Celebrity Worship: Critiquing a Construct

Gayle S. Stever1
Empire State College/SUNY

McCutcheon, Lange, & Houran (2002) proposed the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS)
to identify celebrity worshipers, useful for identifying individuals who are overly
absorbed or addicted to their interest in a celebrity. Problematic is the absence of
a conceptual definition for celebrity worshiper and how this term relates to use of
the term fan. Currently, these terms are most often used as if they were synonyms
(Haspel, 2006; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett et al., 2004; McCutcheon,
Lange, & Houran, 2002). Sampled groups of serious fans contained many individu-
als who met none of the criteria for celebrity worship, as identified by the CAS. The
use of celebrity worshiper as a synonym for fan appears to be conceptually flawed.jasp_765 1356..1370

A growing number of scholars are concerned with the role that celebrities
play in the lives of their admirers (Ashe, Maltby, & McCutcheon, 2005;
Maltby, Giles, Barber, & McCutcheon, 2005; McCutcheon, Ashe, Hou-
ran, & Maltby, 2003; Stever, 2009b), and they are attempting to define a
working vocabulary for how to talk about both celebrities and those who
follow their careers (i.e., fans) with whatever relationships there might be
among these individuals. Various authors have proposed differing ways of
talking about this relationship, from Horton and Wohl’s (1956) parasocial
interaction to Caughey’s (1984) imaginary social relationship. Each of these
terms is defined as a social relationship that is one-sided on the part of the fan
and is based on attraction to and interest in the celebrity. The term fan, a
word that is derived from fanatic, has fallen into common usage. However
the word fan has come to mean a range of followers of celebrities, from the
casual fan to the obsessive fan (Stever, 1994, 2009b).
After several exploratory studies on the subject of celebrity worship
(Maltby & McCutcheon, 2001; Maltby, Houran, Lange, Ashe, & McCutch-
eon, 2002; McCutcheon, 2002), McCutcheon, Lange, and Houran (2002)
proposed a measure that would identify celebrity worshipers using a variety
of 5-point Likert-type items. The scale is known as the Celebrity Attitude
Scale (CAS). The usefulness of the scale in identifying fans who have become
overly absorbed or addicted to their interest in a celebrity is apparent.

1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gayle S. Stever, Empire
State College/SUNY, 1475 Winton Road North, Rochester, NY 14609. E-mail: Gayle.stever@
esc.edu

1356

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011, 41, 6, pp. 1356–1370.

© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1357

However, one problem in the application of the scale is the absence of a

conceptual definition for what is meant by a celebrity worshiper. This has
resulted in some confusion between the terms fan and celebrity worshiper and
how these two constructs might be related to one another.
Some studies have discussed the two terms as if they were interchangeable
(Haspel, 2006; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett et al., 2004; McCutcheon
et al., 2002), citing theories about fan behavior and fan communities by
placing the term celebrity worship within mental health theory (Maltby,
McCutcheon, Ashe, & Houran, 2001; McCarley & Escoto, 2003). However,
the assumption that being a fan and being a celebrity worshiper are synony-
mous could be fundamentally flawed. What if these are, in fact, different
constructs? Another possibility could be that one designation is a subset of
the other; that is, that celebrity worshipers are a type or level of fan at the
high or obsessive end of the scale (Stever, 1994, 2009b). While obsession
sounds a great deal like the Borderline-Pathological subscale of the CAS,
many very committed fans, whose commitment to a celebrity could be per-
ceived as celebrity worship, also carry on normal relationships and normal,
healthy, and satisfying lives (Stever, 2009b).
The clearest example linking these two concepts in this literature is a
reference to “socializing in celebrity worshipping fan clubs” (McCutcheon,
Maltby, Houran, & Ashe, 2004, p. 89). This implies that fan clubs are all
about celebrity worship. McCutcheon et al. suggested that celebrity worship
is a progressive scale and that even lower levels of celebrity worship could
lead to borderline pathological celebrity worship. The rationale for this
conclusion is far from clear and is not backed up by data from actual fan
clubs; that is, whether any fan clubs or other identifiable fan groups are
actually made up of celebrity worshipers, particularly such that all or even
most members of such groups fit these criteria.
If significant numbers of fan-club members do not meet the criteria on
these scales as celebrity worshipers, then it would follow that the validity of
the claim that fan clubs are made up of celebrity worshipers is questionable.
In addition, the assertion that membership in a fan club is the first step on the
road to more pathological celebrity worship is unsupported by data from real
fan clubs. To infer that a person is a fan based on their score on the CAS and
then to claim that all fans are celebrity worshipers because the scale says so
is circular reasoning.
These same writers have found a number of links between celebrity
worship and various pathologies. These articles discuss celebrity worship as
an extreme, pathological phenomenon and seem to differentiate it from
ordinary fandom (Maltby, Houran, & McCutcheon, 2003; McCutcheon
et al., 2003). Clearly, there is confusion in the literature as to the relationship
between being a celebrity fan and being a celebrity worshiper. McCutcheon
1358 GAYLE S. STEVER

et al. (2002) argued that there was no evidence of nonpathological forms of

celebrity worship. According to these researchers, celebrity worship is a
progressive scale, and even those on the lowest levels of the scale are at risk
for pathological celebrity worship. If all fans were celebrity worshipers, the
implication for this claim would be enormous.
Rojek (2001) observed that celebrity worship implies triviality and super-
ficiality. He pointed out that fan–celebrity relationships involve high levels of
nonreciprocal emotional dependence wherein fans project positive feelings
onto the celebrity. Giles (2003) also wrote about fans who have a worshipful
or religious quality in their admiration for celebrities. This includes “the
communal nature of devotion, the reverence toward relics, and the sense of
intimacy” (p. 198). He makes the case for Star Trek as a religious ideology
that includes rituals and ceremonies in some fan groups, indicating clearly
that fandom has the potential to be worshipful.
Jenkins (2006) pointed out that “the connotation of excessive worship is
still stuck to ‘fan’ in a certain way” (p. 17). Jenkins went on to explain that
there is a difference between religion and mythology. Mythology is “about
ethics and about narrative that encapsulates shared values” (p. 17). Religion
is about acting on texts as if they were literally true. A text like Star Trek
depicts shared values; in this case, the shared vision of a utopian future in
which humankind has surmounted obstacles it faces today. According to
Jenkins, therefore, the fan’s passion is from these shared values, and not from
religious identification with the text.
In an earlier work, Jenkins (1992) said, “Fan is short for ‘fanatic,’ and
building on the word’s traditional links to madness and demonic possession,
news reports frequently characterize fans as psychopaths” (p. 13). In a like
manner, Sandvoss (2005) observed, “Any sort of violence committed by
individuals who also happen to be fans has been explained in terms of their
fandom” (p. 3). Couldry (2007) supported his purposeful omission of psy-
chology from his analysis of fans because of “the anger I felt at the frequent
pathologizing of fans’ perfectly legitimate interpretive procedure” (p. 139).
These scholars in popular communication studies take exception to the
interpretation, by both media and some psychologists, of fan interests as
pathological.
Popular communication scholars and other researchers have attempted to
define different types and levels of fans. Tulloch and Jenkins (1995) distin-
guished between the follower and the fan. Fans claim social identity with a fan
group, while followers (i.e., consistent watchers or listeners) do not. Kozinets
(2001) made a similar distinction. Hills (2002) used the term cult fan in
deference to genres that embrace that term. Because terms like cult and fan
are contested, both inside and outside of academe, rigorous definitions are
difficult.
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1359

Thus far, the CAS has been used with general population samples of
either available students or community members (Ashe et al., 2005; Houran,
Navik, & Zerrusen, 2005; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett et al., 2004;
Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Houran, & Ashe, 2006; Maltby, Day, McCutch-
eon, Martin, & Cayanus, 2004; Maltby et al., 2005; Maltby et al., 2001;
Maltby & McCutcheon, 2001; McCarley & Escoto, 2003; McCutcheon &
Maltby, 2002). No one has yet administered the CAS to an identified sample
of people already known to be big fans of a celebrity or celebrities. How
committed fans would measure on the CAS, compared to a more normative
sample, would go a long way toward identifying the distinctions between
these two concepts. Are all fans celebrity worshipers? Or are these different
constructs? What percentage of an identified group of active fans would
qualify as celebrity worshipers? The present study seeks to address these
questions.
Additionally, researchers have discussed people who engage in “celebrity
worship for intense personal reasons” (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Martin
et al., 2004, p. 1480), but have failed to identify any kind of threshold score
for how those persons might score on the CAS. It would be useful to attempt
to identify critical points on the scale that might differentiate the celebrity
worshiper from the nonworshiper. This would be particularly useful for
clinical purposes.
The literature also suggests that celebrity worship progresses along a
continuum that begins with interest in celebrities for entertainment and social
value, but progresses toward an intense personal kind of worship, and that
the final and most extreme form of celebrity worship is called borderline
pathological (McCutcheon et al., 2004). It is clear in this discussion that
extreme celebrity worship is considered to be synonymous with erotomania,
which is a serious delusional disorder. A scale that could reliably identify
those with erotomanic tendencies would be exceptionally useful, both for
clinicians and for others who have interest in characteristics and classifica-
tions of media fans.
An identified sample of celebrity fans who have a focused and persistent
interest in a media celebrity or celebrities might be expected to be high on the
celebrity worship scale of the CAS. The purpose of the present study is to test
this hypothesis. Additionally, the range of scores on the CAS needs to be
defined more firmly in terms of what kind of score would constitute a positive
indicator for celebrity worship for that scale. This paper attempts to set those
parameters, although further discussion is needed on this subject. The
authors of the scale concluded “Sufficiently high levels of celebrity worship
invariably lead to signs of pathology” (McCutcheon et al., 2002, p. 80).
While no one has defined what is meant by sufficiently high, another hypoth-
esis is that a population of average people from the general population will
1360 GAYLE S. STEVER

look quite different from a sample of identified serious fans if fan and celeb-
rity worshiper are the same construct. Would the latter be more likely to meet
the criteria for celebrity worshiper and exhibit pathology? Or is it possible to
be an intense fan while leading a normal, healthy life?

Method

Measures

The CAS is a measure that identifies three subscales of celebrity worship.

The CAS is used in the present study to operationalize the construct
of celebrity worship in comparison to the construct of fan in a fashion con-
sistent with previous work in this field. The three subscales of the CAS
are Entertainment–Social (ES), Intense–Personal (IP), and Borderline–
Pathological (BP). Table 1 presents sample items from these subscales.
To differentiate the sample for this study very clearly from community
samples in previous studies, the decision was made to sample fans who meet
the criteria for serious or committed fans (Stever, 1994). To operationalize
this construct of serious fan, behavioral criteria were used that reflect a high
level of interest in celebrities. Participants for this study exhibited more than
one of the following behavioral indicators in order to be included:

1. Wrote letters to celebrities.

2. Attended events where fans were known to gather and where there
was access to celebrities.
3. Were members of a fan club and participated in fan-club activities.
4. Had extensive memorabilia collections that focus on a single
celebrity.

Participants and Procedure

Two fan bases were sampled. The first sample included 87 Star Trek fans
who were attending the Las Vegas Star Trek convention in August 2007,
which is one of the largest and most expensive Star Trek conventions in the
world. This convention is known for providing extraordinary access to a
large number of the actors from Star Trek. For this particular year, 75 actors
participated, including William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Rene Auberjonois,
Nana Visitor, and numerous other science-fiction celebrities.
Over 13,000 fans spend a great deal of money in order to attend: anywhere
from $40 for a single-day ticket up to $700 for a weekend “gold circle” pass.
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1361

Table 1

Sample Items From the Celebrity Attitude Scale

Subscale Question
Entertainment- I enjoy watching, reading, or listening to my
social favorite celebrity because it means a good time.
I love to talk with others who admire my favorite
celebrity.
Learning the life story of my favorite celebrity is
a lot of fun.
It is enjoyable just to be with others who like
my favorite celebrity.
I like watching and hearing about my favorite
celebrity when I am in a large group of people.
Keeping up with news about my favorite celebrity
is an entertaining pastime.
Intense-personal If I were to meet my favorite celebrity in person,
he/she would already somehow know that I am
his/her biggest fan.
When something good happens to my favorite
celebrity, I feel like it happened to me.
I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soul mate.
Borderline- If I was lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity,
pathological and he/she asked me to do something illegal
as a favor, I would probably do it.
If someone gave me several thousand dollars to
do with as I please, I would consider spending
it on a personal possession (like a napkin or
paper plate) once used by my favorite celebrity.

In addition, autograph tickets range from $40 to $100 per celebrity, while
tickets for photo opportunities range from $30 to $200 per celebrity or
celebrities (i.e., a photo with both Nimoy and Shatner was $200). Participants
at this convention were recruited from among people attending celebrity-
oriented events at the convention (e.g., celebrity talks, autograph sessions,
photo opportunities).
Half of the sample came from a breakfast where approximately 50 fans
paid $65 per person to have breakfast with and talk to four of the actors.
1362 GAYLE S. STEVER

Surveys were given to all attendees, and 90% of them were returned and
included in the sample. The other half of the sample was taken from the area
surrounding the photo-op and autograph area where all individuals in that
area for the time involved were approached and asked if they would partici-
pate. Potential respondents were each asked if they were attending the con-
vention themselves to prevent the possibility that they were along as a spouse
or friend of a fan.
It is important to note that Star Trek fandom has identifiable subgroups
of fans, some who interact more with the text of the television shows, and
others who are more interested in the celebrities who portray characters on
the shows (Verba, 1996). Separate conventions are held for fan fiction
writers, and celebrities rarely attend those conventions. The convention
chosen for this study was a commercial Star Trek convention featuring
celebrities, and not a writer’s convention. This could perhaps have increased
the incidence of celebrity worship in this sample, in comparison to a Star
Trek fan fiction convention (e.g., MediaWest).
The second fan sample included 105 Josh Groban fans. Josh Groban fans
were recruited for this study because they have a reputation for being dedi-
cated and ardent followers of this young singer. The fans call themselves
“Grobanites,” and many participate in ongoing charity work that represents
a high level of commitment to the group and its efforts. Most of these fan
participants were attendees at fan-club “meet-and-greets” that were held in
conjunction with the 2007 Awake Tour. Most were members and frequent
participants on fan-oriented Internet listserves that are focused on Groban
and were also members of his official fan-club website. As fans, they wear
memorabilia, spend money on their fan interest (tickets for the meet-and-
greets on the Groban tour ranged from $30 to $65, with an additional $110
or more for the concert ticket) and otherwise exhibit all the hallmarks of
fandom (e.g., wearing T-shirts, buttons, badges). Membership in Groban’s
online fan club costs $48 per year.
All of these participants would be identified easily as serious fans of either
Star Trek or Josh Groban, based on the behavioral criteria used to identify
fans. All participants provided basic demographic data and also completed
the 22-item version of the CAS (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett et al.,
2004).

Results

Data from this study indicated that not all fans in the fan-base samples
met the criteria for celebrity worship. The question “Are serious fans all
celebrity worshipers?” or even the question “Are most serious fans celebrity
worshipers?” can be answered by looking at the percentages of fans for each
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1363

Table 2

Percentage of Each Fan Group in Low, Medium, and High Range for Subscales

Fan group Scale Low Medium High

Groban ES 12% 30% 58%
IP 66% 22% 12%
BP 84% 11% 5%
Star Trek ES 49% 36% 15%
IP 83% 13% 4%
BP 93% 6% 1%
Note. ES = entertainment-social; IP = intense-personal; BP = borderline-patho-
logical. ES: low = 11–25; medium = 26–35; high = 36–50. IP: low = 9–22; medium =
23–31; high = 32–43. BP: low = 3–7; medium = 8–10; high = 11–14. On average,
participants answered disagree for all subscale items for low; neutral for all subscale
items for medium; and agree for all subscale items for high.

subscale. Looking at Table 2, the pattern of responses on the items for the BP
subscale is such that 84% of the Groban fans and 93% of the Star Trek fans
had low scores, while 66% of the Groban fans and 83% of the Star Trek fans
had low scores on the IP subscale. Even the ES subscale, where the means for
the fan groups were consistently higher than most of the community samples,
showed that 12% of the Groban fans and 49% of the Star Trek fans had low
scores on this subscale. These percentages represent individuals who marked
strongly disagree or disagree with items on the subscale. While score cutoffs
were not offered by Maltby et al. (2005), it is reasonable to conclude that if
most or all items are marked disagree, then the participant does not meet the
criteria for celebrity worship for that subscale.
The subscales identified by Maltby et al. (2005) that are indicative of
intense celebrity worship are the BP and IP subscales. Looking at Table 3, the
IP subscale mean for the fan sample was 19.82 (possible range = 9–45). Three
out of four of the referenced female study sample means were higher on this
subscale than was the female fan sample. All male sample means were higher
on the IP subscale than was the male fan sample.
What score would indicate the presence of celebrity worship? The analysis
in Table 2 looked at the response indications. An answer of 1 or 2 means that
the person disagreed with the item. An answer of 3 is in the middle or neutral
area, and an answer of 4 or 5 indicates that the fan agreed with the item. The
ES subscale has 10 items, so a score of 20 or less would indicate that the fan
disagreed, on average, with all 10 items. A score of 18 or less on the IP
Table 3

Cross-Study Comparison of Means on Celebrity Attitude Subscales

Males Females

ES IP BP ES IP BP

Study M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
a
1364 GAYLE S. STEVER

Celebrity worship and mental health 22.15 8.0 16.13 6.1 4.83 2.1 20.82 7.8 16.07 5.9 4.18 1.4
Body imageb
Adolescents 21.61 8.3 25.32 7.6 5.29 2.5 24.12 8.4 25.51 7.2 6.06 2.9
Students 21.04 8.7 24.24 6.2 3.92 2.7 21.52 10.4 23.34 6.8 3.71 2.5
Adults 16.79 7.6 20.81 8.0 3.39 2.2 16.83 8.2 21.10 7.7 3.47 2.3
Personality and celebrity worshipc
Students 19.13 8.2 22.54 7.2 3.66 2.4 19.93 9.7 23.26 7.9 3.97 2.5
Adults 16.73 7.6 20.76 8.0 3.42 2.2 16.79 8.3 21.13 7.7 3.53 2.3
Cognitive flexibility and social complexityd
Students 25.59 12.4 23.95 9.8 3.67 1.5 25.30 12.6 26.77 8.8 4.48 2.7
Nonstudents 25.04 13.1 23.84 10.9 3.92 2.3 24.71 12.9 26.55 10.2 4.28 2.5
Current studye
Star Trek 21.89 8.4 14.97 6.6 4.14 1.7 28.31 8.0 16.15 7.0 4.03 1.8
Groban 30.00 21.00 4.00 35.40 7.5 21.65 8.1 5.41 2.3
Total 22.11 15.14 4.13 33.04 19.82 4.95

Note. ES = entertainment-social; IP = intense-personal; BP = borderline-pathological.

a
Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett et al. (2004): 182 males, 190 females; age = 18–47 years (M = 34.2 years, SD = 5.4); sampled from workplaces and community groups in the north
b
of England. Maltby et al. (2005): Sample 1 (adolescents): 102 males, 127 females (M = 15.1 years, SD = 0.1); Sample 2 (full-time university undergraduate students): 88 males, 95
c
females (M = 19.8 years, SD = 1.8); Sample 3 (adults from the north of England): 126 males, 163 females (M = 34.9 years, SD = 9.3; range = 22–60 years). Maltby et al. (2003): Sample
1 (full-time university students): 164 males, 153 females (M = 20.4 years, SD = 2.6); Sample 2 (adults from the United Kingdom): 127 males, 163 females (M = 34.3 years, SD = 8.1
d
years; range = 22–60 years). Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Martin et al. (2004): Sample 1 (adults from the north of England): 127 males, 133 females (M = 23.9 years, SD = 8.0;
e
range = 18–59 years); Sample 2 (university undergraduates from the north of England): 78 males, 90 females (M = 22.0 years, SD = 2.6; range = 18–35 years). Star Trek fan group:
35 males (M = 39.2 years, SD = 11.4), 52 females (M = 42.9 years, SD = 13.3); Groban fan group: 1 male (age = 31 years), 104 females (M = 42.4 years, SD = 14.8).
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1365

subscale also indicates disagreement, on average, with all the items. For the
BP subscale, a score of 6 or less would indicate disagreement with all three
items for this subscale. Table 3 indicates that all of the averages for the BP
subscale for every sample were less than 6. Table 2 indicates that only 5% of
the Groban fans and 1% of the Star Trek fans were high on that BP subscale.

Discussion

The data presented in this study suggest that fan and celebrity worshiper are
two different constructs, particularly when considering the IP and BP sub-
scales of the CAS. Since the ES subscale includes a number of activity-oriented
items that are common for fan clubs, and these participants were all fan-club
members, it is more difficult to separate the constructs for that subscale.
But even if one were to accept the premise that a high score on the ES
subscale of the CAS is an indicator of celebrity worship, 42% of the Groban
fans and 85% of the Star Trek fans did not even meet this criterion (Table 2).
It is important to remember that participants were chosen for this study
because they exhibited the behaviors of devoted and dedicated fans. For such
a significant percentage of these fans to not meet any criteria for celebrity
worship at all is clear evidence that the constructs of fan and celebrity wor-
shiper are not the same.
The usual interpretation of the CAS has been that fans affiliate with other
fans (i.e., join fan clubs) only to learn about and talk about the favorite
celebrity. According to McCutcheon et al. (2004), “Slightly higher levels (of
celebrity worship) are characterized by hearing, watching, and talking about
one’s favorite celebrity with other fans” (p. 126). However, an alternative
explanation could be that fans join fan clubs and are fans for reasons other
than celebrity worship. Work in fan research has supported this hypothesis,
with other reasons including socialization with other fans, participation in
charity work, and opportunities for travel (Stever, 2008, 2009a).
A question that needs to be addressed is if the theory, as proposed by
previous research (Maltby et al., 2005), is that one type of celebrity worship
behavior leads to the others, then why, in the presence of such high ES
subscale scores for the Groban fans, was there not a higher incidence of IP or
BP celebrity worship? If the fans in the present study are, in large part, not
celebrity worshipers, then one is led to consider alternative explanations for
the presence of adult fans in active fan clubs that are focused on celebrities.
Studies in popular culture have focused on those fans who use the texts of
respective genres in a creative way, referred to as textual poachers (Jenkins,
1992). Jenkins discussed Star Trek fans as textual poachers, but Groban fans
could also be discussed in this context. Star Trek fans interact with the text of
1366 GAYLE S. STEVER

the show to create new stories, while Groban fans interact with his music to
produce YouTube videos, artwork, crafts, and quilts, as well as to perform
the songs, and otherwise create or recreate the texts. Groban fans are also
producers of fan fiction, creating stories with him as a central character in
much the same way that Star Trek fans engage texts in this way.
In the case of both fandoms, desire—both sexual and emotional—plays a
part in what motivates interest (Stever, 1994). It would appear that the desire
becomes sublimated into creativity within fandoms with productive results.
In the context of increasing technology, “there has been an increasing inter-
activity with stars, creating a greater sense of the immediacy of connection”
(Hayward, 2008, p. 266). Also, technology offers greater opportunity for
self-expression and productivity. So, when considering what drives fan inter-
ests, an alternative hypothesis to celebrity worship would be the opportunity
for creative expression and participation.
Rojek (2001) discussed at some length the nature of the relationship
between celebrities and fans. He presumed that the relationship is based on
“carefully mediated chains of attraction. No celebrity now acquires public
recognition without the assistance of cultural intermediaries who operate to
stage-manage celebrity presence in the eyes of the public” (p. 10). This
description brings into sharp relief how quickly the Internet appears to be
changing the fan–celebrity dynamic. In previous studies (Stever, 1991, 1994,
1995), what Rojek described was true for all of the celebrities studied, includ-
ing (and in particular) Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, as well as Star Trek
actors. However, Toffler (1991) described a shift from mass media to what he
called de-massified media. Mass culture is replaced by specialized niches within
which more and more genuine fan–celebrity interaction is possible. Rojek
talked about George Herbert Mead’s “I” or veridical self versus the “me” or
self seen by others. He described a much greater split between “I” and “me” for
celebrities than for others, with case examples included.
In contrast, current observations from the present study and related
studies (Stever, 2009b) have suggested that via the Internet and also more
frequent public appearances facilitated by global travel, celebrities are
making the veridical self more accessible to the closest of their fans. Josh
Groban is a good example of this new connection being formed between fan
base and celebrity. Groban has the typical polished album cover and
Grammy night image that most celebrities might have. He is made up,
polished, coiffed, and perfected for TV and other public appearances, which
have included a performance at the Obama inauguration and, more recently,
testimony before Congress for Nationals Arts Day. This is the Josh Groban
the public sees; that is, Mead’s “me” (Rojek, 2001).
However, from 2008 to 2009, in particular, Groban has taken his rela-
tionship with his fan base to a new level via video blogs, live video chats,
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1367

Twitter, and other apparently spontaneous communiqués. While it is impos-

sible to be sure who the “real” Josh Groban is (just as is true for any person,
celebrity or not), the person who blogs to his fan community comes before
them in extremely casual attire, unshaven, hair uncombed (usually under a
hat), from his kitchen, hotel room, or wherever else he might happen to be.
The video blogs are rambling and appear to be unrehearsed. These are
coupled with frequent public appearances where he meets as many fans in
person as is humanly possible. The result is a more intimate connection with
the celebrity than was possible before the Internet.
Forums such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and blogs or video blogs are
all being used now by celebrities to create an intimate, day-to-day connection
with fans. In addition, representative fans who happen to meet Groban—as in
an appearance June 19, 2009, at the Hollywood Bowl—immediately get on the
Internet to post photos, videos, and detailed descriptions of their encounters
so that a much wider group of fans profit from the encounter. That Groban
looked for opportunities to approach and speak with small groups of fans at
this event is reflective of this newer mode of interaction, a distinct contrast
from the late 1980s when fans rarely, if ever interacted in person with similar
stars like Michael Jackson or Madonna (Stever, 1994).
Similar examples could be described for actors from Star Trek. Rene
Auberjonois had a private-room party at the Las Vegas 2007 convention
(where data for this study were collected) for 35 of his closest fan friends. The
norm at these gatherings (which are held at most conventions where Auber-
jonois appears) is for all to put their feet up and chat. Auberjonois tells stories
about his recent work and answers fans’ questions in a highly informal
setting. He and other Star Trek actors have done these sorts of meetings for
the last 15 years at conventions, as well as at special fan-club gatherings.
While Rojek’s (2001) narrative about the creation of celebrities is excellent
and is a well developed explanation of celebrity in the mass-media era of the
20th century, by today, things have changed and continue to change. Rojek’s
“self-in-reserve” (p. 11) model may no longer be valid for many celebrities,
although arguably not all of them.
The emphasis in popular culture studies has been on fandom as a normal
expression of interest and textual appropriation. The emphasis in psychology
has been the more pathological manifestations of fan interest, including
erotomania, stalking, and celebrity worship. The truth is more likely to be a
middle ground between these two depictions of fan activity, and the data in
the present study reflect that middle ground. There are clearly some fans who
exhibit both borderline-pathological interests in celebrities and intense per-
sonal interest in celebrities that are problematic for the fan, the celebrity, and
society. Just clearly as there are fans who pursue interest in celebrities and
their work in a fashion that is not explained by celebrity worship.
1368 GAYLE S. STEVER

Previous work by Maltby and his colleagues (Maltby, Day, McCutcheon,

Gillett et al., 2004; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Martin et al., 2004; Maltby
et al., 2006) on celebrity worship has overlooked the social motivations for
forming affiliations that center around celebrities. The statement “I am a fan
because of the friends I make” is a recurring theme in the analysis of fans’
responses as to what motivates their fandom (Stever, 1994). A recent post on
an Internet chat board about an upcoming Josh Groban event illustrates this
point:
I have long ago discovered that it all STARTS out with going to
see Josh, but soon, all of it becomes about being together with
some of the best people in the whole world again. . . . Seeing
Josh becomes the cherry on top of the whole event.
This was a common, repeating theme in interviews with fans of both Josh
Groban and various Star Trek actors.
We live in a transient society in which people tend not to know their
neighbors. We are disconnected in many ways from traditional social worlds
that comprised social life in previous decades and centuries (Sennett, 1992).
A high score on an Entertainment–Social subscale might be just as likely to
indicate an interest in social networking and the chance to make friends, as it
is to be indicative of an obsessive or worshipful interest in a celebrity.
Members of fan communities have varying levels of commitment, ranging
from casual interest up to serious and obsessive interest (Stever, 1994, 2009b).
Those who were sampled for the current study showed serious, high levels of
interest in their favorite celebrities, as evidenced by their meeting the criteria
listed. A sample of less serious fans with lower intensity interest in the
celebrity object could be of interest in further exploring the relationship
between fan and celebrity worship.
This study is a preliminary analysis involving only two fan bases. As can
be seen in Tables 2 and 3, the levels of celebrity worship are very different for
these two fan bases. Clearly, further work is needed to explore these con-
structs in broader settings that include the identified fans of a broader range
of celebrities.

References

Ashe, D. D., Maltby, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2005). Are celebrity-

worshipers more prone to narcissism? A brief report. North American
Journal of Psychology, 7, 239–246.
Caughey, J. L. (1984). Imaginary social worlds. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
 CELEBRITY WORSHIP 1369

Couldry, N. (2007). On the set of The Sopranos: “Inside” a fan’s construction

of nearness. In J. Gray, C. Sandvoss, & L. Harrington (Eds.), Fandom:
Identities and communities in a mediated world (pp. 139–148). New York:
New York University Press.
Giles, D. (2003). Media psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayward, S. (2008). Beyond desire? Star bodies and sensation. Communica-
tion, Culture, and Critique, 1, 253–267.
Haspel, K. (2006). Understanding fans: A review of the psychological litera-
ture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wright Institute, Graduate
School of Psychology, Berkeley, CA.
Hills, M. (2002). Fan cultures. New York: Routledge.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social inter-
action: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215–230.
Houran, J., Navik, S., & Zerrusen, K. (2005). Boundary functioning in
celebrity worshipers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 237–248.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory
culture. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory
culture. New York: New York University Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star
Trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 67–89.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Gillett, R., Houran, J., & Ashe, D.
D. (2004). Personality and coping: A context for examining celebrity
worship and mental health. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 411–428.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. D. (2006).
Extreme celebrity worship, fantasy proneness, and dissociation: Develop-
ing the measurement and understanding of celebrity worship within a
clinical personality context. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
273–283.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L. E., Martin, M. M., & Cayanus, J. L.
(2004). Celebrity worship, cognitive flexibility, and social complexity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1475–1482.
Maltby, J., Giles, D. C., Barber, L., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2005). Intense-
personal celebrity worship and body image: Evidence of a link among
female adolescents. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 17–32.
Maltby, J., Houran, J., Lange, R., Ashe, D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2002).
Thou shalt worship no other gods—unless they are celebrities: The rela-
tionship between celebrity worship and religious orientation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 32, 1157–1172.
Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2003). A clinical interpretation
of attitudes and behaviors associated with celebrity worship. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 25–29.
1370 GAYLE S. STEVER

Maltby, J., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Correlation between scores on

attitudes toward celebrities and authoritarianism. Psychological Reports,
88, 979–980.
Maltby, J., McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., & Houran, J. (2001). The
self-reported psychological well-being of celebrity worshipers. North
American Journal of Psychology, 3, 441–451.
McCarley, N. G., & Escoto, C. A. (2003). Celebrity worship and psychologi-
cal type. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 117–120.
McCutcheon, L. E. (2002). Are parasocial relationship styles reflected in love
styles? Current Research in Social Psychology, 7(6), 1–9.
McCutcheon, L. E., Ashe, D. D., Houran, J., & Maltby, J. (2003). A cogni-
tive profile of individuals who tend to worship celebrities. The Journal of
Psychology, 137, 309–322.
McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and
measurement of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93,
67–87.
McCutcheon, L. E., & Maltby, J. (2002). Personality attributions about
individuals high and low in the tendency to worship celebrities. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 7(10), 1–12.
McCutcheon, L. E., Maltby, J., Houran, J., & Ashe, D. (2004). Celebrity
worshipers: Inside the minds of stargazers. Baltimore: Publish America.
Rojek, C. (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion.
Sandvoss, C. (2005). Fans: The mirror of consumption. Malden, MA: Polity.
Sennett, R. (1992). The fall of public man. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Stever, G. (1991). Imaginary social relationships and personality correlates.
Journal of Psychological Type, 21, 68–76.
Stever, G. (1994). Para-social attachments: Motivational antecedents. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, B55/07, 3039.
Stever, G. (1995). Gender by type interaction effects in mass media subcul-
tures. Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 3–12.
Stever, G. (2008). The Celebrity Appeal Questionnaire: Sex, entertainment,
or leadership? Psychological Reports, 103, 113–120.
Stever, G. (2009a, May). A discussion of fan/celebrity symbiotic social rela-
tionships: A participant–observer ethnography of fan clubs. Proceedings
of the International Communications Association. Chicago, IL.
Stever, G. (2009b). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities: Classi-
fication of media fans. Journal of Media Psychology, 14(3), 1–39.
Toffler, A. (1991). Powershift. New York: Bantam.
Tulloch, J., & Jenkins, H. (1995). Science fiction audiences: Watching Dr.
Who and Star Trek. New York: Routledge.
Verba, J. (1996). Boldly writing: A Trekker fan and zine history, 1967–1987.
Minnetonka, MN: FTL.