Narcissism and Social Media Use: A Meta-Analytic Review

Abstract

The relationship between narcissism and social media use has been a topic of study since the advent of the first social media websites. In the present manuscript, the authors review the literature published to date on the topic and outline two potential models to explain the pattern of findings. Data from 62 samples of published and unpublished research (N=13,430) are meta-analyzed with respect to the relationships between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and (a) time spent on social media, (b) frequency of status updates/tweets on social media, (c) number of friends/followers on social media, and (d) frequency of posting pictures of self or selfies on social media. Findings suggest that grandiose narcissism is positively related to all four indices (r’s .11 - .20), although culture and social media platform significantly moderated the results. Vulnerable narcissism was not significantly related to social media use (r’s .05 - .42), although smaller samples make these effects less certain. Limitations of the current literature and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Full text

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 1
RUNNING HEAD: NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Narcissism and Social Media Use: A Meta-Analytic Review
In Press
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
Non-copy edited pre-print
Jessica L. McCain
W. Keith Campbell
University of Georgia
Author note: Jessica L. McCain, corresponding author, Department of Psychology, University of
Georgia. Email: jmccain1030@gmail.com

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 2
Abstract
The relationship between narcissism and social media use has been a topic of study since the
advent of the first social media websites. In the present manuscript, the authors review the
literature published to date on the topic and outline two potential models to explain the pattern of
findings. Data from 62 samples of published and unpublished research (N=13,430) are meta-
analyzed with respect to the relationships between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and (a)
time spent on social media, (b) frequency of status updates/tweets on social media, (c) number of
friends/followers on social media, and (d) frequency of posting pictures of self or selfies on
social media. Findings suggest that grandiose narcissism is positively related to all four indices
(r’s .11 - .20), although culture and social media platform significantly moderated the results.
Vulnerable narcissism was not significantly related to social media use (r’s .05 - .42), although
smaller samples make these effects less certain. Limitations of the current literature and
recommendations for future research are discussed.
Key words: Narcissism, Social Media, Meta-Analysis, Selfies, Facebook

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 3
Narcissism and Social Media Usage: A Meta-Analytic Review
Does narcissism relate to social media use? Or is the power to selectively present oneself
to an online audience appealing to everyone, regardless of their level of narcissism? Social media
websites such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram can sound like a narcissistic dream. In seconds,
one can share self-enhancing content—flattering pictures, boastful statuses—with a potential
audience of millions and receive immediate feedback in the form of “likes” and comments from
followers. One can share as little or as much as one wants to present exactly the self-image one
desires. To date, Over 60 studies have endeavored to answer this question, but with mixed
results. In this meta-analytic review, we try to more precisely quantify and characterize how
narcissistic individuals interact with social media.
We focus on answering the following questions: 1) Do those high in grandiose (a more
callous, extraverted form of narcissism; Miller, Hoffman, Gaughn, Gentile, Maples, & Campbell,
2011) and vulnerable (a more neurotic, introverted form) narcissism spend more time on social
media than those low in narcissism? 2) Do those high in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism use
the features of social media (i.e., adding friends, status updates, and posting pictures of oneself)
differently from those low in narcissism? And 3) Do those high in vulnerable narcissism use the
features of social media differently from those high in grandiose narcissism? To better answer
these questions, we describe major theoretical models of the relationship between narcissism and
social media behavior.
Review of Narcissism and Social Media
Defining Narcissism
We define narcissism as a dimensional personality trait that consists of a grandiose self-
concept as well as behaviors intended to maintain this self-concept in the face of reality (e.g.,

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 4
Emmons, 1984; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Separate from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
(NPD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), trait narcissism exists across the normal
(nonpathological) population and is associated with both positive (e.g., leadership, Rosenthal &
Pittinsky, 2006; and subjective well-being, Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult,
2004) and negative (e.g., aggression, Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; and low commitment in
relationships, Campbell & Foster, 2002) outcomes. Narcissists – a term we use as a shorthand for
those as scoring higher on inventories of narcissistic personality – are known to seek out
attention and praise, and because their larger-than-life self-views are often in conflict with
reality, narcissists employ interpersonal strategies such as bragging (Buss & Chiodo, 1991),
affiliating with high-status others (Campbell, 1999; Horton & Sedikides, 2009), and other self-
promotional behaviors as well as intrapersonal strategies such as downward social comparison
(Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000) and self-serving attributions (Rhodewalt & Morf,
1998) to maintain high self-esteem. The origins of narcissism are unknown, but some theorists
suggest it may be an outgrowth of personal trauma (e.g., Young & Pinsky, 2006; Pinsky &
Young, 2009).
Narcissism has two forms that have been studied in the literature, grandiose and
vulnerable (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). Grandiose narcissism is the extraverted, grandiose
and callous form of narcissism. It also is the form that has garnered the most research attention.
Vulnerable narcissism is the more introverted, neurotic form that is less well studied (Miller, et
al., 2011). This distinction in the literature between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism shares
some parallels with Freud’s (1914) distinction between primary and secondary narcissism. In
Freud’s model, primary narcissism was the basic self-love experienced by the typical child. With
development, much of this primary narcissism was then projected onto the representation of

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 5
another person (“an object”), an image of the self, or it withdrawn back into the self, such as in
the case of delusions of grandeur coupled with psychological withdrawal. Each of these are
“secondary” narcissism because they follow from the primary narcissism. Given this, grandiose
narcissism conceptually suggests some residual primary narcissism but also can reflect some
secondary narcissism as psychic energy is attached or “cathected” to the self-image. Vulnerable
narcissism, however, conceptually linked to secondary narcissism, as it is also characterized by
low self-esteem and withdrawal in the form of social introversion (e.g., Hendin & Cheek, 1997).
While this link between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and primary and secondary
narcissism has not been tested directly in the literature (there are no existing measures of primary
and secondary narcissism), there are measures of primary and secondary psychopathy and these
do correlate more with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, respectively (Miller, Dir, Gentile,
Wilson, Pryor, & Campbell, 2010). In the present meta-analysis, we differentiate between
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, rather than primary and secondary narcissism, as is done in
the literature.
Narcissism is increasingly considered a feature of modern society (Twenge & Campbell,
2009) and of recent generations (Twenge, 2007). Narcissism scores have been shown to be
increasing over time (Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell,
& Bushman, 2008; cf. Grijalva, Newman, Tay, Donnelan, Harms, Robins & Yan, 2014) and
popular media often credits this trend for the popularity of social media websites such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (e.g., Diller, 2015; NPR Staff, 2015), although there is not
solid empirical evidence for the latter. These media platforms allow individuals to broadcast
information about themselves to a wide audience at any given time—ostensibly appealing to
people’s growing desire for attention and praise—but they also can provide opportunities for

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 6
other needs such as belongingness, which is believed to be a universal need (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995) and to be increasingly lacking in our modern society (Putnam, 2001). Narcissism
can operate at a cultural as well as individual level, resulting not only in the increase in
individual traits such as narcissism and contingent self-worth but also in the social acceptability
of related behaviors (e.g., contingent self-esteem leading to posting more pictures on social
media; Stefanone, Lackaff, & Rosen, 2011). However, the data in this review do not speak to
narcissism as a cultural variable, and thus our focus will be on the relationship between
individual narcissism and social media use.
Theoretical Models Relating Elevated Social Media Use Among Those High in Narcissism
There are three general classes of theoretical models that predict elevated social media
use on the part of narcissistic individuals. We refer to these as: self-enhancement, fit and trait
models. According to the self-enhancement model (e.g., Buffardi, 2011; Campbell, 1999; Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001) social media can be a useful platform for promoting and enhancing the self
(Buffardi & Campbell, 2008), so narcissistic individuals will be drawn to social media to fulfill
self-enhancement needs. For example, the dynamic self-regulatory processing model of
narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) conceptualizes narcissism as having a goal of self-esteem
regulation or self-enhancement. In order to maintain an unrealistically grandiose sense of self,
narcissists must engage in interpersonal strategies to obtain self-affirming feedback from their
environment. Similarly, the agency model of narcissism (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Campbell,
Brunell, & Finkel, 2006) describes narcissism as a system of mutually reinforcing traits, skills,
and behaviors that is self-sustaining but has no overarching goal. This conceptualization suggests
that the narcissistic patterns of behavior seen on social media come about because of favorable
conditions that trigger and are conducive to narcissism. Social media will be “sticky” for

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 7
narcissistic individuals because once involved the narcissistic individual will find a reasonably
favorable environment for gaining admiration and esteem and generally reinforcing the
narcissistic self.
A second model is a fit model. Essentially, social media encourages wide but shallow
social networks that are a good fit for narcissistic skills and abilities. For example, individuals
high in grandiose narcissism are known to prefer emotionally shallow social relationships and
like to publicly associate themselves with high status others (Campbell, 1999). They make good
first impressions (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Paulhus, 1998) and are often seen as more
attractive (Holtzman & Strube, 2010; Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). Likewise,
because narcissists enjoy having social influence, they tend to occupy more central positions in
their social networks (Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2009). Given this along with the finding
that having more attractive friends on your Facebook page gives observers a positive impression
(Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, & Walther, 2008), it is reasonable that grandiose narcissism is
consistently associated with having more friends on social media sites (e.g., Davenport et al.,
2014; Garcia & Sikström, 2014).
Finally, the basic personality traits associated with narcissism suggest a trait model of
narcissism. In Big Five terms, grandiose narcissism is comprised of high extraversion and
openness and low agreeableness (Miller et al, 2011), and extraverts have been shown to have
larger social networks in general (Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2011; Roberts, Wilson, Fedurek, &
Dunbar, 2008) and spend more time and generate more content on social media sites (Gosling,
Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011). Thus, narcissists’ tendency to have more friends
and generate more content on social media may, in part, be linked their extraversion. In contrast,
vulnerable narcissism is associated with low agreeableness and neuroticism, which suggests

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 8
more anxiety or discomfort associated with social media use. In basic motivational terms, we see
a similar pattern. For example, the Unmitigated Approach Model (UAM; Campbell et al., 2006;
Foster & Trimm, 2008) describes grandiose narcissists as much more sensitive to and motivated
by potential reward than by potential punishment. This creates a tendency toward approach-
oriented social behavior (Foster, Misra, & Reidy, 2009), which may explain why those high in
grandiose narcissism generate more content (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Mehdizadeh, 2010;
Poon & Leung, 2011)—especially self-promoting content (e.g., Buffardi & Campbell, 2008;
Mehdizadeh, 2010)—with relatively little concern for privacy (Smith, Mendez, & White, 2014;
Utz & Kramer, 2009) on social media sites. In contrast, vulnerable narcissists, who are high in
both approach and avoidance motivation (Foster & Trimm, 2008), are more cautious about
obtaining praise, showing more concern for privacy (Ahn, Kwolek, & Bowman, 2015) and
putting more effort into impression management (i.e., taking multiple selfies before picking one
and cropping and editing pictures) than grandiose narcissists (McCain et al., n.d.). This suggests
that traits associated with grandiose narcissism are perhaps a better fit for social media than those
associated with vulnerable narcissism.
Findings and Potential Moderators
Does narcissism truly lead to more social media use, and do those high in narcissism use
social media differently than those low in narcissism? Despite the theoretical reasons to expect
such differences, findings have been mixed with regards to whether narcissists do (e.g., Fox &
Rooney, 2015; Vieth & Kommers, 2015) or do not (e.g., Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, &
Bergman, 2011; Buffardi & Campbell, 2008) spend significantly more time on social media
websites than non-narcissists. This variability suggests that the effect size is small, or that there
are moderators of the effects that have not been uncovered. Thus, our review looks at several

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 9
potential theoretical moderators: birth cohort (i.e., the generation a participant belongs to, which
presumably shares a particular set of sociocultural experiences; see Caspi, 1987), culture and
platform. These are discussed below. We also examined other potential moderators such as age
and gender composition of the sample.
Birth Cohort. Age differences in the relationship between narcissism and social media
use could reflect either generational or developmental effects (we do not have sufficient cross-
lagged data to tease these two apart). In terms of generations, the research on narcissism and
social media in the United States focuses primarily on two different generations. Gen Xers, who
would correspond to the MTurk samples in this review, are primarily in their 30s and 40s. In Gen
Xers narcissism has been shown to be associated with Facebook use (Davenport, Bergman,
Bergman, & Fearrington, 2014), particularly the superiority (Panek, Nardis, & Konrath, 2013),
vanity, exhibitionism, and exploitativeness (Leung, 2013) facets of narcissism. Millennials, or
Generation Y, are primarily in their 20s and have lived an internet-saturated existence for most of
their lives (Tapscott, 1998; Twenge, 2007). Studies often find no relationship between narcissism
and social media use in this generation (Bergman et al., 2011; Davenport et al., 2014; Leung,
2013), although Panek et al. (2013) found a relationship between the superiority facet of
narcissism and Twitter use as well as between the exhibitionism facet and Facebook use in
college students. These differences, however, could also be the result of development. It is
plausible that self-enhancing type behaviors on social media (e.g., selfies) are more a product of
social norms in younger samples but become more strongly associated with personality in older
individuals. .
Culture. Narcissism’s inconsistent relationship to social media usage may also be due to
cultural differences. Firstly, there is ample evidence that narcissism differs in both prevalence

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 10
and presentation across cultures. Cultures that are high in individualism (Hofstede, 1980), such
as the United States, value individual autonomy more highly than cultures high in collectivism,
such as cultures in Asia (see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002 for a review of
individualism/collectivism across countries). Individualistic countries show higher levels of
narcissism than collectivistic countries (Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003) with China as a
possible exception (Miller et al., 2015) and narcissistic behaviors such as self-enhancement
manifest differently in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic ones (i.e., individuals in
collectivistic cultures self-enhance on communal rather than agentic traits; Sedikides, Gaertner,
& Toguchi, 2003). Some researchers even suggest that narcissism itself may manifest in a
communal rather than agentic form in collectivistic countries (Gebauer, Sedikides, Verplanken,
& Maio, 2012). Secondly, social media usage has been shown to differ between collectivistic and
individualistic cultures. For example, United States samples have been found to differ from
Asian samples (e.g., Korean, Taiwanese, and Chinese) on the number of friends listed (Alhabash,
Park, Kononova, Chiang, & Wise, 2012), topics discussed (Fong & Burton, 2008), and
motivations reported (Kim, Sohn, & Choi, 2011) for using social media. In addition, Long and
Zhang (2014) found independent self-construal (which is prevalent in individualistic cultures;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991) to relate to differences between British (individualistic) and Japanese
samples in motivations for social media use. Thirdly, structural and political differences across
countries such as technological advancement, access to the internet, wealth, and censorship
and/or control of internet content can also produce differences in media usage across countries
(see Bolton et al., 2013 for a review).
Platform. Although many studies focus on social media use as a whole, meaningful
differences have been found between platforms. The vast majority of studies in this review used

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 11
Facebook for data collection. However, Facebook may differ from other sites in important ways.
For example, Facebook is considered a nonymous (as opposed to anonymous) site because users
are required to use their real names and subscribe to networks which are regionally or
institutionally bound (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008), and Facebook censors content that is
potentially offensive. Twitter provides slightly more anonymity, allowing users to post under a
pseudonym or handle, while forums such as 4chan and Reddit make anonymity and freedom of
content posting a priority. These differences may translate to differing relationships between
narcissism and social media usage. For example, Facebook and Twitter have been found to differ
in the facets of narcissism that drive use (Panek et al., 2013; Davenport et al., 2014). More
specifically, college students high in the superiority facet preferred Twitter, whereas those high in
exhibitionism preferred Facebook. However, adults (or Gen Xer’s) high in superiority preferred
Facebook.
The Present Research
Our goal in the present research is to estimate the association between narcissism (both
grandiose and vulnerable) and social media use. We looked at four key markers of social media
use, including: time spent on social media, frequency of status updates, number of friends, and
number of pictures of self and/or selfies uploaded.
The outcome variables used in the present research, including network size,
communication (e.g., photo sharing, status updates) and time spent online were examined for
both practical and theoretical reasons. From a practical perspective, this work was a meta-
analysis, so we were limited to outcome variables which were in the published literature and in
sufficient numbers. The variables we studied were thus the ones that were available.
From a more theoretical perspective of social network sites activity, these variables also tap into

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 12
important constructs in the literature. Research on social networks can come from two primary
directions. In more formal/mathematical network analysis, variables like size, centrality, edges,
structure, clustering, etc. are key to understanding the network (Eubank, Kumar, Marathe,
Srinivasan,& Wang,2004, January; Kumar, Novak, & Tomkins,2010; Handcock, Raftery, &
Tantrum,2007). In specific terms of social relationships in social networks, these can be divided
into “similarities” (e.g., gender, group membership), “social relations” (e.g., friendships, likes),
“interactions” (e.g.,helping, harming) and “flows” (e.g., information; Borgatti, Mehra, Brass &
Labianca, 2009).
The work on social networks sites examined in the present research is more limited
because it does not include statistical social network analysis of the social networks involved.
Instead, it relies on individual level-data, typically individuals reporting their own experiences in
social networks. Thus, the literature has developed to capture items important to network
behaviors from an individual rather than network perspective. Along these lines, network size is
crucial to how broad a network an individual has which is linked to social capital (e.g., Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Communication such as sharing selfies and status updates is an
important marker of information flow on networks. Time spent of the network is one measure of
engagement. Of course, there are other measures that could be used in research on social media.
In our meta-analytic review we were limited to items that were used multiple times in the
literature.
A second theoretical point is worth making. In the case of research examining narcissism,
there is interest in variables that are theoretically linked to self-enhancement. On social network
sites, these include breadth of network (breadth = a larger audience for self-promotion), image
and photo sharing (again, in the interest of self-promotion) and time on the network (more time =

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 13
more opportunity to self-promote; Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; McCain, et al. 2016). In sum, the
variables chosen involve a practical consideration of what is in the literature, a theoretical
consideration of what social network properties and activities are important, and an additional
theoretical consideration of what social network properties and activities are plausible linked to
narcissism.
In addition to the above indicators, we also looked at theoretically relevant moderators
when possible, such as age, world region, and social media platform. We also test standard
moderators such as gender, nature of the data (self-report vs. objective), type of sample (i.e.,
student, Mturk, or internet), and type of narcissism measure used. Given the evidence for
potential moderators reviewed above we predict that a random effects model will best represent
the data—that is, that the effect sizes are not sampled from a uniform distribution of effects. Our
basic prediction is that grandiose narcissism will be positively associated with the spectrum of
social media use with small to moderate effect sizes. We do not expect a similar effect for
vulnerable narcissism although the literature is scarce so our prediction is not well justified. We
do not have specific predictions for the various moderators.
Method
In order to quantify and test the link between narcissism and social media, we meta-
analytically combined effect sizes from 62 samples from 29 papers (N = 13,430) for which effect
size information for select indices was available. These studies are indicated in the reference
section with an asterisk (*) and include 23 published works, four dissertations, one conference
paper, and one set of unpublished data. Articles were searched on both the Google Scholar and
EBSCO PsychINFO databases using the search terms “narcissism,” “social media,” and
“Facebook.” Any articles published before or during 2015 with reported effect sizes for the

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 14
relevant indices were retained. In addition, unpublished data were solicited via a post on the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) forums. Unpublished datasets were
obtained either through this posting or through word of mouth. The large majority of these
studies focused exclusively on grandiose narcissism and Facebook. Thus, the present paper
speaks most strongly toward the relationship between grandiose narcissism (as measured by the
NPI) and Facebook use.
The use of unpublished data is an important topic of debate. On one hand, peer review
limits null findings so using only peer reviewed data can artificially inflate findings (McAuley,
Tugwell, & Moher, 2000). On the other hand, including non-peer-reviewed findings can
potentially reduce quality. In the medical literature (we are not aware of a similar survey in the
social sciences), the majority of meta-analysts appear to recommend including unpublished data
when possible (e.g., Cook et al,, 1993). We chose to include unpublished work because obtaining
accurate effect size estimates was of primary importance. The social sciences are riddled with
inflated and even non-existent effects and we wanted mitigate this risk as much as possible
(Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012).
We examined four outcome measures (i.e., time spent on social media, frequency of
status updates, number of friends, number of pictures of self and/or selfies uploaded), each of
which was measured by at least 10 studies. We also tested for moderation when possible. The
majority of the samples measured grandiose narcissism using some version of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI), with 33% using the 40-item version (Raskin & Terry, 1988), 35%
using the NPI-16 (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006), and 2 studies using the NPI-13 (Gentile et
al., 2013), and two using 15-item versions (i.e., Qiu, Lin, & Leung, 2010; Schütz, Marcus, &
Sellin, 2004). Although three of these measures (excluding the NPI-15) have been shown to

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 15
provide generally equivalent measurement of narcissism (Gentile et al., 2013), differences in the
reliability of scores produced by these measures may add to the inconsistency of the relationship
between narcissism and social media use. One study used the NARQ (Back et al., 2013) in lieu
of the NPI to measure grandiose narcissism. In addition, two studies measured narcissism as part
of the Dark Triad (i.e., the trio of “dark” personality traits identified by researchers: narcissism,
psychopathy, and Machiavellianism; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), one using the Short Dark Triad
(a short measure of the Dark Triad; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) and one using the Dirty Dozen (A
twelve-item measure of the Dark Triad; Jonason & Webster, 2010). Although Dark Triad
narcissism is usually conceptualized as grandiose narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002),
measuring narcissism in the context of the Dark Triad may also result in differing relationships
between narcissism and social media use. Finally, Ong et al. (2011) used the revised Narcissistic
Personality Questionnaire for Children (NPQC-R; Ang & Raine, 2009) for a sample of
adolescents that may differ slightly in their measurement of narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism in
this review was measured mostly with the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS; Hendin &
Cheek, 1997), although Brailovskaia and Bierhoff (2016) used the revised Narcissistic Inventory
(NI-R; Neumann & Bierhoff, 2004) and Barry and colleagues (2015) used the Pathological
Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009). We report the results for grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism separately.
All relationships were reported in or converted to Pearson’s r correlation coefficients
which was used as our effect size statistic. All meta-analyses were conducted using the metafor
package (Viechtbauer, 2010) in R statistical software (R Core Team, 2014).
Social Media Measures

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 16
Time Spent on Social Media. Eighteen samples measured time spent on social media.
This was usually in the form of self-reported hours spent per day browsing, posting, and reading
content. This is separate from self-reported number of logins per day, which we did not include
in this analysis.
Frequency of Status Updates. Twenty-four samples measured frequency of status
updates. This was usually in the form of self-reported number of times one typically updates
their status in a given period of time. For the majority of studies this refers specifically to
Facebook status updates, although for two studies focusing on Twitter, this index refers to
frequency of “tweeting.”
Number of Friends or Followers. Twenty-eight samples measured number of friends on
social media. This was usually in the form of self-reported number of friends, although three
samples retrieved objective friend counts from participants’ social media profiles.
Pictures of Self/Selfies Uploaded. Eleven samples measured the frequency with which
participants uploaded pictures of themselves including selfies to social media. Usually this was
in the form of the self-reported number of pictures typically posted in a period of time. Because
only three studies focused specifically on selfies, we did not differentiate between these and
pictures of oneself in general.
Moderators
Average Age. The average ages of samples in this study ranged from 14 to 35. As
discussed above, important differences could exist between ages and these could reflect
generational or developmental effects.
World Region. The majority (67%) of samples in this meta-analysis came from Western
(i.e., United States or Canada samples), whereas eight (17%) came from Europe, three (7%)

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 17
came from Asia (i.e., China and Japan), two came from Russia, and one (2%) came from
Australia. As seen in our review above, both structural and cultural differences across countries
can and have been linked to both narcissism and social media use. Given the above research, it is
feasible that the relationship between narcissism and social media usage may differ based on
world region.
Social Media Platform. The majority of samples in this analysis focused exclusively on
Facebook (65%), although six samples (13%) focused on Twitter, six (11%) on Instagram, and
four (9%) surveyed participants about social media websites in general. This tendency to
generalize from Facebook to other social media sites is potentially misleading, as platforms
differ in important ways that may affect narcissism (see review above). In addition to testing
platform as a moderator in this study, we caution against generalizing the results of this meta-
analysis to social media sites other than Facebook and Twitter.
Percentage of Males in Sample. The gender diversity of the samples in this study
ranged from 35% male to 100% male. Although rarely studied with regards to social media,
gender differences in narcissism have been well documented (Grijalva, et al., 2014). More
specifically, men tend to be more narcissistic than women. According to Grijalva and colleagues,
narcissism is more consistent with the male gender role, and may be transmitted to each
generation of men through observation and culture, consistent with the biosocial model (Wood &
Eagly, 2012) of gender.
Type of Data. The vast majority (78%) of samples in this review were based on self-
report (e.g., participants were asked about their social media usage), while the remainder
included an objective source for their data (i.e., the participants’ actual social media profiles).
Although Burke and colleagues (2010) found self-reports of such indices as number of friends

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 18
and hours of use to be equivalent to objective reports, the widespread use of self-report still
brings the possibility of biased reporting or common method variance (Podsakoff, 1986),
especially since narcissism was also universally measured via self-report. Testing for data type as
a moderator can indicate whether this reliance on self-report is problematic in social media
research.
Type of Sample. Roughly 59% of the samples used undergraduate student samples,
whereas 17% used Amazon MTurk, 7% used adolescent samples collected from high schools,
and the remainder recruited random samples online. Although several studies suggest that MTurk
samples do not appreciably differ from conventional samples or student samples in terms of
demographic diversity or quality of data produced (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011;
Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013), MTurkers are already self-selected in that they already have
access to the web and are engaged in some sort of internet activity. On the other hand,
undergraduate samples have classically been criticized as having WEIRD (White Educated
Industrialized Rich and Democratic; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010) participants,
especially in the United States. This is similar to the YAVIS (Young Attractive Verbal Intelligent
and Successful; Jennings & Davis, 1977) criticism of individuals most likely to take part in
clinical studies, and it implies that these two types of sampling have the potential to produce
differing outcomes.
Results
Results of the meta-analysis can be seen in Table 1. Q-tests for heterogeneity were
significant for all tests excluding that of vulnerable narcissism and selfie-taking. Forest plots for
each index can be seen in Figures 1-4. Specific relationships between narcissism and social
media use as well as moderators are discussed below.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 19
Primary Associations
Grandiose narcissism was positively related to time spent on social media (r =.11),
frequency of status updates (r =.18), number of friends (r = .20) and number of selfies (r = .14),
although moderation analyses suggest the majority of these findings is qualified (there were no
moderators tested that explained the variability in the relationship between grandiose narcissism
and time spent on social media). We found no statistically significant effect for vulnerable
narcissism.
Moderation Analyses
Grandiose narcissism was most strongly related to status updates in internet samples (r
= .66), followed by MTurk (r = .16) and undergraduate (r = .12) samples, but was unrelated in
adolescent (r = .11) samples, (QM = 128.55, df = 3, p < .0001). This relationship was also
substantially stronger for samples from Russia (r = .73) than for samples from Asia (r = .20),
Europe (r = .25), or the United States (r = .12), QM = 30.12, df = 5, p < .0001. Finally, the NPI-40
detected the strongest relationship between grandiose narcissism and status updates (r = .24),
followed by the NARQ (r =.21), the NPQCR (r = .19), the German translation of the NPI (r = .
10), and the NPI-16 (r = .08), QM = 15.87, df = 6, p < .05.
Grandiose narcissism was positively related to number of friends, although moderation
analyses (QM = 30.12, df = 5, p < .0001) suggest that Russian samples (r = 56) significantly
differed in this relationship from US (r = .19), Asian (r = .21), and European (r = .29) and that
internet samples (r = .38) differed significantly from undergraduate (r = .15), MTurk (r = .18),
and adolescent (r = .17) samples, QM = 15.54, df = 3, p < .01.
Finally, grandiose narcissism was positively related to posting pictures of oneself on
social media although moderation analyses (QM = 12.67, df = 2, p < .05) suggest that this

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 20
relationship may be nonsignificant for Instagram (r = .06), and stronger for studies that measured
social media use broadly (r = .22) than for those focusing specifically on Facebook (r = .10).
Because of the small sample size, we were unable to examine moderators for vulnerable
narcissism.
Assessing Publication Bias and P-hacking
P-Curve Analyses. P-hacking, or the selective publication of statistically significant
results while suppressing null findings, is a significant problem in contemporary social
psychology. In light of this fact, we conducted P-curve analyses (Simonsohn, Nelson, &
Simmons, 2014) on the four meta-analyses concerning grandiose narcissism to confirm that the
above findings have evidential value and are not a result of p-hacking or publication bias. These
analyses were conducted in R using syntax from www.p-curve.com. P-curves for all four indices
can be seen in Figure 5, whereas the relevant statistics for each p-curve can be found in Table 2.
All four showed a shape that is right skewed and not flatter than 33%, suggesting that the data
for all four indices have evidential value and that p-hacking is unlikely to have occurred.
Funnel Plots. Also to detect bias introduced by selective publication and heterogeneity,
funnel plots (Egger, Smith, Schneider, Minder, & Berne, 2012) were generated for all four
indices as related to grandiose narcissism. Although all four showed considerable horizontal
scatter, this is consistent with heterogeneity (Sterne et al., 2011) and consistent with world region
as a moderator. In particular, certain studies taking place in Russia and Europe (i.e., Brailovskaia
& Bierhoff, 2016, Samples 1 and 2), and Australia (Skues et al., 2012) fell outside of the funnel
on all indices except selfies posted. Status updates showed heterogeneity from an unknown
source, as a considerable number of studies with lower standard error had lower effect sizes than
predicted. Only the plot for selfies shows the potential effects of reporting bias; however, given

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 21
the small number of studies and the fact that selfie research is still in its early stages, we interpret
this plot with caution.
Discussion
Based on a sample of over 12,000 participants, meta-analytic results revealed a small to
moderate positive association between grandiose (but not necessarily vulnerable) narcissism and
social media use. This effect, however, differed somewhat depending on the aspect of social
media use measured and the level of certain moderating variables.
Specific Findings
Grandiose narcissism appears to positively relate to time spent on social media websites.
This effect is small, which may explain why it has not been found consistently throughout the
literature. Although this relationship tested significant for heterogeneity, none of our proposed
moderators could explain the data. Although narcissism appears to relate to time spent on social
media in our sample of mostly Facebook-based, Millennial, and United States studies, given the
differences seen in social media use across cohorts (Bergman et al., 2011; Leung, 2013; Panek et
al., 2013) and cultures (Alhabash et al., 2012; Brailovskaia & Bierhoff, 2016; Kim et al., 2011;
Long & Zhang, 2014; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), more diverse research is required to confirm
its robustness across contexts.
Our meta-analysis also supports past findings on how narcissists use social media.
Individuals high in grandiose narcissism appear to have more friends, post more frequent status
updates, and post more pictures of themselves on social media than do non-narcissists. However,
two of these relationships—between narcissism and number of friends and frequency of status
updates—appear to be moderated by culture in that they are significantly higher in Russian
samples. Asian samples failed to differ significantly from United States or European samples,

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 22
which is inconsistent with past research showing that Asian countries, which tend to have
collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980) and interdependent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama,
1991), have differing relationships between narcissism and social media use. However, Russia is
considered to have an attenuated collectivistic culture (Latova & Latov, 2009) that has both
individualistic and collectivistic elements and which may have a unique effect on the relationship
between narcissism and social media use. Given that little research is available on social media
usage in Russia at this time, and the current findings are based on a single multi-study paper, we
interpret this finding with caution.
The finding that individuals high in grandiose narcissism more frequently update their
statuses also appears to be moderated by sample type. Specifically, the relationship was strongest
for internet samples, which were not specific to any particular age group or location, and was
nonsignificant for adolescent samples. MTurk samples showed only a slightly stronger
relationship overall than did undergraduate samples, inconsistent with past findings that
narcissism relates more strongly to social media usage in Generation Xers (e.g., Leung, 2013;
Panek et al., 2013). The average age of the internet samples (M = 24.43) largely reflects a
Millennial sample, and was not linked to any specific location or culture. However, this lack of
contextual boundaries may leave these samples more vulnerable to self-selection than
undergraduate, adolescent, or MTurk samples. It may be that individuals who have a stronger
relationship between narcissism and status updates were more likely to sign up for these studies.
The finding that individuals high in grandiose narcissism post pictures of themselves
more frequently on social media also appears to be moderated by platform. This finding was
nonsignificant for Instagram only studies, but was stronger in studies that did not specify a
platform. This makes any interpretation difficult.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 23
Finally, vulnerable narcissism has yet to be studied in depth in relation to social media
usage. In the few studies conducted to date, vulnerable narcissism appears to show no
relationship to social media usage, with the possible exception of frequency of status updates.
These results should be viewed very cautiously, however.
From a theoretical perspective, these results fit with both the self-enhancement and fit
models on narcissism and social media. In terms of self-enhancement, each of the behaviors we
examined (use, posting, selfies) were potentially routes to self-enhancement. That said, there was
no consistent pattern of moderation that could be used to fully support this model. Likewise, in
terms of fit, the number of friends in particular was a good marker of fit and it was reliably
linked to grandiose narcissism. Again, however, there was no pattern of moderators that allowed
us to fully embrace the fit model. Ideally, future research will use more detailed approaches that
allow for a precise understanding of why narcissism is linked to social media use.
Limitations and Future Research
Like all meta-analyses, this one is limited by the existing data. Our findings regarding
moderation are somewhat inconsistent with past research, which may be due to the inclusion of
unpublished data in our analyses. However, the results of the p-curve analysis and funnel plots
suggest that the data are not clearly biased in a systematic way. We hope future research
continues this apparent willingness to publish null results so as to provide the best effect size
estimates possible. There was a lack of findings involving hypersensitive narcissism. We would
encourage researchers interested in narcissism and social media to include a hypersensitive
narcissism scale in studies where there is an interest in narcissism. All the effect sizes in this
meta-analysis were cross-sectional. There is a major need for experimental or longitudinal data
in order to better illuminate the mechanisms by which narcissism affects, or is affected by, social

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 24
media behavior. Finally, eleven years after the advent of Facebook, the relationship between
grandiose (NPI) narcissism and self-reported Facebook usage alone has been well established
with at least 22 studies. Researchers should now focus their resources on studying this
relationship in the variety of other social media platforms available (e.g., Instagram, Reddit,
Tumblr, Snapchat) as well as examining vulnerable narcissism alongside grandiose narcissism.
Comparing these relationships among different platforms will provide a better understanding of
how the features of social media sites influence behavior. More attention should also be paid to
cross-cultural work, as the present analysis shows that at least some differences in social media
use between cultures exist. Finally, researchers should strive to use more objective measures (i.e.,
using metrics from actual social media profiles) rather than relying on self-reports to measure
social media behavior.
Conclusion
As social media sites have blossomed so too has the interest in social media and
narcissism. Still, this field of research is only seven years as measured from publication of the
first paper (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). We now have relatively robust evidence that grandiose
narcissism is associated with social networking behavior across many – but not all – conditions.
And we know the size of the association ranges from small to moderate. We will hopefully
continue to see the expansion of this research into current and emerging social media platforms.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 25
References
Ahn, H., Kwolek, E., & Bowman, N. D. (2015). Two faces of narcissism on SNS: The distinct
effects of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism on SNS privacy control. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45, 375–381.
Alhabash, S., Park, H., Kononova, A., Chiang, Y., & Wise, K. (2012). Exploring the Motivations
of Facebook Use in Taiwan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 304–
311.
*Alloway, T., Runac, R., Qureshi, M., & Kemp, G. (2014). Is Facebook Linked to Selfishness ?
Investigating the Relationships among Social Media Use , Empathy , and Narcissism.
Social Networking, 3, 150–158.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Daignostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440–450.
Ang, R. P., & Raine, A. (2009). Reliability, Validity and Invariance of the Narcissistic Personality
Questionnaire for Children-Revised (NPQC-R). Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 31, 143–151.
Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J.
(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of
narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–1037.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 26
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first
sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98, 132–145.
*Barry, C. T., Doucette, H., Loflin, D. C., Rivera-hudson, N., Lacey, L., Barry, C. T., …
Herrington, L. L. (2015). “Let Me Take a Selfie”: Associations Between Self-Photography,
Narcissism, and Self-Esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.
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.
*Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011). Millennials,
narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 706–711.
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., …
Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and
research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24, 245–267.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social
sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.
*Brailovskaia, J., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2016). Cross-cultural narcissism on Facebook: Relationship
between self-presentation, social interaction and the open and covert narcissism on a social
networking site in Germany and Russia. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 251–257.
Buffardi, L. E. (2011). Narcissism and the World Wide Web. In The Handbook of Narcissism and
Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Findings, and
Treatments (pp. 371–381).

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 27
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking Web sites.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303–1314.
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.
Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1909–
1912.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, 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.
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: phenotypic
description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology,
and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638–656.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 1254–1270.
Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-
regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. Self and Relationships:
Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes., 57–83.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 28
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. (2002). Narcissism and Commitment in Romantic Relationships:
An Investment Model Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484–495.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency
model, and ongoing controversies. The Self, 115–138.
Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and
Comparative Self-Enhancement Strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329–
347.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants
and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.
Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 1203-1213.
*Chen, G. M. (2014). Revisiting the social enhancement hypothesis: Extroversion indirectly
predicts number of Facebook friends operating through Facebook usage. Computers in
Human Behavior, 39, 263–269.
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2009). Personality disorder in social networks:
Network position as a marker of interpersonal dysfunction. Social Networks, 31, 26–32.
Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Ryan, G., Clifton, J., Buckingham, L., Willan, A., ... & Oxman, A. D.
(1993). Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses?: Current convictions and
controversies. Jama, 269, 2749-2753.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 29
*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.
*Deters, F. G., Mehl, M. R., & Eid, M. (2014). Narcissistic power poster? On the relationship
between narcissism and status updating activity on Facebook. Journal of Research in
Personality, 53, 165–174.
Diller, V. (2015). Social media: A narcissist’s virtual playground. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/social-media-a-narcissist_b_6916010.html
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., Minder, C., & Berne, C.-. (2012). BMJ Publishing
Group Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple , Graphical Test All use subject to
JSTOR Terms and Conditions Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple , graphical, 315,
629–634.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐
Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
Emmons, R. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291–300.
Eubank, S., Kumar, V. S., Marathe, M. V., Srinivasan, A., & Wang, N. (2004, January). Structural
and algorithmic aspects of massive social networks. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual
ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms (pp. 718-727). Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 30
Fong, J., & Burton, S. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and
country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61, 233–242.
Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism:
Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 469–486.
Foster, J. D., Misra, T., & Reidy, D. E. (2009). Narcissists are approach-oriented toward their
money and their friends. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 764–769.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: narcissism and approach-
avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004–1017.
*Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of
men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality and
Individual Differences, 76, 161–165.
Freud, S. (1914/1957). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67–
104). London: Hogarth.
*Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2014). The dark side of Facebook: Semantic representations of
status updates predict the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
67, 69–74.
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Verplanken, B., & Maio, G. R. (2012). Communal narcissism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 854–878.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 31
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, 1120–36.
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011). Manifestations of
personality in online social networks: self-reported facebook-related behaviors and
observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14,
483–488.
Grijalva, E., Newman, D., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T.
(2014). Gender Differences in Narcissism : A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological
Bulletin, 141, 261–310.
Handcock, M. S., Raftery, A. E., & Tantrum, J. M. (2007). Model‐based clustering for social
networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170, 301-
354.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing Hypersensitive Narcissism : A Reexamination
of Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466,
29-29.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2010). Narcissism and attractiveness. Journal of Research in
Personality, 44, 133–136.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 32
*Horton, R. S., Reid, C., Barber, J. M., Miracle, J., & Green, J. D. (2014). An experimental
investigation of the influence of agentic and communal Facebook use on grandiose
narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 93–98.
Horton, R. S., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Narcissistic Responding to Ego Threat: When the Status
of the Evaluator Matters. Journal of Personality, 77, 1493–1526.
*Huling, B. A. (2011). Narcissism , Facebook Use and Self Disclosure. Master’s Thesis,
Brigham Young University.
Jennings, R. L., & Davis, C. S. (1977). Attraction-enhancing client behaviors: A structured
learning approach for" Non-Yavis, Jr.". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45,
135-144.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): a brief measure
of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social
network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27, 365–372.
*Kojouri, C. (2015). Using Facebook to Self-Enhance: Narcissism and Psychological Outcomes.
Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 33
*Krcmar, M., van der Meer, A., & Cingel, D. P. (2015). Development as an Explanation for and
Predictor of Online Self-Disclosure Among Dutch Adolescents. Journal of Children and
Media, 9, 194–211.
Kumar, R., Novak, J., & Tomkins, A. (2010). Structure and evolution of online social networks.
In Link mining: models, algorithms, and applications (pp. 337-357). Springer New York.
Latova, N. V., & Latov, I. V. (2009). Characteristics of the Westernization of College Students ’
Mentality in Modernizing Countries. Russian Social Science Review, 50, 53–69.
*Lee-Won, R. J., Shim, M., Joo, Y. K., & Park, S. G. (2014). Who puts the best “face” forward
on Facebook?: Positive self-presentation in online social networking and the role of self-
consciousness, actual-to-total Friends ratio, and culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,
413–423.
Leung, L. (2013). Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of the
gratifications sought and of narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 997–1006.
Long, K., & Zhang, X. (2014). The Role of Self-Construal in Predicting Self-Presentational
Motives for Online Social Network Use in the UK and Japan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 17, 454–9.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224.
McAuley, L., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influence
estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. The Lancet, 356, 1228-
1231.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 34
*McCain, J., Borg, Z., Rothenberg, A., Churillo, K., Weiler, P., & Campbell, W. K. (n.d.).
Personality and Selfies: Narcissism and the Dark Triad.
*McKinney, B., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. (2012). Narcissism or Openness?: College Students’ Use
of Facebook and Twitter. Communication Research, 29, 108–118.
*Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 357–364.
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching
for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and
borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529-1564.
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2011).
Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: A Nomological Network Analysis. Journal of
Personality, 79, 1013–1042.
Miller, J. D., Maples, J. L., Buffardi, L., Cai, H., Gentile, B., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., … Campbell, W.
K. (2015). Narcissism and United States’ Culture: The View From Home and Around the
World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0039543
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-
Regulatory Processing Model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.
Neumann, E., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2004). Egotism versus love in romantic relationships:
Narcissism related to attachment and love styles. Zeitschrift Fur Sozialpsychologie, 35, 33–
34.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 35
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and
practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,
615-631.
NPR Staff. (2015). Narcissistic, maybe. But is there more to the art of the selfie? Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/27/425681152/narcissistic-maybe-
but-is-there-more-to-the-art-of-the-selfie
*Ong, E., Ang, R. P., Ho, J., Lim, J., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua, A. (2011). Narcissism,
extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 180–185.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
*Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., & Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or Megaphone?: How relationships
between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2004–2012.
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. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
*Pettijohn, T. F., LaPiene, K. E., Pettijohn, T. F., & Horting, A. L. (2012). Relationships between
facebook intensity, friendship contingent self-esteem, and personality in U.S. college
students. Cyberpsychology, 6, 1–7.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 36
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. a, Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009).
Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological
Assessment, 21, 365–379.
Pinsky, D., & Young, S. M. (2009). The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is
Endangering Our Families--and how to Save Them. Harper Collins: New York.
Podsakoff, P. M. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531–545.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Extraverts Have Larger Social
Network Layers. Journal of Individual Differences, 32, 161–169.
*Poon, D. C. H., & Leung, L. (2011). Effects of Narcissism, Leisure Boredom, and Gratifications
Sought on User-Generated Content Among Net-Generation Users. International Journal of
Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1, 1–14.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Qiu, L., Lin, H., & Leung, A. K. (2010). How Does Facebook Browsing Affect Self-awareness
and Social Well-being : the Role of Narcissism. Ace ’10, 100–101.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing.
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.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 37
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis of
narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 672–685.
Roberts, S. G. B., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Individual differences and
personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 954–
964.
Rosenthal, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2010). Narcissism assessment in social-personality research:
Does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a confound
with self-esteem? Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 453–465.
Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–
633.
Schütz, A., Marcus, B., & Sellin, I. (2004). Die Messung von Narzissmus als
Persönlichkeitskonstrukt. Diagnostica, 50, 202–218.
*Schwartz, M., & Ed, M. S. (2010). The usage of Facebook as it relates to narcissism, self-
esteem, and loneliness. Doctoral Dissertation, Pace University.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy?: self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 400–416.
*Seto, E. (2012). Associations Between Self-Reported Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Social-
Emotional Functions of Facebook. Honors Thesis, Baylor University.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 38
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.
*Skues, J. L., Williams, B., & Wise, L. (2012). The effects of personality traits, self-esteem,
loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use among university students. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28, 2414–2419.
Smith, K., Mendez, F., & White, G. L. (2014). Narcissism as a Predictor of Facebook Users’
Privacy Concern, Vigilance, and Exposure to Risk. International Journal of Technology and
Human Interaction, 10, 78–95.
Sterne, J. a. C., Sutton, a. J., Ioannidis, J. P. a., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., … Higgins, J. P.
T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-
analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj, 343, d4002–d4002.
*Sumner, C., Byers, A., Boochever, R., & Park, G. J. (2012). Predicting dark triad personality
traits from twitter usage and a linguistic analysis of tweets. Proceedings - 2012 11th
International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2012, 2, 386–
393.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good
Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on
Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531–549.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A Study of
Cohort Effects From 1976-2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58–75.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 39
Twenge, J. M. (2007). Generation Me. New York: Atria Books.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of
Entitlement. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational Increases in Agentic Self-
evaluations among American College Students, 1966–2009. Self and Identity, 11, 409–427.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos
inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory.
Journal of Personality, 76, 875–902.
Utz, S., & Kramer, N. C. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited : The role
of individual characteristics and group norms. Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 3, 1–12.
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.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in r with the metafor package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.
Vieth, M. N., & Kommers, P. (2015). Social networking: a matter of character? International
Journal of Web Based Communities, 10, 115-125.
*Walters, N. T., & Horton, R. (2015). A diary study of the influence of Facebook use on
narcissism among male college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 326–330.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 40
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L., Zhang, D. J., & Su, Z. Q. (2012). The relationships among the Big Five
Personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese University
students’ uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2313–
2319.
*Weiser, E. B. (2015). #Me: Narcissism and its facets as predictors of selfie-posting frequency.
Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 477–481.
*Weiss, D. E. (2013). The relationship between internet social networking, social anxiety, self-
esteem, narcissism, and gender among college students. Doctoral Dissertation, Pace
University.
*Winter, S., Neubaum, G., Eimler, S. C., Gordon, V., Theil, J., Herrmann, J., … Krämer, N. C.
(2014). Another brick in the Facebook wall - How personality traits relate to the content of
status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 194–202.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in
behavior. In J. M.Olson & M. P.Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(Vol. 46, pp. 55–123) Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Young, S. M., & Pinsky, D. (2006). Narcissism and celebrity. Journal of Research in Personality,
40, 463-471.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 41
Table 1. Meta-analytic results for all four indices for grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.
Number
of
Sample
s (k)
Number of
Participant
s (N)
Effect
Size (r) 95% CI P-value SE of P Z Q DF P Tau^2
Grandiose
Time Spent 18 6132 0.11 [.04,.18] 0.001 0.03
3.2
3 96.33 17 <.0001 0.017
Frequency of Status
Updates 21 7371 0.18 [.11,.26] <.0001 0.04
4.6
7 113.6 19 <.0001 0.029
Friends/Followers 24 10079 0.20 [.14,.26] <.0001 0.03
6.4
9 156.94 23 <.0001 0.019
Selfies 8 3853 0.14 [.06,.21] <.0001 0.04
3.6
0 50.31 11 <.0001 0.009
Vulnerable
Time Spent 0 - - - - - - - - - -
Frequency of Status
Updates 3 575 0.42 [-.01,.85] 0.06 0.22
1.9
1 97.52 2 <.0001 0.14
Friends/Followers 4 1033 0.21 [-.06,.49] 0.12 0.14
1.5
3 53.09 3 <.0001 0.073
Selfies 3 967 0.05 [-.02,.11] 0.16 0.03
1.4
0 1.17 2 0.56 0.003

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 42
Table 2. P-curve significance values for all four indices of social media usage.
Index
Right
Skew
Flatter than
33%
Left
Skew
Time Spent p< .0001 p = 1.00 p = 1.00
Frequency of Status
Updates p < .0001 p = .98 p = .99
Friends/Followers p< .0001 p = 1.00 p = 1.00
Selfies p< .0001 p = 1.00 p = 1.00

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 43
Figure 1. Forest plot of grandiose narcissism and time spent on social media.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 44
Figure 2. Forest plot of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and frequency of status updates.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 45
Figure 3. Forest plot of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and number of friends on social
media.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 46
Figure 4. Forest plot of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and selfies posted on social media.

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 47
Figure 5. P-curves for meta-analyses of time spent on social media (top left), frequency of status updates (top right), friends/followers
on social media (bottom left), and frequency of posting pictures of self (bottom right).

NARCISSISM AND SOCIAL MEDIA 48
Figure 6. Funnel plots for meta-analyses of time spent on social media (top left), frequency of status updates (top right),
friends/followers on social media (bottom left), and frequency of posting pictures of self (bottom right).