Celebrity worship syndrome

Classifications

Entertainment-social

This level of admiration is linked to a celebrity's ability to capture the attention of their fans. Entertainment-social celebrity worship is used to describe a relatively low level of obsession. An example of a typical entertainment-social attitude would be "My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done." It may also be seen in the form of obsessively following celebrities on social media, although considered the lowest level of celebrity worship. It has been seen to have a number of negative effects with regards the development of unhealthy eating tendencies (eating disorders), anxiety, depression, poor body image and low self esteem, especially in young adolescents aged 13 to mid-20s. This can be supported by a study carried out on a group of female adolescents between the ages of (17–20).

Intense-personal

This is an intermediate level of obsession that is associated with neuroticism as well as behaviors linked to psychoticism. An example of an intense-personal attitude toward a celebrity would include claims such as "I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soul mate." It has been found that in particular, people who worship celebrities in this manner often have low self-esteem with regards to their body type, especially if they think that the celebrity is physically attractive. The effects of intense-personal celebrity worship on body image are seen in some cases of cosmetic surgery. Females who have high levels of obsession are more accepting of cosmetic surgery than those who do not obsess over celebrities to this extent.

Love obsessional

As the name suggests, individuals who demonstrate this sort of stalking behavior develop a love obsession with somebody who they have no personal relation to. Love obsessional stalking accounts for roughly 20–25% of all stalking cases. The people that demonstrate this form of stalking behavior are likely to have a mental disorder, commonly either schizophrenia or paranoia. Individuals that are love obsessional stalkers often convince themselves that they are in fact in a relationship with the subject of their obsession. For example, a woman who had been stalking David Letterman for a total of five years claimed to be his wife when she had no personal connection to him. Other celebrities who have fallen victim to this form of stalking include Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, Jodie Foster, and Mila Kunis, along with numerous other A-list stars.

Erotomanic

Erotomanic, originating from the word erotomania, refers to stalkers who genuinely believe that their victims are in love with them. The victims in this case are almost always well known within their community or within the media, meaning that they can range from small-town celebrities to famous personalities from Hollywood. Comprising less than 10% of all stalking cases, erotomanic stalkers are the least common. Unlike simple-obsessional stalkers, a majority of the individuals in this category of stalking are women. Similar to love-obsessional stalkers, the behavior of erotomanic stalkers may be a result of an underlying psychological disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.

Individuals who have erotomania tend to believe that the celebrity with whom they are obsessed with is utilizing the media as a way to communicate with them by sending special messages or signals. Although these stalkers have unrealistic beliefs, they are less likely to seek any form of face-to-face interaction with their celebrity obsession, therefore posing less of a threat to them.

Borderline-pathological

This classification is the most severe level of celebrity worship. It is characterized by pathological attitudes and behaviors, as a result of celebrity worship. This includes willingness to commit crime on behalf of the celebrity who is the object of worship, or to spend money on common items used by the celebrity at some point, such as napkins.

Mental health

Evidence indicates that poor mental health is correlated with celebrity worship. Researchers have examined the relationship between celebrity worship and mental health in United Kingdom adult samples. One study found evidence to suggest that the intense-personal celebrity worship dimension was related to higher levels of depression and anxiety. Similarly, another study in 2004, found that the intense-personal celebrity worship dimension was not only related to higher levels of depression and anxiety, but also higher levels of stress, negative affect, and reports of illness. Both these studies showed no evidence for a significant relationship between either the entertainment-social or the borderline-pathological dimensions of celebrity worship and mental health.

Another correlated pathology examined the role of celebrity interest in shaping body image cognitions. Among three separate UK samples (adolescents, students, and older adults), individuals selected a celebrity of their own sex whose body/figure they liked and admired, and then completed the Celebrity Attitude Scale along with two measures of body image. Significant relationships were found between attitudes toward celebrities and body image among female adolescents only.

The findings suggested that, in female adolescence, there is an interaction between intense-personal celebrity worship and body image between the ages of 14 and 16, and some tentative evidence suggest that this relationship disappears at the onset of adulthood, which is between the ages of 17 and 20. These results are consistent with the authors who stress the importance of the formation of relationships with media figures, and suggest that relationships with celebrities perceived as having a good body shape may lead to a poor body image in female adolescents. This can be again supported by a study carried out, which investigated the link between mass media and its direct correlation to poor self-worth/ body image in a sample group of females between the ages of 17 and 20.

Within a clinical context the effect of celebrity might be more extreme, particularly when considering extreme aspects of celebrity worship. Relationships between the three classifications of celebrity worship (entertainment-social, intense-personal and borderline-pathological celebrity worship and obsessiveness), ego-identity, fantasy proneness and dissociation were examined. Two of these variables drew particular attention: fantasy proneness and dissociation. Fantasy proneness involves fantasizing for a duration of time, reporting hallucinatory intensities as real, reporting vivid childhood memories, having intense religious and paranormal experiences. Dissociation is the lack of a normal integration of experiences, feelings, and thoughts in everyday consciousness and memory; in addition, it is related to a number of psychiatric problems.

Though low levels of celebrity worship (entertainment-social) are not associated with any clinical measures, medium levels of celebrity worship (intense-personal) are related to fantasy proneness (approximately 10% of the shared variance), while high levels of celebrity worship (borderline-pathological) share a greater association with fantasy proneness (around 14% of the shared variance) and dissociation (around 3% of the shared variance, though the effect size of this is small and most probably due to the large sample size). This finding suggests that as "celebrity worship becomes more intense, and the individual perceives having a relationship with the celebrity, the more the individual is prone to fantasies."

Celebrity worship syndrome can lead to the manifestation of unhealthy tendencies such as materialism and compulsive buying, which can be supported by a study carried out by Robert. A. Reeves, Gary. A. Baker and Chris. S. Truluck. The results of this study link high rates of celebrity worship to high rates of materialism and compulsive buying.

A number of historical, ethnographic, netnographic and auto-ethnographic studies in diverse academic disciplines such as film studies, media studies, cultural studies and consumer research, which – unlike McCutcheon et al. focused mainly on a student sample (with two exceptions) – have actually studied real fans in the field, have come to very different conclusions that are more in line with Horton & Wohl's original concept of parasocial interaction or an earlier study by Leets. The term "celebrity worshiper" is essentially McCutcheon et al.'s official and rather derogatory label for fans of celebrities in general, whereby they refer indiscriminately to anybody, who has in some form an interest in a particular celebrity or celebrity culture in general. Whether an individual likes the artistic performances of a certain musician, band, actor or athlete in private or whether the individual is an enthusiastic follower of celebrity culture or whether the individual is indeed a stalker makes no difference to McCutcheon et al.'s conceptualisation of fans. In McCutcheon et al.'s (2002, 2003, 2006) view, they are all the same. In short, their description of celebrity worshipers applies to everyone, who claims to be a fan of a certain celebrity (like most teenagers, but also adults do), who buys/reads celebrity gossip magazines and/or autobiographies (dito) and who enjoys cultural products such as music, films, theatre, sports events, books, etc. because of the respective musicians, actors, athletes, authors, etc.

Moreover, McCutcheon et al. argue that celebrity worshippers are 'cognitively different' from so-called 'normal' people, for being 'cognitively inflexible', dull, gullible and lack imagination. Indeed, McCutcheon et al. sought to prove in their Journal of Psychology article that fans of celebrities display a general deficit in their '(verbal) creativity, crystallized intelligence, critical thinking, spatial ability, arithmetic skills and need for cognition', which in their opinion makes fans inherently prone to worshiping celebrities.

In the Journal of Psychology study, despite claiming a strong support for the relationship between all six predicting variables and celebrity worship as depending variable, two of the predicting variables (arithmetic skills, need for cognition) were actually statistically insignificant in the bi-variate regression analyses - meaning there's no difference between fans and 'normal' people. With regression coefficients (R values) ranging between .3 and .4, the other four predicting variables provide hardly strong support, as each of them only explains 9-16% of the variance in the celebrity worship variable.

Equally important is to note that the celebrity attitude scale (CWS) may sometimes provide unequal (and then perhaps unreliable) measurement for celebrity worship, as McCutcheon et al. suggests. In fact, contradicting their initial claim that the three subcategories 'entertainment-social', 'intense-personal' and 'borderline-pathological' emerged from a factor analysis of the data, the CWS scale was actually from the start set up that way in order to extract in form of a self-fulling prophecy three factors of intensity.

Moreover, the current 23-item scale came only into being because the original 34-item scale failed to work and was reduced until a reliability test of the data yielded an acceptable Cronbach Alpha. Interesting is also that the ranking order (low, middle, high) of the three subcategories has regularly changed between published studies as a result of obtaining different scores. A reason for this may be the fact that many items in the CWS contain actually leading, ambiguous, emotionally-charged questions (which should be avoided in proper questionnaire design).

The CWS seems only to work with students in a specific US college (The authors used primarily a student sample, where participation was encouraged through course credits.), while the scale collapsed in case of samples comprising British housewives or schoolgirls (see several McCutcheon et al. papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the North American Journal of Psychology and Current Issues in Social Psychology). This may be due to smaller samples, rather than psychometric problems with the scales, as has been noted in some papers. However, unreliable, in psychometric does not mean the same in everyday usage. Importantly the authors of these scales have suggested full factor analysis of the items each time the scale is used to ensure equivalency.

These articles are dominated by proponents a specific positivist research ontology that adheres faithfully to the traditional (but out-dated) neo-behaviorist research paradigm of experimental psychology, which holds that only observations by researchers and statistical data generated in experiments can be considered 'trustworthy', reliable and valid. Verbal statements of subjects (i.e. interviews), on the other hand, may not be reliable, because individuals "don't know why they are doing what they do and, therefore, are incapable of describing their respective thoughts and emotions accurately. What they provide instead are posthumous justifications of their actions." (Nisbett & Wilson 1977; a much-cited paper).

With new alternative and often interpretive/humanistic research paradigms and methodologies emerging in the social sciences since the mid-1970s (i.e. Hirschman & Holbrook 1992), the editors at top journals have become more and more concerned with securing the continuing dominance of their traditional research paradigm (see Calder & Tybout 1987 as an example) rather than focusing on the publication of interesting new ideas. An unfortunate consequence is that editors and reviewers, these day, pay much more attention to the manual-like adherence to the prescribed methodological procedures than to the substance and quality of the actual content of a study (Arnould & Thompson 2005; Calder & Tybout 1987; Hair et al. 2006; Holbrook 1995).

Unfortunately, qualitative studies and anecdotal evidence are also far from perfect. Though interesting and revealing, may not prove persuasive when taking about a large scale phenomena. It is worth noting that some of the quantitative work has been among large scale samples (one or two above 1,000 individuals) and used objective tests of measurement to establish structure to attitudes among national samples. This is favourable to the interviews of 6-10 individuals or individual stories of people who follow celebrities. More constructively individuals might look to combine these perspectives given the disparate nature of the findings.--

References

References

1. (2014). ""I'm Your Number One Fan"— A Clinical Look at Celebrity Worship". Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience.
2. (2019-06-10). "On the 18th-Century Origins of Celebrity Worship".
3. (19 July 2024). "Taylor Swift's Disturbing History of Stalkers as Man Detained at Eras Tour".
4. (January 2003). "A clinical interpretation of attitudes and behaviors associated with celebrity worship". [[The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease]].
5. (January 2007). "Mass media and self-esteem, body image, and eating disorder tendencies.". Clothing and Textiles Research Journal.
6. (February 2005). "Intense-personal celebrity worship and body image: evidence of a link among female adolescents". British Journal of Health Psychology.
7. (November 2011). "Celebrity worship and incidence of elective cosmetic surgery: evidence of a link among young adults". The Journal of Adolescent Health.
8. "Profile of the Stalker". University of Illinois at Chicago.
9. "Celebrity Stalking Victims". Daily News.
10. (March 2000). "Stalking--a contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psychiatry". The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science.
11. "Psychology of stalking".
12. (2004-11-01). "Celebrity worship, cognitive flexibility, and social complexity". [[Personality and Individual Differences]].
13. (2014). ""I'm Your Number One Fan"— A Clinical Look at Celebrity Worship". [[Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience]].
14. (8 November 2021). "Celebrity worship and cognitive skills revisited: applying Cattell's two-factor theory of intelligence in a cross-sectional study". BMC Psychology.
15. Brooks, Samantha K.. (2018-09-26). "FANatics: Systematic literature review of factors associated with celebrity worship, and suggested directions for future research". Current Psychology.
16. (January 2006). "Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context.". Personality and Individual Differences.
17. (2008). "Stalking, threatening, and attacking public figures : a psychological and behavioral analysis". Oxford University Press.
18. (September 2012). "Celebrity worship, materialism, compulsive buying, and the empty self.". Psychology & Marketing.
19. (2001). "Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars and the Cult of Celebrity.". Palgrave Macmillan.
20. (1991). "Stardom: Industry of Desire". Routledge.
21. (2007). "Consumer Tribes". Butterworth-Heinemann.
22. (1992). "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture.". Routledge.
23. (2001). "Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Trek's Culture of Consumption.". Journal of Consumer Research.
24. (1991). "Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behaviour Odyssey". Association for Consumer Research.
25. (2006). "Support Your Local Team: Resistance, Subculture and the Desire for Distinction.". Advances in Consumer Research.
26. (1994). "Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship.". Routledge.
27. (1997). "I Want to Believe: A Netnography of The X-Philes' Subculture of Consumption.". Advances in Consumer Research.
28. (1987). "An Audiovisual Inventory of Some Fanatic Consumer Behavior: The 25-Cent Tour of a Jazz Collector's Home.". Advances in Consumer Research.
29. (2008). "'The Book of Stars': Some Alternative Insights into Celebrity Fandom.". Academy of Marketing.
30. (1956). "Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction". Psychiatry.
31. (1995). "Fans: Exploring Expressed Motivations for Contacting Celebrities.". Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
32. (2003). "A Cognitive Profile of Individuals Who Tend to Worship Celebrities". Journal of Psychology.
33. (2006). "Multivariate Data Analysis". Pearson.