Social and Parasocial Relationships on Social Network Sites and Their Differential Relationships with Users' Psychological Well-Being

Abstract

With the advent of social network sites (SNSs), people can efficiently maintain preexisting social relationships and make online friendships without offline encounters. While such technological features of SNSs hold a variety of potential for individual and collective benefits, some scholars warn that use of SNSs might lead to socially negative consequences, such as social isolation, erosion of social cohesion, or SNS addiction. This study distinguishes types of SNS relationships, and investigates their relationships with social isolation, interpersonal trust, and SNS addiction. We classify SNS relationships into two types: (a) social relationships based on reciprocity between a user and his/her friends, and (b) parasocial relationships in which an ordinary user is aware of activities of a celebrity (e.g., famous actors, athletes, and others) but not vice versa. Based on achievements in studies of media effect and social psychology, we constructed a set of hypotheses, and tested them using a subsample of SNS users drawn from representative survey data in South Korea. We found that dependency on parasocial relationships is positively related with loneliness but negatively correlated with interpersonal distrust, while dependency on social relationship is negatively correlated with loneliness but positively related with trust. However, more dependency on both social and parasocial relationships are positively related with SNS addiction. Implications based on findings are also discussed.

Introduction

Social network sites (SNSs) such as Twitter, Facebook, Cyworld, or MySpace provide mediated social relationships enabling users to share their thoughts with friends, restore old relationships with acquaintances, and make online friendships without offline encounters.^1,2 SNSs are different from conventional mass media, in terms of interactivity, and instant and personalized communication based on social networks.² While social media are different from mass media, both are dominant platforms for mediated communication in a modern society. Since people interact with others using communication technologies, the emergence of a new medium is expected to change existing social interaction.³ Human relationships are an important factor influencing constructs often used to define the quality of psychological well-being, such as loneliness or belongingness, trust towards others, and technology addiction. Therefore, diffusion of a new medium changes how people interact with others, which in turn influences people's psychological well-being.

In this vein, it is natural to observe scholastic controversies over the effect of SNS use on psychological well-being. On one hand, some scholars expect that frequent message exchange between SNS friends helps people to form stronger membership^2,4 and also to obtain so-called “weak ties”⁵ that provide users with a greater volume and higher quality of news. Conversely, others contend that these newly available SNS relationships are superficial or ephemeral, and that they displace authentic face to face relationships, which in turn leads to social isolation and dismantles social cohesion.^6,7 The goal of this study is to explain why SNS use can result in such opposite influences by distinguishing types of SNS mediated relationships.

Two types of SNS relationship

Basically put, SNSs comprise a new type of online service. In order to evaluate SNSs' effects on users' psychological well-being, it is helpful to refer to previous studies examining people's different usage of the Internet and its social psychological consequences. Past scholarship of the issue has concluded that the Internet effect is neither positively nor negatively monolithic. For example, studies have found that networking oriented Internet uses (e.g., e-mail, instant chatting, online forums) help build expansive human networks, strengthen social bonding, and promote social trust, but entertainment oriented Internet use leads to loneliness, social distrust, or Internet addiction.^8–12 In this sense, it can be inferred that the effect of SNSs on psychological well-being might change, depending on the type of SNS use.

Regarding the type of SNS use, Kwak et al.'s study found that some Twitter users mutually follow each other, while others only follow other users without mutual interaction.¹³ Put differently, some Twitter users' interaction is symmetric, like interpersonal conversation, but others' interaction is asymmetric, that is, one user follows the other but not vice versa, like an audience consuming mass media content. Relying on data from Facebook users, Burke et al. also found that mutual relationships with Facebook friends increase social capital (i.e., quality of social networks) and decrease loneliness, but asymmetric relationships (e.g., more receiving but less giving messages) hurt social capital and increase loneliness.¹⁴ In short, whether a SNS relationship is interpersonal (i.e., reciprocal) is a diverging condition to differentiate the effect of SNSs on psychological well-being.

Parasocial relationships and their relationships with psychological well-being

This study thus distinguishes reciprocal relationships from unidirectional ones, where an ordinary SNS user receives messages from celebrities, such as movie stars, singers, athletes, or politicians.^{15
16} In the literature of media psychology, such unilateral relationships have been conceptualized as parasocial relationships, defined as “simulacrum of conversational give and take” between the mass media performers and the audience.^17(p215) For example, SNS users making “SNS friendships” with celebrities hold imaginary unilateral relationships, which are clearly distinguished from reciprocal ones where two (or more) users know one another. For a parasocial relationship to be effective, according to Horton and Wohl,^17(p125) the audience should form the “illusion of [a] face-to-face relationship [with a performer]…within which much may be added by fantasy” because the performer is not aware of the audience and their reactions.

Because parasocial relationships between the audience and performers lack reciprocity and authenticity, past scholarship tested whether the audience of parasocial relationships shows symptoms of poor psychological well-being, such as loneliness, alienation, or life dissatisfaction. For example, McQuail et al. argue that people's desire for parasocial relationships leads to deficiency in social life because such relationships are merely illusionary compensation for unsatisfactory real world relationships.^18,19 Thus, indulgence in parasocial relationships leads to social isolation, detaches the audience from real relationships, and results in heavy mass media consumption.^20–22 Although some studies have found that negative effects of parasocial relationships might be overcome if audience members successfully identify themselves with media performers,^23,24 many studies have confirmed that parasocial relationships with celebrities whose lives are very distant from those of ordinary people more or less result in life dissatisfaction, frustration, alienation, or loneliness,^17,25,26 and serious indulgence in media use to escape from the reality (i.e., obsessed media use, loss of control).^7,17 If such reasoning is accurate, we can expect that:

H1: Dependency on parasocial relationships with celebrities on SNSs is positively related with loneliness and SNS addiction, but negatively related with interpersonal trust among SNS users.

Reciprocal relationships and their relationships with psychological well-being

While parasocial SNS relationships between users and celebrities resemble the mass media model, mutually interactive SNS friendships are akin to conversations via phones, e-mail exchange, or online chatting.¹³ Since mutually interactive online communication is interpersonal, like face to face interaction,^a past studies have demonstrated that reciprocal interaction on the Internet strengthens existing friendships^10,12,27 and even facilitates offline meetings, which in turn lowers loneliness and fortifies social bonding.¹¹ Thus, we can anticipate that:

H2a: Reciprocal social relationships on SNSs are negatively related with loneliness but positively related with interpersonal trust.

However, in terms of SNS addiction (i.e., obsessed SNS use):

H2b: Dependency on reciprocal social relationships on SNSs could be positively correlated with SNS addiction.

This is because active interaction with SNS friends means users are more attentive on the given SNS, and users might be afraid that SNS abstinence might hurt the ongoing reciprocal relationship.

Methods

Sample

To test the hypotheses, national representative survey data were used. Survey respondents were recruited from the Korean Ipsos panel, which is an online survey service based on national samples of Internet users in South Korea. There are about 660,000 people on the Ipsos panel. Out of these, a total of 404 Korean adults who use at least one SNS (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, me2day, Cyworld, or other services) were recruited to test our hypotheses. The survey was conducted in January 2012. On average, selected respondents utilized two SNSs (M=2.20, SD=1.10; median=2) and reported they used SNSs about six days per week (M=5.62, SD=2.28, median=6).

Types of SNS relationship

We distinguish social (i.e., reciprocal) relationships from parasocial ones. To measure both types of relationship, we asked respondents for the number of their mutual SNS friendships and the number of their nonmutual ones with celebrities, such as movie stars, athletes, or politicians. In the case of Twitter, we distinguished mutual following from mere following. The distribution of social relationships was skewed, indicating that some respondents reported to have many relationships (M=51.03, SD=179.69, range 0–3,000). However, the median number of reciprocal relationships was 10, which corresponds to previous findings on the number of acquaintances per person.²⁸ In the case of parasocial relationships, the problem of skewed distribution was also found (M=9.03, SD=12.77, median=4, range 0–80).

To adjust for the skewed distribution, the number of each relationship was log transformed (M_social=1.16, SD_social=0.65, range 0–3.48; M_parasocial=0.70, SD_parasocial=0.55, range 0–1.91). The two types of SNS relationship are slightly correlated with each other (r=0.25, p<0.001).^b

Measures of psychological well-being

This study examined three constructs of psychological well-being: (a) loneliness, (b) interpersonal trust, and (c) SNS addiction. First, the UCLA loneliness scale²⁹ was modified and shortened for the SNS context in Korea. There were five statements in the loneliness scale: “When using SNS, I feel isolated from others”; “SNS friends are not ‘with’ me”; “When using SNS, I feel sometimes left out”; “No SNS friends know the ‘real’ me”; and “SNS relationships are superficial.” Based on a conventional 5-point Likert scale (1=“strongly disagree,” 5=“strongly agree”), respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement (Cronbach's α=0.89, M=2.70, SD=0.74).

Second, interpersonal trust was measured using Rotter's interpersonal trust scale,³⁰ which was modified for the SNS context in Korea. There were five statements in the interpersonal trust scale: “Online users in general try to take advantage of others”; “Generally speaking, online users are selfish”; “You can't be too careful when dealing with online users”; “Online users in general are fair”; and “Generally speaking, online users can be trusted.” Respondents were asked to estimate their agreement with the five statements, based on a 5-point Likert scale. After reversely coding the first three statements, respondents' agreement on the five statements was averaged (Cronbach's α=0.84, M=3.55, SD=0.66).

Finally, SNS addiction was measured by modifying the Korean Internet addiction scale for the SNS context.³¹ Basically, SNS addiction aims to measure the degree of perceived obsession of SNS use or withdrawal symptoms from SNS abstinence. There were four statements on the SNS addiction scale: “Whenever I have time, I log on to my SNS account”; “Frequently, I regret I consume too much time using SNS services”; “If I could not use SNS services, I would be depressed”; and “If I stopped using SNS, my social relationships would be ruined.” Using the same scale as for the other constructs, respondents' agreement on the four statements was averaged (Cronbach's α=0.83, M=2.94, SD=0.86).

Statistical controls

Socio-demographical variables and SNS behaviors were additionally controlled for statistical adjustment. The socio-demographical variables were the respondents' gender, age (measured in years), monthly income, and educational achievement. Regarding SNS behaviors, a self-report of daily SNS use (measured by the hour) and number of SNS accounts was included. A dichotomous variable for whether a respondent used Twitter was also added because Twitter is the most popular SNS for forming parasocial interactions with celebrities. Descriptive statistics of socio-demographics and SNS behaviors can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Statistical Controls

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	229	57%
Female	175	43%
Age
19–29	132	33%
30–39	134	33%
40–49	84	21%
≥50	54	13%
Educational achievement
Less than high school graduate	6	1%
High school graduate	59	15%
College/BA	300	74%
Advanced degree over BA	39	10%
Monthly income^†
<$1,000	117	29%
$1,000–$2,000	110	27%
$2,000–$3,000	91	23%
$3,000–$4,000	41	10%
$4,000–$5,000	18	4%
$5,000–$6,000	15	4%
≥$7,000	12	3%
Time use for SNS (hour)	M=2.19 (SD=3.12)
Number of SNS accounts
1 account	145	36%
2 accounts	102	25%
3 accounts	90	22%
≥4 accounts	67	17%
Twitter users
Users	160	40%
Nonusers	244	60%

Note. N=404. Monthly income^† was measured by Korean Won but is translated to U.S. dollars here.

Results

To test the hypotheses, three outcome variables were regressed on two types of SNS relationships as well as seven statistical controls. Results of ordinary least square regression analyses are provided in Table 2. As shown in the column under loneliness, SNS users' subjective loneliness is negatively related with social relationships (b=−0.18, p<0.01). By contrast, users' loneliness is positively related with dependency on parasocial relationship (b=0.14, p<0.001).

Table 2.

Results of Ordinary Least Square Regressions Testing the Effects of Types of SNS Relationships on Loneliness, Interpersonal Trust, and SNS Addiction

	Loneliness		Interpersonal trust		SNS addiction
	Baseline model	Test model	Baseline model	Test model	Baseline model	Test model
Intercept	2.35^*** (0.25)	2.48^*** (0.26)	3.57^*** (0.23)	3.49^*** (0.24)	2.62^*** (0.29)	1.86^*** (0.28)
Gender (female=1)	0.06 (0.08)	0.05 (0.08)	0.01 (0.07)	0.02 (0.07)	0.04 (0.09)	0.13 (0.08)
Age (unit=10 years)	0.13^** (0.04)	0.10^* (0.04)	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	0.04 (0.05)	0.05 (0.04)
Educational achievement	0.02 (0.07)	0.04 (0.07)	0.10 (0.06)	0.08 (0.06)	0.08 (0.08)	0.05 (0.07)
Household income	0.01 (0.02)	0.02 (0.02)	−0.03 (0.02)	−0.04 (0.02)	−0.02 (0.03)	−0.04 (0.03)
Time use for SNS (hour)	0.02 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.03^** (0.01)	−0.03^* (0.01)	0.04^** (0.01)	0.03^* (0.01)
Number of SNS accounts	−0.06 (.04)	−0.07 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.03)	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.08 (0.04)	0.01 (0.04)
Twitter-only users (1 if yes)	0.04 (0.08)	0.04 (0.08)	−0.01 (0.08)	0.01 (0.08)	0.15 (0.10)	0.04 (0.09)
Number of social relationships (log transformed)		−0.18^** (0.06)		0.15^** (0.06)		0.41^*** (0.07)
Number of parasocial relationships (log transformed)		0.14^* (0.07)		−0.16^* (0.06)		0.36^*** (0.08)
R ²	0.04	0.07	0.04	0.06	0.05	0.20
ΔR²		0.03^**		0.02^**		0.15^***
Adj. R²	0.03	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.18

Note. ^*p<0.05, ^**p<0.01, ^***p<0.001. Columns indicate unstandardized regression coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Social relationship indicates that a user and the user's SNS friends know each other, while parasocial relationship indicates that a user knows celebrities but not vice versa.

Interpersonal trust, however, shows opposite patterns. SNS users' interpersonal trust is positively related with dependency on social relationships on SNSs (b=0.15, p<0.01), but it is negatively correlated with dependency on parasocial relationships with celebrities (b=−0.16, p<0.05).

Unlike loneliness and interpersonal trust, the number of social relationships on SNS addiction shows positive relationships with both social and parasocial relationships on SNS (b=0.41, p<0.001 in social relationships; b=0.36, p<0.001 in parasocial relationships).

To sum up, higher reliance on social relationships is negatively related with subjective loneliness and interpersonal trust, but positively related with indulgence in SNS use. However, higher dependency on parasocial relationships is positively related with feelings of isolation, lowers interpersonal distrust, and addictive SNS use. In short, our research hypotheses (H1, H2a, and H2b) are supported by the empirical results.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to test the effect of SNS use on users' psychological well-being, in terms of subjective loneliness, interpersonal trust, and SNS addiction. Past scholarship shows controversy over the nature of SNSs' effect on psychological well-being. Some argue that SNSs fortify preexisting human networks and go beyond constrained offline relationships, which in turn reduces loneliness and promotes interpersonal trust. Others, however, focus on the quality of relationships formed via SNSs, and argue that SNS relationships reduce authentic face to face interaction, which increases social isolation and erodes interpersonal trust.

By focusing on types of relationships formed via SNS, this study distinguishes reciprocal relationships where two users know each other from unidirectional ones where one participant knows the other but not vice versa. Borrowing the concept of parasocial relationships from media psychology, we focus on unidirectional SNS relationships in which an ordinary user watches the SNS activities of celebrities but the celebrities are not aware of the user's activities. Results show that higher reliance on parasocial SNS relationships is positively related with loneliness and distrust, with which dependency on social relationships is negatively related. However, both types of SNS relationship are correlated with addictive SNS use.

Our findings clearly show that a monolithic view of the effect of SNSs is naïve and unrealistic. From the perspective of psychological well-being, what matters is whether SNS related relationships are reciprocal (i.e., interpersonal). Depending on the type of SNS mediated relationship, SNS use may either enhance or harm users' psychological well-being. Despite the difference between SNS mediated and face to face interaction, the psychological functions of SNS relationships, if reciprocal, would be similarly beneficial to those of face to face ones. As far as SNS mediated relationships are mutual, our findings suggest that SNS effects seem to be positive for both individual mental health and social cohesion. However, if a person does not use SNSs reciprocally, s/he might not accrue mental benefits. Therefore, psychological research and/or clinical studies in the future should be oriented to such users, rather than SNS users in general.

Despite yielding interesting findings about the effects of SNSs on users' psychological well-being, this study suffers from several limitations. First, causality based on cross-sectional survey might not be determined, and thus description of our findings fails to adopt causal terms. While prior studies assume the effect of media use on psychological well-being, cross-sectional survey data do not tell whether media use affects psychological well-being or vice versa. To solve this causality issue, future studies should replicate this one while relying on longitudinal panel data.

Second, this study lacks a mediating psychological state between dependency on SNS relationships and measures of psychological well-being. Prior studies found that people form different attachment styles,^32,33 which mediates parasocial relationships with psychological outcomes examined in this study. Psychological mediators are imperative, especially for SNS addiction. While this study found that both social and parasocial relationships are related with SNS addiction, each relationship could be differently mediated. For example, SNS users highly dependent on social relationships may tend toward addiction in order to fortify their existing friendships. However, those highly relying on parasocial relationships might tend toward addiction in order to escape from their existing friendships. Conceptualizing those missing mediators may empirically solve why different types of relationships are similarly related with addictive SNS use.

Third, this study focuses only on the number of relationships of each type, but not the intensity of each relationship. For example, assume two SNS users, one of whom forms 10 reciprocal relationships while the other has 100 relationships. In terms of intensely interactive relationships, the two users might not be different because most SNS activities happen around a few selected friends.⁵ Even if a person forms 100 reciprocal relationships, she mainly exchanges messages with her close friends or family members. While the number of relationships is still a meaningful measure of SNS use, future studies might derive interesting findings by conceptualizing different dimensions of SNS use that are not examined here, such as relationship intensity.

Fourth, parasocial relationships can be further divided. For example, SNS users can form parasocial relationships with noncelebrities (e.g., famous bloggers). Also experience of parasocial relationships with celebrities might not be homogeneous because some are responsive while others not. Based on previous studies,^20,23,25 parasocial relationships with noncelebrities or highly interactive celebrities reduces psychological distance between audience and target, which in turn increases identification and results in psychological less negative or even positive outcomes. In other words, further classification of parasocial relationships remains an interesting research question in the future.

Finally, intercultural differences should be critically considered. Given that the Korean culture is strongly characterized by collectivism, a strong association between dependency on SNS relationships and SNS addiction might reflect the uniqueness of Korean society. Since people in a collectivistic culture feel a strong obligation to give prompt responses to others' communicative overtures, users maintaining more social relationships are more likely to be addicted to SNSs. To assess whether findings from this study hold true elsewhere, replicating this study in a different culture (e.g., an individualistic culture like that of the United States) would be necessary.

Despite several limitations, our study's findings are novel and demonstrate that the psychological effects of SNSs differ, depending on the way users form relationships with other users. This study also shows that interactive media originally designed for social interaction can be used like old-fashioned mass media, as exemplified by an audience's imaginary relationship with celebrities. Most importantly, reciprocal SNS mediated relationships contribute to increases in social trust and belongingness, in the same way that face to face relationships do. In terms of psychological well-being, this study advises that close examination of potentially problematic usages of SNSs (e.g., parasocial relationships highlighted in this study), rather than SNSs themselves, would be more productive both theoretically and practically.

Notes

a. This study has no intention to argue reciprocal online mediated interaction is inferior or superior to a face to face one. Social presence theory,^3,10 for example, might argue that online mediated interaction is inferior to a face to face one because its social cues are limited. However, social information processing theory may argue that online mediated interaction could be more advantageous because users can engage in more selective self-presentation.

b. While the correlation between two types of SNS relationships is not huge, the observed 0.25 correlation is not totally ignorable. In fact, time for SNS use shows a correlation between dependency on parasocial relationships (r=0.17, p<0.001) and dependency on social relationships (r=0.11, p<0.05), indicating that heavy SNS users are active in forming both types of relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. June Woong Rhee, Dr. Eunmee Kim, and Dr. Irkwon Jeong for their valuable comments on the first draft of this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

boyd

, Ellison

. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 13:210–30.

Ellison

, Steinfield

, Lampe

. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–68.

Baym

. 2010. Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity.

Freberg

, Adams

, McGaughey

et al. The rich get richer: online and offline social connectivity predicts subjective loneliness. Media Psychology Review, 2010; 3.

Granovetter

. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1973; 78:1360–80.

Gentzler

, Oberhauser

, Westerman

et al. College students' use of electronic communication with parents: links to loneliness, attachment, and relationship quality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:71–4.

Turkle

. 2011. Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Kraut

, Patterson

, Lundmark

et al.

Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?

American Psychologist, 1998; 59:1017–31.

Putnam

. 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

10.

Stepanikova

, Nie

, He

. Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:329–38.

11.

Wellman

, Haase

, Witte

et al.

Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?

American Behavioral Scientist, 2001; 45:436–55.

12.

Zhao

. Do Internet users have more social ties? A call for differentiated analyses of Internet use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:844–62.

13.

Kwak

, Lee

, Park

et al. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC: ACM.

14.

Burke

, Marlow

, Lento

. 2010. Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA: ACM.

15.

Lee

, Jang

. Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: how affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 2013; 40:27–51.

16.

Marwick

, boyd

. To see and be seen: celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 2011; 17:139–58.

17.

Horton

, Wohl

. Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 1956; 19:215–29.

18.

McQuail

. 2005. McQuail's mass communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

McQuail

, Blumer

, Brown

. 1972. The television audience: a revised perspective. McQuail

. Sociology of mass communication. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 135–65.

20.

Giles

. Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 2002; 4:279–305.

21.

McCutcheon

, Lange

, Houran

. Conceptualization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 2002; 93:67–87.

22.

Rosengren

, Windahl

. 1972. Mass media consumption as a functional alternative. McQuail

. Sociology of mass communication. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 166–94.

23.

Rubin

, Perse

. Audience activity and soap opera involvement: a uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 1987; 14:246–68.

24.

Rubin

, Perse

, Powell

. Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 1985; 12:155–80.

25.

Ashe

. Shyness, loneliness, and attitude toward celebrities. Current Research in Social Psychology, 2001; 6:124–33.

26.

Hoffner

. Children's wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1996; 40:389–402.

27.

Braithwaite

, Waldron

, Finn

. Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication, 1999; 11:123–51.

28.

Brewer

, Webster

. Forgetting of friends and its effects on measuring friendship networks. Social Networks, 2000; 21:361–73.

29.

Russell

, Peplau

, Cutrona

. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1980; 39:472–80.

30.

Rotter

. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 1980; 35:1–7.

31.

National Information Society Agency. 2005. A study of Internet Addiction Proneness Scale for Adults. Seoul: National Information Society Agency.

32.

Nordlund

. Media interaction. Communication Research, 1978; 5:150–5.

33.

Cole

, Leets

. Attachment styles and intimate television viewing: insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial way. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 1999; 16:495–511.