CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Media Influence and HealthAttachment and Relationship DynamicsMedia and Digital Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attachment, Belongingness Needs, and Relationship Status Predict Imagined Intimacy With Media Figures

Greenwood, Dara N., Long, Christopher R.·2011·Communication Research
DOI 10.1177/0093650210362687
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study uses an interpersonal relationships measure (Relationship Rating Form [RRF], Fraley & Davis, 1997) to assess both imagined intimacy with a favorite media figure and real intimacy with close others among 173 undergraduates. We examine how relational tendencies (attachment style, need to belong) and relationship status (single or partnered) interact to predict degree of imagined intimacy with same and opposite gender media figures. Results indicate that intimacy reported with a same gender friend is positively correlated with imagined intimacy for a same gender media figure. However, a compensatory pattern emerged with romantic relationships: single individuals reported greater imagined intimacy with opposite gender media figures than those in a relationship. Attachment anxiety and the need to belong (NTB) were positively predictive of imagined intimacy with opposite gender media figures for single individuals only. Social psychological motivations for media attachments are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0093650210362687

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Gardner, C.L., Pickett, M. & Knowles, M. ( 2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227-242). New York: Psychology Press.
  3. Leary, M.R., 2007, Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 142

Related

Metadata

Authors
Greenwood, D. N., & Long, C. R.
Affiliations
  • Vassar College (US)
  • Ouachita Baptist University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Communication Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-10-04
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
278-297
ISSN
  • 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3810
DOI
10.1177/0093650210362687
OpenAlex
W2126931805
Cited by
142
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
131.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Communication Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
media figures, celebrity attachment, attachment styles, attachment anxiety, need to belong, relationship status, romantic relationships, interpersonal relationships

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