24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T4b8,

This project applied a bifactor model, which specifies a general factor that accounts for the common variance among all scale items, and group factors that reflect additional common variance among clusters of items. This general factor is designated as “M” because of a presumption in the research literature that its origins are to be found in method. The model was applied in eight samples using nine datasets and across three different personality measures, including the Big Five and the HEXACO. Inclusion of M significantly increased model fit and increased the variance explained of items. Evidence showed that M did not reflect aspects of method such as random error or an acquiescent response bias. M correlated positively with variables suggesting psychological adjustment and negatively with variables pointing toward maladjustment. M showed unique relationships with constructs suggesting psychological adjustment over and beyond the Big Five. Data supported an interpretation of M as a synthesizing function within the self and thus suggested that M was a construct revealing substantive psychological meaning rather than mere method.

26:T52a,

In America, socializing with friends has become a functional alternative to watching television. Such a drastic change in how we spend free time demands a closer look at media effects. The study at hand invokes intrapersonal communication research and parasocial interactions and relationships from the media effects literature, synthesizing a new line of research in the process. We ask, “What functions and characteristics of parasociability predict parasocial compensation for real-life interaction?” To explore this question, we combined data based on respondent identification numbers from two larger surveys that measured functions and characteristics of parasocial. An ordinary least squares regression with compensation as the focal variable revealed that parasocial thinking, when functioning as internal rehearsal and self-understanding, and when characterized by variety and self-dominance, predicts parasociability as compensation for human interaction. Retroactive parasocial thinking negatively predicted compensation. The bottom line is this: Under certain circumstances, people choose parasocial relationships over real-life relationships. These findings support the continuing push to explore parasocial relationships as an imaginative force rather than as simple by-products of media exposure.

27:T59f,