Celebrity Worship

Running Head: CELEBRITY WORSHIP

Celebrity Worship:
Critiquing a Construct

Gayle S. Stever, Ph.D.

Empire State College/SUNY
1475 Winton Road North
Rochester, NY 14609
Gayle.stever@esc.edu

In Press by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, April, 2011

Celebrity Worship

Abstract
McCutcheon, Lange and Houran (2002) proposed the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) to
identify celebrity worshipers, useful for identifying individuals who are overly absorbed
and/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, Houran & Ashe, 2004; McCutcheon, Lange and
Houran, 2002). Sampled groups of serious fans contain many individuals who meet 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.

Celebrity Worship

A growing number of scholars are concerned with the role that celebrities play in
the lives of their admirers (Ashe et al., 2005; Maltby et al., 2005; McCutcheon et al.,
2003; Stever, 2008a), and are attempting to define 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 Wohls (1956)
Parasocial Interaction to Caugheys (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 based
on attraction to and interest in the celebrity. The term fan, a word 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;
2008a).
After several exploratory studies on the subject of celebrity worship (Maltby &
McCutcheon, 2001; Maltby, Houran, Lange, Ashe & McCutcheon, 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. Called the Celebrity
Attitude Scale (CAS), the usefulness of the scale in identifying fans who have become
overly absorbed and/or addicted to their interest in a celebrity is apparent. 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 discuss the two terms as if they were interchangeable (Haspel,
2006; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett, Houran & Ashe, 2004; McCutcheon, Lange and

Celebrity Worship

Houran, 2002), citing theories about fan behavior and fan communities by placing the
term celebrity worship within mental health theory (Maltby, McCutcheon, Ashe and
Houran, 2001; McCarley and Escoto, 2003). However the assumption that being a fan
and being a celebrity worshiper are synonymous 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, i.e. 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 perceived as celebrity worship, also carry on
normal relationships and normal, healthy and satisfying lives (Stever 2008a).
The clearest example linking these two concepts in this literature is a reference to
socializing in celebrity worshipping fan clubs (McCutcheon et. al. 2004, p. 89). This
statement implied that fan clubs are all about celebrity worship. The authors 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, i.e.
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

Celebrity Worship

on their score on the Celebrity Attitude Scale 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 talked about celebrity worship as an extreme and
pathological phenomenon and seem to differentiate it from ordinary fandom (Maltby,
Houran and McCutcheon, 2003; McCutcheon, Ashe Houran and Maltby, 2003). Clearly
there is confusion in this literature as to the relationship between being a celebrity fan and
being a celebrity worshiper. McCutcheon, Lange and Houran (2002) argued that there
was no evidence of non-pathological 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 superficiality.
He pointed out that fan-celebrity relationships involve high levels of non-reciprocal
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 goes on to explain that there is a difference
between religion and mythology. Mythology is about ethics and about narrative that

Celebrity Worship

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 where humankind has surmounted obstacles it faces today. The fans
passion is therefore from these shared values and not from religious identification with
the text according to Jenkins.
In an earlier work Jenkins (1992) said, Fan is short for fanatic and building on
the words 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 psychology 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 & Jenkins (1995) distinguish 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 of academe and outside, rigorous
definitions are difficult.
Thus far the CAS has been used with general population samples of either
available students or community members (Ashe, Maltby et al., 2005; Houran, Navik and

Celebrity Worship

Zerrusen, 2005; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Gillett, et al., 2004; Maltby, Day,
McCutcheon, Houran and Ashe, 2006; Maltby, Day, McCutcheon, Martin and Cayanus,
2004; Maltby, Giles et al., 2005; Maltby, Houran et al., 2001; Maltby, McCutcheon, 2001;
McCarley and Escoto, 2003; McCutcheon and 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 towards 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? This study seeks to address these questions.
Additionally, researchers discuss people who engage in celebrity worship for
intense personal reasons (Maltby et al., 2004, p. 1480) but fail to identify any kind of
threshold score for how that person 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 non-worshiper. 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
towards 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, a serious delusional disorder. A scale that could reliably identify those with

Celebrity Worship

erotomanic tendencies would be exceptionally useful both for clinicians and for others
who have interest in characteristics and classifications of media fans.
An identified sample of celebrity fans who have a focused and persistent interest
in a media celebrity or media celebrities might be expected to be high on the celebrity
worship scale of the CAS. The purpose of this study is to test this hypothesis.
Additionally, the range of scores on the CAS needs to be more firmly defined 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. 8). While no
one has defined what is meant by sufficiently high, another hypothesis is that a
population of average people from the general population will look quite different from a
sample of identified serious fans if fan and celebrity worshipper are the same
construct. Would the latter be more likely to meet the criteria for celebrity worshipper
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 was used in this study to operationalize the construct of Celebrity Worship in
comparison to the construct fan in a fashion consistent with previous work in this field.

Celebrity Worship

The three subscales of the CAS are Entertainment-Social (ES), Intense-Personal (IP) and
Borderline-Pathological (BP). See Table 1 for sample items from these subscales.
To very clearly differentiate the sample for this study 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. Subjects
for this study exhibited more than one of the following behavioral indicators in order to
be included in this study:
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 focused on a single celebrity.
Participants and Procedures
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, 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 Star Trek actors. 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 in order to attend. In addition,
autograph tickets range from $40 to $100 per celebrity while tickets for photo

Celebrity Worship

10

opportunities ranged 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 (i.e. celebrity talks,
autograph sessions, photo opportunities etc.). 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. Surveys were given to all attendees and 90% of them were returned and
included in the sample. The other half 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 participate. Potential respondents were each asked if
they were attending the convention 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 show, 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 writers convention. This could perhaps have
increased the incidence of celebrity worship in this sample in comparison to a Star Trek
fan fiction convention, for example 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 dedicated 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

Celebrity Worship

11

group and its efforts. Most of these fan participants were attendees at fan club meet and
greets 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 web site. 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 (wearing buttons, badges, t-shirts etc.). Membership in
Grobans online fan club costs $48 per year.
All of these participants would be easily identified as serious fans of either Star
Trek or Josh Groban based on the behavioral criteria used to identify fans. All subjects
provided basic demographic data and also filled out the 22-item version of the CAS
(Maltby et al., 2004).
Findings
Data from this study indicated not all fans in the fan base samples met the criteria
for celebrity worship. The question: Are serious fans all celebrity worshippers? or even
the question Are most serious fans celebrity worshippers? can be answered by looking
at the percentages of fans for each subscale. Looking at Table 2, the pattern of response
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 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 represented individuals who marked strongly disagree or disagree with items

Celebrity Worship

12

on the subscale. While score cutoffs are 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) 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 of this score is 9 to 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 a presence of celebrity worship? The analysis in Table
2 looked at the response indications. An answer of 1 or 2 meant the person disagreed
with the item. An answer of 3 was in the middle or neutral area, and an answer of 4 or
5 would indicate the fan agreed with the item. The ES subscale has 10 items so a score
of 20 or less would indicate the fan disagreed, on average, with all ten items. A score of
18 or less on the IP subscale also indicated 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. Looking at Table 3, all of the averages for the BP subscale for every
sample were less than 6. Looking at Table 2, 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 Intense Personal and
Borderline Pathological subscales of the CAS. Since the Entertainment Social subscale

Celebrity Worship

13

includes a number of activity oriented items that are common for fan clubs, and these
subjects 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 EntertaimentSocial subscale of the CAS was an indicator of celebrity worship, 42% of the Groban
fans and 85% of the Star Trek fans dont even meet this criterion (Table 2). It is
important to remember that subjects chosen for this study were chosen 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 worshipper 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. Slightly
higher levels (of celebrity worship) are characterized by hearing, watching, and talking
about ones favorite celebrity with other fans. (McCutcheon et al., 2004, 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 supports this hypothesis, with
other reasons including socialization with other fans, participation in charity work, and
opportunities for travel (Stever. 2008b, 2009a).
One question that needs to be addressed would be that 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 Entertainment-Social subscale
scores for the Groban fans, wasnt there a higher incidence of Intense-Personal or
Borderline-Pathological celebrity worship?

Celebrity Worship

14

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 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 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 the desire becomes sublimated
into creativity within fandoms with productive results. In the context of increasing
technology,there has been an increasing interactivity 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
interests, 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

Celebrity Worship

15

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 including
(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 demassified media. Mass culture is replaced by specialized niches within which more and
more genuine fan-celebrity interaction is possible. Rojek talked about George Herbert
Meads I or veridical self vs. 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, 2008) 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, Meads me. However
from 2008-2009 in particular, Groban has taken his relationship with his fan base to a
new level via video blogs, live video chats, Twitter, and other apparently spontaneous
communiqus. While it is impossible 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),

Celebrity Worship

16

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.
Things like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and blogs or video blogs are all being used now
by celebrities to create that intimate day-to-day connection with fans. In addition,
representative fans who happen to meet Groban, as in his most recent appearance, June
19, 2009 at 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 80s where 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 was
collected) for 35 of his closest fan friends. The norm at these gatherings (which are held
at most conventions where Auberjonois 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 special fan club gatherings. While Rojeks (2001)
narrative about the creation of celebrities is excellent and a well developed explanation of
celebrity in the mass media era of the 20th century, by 2009 things have changed and

Celebrity Worship

17

continue to change. The self in reserve model (p. 11) 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 personal interest in celebrities that are problematic for the fan, the
celebrity and society. Just as clearly there are fans who pursue interest in celebrities and
their work in a fashion that is not explained by celebrity worship.
Previous work by Maltby et al (2006, 2004) on celebrity worship has overlooked
the social motivations for forming affiliations that center around celebrities. I am a fan
because of the friends I make. is a repeating theme in 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 illustrated 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 and repeating theme in interviews with
fans of both Josh Groban and various Star Trek actors.
We live in a transient society where 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

Celebrity Worship

18

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 sampled
for the current study showed serious and high levels of interest in their favorite celebrities
as evidenced by their meeting the criteria listed. A sample of less serious fans with a
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. Looking at
Tables 2 and 3, the levels of celebrity worship are very different for just these two fan
bases. Clearly further work is needed to explore these constructs in broader settings that
include identified fans of a broader range of celebrities.

Celebrity Worship

19

Table 1
Sample items from The Celebrity Attitude Scale
Subscale

Question

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 Pathological

If I was lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity, 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.

Entertainment Social

I enjoy watching, reading or listening to my 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.

Celebrity Worship

20

Table 2
Percentage of Each Fan Group in Low, Medium and High Range for Each Subscale.
Fan Group

Scale

Low
(disagree)

Medium
(neutral)

High
(agree)

Groban

ES

12%

30%

58%

IP

66%

22%

12%

BP

84%

11%

5%

ES

49%

36%

15%

IP

83%

13%

4%

BP

93%

6%

1%

Star Trek

1.

Notes: Scores for ES are 11-25 for low, 26-35 for medium, and 36-50 for high. Scores for IP are 9-22 for low,
23-31 for medium, and 32-43 for high. Scores for BP are 3-7 for low, 8-10 for medium and 11-14 for high.
Participants answered disagree on average for all subscale items for low, neutral on average for all
subscale items for medium and agree on average for all subscale items for high.

Celebrity Worship

21

Table 3
Cross study comparison of means (standard deviations in parentheses) on Celebrity Attitude Subscales for Entertainment-Social (ES),
Intense-Personal (IP), and Borderline-Pathological (BP)
Study

Males
ES

1. Celebrity Worship and Mental Health; Maltby et al., 2004

22.15 (8.0)
2. Body Image--Maltby, Giles et al., 2005
Adolescents
21.61 (8.3)
Students
21.04 (8.7)
Adults
16.79 (7.6)
3. Personality and Celebrity Worship; Maltby et al., 2003
Students
19.13 (8.2)
Adults
16.73 (7.6)
4. Cognitive Flexibility and Social Complexity; Maltby et al., 2004
Students
25.59 (12.4)
Nonstudents
25.04 (13.1)
5. Current Study:
Star Trek
21.89 (8.4)
Groban
30.00
Total
22.11
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Females

IP

BP

ES

IP

BP

16.13 (6.1)

4.83 (2.1)

20.82 (7.8)

16.07 (5.9)

4.18 (1.4)

25.32 (7.6)
24.24 (6.2)
20.81 (8.0)

5.29 (2.5)
3.92 (2.7)
3.39 (2.2)

24.12 (8.4)
21.52 (10.4)
16.83 (8.2)

25.51 (7.2)
23.34 (6.8)
21.10 (7.7)

6.06 (2.9)
3.71 (2.5)
3.47 (2.3)

22.54 (7.2)
20.76 (8.0)

3.66 (2.4)
3.42 (2.2)

19.93 (9.7)
16.79 (8.3)

23.26 (7.9)
21.13 (7.7)

3.97 (2.5)
3.53 (2.3)

23.95 (9.8)
23.84 (10.9)

3.67 (1.5)
3.92 (2.3)

25.30 (12.6)
24.71 (12.9)

26.77 (8.8)
26.55 (10.2)

4.48 (2.7)
4.28 (2.5)

14.97 (6.6)
21.00
15.14

4.14 (1.7)
4.00
4.13

28.31 (8.0)
35.40 (7.5)
33.04

16.15 (7.0)
21.65 (8.1)
19.82

4.03 (1.8)
5.41 (2.3)
4.95

Celebrity Worship and Mental Health, Maltby et al., 2004: Subjects were 182 males and 190 females ages 18-47 (M=34.22 SD = 5.4) sampled from workplaces and
community groups in the north of England.
Body Image, Maltby, Giles et al., 2005: Three samples: 102 male and 127 female adolescents (M=15.11,
SD=. 11); 88 male and 95 female full-time university undergraduate students (M=19.76, SD=1.8); 126 male and 163 female adults (M=34.94, SD=9.3, range 22-60
years) all from the north of England.
Personality and Celebrity Worship, Maltby et al., 2005: Two samples: 164 male and 153 female full time university students (mean age=20.4 years, SD=2.6); 127 male
and 163 female adults (mean age 34.3 years, SD=8.1 years; 22-60 years old) from the United Kingdom.
Cognitive Flexibility and Social Complexity, Maltby et al., 2005: Two samples: 127 males and 133 females ages 18-59 (M=23.93, SD=8.0); 78 males and 90 females
aged 18 to 35 (M=21.96, SD=2.6) university undergraduates from the north of England.
Current Study: Star Trek fan group was 35 males (M age= 39.2, SD=11.44) and 52 females (M age=42.87, SD=13.34); Groban fan group was one male (age 31) and 104
females (M age=42.38, SD=14.79).

Celebrity Worship

22

References
Ashe, D. D., Maltby, J., & McCutcheon, L.E. (2005). Are celebrity-worshippers more
prone to narcissism? A brief report. North American Journal of Psychology 7 (2):
239-246.
Caughey, J. L. (1984). Imaginary social worlds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Couldry, N. (2007). One the set of The Sopranos: Inside a fans construction of nearness.
In eds. J. Gray, C. Sandvoss, & L. Harrington, Fandom: Identities and
Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press.
Giles, D. (2003). Media psychology. London: Erlbaum Associates.
Hayward, S. (2008). Beyond desire? Star bodies and sensation. Communication, Culture &
Critique, 1(3) 253-267.
Haspel, K. (2006). Understanding fans: A review of the psychological literature.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology.
Hills, M. (2002). Fan cultures. New York: Routledge.
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19 (3) 215-30.
Houran, J., Navik, S. & Zerrusen, K. (2005). Boundary functioning in celebrity
worshippers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (1): 237-248.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York:
Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New
York: New York University Press.

Celebrity Worship

23

Kozinets, R.V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star Trek's culture
of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research. 28(1) 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 (4): 411-428.
Maltby, J., Day. L., McCutcheon, L.E., Martin, M.M., & Cayanus, J.L. (2004). Celebrity
worship, cognitive flexiblity, and social complexity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 27, 1475-1482.
Maltby, J., Day, L., McCutcheon, L.E., Houran, J., & Ashe D.D. (2006). Extreme
celebrity worship, fantasy proneness and dissociation: Developing the measurement
and understanding of celebrity worship within a clinical personality context.
Personality & Individual Differences, 40 (2): 273-283.
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 (1): 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 relationship between
celebrity worship and religious orientation. Personality & Individual Differences,
32 (7): 1157.
Maltby, J., Houran, J., & McCutcheon, L.E. (2003). A clinical interpretation of attitudes
and behaviors associated with celebrity worship. The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 191 (1), 25-29.

Celebrity Worship

24

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 worshippers. North American Journal of
Psychology, 3 (3): 441.
McCarley, N. G., & Escoto, C.A. (2003). Celebrity worship and psychological type.
North American Journal of Psychology, 5 (1):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 cognitive profile of
individuals who tend to worship celebrities. Journal of Psychology, 137 (4): 309322.
McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2002). Conceptualization and measurement
of celebrity worship. British Journal of Psychology, 93 (1): 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 worshippers:
Inside the minds of stargazers. Baltimore: Publish America.
Rojek, C. (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion books.
Sandvoss, C. (2005). Fans: The mirror of consumption. Malden, MA: Polity Press
Sennett, R. (1992). The fall of public man. NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Celebrity Worship

Stever, G. (1991). Imaginary social relationships and personality correlates.

Journal of Psychological Type, 21, 68-76.
Stever, G. (1994). Para-social attachments: motivational antecedents. Dissertation
Abstracts International, B55/07, 3039, January 1995.
Stever, G. (1995). Gender by type interaction effects in mass media subcultures.
Journal of Psychological Type, 32, 3-12.
Stever, G. (2008a). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities:
Classification of media fans. Proceedings of the International Communications
Association, May 22-27, 2008, Montreal, Quebec.
Stever, G. (2008b). The celebrity appeal questionnaire: Sex, entertainment or leadership.
Psychological Reports, 103, 113-120.
Stever, G. (2009a). A discussion of fan/celebrity symbiotic social relationships: A
participant-observer ethnography of fan clubs. Proceedings of the International
Communications Association. Chicago, IL, May 22-26, 2009
Stever, G. (2009b). Parasocial and social interaction with celebrities: Classification of
media fans. Journal of Media Psychology 14(3), 1-39.
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 publications.

25