From One Medium to Another: Continuing the Narrative World on Twitter and Facebook

Parul Jain 1 *, Amanda Weed 1, Pamela Walck 1
More Detail
1 Ohio University, USA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 74-93.
OPEN ACCESS   1589 Views   1120 Downloads   Published online: 26 Oct 2016
Download Full Text (PDF)


Using narrative processing approach and uses and gratification theory, this study examined the motivations behind audience members desire to use social networking sites (SNS) Facebook and Twitter to: 1) connect with entertainment shows, 2) engage with characters on those shows, and 3) to engage with the actors that play those characters. After exposing participants to an episode of a show to gauge their engagement, they were asked to complete a questionnaire. The results suggest that levels of transportation predict likelihood of connecting with the show on social networking platforms. The levels of identification and parasocial interaction experienced during viewing predict the likelihood of following the character and the actor that played that role. Parasocial interaction with a character mediated the relationship between source attraction and connecting with the character and the actor on SNS. Theoretically, this research extends uses and gratification and narrative processing in the area of social networking research. Further theoretical and practical implications are discussed.


Jain, P., Weed, A., & Walck, P. (2016). From One Medium to Another: Continuing the Narrative World on Twitter and Facebook. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(4), 74-93.


  • Albiniak, P. (2012a). Syndies get social; shows connect with viewers via Pinterest, Tumblr, GetGlue, UStream, others. Broadcasting and Cable.
  • Albiniak, P. (2012b). No stopping till everyone “likes” Katie; Disney-ABC uses waealth of social media to promote Couric’s new talker. Broadcasting and Cable.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 94-124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
  • Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008).Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255-280.
  • Cameron, J., & Geidner, N. (2014). Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: Experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media.
  • Chung, A. H., & Moyer-Guse, E. (2012).Predicting narrative involvement from social attraction to an actor. Retrieved from
  • Ciacu, N., & Tănase, T. (2012).Television in the social media era. Communication & Marketing / Revista De Comunicare Si Marketing, 3(4), 95-107.
  • Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245-264.
  • Cohen, J. (2003). Parasocial breakups: measuring individual differences in responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass Communication & Society, 6(2), 191-202.
  • Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television characters: the role of attachment styles and relationship intensity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 187–202. doi:10.1177/0265407504041374
  • Cohen, J. (2006). Audience identification with media characters. Psychology of Entertainment, 183-197.
  • Cohen, J. (2014). Mediated relationships and social life: Current research in fandom, parasocial relationships, and identification. In M. B. Oliver & A.A. Raney (Eds.), Media and social life (pp. 142-156).New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Eisinga, R., TeGrotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International journal of public health, 58(4), 637-642.
  • Giles, D. C. (2002).Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305.
  • Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000).The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701.
  • Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002).In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion.Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations, 315-341.
  • Green, M. C., & Clark, J. L. (2013). Transportation into narrative worlds: implications for entertainment media influences on tobacco use. Addiction, 108(3), 477-484.
  • Greer, C. F., & Ferguson, D. A. (2011a). Using Twitter for promotion and branding: a content analysis of local television twitter sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(2), 198-214. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.570824
  • Greer, C. F., & Ferguson, D. A. (2011b). Following local television news personalities on Twitter: A uses and gratifications approach to social networking. Electronic News, 5(3), 145–157. doi:10.1177/1931243111420405
  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. (2014). Brand communities based in social media: How unique are they? Evidence from two exemplary brand communities. International Journal of Information Management, 34(2), 123-132.
  • Harrison, K. (1997). Does interpersonal attraction to thin media personalities promote eating disorders? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 478-500.
  • Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956).Mass communication and para-social interaction.Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
  • Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitc, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research.Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 508–523.
  • Jain, P., & Slater, M. (2012, May) Deliberative versus non-deliberative evaluations of international-medical-graduate physicians after viewing a medical drama. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
  • Larsson, A. O. (2013). Tweeting the viewer – Use of Twitter in a talk show context. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(2), 135-152.
  • Lather, J., & Moyer-Guse, E. (2011). How Do We React When Our Favorite Characters Are Taken Away? An Examination of a Temporary Parasocial Breakup. Mass Communication And Society, 14(2), 196-215.
  • Lin, J. & Peña, J. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks’ brand communication on Twitter.Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17-29.
  • Lee, E.-J., & Jang, J. (2013). Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: how affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 40(1), 27-51. doi:10.1177/0093650211431579
  • McCroskey, J. S., & McClain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41(261-266).
  • McKinney, B. C., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). Narcissism or openness?: College students’ use of Facebook and Twitter. Communication Research Reports, 29(2), 108-118. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2012.666919
  • Moyer-Guse, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425.
  • Moyer-Gusé, E., Chung, A., & Jain, P. (2011).Identification with characters and discussion of taboo topics after exposure to an entertainment narrative about sexual health. Journal of Communication,61, 387-406.
  • Moyer-Guse, E., Jain, P., Chung, A. (2012).Reinforcement or reactance?Examining the effect of an explicit persuasive appeal following an entertainment-education narrative. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1010-1027.
  • New Nielsen Research Indicates Two-Way Causal Influence Between Twitter Activity and TV Viewership. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from
  • Pai, P., & Arnott, D. C. (2013). User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means & end approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1039-1053.
  • Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175.
  • Social Media Update 2013 | Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.(n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from
  • Pynta, P., Seixas, S. a. S., Nield, G. E., Hier, J., Millward, E., & Silberstein, R. B. (2014). The power of social television: can social media build viewer engagement? A new approach to brain imaging of viewer immersion.Journal of Advertising Research, 54(1), 71–80.doi:10.2501/JAR-54-1-071-080
  • Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Jansz, J., Peters, O., & van Noort, G. (2013). Why girls go pink: Game character identification and game-players’ motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2640-2649. PersCom
  • Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987).Audience activity and soap opera involvement a uses and effects investigation.Human Communication Research, 14, 246-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x
  • Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratification perspective on media effects. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Edited by Jennings Bryant and Mary Beth Oliver, 165-184. New York: Routledge.
  • Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987).Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31(3), 279-292.
  • Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3­-37.
  • Singhal, A. & Rogers, E. M. (2002).A theoretical agenda for entertainmenteducation. Communication Theory, 12(2), 117-135.
  • Slater, M. D. (2002). Entertainment education and the persuasive impact of narratives. Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations, 157-181.
  • Slater, M. D., &Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191.
  • Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
  • Slater, M. D. (2014). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology,
  • Tal-Or, N., & Cohen, J. (2010). Understanding audience involvement: Conceptualizing and manipulating identification and transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402-418. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.004
  • Toubia, O., & Stephens, O. (2013). Intrinsic versus image related motivations in social media: Why do people contribute content to Twitter? Marketing Science.
  • Tully, M., & Ekdale, B. (2014). The team online: entertainment-education, social media, and cocreated messages. Television & New Media, 15(2), 139-156. doi: 10.1177/1527476412455952
  • Wohn, D. Y., & Eun-Kyung, N. (2011). Tweeting about TV: Sharing television viewing experiences via social media message streams.First Monday, 16(3), 1.