COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx

COMM300 1.pdf
Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015) 33–40
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c
a t e / p a i d
Attachment theory as a framework for explaining engagement
with Facebook
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.016
0191-8869/� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Union
College, 807 Union
Street, Schenectady, NY 12308, USA. Fax: +1 518 388 6177.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Hart).
Joshua Hart ⇑ , Elizabeth Nailling, George Y. Bizer, Caitlyn K.
Collins
Union College, 807 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12308, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 November 2014
Received in revised form 4 December 2014
Accepted 5 December 2014
Available online 8 January 2015
Keywords:
Adult attachment

Personality
Social media
Self-presentation
a b s t r a c t
Research on the relation between personality and styles of
engagement with social media is surprisingly
limited and has generated mixed results. The present research
applied attachment theory to illuminate
individual differences in styles of Facebook engagement. Two
studies (N = 583) supported a mediational
model explaining various forms of active Facebook use as
stemming from attachment anxiety, which pre-
disposes individuals to sensitivity about social feedback,
thereby leading them to engage in attention-
seeking social media behavior. These results held while
controlling for extraversion, neuroticism, and
self-esteem. Attachment avoidance predicted restrained
Facebook use, primarily due to its association
with (low) extraversion. These findings resolve inconsistencies
in previous research and demonstrate that
attachment theory is a particularly useful framework through
which to study the influence of personality
on social-media behavior.
� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
As social media has become a principal mode of social interac-
tion in the past decade, self-expressive profiles and postings on
sites such as Facebook have become an outlet for individuals’
motivated social behavior. Even casual users likely notice that
indi-
viduals exhibit different patterns of social media behavior; for
example, some people post frequent ‘‘status updates’’ that range
from reporting mundane daily activities to espousing polemical

opinions, whereas others take a reticent or pragmatic approach,
visiting social media sites to view others’ activity, but
infrequently
engaging beyond that.
One question that naturally arises is how these different pat-
terns—we will call them ‘‘active’’ versus ‘‘restrained’’ social
media
use—relate to personality. In the present research, we use adult
attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) to illuminate
one
way in which personality can explain individual differences in
social-media behavior. Specifically, we examine how adult
attach-
ment style predicts patterns of engagement with Facebook.
Based on dispositional differences in the functioning of the
attachment system—a behavioral regulatory system that
mediates
close relationships—attachment style reflects individuals’
charac-
teristic cognitions, emotions and behavior in close relationships
(i.e., with parents, romantic partners), and it also predicts
different ways of interacting with acquaintances and strangers
(see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a comprehensive review).
Two dimensions, anxiety and avoidance, characterize
individuals’
attachment styles. These ‘‘insecure’’ attachment dimensions
reflect, respectively, hyperactivation of the attachment system,
or
augmented intimacy-seeking behaviors; and deactivation of the
attachment system, or reduction of intimacy-seeking behaviors
and augmented self-reliance. Secure attachment is defined by
low
anxiety and low avoidance, reflecting comfort with both
intimacy

and independence. According to attachment theory, individuals
develop anxiety and/or avoidance in order to manage chronic
con-
cerns about interpersonal loss, rejection, or abandonment. In
turn,
these traits are influential across a range of intrapersonal and
interpersonal contexts, in which anxious attachment predisposes
individuals to strive to earn others’ affection and avoidance
predis-
poses individuals to try to suppress relational needs. Given that
attachment style reflects fundamental social motivations, it
seems
a likely candidate to explain personality-based variance in
socially
oriented behaviors on social-media platforms.
1.1. The present research in context
Prior research on personality and social-media use has tended
to focus on the ‘‘Big Five’’ personality traits, but such findings
have
been mixed. Seidman (2013) suggested that the mixed results
may stem in part from a focus on behavioral variables, and
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.1
2.016&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
34 J. Hart et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77
(2015) 33–40
recommended an additional focus on motivational variables. We
concur, and we further suggest that some of the vagaries in

prior
research may have been due to the fact that the Big Five are
relatively broad personality superfactors that may not be the
most
precise predictors of specific tendencies (as opposed to general
classes of tendencies).
We think attachment style is a better candidate to explain some
aspects of social media engagement. The Big Five personality
traits
share variance with attachment style (e.g., Noftle & Shaver,
2006).
Therefore, the lack of a direct measure of attachment style in
most
prior research may account for some of the mixed findings, as
when researchers are led to attribute some characteristics to Big
Five dimensions that are more closely related to attachment
style,
or fail to find relationships because the Big Five dimensions are
not
the best predictors. For example, Seidman (2013) found that
neuroticism predicted self-disclosure on Facebook, which may
have resulted from neuroticism’s association with attachment
anx-
iety; by contrast, neuroticism was not associated with
acceptance-
seeking, whereas attachment anxiety should be.
To our knowledge, only three previous studies examined rela-
tionships between attachment style and social media use. These
studies were limited in important ways. In one study, Jenkins-
Guarnieri, Wright, and Hudiburgh (2012) reported that, whereas
extraversion predicted intensity of Facebook use, ‘‘self-esteem,
attachment style, and other FFM [Five Factor Model]
personality
traits. . .were not significantly related to Facebook use’’ (p.

298;
note that the null findings for four of the Big Five traits gives
another example of the mixed results in this area). However, the
authors conceded that marked participant attrition and the use
of a sample that was homogeneous in terms of age (17–24
years),
gender (mostly female), and location (the Rocky Mountain
region)
limited generalizability. To this we would add that the
Facebook
‘‘intensity’’ measure was a single-factor scale reflecting
frequency
of use rather than the style of use (e.g., posting, commenting,
and ‘‘liking’’).
In another study, Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright, and Johnson (2013)
used attachment and Big Five personality traits to predict
Facebook
use. This time, they applied structural equation modeling, and
in
contrast to their prior study, they found a (negative) indirect
effect
of attachment style (through extraversion) on extent of
Facebook
use. However, the structural model was peculiar in two ways.
First,
it treated attachment as a single dimension (insecurity vs. secu-
rity), whereas the vast majority of research treats anxiety and
avoidance dimensions separately and finds that they exert inde-
pendent effects (including Jenkins-Guarnieri et al.’s 2012
study).
Indeed, anxiety and avoidance frequently exhibit strikingly and
complexly different relations to other constructs, particularly
interpersonal ones (c.f., Hart, Hung, Glick, & Dinero, 2012).
Second,
the model was unusual because it treated attachment insecurity

as
an antecedent to extraversion and neuroticism, whereas the
latter
traits are traditionally viewed as existing alongside attachment
style. No research we know of suggests that adult attachment
style
causes extraversion and neuroticism, which are highly heritable
(e.g., Plomin & Caspi, 1999), whereas adult attachment style is
probably not (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, &
Holland,
2013). In fact, it is likely that major traits are reciprocally
influen-
tial and are most appropriately treated as covariates (sharing
var-
iance but also having unique qualities).
A third study yielded results most consistent with the reasoning
that motivated the present research (described below):
attachment
anxiety was associated with more frequent Facebook use, more
‘‘comfort seeking’’ on Facebook (i.e., using Facebook primarily
when experiencing negative emotions), and more concern about
being socially evaluated on Facebook (Oldmeadow, Quinn, &
Kowert, 2013). However, the study did not control for related
personality dimensions such as neuroticism, nor did it examine
potential process models of the mechanisms mediating relations
between Facebook use variables.
In sum, research relating personality to social-media engage-
ment has been flawed and has produced an inconsistent array of
findings. We attempted to improve on prior research by (a)
using
demographically heterogeneous samples, including a cross-cul-
tural sample, (b) developing hypotheses derived from
attachment
theory about the psychological mechanisms that explain why

anx-
iety and avoidance (independently) predict different patterns of
social-media engagement, (c) examining multiple specific
dimen-
sions of social-media engagement, not simply extent of use,
while
(d) controlling simultaneously for traits that are known to share
considerable variance with attachment style and are the most
obvious third variables that might explain associations between
attachment style and other constructs (cf. Hart, Shaver, &
Goldenberg, 2005; Noftle & Shaver, 2006): extraversion
(negatively
related to avoidance), neuroticism (positively related to
anxiety),
and self-esteem (negatively related to anxiety).
1.2. Overview of studies and hypotheses
Anxiously attached individuals’ worries that their close rela-
tionship partners will reject them leads to compulsive
proximity-
and intimacy-seeking. Consequently, they tend to be sensitive to
others’ opinions of them (e.g., Park, Crocker, & Mickelson,
2004;
Srivastava & Beer, 2005), and they tend to disclose personal
infor-
mation about themselves early in relationships and engage in
other
behaviors aimed at rapidly attaining intimacy (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). Together, these tendencies are sometimes
described
as ‘‘excessive reassurance seeking’’; that is, anxious
individuals’
concerns about others’ affection compel them to engage in
behav-
iors designed to elicit positive feedback (Shaver, Schachner, &

Mikulincer, 2005).
Such a personality profile suggests that in a social-media for-
mat such as Facebook, attachment anxiety should predict greater
need for positive feedback and hence greater concerns about
man-
aging others’ impressions (cf. Oldmeadow et al., 2013). In turn,
because Facebook is a forum where individuals interact with
‘‘friends,’’ and are likely to generally expect to receive positive
feedback in the form of ‘‘likes’’ and comments (especially to
the
extent that they are motivated to receive feedback; Hepper,
Hart, Gregg, & Sedikides, 2011), anxiously attached
individuals’
sensitivity to feedback should predict more expressive, atten-
tion-seeking behaviors (and more activity in general), aimed at
generating positive feedback. In short, anxiously attached
individ-
uals’ sensitivity to feedback should lead them to engage more
actively on Facebook.
By contrast, avoidant individuals’ discomfort with intimacy
and consequent denial of relational needs leads them to main-
tain a ‘‘safe’’ distance from relationship partners, and to
eschew
interactions that might involve dwelling on or discussing emo-
tions. Hence, attachment avoidance should predict restrained
Facebook behaviors and minimal concerns about feedback from
others.
In two studies, we measured attachment style, extraversion and
neuroticism, and self-esteem, as well as Facebook engagement
variables tapping sensitivity to feedback and several dimensions
of Facebook engagement, including feedback seeking (extensive
and frequent posting on a range of topics), general activity
(time

spent on Facebook, frequency of commenting and liking behav-
iors), and attention from others. In both studies, we
hypothesized
that attachment anxiety would predict more active, attention-
seeking Facebook behaviors, mediated by anxious individuals’
con-
cerns about social feedback. We also hypothesized that
attachment
avoidance would predict more restrained Facebook use, due to
those individuals’ tendency to suppress relational concerns.
J. Hart et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 77 (2015)
33–40 35
2. Study 1
2.1. Participants
Participants completed a survey posted on Mechanical Turk
(MTurk, see Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), in return
for
$.50. Nearly half the participants were located in the United
States;
the rest were located internationally (largely in India). MTurk
sam-
ples tend to be diverse in geographical location, age, and other
important variables, roughly approximating the population (in
the United States at least; see Simons & Chabris, 2012). Before
analysis, we excluded 10 participants whose answers on two
iden-
tical Big Five Inventory (BFI) questions deviated by more than
1
scale point (i.e., we used consecutive identical questions to
screen
for participants who were not paying attention). This left 267

par-
ticipants (117 women) aged 19–73 (M = 32.68, SD = 10.94) who
identified primarily as White (44%) and Asian/Asian-American
(43%), with the rest (13%) identifying with another ethnicity.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Participants completed online questionnaires assessing, in
order: attachment style, self-esteem, neuroticism and
extraversion,
and several dimensions of Facebook engagement. The 36-item
Experiences in Close Relationships inventory (ECR; Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998) measured attachment anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I
worry
about being abandoned’’) and avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I don’t feel
comfort-
able opening up to romantic partners’’). Due to a programming
error, one item was missing from the anxiety subscale. The 10-
item
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) measured
self-
esteem. Extraversion and neuroticism were measured using their
respective items from the BFI (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991).
2.2.1. Facebook engagement
We generated a battery of questions pertaining to Facebook
engagement. These included some filler questions for which we
had no a priori hypotheses, in addition to five conceptually
derived
subscales, described below. These subscales were internally
consis-
tent, as demonstrated by their alpha coefficients (see Table 1).
Five items measured our proposed mediator, feedback sensitiv-
ity: ‘‘I feel insecure when fewer friends than usual like or
comment
on my status updates [pictures]’’; ‘‘I feel really confident and

well-
liked when more people than usual like or comment on my pic-
tures’’; and ‘‘I do not care how many friends like or comment
on
my status updates [pictures]’’ (reverse scored). (1 = disagree
strongly; 6 = agree strongly.)
Nine items measured our primary outcome variable, feedback
seeking, including overall status-posting frequency (‘‘How
often
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for the dependent variables.
M SD
Study 1
Feedback sensitivity 2.89 1.05
Feedback seeking 2.71 1.00
General activity 2.15 .92
Attention received 2.33 1.23
Privacy 4.02 .99
Study 2
Feedback sensitivity 2.60 1.20
Feedback seeking 2.41 .92
General activity 2.52 1.17
Attention received 2.05 .97
Privacy 4.11 1.24
do you post status updates?’’; participants selected a range of
options from 1 = Less than once a month; 2 = 1–5 times a
month;
3 = 6–10 times a month; 4 = 11–20 times a month; 5 = 21–40
times
a month; 6 = More than 40 times a month). Six of the items
tapped
common kinds of status updates, beginning with ‘‘I post status

updates. . .’’: ‘‘. . .about my daily routines and activities (i.e.,
my
meals, my classes/work)’’; ‘‘. . .when something exciting is
going
on in my life (i.e., major accomplishment, vacations, etc.)’’;
‘‘. . .when I have something funny or creative to say’’; ‘‘. . .
about
my personal views on politics or other controversial issues’’;
‘‘. . .about personal issues’’; ‘‘. . .that reference my
religion/spiritual-
ity in some way.’’(1 = never to 6 = always.) Two items tapped
sta-
tus-update behaviors that seem aimed at attention-seeking: ‘‘My
status updates contain inappropriate attributes (innuendos,
swear
words, etc.)’’; and ‘‘I tag others in my status updates so that
they
will see and like/comment on them’’ (1 = never to 6 = always).
Six items measured a second activity-related outcome variable,
attention received: ‘‘How many likes [comments], on average,
do
your status updates [profile pictures; non-profile pictures]
receive?’’ (1 = less than 5 [likes or comments to 6 = 25 or more
[likes
or comments]).
We measured general activity with one item asking about time
spent a day logged on to Facebook (1 = less than 15 min; 6 =
more
than 3 h), plus three items tapping frequency of commenting on
other Facebook users’ status updates, profile pictures, and non-
pro-
file pictures (using the same scale and anchors as for feedback
seeking).

Six items measured participants tendency toward privacy: ‘‘I
only like or comment on the status updates of people I know’’;
‘‘I
find it strange when people I do not know very well personally
like
or comment on my status updates’’; ‘‘I think it is creepy when
peo-
ple I do not know friend request me’’; ‘‘I only friend request
people
who I have met before in person’’; ‘‘I like or comment on the
status
updates of people who I do not know very well personally’’
(reverse scored); and ‘‘I like it when I get friend requests from
peo-
ple I do not know very well personally’’ (reverse scored). (1 =
dis-
agree strongly to 6 = agree strongly).
Exploratory factor analyses of these 5 scales suggested that they
represent a common superordinate ‘‘activity’’ factor. However,
reli-
ability analyses showing that the internal consistency of an
omni-
bus scale comprising subsets of the 5 scales was highest (a =
.82)
when feedback sensitivity and privacy subscales were removed
(leaving feedback seeking, attention received, and general
activity
subscales combined). Moreover, the pattern of correlations
(Table 2) among the 5 scales suggested that feedback sensitivity
and privacy had the lowest correlations with the other 3 scales.
All of this was true in Study 2, too, suggesting a superordinate
Facebook ‘‘activity’’ factor consisting of feedback seeking,
attention
received, and general activity; and also suggesting that,
consistent

with our a priori conceptualization, feedback sensitivity should
be
treated as a distinct variable (probably reflecting a distinction
between emotional reactions and behavior).
2.3. Results
Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for the
dependent variables. Table 2 displays zero-order correlations
among the main study variables. To test our hypotheses, we
con-
ducted separate analyses (see Table 3) regressing each of the 5
Facebook engagement dimensions on attachment anxiety and
avoidance (Step 1), plus extraversion, neuroticism, and self-
esteem
(Step 2), followed by mediational analyses.
2.3.1. Feedback sensitivity
As hypothesized, attachment anxiety predicted feedback sensi-
tivity, even after controlling for all the other predictors. It was
the
Table 2
Correlation matrix for both studies’ main variables.
Anxiety Avoidance Extraversion Neuroticism Self esteem
Feedback sens Feedback seek Gen activity Attn received
Anxiety (.95, .93) .42*** �.10 .56*** �.62*** .60*** .45***
.26*** .16**
Avoidance .34*** (.94, .93) �.40*** .39*** �.54*** .20** .06
�.08 �.11
Extraversion .28*** .48*** (.91, .86) �.45*** .29*** .06

.28*** .26*** .37***
Neuroticism .63*** .34*** �.46*** (.90, .88) �.68*** .29***
.09 .03 �.12*
Self esteem �.60*** �.43*** .46*** �.66*** (.94, .92)
�.37*** �.18** �.03 .02
Feedback sens .34*** .08 �.05 .25*** �.25*** (.84, .76)
.55*** .39*** .34***
Feedback seek .14* �.12* .15* .06 .02 .29*** (.82, .89) .56***
.55***
Gen activity .13* �.12* .08* .09 .04 .21*** .62*** (.81, .79)
.74***
Attn received .03 �.15** .16** .01 .05 .19** .48*** .54***
(.87, .93)
Note. Study 1’s correlation coefficients are above the diagonal;
Study 2’s are below the diagonal. Coefficient alphas are
reported in parentheses along the diagonal (Study 1,
Study 2).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .00.
Table 3
Regression results for Study 1.
B SE b
Feedback sensitivity (Step 1)
Anxiety .51 .04 .63***
Avoidance �.06 .06 �.06
Anxiety .49 .06 .60***

Avoidance �.03 .07 �.03
Extraversion .15 .08 .12
Neuroticism �.02 .09 �.01
Self esteem �.05 .07 �.05
Feedback seeking (Step 1)
Anxiety .40 .05 .51***
Avoidance �.15 .06 �.15*
Anxiety .40 .06 .52***
Avoidance �.01 .07 �.01
Extraversion .37 .08 .30***
Self esteem .01 .07 .01
General activity (Step 1)
Anxiety .25 .05 .35***
Avoidance �.21 .06 �.23**
Anxiety .26 .06 .36***
Avoidance �.09 .07 �.10
Extraversion .27 .08 .24**
Neuroticism .04 .09 .04
Attention received (Step 1)
Anxiety .24 .06 .26***

Avoidance �.28 .08 �.22**
Anxiety .27 .07 .28***
Avoidance �.08 .09 �.06
Extraversion .49 .10 .33***
Privacy (Step 1)
Anxiety �.13 .05 �.17*
Avoidance .14 .07 .14*
Privacy (Step 2)
Anxiety �.15 .06 �.20*
Avoidance .11 .08 .11
Extraversion �.11 .09 �.09
Neuroticism .25 .11 .22*
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
(2015) 33–40
only significant predictor. (The positive relation between
extraver-
sion and feedback sensitivity was nonsignificant.)

2.3.2. Feedback seeking
As hypothesized, attachment anxiety positively predicted feed-
back seeking; and attachment avoidance negatively predicted it.
However, whereas the effect of anxiety remained while
controlling
for the other predictors, the effect of avoidance was entirely
elim-
inated when a positive effect of extraversion was considered.
Hence, the effect of avoidance was due to its negative
relationship
with extraversion.
2.3.3. General activity
As hypothesized, attachment anxiety positively predicted gen-
eral activity on Facebook, and attachment avoidance negatively
predicted it; however, whereas the effect of attachment anxiety
remained while controlling for the other predictors, the effect of
avoidance was eliminated when a positive effect of extraversion
was considered.
2.3.4. Attention received
As hypothesized, attachment anxiety positively predicted atten-
tion received, and attachment avoidance negatively predicted it.
Again, whereas the effect of anxiety remained while controlling
for the other predictors, the effect of avoidance was eliminated
due to a positive effect of extraversion.
2.3.5. Privacy
As hypothesized, attachment anxiety negatively predicted pri-
vacy, and attachment avoidance positively predicted it. Whereas
the effect of anxiety remained while controlling for the other
pre-

dictors—despite a simultaneous positive effect of neuroticism—
the
effect of avoidance became nonsignificant.
2.3.6. Mediation analyses
We tested our mediational hypotheses following Preacher and
Hayes’s (2008) guidelines. The mediation analyses included all
the same covariates as in the regression analyses, used 5000
boot-
strap samples, and estimated bias-corrected and accelerated 95%
confidence intervals (CIs).
As hypothesized, feedback sensitivity mediated the effect of
attachment anxiety on feedback seeking (see Fig. 1; CI for the
indi-
rect effect = .12–.26), general activity (CI = .09–.20), attention
received (CI = .11–.27), and privacy (CI = �.03 to �.21).
As would be expected given that the effects of avoidance on the
Facebook measures were due to shared variance with
extraversion,
feedback sensitivity did not mediate the effect of avoidance on
any
Fig. 1. Mediation Model. Coefficients are for Study 1; Study 2.
⁄p < .05. To simplify presentation, feedback seeking is the only
outcome depicted (results were parallel for
attention received and general activity).
33–40 37
of the outcome variables. Interestingly, it also did not mediate
the

effect of extraversion on any of those variables (see discussion
below).
2.3.7. Interactions
We also conducted exploratory regression analyses (including
the same covariates as in the other analyses) testing whether the
interaction between anxiety and avoidance (i.e., security vs.
insecu-
rity) might predict any of the Facebook measures. It did not
(ps > .16).
1 Although the sample of US participants was not large enough
to test for cultural
differences, exploratory analyses suggested that our findings
were weaker among US
participants. We therefore restricted Study 2 to US participants
to ensure that the
findings would replicate in a US sample. To reduce the
likelihood of repeat US
participants across the studies, we examined IP addresses from
both samples. Only 3
IP addresses occurred in both samples; of these, 2 were clearly
different people
(according to demographic information). Thus, 1 person appears
to have participated
in both studies. Removing that person from analyses does not
change the results.
2.4. Discussion
Study 1 generally confirmed our hypotheses. Attachment anxi-
ety predicted feedback sensitivity, feedback seeking, general
activ-
ity, attention received, and (lower) inclination toward privacy.
Anxious persons’ feedback sensitivity mediated the
relationships
between attachment anxiety and all the other outcome variables,
suggesting that anxious individuals behave actively on

Facebook
because they are motivated to seek positive feedback from
others.
Moreover, all the effects were due exclusively to attachment
anx-
iety and not to constructs that relate very strongly to it (neuroti-
cism and [lower] self-esteem).
Also supporting hypotheses, when controlling for attachment
anxiety (which is positively correlated with avoidance despite
their
apparent opposition), attachment avoidance generally predicted
the opposite patterns of Facebook engagement (i.e., restraint).
However, we were surprised to learn that avoidant individuals’
restrained behaviors seemed to be explained by their (lower)
extra-
version (and in the case of privacy, their higher neuroticism). In
other words, avoidance predicts restrained engagement with
Face-
book primarily because avoidant individuals tend to be more
intro-
verted, and not, as theorized, because they are trying to avoid
intimacy per se. This makes sense considering that social media
is
a relatively distant way of interacting with others. Perhaps
avoidant
individuals are not as strongly disposed toward distance-
maintain-
ing behaviors online as they are in person because the online
format
already affords an element of separation from others.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the positive effects of
extra-
version on Facebook activity were not mediated by feedback
sensi-

tivity (indeed, extraversion was not related to feedback
sensitivity). This provides additional evidence that the process
we have delineated explains the results for attachment anxiety,
not some spurious factor such as the response biases of socially
ori-
ented (i.e., anxiously attached or extraverted) individuals.
Extra-
verts may be inclined toward active Facebook engagement, but
it
is for different reasons than anxiously attached individuals have
for doing so.
In Study 2, we sought to replicate the findings of Study 1. This
time, we restricted the sample to participants located in the
United
States, to test whether any of the findings of Study 1 might be
due
to the use of an international sample.1
3. Study 2
3.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited in the same manner as in Study 1,
except for the location restriction. Before analyses we excluded
8
participants whose answers on two consecutive identical ques-
tions deviated by more than 1 scale point (this time we
embedded
the identical questions in the ECR questionnaire). This left 316
par-
ticipants (195 women), aged 18–83 (M = 32.79, SD = 11.62)
who
identified primarily as White (72%), Black (9%), Asian/Asian-
Amer-
ican (7%), and Hispanic/Latino (7%), with the rest (5%)

identifying
with another ethnicity. We followed the same procedure as in
Study 1.
3.2. Results
We followed the same analytic strategy as in Study 1. Table 1
displays the means and standard deviations; Table 2 displays the
zero-order correlations, and Table 4 displays the regression
results.
3.2.1. Feedback sensitivity
As in Study 1, attachment anxiety was the only significant pre-
dictor of feedback sensitivity, even after controlling for all the
other predictors.
3.2.2. Feedback seeking
Attachment anxiety positively predicted feedback seeking; and
attachment avoidance negatively predicted it. However, whereas
the effect of anxiety remained while controlling for the other
pre-
dictors, the effect of avoidance became nonsignificant when a
posi-
tive effect of extraversion was considered. Hence, the effect of
avoidance was due to its negative relationship with
extraversion.
3.2.3. General activity
Attachment anxiety positively predicted general activity on
Facebook, and attachment avoidance negatively predicted it;
how-
ever, whereas the effect of attachment anxiety remained while
controlling for the other predictors, the effect of avoidance

became
Table 4
Regression Results for Study 2.
B SE b
Anxiety .33 .05 .36***
Avoidance �.05 .07 �.05
Anxiety .27 .07 .29***
Avoidance �.05 .07 �.05
Anxiety .14 .04 .21***
Avoidance �.17 .05 �.19**
Anxiety .16 .05 .22**
Avoidance -.09 .06 �.11
Extraversion .16 .07 .16*

Anxiety .16 .05 .19**
Avoidance �.20 .07 �.18**
Anxiety .17 .07 .19*
Avoidance �.14 .07 �.13
Self esteem .15 .07 .16*
Anxiety .06 .04 .09
Avoidance �.16 .06 �.18**
Anxiety .06 .06 .08
Avoidance �.11 .06 �.11
Extraversion .15 .07 .15*
Privacy (Step 1)
Anxiety .02 .06 .02
Avoidance .00 .07 .00
Privacy (Step 2)
Anxiety �.01 .07 �.01
Avoidance �.04 .08 �.03
Extraversion �.13 .09 �.10

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
(2015) 33–40
nonsignificant when a marginal positive effect of neuroticism
and a
positive effect of self-esteem were considered.
3.2.4. Attention received
Attachment anxiety positively predicted, albeit nonsignifi-
cantly, attention received, and attachment avoidance negatively
predicted it. The effect of avoidance became nonsignificant due
to a positive effect of extraversion.
3.2.5. Privacy
In contrast to Study 1, none of the personality variables signif-
icantly predicted an inclination toward privacy.
3.2.6. Mediation analyses
We conducted the same mediation analyses as in Study 1, rep-
licating the finding that sensitivity to feedback significantly
medi-
ated the effect of attachment anxiety on feedback seeking (CI
for
the indirect effect = .02–.10), general activity (CI = .02–.10),
and
attention received (CI = .02–.08; this despite a nonsignificant
direct
effect of attachment anxiety). (We did not conduct mediation
anal-

yses for privacy, because it was not significantly related to any
of
the predictor variables.)
As in Study 1, feedback sensitivity did not mediate the effect of
avoidance on any of the outcome variables, nor did it mediate
the
effect of extraversion on any of the variables.
3.2.7. Interactions
As in Study 1, regression analyses testing for interactions
between anxiety and avoidance were nonsignificant for most of
the Facebook outcome measures (ps > .06), but there were two
interactions in which the effect of attachment anxiety on
feedback
seeking and general activity occurred mainly among individuals
who were also low in avoidance (unstandardized Bs = �.10 and
�.14; bs = �.12 and �.13; ps = .04 and .03, respectively).
3.3. Discussion
Study 2 replicated all the main findings from Study 1, providing
evidence for the reliability (and cross-cultural generalizability)
of
these results. The main finding is that attachment anxiety
predis-
poses individuals to be sensitive to feedback from others, which
prompts these individuals to spend more time on Facebook, to
post
more frequently, on a wider range of topics, and to engage in
more
frequent ‘‘tagging’’ of others and commenting on others’
profiles.
Extraversion, neuroticism, and self-esteem were not as consis-

tently related to Facebook engagement. The most consistent
find-
ing was that extraversion predicted more engagement on
Facebook, which explained the lower engagement of individuals
high in attachment avoidance, who tend to be more introverted.
4. General discussion
The present research suggests that there are (at least) two kinds
of active Facebook users: people who are higher in attachment
anxiety, and people who are higher in extraversion. We leave a
ful-
ler explanation of the extraversion finding to future research;
how-
ever, the present studies depict a clear accounting of anxiously
attached individuals’ inclination toward frequent and varied
post-
ing, commenting, and ‘‘liking’’ on Facebook: these individuals
are
prone to concerns about social feedback, which prompts them to
engage actively on Facebook, presumably in an effort to
generate
positive feedback from others; in turn, this activity appears to
gen-
erate the higher levels of attention that it is designed to elicit.
By contrast, individuals who are more disengaged from Face-
book (restrained) tend to be more introverted, a finding that
speaks
for itself. We were surprised that attachment avoidance did not
seem to play much of a role in Facebook restraint apart from its
association with introversion/extraversion, and propose that the
reason for this is that online social media formats already afford
interpersonal distance, so avoidant individuals do not feel as
threa-
tened by interactions in these settings as they do by intimacy in

more personal contexts. However, it is worth noting that several
of the coefficients for the relation between avoidance and
Facebook
variables were nearly significant (i.e., ps < .10) while
controlling for
extraversion, leaving open the possibility that they would
remain
significant in larger samples. (These are other good topics for
future research to pursue.)
Although the present research improves on prior research in a
number of ways, including the use of samples representing
diverse
ages, cultural backgrounds, and geographical locations, the use
of a
cross-sectional correlational method naturally presents some
33–40 39
limitations on the inferences that can be drawn. In particular,
though we think there are compelling reasons for the causal
hypotheses represented in our mediation models (i.e.,
attachment
anxiety causes feedback sensitivity which causes feedback
seeking
and other aspects of active Facebook engagement), alternative
cau-
sal models are plausible (e.g., active Facebook engagement
causes
attachment anxiety, or feedback sensitivity). Additionally, the
use
of self-report methods leaves open the question of whether
partic-
ipants who are more anxiously attached really do post more fre-

quent status updates, etc., or whether they simply perceive
themselves as doing so. Finally, we did not ask participants to
report how much positive and negative feedback they receive on
Facebook, so we do not know whether anxiously attached
individ-
uals’ feedback seeking is associated not only with attention
received but specifically positive attention. In light of these
limita-
tions, future research should examine participants’ actual Face-
book pages and behavior and employ experimental designs to
assess the effect of (a) feedback seeking on actual feedback, and
(b) the effect of positive or negative feedback on subsequent
Face-
book use. These approaches could provide convergent support
for
the processes we have postulated.
Assuming that additional research supports our model, the pres-
ent results bear theoretical and practical implications. The
research
suggests that attachment theory is a fruitful framework for
study-
ing social media behavior. Attachment processes—and
individual
differences moderating those processes—are not only relevant
to
interpersonal relationships, many of which are increasingly
formed
or conducted over social media, but also to individuals’ self-
esteem
and impression maintenance in the context of those
relationships.
To the extent that social media represents an expanded stage
(beyond in-person interactions) on which these processes play
out (e.g., Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2014),
attachment

dynamics are likely to be among the personality-based
influences
that explain the motivations, emotions, and cognitions behind
phe-
nomena such as the style and content of communications
exchanged on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so on.
Studies have shown that among socially competent, socially
supported individuals, social media use leads to even greater
social
benefits in relationships outside of the social media network
(the
rich-get-richer theory; Kraut et al., 2002); for example, among
extraverts with high social support, increased use of internet-
med-
iated communication leads to more community involvement and
family communication (Kraut et al.). Ironically, something
similar
may be true for socially anxious persons, who may gain more
real-world social benefits from social media use, as social
media
provide a less intimidating context to develop relationships,
thereby leading to increased perceptions of closeness
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). In this light, our findings suggest
that
anxiously attached individuals may find Facebook to be a
salutary
outlet for their heightened needs for positive feedback and a
sense
of connectedness, particularly to the extent that they are
actually
successful at garnering attention (our results suggest that they
are).
However, it is also possible that the kinds of interactions that
take place on Facebook may be relatively ‘‘empty,’’ providing

only
short bursts of well-being that fade once participants go offline.
If
so, it is possible that individuals who use Facebook for positive
feedback may form a compulsive habit. Furthermore, using
Face-
book to fulfill self-presentational, self-esteem, or relational
needs
exposes people to the possibility of experiencing chronic
upward
social comparison, as they invariably witness others’ self-
promoting, attention-seeking behaviors and successful garnering
of positive social feedback (Chou & Edge, 2012). Some
researchers
suggest that such processes may, for example, contribute to the
maintenance of eating disorders (Mabe, Forney, & Keel, 2014)
or
to reductions in subjective well-being (Kross et al., 2013).
Presumably, anxiously attached individuals would be
particularly
prone to such deleterious side-effects.
We hope the present research, in contributing to an explanation
of why people behave actively on social-media sites, provides a
springboard for future investigations of these issues and how
attachment processes inform them.
Ethical statement
The authors affirm that this research was carried out in accor-
dance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical
Association
(Declaration of Helsinki) and that informed consent was
obtained
from all participants.
Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a Student Research
Grant and a Faculty Research Fund grant from Union College.
References
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-
report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson
& W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76).
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk: A
new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives
on Psychological
Science, 6, 3–5.
Chou, H., & Edge, N. (2012). ‘‘They are happier and having
better lives than I am’’:
The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives.
Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 117–121.
Fraley, R., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M., &
Holland, A. S. (2013).
Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A
longitudinal
study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology, 104, 817–838.
Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012). He
loves her, he loves her not:

Attachment style as a personality antecedent to men’s
ambivalent sexism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1495–1505.
Hart, J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment,
self-esteem,
worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite
security
system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999–
1013.
Hepper, E., Hart, C., Gregg, A., & Sedikides, C. (2011).
Motivated expectations of
positive feedback in social interactions. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 151,
455–477.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Hudiburgh, L. M.
(2012). The relationships
among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal
competency, and
Facebook use. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
33, 294–301.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. D.
(2013). The interrelationships
among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal
competency, and
Facebook use. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 117–
131.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big
Five Inventory—Versions 4a
and 5a. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley,
Institute of Personality
and Social Research.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V.,
& Crawford, A. M. (2002).
Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D., Lin, N.,
et al. (2013). Facebook use
predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS
ONE, 8, e69841.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions
and the big five
personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to
predict relationship
quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.
Mabe, A., Forney, K., & Keel, P. (2014). Do you ‘‘like’’ my
photo? Facebook use
maintains eating disorder risk. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 47,
516–523.
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can
you tell who I am?
Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among
young adults.
Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 179–183.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in
adulthood: Structure, dynamics,
and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment
style, social skills, and
Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior,
29, 1142–1149.

Park, L. E., Crocker, J., & Mickelson, K. D. (2004). Attachment
styles and
contingencies of self-worth. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30,
1243–1254.
Plomin, R., & Caspi, A. (1999). Behavioral genetics and
personality. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed.,
pp. 251–276). New York: Guilford.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(14)00724-7/h0005

(2015) 33–40
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005).
Attachment style, excessive
reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression.
Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343–359.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on
Facebook: How personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personality and
Individual
Differences, 54, 402–407.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2012). Common (mis)beliefs
about memory: A
replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk
survey methods.
PLoS ONE, 7, e51876.
Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (2005). How self-evaluations relate
to being liked by
others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 966–977.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and
adolescents’ online
communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 267.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(14)00724-
7/h0130Attachment theory as a framework for explaining
engagement with Facebook1 Introduction1.1 The present
research in context1.2 Overview of studies and hypotheses2
Study 12.1 Participants2.2 Materials and procedure2.2.1
Facebook engagement2.3 Results2.3.1 Feedback sensitivity2.3.2
Feedback seeking2.3.3 General activity2.3.4 Attention
received2.3.5 Privacy2.3.6 Mediation analyses2.3.7
Interactions2.4 Discussion3 Study 23.1 Participants and
procedure3.2 Results3.2.1 Feedback sensitivity3.2.2 Feedback
seeking3.2.3 General activity3.2.4 Attention received3.2.5
Privacy3.2.6 Mediation analyses3.2.7 Interactions3.3
Discussion4 General discussionEthical
statementAcknowledgementsReferences
__MACOSX/._COMM300 1.pdf

COMM300 2.pdf
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c
a t e / p a i d
The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the
topics
people write about in Facebook status updates
0191-8869/� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
⇑ Corresponding author at: Division of Psychology, Department
of Life Sciences,
Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. Tel.: +44 (0)1895
267096.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.C. Marshall).
Tara C. Marshall ⇑ , Katharina Lefringhausen, Nelli Ferenczi
Brunel University, UK
Article history:
Received 23 January 2015
Received in revised form 14 April 2015
Accepted 21 April 2015
Available online 15 May 2015
Keywords:

Facebook
Social networking
Social media
Status updates
Big five
Self-esteem
Narcissism
a b s t r a c t
Status updates are one of the most popular features of
Facebook, but few studies have examined the traits
and motives that influence the topics that people choose to
update about. In this study, 555 Facebook
users completed measures of the Big Five, self-esteem,
narcissism, motives for using Facebook, and fre-
quency of updating about a range of topics. Results revealed
that extraverts more frequently updated
about their social activities and everyday life, which was
motivated by their use of Facebook to commu-
nicate and connect with others. People high in openness were
more likely to update about intellectual
topics, consistent with their use of Facebook for sharing
information. Participants who were low in
self-esteem were more likely to update about romantic partners,
whereas those who were high in con-
scientiousness were more likely to update about their children.
Narcissists’ use of Facebook for atten-
tion-seeking and validation explained their greater likelihood of
updating about their
accomplishments and their diet and exercise routine.
Furthermore, narcissists’ tendency to update about
their accomplishments explained the greater number of likes and
comments that they reported receiving
to their updates.
� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open
access article under the CC BY license (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction complaints), communication (i.e., corresponding
and connecting),
Why do some people write Facebook status updates that
describe amusing personal anecdotes, whereas others write
updates that declare love to a significant other, express political
opinions, or recount the details of last night’s dinner? Since the
inception of Facebook in 2004, status updates have been one of
its most preferred features (Ryan & Xenos, 2011). Status
updates
allow users to share their thoughts, feelings, and activities with
friends, who have the opportunity to ‘‘like’’ and comment in
return.
In spite of the central role of status updates in Facebook use,
few
studies have examined the predictors of the topics that people
choose to write about in their updates. The current study took a
step in this direction by examining the personality traits
associated
with the frequency of updating about five broad topics
identified
through a factor analytic approach: social activities and
everyday
life, intellectual pursuits, accomplishments, diet/exercise, and
sig-
nificant relationships. We also examined whether these associa-
tions were mediated by some of the motives for using Facebook
identified in the literature (e.g., Bazarova & Choi, 2014;
Seidman,
2013): need for validation (i.e., seeking attention and
acceptance),
self-expression (i.e., disclosing personal opinions, stories, and
and sharing impersonal information (e.g., current events).
A secondary purpose of this study was to examine whether peo-

ple who update more frequently about certain topics receive
greater numbers of ‘‘likes’’ and comments to their updates.
Those
who do may experience the benefits of social inclusion, whereas
those who do not might experience a lower sense of belonging,
self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Tobin, Vanman,
Verreynne, & Saeri, 2015). Our results may therefore shed light
on the status update topics that put Facebook users at risk of
online
ostracism. Below we review literature on personality traits and
motives that are often linked with Facebook use.
1.1. The Big Five
According to the ‘‘Big Five’’ model of personality, individuals
vary in terms of extraversion, neuroticism, openness to
experience,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
People who are extraverted are gregarious, talkative, and
cheerful.
They tend to use Facebook as a tool to communicate and
socialize
(Seidman, 2013), as reflected in their more frequent use of
Facebook (Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzmann, & Gaddis,
2011), greater number of Facebook friends (Amichai-Hamburger
& Vinitzky, 2010), and preference for features of Facebook that
allow for active social contribution, such as status updates
(Ryan
& Xenos, 2011). We therefore predicted that extraversion would
4.039&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
36 T.C. Marshall et al. / Personality and Individual Differences
85 (2015) 35–40
be positively associated with updating about social activities,
and
that this association would be mediated by extraverts’ use of
Facebook for communication (Hypothesis 1).
Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety and sensitivity to
threat. Neurotic individuals may use Facebook to seek the atten-
tion and social support that may be missing from their lives
offline
(Ross et al., 2009). Accordingly, neuroticism is positively
associated
with frequency of social media use (Correa, Hinsley, & de
Zuniga,
2010), the use of Facebook for social purposes (Hughes, Rowe,
Batey, & Lee, 2012), and engaging in emotional disclosure on
Facebook, such as venting about personal dramas (Seidman,
2013). Their willingness to disclose about personal topics led us
to predict that neuroticism would be positively associated with
updating about close relationships (romantic partners and/or
chil-
dren), and that the selection of these topics would be motivated
by
their use of Facebook for validation and self-expression
(Hypothesis
2).
People who are high in openness tend to be creative, intellec-
tual, and curious. Openness is positively associated with

frequency
of social media use (Correa et al., 2010), and with using
Facebook
for finding and disseminating information, but not for
socializing
(Hughes et al., 2012). We therefore predicted that openness
would
be positively associated with updating about intellectual topics,
and that this association would be mediated by the use of
Facebook for sharing information (Hypothesis 3).
People who are high in agreeableness tend to be cooperative,
helpful, and interpersonally successful. Agreeableness is
positively
associated with posting on Facebook to communicate and
connect
with others and negatively associated with posting to seek atten-
tion (Seidman, 2013) or to badmouth others (Stoughton,
Thompson, & Meade, 2013). The interpersonal focus of
agreeable
people and their use of Facebook for communication may
inspire
more frequent updates about their social activities and
significant
relationships (Hypothesis 4).
Conscientiousness describes people who are organized, respon-
sible, and hard-working. They tend to use Facebook less
frequently
than people who are lower in conscientiousness (Gosling et al.,
2011), but when they do use it, conscientious individuals are
dili-
gent and discreet: they have more Facebook friends (Amichai-
Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010), they avoid badmouthing people
(Stoughton et al., 2013), and they are less likely to post on
Facebook to seek attention or acceptance (Seidman, 2013).

Thus,
we predicted that conscientiousness would be positively associ-
ated with updating about inoffensive, ‘‘safe’’ topics (i.e., social
activities and everyday life), which would be mediated by the
lower tendency of using Facebook for validation (Hypothesis 5).
1.2. Self-esteem
People with low self-esteem are more likely to see the advan-
tages of self-disclosing on Facebook rather than in person, but
because their status updates tend to express more negative and
less positive affect, they tend to be perceived as less likeable
(Forest & Wood, 2012). Furthermore, anxiously-attached
individu-
als – who tend to have low self-esteem (Campbell & Marshall,
2011) – post more often about their romantic relationship to
boost
their self-worth and to refute others’ impressions that their rela-
tionship is poor (Emery, Muise, Dix, & Le, 2014). We therefore
hypothesized that self-esteem would be negatively associated
with
updating about a romantic partner, and that this association
would
be mediated by the use of Facebook for validation (Hypothesis
6).
1.3. Narcissism
Narcissistic individuals tend to be self-aggrandizing, vain, and
exhibitionistic (Raskin & Terry, 1988). They seek attention and
admiration by boasting about their accomplishments (Buss &
Chiodo, 1991) and take particular care of their physical
appearance
(Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). This suggests
that
their status updates will more frequently reference their

achieve-
ments and their diet and exercise routine (Hypothesis 7).
Moreover, the choice of these topics may be motivated by the
use of status updates to gain validation for inflated self-views,
con-
sistent with the positive association of narcissism with the fre-
quency of updating one’s status (Carpenter, 2012), posting more
self-promoting content (Mehdizadeh, 2010), and seeking to
attract
admiring friends to one’s Facebook profile (Davenport,
Bergman,
Bergman, & Fearrington, 2014).
1.4. Response to status updates
We examined whether people receive differential numbers of
likes and comments to their updates depending on their
personal-
ity traits and frequency of writing about various topics. People
with lower self-esteem tend to receive fewer likes and
comments
because their status updates express more negative affect
(Forest
& Wood, 2012). We tested the possibility that they may also
receive fewer likes and comments because they are more likely
to update about their romantic partner (Hypothesis 8); indeed,
peo-
ple who write updates that are high in relationship disclosure
are
perceived as less likeable (Emery, Muise, Alpert, & Le, 2015).
The
associations of the Big Five traits, narcissism, and the other
status
update topics with the number of likes and comments received
were examined on an exploratory basis to shed light on who
may be at risk of receiving less social reward on Facebook, and
whether it is because they express unpopular topics in their

updates.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Data was collected from 555 Facebook users currently residing
in the United States (59% female; Mage = 30.90, SDage = 9.19).
Sixty-
five percent of participants were currently involved in a
romantic
relationship, and 34% had at least one child. Fifty-seven percent
checked Facebook on a daily basis, and spent an average of
107.95 min per day actively using it (SD = 121.41). Ninety
percent
of participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk
and paid $1.00 in compensation; the rest were recruited through
web forums for online psychology studies, and received no
compensation.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Participants completed an online survey consisting of demo-
graphic questions and the following measures. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients are reported in Table 1.
2.2.1. Big Five personality traits
The 35-item Berkeley Personality Profile (Harary & Donahue,
1994) measures extroversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness with 7 items each (1 = Strongly dis-
agree, 5 = Strongly agree).
2.2.2. Self-esteem
The 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
measures self-esteem with items such as ‘‘I feel that I have a
num-
ber of good qualities’’ (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly

agree).
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and
Pearson’s correlations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Extraversion
2. Neuroticism �.42
3. Openness .22 �.07
4. Conscientious .23 �.54 .13
5. Agreeable .29 �.36 .15 .37
6. Self-esteem .40 �.64 .16 .58 .37
7. Narcissism .31 �.04 .14 �.04 �.21 .05
8. Social activity .24 �.04 .10* .09* .13 .06 .03
9. Intellectual .15 �.03 .31 .01 .05 .04 .08� .54
10. Achieve .20 .01 .18 .04 .14 .07 .14 .62 .53
11. Diet/exercise .18 �.04 .03 �.02 .04 �.06 .19 .49 .44 .40
12. Romantic .11* �.05 �.03 �.01 �.01 �.05 .05 .46 .21 .36
.34
13. Children .04 .05 .04 .06 .06 �.03 �.03 .37 .10 .33 .14� .27
14. Validation .14 .14 �.01 �.09* .01 �.12 .21 .43 .29 .42 .41
.30 .19*
15. Expression .16 .06 .15 �.04 .02 �.06 .14 .54 .49 .50 .41 .27
.16* .72
16. Communicate .24 �.02 .17 .13 .16 .14 .02 .55 .41 .49 .26
.31 .38 .52 .56
17. Information .23 �.02 .24 .12 .13 .13 .06 .52 .55 .49 .31 .27
.16* .55 .64 .75
18. Like/comment .18 �.13 �.01 .14 .19 .10* .08� .12 .05 .19
.07 .20 .26 .07 .03 .14 .08�
Mean 20.94 19.42 24.79 24.54 24.47 36.85 3.99 11.75 8.18 7.07

3.20 2.46 3.32 20.48 15.79 13.71 33.37 10.53
SD 5.89 5.91 4.83 4.96 4.91 8.79 2.88 3.88 3.17 2.67 1.59 1.17
1.16 9.27 6.88 4.47 11.17 11.81
a .85 .85 .72 .77 .76 .92 .73 .76 .75 .80 .76 – – .85 .82 .75 .88 –
Note. Bolded values were significant at p < .01.
� p < .10.
* p < .05.
T.C. Marshall et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 85
(2015) 35–40 37
2.2.3. Narcissism
The 13-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI-13; Gentile et al., 2013) is derived from the original NPI-
40
(Raskin & Terry, 1988) and measures three components of trait
narcissism: need for leadership/authority, grandiose
exhibitionism,
and entitlement/exploitativeness. Items are rated on a forced-
choice basis, such that one choice represents greater narcissism
and the other less. Higher scores indicate greater narcissism.
2.2.4. Facebook use
Participants reported their number of Facebook friends, how
many days of the week they check Facebook (0–7 days), how
much
time they spend actively using it on days they check it, and how
frequently they update their Facebook status (1 = Never, 9 = 7–
10
times a day).
2.2.5. Topics of status updates
Participants indicated how frequently they write about 20

topics in their Facebook status updates (i.e., verbal descriptions
of their status excluding photos, videos, or emoticons). These
topics were generated by the authors through laboratory group
discussions. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging
from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often). To extract common themes
across
topics, we conducted principal axis factoring with promax
rotation.
This yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that
together accounted for 57% of the total variance. Five topics
loaded
on the first factor, which reflected social activities and
everyday
life (my social activities, something funny that happened to me,
my
everyday activities, my pets, sporting events). Four topics
loaded on
the second factor, which reflected intellectual themes (my views
on politics, current events, research/science, my own creative
output
– e.g., art, writing, research). Three topics loaded on the third
factor,
which reflected achievement orientation (achieving my goals,
my
accomplishments, work or school). Two topics loaded on the
fourth
factor, which reflected diet/exercise (my exercise routine, my
diet).
Several topics did not meet Tabachnik and Fidell’s (2007)
criteria
that items must have a minimal loading of .32 on a single
factor:
three items (my children, my religious beliefs, and quotations or
song

lyrics) were below this threshold, and two items cross-loaded
(my
travels, my views on TV show, movies, or music). A final topic
(my
relationship with my current romantic partner) was not included
in
the factor analysis because it was only completed by
participants
currently involved in a relationship. Of the topics that did not
load
onto one of the four factors, we only further analyzed the fre-
quency of updating about children and romantic partners as
single
variables because of our hypotheses regarding the associations
of
personality traits with updating about significant relationships.
We also asked participants who they shared each status update
topic with (no one, the public, friends only, close friends only),
but
because there was little variation across topics in these privacy
set-
tings, we did not examine this variable further.
2.2.6. Motives for using Facebook
We measured four motives for using Facebook by adapting
items from a variety of sources (e.g., Hughes et al., 2012;
Seidman, 2013) so that each began with ‘‘I use Facebook to. .
.’’.
Use of Facebook for validation was measured with seven items
that
tapped attention-seeking (e.g., ‘‘I use Facebook to show off’’)
and
need to feel accepted and included (e.g., ‘‘I use Facebook to
feel
loved’’). Five items measured use of Facebook for self-

expression
(e.g., ‘‘I use Facebook to express my identity/opinions’’). Three
items measured use of Facebook to communicate (e.g., ‘‘I use
Facebook to communicate with people I often see’’), and eight
items assessed use of Facebook to find and disseminate
informa-
tion (e.g., ‘‘I use Facebook to stay informed’’). Participants
indicated
their agreement with these statements using a 1–7 Likert scale
anchored with Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).
2.2.7. Likes and comments
Participants indicated how many likes and comments, on aver-
age, they tend to receive when they post a typical Facebook
status
update.
3. Results and discussion
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correla-
tions. Table 2 reports the results of regression analyses that
exam-
ined the predictors of updating about each of the six topics
Table 2
Standardized regression coefficients for the predictors of status
update topics, motives for using Facebook, and number of
likes/comments.
Predictor
variables
Topics (criterion variables) Motives for using Facebook

(mediating variables) Number likes/
comments (criterion
variable)
Social
activities/
everyday life
Intellect Achieve Diet/
exercise
Romantic
partner
(N = 372)
Children
(N = 188)
Validation Self-
express
Communicate Information
Frequency update .60 .46 .42 .27 .30 .30 .31 .48 .38 .42 .09*
Number of friends .03 .03 .12** .02 .07 �.03 .11* .08� .15**
.17 .29
Sex .06 �.03 .14** �.04 �.04 .19* �.01 .06 .20 .08� .17**
Age �.05 .04 �.19 .02 �.12* �.19* .01 .04 �.01 �.01 �.03
Extraversion .14** .04 .05 .11� .11 �.02 .05 .04 .14** .11* .07
Neuroticism .02 �.04 .06 �.03 �.09 .02 .18** �.01 .05 .10 .01
Openness �.01 .29 .12** �.02 �.04 �.01 �.06 .06 .06 .12*
�.05
Conscientiousness .08� �.05 .02 �.01 .06 .23* .02 �.02 .11*
.11* .07
Agreeableness .03 �.03 .07 .02 �.04 .10 .02 �.01 �.01 .02 .06

Self-esteem �.05 �.04 .03 �.11� �.17* �.19 �.05 �.13* .01
�.01 .07
Narcissism �.01 .03 .14** .17** �.06 �.06 .22 .13** �.02 .02
.15**
R2 .43 .35 .35 .14 .14 .21 .21 .31 .31 .32 .21
Note. Bolded values were significant at p < .001.
Sex: female = 1, male = �1.
� p < .10.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
85 (2015) 35–40
(criterion variables), the four motives for using Facebook
(mediat-
ing variables), and the number of likes and comments received
to a
typical update (criterion variable). Predictors included several
con-
trol variables (frequency of updating one’s status, number of
Facebook friends, sex, age) and the traits of interest (Big Five
traits,
self-esteem, narcissism). We conducted bootstrap tests of
multiple
mediation using Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) SPSS script to
assess
whether the motives for using Facebook mediated the
associations
of the personality traits with updating about certain topics. In
these tests, the control variables and other personality traits
were
entered as covariates, and the four motives for using Facebook
were entered as multiple mediators.

3.1. Predictors of status update topics and motives for using
Facebook
Table 2 reveals support for Hypothesis 1: extraversion was pos-
itively associated with updating more frequently about social
activities and everyday life, and with using Facebook to
communi-
cate. A further regression analysis showed that the use of
Facebook
to communicate predicted the frequency of updating about
social
activities and everyday life over and above the control variables
and other personality traits (b = .25, p < .0001). Examination of
the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) from 1000
boot-
strap samples revealed that the positive association of
extraversion
with updating about social activities and everyday life was
medi-
ated by the use of Facebook to communicate (b = .03, p = .05
(CI:
.003–.05)). These results further confirm that extraverts use
Facebook, and specifically status updates, as a tool for social
engagement (Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Seidman, 2013).
Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported: neuroticism was not
associated with updating about any of the six topics or with
using
Facebook for self-expression, but it was associated with using
Facebook for validation. Indeed, neurotic individuals may use
Facebook to seek the attention and support that they lack offline
(Ross et al., 2009).
Consistent with Hypothesis 3, openness was positively associ-
ated with updating about intellectual topics, and with using
Facebook for information. A further regression analysis showed

that the use of Facebook for information and for self-expression
predicted the frequency of updating about intellectual topics
over
and above the control variables and traits (b = .34, p < .0001
and
b = .22, p < .001, respectively). The bootstrap test revealed that
the positive association of openness with updating about
intellectual topics was indeed mediated by the use of Facebook
for information (b = .03, p < .01 (CI: .007–.05)). People high in
open-
ness, then, may write updates about current events, research, or
their political views for the purpose of sharing impersonal
infor-
mation rather than for socializing, consistent with the findings
of
Hughes et al. (2012).
There was no support for Hypothesis 4 – agreeableness was not
associated with updating more frequently about social activities,
significant relationships, or with using Facebook to
communicate.
Contrary to Hypothesis 5, conscientiousness was not associated
with updating about ‘‘safe’’ topics such as social activities and
everyday life; rather, it was associated with writing more
frequent
updates about one’s children. Furthermore, conscientiousness
was
not negatively associated with using Facebook for validation,
but it
was positively associated with using Facebook to share informa-
tion and to communicate. The latter use predicted the frequency
of updating about one’s children over and above the control
vari-
ables and personality traits (b = .38, p = .01), but it did not
signifi-
cantly mediate the association of conscientiousness with

updating about children. Thus, conscientious individuals may
update about their children for purposes other than communicat-
ing with their friends. Perhaps such updates reflect an indirect
form of competitive parenting.
Consistent with Hypothesis 6, people who were lower in self-
esteem more frequently updated about their current romantic
partner, but they were more likely to use Facebook for self-
expres-
sion rather than for validation. That the frequency of updating
about one’s romantic partner was predicted not by the use of
Facebook for self-expression but rather by communication
(b = .24, p = .01) suggests that people with low self-esteem may
have other motives for posting updates about their romantic
part-
ner. Considering that people with low self-esteem tend to be
more
chronically fearful of losing their romantic partner (Murray,
Gomillian, Holmes, & Harris, 2015), and that people are more
likely
to post relationship-relevant information on Facebook on days
when they feel insecure (Emery et al., 2014), it is reasonable to
sur-
mise that people with low self-esteem update about their partner
as a way of laying claim to their relationship when it feels
threatened.
In line with Hypothesis 7, narcissism was positively associated
with updating about achievements and with using Facebook for
validation. Moreover, the use of Facebook for validation and for
communication predicted the frequency of updating about
T.C. Marshall et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 85
(2015) 35–40 39

achievements over and above the control variables and traits
(b = .14, p = .02 and b = .13, p = .04, respectively). The
association
of narcissism with updating about achievements was
significantly
mediated by the use of Facebook for validation (b = .04, p = .05
(CI:
.006–.07)), consistent with narcissists’ tendency to boast in
order
to gain attention (Buss & Chiodo, 1991). Also consistent with
Hypothesis 7, narcissism was positively associated with
updating
about diet/exercise, but the use of Facebook for self-expression
rather than validation was positively associated with updating
about diet/exercise over and above the control variables and
traits
(b = .24, p < .01). Self-expression mediated the association of
nar-
cissism with updating about diet/exercise (b = .03, p = .03 (CI:
.003–.04)), suggesting that narcissists may broadcast their diet
and exercise routine to express the personal importance they
place
on physical appearance (Vazire et al., 2008).
3.2. Predictors of likes and comments received
As seen in Table 2, there was no support for Hypothesis 8: nar-
cissism rather than self-esteem was associated with receiving a
greater number of likes and comments to one’s updates. We
then
assessed whether the four topics common to the entire sample –
social activities and everyday life, intellectual pursuits,
achieve-
ments, and diet/exercise – predicted the number of likes and
com-
ments typically received to an update over and above the

control
variables and traits. Updating about social activities and
everyday
life was positively associated with the number of likes and com-
ments received (b = .13, p = .05), as was achievements (b = .16,
p = .01), whereas updating about intellectual topics was
negatively
associated (b = �.13, p = .04). Two additional regression
models
added the frequency of updating about one’s romantic partner or
one’s children as predictors for participants who had a
relationship
partner or children. Only the frequency of updating about one’s
children significantly predicted likes/comments (b = .23, p =
.02).
Bootstrap mediation revealed that the tendency for narcissists
to report receiving more likes and comments was mediated by
their higher frequency of updating about their achievements
(b = .06, p < .01 (CI: .01–.18)). Thus, narcissists’ publicizing of
their
achievements appeared to be positively reinforced by the
attention
and validation they crave.
3.3. Limitations and future directions
The main limitation of this study is that it was based on par-
ticipants’ self-reported Facebook behavior. Narcissists, in
particu-
lar, may not accurately report the number of likes and
comments they receive to updates. More objective and precise
estimates can be obtained in future research by coding partici-
pants’ actual status updates for topic themes and recording the
number of likes and comments received to each topic. Another
avenue for future research is to obtain direct evaluations of par-

ticular status update topics and of the likeability of people who
update about these topics. That updating about social activities,
achievements, and children was positively associated with
Facebook attention, and updating about intellectual topics nega-
tively associated, suggests that the former topics might be eval-
uated more positively than the latter. Yet these associations are
at best a proxy for the likeability of these topics and of the indi-
viduals who write them. Considering that objective raters can
accurately discern whether a person is narcissistic by looking
at their Facebook page (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008), people
may be correctly perceived as narcissistic if they more
frequently
update about their achievements, diet, and exercise.
Furthermore, people may like and comment on a friend’s
achievement-related updates to show support, but may secretly
dislike such displays of hubris. The closeness of the friendship
is therefore likely to influence responses to updates: close
friends may ‘‘like’’ a friend’s update, even if they do not
actually
like it, whereas acquaintances might not only ignore such
updates, but eventually unfriend the perpetrator of unlikeable
status updates.
4. Conclusions
Taken together, these results help to explain why some
Facebook friends write status updates about the party they went
to on the weekend whereas others write about a book they just
read or about their job promotion. It is important to understand
why people write about certain topics on Facebook insofar as
the
response they receive may be socially rewarding or
exclusionary.
Greater awareness of how one’s status updates might be
perceived
by friends could help people to avoid topics that annoy more
than

they entertain.
References
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network
use and personality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1289–1295.
Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social
media: Extending the
functional approach to disclosure motivations and
characteristics on social
network sites. Journal of Communication, 64, 635–657.
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and
social networking websites.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303–1314.
Buss, D. M., & Chiodo, L. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in
everyday life. Journal of
Personality, 59, 179–215.
Campbell, L. C., & Marshall, T. C. (2011). Anxious attachment
and relationship
processes: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality,
79, 917–947.
Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-
promotional and antisocial
behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482–486.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who
interacts on the Web? The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use.
Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 247–253.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors
are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.
Davenport, S. W., Bergman, S. M., Bergman, J. Z., &
Fearrington, M. E. (2014). Twitter
versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the
motives and usage of
different social media platforms. Computers in Human
Behavior, 32, 212–220.
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Alpert, E., & Le, B. (2015). Do we
look happy? Perceptions of
romantic relationship quality on Facebook. Personal
Relationships, 22, 1–7.
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Dix, E. L., & Le, B. (2014). Can you
tell that I’m in a
relationship? Attachment and relationship visibility on
Facebook. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1466–1479.
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is
not working:
Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the
benefits of self-
disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23, 295–305.
Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E.,
Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K.
(2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism:
The Narcissistic
Personality Inventory-13 and the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory-16.
Psychological Assessment, 25, 1120–1136.

Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzmann, N., &
Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-
reported
Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 483–
488.
Harary, K., & Donahue, E. (1994). Who do you think you are?
San Francisco: Harper.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of
two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage.
Computers in
Human Behavior, 28, 561–569.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and
self-esteem on
Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
13, 357–364.
Murray, S. L., Gomillian, S., Holmes, J. G., & Harris, B.
(2015). Inhibiting self-
protection in romantic relationships: Automatic partner attitudes
as a resource
for low self-esteem people. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 6,
173–182.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components
analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct
validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M.
G., & Orr, R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use.
Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 578–586.

85 (2015) 35–40
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An
investigation into the
relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism,
loneliness, and Facebook
usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658–1664.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on
Facebook: How personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personality and
Individual
Differences, 54, 402–407.
Stoughton, J. W., Thompson, L. F., & Meade, A. W. (2013). Big
Five personality traits
reflected in job applicants’ social media postings.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 16, 800–805.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tobin, S. J., Vanman, E. J., Verreynne, M., & Saeri, A. K.
(2015). Threats to belonging
on Facebook: Lurking and ostracism. Social Influence, 10, 31–
42.
Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D.
(2008). Portrait of a
narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance.
Journal of

Research in Personality, 42, 1439–1447.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(15)00302-5/h9010The
Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics
people write about in Facebook status updates1 Introduction1.1
The Big Five1.2 Self-esteem1.3 Narcissism1.4 Response to
status updates2 Method2.1 Participants2.2 Materials and
procedure2.2.1 Big Five personality traits2.2.2 Self-esteem2.2.3
Narcissism2.2.4 Facebook use2.2.5 Topics of status
updates2.2.6 Motives for using Facebook2.2.7 Likes and
comments3 Results and discussion3.1 Predictors of status
update topics and motives for using Facebook3.2 Predictors of
likes and comments received3.3 Limitations and future
directions4 ConclusionsReferences
__MACOSX/._COMM300 2.pdf
COMM300 3.pdf

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
#Me: Narcissism and its facets as predictors of selfie-posting
frequency
Eric B. Weiser ⁎
Department of Psychology, Curry College, United States
⁎ Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA
E-mail address: [email protected]
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 27 April 2015
Received in revised form 29 June 2015
Accepted 3 July 2015
Available online 18 July 2015
Keywords:
Narcissism
Photo sharing
Selfies
Social media
Social networking sites
“Selfies” are amateur photographs people take of themselves,
usually with a smartphone. Sharing selfies on social
media has become a popular activity, prompting questions about
its psychological meaning and dispositionally-
relevant motives. This study was performed to examine the
association between narcissism, a personality trait

characterized by inflated self-views and attempts to seek
attention and admiration from others, and frequency
of posting selfies on social networking sites. In addition, the
association between posting selfies and three facets
of narcissism (i.e., Leadership/Authority, Grandiose
Exhibitionism, Entitlement/Exploitativeness) was explored.
These questions were addressed in a nationally representative
sample of 1204 men and women who completed
an online survey. Results showed that narcissism, as well as the
Leadership/Authority and Grandiose Exhibition-
ism facets, but not Entitlement/Exploitativeness, exhibited
positive and significant associations with selfie-
posting frequency. Age did not moderate the predictive effects
of narcissism or any of its three dimensions, indi-
cating that the relationship between narcissism, its facets, and
posting selfies is not age dependent. However, the
more adaptive Leadership/Authority facet emerged as a stronger
predictor of selfie posting among women than
men, whereas the maladaptive Entitlement/Exploitativeness
facet predicted selfie posting among men, but not
women. Interpretations and implications of these findings are
discussed.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Photo sharing has become an important part of the online social
ex-
perience. Over half of U.S. internet users post photos online
(Pew
Research Center, 2013), perhaps owing to the increasing use of
smartphones; in the U.S., nearly two-thirds of adults own a
smartphone,
compared to 35% in 2011 (Pew Research Center, 2015). These
devices
simplify photo sharing through social media by enabling users

to take
and post digital photographs on social networking sites (SNSs)
instanta-
neously. This function is facilitated through photo-sharing sites
such as
Instagram, a mobile photo platform allowing users to share
photo-
graphs and videos over SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter.
Instagram
hosts over 30 billion photographs, and, on average, 70 million
photo-
graphs are posted to the site each day from its 300 million users
(Instagram, 2014).
The rise in photo sharing has helped spark a precipitous new
social
phenomenon: the snapping and sending of amateur self-portrait
photo-
graphs – known as selfies – to SNSs. “Selfie” is now part of
today's ver-
nacular and is formally defined as “a photograph that one has
taken of
oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and
uploaded to a social media website” ("Infographic: A Closer
Look at
'Selfie,'" 2013, para. 4). In 2013, Oxford Dictionaries added
selfie to its
lexicon and later named it their international “Word of the
Year”
(Brumfield, 2013). Selfies permeate the social media landscape;
for
02186, United States.
example, Instagram hosts over 238 million photographs
hashtagged
with #selfie and over 126 million hashtagged with #me.

The pervasiveness of selfie posting raises questions concerning
the
social and psychological motives behind this behavior. What
important
needs and goals does selfie posting reflect, and from which
dispositional
attributes do they emanate? The objective of this study is to
extend pre-
vious work on trait predictors of SNS use and behavior by
examining the
connection between selfie posting and narcissism, a personality
trait
marked by grandiosity and egocentrism, and by the constant
pursuit
of veneration by others (Brown, Budzek & Tamborski, 2009;
Campbell,
Reeder, Sedikides & Elliot, 2000). Photographs convey
important social
information in numerous online domains (Ellison, Heino &
Gibbs,
2006; Kapidzic, 2013; Whitty, 2008). Of the photographs shared
online,
selfies seem inherently to contain the most explicit elements of
ostenta-
tion and self-propagation. Indeed, selfies have been described
as “a
symptom of social media-driven narcissism” (Pearlman, 2013,
para.
20), reflecting the intuitive assumption that the taking and
posting of
such photographs constitute self-promoting gambits by the self-
absorbed. Empirically, however, selfie posting and its
association with
narcissism has been largely unexplored. Because narcissists are
moti-
vated to gain others' attention and admiration to maintain their

inflated
self-views (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), posting selfies plausibly
may
function as a novel psychological maneuver through which
narcissistic
individuals attempt to meet these self-regulatory objectives.
Hence, ex-
amining the relationship between narcissism and selfie posting
is an
issue of importance because it may shed light on the
psychological
meanings of this activity in the social media milieu.
7.007&domain=pdf
Journal logo
Imprint logo
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
1 Examination of the distributions for each variable revealed
that the amount of time
using SNSs exhibited substantial positive skew; hence, this
variable was subjected to a log-
arithmic transformation. All other variables were normally
distributed.
478 E.B. Weiser / Personality and Individual Differences 86
(2015) 477–481
1.1. Narcissism and SNS use
Narcissism has received particular attention in research

examining
predictors of SNS use, the presumption being that SNSs may
create or
reinforce narcissistic tendencies by serving as channels for self-
promotional displays (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Several
studies
have revealed a positive relationship between narcissism and
the fre-
quency of using SNSs (Panek, Nardis & Konrath, 2013; Ryan &
Xenos,
2011), as well as narcissistic-like patterns of self-promoting
behaviors
(e.g., status updates, number of Facebook friends, use of
language and
photographs to draw attention to oneself) on these sites
(Carpenter,
2012; DeWall, Buffardi, Bonser & Campbell, 2011;
Mehdizadeh, 2010).
To date, there have been only two studies investigating the link
be-
tween narcissism and posting selfies. Although positive
associations
were reported in both, investigators in one of these studies (Fox
&
Rooney, 2015) assessed narcissism using a four-item subscale
of the
Dirty Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010), a 12-item measure of
Dark
Triad personality traits (Paulus & Williams, 2002). Moreover,
participa-
tion in this study was limited to adult males age 40 and
younger.
Sorokowski et al. (2015) used a Polish adaptation of the
Narcissistic Per-
sonality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988), which has a

COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx

COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx

Similar to COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx (20)

More from monicafrancis71118

More from monicafrancis71118 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

COMM300 1.pdfPersonality and Individual Differences 77 (20.docx