This study highlights how social media facilitates engagement, relationships and co-creation among literary celebrities with different traits in digital spaces, leveraging social presence strategies to broaden reach, boost audience engagement and foster self-endorsement across various cultural contexts. Utilising the netnography method and theoretical frameworks such as para-social relationships and social presence, the analysis of Facebook posts and comments revealed that literary celebrities foster co-presence and emotional contagion with fans through selective reciprocity. Fans’ candid feedback enhances celebrities’ growth and strengthens mutual trust, care and bond, leading to trans-para-social relationships. Moreover, cultural differences in celebrities’ personality traits amplify the public disclosure and co-creation process. Community homophily also influences affective and cohesive collaboration. Both celebrity- and fan-initiated user-generated content as a co-creation empower audiences, promote ownership and shape creative identity. Fans primarily employ an affective strategy, with notable use of interactive and blended affective and cohesive approaches.
AbidinC. (2015). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 8, 1–16.
2.
AdeaneE., & StasiakK. (2023). Youth responses to social media influencers discussing mental health online. European Psychiatry, 66(Suppl 1), S855–S855. https://doi.org.10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.1811
3.
AnderskiM., GriebelL., StegmannP., & StröbelT. (2023). Empowerment of human brands: Brand meaning co-creation on digital engagement platforms. Journal of Business Research, 166, 113905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113905
4.
AwE. C. X., & LabrecqueL. I. (2020). Celebrity endorsement in social media contexts: Understanding the role of parasocial interactions and the need to belong. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37(7), 895–908.
5.
BallantineP. W., & MartinB. A. (2005). Forming parasocial relationships in online communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 197.
6.
BauerR. M., & GegenhuberT. (2015). Crowdsourcing: Global search and the twisted roles of consumers and producers. Organization, 22(5), 661–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415585030
7.
BazarovaN. N., & ChoiY. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635–657.
8.
BehnamM., DicksonG., DelshabV., GerkeA., & Savari NikouP. (2023). The moderating effect of fan engagement on the relationship between fan knowledge and fan co-creation in social media. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 24(4), 606–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-09-2022-0175
9.
BioccaF., & HarmsC. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory and measure. Proceedings of Presence, 2002, 7–36.
10.
BoermanS. C., & Van ReijmersdalE. A. (2020). Disclosing influencer marketing on YouTube to children: The moderating role of para-social relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3042. https://doi.org.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03042
11.
BondB. J. (2016). Following your ‘friend’: Social media and the strength of adolescents’ parasocial relationships with media personae. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 656–660.
12.
BurrowA. L., & RainoneN. (2017). How many likes did I get?: Purpose moderates links between positive social media feedback and self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 232–236.
13.
CarùA., & CovaB. (2015). Co-creating the collective service experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 276–294.
14.
ChatterjeeP. (2001). Online reviews: Do consumers use them?Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 129–134.
15.
ChristodoulidesG., JevonsC., & BonhommeJ. (2012). Memo to marketers: Quantitative evidence for change: How user-generated content really affects brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 53–64.
16.
ChungS., & ChoH. (2017). Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social media: Implications for celebrity endorsement. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 481–495.
17.
CoelhoP. (2011). Paulo Coelho on six secrets to mastering social media. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-SEB-67218?fbclid
18.
CoombsH. (2022). Case study research defined [White paper]. Southern Utah University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7604301
19.
CostelloL., McDermottM. L., & WallaceR. (2017). Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647
20.
CovaB., & DalliD. (2009). Working consumers: The next step in marketing theory?Marketing Theory, 9(3), 315–339.
21.
CovaB., DalliD., & ZwickD. (2011). Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as ‘producers’: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408171
22.
De VeirmanM., CaubergheV., & HuddersL. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36, 798–828. https://doi.org.10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
23.
DixonM. L., ThiruchselvamR., ToddR., & ChristoffK. (2017). Emotion and the prefrontal cortex: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(10), 1033.
24.
DominickJ. R. (2012). The dynamics of mass communication: Media in transition (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
25.
DunmoyeI. D., RukanguA., MayD., & DasR. P. (2024). An exploratory study of social presence and cognitive engagement association in a collaborative virtual reality learning environment. Computers & Education: X Reality, 4, 100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100054
26.
Facebook. (n.d.). Meta reports fourth quarter and full year 2023 results; initiates quarterly dividend. Retrieved, 1February2024, from fb.com
27.
FarivarS., WangF., & YuanY. (2021). Opinion leadership vs. para-social relationship: Key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102371
28.
FengY., ChenH., & KongQ. (2021). An expert with whom I can identify: The role of narratives in influencer marketing. International Journal of Advertising, 40(7), 972–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1824751
29.
Flecha-OrtizJ. A., Feliberty-LugoV., Santos-CorradaM., LopezE., & DonesV. (2023). Hedonic and utilitarian gratifications to the use of TikTok by Generation Z and the parasocial relationships with influencers as a mediating force to purchase intention. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 23(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2195403
30.
GalvagnoM., & DalliD. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187
31.
GambettiR. C., & KozinetsR. V. (2022). Agentic netnography. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 10. https://doi.org.10.36367/ntqr.10.2022.e519
32.
GarrisonD. R., AndersonT., & ArcherW. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
33.
GarrisonR. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1–17.
34.
GilbertE., & KarahaliosK. (2009, April). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 211–220). ACM.
35.
GilesD. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305.
36.
GómezA. R. (2019). Digital fame and fortune in the age of social media: A classification of social media influencers. aDResearch: Revista Internacional de InvestigaciónenComunicación, 19, 8–29. https://doi.org/10.7263/adresic-019-01
37.
GriffinE. M. (2006). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill.
38.
HarmelingC. M., MoffettJ. W., ArnoldM. J., & CarlsonB. D. (2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 312–335.
39.
HillT., CannifordR., & EckhardtG. (2021). Social atmospheres: How interaction ritual chains create effervescent experiences of place. Journal of Marketing, 86(3), 121–139.
40.
HortonD., & Richard WohlR. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
41.
KimH. S., PakJ., ChungM. Y., & KimY. (2024). How self-disclosure builds cancer communities through authentic stories on YouTube: Mediating role of user participation in self-disclosure reciprocity. Computers in Human Behavior, 156, 108226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108226
42.
KimJ., & SongH. (2016). Celebrity’s self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 570–577.
43.
KimM., & KimJ. (2020). How does a celebrity make fans happy? Interaction between celebrities and fans in the social media context. Computers in Human Behavior, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106419
44.
KonijnE. A., & HoornJ. F. (2017). Parasocial interaction and beyond: Media personae and affective bonding. In HoffnerC., van ZoonenL., & RoesslerP. (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–15). Wiley Blackwell Publications.
45.
KovanovicV., JoksimovicS., GasevicD., & HatalaM. (2014, January). What is the source of social capital? The association between social network position and social presence in communities of inquiry. In CEUR workshop proceedings (vol. 1183, pp. 21–28). CEUR-WS.
46.
KowertR., & Daniel JrE. (2021). The one-and-a-half sided parasocial relationship: The curious case of live streaming. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100–150.
47.
KozinetsR. V. (1997). ‘I want to believe’: A netnography of the X-philes’ subculture of consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 470–475.
48.
KozinetsR. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67–88.
49.
KozinetsR. V. (2020). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage Publications.
50.
LeeY. H., YuanC. W., & WohnD. Y. (2021). How video streamers’ mental health disclosures affect viewers’ risk perceptions. Health Communication, 36(14), 1931–1941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1808405
51.
LeiteF. P., PontesN., & SeptiantoF. (2024). To share or not to share: When is influencer self-disclosure perceived as appropriate?Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2361
52.
LiuW., WangZ., JianL., & SunZ. (2024). How broadcasters’ characteristics affect viewers’ loyalty: The role of parasocial relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 36(1), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2022-0856
53.
LoganA. (2015). Netnography: Observing and interacting with celebrity in the digital world. Celebrity Studies, 6(3), 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2015.1062652
54.
LouC. (2022). Social media influencers and followers: Theorization of a trans-parasocial relation and explication of its implications for influencer advertising. Journal of Advertising, 51(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1880345
55.
LouC., & YuanS. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertisement, 19, 58–73. https://doi.org.10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501
56.
LouC., & ZhouX. (2024). What else is new about social media influencers? Uncovering their relation and content strategies, and the downsides of being famous. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1437384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1437384
57.
MalthouseE. C., CalderB. J., KimS. J., & VandenboschM. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1148066
58.
MavroudisJ., & MilneE. (2016). Researching microcelebrity: Methods, access and labour. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i7.6401
59.
MazidI. (2020). Virality of social change messages on Facebook: A study of advocacy and relationship building strategies of LGBTQ advocacy organizations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2020.1730377
60.
MazidI. (2022). Political campaign messages on Facebook: A study of public engagement, social presence strategies, and the 2018 US senate elections. Public Relations Journal, 15(2), 1–22.
61.
MurrayS. (2018). The digital literary sphere: Reading, writing, and selling books in the internet era (pp. 22–46). JHU Press.
62.
NaeemM., & OzuemW. (2022). Understanding misinformation and rumors that generated panic buying as a social practice during COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Twitter, YouTube and focus group interviews. Information Technology & People, 35(7), 2140–2166. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0061
63.
NairP., & KumarS. (2024). Influencing the influencers through co-creation: Approaches to successful brand strategies. In Using influencer marketing as a digital business strategy (pp. 129–146). IGI Global. https://doi.org.10.4018/979-8-3693-0551-5.ch006
64.
Narangajavana KaosiriY., Callarisa FiolL. J., Moliner TenaM. Á., Rodríguez ArtolaR. M., & Sánchez GarcíaJ. (2019). User-generated content sources in social media: A new approach to explore tourist satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517746014
65.
NgW. K., YangC. M., & ChenC. L. (2024). Value co-creation on TV talent shows: Cases from Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(1), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19010014
66.
ParkJ., LeeJ. M., XiongV. Y., SeptiantoF., & SeoY. (2021). David and Goliath: When and why micro-influencers are more persuasive than mega-influencers. Journal of Advertising, 50, 584–602. https://doi.org.10.1080/00913367.2021.1980470
67.
ParkS., & HoffnerC. A. (2024). Roles of parasocial relationship with eco-celebrities, motivation attribution, and message framing in virality of climate information on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108380
68.
ParmarY., & MannB. J. S. (2021). Exploring the relationship between celebrity worship and brand equity: The mediating role of self-brand connection. Journal of Creative Communications, 16(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258620968963
69.
PavlouP. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
70.
PayneA. F., StorbackaK., & FrowP. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.
71.
PongsakornrungsilpS., & SchroederJ. E. (2011). Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408178
72.
RamaswamyV., & GouillartF. (2010). Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 100–109.
73.
RasmussenL. (2018). Parasocial interaction in the digital age: An examination of relationship building and the effectiveness of YouTube celebrities. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(1), 280–294.
74.
ReinikainenH., MunnukkaJ., MaityD., & Luoma-AhoV. (2020). ‘You really are a great big sister’: Parasocial relationships, credibility, and the moderating role of audience comments in influencer marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1708781
75.
RourkeL., AndersonT., GarrisonD. R., & ArcherW. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’ducation Distance, 14(2), 50–71.
76.
SaarijärviH., KannanP. K., & KuuselaH. (2013). Value co-creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287718
77.
SheldonK. M., RyanR. M., RawsthorneL. J., & IlardiB. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380.
78.
ShortJ., WilliamsE., & ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
79.
SongH. G., KimY. S., & HwangE. (2023). How attitude and para-social interaction influence purchase intentions of Mukbang users: A mixed-method study. Behavioral Sciences, 13(3), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030214
80.
SteinJ. P., Linda BrevesP., & AndersN. (2024). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society, 26(6), 3433–3453. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221102900
81.
SteverG. S., & LawsonK. (2013). Twitter as a way for celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for the study of parasocial interaction. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 339–354.
82.
SuB. C., WuL. W., ChangY. Y. C., & HongR. H. (2021). Influencers on social media as references: Understanding the importance of parasocial relationships. Sustainability, 13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910919
83.
TakahashiA. R. W., & AraujoL. (2020). Case study research: Opening up research opportunities. RAUSP Management Journal, 55, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0109
84.
TaoM., WahabH. K. A., & KhanJ. (2019). Social media celebrities and para-social relationships: The Chinese context. In KavouraA., KefallonitisE., & GiovanisA. (Eds.), Strategic innovative marketing and tourism (pp. 827–833). Springer International Publishing.
85.
TrepteS., & ReineckeL. (2013). The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1102–1112. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.002
86.
UhrichS., GrohsR., & KoenigstorferJ. (2024). Customer-to-customer interactions in the sport fan context: Typology, framework (C2CIF) and directions for future research. Journal of Service Management, 35(1), 53–70.
87.
UkpabiD. C., & KarjaluotoH. (2018). What drives travelers’ adoption of user-generated content? A literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.03.006
88.
VoyerB. G., KastanakisM. N., & RhodeA. K. (2017). Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Journal of Business Research, 70, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.010
89.
Xie-CarsonL., BenckendorffP., & HughesK. (2023). Not so different after all? A netnographic exploration of user engagement with non-human influencers on social media. Journal of Business Research, 167, 114149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114149
90.
YangY., & HaL. (2021). Why people use TikTok (Douyin) and how their purchase intentions are affected by social media influencers in China: A uses and gratifications and parasocial relationship perspective. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 21(3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2021.1995544
91.
ZafinaN., & SinhaA. (2024). Celebrity-fan relationship: Studying Taylor Swift and Indonesian Swifties’ parasocial relationships on social media. Media Asia, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2024.2304422
92.
ZulliD. (2018). Capitalizing on the look: Insights into the glance, attention economy, and Instagram. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 35(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2017.1394582
