Assignment Scenarios A 2- page analysis of one of the following scenarios. Be sure to include all of the information mentioned in the “Your Task” section of the scenario. Scenario 1: A European Crisis for Coca Cola The situation: Review the two articles for Scenario I in this week’s Learning Resources. Imagine that you are an intercultural communication consultant (ICC) entering the Coca Cola Headquarters in Atlanta one month after the first four Belgian children claim they are ill due to consuming Coke products. You are there for another job but are invited into the meeting that is analyzing the handling of this crisis. To prepare for your Assignment, consider the following: Imagine that you are an intercultural communication consultant (ICC) entering the Coca Cola Headquarters in Atlanta one month after the first four Belgian children claim they are ill due to consuming Coke products. You are there for another job but are invited into the meeting that is analyzing the handling of this crisis. • Former Coke CEO Robert Goizueta states, “Business will be the institution of the future. It’s the only global institution” (Greising, 1998, p. 145). Is this accurate? What implications does this have for ICC? • All businesses working across national borders deal with conflicts between corporate culture and the national cultures in which they operate. How would you recommend translating the corporate culture of Coca Cola to the national Belgian culture? • Leaders are symbolic representatives. What recommendations would you have for the CEO, Doug Ivester? • How does the fact that Coca Cola has more revenue per year than the gross domestic product (GDP) of two thirds of all the world’s countries play a role in how they operate in a crisis? • What additional questions would you ask or what additional information would you need in order to give the most effective recommendations? Your Task: Analyze the countries affected by this product issue. Consider how you would advise the leaders of Coca Cola on how they should have approached the situation from an intercultural communication perspective in order to have minimized the impact on sales and satisfied the needs of the countries affected. Provide recommendations of how Coca Cola could handle similar situations in the future more effectively. Cite at least two of the theories/tools from your Learning Resources to support your recommendations. References: Carson, Gary (n.d.) More fizz than they bargained for: Coca- Cola and the 1999 Belgian crisis. Gladwell, M (1999). Is the Belgian Coca-Cola hysteria the real thing? The New Yorker, 75 (18), 24 1303 Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites Laura E. Buffardi W. Keith Campbell University of Georgia Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of attention in the media surrounding the issue of narcis- sism and social networking Web sites (e.g., Baldwin & Stroman, 2007; Orlet, 2007; Vaidhyanathan, 2006). The concern is that these Web ...

1. Assignment Scenarios
A 2- page analysis of one of the following scenarios. Be sure
to include all of the information mentioned in the “Your Task”
section of the scenario.
Scenario 1: A European Crisis for Coca Cola
The situation: Review the two articles for Scenario I in this
week’s Learning Resources. Imagine that you are an
intercultural communication consultant (ICC) entering the Coca
Cola Headquarters in Atlanta one month after the first four
Belgian children claim they are ill due to consuming Coke
products. You are there for another job but are invited into the
meeting that is analyzing the handling of this crisis.
To prepare for your Assignment, consider the following:
Imagine that you are an intercultural communication consultant
(ICC) entering the Coca Cola Headquarters in Atlanta one
month after the first four Belgian children claim they are ill due
to consuming Coke products. You are there for another job but
are invited into the meeting that is analyzing the handling of
this crisis.
• Former Coke CEO Robert Goizueta states, “Business will be
the institution of the future. It’s the only global institution”
(Greising, 1998, p. 145). Is this accurate? What implications
does this have for ICC? • All businesses working across
national borders deal with conflicts between corporate culture
and the national cultures in which they operate. How would you
recommend translating the corporate culture of Coca Cola to the
national Belgian culture? • Leaders are symbolic
representatives. What recommendations would you have for the
CEO, Doug Ivester? • How does the fact that Coca Cola has
more revenue per year than the gross domestic product (GDP) of
two thirds of all the world’s countries play a role in how they
operate in a crisis? • What additional questions would you ask

2. or what additional information would you need in order to give
the most effective recommendations?
Your Task: Analyze the countries affected by this product issue.
Consider how you would advise the leaders of Coca Cola on
how they should have approached the situation from an
intercultural communication perspective in order to have
minimized the impact on sales and satisfied the needs of the
countries affected. Provide recommendations of how Coca Cola
could handle similar situations in the future more effectively.
Cite at least two of the theories/tools from your Learning
Resources to support your recommendations.
References:
Carson, Gary (n.d.) More fizz than they bargained for: Coca-
Cola and the 1999 Belgian crisis.
Gladwell, M (1999). Is the Belgian Coca-Cola hysteria the real
thing? The New Yorker, 75 (18), 24
1303
Narcissism and Social
Networking Web Sites
Laura E. Buffardi
W. Keith Campbell
University of Georgia
Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of
attention in the media surrounding the issue of narcis-
sism and social networking Web sites (e.g., Baldwin &
Stroman, 2007; Orlet, 2007; Vaidhyanathan, 2006).
The concern is that these Web sites offer a gateway for
self-promotion via self-descriptions, vanity via photos,
and large numbers of shallow relationships (friends are

3. counted—sometimes reaching the thousands—and in
some cases ranked), each of which is potentially linked
to trait narcissism.
The vast popularity of these sites suggests that the
general psychology of the members will be largely nor-
mative. That is, the 21 million members of Facebook
arguably (although it is, of course, still an empirical
question) look similar to others in society with similar
demographics. This was not necessarily the case in the
past and still might not be the case with lower base rate
Web presences, like freestanding personal Web pages.
For example, a study published in 2006 showed that
owners of personal Web sites did differ from controls on
several dimensions of the Big Five, and women, but not
men, did differ in narcissism with female Web page
owners reporting the higher narcissism scores (Marcus,
Machilek, & Schütz, 2006).1
Our focus will thus not be on the mean-level narcis-
sism score of the average social networking Web site
user. Instead, we will address the question of how narcis-
sism is manifested in these sites: Does narcissism predict
Authors’ Note: We would like to thank Laura Aikens, Laura
Aquilino,
Joel Frost, Jesse Hauch, Abby Levin, and Ben Porter for their
assis-
tance with data collection and coding. Please address
correspondence
to Laura E. Buffardi or W. Keith Campbell, Department of
Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013; e-
mail:
[email protected] or [email protected]
PSPB, Vol. 34 No. 10, October 2008 1303-1314
DOI: 10.1177/0146167208320061

4. © 2008 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
Inc.
The present research examined how narcissism is
manifested on a social networking Web site (i.e.,
Facebook.com). Narcissistic personality self-reports
were collected from social networking Web page own-
ers. Then their Web pages were coded for both objective
and subjective content features. Finally, strangers
viewed the Web pages and rated their impression of the
owner on agentic traits, communal traits, and narcis-
sism. Narcissism predicted (a) higher levels of social
activity in the online community and (b) more self-
promoting content in several aspects of the social
networking Web pages. Strangers who viewed the Web
pages judged more narcissistic Web page owners to be
more narcissistic. Finally, mediational analyses revealed
several Web page content features that were influential
in raters’ narcissistic impressions of the owners, includ-
ing quantity of social interaction, main photo self-
promotion, and main photo attractiveness. Implications
of the expression of narcissism in social networking
communities are discussed.
Keywords: narcissism; social networking Web sites; Internet;
self-presentation
The migration of individuals, especially teenagers andyoung
adults, onto the Internet has occurred in
staggering proportions. In particular, social networking
Web sites—nonexistent just years ago—have drawn
literally millions of users. Web sites such a MySpace
.com (total users: 90 million per month; Stone, 2007)
and Facebook.com (total users: 21 million members;
Geist, 2007) have been at the forefront of this migration.
These Web sites offer individuals the abilities, among

5. others, to (a) create an individual Web page, (b) post
self-relevant information (e.g., self-descriptions, photos),
(c) link to other members (e.g., “friends lists”), and
(d) interact with other members.
overall activity in a Web community? Is narcissism appar-
ent in the content of the Web page, and if so, how?
Finally, can the narcissism of a page owner be gleaned
from the content of the Web page? Before discussing our
design in detail, we briefly describe the construct of nar-
cissism, review the literature on the social qualities of
the Internet, and specify our predictions.
Narcissism and Social Behavior
Narcissism refers to a personality trait reflecting a
grandiose and inflated self-concept. Specifically, narcis-
sism is associated with positive and inflated self-views
of agentic traits like intelligence, power, and physical
attractiveness (Brown & Zeigler-Hill, 2004; Campbell,
Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee,
1994; John & Robins, 1994) as well as a pervasive
sense of uniqueness (Emmons, 1984) and entitlement
(Campbell, Bonacci, & Shelton, 2004).2 From a basic
trait perspective, narcissism is associated with a high
degree of extraversion/agency and a low level of agree-
ableness or communion (e.g., Miller & Campbell, 2008;
Paulhus & Williams, 2002). A similar high agency pattern
(and negative but typically small/nonsignificant correla-
tions with communion) is also found in narcissists’
explicit self-conceptions (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel,
2002), implicit self-conceptions (Campbell, Bosson,
Goheen, Lakey, & Kernis, 2007), and implicit motives
(Carroll, 1987).

6. Central to most theoretical models of narcissism in
social-personality psychology is the use of social relation-
ships in part to regulate self-esteem, self-concept positiv-
ity, or narcissistic esteem (Campbell, 1999; Campbell,
Brunell, & Finkel, 2006; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001;
Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991). Narcissists do not
focus on interpersonal intimacy, warmth, or other posi-
tive long-term relational outcomes, but they are very
skilled at both initiating relationships and using rela-
tionships to look popular, successful, and high in status
in the short term. Narcissists participate in this dynamic
“self-construction” (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) via rela-
tionships to constantly affirm their narcissistic esteem. It
has been suggested that this process is due, at least par-
tially, to narcissists’ dispositional impulsivity (Vazire &
Funder, 2006). How does this narcissistic self-regulation
or self-construction (we use these terms largely inter-
changeably) operate in the context of interpersonal rela-
tionships more specifically? First, narcissism is linked
positively with relationship formation. For example, nar-
cissism is associated with being (a) liked in initial inter-
actions (Oltmanns, Friedman, Fiedler, & Turkheimer,
2004; Paulhus, 1998), (b) perceived as a leader (Brunell,
Gentry, Campbell, & Kuhnert, 2006), (c) perceived as
exciting (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2003), (d) socially
confident (Brunell, Campbell, Smith, & Krusemark,
2004), (e) entertaining (Paulhus, 1998), and (f) able to
obtain sexual partners (Foster, Shrira, & Campbell,
2006). Second, narcissism is associated negatively with
seeking out or creating long-term relationships that
have qualities of closeness, empathy, or emotional
warmth (Brunell et al., 2004; Campbell, 1999; Campbell
& Foster, 2002). Third, narcissism is associated with
using relationships as an opportunity or forum for self-

7. enhancement. For example, narcissists brag and show
off (Buss & Chiodo, 1991), perform well when there is
an opportunity for public glory (Wallace & Baumeister,
2002), and seek attractive, high-status, “trophy” roman-
tic partners (Campbell, 1999). Others in relationships
with narcissistic individuals, however, often suffer in the
longer term as narcissism is linked to aggressiveness
(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998), psychological control
(Campbell, Foster, et al., 2002), game playing and infi-
delity (Campbell, Foster, et al., 2002; Le, 2005; Schmitt &
Buss, 2001), and lower levels of commitment (Campbell
& Foster, 2002). Indeed, longitudinal research on rela-
tionships has found that the initial likeability associated
with narcissism fades and is even reversed in the longer
term (Paulhus, 1998). Similarly, longitudinal research in
clinical settings has found a significant long-term conse-
quence of narcissism is the suffering of close others
(Miller, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2007).
How might narcissism operate in a social networking
Web site? These online communities may be an especially
fertile ground for narcissists to self-regulate via social
connections for two reasons. First, narcissists function
well in the context of shallow (as opposed to emotionally
deep and committed) relationships. Social networking
Web sites are built on the base of superficial “friendships”
with many individuals and “sound-byte” driven commu-
nication between friends (i.e., wallposts). Certainly, indi-
viduals use social networking sites to maintain deeper
relationships as well, but often the real draw is the abil-
ity to maintain large numbers of relationships (e.g., many
users have hundreds or even thousands of “friends”).
Second, social networking Web pages are highly con-
trolled environments (Vazire & Gosling, 2004). Owners
have complete power over self-presentation on Web
pages, unlike most other social contexts. In particular,

8. one can use personal Web pages to select attractive
photographs of oneself or write self-descriptions that are
self-promoting. Past research shows that narcissists, for
example, are boastful and eager to talk about themselves
(Buss & Chiodo, 1991), gain esteem from public glory
(Wallace & Baumeister, 2002), are prevalent on reality
television (Young & Pinsky, 2006), and enjoy looking at
themselves on videotape and in the mirror (Robins &
John, 1997). Personal Web pages should present a similar
opportunity for self-promotion.
1304 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
In sum, given the behaviors of narcissists in offline
relationship contexts, we expect that they will take
advantage of the new virtual arena for pursuing a simi-
lar self-regulatory agenda. This will include relatively
high levels of relationship formation, self-promoting
images of oneself, and an overall agentic (rather than
communal) self-presentation.
Personality Manifestation on Web Pages
To what extent will Web page observers be able to esti-
mate Web page owners’ narcissism? In order to make pre-
dictions about the expression of narcissism on Web pages,
it is important to ask two broader questions: Is personal-
ity, in general, apparent on personal Web pages? And if so,
how is personality inferred from Web pages?
Past research has shown that personality can be accu-
rately detected from Web pages and that this detection
is linked to specific Web page content (e.g., Marcus et al.,

9. 2006; Vazire & Gosling, 2004). For example, research
concerning self-presentation on the Internet has shown
that Web site viewers tend to make appropriate infer-
ences about owners’ Big Five personality based on per-
sonal Web pages, particularly with regard to Openness
to Experience (Marcus et al., 2006; Vazire & Gosling,
2004). Correlations between individuals’ actual person-
ality scores and the perceptions of these personality
dimensions drawn from their Web sites were similar
in magnitude to those impressions drawn from other
personality-reflective but nonelectronic contexts (e.g.,
their bedrooms; Vazire & Gosling, 2004).
In addition, evidence suggests that Web page viewers
utilize page content to form impressions of owners’ per-
sonalities. Marcus and colleagues (2006) found that Web
site features relevant to each of the Big Five personality
dimensions correlated with viewers’ impressions of the
owners’ Big Five personalities. For example, a couple of
the correlations observed in this study are as follows:
(a) Impressions of high Extraversion correlated with the
number of photographs owners posted picturing them-
selves with other individuals and themselves at parties, and
(b) Conscientious Web page owners tended to post their
resumes and count the number of visitors to their sites.
In sum, past research suggests that personality fac-
tors are (a) somewhat accurately expressed by Web page
owners through personal Web page content and (b)
appropriately inferred by Web site viewers. These find-
ings give us reason to expect that narcissism will also be
expressed by Web page owners and inferred by Web
page viewers based on Web page content.
The Present Research

10. The goal of this study was to examine the role of nar-
cissism in personal Web pages on social networking
sites. We were particularly interested in social network-
ing Web sites rather than other types of personal Web
pages for two reasons. First, they are a venue for both
self-presentation and social interaction. Social network-
ing sites are designed for not only conveying informa-
tion about one’s self to others but also, to a greater
extent than other forms of personal Web sites, for being
social online. Second, social networking sites are
extremely popular and are still growing in popularity.
There are a number of social network sites available
to Internet users; among the most widely used are
MySpace.com, Friendster.com, and Facebook.com. We
chose Facebook for our investigation for two
reasons. First, Facebook is the most commonly used
site by individuals in our sample—college students.
Facebook.com was originally designed as a way for
college students to electronically communicate with
other students at their own university and, later, with
others across the country. When it was first created, a
university e-mail address was required to register and
to set up an account. Although now all e-mail
addresses are granted accounts, Facebook.com
remains popular with college students (about half of
its members are in college; Kirkpatrick, 2007). Second,
Facebook is the most structured social network Web
site. That is to say, Facebook profile pages have a fixed
format and this consistency allows for a more con-
trolled comparison of Web pages. A Facebook page
utilizes a fill-in-the-blank system of personalization.
All pages share common social characteristics, such as
links to friends’ pages, membership in virtual groups,
and an electronic bulletin board, called the wall, where

11. friends post messages to the owner. Facebook pages
also have sections designated for the owner’s self-pre-
sentation. In a section titled About Me, page owners
typically describe themselves and their likes and dis-
likes. Another section is designated for Quotes. This is
where page owners list their favorite quotes, either
from literature, popular culture, or funny anecdotes
from real-life conversations. Uploaded photographs
are the other main self-presentational element of a
Facebook page. The owner’s main picture appears the
most frequently. It is dominant on the page in size and
appears on every wallpost the owner makes and each
time the owner comes up in a member search. Albums
are a subsidiary feature that act as an online photo
gallery and typically include pictures of friends, par-
ties, trips, and so on. Since the data for this study were
collected, Facebook has evolved (Locke, 2007).
Although the main features discussed here remain
prominent, users now have more options in the struc-
ture and content of their profiles. Researchers who
plan to use Facebook in future research should be
aware of these changes.
Buffardi, Campbell / NARCISSISM AND WEB SITES 1305
Our investigation consisted of four steps:
1. We examined the link between narcissism and social
activity in a Web community.
2. We inspected the associations between narcissism and
the content of social networking Web pages. Consistent
with past research on narcissistic self-regulation, narcis-
sism should be associated with (a) a greater amount of

12. social activity (Hypothesis 1) and (b) self-promotion in
text and pictures (Hypothesis 2).
3. We tested whether individuals viewing a social network-
ing page could detect the owner’s expression of agentic/
communal traits and level of narcissism. Consistent
with past research on personality and Web pages, we
predicted that narcissism would be perceived by Web
page observers, as would the general agentic qualities
associated with narcissism (Hypothesis 3). As a corol-
lary to this, we hypothesized that narcissistic Web page
content would relate positively to observers’ narcissistic
impressions (Hypothesis 4).
4. We examined which social networking page content
was the most influential in forming impressions of
narcissism (i.e., mediational analyses, Hypothesis 5).
Although it is reasonable to assume that there are ele-
ments of the Web page that lead viewers to judge the
Web page owner’s personality, we did not predict that
one type of content or another would be more central in
this process.
METHOD
Participants
Owners. Owner participants were 156 undergradu-
ate Facebook page owners (100 females) participating
for partial course credit. They ranged in age from 18 to
23 years (M = 18.97, SD = 1.14). A total of 129 (83%)
gave permission to save their Facebook pages to be used
in the present research. Those who did not give permis-
sion to save their Facebook pages were excluded from
the main analyses.

13. Raters. Rater participants were 128 undergraduates
(86 females) participating for partial course credit. They
ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M = 19.41, SD = 1.59).
Materials and Procedures
Personality data and Facebook page collection.
Owner participants came to the lab individually. Upon
consenting to participate, they first completed demo-
graphic information and the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). The NPI is a
40-item forced-choice format personality questionnaire
designed for use on a normal population. Example
items include “My body is nothing special” versus “I
like to look at my body” and “I am more capable than
other people” versus “There is a lot that I can learn
from other people.” Higher scores on the NPI indicate
more narcissistic personality (range = 2 to 30, M = 17.11,
SD = 6.00, α = .78).
Second, participants were presented with a waiver
form to sign if they consented to having their Facebook
pages saved for this research project (129 agreed). The
mean narcissism score for those participants who
granted permission to save their Facebook Web pages
(M = 17.14, SD = 6.21) did not differ significantly from
the mean narcissism score of those who did not grant
permission (M = 16.67, SD = 4.95), t(154) = –.37, ns.
Before signing the waiver form, participants were
informed that if they gave permission to have their
Facebook page saved, we would gather information
from the page and other undergraduates would also
view the page and report on the impressions they drew
from it. Participants were also assured that before other
undergraduates viewed their Facebook page, identifying

14. information, such as last name, phone number, and e-mail
address, would be deleted.
Third, if the participant declined, he or she was fully
debriefed. If the participant granted permission to have
his or her Facebook page saved, he or she was asked to
log onto Facebook.com on a computer in the lab and dis-
play his or her main profile page on the Internet browser.
An important distinction to point out is that owner par-
ticipants were asked to display their Facebook profile
page as opposed to their Facebook home page. The pro-
file page is the page that others in their networks have
access to viewing. The home page can be thought of as a
control panel that only the owner has access to. The
experimenter then saved the profile page. Participants
were also asked to display the Web page linked to the
profile page text View Photos of Me. This link displays
20 photographs. The first 12 are the most recent that the
owner posted, regardless of which album they belong to.
The second 8 are the most recent pictures that the own-
ers’ friends have uploaded and tagged the owner in.
Tagging a photo on Facebook means that the photo will
be linked to the tagged individual’s profile page. Owners
have the ability to accept or decline tags and therefore
have control of all the pictures on the View Photos of Me
link. The experimenter saved this page as well, and
finally, the participants were fully debriefed.
Objective Facebook page coding. Objective criteria
were extracted from the Facebook pages. These were
quantitative features that are common to standard Face-
book profiles. The four objective criteria were (a) number
of friends (M = 171.21, SD = 121.90), (b) number of wall-
posts (M = 479.94, SD = 437.29), (c) number of groups
(M = 35.17, SD = 32.27), and (d) number of lines of text
in the About Me section (M = 4.95, SD = 8.75).

15. A quantity of social interaction measure was created
by summing of the number of friends linked to the
1306 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
Facebook page (standardized) and the number of wall-
post messages that were accumulated on the Facebook
page (standardized) (range = –2.44 to 7.09, SD = 1.79,
α = .75).3 A quantity of information about self measure
was simply the number of lines of text that the owner
had written in the section titled About Me (M = 4.95,
SD = 8.75).
Subjective Facebook page coding by research assis-
tant (RA) raters. Four features of the 129 saved
Facebook pages were coded independently by five
undergraduate RAs for the extent to which they were
self-promoting. Each rater coded (a) the content of the
About Me section, (b) the content of the Quotes section,
(c) the main profile photograph (usually a headshot of
the owner), and (d) the 20 pictures on the page linked
to View Photos of Me. These four features were coded
separately, that is, without the context of the other fea-
tures present (e.g., the items from the About Me section
and the Quotes section were pasted into separate docu-
ments and separated from the photos).
The contents of the About Me section were rated on
the following characteristics: self-absorbed, self-conscious
(reversed), self-important, and self-promoting. The con-
tents of the Quotes section were rated on arrogant,
clever, entertaining, and self-promoting. The main profile

16. photograph was rated on the amount of clothing worn,
modest (reversed), physically attractive, self-promoting,
sexy, and vain. The pictures from the View Photos of
Me link were rated on exciting, fun, modest (reversed),
provocative, self-centered, and self-promoting. Impor-
tantly, prior to completing the coding, all of the RA
coders met to agree on the definitions of the adjectives
that each subjective feature was rated on. For example,
self-promoting was distinguished from self-important in
that self-promoting connoted persuading others about
one’s own positive qualities, whereas self-important
expressed a statement about viewing one’s self as impor-
tant or as an individual with important opinions. All
ratings were on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 7 (very much). The agreement of the five
raters was sufficient (alphas ranging from .60 to .90,
with the majority between .75 and .80). Thus, the means
of the five RA raters’ ratings were taken.
From the RA rater means, the following specific nine
measures were created:
1. A measure of self-promoting information posted about
self was created by taking the mean of the adjectives
(across coders) that the About Me sections were rated on:
self-absorbed, self-conscious (reversed), self-important,
and self-promoting (M = 3.67, SD = .89, α = .76).
2. A measure of self-promoting quotes was created by tak-
ing the mean of the coders’ judgments of quote arro-
gance and self-promotion (M = 1.83, SD = .83, α = .94).
3. A measure of entertaining quotes was created by taking
the mean of the coders’ ratings of how clever and enter-
taining the quotes seemed (M = 2.91, SD = .85, α = .88).

17. 4. The mean of the coders’ judgments of the physical attrac-
tiveness of the owner’s main photo served as the measure
of main photo attractiveness (M = 3.88, SD = 1.19).
5. A measure of main photo self-promotion was created
by taking the mean of the coders’ ratings of how self-
promoting and vain the photo was (M = 2.29, SD = .92,
α = .89).
6. A measure of main photo sexiness was created by tak-
ing the mean of the coders’ judgments of how sexy and
modest (reversed) and clothed (reversed) the individual
in the main photo appeared to be (M = 2.31, SD = .80,
α = .71).
7. A measure of self-promoting pictures was created by
taking the mean of the coders’ judgments of how self-
centered and self-promoting the pictures were (M = 2.46,
SD = .97, α = .95).
8. A measure of provocative pictures was created by taking
the mean of the coders’ judgments of how provocative
and modest (reversed) the pictures were (M = 2.50,
SD = .99, α = .85).
9. A measure of fun pictures was created by taking the
mean of the coders’ judgments of how fun and exciting
the pictures were (M = 3.70, SD = .73, α = .88).
Facebook page impression ratings. Rater participants
came to the lab individually. Upon consenting to partic-
ipate, each was randomly assigned five Facebook pages
that were collected from owners earlier in the study.
Facebook page owners’ identifying information (i.e.,
last names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) was
removed from their Facebook pages. If the raters indi-

18. cated that they had been assigned the Facebook page of
someone they knew (a friend or acquaintance), they
were told not to rate that page and it was replaced ran-
domly with another.
Rater participants viewed the Facebook pages they
were assigned one at a time and then rated the extent to
which they believed the owner of the page possessed
37 different personality traits. Each rater rated only five
Facebook pages to minimize fatigue and the potential
for perceiver effects (Kenny, 1994). The personality
traits that the raters used in their evaluations were drawn
roughly from previous research (Campbell et al., 2007;
Paulhus 1998; see the following). The pages were rated
on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to
7 (very much). From these ratings, we created three
indices to measure raters’ impressions of the Facebook
owners’ trait-level agency, communion, and narcissism.
In computing these indices we examined the consistency
of the five raters in their ratings of the adjectives com-
prising each index. Because the interrater reliabilities
were sufficient (agency α = .92, communion α = .92, and
narcissism α = .88), we computed the means of the five
raters’ ratings for each of the 37 traits.
Buffardi, Campbell / NARCISSISM AND WEB SITES 1307
An agentic impression composite was created by tak-
ing the mean of the raters’ average impressions of
Facebook page owners on the following traits: assertive,
active, boring (reversed), confident, dominant, ener-
getic, entertaining, enthusiastic, high in status, impor-
tant, inhibited (reversed), intelligent, outspoken, quiet
(reversed), reserved (reversed), silent (reversed), with-

19. drawn (reversed), submissive (reversed) (M = 4.98,
SD = .53, α = .93).
A communal impression composite was created by
taking the mean of the raters’ average impressions of
Facebook page owners on the following traits: affection-
ate, cooperative, cruel (reversed), friendly, generous,
grouchy (reversed), hostile (reversed), kind, likeable,
mean (reversed), pleasant, quarrelsome (reversed), rude
(reversed), stingy (reversed), warm (M = 5.41, SD = .53,
α = .95).
A narcissistic impression composite was created by
taking the mean of the raters’ average impressions of
Facebook page owners on the following traits: arro-
gant, narcissistic, self-centered, vain (M = 2.75, SD = .80,
α = .92).
RESULTS
Simple Correlations
To test Hypothesis 1 that narcissism would predict
social activity and the quantity of information posted
about the self on Facebook pages, we correlated narcissism
scores with the quantity of social interaction composite
and the quantity of information about self (both measures
of objective information drawn from Facebook pages that
we collected from owner participants).4 As predicted,
higher scores on the NPI were related to higher quanti-
ties of interaction on Facebook. No relationship was
found between owners’ narcissism scores and the quan-
tity of information owners posted about themselves.5 (All
correlations can be seen in Table 1.)
We next correlated owners’ narcissism scores with

20. RA coders’ perceptions of Facebook profile features to
test Hypothesis 2. First, owners’ narcissism was corre-
lated with the self-promoting information about self
measure. A marginally significant positive relationship
was found between owners’ narcissism and the extent
to which information posted about the owner in the
About Me section was self-promoting.6 Second, own-
ers’ narcissism scores were correlated with the self-pro-
moting quotes and entertaining quotes measures.
Correlations revealed that those owners with high nar-
cissism scores posted marginally more self-promoting
quotes than those with low narcissism scores and their
quotes were less entertaining and clever than those
with low narcissism.
We then examined the relationships between owners’
narcissism and the contents of the images posted on the
Facebook pages. First, narcissism scores were correlated
with the main photo attractiveness, the main photo self-
promotion composite, and the main photo sexiness
composite. Owners with higher NPI scores were seen as
more physically attractive in their main photograph
than those with low NPI scores. Likewise, in their main
photograph, narcissistic owners also appeared to be
sexier and more self-promoting than nonnarcissists as
predicted by Hypothesis 2. Second, correlations were
tested between owners’ narcissism scores and the self-
promoting pictures, provocative pictures, and fun pic-
tures measures. Narcissistic owners posted pictures that
were more fun, but contrary to Hypothesis 2, they were
not perceived to be significantly more provocative or
self-promoting than nonnarcissistic owners’ pictures.
Next, to assess Hypothesis 3 that observers can detect
a Web page owner’s self-reported narcissism by viewing
his or her Facebook Web page, correlations were tested

21. between owners’ NPI scores and participant raters’ nar-
cissistic impression as well as agentic impression and
communal impression. As predicted, narcissistic
Facebook page owners were perceived to be more nar-
cissistic. In addition, narcissism was associated with a
pattern of high perceived agency and no link to per-
ceived communion, very similar to the relationship
found in narcissists’ explicit and implicit self-ratings
(Campbell et al., 2007; Campbell, Rudich, et al., 2002).
1308 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
TABLE 1: Facebook Correlates With Owners’ Narcissism
Scores
and Raters’ Narcissistic Impression Ratings
Raters’
Owners’ Narcissistic
Narcissism Impression
Objective Facebook page criteria
Quantity of social interaction (α = .75) .23*** .31***
Quantity of information listed about .07 .29***
self
Subjective Facebook page criteria coded
by research assistant (RA) raters
Self-promoting information about .18* .32***
self (α = .76)
Self-promoting quotes (α = .94) .19* .21**
Entertaining quotes (α = .88) –.28*** –.11
Main photo attractiveness .18** .33***

22. Main photo self-promotion (α = .89) .19** .37***
Main photo sexiness (α = .71) .20** .33***
Self-promoting pictures (α = .95) .10 .28***
Provocative pictures (α = .85) .07 .34***
Fun pictures (α = .88) .18** .17*
Impression ratings by participant raters
Communal impression (α = .95) –.09 –.60***
Agentic impression (α = .93) .28*** .39***
Narcissistic impression (α = .92) .25***
*p ≤ .10. **p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .01.
According to the magnitude of these correlations, the
association between owners’ NPI scores and raters’
agentic impression scores was stronger than that between
owners’ NPI scores and raters’ narcissistic impressions.
To determine if raters’ perception of narcissism was fully
cued by the perception of agency, owners’ NPI scores
were regressed onto raters’ narcissistic impression and
agentic impression simultaneously. A significant coeffi-
cient for agentic impression, β = .21, t(125) = 2.31, p = .02,
and a marginally significant coefficient for narcissistic
impression, β = .16, t(125) = 1.75, p = .08, resulted,
indicating that raters’ perceptions of both agency and
narcissism accounted for unique variance (at least mar-
ginally) in owners’ narcissism.
Finally, we tested the prediction set forth in
Hypothesis 4 that Web page content indicative of nar-
cissism would relate positively to raters’ narcissistic
impressions. First, we correlated raters’ narcissistic
impressions with the objective information drawn from
the owners’ Facebook pages. As predicted, higher nar-

23. cissistic impression ratings were related to higher quan-
tities of social interaction on Facebook and higher
quantities of information posted about the self.
Second, correlations between raters’ narcissistic
impressions and RA coders’ subjective ratings of the
written information on the Facebook pages were tested.
In accord with Hypothesis 4, a significant positive rela-
tionship was found between raters’ narcissistic impression
and the extent to which self-promoting information about
self was posted. Raters’ narcissistic impressions were
also positively associated with self-promoting quotes but
not related to the entertaining quotes measure.
Third, we examined the relationships between raters’
narcissistic impressions and the contents of the images
posted on the owners’ Facebook pages. Owners who
were judged to be more narcissistic were seen as more
physically attractive in their main photograph, sexier,
and more self-promoting than those viewed as less nar-
cissistic. Raters’ narcissistic impressions were also posi-
tively related to posting pictures that were perceived to
be more self-promoting, more provocative, and more
fun, as predicted by Hypothesis 4.
Mediation Analyses
We have established that owners’ narcissistic person-
ality relates to objective and subjective Facebook page
content. We have also shown that impressions of nar-
cissism based on solely viewing Facebook pages are
somewhat accurate and that the content features that
are linked with owners’ narcissism also generally corre-
late with raters’ narcissistic impression. We now test
Hypothesis 5 to determine whether Facebook page con-
tent features mediate the link between owners’ narcissistic

24. personality and raters’ narcissistic impression drawn from
Facebook page observations. We also ask: If mediation
occurs, what content of Web pages is influential in
observers’ detection of narcissism?
All of the Facebook page content features that corre-
lated significantly (p < .05) with both narcissistic
personality scores and raters’ narcissistic impression
scores were considered potential mediators, including
(a) quantity of social interaction, (b) main photo attrac-
tiveness, (c) main photo sexiness, and (d) main photo
self-promotion. To determine whether together these
four Facebook page content mediators fully mediated
the relationship between owners’ narcissism and raters’
narcissistic impression, bootstrapping analyses were
conducted using methods described by Preacher and
Hayes (2007) for estimating direct and indirect effects
with multiple mediators. There are three advantages to
using this statistical method: (a) Multiple mediators
can be tested simultaneously, (b) it does not rely on the
assumption of a normal sampling distribution (see
MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher &
Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002), and (c) the
number of inferential tests is minimized, thus reducing
the likelihood of Type 1 error. Raters’ narcissistic impres-
sion was entered as the dependent variable, owners’
narcissism was entered as the predictor variable, and
quantity of social interaction, main photo attractiveness,
main photo sexiness, and main photo self-promotion
were entered as proposed mediators in the SPSS macro
created by Preacher and Hayes for bootstrap analyses
with multiple proposed mediators.
The bootstrap results indicated that the total effect
of owners’ narcissism scores on raters’ narcissistic

25. impression (total effect = .03, p = .01) became non-
significant when the Facebook page content mediators
were included in the model (direct effect of owners’
narcissism = .02, ns). Furthermore, the analyses
revealed, with 95% confidence, that the total indirect
effect (i.e., the difference between the total and direct
effects) of owners’ narcissism on the outcome variable
through the four mediators was significant, with a point
estimate of .02 and a 95% BCa (bias-corrected and
accelerated; see Efron, 1987) bootstrap confidence
interval of .0070 to .0305. Thus, the four Facebook
page content characteristics fully mediated the associa-
tion between owners’ narcissism and raters’ narcissistic
impression. The specific indirect effects of each pro-
posed mediator showed that quantity of social inter-
action, with a point estimate of .0052 and 95% BCa CI
of .0010, .0154; main photo attractiveness, with a point
estimate of .0088 and 95% BCa CI of .0002, .0138;
and main photo self-promotion, with a point estimate
of .0044 and 95% BCa CI of .0019, .0235 were all
unique mediators; whereas main photo sexiness, with a
Buffardi, Campbell / NARCISSISM AND WEB SITES 1309
point estimate of –.0023 and 95% BCa CI of –.0149,
.0048, did not add to the overall model.7
In sum, the bootstrap analyses indicate that (a) quan-
tity of social interaction, (b) main photo attractiveness,
and (c) main photo self-promotion together mediate the
link between Facebook page owners’ narcissistic person-
ality and Facebook page viewers’ ratings of their narcis-
sistic impression of the owners (see Figure 1 for full
mediational model).

26. DISCUSSION
Is the narcissism of a Web page owner in a social net-
working community related to Web site activity, content,
and perception by others? It appears that this is the case.
In terms of objective criteria on the Web page, narcissism
is related to a measure of Web site activity derived from
the number of friends and the number of wallposts (i.e.,
messages) posted between friends. Narcissism was not
found to be related to length of self-description on the
Web page, however. In terms of the RA coder ratings of
Web page written content, narcissism is positively (but
only marginally) related to self-promoting information
about the self and quotes and negatively related to enter-
taining quotes (this latter finding is interesting in that it
differs from related findings in direct social interaction;
e.g., Paulhus, 1998). Similarly, in terms of coder ratings of
Web page image content, narcissism is positively associated
with main photograph attractiveness, self-promotion,
and sexiness. There were fewer relationships with the
other photo album pictures, which were judged to be
more fun but not more self-promoting or provocative.
Although the sizes of these effects are small, given the
complexity and the nuances of Facebook profiles, they
are notable.
In terms of overall impression of the social network-
ing Web page, strangers rated narcissistic individuals as
more agentic (but not more communal) and more nar-
cissistic, and furthermore, their impressions of narcis-
sism and agency uniquely predicted Web page owners’
narcissism. Narcissistic impressions were related to all
of the Facebook page content features that narcissistic
personality scores were related to as well as three addi-

27. tional features, namely, the quantity of information
listed about self, self-promoting pictures, and provoca-
tive pictures. Finally, mediational analyses revealed that
the impression of narcissism is based primarily on the
number of social interactions along with the extent to
which the Web page owner appears to be self-promoting
and attractive in his or her main photo.
Implications
This research has several implications both for nar-
cissism and for Web page–mediated social interaction.
First, the expression of narcissism on social networking
Web sites is very similar to its expression in other social
domains. Narcissism is related to a higher number of
social relationships, self-promoting self-presentation,
and the perception of having a large number of agentic
characteristics. Only two differences were found between
narcissism in the “real world” and in online communi-
ties. The narcissists’ quotes were judged to be less enter-
taining than those of nonnarcissists. This contrasts with
the general finding that narcissists are entertaining at
first meeting (e.g., Paulhus, 1998). We would like to
point out that our incongruent finding, however, is not
sufficient to suggest that narcissists’ ability to entertain
others in social contexts is subdued online. Rather, it is
possible that narcissists’ quotes are actually quite enter-
taining to peers who know their context but not to our
RA coders who were not acquainted with the profile
owners personally. Based on our findings, it is also plau-
sible that the extent to which the narcissists’ quotes and
other aspects of their profiles were viewed as self-
promoting directly interfered with the quotes’ entertain-
ment and cleverness. Therefore, additional research in
which the entertainment value of narcissists’ full profile,
rather than just the quotes section, is necessary to deter-

28. mine whether narcissists are less entertaining in online
contexts than in face-to-face ones. In addition, the nar-
cissists were judged to be more attractive based on their
photos than the nonnarcissists. This differs from past
research that has found no differences in attractiveness
1310 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
Figure 1 Facebook page content mediators of narcissism-
narcissistic
impression link.
NOTE: Path values represent unstandardized regression
coefficients.
The value outside of the parentheses represents the total effect
of nar-
cissism on narcissistic impression prior to the inclusion of the
mediat-
ing variables. Value in parentheses represents the direct effect,
from
bootstrapping analyses, of narcissism on narcissistic impression
after
the mediators are included. *p < .05. **p < .01.
between narcissists and nonnarcissists (Gabriel et al.,
1994). Why this disparity? One possible explanation is
that narcissists’ self-enhancing biases might lead them
to consider more attractive pictures of themselves to be
more accurate representations of their true likenesses.
We would also speculate, however, that the narcissists
appear to be attractive on Facebook because they are
strategically posting pictures that make them appear
sexy and attractive; this was not an option in Gabriel

29. and colleagues’ (1994) study.
Second, unacquainted raters are able to judge Web
page owners’ narcissism with some level of accuracy.
This finding is consistent with those concerning the
accuracy of Big Five personality perception based on
viewing Web pages (Marcus et al., 2006; Vazire &
Gosling, 2004) in that Web page viewers can make rea-
sonable estimates of personality from Web pages. More
broadly, the correlation between self-reported narcissism
and strangers’ impressions of narcissism also suggests
that at least on Facebook, less narcissistic participants
do not seem to be using the Internet as a channel for self-
promotion. That is, more modest, less self-centered indi-
viduals in real life do not appear to be self-promoting to
the degree that narcissists are on the Web.
Third, our results indicate that, as in past Big Five
research (Marcus et al., 2006), viewers use Web page
content to form impressions of the Web page owner’s
level of narcissism. We found that the quantity of social
interaction and main photo in particular played a signif-
icant role in this process. Conversely, the raters seemed
to have omitted other Facebook features that related to
NPI scores, including self-promoting information about
the self, self-promoting quotes, less entertaining quotes,
main photo sexiness, and fun pictures, in their impres-
sion formation. Finally, narcissistic impression ratings
related (falsely) to three profile characteristics that
did not correlate with owners’ narcissistic personality,
namely, quantity of information listed about the self,
self-promoting pictures, and provocative pictures. This
pattern in raters’ errors of omission and commission pre-
liminarily suggests that individuals who have experience
with social networking Web sites, as presumably our
raters did, may have developed a system or script

30. (Schank & Abelson, 1977) for viewing such Web pages
and efficiently gleaning important information for the
context of a social networking community. It is under-
standable, if this is the case, that an individual’s social
capital (how popular and socially active they are quan-
tifiably) and attractiveness, which both can be deter-
mined quickly, play an important role in impression
formation, as our results suggest. In contrast, the some-
what more difficult to decipher written information,
such as that in the About Me and Quotes sections, may
be secondary. This remains speculative, however, and
might be an interesting avenue for future research.
Fourth, there are some interesting applied implica-
tions that potentially stem from the aforementioned
findings. For example, the findings imply that the net-
work of individuals on social networking Web sites will
contain a relatively high percentage of narcissistic indi-
viduals. Specifically, because narcissists have more
social contacts on Facebook than the nonnarcissists, the
average user will experience a social network that over-
represents narcissists. This would be important infor-
mation for social networking site users to be aware of.
It also raises the possibility that—because of elevated
exposure to narcissistic individuals and self-promotion—
norms of expression on social networking sites will
be pulled in the direction of greater self-promotion.
Another possible application of this research pertains to
individuals who are considering entering into a romantic
relationship with someone they meet on a social network-
ing site might be able to detect trait narcissism. Given
what is known from past research about the negative
tendencies of narcissists in relationships (e.g., Campbell,
1999; Campbell, Foster, et al., 2002), this would be
valuable information. Though these are stimulating possi-

31. bilities, the applied applications of this research should
be read with considerable caution due to the small effect
sizes that resulted in our findings.
Fifth, if narcissists use social networking sites as an
outlet for maintaining their inflated, positive self-views,
and if those who use social networking Web sites are
exposed to a heightened level of narcissistic personality,
do these Internet communities contribute to rising lev-
els of narcissism over time? Based on the evidence
adduced in this research, we cannot answer this question.
Participating in social networking online is arguably
attractive to narcissists in that it allows for controlled
self-presentation, satiates the craving for attention, and
promotes shallow relationships, all of which are associ-
ated with narcissism. Thus, one might argue that using
social networking Web sites can aid in regulating narcis-
sists’ inflated positive self-views. Yet, it remains unclear
whether or not social networking on the Internet results
in an increase in dispositional narcissism for individuals
with low narcissism scores. To appropriately address this
question, we believe we need a program of converging
research methods (e.g., user vs. nonuser comparisons as
in Marcus and colleagues’ [2006] work; longitudinal
research, i.e., examinations of the change in narcissism
scores of Internet users over time; and controlled experi-
mental research, e.g., manipulating Web site usage and
assessing short- and long-term personality change). There
is clearly a good deal of research to be done on Internet
usage and personality.
Buffardi, Campbell / NARCISSISM AND WEB SITES 1311
Sixth and finally, we believe that this study makes an

32. important contribution to psychological methodology. In
the present investigation, our main variable of interest
was narcissism, but we believe that with some modifica-
tions, these methods could be employed in studying
an array of individual difference variables. Key to our
approach was supplementing impressions of the overall
Web page made by participant raters with two types of
information drawn from social networking Web pages:
(a) objective profile measures (e.g., number of friends)
and (b) coders’ ratings of subjective aspects made in iso-
lation from the other information on the page. The objec-
tive measures are currently limited in number, though
arguably constantly increasing due to the innovations
being made in social networking communities. However,
there is an almost unlimited amount of information that
can be obtained from coders’ ratings of more subjective
aspects of social networking profiles. In combination,
these two information extraction strategies represent a
good deal of flexibility for future personality research.
For example, our methods could easily be adapted to
study individual differences like attachment styles (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987), need for belongingness (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995), rejection sensitivity (Downey & Feldman,
1996), self-monitoring (Snyder, 1987), or social anxiety
(Leary, 1983). Furthermore, our method could also be
viewed as a starting point for developing new ways to
study broader, natural social systems as well as more
general theoretical issues, such as perceiver accuracy
and consensus (Kenny, 1994), self-observer agreement
(Funder, 1980), and cue utilization in impression forma-
tion (Brunswik, 1956). In particular, researchers inter-
ested in how accurately individuals perceive information
presented on Web pages would benefit from using the
Brunswik (1956) approach.
Caveats

33. Two limitations of the present research need to be
addressed. The first concerns the characteristics of our
sample. Our sample was not diverse in age. The partic-
ipants were all college students. Moreover, we only
assessed activity and presentation on Facebook.com and
have not examined the variety of other social networking
sites available. Personality may potentially be presented
and perceived somewhat differently on Web sites like
MySpace.com as they are more customizable both in the
aesthetics of the page and the available features.
Second, we examined perceptions of narcissism made
by strangers but not other individuals (e.g., friends, poten-
tial employers). Unlike other Web-based interpersonal
contact (e.g., discussion boards, newsgroups, chatrooms),
communication on social networking Web sites is for the
most part not anonymous. The primary goal of interaction
on social networking Web sites is to strengthen bonds
and keep in touch with friends made in the real, offline
world. Past research has shown that communicating on
the Internet with individuals whom one has never met
before in person may be a venue for freely expressing
the true self (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002;
Spears & Lea, 1994). In contrast, because they are not
anonymous, individuals may be motivated to maintain
offline images and fulfill social roles and the obligations
that come with them on social networking sites (Burke,
1980; Burke & Tully, 1977). This raises two further
questions about presenting and perceiving narcissistic
personality on the Internet. First, do individuals view
their narcissistic friends as more narcissistic when they
view their personal Web pages as compared to when
they interact face to face? Second, as compared to an
anonymous online environment, is it possible that nar-

34. cissists tone down the extent to which they self-enhance
and self-promote in a social networking community?
Further research is required to provide answers to these
remaining questions.
Conclusion
Today, interaction and self-presentation on the
Internet are the norm. Maintaining a Web presence and
keeping in contact with a large number of individuals via
social networking Web sites has become part of many
individuals’ daily lives. In the present study, our goal was
to examine how trait narcissism is expressed on Web-
based social networks. The results demonstrate that nar-
cissists act, portray themselves, and are perceived on
social networking sites in a manner similar to how they
behave in real, offline life. We hope that these initial find-
ings spur future inquiry into the manifestations of narcis-
sism and other personality variables on social networking
sites and other locations on the Internet.
NOTES
1. Women with personal Web sites reported higher narcissism
scores than those without personal Web sites; men with and
without
Web sites had similar narcissism scores (and the men’s
narcissism
scores were similar to the women Web site owners’ narcissism
scores).
2. Narcissism, as we are examining the construct, refers to a
con-
tinuous, nontaxonic normal personality variable (Foster &
Campbell,
2007). This is distinct from narcissistic personality disorder

35. (NPD)
described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Nevertheless,
trait narcissism, as we operationalize it with the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI), does correlate significantly with
clini-
cians’ and clinical researchers’ prototypes of NPD (Miller &
Campbell, 2008). We use the term narcissists in some instances
as a
shorthand for “high narcissism scores.” This is done in the
interest of
improved readability.
3. Originally, we included the number of groups (standardized)
in
the quantity of social interaction composite. Including this mea-
sure, however, created a low level of internal consistency (α =
.54).
1312 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
Therefore, we elected to drop the number of groups from the
com-
posite. We should report, however, that when number of groups
was
included, the results of the analyses performed on it remained
the same.
Quantity of social interaction correlated with narcissism, r(127)
= .19,
p = .03, and with narcissistic impression, r(126) = .25, p < .01.
4. These objective measures were not limited in range and

36. therefore
susceptible to positive skew. We addressed the possibility of
nonnor-
mality by log transforming (Winer, 1971) the following
measures:
number of friends, number of wallposts, and quantity of
information
posted about self. The quantity of social interaction composite
measure
that was used in the main analyses could not be log transformed
because it is standardized. Importantly, when the transformed
scores
were correlated with NPI scores, a similar pattern of results was
obtained such that the number of friends and narcissism were
positively
correlated, r(128) = .25, p = .01, and greater quantities of
wallposts
were marginally related to greater NPI scores, r(127) = .15, p =
.09.
Furthermore, neither the magnitude of the correlation between
trans-
formed number of friends and NPI nor between transformed
number of
wallposts and NPI significantly differ from the correlation
between
quantity of social interaction and NPI scores, ts < 1.23, ns.
Also, the log-
transformed quantity of information posted about self scores
were not
correlated with NPI scores, r(78) = .03, ns, as in the main
analyses.
5. When controlling for gender, the correlations between narcis-
sism and each objective, subjective, and impression measure
remained
the same with one exception. That is, all significant correlations

37. pre-
sented in this section remain significant and all nonsignificant
corre-
lations remain nonsignificant except for the association between
narcissism and self-promoting information about self. This
correla-
tion became nonsignificant, β = .17, t(75) = 1.03, ns. In addition
to
this, gender was a significant predictor in three models—
quantity of
social interaction, β = .28, t(124) = 3.37, p = .001; main photo
attrac-
tiveness, β = .21, t(125) = 2.42, p = .02; and fun pictures, β =
.21,
t(124) = 2.48, p = .01—such that females were higher on all
three of
these measures.
6. The N in this correlation is lower than in other tests because
only 79 of 129 Web page owners included About Me sections on
their
Facebook profiles. The mean narcissism score for those
participants
who included About Me sections (M = 17.81, SD = 6.04) did not
dif-
fer significantly from the mean narcissism score of those who
did not
(M = 16.12, SD = 6.38), t(127) = –1.52, ns.
7. We also tested each of the four combined mediators in
separate
mediational models using Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
recommended
procedure. Although none fully mediated the link between
owners’
narcissism and raters’ narcissistic impression, all four of the

38. content
features—quantity of social interaction, main photo
attractiveness,
main photo sexiness, and main photo self-promotion—each
partially
mediated this association. The Sobel (1982) tests for each of
these
models was also significant, with the exception of the model
includ-
ing main photo attractiveness, for which the Sobel test was
marginally
significant.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baldwin, T., & Stroman, A. (2007, March 1). How self-esteem
classes
are “breeding selfish generation.” The Times London. Retrieved
May 14, 2007, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/
education/article1455519.ece
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002).
Can
you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true
self”
on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33-48.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and

39. Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Brown, R. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2004). Narcissism and the
non-
equivalence of self-esteem measures: A matter of dominance?
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 585-592.
Brunell, A. B., Campbell, W. K., Smith, L., & Krusemark, E. A.
(2004,
February). Why do people date narcissists? A narrative study.
Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society
for
Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W., Campbell, W. K., & Kuhnert, K.
(2006,
January). Narcissism and emergent leadership. Poster session
pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, Palm Springs, CA.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design
of
psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from
an
interactionist perspective. Sociometry, 43, 18-29.

40. Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. (1977). Reconstructing social identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4-5.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened
egotism, nar-
cissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does
self-
love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 75, 219-229.
Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in
everyday
life. Journal of Personality, 59, 179-215.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254-1270.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., & Shelton, J. (2004).
Psychological
entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a
self-
report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29-45.
Campbell, W. K., Bosson, J. K., Goheen, T. W., Lakey, C. E., &
Kernis, M. H. (2007). Do narcissists dislike themselves “deep
down inside”? Psychological Science, 18, 227-229.
Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006).
Narcissism,
interpersonal self-regulation, and romantic relationships: An
agency model approach. In E. J. Finkel & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
Self
and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal
processes (pp. 57-83). New York: Guilford.

41. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and
commitment
in romantic relationships: An investment model analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484-495.
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does
self-love
lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game playing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 340-354.
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E., & Sedikides, C. (2002).
Narcissism, self-
esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-
love.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358-368.
Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy,
and
power motives among students in business administration.
Psychological Reports, 61, 355-358.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection
sensi-
tivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.
Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal
of the
American Statistical Association, 82, 171-185.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of
the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment,

42. 48, 291-300.
Foster, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Are there such things
as
“narcissists” in social psychology? A taxometric analysis of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 1321-1332.
Foster, J. D., Shrira, I., & Campbell, W. K. (2003, June). The
trajec-
tory of relationships involving narcissists and non-narcissists.
Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Society, Atlanta, GA.
Foster, J. D., Shrira, I., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Theoretical
models
of narcissism, sexuality, and relationship commitment. Journal
of
Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 367-386.
Funder, D. C. (1980). On seeing ourselves as others see us:
Self-other
agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. Journal of
Personality, 48, 474-493.
Buffardi, Campbell / NARCISSISM AND WEB SITES 1313
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic
illusions
in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of
Personality, 62, 143-155.
Geist, M. (2007, May 9). Facing up to Facebook fears. BBC
News.

43. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
technology/6639417.stm
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized
as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
52, 511-524.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-
per-
ception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role
of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
206-219.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social
relations
analysis. New York: Guilford.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2007, May 24). Facebook’s plan to hook up the
world. Fortune. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://money.cnn
.com/2007/05/24/technology/facebook.fortune/index.htm
Le, T. N. (2005). Narcissism and immature love as mediators of
vertical
individualism and ludic love style. Journal of Social and
Personal
Relationships, 22, 542-560.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its
measure-
ment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 66-75.
Locke, L. (2007, July 17). The future of Facebook. Time.
Retrieved
December 13, 2007, from http://www.time.com/time/business/

44. article/0,8599,1644040,00.html
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004).
Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the
prod-
uct and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
39, 99-128.
Marcus, B., Machilek, F., & Schütz, A. (2006). Personality in
cyberspace:
Personal websites as media for personality expressions and
impres-
sions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 1014-
1031.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical
and
social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of
Personality, 76, 449-476.
Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007).
Narcissistic
personality disorder: Relations with distress and functional
impairment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 170-177.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes
of nar-
cissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model.
Psychological
Inquiry, 12, 177-196.
Orlet, C. (2007, March 2). The look-at-me generation. The
American
Spectator. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.spectator
.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11093

45. Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer,
E. (2004).
Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on thin
slices
of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216-229.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic
adaptiveness of
trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of
personality:
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36, 556-568.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS
procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Asymptotic and
resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple
and multiple mediation models. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-
esteem, and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality,
59, 19-38.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components
analysis of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its

46. con-
struct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54,
890-902.
Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). Effects of visual
perspective and
narcissism on self-perception: Is seeing believing?
Psychological
Science, 8, 37-42.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals
and
understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching:
Tactics
and temptations for infiltrating existing relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894-917.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental
and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and
recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances as private realities: The
psy-
chology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for
indirect
effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC:
American Sociological Association.

47. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The
hidden
power in computer-mediated communication. Communication
Research, 21, 427-459.
Stone, B. (2007, March 20). MySpace restrictions upset some
users.
The New York Times. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from
http://www
.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/technology/20myspace.html?ei=5124
&
en=8e52c7873eb73159&ex=1332043200&pagewanted=all
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2006, December 28). Me, “Person of the
Year”?
No thanks. MSNBC.com. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from
http://www
.msnbc.msn.com/id/16371425/
Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-
defeating
behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,
10, 154-165.
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). e-perceptions: Personality
impres-
sions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 123-132.
Young, S. M., & Pinsky, D. (2006). Narcissism and celebrity.
Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 463-471.
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance

48. of nar-
cissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 819-834.
Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design.
New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Received August 14, 2007
Revision accepted February 19, 2008
1314 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
BULLETIN
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged

49. /DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams false
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize false
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
/ACaslon-Bold
/ACaslon-BoldItalic
/ACaslon-Italic
/ACaslon-Ornaments
/ACaslon-Regular
/ACaslon-Semibold
/ACaslon-SemiboldItalic

50. /AdobeCorpID-Acrobat
/AdobeCorpID-Adobe
/AdobeCorpID-Bullet
/AdobeCorpID-MinionBd
/AdobeCorpID-MinionBdIt
/AdobeCorpID-MinionRg
/AdobeCorpID-MinionRgIt
/AdobeCorpID-MinionSb
/AdobeCorpID-MinionSbIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBd
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScn
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBdScnIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBl
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadBlIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadLt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadLtIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadPkg
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadRg
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScn
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadRgScnIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadSb
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbIt
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScn
/AdobeCorpID-MyriadSbScnIt
/AdobeCorpID-PScript
/AGaramond-BoldScaps
/AGaramond-Italic
/AGaramond-Regular
/AGaramond-RomanScaps
/AGaramond-Semibold
/AGaramond-SemiboldItalic
/AGar-Special
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx

51. /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-It
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super
/AlbertusMT
/AlbertusMT-Italic
/AlbertusMT-Light
/Aldine401BT-BoldA
/Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA
/Aldine401BT-ItalicA
/Aldine401BT-RomanA
/Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA
/Aldine721BT-Bold
/Aldine721BT-BoldItalic
/Aldine721BT-Italic
/Aldine721BT-Light
/Aldine721BT-LightItalic
/Aldine721BT-Roman
/Aldus-Italic
/Aldus-ItalicOsF
/Aldus-Roman
/Aldus-RomanSC
/AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular
/AmazoneBT-Regular
/AmericanTypewriter-Bold
/AmericanTypewriter-BoldA
/AmericanTypewriter-BoldCond
/AmericanTypewriter-BoldCondA

52. /AmericanTypewriter-Cond
/AmericanTypewriter-CondA
/AmericanTypewriter-Light
/AmericanTypewriter-LightA
/AmericanTypewriter-LightCond
/AmericanTypewriter-LightCondA
/AmericanTypewriter-Medium
/AmericanTypewriter-MediumA
/Anna
/AntiqueOlive-Bold
/AntiqueOlive-Compact
/AntiqueOlive-Italic
/AntiqueOlive-Roman
/Arcadia
/Arcadia-A
/Arkona-Medium
/Arkona-Regular
/ArrusBT-Black
/ArrusBT-BlackItalic
/ArrusBT-Bold
/ArrusBT-BoldItalic
/ArrusBT-Italic
/ArrusBT-Roman
/AssemblyLightSSK
/AuroraBT-BoldCondensed
/AuroraBT-RomanCondensed
/AuroraOpti-Condensed
/AvantGarde-Book
/AvantGarde-BookOblique
/AvantGarde-Demi
/AvantGarde-DemiOblique
/Avenir-Black
/Avenir-BlackOblique
/Avenir-Book
/Avenir-BookOblique
/Avenir-Heavy

53. /Avenir-HeavyOblique
/Avenir-Light
/Avenir-LightOblique
/Avenir-Medium
/Avenir-MediumOblique
/Avenir-Oblique
/Avenir-Roman
/BaileySansITC-Bold
/BaileySansITC-BoldItalic
/BaileySansITC-Book
/BaileySansITC-BookItalic
/BakerSignetBT-Roman
/BaskervilleBE-Italic
/BaskervilleBE-Medium
/BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic
/BaskervilleBE-Regular
/Baskerville-Bold
/BaskervilleBook-Italic
/BaskervilleBook-MedItalic
/BaskervilleBook-Medium
/BaskervilleBook-Regular
/BaskervilleBT-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleBT-Italic
/BaskervilleBT-Roman
/BaskervilleMT
/BaskervilleMT-Bold
/BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleMT-Italic
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBold
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold
/BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman
/Baskerville-Normal-Italic

54. /BauerBodoni-Black
/BauerBodoni-BlackCond
/BauerBodoni-BlackItalic
/BauerBodoni-Bold
/BauerBodoni-BoldCond
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalic
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-BoldOsF
/BauerBodoni-Italic
/BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-Roman
/BauerBodoni-RomanSC
/Bauhaus-Bold
/Bauhaus-Demi
/Bauhaus-Heavy
/BauhausITCbyBT-Bold
/BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy
/BauhausITCbyBT-Light
/BauhausITCbyBT-Medium
/Bauhaus-Light
/Bauhaus-Medium
/BellCentennial-Address
/BellGothic-Black
/BellGothic-Bold
/Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT
/BellGothicBT-Bold
/BellGothicBT-Roman
/BellGothic-Light
/Bembo
/Bembo-Bold
/Bembo-BoldExpert
/Bembo-BoldItalic
/Bembo-BoldItalicExpert
/Bembo-Expert
/Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic
/Bembo-Italic

55. /Bembo-ItalicExpert
/Bembo-Semibold
/Bembo-SemiboldItalic
/Benguiat-Bold
/Benguiat-BoldItalic
/Benguiat-Book
/Benguiat-BookItalic
/BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Bold
/BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BoldItal
/BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-Book
/BenguiatGothicITCbyBT-BookItal
/BenguiatITCbyBT-Bold
/BenguiatITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/BenguiatITCbyBT-Book
/BenguiatITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Benguiat-Medium
/Benguiat-MediumItalic
/Berkeley-Black
/Berkeley-BlackItalic
/Berkeley-Bold
/Berkeley-BoldItalic
/Berkeley-Book
/Berkeley-BookItalic
/Berkeley-Italic
/Berkeley-Medium
/Berling-Bold
/Berling-BoldItalic
/Berling-Italic
/Berling-Roman
/BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular
/BernhardFashionBT-Regular
/BernhardModernBT-Bold
/BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic
/BernhardModernBT-Italic
/BernhardModernBT-Roman
/BernhardTangoBT-Regular

56. /BlockBE-Condensed
/BlockBE-ExtraCn
/BlockBE-ExtraCnIt
/BlockBE-Heavy
/BlockBE-Italic
/BlockBE-Regular
/Bodoni
/Bodoni-Bold
/Bodoni-BoldItalic
/Bodoni-Italic
/Bodoni-Poster
/Bodoni-PosterCompressed
/Bookman-Demi
/Bookman-DemiItalic
/Bookman-Light
/Bookman-LightItalic
/Boton-Italic
/Boton-Medium
/Boton-MediumItalic
/Boton-Regular
/Boulevard
/BremenBT-Black
/BremenBT-Bold
/BroadwayBT-Regular
/CaflischScript-Bold
/CaflischScript-Regular
/Caliban
/CarminaBT-Bold
/CarminaBT-BoldItalic
/CarminaBT-Light
/CarminaBT-LightItalic
/CarminaBT-Medium
/CarminaBT-MediumItalic
/Carta
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic

57. /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Caslon540BT-Italic
/Caslon540BT-Roman
/CaslonBT-Bold
/CaslonBT-BoldItalic
/CaslonOpenFace
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt
/CastleT-Bold
/CastleT-Book
/Caxton-Bold
/Caxton-BoldItalic
/Caxton-Book
/Caxton-BookItalic
/CaxtonBT-Bold
/CaxtonBT-BoldItalic
/CaxtonBT-Book
/CaxtonBT-BookItalic
/Caxton-Light
/Caxton-LightItalic
/CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments
/Centennial-BlackItalicOsF
/Centennial-BlackOsF
/Centennial-BoldItalicOsF
/Centennial-BoldOsF
/Centennial-ItalicOsF
/Centennial-LightItalicOsF
/Centennial-LightSC
/Centennial-RomanSC

58. /Century-Bold
/Century-BoldItalic
/Century-Book
/Century-BookItalic
/CenturyExpandedBT-Bold
/CenturyExpandedBT-BoldItalic
/CenturyExpandedBT-Italic
/CenturyExpandedBT-Roman
/Century-HandtooledBold
/Century-HandtooledBoldItalic
/Century-Light
/Century-LightItalic
/CenturyOldStyle-Bold
/CenturyOldStyle-Italic
/CenturyOldStyle-Regular
/CenturySchoolbookBT-Bold
/CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldCond
/CenturySchoolbookBT-BoldItalic
/CenturySchoolbookBT-Italic
/CenturySchoolbookBT-Roman
/Century-Ultra
/Century-UltraItalic
/CharterBT-Black
/CharterBT-BlackItalic
/CharterBT-Bold
/CharterBT-BoldItalic
/CharterBT-Italic
/CharterBT-Roman
/CheltenhamBT-Bold
/CheltenhamBT-BoldCondItalic
/CheltenhamBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/CheltenhamBT-BoldHeadline
/CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic
/CheltenhamBT-BoldItalicHeadline
/CheltenhamBT-Italic
/CheltenhamBT-Roman

59. /Cheltenham-HandtooledBdIt
/Cheltenham-HandtooledBold
/CheltenhamITCbyBT-Bold
/CheltenhamITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/CheltenhamITCbyBT-Book
/CheltenhamITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Christiana-Bold
/Christiana-BoldItalic
/Christiana-Italic
/Christiana-Medium
/Christiana-MediumItalic
/Christiana-Regular
/Christiana-RegularExpert
/Christiana-RegularSC
/Clarendon
/Clarendon-Bold
/Clarendon-Light
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold
/ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman
/CMR10
/CMR8
/CMSY10
/CMSY8
/CMTI10
/CommonBullets
/ConduitITC-Bold
/ConduitITC-BoldItalic
/ConduitITC-Light
/ConduitITC-LightItalic
/ConduitITC-Medium
/ConduitITC-MediumItalic
/CooperBlack
/CooperBlack-Italic
/CooperBT-Bold

60. /CooperBT-BoldItalic
/CooperBT-Light
/CooperBT-LightItalic
/CopperplateGothicBT-Bold
/CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond
/CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy
/CopperplateGothicBT-Roman
/CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond
/Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC
/Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC
/Coronet-Regular
/Courier
/Courier-Bold
/Courier-BoldOblique
/Courier-Oblique
/Critter
/CS-Special-font
/DellaRobbiaBT-Bold
/DellaRobbiaBT-Roman
/Della-RobbiaItalicBT
/Della-RobbiaSCaps
/Del-NormalSmallCaps
/Delphin-IA
/Delphin-IIA
/Delta-Bold
/Delta-BoldItalic
/Delta-Book
/Delta-BookItalic
/Delta-Light
/Delta-LightItalic
/Delta-Medium
/Delta-MediumItalic
/Delta-Outline
/DextorD
/DextorOutD
/DidotLH-OrnamentsOne

61. /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo
/DINEngschrift
/DINEngschrift-Alternate
/DINMittelschrift
/DINMittelschrift-Alternate
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light
/Dom-CasItalic
/DomCasual
/DomCasual-Bold
/Dom-CasualBT
/Ehrhard-Italic
/Ehrhard-Regular
/EhrhardSemi-Italic
/EhrhardtMT
/EhrhardtMT-Italic
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBold
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic
/EhrharSemi
/ELANGO-IB-A03
/ELANGO-IB-A75
/ELANGO-IB-A99
/ElectraLH-Bold
/ElectraLH-BoldCursive
/ElectraLH-Cursive
/ElectraLH-Regular
/ElGreco
/EnglischeSchT-Bold
/EnglischeSchT-Regu
/ErasContour
/ErasITCbyBT-Bold
/ErasITCbyBT-Book
/ErasITCbyBT-Demi
/ErasITCbyBT-Light
/ErasITCbyBT-Medium
/ErasITCbyBT-Ultra

62. /Euclid
/Euclid-Bold
/Euclid-BoldItalic
/EuclidExtra
/EuclidExtra-Bold
/EuclidFraktur
/EuclidFraktur-Bold
/Euclid-Italic
/EuclidMathOne
/EuclidMathOne-Bold
/EuclidMathTwo
/EuclidMathTwo-Bold
/EuclidSymbol
/EuclidSymbol-Bold
/EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic
/EuclidSymbol-Italic
/EUEX10
/EUFB10
/EUFB5
/EUFB7
/EUFM10
/EUFM5
/EUFM7
/EURB10
/EURB5
/EURB7
/EURM10
/EURM5
/EURM7
/EuropeanPi-Four
/EuropeanPi-One
/EuropeanPi-Three
/EuropeanPi-Two
/EuroSans-Bold
/EuroSans-BoldItalic
/EuroSans-Italic

63. /EuroSans-Regular
/EuroSerif-Bold
/EuroSerif-BoldItalic
/EuroSerif-Italic
/EuroSerif-Regular
/Eurostile
/Eurostile-Bold
/Eurostile-BoldCondensed
/Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo
/Eurostile-BoldOblique
/Eurostile-Condensed
/Eurostile-Demi
/Eurostile-DemiOblique
/Eurostile-ExtendedTwo
/EurostileLTStd-Demi
/EurostileLTStd-DemiOblique
/Eurostile-Oblique
/EUSB10
/EUSB5
/EUSB7
/EUSM10
/EUSM5
/EUSM7
/ExPonto-Regular
/FairfieldLH-Bold
/FairfieldLH-BoldItalic
/FairfieldLH-BoldSC
/FairfieldLH-CaptionBold
/FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy
/FairfieldLH-CaptionLight
/FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium
/FairfieldLH-Heavy
/FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic
/FairfieldLH-HeavySC
/FairfieldLH-Light
/FairfieldLH-LightItalic

64. /FairfieldLH-LightSC
/FairfieldLH-Medium
/FairfieldLH-MediumItalic
/FairfieldLH-MediumSC
/FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF
/Fences
/Fenice-Bold
/Fenice-BoldOblique
/FeniceITCbyBT-Bold
/FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/FeniceITCbyBT-Regular
/FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic
/Fenice-Light
/Fenice-LightOblique
/Fenice-Regular
/Fenice-RegularOblique
/Fenice-Ultra
/Fenice-UltraOblique
/FlashD-Ligh
/Flood
/Folio-Bold
/Folio-BoldCondensed
/Folio-ExtraBold
/Folio-Light
/Folio-Medium
/FontanaNDAaOsF
/FontanaNDAaOsF-Italic
/FontanaNDCcOsF-Semibold
/FontanaNDCcOsF-SemiboldIta
/FontanaNDEeOsF
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold
/FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Light

65. /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold
/FormalScript421BT-Regular
/Formata-Bold
/Formata-MediumCondensed
/ForteMT
/FournierMT-Ornaments
/FrakturBT-Regular
/FrankfurterHigD
/FranklinGothic-Book
/FranklinGothic-BookItal
/FranklinGothic-BookOblique
/FranklinGothic-Condensed
/FranklinGothic-Demi
/FranklinGothic-DemiItal
/FranklinGothic-DemiOblique
/FranklinGothic-Heavy
/FranklinGothic-HeavyItal
/FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique
/FranklinGothicITCbyBT-BookItal
/FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Demi
/FranklinGothicITCbyBT-DemiItal
/FranklinGothicITCbyBT-Heavy
/FranklinGothicITCbyBT-HeavyItal
/FranklinGothic-Medium
/FranklinGothic-MediumItal
/FranklinGothic-Roman
/Freeform721BT-Bold
/Freeform721BT-BoldItalic
/Freeform721BT-Italic
/Freeform721BT-Roman
/FreestyleScrD
/FreestyleScript
/Freestylescript
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman
/Frutiger-Black

66. /Frutiger-BlackCn
/Frutiger-BlackItalic
/Frutiger-Bold
/Frutiger-BoldCn
/Frutiger-BoldItalic
/Frutiger-Cn
/Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn
/Frutiger-Italic
/Frutiger-Light
/Frutiger-LightCn
/Frutiger-LightItalic
/Frutiger-Roman
/Frutiger-UltraBlack
/Futura
/FuturaBlackBT-Regular
/Futura-Bold
/Futura-BoldOblique
/Futura-Book
/Futura-BookOblique
/FuturaBT-Bold
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensed
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/FuturaBT-BoldItalic
/FuturaBT-Book
/FuturaBT-BookItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlack
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic
/FuturaBT-Heavy
/FuturaBT-HeavyItalic
/FuturaBT-Light
/FuturaBT-LightCondensed
/FuturaBT-LightItalic
/FuturaBT-Medium
/FuturaBT-MediumCondensed

67. /FuturaBT-MediumItalic
/Futura-CondensedLight
/Futura-CondensedLightOblique
/Futura-ExtraBold
/Futura-ExtraBoldOblique
/Futura-Heavy
/Futura-HeavyOblique
/Futura-Light
/Futura-LightOblique
/Futura-Oblique
/Futura-Thin
/Galliard-Black
/Galliard-BlackItalic
/Galliard-Bold
/Galliard-BoldItalic
/Galliard-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Bold
/GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Roman
/Galliard-Roman
/Galliard-Ultra
/Galliard-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Antiqua
/GaramondBE-Bold
/GaramondBE-BoldExpert
/GaramondBE-BoldOsF
/GaramondBE-CnExpert
/GaramondBE-Condensed
/GaramondBE-CondensedSC
/GaramondBE-Italic
/GaramondBE-ItalicExpert
/GaramondBE-ItalicOsF
/GaramondBE-Medium
/GaramondBE-MediumCn
/GaramondBE-MediumCnExpert

68. /GaramondBE-MediumCnOsF
/GaramondBE-MediumExpert
/GaramondBE-MediumItalic
/GaramondBE-MediumItalicExpert
/GaramondBE-MediumItalicOsF
/GaramondBE-MediumSC
/GaramondBE-Regular
/GaramondBE-RegularExpert
/GaramondBE-RegularSC
/GaramondBE-SwashItalic
/Garamond-Bold
/Garamond-BoldCondensed
/Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic
/Garamond-BoldItalic
/Garamond-Book
/Garamond-BookCondensed
/Garamond-BookCondensedItalic
/Garamond-BookItalic
/Garamond-Halbfett
/Garamond-HandtooledBold
/Garamond-HandtooledBoldItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-Bold
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Book
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Light
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic

69. /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Kursiv
/Garamond-KursivHalbfett
/Garamond-Light
/Garamond-LightCondensed
/Garamond-LightCondensedItalic
/Garamond-LightItalic
/GaramondNo4CyrTCY-Ligh
/GaramondNo4CyrTCY-LighItal
/GaramondThree
/GaramondThree-Bold
/GaramondThree-BoldItalic
/GaramondThree-BoldItalicOsF
/GaramondThree-BoldSC
/GaramondThree-Italic
/GaramondThree-ItalicOsF
/GaramondThree-SC
/GaramondThreeSMSIISpl-Italic
/GaramondThreeSMSitalicSpl-Italic
/GaramondThreeSMSspl
/GaramondThreespl
/GaramondThreeSpl-Bold
/GaramondThreeSpl-Italic
/Garamond-Ultra
/Garamond-UltraCondensed
/Garamond-UltraCondensedItalic
/Garamond-UltraItalic
/GarthGraphic
/GarthGraphic-Black
/GarthGraphic-Bold

70. /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed
/GarthGraphic-BoldItalic
/GarthGraphic-Condensed
/GarthGraphic-ExtraBold
/GarthGraphic-Italic
/Geometric231BT-HeavyC
/GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA
/Giddyup
/Giddyup-Thangs
/GillSans
/GillSans-Bold
/GillSans-BoldCondensed
/GillSans-BoldExtraCondensed
/GillSans-BoldItalic
/GillSans-Condensed
/GillSans-ExtraBold
/GillSans-ExtraBoldDisplay
/GillSans-Italic
/GillSans-Light
/GillSans-LightItalic
/GillSans-LightShadowed
/GillSans-Shadowed
/GillSans-UltraBold
/GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed
/Gill-Special
/Giovanni-Bold
/Giovanni-BoldItalic
/Giovanni-Book
/Giovanni-BookItalic
/Glypha
/Glypha-Bold

71. /Glypha-BoldOblique
/Glypha-Oblique
/Gothic-Thirteen
/Goudy
/Goudy-Bold
/Goudy-BoldItalic
/GoudyCatalogueBT-Regular
/Goudy-ExtraBold
/GoudyHandtooledBT-Regular
/GoudyHeavyfaceBT-Regular
/GoudyHeavyfaceBT-RegularCond
/Goudy-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman
/GoudySans-Black
/GoudySans-BlackItalic
/GoudySans-Bold
/GoudySans-BoldItalic
/GoudySans-Book
/GoudySans-BookItalic
/GoudySansITCbyBT-Black
/GoudySansITCbyBT-BlackItalic
/GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold
/GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GoudySansITCbyBT-Light
/GoudySansITCbyBT-LightItalic
/GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium
/GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic
/GoudySans-Medium
/GoudySans-MediumItalic
/Granjon
/Granjon-Bold
/Granjon-BoldOsF

72. /Granjon-Italic
/Granjon-ItalicOsF
/Granjon-SC
/GreymantleMVB-Ornaments
/Helvetica
/Helvetica-Black
/Helvetica-BlackOblique
/Helvetica-Black-SemiBold
/Helvetica-Bold
/Helvetica-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Compressed
/Helvetica-Condensed
/Helvetica-Condensed-Black
/Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Bold
/Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Light
/Helvetica-Condensed-Light-Light
/Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique
/Helvetica-Condensed-Thin
/Helvetica-ExtraCompressed
/Helvetica-Fraction
/Helvetica-FractionBold
/HelveticaInserat-Roman
/HelveticaInserat-Roman-SemiBold
/Helvetica-Light
/Helvetica-LightOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow
/Helvetica-Narrow-Bold
/Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique
/HelveticaNeue-Black
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackExt

73. /HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Bold
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCond
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExt
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Condensed
/HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-Extended
/HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl
/HelveticaNeue-Heavy
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Italic
/HelveticaNeue-Light
/HelveticaNeue-LightCond
/HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightExt
/HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightItalic
/HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md
/HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt
/HelveticaNeue-Medium
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCond
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-MediumExt
/HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Roman

74. /HelveticaNeue-Thin
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCond
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-ThinItalic
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLight
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal
/Helvetica-Oblique
/Helvetica-UltraCompressed
/HelvExtCompressed
/HelvLight
/HelvUltCompressed
/Humanist521BT-Bold
/Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed
/Humanist521BT-BoldItalic
/Humanist521BT-ExtraBold
/Humanist521BT-Italic
/Humanist521BT-Light
/Humanist521BT-LightItalic
/Humanist521BT-Roman
/Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed
/Humanist521BT-UltraBold
/Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed
/Humanist531BT-BlackA
/Humanist531BT-BoldA
/Humanist531BT-RomanA
/Humanist531BT-UltraBlackA
/Humanist777BT-BlackB
/Humanist777BT-BlackCondensedB
/Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB
/Humanist777BT-BoldB
/Humanist777BT-BoldCondensedB
/Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB

75. /Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackB
/Humanist777BT-ExtraBlackCondB
/Humanist777BT-ItalicB
/Humanist777BT-LightB
/Humanist777BT-LightCondensedB
/Humanist777BT-LightItalicB
/Humanist777BT-RomanB
/Humanist777BT-RomanCondensedB
/Humanist970BT-BoldC
/Humanist970BT-RomanC
/HumanistSlabserif712BT-Black
/HumanistSlabserif712BT-Bold
/HumanistSlabserif712BT-Italic
/HumanistSlabserif712BT-Roman
/ICMEX10
/ICMMI8
/ICMSY8
/ICMTT8
/Iglesia-Light
/ILASY8
/ILCMSS8
/ILCMSSB8
/ILCMSSI8
/Imago-Book
/Imago-BookItalic
/Imago-ExtraBold
/Imago-ExtraBoldItalic
/Imago-Light
/Imago-LightItalic
/Imago-Medium
/Imago-MediumItalic
/Industria-Inline
/Industria-InlineA
/Industria-Solid
/Industria-SolidA
/Insignia

76. /Insignia-A
/IPAExtras
/IPAHighLow
/IPAKiel
/IPAKielSeven
/IPAsans
/ITCGaramondMM
/ITCGaramondMM-It
/JAKEOpti-Regular
/JansonText-Bold
/JansonText-BoldItalic
/JansonText-Italic
/JansonText-Roman
/JansonText-RomanSC
/JoannaMT
/JoannaMT-Bold
/JoannaMT-BoldItalic
/JoannaMT-Italic
/Juniper
/KabelITCbyBT-Book
/KabelITCbyBT-Demi
/KabelITCbyBT-Medium
/KabelITCbyBT-Ultra
/Kaufmann
/Kaufmann-Bold
/KeplMM-Or2
/KisBT-Italic
/KisBT-Roman
/KlangMT
/Kuenstler480BT-Black
/Kuenstler480BT-Bold
/Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic
/Kuenstler480BT-Italic
/Kuenstler480BT-Roman
/KunstlerschreibschD-Bold
/KunstlerschreibschD-Medi

77. /Lapidary333BT-Black
/Lapidary333BT-Bold
/Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic
/Lapidary333BT-Italic
/Lapidary333BT-Roman
/LASY10
/LASY5
/LASY6
/LASY7
/LASY8
/LASY9
/LASYB10
/LatinMT-Condensed
/LCIRCLE10
/LCIRCLEW10
/LCMSS8
/LCMSSB8
/LCMSSI8
/LDecorationPi-One
/LDecorationPi-Two
/Leawood-Black
/Leawood-BlackItalic
/Leawood-Bold
/Leawood-BoldItalic
/Leawood-Book
/Leawood-BookItalic
/Leawood-Medium
/Leawood-MediumItalic
/LegacySans-Bold
/LegacySans-BoldItalic
/LegacySans-Book
/LegacySans-BookItalic
/LegacySans-Medium
/LegacySans-MediumItalic
/LegacySans-Ultra
/LegacySerif-Bold

78. /LegacySerif-BoldItalic
/LegacySerif-Book
/LegacySerif-BookItalic
/LegacySerif-Medium
/LegacySerif-MediumItalic
/LegacySerif-Ultra
/LetterGothic
/LetterGothic-Bold
/LetterGothic-BoldSlanted
/LetterGothic-Slanted
/Life-Bold
/Life-Italic
/Life-Roman
/LINE10
/LINEW10
/Linotext
/Lithos-Black
/LithosBold
/Lithos-Bold
/Lithos-Regular
/LOGO10
/LOGO8
/LOGO9
/LOGOBF10
/LOGOSL10
/LOMD-Normal
/LubalinGraph-Book
/LubalinGraph-BookOblique
/LubalinGraph-Demi
/LubalinGraph-DemiOblique
/LucidaHandwritingItalic
/LucidaMath-Symbol
/LucidaSansTypewriter
/LucidaSansTypewriter-Bd
/LucidaSansTypewriter-BdObl
/LucidaSansTypewriter-Obl

79. /LucidaTypewriter
/LucidaTypewriter-Bold
/LucidaTypewriter-BoldObl
/LucidaTypewriter-Obl
/LydianBT-Bold
/LydianBT-BoldItalic
/LydianBT-Italic
/LydianBT-Roman
/LydianCursiveBT-Regular
/Machine
/Machine-Bold
/Marigold
/MathematicalPi-Five
/MathematicalPi-Four
/MathematicalPi-One
/MathematicalPi-Six
/MathematicalPi-Three
/MathematicalPi-Two
/MatrixScriptBold
/MatrixScriptBoldLin
/MatrixScriptBook
/MatrixScriptBookLin
/MatrixScriptRegular
/MatrixScriptRegularLin
/Melior
/Melior-Bold
/Melior-BoldItalic
/Melior-Italic
/MercuriusCT-Black
/MercuriusCT-BlackItalic
/MercuriusCT-Light
/MercuriusCT-LightItalic
/MercuriusCT-Medium
/MercuriusCT-MediumItalic
/MercuriusMT-BoldScript
/Meridien-Bold

80. /Meridien-BoldItalic
/Meridien-Italic
/Meridien-Medium
/Meridien-MediumItalic
/Meridien-Roman
/Minion-Black
/Minion-Bold
/Minion-BoldCondensed
/Minion-BoldCondensedItalic
/Minion-BoldItalic
/Minion-Condensed
/Minion-CondensedItalic
/Minion-DisplayItalic
/Minion-DisplayRegular
/MinionExp-Italic
/MinionExp-Semibold
/MinionExp-SemiboldItalic
/Minion-Italic
/Minion-Ornaments
/Minion-Regular
/Minion-Semibold
/Minion-SemiboldItalic
/MonaLisa-Recut
/MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesAllSmallCaps
/MrsEavesBold
/MrsEavesFractions
/MrsEavesItalic
/MrsEavesPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesRoman
/MrsEavesRomanLining
/MrsEavesSmallCaps
/MSAM10
/MSAM10A
/MSAM5
/MSAM6

81. /MSAM7
/MSAM8
/MSAM9
/MSBM10
/MSBM10A
/MSBM5
/MSBM6
/MSBM7
/MSBM8
/MSBM9
/MTEX
/MTEXB
/MTEXH
/MTGU
/MTGUB
/MTMI
/MTMIB
/MTMIH
/MTMS
/MTMSB
/MTMUB
/MTMUH
/MTSY
/MTSYB
/MTSYH
/MTSYN
/MusicalSymbols-Normal
/Myriad-Bold
/Myriad-BoldItalic
/Myriad-CnBold
/Myriad-CnBoldItalic
/Myriad-CnItalic
/Myriad-CnSemibold
/Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic
/Myriad-Condensed
/Myriad-Italic

82. /MyriadMM
/MyriadMM-It
/Myriad-Roman
/Myriad-Sketch
/Myriad-Tilt
/NeuzeitS-Book
/NeuzeitS-BookHeavy
/NewBaskerville-Bold
/NewBaskerville-BoldItalic
/NewBaskerville-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman
/NewBaskerville-Roman
/NewCaledonia
/NewCaledonia-Black
/NewCaledonia-BlackItalic
/NewCaledonia-Bold
/NewCaledonia-BoldItalic
/NewCaledonia-BoldItalicOsF
/NewCaledonia-BoldSC
/NewCaledonia-Italic
/NewCaledonia-ItalicOsF
/NewCaledonia-SC
/NewCaledonia-SemiBold
/NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Bold
/NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Italic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Roman
/NewsGothic
/NewsGothic-Bold
/NewsGothic-BoldOblique
/NewsGothicBT-Bold
/NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed

83. /NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic
/NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Demi
/NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic
/NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Italic
/NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Light
/NewsGothicBT-LightItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Roman
/NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed
/NewsGothic-Oblique
/New-Symbol
/NovareseITCbyBT-Bold
/NovareseITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/NovareseITCbyBT-Book
/NovareseITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Nueva-BoldExtended
/Nueva-Roman
/NuptialScript
/OceanSansMM
/OceanSansMM-It
/OfficinaSans-Bold
/OfficinaSans-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSans-Book
/OfficinaSans-BookItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Bold
/OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Book
/OfficinaSerif-BookItalic
/OnyxMT
/Optima
/Optima-Bold
/Optima-BoldItalic
/Optima-BoldOblique

84. /Optima-ExtraBlack
/Optima-ExtraBlackItalic
/Optima-Italic
/Optima-Oblique
/OSPIRE-Plain
/OttaIA
/Otta-wa
/Ottawa-BoldA
/OttawaPSMT
/Oxford
/Palatino-Bold
/Palatino-BoldItalic
/Palatino-Italic
/Palatino-Roman
/Parisian
/Perpetua
/Perpetua-Bold
/Perpetua-BoldItalic
/Perpetua-Italic
/PhotinaMT
/PhotinaMT-Bold
/PhotinaMT-BoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-Italic
/PhotinaMT-SemiBold
/PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-UltraBold
/PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic
/Plantin
/Plantin-Bold
/Plantin-BoldItalic
/Plantin-Italic
/Plantin-Light
/Plantin-LightItalic
/Plantin-Semibold
/Plantin-SemiboldItalic
/Poetica-ChanceryI

85. /Poetica-SuppLowercaseEndI
/PopplLaudatio-Italic
/PopplLaudatio-Medium
/PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic
/PopplLaudatio-Regular
/ProseAntique-Bold
/ProseAntique-Normal
/QuaySansEF-Black
/QuaySansEF-BlackItalic
/QuaySansEF-Book
/QuaySansEF-BookItalic
/QuaySansEF-Medium
/QuaySansEF-MediumItalic
/Quorum-Black
/Quorum-Bold
/Quorum-Book
/Quorum-Light
/Quorum-Medium
/Raleigh
/Raleigh-Bold
/Raleigh-DemiBold
/Raleigh-Medium
/Revival565BT-Bold
/Revival565BT-BoldItalic
/Revival565BT-Italic
/Revival565BT-Roman
/Ribbon131BT-Bold
/Ribbon131BT-Regular
/RMTMI
/Rockwell
/Rockwell-Bold
/Rockwell-BoldItalic
/Rockwell-Italic
/Rockwell-Light
/Rockwell-LightItalic
/RotisSansSerif