Parasocial relationships don't require interaction, you could just watch a twitch streamer a lot. I think if we defined it by requiring interaction we would underestimate the percieved impact of these social phenomenon.
I think the size of the crowd matters here. Streaming feels more personal because you are doing it by yourself and the total number of people watching the same stream is probably quite small. You could even message them and they might respond. It's more personal than watching a movie or TV show. On a slightly grosser level you know deep down that there is zero chance of ever hooking up with Megan Fox, but with a random OF model that feels like it might be possible. Even if it really isn't.
An interesting comparison is K-Pop singers who are at the same time megastars with millions of devoted followers, but also carefully managed to always seem available for a relationship. A truly difficult bridge to cross, but they somehow do it and make bank.
You can like Ryan Gosling and catch every movie he's in. But if you're buying a tabloid so you can see photos of him getting coffee at Starbucks, that's parasocial.
It is also parasocial if you just like Ryan Gosling and watch all his movies. You still have one-way feelings for a personality. It is just that it is not pathological.
Parasocial relationships are not bad per se. Let's say you are thinking about Donald Knuth when working on a computer science problem, nothing bad here, taking inspiration from the leaders in the field. But it is also a parasocial relationship, it is like imagining Don Knuth next to you, helping you solve your problem, even though he has absolutely no idea about who you are. It is a one way connection, but here, it is actually productive.
There’s no neat boundaries - read a Ryan gosling autobiography. How about an autobiography of Einstein. Or a biography? What about watching a film of a historical figure? Do I have a parasocial relationship with Anne Boleyn because I saw Six?
If you’re ignoring the “believe you have a two way relationship” then everything could be defined as parasocial.
Most people who form parasocial relationships don't actually believe it to be two-way.
It feels like it is two-way, in other words, it is an illusion, but just like with optical illusions, you don't have to believe them. For example, mirages may look a lot like water, but people who are familiar with them know it is just a trick of their senses and don't assume there is water there. Same thing for parasocial relationships, even the most intense. Proof is, parasocial relationships with fictional characters is common, and most people who feel a bound with Harry Potter are not crazy enough to believe the feelings are shared, as they are aware that Harry Potter doesn't actually exist.
And yes, I believe that parasocial relationships are extremely common and in most case, positive or at least harmless. I don't believe reading biographies is always parasocial though, it could just be the search for academic knowledge, without any feeling of connection, but done repeatedly, in can become one, which is again, not necessarily a bad thing.
You can absolutely have a parasocial relationship with Anne Boleyn, and I suspect most people who study her in depth do, as picturing oneself with her can help better understand her life and its historical context. It is essentially a mind hack, instead of just using logic, you also use emotions.
I wouldn’t say that movies per se are parasocial, but if you behave and feel like you have a relationship with somebody in a movie, then it’s probably parasocial.
To a degree it’s also quite normal to have parasocial reactions to personaes from media, it only becomes problematic once people substitute actual social relationships with extreme parasocial relationships.
I've never subscribed to any only fans so my only exposure is checking out twitch. I assume there's a difference in that movies don't act like they're talking to you as an individual person. Also, parasocial is a fairly newly emerging term and I don't think we can clearly define everything that facilitates it, but we can easily identify some of the outcomes
On the assumption that there is a relationship (believed to be) involved: yeah, I would say so. Streamers (often) have a chat, actual interaction is possible in a way movies do not allow.
The closest equivalent you would get with a movie is to send fan-mail and get a response. Which people do, but I think it's safe to claim the frequency is much lower.
Characters in a movie only last during the viewing. When following a Twitch streamer, you keep following this person or character over many months or years (since many of them are playing character).
If you feel a strong connection to a character and they barely know anything about you (or barely feel anything towards you), that's not truly social.
>So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?
More live TV/streaming series than movies, IMHO.
How many times have you heard someone say they just finished watching $SERIES and will miss their TV friends?
And with OnlyFans (I'm guessing here, as I don't use the platform), at least the sexual stuff there (is there other stuff?) it's like going to a strip club, except it's all recorded (and sometimes? mostly? more explicit) and instead of dollar bills in the garters, it's tips/subscriptions.
But then what's the difference between live streaming and recordings? There's some magic in live streams -- people prefer to watch boring live streams instead of hand-picked recorded videos of best games/conversations/jokes.
Personally, every time I decide "I'm going to check out this streamer's live stream" I always end up joining at some point where they're getting set up, they're taking a break, they're reading chat, they're eating soup... I've never actually tuned into a livestream I'm actually interested in.
Meanwhile, RTGame was one of the first gaming content creators I ever subscribed to, and all of his content is his twitch livestreams edited down to actually interesting clips or sections.
I think different people prefer different things, and also different creators provide different things.
I enjoy smaller Twitch channels where the chat isn't going 1000mph because you can actually chat with other viewers. There's definitely a parasocial element if the streamer reads your message, but it's more that it's an online community with shared references and in-jokes.
Also the people I follow are mostly part-time streamers doing 3-4 hour streams a few nights per week, so they don't need many breaks like the ones doing all-day streams.
There is generally a TON of money to be made in live streaming in porn. A friend of mine, way before current gen of social media, bought 2 apartments and a sports car doing exactly that.
I'd say the audience willing to pay extra for that is very limited, especially once you move to lets say a very niche stuff, but oh boy they paid a ton. Live also means 2-way interaction, additional added value (and price).
Not sure about views, but hours spent might be higher for livestreaming.
Especially I think most people don't know about steaming, never watched a single live streamer, but if we filter them out, then among people who watched a live stream at least once amount of hours spent might be higher.
Regarding parasocial relationships in general, I like [0]:
> a few exceptional people (many of them imaginary) get far more love than most people need or can enjoy.
> This seems an essential tragedy of the human condition. You might claim that love isn’t a limited resource, that the more people each of us love, the more love we each have to give out. So there is no conflict between loving popular and imaginary people and loving the rest of us. But while this might be true at some low scales of how many people we love, at the actual scales of love this just doesn’t seem right to me. Love instead seems scarce at the margin.
> Please, someone thoughtful and clever, figure out how we might all be much loved.
