YOUNG CHILDREN’S SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Young Children’s Parasocial Relationships
Emily S. J. Ruben
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the
Prerequisite for Honors
in Psychology
under the advisem*nt of Tracy R. Gleason, Ph.D.
April 2024
© 2024 Emily Ruben
1
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
2
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Tracy Gleason for her continuous
support over the past four years. Thank you for letting freshman year Emily chat your ear off
about every PSYC 207 concept I noticed while working part-time at Build-A-Bear. Who knew
that would lead to a senior thesis? Thank you for your dedication, kindness, patience, and
expertise as you guided me through this project. Before coming to Wellesley, I had never had a
mentor that was so, undoubtedly, in my corner like you are. Your mentorship has gone beyond
what I could have ever expected out of my experience at Wellesley and I will cherish it for many
years to come.
A massive thank you to the rest of my thesis committee: Professor Morgan, Professor
Pyers, and Professor Poston. Thank you, Professor Morgan, for your infinite wisdom in how to
talk to a preschooler. Thank you, Professor Pyers, for giving me a strong foundation of research
methods skills in 307R to assist me in this project. Thank you, Professor Poston, for
enthusiastically jumping onto my thesis committee and cheering me on throughout the school
year. An extra thank you to the incredible Annie Cohen at the Child Study Center who
coordinated all of my data collection. I extend my fullest gratitude to the rest of the incredible
Child Study Center staff who helped orchestrate the data collection process.
Furthermore, my thesis would not have been possible without the generous support of the
Schiff Foundation. Your support allowed me to more successfully navigate my time being a
part-time off-campus worker and full-time thesis student. I am incredibly grateful for the work
that you do to keep opportunities like thesising available for first-generation, low income
students like myself.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
3
To the Imaginary Lab – Jivonsha, Marcella, Sheneika, Olivia and Chelsea: Thank you for
your assistance in coding, transcribing my interviews, and for always giving the best pep talks.
You’re the best lab a girl could ask for. To Chantal, Arielle, and Ingrid, thank you for answering
all of my questions regardless of the ungodly hour I texted you. You three have been incredible
mentors for me throughout my time at Wellesley. I am so grateful to call all of the Imaginary Lab
– past and present – dear friends.
To the rest of my past and present Wellesley friends – Andy, Bethany, Caitlin, Caroline,
Saskia, all of Shafer fifth: Thank you for reminding me to make the most out of my senior year
amongst my thesis stress. This thesis would not have been possible without the ongoing
encouragement you all gave me. An extra special shoutout to Saskia for always being my go-to
thesis buddy. Your assistance meant the world to me in this process. Also, we’ve probably
broken records for how long we’ve sat at The TableTM. To my off-campus friends, Adam, Lily,
Rajashree, and Ramya: thank you for always making sure I know I have a home in Boston.
Thank you for bullying me into finishing deadlines at the Boston Public Library or Pavement
with you before we did anything fun. Thank you to all of my friends for your kindness and
warmth throughout my thesis process and beyond!
Some extra special thanks to my number one cheerleader, my wonderful girlfriend, Ali.
Thank you for every homemade matcha latte, late-night FaceTime, and emergency comfort food
delivery. Throughout this entire process, you kept me caffeinated, fed, and above all, sane. You
always made sure I knew how hard I was working, how much progress I made, and reminded me
everyday how proud you are of me.
Last but certainly not least, a massive thank you to my mom, my great aunt, and my
brother. Scott, thank you for always reminding me that life is just as much play as it is work.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
4
Auntie Sheila, thank you for always encouraging me to pursue my dreams and being there for me
when I need it most. Thank you for passing down your research genes to me. I would not be at
Wellesley if it weren’t for your continuous support of my education. Ma, thank you for pushing
me to do my best every single day. Everything I have ever accomplished has always been for
you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, for doing everything in your power to support my success
and wellbeing. I sincerely do not know where I would be without you three.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
5
Abstract
Parasocial relationships (PSR) are one-sided, emotionally tinged relationships with media
characters. Although PSRs are most often studied in adolescents and adults, recent studies have
shown that children are capable of forming these relationships as well. What is still unknown,
however, is why young children form these relationships compared to other types of imaginary
relationships. This study responded to this gap in the literature by investigating the
socioemotional affordances (SEAS) that children endorsed with respect to their favorite media
character as a measure of PSR strength. Furthermore, in order to understand the individual
differences that support PSR formation, this study measured children’s creative control,
sociability, and fantasy orientation. Social realism and media exposure were also used as
components of PSR involvement. These variables were measured via parent reports and child
interviews (N= 20). Favorite characters most commonlyafforded children reliable alliance, an
enhanced self-worth, and affection. Children who endorsed a higher number of socioemotional
affordances had a lower desire for creative control and lower fantasy orientation scores. No
relationship was found between sociability and the number of endorsed socioemotional
affordances. Children who scored highly on the social realism questionnaire had high sociability
scores, but no significant relationship between their desire for creative control or fantasy
orientation scores.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
6
Young Children’s Parasocial Relationships
Over the past few decades, imaginary relationships have emerged as an important
dimension in socioemotional development. What once was thought to be a phenomenon
dedicated to pure fun, imaginary relationships are now considered a significant part of
individuals’ social networks (Gleason, 2013). The most commonly known imaginary
relationships are children’s imaginary companions (or “imaginary friends”), the make-believe
entities (usually playmates) that children pretend are real (Taylor, 1999). Although common in
early childhood and documented later in development, imaginary companions do not appear as
consistently throughout childhood, adolescence, and even adulthood as another type of
imaginary relationship called parasocial relationships. Parasocial relationships (PSRs) are
one-sided, emotionally-tinged relationships with media personae, such as newscasters,
celebrities, and fictional characters (Horton & Wohl, 1956). Although PSRs are most commonly
studied in adolescents and adults, they exist in early childhood as well (Bond & Calvert, 2014;
Richards & Calvert, 2017). Interest in the relationships children create with media characters has
grown as media has become more extensive and accessible to children. Yet, little is known about
the phenomenon. The primary goal of this study was, thus, to consider how media influences
imaginary relationships, the factors that relate to PSR formation, and the affordances of mediated
relationships.
Media Influence in Imaginary Relationships
Imagination relies on children’s ability to process the physical world and recreate it in
pretense (Singer & Singer, 2005). For instance, after learning what a firefighter is, children may
embody the role and copy behaviors that are ascribed to the role: children can reenact driving a
fire truck and putting out a fire. Although media might not exist “for real,” it still exists within
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
7
the physical world, just in a book, on a TV program, or in a video game. Just as with real-world
input, children incorporate stimuli from media into their imagination (Richert & Smith, 2011).
For example, after a child watches Disney’sTinkerBellat the movies, they might embody the
role of a fairy by pretending to fly around and use magic. The media children view might
influence their imagination and, thus, their imaginary relationships: children sometimes create
imaginary companions influenced by media, such as a teddy bear named Batman or an invisible
friend with Wonder Woman’s superpowers. However, media-based imaginary companions have
traits that are inconsistent with the entirety of the character—children alter these companions
from their media versions to fit their own desires (Ruben et al., 2023). In contrast, PSRs are
created with the actual character, without alteration. This distinction suggests that although PSRs
are imaginary relationships just as imaginary companions are, they likely have unique features
and might be created for specific reasons or by a specific type of child.
Factors in PSR Formation
The role that PSRs play in the context of children’s social networks is currently unclear.
In order to understand how PSRs fit into children’s social networks, an understanding of how
children’s PSR are formed and the common traits in children who make them is essential. Bond
& Calvert (2014) identify four key factors that influence PSR formation: parasocial interactions
(PSI), repeated media exposure or “transmedia” exposure, toy engagement, and parent
encouragement. Richards & Calvert (2016) also proposed social realism as important in PSR
formation as well. Several other factors, including hom*ophily, environmental factors, and
individual differences, might also relate to PSR formation.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
8
Parasocial Interaction
PSIs are one-off interactions (e.g., talking back to, dancing with on-screen characters)
between viewers and media characters (Giles, 2002; Klimmt et al., 2006). Children's
programming leverages PSI for the purposes of call and response learning, such as in the 2000s
animated children’s seriesDora the Explorer, whereDora makes eye contact with the audience,
asks questions directly to the audience (“Canyouhelpmefind the map?”), and pauses, waiting
for a response, as if she can hear them (Bond & Calvert, 2014; Lauricella, Gola & Calvert,
2011). PSI with media characters may enhance feelings of closeness and companionship to the
media character because PSI mimics real-life interpersonal interactions that enhance the same
feelings with real-life counterparts (Rubin & McHugh, 1987).
Transmedia Exposure & Toy Engagement
Both repeated media exposure and toy engagement are avenues for children to develop
PSRs (Bond & Calvert, 2014). Transmedia exposure, or transmedia experience, is the extent to
which children are surrounded by different types of media platforms in which they can be
exposed to the same media character (Jennings & Alper, 2016). For example, children can see
their favorite characters on screen media like TV and video games, but they can also read about
them in print media such as books and comics. Even appearances of childrens’ favorite
characters in the grocery store on product placement (e.g., Bluey and Bingo fromBlueyon
Yoplait yogurt), on public transit, and advertisem*nts (e.g., a reading campaign featuring PBS’s
Arthur) contributes to transmedia exposure (Calvert & Richards, 2014). Children have the
opportunity to “interact” with the media character in all of these different mediums. Toy
engagement adds another dimension to transmedia exposure, as with a toy the child can engage
with the media character as an object. Oftentimes, children play with a media toy as if it was the
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
9
character itself (Singer & Singer, 2005). Children who subscribe to this pretense are likely to
develop stronger feelings for the media character (Bond & Calvert, 2014; Singer & Singer,
2005). However, children may also play with a favorite media character toy while constructing
different meanings for the toy that do not align with the traits of the media character (Parsons &
Howe, 2013).
Parental Engagement
Just as they facilitate real-life relationships, parents have an important role in the
formation of children’s PSR. Parents facilitate early relationships by talking to children about
their playmates, organizing playdates, enrolling children in enrichment activities where they have
opportunities to meet other children, and by befriending other families (Simpkins & Park, 2001).
Similarly, parents take the lead in helping their children create relationships with their favorite
media characters. Parents often monitor their children’s media consumption by watching
alongside them and might encourage children to “answer” the media characters on screen when
the characters engage in PSI. Characters can even gain “parent approval” (Aguiar et al., 2019a).
In younger audiences, parents also have the ability to choose which media characters children
have transmedia experiences with, by buying merchandise and toys. Overall, parent
encouragement is one of the strongest predictors of children’s PSR (Bond & Calvert, 2014).
Social Realism
Social realism, the extent to which a fictional character is perceived to be real, has been
previously used to measure children’s PSR as an important component of PSR formation (Bond
& Calvert, 2014). For instance, live-action characters, like Raven fromThat’s So Ravenmay be
perceived to be more real than animated human characters, like Penny fromThe Proud Family
(Rosaen & Dibble, 2008). Animated characters that behave in realistic ways, like Lizzie
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
10
McGuire, might also be perceived as more realistic than characters who act nonsensical, like
Spongebob Squarepants. The closer characters present to human-like, the more likely they are to
be seen as realistic. The more real a character is perceived to be, the more likely children are to
form a PSR with them (Bond & Calvert, 2014; Calvert, 2017).
hom*ophily
Children form friendships with others based on features they have in common. Factors
like age and gender all influence a child’s readiness to befriend a peer (Hartup, 1995). The
principle of hom*ophily carries over when forming a parasocial relationship as well (Calvert &
Richards, 2014; Tolbert & Drogos, 2019; Turner, 1993). Audiences perceive similarity based on
basic demographics like age, gender, and race, but also more complex features like a character’s
behaviors, personality, and life experiences (Eyal & Rubin, 2003; Harwood, 1999; McDonald &
Kim, 2001). Children are often drawn to characters to whom they are most similar (Hoffner,
1996; McDonald & Kim, 2001). Children may create PSRs with characters they are most similar
to, as well. Media characters provide a plethora of options for individuals to choose from,
compared to their real-life peers (Bond, 2018).
Environmental Factors
Children who live in environments that permit higher media exposure (i.e., number of
hours per week) are more likely to experience transmedia exposure across media platforms, and
thus have more opportunities to form a connection with a media character. Repeated exposure to
a media character allows children to develop familiarity with a particular character (Bond &
Calvert, 2014; Calvert & Richards, 2014). Children who spend hours watching their favorite
television characters each week are more likely to develop relationships with them, as the mere
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
11
exposure over and over enhances feelings of safety (as character becomes predictable) and
attachment (Hoffner, 1996).
Individual Differences
In addition to environmental factors, individualdifferences might influence the extent to
which children connect with media characters. In particular, children that have a low need for
creative control over the details of their imaginary relationship partners might be more likely to
create PSR, as might children who are highly sociable and are oriented toward fantasy.
Desire for Creative Control.Creative control is theagency children desire over artistic
or imaginative pursuits (e.g., art projects, pretend play). Children who enjoy creative control in
their imaginative pursuits may be more dominant in pretend play (i.e., playing the role of
“director”) or suggest divergent ideas from the norm (e.g., “Let’s color the sun purple!”). The
imaginary relationship literature has discussed creativity and agency (McInnis et al., 2013;
Taylor et al., 2007), but has not yet combined the two to specifically address creative control. For
example, children’s interest in their imaginary companion decreases when parents and siblings
try to control what the imaginary companion wants or is doing (Taylor, 1999). In contrast, when
children create PSRs, they often rely on parent involvement (and the involvement of adults in
general) to facilitate their connection to the media character (Bond & Calvert, 2014). PSRs are
also not individualized like ICs. PSRs have fewer opportunities to exhibit creative control
because children treat the character as an autonomous being with their own “package” of
characteristics (Bond & Calvert, 2014). Children who create PSRs may do so because having
creative control over the character is not an important aspect of the relationship.
Sociability.Sociability is associated with behaviorslike playing with other kids you
don’t know, preferring to play with others over solitary play, and being willing to engage in
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
12
prosocial activities with other children like sharing toys or turn taking. Despite popular myths
and misconceptions, children with imaginary relationships, such as those with imaginary
companions, are highly sociable (Singer & Singer, 1990; Taylor, 1999). The link between having
an imaginary companion and high sociability is even seen in adulthood (Gleason et al., 2003).
Since PSRs are another imaginary relationship like imaginary companions, children who create
PSRs may also score high in sociability. People who tend to create PSRs also tend to have strong
social relationships (Bond, 2022). Perhaps individuals who create PSRs have a high need for
social connection, and are willing to go along with parasocial interactions despite them not being
entirely “real.” PSRs may merely be an extension of sociability projected into imaginary realms.
Fantasy Orientation.The fantasy orientation of childrenwho make PSRs has not been
studied. However, the imaginary companion and pretend play literature suggests ways in which
children’s individual fantasy orientation might relate to their engagement with imaginary
relationships. Fantasy orientation can be observed in children as young as three years old via
pretend play (Taylor, 1999). Children with lower fantasy orientation tend to play with blocks and
engage in reality-based storylines, like playing house, whereas children with higher fantasy
orientation are more likely to enjoy fantastical pretend play (e.g., playing mermaids), incorporate
imaginary companions into their play, and choose fantasy-based toys over reality-based toys
(Singer & Singer, 1981; Taylor et al., 1993). Young children with high fantasy orientation are
more likely to have ICs, vivid imagery when daydreaming and playing pretend, and to
incorporate mythical content into their daydreams and pretend play (Bouldin, 2006; Mathur &
Smith, 2007). Reality-belief status – children’s ability to distinguish what is real and what is
fantasy – and credulity are also potentially positively correlated to children’s fantasy orientation,
although the literature is inconclusive (Bouldin & Pratt, 2002).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
13
High fantasy-oriented children might also be more capable of distinguishing real and
fantastical beings than low fantasy-oriented children (Sharon & Woolley, 2004; Singer & Singer,
1981). If children who are high in fantasy orientation have proficient reality-fantasy distinction
skills, then they might be less likely to form PSR since they are less likely to perceive their
favorite characters as real. Another feature of fantasy-oriented children is that they tend to watch
less television than their reality-oriented peers (Mottweiler & Taylor, 2014). Therefore, children
with high fantasy orientation might be less likely to engage in PSR with media characters simply
because they engage in less media. On the other hand, fantasy is a component of PSRs. When
forming a relationship with a character, children are engaging in the fictional world of the media
character. For instance, they may do so by using dolls to reenact scenes from the television or
movie of their favorite character. Overall, high fantasy orientation may or may not be a
component of PSR formation.
Social Affordances of Media and Parasocial Relationships
Just as individuals utilize friendships to meet specific needs and wants, media fulfills
specific needs and wants, too. According to Uses and Gratifications Theory, the four core needs
media fulfills are: information seeking, personal identity, social interactions, and entertainment
(Nabi et al., 2006; Ruggiero, 2000). Of these needs, PSRs speak most directly to the need for
social interactions and entertainment. Audiences are capable of engaging with media in ways that
parallel the affordances of real-life friendships, such as for identity development, a sense of
belonging, and a safe place to release emotions (Ellithorpe & Bleakly, 2016; Goldstein, 2009;
Ruggiero, 2000). Viewers can also connect with on-screen characters via parasocial interactions,
which simulate real-life social interaction (Giles, 2002; Klimmt et al., 2006). Approaches to
studying real-life relationships, like the measurement of socioemotional affordances of particular
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
14
relationships, can be applied to PSR because human-like behaviors from non-human (but
human-like) entities still elicit social responses (Cohen, 2014).
The adolescent and adult PSR literature has two competing theories on whether PSRs
compensate for or complement an individuals’ social networks, aptly named the Compensation
Hypothesis and the Complementary Hypothesis.
The Compensation Hypothesis suggests that PSRs are capable of being a functional
alternative to real-life social relationships (Bond, 2022). PSRs might fulfill social psychological
needs that aren’t being met by real-life relationships while also having many benefits that
real-life relationships lack. For instance, fictional characters are not autonomous: they cannot
talk back, be unsatisfied, or argue, and most importantly, cannot control how often interactions
occur (Madison et al., 2016). Individuals can spend as much time with their parasocial characters
as they choose. Even if a show is canceled, it can be replayed. The individuals creating these
bonds are the sole “owners” of the relationship. PSRs may also satisfy unmet social needs for
those struggling to connect with others, especially marginalized community members who may
face social isolation or rejection with real-life peers (Bond 2018, 2022). For example, LGBTQ+
adolescents who had PSRs of LGBTQ+ media figures and fictional characters found that these
relationships provided them a sense of belonging, community, and confidence. These figures
provided an avenue – fictional or not – for adolescents to feel seen, despite never interacting
face-to-face (Bond, 2018). Furthermore, PSRs are often believed to be associated with high rates
of loneliness. People may turn to PSRs in order to compensate for this social deficit (Giles &
Maltby, 2004; Wang et al., 2008). Yet, the compensation hypothesis has not been empirically
supported (Bond, 2022).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
15
PSRs offer plenty of space to “feel” what it’s like to be friends with someone without
having to take on the obligation of creating something new, like an imaginary companion.
Complementary Theory argues that PSRs cannot make up for any social deficits, but rather
extends an already-existing social network. Cohen (2014) argues that PSRs are complementary
because they fulfill a completely different niche than real-life social relationships and cannot
compete with real-life social relationships. Some aspects of PSRs, like a lack of reciprocity, are
completely distinct from aspects of real-life relationships. PSRs may also be a safe place to
experience emotions and expand one’s worldview without worrying about the social or
emotional consequences (Nabi et al., 2006; Ruggiero, 2000).
How are PSRs Studied?
Interviews give comprehensive insight into the various components of children’s PSRs.
Both parents and children have been the subjects of PSR interviews, but the majority of
interview studies focus on parent responses over child responses. Parents can help provide a
birds-eye view of children’s media habits and behaviors around media characters. They are
useful informants, especially regarding their child’s media consumption and reporting on their
child’s transmedia exposure to media characters (Richards & Calvert, 2016). A disadvantage of
relying on parent reports is that children and parents often disagree on their child’s media
character of choice. When researchers ask children their favorite character, 66% of children will
name a character different from their parents’ answer (Richards & Calvert, 2016). Children also
out-grow favorite media characters often or have multiple favorite characters whom their parents
might not know (Aguiar et al., 2019b). Children in PSRs with media characters are capable of
“breaking up” with them, via a TV show ending or simply outgrowing the character (Cohen,
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
16
2003). Both parents and children play a role in accurately reporting information about children’s
PSRs.
PSR can often be conflated with other phenomena, such as PSI (Giles, 2002), wishful
identification (Tolbert & Drogos, 2019), or even ICs (Calvert, 2015). One explanation for these
discrepancies is the method that researchers use to inquire about children’s PSRs. Researchers
rely on only asking children who their favorite characters are, but fanaticism alone is not a
criterion for having a PSR, and should not be treated as such. A child might also be capable of
watching a character on TV, owning clothing with the character on it, and playing with toys of
the character without having any emotional ties to it – outside of, perhaps, mere enjoyment or
adoration. Asking children about their favorite characters accompanied by what socioemotional
affordances children endorse helps distinguish children with favorite characters and children with
PSRs.
This study sought to define a spectrum that encompasses the coexistence of both children
with favorite media characters and children with PSR when analyzing children’s interactions and
relationships with these characters. The imaginary companion literature makes a distinction
between transitional objects, or “lovies”, an object (stuffed animal, blanket) that provides
comfort to a child and a personified object, or a type of imaginary companion that may take on
the form of a physical object, but to which the child attaches a personality (Taylor, 1999). In the
latter case, the child is a part of a relationship with their object, rather than solely gaining
comfort from it. Like personified objects and transitional objects, PSRs and favorite media
characters are often conflated in the literature. Differentiating between the two can be difficult,
so this study included a variety of questions to determine the extent to which a relationship is
present by investigating the socioemotional affordances that children associate with their favorite
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
17
characters. The strength of a PSR could thus be conceptualized as a spectrum according to the
number of socioemotional affordances endorsed. The higher the number of endorsed affordances,
the greater the strength of the PSR.
Hypotheses
This study had two goals. The first goal was to provide descriptive information on what
participation in a PSR looks like in young children. In order to do so, I asked children and
parents to report on the characteristics and social affordances of children’s favorite characters.
PSR literature describes how these relationships may form (Bond & Calvert, 2014) but lacks
descriptions of what PSR are like or what they do for children. For the purposes of this study, I
consulted the qualitative IC literature (e.g., Gleason et al., 2000; Taylor, 1999) to design my
parent questionnaire and child interviews. These studies provided common socioemotional
affordances of real-life and imagined relationships, such as reliable alliance, affection, and
companionship (Aguiar & Taylor, 2015; Gleason et al., 2000). In descriptions of PSRs, I
expected to find hom*ophily in age and gender in children’s choices of characters and a range of
endorsem*nt of socioemotional affordances.
The second goal of this study was to investigate what individual differences relate to
preschool children’s creation of PSR. Using data gathered from parents and children, I examined
the relation between PSR involvement and fantasy orientation, sociability, and desire for creative
control. PSR involvement was operationalized in two different ways: the number of
socioemotional affordances endorsed and the level of social realism. (1) I hypothesized that the
number of socioemotional affordances children endorsed would be positively associated with
social realism. (2a) I predicted that children with stronger PSR would make them for a range of
reasons, including companionship, feelings of affection and intimacy, and enhancement of
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
18
self-worth. (2b) I also predict that affordances like reliable alliance and reciprocity will not be
endorsed often by children because PSRs are one-sided relationships. I predicted that: (3)
children with high PSR involvement would have a lower desire for creative control than children
with lower numbers of endorsed socioemotional affordances, and (4) children with high numbers
of endorsed socioemotional affordances would have high levels of sociability, fantasy
orientation, and media exposure. Lastly, parent and child reporters were compared to investigate
how reliable parents are at reporting their child’s preferences.
Methods
Participants
Preschool-age participants (M= 52.15 months,SD= 5.35) and their parents (N= 20
dyads) were recruited from one college-affiliated laboratory preschool in a wealthy suburb of the
Northeastern U.S. The child sample included 12 boys and 8 girls (65% Caucasian, 15% Asian,
10% Latinx, 5% Black and Latinx, 5% Caucasian and Asian). 89% of the sample (one parent did
not report income) came from households with an income of $100,000 or more. Two children did
not finish the favorite character interview. One child’s data for CSVQ (seeChild Materials) was
not included due to experimental error.
Materials
Parent Materials
Parents were given a 20-minute online survey composed of demographics and six
questionnaires. Each portion of the survey is described below in the order it was presented.
Demographics and Transmedia Exposure
The first section of the survey asked parents to provide demographics, including their
child’s age (in months), gender, and race, and the family’s household income. Transmedia
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
19
Exposure was measured using an adapted version of the Child Screen Time Questionnaire (Kaur
et al., 2021). I modified it to reflect common household devices in 2024. Parents were asked to
“Please check off the devices your child has permission to use in your home.” The list of 7
devices included options like a TV set with cable and a desktop computer with WiFi connection.
Parents also reported the total average (in hours) per week children spent on screen devices. Each
device available to the child was then coded (yes/no) and the number was summed (Range: 0-7).
The two variables – media accessibility and screen time – were combined into the transmedia
exposure variable. In order to combine them, the natural log of each score was calculated and
then standardized (z-score). Standardized media accessibility and screen time scores were added
together to create a transmedia exposure score.
Creative Control Questionnaire
I developed a set of ten questions about the child’s desire for creative control on a 5-point
likert scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = Always; Cronbach’s alpha = .63). Questions included: “When
pretending with others, my child is happy to act out what other children suggest,” and, “My child
likes to draw or paint original pictures more than coloring in a coloring book.” (See Appendix
A1 for the full questionnaire.). Parents’ answers were summed and averaged.
Sociability
TheChild Self-View Questionnaire(CSVQ; Jia et al.,2016) was adapted to measure
children’s sociability. Parents responded to 9 questions that provided two statements from which
parents were asked to choose the option that best aligned with their child’s social habits.
(Cronbach’s alpha = .77). For example, “My child likes meeting new people” (sociable) versus
“My child likes spending time with people they already know” (not sociable). Parents' answers
were summed (1 = sociable, 0 = not sociable).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
20
Fantasy Orientation
Parents responded to the 14 items of theChildhoodImagination Questionnaire (Parent
Report; Gilpin et al., 2017), which asked about children’s fantasy behaviors on a 5-point likert
scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). Questions included: “How often does this child engage in pretend
play (role play, imaginative play) during free-play time?” and “When this child plays with other
children, how often does the play involve interactions with invisible imaginary others?” Parents’
answers were summed and averaged.
Favorite Characters
Parents filled out a series of questions asking about the child’s favorite media character,
including what the child likes and dislikes about their favorite character, a set of questions about
the social realism of the character, and a set of questions about the socioemotional affordances
the child associated with the favorite character.
Favorite Characters.The favorite character questionnaire(see Appendix A2) was a
combination of 34 questions, 25 of which were used for this study. It began by asking whether
the child had a favorite media character (yes/no), and if so, who it was and where it was from.
Two open-ended questions addressed what the child liked/disliked about the character. Two sets
of questions addressed social realism and socioemotional affordances, respectively.
Social Realism.Five questions asked about the extentto which children believed that
their characters were real. Parents responded on a 5-point Likert scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).
Scores were averaged to create a social realism score based on a parent report.
Socioemotional Affordances.The questions about socioemotionalaffordances were
modeled off of previous imaginary companion interviews (e.g., Gleason, 2002; Taylor, 1999) and
asked about socioemotional affordances described in prior research on both real and imaginary
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
21
relationships (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Gleason & Hohmann, 2006). The affordances I
focused on included: affection, enhanced self-worth, companionship, intimacy, reciprocity, and
reliable alliance. Affection included two items: loving their favorite character and caring for their
favorite character. Enhanced self-worth included three items: the character makes the child feel
special, feel good about themself, and feel important. Companionship consisted of three items:
the favorite character is fun, prevents feelings of loneliness, and plays with the child. Intimacy
included whether the child trusts and feels safe with their favorite character. Reciprocity
consisted of whether the child feels loved by and feels cared by their favorite character. Lastly,
reliable alliance included two items: everlasting love (the sense that they will always love their
favorite character) and that their favorite character will always be there for them. Each
affordance was scored on a 5-likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) about the
child’s feelings about the favorite character. Parents’ answers were averaged to create a
socioemotional affordance score.
Child Materials
Child Creative Control Questionnaire
Children completed a Creative Control Questionnaire (see Appendix B1). This
questionnaire consisted of a would-you-rather task, where children picked between two items.
One item was designated as a “low creative control” item, in which the activity was confined in
some way (e.g., building a particular LEGO set, a coloring book page) and the other was a “high
creative control” item, with which the child was free to take full creative liberty (e.g., free
building LEGOs, drawing freehand). Items also included media-related toys, like a Pikachu
stuffed animal for low creative control and a nondescript stuffed duck for high creative control.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
22
The child was prompted to pick the toy they would rather play with. Both toys in the set were
similar in shape, size, color, and type.
Favorite Character Interview
An interview included questions about the child’s favorite media characters (if they had
one, as identified by the parent and/or child) and paralleled the questions parents answered (see
Appendix B2). Children answered questions about what they liked and disliked about their
favorite media character, how the character looked, and where they lived. Next, the interview
included measures of social realism and socioemotional affordances. These questions were
identical to the questions that parents were asked, except the language was changed from “your
child” to “you.” Additionally, instead of being a 5-point likert scale, the questions were changed
to simple yes/no, such as “Can [favorite character] hear you if you were to talk to them?”
Answers were summed to make a social realism score (Cronbach’s alpha = .76) and
socioemotional affordances score (possible range 0-14)
Sociability
Children then completed a puppet task adapted from Jia et al.’s (2016)Child Self-View
Questionnaireto include only questions about sociability.The researcher used two monkey
puppets – named Tiki and Bobo – to deliver high sociability and low sociability comments. After
each comment, the child was asked whether they were more like Tiki or Bobo. After completing
a trial round, children were given 10 pairs of statements about social behavior and asked to pick
which one was more like them (e.g., “When new people come over to my house, I like to show
them my toys” vs. “When new people come over to my house, I am shy”).Like the adult survey,
children were given a point for every sociable answer and then their answers were summed.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
23
Procedure
Parental consent for all college-affiliated preschool children was obtained when the child
enrolled at the preschool. Parents were provided with a summary of the study and an option to
opt-out before any sessions were run. Parents were assigned a code number to identify them and
their children. Once consent was collected, parents filled out the survey via Qualtrics. Children
were scheduled to participate after the parent’s Qualtrics survey was submitted and read by a
researcher so that the experimenter would know to ask about specific favorite characters if the
child failed to spontaneously name the one named by the parent.
Children who participated in this study completed two sessions. The researcher picked up
the child from the classroom and walked with them to a quiet area in the building. In session one,
the researcher first administered the creative control measure by flipping through pictures in a
3-ring binder, with images of two comparable items on each page, one representing high creative
control and one representing low creative control. Children were asked to identify which picture
represented the toy they would rather play with or activity they would rather do. Afterwards,
children completed the favorite character interview. If a child said no when asked “Do you have
a favorite media character?” the researcher referred to the parent’s answer in the online survey. If
neither the parent nor the child identified a favorite media character, then the rest of the interview
was skipped and the child was walked back to class. Sometimes, children identified a different
media character than the parent. Then, the researcher asked about the child’s favorite media
character. Within the same week, children met with the researcher again to complete the
sociability puppet measure and an interview about imaginary companions that was not used in
this study. At the end of both sessions, children were thanked, given a sticker, and walked back
to their classrooms.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
24
Coding and Reliability
In the favorite character interviews, children were asked open-ended questions about why
they like and dislike their favorite media characters. The dislike answers were not analyzed, as
no child responded with anything they disliked about the character. Answers were coded by two
independent researchers and were coded yes/no for three non-mutually exclusive categories:
appearance (what the character looks like; Gwet’s AC = .92), behavior (what the character does;
Gwet’s AC = .83), and personality (what the character is like; personality, = .96). Disagreements
were resolved by discussion.
Results
One overarching goal of my study was to collect descriptive information from young
children about their favorite media characters. Out of the 20 parent-child dyads surveyed, 85% of
children (n= 17, 12 boys, 5 girls) reported havingfavorite characters. Boys were more likely to
report favorite characters than girls (100% v. 62.5%). Parents and children did not always agree
on the child’s favorite character. Only 65% of parents (n= 13) reported their child having a
favorite character, and parents and children often did not agree on which character was the
child’s favorite (see Table 1). The significant disagreement between parents and children
warranted examination of the descriptions and social affordances of favorite characters based
solely on child reports.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
25
Table 1.
Parent Versus Child Reports of Favorite Character (FC)
Parent report of favorite character
Child report of a
f avorite character
No FC
Yes FC, wrong
character
Yes FC, right
character
Total
No
3
0
0
3
Yes
4
7
6
17
7
7
6
20
Total
Note. FC = favorite character
Which characters do children choose?
Descriptives
Children reported a diverse range of favorite media characters. The most popular
characters children named were Elsa (from Disney’s movieFrozen) and Mario (from Nintendo’s
Super Mario Bros.). I expected children to demonstratehom*ophily in gender and age. For
gender, this hypothesis was supported only for boys, and it was not supported for age. Overall,
children’s favorite characters were more likely to be male than female (64.7% male, 29.4%
female, 5.9% other), and girls were more likely to name a favorite character that did not match
their gender identity (40%) compared to boys (16.7%). Favorite characters were most often
(50%) older than the child, and less often the same age (31.3%) or younger (18.8%). Characters
were identified by children as either a person (43.8%), an animal (18.8%) or something else
(37.5%), such as a mermaid (Ariel from Disney’s movieThe Little Mermaid) or
anthropomorphized vehicle (Lightning McQueen from Pixar’s movieCars). Children named a
variety of desirable traits in their favorite characters (see Table 2). Favorite characters were rated
by children for their behavior (e.g., having superpowers, 41.2%) and their physical appearance
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
26
(29.4%), but never for their personality. Parents and children who agreed about their child’s
favorite character often disagreed about why they liked them in ways that reflected their different
perspectives (see Table 3). About half (53.5%) of the children sometimes pretended to be their
favorite character and most (73.3%) reported wishing to be their favorite character. Most
children reported that their favorite characters were from television (58.8%), others came from
movies (17.6%), video games (11.8%), and miscellaneous media sources (11.8%) such as books.
Table 2.
Examples of Children’s Descriptions of Favorite Characters
Interviewee
Character Name
Reported
Why is [character] your favorite?
Media Source
Girl, age 4
Elsa
(F
rozen)
Television
I went to Disney one day and met Anna,
Olaf, and Sven. I like her powers.
Boy, age 5
wazi
K
(O
ctonauts)
Television
I like that he's a pirate because I like
treasure.
Girl, age 5
he Lemmings
T
(G
rizzy and the
Lemmings)
Television
hey make tricks, there's more of them,
T
they split up and make different traps for
the Bear.
Girl, age 4
riel
A
(T
he Little Mermaid)
Book
ecause her red hair and she’s a princess
B
and I love princesses.
Boy, age 5
ario
M
(S uper Mario Bros.)
Video game
His hat and brown shoes.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
27
Table 3.
Child Versus Parent Responses to “Why is [character] your favorite?”
Child
Character Name
hy is [character] your
W
favorite?
hy is [character] your child’s
W
favorite?
oy,
B
age 5
gon
E
(Ghostbusters)
I like the truck, proton pack,
guns, walkie talkies, and
suits, and cool house. And
when they get slimed.
onfident, fights ghosts with
C
equipment, somewhat funny.
Boy,
a ge 4
Lightning
McQueen (Cars)
His wheels, race cars that
blow engines, smoke coming
out of his tires/engines.
He really loves the movie Cars, and
he loves racing around.
Boy,
a ge 5
Spidey
(S pider-Man)
Girl,
a ge 4
Elsa
(F
rozen)
He catches the bad guys and T
he superhero aspect is fascinating to
he shoots webs.
im. Saving the town/city and doing
h
it with friends.
Because she can freeze
Anna's heart.
She is beautiful, has powers.
Gender differences emerged in the study sample. Girls (100%) were more likely than
boys (36.4%) to embody their favorite characters via pretend play and to report wishful
identification with their favorite characters (100% of girls, 63.3% of boys).
Socioemotional Affordances
One of the purposes of this study was to explore the socioemotional affordances children
associate with their favorite media characters. I hypothesized that characters would be associated
with socioemotional affordances, and this hypothesis was supported: on average, children
associated 9.07 (SD= 3.85) of the 14 affordanceswith their characters (see Figure 1 for the
proportion of children endorsing each affordance). According to my definition, 12 children
associated seven or more socioemotional affordances with their favorite characters and were,
therefore, identified as having a PSR with that character (n= 12). The rationale for this decision
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
28
was made on the speculation that children’s PSRs could be defined on a spectrum of strength; the
more affordances endorsed, the stronger the relationship.
I also wanted to know which affordances were the most and least likely to be endorsed. I
predicted that children would associate affection, intimacy, and enhancement of worth with their
favorite characters. This hypothesis was partially supported. The affordances most commonly
endorsed by children were the expectation of everlasting love for their favorite characters, loving
their favorite characters in general, and a heightened sense of self-esteem (see Figure 2).
Children associated media characters the least with feeling cared for by the character, playing
together, and caring for the character. My hypothesis was partially supported for affection (love
favorite character, care for favorite), as loving a character was one of the most endorsed
affordances, but caring for a favorite character was not. This hypothesis was also supported for
enhancement of worth (feel good about self, feel special, and feel important) given that all three
components (see Table 4) were endorsed by more than half of the children with favorite
characters.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
29
Figure 1.
Number of Endorsed Socioemotional Affordances (Child Report)
ote.FC = favorite character. Affordances of thesame color belong to the same category.
N
Categories in red are reliable alliance, green are affection, blue are self-esteem, purple are
companionship, orange are intimacy, and yellow are reciprocity.
Figure 2.
Number of Endorsem*nts of Socioemotional Affordances by Category (Child Report)
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
30
Table 4.
Number of Endorsem*nts of Social-Emotional Affordances According to Parasocial Relationship
Status (Child Report)
Parasocial Relationship
(n = 12)
No Parasocial Relationship
(n = 3)
Affordance
Endorsed, No. [%]
Endorsed, No. [%]
Feel special
11 [91.6]
0 [0]
Feel important
9 [75.0]
0 [0]
*Feel good about self
12 [100.0]
1 [33.3]
Prevent loneliness
10 [83.3]
0 [0]
Play together
6 [50.0]
0 [0]
Fun
10 [83.3]
2 [66.7]
*Everlasting love
12 [100.0]
2 [66.7]
Always be there
10 [83.3]
1 [33.3]
*Love FC
12 [100.0]
1 [33.3]
Care for FC
6 [50.0]
0 [0]
Loved by FC
9 [75.0]
0 [0]
Cared for by FC
3 [25.0]
0 [0]
ote. Two participants with favorite characters didnot finish reporting socioemotional
N
affordances.
Every child categorized as having a PSR reported experiencing feelings of everlasting
love, general love, and self-esteem enhancement with their favorite character; however, children
who were not categorized as having a PSR also endorsed these affordances. The most popular
affordances endorsed only by children categorized as having a PSR but not by their non-PSR
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
31
counterparts were feelings of specialness, preventing loneliness, and feeling important and loved
by their favorite character.
Individual Differences
The second goal of my study was to examine the individualdifferences that related to the
strength of a child’s PSR. Specifically, I examined the SEAS endorsed by children in relation to
transmedia exposure, social realism, creative control, sociability, and fantasy orientation. I also
conducted these analyses in relation to parent reports to see if the patterns of correlations were
similar or reflected the different perspectives of parents and children.
Transmedia Exposure
I hypothesized that the number of SEAS that children endorsed would be correlated with
their level of transmedia exposure. (The distribution of transmedia scores is depicted in Figure
3.) This hypothesis was not supported. The number of SEAS endorsed by children had a weak,
positive correlation with parent reports of transmedia exposure (r= .244,p= .402).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
32
Figure 3.
Distribution of Children’s Transmedia Exposure Scores
Note.Transmedia exposure is standardized into z-scores.The blue lines represent quantiles.
Social Realism
I predicted that SEAS and social realism would have a strong, positive correlation. This
hypothesis was not supported for child reports, but was for parent reports. Child data show a
slightly positive correlation between SEAS and social realism. However, parent data show a
significantly positive correlation between SEAS and social realism (see Figure 4).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
33
Figure 4.
Correlations between SEAS and Social Realism in Child and Parent Reports
Note.The level of saturation represents how closethe correlation is to r = 1.
Most children answered “no” when prompted if theycould see, hear, or talk to their
favorite media characters. The least commonly endorsed social realism question was “Does your
favorite character ever talk to you?” (see Figure 5). The question “Is [favorite character] pretend
or real?” also prompted mostly low social realism answers, with most children answering
“pretend.” One child responded with “I don’t know,” and another responded with “pretend and
real.” Neither of these children are included below in Figure 5.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
34
Children’s social realism scores seemed to reflect their PSR status as children with PSR
were more likely than children without a PSR to answer yes to the social realism questions. All 3
children that answered “real” met the criteria for having a PSR. Almost half of the children with
PSR reported that they talk back to their favorite media characters (see Table 5).
Figure 5.
Frequency of Child Responses to Social Realism Questions
ote. FC = favorite character. Instead of yes/no in“Is favorite character pretend or real,” the
N
light blue bar represents the number of “real” responses and the dark blue bar represents
“pretend” responses.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
35
Table 5.
Children’s Social Realism Endorsem*ntsbyPSRs Status
Social Realism Question
PSR
n = 12
No PSR
n = 3
Number [%]
Number [%]
Do you talk to [favorite
character]?
5 [41.7]
0 [0]
Can [favorite character] hear
you?
3 [25]
1 [33.3]
Can [favorite character] see you?
4 [33.3]
1 [33.3]
Does [favorite character] talk to
you?
3 [25]
0 [0]
*Is [favorite character] pretend
or real?
3 [27.3]
0 [0]
*Children who endorsed “pretend or real” answered “real.”
Creative Control, Sociability, and Fantasy Orientation
Another primary goal of this study was to understand what child attributes might relate to
the strength (using SEAS) of a child’s relationship with their favorite media character. I predicted
that children with high SEAS scores will have a low desire for creative control, high sociability,
and high fantasy orientation. I first tested these hypotheses using child reports (except for fantasy
orientation, which was only a parent report measure). A slight positive correlation emerged
between creative control and SEAS; no relation emerged between SEAS and either sociability or
fantasy orientation (see Figure 6). I next tested the hypotheses using the parent report; the only
relationship that emerged was a marginal negative correlation between SEAS and fantasy
orientation (see Figure 7).
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
36
Figure 6.
Relationship of Creative Control, Sociability, Fantasy Orientation with Socioemotional
Affordances (SEAS) Based on Child Report
ote:CC = Creative Control. SOC = Sociability. FO= Fantasy Orientation. SEAS = number of
N
socioemotional affordances endorsed. FO was a parent-only measure. The level of saturation
represents how close the correlation is tor= 1 or-1. Red represents positive correlations; blue
indicates negative correlations.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
37
Figure 7.
Correlations between Creative Control, Sociability, and Fantasy Orientation with Number of
Socioemotional Affordances Endorsed Based on Parent Report
ote:CC = Creative Control. SOC = Sociability. FO= Fantasy Orientation. SEAS = number of
N
socioemotional affordances endorsed. The level of saturation represents how close the
correlation is tor= 1 or -1. Red represents positivecorrelations; blue indicates negative
correlations.
In sum, no significant relationships emerged between creative control, sociability, or
fantasy orientation and SEAS based on child reports. Fantasy orientation correlated with SEAS
based on parent reports.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
38
Factors Related to Social Realism
Transmedia Exposure
I predicted that children’s social realism scores would be positively correlated with their
level of transmedia exposure (an outlier was removed). This hypothesis was not supported for
parent social realism reports (r= -.80,p= .003)but was supported for child social realism
reports (r= .21,p= .47).
Creative Control, Sociability, and Fantasy Orientation
I predicted that children with high social realism scores would have a low desire for
creative control, high sociability, and high fantasy orientation. I tested these results using child
reports first (but using parent report of fantasy orientation). Almost no relationship emerged
between either a desire for creative control or fantasy orientation and social realism; but a strong,
positive correlation emerged between sociability and social realism (See Figure 8). I then tested
these hypotheses using the parent report. A slight positive correlation emerged between creative
control and social realism; no relation emerged between sociability or fantasy orientation (See
Figure 9). Sociability based on child reports was the only variable that significantly correlated
with social realism.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
39
Figure 8.
Correlations between Creative Control, Sociability, and Fantasy Orientation with Social Realism
Based on Child Report
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
40
Figure 9.
Correlations between Creative Control, Sociability, and Fantasy Orientation with Social Realism
Based on Parent Report
Note.One child was removed from the analysis becausetheir social realism score was an outlier.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
41
Means and standard deviations based on child reports (except for fantasy orientation) are
listed in Table 6. Although the group sizes are too small to allow for statistical comparisons, the
findings suggest that individual differences in creative control, fantasy orientation, and social
realism might be worth further study. Children with favorite characters but no PSR according to
my criteria had the highest average transmedia exposure scores.
Table 6.
Average Creative Control, Sociability, Fantasy Orientation, Transmedia Exposure, SEAS, and
Social Realism Scores (Child Reports)
PSR
Variable
No PSR
No favorite
characters
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
reative.
C
Control
4.00
1.71
2.40
1.34
4.00
1.00
antasy
F
Orientation*
3.25
0.50
2.86
0.67
3.00
0.94
Sociability
5.55
1.29
5.40
1.51
5.67
2.08
Trans.media
-0.35
1.55
0.36
1.19
-0.25
3.42
SEAs
10.67
2.19
2.67
0.58
Soc.Realism
1.50
1.83
0.75
0.50
* Fantasy orientation was only reported by parents. Children were not asked about
socioemotional affordances or social realism if they did not name a favorite character.
Parent and Child Reports
This study also investigated parents as reliable reporters for children’s preferences and
personalities. Both parents and children were asked to report on the child’s creative control,
sociability, social realism, and number of socioemotional affordances gained from their favorite
characters (SEAS). Parent and child answers did not strongly align with one another across any
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
42
measure. Creative control parent and child responses had almost no correlation (r= .08,p= .74).
Sociability (r= .40,p= .09), social realism (r= .43,p= .14), and socioemotional affordance (r=
.55,p= .10) scores were only moderately positivelycorrelated, suggesting significant
discrepancies in parent versus child reports.
Discussion
The current study explored PSRs and the individual differences among the children who
make them. I measured the strength of children’s PSRs across a spectrum of socioemotional
affordances. Additionally, I measured children’s creative control, sociability, and fantasy
orientation via child and parent reports to determine if these factors had an influence on
children’s socioemotional affordances and social realism. Children most commonly endorsed the
affordances: everlasting love, general love for their favorite characters, and feeling special.
Children’s social realism scores were positively correlated with their sociability scores. Parents’
reports of children’s SEAS negatively correlated with their fantasy orientation scores, but no
other significant correlations emerged with respect to SEAS. Despite this finding, children with
PSRs were reported to have, on average, higher levels of fantasy orientation than children
without PSRs, although the group sizes were too small to allow for statistical comparison.
Neither the parent nor child data illustrated any relationship involving creative control or fantasy
orientation and social realism.
Functions of a Parasocial Relationship
Children most commonly endorsed the affordances of feeling special, everlasting love,
and general love for their favorite characters. Enhanced self-esteem being a prominent
affordance of PSRs is consistent with how PSRs manifest in older populations (Derrick et al.,
2008). Also, as children age, their friendships evolve (Bigelow & La Gaipa, 1975). PSRs might
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
43
also evolve with age. Children may endorse more affordances as they consider more dimensions
of their favorite characters. Some children’s affordances will be similar to those found in
adolescents, while some might develop as children age. For example, children might endorse that
their favorite character cares for them or loves them as their perspective-taking abilities develop.
Everlasting Love
Children anticipated that they would always love their favorite character, despite most
children having childish favorite characters. However, children often “break up” with their
favorite characters once they deem them developmentally inappropriate, or “too baby-ish”
(Aguiar et al., 2019b). The findings presented here suggest that preschoolers are not yet capable
of predicting these changes, which can be linked to children’s proposition abilities. Although
preschoolers are capable of thinking about the future, they struggle to consider their future selves
(Leech et al., 2019). Preschoolers struggle at looking beyond their current preferences and
assume their future self will have similar beliefs as their current self. Children’s inability to
consider future preferences relates to their perspective-taking development and egocentrism
(Bélanger et al., 2014).
General Love
Love may have shown up as one of the most important affordances as a byproduct of
children’s favorite characters being their most liked media character. Repetition may also play a
role in the endorsem*nt of love. In early childhood, attachment bonds shift from relying on
proximity to the attachment figure to relying on the availability of the attachment figure
(Roisman & Groh, 2011). In the case of forming a PSR, the attachment figure is a favorite media
character. Media characters can almost always be made available whenever the child wants them
to be: via streaming, watching reruns, or the Internet. Transmediated characters are also more
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
44
likely to be available to children because of their ubiquity. Once a media character is seen often
and can be easily accessed, a child becomes familiar with them. Familiarity is another important
factor in forming affectionate bonds (Rubin & Perse, 1987). Affection may be the key to forming
a bond with a favorite character, and the first step to forming a PSR.
Feeling Special
The emergence of self-esteem as an important affordance for children’s favorite media
characters is developmentally significant. Four- and five-year-olds are at the beginning of
conceptualizing who they are in comparison to their peers (Harter, 2006). Favorite characters that
match their race, gender, or other significant identifying features have the ability to enhance
children’s own sense of their identity (Dill-Shackleford et al., 2017; Gerbner, 1998). For girls
especially, identification might be a significant piece of why they like their favorite characters.
Through pretend and wishful identification, young girls get to project their favorite characters
onto themselves. Embodying a favorite character is connected to higher self-esteem in adult
populations (Bowman, 2007) and has the possibility to influence child behavior as well (White et
al., 2017). Media characters are an avenue for children to bolster their esteem in the person they
are and provide opportunities to consider the type of person they want to be like.
What Parasocial Relationships Do Not Do
The least commonly endorsed affordances included playing together with, caring for, and
being cared for by their favorite character. Given that these affordances are frequently associated
with children’s relationships with their imaginary companions (Gleason, 2002), this finding
suggests that PSRs are functionally distinct from imaginary companions despite the fact that both
types of relationships are imaginary. Being a playmate is pivotal to most children’s relationships
with their imaginary companions (Taylor, 1999). Imaginary companions are also commonly
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
45
care-oriented, whether its children caring for their imaginary companions (e.g., a child
pretending to feed their IC food or treating it like a baby) or the imaginary companions providing
care to the child (Gleason, 2002; Sadeh et al., 2008). Children also did not value reciprocity in
their relationships with media characters. This finding suggests that children acknowledge, to
some extent, the one-sided nature of relationships with media characters, but continue to find
value in the relationship in other ways. The lack of reciprocity felt in these relationships explains
the lack of mutual support associated with them. Many children also reported their favorite
characters as older than them even if the character is actually the same age, so children might be
looking up to media characters instead of seeing them as peers. At the same time, favorite
characters are not in the position of caretakers, either.
Taken together, these findings suggest that PSRs are complementary to the real
relationships that preschoolers have. It also suggests that children might understand what real
versus imagined relationships offer. Like children with imaginary companions, most children
with PSRs seem aware that these characters are not real and can only do certain things for them
in the context of their fictional existence. During my interviews with children, many looked
confused or laughed when I asked if the character takes care of them. One child even remarked,
“They’re not real! They can’t come to my house.”
Social Realism and Parasocial Relationships
The current parasocial literature emphasizes the importance of social realism, the
likelihood that a media character could exist in the real world. In general, high social realism is
associated with PSRs: children are more likely to be in a PSR if they perceive the character as
real and/or interact with them as if they were (Bond & Calvert, 2014). Every child who reported
that their favorite character was real in the social realism survey had a PSR. However, not every
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
46
child with a PSR said their favorite character was real. The majority of children with PSR said
their favorite characters were pretend. Although more data would need to be collected to confirm
this pattern, the story the current data is telling is that if a child perceived the character as real,
the child had a PSR. This finding aligns with previous research (Giles, 2002; Rosaen & Dibble,
2008). The three children who claimed their favorite characters were real were all
human-resembling characters: Ariel, Elsa, and Lady Gaga. All of these “characters” also have
real life equivalents: Ariel and Elsa can be met in Disney World (with one child reporting that
she did meet Elsa), and Lady Gaga is real. Because this study did not have a variable that
combined social realism and socioemotional affordances, and determined parasociality based
solely on socioemotional affordance endorsem*nt, perhaps the children who perceived their
favorite characters as real have stronger PSRs than children who just endorsed many
socioemotional affordances. Regardless, these findings suggest that high social realism is not
imperative for a PSR to form. Children were capable of still forming relationships with
characters who were perceived as pretend.
Creative Control
Children with a lower desire for creative control endorsed a higher number
socioemotional affordances. Children with low desire for creative control might engage in PSR
because relationships with media characters do not require a lot of imagination to create. The
character is already made, meaning all they have to imagine are the affordances. In line with
their low desire for creative control, they do not have to do the work of creating a novel being:
they can simply choose their favorite media character instead.
Children with a high desire for creative control scored higher in social realism. This
finding ran contrary to expectation. One interpretation of this finding is that children with a high
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
47
desire for creative control may not perceive their favorite characters as real, and therefore be less
likely to develop a PSR. Children with a high desire for creative control may value fantasy and
imagination over realism, and thus might not prefer realistic favorite characters. This idea is
supported by the positive correlations that emerged between both parents’ and children’s ratings
of creative control and fantasy orientation.
Sociability
Parent and child data revealed no relationship between the total number of social
affordances children endorsed and sociability; however, a strong positive connection emerged
between sociability and social realism. This finding suggests that the realism of a child’s PSR is
related to a child’s desire for social interactions and relationships. Children are able to connect
with these characters in addition to their desires to connect with real-life peers. Theoretically,
children with low sociability might be drawn to media characters because of the one-sided nature
of the relationship: it removes the pressure of maintaining a social relationship with another
person and the risk of rejection (Derrick et al., 2008). The results of this study, however, suggest
that children that are highly sociable seek out relationships everywhere: including with non-real
people that they think of as real. This finding seems consistent with the idea that children who
make imaginary companions are generally more sociable than children who do not (Taylor,
1999). Regardless, sociability entails the need for social connection. Typical social connection is
contingent on reciprocity: there’s a sense of give and take. Reciprocity was not an affordance that
children commonly endorsed. Perhaps, sociability and SEAS did not correlate because PSRs do
not fulfill a need for social connection. Instead, they fulfill desires for entertainment, affection,
and enhancement of self-worth. Nonetheless, the more realistic a character is perceived to be, the
more children will seek out social connection.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
48
Fantasy Orientation
Children with higher socioemotional affordances endorsem*nts and social realism scores
had lower fantasy orientation scores. The former finding is the opposite of what I predicted,
perhaps because children with PSR usually do not pretend their favorite characters are real. They
know their favorite characters are pretend, and do not usually make an effort into pretending they
are real. Most children with favorite characters reported that they did not pretend they were real
but rather pretended to be the character. Characters that children report as being high in social
realism require fewer fantasy skills for interaction. If favorite media characters appear as though
they are real, engaging in parasocial interactions with them and forming a PSR will not require
significant efforts at engaging in fantasy.
Limitations and Future Directions
Limitations
The sample size and hom*ogeneity are a significant limitation of this study. Children’s
media disproportionately features white leads (Giaccardiet al., 2019), so children in my sample
may have had more opportunities to connect with a character that looks like them
(Behm-Morawitz & Ortiz, 2013).
Future Directions
The current study should be replicated with an early elementary population (K-3). Aging
up the population would allow for parents and children to answer the same question items. Then,
comparing parent and child answers would provide more sufficient data on how reliable parents
are as reporters of childrens’ preferences. Additionally, as children age, their media preferences
may become more evident to parents. Parents may be better reporters for their child’s favorite
media characters in an older demographic. If they are not, it might be interesting to explore the
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
49
reasons parents incorrectly report childrens’ preferences, despite children being old enough that
parents should know them.
A longitudinal study might be appropriate to measure how often children adopt new
favorite characters. Children are exposed to many different media characters as they age. I would
be curious to investigate if the most commonly endorsed socioemotional affordances change
over time. Children might also endorse different affordances with the same character as they age.
Creative control is an untapped concept in the imaginary relationship literature.
Researchers should expand on the best ways to operationally define creative control – for parents
and children – based on the frameworks of this study. Creative control might have interesting
implications for considering children’s imaginative habits, such as why children might form a
PSR over an imaginary companion, or vice versa. Children’s creative control may also have
other implications in the realms of children’s creativity or social dominance.
Despite efforts to separate PSRs from mere favorite characters, PSRs are often accessed
by only asking about children’s favorite characters (Bond & Calvert, 2014). The issue with this
approach is that PSRs have more nuance than just fanaticism. Individuals are capable of having
PSI with characters they dislike, such as yelling at characters on screen for their poor choices
(Jennings & Alper, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2001). My favorite character questionnaire did not
account for PSRs with characters children disliked. Asking about favorite characters is a good
start to find relevant characters, but researchers must also account for all the different types of
PSRs children are capable of making, and the reasons they might be making them. For example,
some characters are fun to hate, like Gaston from Disney’sBeauty and the Beastor Loki from
The Avengers. A larger sample of PSRs could revealif children endorse different affordances
based on the traits of their favorite media characters.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
50
Conclusion
PSRs are sometimes thought of as a type of imaginary companion (Calvert, 2015), but
these relationships may be less alike than previously thought. PSRs in children appear to be their
own distinct imaginary relationship that varies in intensity on a spectrum. Socioemotional
affordances commonly related to imaginary companions, like playing together and care, were
revealed to be some of the least often endorsed affordances of PSRs, which instead were
connected to reliable alliance, self-esteem and affection. Common trends in children who have
imaginary companions, such as high sociability and high fantasy orientation, were also unrelated
to PSRs in these data. PSRs appear to provide children with a type of imaginary relationship that
is unique from other imaginary relationships created in early childhood.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
51
References
Aguiar, N., Richards, M., Bond, B. J., Brunick, K. L., & Calvert, S. L. (2019a). Parents’
perceptions of their children’s parasocial relationships: The recontact study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0276236618771537
Aguiar, N. R., Richards, M. N., Bond, B. J., Putnam, M. M., & Calvert, S. L. (2019b). Children’s
parasocial breakups with media characters from the perspective of the parent.Imagination,
Cognition and Personality,38(3), 193-220.https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618809902
Aguiar, N. R., & Taylor, M. (2015). Children’s concepts of the social affordances of a virtual dog
and a stuffed dog.34, 16–27.
Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and the media. In K. E. Dill (Ed.),The
Oxford handbook of media psychology(pp. 252–266).Oxford University Press.
Bélanger, M. J., Atance, C. M., Varghese, A. L., Nguyen, V., & Vendetti, C. (2014). What will I
like best when I’m all grown up? Preschoolers’ understanding of future preferences.Child
Development,85(6), 2419–2431.https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12282
Bigelow, B. J., & la Gaipa, J. J. (1975). Children's written descriptions of friendship: A
multidimensional analysis.Developmental Psychology,11(6), 857–858.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.11.6.857
Bond, B. (2018). Parasocial relationships with media personae: Why they matter and how they
differ among heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents.Media Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1416295
Bond, B. J. (2022). Parasocial relationships as functional social alternatives during
pandemic-induced social distancing.Psychology ofPopular Media, 11(3), 250–257.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000364
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
52
Bond, B., & Calvert, S. (2014). A model and measure of US parents’ perceptions of young
children’s parasocial relationships.Journal of Childrenand Media,8, 286–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.890948
Bouldin, P. (2006). An investigation of the fantasy predisposition and fantasy style of children
with imaginary companions.Journal of Genetic Psychology,167(1), 17–29.
Bouldin, P., & Pratt, C. (2002). The ability of children with imaginary companions to
differentiate between fantasy and reality.BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology,19,
99–114.
Bowman S. L. (2007). The psychological power of the role-playing experience.Journal of
Interactive Drama, 2(1), 1-15.
Calvert, S. L. (2015). Children and digital media. In M. H. Bornstein, T. Leventhal, & R. M.
Lerner (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology and developmentalscience: Ecological settings
and processes(7th ed., pp. 375–415). John Wiley &Sons, Inc..
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy410
Calvert, S. L. (2017). Chapter 5: Parasocial relationships with media characters: Imaginary
companions for young children’s social and cognitive development. In F. C. Blumberg & P. J.
Brooks (Eds.),Cognitive development in digital contexts(pp. 93–117). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5.00005-5
Calvert, S. L., & Richards, M. N. (2014). Children's parasocial relationships. In A. B. Jordan &
D. Romer (Eds.),Media and The Well-being of Childrenand Adolescents(pp. 187–200).
Oxford University Press.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
53
Calvert, S. L., & M. Valkenburg (2013). Chapter 28: The influence of television, video games,
and the internet on children’s creativity. In M. Taylor (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the
Development of Imagination (pp. 438-450). Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in responses to the
dissolution of parasocial relationships.Mass Communicationand Society,6(2), 191–202.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0602_5
Cohen, J. (2014).Media and Social Life. Taylor &Francis Group.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/well/detail.action?docID=1659168
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Tippin, B. (2008). Parasocial relationships and self-discrepancies:
Faux relationships have benefits for low self-esteem individuals.Personal Relationships,
15(2), 261–280.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00197.x
Dill-Shackleford, K. E., Ramasubramanian, S., Behm-Morawitz, E., Scharrer, E., Burgess, M. C.
R., & Lemish, D. (2017). Social group stories in the media and child development.
Pediatrics,140(Supplement_2), S157–S161.https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758W
Ellithorpe, M.E., Bleakley, A. (2016). Wanting to see people like me? Racial and gender
diversity in popular adolescent television.J YouthAdolescence45, 1426–1437.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0415-4
Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Viewer aggression and hom*ophily, identification, and
parasocial relationships with television characters.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media,47(1), 77–98.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4701_5
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in
their social networks.Developmental Psychology, 21(6),1016–1024.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
54
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview.Mass Communication and Society,
1(3–4), 175–194.https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855
Giaccardi, S., Heldman, C., Cooper, R., Cooper-Jones, N., Conroy, M., Esparza, P.,
Breckenridge-Jackson, I., Juliano, L., McTaggart, N., Phillips, H., & Seabrook, R. (2019).
See Jane 2019 report. The Geena Davis Institute forGender in Media.
https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/see-jane-2019-full-report.pdf
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future
research.Media Psychology,4(3), 279–305.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development:
Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities.Personality and
Individual Differences, 36(4), 813–822.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00154-5
Gleason, T. R. (2002). Social provisions of real and imaginary relationships in early childhood.
Developmental psychology,38(6), 979-992.
Gleason, T. R. (2013). Imaginary relationships. In M. Taylor (Ed.),Handbook of the
Development of Imagination(pp. 251–271). Oxford UniversityPress.
Gleason, T. R., & Hohmann, L. M. (2006). Concepts of real and imaginary friendships in early
childhood.Social Development,15(1), 128-144.
Gleason, T., Jarudi, R., & Cheek, J. (2003). Imagination, personality, and imaginary companions.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,31, 721–737.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.7.721
Gleason, T. R., Sebanc, A., & Hartup, W. (2000). Imaginary companions of preschool children.
Developmental Psychology,36, 419–428.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
55
Goldstein, T. (2009). The pleasure of unadulterated sadness: Experiencing sorrow in fiction,
nonfiction, and "in person".Psychology of Aesthetics,Creativity, and the Arts.3. 232-237.
Harter, S. (2006). The development of self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.),Self-esteem issues and
answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives(pp.144–150). Psychology Press.
Hartup, W. W. (1995). The three faces of friendship.Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships,12(4), 569–574.https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595124012
Harwood, J. (1999). Age identification, social identity gratifications, and television viewing.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1),123–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364479
Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite
television characters.Journal of Broadcasting & ElectronicMedia,40(3), 389–402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364360
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance.Psychiatry,19(3), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
Jennings, N., & Alper, M. (2016). Young children’s positive and negative parasocial
relationships with media characters.CommunicationResearch Reports,33(2), 96–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1154833
Jia, R., Lang, S. N., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2016). Child self-view questionnaire—Revised.
PsycTESTS.https://doi.org/10.1037/t49215-000
Kaur, N., Gupta, M., Kiran, T., Malhi, P., & Grover, S. (2021). Digital-screen exposure
questionnaire.PsycTESTS.https://doi.org/10.1037/t87454-000
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
56
Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Parasocial interactions and relationships.
Psychology of Entertainment, 291–313.
Lauricella, A. R., Gola, A. A. H., & Calvert, S. L. (2011). Toddlers’ learning from socially
meaningful video characters.Media Psychology,14(2),216–232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.573465
Leech, K. A., Leimgruber, K., Warneken, F., & Rowe, M. L. (2019). Conversation about the
future self improves preschoolers’ prospection abilities.Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology,181, 110–120.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.12.008
Madison, T. P., Porter, L. V., & Greule, A. (2016). Parasocial compensation hypothesis:
Predictors of using parasocial relationships to compensate for real-life interaction.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 35(3), 258-279.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236615595232
Mathur, R., & Smith, M. (2007). An investigation of imaginary companions in an ethnic and
grade diverse sample.Imagination, Cognition, andPersonality,27, 313–336.
McDonald, D. G., & Kim, H. (2001). When I die, I feel small: Electronic game characters and
the social self.Journal of Broadcasting & ElectronicMedia, 45(2), 241–258.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4502_3
McInnis, M. A., Pierucci, J. M., & Gilpin, A. T. (2013). Investigating valence and autonomy in
children’s relationships with imaginary companions.International Journal of Developmental
Science,7(3), 151–159.https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-130123
Mottweiler, C. M., & Taylor, M. (2014). Elaborated role play and creativity in preschool age
children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 277–286.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
57
Nabi, R. L., Stitt, C. R., Halford, J., & Finnerty, K. L. (2006). Emotional and cognitive predictors
of the enjoyment of reality-based and fictional television programming: An elaboration of the
uses and gratifications perspective.Media Psychology,8(4), 421–447.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_5
Parsons, A., & Howe, N. (2013). “This is Spiderman’s mask.” “No, it’s Green Goblin’s”: Shared
meanings during boys’ pretend play with superhero and generic toys.Journal of Research in
Childhood Education,27(2), 190–207.https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.766288
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413508512
Richards, M. N., & Calvert, S. L. (2016). Parent versus child report of young children’s
parasocial relationships in the United States.Journalof Children and Media,10(4), 462–480.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1157502
Richards, M. N., & Calvert, S. L. (2017). Measuring young U.S. children’s parasocial
relationships: Toward the creation of a child self-report survey.Journal of Children and
Media,11(2), 229–240.https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1304969
Richert, R. A. & Smith, E. (2011). Preschoolers’ quarantining of fantasy stories.Child
Development,82(4), 1106–1119.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01603.x
Rosaen, S. F., & Dibble, J. L. (2008). Investigating the relationships among child’s age,
parasocial interactions, and the social realism of favorite television characters.
Communication Research Reports,25(2), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802021806
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
58
Roisman, G. I., & Grohl, A. M. (2011). Attachment theory and research in developmental
psychology: An overview and appreciative critique. In M. K. Underwood & L. H. Rosen
(Eds.),Social development: Relationships in infancy,childhood, and adolescence(pp.
101–126). The Guilford Press.
Ruben, E., Ffrench, J., Lee, H. J., Aguiar, N., Richert, R. A., & Gleason, T. R. (2023, March).Let
it go: Media influences on imaginary companions in early childhood[Poster session].
Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Bi-Annual Conference.
Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,31(3),279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158709386664
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and
effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246-268.
Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (2001). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. In V.
Manusov & J. H. Harvey (Eds.),Attribution, communicationbehavior, and close
relationships(pp. 320–337). Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century.Mass Communication
and Society,3(1), 3–37.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
Sadeh, A., Hen-Gal, S., & Tikotzky, L. (2008). Young children's reactions to war-related stress: a
survey and assessment of an innovative intervention.Pediatrics,121(1), 46-53.
Sharon, T., & Woolley, J. D. (2004). Do monsters dream? Young children's understanding of the
fantasy/reality distinction.British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 22(2), 293–310.
https://doi.org/10.1348/026151004323044627
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
59
Simpkins, S. D., & Parke, R. D. (2001). The relations between parental friendships and
children’s friendships: Self‐report and observational analysis.Child Development,72(2),
569–582.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00297
Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (2005).Imaginationand play in the electronic age.Harvard
University Press.https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674043695
Singer, D.G. & Singer, J. L. (1981). Television, Imagination, and Aggression: A Study of
Preschoolers (J.L. Singer, Ed.) (1st ed.). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315060118
Singer, D. G, & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Children's play and developing
imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, M. (1999).Imaginary companions and the childrenwho create them.Oxford University
Press.
Taylor, M., Carlson, S. M., & Shawber, A. B. (2007). Autonomy and control in children’s
interactions with imaginary companions.Proceedingsof the British Academy,147, 81–100.
Taylor, M., Cartwright, B., & Carlson, S. (1993). A developmental investigation of children’s
imaginary companions.Developmental Psychology,29(2),276–285.
Tolbert, A. N., & Drogos, K. L. (2019). Tweens’ wishful identification and parasocial
relationships with YouTubers.Frontiers in Psychology, 10,Article 2781.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02781
Turner, J.R. (1993). Interpersonal and psychological predictors of parasocial interaction with
different television performers: Communication Quarterly:Vol 41, No 4.
Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2008) Loneliness, gender, and parasocial interaction: A uses
and gratifications approach,Communication Quarterly,56:1, 87-109, DOI:
10.1080/01463370701839057
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
60
White, R. E., Prager, E. O., Schaefer, C., Kross, E., Duckworth, A. L., & Carlson, S. M. (2017).
The “Batman Effect”: Improving Perseverance in Young Children.Child Development,
88(5), 1563–1571.https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12695
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
61
Appendix A: Parent Measures
A1. Parent Creative Control Measure
Parents responded on a 5-point likert scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Always).
1. When pretending with others, my child is happy to act out what other children suggest.
2. If my child doesn't like the ending of a story, they will make up a different ending.
3. My child makes creative choices based on their own aesthetic tastes. (“I’m going to make
the sun blue.”)
4. If someone suggests a change to a well-known story line, my child will protest.
5. My child faithfully reenacts scenes they see on TV or in movies or that they have read in
books.
6. My child talks about their own imaginary world with unique characters and plots.
7. My child likes to play with toys based on characters from TV/movies.
8. My child likes to draw/paint original pictures more than coloring in a coloring book.
9. My child prefers building a LEGO set with instructions over building something on their
own.
10.My child prefers choosing what styles of clothing to wear rather than having someone
choose a style for them.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
62
Appendix A2: Parent Favorite Character Interview
Please answer the following questions with the last few months in mind.
1. Does your child have a favorite book, movie, TV show, etc.? Y/N
a. If yes, what is it? Feel free to name a few, if relevant.
2. Does your child have a favorite character from media (doesn’t have to be from previously
listed sources)? Y/N
a. If yes, who is it? Feel free to name a few, if relevant.
If you wrote multiple characters, try to pick the one that you think is probably most important to
your child and answer the following questions.
3. Please name the character you chose and include where the character is from. For
example, “Elsa from the movie Frozen”.
4. Why do you think your child likes [character]? List as many reasons as you can think of.
5. Does your child talk about [character] when not watching them or reading about them?
a. If yes, please describe a recent time when your child talked about [character].
6. Does your child own merchandise or toys of [character]?
a. If yes, how much? (on a sliding scale)
7. Does your child ever pretend they are [character]?
8. Is your child familiar with this character from screen media (movies, TV)?
a. Did your child first view this character on a screen (movie, TV show, etc.)?
Social Realism Questions were answered on a 5-point likert scale. Note that the last question is
reverse coded.
9. My child greets [character] (says hi, waves) when the character is on screen.
10.My child thinks that [character] canhearthem whenthey view [character] on a screen.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
63
11.My child thinks that [character] canseethem when they view [character] on a screen.
12.My child thinks that [character] talks to them when they view [character] on a screen.
13.My child knows that [character] is fictional.*
Please answer the following three questions yes/no; you will have a chance to elaborate on your
answers if you wish.
14.Has your child learned academic skills from [character] (e.g. math skills)?
15.Has your child learned social skills from [character] (e.g. how to share/make friends)?
16.Has your child learned emotion skills from [character] (e.g. learning how to deep breathe,
regulate emotions)?
17.Please elaborate on your answers if you wish. (open-ended)
18.What kind of relationship does your child have with [character]? Check all that apply.
a. Friend
b. Older sibling
c. Younger sibling
d. Enemy
e. Someone to look up to
f. Other, please describe:
Socioemotional Affordances were answered on a 5-point likert scale. (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree).
19.[Character] makes my child feel safe.
20.My child trusts [Character].
21.[Character] makes my child feel special.
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
22.[Character] makes my child feel important and valued.
23.My child loves [Character].
24.My child feels loved by [Character].
25.[Character] keeps my child from feeling lonely.
26.My child and [Character] play together.
27.My child feels like they will never get tired/bored of [character] any time soon. ?
28.My child feels like [character] will always be there for them.
29.My child takes care of [Character].
30.[Character] takes care of my child.
64
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix B: Child Measures
Appendix B1: Child Creative Control Measure
1. Would you rather play in warm weather or cold weather? (TRIAL)
2. Would you rather play with this toy (media toy 1)or that toy (non-media toy 1)?
65
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
66
3. W
ould you rather play with this LEGO set, where you can build whatever you want, or
that LEGO set, that shows you how to build a birdhouse?
4. Would you rather play with this toy (media toy 2)or that toy (non-media toy 2)?
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
67
5. W
ould you rather pick out your own clothes yourself or have your parent pick your outfit
for you?
6. Would you rather play with this toy (media toy 3)or that toy (non-media toy 3)?
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
68
7. Would you rather color a coloring book page or draw your own picture on a blank page?
8. Would you rather play with this toy (media toy 4)or that toy (non-media toy 4)?
9. W
ould you rather make the rules for make-believe play or have someone else make the
rules? [Note: No images were used for this question.]
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
69
Appendix B2: Child Favorite Character Interview Script
For the second part of my game I have some questions for you. Sometimes children have a
favorite character, or a character that they really like, that comes from a book or a movie, or a
television show or even a video game. Do you have a favorite character?
[If the child does not have a favorite character, and the parent marked off that the child does not
have a favorite character, then the researcher will skip to the Child Sociability Questionnaire]
1. What’s their name?
2. Is [name] a boy, a girl, or neither?
3. How old is [name]? Older than you, younger than you, or the same age as you?
4. Is [name] a person, an animal, or something else?
5. What does [name] look like?
6. Where did you see or hear about [name]? On a TV…in a movie…?
7. Where does [name] live?
8. Do you ever pretend to play with [character] when you aren't watching show/reading
book? [dependent on wherever character is from]
9. Tell me everything you like about [name].
10.Is there anything you don’t like about [name]?
11.Do you have any toys or clothes of [character]?
Social Realism Questions
12.Do you like to talk to [character] when you are watching them?
13.Can [character] hear you when you talk to them? (on screen, on the page)
14.Can [character] see you when you see them? (on screen, on the page)
15.Does [character] ever talk to you?
YOUNG CHILDREN’S PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
70
16.Is [character] a person like you and me or a pretend, make-believe person?
SOCIOEMOTIONAL AFFORDANCES
Some children do a lot with their favorite characters, and some children don’t. This next set of
questions is going to be about things you and [character] may or may not do together.
17.Does [character] make you feel safe?
18.Do you trust [character]?
19.Does [character] make you feel special?
20.Does [character] make you feel important?
21.Does [character] make you feel good about yourself?
22.Does [character] help when you are lonely?
23.Does [character] play with you?
24.Do you have fun with [character]?
25.Do you think you will always like [character]? Even when you are older?
26.Can you count on [character] to always be there for you when you need them?
27.Do you love [character]?
28.Does [character] love you?
29.Do you take care of [character]?
30.Does [character] take care of you?
31.Why is [character] your favorite?
32.Do you ever pretend you are [name]?
33.Do you ever wish you were [name]?
