The designation of parasocial as the Word of the Year for 2025 signifies a global acknowledgment of the profound transformation occurring in human sociality. Parasocial relationships - once considered peripheral - now shape cultural identity, emotional life, commercial activity, and digital ethics.
The declaration of parasocial as the Word of the Year for 2025 is not merely a linguistic milestone but a cultural statement. The selection captures the broader recognition that parasocial relationships—traditionally defined as one-sided psychological attachments between audiences and media figures—have shifted from a niche media theory concept to a mainstream societal phenomenon (Horton & Wohl, 1956; Rubin et al., 1985). In 2025, parasociality has expanded beyond television hosts and celebrities to include YouTubers, livestreamers, virtual idols, artificial intelligence companions, and algorithmically generated personalities.
The word’s prominence reflects the growing need to interpret, question, and navigate digital intimacy. As the relationships individuals form with mediated figures increasingly shape identity, community, and emotional life, understanding parasociality becomes essential to analyzing contemporary culture. This essay explores why parasocial resonates so powerfully in 2025, examining the phenomenon’s psychological foundations, technological accelerators, and cultural implications.
The Origins of ParasocialityThe term “parasocial interaction” was first introduced by Horton and Wohl (1956), who described how performers on emerging mass media—particularly television—constructed an illusion of face-to-face interaction with audiences. This pseudo-interaction created a sense of intimacy, familiarity, and friendship that was not reciprocated. Although parasocial bonds were unidirectional, audiences experienced them as meaningful.
During the late 20th century, parasocial theory developed primarily within media psychology. Scholars explored why individuals formed emotional connections with television characters, news anchors, and radio hosts (Rubin et al., 1985). Social compensation theory suggested that media-based relationships could supplement social deficits, such as loneliness or limited offline networks (Derrick et al., 2009). Uses and gratifications theory argued that audiences actively sought parasocial bonds to fulfil needs for companionship, entertainment, and identity reinforcement (Giles, 2002).
While early research recognized that parasocial relationships were psychologically real, the scale remained limited. Relationships formed around weekly TV shows, celebrity tabloids, and static media personas lacked the immediacy, interactivity, and immersion that characterize digital parasociality today. Yet the foundational insight—that people form deep emotional bonds with mediated figures—remains central to understanding why parasocial has become so significant in 2025.
The Digital Transformation of Parasocial BondsThe rise of social media, streaming platforms, and algorithmic personalization has profoundly reshaped parasocial dynamics. Unlike the static television persona of the mid-20th century, contemporary creators produce continuous, intimate, and often unscripted content. Livestreaming, vlogging, direct messaging, and behind-the-scenes access invite audiences into creators’ personal lives.
Social media influencers and micro-celebrity culture
Influencers on platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok cultivate relationships through perceived authenticity. Their success depends on maintaining the illusion of closeness with followers (Abidin, 2018). Micro-celebrities, with smaller but highly engaged audiences, foster particularly strong parasocial bonds due to their accessible and interactive personas (Senft, 2013).
Livestreaming and real-time intimacy
Livestreaming intensifies the parasocial effect. When audiences watch creators cook, game, chat, or perform mundane tasks, the encounter simulates shared presence. Real-time chat gives viewers the impression of dialogue, even if creators acknowledge only a small percentage of messages.
Algorithmic curation and personalization
Recommendation systems curate content based on prior engagement, creating the sense that creators “understand” or “speak directly to” individual viewers. This illusion of attunement strengthens emotional attachment (Bucher, 2018).
The cumulative effect of these digital conditions is that parasocial relationships are more frequent, stronger, and socially significant than ever before—helping to explain why parasocial has captured the public imagination in 2025.
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Expanding Parasociality
The concept of parasociality has evolved dramatically as artificial intelligence systems have begun to simulate companionship, conversation, and affective responsiveness.
AI companions and chatbots
AI companions—ranging from mental-health chatbots to customizable “digital friends”—offer 24/7 conversation, emotional affirmation, and adaptive interaction. While these systems do not possess genuine emotional states, users often experience the relationships as authentic, meaningful, and supportive (Ta et al., 2020).
Virtual influencers and synthetic personas
Virtual influencers such as Lil Miquela and AI-generated streamers blur the distinction between human and non-human personas (Wang et al., 2022). These entities maintain consistent brands and personalities, creating parasocial connections despite lacking physical existence.
Generative media and personalized relationships
Psychological Dynamics of Parasocial RelationshipsAdvances in AI, particularly large language models and generative avatars, enable personalized relationships tailored to individual users’ preferences. Users may interact with uniquely generated synthetic personas designed to be entertaining, empathetic, or emotionally compatible.
In 2025, AI’s role in shaping digital intimacy has expanded to the point that many parasocial relationships now include non-human actors, raising questions about authenticity, ethics, and emotional well-being. This transformation contributes significantly to the term’s cultural salience.
Parasocial relationships unfold at the intersection of emotional needs, cognitive processes, and social environments. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind these bonds is essential to interpreting the rise of parasociality in 2025.
Emotional gratification and companionship
Parasocial relationships can provide comfort, reduce feelings of loneliness, and offer stability. Viewers often turn to familiar creators or AI companions for emotional continuity during stressful periods (Derrick et al., 2009).
Attachment theory and mediated intimacy
Parasocial attachments can resemble secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment styles typical of interpersonal relationships (Cohen, 2004). Viewers with insecure attachment styles may be particularly prone to strong parasocial bonds.
Identity formation and self-extension
Individuals often internalize the traits of admired creators or characters. Parasocial bonds can influence self-concept, values, and worldview (Giles, 2002). This is heightened in 2025 by the proliferation of lifestyle creators who share personal routines, beliefs, and emotional experiences.
Illusion of reciprocity
Sociological and Cultural ImplicationsDigital affordances—likes, comments, direct messages—reinforce the belief that creators acknowledge and care about their followers. Even sporadic creator engagement can validate the relationship (Abidin, 2018).
Although parasocial bonds can be healthy and fulfilling, they may also become maladaptive, especially when individuals substitute parasocial interaction for necessary real-world social support. The psychological duality of parasociality is a major reason it has captured public attention in 2025.
Parasociality is no longer merely a media psychology phenomenon; it is a sociological and cultural force influencing how communities, identities, and norms evolve.
Collective parasocial fandoms
Online fandoms form shared identities around creators, characters, and influencers. These communities offer belonging, shared language, and collective rituals (Booth, 2015). Parasociality thus becomes a social glue, fostering both solidarity and polarization.
Blurred boundaries between public and private
Creators and influencers live semi-public lives shaped by continuous audience scrutiny. Audiences often feel entitled to access personal information or emotional transparency from creators, producing tension between authenticity and performance.
Economic parasociality
Creator revenue streams—including patronage, subscriptions, merchandise, and parasocial gifting—capitalize on audience attachment. Platforms encourage parasocial investment, as engagement and emotional connection drive profitability (Bishop, 2019).
Reconfiguration of intimacy
In 2025, many people maintain emotionally significant parasocial relationships alongside, or even instead of, interpersonal relationships. These mediated connections reshape norms around friendship, emotional support, and community.
Parasociality, Authenticity, and the Search for Meaning in 2025The sociocultural expansion of parasociality underscores why the term resonates so strongly today: it captures a shifting paradigm of human connection in the digital age.
The selection of parasocial as Word of the Year reflects not only the prevalence of parasocial relationships but also the existential tension they create. As individuals seek authenticity, belonging, and meaning, parasociality offers both fulfillment and ambiguity.
The pursuit of authenticity
Modern creators often brand themselves as “authentic,” yet authenticity becomes a performance. Audiences attach to personas that may be strategically curated. Parasociality thus raises questions about what authenticity means in digital culture.
The loneliness paradox
Despite unprecedented connectivity, loneliness remains widespread. Parasocial relationships can mitigate loneliness while simultaneously highlighting its persistence. This paradox is a central cultural issue of 2025 (Turkle, 2017).
The existential dimension
Parasociality invites reflection on the nature of relationship, presence, and human connection. Engagements with AI personas further blur the lines between the real and the simulated, forcing society to reconsider what constitutes a meaningful relationship.
Ethical Considerations and ChallengesThese existential tensions contribute to the word’s cultural prominence: parasocial expresses the emotional ambivalence of digital life.
The expansion of parasocial relationships raises ethical questions for platforms, creators, and society.
Duty of care
Creators wield extraordinary influence over audiences, particularly younger followers. Ethical concerns include parasocial dependence, exploitation, and emotional manipulation.
Platform responsibility
Platforms that profit from parasocial engagement must consider design ethics. Features that encourage excessive attachment—such as personalized notifications or AI companions—may risk emotional over-reliance.
AI and consent
Why “Parasocial” Became Word of the Year in 2025AI-generated companions complicate notions of reciprocity and consent. Users may treat AI entities as emotionally sentient, raising philosophical and moral dilemmas.
Understanding these ethical concerns is essential to interpreting why parasocial captures a key tension of contemporary culture: the balance between connection and vulnerability.
Multiple forces converged to elevate parasocial to Word of the Year:
- Explosion of influencer culture: The increasing prevalence of creators and micro-celebrities led to widespread public conversations about fan relationships, emotional investment, and burnout.
- Rise of AI companions: Advanced conversational AI and immersive virtual beings created new forms of parasocial intimacy.
- Shift in cultural discourse: Media outlets, psychologists, and sociologists foregrounded parasociality in discussions of digital well-being, platform ethics, and online communities.
- Public introspection: Individuals increasingly recognized their own parasocial relationships—with streamers, celebrities, fictional characters, or AI systems—and questioned their meaning.
- Political and social events: Cultural debates about collective parasociality, such as the public’s identification with political figures, sports icons, and activists, brought the term into mainstream discourse.
Together, these trends made parasocial the ideal word to capture the emotional, technological, and cultural spirit of 2025.
ConclusionThe designation of parasocial as the Word of the Year for 2025 signifies a global acknowledgment of the profound transformation occurring in human sociality. Parasocial relationships—once considered peripheral—now shape cultural identity, emotional life, commercial activity, and digital ethics. As AI companions, streaming culture, virtual influencers, and personalized media ecosystems proliferate, parasociality is no longer an exception but a central feature of contemporary connection.
Understanding parasociality allows scholars, creators, policymakers, and individuals to navigate the complexities of digital intimacy with greater awareness. The word embodies a defining paradox of modern life: the coexistence of connection and distance, authenticity and performance, emotional fulfillment and existential uncertainty. As society continues to evolve alongside emerging technologies, parasocial relationships will remain a focal point of cultural analysis—and the term parasocial will endure as a symbol of the human search for meaning in an increasingly mediated world." (Source: ChatGPT2025)
ReferencesAbidin, C. (2018). Internet celebrity: Understanding fame online. Emerald Publishing.
Bishop, S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2589–2606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854731
Booth, P. (2015). Digital fandom: New media studies. University of Iowa Press.
Bucher, T. (2018). If...then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial breakups: Measuring individual differences in responses to the dissolution of parasocial relationships. Mass Communication and Society, 7(2), 191–202.
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 352–362.
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180.
Senft, T. (2013). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346–354). Wiley-Blackwell.
Ta, V. P., Hancock, J. T., & Bazarova, N. N. (2020). Digital empathic communication: Effects of social presence, source credibility, and message valence. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106220.
Turkle, S. (2017). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin.
Wang, Q., Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2022). Virtual influencers and consumer engagement: The role of perceived authenticity and human-likeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107401.