identity dimension of a
parasocial character.
For relational identity, the strongest significant and positive correlation is for
perceived relational identity of a favorite media figure. For communal identity,
the relationship is positive for both relational identity and communal identity of
a parasocial figure.
Findings support H1 by suggesting that, indeed, self-reported identity
salience is positively and significantly related to perceived identity of a
parasocial figure.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of
self-concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character. Based
on the Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht, 2015), I expected that the
way an individual defines themselves may be related to the way they define
a character with whom they have a parasocial relationship. That is, an
individual will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial
character using the same dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted,
relational, and/or communal. Therefore, the study had two primary purposes,
it
(1) sought to examine similarities between one’s identity salience and
perceived salience of a parasocial figure and (2) it sought to create and
validate a measure of PSR and identity salience.
74
The study was successful in creating a measure of PSR and identity
salience, although the dimensions found were not entirely in-line with what
was hypothesized based on the four identity dimensions. Rather, I found
that enacted identity is not distinctly represented in the data and communal
identity is represented in different ways, both as personal, or self-selected,
group identities such as clubs; and social
75
aspects, or ways that others might classify an individual, such as race or
ethnicity. It may be then, that communal identity should be viewed as two
separate categories of identity based on self-created and socially-defined
groupings.
Perhaps the most interesting finding as it relates to PSR is that the
salient identities of oneself shape the ways we view our parasocial figures.
The character with whom one has formed a parasocial relationship may be
dramatically different from oneself, but we tend to view ourselves in similar
terms. For example, a respondent might describe themselves as a mother
and sister and describe their favorite parasocial character as a husband and
friend. For each of these characterizations, the relational aspect of identity
is salient.
Study 1 helps pave an understanding of the interaction between
identity salience and parasocial relating by examining how one’s sense-of-
self is related to the salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure.
Additionally, Study 1 developed a measure of perceived similarity and
parasocial relating based on the dimensions of identity salience. To consider
how family communication may play a role in the interaction of identity
salience and parasocial relating, Study 2 will extend this research by
incorporating conversation and conformity measures and examining
relationships between these measures and the measures considering
identity dimensions.
76
Study 2
The primary purpose of Study 2 was to extend the relationship on self-
concept and the perceived self-concept of a parasocial character from Study
1. I continued to
77
examine the PSR and Identity Salience measure by considering the way the
created measure interacts with other measures of homophily and parasocial
relating. In addition to considering parasocial relating, Study 2 saw the
addition of a measure of family communication to consider the role of the
family in identity salience. Specifically, Study 2 sought to provide a first look
at the way family communication patterns, whether one is high in
conformity versus conversation orientation, plays a role in one’s identity
salience and perceived identity of and similarity with a parasocial media
character.
There are a variety of considerations that shape the way we form
relationships with others. Our previous examination (Study 1) considered
how identity salience is related to parasocial relating. This examination
(Study 2) considered how conversation orientation and conformity
orientation relate to perceived identity similarity to a parasocial character.
Specifically, I sought to address hypotheses 3-5 which hypothesize that
conversation orientation is positively related to perceived similarity on
personal and enacted identity dimensions and that conformity orientation is
positively related to perceived similarity on relational and communal
identities. I suspect that individuals from conversation oriented families will
be more likely to perceive similarity on personal and enacted identity
dimensions because they come from families that encourage independent
thoughts and behaviors, therefore emphasizing those aspects of their
personality that make them especially unique. Conversely, I suspect that
78
individuals from conformity oriented families will be more likely to perceive
similarity on relational and communal identities because individuals from
these families stress homogeneity in value and are dedicated to maintaining
a given family structure or
79
identity and may therefore view themselves both in relation to others and
as part of a larger social group.
Methods
To obtain data for the second study, an online, cross-sectional survey
was carried out in Fall 2020/Winter 2021 at a large, public university on the
west-coast. Institutional Review Board approval was received prior to data
collection and the survey utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate
college students enrolled in an introductory Communication course. The
survey was optional, with extra-credit offered to any student who attempted
the survey. And just like with Study 1, the survey could be terminated at any
time. The survey for Study 2 was offered during a different term from the
Study 1 survey, and although there is a possibility that there may be some
repeat respondents in Study 1 and Study 2 (e.g., participants repeating a
class), it is likely to be a very small number of the overall responses. For the
full survey instrument, see Appendix B.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 404. Of the 404
respondents, the mean age was 19.6 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.39), 32.9%
identified as male (n =133), 66.1% identified as female (n = 267) and four
participants (1%) identified as other.
Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices possible.
80
The majority of participants identified as Asian only (55.4%, n = 224), 19.6%
identified as White only (n = 79), 10.6% (n = 43) identified as
Latino/Hispanic only, 1.7 % (n = 7)
81
identified as Black/African American only, one respondent (0.2%) identified
as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only, with the remaining 12.4% (n = 50)
identifying as multiracial or other.
Measures
Identity salience/dimensions of identity. To measure identity salience,
participants completed a revised version of the Twenty Statements Test
(TST) (developed by Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) as they did in Study 1.
Coding for the TST followed the same guidelines as in Study 1 and were
grouped into the same four categories: personal, enacted, relational, and
communal. The author and trained coder from Study 1 completed the
coding for Study 2. The proportion of all responses coded as falling within
each category was calculated. See Table 6 for proportions of identity
dimensions as a function of overall self-identity and Table 7 for proportions
of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of the parasocial
media character.
Table 6: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Self-Identity TST (Study 2)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.427 0.294 0.200 0.079
SD 0.178 0.218 0.191 0.097
82
Table 7: Proportion of Responses by Identity Category for Perceived Self-Identity of
Parasocial Media Character TST (Study 2)
Personal
Identity
Dimension
Enacted
Identity
Dimension
Relational
Identity
Dimension
Communal
Identity
Dimension
Mean 0.417 0.276 0.268 0.040
SD 0.204 0.199 0.225 0.077
PSR & Identity Salience. To measure PSR and identity salience, I again
included the author-created measure considering perceived similarity to a
parasocial character on specific dimensions of identity. The inclusion of this
measure in Study 2 is meant to confirm the findings from Study 1 by testing
the remaining 24 items to ensure the factor loading is consistent with the
previous findings. Participants rated their similarity to their favorite media
character on a number of domains. The measure consisted of four subscales,
each one examining perceived similarity of the participant to their parasocial
media figure on a different layer of identity, adapted from the CTI to reflect
the findings from Study 1. The 24 items that converged in four iterations in
Study 1 were retained for Study 2. Of the 24 items included in the overall
measure, eight items specifically assessed the perceived similarity in personal
identity factor, seven items made up the perceived similarity in relational identity
factor; seven items made up the perceived similarity in personal communal identity
factor; and two items made up the perceived similarity in social communal identity
factor.
Items again asked participants to rate similarity to their favorite
83
character on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you see yourself”) and relational
identity (e.g., “are you more alike or
84
more different to the character in terms of how you care about other
people”). Study 2 also considered personal communal identity (e.g., “are
you more alike or more different to the character in terms of your social
group”) and social communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of your religious affiliation”). Responses
were anchored from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely Similar).
Homophily. To consider how the created PSR & Identity Salience
measure differs from other similar measures of parasocial relating, I included
measures of homophily and parasocial breakup. For the PSR and Identity
Salience measure to be reliable and valid, I expect that it should be
correlated with the homophily subscales and highly correlated with
parasocial breakup, a measure of intensity of the parasocial relationship. To
examine homophily, participants completed the Perceived Homophily Scale
(McCroskey, Richmond & Daly, 1975). The scale is a four-factor measure and
examines four dimensions of homophily including attitude, background,
value, and appearance homophily. The measure was adapted to examine
perceived homophily with a parasocial figure indicated by each respondent.
Each of the four subscales consists of four, 7-point Likert items with
statements such as, “this person thinks like me” (attitude homophily scale)
and “this person is from a different social class” (background homophily
scale). I examined the overall reliability of the measure as well as the
reliability of the four subscales to compare the PSR and Identity Salience
measure to homophily, generally, as well as each subscale.
85
To ensure the four dimensions of homophily posited by the Perceived
Homophily Scale were consistent for this examination, an EFA was performed
using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation in line with prior uses of this
measure that assumes no
86
inter-correlations between the factors (McCroskey et al., 1975). Based on
the criterion of eigenvalues over 1.0, EFA results produced a five-factor
structure with primary loadings of at least 0.45 with no secondary loadings
higher than 0.40. The factor loadings are shown in Table 8. Because the
scale has only been used once before, an EFA was used in this situation
rather than a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA would be appropriate
to verify the factor structure of a scale that has been previously tested and
validated. EFA is appropriate in this situation because it does not assume a
set factor structure and therefore provides greater flexibility when to
classify the subscales based on how they best load together.
The five-factor structure accounted for a combined 61.4% of the variance.
Of the initial 16 items, 1 item failed to significantly load with only one of the
factor loadings.
Four items constituted the perceived homophily in attitude dimension (α = .71, M
= 3.74, SD = 1.20), three items made up the perceived homophily in value
dimension (α = .71, M = 4.68, SD = 1.34), and four items made up the
perceived homophily in appearance dimension (α = .78, M = 2.70, SD = 1.45).
The four items to assess homophily in background dimension were represented
across two factors. Two of the items represented background that I describe
here as socially imposed (e.g., “…has status similar to me” or “…has an
economic situation like mine”) (rs(404) = .52, p <.001, M = 2.58, SD = 1.66).
The other two background items represented group background (e.g., “… is
culturally similar to me”) (rs(404) = .37, p <.001, M = 3.12, SD =1.72). The
87
overall 15-item instrument derived a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.75.
88
Table 8. Factor Loadings for the Perceived Homophily Scale
Variable* Attitude
Homophil
y
Background
(Socially
Imposed)
Homophily
Backgroun
d (Group)
Homophily
Value
Homophil
y
Appearanc
e
Homophily
… is like me .76 .17 .09 .17 .21
… is similar to me .74 .20 .14 .09 .04
… thinks like me .48 .08 -.19 .33 .32
… behaves like me .70 -.07 .15 .09 .03
… has status like mine .21 .77 .01 -.15 .20
… is from the same social
class
.28 .11 .75 -.12 .06
… is culturally similar .12 -.12 .66 .04 .42
… has an economic
situation like mine
.07 .84 .06 -.06 .08
… has morals like mine .22 .01 -.05 .78 -.07
… has sexual attitudes
like mine
-.11 .28 .41 .40 .08
… treats people like I do .14 -.09 -.09 .74 .03
… shares my values .07 -.18 .10 .72 .03
… looks similar to me .03 .18 .12 -.03 .76
… is the same size I am -.07 .24 .13 .03 .71
… has an appearance like
mine
.15 -.01 .10 -.03 .82
… resembles me .36 -.03 .03 .07 .71
*Participants were asked to indicate their feelings about their favorite celebrity/character by
indicating the degree to which the character…
Parasocial Breakup. To consider how the PSR & Identity Salience scale
differs from other examinations of parasocial relating, I also examine
parasocial breakup. The Parasocial Breakup scale (adapted from Cohen,
2003), is a 13-item scale intended to measure how a respondent would feel
if their favorite television personality was removed from their show or taken
off the air. The scale was adapted to ask respondents specifically how they
would feel if their favorite media figure or character was removed from the
air. Examples of items included in the scale are “I would… feel lonely” and “I
would… feel like I lost a close friend.” Responses were anchored from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 7(Strongly Agree) such that a higher score indicates a
more intense reaction to a parasocial breakup, therefore suggesting a
89
stronger parasocial relationship
90
(α = .87, M = 4.04, SD = 1.07). The parasocial breakup scale essentially
measures the depth of a parasocial relationship by considering one’s
reaction to a favorite media figure being removed from the air. In this study,
it is used as a proxy for degree of parasocial relating.
Family Communication Pattern. To measure family communication
patterns, participants completed a version of The Revised Family
Communication Pattern Instrument, one of the most heavily used family
communication instruments available (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990, adapted
from McLeod & Chaffee, 1972). The Revised Family Communication Pattern
Instrument (RFCP) is a self-report questionnaire asking respondents to agree
or disagree with 26 statements (measured on 7-point scales) about their
family communication habits and patterns. The RFCP focuses on the
interactions between parents and children with questions that are tailored
to children/adolescent respondents as opposed to parents (e.g., “My parents
often say something like ‘you’ll know better when you grow up,’”). Despite
being tailored to child respondents, this scale is still appropriate for a young-
adult college sample as their demographic is more able to identify with
children in a family structure than parents.
The RFCP measure consists of two subscales, one 11-item scale
measuring conformity orientation (α = .85, M = 4.12, SD = 1.07). and the
other 15-item scale considering conversation orientation (α = .91, M = 4.27,
SD = 1.16). While the constructs of conformity and conversation are often
found to be inversely related (those high in conversation orientation are
91
generally low in conformity orientation and vice versa), most research
conceptualizes the two constructs as being independent (see
92
Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Because of the independence of the two subscales,
this measure allows the most complete picture of the individual's FCP.
Media use. As with Study 1, Study 2 also considered media use.
Participants were asked to indicate the number of hours spent per day (a)
watching TV shows, either on TV or online, (b) watching movies, (c) using
social media (like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc.), and (d) playing video
games. Responses were anchored from 0 hours per day to 10 hours per day
and an aggregate score of overall media use was calculated by totaling each
of the four media use categories (M = 7.08, SD = 4.11).
Results
Study 2 had two primary goals. It first sought to confirm the findings
from Study 1, especially the factor-loading and validity of the PSR and
Identity Salience measure created by the author. Additionally, Study 2
sought to extend the findings from Study 1 by examining the role of family
communication on identity salience and parasocial relating, thereby
addressing Hypotheses 2-5.
To confirm the findings from Study 1, it is first necessary to validate
the factor- loading of the PSR and Identity Salience measure before
comparing the findings to other related measures, namely perceived
homophily and parasocial breakup. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed using AMOS 26.0 (The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
version 27.0). The result for the chi-square goodness of fit test indicates that
I should reject the null hypothesis of an exact-fitting model,
93
𝜒2(246) = 573.825, p<.001. Both the Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI: 0.914) and
Comparative fit index (CFI: 0.923) are consistent with thresholds for an
acceptable model fit. The Root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) value of 0.058 also
94
indicates an acceptable fit (see Kline, 2016). Therefore, when considering
the TLI, CFA, and RMSEA, results suggest that the model is an acceptable fit
to the data.
Figure 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: PSR & Identity Salience Measure, Study 2
*For numbered item descriptions, see Appendix E
CFA results validated the four-factor structure with positive
standardized estimates greater than 0.5. See Figure 1 for the full path
diagram with estimates.
Of the 24 items retained from Study 1, eight items assessed perceived
95
similarity in personal identity (α = .88, M = 4.06, SD = 1.06), seven items
assessed perceived similarity in relational identity (α = .88, M = 4.40, SD = 1.21),
seven items assessed
96
perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity (α = .85, M = 3.56, SD = 1.06),
and two items assessed perceived similarity in communal (social) identity (rs(404)
= .40, p
<.001, M = 3.18, SD = 1.48).
To assess whether the PSR and Identity Salience measure established
by the author was related to other measures of homophily and parasocial
relating the subscales were analyzed in relation to the Parasocial Breakup
scale and the five subscale factors indicated by the Perceived Homophily
Scale (for Subscale correlations, see Table 9).
Table 9. Correlations of Parasocial Relating and Homophily Scales
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Personal
Identity
-
2. Relational
Identity
.62** -
3. Communal:
Personal
Identity
.68** .54** -
4. Communal:
Social Identity
.31** .23** .46** -
5. Attitude
Homophily
.60** .46** .50** .30** -
6. Background
(Socially
Imposed)
Homophily
.15** .08 .20** .09 .23** -
7. Background
(Group)
Homophily
.20** .15** .25** .38** .29** .17** -
8. Value
Homophily
.33** .60** .32** .17** .33** -.13* .03 -
9. Appearance
Homophily
.30** .16** .33** .40** .34** .27** .38** .03 -
10. Parasocial
Breakup
.14** .12* .12* -.02 .08 -.01 -.05 .13* .01
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
97
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
98
Results suggest that the PSR and Identity Salience measure created to
assess perceived similarity between oneself and a parasocial figure on
dimensions of identity is highly correlated with the homophily subscales.
This suggests that the measure functions similarly to the Perceived
Homophily subscales, but consistently significant and high correlation in
each dimension suggests that the new subscales are not varied enough. The
parasocial breakup scale was moderately correlated with two of the
subscales, personal identity and communal (personal) identity. Because parasocial
breakup is a measure of parasocial relationship intensity, I expect it to be
highly correlated with perceived similarity to the media figure. The positive
correlation with perceived similarity in personal attributes suggests that the
scale does, indeed, measure important aspects of relationship intensity,
particularly when the perceived similarity is related to personal attributes.
Therefore, the created measure appears to be reliable in that the subscales
are highly correlated and significantly factor together, but the validity of the
measure, the extent to which it conceptually differs from other established
and similar measures, is unclear and more analysis is needed to establish
validity.
In addition to assessing the validity of the PSR and Identity Salience
scale, Study 2 also sought to affirm the findings from Study 1 in reference to
identity salience of oneself and salience of perceived identity of a parasocial
character. Study 1 addressed H1 and found that, indeed one’s self-reported
99
identity salience is positively related to the salience of perceived identity of a
parasocial figure. To confirm H1, I again calculated correlations between the
proportions of identity dimensions as a function of self-identity
10
0
and proportions of identity dimensions as a function of perceived identity of
the parasocial media character. See Table 10 for TST correlations.
Table 10. Identity Dimension Correlations – Self-selected Identity Proportion and
Perceived Identity of a Parasocial Character (Study 2)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Self-
identity:
personal
-
2. Self-
identity:
enacted
-.39** -
3. Self-
identity:
relational
-.43** -.56** -
4. Self-
identity:
communal
-.11** -.42** .07 -
5.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
personal
.22** .06 -.22** -.11* -
6.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
enacted
-.03 .32** -.22** -.25** -.27** -
7.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
relational
-.16** -.28** .36** .19** -.59** -.56** -
8.
Perceive
d
parasoci
al
identity:
-.06 -.21** .10* .38** -.23** -.24** .08
10
1
communal
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Correlations in bold identify positive correlations in response to H1
Findings in Study 2 confirmed the results from Study 1 and suggest
that self- reported identity salience is positively and significantly related to
perceived identity of a parasocial figure. Findings are significant and the
most positive when comparing the same identity dimensions of oneself and
the perceived identity dimension of the
10
2
parasocial character (e.g., salience of personal identity for oneself is positive
and significant when considering the perceived personal identity of a
parasocial character).
To examine hypotheses 2-5, I consider the relationships between
family communication and dimensions of identity by examining correlations
between the variables of interest (see Table 12).
Table 11. Correlations of Identity Salience, Parasocial Relating and Family
Communication
Conformity
Orientation
Conversation
Orientation
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Personal Identity .12 .04 - - - -
2. Relational Identity .12* .10 - - - -
3. Communal: Personal
Identity
.09 .06 - - - -
4. Communal: Social
Identity
-.01 .05 - - - -
5. Self-identity: personal .00 .05 .00 -.07 .06 .06
6. Self-identity: enacted .02 -.02 .04 .03 .00 .06
7. Self-identity: relational .00 -.04 -.02 .08 -.02 -.06
8. Self-identity: communal -.04 .02 -.05 -.10* -.07 -.12*
9. Perceived parasocial
identity: personal
-.05 -.04 .05 -.09 -.02 .02
10. Perceived parasocial
identity: enacted
-.01 .04 -.03 .08 .04 .07
11. Perceived parasocial
identity: relational
.05 -.02 .01 .03 -.01 -.08
12. Perceived parasocial
identity: communal
.00 .05 -.07 -.07 -.03 -.03
13. Media use .18** -.01 .05 .03 .11* .02
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Note: Items 1-4 are from the PSR and Identity Salience measure. For correlations of these
items, see Table 10.
Note: Items 5-8 are from the TST and assess self-identity; items 9-12 from the TST assess
perceived identity of a parasocial figure. For correlations of these items, see Table 11.
To address Hypotheses 2 and 3, I consider the relationship between
10
3
conformity orientation and the relational (H2) and communal (H3) aspect of
identity. Hypothesis 2
10
4
predicted that conformity orientation would be positively and significantly
related to the relational aspect of identity. Indeed, results suggest that
conformity orientation is significantly and positively related to perceived
similarity on the relational aspect of identity, supporting H2. Results
examining the relationship between conformity orientation and perceived
similarity on communal aspects of identity found no significant correlations,
suggesting that H3 is not supported. To address Hypotheses 4 and 5, I
consider the relationship between conversation orientation and the personal
(H4) and enacted (H5) aspect of identity. Neither perceived similarity on the
personal level of identity nor one’s perceived enacted identity salience is
significantly related to conversation orientation, thereby not providing
support for Hypotheses 4 or 5.
To consider the role that media use might play, relationships between
media use and the variables of interest were also considered (see Table 12).
Media use was significantly and positively related to conformity orientation
and perceived similarity on communal (personal) identity dimensions. Media
use was not significantly associated with any other variables but may
suggest that individuals from conformity orientated families are more likely
to be heavy users of media. While this by itself does not clearly indicate a
stronger or more meaningful relationship with media characters, it may
suggest important differences in how they use media.
To further confirm the correlation findings and to test indirect
relationships between FCP, one’s identity salience, and perceived identity
10
5
similarity with a parasocial figure, (assessing Hypotheses 2-4), a set of linear
regression models was calculated.
To test the hypotheses, I used Model 6 of the PROCESS v. 4.0 macro for
SPSS (Hayes, 2017). This model was chosen because it assesses the direct
relationship of
10
6
family communication on perceived similarity in identity dimensions and can
consider the role of multiple mediators on the direct effect, including the role
of identity salience of oneself and salience of perceived identity of a
parasocial figure. The model was run four times to assess Hypotheses 2-4.
The model generates 95% confidence intervals following 5000 bootstrapped
samples; intervals not including ‘0’ are significant at p <.05.
The first model examined the role of conformity orientation on
perceived similarity in relational aspects of identity mediated by relational
identity salience and perceived relational identity salience of a parasocial
figure, addressing H2. The direct effect of conformity orientation on
predicting perceived similarity on relational aspects of identity was
significant; direct effect = .20, SE = .06, CI[.09 :.31]. I controlled for both
media use and conversation orientation; the same relationships were
significant when these controls were removed. There were no significant
indirect relationships of conformity orientation on perceived similarity in
relational aspects of identity via either one’s relational identity salience or
the perceived relational identity salience of a parasocial figure. The findings
from the regression model partially support H2, suggesting that conformity
orientation is related to perceived similarity with a parasocial figure on
relational aspects of one’s identity but this relationship is not significantly
mediated by one’s own relational identity salience or the salience of
perceived identity of a parasocial figure.
To test Hypothesis 3, I separately examined the direct and indirect effect
10
7
of conformity orientation on perceived similarity on the Communal (Personal)
dimension of identity and perceived similarity on the Communal (Social)
dimension of identity.
Additionally, communal identity salience of both oneself and perceived
communal
10
8
identity salience of a parasocial figure were included as mediators. Again, I
controlled for media use and conversation orientation. Results found the
direct effect of conformity orientation on predicting perceived similarity on
communal (personal) aspects of identity was significant; direct effect = .11,
SE = .05, CI[.00 :.22]. There were no significant indirect relationships of
conformity orientation on perceived similarity in communal (personal)
aspects of identity via either one’s communal identity salience or the
perceived communal identity salience of a parasocial figure. There were no
direct or indirect relationships between conformity orientation and perceived
similarity on communal (social) aspects of identity. Therefore, the findings
from the regression model partially support H3, suggesting that conformity
orientation is related to perceived similarity with a parasocial figure on
communal (personal) aspects of one’s identity but this relationship is not
significantly mediated by one’s own relational identity salience or the
salience of perceived identity of a parasocial figure nor does the relationship
exist when considering perceived similarities in communal aspects that are
social.
Finally, to test Hypothesis 4, I examined the direct and indirect effect
of conversation orientation on perceived similarity on the personal
dimension of identity. Personal identity salience of oneself and perceived
personal identity salience of a parasocial figure were included as mediators.
I controlled for media use and conformity orientation. Results found the
direct effect of conversation orientation on predicting perceived similarity on
10
9
personal aspects of identity was significant; direct effect = .10, SE = .05,
CI[.00 :.20]. There were no significant indirect relationships of conversation
orientation on perceived similarity in personal aspects of identity via either
one’s personal identity salience or the perceived personal identity salience
of a parasocial
11
0
figure. Therefore, the findings from the regression model partially supported
H4, suggesting that conversation orientation is related to perceived
similarity with a parasocial figure on personal aspects of one’s identity.
Hypothesis 5 sought to examine the role of conversation orientation on
perceived similarity on the enacted dimension of identity. However, the PSR
and perceived similarity measure did not clearly establish an enacted factor,
therefore I was unable to further test Hypothesis 5. Therefore, results did not
support H5.
Discussion
Findings from Study 2 support results from Study 1 and pave the way
for considerations about family communication and the role of perceived
similarity of identity dimensions. Study 2 had two primary goals, the first
was to confirm the PSR and identity salience measure from Study 1 and
second, to determine how family communication, conceptualized as
conversation and conformity orientation, is related to perceived similarity on
identity dimensions with a chosen parasocial figure. Specifically, I predicted
that conversation orientation would be positively associated with perceived
similarity on personal and enacted dimensions of identity whereas
conformity orientation would be positively associated with perceived
similarity on relational and communal dimensions of identity.
Results from Study 2 confirm findings from Study 1 showing that
respondents conceptualize themselves and their parasocial character using
terms that are indicative of the same dimension of identity. Essentially,
11
1
Study 2 confirms there is a positive correlation with one’s identity dimension
and the perceived identity dimension of their
11
2
parasocial character. Additionally, results from this study also validated the
PSR and Identity Salience measure introduced and refined in Study 1.
Finally, the primary change from Study 1 to Study 2 was the inclusion
of the FCP scales and an examination of the relationships between family
communication pattern and parasocial relating. I hypothesized that
conformity orientation would be positively and significantly related to
perceived similarity in both relational and communal dimensions of identity
to a media figure. Results found that indeed, conformity orientation was
directly and positively related to perceived similarity in relational and
communal aspects of identity. For conversation orientation, I expected this
dimension of FCP would be positively and significantly related to perceived
similarity in both personal identity and enacted identity to a media figure.
While correlation results suggest that conversation orientation is not
significantly related to either perceived similarity in personal or enacted
identity, regression effects show a significant direct effect on perceived
similarity in personal identity.
Overall, this suggests that there is something special about the way
family communication relates to the ways we perceive ourselves as similar
to a parasocial character. Conformity orientation relates to perceived
similarity in relational and communal identity salience. Conformity
orientation, broadly, is characterized by a commitment to family functioning
and a focus on maintaining relationships. The relational aspect of identity
emphasizes interactions, especially interpersonal interactions. The
11
3
communal aspect of identity emphasizes group functioning When taken
together, this suggests that when individuals report a family communication
pattern that is high in conformity orientation, they are more likely to also
perceive
11
4
themselves as similar to media figures on relational aspects of identity. It is
very possible that the focus on family and relationships in their FCP has
shaped the way they perceive other interpersonal relationships and the ways
in which similarities are understood. To better understand how family
communication may shape identity and impact our understanding of media
characters, Study 3 seeks to understand how family communication shapes
the way we view new characters to understand how our relationships with
media figures are formed.
11
5
Study 3
When considering how individuals view their parasocial relationships,
identity salience is an important factor. Results from Studies 1 and 2 show
that we tend to think of ourselves and our parasocial figures in terms that
are reflective of similar dimensions of identity. Study 2 considers the role of
family communication and finds that for individuals from some families (i.e.,
those high in conformity orientation), they are more likely to indicate
perceived similarity with a media figure in relational aspects of identity. One
aspect of parasocial relationships that is not considered is how these
relationships initially form and how initial impressions are made of media
figures. Study 3 seeks to understand the initial perceptions of a media
character by presenting respondents with an ambiguous character
description and asking them to rate their perceived similarity to this
character. The experiment will prime individuals on a particular family
communication pattern to understand if this relates to their perceived
similarities to the media figure using the same PSR and Identity Salience
measure tested in Studies 1 and 2.
Studies 1 and 2 assessed the way parasocial relationships may be
reflective of one’s own identity. Both Study 1 and Study 2 showed that
significant and positive correlations are present when examining the same
identity dimension for oneself and a parasocial media figure. Through
Studies 1 and 2, I also created and tested a measure of PSR and Identity
Salience which attempted to measure perceived similarity on one of four
11
6
aspects of identity as adapted from the CTI: personal, relational, communal
(personal), and communal (social). Results show that the measure is similar
to perceived homophily and that perceived similarity on the relational or
communal
11
7
(personal) level of identity is significantly and positively related to conformity
orientation and perceived similarity on the personal level of identity is
significantly and positively related to conversation orientation. Study 3 offers
a different method to assess how family communication, specifically salience
of a particular family communication pattern, might shape perceived
similarity with an ambiguous character.
Studies 1 and 2 assessed interaction with a parasocial character
whereas Study 3 considers how we assess a new character. Parasocial
relationships begin with a viewer connecting to a character on some specific
element. This Study helps establish a more nuanced understanding of how
these relationships might begin and how families might shape the way we
view new characters and perceived similarities to these characters.
I expect that salience of a particular family communication pattern will
shape the way individuals perceive the new media character in line with
expectations from Study
2. Namely, I expect that individuals primed with the conversation orientation
prompt will be more likely to perceive the media character as similar on
personal dimensions and those primed with the conformity orientation
prompt will be more likely to perceive the media character as similar on
relational and communal aspects of identity.
Method
To obtain data for this study, an online survey was carried out in
Spring/Summer 2021 at a large, public university on the west-coast.
11
8
Institutional Review Board approval was received prior to data collection and
the experiment utilized a convenience sample of undergraduate college
students enrolled in an introductory Communication course.
11
9
The survey was optional, with extra-credit offered to any student who
attempted the online survey. For the full instrument, see Appendix C.
Sample
After eliminating responses from incomplete surveys and participants
whose completion time for the survey suggested they did not read survey
questions completely, the total number of respondents was 324. Of the 324
respondents, the mean age was 20.6 years (range: 18-25, SD = 1.53),
25.6% identified as male (n =83), 73.5% identified as female (n = 238) and
three participants (1%) identified as other.
Participants were asked to indicate their race with multiple choices possible.
The majority of participants identified as Asian only (58.6%, n = 190), 15.7%
identified as White only (n = 51), 12.7% (n = 41) identified as
Latino/Hispanic only, 2.5 % (n = 8) identified as Black/African American only,
four respondents (1.2%) identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 8% (n = 26) selected two or more race
categories, and the remaining 1.2% (n = 4) identified as other.
Measures
Demographics and manipulation. Respondents were presented with a
few basic demographic questions, including one question asking respondents
to indicate their preferred pronouns with options including He/Him/His,
She/Her/Hers, They/Them/Theirs, and Other. After answering the demographic
questions, respondents were presented with a short-answer portion designed
to make family communication salient. The short answer question either
12
0
asked the participant to consider a time when their parent discussed an
important topic with them (conversation orientation), their
12
1
parent excluded them from a conversation (conformity orientation), or to
describe a room in their childhood home (control). See Table 12 for the full
Prompt and number of respondents presented with each prompt.
Participants were then asked to read a description of an ambiguous
character called, “Riley.” The participant was presented with a character
description that matched their own pronoun use, as indicated by their
demographic response (he/him/his or she/her or they/them/their). The ambiguous
character description was pre-tested prior to Study 3 to ensure that the
character was not clearly perceived as good or bad but was rather neutral
and would allow participants to connect to the character in a variety of ways.
For character descriptions, see full survey in Appendix C.
Table 12: FCP Manipulation and Prompts
Manipulation Prompt Number of
Respondent
s
Conversation
Orientation
Salient
Many parents feel that all voices in a family matter,
that difficult topics should be discussed amongst all
family members, and that everyone's ideas should be
considered. These parents may seem to care about
what their children think and the ways they feel,
especially when it comes to sensitive or difficult family
topics. In these cases, parents may discuss important
topics with their children.
Think about a specific time when your parents discussed
an important topic with you and you felt like they
listened to your thoughts or feelings. Describe that
incident here.
N=104
Conformity
Orientation
Salient
Many parents feel that they know what's best for their
children and families, and believe that difficult topics
should not be discussed among family members. They
do not value input from children, and may seem to not
care about what their children think and the ways they
feel. In these cases, parents may not discuss important
topics with their children.
N=109
12
2
Think about a specific time when your parents refused
to discuss a topic that you felt was important and you
felt like they did not listen to your thoughts or feelings.
Describe that incident here.
Neutral/Control
Group
Most people have one primary home that they
remember from when they grew up. This might be
your childhood home or the home that your parents
currently live in.
Think about a specific room in that home that meant
something to you. Describe that room here.
N=111
PSR & Identity Salience. To measure perceived similarity with an
ambiguous character on dimensions of identity salience, I employed the PSR
and Identity Salience measure created through Studies 1 and 2. The
measure consists of four subscales, each one examining perceived similarity
of the participant to their parasocial media figure on a different layer of
identity, adapted from the CTI. For Study 3, this item was used to assess
perceived similarity to the ambiguous character, Riley. The 24 items that
converged in four iterations in Study 2 were retained for Study 3. Of the 24
items included in the overall measure, eight items specifically assessed the
perceived similarity in personal identity factor, seven items made up the perceived
similarity in relational identity factor, seven items made up the perceived similarity
in personal communal identity factor; and two items made up the perceived
similarity in social communal identity factor.
Items again asked participants to rate similarity to the character
(Riley) on aspects of personal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more
different to the character in terms of how you see yourself”) and relational
identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the character in
terms of how you care about other people”). Study 2 also considered
12
3
personal communal identity (e.g., “are you more alike or more different to
the character in terms of your social group”) and social communal identity
(e.g., “are you more alike or more different to the character in terms of your
religious affiliation”).
Responses were anchored from 1 (Extremely Dissimilar) to 7 (Extremely
Similar).
12
4
To ensure the model fit from Study 2 is applicable to Study 3, it was
first necessary to validate the factor-loading of the PSR and Identity
Salience measure before considering the relationship of the measure to
family communication patterns. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed using AMOS 26.0 (The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
version 27.0). The result for the chi-square goodness of fit test indicates
that I should reject the null hypothesis of an exact-fitting model,
𝜒2(246) = 507.12, p<.001. Both the Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI: 0.924) and
Comparative fit index (CFI: 0.937) are consistent with thresholds for an
acceptable fitting model. The Root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) value of 0.057 also indicates an acceptable fit (see Kline, 2016).
Therefore, when considering the TLI, CFA, and RMSEA, results suggest that
the model is an acceptable fit to the data. For full model, see Figure 2.
Figure 2
12
5
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: PSR & Identity Salience Measure, Study 3
12
6
*For numbered item descriptions, see Appendix E
For Study 3, this resulted in four factors, eight items assessing
perceived similarity in personal identity (α = .90, M = 4.31, SD = 1.01), seven
items assessing perceived similarity in relational identity (α = .90, M = 4.64, SD =
1.03), seven items assessing perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity
(α = .88, M = 4.11, SD = 0.91), and two items assessing perceived similarity in
communal (social) identity (rs(313) = .49, p <.001, M = 3.54, SD = 1.04).
Perceived Homophily. To again consider similarities and differences between
the PSR and Identity Salience measure, I included the Perceived Homophily
scale (McCroskey et al., 1975). A CFA using the original four subscales was
conducted to examine the fit of the original subscales to the Study 3 data.
12
7
Results show that, like in Study 2,
12
8
Background Homophily does not fit in one factor and the item assessing
similarity in sexual attitudes does not fit in any of the factors (see Figure 3
for full CFA model).
Because a CFA must be done with three or more items per factor, a second
CFA with only two factors produces invalid results. Rather, I examined the
reliability of the five subscales used in Study 2. These five subscales were
retained for Study 3.
12
9
Figure 3
CFA: Perceived Homophily Scale, Study 3
13
0
*Item Q38_10 was omitted from analyses due to low loading. For item descriptions, see
Appendix C (Study 3 Experimental Survey, Q38 Perceived Homophily Block.
Four items constituted the perceived homophily in attitude dimension (α =
.81, M
= 4.53, SD = 1.23), two items made up the perceived homophily in social
background dimension (rs(315) = .33, p <.001, M = 3.96 , SD = 1.22 ); two
items made up the perceived homophily in group background dimension (rs(315)
= .39, p <.001, M = 3.89, SD = 1.25); three items made up the perceived
homophily in value dimension (α = .63,
13
1
M = 4.51, SD = 1.08), and four items made up the perceived homophily in
appearance
dimension (α = .69, M = 3.93, SD = 0.93).
Family Communication Patterns. To examine FCP, participants
completed the RFCP Instrument, a self-report questionnaire asking
respondents to agree or disagree with statements about their family
communication habits and patterns. For a full description of the RFCP, see
Study 2. The measure consists of two subscales, one 11- item scale
measuring conformity orientation (a = .86, M = 4.10, SD = 1.11). and the
other 15-item scale considering conversation orientation (a = .92, M = 4.26,
SD = 1.20).
Results
The primary goal of Study 3 was to examine whether family
communication pattern salience shapes the perceived similarity between
oneself and a new character. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
three conditions either a neutral condition or one that made a particular
family communication pattern salient (conversation orientation or conformity
orientation). Participants were then presented with an ambiguous character
description and asked to rate their perceived similarity and homophily to the
character, along with a measure of their own FCP. To consider similarities
between oneself and the ambiguous character, I compared the effect of the
three conditions on perception of the media character and also considered
correlations between the variables of interest for those exposed to the
conversation orientation condition and those exposed to the conformity
13
2
orientation condition.
A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the three
conditions on perceived similarity on the four identity dimensions and the
five perceived homophily dimensions. Results suggested that there is a
statistically significant difference in
13
3
perceived similarity in personal and relational identity dimensions between
at least two of the experimental groups (conversation orientation prime,
conformity orientation prime, and neutral prime).
Results showed a significant difference in perceived similarity in personal
identity dimensions between at least two of the experimental groups (F(2, 309)
= [3.066], p<
0.05) with Tukey’s HSD Test for multiple comparisons showing that the mean
value of perceived similarity in personal identity dimension between oneself and
the ambiguous character approached a significant difference between the
conversation oriented primed group and the conformity orientated primed
group (p =.07, 95% C.I. = [-.64, .02]). These results suggest that for those
exposed to the conformity orientation prompt, the average score for
perceived similarity in personal identity (M = 4.42, SD = 0.98) was
significantly higher than for those in the conversation orientation primed
group (M = 4.10, SD = 1.08).
Results also showed a significant difference in perceived similarity in
relational identity dimensions between at least two of the experimental
groups (F(2, 310) = [3.29], p< 0.05) with Tukey’s HSD Test for multiple
comparisons showing that the mean value of perceived similarity in relational
identity dimension between oneself and the ambiguous character approached
significance between the conversation oriented primed group and the
neutral primed group (p =.06, 95% C.I. = [-.66, .01]). These results
suggested that for those exposed to the neutral orientation prompt, the
13
4
average score for perceived similarity in relational identity (M = 4.75, SD =
0.98) was significantly higher than for those in the conversation orientation
primed group (M = 4.42, SD = 1.06).
13
5
There was no statistically significant difference in scores of other
variables between any of the groups. This suggests that when conversation
orientation is primed, individuals are less likely to perceive themselves as
similar on personal aspects of identity to an ambiguous character than those
exposed to a conformity orientation prime. Additionally, individuals exposed
to a conversation orientation prime are less likely to perceive themselves as
similar on relational aspects of identity to an ambiguous character than
those exposed to a neutral prime.
To consider differences between the variables as a consequence of
FCP prime, I also examined correlations between the variables of interest by
condition. That is, correlations for the variables of interest were examined
when conversation orientation was primed and when conformity orientation
was primed. Correlations between the variables were fairly similar in both
conditions with a few notable differences.
When conversation orientation was primed (i.e., respondents were
exposed to the condition asking them to consider a time when their parents
asked for their opinion/advice), the FCP measure of conformity orientation
was significantly and positively correlated with attitude homophily (rs(98) =
.34, p <.001), perceived similarity on personal (rs(97) = .39, p <.001),
relational (rs(97) = .38, p <.001), and communal (personal) (rs(98) = .31, p
<.001) identity dimensions. These variables were neither significantly
correlated in the conformity oriented condition nor in the neutral condition.
When conformity orientation was primed (i.e., respondents were
13
6
exposed to the condition asking them to consider a time when their parents
refused to discuss an important topic), the FCP measure of conversation
orientation was significantly and positively correlated with perceived
similarity on the communal (social) identity
dimension (rs(108) = .37, p <.001). These variables were slightly correlated in
the
13
7
neutral condition (rs(106) = .23, p <.05) and were not correlated in the
conversation oriented condition.
The effects of the one-way ANOVA suggest that there is a statistically
significant difference in the mean score of perceived similarity in personal
identity between the conversation orientation primed group and the conformity
oriented primed group.
Additionally, there is a difference in the mean score of perceived similarity in
relational identity between the conversation oriented group and the neutral
condition. Correlations also suggest that the relationships between the
variables may change as a function of how individuals are primed to think of
others.
Discussion
Study 3 sought to extend research from Studies 1 and 2 by
considering whether conformity and conversation orientation can increase
perceived similarities in particular dimensions of identity with a new
character. Results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the way we perceive
ourselves is related to how we perceive a parasocial character (see Tables 5
& 11 for correlations between self-identity and perceived self-identity of a
parasocial figure). Further, Study 2 found that conformity orientation is
related to perceived similarity in relational identity dimension. Study 3 finds
that differences in how FCP is primed does have an effect on some aspects
of identity and the relationships between specific identity dimensions and
FCP. Namely, Study 3 finds that the mean score for perceived similarity in
13
8
personal identity is higher in the conformity orientation prime condition than
the conversation orientation condition and that perceived similarity in
relational identity is lower when conversation orientation is primed than in a
neutral
13
9
condition. These results suggest that priming family communication patterns
may shape the way we perceive ourselves as similar to new characters.
It is important to note that Study 3 found some significant differences
in correlations between the variables of interest when looking at those
exposed to the conversation orientation prime and those exposed to the
conformity orientation prime. The results show that when considering those
exposed to the conversation orientation prime, conformity orientation is
significantly related to a number of identity dimensions. Study 2 did not find
any significant relationship between conformity orientation in personal or
communal dimensions of identity, suggesting there may be some inherent
differences in assessing perceived similarity between a parasocial character
and a new media figure. The relationship between the media figure and
respondent in Study 3 might be more closely related to a construct like
impression formation rather than perceived similarity.
Overall, Study 3 provides new insight into the possible relationship
between family communication and interpersonal interaction with media
figures. Results of this study alone may not advance the research on
parasocial relating as the subject of perceived similarity is not a known
media figure, but results surely suggest some important interactions for
family communication research. By highlighting the ability of FCPs to shape
our perceived similarity with others, including known and new media
figures, we shed light on how new relationships may form.
14
0
Overall Discussion and Conclusion
As humans, we seek interpersonal relationships with others. The
relationships we build with media figures may provide many of the same
benefits that interpersonal relationships provide (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987).
Parasocial relationships may build as we form deep, albeit often one-sided,
connections with media figures. Research on parasocial relating suggests
that these relationships can have implications for how we view others and
the way we learn to form other types of relationships. Understanding how
we perceive parasocial relationships and the way family shapes perception
of others can help fill gaps in understanding interpersonal relationships
broadly as they relate to identity formation.
The studies included in this examination have three primary
objectives. The first is to determine how one’s own sense of self is related to
the way we describe our favorite media figure, a proxy for a parasocial
figure. Second, we created a scale of perceived identity similarity with a
parasocial figure and sought to validate the scale dimensions in line with CTI
research. And finally, we used both a survey and experiment to consider if
and how family communication, specifically conversation and conformity
orientation, shapes parasocial relating through identity salience.
Objective one: Identity salience and parasocial
The first objective of the research included in this examination was to
consider the relationship of self-concept or identity and the perceived self-
concept of a parasocial character. Based on the Communication Theory of
14
1
Identity (Hecht, 2015), it was expected that the way an individual defines
themselves may be related to the way they define a character with whom
they have a parasocial relationship. That is, an individual
14
2
will be more likely to define themselves and their parasocial character
using the same CTI dimension(s) of identity: personal, enacted, relational,
and communal. Using an adapted version of the twenty-statements-test to
examine one’s own sense of identity as well as perceived identity of a
favorite media character, high inter-coder reliability suggests that indeed,
the salient identities of oneself shape the ways we view parasocial figures.
There is a strong relationship between the way we describe ourselves
and the way we describe a parasocial figure. For example, a respondent
might describe themselves as a mother and sister and describe their
favorite parasocial character as a husband and friend. For this respondent,
the relational aspect of identity is salient for both themselves and their
parasocial media figure. Results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that personal
identity is most highly correlated with perceived personal identity of a
parasocial figure. This pattern is consistent for enacted, relational, and
communal identities as well, suggesting that while we see ourselves through
a variety of identity lenses, the way we most see ourselves is most highly
correlated to the same perceived identity dimension of a parasocial figure.
Objective two: PSR and identity salience scale
The second objective is to create and validate a scale of parasocial
relating and identity salience. The original 32 items tested in Study 1 were
created using constructs from the CTI to measure perceived similarity to a
media figure on the personal, enacted, relational, and communal
dimensions. After examining the four-factor structure, the interpretation of
14
3
the factors changed such that the enacted grouping was dropped and two
factors were established to consider communal identities. The 24 items
retained
14
4
from Study 1 were re-tested in Study 2 and a confirmatory factor analysis
confirmed the four dimensions established in Study 1. The final 24-item
measure includes eight items assessing perceived similarity in personal identity,
seven items assessing perceived similarity in relational identity, seven items
assessing perceived similarity in communal (personal) identity, and two items
assessing perceived similarity in communal (social) identity. The created scale was
not significantly related to the ways that individuals described themselves
through the TST measure, but was significantly related to measures of
perceived homophily in ways that suggest it is assessing an aspect of
parasocial relating.
Overall, the studies included in this examination provide insight into
how individuals may perceive themselves as similar to their parasocial
figure. There is not enough evidence to fully validate the measure, but the
four subscales included are reliable in their measurement. Future
examinations should compare the subscales to other measures of
homophily and parasocial relating in order to refine the items and clearly
measure PSR as a function of identity salience.
Objective three: Family communication and media-figure relationships
Finally, the third objective sought to examine the relationship that
family communication may have on parasocial relationships by shaping
identity salience and perceived similarity in identity dimensions. To examine
the relationship of family communication and parasocial relationships, those
relationships with media figures, Study 2 asked respondents to indicate
14
5
their perceived similarity to their favorite media figure and indicate their
FCP via scales assessing conversation and conformity
14
6
orientations. Study 2 confirmed that conformity orientation is significantly and
positively related to perceived similarity in relational identity dimensions with a
parasocial figure.
To extend the findings from Study 2, Study 3 sought to determine how
family communication might impact perceptions of a new media figure.
Study 3 compared conversation and conformity conditions and their effect on
perceived similarity to an ambiguous character. In particular, this study
sought to shed light on how family communication, broadly, might shape the
way we form initial impressions about new media characters in an effort to
better understand how we perceive media figures with whom we form deep
parasocial relationships. Study 3 found that when conversation orientation is
made salient, conformity orientation is positively and significantly related to
perceived similarity on personal, relational, and communal (personal)
dimensions of identity. When conformity orientation is made salient,
conversation orientation is positively and significantly related to perceived
similarity on communal (social) dimensions of identity. This is related to
findings that perceived similarity in personal identity is higher for individuals
primed by conformity orientation than conversation orientation and
relational identity is lower for those primed by conversation orientation
rather than a neutral prime.
When taken together, this suggests that indeed, family communication does
impact the way we perceive media characters and our perception of how
similar characters are to ourselves. The findings from Study 3 are not in line
with the findings from Study 2 in that Study 2 did not find any significant
14
7
relationship between conformity orientation and perceived similarity in
personal or communal identity. This suggests that perhaps one’s initial
formation of media figures is based on different considerations that
14
8
our ultimate parasocial relationships. That is, as we develop deeper
relationships with media figures, we perceive different similarities to media
figures.
Conclusion and Limitations
The three studies included in this examination advance our
understanding of both parasocial relationships and family communication in
nuanced ways. There are a variety of considerations that shape our
interpersonal relationships. Research on face- to-face communication has
examined the role of family communication but this has not extended to
research on parasocial relationships. The studies included herein consider
both direct effects of family communication on parasocial relating as well as
the way family communication shapes our perceived similarity to parasocial
characters via identity salience.
Findings suggest that respondents tend to describe themselves and
their parasocial media figure using terms that suggest the same dimension
of identity salience. This suggests that we see parasocial figures in the same
way we see ourselves. This may mean that we seek out figures who are
similar to ourselves or that we perceive the figure as similar, but either way,
it suggests the importance of identity salience in our parasocial
relationships.
We also found that respondents from high conformity oriented
families are more likely to report perceived similarity on relational aspects
of identity. This suggests that for those families in which family functioning
14
9
is stressed, individuals are more likely to perceive their parasocial figure as
similar in terms that stress interdependence and relationships with others.
Initial reactions to media figures are less clear as family communication
salience seems to shift the way communication patterns relate to
15
0
identity dimensions but not in ways that are clearly connected to the
literature. Further research in this area is needed to fully understand how
initial impressions of media figures might shape subsequent parasocial
relating. Future studies should consider how family communication shapes
initial reactions to a media figure and how this changes over time as viewers
learn more about the figure.
The studies included herein have a number of strengths including high
inter- coder reliability for the self-reported identity and perceived identity of
a parasocial character measures; and a large sample size for instrument
validation, there are also several weaknesses that should be addressed in a
follow-up study. First, the instrument for PSR and Identity salience created in
this study does not include an enacted layer of identity and the subscales
created are not clearly conceptually different from existing homophily scales.
The enacted layer of identity assesses behavior or planned behavior and
may not be appropriately measured by asking respondents about their
perceived similarity rather than action. A future examination should consider
how to measure behavior of an individual as well as behavior of the
parasocial character to assess perceived similarity in the enacted dimension
of identity. Additionally, it is important to include nuanced measures of
parasocial relating to ensure the validity of the scale items and also add
items to bolster the 2-item subscale of perceived similarity on the
communal-social dimension of identity. Future testing should consider other
items to bolster the reliability of the subscale. Finally, the majority of
15
1
respondents described themselves as Asian, potentially biasing the results.
Identity salience can be strongly tied to a variety of factors, including
demographic factors like place of origin or ethnicity. Future examinations
should strive for greater sample diversity.
15
2
The family unit is one of the primary socializing forces for interpersonal
relationships. This extends beyond our personal relationships and can also
be seen in our relationships with media figures. Family communication
patterns can shape the way we form these parasocial relationships and can
also shape the way we perceive ourselves and media figures in ways that
impact these relationships. Specifically, we find that our sense-of-self shapes
the way we see media figures and that family communication, specifically
being from a high conformity family, is related to the way we perceive
similarities between ourselves and parasocial figures.
15
3
References
Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation of a
parasocial interaction measure: The audience-persona interaction
scale. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 79-89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388753
Ball, H., Wanzer, M., & Servoss, T. (2013). Parent–child communication on
Facebook: Family communication patterns and young adults' decisions to
“friend” parents. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 615-629.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2013.822406
Barbato, C. A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E. M. (2009). Communicating in the
family: an examination of the relationship of family communication
climate and interpersonal communication motives. Journal of Family
Communication, 3(3), 123-148.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327698JFC0303_01
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective
identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in
responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass
Communication & Society, 6(2), 191-202.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0602_5
Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television
viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18(4), 443-463.
15
4
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018004001
Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and
parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical
assessment of
15
5
measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21-44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998), Family communication patterns
and communication apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 13, 493-502.
Fitzpatrick, M., & Ritchie, L. (1994). Communication schemata within the family:
multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research,
20(3), 275-
301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Socialization and the family. In Social
Development: History, Theory, and Research (pp. 161-212). New York:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3768-6_5
Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring
viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication,
61(6), 1104- 1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.
Haun, D., & Over, H. (2014). Like me: A homophily-based account of human
culture. In
P. J. Richerson & H. Morten (Eds.), Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology,
Language, and Religion (pp. 117-130). MIT Press
Hecht, M. L., & Phillips, K. E. (2022). Communication theory of identity:
Understanding the multilayered nature of identity. In D.O. Braithwaite
& P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication:
Multiple perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 217–232). New York: Routledge
Hong, Y., Ip, G., Chiu, C., Morris, M., & Menon, T. (2001). Cultural identity and
15
6
dynamic construction of the self: Collective duties and individual rights in
Chinese and
15
7
American cultures. Social Cognition, 19(3), 251-268.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.3.251.21473
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social
interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 19(3),
215-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Keating, D. M. (2016). Conversation orientation and conformity orientation are
inversely related: a meta analysis. Communication Research Reports, 33(3),
195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1186622
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.)
Guildford Press.
Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of
conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the
family. Communication Studies, 48(1), 59-75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368491
Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication.
Communication Theory, 12(1), 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2002.tb00260.x
Koesten, J. (2003). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and
communication competence. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 226-244.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775052000343417
Koesten, J., & Anderson, K. (2009) Exploring the influence of family
communication patterns, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal
competence on adolescent risk
15
8
behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 4(2), 99-121.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0402_2
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-
attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2088175 Lull, J. (1980). Family communication
patterns and the social uses of television.
Communication Research, 7(3), 319-334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365028000700303
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a
measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication.
Human Communication Research, 1, 323-332.
https://doi.org/10.13072/midss.509
McDermott, V. A. (2009). Interpersonal communication networks: An
approach through the understanding of self-concept, significant
others, and the social influence process. Communication Quarterly, 28(4),
13-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378009369378
McLeish, K. N., & Oxoby, R. J. (2011). Social interactions and the salience of
social identity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 172-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.003
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J.
Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (pp. 50-59). Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:
15
9
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-
444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
16
0
Michalski, S., & Helmig, B. (2008). What do we know about the identity
salience model of relationship marketing success? A review of the
literature. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 7(1), 45-63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332660802067940
Murdock, E., Hirt, F. S., & Ferring, D. (2014). Salience of nationality in
students’ spontaneous self-concept: A comparative study of a
nationally homogeneous and heterogeneous school context. Journal of
Research in International Education, 13(2), 119-134.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240914539797
Ozmete, E. (2011). Building social capital in micro environment: The family,
attachment theory and socialization. NURTURE: Journal of Pakistan Home
Economics Association, 5(1), 1-7.
Randel, A. (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship
between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 749-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.163
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers,
television and new media like real people and places. Stanford University:
Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, L., & Fitzpatrick, M. (1990). Family communication patterns:
Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal
relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523-544.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017004007
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera
16
1
involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication
Research, 14(2), 246-
268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x
16
2
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial
interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication
Research, 12(2), 155-
80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
Rueter, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2008). The effect of family communication
patterns on adopted adolescent adjustment. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 70(3), 715-727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2008.00516.x
Rusconi, E., & Tummons, P. (1975). Introduction to “What is Socialization”,
New German Critique, 6, 48-59.
Schmid, H., & Klimmt, C. (2011). A magically nice guy: Parasocial
relationships with Harry Potter across different cultures. International
Communication Gazette, 73(3), 252-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510393658
Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI-Process scales. A new
measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes.
Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 33(4),
385-401. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2008.025
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the
study of the self: Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural
identity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 635-651.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751- 9004.2008.00077.x
16
3
Shelton, J. N., & Sellers, R. M. (2000). Situational stability and variability in
African American racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798400026001002
16
4
Stets, J. E., Aldecoa, J., Bloom, Q., & Winegar, J. (2021). Using identity theory
to understand homophily in groups. In P. S. Brenner, J. E. Stets, & R. T.
Serpe (Eds.), Identities in Action: Developments in Identity Theory (pp. 285-
302). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76966-6_14
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870
Tian, Q., & Hoffner, C. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with liked, neutral,
and disliked characters on a popular TV series. Mass Communication
and Society, 13(3), 250-269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903296051
Turner, J. R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of parasocial
interaction with different television performers. Communication Quarterly,
41(4), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369904
