Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 714

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parasocial Interaction and Parasocial Relationship: Conceptual Clarification and a Critical Assessment of Measures

Open access
Dibble, Jayson L., Hartmann, Tilo, Rosaen, Sarah F.·2016·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1111/hcre.12063
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship are often conflated conceptually and methodologically, leaving researchers unclear as to which concept is being tapped. This research clarifies these concepts and experimentally compares the most common measure of parasocial interaction, the Parasocial Interaction Scale (PSI-Scale), with a newer measure, the Experience of Parasocial Interaction Scale (EPSI-Scale). Participants (N = 383) viewed a brief videorecording of a woman who either bodily addressed the viewer or not, then completed a questionnaire. The EPSI-Scale was a better measure of parasocial interaction, understood as a within-viewing experience of mutual awareness, whereas the PSI-Scale may measure short- or long-term liking, or something else. To avoid conceptual and empirical confusion, researchers must choose measures with greater care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hcre.12063

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F.
Venue
Human Communication Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2015-03-17
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
21-44
ISSN
0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/hcre.12063
OpenAlex
W2143545365
Cited by
714
References
11
FWCI
272.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.