Parasocial Interactions Online: Candidate Intimacy in Webpages and Facebook
Keywords:
Parasocial, Facebook, PoliticsAbstract
Research presented in this article assesses cognitive processing and behavioral outcome differences that occur when the public interacts with political candidates’ webpages as opposed to viewing their Facebook pages. Further, an exploration into perceptions individuals have of these candidates and the potential for developing parasocial relationships is pursued. Findings suggest that perceptions of intimacy are directly related to perceptions of candidates’ credibility and potential political action; these findings have clear implications on future political marketing strategies.
References
Althaus, S. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92, 545-558.
Ancu, M. & Cozma, R. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 567–583.
Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 1, 35-50.
Benoit, W. (2007). Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Burbary, K. (2011). Facebook Demographics Revisited – 2011 Statistics. Web Business by Ken Burbary. Retrieved from http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Cho, J., Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., McLeod, D.M., Scholl, R. M, and Gotlieb, M. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
Druckman, J. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.B., & Stimson, J.A. (2002). The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305.
Hansen, G. J. & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Presidential campaigning on the web: The influence of candidate world wide web sites in the 2000 general election. Southern Communication Journal, 70(3), 219-229.
Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Logik der Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen [The logic of research on parasocial interactions and relationships]. In W. Wirth, A. Fahr, & E. Lauf (Eds.), Forschungslogik und –design in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Band 2: Anwendungsfelder in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Logic and design in communication research. Volume 2: Applications in communication research] (pp. 264–291). Cologne, Germany: Halem.
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McCroskey, J .C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
Moyer –Guise, E. & Nabi, R.L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26-52.
Mutz, D. and Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
Newcomb, H. (1982). Television: The critical view (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Petty, R. & Wegener, D. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Troupe (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (Vol, 1, pp. 323-390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Pfau, M. & Parrott, R. (1993). Persuasive communication campaigns. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Quan-Haase, A. & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 30, 350.
Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276–279.
Rubin, A., Perse, E.M., & Powell, R.A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial, interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180.
Rubin, A. M. & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera involvement a uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14(2), 246-268.
Schiappa, E., Allen, M., & Gregg, P. B. (2006). Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-analysis of the effects. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research (pp. 301–314). New York: Erlbaum.
Schramm, H. & Wirth, W. (2010). Testing a universal tool for measuring parasocial interactions across different situations and media: Findings from three studies. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 26-36.
Semmler, S. (2007). Cultivation as a process of parasocial symbolic interaction. Paper Presented at the 2007 Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Fransisco, California.
Shah, D.V., Cho, J. Nah, S., Gotlieb, M.R., Hwang, H. Lee, N., Scholl, R.M. & McLeod, D.M. (2007). Campaign Ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703.
Sparks, J.R. & Rapp, D.N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(1), 230-247.
Stephenson, M.T., Benoit, W.L. and Tschida, D.A. (2001). Testing the mediating role of cognitive responses in the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Studies, 52(4), 324-337.
Teven, J.J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 391-408.
Trammell, K. D. (2006). Blog offensive: An exploratory analysis of attacks published on campaign blog posts form a political public relations perspective. Public Relations Review, 32, 402-406.
U.S. Census. (2014). Young-adult voting: An analysis of presidential elections, 1964-2012 (Economics and Statistics Administration). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Vorderer, P., 1998. Unterhaltung durch Fernsehen: Welche Rolle spielen parasoziale Beziehungen zwischen Zuschauern und Fernsehakteuren?. In G. Roters, W. Klingler, & O. Zo¨llner (Eds.), Fernsehforschung in Deutschland. Themen, Akteure, Methoden. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 689–707.
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tom Tong, S. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49.
Zaller, J. (1997). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ancu, M. & Cozma, R. (2009). MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 567–583.
Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 1, 35-50.
Benoit, W. (2007). Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Burbary, K. (2011). Facebook Demographics Revisited – 2011 Statistics. Web Business by Ken Burbary. Retrieved from http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Cho, J., Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., McLeod, D.M., Scholl, R. M, and Gotlieb, M. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
Druckman, J. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.B., & Stimson, J.A. (2002). The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305.
Hansen, G. J. & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Presidential campaigning on the web: The influence of candidate world wide web sites in the 2000 general election. Southern Communication Journal, 70(3), 219-229.
Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Logik der Forschung zu parasozialen Interaktionen und Beziehungen [The logic of research on parasocial interactions and relationships]. In W. Wirth, A. Fahr, & E. Lauf (Eds.), Forschungslogik und –design in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Band 2: Anwendungsfelder in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Logic and design in communication research. Volume 2: Applications in communication research] (pp. 264–291). Cologne, Germany: Halem.
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McCroskey, J .C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
Moyer –Guise, E. & Nabi, R.L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26-52.
Mutz, D. and Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
Newcomb, H. (1982). Television: The critical view (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Petty, R. & Wegener, D. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Troupe (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (Vol, 1, pp. 323-390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Pfau, M. & Parrott, R. (1993). Persuasive communication campaigns. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Quan-Haase, A. & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 30, 350.
Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276–279.
Rubin, A., Perse, E.M., & Powell, R.A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial, interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180.
Rubin, A. M. & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera involvement a uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14(2), 246-268.
Schiappa, E., Allen, M., & Gregg, P. B. (2006). Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-analysis of the effects. In R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research (pp. 301–314). New York: Erlbaum.
Schramm, H. & Wirth, W. (2010). Testing a universal tool for measuring parasocial interactions across different situations and media: Findings from three studies. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 26-36.
Semmler, S. (2007). Cultivation as a process of parasocial symbolic interaction. Paper Presented at the 2007 Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Fransisco, California.
Shah, D.V., Cho, J. Nah, S., Gotlieb, M.R., Hwang, H. Lee, N., Scholl, R.M. & McLeod, D.M. (2007). Campaign Ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703.
Sparks, J.R. & Rapp, D.N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(1), 230-247.
Stephenson, M.T., Benoit, W.L. and Tschida, D.A. (2001). Testing the mediating role of cognitive responses in the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Studies, 52(4), 324-337.
Teven, J.J. (2008). An examination of perceived credibility of the 2008 presidential candidates: Relationships with believability, likeability, and deceptiveness. Human Communication, 11(4), 391-408.
Trammell, K. D. (2006). Blog offensive: An exploratory analysis of attacks published on campaign blog posts form a political public relations perspective. Public Relations Review, 32, 402-406.
U.S. Census. (2014). Young-adult voting: An analysis of presidential elections, 1964-2012 (Economics and Statistics Administration). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Vorderer, P., 1998. Unterhaltung durch Fernsehen: Welche Rolle spielen parasoziale Beziehungen zwischen Zuschauern und Fernsehakteuren?. In G. Roters, W. Klingler, & O. Zo¨llner (Eds.), Fernsehforschung in Deutschland. Themen, Akteure, Methoden. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 689–707.
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tom Tong, S. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49.
Zaller, J. (1997). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
2014-12-31
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
