‘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.