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 P iiblist’Mlg

UMI 3570710Published 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 UniversitvTitle Affiliation

Weihua Niu, Ph.D.Name

Professor Pace UniversitvTitle Affiliation

FINAL APPROVAL OF COMPLETED PROJECT:

I have read the final version o f the doctoral project and certify that it meets the relevant requirements for the Psy.D. degree in School-Clinical Child Psychology.

Project Advisor’s Signature

Project Consultant’s Signature

Date

-T/V'JDate

©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 S tudy..........................................................25

Research Questions.................................................................................................... 26

Main Hypotheses........................................................................................................27

Exploratory Analyses................................................................................................. 27

m METHOD....................................................................................................................28

Participants...................................................................................................................28

M aterials......................................................................................................................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 Spenton 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 ofSocial Anxiety and the three Domains of SNS use (p<.05)................................36

Table 5. Pearson Correlation Statistics for Total Time Spenton SNS and Level of Narcissism (p<.05).............................................................37

Table 6. Pearson Correlation Statistics for Status Updateson SNS and Level of Narcissism (p<.05)............................................................ 38

Table 7. Independent Samples t-test Statistics for Time Spenton SNS by Gender ..................................................................................................39

Table 8. Summary of Independent Samples t-test Statistics forthe three Domains of SNS Use by G ender.......................................................... 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 individual’s 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,

individual’s 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 individual’s need for

stimulation, activity, assertiveness, and quantity and intensity of interpersonal

interactions. An individual’s 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 individual’s interpersonal orientation and

ranges from compassionate to antagonistic. Finally, Conscientiousness describes an

individual’s 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 individual’s 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 individual’s 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 person’s overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her self worth.

Though this may be the simplest definition, it isn’t 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, God’s 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 people’s 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 individual’s 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.

Q l. 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 Terry’s (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 individual’s 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 o f 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 1Pearson Correlation Statistics fo r Total Time Spent on SNS and Level o f Social Anxiety (P< -05)____________________________________________________________________

Liebowitz Social AnxietyR 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 2Summary o f Effect Size (Partial), Significance, Collinearity Statistics, and Confidence Interval o f the Predictors____________________________________________________Predictor Sig. Partial Tolerance VIF Confidence Interval

95%Lower Upper

Social Anxiety .348 -.073 .170 5.881 - .189 .067Self Esteem .888 .011 .265 3.769 -7.070 8.161Interaction .550 .046 .116 8.599 - .098 .183

Table 3Simple Slope Coefficients for Low and Normal Self EsteemSelf Esteem B SEb Beta t SigLow -.061 .056 -.235 -1.083 .292Normal -.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 fo r 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 4Summary o f Pearson Correlation Statistics fo r Level Social Anxiety and the three Domains o f SNS use (p< .05)_____________________________________________Domain R t Sig. Effect Size Confidence Interval 95%

Lower UpperFriendship .010 .133 .894 .010 -2.699 3.090Information .166 2.187 .030* .166 .348 6.782Connection .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 person’s social anxiety and their use of the SNS

Facebook for Friendship purposes (r = .010, p = .894), there does exist a significant

relationship between a person’s 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 individual’s level o f narcissism impact SNS use?

In order to evaluate this question the following exploratory analyses were conducted: Is

37

there a relationship between an individual’s level o f narcissism and the total amount o f

time they spend on SNSs, and, is there a relationship between an individual’s level o f

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 5Pearson Correlation Statistics fo r Total Time Spent on SNS and Level o f Narcissism (P< -05)_________________________________________________________________

Narcissism Personality InventoryR t Sig Confidence

Interval 95% Lower Upper

EffectSize

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 6Pearson Correlation Statistics fo r Status Updates on SNS and level o f Narcissism (p< .05)______________________________________________________________________

Narcissistic Personality InventoryR t Sig Confidence

Interval 95% Lower Upper

EffectSize

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 o f time individuals spend on SNSs, and, are

there gender differences in the purpose o f use o f 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 7Independent Samples t-test Statistics fo r Time Spent on SNS by Gender

Gender N M SD t Sig. Confidence Interval 95%

EffectSize

Lower UpperTime 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 8Summary o f 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

EffectSize

Friendship Female 95 5.154 1.327 -3.385 .001* -1.048 -.276 .252Male 76 4.491 1.198

Information Female 95 3.532 1.191 -1.437 .153 -.608 .096 .110Male 76 3.276 1.118

Connection Female 95 2.861 1.205 -.155 .877 -.413 .353 .011Male 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 o f 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 individual’s 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 who’s 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 o f 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 o f Organizational Behaviour, 14,

103-118.

Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011).

M illennial, 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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

nation’s 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 o f

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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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, 4 5 ,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 o f Personality,

2, 171-203.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal o f 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 o f

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 o f 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f

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. M odem 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 o f Education fo r 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 o f 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 o f

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 o f 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 o f Applied Developmental

Psychology, 29(6), 446-458.

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). 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 o f 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 o f Abnormal Psychology, 119(4), 640-649.

Morahan-Martin, J. (1998). The gender gap in Internet use: Why men use the Internet

more than women— A 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 o f

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 o f

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 o f

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 o f

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 theory’s 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 o f

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 o f 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 o f the American M edical

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 o f

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 o f 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 o f 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, 584—590.

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

o f 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 o f

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, 984—991.

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 o f 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 o f

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 o f

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 o f 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 A ll)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)

d. For academic purposes

(Not At A ll)l 2 3 4 5 6 7(Almost Always)

e. Posting and looking at pictures

3 4 5 6(Not At A ll)l 2

f. Keeping in touch with

(Not At A ll)l 2

g. Keeping in touch with

(Not At A ll)l 2

h. Locating old friends

(Not At A ll)l 2

i. For dating purposes

(Not At A ll)l 2

j. To make new friends

(Not At A ll)l 2

k. To feel connected

(Not At A ll)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

LIEBOW ITZ 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 publicFear/Anxiety 0Avoidance 0

2. Participating in small group activitiesFear/Anxiety 0Avoidance 0

3. Eating in public placesFear/Anxiety 0Avoidance 0

4. Drinking with others in public placesFear/Anxiety 0Avoidance 0

22

22

22

22

33

33

33

33

5. Talking to people in authorityFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

6. Acting, performing, or speaking in front of an audienceFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

7. Going to a partyFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

8. Working while being observedFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

9. Writing while being observedFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

10. Calling someone you don’t know very wellFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

11. Talking face to face with someone you don’t know very wellFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

12. Meeting strangersFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

13. Urinating in a public bathroomFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

14. Entering a room when others are already seatedFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

69

15. Being the center of attentionFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

16. Speaking up at a meetingFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

17. Taking a test of your ability, skill, or knowledgeFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

18. Expressing a disagreement or disapproval to people you don’t know very wellFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

19. Looking someone who you don’t know very well straight in the eyesFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

20. Giving a prepared oral talk to a groupFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

21. Trying to make someone's acquaintance for the purpose of a romantic/sexual relationship

Fear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

22. Returning goods to a storeFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

23. Giving a partyFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 0 1 2 3

24. Resisting a high pressure sales personFear/Anxiety 0 1 2 3Avoidance 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