Abstract
Abstract. Parasocial theory views ordinary people’s emotional bonding with political figures as a form of parasocial relationship (PSR). Despite the insights it offers, existing measures of PSR have been criticized conceptually and psychometrically. We developed a new scale of PSR with political figures (PSR-P) and examined the construct validity, factor replicability, and measurement invariance based on samples from culturally and politically diverse countries (i.e., Indonesia, New Zealand, and the United States). In three studies using a panel of experts (N = 20; Study 1), a convenience adult sample (N = 212; Study 2), and representative and cross-cultural samples (N = 897; Study 3), we found that the four-item PSR-R scale provides satisfying construct validity, as well as a replicable factor structure and scalar invariance across countries. The PSR-P scale can be utilized to advance the measurement and application of parasocial theory in the field of social and political psychology. The policy implications of the findings are also discussed.
Impact and Implications
This study explores the phenomenon of people’s emotional bonding with political figures and proposes a newly developed scale to measure it as a form of parasocial relationships (the PSR-P scale). The brevity and the psychometric properties of PSR-P scale allow researchers and policymakers to assess the extent to which people’s PSRs with political figures impact the quality of democracy across countries with different political cultures. The results of the study suggested that, if not properly mitigated, people’s PSRs political figures may pose a significant risk to our attempt to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels (Sustainable Development Goal No.16, SDG-16), especially in the context of democracy.
References
(1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Row.
(1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In I. AltmanA. RapoportJ. F. Wohlwill. Environment and culture (pp. 47–82). Springer.
(1980). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
(2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59(7), 581–594. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.581
(2016). Finding meaning in a celebrity's death: The relationship between parasocial attachment, grief, and sharing educational health information related to Robin Williams on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 643–650. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.042
(2018). Assessing the predictive value of parasocial relationship intensity in a political context. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. 10.1177/0093650218759446
(2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. 10.1111/hcre.12063
(2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press.
(2014). Parasocial interactions online: Candidate intimacy in webpages and Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 3(2). https://thejsms.org/index.php/TSMRI/article/view/78
(2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. 10.1080/10584600490443877
(2006). When good friends say goodbye: A parasocial breakup study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(3), 502–523. 10.1207/s15506878jobem5003_9
(2018). From apprentice to president. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 299–307. 10.1177/1948550617722835
(2013). Changing parties, changing partisans: The personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology, 34(1), 67–89. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00918.x
(2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.010
(2017). Second screening politics in the social media sphere: Advancing research on dual screen use in political communication with evidence from 20 countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 193–219. 10.1080/08838151.2017.1309420
(2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305. 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
(2017). Parasocial interactions and relationships in early adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 255. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00255
(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall.
(2020). Jacinda Ardern's star power comes with risks. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300083151/jacinda-arderns-star-power-comes-with-risks.
(2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20(2), 127–134. 10.1191/0265532203lt247xx
(2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers' experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1104–1121. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x
(1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. 10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
(1957). Interaction in audience-participation shows. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 579–587. 10.1086/222106
(2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. 10.1017/S0003055414000604
et al. (Eds.). (2014). World values survey: Round six - country-pooled datafile version. JD Systems Institute. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp
(1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. 10.1177/001316447403400115
(1986). Fundamentals of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
(2006). Parasocial interactions and relationships. In J. BryantP. VordererEds., Psychology of entertainment (pp. 291–313). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
(2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13(3), 223–248. 10.1080/15305058.2012.703734
(1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
(2013). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians' policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.
(2015). The importance of gender and affect in the socialization of adolescents' beliefs about benevolent authority: Evidence from Chinese indigenous psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 101–114. 10.1111/ajsp.12102
(2014). Personality politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections. OUP Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660124.001.000
(2002). Conceptualization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93(1), 67–87. 10.1348/000712602162454
(2015). Reinventing Asian populism: Jokowi's rise, democracy, and political contestation in Indonesia. East-West Center.
(2006). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition. Muthén & Muthén.
. (2013). Nonresponse in social science surveys: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/18293
(1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413. 10.2307/1963953
(2018). From party politics to personalized politics? Party change and political personalization in democracies. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198808008.001.0001
(1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14(1), 58–84. 10.1177/009365087014001004
(1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
(1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31(3), 279–292. 10.1080/08838158709386664
(2011). Scaling corrections for statistics in covariance structure analysis. Department of Statistics, UCLA.
(1994). The new populism. Political Psychology, 15(4), 779–784. 10.2307/3791636
(2008). The PSI-Process Scales. A new measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes. Communications, 33(4), 385–401. 10.1515/COMM.2008.025
(2010). Testing a universal tool for measuring parasocial interactions across different situations and media. Journal of Media Psychology Theories Methods and Applications, 22(1), 26–36. 10.1027/1864-1105/a000004
(2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton University Press.
(2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. 10.1177/0013164413495237
(2014). Short scales - five Misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000148
