Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Psychology

PSY.OPT8 Explaining Parasocial Relationships: Absorption-Addiction and Attachment

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 50 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Show all your working.

In the context of parasocial relationships with media figures, outline what Maltby et al. mean by the entertainment-social level of celebrity-worship.

Outline the entertainment-social level definition and its main features in parasocial relationships.

(Total for Question 1 is 2 marks)

Define the intense-personal level of parasocial relationship as used in the study of celebrity worship and name one behavioural sign of this level.

Define intense-personal level and give one behavioural sign.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

Outline Maltby et al.'s borderline-pathological level of parasocial relationship in the context of extreme celebrity worship and give one potential consequence.

Outline the borderline-pathological level and name one possible consequence of this level.

(Total for Question 3 is 3 marks)

Maltby et al. describe three levels of parasocial relationships. Outline all three levels and explain briefly how they differ in intensity and potential harm.

Outline entertainment-social, intense-personal and borderline-pathological levels and how they differ.

(Total for Question 4 is 6 marks)

Explain the absorption-addiction model as an explanation for why some individuals develop intense parasocial relationships with celebrities, naming its two main components and their roles.

Explain absorption-addiction model with its two components and how they lead to intense parasocial relationships.

(Total for Question 5 is 6 marks)

Identify two specific behaviours that would illustrate the 'absorption' component of the absorption-addiction model in parasocial relationships with a celebrity.

Give two behaviours that illustrate absorption in parasocial relationships.

(Total for Question 6 is 2 marks)

Explain the attachment theory account of parasocial relationships, focusing on how insecure attachment types are linked to stronger parasocial bonds and referencing McCutcheon et al.'s contribution.

Explain how attachment theory, and McCutcheon et al., link insecure attachment to parasocial relationships.

(Total for Question 7 is 6 marks)

Describe one key finding from McCutcheon et al.'s research into attachment styles and celebrity worship, as applied to parasocial relationship explanations.

Describe a McCutcheon et al. finding linking attachment style to celebrity worship intensity.

(Total for Question 8 is 4 marks)

Identify and explain one methodological limitation of research that uses celebrity-attitude scales and self-report questionnaires to measure parasocial relationships.

Identify and explain a limitation of self-report celebrity-attitude measures.

(Total for Question 9 is 4 marks)

Explain one strength of the absorption-addiction model for explaining why some people develop intense parasocial relationships, focusing on explanatory power or applied value.

Explain a strength of the absorption-addiction model relevant to explanatory power or application.

(Total for Question 10 is 4 marks)

Evaluate one limitation of using attachment theory to explain parasocial relationships, with reference to the correlational nature of much of the evidence relating attachment style to celebrity worship.

Evaluate a limitation of the attachment explanation, focusing on correlational evidence issues.

(Total for Question 11 is 4 marks)

Explain one real-world application of understanding parasocial relationship explanations (absorption-addiction or attachment) for professionals working in mental health or media regulation.

Explain an application of parasocial relationship explanations to clinical practice or media policy.

(Total for Question 12 is 4 marks)

Discuss explanations for parasocial relationships. In your answer, refer to the absorption-addiction model and the attachment theory explanation, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of these accounts. Refer to research methods issues such as the use of self-report scales and the correlational nature of attachment findings, and consider real-world implications for understanding and responding to intense celebrity worship.

Discuss absorption-addiction and attachment explanations of parasocial relationships with evaluation, methodological comments and applications.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.OPT8 Explaining Parasocial Relationships: Absorption-Addiction and Attachment

Question 1

B1 states that entertainment-social refers to a casual, social form of interest in a celebrity, such as following them for amusement or gossip oe
B1 mentions that it involves social enjoyment and talking about celebrities with friends rather than deep personal involvement oe
Answer: Entertainment-social: a casual, social interest in a celebrity for amusement and conversation with others, rather than deep personal attachment.

Question 2

B1 defines intense-personal as a more concentrated, obsessive-type involvement with a celebrity, involving strong feelings and preoccupation oe
B1 identifies a behavioural sign, e.g. frequent thoughts about the celebrity, checking social media many times a day, or collecting detailed information oe
Answer: Intense-personal: a stronger, preoccupied involvement with a celebrity; a sign is frequent checking of the celebrity's social media or constant thoughts about them.

Question 3

M1 outlines borderline-pathological as an extreme, possibly harmful level involving uncontrollable fantasies and potentially illegal or dangerous behaviour oe
A1 gives a plausible consequence, e.g. stalking, spending excessive money, severe distress when the celebrity is unavailable, or impaired daily functioning oe
A1 explains that the relationship can be addictive and harmful to the individual or others oe
Answer: Borderline-pathological: an extreme, potentially harmful level of celebrity worship with uncontrollable fantasies and possible dangerous behaviour; consequence can include stalking or severe impairment to daily life.

Question 4

M1 outlines entertainment-social as casual, social interest in celebrities for entertainment oe
M1 outlines intense-personal as stronger preoccupation and personal involvement with the celebrity oe
M1 outlines borderline-pathological as extreme, possibly harmful and involving compulsive or risky behaviour oe
A1 explains that intensity increases from entertainment-social to intense-personal to borderline-pathological oe
A1 explains that potential for harm is minimal at entertainment-social, moderate at intense-personal and high at borderline-pathological oe
A1 notes behavioural differences such as casual chatter versus daily preoccupation versus obsessional/illegal acts oe
Answer: Entertainment-social: casual, social interest used for amusement. Intense-personal: stronger, preoccupied involvement with frequent thoughts and emotional attachment. Borderline-pathological: extreme, potentially harmful obsession that can lead to compulsive or risky behaviour. Intensity and risk increase across the three levels.

Question 5

M1 identifies the two main components as absorption and addiction cao
A1 explains absorption: becoming mentally absorbed in the celebrity's life to gain a sense of fulfilment or identity, e.g. fantasising or strongly identifying with the celebrity oe
A1 explains that absorption increases personal involvement and preoccupation with the celebrity oe
M1 explains addiction: repetitive behaviours to maintain the parasocial relationship, such as compulsive checking, and tolerance requiring more engagement to achieve the same effect oe
A1 explains that addiction leads to harmful patterns and difficulty stopping the behaviour, analogous to behavioural addiction oe
A1 links the two: absorption creates strong involvement which can become addictive when used to regulate mood or identity, explaining intense-personal and borderline-pathological levels oe
Answer: Absorption-addiction model: absorption is strong mental immersion in a celebrity to gain fulfilment or identity, increasing preoccupation. Addiction is compulsive behaviours to maintain that relationship, with tolerance and difficulty stopping. Absorption can lead to addiction, explaining intense-personal and borderline-pathological parasocial relationships.

Question 6

B1 identifies one behaviour, e.g. spending hours reading about the celebrity or watching all their interviews oe
B1 identifies a second behaviour, e.g. imagining a personal relationship or daydreaming about the celebrity frequently oe
Answer: Examples: spending hours reading about or watching the celebrity and frequently daydreaming about having a personal relationship with them.

Question 7

M1 states that attachment theory suggests early attachment experiences influence later relationship patterns, including parasocial bonds oe
A1 explains that insecure attachment (e.g. anxious or avoidant styles) may predispose individuals to seek one-sided, safe relationships with celebrities they cannot be rejected by oe
A1 explains how anxious attachment may lead to intense preoccupation and need for proximity via parasocial means, while avoidant attachment may favour one-sided safe involvement rather than real relationships oe
M1 references McCutcheon et al. as providing empirical evidence linking insecure attachment measures to higher scores on celebrity-attitude or parasocial scales oe
A1 explains McCutcheon et al.'s finding that certain insecure attachment tendencies were associated with greater likelihood of intense parasocial involvement, supporting the attachment account oe
A1 notes the mechanism: parasocial relationships provide attachment-like functions such as emotional regulation and a sense of security without the risk of real rejection oe
Answer: Attachment theory account: early insecure attachment can predispose people to form parasocial relationships because these one-sided bonds provide attachment functions without the risk of rejection. McCutcheon et al. found that measures of insecure attachment were associated with higher celebrity-attitude scores, supporting this explanation.

Question 8

M1 states a clear finding, e.g. that scores indicating insecure attachment were positively correlated with stronger celebrity-attitude or parasocial scores oe
A1 gives a detail such as the association being stronger for anxious attachment traits or for measures of borderline-pathological attitudes in some analyses oe
A1 notes that the study used self-report measures such as attachment questionnaires and celebrity-attitude scales oe
A1 explains that this finding provides empirical support for the idea that attachment style relates to parasocial intensity oe
Answer: McCutcheon et al. found that indicators of insecure attachment were positively correlated with stronger celebrity-attitude scores, with some evidence that anxious-type traits related to more intense or borderline-pathological attitudes; the study used self-report attachment and celebrity-attitude measures.

Question 9

M1 identifies a limitation, e.g. social desirability bias or response bias in self-report questionnaires oe
A1 explains how social desirability could reduce validity, e.g. participants under-report obsessive behaviours to appear normal oe
M1 identifies a related issue, e.g. the reliance on introspection means participants may lack insight into their true level of parasocial involvement oe
A1 explains the consequence, e.g. correlations with attachment style may be weakened or distorted by biased self-report, limiting confidence in causal interpretations oe
Answer: Self-report celebrity-attitude scales are vulnerable to social desirability and poor self-insight, so participants may under-report obsessive behaviours or lack awareness of their involvement; this reduces validity and can distort correlations with attachment style.

Question 10

M1 identifies a strength, e.g. the model explains both onset (absorption) and maintenance (addiction) of intense parasocial relationships oe
A1 explains why this is useful, e.g. it offers mechanisms that can be tested and targets for intervention, such as reducing compulsive checking or addressing unmet needs oe
M1 offers an applied consequence, e.g. informing clinical or media-literacy interventions to reduce harm from borderline-pathological worship oe
A1 explains that this applied value matters because it helps reduce real-world harm and guides preventative strategies oe
Answer: Strength: the model explains both how intense parasocial relationships start (absorption) and how they persist (addiction), offering testable mechanisms and intervention targets. This has applied value for designing clinical or media-literacy interventions to reduce harm from borderline-pathological worship.

Question 11

M1 identifies the limitation: much evidence is correlational, so causality cannot be assumed oe
A1 explains that even if insecure attachment and parasocial intensity are correlated, we cannot tell whether attachment influences parasociality, parasociality affects self-reported attachment features, or a third variable explains both oe
M1 gives an example of a plausible third variable, e.g. low self-esteem or social isolation, that could produce both insecure attachment measures and stronger celebrity worship oe
A1 explains why this matters, e.g. it limits the confidence of policy or therapeutic recommendations based on attachment alone oe
Answer: Limitation: most evidence linking attachment to parasocial relationships is correlational, so causality cannot be inferred. A third variable such as low self-esteem or social isolation could cause both insecure attachment scores and stronger celebrity worship, limiting confidence in attachment-based interventions.

Question 12

M1 identifies a real-world application, e.g. screening for harmful celebrity-worship in clinical assessments or developing media-literacy education targeting absorption behaviours oe
A1 explains how this application would work, e.g. clinicians could assess celebrity-attitude severity and offer coping strategies to reduce compulsive behaviours, or regulators could support campaigns to reduce idealised, addictive portrayals of celebrities oe
M1 explains a benefit, e.g. reducing distress, preventing stalking or redirecting addictive behaviours to healthy social activities oe
A1 clarifies why it matters, e.g. protecting vulnerable individuals and reducing social costs associated with borderline-pathological worship oe
Answer: Application: clinicians can screen for and treat harmful celebrity-worship using strategies aimed at reducing absorption and addiction, and media regulators or educators can promote media-literacy to reduce idealisation. These measures can reduce distress, prevent harmful behaviours and protect vulnerable people.

Question 13

Level 5 (13-16): Knowledge is accurate and comprehensive, covering absorption-addiction and attachment explanations with clear, well-developed links to research. Evaluation is thorough and wide ranging, including methodological critique, consideration of alternative explanations and clear discussion of real-world applications. Discussion is applied consistently to examples and demonstrates critical judgement. Specialist terminology is used effectively.
Level 4 (9-12): Knowledge of the explanations is accurate with good detail. Evaluation is clear and includes several relevant points, such as limitations of self-report measures and correlational evidence, and some consideration of applications. Application to examples is present and generally effective. The answer is well organised with appropriate terminology.
Level 3 (5-8): Knowledge is present but may lack some detail or precision. Evaluation includes some appropriate points but is limited in depth or breadth. Application or methodological comment may be present but not well developed. The answer is sometimes unstructured and terminology may be used inconsistently.
Level 2 (2-4): Basic knowledge of one or both explanations is present, but detail is minimal. Evaluation is superficial or lists points without development. Little or no application to research methods or real-world implications. Writing may be unclear and terminology limited.
Level 1 (1-1): Very limited content, possibly one or two simple statements about parasocial relationships with little relevance to the question.
Level 0 (0): No creditable content.
Indicative content:
- AO1: Absorption-addiction model, description of absorption (fantasy, identity fulfilment, preoccupation) and addiction (compulsive behaviours, tolerance, negative consequences) and how the model explains intense-personal and borderline-pathological levels.
- AO1: Attachment theory account, explanation of how insecure attachment styles (e.g. anxious and avoidant tendencies) predispose individuals to form parasocial bonds, and McCutcheon et al.'s empirical linkage between insecure attachment measures and higher celebrity-attitude scores.
- AO3: Strength of absorption-addiction model: explains onset and maintenance, offers testable mechanisms and applied intervention targets for reducing harm, and maps onto observed behaviours such as compulsive checking and escalation.
- AO3: Limitation of absorption-addiction model: risk of analogising to substance addiction without sufficient longitudinal or biological evidence; may not account for social or cultural factors influencing celebrity worship.
- AO3: Strength of attachment explanation: draws on well-established theory about relationship needs and offers plausible mechanism for why parasocial relationships feel safe and restorative for insecurely attached individuals.
- AO3: Limitation of attachment explanation: much evidence is correlational so causality cannot be assumed; possible third variables such as low self-esteem, social isolation or mental health issues may explain both insecure attachment scores and intense parasociality.
- AO3: Methodological critique: widespread reliance on self-report celebrity-attitude scales and attachment questionnaires introduces social-desirability bias, limited insight and shared-method variance inflating correlations; many studies are cross-sectional.
- AO3: Empirical nuance: not all research replicates strong correlations and cultural/contextual factors influence parasocial behaviour; some people with secure attachments also engage in benign parasocial interest, suggesting explanatory limits.
- AO3: Application: explanations inform clinical screening and interventions, media-literacy education, and policy to reduce harmful portrayals; but interventions should be cautious given correlational evidence and measurement limits.
- AO3: Balanced conclusion: both explanations have value; absorption-addiction explains behavioural processes and escalation, attachment explains underlying motives for seeking one-sided bonds, but stronger causal and longitudinal research and more objective measures are needed to guide practice.

Explaining Parasocial Relationships: Absorption-Addiction and Attachment - Worksheets, Questions and Revision