2021年5月5日 星期三

When Grown-Ups Have Imaginary Friends

"Parasocial relationships" explain why you think influencers are your pals.

When Grown-Ups Have Imaginary Friends

Anja Slibar

This weekend I had multiple text threads going about Hannah's issues with her housemates, and whether she was in the wrong in her fights with Amanda, Luke and Kyle. These are not friends of mine; these are people who appear on the Bravo TV show "Summer House," whose drama I am embarrassingly invested in, and whose psychological motivations I spend time dissecting with friends and co-workers.

The kind of one-way friendship I have with these reality stars has a name in the sociology world: It's called a "parasocial relationship," which is an emotional relationship with a media figure. The term was coined in the 1950s by two sociologists who observed that dominant mass media — at the time, TV and radio — created the illusion of a friendship between spectator and performer, and "the most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one's peers."

Social media has added another dimension to this dynamic, because occasionally the performers will interact with you, which perpetuates the illusion that you have involvement in their lives.

Though explaining these friendships may make you feel like a creep, they are normal, and quite common, said Alex Kresovich, a doctoral student at the U.N.C. Hussman School of Journalism and Media who has published research on parasocial relationships. "The feelings people have with these media persona are nearly indistinguishable from their friends in real life," despite the fact that the celebrity in question usually (but not always) has no idea you exist, he said. (A small subset of people may develop an unhealthy obsession with celebrities — it's called "celebrity worship" in the clinical literature — but that's not the norm.)

Amanda Hess, a critic at large for the Times, wrote about her parasocial relationship with the Peloton instructor Cody Rigsby, explaining that his "sweetly annoying" conversation helps her sweat through 45 minutes and tricks her into feeling bonded to him. Tara Tsukamoto, 35, a mom of two kids in Elk Grove, Calif., who does daily workouts with Sydney Cummings, a YouTube star with more than 1 million subscribers, said her 4-year-old son recognizes Ms. Cummings and asked if she was going to come over to their house.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I know we aren't really friends, but I do kind of feel like I know her," Ms. Tsukamoto said. "Also even though we've never met she provides a lot of what a real friend would: advice, funny stories, inspiration to become a better version of myself."

Ms. Tsukamoto has hit on one of the upsides of parasocial relationships: Decades of research have shown that our identification with celebrities may affect health behavior. Mr. Kresovich did a meta analysis of 14 studies that showed people with a sense of attachment to a particular celebrity are more likely than nonfans to change their behavior after that celebrity discloses a health condition or creates a media event around a health condition.

For example, when Katie Couric got an on-air colonoscopy in 2000, after her first husband died from colon cancer, it led to a significant increase in colon cancer screenings; and when Charlie Sheen disclosed that he had H.I.V. in 2015, it led to an uptick in the purchasing of home-testing kits that researchers described as "astonishing." The downside is that celebrity health behavior can be also be influential when it's not actually promoting public health, as with many high-profile people who are skeptical of vaccines.

For parents of young children in particular, these parasocial relationships may be especially nourishing, because we don't always have much time for socializing, and parasocial relationships don't require any maintenance. We can dip in and out of them as we please. Georgeanna Connors, 37, who has two children under 4 in Asheville, N.C., said that while she doesn't consider the sleep, feeding and behavioral specialists she follows on Instagram "friends," exactly, "the advice and faux, one-way dialogue I absorb from their posts certainly displaces real conversations and relationship building. Why play phone tag with a friend when I can get free, immediate, zero-judgment input from an expert?"

ADVERTISEMENT

Even though parents like Ms. Connors may feel her parasocial relationships displace real life bonds, there is not much evidence that people form these relationships with media figures to compensate for a social deficiency in their own lives, said Luke MacNeill, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Brunswick in Canada. Pretty much everyone forms these relationships to some degree, he said, and it's more that "people have an innate drive to connect with other people."

Although I am now seeing my own friends in person more frequently (but not that frequently), I find I am still missing gossip, which remains in short supply. That's what I'm getting out of my parasocial relationships with various reality stars: the vicarious thrill of transgression and conflict, aggression and resolution. Or, as an academic summary of research on parasocial relationships put it: "Taken together, these findings imply that parasocial phenomena affect well-being, simply by providing 'a good time' and turning media exposure into an enjoyable experience." In other words, it's just fun to watch attractive people yell at one another in a fancy house, and I will continue to do it until someone makes me stop.

Want More on Parasocial Relationships?

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

There is just too much cooking during the pandemic, so I listened to the parenting hack from my 13-year-old, who was "parenting" our 7-year-old. He created the "one cereal night a week" rule for getting out of a dinner he didn't want to eat. The other six nights, you make do. Done. — Heather Link, Shelburne, Vt.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

ADVERTISEMENT

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年5月4日 星期二

The return of “family values”

It's not culture; it's the opportunity.
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

As I noted in today's column, Republican attacks on Bidenomics as an economic policy seem very low energy. Yes, the usual people are saying the usual things, but it seems perfunctory: they're mumbling jobkillingbiggovernmentsocialist because it's expected of them, but their hearts don't seem to be in it.

All the passion is instead coming from the attempt to reframe economic policy debates as battles in a culture war, with Democrats pursuing lefty social engineering while the G.O.P. stands up as the defender of traditional values. Republicans clearly want to revisit the early 1990s, when conservative intellectuals like Gertrude Himmelfarb were insisting that our social ills could be attributed to the decline of family life, not economic forces — and politicians like Dan Quayle were campaigning not against progressive economics but against TV shows that normalized single motherhood.

But 2021 isn't 1992. A lot has happened to our society over the past generation, some of it bad, some of it good, and all of it undermining the once dominant narrative about "family values."

If you believe that Leave it to Beaver families are the bedrock of social order, you must believe that modern America is in deep trouble. Take one indicator of family decline, births out of wedlock. (Whether such births are necessarily an indicator of trouble is a question I'll come back to.) Here's a table from Child Trends showing the huge rise in such births, especially among less educated white Americans:

ADVERTISEMENT

What's happening to less-educated white Americans?Child Trends

The geography of family decline is particularly interesting. While out-of-wedlock births have been rising everywhere, their surge has been especially intense in the South and the eastern heartland. And yes, there's a strong correlation between family decline and a state's politics, with Trump-voting states having higher rates of unmarried motherhood. "Only" 32 percent of babies are born to unmarried mothers in liberal Massachusetts; in deep red Kentucky the number is 42 percent.

Obviously voting for Donald Trump doesn't cause unmarried pregnancies — or "deaths of despair," that is, deaths from drugs, alcohol or suicide, which have surged in pretty much the same places. What's actually happening in family-decline regions of America is clearly economic distress: these are the parts of the nation that have been left behind as prosperity increasingly concentrates in big metropolitan areas with highly educated work forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

All of this amounts to a confirmation of the famous thesis of the sociologist William Julius Wilson, who was in effect the anti-Himmelfarb, and who argued that social decay in inner cities was the result, not of culture, but of declining economic opportunity.

Imagine that you were an evil social scientist who wanted to test Wilson's thesis. What would you do? You would destroy economic opportunities for a large number of rural white people, and see what happened to their families. Well, that's more or less what transpired — and lack of opportunity turns out to be just as socially disruptive for rural white Americans as it was for Black Americans in urban areas.

But is the decline of traditional families a cause as well as an effect? Does the shift away from male-breadwinner households point to social catastrophe? Much of the doomsaying about family values in the early 1990s was motivated by fears that the changing American family was behind skyrocketing crime, and that things would get even worse in the decades ahead. But a funny thing happened on the way to social collapse: families headed by male breadwinners continued to disappear, but our cities got much safer:

The crime wave that wasn'tPew Research Center

It turns out that Victorian family values aren't as essential to society as many thought. Indeed, a number of European countries have very high rates of unmarried motherhood but thanks to strong safety nets seem to do just fine on other measures of social cohesion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, if there's one thing we've learned about modern U.S. politics it is that conservatives won't stop trying to wage culture war because of facts that don't fit their narrative. But I do wonder whether the disconnect between their vision and the realities of American life, both good and bad, will limit the culture war's effectiveness. Who, besides people already deeply committed to a Trumpist view of the world, will be convinced that Joe Biden is waging war on families?

Quick Hits

Katie Porter, one of the most impressive progressives in Congress, is also a single mother.

What the future was supposed to look like.

Crime in the pandemic.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

What's normal, anyway?YouTube

What I immediately thought of when J.D. Vance went on about "normal Americans."

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018