The cognitive status of Para-social interaction
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The objective of this research is to study the cognitive status of a communication research study of problems related to para-social interaction between 1995 - 2020 under changing social contexts and communication technologies. This is a research synthesis using meta-analysis. This research found that research on para-social interaction has been published over a 25-year period, mainly using the quantitative research method, mixed methods and methods for qualitative research, respectively, which can be divided into 2 groups of knowledge: (1) research group on para-social interaction, three type of old media including communication for context, political communication and health communication. (2) research groups on para-social interaction, two types of new media including communication in new and digital media and communication for business respectively.
The cognitive status of social communication, para-social interaction will help to understand and visualize the phenomena of communication that can be applied to the principles of theory in all aspects of society. Including finding answers to the phenomena of communication to drive society more efficiently.
Article Details
References
เณริศา ชัยศุภมงคลลาภ. (2020). ความสำเร็จของละครโทรทัศน์กับการสร้างปฏิสัมพันธ์ทางสังคมกึ่งความจริง กรณีศึกษา ละครโทรทัศน์บุพเพสันนิวาส. วารสารนิเทศศาสตร์ธุรกิจบัณฑิตย์, 14(1), 158-199.
Auter, P. J., & Palmgreen, P. (2000). Development and validation of a parasocial interaction measure: The audience personal interaction scale. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 79-89.
Aytulun, G., & Sunai, A. B. (2020). Parasocial Interaction with Media Characters. Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar, 12(4), 494-506.
Brown, W. J. & Basil, M. D. (1995). Media Celebrities and Public Health: Responses to Magic Johnson's HIV Disclosure and Its Impact on AIDS Risk and High risk Behaviors. Health Communication Journal, 7(4), 345-370.
Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. H. (2010). Wohl revisited: Exploring viewer’s experience of parasocial interactions. In Annual meeting of the International Communication Association.
Horton, D. & Wohl R.R, (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction : Observation on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.
Koenig, F., & Lessan, G. (1985). Viewers' relationship to television personalities. Psychological Reports, 57(1), 263-266.
Lee E. J. & Youn Oh S., (2012). To Personalize or Depersonalize When and How Politicians Personalized Tweets Affect the Public’s Reactions. Journal of Communication, 62, 932-949.
Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as parasocial interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23(1), 177-187.
Lim, C. M. & Kim, Y. (2011). Older Consumers’TV Home Shopping:Loneliness, Parasocial Interaction, and Perceived Convenience. Psychology & Marketing, 28(8), 763–78.
Lueck, J. A. (2015). Friend-zone with benefits: The parasocial advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(2), 91-109.
Paravati, E., Naidu, E., Gabriel, S. & Wiedemann, C. (2019). More Than Just a Tweet: The Unconscious Impact of Forming Parasocial Relationships Through Social Media. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory. Research, and Practice, 1-16. doi:10.1037/cns0000214
Pitout, M. (1998). Reception analysis: a qualitative investigation of the parasocial and social dimensions of soap opera viewing.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human communication research, 12(2),
155-180.
Stever, G. S., & Lawson, K. (2013). Twitter as a way for celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for the study of parasocial interaction. North American journal of psychology, 15(2).
Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M. K., & Zhao, D. (2016). Exploring consumers’ impulse buying behavior on social commerce platform: The role of parasocial interaction. International journal of information management, 36(3), 333-347.
Zaheer, L. (2019). Parasocial Interaction and Television Viewers in Pakistan. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 29(1).
