logo
A Psychologist Explains Our ‘Parasocial' Obsession With Celebrity Love

A Psychologist Explains Our ‘Parasocial' Obsession With Celebrity Love

Forbes01-04-2025

It's one thing to admire a celebrity's work — but it's another to feel emotionally invested in their ... More love life, as if it somehow affects our own. Here's why we do it.
We live in a world where a famous couple's breakup can feel like a personal betrayal, where fans grieve the end of a relationship they were never part of and where strangers on the internet passionately debate whether two people they've never met are truly meant to be. Sometimes, when a beloved celebrity couple falls apart, it's not just gossip — it's heartbreak on a global scale.
But why do we care so much? Why does a celebrity engagement spark joy, and a high-profile split leave us reeling? The answer lies in understanding what fuels these 'parasocial relationships' — one-sided emotional connections to public figures that feel real, even when they aren't.
Here are two key reasons why we care so much about celebrity love.
Celebrity relationships often feel larger than life, but at their core, they mirror the same hopes, struggles and milestones we experience in our own love lives. When a beloved couple stays together, it reassures fans that love can endure — even under the pressures of fame. The couple's happiness becomes their happiness, reinforcing the belief that fairytale romances are possible.
Take Zendaya and Tom Holland, for instance — their rumored engagement sparked widespread excitement. After years together, their relationship milestone isn't just meaningful for them but also for fans who have rooted for them since their Spider-Man days.
Due to strong parasocial connections and emotional investment, their relationship is subject to the collective imagination of their audience.
But the opposite is also true. When a high-profile couple splits, it can feel like a personal loss, not because fans know them personally, but because of what they represent. If even seemingly perfect couples can't make it work, what does that say about love in general?
Research published in Psychological Reports in 2021 suggests that audiences' connections to media figures may mirror their real-life attachment styles — it's possible that people with more secure attachments view celebrity couples as aspirational but irrelevant to their love lives. They likely know that they have no personal stake in their connections and avoid getting too concerned with their private affairs, while those with more anxious attachment styles may relate to them and feel more emotionally entangled in their highs and lows.
Alternatively, researchers also suggest that some fans may not see celebrities as attachment figures, but as symbolic companions that reinforce a sense of belonging. This sense of connection likely deepens their investment in their love lives.
When a celebrity shares a seemingly 'private' moment online, it creates an illusion of intimacy — one that makes fans feel like insiders in a world they'll likely never access. We analyze their interviews, like their posts and celebrate their milestones as if they were our own. So, when their choices clash with our expectations — especially in love — it stings.
Take Taylor Swift, for instance. To many fans, Swift is more than just a celebrity. She's a confidante, an older sister or even a moral compass. Her online presence and connection to her fans offers comfort to many, especially in challenging or lonely times. Fans also bond with such celebrities over shared values and perceived personality traits, deepening their emotional investment in them.
This connection fuels fierce loyalty. When critics attack Swift, her fans defend her as if protecting a close friend. And because she holds such influence, her romantic life becomes more than tabloid fodder — it can feel personally significant. If she dates someone, fans scrutinize whether he's 'right' for her.
But here's the uncomfortable truth about parasocial relationships with celebrities: No matter how beloved they are, we don't know them personally. Every Instagram post, every paparazzi shot or interview is just a fragment — stripped of context and filtered through layers of branding and public speculation.
Fame comes with a strange trade-off: the more loved a celebrity is, the less their life feels like their own. Fans often feel entitled to opinions on who they date, how they behave and even when — or with whom — they should break up.
However, real relationships are messy, private and full of complexities no tabloid can capture. The couple we think we know is just a story shaped by headlines, fan theories and our own projections of what we think they should be.
While there's nothing wrong with enjoying celebrity love stories and rooting for our favorite stars, many forget that they're real people, not characters in rom-coms. We have no say in whether they stay together or not.
Their relationships may give us something to believe in, something to root for and sometimes, something to escape into, but it's important to recognize when admiration turns into entitlement, or when our emotional investment in their love lives starts affecting our own.
At the end of the day, the healthiest relationships we can nurture are the ones in our own lives. Instead of getting lost in the highs and lows of someone else's love story, we can channel that energy into building deeper, more fulfilling connections with the people we truly know and love.
Wondering if you tend to form strong parasocial connections with celebrities? Take the science-backed Celebrity Attitude Scale test to find out.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stormzy Announces New Film Studio, '#Merky Films', and His First Lead Acting Role
Stormzy Announces New Film Studio, '#Merky Films', and His First Lead Acting Role

Hypebeast

time6 hours ago

  • Hypebeast

Stormzy Announces New Film Studio, '#Merky Films', and His First Lead Acting Role

Today, British rapperStormzyannounced#Merky Films, the latest extension to a growing creative empire he has amassed under his#Merkyimprint. The award-winning artist is also set to star in its very first release,Big Man, a short-film that will see the grime superstar take on his first lead acting role. #Merky Filmsjoins a roster that includes#Merky Books,#Merky Foundationand#Merky FC –ventures that have kept Stormzy, aka Big Mike, busy outside of music. With a mission to 'champion new voices' and 'celebrate culture and inspire meaningful change' in British cinema,#Merky Filmsdebut project was brought to life with the help ofApple, a coveted partner for the 31-year-old south Londoner. Directed by Oscar winnerAneil Karia,Big Manwas shot entirely on iPhone 16 Pro and sees Stormzy star as Tenzman, its lead character who's described as being a former rap star 'navigating a restless and uncertain chapter of his life.' 'Music is my first love, but film is my second,' says Stormzy, adding that '#Merky Filmsis something I've been dreaming about for ages.' He describes his latest venture as 'a space for powerful British stories and a solid home for fresh, unexpected art' and says it's 'a natural next step for everything we do at #Merky – sharing our stories, spotlighting important voices and making room for those who deserve to be seen and heard.' Big Manis set to release June 18 onYouTube.

How the Disney-Midjourney Lawsuit Could Reshape the Battle Over AI and Copyright
How the Disney-Midjourney Lawsuit Could Reshape the Battle Over AI and Copyright

Time​ Magazine

time14 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

How the Disney-Midjourney Lawsuit Could Reshape the Battle Over AI and Copyright

On Wednesday, the long-simmering dispute between Hollywood and the AI industry escalated dramatically when Disney and Universal sued Midjourney, one of the most prominent AI image generators, for copyright infringement. The two Hollywood heavyweight studios argue that Midjourney allows its users to 'blatantly incorporate and copy Disney's and Universal's famous characters,' such as Shrek and Spider-Man. 'Piracy is piracy, and the fact that it's done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing,' Horacio Gutierrez, Disney's chief legal officer, said in a general statement. The lawsuit challenges one of the AI industry's fundamental assumptions: that it should be allowed to train upon copyrighted materials under the principle of fair use. How the case gets resolved could have major implications for both AI and Hollywood going forward. 'I really think the only thing that can stop AI companies doing what they're doing is the law,' says Ed Newton-Rex, the CEO of nonprofit organization Fairly Trained, which provides certifications for AI models trained on licensed data. 'If these lawsuits are successful, that is what will hopefully stop AI companies from exploiting people's life's work.' A growing backlash against AI training norms AI companies train their models upon vast amounts of data scoured from across the web. While most of these companies have resisted admitting that they scrape copyrighted material, there are already dozens of AI copyright-related lawsuits in the U.S. alone alleging otherwise. Midjourney, which allows its millions of registered users to generate images from prompts, faces a class-action suit led by artists including Kelly McKernan, who found that users were inputting the artist's name as a keyword in Midjourney to spit out eerily similar artworks. 'These companies are profiting wildly off our unpaid labor,' they told TIME in 2023. For the last few years, Hollywood has refrained from entering the fray, while sending mixed messages about AI. During contract negotiations in 2023, AI was a major source of contention between unions like SAG-AFTRA and producers, who advanced a 'groundbreaking AI proposal' involving the use of 'digital replicas' to fill out the backgrounds of film scenes. But while some in Hollywood hope AI will make filmmaking more efficient and less expensive, many more have grown concerned about the AI industry's usage of copyrighted material. This concern has come to a head with the Disney-Universal lawsuit, which is the first major lawsuit brought by Hollywood studios against an AI company. The lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction that would immediately stop Midjourney's operations—and casts generative AI theft as a problem that 'threatens to upend the bedrock incentives of U.S. copyright law.' Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'We are bringing this action today to protect the hard work of all the artists whose work entertains and inspires us and the significant investment we make in our content,' said Kim Harris, executive vice president and general counsel of NBCU. Newton-Rex believes that this lawsuit is particularly significant because of the size, influence and resources of Disney and Universal. 'The more that these mainstays of the American economy weigh into this fight, the harder it is to ignore the simple truth here,' he says. In February, a Delaware judge dealt a blow to the AI industry's 'fair use' argument, ruling that a legal research firm was not allowed to copy the content of Thomson Reuters to build a competing AI-based legal platform. If the Disney-Universal lawsuit is similarly successful, that would have major implications for both AI and Hollywood, says Naeem Talukdar, the CEO of the AI video startup Moonvalley. Many AI companies might have to retrain their visual models from the ground up with licensed content. And Hollywood, if given legal clarity, might actually accelerate its usage of AI models built upon licensed content, like ones built by Natasha Lyonne's and Bryn Mooser's Asteria Film Co. 'Nobody wants to touch these models with a 10-foot pole, because there's a sense that you'll just get sued on the outputs later,' Talukdar says. 'I would expect that if this judgment falls a certain way, you'll see a lull, and then you'll have a new class of models emerge that pays the creators. And then you'll see this avalanche of studios that can now actually start using these models much more freely.' A governmental loophole? Unsurprisingly, AI companies are fighting back in court. They're also working on another path forward to retain their ability to train their models as they see fit: through governmental policy. In January, OpenAI sent a memo to the White House arguing their ability to train on copyrighted material should be ' preserved.' They then relaxed several rules around copyright in the name of 'creative freedom,' which triggered a flood of Studio Ghibli-style images on social media. In the U.K., the government announced plans to give AI companies access to any copyrighted work that rights holders hadn't explicitly opted out of, which drew a huge backlash from stars like Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. Last week, the House of Lords rejected the legislation for a fourth time. Newton-Rex says that this dispute over AI and copyright will not be resolved any time soon. 'Billion-dollar AI companies have staked their entire businesses on the idea that they are allowed to take people's life's work and build on it to compete with them. I don't think they're easily going to give that up because of one lawsuit,' he says. Nevertheless, he says that the announcement of this lawsuit is 'really good for creators everywhere.'

Olivia Munn surprised by reaction to comments on Ms. Rachel
Olivia Munn surprised by reaction to comments on Ms. Rachel

Miami Herald

time19 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Olivia Munn surprised by reaction to comments on Ms. Rachel

Actress Olivia Munn is sharing an additional statement, admitting she didn't expect the strong reaction to the revelation that her two children don't watch some of the more popular kids programming at home. In an interview with People, published June 8, Munn revealed that when it comes to childrens programming, she's not a fan and as a result, she doesn't let her children watch it either. 'I know kids love [Ms. Rachel], but the thing is, if I can't watch it, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life going crazy,' Munn, a moms of two, told People at the time. 'These kid shows drive me crazy.' Munn and her husband, comedian John Mulaney, are parents to 3-year-old son Malcolm and 9-month-old daughter Méi. Even cartoons are off the table, Munn told People. 'Malcolm asked for Blue's Clues [recently], and I don't know who showed him Blue's Clues, but they are on my list now,' she continued. 'I said, 'Not in my house.'' 'John got him into the Spider-Man cartoons, which is not interesting to me,' Munn continued. 'I put on Tom Holland's Spider-Man: Homecoming and was like, 'If you want to watch the real-life ones, then we can watch that.' It might be a little too old for him, but I can't take the cartoons.' However, after the headlines went viral, Ms. Rachel spoke out on Instagram on June 9, saying, 'WHO CARES?! I'd rather you cover me advocating for kids in Gaza who are literally starving, largest cohort of child amputees in modern history, thousands & thousands killed - no medical care, no education, no homes… do better!!!' 'Not against her at all and don't care that she doesn't want to watch the show,' she continued, 'all my love to her and her family - disappointed in the outlets.' A day later, on Tuesday, June 10, Munn took to her Instagram story to respond to the reaction the interview caused. 'To Ms Rachel and her fans, I hear and respect the passion behind your support. I never anticipated the media would single out one small thing I said and distort it like they have. My comments were never meant to diminish the joy, comfort, and impact she brings to so many families,' Munn wrote. 'Every parent understands the importance of finding meaningful programming that helps us connect with our kids. I don't want something taken out of context to be a moment that steals even a minute of joy for anyone.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store