'Parasocial' effect: How social media creates illusions of closeness

When the Cambridge Dictionary announced ‘parasocial’ as its Word of the Year 2025, it was not merely highlighting a trendy Internet term, it was capturing a profound cultural shift — one that has reshaped how millions across the world relate to public figures, entertainers, influencers and, increasingly, political leaders.

A parasocial relationship is a one-sided emotional bond in which a person feels connected to someone who does not know they exist. Traditionally it applied to television personalities and radio hosts.

Today, it has acquired new force in an era of podcasts, TikTok, YouTube, livestreaming and micro-influencers who invite audiences into their kitchens, bedrooms, mental struggles, heartbreaks and daily routines. The intimacy seems real. The relationship is not.

Lexicographers at Cambridge said they chose the word because it has become one of the fastest-rising concepts in public discussion. This is not only because influencers are everywhere, but because people are starting to question what these digital attachments mean for mental health, politics, identity and culture. Over the last decade, social media has engineered an unprecedented illusion of closeness.

The selfie-friendly prime minister, the confessional podcaster, the YouTube teacher, the lifestyle vlogger or fitness guru, all speak directly into a camera, often addressing their audience as if they were old friends.

Their comments sections are full of declarations: “I feel like I know you; you’ve changed my life; you’re my friend.”

For creators, this curated intimacy is valuable currency. For followers, the emotional investment can feel profound. What makes 2025 different, and what Cambridge Dictionary seems to acknowledge, is that this phenomenon has grown large enough to shape social life itself.

Until recently, parasocial behaviour was seen mostly as harmless fandom. Today it intersects with three powerful forces. The first is loneliness. The World Health Organization has warned repeatedly of a global “epidemic of loneliness.” Young people, in particular, spend increasing hours online and decreasing time in face-to-face communities. Many find companionship in public figures whose daily broadcasts imitate friendship. The comfort is genuine; the relationship is not.

The second force is politics. Politicians everywhere have embraced the influencer style. The leader who posts cooking videos, the minister who shares personal stories, the parliamentarian who goes live after a contentious debate, all are building trust through the performance of intimacy. A parasocial bond can translate into political loyalty even when policies are poorly understood. Analysts suggest that modern populism relies on these emotional digital ties as much as on ideology.

The third force is monetisation. From beauty brands to wellness companies, much of the global influencer economy depends on parasocial attachment. When followers feel they know or trust a creator, they are more likely to buy products recommended by them. The creator economy, now worth tens of billions of dollars worldwide, runs on this emotional machinery.

India provides one of the richest settings for parasocial relationships, and much of it predates the social-media age. Bollywood stars, cricket heroes and television characters have long occupied intimate emotional space in Indian households. What has changed is the democratisation of celebrity.

Tens of thousands of Indian creators now command highly loyal audiences: comedians, gamers, financial advisors, “study vloggers,” parenting influencers, fitness coaches and spiritual preachers. Many livestream for hours, chatting casually as if speaking to close friends. Followers often address creators with familial terms — didi, bhaiya, guruji — reinforcing a sense of kinship.

Parasocial attachment is increasingly visible in Indian politics as well. Leaders across parties now use behind-the-scenes videos, curated interviews and personalised messaging to cultivate emotional loyalty. The line between political communication and personal branding has blurred, echoing global trends.

Another new dimension is the rise of AI companions and virtual influencers. Indian teenagers and young adults are among the world’s fastest-growing users of chat-based “AI friends” and algorithmically generated digital celebrities. These manufactured personalities introduce further complexities, raising questions about emotional vulnerability, privacy and the commercial exploitation of human attachment.

Psychologists differ in their assessments of parasocial relationships. Some argue they can be protective, especially for people without strong social networks. They can inspire, comfort and motivate beneficial behaviours such as reading, exercise or learning new skills. Others warn about dependency, distorted expectations and emotional strain when the illusion of intimacy breaks down.

There are cases where followers feel betrayed when creators change direction or express political views. In extreme instances, parasocial fixation has escalated into harassment and stalking. The most balanced view is that parasociality is neither inherently good nor bad. It is simply a new social structure produced by technology, and its effects depend on boundaries and self-awareness.

A dictionary’s Word of the Year is always symbolic. It marks a trend, a shift in collective consciousness. By choosing “parasocial,” the Cambridge Dictionary is acknowledging that one of the central emotional experiences of our time is deeply paradoxical. We are more connected than ever, yet many of our connections are imaginary. We watch strangers live their lives, and feel less lonely, yet also more alone. We know everything about someone who does not know we exist.

In that sense, the word is more than a linguistic curiosity. It is a mirror held up to modern culture, reflecting humanity’s search for connection in a world where digital intimacy often substitutes for the real thing.

As 2025 unfolds, the challenge will not be to eliminate parasocial relationships — they are now woven into the fabric of daily life — but to understand them clearly. Cambridge Dictionary, in choosing its Word of the Year, may have given us the vocabulary to begin that conversation.