subclinical narcissism in social media
TRANSCRIPT
‘Like me, retweet me’: Using Social Media Posting Behaviours To Predict Subclinical Narcissism
School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester
PSYC309209218062
Words: 5242
Abstract
The social networking sites (SNSs) Facebook and Twitter have over the past
decade grown to become an important part of the everyday lives of millions of people
and have changed the way we communicate with each other online. Status updates
and tweets are unique features where users can optimise their strategic self-
presentation as they are in complete control of what information they share with their
audience. Research has suggested people’s offline personalities are extended into the
virtual world and reflected in their online behaviours, and that the exhibitionistic and
self-centred nature of SNSs is attractive to narcissists. This multiple regression study
aimed to investigate the link between the participants’ levels of subclinical narcissism
and their posting behaviours on Twitter and Facebook. The 52 undergraduate students
who participated filled out the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40) and the
Social Media Behaviour Questionnaire (SMBQ) designed for this research. The
SMBQ measured eight predictor variables: Frequency of Tweets, Frequency of Status
Updates, Emotional Content, Political Content and four Self-Promotional variables
(Achievements, Lifestyle, Material Possessions and Relationships). It was
hypothesised that the participants’ narcissism would be predicted by their frequency
of posting tweets and self-reported tendencies to write self-promotional status updates
and tweets. The multiple regression analysis showed no significant results, possibly
due to small sample size. Methodological limitations and directions for future
research are addressed.
Introduction
It is safe to conclude that the Internet has changed the way we live our lives
and connected the world together in many different ways; the global economy and
how companies do business all around the world (Oxford Economics, 2011), the way
we both broadcast and obtain information on news both locally and globally, and how
we communicate with each other (Kwak, Lee, Park, & Moon, 2010). Reports have
shown that weekly hours of Internet use in adults have increased from ten to over 20
hours per week and many young people even report being virtually ‘always’ online
either with their smartphones, tablets or computers (Ofcom, 2015). Its unrivalled
popularity could be due to how its content is shaped and constructed by its users, as
individuals obtain and exchange information when and how they choose and take part
in activities that interest them – that being shopping, conducting research or
communicating with friends or strangers (Wallace, 2016).
For many of its users the Internet has become an important communication
platform where socialisation can take place between individuals regardless of
geographical proximity (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social networking sites (SNSs)
have grown immensely in popularity since the early 2000s (Boyd & Ellison, 2008),
and offer users unique ways to create and maintain an ‘online’ identity alongside their
traditional ‘offline’ one, build social networks and share various types of information
with other users. In a survey of 205 undergrdauate students, Petrocchi, Asnaani,
Martinez, Nadkarni and Hofmann (2015) concluded that 80 per cent reported some
SNS use, and for a vast number of members of industrialised societies SNSs have
become such an important part of life that their online and offline worlds are at least
partially integrated (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfeld, 2006).
Whilst different SNSs offer unique features and are being used in different
ways, all social networking sites have some aspects in common (Boyd & Ellison,
2008). A SNS allows its users to create profiles with personal information about
themselves, including names, photos and location, and offers a platform where users
can share content and communicate with other individuals online either publicly or
privately (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Whilst Facebook is the world's most popular SNS
with 1.3 billion monthly active users, Twitter has over 270 million monthly active
users (McCarthy, 2014). On Facebook, users add real-life friends, colleagues and
acquaintances as ‘friends’, before interacting with them in the way of their choosing.
It is a complex and multi-purpose SNS where users can post photos, chat privately
with friends, start public groups and even play games.
Yet, one of the most popular features on the SNS is the ‘status update’ with 55
million being posted each day (Branckaute, 2010). The status update is a text-based
one-to-many communication feature where users can write and share personal
statements with their friends (Davenport, Bergman, Bergman & Fearrington, 2014).
These text-based statuses can, for example, revolve around the user’s personal life,
events, information or opinions on culture or politics. It can also allow other users to
engage with the statement through writing comments or giving the status update a
‘like’. The core idea of Facebook and more specifically status updates is that users
take part in reciprocal communication where they actively engage with shared content
of others (Davenport et al., 2014), and billions of ‘likes’ are given to status updates
daily (Tam, 2012).
Twitter is, in comparison with Facebook, more minimalistic and offers fewer
features. Users can create a profile and share short 140-character messages called
‘tweets’ (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel & Chowdury, 2009). Whilst Facebook users have
friends they mostly know ‘offline’, Twitter users have ‘followers’ who can be either
real-life friends, online friends or complete strangers who just decided to ‘follow’ the
user. Twitter is often regarded as a microblog and focuses on ‘what you have to say’
rather than ‘who you are’ (Hughes, Rowe, Batey & Lee, 2012), as you are sharing
personal opinions and information rapidly through short ‘tweets’ with these
‘followers’.
At the heart of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, is the unique
levels of control users have over their self-presentation, an ever-present aspect of our
social identity as individuals in society. Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012) argued SNS
use is motivated by two primary needs in humans – to belong and to control self-
presentation. Goffman (1959) argued in his theory of self-presentation that impression
management is a conscious or subconscious process where the individual attempts to
present an ‘idealised’ version of himself by emphasising attractive aspects to establish
a favourable social identity. Arkin (1981) suggested there are two different types of
self-presentation – acquisitive and protective. Whilst the purpose of acquisitive self-
presentation is seeking approval, so the individuals emphasize attractive aspects of
themselves and construct desirable public images, protective self-presentation aims to
avoid disapproval.
The SNSs Facebook and Twitter are unique as they offer their users features
that allow them to optimise both acquisitive and protective strategic self-presentation.
This is due to users being in complete control of what information they share about
their personal lives, values, thoughts or political views. User can therefore, through
writing status updates and tweets to ‘friends’ and ‘followers’, actively construct
desirable, positive public images of themselves by selectively providing information
that will promote approval from others (Uski & Lampinen, 2014). In contrasts to
social interactions in the real world, users on SNSs also have the ability to inspect and
edit their self-presentation before making it available to others. They can also delete
statements already made in the form of status updates, tweets and even feedback from
others (Walther, Slovacek & Tidwell, 2001).
Due to these unique aspects of online SNSs, social psychologists and
researchers have taken a great interest in investigating how individuals engage with
these features and how it relates to their personality traits (Rui & Stefanone, 2012). As
the central features of SNSs are exhibitionistic in nature and offer users a social
platform to promote their lives to a large audience and receive positive feedback,
‘likes’ and admiration, both researchers and popular press have discussed the potential
link between narcissism and SNS behaviour (Deters, Mehl & Eid, 2014). Narcissism
is a personality trait reflecting a grandiose and inflated self-view (Buffardi &
Campbell, 2008), and is defined by Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.) as ‘Extreme
selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration’.
Its name originated from Narcissus, a hunter in Greek mythology who fell in love
with his own reflection in the water and died as he could not take his eyes away from
it (Spotnitz, & Resnikoff, 1957). Goffmann (1959) argued the ultimate goal of self-
presentation is to make others accept the images individuals claim for themselves.
Narcissists tend to be self-centered and often boast about their achievements and
lifestyles (Buss & Chiodo, 1991), as being admired and receiving positive feedback
and validation is important for narcissists. Facebook and Twitter can therefore be
regarded as attractive arenas for narcissists, as they enable users to share personal
content of their choosing and offer many opportunities for congratulations, likes and
positive comments (Walters & Horton, 2015).
Due to SNSs being a relatively new phenomenon gaining popularity in the mid
2000s, scientific research investigating the relationship between personality traits of
users and their posts on SNS was very limited until the start of the 2010s (Hughes et
al., 2012). One issue with available literature on the topic is how some studies have
not differentiated between various types of SNS usage, from posting content to
watching videos or chatting privately with friends (Chen, 2011). One example of this
can be observed in Petrocchi et al.’s (2015) study, where no significant associations
between individuals’ narcissism and Facebook and Twitter usage were found. This
could be due to methodological limitations, as 241 self-selected undergraduate
students were given intensity scales with questions like ‘I would be sorry if
Facebook/Twitter shut down’ and ‘Facebook/Twitter is part of my everyday activity’,
instead of investigating specific activities or the potentially self-promoting aspects of
SNS. Due to SNSs having several features and there are different ways to engage with
SNSs, it is of vital importance to differentiate between active and passive usage.
Whilst passive usage includes scrolling down the page or looking at videos, it is likely
for there to be a stronger link between narcissism and active usage by broadcasting
views and one’s identity through tweets and status updates due to the self-centred,
self-promotional and exhibitionistic aspects of narcissism (Davenport et al., 2014).
Whilst Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport and Bergman’s (2011) study found
that narcissism did not predict time spent on SNSs or frequency of status updates,
Ong et al. (2011) found in a similar study on adolescents that narcissism scores
strongly predicted number of status updates written per week. Panek, Nardis and
Konrath (2013) discussed the social implications of narcissism, as it can be difficult
for narcissistic individuals to establish meaningful, long-term relationships. Panek et
al. (2013) argued a larger, less familiar audience could motivate more narcissistic
users to post on Twitter rather than Facebook and designed a self-report study
focusing on an adult population as well as college students. Results showed that
individuals scoring high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) posted tweets
and statuses more frequently, a clear relationship found in both college students and
adults. Narcissistic college students also reported preferring Twitter, and used the site
to amplify their own perceived superiority to others. One limitation of Panek’s study,
similar to that of Bergman et al.’s (2011) and Ong et al.’s (2011) studies, is that it
only measured frequency of posts rather than investigating the content.
Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli and Morris (2002) argued that individuals in a real-
life setting leave traces of their individuality and personality characteristics in their
physical environments and Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman and Gaddis (2011)
theorised that the same trend can be found in virtual environments. Similar to how a
bedroom is empty before an occupant moves in and starts leaving traces of his
personality through the books he reads and how tidy he keeps it, a SNS profile page
can be seen as a blank canvas on which the users are able to construct an idealised
version of themselves and demonstrate their personalities by sharing personalised
content through status updates and tweets (Wilson, Gosling & Graham, 2012).
Gosling et al.’s (2011) study on 159 undergraduate students investigating the Big Five
personality traits partially supported their theory as extroverts recorded higher levels
of social engagement on Facebook than introverts. These findings support the notion
that SNS behaviour parallels offline behaviour and that SNS users simply extend and
leave traces of their offline personalities in their online behaviour. Gosling et al.’s
(2011) study did not investigate narcissism, but due to the self-centered, shallow and
self-promotional aspects of narcissism one could assume users scoring high on
narcissism are more likely to post content on SNSs fixating on their own
accomplishments and life than they are to share news stories (Panek et al., 2013).
A limited number of other studies have investigated the relationship between
the content of posts shared on SNSs and narcissism, with most findings supporting
Gosling et al.’s theory on offline personality reflecting online behaviour. In
Mehdizadeh’s (2010) study, activities of 100 university students on Facebook were
coded. Whilst results showed that participants with high narcissism scores were more
self-promotional in both their profile pictures and status updates, Mehdizadeh (2010)
acknowledged the subjectivity of the Facebook page coding as a limitation as the
researcher was the only rater and was potentially biased to what content was ‘self-
promotional’ (McKinney, Kelly & Durant, 2012). Younus, Qureshi, Griffith,
O’Riordan and Pasi (2015) collected a large and geographically diverse sample and
analysed the content of the participants’ comments and status updates. Contrasting
Panek et al.’s findings, results showed that narcissists did not post more frequently but
the posts narcissists shared tended to lack intellectual depth and were instead more
self-promotional and centered around their personal lives, findings in line with
Mehdizadeh’s (2010) study.
Marshall, Lefringhausen and Ferenczi’s (2015) online self-report study
investigated the relationship between various personality traits and how they predicted
the topics individuals wrote about in Facebook status updates. Whilst participants
scoring high on openness tended to write about intellectual topics and extroverts
focused on their social activities, narcissists more frequently wrote status updates
about their achievements. Narcissism scores were also strongly related to status
updates about diet and exercise, which could be explained by narcissists excessive
vanity and care of their physical appearance (Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow & Gosling,
2008). Marshall et al.’s (2015) findings support the notion that offline personalities
affect online behaviour and more specifically content sharing on SNSs. Results
showing narcissists preferred writing about their achievements rather than emotional
events or discussing politics was not a surprise Psychologists often argue narcissists
lack emotional depth (Lowen, 2004), avoid showing emotions that would contradict
their inflated self-image and have little interest in intellectual stimulation by others as
they prefer shallow relationships and conversations (Vaknin, 2007).
Whilst both Facebook and Twitter offer a platform for one-to-many
communication, Twitter is designed for rapid information-spreading and one-way
communication with ‘followers’ whilst Facebook relationships and status updates are
more reciprocal (Davenport et al., 2014) with real-life friends ‘liking’ and
commenting on others’ posts. Davenport et al. (2014) argued therefore that Twitter
might be preferred for narcissists as its platform promotes more shallow, non-intimate
relationships normally desired by narcissists. Supporting this notion, college students
scoring high on narcissism in Davenport, Fearrington’s (2014) study reported a
preference for Twitter when posting sharing content, whilst narcissism predicted
active Facebook usage in adults but not in college students. In another self-reported
study comparing Twitter and Facebook usage in the context of offline personality
traits, McKinney et al. (2012) found that whilst an openness to share rather than
narcissism was related to frequency of posting self-focused status updates, narcissism
was correlated with number of self-focused ‘tweets’ on Twitter.
It is clear from the literature review that the relationship between narcissism
and active content sharing on SNSs is not only somewhat under-researched, but also
poorly understood with findings being inconsistent across studies. Whilst Petrocchi et
al.’s (2015) study had clear methodological limitations, others like Panek et al.’s
(2013) study have focused solely on frequency of content sharing on SNSs without
investigating the content, or not even differentiating between passive and active SNS
usage. This present self-report online study addressed these issues and methodological
limitations and aimed to investigate both how individuals’ level of subclinical
narcissism could be predicted by their status updating and tweeting frequency and
their tendencies to post status updates and tweets of self-promotional, emotional and
political nature.
Two hypotheses were proposed for this present study. In line with our
theoretical understanding of narcissism, Gosling et al.’s (2011) theory that an
individual’s offline personality will be reflected in his online behaviour and the
findings of Marshall et al. (2015), Younush et al. (2015) and Mehdizadeh (2010), it
was hypothesised that individuals’ level of subclinical narcissism would be predicted
by their self-reported tendencies to post self-promotional status updates and tweets on
SNSs. Considering Twitter offers a platform for more shallow, non-intimate
relationships, and in line with the findings of Davenport et al’s (2014) and Panek et
al.’s study (2013), it was hypothesised that individuals’ level of subclinical narcissism
would be predicted by their self-reported frequency of posting tweets on Twitter. The
present study also aimed to examine whether the participants’ frequency of posting
status updates and self-reported tendencies to post status updates and tweets with
emotional and political content could predict their level of narcissism.
Method
Participants
Participants who chose to take part in this study were recruited through The
University of Manchester’s online experiment participation system and were awarded
2 course credits after completing the study. There were 52 participants in total,
consisting of 44 females and 8 males. All participants were studying either
Psychology or Cognitive Neuroscience and were required to have accounts on both
Facebook and Twitter to take part.
Materials
The level of narcissism in the participants was assessed using Raskin and
Terry’s (1988) 40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40). The NPI was
based on DSM-III clinical criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and measures
narcissism in the general population. It is therefore not a diagnostic tool, but rather a
tool for measuring ‘subclinical narcissism’. For each item of the inventory the
participants are given two contrasting statements and are asked to choose which one
they agree with the most. Whilst one statement is the narcissistic response, the other is
not. For example, Item 1 consists of the following two statements: ‘A. I have a natural
talent for influencing people.’ and ‘B. I am not good at influencing people.’. In this
example, statement A is the narcissistic response. Participants are assigned one point
per narcissistic statement, leaving the individuals’ total sum between 0 and 40, with
40 indicating highest possible score of subclinical narcissism (Raskin & Terry, 1988).
To measure the participants’ SNS posting behaviours in terms of tweeting and
status updating for this study, the SMBQ was designed specifically for this research.
The SMBQ measures eight different subscales of SNS posting behaviour that were the
study’s predictor variables: Frequency of posting status updates, Frequency of posting
tweets, Self-promotional Achievements, Self-promotional Lifestyle, Self-promotional
Relationships, Self-promotional Material Possessions, Emotional Content and
Political Content.
The SMBQ was split into three parts, the first part simply asking participants
roughly how many tweets on Twitter and status updates on Facebook they post in a
typical week. The second and third part was similar as they measured the same
subscales of posting behaviour, but the items are designed differently. For the second
part participants were given ten examples of text-based status updates or tweets with
different topics and styles, for example ‘I just got a new job, starting already next
week. So happy!’ measuring the variable Self-Promotional Achievements, and were
asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-scale how similar the given example was to the status
updates and tweets they normally post, with responses ranging from ‘very different’
to ‘very similar’. The third part of the SMBQ consisted of 20 statements regarding
status updating or tweeting behaviour where participants were asked to rate on a 7-
point Likert-scale how well they identified with the statement, from ‘strongly agree’
to ‘strongly disagree’. Each statement measured a specific predictor variable, as item
3 ‘I would never write about a sad event in my life on Facebook or Twitter’ measures
how willing participants were to post emotional content on SNSs, and item 1 ‘When I
acquire a valuable item I know is popular with my friends and followers, I am likely
to tweet or write a status about it’ measures how willing the participants were to share
self-promotional content about their material possessions.
Procedure
After receiving ethical approval, the study was made available online on the
experiment participation system. Participants who chose to take part were given
information on what the study would investigate and what was expected of them, and
informed of their rights to withdraw at any time. The participants filled in both
questionnaires in one sitting, starting with the SMBQ before completing the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. After the completing the NPI, the participants were
debriefed and received post-participation information regarding the study and what it
aimed to investigate.
Results
Table 1
Participants’ Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Variables (N = 52)
Variable M SD
NPI Score 13.13 6.76
Frequency of Status Updates .83 1.86
Frequency of Tweets 3.69 4.53
Self-Promotional Achievements 3.99 .82
Self-Promotional Lifestyle 3.74 1.11
Self-Promotional Relationships 2.83 1.24
Self-Promotional Material Possessions 2.65 1.31
Emotional Content 2.63 1.20
Political Content 3.59 1.37
Note. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation.
Descriptive statistics of the data are summarised in Table 1. Preliminary
analyses were performed to ensure there was no violation of the assumption of
normality, linearity and no multicollinearity. A multiple regression was conducted to
examine how well NPI scores of participants as the outcome variable could be
predicted by the eight predictor variables Frequency of Status Updates, Frequency of
Tweets, Self-Promotional Achievements, Self-Promotional Lifestyle, Self-
Promotional Relationships, Self-Promotional Material Possessions, Emotional
Content and Political Content. The predictor variables together did not explain a
statistically significant amount of the variance in the NPI scores, F(8, 42) = 1.642, p >
.05, adjusted R2 = .093. As shown in Table 2, the multiple regression analysis also
showed that scores from none of the eight independent variables significantly
predicted NPI scores (p > .05). Table 2 displays the unstandardised regression
coefficient (B), standard error of B, the standardised coefficient (beta) and the p-value
of each predictor variable.
Table 2
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Narcissism
(N = 52)
Predictor Variable B SE B β p
Freq. of statuses .662 .525 .182 .214
Freq. of tweets -.065 .235 -.044 .783
Self-P. Achievements -1.838 1.479 -.222 .221
Self-P. Lifestyle .512 1.082 .084 .638
Self-P. Relationships
Self-P. Material Poss.
Emotional Content
Political Content
1.053
1.811
.322
-.932
1.083
1.007
.895
.705
.193
.351
.057
-.189
.336
.079
.720
.193
Note. Freq. = Frequency. Self-P. = Self-Promotional. Poss. = Possessions.
Discussion
While it was hypothesised that participants’ self-reported frequency of posting
tweets and sharing self-promotional content on Facebook and Twitter would predict
their narcissism scores, both research hypotheses were rejected as the multiple
regression analysis showed null results. As shown in Table 2, none of the eight
predictor variables predicted participants’ level of subclinical narcissism at a
statistically significant level. One predictor variable, Self-Promotional Material
Possessions, was approaching significance with a p-value of less than .10. Despite
results from prior research being somewhat mixed and inconclusive, it is important to
acknowledge that the null results from this present study challenge the findings of
central research studies on the topic. Whilst Panek et al.’s (2013) self-reported
regression study with a similar sample of college students found that individuals high
on narcissism posted tweets more frequently, this study found no such relationship at
a significant level.
Besides the frequency of SNS content sharing, the emphasis of this study was
put on investigating the various topics SNS users report they write about when
sharing text-based content on Facebook and Twitter and how these trends could
predict their level of subclinical narcissism. It was as expected that participants’
narcissism scores would not be predicted by their self-reported tendencies to post
status updates or tweets with emotional or political content, as narcissists rarely wish
to show emotions or vulnerability and can often be more focused on themselves than
societal issues (Lowen, 2004).
The multiple regression analysis showing that none of the four self-
promotional variables predicted level of narcissism in participants was more
surprising, due to both our theoretical understanding of narcissism and findings of
several previous research studies. Gosling et al. (2011) theorised that individuals’
offline personalities are extended into the virtual world and are reflected in their
activities and behaviours online and on SNSs, a theory receiving scientific support
from several studies. Due to narcissists being exhibitionistic, self-centred and often
show high levels of self-love (Twenge & Foster, 2008), the null results found in all
four self-promotional variables challenge Gosling et al.’s (2011) theory.
When discussing why the analysis did not support the research hypotheses and
showed null results, the methodology and limitations of the study must be addressed.
In hypothesis testing, having a sufficient sample size is crucial for any study’s
statistical power and generalisability (Button et al., 2013). As the sample size
increases the mean of each sample will be closer to the actual population mean, which
increases the reliability of the study’s findings (Coolican, 2009). Whilst this present
study only had 52 participants, Green (1991) suggested a sample size for a multiple
regression testing individual predictors should be 104 plus number of predictor
variables used. It is therefore possible that the multiple regression analysis showed
null results due to a type II error, as many null studies with small sample sizes might
be too underpowered to detect the expected effects (Nayak, 2010).
Despite the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) being the most widely
used measure for narcissism in a subclinical population, the inventory has been
criticised both for its psychometric properties and on a conceptual level (Deters,
Mehl, & Eid, 2014). Lorenz (2011) argued the development of a more complex NPI
utilising Likert-type scales where participants can give extremely narcissistic, non-
narcissistic or moderately narcissistic responses, would give researchers more insight
into the participants’ level of narcissism than today’s NPI where participants are for
each item asked to choose between a narcissistic response and a non-narcissistic
response. Some researchers have also proposed a distinction between various
subscales of narcissism, including Exhibitionism, Entitlement and Grandiosity,
instead of using the NPI-40 to get a total sum of general narcissism (Brown, Budzek
& Tamborski, 2009). Because this study only measured narcissism as a whole,
potential associations between the predictor variables and subcomponents of
narcissism cannot be ruled out.
The ambitious Social Media Behaviour Questionnaire (SMBQ) was developed
specifically for this study to investigate the online content sharing behaviours of SNS
users, and like with all new scientific measures its limitations and conceptual issues
must be addressed. For the frequency variables participants were asked how many
tweets and status updates they write in a typical week, resulting in very low mean
scores especially for self-reported number of status updates per week (.83) with over
80 per cent of participants reporting posting either none or one. Extending the time
period from one week to four-six weeks might potentially separate the active posters
to the non-posters more successfully.
The SMBQ aimed to investigate how people engage with status updates and
tweet differently and what they choose to share with their audience, but the
questionnaire has some conceptual issues. One part of the SMBQ involved giving the
participants ten specific examples of different status updates or tweets, each
representing a predictor variable, and participants were asked how similar or different
the example was to the content they would normally share on SNSs. With the
example of ‘I finally bought my dream car – expensive but worth it!’ which measured
the variable Self-Promotional Material Possessions, participants might have chosen
the ‘very different’ response because they have never owned a car or have no interest
in cars and not because they generally never post self-promotional content on SNSs
about their material possessions. It is therefore possible that the scores from the
examples partially resulted from the participants’ enthusiasm for cars and concerts
and not just their willingness to share content on SNSs about the material possessions
or lifestyle as was intended, which, if the case, would reduce the overall scientific
validity of the questionnaire (Drost, 2011). Also, the items of the SMBQ addressing
the self-promotional, emotional and political predictor variables did not examine
behaviours in each SNS separately but asked generally with items like ‘If I am sad
about something, I would never write tweets or status updates about it’. Because the
participants are asked about both their Twitter and Facebook behaviour in the same
question, it is impossible to clarify if a potential effect is specific to a SNS or
observed in SNSs generally.
It is somewhat likely that the aforementioned methodological limitations
affected the data collected, caused the null results and prevented the present study
from observing similar findings to that of Mehdizadeh et al.’s (2010) and Marshall et
al.’s (2015) studies where narcissists were found to be more self-promotional and
focused on lifestyle and personal achievements in their status updates and tweets.
Alternatively it could be Gosling et al.’s (2011) theory that individuals’ offline
personalities are manifested in their behaviour on SNSs is false and that the null
results from this present study are not a type II error but instead a true representation
of the population. Instead of people sharing self-centred, self-promotional content on
Facebook and Twitter because of their offline personality traits, it might be explained
by the culture and norms of the social networking sites (McKinney et al., 2012). Chou
and Edge (2012) reported an overall trend of ‘positivity bias’ on SNSs as users
consciously indulge in positive self-presentation through photos, status updates and
tweets in such a pervasive manner that active users report they believe others are
living happier and better lives. Buffardi and Campbell (2008) argued the prevalence
of narcissistic individuals in an SNS might increase narcissistic behaviour amongst
users in general and in turn resulting in it becoming more acceptable. These
arguments are more anecdotal than scientifically sound, but it is possible that users
engage in behavioural trends like excessive self-promotional content sharing due to
the culture and norms of the SNS rather than it being evidence for a narcissistic
personality trait.
Despite the null results and the methodological limitations of the present
study, this paper has contributed to the overall discussion on the topic of narcissism in
social networking sites. The Social Media Behaviour Questionnaire was developed
where four different types self-promotional content posting behaviours in SNSs were
identified and measured for their prediction of narcissism. As the ever-changing
virtual world in general and social networking sites in particular have become such an
important part of both society as a whole and the lives of individuals, it is important
that social psychologists and researchers stay up-to-date with behavioural trends of
users on SNSs and investigate the psychological aspects related to them. The
methodological limitations and issues raised in this study need to be addressed in
future research, as the link between narcissism as an offline personality trait and
behaviours on Facebook and Twitter is still in many ways poorly understood. If using
self-reported measures similar to the SMBQ utilised in this study, it is recommended
that future research examine behaviours in each SNS separately as this would clarify
if an effect is specific to a SNS or observed in SNSs generally (Wilson et al., 2012).
In addition to continuing research on narcissism and text-based features of Facebook
and Twitter, the ‘selfie’ culture and self-promotional aspects of the mobile photo-
sharing social networking app Instagram (Senft & Baym, 2015) should be
investigated further in the context of narcissism.
References
Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression
management theory and social psychological research, 311–333. New York:
Academic Press.
Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011).
Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social
networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences. 50(5), 706-711.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
Branckaute, F. (2010). Facebook Statistics: The Number Games Continues. The Blog
Herald. Retrieved from http://www.blogherald.com/2010/08/11/facebook-statistics-
the-numbers-game-continues/
Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and measure of
narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 951-964.
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web
sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303-1314.
Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic Acts in Everyday Life. Journal of
Personality. 59(2), 179-215.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. J., &
Munafo, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the
reliability of neuroscience. Nature Review Neuroscience, 14, 365-376.
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active
Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(2), 755-762.
Chou, H. T., & Edge, N. (2012). "They are happier and having better lives than I am":
the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 15(2), 117-121.
Coolican, H. (2009). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. (5th ed.).
London: Hodder Education.
Davenport, S. W., Bergman, S. M., Bergman, J. Z., & Fearrington, M. E. (2014).
Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of
different social media platforms. Computers in Human Behaviour, 32, 212-220.
Deters, F. G., Mehl, M. R., & Eid, M. (2014). Narcissistic power poster? On the
relatonship between narcissism and status updating activity on Facebook. Journal of
Research in Personality, 53, 165-174.
Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Education
Research and Perspectives, 38(1).
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York:
Doubleday.
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self-Reported Facebook-
Related Behaviors and Observable Profile Information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
And Social Networking, 14(9), 483-488.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A Room With a
Cue: Personality Judgments Based on Offices and Bedrooms. Personality Processes
And Individual Differences, 82(3), 379-398.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499‐510.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561-569.
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets
as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 60(11), 2169-2188.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a Social Network or
a News Media? Retrieved from: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs315/Papers/What%20is
%20twitter-a%20social%20net%20or%20news%20media.pdf
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social
searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 167–170.
Lowen, A. (2004). Narcissism: Denial of the True Self. Touchstone.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem,
and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status
updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35-40.
McCarthy, N. (2014, October 14). Facebook Versus Twitter In Numbers. Forbes.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/10/14/facebook-
versus-twitter-infographic/#961bb4f7e185
McKinney, B. C., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). Narcissism or Openness:?
College Students' Use of Facebook and Twitter. Communication Research Reports,
29(2).
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on
Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(4).
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why Do People Use Facebook?. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243-249.
Nayak, B. K. (2010). Understanding the relevance of sample size calculation. Indian
Journal of Ophtalmology, 58(6), 469-470.
Ofcom. (2015). Adults' media use and attitudes. Retrieved from:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit-10years/
2015_Adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf
Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua,
A. Y. K. (2011). Narcissism, Extraversion and Adolescents' Self-Presentation on
Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences.
Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Narcissism. Retrieved from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/narcissism
Oxford Economics. (2011). The New Digital Economy. Retrieved from:
http://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/18539/uploads
Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., & Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or Megaphone?: How
relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook
and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2004-2012.
Petrocchi, N., Asnaani, A., Martinez, A. P., Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2015).
Differences Between People Who Use Only Facebook and Those Who Use Facebook
Plus Twitter. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(2), 157-165.
Raskin, R., Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 54(5), 890-902.
Rui, J., & Stefanone, M. A. (2012). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural
study. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 110-118.
Senft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). What Does the Selfie Say? Investigating a
Global Phenomenon. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1588-1606.
Spotnitz, H., & Resnikoff, P. (1954). The myths of Narcissus. Psychoanalytic Review.
41, 173-181.
Tam, D. (2012, August 22). Facebook processes more than 500 TB of data daily.
CNET. Retrieved from http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-processes-more-than-
500-tb-of-data-daily/
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2008). Mapping the scale of the narcissism epidemic:
Increases in narcissism 2002-2007 within ethnic groups. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 1619-1622.
Uski, S., & Lampinen (2014). Social norms and self-presentation on social
networking sites: Profile work in action. New Media & Society, 1-18.
Vaknin, Sam. (2007). Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited. Prague: Narcissus
Publications.
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a
narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research
in Personality, 42, 1439-1447.
Walters, N. T., & Horton, R. (2015). A diary study of the influence of Facebook use
on narcissism among male college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(3),
326-330.
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L. & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a Picture Worth a
Thousand Words? Photographic Images in Long-Term and Short-Term Computer-
Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 28(1), 105-134.
Wilson, R. R., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A Review of Facebook
Research in the Social Sciences. Pespective on Psychological Science, 7(3), 203-220.
Younus, A., Qureshi, M. A., Griffith, M. A., O'Riordan, C., & Pasi, G. (2015). A
Study into the Correlation Between Narcissism and Facebook Communication
Patterns. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?
arnumber=7396856
Wallace, P. (2016). The Psychology of the Internet. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.