By - Sumit316
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Same reason luxury items manufacturers kit up celebrities and influencers.. not so subtle advertisements...to get their Fandom to purchase. And it works.
> not so subtle advertisements
its straight up marketing; no one is pretending otherwise. its product placement and sponsorships
They're called influencers. What are they influencing? What you buy.
It's the oldest and first rule of selling anything first you sell yourself ( lifestyle) then you sell whatever else
Some People are quick to drop cash when they like or identify with a person
I understand identifying with or being entertained by content produced by a person, but being interested in the person behind the content in straight up weird. They're just strangers.
Football teams, sports jerseys.
It is weird, and I generally do not fanboy most things. But there are certain personalities i 100% do, and i dont know why. I couldn’t care less about meeting derek jeter, or a kardashian, but i would be excited to meet adam salvage from mythbusters. I don’t care what he does in his free time, but I watch his youtube channel where he shows what he does with free time. Idk, odd dynamic for sure
And you’d probably buy a Savage shirt or Tested, so it’s also working. Note: I don’t have a shirt yet but I do want one….
Man, Adam Salvage is pretty much my role model. I watched a lot of Mythbusters when I was a kid. He was pretty much my role model, and what made me realize that learning is fun and experimenting is very entertaining
They're symbols, and "symbols are for the symbol minded," as George Carlin used to say.
I've always felt like this and been mystified by anyone who thinks otherwise. It's most intense when somebody dies. My real-life relationships are reasonably healthy and normal. I'm not sure what I'm missing.
I mean to some degree that’s understandable. For example if someone who’s work you like dies that means they won’t be making anything new. That’s a bummer.
There’s also the nostalgia factor. We tend to associate particular works of art or pop culture with pleasant memories or particular times in our lives, and when the person who made those things dies there can be a sense of grief.
Not like full on grief.
But like if a friend of a friend died. Someone you didn’t know, but who’s name you knew, and who you had heard stories about. You probably aren’t going to rend your clothes about it, but you’ll probably think “oh, that’s a shame. He seemed like a decent fellow.”
It doesn’t take much for humans to empathize.
Hell, we even grieve for imaginary characters sometimes.
I disagree, there's plenty of celebrities (in the widest sense of the term) who have some amazing and inspiring backstories. There are some people who are born on this earth who are beautiful, talented, connected, and great human beings. There's also a metric ton of awful celebrities and their fans.
Ofcourse, but is it really always a bad thing depending on the Person who influences?
It is not. There are plenty of people who probably qualify as "influencers" who are well adjusted and humble.
Not only that. Also how to vote and how to think. Not that all of these influences are negative. When the resultant spending or philosophy are ruinous, obviously that's negative, but some influence is positive.
Right? They pay the celebs to wear/use the goods. Nothing subtle about it at all.
>no one is pretending otherwise
Sure they are, the influencers themselves do. A big part of what their sponsors want is for their ads to seem authentic/grassroots and not paid ads. It might not *work* on everyone but that doesn't mean they aren't pretending.
The association between the two doesn't surprise me but I wonder if there's a broader association that could be made. A lot of people don't engage in celebrity worship but still are impulsive buyers.
People needing identity from outside sources are more likely to spend money on crap to attempt to fulfill that void.
Yes the thing causing them to be celeb worshippers is the same thing causing them to be impulse buyers.
Whatever that thing is. . .
Perhaps for some the correlation is low self worth, worshipping an idealized image of perfection would easily drive them to retail therapy. Addiction comes in more forms than ingestive
>Whatever that thing is. . .
The article says that the researchers are predicting empathy to be part of it.
So the behavior people are deriding in this thread, is the sort of behavior people have when they basically are better than us. Nice reality check for everyone here. Maybe we should have some empathy back, the next time we notice a person we love has bought a Goop product ;)
Probably true to some extent but there are a significant number of less intelligent people who are very frugal and similarly many who are very intelligent but can't resist the urge to impulse buy. I'm not sure raw intelligence is the best predictor. I think better predictors are poor attention span and impatience. People who engage in celebrity worship need constant stimulation from all the garbage their brain consumes and they literally reach a point where they can't wait to hear more celebrity garbage news so they're constantly seeking it out like it's a drug. It's almost like a form of addiction. And it isn't just celebrity worship. The same thing happens to people who are obsessed with an ideology, a religion, a sports team, a hobby, or anything else to an unhealthy degree. Celebrity worship is just one form of irrational attachment.
That's not what intelligence is, but go ahead and run with it.
Who said anything about intelligence?
I'm not saying that people buy them for their looks. How they look is *extremely* far from the driving factor of the watch market. If how they looked was all that mattered then nobody would spend more than $200 on one.
A sad moment in my life is when I found out celebrity marketing is one of the most successful types.
Being exposed to things frequently influences is. If we are obsessed with stars than we are exposed to targeted ads. Those ads influence us
This explains why social media feeds are flooded with celebrity content that you don’t even follow or ever expressed interest in and there’s no way to block or reject it.
It’s just “advertising” or psychological manipulation to induce consumerism.
These platforms (esp. publicly traded ones), make money by giving advertisers access to metrics on the user bases (browsing patterns on the app, locations, age/gender/sex, political keyword mentions, basically your "data").
Most of us know this already but don't grasp the depth of what we've lost and what's coming from it in the next few years.
The key is the algorithm configured to prioritize that directive (get advertisers by showing them how "effective" ads are on their platform), instead of curating user-sourced content and special interest (which it can also do, but comes second to profitability - ie. advertising)
The big "social media" apps are literally ad platforms first and foremost.
The stream model is the next evolution, started somewhat with things like Twitter and AMAs, and we can already see it taking over. Now not only can you see celebs doing what you wish you were, you can actually interact with them! That's how you boost consumerism through the roof: connect your products to the icons and then connect those icons directly to the consumer base.
>The big "social media" apps are literally ad platforms first and foremost.
As was "free" TV, magazines, newspapers, etc. If you're not paying, you're not the customer. If you're not the customer, you're the product. Plenty of old black-and-white "good old days" tv shows were interrupted for this message from our sponsor.
Just curious: What difference does being publicly traded make?
At a basic level, a corporation has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. If the shareholders are the public, they expect growth or execs face consequences from the board of directors.
If it is privately held, the owners have a bit more discretion as to their choices and taking on losses
Are you saying private held companies are less likely to use these algorithm tactics?
They aren’t saying that private companies aren’t also likely to use these algorithms, but rather that publicly traded companies are all but guaranteed to use them. Private companies have at least the opportunity to be more discretionary with their use.
But aren’t private companies even less likely to have any transparency about this kind of thing… so whatever they are doing, we wouldn’t know.
Literally the only thing keeping a publicly traded company from doing the worst most depraved thing to maximize their profits is governmental regulation. This is because public companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits at all costs within regulation. Private companies, however, can use discretion and make choices for themselves as to how to dedicate their resources, because private companies do not exist solely to serve the shareholders.
But nobody cares about transparency here. We don’t even care if someone does it. The point is more that a private company **CAN** make the decision to be a bit more ethical while a public company pretty much cannot as the sole purpose is to extract value in the form of share prices. If the CEO is not maximizing current returns they either get sacked and replaced, or the shares drop.
No, they're just stating that the incentives around major decision making are structured differently in public and privately owned companies.
"Senator, we run ads."
> The big "social media" apps are literally ad platforms first and foremost.
Always have been
Is it illegal for Alexa to listen for someone to say “I had the best business/creative idea” and collect those following ideas.
> no way to block or reject it
There's a way : Moving out of those social media platforms.
I think this person meant that there is no way to block it or reject it on the platform itself
I wonder if this has any impact on political paraphernalia.
Without a doubt.
Thats why Trump targets his low income, uneducated followers
> Thats why Trump targets his low income, uneducated followers
I think many people do not understand how powerful his personal brand became with his tv show Apprentice.
Easy to call them poor but Donald got a lot of the upper middle class vote. He genuinely lucked out in having a unlikable opponent. But Donald did the work in his career to establish himself in the minds of many people all over the world as a brand.
He did the work to be likable. His opponent did not.
> He did the work to be likable.
I mean, during what timeframe? He did have a brand, but just as many people voted "Against Democrats" as "For Trump."
Clinton's downfall was being overconfident in her ability to win the battleground states.
Trump's cult may be poorly educated and fanatical, but they don't make up every Trump voter. Upper Middle Class people didn't vote for Trump because they liked him. They hoped he would lower their taxes. Trump's most enthusiastic supporters started that way and finished that way. Most of the converts had strong rise, but not to the level of fanaticism of the enthusiasts. Much of which can be attributed to standard party affiliation re-alignments after the primaries are over and the party attempts to consolidate behind the nominee.
> I mean, during what timeframe?
His tv show The Apprentice was the greatest ad campaign in Presidential history. That show solidified him with a huge number of voters. I thought the show was stupid and fake but many of his voters saw him as a leader.
> Upper Middle Class people didn't vote for Trump because they liked him. They hoped he would lower their taxes.
One issue voters. That is what they do.
> Clinton's downfall was being overconfident in her ability to win the battleground states.
Hillary. Where is she now? Donald even after losing is playing king maker. Hillary just left. She gave up. She was the wrong candidate to run in 2016.
Very sad times we are in. I am genuinely concerned for what life is going to be like for us in 10 years and 50 years. This sucks!
> I think many people do not understand how powerful his personal brand became with his tv show Apprentice.
I think many people do not understand how powerful his personal brand has been since, like, **[The Eighties](http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19890116,00.html)**. The Apprentice had very little to do with how he gained his fame and following.
> He did the work to be likable. His opponent did not.
Understatement of the decade.
It's pretty telling that the one revelation about Trump that was found to dissuade his supporters even a little is that he's not a good businessman.
> Apprentice had very little to do with how he gained his fame and following.
I would say your totally wrong about this from my conversations with people who like(d) him.
The people who I talk to who are or were positive on The Donald all said they felt his Apprentice show was what sold them on him.
The 1980's were a very long time ago and no one I talk to who is or was positive about Donald said the 1980's influenced their view on him.
I work with and know a lot of people who voted for him or just liked him. My sample size isn't the greatest. I was surprised that people didn't realize the show was fake. I tried to explain to them his business failings and then they changed their view of him. But they all said they assumed the show was real.
What I found most puzzling was upper class people in Africa and Asia that I worked with really thought he was some super business person until I told them The Donalds story of failure. They said that overall in Asia and Africa people had a very positive view of him from the show. They didn't have the backstory of his failures so I suppose it made sense.
"I love the poorly educated."
- Donald J. Trump
He was laughed out of the room in the 80's when he tried to ease into politics. He was used as the template for the villain in Back to the Future 2. If it weren't for his efforts in the 90's and early 00's to pass himself off as a great business person and friendly guy he would have been laughed at again.
People were happy to take his money and put his head on magazines, but very few people liked him. He made a conscious effort to change that by building his personal brand rather than actually investing in good businesses (I suppose, his personal brand then became a good investment, but it was definitely a different path to success).
I never said people liked him in the '80's. Don't let that be your conclusion. I am only pointing out the age and strength of TFG's personal brand.
1. She’s been vilified by the republicans for decades.
2. She still won the popular vote. By 3 million.
Electoral college has lost its usefulness once most people became able to get to the voting stations or mail in their votes, which happened a looong time ago. It’s now just a tool to undermine democracy.
> She’s been vilified by the republicans for decades.
Valid and correct. But on the side. Why did she allow herself to be vilified? Why didn't she stand up and hit back? I don't know when she wanted to be president but she should have known that her personality would be on trial during the election season.
> She still won the popular vote. By 3 million.
Yes, only 3 million. Who didn't vote for her? Its really amazing what happened.
Voters did not know what the stakes are. They still do not. The rest of the planet is moving to the future. The progress and wealth China, India and others have experienced since The Donald is huge.
I wonder what does this non stop culture war lead to in the next 10 years or 50 years? Scary times.
I assumed the people who voted for Bush Jr would have seen that they are not fit to vote and would have stopped voting. Yet, they keep voting for people making everything worse.
Maybe spend five minutes and look into how powerful women are treated vs how powerful men are treated by society before you spout opinions about how a woman could've changed her personality to be more appealing.
That's a fair point but then also maybe the Democratic party should have seen that coming.
Or maybe a similar thing in 2020 election. They fucked Bernie over a lot.
I know I'm not voting dem or rep anytime soon.
I agree with what you are saying. You are correct.
But winning is winning and losing is losing. She knew for decades she was being targeted. Elections are not fair just like life. IMHO the Dems should have had a more likable candidate but that is just my opinion.
> could've changed her personality to be more appealing.
That wasn't what she was up against. She was up against a multi-decade long smear campaign against her. Very insurmountable odd's. Once she was attacked she should have shut them down. Not easy but that would have been the move. Instead she ignored it. Just like how Michelle Obama said "we go high while they go low" Michelle didn't realize half the country goes low and those half the votes outweigh her half the votes. Scary times.
Politics is horrible. Voters voted for the wrong candidate. Donald really destroyed a lot. People did not know what they were voting for or against.
> Who didn't vote for her?
Gun nuts and religious fundamentalists. And the wealthy people who tricked them into thinking those things were more important than "socialist" safety nets like food programs and healthcare.
> He did the work to be likable. His opponent did not.
She literally won. It is the joke we call elections that is the issue.
Nor is Trump likable. He just showed how ugly Americans really are.
Famous actors supporting politicians of both sides….?
It sure does for sports! Just today I am looking at worn NHL gear for crazy money. So this article was funny to see right after I come from the auction site. Hah.
Paraphernalia, the 'difficult' word I've never seen spelled wrong on Reddit as opposed to breaks/brakes, costumers/customers and heroine/Heroin. I've no idea why it prospers so.
I never would have put the second "r" in the word had it not been spellchecked!
>But the study has some limitations. One such limitation is that it relied entirely on self-report questionnaires, which can be vulnerable to bias and lying. Additionally, the sample was constrained to one group of young adults; future research could include a more diverse sample to see if these effects are seen more broadly.
When I was in undergrad, we had to do these projects where we invented some kind of widget or another. The bulk of the project was in how said widget worked (it was an engineering program, after all), but since it's supposed to mimic the real world, we also had to demonstrate that there was demand for it.
Almost every one of us simply did a survey of our friends to establish demand. But since we were all friends and we all wanted to support each other, we would simply answer survey questions the way we knew our friends wanted them to go.
One group was making a shot cup that dispensed Jello shots automatically. To establish demand, they threw a Jello shot party, then had attendees fill out a survey with questions like, "Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to scrape your finger around the inside of the cup to get the shot out?" Of course you'd say yes, because the group had basically already started working on their Jello shot cup project, and you weren't going to make them start over with something different. Plus they just gave you free Jello shots.
Anyway, long story short, this paper sounds like an undergrad surveyed her college friends, who answered the way they knew she wanted them to answer to write her paper.
Participants were ages 16 to 30 and recruited from a college.
How valid are these studies when the very data is shaky? Who funds them?
I’m a PhD student and the vast majority of studies have similar limitations.
When you study something, you are focused on a very particular piece of a larger puzzle. Furthermore, you are limited based on funding, the people that respond to your surveys, etc. It is a monumental task to get people to respond to surveys with thoughtful answers.
So to a casual layperson, it seems like they didn’t study anything, even though the reality is that they moved heaven and earth to get the small number of responses they received.
The most interesting part of the article is that it seems that _empathy_ might be a causal driver:
> Higher levels of celebrity worship were associated with higher levels of empathy
Like lots of other commenters here, my first reaction was that celebrity worshippers are stupid, but the article itself doesn't seem to actually suggest that. Smart people definitely can get sucked into cults, so it's plausible to me that intelligence is less relevant here than I assumed.
Wondering how many commenters here actually clicked the link...
Not reading the article before commenting and jumping to “must be stupidity” conclusions? Yep sounds like Reddit.
The article also noted that the empathy/impulse relationship is typically associated with close family/friends, which highly suggests celebrity worshippers see themselves as having parasocial relationships with celebrities. A blend of putting them on a pedestal but also seeing them as a close friend.
The thing is intelligence encompasses many different qualities, spatial reasoning, memory, logic, critical thinking, and the whole umbrella of emotional intelligence, which among others includes empathy, the ability to infer the internal mental state of others through their body language and speech.
Not having read the article, just this tidbit, I'd guess high levels of empathy combined with lower levels of critical thinking might be the best predictors for celebrity worship.
> empathy, the ability to infer the internal mental state of others through their body language and speech
In casual usage "empathy" is regarded as the virtue of caring for others, but I believe the more technical definition is as you suggest, the ability to infer anothers internal mental state. The overlap comes from the assumption that once aware of pain in another, a moral person would seek to prevent the suffering of others.
Highly empathetic people also make the best manipulators, liars, and con-men. They intuitively understand how to get others into an emotional state that will be most advantageous to themselves.
I would imagine empathy also leads to higher rates of social signaling behaviors. If I buy this thing or wear these clothes, I'm signalling to others these things about myself.
Probably true, I'd think low int high empath types would certainly be more likely to celebrity worship than the opposite, high int would mean more critical judgement on people and low empath would mean less likely to care and identify with them. Having either of those traits would make celebrity worship less likely, especially both.
They define empathy as interpersonal reactivity. That is not an intelligence trait. It is also not an ability, as it cannot be turned off. It's a sense.
It can inform emotional intelligence, but then you do need critical thinking. Strong feelings of empathy can be wrong, leading to misunderstandings. Or in case of celebrities, they could have been intentionally evoked.
> Neuroscience has shown that we can teach ourselves to turn off our empathy—and that we are able to do this because sometimes we need to
> Psychopathic criminals can switch empathy off and on, research suggests. Psychopaths do not lack empathy, rather they can switch it on and off at will, according to new research aimed at identifying why such criminals are callous and charming.
Two seperate examples.
I don’t think anyone would call wearing a 49ers jersey or a Metallica t-shirt celebrity worship.
Do you quit your job or abandon your responsibilities to travel year round to go to every event this celebrity hosts?
That really is a thing. Google front row joes, or Deadhead.
I think that's the extreme end though. The least extreme end I think is wearing a t-shirt of a band you like.
I don't think empathy is associated with being smart or stupid, nor is it even inherently a good thing. It just means you're easily swept up in the emotions of others. Hitler exploited empathy, riling up his audiences with his own emotions. Those who follow and worship serial killers are doing so because of empathy. etc Empathy isn't a synonym of stupid, but it's certainly an exploitable weakness.
Empathy doesn't mean you're smart. You can be easily taken advantage of actually.
I an sure they could also say that celebrity worship is tied to consumerism in general. If too much of who you are is defined more from without than from within, whether it be a person or thing, they are bound to really *wants* it.
It’s why celebrity endorsements are a thing.
Impulsively buying a game that a Youtuber/Streamer you like is playing is just as valid an example of this.
It's actually does kind of make sense when you think about it.
The people who worship celebrities put these celebrities up on a pedestal without looking at them critically. They seem to ignore the fact that they would function like any other human being, and should be weighed on their attributes as any other human being.
But many of these celebrities are valued by how "shiny" they are, and the enthusiasm in how other people treat them.
Famous people are kind of like the "As Seen On TV" products.
Every once in awhile those As Seen On TV products actually turn out to be pretty good. 95% of the time they are cheap, worthless, and do not do what they're supposed to. Kind of like people who are famous for just being famous.
My rough estimation is that 5% of famous people that followers go crazy over are actually worthy of any kind of admiration. Their fame is based upon their own efforts not how they are packaged to the public.
I was with you until you pulled that 5% number out of your ass
My ass's numbers have been known to be highly accurate.
If I misinterpreted the numbers presented to me by my ass, well, then I will stand corrected.
Haha what someone considers worthy of admiration changes a lot based on the individual and their morals, goals, upbringing etc. I know personally for me it’s even less then 5%
Celebrity worship, brand worship, lack of critical reasoning, impulsivity, i can see them as all linked.
Which, of course, is why people use celebrities in advertisements...
Is it the other way around? Does impulsive behavior predict celebrity worship?
I have to wonder if it isn't more generally: Worship predicts poor decision making.
Does the research in addition mention anything about which types of people are especially more vulnerable to worship celebrities?
This is by design. Celebrity power has always been used to market products. These days the celebrities market themselves to cut out the middle man.
What is the definition of "worshipping" an celebrity? I mean, I do like some celebrities... (Certain music artists or movie actors etc.)
1: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
I would say to admire somebody setting aside critical thinking.
>I would say to admire somebody setting aside critical thinking.
Bravo for a succinct description!
I would also say, the correlation between those two things can also be that people experience certain types of mental distress that make both of those two things more likely, and so when they're put close to each other it happens more.
Like I definitely escape into media for comfort, a lot of comedy, and I also have poor impulse control when I go shopping and things are cheap. So it's like I and being shown pictures of people on instagram because I like them, and then I see them wearing a cute thing that scratches an itch for me, and I get tempted to buy it. I'm not itching to buy stuff I don't have a use for, but if you show me a cute jacket that has a nice half zip and pockets I'm getting tempted.
But if there's someone who's like me out there who is following people who are actively out there trying to sell stuff, and they are tempted by more types of objects that line up with what their celebrity is selling them, they're not stupid they're just incredibly vulnerable to those tactics. And especially when you think about how strong advertising is in our current time, and it being made to try and target base human reactions, they're just getting hit by an industry
... Isn't that why we have all these reality shows and the like. It's all a product. It's why marketing and advertising is the most profitable. You may not be able to afford this life, but we can sell you pieces of it.
Edward Bernays the father of public relations, spoke of, and used that in the 1920s.
Could've asked any marketing person on the planet
Is that why I always have to see Brad, Angelina and Jennifer Aniston’s face every time I’m in the checkout aisle??
Yes. That's why influencers are a thing.
New public research, the companies that fund influencers weren't doing it on a gamble.
What a discovery... Celebrity worshipping is part of idealisation which is a core components of borderline disorder.
Which is strictly correlated with impulsive actions....
Being dumb predicts doing dumb stuff
I wonder if people who worship celebrities just aren't that smart so are also prone to impulsive buying behaviour.
I don't think intelligence or lack of intelligence really has much to do with impulse buying.
Iq is positively linked with impulse control, so unless impulse buying involves something more than impulsive control then it could have a lot to do with it.
Do you have a source for that?
Sure, there's been a lot of research on this, if you just google it plenty of studies come up with the same findings.
Huh. It just seems like probably 3 of the 5 smartest people I know have ADD through the roof and the impulse control of a puppy
I have ADHD and am at/above average intelligence (on a good day) and, anecdotally, “impulse control” looks different depending on what the impulse is, so I’d be interested to see how that study (can’t read it on mobile) tested for it.
If there’s an Oreo in front of me, I will eat it without thinking about it. If I think I know the answer on Jeopardy, I blurt it out immediately.
But other things, like impulse-shopping, are incredibly rare for me. I don’t follow every impulse. If you put an Oreo in front of me and said “don’t eat this, it will impact your grades” I could sit there and stare at the Oreo until I see my grades my improve.
It def has something to do with celebrity worship.
What about the other way around?
This infatuation with celebrities we as a society have is dangerous. Why do u think they use celebrities to push propaganda? Because they can sell it. Seems pretty obvious. But for some they don't see it. They're the impulse buyers.