Relaciones e interacciones parasociales en redes sociales digitales. Una revisión conceptual

  1. Caro Castaño, Lucía 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Journal:
Icono14

ISSN: 1697-8293

Year of publication: 2015

Issue Title: Comunicación y Redes sociales

Volume: 13

Issue: 2

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7195/RI14.V13I2.853 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Icono14

Abstract

It is developed in this paper an upgrade of the notion of parasocial experience. This concept was originally coined by Horton and Wohl in 1956 to describe the illusion of reciprocal interaction that many audience members experienced towards the acting of certain performers in the mass media programs, especially television. From the observation of communicative practices developed by users in social media platforms, a reformulation of this classical concept is proposed to fit the context of these new spaces. Also, it is proposed a specific typology of parasocial experiences developed in the social media’s context. Finally it is discussed how users negotiate the construction of reciprocal relationships in a public space of high visibility like Twitter and how they define some policies of forced reciprocal linking as the label #FFBack express.

Bibliographic References

  • Bakshy, E., Hofman, J., Mason, W. & Watts, D. (2011). Everyone is an influencer: quantifying influence on Twitter. VVAA. Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 65-74). New York: ACM Press.
  • Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else. New York: Basic Books.
  • Castells, M. (2009). Comunicación y poder. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
  • Coronado, M., López, A., Iglesias, C. & Garijo, M. (2011). TutorGSI: aplicación de tecnologías de bots a entornos LMS. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 20, 1-12. Disponible en: http://oa.upm.es/12270/1/INVE_MEM_2011_109506.pdf [recuperado el 12-03-2015].
  • De Backer, C., Nelissen, M., Vyncke, P., Braeckman, J. & McAndrew, F. (2007). Celebrities: from teachers to friends. Human Nature, 18(4), 334-354. doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9023-z
  • Gershon, I. (2010). The breakup 2.0: disconnecting over new media. New York: Cornell University Press.
  • Giles, D. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
  • Goel, S., Watts, D. & Goldstein, D. (2012). The structure of online diffusion networks. VVAA. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on electronic commerce (pp. 623-638). New York: ACM Press.
  • Hartmann, T. (2008). “Parasocial interactions and paracommunication with new media characters”. Konijn, E., Utz, S., Tanis, M. & Barne, S. (eds.): Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 177-199). New York: Routledge.
  • Hartmann, T. & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication 61, 1104-1121. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x
  • Horton, D. & Strauss, A. (1957). Interaction in audience-participation shows. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 579-587. Disponible en: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2773133 [recuperado el 28-03-2015].
  • Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (2006). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Particip@tions, 3 [re-publicado en línea]. Disponible en: http://www.participations.org/volume%203/issue%201/3_01_hortonwohl.htm [recuperado el: 22-12-2013].
  • Kaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
  • Katz, E., Blumler, J. & Gurevitch, M. (1985). Usos y gratificaciones de la comunicación de masas. Moragas, M. (ed.). Sociología de la comunicación de masas (pp. 127-171). Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.
  • Lee, E. & Shin, S. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(10), 515-520. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
  • Martín-Barbero, J. (2010). De los medios a las mediaciones. Comunicación, cultura y hegemonía. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.
  • Marshall, P. D. (2010). The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of presentational media. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 35-48. doi: 10.1080/19392390903519057
  • Marwick, A. & Boyd, D. (2011). To see and be seen: celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139-158. doi: 10.1177/1354856510394539
  • Men, L. & Tsai, W. (2013). Beyond liking or following: understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.013
  • Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181-201. doi: 10.1177/1750481312437441
  • Putnam, R. (2002). Solo en la bolera. Colapso y resurgimiento de la comunidad norteamericana. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg.
  • Rubin, A., Perse, E. & Powell, R. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x
  • Sheeks, M. & Birchmeier, Z. (2007). Shyness, sociability and the use of computer-mediated communication in relationship development. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 10(1), 64-70. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9991.
  • Thompson, C. (2008): Brave new world of digital intimacy. Nytimes.com, 05-09-2008. Disponible en: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1 [recuperado el: 26-03-2015].
  • Tufekzi, Z. (2014). A brief primer on human social networks, or how to keep $16 billion in your pocket. Medium.com/@zeinep, 22-02-2014. Disponible en: https://medium.com/@zeynep/a-brief-primer-on-human-social-networks-or-how-to-keep-16-billion-in-your-pocket-c290c8ac23dd [recuperado el 26-03-2015].
  • VVAA (2013). V Oleada del Observatorio de las redes sociales en España [informe en línea]. Madrid/Barcelona, The Cocktail Analysis. Disponible en: http://es.slideshare.net/TCAnalysis/5-oleada-observatorio-redes-sociales [recuperado el: 26-03-2015].
  • Walther, J. (1996): Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001
  • Wu, S., Hofman, J., Mason, W. & Watts, D. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. VVAA. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 705-714). New York: ACM Press.
  • Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13(5), 788-806. doi: 10.1177/1461444810385097.
  • Zhao, S. & Elesh, D. (2008). Copresence as ‘being with’. Social contact in online public domains. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 565-583. doi: 10.1080/13691180801998995
Data source: Dialnet