The Relationship between Internet Social Networking, Social Anxiety,

Self Esteem, Narcissism, and Gender among College Students

By
Diana E. Weiss, M.S.Ed.
A Doctoral Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Psychology
in the Department of Psychology at Pace University
New York
2013
UMI Number: 3570710
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Di!ss0?t&iori PiiblistMlg
UMI 3570710
Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
NAME:
PSY.D PROJECT FINAL APPROVAL FORM
Diana E. Weiss___________________ .
TITLE OF PROJECT: The Relationship between Internet Social Networking. Social
Anxiety. Self Esteem. Narcissism, and Gender among College
Students _________
DOCTORAL PROJECT COMMITTEE
PROJECT ADVISOR:
Name
Associate Professor Pace Universitv
Title Affiliation
Weihua Niu, Ph.D.
Name
Professor Pace Universitv
Title Affiliation
FINAL APPROVAL OF COMPLETED PROJECT:
I have read the final version of the doctoral project and certify that it meets the relevant
requirements for the Psy.D. degree in School-Clinical Child Psychology.
Project Advisors Signature
Project Consultants Signature
Date
-T/V'J
Date
2013
Diana E. Weiss
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have completed this project without the assistance of many key
people. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Megan Kozak, my consultant, Dr. Weihua
Niu, and Stephen Salbod, for their wisdom and tireless assistance as I struggled through
this process. I would especially like to thank my fiance, Sergey Morozov; as well as my
friends, especially liana Levin and Dr. Steven Fried; and my cohort members, especially
Smith Kidkamdee, Antonia Busack, Taoxin Zeng, and Karen Marks Pinto for their
constant and unwavering love, dedication, support, and direct assistance at all stages of
this endeavor. In addition, I would like to thank Peter Mitsel without whom none of this
would have been achievable, and my family: Marianne Manning-Weiss, Jeannette Weiss-
Ilyevsky, Jonathan Weiss, Richard Weiss, Maya Mitsel, Ilya Mitsel, Dr. Dmitry Ilyevsky,
Christina Lebron, and others whose love and support has made it possible for me to
overcome flagging motivation and produce a completed project. I am profoundly
grateful to you all and I thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
n LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 3
Personality and Online Social Networking................................................................ 7
Big Five Theory and the Five Factor Model of Personality.......................7
The Big Five Model and Online Social Networking................................. 10
Narcissism....................................................................................................... 11
Narcissism and Online Social Networking................................................. 13
Social Anxiety, Self Esteem, and Online Social Networking................................14
Social Anxiety.................................................................................................14
Social Anxiety and Online Social Networking.......................................... 19
Self Esteem.................................................................................................... 20
Self Esteem and Online Social Networking............................................... 22
Self Esteem and Social Anxiety................................................................... 23
Gender and Online Social Networking.................................................................... 24
Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study.......................................................... 25
Research Questions.................................................................................................... 26
Main Hypotheses........................................................................................................27
Exploratory Analyses................................................................................................. 27
m METHOD.................................................................................................................... 28
Participants...................................................................................................................28
Materials...................................................................................................................... 29
SNS usage.......................................................................................................29
Social Anxiety.................................................................................................29
Self Esteem.....................................................................................................30
Narcissism.......................................................................................................31
Procedures....................................................................................................................31
IV........ RESULTS....................................................................................................................33
Hypotheses...................................................................................................................34
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................34
Hypothesis 1....................................................................................................34
Hypothesis 2....................................................................................................35
Exploratory Analyses................................................................................................. 36
Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 36
Research Question 3 ..................................................................................... 36
Question 1.......................................................................................................37
Question 2 .......................................................................................................38
Research Question 4 ......... 39
Question 1 ...................................................................................................... 39
Question 2 ...................................................................................................... 39
vi
V DISCUSSION............................................................................................................. 41
Summary, Implications, and Limitations.................................................................41
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 46
APPENDICES
A. Consent Form......................................................................................................................63
B. Questionnaire......................................................................................................................65
C. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS-SR).................................................................. 67
D. Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale............................................................................................70
E. Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16)................................................................... 71
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Pearson Correlation Statistics for Total Time Spent
on SNS and Level of Social Anxiety.................................................................... 34
Table 2. Summary of Effect Size (Partial), Significance,
Collinearity Statistics, and Confidence Interval of the Predictors.................... 35
Table 3. Simple Slope Coefficients for Low and Normal Self Esteem.......................... 35
Table 4. Summary of Pearson Correlation Statistics for Level of
Social Anxiety and the three Domains of SNS use (p<.05)................................36
Table 5. Pearson Correlation Statistics for Total Time Spent
on SNS and Level of Narcissism (p<.05).............................................................37
Table 6. Pearson Correlation Statistics for Status Updates
on SNS and Level of Narcissism (p<.05)............................................................ 38
Table 7. Independent Samples t-test Statistics for Time Spent
on SNS by Gender ..................................................................................................39
Table 8. Summary of Independent Samples t-test Statistics for
the three Domains of SNS Use by Gender.......................................................... 40
ABSTRACT
The use of the internet as a social medium has been demonstrated to have both
positive and negative consequences and the question of who uses these Social
Networking Sites (SNSs), and why, is one of interest and concern. Better understanding
of who uses SNSs and why they choose to, can help target interventions toward those for
whom SNS use may lead to problematic outcomes and encourage the use of those for
whom SNSs are beneficial. Many researchers, following the indications of social
network theory, looked to personality traits and features in order to explain SNS activity,
and found significant support for this rich get richer theory. Other lines of inquiry
pursued narcissism, self esteem, and social anxiety, independently, as predictors of SNS
use. Yet many findings in this area are conflicting.
The primary aim of this research was to elucidate further the question of a
relationship between social anxiety, self esteem, narcissism, and SNS use. A secondary
goal was to evaluate differences in types of SNS use for the socially anxious individual.
Additionally, the issue of gender differences in SNS activity was explored. The sample
consisted of 171 male and female college students aged 18-30. Participants completed a
self report demographic form, which detailed their amount and purpose for using the SNS
Facebook, the Leibowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Self Report, the Rosenberg Self Esteem
Scale, and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (16).
Analyses of the data collected indicated that social anxiety was not related to the
overall amount of time individuals spent using the SNS Facebook nor was self esteem
found to moderate the lack of consistency. Narcissism was also shown to be unrelated to
an individuals total time spent using their SNS or their number of status updates.
However, data collected about the purpose of SNS use did indicate that
individuals who report high levels of social anxiety are more apt to use SNSs for the
purposes of gathering information, and especially for the purposes of connection.
Findings indicated that gender did not influence the amount of time an individual chose
to spend using the SNS Facebook. However, women were found to be more likely to use
Facebook for friendship purposes than men. Future research on social network theory
should aim to explore the differences in purposes of internet use, especially when
considering the use of SNSs.
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study explores individuals personality characteristics, demographics, level
of narcissism, level of self esteem, and level of social anxiety as they relate to online
social networking. This chapter consists of a brief overview of online social networking
and social network theory. In addition, the relationship between these ideas, self esteem,
social anxiety, narcissism, and gender are briefly discussed. These concepts, the
statement of purpose, the research questions and the hypotheses and exploratory analyses
associated with them, are discussed in further detail in the subsequent chapter.
One of the newer interests in the field of psychology is internet use, with specific
attention to online social networking. Boyd and Ellison (2007) define Social Networking
Site (SNS) as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi
public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by
others within the system. The use of the internet as a social medium has been
demonstrated to have myriad consequences and the question of who uses these SNSs, and
why, is one of interest and concern.
Many researchers, following the indications of social network theory, looked to
personality traits and features in order to explain SNS activity, and found significant
support for this rich get richer theory. However, research findings with regard to the
relationship between narcissism and SNS use have been contradictory. A second line of
inquiry, following the second prediction of social network theory, pursued self esteem
and social anxiety, independently, as predictors of SNS use. Yet many findings in this
area are also conflicting. Some research supports social network theory while other
research suggests that the socially anxious individual uses SNSs for different purposes.
Additionally, research in the area of self esteem in general has found that it may have a
moderating effect on social anxiety.
Thus the primary aim of this research was to attempt to elucidate further the
question of a relationship between social anxiety, self esteem, narcissism, and SNS use.
The relationship of gender to SNS use was also explored.
CHAPTER H
LITERATURE REVIEW
The internet first opened to commercial use in 1988. Internet use can be
considered along two lines. These are internet use for information gathering and internet
use as a social medium (Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). While the internet has
always been a place for users to get information and search out products that cater to their
needs, we are increasingly seeing the proliferation of websites designed for social
purposes. These websites include Match.com and E-Harmony.com, which seek to unite
local singles. Facebook.com and Myspace.com are forums on which you can develop a
profile, post pictures of yourself, list your interests, likes and dislikes, and receive
feedback on both your profile and your interests from friends who are also users. In fact,
in 2011, Facebook reported having more than 500 million active users, with 50% of these
users logging on to Facebook on any given day. Additionally, the site reported that of
their users 200 million also connect to Facebook through mobile applications and these
users are twice as active on the site (Facebook, 2011). A study conducted by the
University of New Hampshire found that Facebook was both the most commonly used
SNS among college students and was most commonly used for the purposes of
socialization (Bart, 2009). Other sites, such as Google.com and Yahoo.com, provide
features called Groups, which allow users to join forums like book clubs, music groups,
and support groups. There are groups for every interest, goal, and proclivity one can
possibly imagine, and if by chance you happen upon an interest without a group you can
make one - and these groups are spanning the globe.
Not only are we seeing this increase in internet socialization, we are seeing an
increase in the immediacy of connection. In the last fifteen years internet connection has
zoomed from simple dial-up, to cable and DSL, to T1 and T3 connections. We can
upload and download images with a mouse click. The reduction in the cost, size, and
weight of laptops and the increase in public WiFi (wireless internet) connections have
made getting online easier than ever. The introduction of the i-phone and the nokia n95
have made it simply a matter of signing up to be instantly alerted if someone comments
on our online profiles or posts something new on their own. All of these technological
advances are available to individuals around the world. With our interconnectedness
rapidly developing, it is important to consider just how much of a role internet use plays
in our lives.
Much of the research on Internet communication, such as the use of SNSs, has
demonstrated that it can have positive consequences for users by, for example, increasing
social support, enabling easier connections with friends, and facilitating the formation of
new relationships (Kraut et al., 2002; Parks & Roberts, 1998). The internet may also
offer a relatively safe place to have social interactions without requiring the social skills
demanded of in person interactions (Ybarra, Alexander, & Mitchell, 2005).
Yet the use of SNSs can also have negative consequences. One example of such a
consequence is cyber bullying. Similar to typical bullying, it is correlated with significant
health and psychological issues, which include symptoms of low self-esteem, poor
academic performance, depression, emotional distress, violence, and suicide (Finkelhor,
Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000; & Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borun, & Modzeleski, 2002).
5
Mesch (2009) found that the risk for being bullied is higher for individuals who have an
active profile on a SNS than for individuals using other forms of internet communication.
Apart from cyber bullying, Whitlock, Powers, and Eckenrode (2006) found that
online interactions may normalize and encourage self-injurious behavior and add
potentially lethal behaviors to the repertoires of self-injurers as well as those exploring
identity options. Some studies suggests that users can become so involved with the
internet that they are no longer able to control their online activity and may develop
symptoms of compulsive internet use (Johansson & Gotestam, 2004; Wang, 2001).
Compulsive internet use, or internet addiction, has been associated with low self esteem,
loneliness, and depression (Niemz, Griffiths, & Banyard, 2005). Jenaro, Flores, Gomez-
Vela, Gonzales-Gil, and Caballo (2007) even linked heavy internet use with high anxiety.
Additionally, Manago, Graham, Greenfield, and Salimkhan (2008) found that while SNSs
provide valuable opportunities for self exploration, they increase the pressure of female
sexual objectification, intensify social comparison, and may negatively impact identity
development.
Given the potential negative outcomes of internet use in general, and SNS use in
particular, how these sites affect the individuals who use them remains an area of
research. The fact that some research has shown that users identify as strongly with their
online communities as they do with their own families (Lehdonvirta & Rasanen, 2011)
makes the question of who uses them and why both interesting and frequently asked.
SNS use and activity can be classified in a variety of ways ranging from total time
spent on SNSs for a particular period of time (Orr et al., 2009) to frequency of status
updates on particular sites (Schwartz, 2011). Perhaps most comprehensively, SNS use
6
can be classified along dimensions of use (Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2010). Using factor
analysis Bonds-Raacke and Raacke (2010) determined that SNS use falls along three
dimensions: Information, Connection, and Friendship. Individuals whose use of SNSs
fell in the information dimension used SNSs for the purposes of gathering and sharing
information (e.g., to post social functions, to learn about events, and to share information
about themselves). The authors report that individuals who utilized SNSs for the reasons
in this dimension, obtained gratification from gathering and sharing of information
related to themselves and others. Individuals whose SNS use fell along the friendship
dimension were more inclined to use the site for reasons that were conceptually related to
sustaining friendships. These users indicated that participating on SNSs allowed them to
keep in touch with both old and new friends and to locate old friends. Finally,
individuals whose use fell in the connection dimension tended to use SNSs for purposes
related to making connections with others through the websites. Reasons in this
dimension included making new friends, finding a significant other, and feeling
connected in general.
One theory that attempts to explain SNS use is social network theory. This theory
suggests that that the more people are socially connected, the more intensely they are
likely to communicate using the various media tools available to them. As with earlier
advances in communication technology, the Internet promotes the connection of people,
both in close proximity and in geographically distant areas, through participation on
SNSs (Haythomthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001).
Social network theory suggests that Internet social communication supplements, and is an
extension of, traditional social behaviors. This rich get richer theory is consistent with
7
findings by Robinson, Kestnbaum, Neustadtl, and Alvarez (2000) that frequent internet
users have more active social lives than non-internet users. The theory led to interest in
personality as a motivating factor in SNS use, especially since earlier research had
demonstrated that Extroversion predicted more traditional social contacts and higher
levels of social support (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Lu, 1997). Along similar lines the
theory predicts that those with limited social connectedness will be less likely to use
SNSs and thus researchers additionally began looking at individuals who were shy or
socially anxious because earlier research suggested that they would have limited
traditional social networks (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998).
Personality and Online Social Networking
Big Five Theory and the Five Factor Model of personality. The Five Factor
Model of personality, which spawns from the Big Five theory, dominates current thinking
and research in the area of personality psychology. In their article comparing different
models of personality, Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, and Kraft (1993) describe
the origins of factor models of personality in the work and research of Cattell and
Eysenck, which predate the Five Factor Model. Factor models of personality tend to
subscribe to a lexical hypothesis, which has two postulates. The first states that the most
important aspects of personality for a particular group will be included in their language.
The second states that more important personality characteristics are more likely to be
encoded into language as a single word (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988). Based on
this hypothesis, researchers culled through dictionaries and performed factor analyses on
groups of adjectives in an effort to elucidate the underlying dimensions of personality.
This technique has resulted in the derivation of a number of theories and, subsequently,
8
models of personality, including the Big Five theory and its associated Five Factor
Model. According to De Radd (1998), The Big Five personality traits are basic trait
factors that are supposed to capture the gamut of meanings of personality characteristics
(p. 113).
The Five-Factor Model describes variations in personality along five dimensions.
The dimensions are known as the Big Five and include Extraversion, Openness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness (Gurven, von Rueden, Massenkoff,
Kaplan, & Lero Vie, 2013). These dimensions, or domains, incorporate hundreds of
personality traits. Each domain provides a continuum of behavior. Neuroticism is a
domain that describes behaviors and traits that fall on a continuum ranging from
emotional instability to adjustment. Extraversion describes an individuals need for
stimulation, activity, assertiveness, and quantity and intensity of interpersonal
interactions. An individuals degree of Openness is indicative of their flexibility of
thought and tolerance, sensitivity, and openness to feelings, experiences, and new ideas.
Agreeableness is a domain that describes an individuals interpersonal orientation and
ranges from compassionate to antagonistic. Finally, Conscientiousness describes an
individuals degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal directed behavior
(Bateman & Crant, 1993).
The domains individually, and in combination, can be used to describe particular
traits. For example, anger and hostility are mainly associated with the Big Five
dimensions of Neuroticism and Agreeableness, with the first in a positive form and the
second in a negative form (Fiske, 1949; Sanz, Garcfa-Vera, & Magan, 2010). This means
that an individual who is high on Neuroticism and low on Agreeableness is likely to
display aggressive and hostile behaviors. Though the theory has not gone unchallenged,
the Five Factor Model remains a widely accepted construct within personality
psychology.
The Big Five have been used as a platform on which to predict the characteristics
of many different groups of people. For example, researchers have looked at the
characteristics of successful business majors (Lounsbury, Smith, Levy, Leong, & Gibson,
2009), the relationship between personality and grade point average for physical
education teacher candidates (Tok & Morali, 2009), the personality characteristics that
result in employee absenteeism (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997), the distinctive
personality traits of psychology majors (Naydenova, Lounsbury, Levy, & Kim, 2012), the
characteristics of counselor trainees that enable them to work with a wide variety of
clients (Thompson, Brossart, Carlozzi, & Miville, 2002), and the links between
personality and transformation leadership behavior (Judge & Bono, 2000). It is
consistent, therefore, to use this model to look at the characteristics of internet users.
Thus, there has been some research into the relationship between internet use in
general and personality characteristics using the Big Five. For example, van der Aa et al.
(2009) conducted a study with 7888 Dutch adolescents (11-21 years old) and found that
daily Internet use was more strongly related to compulsive internet use in individuals
who were Introverted, low Agreeable, and emotionally less-stable. They also found that
compulsive internet use was more strongly linked to loneliness in individuals who were
Introverted and emotionally less-stable.
The Big Five model and online social networking. Much of the research
addressing SNS activity has focused on the first prediction of social network theory: that
10
those individuals with large traditional social networks will be more likely to use SNSs.
Thus, research has focused on the personality of SNS users, in search of a particular trait
that motivates higher SNS use. There has been significant success along this line of
inquiry. With regard to the Big Five model of personality, and consistent with social
network theory, for example, Lu and Hsiao (2010) found that Extraverts think more
highly of the social value of SNSs than Introverts who place more importance on the
emotional value of such sites. Correa, Hinsely, and de Zuniga (2010) revealed in their
research that Extraversion and Openness positively related to social media use. This was
consistent with earlier findings, which demonstrated Extraversion and Neuroticism to
have direct positive effects on social networking (Li & Mingxin, 2005). More recent
research has linked Extraverted, Unconscientious, individuals with higher levels of SNS
use and addictive tendencies (Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010).
In addition to looking at total use, researchers have looked at the activities SNS
users perform online as a function of particular personality traits. For example, not only
did Ryan and Xenos (2011) find in their research that Facebook users tend to be more
Extraverted and narcissistic than nonusers, they additionally noted that the frequency of
SNS use, and an individuals preferences for specific use features, varied as a result of
certain characteristics, such as Neuroticism, loneliness, shyness, and narcissism. Wang,
Jackson, Zhang, and Su (2012) found that Extraverts are more likely to use SNS
functions, such as status updates and commenting, as a form of communication, while
more Neurotic individuals are more likely to use functions, such as status updates, as a
form of self expression. They additionally, found that more Agreeable individuals were
inclined to make more comments on the profiles of other people. SNS users who scored
11
high on measures of Openness and sensation seeking were more likely to play games on
their SNSs.
Narcissism. Hartman (1950) defined narcissism as the libidinal cathexis of the
self. In other words it is a form of self love. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a mental
disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need
for admiration. Pathological narcissists have exaggeratedly favorable self-views, or
inflated self-concepts (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The American Psychiatric Association
(2000) defines Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity,
need for admiration, and lack of empathy that begins by early adulthood and presents in a
variety of contexts.
Blais and Little (2010) note that the expression of narcissism, as a trait, spans the
continuum of normal to pathological. They indicate that pathological levels of narcissism
have been studied mainly through clinical case reports while trait narcissism has been
studied more empirically. Trait theories of narcissism suggest that narcissism is part of
normal psychology and it is the degree to which it is expressed, rather than the existence
of the trait, which results in functional impairment (Miller & Campbell, 2010). In fact,
Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, and Rusbult (2004) conducted five studies, which
established that normal levels of narcissism are correlated with good psychological
health.
Theories of the etiology of narcissism stem from the work of Otto Kemberg, who
saw narcissism as a form of intrapsychic conflict, and Heinz Kohut, who postulated the
now prevailing theory of the disorder, which is that it results from experiential deficits
12
(Glassman, 1988). In his statistical analyses, Glassman (1998) found significant support
for this deficit model of narcissism.
Wink (1991) identified two dimensions of narcissism. He labeled them
grandiosity-exhibitionism, which results in grandiose or overt narcissism, and
vulnerability-sensitivity, which results in vulnerable or covert narcissism. The grandiose
narcissist tends to be exhibitionistic, has a strong need for the admiration of others, and
seeks to maintain a pretentious self image, while the vulnerable narcissist is preoccupied
by grandiose fantasies, has fragile self confidence, and vacillates between feeling
superior and inferior to others.
This model has been borne out by differences in associations and outcomes
between the two identified types of narcissism. For example, Schoenleber, Sadeh, and
Verona (2011) examined how the different dimensions of narcissism related to the
psychopathic personality. They found that grandiose narcissism was associated with
social dysfunction in the form of a manipulative and deceitful interpersonal style and
unprovoked aggression. Vulnerable narcissism, on the other hand, showed stronger
associations to other forms of psychopathology, such as internalizing and substance use
disorders, and self- and other-directed aggression.
Besser and Zeigler-Hill (2011) looked at how humor relates to narcissism in a
group of Jewish-Israeli undergraduate students and found that grandiose narcissism was
positively associated with adaptive humor, whereas vulnerable narcissism was negatively
associated with adaptive humor and positively associated with maladaptive humor. In
general, these dimensions are well established and Miller, Widiger, and Campbell (2010)
13
even suggest that they should be included in the development of diagnostic criteria for the
new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, DSM-V.
Other studies, however, have not distinguished between these two dimensions of
narcissism. For example, Judge, LePine, and Rich (2006) looked at the relationship
between narcissism and self and other evaluations of leadership. They found that
narcissism was related to an enhanced self perception of leadership, but was significantly
negatively related to others perceptions of leadership. Luhtanen and Crocker (2005)
found that narcissism, as a single construct, could successfully predict alcohol use among
college students. Additionally, Bushman, and Baumeister (1998) found that high levels
of narcissism, as one construct, combined with insult, were correlated with exceptionally
high levels of aggression. Due to the fact that narcissism has been closely linked with
self esteem and loneliness, many researchers question its relationship to internet use,
specifically online social networking (Schwartz, 2011). Most studies that have attempted
to explore this relationship have considered narcissism as a single trait.
Narcissism and online social networking. Narcissism has frequently been
linked to SNS use in support of social network theory, though some research is
conflicting. Buffardi and Campbell (2008) found that narcissism predicted both higher
levels of social activity in the online community as well as more self promoting content
on SNS webpages. Ong and colleagues (2011) looked to narcissism as a predictor of self
presentation on adolescent SNS webpages and found that, even when controlling for
Extraversion, narcissism predicted self generated content, such as profile picture rating
and status update frequency, but did not predict system generated content such as social
network size.
Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, and Bergman (2011) found that while
narcissism was not related to the amount of time an individual spent on their SNS, the
frequency of their status updates, their posting pictures of others, or their following of
SNS friends, it did predict reasons why individuals used SNSs. For example, having as
many SNS friends as possible, a finding also noted by Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, and
Campbell (2012), wanting their SNS friends to know what they were doing, believing
their SNS friends were interested in their actions, and having their SNS profiles project a
positive image. Wang et al., (2012) found that narcissistic users were more likely to
upload their attractive photos onto their SNS and tended to update their statuses for the
purposes of self-presentation. Although other research by Schwartz (2011) found little
relationship between narcissism and SNS use, this may have been due to study
constraints rather than an actual departure from social network theory.
Social Anxiety, Self Esteem, and Online Social Networking
Social anxiety. Social anxiety has been defined as the enduring experience of
discomfort, negative ideation, and incompetence in the performance and anticipation of
interpersonal interactions (Hartman, 1986). This type of anxiety may result when an
individual anticipates the possibility or occurrence of personal evaluation, in both real
and imagined social situations (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). According to McNeil (2010)
social anxieties and fears, like other phobic disorders, exist along a continuum across the
general population. Thus individuals can experience varying levels of social anxiety.
For instance one particular individual may experience anxiety at the moment they stand
up to give a speech in front of an audience, while another individual may experience
anxiety at the mere thought of having to get up to give a speech. According to the
15
American Psychiatric Association (2000), the essential feature of Social Anxiety
Disorder (SAD), the most extreme form of social anxiety, is a marked and persistent fear
of one or more social or performance situations where there are unfamiliar people or
possible scrutiny by others. The individual fears acting in an embarrassing or humiliating
way or exhibiting anxiety. The feared social and performance situations are either
avoided or endured with excessive anxiety or distress, and exposure to the situation
invariably creates anxiety.
Due to the negative experiences associated with this type of anxiety, researchers
have long been curious about what motivates social phobias and anxiety. It has been
suggested that people with social phobia may have a maladaptive schema that emphasizes
a developmental history of perceived disconnection from others and social rejection
(Pinto-Gouveia, Castilho, Galhardo, & Cunha, 2006). Consistent with this idea, another
study found that SAD was related to perceiving oneself as having low social rank, being
inferior, and behaving submissively, as well as to low perceived intimacy and closeness
among peer relations, friendships and romantic relationships (Weisman, Aderka, Marom,
Hermesh, & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2011).
Other researchers have sought to explore the role perfectionism plays in social
anxiety. Nepon, Flett, Hewitt, and Molnar (2011), for example, explored the possibility
of a hierarchical relationship between perfectionism and social anxiety. They confirmed
that socially prescribed perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation were
associated significantly with negative social feedback and rumination following
interpersonal injuries such as being hurt, humiliated, or mistreated. In turn, they found
social anxiety to be significantly associated with negative social feedback, interpersonal
16
rumination, trait perfectionism, and perfectionistic self-presentation. Recent
experimental evidence has also confirmed that anticipated social rejection plays a role in
the development and maintenance of social anxiety (Voncken, Dijk, de Jong, & Roelofs,
2010).
Emerging evidence supports the notion that fear of evaluation, in general, is
important in social anxiety. This includes fear of positive evaluation as well as negative
evaluation (Weeks, Jakatdar, & Heimberg, 2010). This coincides with the evolutionary
account of social anxiety put forth by Gilbert (2001), which suggests that social anxiety is
an evolutionary mechanism that facilitates nonviolent group interactions. The theory
suggests that avoiding negative evaluation would have been adaptive in demonstrating to
others that one is worthy of social investments, and would have helped to avoid conflict
with individuals of higher rank in the social hierarchy. Consistent with this, La Greca
and Harrison (2005) found that relational victimization and negative interactions in best
friendships predicted high social anxiety, and Mahoney and McEvoy (2012) found that a
reduction in an individuals intolerance of uncertainty led to a reduction in symptoms of
social anxiety.
Regardless of its origins, researchers have demonstrated that social anxiety is
correlated with many other distressing states. According to Banerjee and Henderson
(2001) and Rapee and Spence (2004) social anxiety may be linked with poorer social-
cognitive functioning, such as understanding the mental states of others in social
interactions or assuming negative outcomes of social behaviors (as cited in Norton,
2010). Additionally, Regev, Shahar, and Lipsitz (2012) found that social self-criticism
predicted depressive and social anxiety symptoms. Social interaction anxiety, in
17
particular, has been associated with low positive affect (Hughes et al., 2006).
Additionally, Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, and Engels (2005) found that college students
suffering from high levels of social anxiety tended to use alcohol as a coping strategy,
whereas students with less social anxiety drank for social or enhancement reasons.
Perhaps the biggest difficulty associated with this type of anxiety is that socially
anxious individuals show a marked disadvantage in their ability to establish and maintain
social relationships compared to their less socially anxious peers (Craske, 1999;
Holfmann & Barlow, 2002). Biggs, Vemberg, and Wu (2012) suggested, and found
preliminary support for, the idea that social anxiety is associated with social withdrawal,
which in turn, is related to lower companionship and intimacy in individuals friendships.
The idea that socially anxious individuals suffer from relational difficulties is supported
by the work of Herbert, Fakes, Nangle, Papadakis, and Grover (2012) who found that
individuals who were high on social anxiety suffered subsequent impairment in their
same sex friendships and, indirectly, in their romantic relationships. According to
research findings presented by Van Zalk, Van Zalk, Kerr, and Stattin (2011), youths who
are socially anxious are less likely to be popular and often chose fewer friends from their
surrounding social network. These individuals were also likely to choose friends who
were socially anxious themselves and, over time, they influenced each other into
becoming more socially anxious. Finally, they reported that girls' social anxiety was
more influenced than boys' by their friends' social anxiety levels. Studies conducted with
adult populations demonstrated a similar effect, showing a unique association between
social anxiety and friendship impairment (Rodebaugh, 2009).
One well respected measure of social anxiety is the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Self
Report Scale (LSAS-SR). This scale was originally designed as a 24 item semi
structured interview measure of fear and avoidance experienced in a range of social and
performance situations (Liebowitz, 1987), but was modified into a self report version by
several independent groups (Cox, Ross, Swinson, & Direnfeld, 1998; Fresco et al., 2001).
The self report scale offers ease of administration while still maintaining a structure and
psychometric properties that are highly similar to those of the original scale (Oakman,
Van Ameringen, Mancini, & Farvolden, 2003). Fresco et al. (2001) compared the self
report version to the original scale using the following instructions, which were read to
participants and reiterated as necessary:
(1) this measure assesses the way that social phobia plays a role in your life across
a variety of situations; (2) read each situation carefully and answer two questions
about that situation; (3)the first question asks how anxious or fearful you feel in
the situation; (4) the second question asks how often you avoid the situation; (5) if
you come across a situation that you ordinarily do not experience, we ask that you
imagine what if you were faced with that situation, and then rate the degree to
which you would fear this hypothetical situation and how often you would tend to
avoid it. Please base your ratings on the way that the situations have affected you
in the last week. (Fresco et al., 2001, p. 1027)
The authors report that these instructions may have made their version of the
LSAS-SR less similar to other self report measures but assert that they chose to do this
because previous studies, which had supplied no instructions, obtained mixed results.
Social anxiety and online social networking. In order to evaluate the second
prediction of social network theory: that individuals with limited traditional social
networks would be less likely to use SNSs, researchers have focused their attention on
socially anxious individuals. Based on the research described above, it can be assumed
that individuals with this difficulty are unlikely to have large real life social networks,
thus they fit the requirements of study for this second prediction. However, research
findings around the second prediction tend to be particularly conflicting. Consistent with
social network theory, some research does indicate that socially anxious individuals
communicate less online than non-socially anxious individuals (Valkenburg & Peter,
2007).
Yet, additional research demonstrates a limited relationship between social
anxiety and SNS use. Stevens and Morris (2007) reported findings that individuals with
high levels of social anxiety were not more likely to use the internet for networking
purposes than those who reported lower levels of anxiety. This was consistent with
earlier findings that socially anxious individuals were not more likely to use the internet
in general, or for communication purposes (Madell & Muncer, 2006; Scealy, Phillips, &
Stevenson, 2002).
Finally, contrary to social network theory, some research has shown that
individuals who experience social anxiety used SNSs to pass time and feel less lonely
more often than other individuals (Sheldon, 2008). Caplan (2007) found support for the
hypothesis that socially anxious individuals are drawn to the internet as a form of social
compensation because they perceive greater control over their self presentation online
than they do in face to face encounters. Campbell, Cummings, and Hughes (2006) argue
20
that socially fearful users may perceive the internet as a form of low risk social approach
and an opportunity to rehearse social behaviors and communication skills. Consistent
with this research, it has been found that levels of social anxiety are lower when
interacting online rather than offline (Yen et al., 2012).
Self esteem. The prominent psychologist Abraham Maslow (1987) described self
esteem as a basic human need and put it near the top of his Hierarchy of Needs. Perhaps
the simplest definition of self esteem, which overarches across most of the literature
reviewed, is that it is a persons overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her self worth.
Though this may be the simplest definition, it isnt the only one. In fact, self esteem has
a number of more complicated definitions that break it down into different parts, such as
social, personal, trait, state, specific, and global self esteem. It has also been defined in
terms of levels, high or low, and in terms of quality, fragile or stable (Rubin & Hewstone,
1998). For the purposes of this study we can conceptualize self esteem using the simple
definition stated above.
Psychologists have attempted to explain the foundations of self esteem in a
number of ways. Crocker and Wolfe (2001) developed the Contingency of Self Worth
Model, which states that self esteem is based in belief. Due to the fact that people can
differ in their beliefs, Crocker posited seven domains from which people could derive
their sense of self worth. These included virtue, Gods love, family support, academic
confidence, physical attractiveness, gaining others approval, and outdoing others in
competition (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). In fact, most theories of personality make
mention of self esteem in some form. Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist, for
example, posited that self esteem, which he termed self-concept, comes from self
21
responses to behavior. If you perform an action well in comparison to your standard you
will give yourself positive self responses, which increases your self-concept and vice
versa for negative self responses (Bandura, 1977). Another example is social identity
theory, which suggests that social identification can influence self esteem (Rubin &
Hewstone, 1998).
The interest that self esteem has captured has led to the development of a number
of measures that attempt to quantify it. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale was developed
in 1965 and was originally designed to measure individuals global feelings of self worth
or self acceptance, and is generally considered that standard against which other
measures of self esteem are compared (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). This was followed
by the Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory in 1967, which was designed to assess self
esteem in children (Pervin, 1993) and is considered another well respected test.
Today self esteem is treated somewhat ambivalently by psychologists. On the
one hand, high self esteem has been correlated with a positive sense of worth and
confidence, which has been shown to benefit mental health and motivation. On the other,
there is concern that self esteem can be misplaced, inaccurate, or vulnerable (Ryan &
Brown, 2006). Because of its dynamic nature, self esteem is fertile ground for research
and with studies showing that low self esteem can serve as a risk factor for depression
(Orth, Robins, & Robins, 2008), can foster prejudice (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998), and
may be implicated in issues pertaining to school homicides (Twemlow, 2008), it has
become a topic of interest.
Studies have demonstrated links between a lack of parental support and low self
esteem as well as links to parental finances, and parental self esteem (Mayhew &
22
Lempers, 1998). Other studies have focused on authenticity, meaning the congruence
between what one thinks and feels and what one does and says in relational contexts.
Work in this area has shown that high degrees of authenticity tend to increase self esteem
over the course of adolescence (Impett, Sorsoli, Schooler, Henson, & Tolman, 2008).
Still other studies have focused on peer acceptance and rejection, demonstrating that self
esteem is extremely prone to serious damage through peer rejection (Twemlow, 2008)
and that public evaluations are more likely than private evaluations to effect self esteem
(Harter, 1999). This finding has prompted investigation into the various ways individuals
have access to peer review and public evaluation. A new direction researchers have
taken in this investigation is toward the internet.
Self esteem and online social networking. Research in the area of self esteem
and social networking has been somewhat inconsistent. Early research found positive
effects of internet use, such as increased perceived social support and self esteem as well
as decreased loneliness and depression (Shaw and Gant, 2002). Another study
demonstrated that hearing impaired individuals that used the internet intensively reported
levels of self esteem and wellbeing that were similar to those who were not hearing
impaired, while hearing impaired individual who did not use the internet intensively
reported lower levels of self esteem and wellbeing (Barak & Sadovsky, 2008).
However, some research demonstrates a negative relationship between SNS use
and self esteem, indicating that those lower in self esteem were more active instant
messengers and SNS users (Ehrenberg, Juckes, White & Walsh, 2008; Mehdizadeh,
2010; Schwartz, 2011). Forest and Wood (2012), for example, found that while people
23
with low self-esteem considered Facebook an attractive place to self disclose, their more
negative disclosures elicited undesirable responses from other people.
Still other research indicates that self esteem has no influence over SNS use at all
(Kramer & Winter, 2008; Wilson et al., 2010). It is notable that some researchers argue
that the studies that show no effect of internet use on self esteem are the result of
researchers having poorly distinguished between social and informational internet use
(Valkenburg et al., 2006).
Directionality of effect is also at issue here as Hogg (2010) reports findings that
large amounts of time spent on SNSs result in a higher endorsement of feelings of low
self esteem. Valkenburg and colleagues (2006) conducted a study to assess a similar
issue in the Netherlands. They looked at individuals using the internet site CU2 (as in
see you too) and the influence the site had on their self esteem and wellbeing. While
the researchers originally thought that a number of factors, such as making new friends
and number of posts received, would impact self esteem, they found that only the tone of
the comments received on the SNS was correlated with self esteem. If the tone of the
comment was good self esteem and wellbeing were rated as higher than when the tone of
the comment was bad. This study also demonstrates the positive opportunities SNSs
provide to socialize and build self esteem. Valkenburg and colleagues (2006) reported
that only 7% of the users in their study experienced only or mostly negative feedback on
their profiles. This leaves a whopping 93% of users who received positive or mostly
*
positive feedback.
Self esteem and social anxiety. While some research in the area of self esteem
and social anxiety has found an inverse relationship between the two where, as social
24
anxiety increased, self esteem decreased (Schmidt et al. 2006), other research in the area
has found that self esteem may have a moderating effect on social anxiety. For example,
Cho, Matsumoto, and Kimura (2009) found that self esteem was a moderator in the
relationship between public self consciousness and social anxiety in Japan and South
Korea. Lin, Guangxing, Yukai, and Tingzhao (2007) found that implicit social
comparison and explicit social comparison have differing effects on social anxiety but
that self esteem was a modifier. Other research has shown the mediating effect of self
esteem in relation to social anxiety (Bosacki, Dane, & Marini, 2007). This evidenced
interaction between social anxiety and self esteem, along with the conflicting findings in
the research surrounding SNS use, leads to the question of how social anxiety, self
esteem and SNS use may be related.
Gender and Online Social Networking
An additional area of research receiving some attention with regard to SNS and
internet use is gender differences. Early inquiry indicated that men used the internet
more than women and suggested this was due to the newness of the technology, asserting
that technology remains a male dominated field (Morahan-Martin, 1998). Yet, even
though the internet has become a commonplace technology, gender differences are still
observed. For example, Young and Hall (2008) reported differences in privacy concerns
for male and female users of internet sites and Wang (2010) demonstrated differences in
male and female intentions to search out information on the internet. Donchi and Moore
(2004) found that females with more online friends were higher in self esteem and lower
on loneliness than females with fewer online friends, while males with more online
friends experienced decreased self esteem compared to males with fewer online friends.
25
But, even here, research is somewhat conflicting as other research evidences no effect of
gender on online communication (Thayer & Ray, 2006).
Very recently, research has begun to look at whether gender plays an important
role in SNS use. Wang et al. (2012) found that gender was important in predicting types
of SNS use. For example, they found that men reported more SNS friends and were more
likely to play online games while women were more likely to upload self-photos and
update their status. Muscanell and Guadagno (2012) found that men tended to use SNSs
to form new relationships while women were more likely to use them to maintain
relationships. Nosko (2012) found that men and women differed in their level of
personal information disclosure on SNSs. In a slightly different vein, Haferkamp,
Eimler, Papadakis and Kruck (2012) found that women were more likely to use SNSs for
self comparison and for searching for information than men, who were more likely to
look at other peoples profiles to find friends. In fact, some research shows that women
are more susceptible to spending more time than intended on SNSs, and losing sleep
because of SNS activity. In addition, they are more likely to feel closer to online friends
than real life friends, are more susceptible to negative self body image because of posted
photographs, and are more likely to be stressed by, and feel addicted to, their SNS
(Thompson & Lougheed, 2012).
Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study
The use of the internet as a social medium has been demonstrated to have myriad
consequences and the question of who uses these SNSs, and why, is one of interest and
concern. Many researchers, following the indications of social network theory, looked to
personality traits and features in order to explain SNS activity, and found significant
26
support for this rich get richer theory in most areas. However, research into the
relationship between narcissism and SNS use has been inconclusive and conflicting.
A second line of inquiry, which focused on the second prediction of social
network theory, pursued self esteem and social anxiety, independently, as predictors of
SNS use. Yet many findings in this area are also conflicting. Some research supports
social network theory while other research suggests that the socially anxious individual
uses SNSs for different purposes. Additionally, research in the area of self esteem in
general has found that it may have a moderating effect on social anxiety.
Thus, the primary aim of this research was to attempt to elucidate further the
question of a relationship between social anxiety, self esteem, narcissism, and SNS use.
A secondary goal was to evaluate differences in types of SNS use for the socially anxious
individual. Additionally, the issue of gender differences in SNS activity is just beginning
to be explored in the literature. Thus, the remaining goal of this research was to explore
any gender differences apparent in SNS use.
Research Questions
With the existing literature in mind with regard to social networking, social
anxiety, self esteem, narcissism, and gender, the following research questions were
investigated: (1) Is there a relationship between social anxiety, self esteem, and SNS use?
(2) Is there a difference in the types of SNS use for the socially anxious individual? (3)
Does an individuals level of narcissism impact SNS use? (4) Are there gender
differences apparent in SNS use?
27
Main Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were suggested, based on the research outlined
previously in this paper, in response to the first research question. Consistent with social
network theory:
HI. There will be an inverse relationship between social anxiety and the overall
time spent on SNSs.
H2. The relationship between social anxiety and the total amount of time spent on
SNSs will be moderated by the variable self esteem.
Exploratory Analyses
The remaining research questions were addressed through exploratory analysis.
No specific hypotheses were generated.
Ql. Are more socially anxious individuals more likely to use the internet for
different purposes than less socially anxious individuals?
Q2. Do higher levels of narcissism correlate with the amount of time individuals
spend using the SNS Facebook?
Q3. Do higher levels of narcissism correlate with the amount of time individuals
spend updating their Facebook status?
Q4. Are there gender differences in the overall time spent on SNSs?
Q5. Are their gender differences in the purpose of SNS use?
CHAPTER HI
METHOD
Overview
This study explores individuals personality characteristics, demographics, level
of narcissism, level of self esteem, and level of social anxiety as they relate to online
social networking. It aims to contribute to the rapidly growing field of research regarding
the cyber world, specifically the use of SNSs. The goal of this study is to have a better
understanding of those individuals who use SNSs and why they choose to use them. This
chapter describes the participants involved in the study and the measures used, as well as
the research procedure.
Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 76 male and 95 female college students
aged 18-30. This age range was chosen because research indicates that young adults
spend more time using online communication and are more comfortable doing so
compared to older generations (Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001; Thayer & Ray, 2006).
The average age of participants in this study was 21 years old, with a standard deviation
of 2.68 years. In terms of ethnicity, 48% of this sample of college students self identified
as Caucasian, 11.7% self identified as Black, 12.3% self identified as Hispanic/Latino,
19.3% self identified as Asian, 4.1% self identified as interracial, and 4.7% self identified
as Other.
29
Materials
SNS usage. Based on the research findings detailed in the literature review of this
paper, SNS use was operationalized as the amount of time per week spent on the SNS
Facebook. In order to further understand the type of Facebook usage participants engage
in, a questionnaire was designed to assess the dimensions of SNS use described by Bond-
Raacke and Raacke (2010): the Information Dimension, the Friendship Dimension, and
the Connection Dimension. The questionnaire had two parts. Part one was designed to
collect demographic information for participants. Part two asked participants to estimate
the amount of time they spend weekly on Facebook, including time spent accessing the
site from mobile devices, the number of times per week they update their Facebook
status, and to identify to what degree they participate in the following behaviors online:
posting social functions, learning about social events, sharing information about
themselves, for academic purposes, posting and looking at pictures, keeping in touch with
old friends, keeping in touch with current friends, locating old friends, for dating
purposes, to make new friends, and to feel connected. Individuals rated their
participation on a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (almost always). Their
responses were totaled to create a ratio representing how likely they were to use
Facebook for a particular purpose.
Social anxiety. Social anxiety was operationalized as scores on the Liebowitz
Social Anxiety Self Report Scale (LSAS-SR). This scale is a 24 item self report measure
of the fear and avoidance an individual experiences in a range of social and performance
situations. It asks respondents to make two ratings on four point Likert-type scale; once
for intensity of anxiety and once for frequency of avoidance of the presented situation.
The measure sums to seven subscale summary scores: social-interaction fear,
performance fear, social-interaction avoidance, performance avoidance, total fear, total
avoidance, and a LSAS total score. Internal consistency of the original semi structured
interview version of this measure was as assessed by Heimberg et al. (1999). They found
estimates ranging from a=.81 for ratings fear in performance situations to a=.91 for the
total LSAS score. They also demonstrated good evidence of convergent and divergent
validity as the LSAS tended to correlate strongly with other measures of social anxiety
and less strongly with measures of depression (Heimberg et al., 1999).
The self report scale offers ease of administration while still maintaining a
structure and psychometric properties that are highly similar to those of the original scale
(Oakman, Van Ameringen, Mancini, & Farvolden, 2003). Fresco et al. (2001) found the
LSAS and the LSAS-SR to have similar full and subscale reliabilities as well as similar
means. They also reported evidence of convergent and divergent validity for both the
LSAS and the LSAS-SR. For the purposes of the current study, administration of the
LSAS-SR included the specific instructions discussed in the literature review of this
paper.
Self esteem. Self esteem was operationalized as scores on the Rosenberg Self
Esteem Scale. The measure is made up of ten items rated on a Likert type scale ranging
from one to four. Total scores range from 10, which indicates low global self esteem, to
40, which indicates normal global self esteem (Rosenberg, 1989). Flaming and Courtney
(1984) demonstrated one month test rest reliability (a=.82) for undergraduate students.
Gloris and Robinson-Kurpius (2001) reported internal consistency (a= .82) for a group of
Native American undergraduate students. Evidence of construct validity was noted based
31
on findings that scores from the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale were correlated with other
self esteem measures (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).
Narcissism. Narcissism was operationalized as scores on the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI-16). The NPI-16 is a short measure of subclinical narcissism
that has shown meaningful face, internal, discriminant, and predictive validity (Ames,
Rose, & Anderson, 2006). The NPI-16 is a force choice measure that draws its items from
Raskin and Terrys (1988) NPI-40. The measure asks participants to read 16 paired
statements such as I really like to be the center of attention; It makes me uncomfortable
to be the center of attention and I usually get the respect I deserve; I insist on getting
the respect that is due me and then choose the member of the pair which most closely
describes their feelings and beliefs about themselves.
Procedures
Participants were approached at either the beginning or the end of a daytime
college class, with the consent of the course professor. They were initially given a notice
of informed consent, detailing the purpose of the research. They were allowed to ask any
questions regarding the research at that time. All measures were counterbalanced using a
Latin square design. One such order of administration looked like this: following the
collection of informed consent, participants were administered parts one and two of the
SNS use questionnaire. They were allowed five to ten minutes to complete the form.
The form was collected and the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale was distributed to
participants. They had five to ten minutes to complete the scale. After collection, the
NPI-16 was distributed and participants were allowed five to ten minutes to complete the
measure. Once complete, the scale was collected and the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Self
Report Scale (LSAS-SR) was distributed. The instructions used by Fresco et al. (2001)
were included on the measure. Participants had ten to fifteen minutes to complete the
scale. The measure was collected and participants were thanked for their time and effort.
The estimated time of overall completion was approximately thirty minutes.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This section presents the results of the analyses examining individuals level of
social anxiety, level of self esteem, level of narcissism, and gender as they relate to
individuals amount and purpose of use of the SNS Facebook. In order to examine the
research questions and hypotheses in this study, SPSS was used to conduct the necessary
statistical analyses. The following results are organized based on four main research
questions: (1) Is there a relationship between social anxiety, self esteem, and SNS use?
(2) Is there a difference in the types of SNS use for the socially anxious individual? (3)
Does an individuals level of narcissism impact SNS use? (4) Are there gender
differences apparent in SNS use? For all of these questions the data used is presented.
Moreover, alpha was set at .05 for all analyses and the method and statistical analyses
used for each question are described below.
Descriptive statistics were analyzed for all variables in this study, which
confirmed that the assumptions of regression analysis were met. Analysis revealed no
significant outlying scores or groups of scores across variables. College students, in
general, report spending an average of 8.42 hours using the SNS Facebook in a typical
week. Their total time spent using Facebook ranged from half an hour per week to 44
hours per week, with a standard deviation of 8.70 hours. In addition, the number of status
updates performed by college students on average was 2.23 updates per week, with a
range of 0-25 updates and a standard deviation of 3.40 updates per week.
34
Hypotheses
Research question 1. Is there a relationship between social anxiety, selfesteem,
and SNS use? The two hypotheses that stem from this question are: Consistent with
social network theory, there will be an inverse relationship between social anxiety and
the overall time spent on SNSs, and, the relationship between social anxiety and the total
amount of time spent on SNSs will be moderated by the variable self esteem.
Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis one stated that high self report ratings on the Liebowitz
Social Anxiety Scale would be negatively correlated with self reports of overall time
spent on the SNS Facebook, as measured by the administered questionnaire. In other
words, it was expected that participants who self reported high rates of behavior
associated social anxiety, would self report low levels of SNS use. Correlational
analysis, using the Pearson correlation, was conducted as the primary means for assessing
this hypothesis. In order to further explore this hypothesis a regression analysis was
performed to determine whether the null model was an appropriate model for these data.
Table 1
Pearson Correlation Statistics for Total Time Spent on SNS and Level of Social Anxiety
(P< -05)____________________________________________________________________
Liebowitz Social Anxiety
R t Sig Confidence Interval 95% Effect Size
Lower Upper
Total Time Spent .074 .967 .335 -.079 .027 .074
As seen in Table 1 there was a not significant relationship between social anxiety
and overall time spent using the SNS (R = .074, p = .335). This indicates that, based on
these data, higher levels of social anxiety are not associated with lower levels of SNS use.
The regression analysis displayed an insignificant effect of social anxiety on overall time
35
spent using the SNS (t = -.967, p = .335). Based on the probability, precision, and
magnitude obtained and reported in Table 1, it is likely that randomness, or the null
model, is an appropriate explanation of these data.
Hypothesis 2. In order to evaluate the interaction between social anxiety, self
esteem, and time spent on the SNS Facebook a regression and moderation analysis was
performed, detailing self esteem as the moderating variable. In order to complete this
analysis self esteem was dichotomized into high and normal groups based on scoring
guidelines. It was expected that socially anxious individuals with normal levels self
esteem would be more likely to use the SNS Facebook than socially anxious individuals
with lower self esteem.
Table 2
Summary of Effect Size (Partial), Significance, Collinearity Statistics, and Confidence
Interval of the Predictors____________________________________________________
Predictor Sig. Partial Tolerance VIF Confidence Interval
95%
Lower Upper
Social Anxiety .348 -.073 .170 5.881 - .189 .067
Self Esteem .888 .011 .265 3.769 -7.070 8.161
Interaction .550 .046 .116 8.599 - .098 .183
Table 3
Simple Slope Coefficients for Low and Normal Self Esteem
Self Esteem B SEb Beta t
Sig
Low -.061 .056 -.235 -1.083 .292
Normal -.018 .030 -.051 - .616 .539
Based on the findings detailed in Tables 2 and 3 it can be concluded that this data
does not support the hypothesis that self esteem acts as a moderating variable in the
relationship between the total amount of time an individual spends using the SNS
36
Facebook and their level of social anxiety. The new variable, interaction, is not
significant (/?=.550).
Exploratory Analyses
Research question 2. Is there a difference in the purpose o f SNS use for the
socially anxious individual?
In order to determine whether more socially anxious individuals used the SNS
Facebook for different purposes than individuals low on social anxiety, a series of
correlation analyses were performed comparing social anxiety levels to the three domains
of SNS use: Information, Friendship, and Communication.
Table 4
Summary of Pearson Correlation Statistics for Level Social Anxiety and the three
Domains of SNS use (p< .05)_____________________________________________
Domain R t Sig. Effect Size Confidence Interval 95%
Lower Upper
Friendship .010 .133 .894 .010 -2.699 3.090
Information .166 2.187 .030* .166 .348 6.782
Connection .247 3.317 .001* .247 -1.989 7.840
^significant at the p<.05 level
Findings from these analyses indicate that while there appears to be no
relationship between the level of a persons social anxiety and their use of the SNS
Facebook for Friendship purposes (r = .010, p = .894), there does exist a significant
relationship between a persons level of social anxiety and the other two domains. As
seen in Table 4, people with higher levels of social anxiety are more likely to use the SNS
Facebook for Information (r = .116, p = .030) and, especially, for Connection (r = .247, p
= .001).
Research question 3. Does an individuals level of narcissism impact SNS use?
In order to evaluate this question the following exploratory analyses were conducted: Is
37
there a relationship between an individuals level of narcissism and the total amount of
time they spend on SNSs, and, is there a relationship between an individuals level of
narcissism and the number of status updates they make on their SNS?
Question 1. This study attempted to explore whether high self report ratings on
the Narcissistic Personality Inventory would be positively correlated with self reports of
overall time spent on the SNS Facebook, as measured by the administered questionnaire.
In other words, do participants who self report high rates of thinking patterns associated
with narcissism also self report high amounts of time spent using the SNS Facbook?
Correlational analysis, using the Pearson correlation, was conducted as the primary
means for assessing this question. In order to further explore this question a regression
analysis was performed to determine whether the null model was an appropriate model
for these data.
Table 5
Pearson Correlation Statistics for Total Time Spent on SNS and Level of Narcissism
(P< -05)_________________________________________________________________
Narcissism Personality Inventory
R t
Sig
Confidence
Interval 95%
Lower Upper
Effect
Size
Total Time Spent .057 .744 .458 -4.310 9.529 .057
As seen in Table 5 there was a not significant relationship between narcissism and
overall time spent using SNSs (r = .057, p = .458). This indicates that, based on these
data, higher levels of narcissism are not associated with higher levels of use of the SNS
Facebook. The regression analysis displayed an insignificant effect of narcissism on
overall time spent using the SNS (t = .744, p = .458). Based on the probability, precision,
38
and magnitude obtained and reported in Table 5, it is likely that randomness, or the null
model, is an appropriate explanation of these data.
Question 2. Additionally, this study attempted to explore whether high self report
ratings on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory would be positively correlated with self
reports of high numbers of status updates on the SNS Facebook, as measured by the
administered questionnaire. In other words, do participants who self report high rates of
thinking patterns associated with narcissism also self report high rates of status updates
on their SNS? Correlational analysis, using the Pearson correlation, was conducted as the
primary means for assessing this question. In order to further explore this question a
regression analysis was performed to determine whether the null model was an
appropriate model for these data.
Table 6
Pearson Correlation Statistics for Status Updates on SNS and level o f Narcissism (p<
.05)______________________________________________________________________
Narcissistic Personality Inventory
R t Sig Confidence
Interval 95%
Lower Upper
Effect
Size
Status Updates .056 -.731 .466 -3.706 1.704 .056
As seen in Table 6 there was a not significant relationship between narcissism and
the total number of status updates (r = .056, p = .466). This indicates that, based on these
data, higher levels of narcissism are not associated with a greater amount of status
updates on the SNS Facebook. The regression analysis displayed an insignificant effect
of narcissism on total number of status updates (t = -.731, p = .466). Based on the
probability, precision, and magnitude obtained and reported in Table 6, it is likely that
randomness, or the null model, is an appropriate explanation of these data.
39
Research question 4. Are there gender differences apparent in SNS use? In
order to evaluate this question the following exploratory analyses were conducted: Are
there gender differences in the total amount of time individuals spend on SNSs, and, are
there gender differences in the purpose of use of SNSs.
Question 1. This study attempted to explore whether male and female participants
would differentially self report overall SNS use on the demographic form. A between
subjects mean difference analysis was conducted to determine the probability of
obtaining these data under the conditions that these data are random.
Table 7
Independent Samples t-test Statistics for Time Spent on SNS by Gender
Gender N M SD t Sig. Confidence
Interval 95%
Effect
Size
Lower Upper
Time Spent Female 76 7.19 8.576 -1.695 .099 -4.838 .4195 0.126
Male 95 9.40 8.713
As seen in Table 7 there was a not significant difference between female and male
reports of overall SNS use (t = -1.695, p = .099). Further these results indicate low
precision and small effect strength. Based on these findings it is likely that the null
model, which suggests that the data is random, is an appropriate explanation of these
data.
Question 2. A final aim of this study was to assess gender differences in the
purpose of SNS use. In order to elucidate this, males and females were compared on the
three domains of SNS use: Information, Friendship, and Communication. A series of
between subjects mean difference analyses were conducted to determine the probability
of obtaining the data collected under the conditions of the null hypothesis.
40
Table 8
Summary of Independent Samples t-test Statistics for the three Domains ofSNS use by Gender
Domain Gender N M SD t Sig. Confidence
Interval 95%
Lower Upper
Effect
Size
Friendship Female 95 5.154 1.327 -3.385 .001* -1.048 -.276 .252
Male 76 4.491 1.198
Information Female 95 3.532 1.191 -1.437 .153 -.608 .096 .110
Male 76 3.276 1.118
Connection Female 95 2.861 1.205 -.155 .877 -.413 .353 .011
Male 76 2.831 1.325
* significant at the p<.05 level
Findings from these analyses, displayed in Table 8, indicate that there is not a
significant difference between female and male use of the internet SNS Facebook for the
purposes of Information (ties = -1.437, p = . 153). Additionally, there was not a significant
difference between male and female use of this SNS for the purposes of Connection (ties =
-.155, p = .877). However, the data does indicate a significant difference in male and
female use for the purposes of Friendship (tiss = -3.385, pc.Ol). According to the
findings from this analysis, women (Mf=5.154, SD= 1.327) are more likely than men
(Mm=4.491, SD= 1.198) to use the internet for Friendship purposes.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Summary, Implications, and Limitations
The overarching goal of this research was the continued investigation and
expansion of research pertaining to online social networking. Research has demonstrated
that internet use can have myriad consequences for users, both good and potentially
harmful. Thus, understanding individuals who use the internet, particularly for social
networking purposes, is an important goal. The main aim of this study was to further
elucidate the relationship between SNS use, social anxiety, self esteem, and narcissism.
It was suggested that self esteem might act as a moderating variable in the relationship
between SNS use and social anxiety. The study additionally aimed to explore the role of
gender in SNS use.
Social networking theory describes SNS use as a rich get richer scenario where
individuals with large real world social networks will expand their social networks using
the internet as a medium, and those with small real world social networks will avoid
developing a network online. Research into this theory has thus far been supported only
in its first prediction, that individuals with large social networks will be more likely to
use social networking sites. It was hoped that this research would clarify its second
prediction by helping to detail the role self esteem might play as a moderating variable
for individuals with small real world social networks. The question of the role of
narcissism in social networking was also explored.
This study operationalized individuals with small real world social networks as
those who self reported high levels of social anxiety. Data on self esteem and SNS use
were also collected. Analyses of the data collected indicated that social anxiety was not
related to the overall amount of time individuals spent using the SNS Facebook. While
this is inconsistent with the tenets of social networking theory, it replicated findings by
Stevens and Morris (2007), which reported that individuals with high levels of social
anxiety were not more likely to use the internet for networking than those who reported
lower levels of anxiety. It is also consistent with earlier findings that socially anxious
individuals were not more likely to use the internet in general, or for social networking
purposes (Madell & Muncer, 2006; Scealy, Phillips, & Stevenson, 2002).
One explanation for this lack of consistency with social networking theory was
that self esteem might play a moderating role in the relationship, thus influencing the
outcome of studies seeking to explore the relationship between social anxiety and SNS
use. In other areas of research self esteem has been shown to have a moderating effect on
social anxiety. For example, Cho, Matsumoto, and Kimura (2009) found that self esteem
was a moderator in the relationship between public self consciousness and social anxiety
in Japan and South Korea. Lin, Guangxing, Yukai, and Tingzhao (2007) found that
implicit social comparison and explicit social comparison have differing effects on social
anxiety but that self esteem was a modifier. Thus, present analyses also explored the
hypothesis that self esteem might play a moderating role in the relationship between
social anxiety and time spent using SNS sites. But these analyses revealed no moderation
effect in the relationship.
43
However, data collected about the purpose of SNS use did offer an explanation as
to why different researchers have found different results relating to social networking and
social anxiety. Findings from this more nuanced breakdown indicate that individuals
who report high levels of social anxiety are also likely to use SNSs for the purposes of
gathering information, and especially for the purposes of connection. This suggests that
socially anxious individuals are more likely to use SNSs for the purposes of posting
social functions, learning about events, and sharing information about themselves, as well
as, and especially, for purposes related to making initial connections with others, rather
than for reasons that were conceptually related to sustaining friendships. This is more
consistent with the research that indicates socially anxious individuals use SNSs as a
form of low risk social approach and social compensation (Caplan, 2007; Campbell,
Cummings, & Hughes, 2006).
Based on these findings it is possible to suggest that social networking theory
should expand beyond the purview of SNS use vs. no SNS use to the question of Why
SNS use? It is likely that the choice to use SNSs, along with the amount of time one
spends using them, is dictated by the purpose of the use. Future research should seek to
elucidate further the myriad reasons one might choose to use SNSs and consider linking
the purpose to the positive and negative outcomes surrounding internet and SNS use.
Understanding this issue might assist researchers and practitioners in identifying
individuals for targeted interventions who are likely to experience negative outcomes
from their SNS use, and supporting individuals whose SNS use is likely to lead to
positive experiences.
Additionally, this research attempted to explore how an individuals level of
narcissism might play into their use of online social networking sites. Though narcissism
has been linked to SNS use in support of social network theory, research surrounding it
has proven unclear. Buffardi and Campbell (2008) found that narcissism predicted both
higher levels of social activity in the online community as well as more self promoting
content on SNS webpages, while Bergman and colleagues (2011) obtained slightly
different results, finding that narcissism did not relate to the amount of time young adults
spent on SNSs. Other research by Schwartz (2011) found little relationship between
narcissism and SNS use. Consistent with the findings of the Schwartz (2011) and
Bergman et al. (2011) studies, the results of this research found no support for a
relationship between reported levels of narcissistic tendencies and the total amount of
time an individual spends using the SNS Facebook. Additionally, no support was found
for a relationship between the number of status updates an individual makes on the SNS
Facebook and their level of reported narcissistic tendencies.
Finally, this research attempted to further explore the relationship between gender
and SNS use. Early research in the field of internet use indicated that men used the
internet more than women and suggested this was due to the newness of the technology,
asserting that technology remains a male dominated field (Morahan-Martin, 1998). Yet,
even though the internet has become a commonplace technology, gender differences are
still observed. Thus one goal of this study was to explore whether men and women
evidenced differences in the amount of time they spent using SNSs - one form of internet
use. Findings indicated that gender did not influence the amount of time an individual
chose to spend using the SNS Facebook. However, the purpose of use was related to
45
gender. Women were found to be more likely to use Facebook for friendship purposes
than men. This finding also supports the suggestion that future research should further
explore the differences in purposes of internet use, especially when considering the use of
SNSs.
The practical and theoretical implications of these results are varied. The findings
reported here support the conclusion that social network theory needs to be broadened
into a more nuanced conceptualization of social networking site use. SNS use needs to
be further explored in terms of the purpose for which an individual uses the site. If it can
be predicted with some accuracy the characteristics of individuals whos SNS use may
result in negative consequences we can target appropriate interventions toward them in an
effort to raise awareness, and thus avoid or counteract, the negative effects of SNS use.
One limitation of this study was that the subjects were college students. By using
college students as participants the diversity of socioeconomic status may have been
restricted, in turn limiting the generalizability of this study beyond college students.
Another consideration is that this study relied on self report measures. Self reporting
may or may not be optimally accurate when estimating individual behavior. Thus, after
additional research elucidates further the categories of purpose for SNS use, researchers
may seek to monitor actual online performance through observation of individuals while
they are actively using SNSs.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (Revised 4th 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.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press.
Barak, A., & Sadovsky, Y. (2008). Internet use and personal empowerment of hearing-
impaired adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1802-1815.
Bart, M. (2009). Much time on Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites.
Trends in Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/trends-in-higher-education/do-college-
students-spend-too-much-time-on-facebook-youtube-and-other-social-
networking-sites/
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational
behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14,
103-118.
Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011).
Millennial, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social
networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 706-
711.
Besser, A., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2011). Pathological forms of narcissism and perceived
stress during the transition to the university: The mediating role of humor styles.
International Journal of Stress Management, 18(3), 197-221.
Biggs, B. K., Vemberg, E. M., & Wu, Y. P. (2012). Social anxiety and adolescents
friendships: The role of social withdrawal. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
32(6), 802-823.
Blais, M. A., & Little, J. A. (2010). Toward an integrative study of narcissism.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 197-199.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 115-155). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions
of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences
Research, 5(1), 27-33.
Bosacki, S., Dane, A., & Marini, Z. (2007). Peer relationships and internalizing problems
in adolescents: Mediating role of self-esteem. Emotional & Behavioural
Difficulties, 12(4), 261-282.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol 13/issue 1/boyd.ellison.html
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34( 10), 1303-1314.
48
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(1), 219-229.
Campbell, A. J., Cumming, S. R., & Hughes, I. (2006). Internet Use by the Socially
Fearful: Addiction or Therapy?. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 69-81.
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic
Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 234-242.
Cho, S., Matsumoto, Y., & Kimura, H. (2009). The moderating effect of self-esteem on
the relationship between public self-consciousness, social anxiety and
exhibitionism in Japan and South Korea. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 80(4),
313-320.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A., & de Zuniga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the web? The
intersection of users personality and social media use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(2), 247-253.
Cox, B. J., Ross, L., Swinson, R. P., & Direnfeld, D. M. (1998). A comparison of social
phobia outcome measures in cognitive-behavioral group therapy. Behavior
Modification, 22, 285-287.
Craske, M. G. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Psychological approaches to theory and
treatment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self worth. Psychological Review,
108, 593-623.
De Raad, B. (1998). Five big, Big Five issues: Rationale, content, structure, status, and
crosscultural assessment. European Psychologist, 3(2), 113-124.
Donchi, L., & Moore, S. (2004). It's a Boy Thing: The Role of the Internet in Young
Peoples Psychological Wellbeing. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 76-89.
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self
esteem as predictors of young people's technology use. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11(6), 739-741.
Facebook. (2011). Statistics, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php7statistics
(accessed April 2011).
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online Victimization: A report on the
nations youth. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal o f Abnormal Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Flaming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E., (1984). The dimensionality of self esteem: H
Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement measures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404-421.
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals
with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on
Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), 295-302.
Fresco, D. M., Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., Liebowitz, M. R., Hami, S., Stein, M. B.,
& Goetz, D. (2001). The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: A comparison of the
psychometric properties of self-report and clinician administered formats.
Psychology Medicine, 31, 1025-1035.
Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., & Campbell, W. (2012). The effect of social
networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation.
Computers In Human Behavior, 28(5), 1929-1933.
Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: The role of attraction, social
competition, and social hierarchies. The Psychiatric Clinics o f North America, 24.
723-751.
Glassman, M. B. (1988). Intrapsychic conflict versus developmental deficit: A causal
modeling approach to examining psychoanalytic theories of narcissism.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5(1), 23-46.
Gloris, A. M., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2001). Influence of self beliefs, social support,
and comfort in the university environment on the academic nonpersistence
decisions of American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7,88-102.
Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How
universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation
among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality And
Social Psychology, 104(2), 354-370.
Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., & Kruck, J. (2012). Men are from Mars,
women Are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on
social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
15(2), 91-98.
Hartman, H. (1950). Comments on the psychoanalytic theory of the ego. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 5, 74-96.
51
Hartman, L. M. (1986). Social anxiety, problem drinking, and self-awareness. New York:
Plenum Press.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
Haythomthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for
information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1101-1114.
Hebert, K. R., Fakes, J., Nangle, D. W., Papadakis, A. A., & Grover, R. L. (2012).
Linking social anxiety and adolescent romantic relationship functioning: Indirect
effects and the importance of peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1007/sl0964-012-9878-0
Heimberg, R. G., Homer, K. J., Juster, H. R., Safren, S. A., Brown, E. J., Schneier, F. R.,
& Liebowitz, M. R. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Liebowtiz Social
Anxiety Scale. Psychological Medicine, 29, 199-212.
Hogg, J. (2010). Impact of personality on communication: An MMPI-2 study of African
American college students and their choice in the digital communications age.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 71.
Holfmann, S. G., & Barlow, D. H. (2002). Social phobia (social anxiety disorder). In D.
H. Barlow (Ed.), Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety
and panic (2nd ed., pp. 454-476). New York: Guilford Press.
Howard, P., Rainie, L., Jones, S. (2001). Days and nights on the Internet: the impact of
diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45,450-72.
Hughes, A. A., Heimberg, R. G., Coles, M. E., Gibb, B. E., Liebowitz, M. R., &
Schneier, F. R. (2006). Relations of the factors of the tripartite model of anxiety
and depression to types of sodal anxiety. Behazmur Research and Therapy, 44,
1629-1641.
Impett, E. A., Sorsoli, L., Schooler, D., Henson, J. M., & Tolman, D. L. (2008). Girls
relationship authenticity and self esteem across adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 722-733.
Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gomez-Vela, M., Gonzales-Gil, F., Caballo, C. (2007) Problematic
Internet and cell-phone use: Psychological behavioral, and health correlates.
Addiction Research & Theory, 15(3), 309-320.
Johansson, A., & Gotestam, K. G. (2004). Internet addiction: Characteristics of a
questionnaire and prevelence in Norwegian (12-18 years). Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 45, 223-229.
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality:
A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality,
2, 171-203.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly:
Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of
workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-776.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality
and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 745-755.
Kramer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of
self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social
networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and
Applications, 20(3), 106-116.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J. N., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. M.
(2002) Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 49-74.
Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Why do young people drink? A
review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 841-861.
La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. (2005). Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and
Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression?.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34( 1), 49-61.
Lehdonvirta, V., & Rasanen, P. (2011). How do young people identify with online and
offline peer groups? A comparison between UK, Spain and Japan. Journal of
Youth Studies, 14(1), 91-108.
Li, L., & Mingxin, L. (2005). The Relationship of Adolescents' Personality with Their
Using Social Service of Internet. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(6), 797-802.
Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modem Problems in Pharmacopsychiatry, 22,
141-173.
Lin, L., Guangxing, X., Yukai, C., & Tingzhao, W. (2007). A research on the impact of
social comparison on college students' social anxiety. Psychological Science
(China), 30(5), 1218-1220.
Lounsbury, J. W Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009).
Personality characteristics of business majors as defined by the Big Five and
narrow personality traits. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 200-204.
Lu, H & Hsiao, K. (2010). The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay
for social networking sites. Information & Management, 47(3), 150-157.
Lu, L. (1997). Social support, reciprocity, and well-being. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 137(5), 618-628.
Luhtanen, R. K., & Crocker, J. (2005). Alcohol Use in College Students: Effects of Level
of Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Contingencies of Self-Worth. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 79(1), 99-103.
Madell, D., & Muncer, S. (2006). Internet Communication: An Activity that Appeals to
Shy and Socially Phobic People?. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 618-622.
Mahoney, A. J., & McEvoy, P. M. (2012). Changes in intolerance of uncertainty during
cognitive behavior group therapy for social phobia. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 43(2), 849-854.
Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self
presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29(6), 446-458.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rded.). New York: Harper & Row.
Mayhew, K., & Lempers, J. D. (1998). The relation among financial strain, parenting,
parent self esteem, and adolescent self esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
18, 145-172.
55
McNeil, D. W. (2010). Evolution of terminology and constructs in social anxiety and its
disorders. In S. G. Hofmann, P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.), Social anxiety: Clinical,
developmental, and social perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-21). San Diego, CA US:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 357-364.
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387-393.
Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. (2010). The case for using research on trait narcissism as a
building block for understanding narcissistic personality disorder. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 180-191.
Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. (2010). Narcissistic personality disorder
and the DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(4), 640-649.
Morahan-Martin, J. (1998). The gender gap in Internet use: Why men use the Internet
more than womenA literature review. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(1), 3-
10.
Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender
and personality differences in social networking use. Computers In Human
Behavior, 28(1), 107-112.
Naydenova, I., Lounsbury, J. W., Levy, J. J., & Kim, J. (2012). Distinctive Big Five and
narrow personality traits of psychology majors. Individual Differences Research,
10(3), 129-140.
Nepon, T., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Molnar, D. S. (2011). Perfectionism, negative
social feedback, and interpersonal rumination in depression and social anxiety.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du
Comportement, 43(4), 297-308.
Niemz, K., Griffiths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological internet use
among university students and correlations with self esteem, the general health
questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 8, 562-
570.
Norton, P. J. (2010). Social anxiety and withdrawal. In D. W. Nangle, D. J. Hansen, C. A.
Erdley, P. J. Norton (Eds.), Practitioner's guide to empirically based measures of
social skills (pp. 167-178). New York, NY US: Springer Publishing Co.
Nosko, A. (2012). To tell or not to tell: Predictors of disclosure and privacy settings
usage in an online social networking site (Facebook). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 72, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Oakman, J., Van Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., & Farvolden, P. (2003). A confirmatory
factor analysis of a self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 149-161.
Ong, E. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. M., Lim, J. Y., Goh, D. H., Lee, C., & Chua, A. K. (2011).
Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents self-presentation on Facebook.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180-185.
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. (2009).
The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 337-340.
57
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Robins B. W. (2008). Low self esteem prospectively predicts
depression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 695-708.
Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). Making MOOsic: The development of personal
relationship online and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517-537.
Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality-.Theory and research. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Pinto-Gouveia, J., Castilho, P., Galhardo, A., & Cunha, M. (2006). Early maladaptive
schemas and social phobia. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 571-584.
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.
Regev, R., Shahar, G., & Lipsitz, J. D. (2012). Is social self-criticism a unique
vulnerability dimension for social anxiety and depression?. International Journal
of Cognitive Therapy, 5(2), 211-218.
Rodebaugh, T. L. (2009). Social phobia and perceived friendship quality. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 23, 872-878.
Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use
and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-
501.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
58
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theorys self esteem hypothesis: A
review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2 , 40-62.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2006). Selfesteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of
current perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship
between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage.
Computers In Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664.
Sanz, J., Garcfa-Vera, M., & Magan, I. (2010). Anger and hostility from the perspective
of the Big Five personality model. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(3),
262-270.
Scealy, M., Phillips, J. G., & Stevenson, R. (2002). Shyness and anxiety as predictors of
patterns of Internet usage. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 507-515.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A
conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.
Schmidt, P. J., Cardoso, G. P., Ross, J. L., Haq, N., Rubinow, D. R., & Bondy, C. A.
(2006). Shyness, Social Anxiety, and Impaired Self-esteem in Turner Syndrome
and Premature Ovarian Failure. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical
Association, 295(12), 1374-1376.
Schoenleber, M., Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. (2011). Parallel syndromes: Two dimensions
of narcissism and the facets of psychopathic personality in criminally involved
individuals. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(2), 113-
127.
59
Schwartz, M. (2011). The usage of Facebook as it relates to narcissism, self-esteem and
loneliness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 71, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A,, Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are
Normal Narcissists Psychologically Healthy?: Self-Esteem Matters. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 400-416.
Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between
Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived
social support. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157-171.
doi: 10.1089/109493102753770552
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and
students' Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and
Applications, 20(2), 67-75.
Stevens, S. B., & Morris, T. L. (2007). College dating and social anxiety: Using the
Internet as a means of connecting to others. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(5),
680-688.
Thayer, S. E., & Ray, S. (2006). Online Communication Preferences across Age, Gender,
and Duration of Internet Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(4), 432-440.
Thompson, R. L., Brossart, D. F., Carlozzi, A. F., & Miville, M. L. (2002). Five-factor
model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor
trainees. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136(5), 561-572.
Thompson, S. H., & Lougheed, E. (2012). Frazzled by Facebook? An exploratory study
of gender differences in social network communication among undergraduate
men and women. College Student Journal, 46(1), 88-98.
Tok, S., & Morali, S. L. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence, the Big Five personality
dimensions and academic success in physical education teacher candidates. Social
Behavior and Personality, 37(1), 921-932.
Twemlow, S. W. (2008). Assessing adolescents who threaten homicide in schools: A
recent update. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36, 127-129.
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their
relationship to adolescents wellbeing and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology
and Behavior, 9, 584590.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents' online
communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2),
267-277.
van der Aa, N., Overbeek, G., Engels, R. E., Scholte, R. J., Meerkerk, G., & Van den
Eijnden, R. M. (2009). Daily and compulsive Internet use and well-being in
adolescence: A diathesis-stress model based on big five personality traits. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 38(6), 765-776.
Van Zalk, N., Van Zalk, M., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2011). Social anxiety as a basis for
friendship selection and socialization in adolescents' social networks. Journal of
Personality, 79(3), 499-525.
Voncken, M. J., Dijk, C., de Jong, P. J., & Roelofs, J. (2010). Not self-focused attention
but negative beliefs affect poor social performance in social anxiety: An
investigation of pathways in the social anxiety Social rejection relationship.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 984991.
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, ML, Borun, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final
report and findings of the safe school initiatives: implications for the prevention
of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Secret
Service & United States Department of Education, Retrieved. April 9, 2009, from
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
Wang, E. (2010). Internet usage purposes and gender differences in the effects of
perceived utilitarian and hedonic value. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13(2), 179-183.
Wang, J., Jackson, L. A., Zhang, D., & Su, Z. (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(6), 2313-2319.
Wang, W. (2001). Internet dependency and psychosocial maturity among college
students. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 55, 919-938.
Weeks, J. W., Jakatdar, T. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2010). Comparing and contrasting
fears of positive and negative evaluation as facets of social anxiety. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 68-94.
Weisman, O., Aderka, I. M., Marom, S., Hermesh, H., & Gilboa-Schechtman, E. (2011).
Social rank and affiliation in social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 49(6-1), 399-405.
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase,
decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and
community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.
Whitlock, J. L., Powers, J. L., & Eckenrode, J. (2006). The virtual cutting edge: The
Internet and adolescent self-injury. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 407-417.
Wilson, K., Fomasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young
adults' use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13(2), 173-177.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 590-597.
Ybarra, M. L., Alexander, C., & Mitchell, K. J. (2005). Depressive symptomatology,
youth Internet use, and online interactions: A nation survey. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 36(1), 9-18.
Yen, J., Yen, C., Chen, C., Wang, P., Chang, Y., & Ko, C. (2012). Social anxiety in
online and real-life interaction and their associated factors. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, And Social Networking, i5(l), 7-12.
Young, S., & Hall, K. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception,
privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6),
763-765.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison
of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the
Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 757-768.
63
Appendix A
Consent Form
Hello! My name is Diana Weiss and I am a doctoral student at Pace University. I
would be very grateful for your participation in a research study I am conducting. I am
interested in learning about the personality traits and experiences of online social
networking users.
If you are 18 or over and current have a Facebook account, your participation is
encouraged. Your participation would involve completing three brief questionnaires,
which should take approximately 20 minutes of your time.
Your participation in this project is completely voluntary and anonymous.
Though there are no immediate benefits to participants in this research it is expected that
this study will help to further our knowledge about social networking users. If it can be
predicted with some accuracy the characteristics of individuals drawn to social
networking sites we can target appropriate interventions toward them in an effort to raise
awareness, and avoid the potentially negative effects, of online social networking. The
only potential risk you may incur is the experience of minimal discomfort when
answering some questions. You have the right to not answer every question or to
discontinue your participation at any time.
Safeguards will be taken to protect your identity. Because your name will not
appear on any of the questionnaire responses, your responses will remain anonymous. If
the results of the study are published, only the results from the whole sample will be
reported.
64
If you have any questions about the research, please do not hesitate to contact me,
Diana Weiss, at 347.731.2905 or at dianaeweiss@gmail.com. The Institutional Review
Board (IRB) at Pace University has approved the solicitation of subjects for this study. If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Office of Sponsored Research at
212.246.1273
You may consult with family members or other advisors before deciding whether
to participate in this study, and show such consultants this consent form. Your consent to
participate will be indicated by your completion of the study requirements and receipt of
a copy of this consent form.
Thank you very much for your participation! Your assistance is truly appreciated.
Appendix B
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART ONE - DEMOGRAPHICS
Sex (check one):
Male Female
Age: ___________
Ethnicity (circle one):
White (Caucasian) Black/African American Hispanic or Latino Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander American Indian or Native Alaskan
Other:____________
PART TWO - SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE (SNS) USE
Please estimate the amount of time you spend on the SNS site FACEBOOK in
one typical week.
(PLEASE USE HALF HOUR INCREMENTS). _______________
Please rate to what degree you participate in the following behaviors online:
a. Posting social functions
(Not At All)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)
b. Learning about social events
(Not At All)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)
c. Sharing information about themselves
(Not At All)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)
d. For academic purposes
(Not At All)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)
e. Posting and looking at pictures
3 4 5 6 (Not At All)l 2
f. Keeping in touch with
(Not At All)l 2
g. Keeping in touch with
(Not At All)l 2
h. Locating old friends
(Not At All)l 2
i. For dating purposes
(Not At All)l 2
j. To make new friends
(Not At All)l 2
k. To feel connected
(Not At All)l 2
old friends
3 4 5 6
current friends
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
7(Almost Always)
67
Appendix C
LIEBOWITZ SOCIAL ANXIETY SCALE (LSAS-SR)
This measure assesses the way that social phobia plays a role in your life across a variety
of situations. Read each situation carefully and answer two questions about that situation.
The first question asks how anxious or fearful you feel in the situation. The second
question asks how often you avoid the situation. If you come across a situation that you
ordinarily do not experience, we ask that you imagine "what if you were faced with that
situation," and then, rate the degree to which you would fear this hypothetical situation
and how often you would tend to avoid it. Please base your ratings on the way that the
situations have affected you in the last week. Fill out the following scale with the most
suitable answer provided below.
Fear or Anxiety: Avoidance:
0 = None 0 = Never (0%)
1 = Mild 1= Occasionally (1-33%)
2 = Moderate 2 = Often (34-67%)
3 = Severe 3 = Severe (68-100%)
CIRCLE ONE ANSWER CHOICE FOR FEAR/ANXIETY AND ONE ANSWER
CHOICE FOR AVOIDANCE
1. Telephoning in public
Fear/Anxiety 0
Avoidance 0
2. Participating in small group activities
Fear/Anxiety 0
Avoidance 0
3. Eating in public places
Fear/Anxiety 0
Avoidance 0
4. Drinking with others in public places
Fear/Anxiety 0
Avoidance 0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5. Talking to people in authority
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
6. Acting, performing, or speaking in front of an audience
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
7. Going to a party
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
8. Working while being observed
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
9. Writing while being observed
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
10. Calling someone you dont know very well
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
11. Talking face to face with someone you dont know very well
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
12. Meeting strangers
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
13. Urinating in a public bathroom
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
14. Entering a room when others are already seated
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
69
15. Being the center of attention
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
16. Speaking up at a meeting
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
17. Taking a test of your ability, skill, or knowledge
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
18. Expressing a disagreement or disapproval to people you dont know very well
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
19. Looking someone who you dont know very well straight in the eyes
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
20. Giving a prepared oral talk to a group
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
21. Trying to make someone's acquaintance for the purpose of a romantic/sexual
relationship
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
22. Returning goods to a store
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
23. Giving a party
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
24. Resisting a high pressure sales person
Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3
Avoidance 0 1 2 3
Appendix D
ROSENBERG SELF ESTEEM SCALE
CIRCLE ONE ANSWER CHOICE
1. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. **
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. **
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. **
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
9. I certainly feel useless at times. **
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
10. At times I think I am no good at all. **
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
** Reversed in valence
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
71
Appendix E
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY - NPI-16
Key: Force choice - Which answer describes you best
1. I really like to be the center of attention
It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention
2 . I am no better or nor worse than most people
I think I am a special person
3 . Everybody likes to hear my stories
Sometimes I tell good stories
4 . I usually get the respect that I deserve
I insist upon getting the respect that is due me
5 . I don't mind following orders
I like having authority over people
6 . I am going to be a great person
I hope I am going to be successful
7 . ___People sometimes believe what I tell them
I can make anybody believe anything I want them to
8 . ___I expect a great deal from other people
I like to do things for other people
9 . I like to be the center of attention
I prefer to blend in with the crowd
10. I am much like everybody else
I am an extraordinary person
72
11 . ___I always know what I am doing
Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing
12 . ___I don't like it when I find myself manipulating people
I find it easy to manipulate people
13 . ___Being an authority doesn't mean that much to me
People always seem to recognize my authority
14 . ___I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so
When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed
15 . ___I try not to be a show off
I am apt to show off if I get the chance
16. I am more capable than other people
There is a lot that I can learn from other people