Running head: CELEBRITY WORSHIP AND MENTAL HEALTH
Fandom: Exploring the Celebrity Attitude of Filipinos in Relation to Mental Health
Arfeille Domingo
Edrian Lichingyao
Marvin Onglengco
Giselle Santiago
Adviser: Marc Eric S. Reyes, PhD, RP
Department of Psychology, University of Santo Tomas
Abstract
Fans have a tendency to form one-sided relationships with celebrities who are made famous by both mass and social media. These one-sided quasi-interactions between a fan and a celebrity known as parasocial relationships have been hypothesized to contribute to the level of celebrity worship. Research has shown that extreme celebrity attitude have some relations with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety amongst others. As such, this study explored the presence of celebrity worship among Filipino fans and its relationship to their mental health. 518 Filipinos (125 males and 393 females) with ages 16 to 35 participated in the study. CAS, PFPI and MHI scores showed that there is no relationship in the celebrity attitude and mental health of Filipino fans.
Keywords: Celebrity-worship, celebrity-attitude, mental health, Filipino fans
Fandom: Exploring the Celebrity Attitude of Filipinos in Relation to Mental Health
The number of celebrities known by people is greater than before, and despite the lack of physical interaction between the stars and their audiences, the strong emotional connection that audiences feel for the celebrities endures (De Backer, 2012). This emotional connection is what Horton and Wohl (1956; as cited in Theran, Newberg & Gleason, 2010) called as a parasocial interaction, or the one-sided quasi-interaction between an audience and a celebrity. This phenomenon of attachment to media figures is also generally referred to as parasocial relationships wherein there is an experience of real but imaginary interaction with their idol and may have common similarities with actual relationships (Giles & Maltby, 2004). A specific form of parasocial interaction, celebrity worship, has been conceptualized by McCutcheon, Lange and Houran (2002), and it falls into pathological and nonpathological forms.
Celebrity worship ranges from normal admiration to the psychopathological, and is best viewed as a continuum phenomenon (Sansone & Sansone, 2014). To further explain celebrity worship, McCutcheon et al. (2002) proposed the absorption addiction model wherein psychological absorption with a celebrity develops in some individuals with a compromised identity structure, in an effort to establish an identity and a sense of fulfillment. Sansone and Sansone (2014) also suggested that celebrity worship is likely into being a passionate fan. A fan is someone who is enthusiastic in devoting to celebrity figures like singers, bands, artists, popular athletes and the like. Celebrity worshipers tend to stalk on their idol’s profiles, events and online updates (Sansone & Sansone, 2014). It is truly evident that celebrity worshipers are willing to invest a lot in their adoration to certain celebrities, such as their time, energy, and money. Emphasis on merchandising is expected most especially during concerts and gatherings wherein they offer limited edition items. However, it is important to acknowledge that the character of fan involvement is not limited to economic aspect of the adolescents but most especially their psychological or mental condition. Such gatherings and items could reinforce their identity structure with the celebrity and “synchronizes” their interest and belongingness within a certain fandom (Theberge, 2005).
It is believed that such fandom, for most, starts in adolescence, a developmental period wherein cultural influences have a significant impact on the individual. Although most outgrow this ‘phase’, some individuals carry this attachment into adulthood (Anderson, 2012). Fan studies have defined fans and fandoms in various ways, but for this study, fandom is seen as a community. According to Busse (2007), a fandom entails a community, as well as participation and possibly self-identification with that community. What Busse (2007) meant when she used “community” to define a fandom was seeing fans as “a collection of… complex and contradictory communities, where fans may be members of many communities over time and even simultaneously”. As a community, fandoms require interpersonal relationships with other fans, where they can share interests and build a common culture (Duncombe, 2012).
The adoration of celebrity figures as models is a normal part of an adolescent’s development but on the other hand, celebrity worshipers may be at the borders of being psychopathological. Intense absorption and addiction to these media figures may result to the development of abnormal parasocial relationships (Maltby, Houran & McCutcheon, 2003). One personality profile of celebrity worshippers suggest that people who score high on the CAS tend to show “poorer psychological well-being than non-worshippers” (Maltby, McCutcheon, Ashe, & Houran, 2001).
The present study attempts to identify if Filipino Fandom members’ celebrity attitude is that of worship and if a relationship exists between celebrity attitude and mental health. Moreover, the researchers explored the possibility that the more you worship celebrities, the poorer your mental health becomes.
Research Objectives
Fig 1 Research paradigm of the impact of celebrity attitude on mental health
This study is anchored on the absorption-addiction model proposed by McCutcheon et al. (2002) to explain the vulnerability of identity structure of fans during celebrity worship that could lead to psychological absorption with the adored celebrity in order to have a sense of fulfillment or satisfaction. Absorption does not require determined concentration; in fact, it can be attained through an effortless focusing of attention. This produces a heightened sense of reality of the celebrity which encourages the unfounded beliefs of the worshippers, that there is a special relationship shared with the celebrity (McCutcheon et al., 2002). As the worshippers are motivated to learn more about their favorite celebrities, some of them go beyond mere absorption, which leads them to seek out other sources of information about the celebrity (McCutcheon et al., 2002). Motivational forces driving this absorption might lead to an addictive component, which results to extreme behaviors needed to sustain the individual’s satisfaction with the parasocial relationship (McCutcheon, Ashe, Houran, & Maltby, 2003). The addictive component of developing extreme or delusional behaviors may occur while maintaining the established satisfaction with the absorbed identity or parasocial relationship with the celebrity. And since worshipers want to maintain the feeling of closeness with the favored celebrity, they usually go to socially acceptable events such as fan clubs, conventions, internet fan groups, and social media to attain some additional information about their favoured celebrity.
There are three dimensions of celebrity worship which are consistent with the absorption-addiction model (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, & Ashe, 2005). These three dimensions are entertainment-social, intense-personal, and borderline-pathological. In the Entertainment-social celebrity worship, an individual develops an attraction to a favorite celebrity, which is consistent with Stever’s (1991) observation (as cited by McCutcheon et al., 2003) about the celebrity’s perceived ability to capture the attention of fans. It includes attitudes and behaviors such as “My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done,” and “Learning the life story of my favorite celebrity is a lot of fun” (McCutcheon et al., 2003).
The next level of celebrity worship is characterized by Intense-personal feelings, where behaviors and attitudes like “I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soul mate,” and “I have frequent thoughts about my favorite celebrity, even when I don’t want to.” are common (McCutcheon et al., 2003). This is the level where the compulsive and intensive feeling of the fan towards the celebrity is apparent as well as some occasional obsessive tendencies (Maltby et al., 2005). At this point, people are absorbed with the life of the celebrity that their lives are starting to be affected (Griffith, Aruguete, Edman, Green, & McCutcheon, 2013). Recent studies have shown that the Intense-personal aspect of celebrity worship have poorer mental well-being through indices of neuroticism, worry, anxiety, and depression (McCutcheon et al., 2003).
The last and most extreme expression of celebrity worship is Borderline-pathological, where behaviors and attitudes like, “If someone gave me several thousand dollars to do with as I please, I would consider spending it on a personal possession (like a napkin or paper plate) once used by my favorite celebrity” is observed (McCutcheon et al., 2003). There is only a small minority in this group, and they tend to perform acts which are not beneficial towards the fan or “worshiper” (Griffith et al., 2013). This level of celebrity worship reflects the individual’s social–pathological attitudes and behaviors that are held as a result of worshiping a celebrity (Maltby et al., 2005). At this point, people are absorbed with the life of the celebrity that their lives are becoming more focused on the celebrity and not on themselves (Griffith et al., 2013).
Recent studies have shown that the intense-personal aspect of celebrity worship have poorer mental well-being through indices of neuroticism, worry, anxiety, and depression (Maltby et al., 2003). According to study made by Maltby et al. (2003), the three dimensions of celebrity worship may parallel the three dimensions of Eysenckian personality theory: extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. Entertainment-social celebrity worship is related to extraversion, intense-personal celebrity worship is related to neuroticism, and borderline-pathological is related to psychoticism.
Research has shown that celebrity worship have a significant harmful effects for the fans’ psychological well-being (Hyman & Sierra, 2009). Researchers speculated that the positive relation between celebrity worship and a poor psychological well-being of a person is due to the failed attempts at coping with daily life, they just spend their time worshiping celebrities as a means to avoid daily life stressors (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett, Houran, & Ashe, 2004). According to Maltby et al. (2004), people who have intense personal celebrity worship experience poorer mental health, such as depressions, anxieties and physical health somatic symptoms, relationship problems.
Moreover, North, Sheridan, Maltby, and Gillett (2007) concluded that Borderline-pathological celebrity worshipers are found to possess poor or low self-esteem. Moreover, Maltby, McCutcheon, Ashe, & Houran (2001) in their research, revealed that Entertainment-social celebrity worshipers showed some social dysfunctionalities and depressive symptoms; while those who are Intense-personal celebrity worshipers have shown depression and high anxiety scores.
Studies about celebrity worship have shown empirical evidence about the pathological view of celebrity worship (Maltby et al., 2001). However, there is a contrasting view of celebrity worship wherein the positive roles carried out by these fans in maintaining social networks around their favourite celebrities are emphasized (Maltby et al., 2001). The said behaviour can be beneficial to the individual because it supports productive social relationships, which may also serve as psychological buffer against stressors (Maltby et al., 2001). In relation to adolescent development, parasocial interactions formed in this stage may contribute to social, emotional, and transitional roles of adolescents (Adams-Price & Green, 1990).
Method
Research Design
The researchers made use of the correlational design to assess the degree of relationship between celebrity attitude and mental health among the participants. Our objective is to identify the fan’s level worship of their greatly-admired celebrities and whether it predicts their mental health condition.
Participants
The participants were 301 Filipino adolescents and young adults (male n = 42 and female n = 259) selected by convenience from the Philippines, whose ages ranged from 16 to 31 years with an average age of 18.36; sd =2.352. The study’s population likewise consisted of Fandom members (n= 301), all of whom gave their informed consents prior to the administration of the survey questionnaires.
Measures
Celebrity Attitude Scale. Originally known as the Celebrity Worship Scale, the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) is a 23-item revision by Maltby et al. (2003) of a 34-item instrument originally created by McCutcheon et al. (2002), in which a respondent’s attitude toward his favorite celebrity is assessed by answering a number of items with a response format ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). It is composed of three subscales of celebrity worship, from normative to more pathological: Entertainment-social with 10 items (e.g. “My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done.”), Intense-personal with 9 items (e.g. “When something good happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it happened to me”) and Borderline-pathological with 4 items (e.g. “I often feel compelled to learn the personal habits of my favorite celebrity”). The answers of the respondent are simply added to get the total score. For the scores in each of the three factors, different items are added per factor: entertainment-social includes items 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22; intense-personal includes items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12; and the borderline-pathological includes items 16, 17, 20, and 23. This instrument has adequate reliability and validity with a coefficient alpha ranging from .84 to .94 in several studies (McCutcheon, Maltby, Houran, & Ashe, 2004). The CAS has a Cronbach’s alpha rating of .94 in the present study.
Mental Health Inventory. The Mental Health Inventory (MHI) is a 38-item standardized instrument developed by Veit and Ware (1983) that assesses the psychological distress and well-being in the general population. Respondents rate the intensity or frequency of their feelings during the past month using a five-point scale (items 9 and 28) or a six-point scale (the remaining 36 items). The instrument is composed of both positive and negative affect items. Sample items are “During the past month, how much of the time have you felt restless, fidgety, or impatient?” and “During the past month, how much of the time have you been moody or brooded about things?” There are three types of summary scores that can be obtained from MHI: 1) a global mental health index score, 2) two global scales (Psychological Distress and Psychological Well-being), and 3) six subscales (Anxiety, Depression, Loss of Behavioural/Emotional Control, General Positive Affect, Emotional Ties and Life Satisfaction). The MHI has a Cronbach’s alpha rating of 0.93 (Heubeck & Neill, 2000). In our study, the Global Mental Health Index score had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .92.
Public Figure and Preoccupation Inventory. The Public Figure and Preoccupation Inventory (PFPI) is a 50-item standardized inventory introduced by Sheridan, Matlby and Gillett (2006). It is designed for the assessment of the attitudes and behaviors toward a celebrity and to distinguish normal celebrity worship from unhealthy preoccupation. Participants’ responses are scored based on their total scores and is interpreted compared to a ‘normal’ score. According to the author, “in a student population, the mean average score was 66.2 while in a group of extreme fans, the average score was 82.8. So, a score of around 66 would be ‘normal’ and a score of around 82 would be ‘pathological’” (L. Sheridan, personal communication, August 11, 2015). Sample items are “My favourite celebrity and I are destined to be together” and “I don’t like my celebrity’s romantic partner”. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale in the present study was .92. In this study, CAS correlates well with PFPI (r= .553) indicating convergent validity.
Data Analysis
The gathered data from CAS, MHI, and PFPI is assessed using the Pearson r correlation to examine if a relationship exists between Celebrity Attitude and Mental Health. The correlation is a bivariate measure of the strength of the relationship between the two variables and its direction of the relationship. Correlation coefficients r, differs from no relationship to perfect linear relationship or perfect negative linear relationship (Statistics Solutions, 2013). Positive coefficients will show a direct relationship (as one variable increases, the other variable also increases) and negative correlations coefficient will show an indirect relationship (as one variable increases, the other variable decreases).
Procedure
Filipino adolescents who are official members of Fandoms were sought as participants through referrals from friends and family, as well as from recognized Fandom organizations thru social networking sites; Facebook.com and Twitter.com. The non-Fandom participants were gathered from selected universities and colleges in Manila. The researchers acquired permission and informed consent from all the participants prior to testing. The survey questionnaires were administered via two methods: pencil & paper and on-line testing.
Results
Results from the scores of the total population show that there is no significant correlation between celebrity worship and mental health. Using Pearson correlation, CAS and PFPI scores indicated no significant correlation with MHI scores (CAS, r=-0.060; PFPI, r=-0.065). Furthermore, only the Borderline Pathological (BP) subscale of CAS has a weak level of significant correlation with MHI scores (r = -0.115, p<0.05). Both ES(r=-0.051) and IP(r=-0.038) did not have significant correlation towards MHI. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviation of the total population.
Table 1
Mean(sd) of the Total Population, Fandom group(F) and Non-Fandom group (NF), along with the Mean(sd) of the Adolescence and Adult Age Group
Total Population Age Range
Adolescence Young Adult
F NF F NF F NF
CAS 75.9170
(18.92689) 83.6744
(16.11274) 65.1567
(17.22384) 83.6561
(16.11505) 64.6239
(17.23455) 83.7054
(16.18120) 65.7800
(17.27705)
ES 36.31467
(8.517267) 39.5648
(7.43281) 31.8065
(7.88043) 39.3862
(7.62583) 31.3761
(8.04162) 39.8661
(7.11868) 32.3100
(7.69717)
IP 28.49614
(8.696013) 32.1063
(7.40599) 23.4885
(7.86230) 32.2857
(7.15355) 23.5470
(7.88221) 31.8036
(7.83712) 23.4200
(7.87809)
BP 11.10618
(3.257649) 12.0033
(3.00277) 9.8618
(3.20146) 11.9841
(3.11222) 9.7009
(3.08295) 12.0357
(2.82182) 10.0500
(3.34052)
PFPI 60.1699
(9.89256) 63.4319
(10.09387) 55.6452
(7.57178) 64.2381
(10.59212) 55.1197
(6.69169) 62.0714
(9.07597) 56.2600
(8.48007)
MHI 146.4923
(22.29369) 147.2259
(22.74941) 145.4747
(21.65663) 144.7249
(23.60487) 145.0171
(21.19002) 151.4464
(20.64973) 146.0100
(22.28534)
Note: Total Population, N=518; Fandom, N=301; Non-Fandom, N=217; Fandom Adolescence, N=189; Non-Fandom Adolescence, N=117; Fandom Young Adult, N=112; Non-Fandom Young Adult, N=100.
The total population was then divided into two groups: Fandom and Non-Fandom, and the two groups were subjected to T-test. T-test results show that only the means of MHI did not have a significant difference; t(516)=.882, p=.378. Table 2 shows the results of the t-test between fandom and non-fandom groups.
Table 2
T-score of Fandom and Non-fandom of Total Population along with the Adolescence and Adult Age Group
Total Population Adolescence Adult
t df p t df p t df p
CAS 12.536 516 .000 9.775 304 .000 7.799 201 .000
ES 11.428 516 .000 8.744 304 .000 7.425 210 .000
IP 13.732 516 .000 9.925 304 .000 7.756 210 .000
BP 7.789 516 .000 6.259 304 .000 4.690 210 .000
PFPI 9.584 516 .000 8.336 304 .000 4.800 210 .000
MHI .882 516 .378 -.109 304 .913 1.843 210 .067
The fandom and nonfandom group were also subjected to Pearson Correlation. Similar to the total population, CAS and PFPI scores of the fandom group still show no correlation to MHI scores (CAS, r=-0.044; PFPI, r=-0.056). The non-fandom group, however, shows significant correlation between CAS and PFPI scores (CAS, r=-0.152; PFPI, r=-0.149, p<0.05) to MHI scores. Pearson correlation was also used to compare CAS subscales scores to MHI scores. Only the Borderline Pathological subscale showed a weak level of significant correlation to MHI scores (r=-0.115, p<0.05) in the fandom group. On the other hand, all of the subscales of CAS showed a weak level of significant correlation towards the MHI scores (ES, r=-0.172; IP, r= -0.111; BP, r=-0.124; PFPI, r=-0.149, p<0.05) in the non-fandom group. Table 4 shows the summary of our results using Pearson correlation.
Table 3
Pearson Correlation of CAS, along with its subscales, and PFPI to MHI
MHI
Total Population Fandom Non-fandom
CAS -0.060 -0.044 -0.152*
ES -0.051 -0.007 -0.172*
IP -0.038 -0.031 -0.111*
BP -0.115* -0.143* -0.124*
PFPI -0.065 -0.056 -0.149*
*. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Discussion
This study hypothesized that the more you worship celebrities, the poorer your mental health becomes. This hypothesis is due to the results of previous studies made regarding celebrity worship and its relationship with anxiety and depression (Maltby, et al., 2003); people who admire, become addicted or absorbed to a celebrity are prone to different mental illnesses (Price, Lowinger, Jenkins & McCutcheon, 2014); and celebrity worshipers may exhibit poorer psychological functioning (Maltby, et al., 2001). However, the present study showed that, among the Filipino participants, celebrity worship has no significant relationship on their mental health and thus indicate that they are in a normal level of psychological well-being and psychological distress.
Although this study is contrary to the findings about celebrity worship made in the UK (Maltby, et al., 2003), the results were consistent with the researches made in the Philippine setting (McCutcheon, Pacquing, Cayubit, Reyes & Agnes, 2014; Vega, Magpantay, Zapanta, Tolentino, Varona, Tengco-Pacquing & McCutcheon, 2013) which could show support that Filipinos despite obtaining the highest recorded CAS scores (M=66.56; SD = 10.05) did not display the pathological effects of celebrity worship. Filipino fans have acquired higher scores in the entertainment-social and intense-personal subscales compared to nonfans but it did not reach the threshold that could prove that it has an effect on their mental health.
However, it was surprising that the non-fandom group showed a significant relationship, although very weak, between celebrity worship and mental health. This may suggest that being a part of a fandom group may actually help an individual’s well-being, which may lead to better mental health. Obtaining a normal score for MHI, the present study agrees with what Jenkins (1992) and Jenson (1992) proposed that a deeper appreciation and enthusiasm for people with talents are developed when being a part of celebrity worship (as cited in Maltby et al., 2001). Attending to conferences, fan meets and sharing information and experiences with other members could potentially promote a productive social network with their fandom groups. Thus, it can serve as a psychological buffer against the inevitable every-day stressors (Maltby, et al., 2001). Although this study did not test the possible relationship between the collectivistic nature of Filipinos and celebrity worship, one reason for the outcome of the study could also be the presence of a complex cultural interaction between celebrity worship and the individual (Jenkins, 1992; Jenson, 1992; as cited in Maltby et al., 2001).
References
Adams-Price, C., & Greene, A. L. (1990). Secondary attachments and adolescent self-concept. Sex Roles, 22, 187–198.
Anderson, T. (2012). “Still kissing their posters goodnight: Female fandom and the politics of popular music”. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2), 239-264.
Busse, K., & Sandvoss, C. (2007). Gender and fan culture (Round seven, part one). Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/07/h3introduction_kristina_i_have.html
De Backer, C. (2012). Blinded by the Starlight: An Evolutionary Framework for Studying Celebrity Culture and Fandom. Review of General Psychology, 16 (2), 144–151, DOI: 10.1037/a0027909
Duncombe, S. (2012). ‘Imagining no-place’. Transformative Works and Culture, 10 DOI:10.3983/twc.2012.0350.
Giles, D. & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development: relations between autonomy, attachment and interest in celebrities. Personality and individual differences, 24, 813-822.
Griffith, J., Aruguete, M., Edman, J., Green, T., & McCutcheon, L. (2013). The Temporal Stability of the Tendency to Worship Celebrities. SAGE Open, 1–5, DOI: 10.1177/2158244013494221
Heubeck, B. G., & Neill, J. T. (2000). Internal validity and reliability of the 30 item Mental Health Inventory for Australian Adolescents. Psychological Reports, 87, 431-440.
Hyman, M., & Sierra, J. (2009). Sport Celebrity Idolatry: A Problem?. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2009/idolatry09.pdf
Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L. (2003). A Clinical Interpretation of
Attitudes and Behaviors Associated with Celebrity Worship. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases., 191, 25-29.
Maltby, J, Day, L., McCutcheon, L., Gillett, R., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2004).
Personality and coping: A context for examining celebrity worship and mental health. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 411-428. Retrieved from www.bps.org.uk.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2005). Extreme
celebrity worship, fantasy proneness, and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 273-283.
Maltby, J., McCutcheon, L., Ashe, D. D. & Houran, J. (2001). The self-reported psychological well-being of celebrity worshippers. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 444-452.
McCutcheon, L., Ashe, D., Houran, J., & Maltby, J. (2003). A cognitive profile of individuals who tend to worship celebrities. The Journal of Psychology, 137, 309–322.
McCutcheon, L., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 67–87.
North, A., Sheridan, L,. Maltby, J., & Gillett, R. (2007). Attributional Style, Self-
Esteem, and Celebrity Worship. Media Psychology, 9, 291–308.
Sansone, L, & Sansone, R. (2014). “I’m your Number One Fan”- A clinical look at celebrity worship. Innovative Clinical Neuroscience, 11(1-2), 39-43.
Sheridan, L., Maltby, J. & Gillett, R. (2006). Pathological public figure
preoccupation: Its relationship with dissociation and absorption. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 525-535. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.010.
Statistics Solutions. (2013). Data analysis plan: Bivariate (Pearson) Correlation [WWW Document]. Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic- solutions/member-resources/member-profile/data-analysis-plan-templates/data-analysis- plan-bivariate-pearson-correlation/
Stever, G. (2011). Fan Behavior and Lifespan Development Theory: Explaining
Para-social and Social Attachment to Celebrities. Journal of Adult Development, 18, 1-7. Doi: 10.1007/s10804-010-9100-0.
Theberge, P. (2005). Everyday Fandom: Fan Clubs, Blogging, and the Quotidian
Rhythms of the Internet. Canadian Journal of Communication, 30(4).
Theran, S., Newberg, E., & Gleason, T. (2010). Adolescent Girls’ Parasocial Interactions With Media Figures. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171(3), 270–277.
Vega, C., Magpantay, J., Zapanta, J. Y., Tolentino, R. M., Varona, A. A., Tengco-Pacquing, C., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2013). A brief report on Celebrity Attitude Scale data collected in the Philippines. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 213-214.
Veit, C. & Ware, J. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730-742.