This project explores social psychological factors and motivation involving vlogs, filling gaps in the understanding of viewing needs and outcomes of this new cultural practice. An exploratory online survey asked over 400 knitting vlog viewers about expected outcomes of viewing, loneliness, identification, perceived homophily, parasocial relationship strength, motivation to knit, and motivation to view knitting vlogs, addressing hypotheses involving common expected outcomes and viewing motivation, how well loneliness predicts parasocial relationship strength, and how these feelings predict motivations to view vlogs and to knit. The results showed that feelings of activity and social connection most strongly predicted motivation to view and to knit. Loneliness did not play a role in parasocial relationship strength. These findings suggest that the social qualities of knitting vlogs may play an important role in motivating viewers to watch and to knit.
AncuMCozmaR (2009) MySpace politics: Uses and gratifications of befriending candidates. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media53(4): 567–583.
2.
BanduraA (1963) Social Learning and Personality Development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
3.
BanduraA (1977) Social Learning Theory. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
BanduraA (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist44(9): 1175–1184.
6.
BanduraA (2009) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In: BryantJOliverMB (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 94–124.
7.
BaruhL (2009) Publicized intimacies on reality television: An analysis of voyeuristic content and its contribution to the appeal of reality programming. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media53(2): 190–210.
8.
BasilM (1996) Identification as a mediator of celebrity effects. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media40(4): 478–495.
9.
BeegeMSchneiderSNebelS, et al. (2017) Look into my eyes! Exploring the effect of addressing in educational videos. Learning and Instruction49: 113–120.
10.
BérailPDGuillonMBungenerC (2019) The relations between YouTube addiction, social anxiety and parasocial relationships with YouTubers: A moderated-mediation model based on a cognitive-behavioral framework. Computers in Human Behavior99: 190–204.
BrownWJ (2015) Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: Transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and worship. Communication Theory25: 259–283.
13.
BuiN (2015) Exploring similarity characteristics, identification, and parasocial interaction in choice of celebrities. Psychology of Popular Media Culture6(1): 21–31.
14.
BurgessJGreenJ (2009) The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional-amateur divide. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 89–107.
15.
ByrneD (1961) Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology62(3): 713–715.
16.
ChenCP (2016) Forming digital self and parasocial relationships on YouTube. Journal of Consumer Culture16(1): 232–254.
17.
ChoiGYBehm-MorawitzE (2017) Giving a new makeover to STEAM: Establishing YouTube beauty gurus as digital literacy educators through messages and effects on viewers. Computers in Human Behavior73: 80–91.
18.
Chory-AssadRMYanenA (2005) Hopelessness and loneliness as predictors of older adults’ involvement with favorite television performers. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media49(2): 182–201.
19.
CohenJ (2001) Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society4(3): 245–264.
20.
CohenJ (2003) Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass Communication and Society6(2): 191–202.
21.
CohenLHoffnerC (2016) Finding meaning in a celebrity’s death: The relationship between parasocial attachment, grief, and sharing educational health information related to Robin Williams on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior65: 643–650.
22.
CorteseJRubinAM (2010) Uses and gratifications of television home shopping. Atlantic Journal of Communication18(2): 89–109.
23.
CoxJWMinahanS (2002) Crafting organization. Culture and Organization8(3): 209–224.
24.
CoxJWMinahanS (2015) Where pop meets purl: Knitting, the curation of craft, and the folk/mass culture divide. Curator58(3): 235–249.
CumminsRGCuiB (2014) Reconceptualizing address in television programming: The effect of address and affective empathy on viewer experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication64(4): 723–742.
27.
DawkinsN (2011) Do-it-yourself: The precarious work and postfeminist politics of handmaking (in) Detroit. Utopian Studies22(2): 261–284.
28.
DibbleJLHartmannTRosaenSF (2016) Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research42(1): 21–44.
29.
EyalKCohenJ (2006) When good Friends say goodbye: A parasocial breakup study. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media50(3): 502–523.
30.
EyalKRubinA (2003) Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and parasocial relationships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media47(1): 77–98.
31.
FerchaudAGrzesloJOrmeS, et al. (2018) Parasocial attributes and YouTube personalities: Exploring content trends across the most subscribed YouTube channels. Computers in Human Behavior80: 88–96.
32.
FieldsCD (2014) Not your grandma’s knitting: The role of identity processes in the transformation of cultural practices. Social Psychology Quarterly77(2): 150–165.
33.
FiskA (2012) ‘To make, and make again’: Feminism, craft and spirituality. Feminist Theology20(2): 160–174.
34.
FroshP (2009) The end of television? Its impact on the world (so far). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science625: 87–102.
35.
GodlewskiLRPerseEM (2010) Audience activity and reality television: Identification, online activity, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly58(2): 148–169.
36.
GoodeJRobinsonJD (2013) Linguistic synchrony in parasocial interaction. Communication Studies64(4): 453–466.
37.
GreenwoodDN (2008) Television as escape from self: Psychological predictors of media involvement. Personality and Individual Differences44(2): 414–424.
38.
GreggPB (2018) Parasocial breakup and Twitter: The firing of Barb Abney. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media62(1): 38–50.
39.
GroeneveldE (2010) ‘Join the knitting revolution’: Third-wave feminist magazines and the politics of domesticity. Canadian Review of American Studies40(2): 259–277.
40.
HaridakisPHansonG (2009) Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media53(2): 317–335.
41.
HartmannTGoldhoornC (2011) Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication61(6): 1104–1121.
42.
HartmannTSchrammHKlimmtC (2004) Personenorientierte Medienrezeption: Ein zwei-Ebenen-Modell parasozialer Interaktionen [Person-oriented media exposure: A two-level model of parasocial interactions]. Publizistik49(1): 25–47.
43.
HartmannTStukeDDaschmannG (2008) Positive parasocial relationships with drivers affect suspense in racing sport spectators. Journal of Media Psychology20(1): 24–34.
44.
HoKKWSee-ToEWK (2018) The impact of the uses and gratifications of tourist attraction fan page. Internet Research28(3): 587–603.
45.
HoffnerC (1996) Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media40(3): 389–402.
46.
HoffnerCBuchananM (2005) Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology7(4): 324–351.
47.
HortonDWohlRR (1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry19(3): 215–229.
48.
HullKLewisNP (2014) Why Twitter displaces broadcast sports media: A model. International Journal of Sport Communication7(1): 16–33.
49.
KalmusVRealoASiibakA (2011) Motives for Internet use and their relationships with personality traits and socio-demographic factors. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences15(4): 385–403.
50.
KellyM (2014) Knitting as a feminist project?Women’s Studies International Forum44(1): 133–144.
51.
KellyM (2015) Feminist identity, collective action, and individual resistance among contemporary U.S. feminists. Women’s Studies International Forum48: 81–92.
52.
KhanML (2017) Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?Computers in Human Behavior66: 236–247.
53.
KimJSongH (2016) Celebrity’s self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior62: 570–577.
54.
KimJW (2014) Scan and click: The uses and gratifications of social recommendation systems. Computers in Human Behavior33: 184–191.
55.
LangePG (2008) Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 361–380.
56.
LangePG (2009) Videos of affinity on YouTube. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 70–88.
57.
LangePG (2014) Kids on YouTube. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
58.
LaRoseREastinMS (2004) A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media48(3): 358–377.
59.
LedbetterAMReddSM (2016) Celebrity credibility on social media: A conditional process analysis of online self-disclosure attitude as a moderator of posting frequency and parasocial interaction. Western Journal of Communication80(5): 601–618.
60.
LevyMR (1979) Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting23(1): 69–80.
61.
LimJSChoeMZhanJ, et al. (2020) The role of wishful identification, emotional engagement, and parasocial relationships in repeated viewing of live-streaming games: A social cognitive theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior108: 1–10.
62.
MarmoJ (2013) Applying social cognitive theory to develop targeted messages: College students and physical activity. Western Journal of Communication77(4): 444–465.
63.
McCroskeyJCRichmondVPDalyJA (1975) The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research1(4): 323–332.
MenLRTsaiWS (2012) Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking cites in China. Public Relations Review39(1): 13–22.
66.
MeyrowitzJ (1986) Television and interpersonal behavior: Codes of perception and response. In: GumpertGCathcartR (eds) Inter/media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–272.
67.
MinahanSCoxJW (2007) Stitch’nBitch: Cyberfeminism, a third place and the new materiality. Journal of Material Culture12(1): 5–21.
68.
MyzalevA (2009) Whip your hobby into shape: Knitting, feminism and construction of gender. Textile7(2): 148–163.
69.
NordlundJ (1978) Media interaction. Communication Research5(2): 150–175.
70.
OrtizMHarwoodJ (2007) A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media51(4): 615–631.
71.
PapacharissiZRubinAM (2000) Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media44(2): 175–196.
72.
PittmanMReichB (2016) Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior62: 155–167.
73.
PrigodaEMcKenziePJ (2007) Purls of wisdom: A collectivist study of human information behavior in a public library knitting group. Journal of Documentation63(1): 90–114.
74.
PrisbellMAndersenJ (1980) The importance of perceived homophily, level of uncertainty, feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure on interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly28(3): 22–33.
RihlAWegenerC (2017) YouTube celebrities and parasocial interaction: Using feedback channels in mediatized relationships. Convergence25(4): 554–566.
77.
RileyJCorkhillBMorrisC (2013) The benefits of knitting for personal and social wellbeing in adulthood: Findings from an international survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy76(2): 50–57.
78.
RosaenSFDibbleJL (2016) Clarifying the role of attachment and social compensation on parasocial relationships with television characters. Communication Studies67(2): 147–162.
79.
RosaenSFSherryJLSmithSL (2011) Maltreatment and parasocial relationships in US children. Journal of Children and Media5(4): 379–394.
80.
RosengrenKE (1974) Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In: BlumlerJGKatzE (eds) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 269–286.
81.
RosengrenKEWindahlSHakanssonP, et al. (1976) Adolescents’ TV relations: Three scales. Communication Research3(4): 347–366.
82.
RubinAMPerseEMPowellRA (1985) Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research12(2): 155–180.
83.
RussellDPeplauLACutronaCE (1980) The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(3): 472–480.
84.
SavageMSpenceP (2014) Will you listen? An examination of parasocial interaction and credibility in radio. Journal of Radio and Audio Media21(1): 3–19.
85.
SchiappaEAllenMGreggPB (2007) Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-analysis of the effects. In: PreissRGayleBBurrellN, et al. (eds) Mass Media Effects: Advances Through Meta-Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 301–314.
86.
ShaoG (2009) Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research19(1): 7–25.
87.
ShinHYHaJS (2011) Knitting practice in Korea: A geography of everyday experiences. Asian Culture and History3(1): 105–114.
88.
SoukupPA (2014) Looking at, with, and through YouTube. Communication Research Trends33(3): 3–34.
89.
StalpMC (2015) Girls just want to have fun (too): Complicating the study of femininity and women’s leisure. Sociology Compass9(4): 261–271.
90.
StrangeloveM (2010) Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
91.
SundarSSLimperosAM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media57(4): 504–525.
92.
WangQFinkFLCaiDA (2008) Loneliness, gender, and parasocial interaction: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Quarterly56(1): 87–109.
93.
WeschM (2009) YouTube and you: Experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology8(2): 19–34.
94.
WilliamsKD (2011) The effects of homophily, identification, and violent video games on players. Mass Communication and Society14: 3–24.
95.
ZolkepliIAKamarulzamanYKitchenPJ (2018) Uncovering psychological gratifications affecting social media utilization: A multiblock hierarchical analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice26(4): 412–430.
