Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Seles, or pictures taken of oneself and shared on social media, have become a worldwide phenomenon.
Received 13 December 2015 In the present research, we examine the relationship between narcissism, both vulnerable and grandiose,
Received in revised form and the frequency of and motivations behind sele-taking. The Dark Triad of personality (narcissism,
2 May 2016
psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) and self-esteem were also measured. In Study 1, 348 adults on
Accepted 26 June 2016
Amazon Mturk completed measures of personality, demographics, and several questions about sele
Available online 2 July 2016
behavior online. In Study 2, 491 undergraduate students completed the same measures and a subset of
these provided access to their Instagram and Iconosquare accounts, which were rated for narcissism by
Keywords:
Social media
naive judges. Results from both studies indicate that grandiose narcissism is associated with taking and
Seles posting more seles, experiencing more positive affect when taking seles, and self-reported self-pre-
Narcissism sentation motives. The Dark Triad traits resembled grandiose narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism was
Personality associated with negative affect when taking seles. Self-esteem was unrelated to sele-taking.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Seles, or pictures taken of oneself and shared on social media, a personality perspective, seles can be conceptualized as a
have become a worldwide phenomenon. There is an estimated one reection of personality. For example, we might expect grandiose
million seles taken per day (Petrow, 2015) and at least half of narcissism (the more extraverted, charismatic and attention-
Millennials in the United States (US) have shared a sele (Taylor, seeking form of narcissism; Miller et al., 2011) to be associated
2015). Seles have spawned their own economic ecology with with posting sexier seles, more provocative content in seles, and
items like special lters designed to enhance or otherwise alter the wearing more fashionable and stylish clothing and having a more
takers appearance and sele sticks that allow the user to hold the neat appearance in seles (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Vazire,
camera farther away and thus get a wider angle on the picture. Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). Vulnerable narcissism (the
Plastic surgeons have even reported an increase in people seeking more neurotic, insecure form) has not yet been found to have clear
cosmetic procedures because they do not like how they look in behavioral reections.
seles or only like certain aspects of themselves in seles The act of taking seles can also be conceptualized as self-
(American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, regulation; that is, a sele can change an individuals emotions
2015). Finally, there has been a worldwide discussion of where, and beliefs in specic ways. For example, narcissism can be
when, and how seles are appropriate social behavior. For example, conceptualized as a self-reinforcing process in which traits such as
many cultural, ecologically important historic sites are banning self-promotion and social condence elicit reactions from others
sele sticks to prevent damage and accidents. Likewise, there have that reinforce a grandiose self-concept, which leads to more self-
been social sanctions against individuals taking seles at funerals promotion and social condence (Campbell, Brunell, & Finkel,
and at the scenes of tragedies. 2006). Similarly, narcissism can be conceptualized as a more
Researchers have begun to examine seles in two ways: as intentional process in which individuals seek to buttress a gran-
manifestations of personality and of self-regulation (Barry et al., diose self-concept using interpersonal and intrapersonal strategies
2015; Fox & Rooney, 2015; Qiu, Lu, Yang, Qu, & Zhu, 2015). From (such as claiming credit for others successes or self-serving attri-
butional bias) that elicit feedback congruent with their self-views
(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Consistent with this self-regulation
* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Ath- approach, taking seles could be used to elicit immediate positive
ens, GA 30602, United States. feedback that reinforces or protects a narcissists grandiose self-
E-mail address: mccainjl@uga.edu (J.L. McCain).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.050
0747-5632/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.L. McCain et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 126e133 127
view. Within this framework, differences in approach and avoid- Age 31.85; 49% female) completed measures of personality, de-
ance motivation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism mographics, and several questions about sele behavior online. Of
would affect how seles are used for self-regulation. Grandiose the resulting sample, 78% self-identied as white, 7% as African
narcissists are primarily approach motivated and may be likely to American, 4% as Asian, 1% as Native American, and 10% as mixed
engage in more sele-taking and posting without concern for po- race. Participants signed up for the study of their own accord, and
tential negative consequences (Campbell et al., 2006; Foster & were compensated for their participation through MTurk.
Trimm, 2008). In contrast, vulnerable narcissists are high in both
approach and avoidance motivation (Campbell et al., 2006; Foster & 1.1.2. Participants and procedure: Study 2
Trimm, 2008), and thus may be more likely to take seles but also Four hundred and ninety one (Mean Age 18.87 (SD 1.29);
attempt to guard against potential rejection by staging, editing, 78.6% Female) undergraduate students from a large southeastern
ltering, or cropping their seles. university participated in the study for course credit. Participants
The analysis of seles has focused on two main areas: the signed up for the study via a subject pool and rst completed the
number of seles taken and the content of the seles. For example, same series of measures as in Study 1. Then 199 of these partici-
grandiose narcissism is related to self-reported number of seles in pants came into the lab where they provided access to their
large sample (Fox & Rooney, 2015; but cf.; Barry et al., 2015). Instagram and Iconosquare pages and took a sele that they then
Likewise, in work on personality there is some evidence that in- sent to the lab email address (described in detail below).
dividuals can estimate personality from seles, but little evidence
that there are specic markers of personality, at least as concep- 1.1.3. Materials
tualized by the Big Five, in seles (Qiu et al., 2015). Personality and sele measures are described below. All per-
In the present research, we will examine narcissism, both sonality measures are commonly used in the literature. The sele
vulnerable and grandiose, and self-reported number of seles. We scales are new or modied scales. Note: This data was collected as
will also try to assess issues of self-regulation by looking at the part of a larger study including the Big Five personality traits.
motives and emotions associated with sele taking. Finally, we try Correlations with these traits can be found in the supplemental
to go beyond self-report data by looking at content analyses of data.
seles as well as outside observer ratings and self-reported use of
other social networking sites. Consistent with past research, in 1.1.3.1. Grandiose narcissism. The 13-item Narcissistic Personality
addition to our primary measures of grandiose and vulnerable Inventory (NPI-13; Gentile et al., 2013) is a 13-item nonclinical
narcissism, we include an integrated measure of the dark triad of measure of dimensional narcissism (Study 1 Cronbach a 0.78;
narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism as well as a measure Study 2 a 0.66). For each item, participants choose which of two
of self-esteem. statements (e.g., I like to be the center of attention/I prefer to
Based on past research on the manifestations of personality on blend in with the crowd) best describes them. Scores range from
social networking and in photographs we would expect that per- 0 to 13.
sonality traits in general, and narcissism in particular, would
plausibly be perceivable from seles (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; 1.1.3.2. Vulnerable narcissism. The Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale
Gosling, Gaddis, & Vazire, 2007; Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 2013) is a 10-item scale (Study 1 a 0.76;
Gosling, 2009; Vazire et al., 2008). Based on this literature, we Study 2 a 0.73) designed to measure vulnerable narcissism. Items
would similarly predict that personality would be associated with such as my feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or the slighting
certain markers in seles (e.g., clothing) but given the Qiu et al. remarks of others are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
(2015) ndings, these markers might be limited. Finally, theory
and data on narcissism suggest that grandiose narcissism will be 1.1.3.3. Dark Triad. The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus,
associated with self-enhancement in sele taking, but vulnerable 2014) is a 27-item measure of the Dark Triad traits (i.e., narcis-
narcissism will be associated with more anxiety and self- sism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). Nine items are devoted
protection. The dark triad traits in general should be somewhat to each trait; items such as Its not wise to tell your secrets,
similar to grandiose narcissism (e.g., Fox & Rooney, 2015), with dark (Machiavellianism; Study 1 a 0.80; Study 2 a 0.71) People see
triad narcissism being a more grandiose form (Miller et al., 2010). me as a natural leader, (narcissism; Study 1 a 0.81; Study 2
Self-esteem is more challenging to predict, so we consider that a 0.61) and I like to get revenge on authorities (psychopathy;
exploratory. Study 1 a 0.81; Study 2 a 0.64) are endorsed by participants on
Given concerns with false positives in psychological research a 5-point Likert-type scale.
and the risks of over-interpreting data, we will focus on broad
patterns of ndings in two relatively large samples rather than on 1.1.3.4. Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES;
single correlations. In Study 1, we focus on self-reported sele Rosenberg, 1989) is a widely used 10-item measure (Study 1
taking using an online sample; in Study 2, we examine self- a 0.92; Study 2 a 0.88) of explicit self-esteem. Items such as on
reported sele taking to replicate the results of Study 1, but also the whole, I am satised with myself are rated on a scale from 1 to
use more objective data (e.g., sele counts, observer ratings, con- 5 with 1 signifying this statement does not describe me in the
tent analyses). To aid in description and to make the replication slightest and 5 signifying this statement describes me perfectly.
across samples clear, we report the self-report data from Study 1
and Study 2 together, followed by the more objective data from 1.1.3.5. Sele behavior. Participants responded to a series of ques-
Study 2. tions about the sele-taking process on 5-point Likert-type scales.
These questions assessed a range of behaviors such as the fre-
1. Study 1 & 2: Self-report data quency of sele-taking, aspects of seles taken (e.g., including just
the face or the entire body), and preparation for taking and posting
1.1. Methods seles (e.g., putting on makeup).
1.1.1. Participants and procedure: Study 1 1.1.3.6. Sele posting sites. Participants reported how often they
Via Amazon MTurk, 348 residents of the United States (Mean posted seles to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other sites on a
128 J.L. McCain et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 126e133
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time). negatively correlated with seles taken with others. The dark triad
traits are also positively correlated with seles per day. The dark
1.1.3.7. Sele context. Participants rated how likely they were to triad and vulnerable narcissism correlate with seles of just you
take a sele in each of four times (i.e., on a weekday vs. weekend or individual seles.
and during the day vs at night) as well as in each of eight places (i.e., Beyond these ndings there are few associations that replicate
home, work, class, a public business, entertainment venue, visiting across samples.
someone, en route, or somewhere else; list taken from Sonnenberg,
Riediger, Wrzus, & Wagner, 2012) on a 5-point Likert-type scale. 1.2.2. Sele posting sites
As seen in Table 2, The most consistent patterns of sele posting
1.1.3.8. Sele emotions. To assess emotional responses to posting to various sites are grandiose narcissism (NPI and dark triad) and
seles, participants rated how often they felt a list of 13 emotions psychopathy to Twitter, and grandiose narcissism (dark triad and
(see Carstensen et al., 2011) on a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (All of the NPI in one group) to Instagram.
time) when posting a sele, when someone likes their sele, when
someone comments on their sele, and when someone does not
1.2.3. Factor analyses and data reduction
like their sele.
Because of the large number of sele questions in this study, for
the remaining variables we used a series of factor analyses to
1.1.3.9. Sele motivations. To assess motivations for posting seles,
reduce the data into underlying factors. This approach also reduces
participants completed nine questions adapted from Seidman
familywise error. All factor analyses were conducted in SPSS using
(2013) study of motivations for Facebook behavior in addition to
principal axis factoring with a promax rotation. (Note: Full corre-
28 questions from Smock, Ellison, Lampe, and Wohn (2011) study of
lation matrices are reported in supplemental materials).
the same. Questions assessed a variety of motivations including
belongingness (e.g., How often do you post seles to feel closer to
others) and self-presentation (e.g., How often do you post seles 1.2.3.1. Sele context. A factor analysis (see Table 3) on the sele
to show off?) motivations and were rated on a 5 point scale with 1 behavior questions pertaining to time and place revealed three
signifying Never and 5 signifying Very Often. factors corresponding to social settings (e.g., entertainment
venue, visiting someone, at night on the weekends), daytime
1.1.3.10. Instagram use. In order to assess the use of Instagramda
social media website often used to post selesdparticipants Table 2
responded to a range of questions adapted from Ross et al. (2009) Correlations between personality and social media sites used for seles in Studies 1
study of Facebook use. Questions assessed whether participants and 2. Note: NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-
had an Instagram account, time spent on Instagram, frequency of M Dark Triad Machiavellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad
Psychopathy; SE Self-esteem. 95% CIs available in supplemental data. * indicates
seles posted, number of followers, number of others followed, signicant correlations, p < 0.05.
number of likes typically received, and number of likes typically
given to others content. Five statements adapted from this study Facebook Twitter Instagram Other site
Table 1
Correlations between personality and sele behaviors in Studies 1 and 2. Note: NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-M Dark Triad Machia-
vellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad Psychopathy; SE Self-esteem. 95% CIs available in supplemental data. * indicates signicant correlations,
p < 0.05.
Per day At a time Days with out Take yourself Just you Back camera Just face Makeup Brighten Shade Filter Crop
Study 1
NPI 0.25* 0.00 0.23* 0.01 0.21* 0.03 0.25* 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.03
HSNS 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.21* 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.10
DT-M 0.13* 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.15* 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.03
DT-N 0.20* 0.02 0.18* 0.06 0.19* 0.01 0.20* 0.05 0.12* 0.11* 0.08 0.04
DT-P 0.19* 0.08 0.18* 0.02 0.18* 0.02 0.22* 0.16* 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.04
SE 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.15* 0.02 0.10 0.05
Study 2
NPI 0.15* 0.14* 0.07 0.05 0.18* 0.00 0.10* 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.03
HSNS 0.08 0.21* 0.05 0.08 0.14* 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.12* 0.12*
DT-M 0.11* 0.22* 0.13* 0.11* 0.19* 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.01
DT-N 0.18* 0.12* 0.14* 0.05 0.12* 0.03 0.07 0.11* 0.02 0.14* 0.03 0.02
DT-P 0.12* 0.10* 0.12* 0.14* 0.21* 0.04 0.09 0.18* 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.05
SE 0.03 0.12* 0.02 0.07 0.10* 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.11* 0.09 0.07
J.L. McCain et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 126e133 129
Table 5
Correlations between personality and emotions endorsed during the sele process in Studies 1 and 2. Note: NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-
M Dark Triad Machiavellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad Psychopathy; SE Self-esteem. 95% CIs available in supplemental data. * indicates
signicant correlations, p < 0.05.
Post Like Comment Dislike Post Like Comment Dislike Post Like Comment Dislike
Study 1
NPI 0.23* 0.21* 0.18* 0.23* 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.11
HSNS 0.02 0.13* 0.07 0.05 0.29* 0.23* 0.22* 0.29* 0.12* 0.08 0.09 0.04
DT-M 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.14* 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.15*
DT-N 0.32* 0.24* 0.21* 0.26* 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.14* 0.20*
DT-P 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.20* 0.28* 0.25* 0.29* 0.17* 0.13 0.16* 0.25* 0.20*
SE 0.32* 0.23* 0.22* 0.13* 0.43* 0.32* 0.30* 0.23* 0.17* 0.18* 0.19* 0.01
Study 2
NPI 0.19* 0.17* 0.14* 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.17* 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06
HSNS 0.19* 0.26* 0.24* 0.06 0.31* 0.18* 0.16* 0.31* 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.11
DT-M 0.18* 0.16* 0.14* 0.02 0.11* 0.09 0.10 0.18* 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.05
DT-N 0.25* 0.15* 0.13* 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.11* 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.08
DT-P 0.19* 0.11* 0.09 0.20 0.17* 0.20* 0.16* 0.17* 0.12 0.19 0.23 0.14
SE 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.35* 0.19* 0.17* 0.22* 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.06
Table 6
Correlations between personality and motivations for taking seles in Studies 1 and 2. Note: NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-M Dark Triad
Machiavellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad Psychopathy; SE Self-esteem. 95% CIs available in supplemental data. * indicates signicant correlations,
p < 0.05.
Belongingness Self presentation Perform Leisure Informing Escapism Conformity Professional Boredom
Study 1
NPI 0.09 0.34* 0.13* 0.14* 0.07 0.14* 0.15* 0.09 0.14*
HSNS 0.17* 0.23* 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.19* 0.21* 0.10 0.09
DT-M 0.07 0.14* 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14* 0.17* 0.07 0.19*
DT-N 0.16* 0.35* 0.21* 0.30* 0.26* 0.21* 0.20* 0.16* 0.14*
DT-P 0.11* 0.31* 0.11* 0.13* 0.01 0.30* 0.25* 0.21* 0.18*
SE 0.02 0.01 0.15* 0.23* 0.14* 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.06
Study 2
NPI 0.04 0.23* 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.04
HSNS 0.27* 0.36* 0.07 0.12* 0.21* 0.18* 0.23* 0.12* 0.15*
DT-M 0.16* 0.26* 0.04 0.15* 0.14* 0.15* 0.13* 0.14* 0.20*
DT-N 0.11* 0.23* 0.01 0.22* 0.13* 0.14* 0.12* 0.16* 0.12*
DT-P 0.13* 0.20* 0.10 0.15* 0.15* 0.20* 0.14* 0.23* 0.17*
SE 0.15* 0.15* 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.16* 0.15* 0.12* 0.07
comments received by followers vs. non-followers, in addition to fashionable or happy. All of these aspects had ICCs above 0.75,
the Instagram statistics of total likes, comments, posts, and showing excellent reliability.
followers. As seen in Table 8, NPI and vulnerable narcissism showed similar
During data collection, participants were asked to sign into proles in terms of visual sele characteristics, and also resembled
Iconosquare using their Instagram account. Screenshots were taken dark triad Machiavellianism and psychopathy proles. All of these
of each page listed under the Statistics menu of Iconosquare, as well traits except psychopathy positively predicted appearing fashion-
as the My Media page listed under the Viewer menu, which lists all able to the judges, appearing sexy to the judges (although this
media posted by the participant. For the latter page, the researchers relationship was signicant only for Machiavellianism), having
scrolled to the bottom of the page and let older pictures load exactly ducklips (although this relationship was signicant only for
four times for each participant. psychopathy) and wearing makeup in the sele (although this
relationship was signicant only for NPI narcissism) and negatively
2.2. Results predicted appearing cheerful and smiling (although these re-
lationships were only signicant for psychopathy). Machiavel-
2.2.1. Iconosquare indices lianism positively predicted showing cleavage/skin. Individuals
For the ve pages of media collected from the My Media page of high in self-esteem appeared to be more cheerful and smiling and
Iconosquare, the total number of pictures and the total number of appeared less sexy to raters.
seles for each participant were counted. To account for differences We next examined ratings of narcissism, self-esteem, likability,
in how many total pictures had been posted in Instagram, a per- attractiveness and status. Participants high in NPI narcissism
centage of seles for each person was calculated. To account for appeared more narcissistic (r[199] 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29]), to
differences in how long participants had been on Instagram, we have higher self-esteem (r[199] 0.18, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]), and to
calculated their average posts per month, as well as likes and be more attractive (r[199] 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29]). There were no
comments received per month. signicant associations with vulnerable narcissism or self-esteem.
Dark triad narcissism was associated with a greater percentage Dark triad narcissism was related to appearing high in self-
of seles on Instagram(r[199] 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.36]). Person- esteem (r[199] 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30]), and dark triad psy-
ality was not signicantly related to average posts or likes received. chopathy (r[199] 19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.32]) and Machiavellianism (r
Participants high in Machiavellianism (r[199] 0.21, 95% CI [0.06, [199] 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30]) were related to appearing high in
0.35]) and psychopathy (r[199] 0.24, 95% CI [0.09, 0.38]) were narcissism.
more likely to receive likes from non-followers, while only partic-
ipants high in Machiavellianism (r[199] 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 2.2.2.1. Inferred emotions. NPI narcissism did not resemble any
0.30]) were more likely to receive comments from non-followers. other personality traits in its pattern of inferred emotion and
There were also some differences in when postings were made showed no signicant relationship to inferred emotions. However,
suggesting a general preference for evening hours. This is consis- vulnerable narcissism (r[199] 0.15, 95% CI [0.28, ?00.01]) and
tent with past work on the dark triad and nocturnal habits psychopathy (r[199] 0.20, 95% CI [0.33, ?00.06]) showed
(Jonason, Jones, & Lyons, 2013). Participants high in NPI narcissism negative relationships to happiness and largely positive relation-
were more likely to post on Instagram between midnight and 2:00 ships to sadness (HSNS, r[199] 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.28]) and
a.m. (average r[172] 0.17, 95% CI[0.02, 0.31]), whereas participants disgust (psychopathy, r[199] 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29]).
high in vulnerable narcissism were more likely to post between
2:00 and 4:00 a.m. (average r[172] 0.22, 95% CI[0.07, 0.36]). 2.2.2.2. Inferred motivations. HSNS (r[199] 0.17, 95% CI [0.30, ?
Participants with high self-esteem were also less likely to post 00.03]), Machiavellianism (r[199] 0.20, 95% CI [0.33, ?00.06]),
between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m., (average r[172] 0.20, 95% CI[0.34, and psychopathy (r[199] 0.16, 95% CI [0.29, ?00.02]) had
?00.05]) but participants high in psychopathy (average r negative relationships to more communal motives.
[172] 0.18, 95% CI[0.03, 0.32]) and Machiavelliansim (average r
[172] 0.21, 95% CI[0.06, 0.35]) were more likely to post between 2.2.3. Prole analysis of object factors and ratings
2:00 and 5:00 a.m. Finally, those high in dark triad narcissism were We conducted a prole analysis using a double entry method for
more likely to post between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., average r the full spectrum of correlations in this section. We found that the
[172] 0.18, 95% CI[0.03, 0.32]. prole of the NPI narcissism looked similar to the dark triad traits
and, to a lesser degree, vulnerable narcissism. Vulnerable narcis-
2.2.2. Ratings by nave judges sism looked similar to Machiavellianism and psychopathy but to a
All images identied as seles from the My Media page of lesser extent dark triad narcissism. Self-esteem had no or a negative
Iconosquare were cropped from the page (i.e., separated from other relationship with all traits (see Table 9).
pictures of the same participant) and randomly presented to two of
eight possible nave coders. Each pair of two coders rated the same 3. General discussion
subset of seles on a variety of aspects, including perceived traits,
emotions, and motivations of the individual taking the sele. In In two large data sets we examined the associations between
order to measure interrater reliability, random effects (between narcissism (grandiose and vulnerable), the dark triad, and self-
subjects) intraclass correlations (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) were esteem with sele behavior that was self-reported (Studies 1 and
conducted between each set of two coders ratings for the same 2) or assessed objectively and rated (Study 2).
targets for each aspect separately. ICCs for the majority of ratings Given the large number of correlations, we will only focus on the
fall in the fair range (i.e., 0.400.75; Fleiss, 1986). The aspects for major themes in the data. First, grandiose narcissism (as measured
which ICCs were poor include whether participants struck a pose by the NPI and SD3; the two had similar proles in both samples) is
or appeared muscular and judge-inferred self-esteem, attractive- generally associated with taking and posting more seles e and
ness, intelligence, drive, fear, and surprise. All of these aspects had especially true seles with only the individual in it. Grandiose
ICCs below 0.4 and should be interpreted with caution. The aspects narcissism is associated with feeling good while taking seles, and
for which ICCs were especially good include whether participants with the primary motivation for doing so being self-presentation.
were smiling, wearing eyewear or makeup, and appeared cheerful, This is consistent with the approach-oriented nature of
132 J.L. McCain et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 126e133
Table 8
Correlations between personality and visual characteristics in Instagram seles (Study 2). Note: NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-M Dark
Triad Machiavellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad Psychopathy; SE Self-esteem. 95% CIs available in supplemental data. * indicates signicant
correlations, p < 0.05.
Filter Graphics Pose Smiling Eyewear Fashionable Neat Cheerful Makeup Cleavage Muscular Provocative Sexy Ducklips Goofy
* *
NPI 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.06 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.04
HSNS 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.20* 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.11
DT-M 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.16* 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.15* 0.02 0.07 0.18* 0.06 0.04
DT-N 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.03
DT-P 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.21* 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.23* 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.19* 0.08
SE 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.16* 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19* 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.18* 0.07 0.01
Table 9 method bias). We would hope this type of work would be replicated
Prole analysis of personality traits with regards to ratings by nave judges. Note: and that other samples would be used.
NPI Grandiose Narcissism; HSNS Vulnerable Narcissism; DT-M Dark Triad
This study was correlational, thus we can speculate about
Machiavellianism; DT-N Dark Triad Narcissism; DT-P Dark Triad Psychopathy;
SESelf-esteem. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. mechanism but do not have evidence of mechanisms. Ideally future
research will include experimental paradigms and mediational
NPI HSNS DT-N DT-M DT-P SE
methods that get at mechanisms more directly.
NPI 1.00 0.47** 0.60** 0.76** 0.58** 0.09
HSNS 1.00 0.28* 0.74** 0.74** 0.42**
3.2. Conclusion
DT-N 1.00 0.43** 0.56** 0.15
DT-M 1.00 0.80** 0.26*
DT-P 1.00 0.55** Along with results from other studies of seles and social media
SE 1.00 more broadly, a picture of grandiose narcissism is emerging.
Grandiose narcissism is well suited for social media in terms of
engagement, positive affect, and self-presentational or self-
narcissism (Campbell et al., 2006; Foster & Trimm, 2008) and also enhancement motives. The only real downside we have seen is
consistent with the conceptualization of seles as a self-regulatory that grandiose narcissism is reected, albeit darkly, in social media
act for narcissists. Consistent with past research on narcissism in for all to see. Vulnerable narcissism, however, differs substantially
photographs (e.g., Vazire et al., 2008), nave observers are able to from grandiose narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism is associated
detect grandiose narcissism from seles, but only to a modest with negative affect and does not have the pay-off in terms of
extent, and also see grandiose narcissistic sele takers as higher in likes or likability that grandiose narcissism has. Overall, this
self-esteem and attractiveness. suggests that vulnerable narcissism is not ideally suited for social
The link between vulnerable narcissism and seles was gener- media.
ally weaker than for grandiose narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism
was not associated with more seles overall, although there was a Appendix A. Supplementary data
positive link with seles that include only the self and engagement
with Instagram. In general, vulnerable narcissism was associated Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
with more negative affect when taking seles, consistent with the dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.050.
vulnerability and emotionality typically associated with vulnerable
narcissism (Miller et al., 2011). References
The dark triad factors of psychopathy and Machiavellianism
looked generally like grandiose narcissism, especially psychopathy. American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. (2015). Sele trend
increases demand for facial plastic surgery. Retrieved from http://www.aafprs.
Psychopathy, however, had a little more negative affect involved in org/media/press_release/20140311.html.
sele taking. Barry, C. T., Doucette, H., Loin, D. C., Rivera-hudson, N., Lacey, L., Barry, C. T., et al.
Self-esteem differed markedly from the other traits in the study. (29 June 2015). Let Me Take a Sele: associations between self-photography,
narcissism, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1e13.
It did not show a strong pattern of associations with seles. Argu-
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking Web
ably the most pronounced nding with self-esteem was the lack of sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303e1314.
negative affect associated with sele taking. Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-
regulation, and romantic relationships: An agency model approach. Self and
Overall, this work replicates and extends past research on
Relationships: Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes, 57e83.
narcissism and seles. Notably we used multiple samples, self- Carstensen, L. L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hersheld, H., Samanez-
reported data, objective data, and observed criteria. Grandiose Larkin, G. R., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2011). Emotional experience improves with
narcissism is linked positively to sele taking. This appears to be in age: evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychology and
Aging, 26, 21e23.
part a self-enhancement strategy (e.g., self-presentation, positive Fleiss, J. L. (1986). Reliability of measurement. The design and analysis of clinical ex-
affect, appearance of self-esteem). Grandiose narcissism also ap- periments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
pears to be successful in that it is associated with more likes and Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and
approacheavoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
more followers. The one downside in grandiose narcissism and 1004e1017.
seles is the appearance of narcissism e at least to nave observers. Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectication as pre-
dictors of mens use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites.
Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161e165.
Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K.
3.1. Limitations
(2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The narcissistic
personality inventory-13 and the narcissistic personality inventory-16. Psy-
We used two reasonably large samples, but our more objective chological Assessment, 25, 1120e1136.
data were only based on a student sample. Data of this type are Gosling, S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007). Personality impressions based on
Facebook proles. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 1e4.
more challenging to collect than self-report data but are in some Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (2013). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reex-
ways more interesting (especially in that they avoid common amination of Murrays narcism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31,
J.L. McCain et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 126e133 133