Parasocial relationship is a one-sided bond that an audience member builds with a media figure, such as an athlete, a commentator or a creator. The fan feels close to the person and may treat the connection as a friendship, while the figure does not know the fan [1]. In sport, it helps explain why followers care about an athlete’s life far beyond the game [2][3].
Key points
- The bond is one-sided: the fan invests attention and feeling, and the media figure does not reciprocate personally [1].
- Researchers separate parasocial interaction, the experience during a viewing, from the parasocial relationship, the longer-term bond, although the two are often confused [4].
- A study of NASCAR fans found that parasocial interaction has two parts, parasocial enjoyment and parasocial attachment [2].
- An athlete’s interaction style on social media is linked to how close followers feel [3].
- The term is neutral. It describes a feeling, not a fault of the fan.
Origin
The term was coined by Donald Horton and Richard Wohl, who published “Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction” in the journal Psychiatry in 1956 [1][5]. They described how radio and television performers created a sense of intimacy at a distance for their audiences [5]. Later work in media psychology split the idea into interaction and relationship [4].
How it works in sports media
Broadcasts, documentaries, podcasts and social platforms show fans athletes in close, repeated, personal ways. When an athlete speaks to followers directly, the sense of closeness grows [3]. Fans then follow the person as well as the team, which feeds fan loyalty, fan engagement and the commercial value of sports influencers. It is also why athlete endorsements can feel like a recommendation from a friend.
Examples
- NASCAR fans and their favourite driver. A study of NASCAR fans found that parasocial interaction among them consists of parasocial enjoyment and parasocial attachment [2].
- Athletes on Twitter. A study of fans who follow athletes on Twitter found a heightened sense of closeness based on the athlete’s interaction style [3].
- Young fans. One-sided bonds with celebrities form frequently among adolescents [1].
Common questions
Is a parasocial relationship unhealthy?
Not by itself. Parasocial bonds occur frequently, especially among adolescents [1]. The term describes the bond and does not judge it.
What is the difference between parasocial interaction and a parasocial relationship?
Interaction is the experience during viewing. The relationship is the longer-term bond with the figure. Researchers warn that the two are often conflated [4].
Is it the same as fan identification?
No. Fan identification is about how much a fan sees themselves as part of a team. A parasocial relationship is about the bond with one media person.
Related terms
- Fan Identification — how strongly a fan sees a team as part of the self
- Fan Loyalty — a fan’s lasting commitment to a team or athlete
- Fan Engagement — the ways fans take part and interact
- Sports Influencer — a sports figure with an audience built on social media
- Social Media in Sports — the platforms where many bonds form
- Athlete Endorsement — a brand using an athlete’s appeal to sell
Read more on Play of Values
- The value of influencer athletes
- Marketable athletes over winning
- Athlete relationships with mainstream celebrities
- Media revolutions in the sports ecosystem
Sources
- Wikipedia. (2026). Parasocial interaction. Wikipedia. Link
- Spinda, J. S. W., Earnheardt, A. C., & Hugenberg, L. W. (2009). Checkered flags and mediated friendships: Parasocial interaction among NASCAR fans. Journal of Sports Media, 4(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.0.0041
- Frederick, E. L., Lim, C. H., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012). Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.5.4.481
- Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
- Horton, D., & Wohl, R. 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