Social-Networking Revelation: Narcissism on Facebook

Because of such mass participation on social-networking sites (twenty-two million logged onto Facebook in August), psychologists are beginning to study implications of use and the extent to which online behavior parallels that in real life. A recent study completed at the University of Georgia concludes that social-networking sites prove helpful in determining one's vanity. This study--completed by a doctoral student in psychology alongside an associate professor, Laura Buffardi and W. Keith Campbell, respectively--explores the significance of using Facebook for self-promotion (see right picture). Researchers gave questionnaires to almost 130 Facebook users and had these "untrained strangers" score individual pages using three characteristics: amount of social interaction, appeal of the individual, and extent of self-promotion. With this data, Buffardi and Campbell conclude that the number of Facebook friends and wall posts correlate with narcissism. Buffardi says that, "people who are narcissistic use Facebook in a self-promoting way that can be identified by others," just like narcissists in real life who have "numerous yet shallow relationships." According to Campbell, the study of social-networking is "still in its infancy," but he still believes it possible to make character judgments based on specific attributes of one's Facebook page.

This week, I decided to explore the blogosphere to gain more insight about this study from an accredited individual, and a victim of judgment. First, I visited the page of Dr. Christopher Panza, an associate professor of philosophy at Drury University. His post "This Just In: Facebook Narcissism!" interests me because he so quickly discredits this study by believing that it states the obvious. Also, I explored "Are People With A Lot of 'Friends' on Facebook Narcissists?" by Scott Bradley, a recent college graduate who uses Facebook, and is quoted as an example of a narcissist by a reporter for ABC in "Facebook: Where Narcissists Connect?". Although he is not a professional researcher, I believe his insight is important considering the way he claims his words were twisted for the article. I have included my comments below.

"This Just In: Facebook Narcissism!"
Comment:
I enjoyed reading your post about the recent study correlating Facebook friends, profile pictures, and wall posts with narcissism. I understand that people may perceive a multitude of Facebook friends as narcissistic (wanting to appear popular, and conversely, wanting to positively convey one's self to the largest audience possible), but number of friends has other purposes as well. But do you believe true narcissism is so obvious? Not everyone uses Facebook as a constant reminder of his or her own perfection, as Caravaggio's Narcissus uses this pond to do below. For example, as humans, we are nosy. We want to anonymously gain access to others' lives, and what better way to do this than to become Facebook friends? It allows entry into another's pictures, information (hometown, subjects studied, relationship status), and interests, among others. Also, a major way to find out about social events is through Facebook; the more friends one has, the more potential social gatherings one may find and attend.

While I agree with your observation that "Facebook...creates more and more ways for people to over-indulge in self-absorption," I do not believe that the majority of people with a Facebook account have it for this reason. Beyond narcissism, I think it is most obvious that as humans, we want to portray ourselves well. Just like if I were to go for a job interview, I would dress nicely to look my best and bring a resume outlining my most proud accomplishments, on Facebook I want to do the same. I know my peers can see me, so why would I choose an unflattering picture?

I understand that you do not look upon Facebook favorably, but to say that Facebook so obviously breeds narcissism insinuates a greater abundance of this trait than I believe exists. This study even says that narcissism is detectable in only some cases, not to mention the small sample size of 130 for which drawing conclusions seems questionable. I believe that part of the problem with Facebook research is that the generation doing the research (comprised of individuals who probably do not have Facebook pages) projects so many negative ideas onto Facebook users. For example, you say that you "have no interest in reading anyone's profile anymore, because [you are] afraid of learning just how deep the psychological insecurities of particular people extend." What if Facebook researchers employ this same attitude? Although you seem surprised at "the money people get to run certain studies," I believe studies like this one are important, if they can remain unbiased.

"Are People With A Lot of 'Friends' On Facebook Narcissists?"
Comment:
I saw the recent study by the University of Georgia about the correlation between narcissism and number of Facebook friends, wall posts, and pictures. As an avid Facebook user myself, I cannot say that reading this news was surprising because I believe that many of the researchers doing these studies are not part of the generation that takes full advantage of social-networking tools, so they therefore do not completely understand its use. I decided to do more research into the matter and came across the ABC article in which you were quoted. Upon first read, I was surprised to hear of someone with so many Facebook friends, as I have not seen this first hand, but reading your post made a few things more clear. You say you met "95% of the speakers [you] brought to speak at the Boston College Entrepreneur Society between [your] junior and senior year." This seems like a legitimate reason to have so many Facebook friends: you want to reach out to as many people as possible with a common interest--entrepreneurship, I presume-- in attempt to find the few that will show interest in coming to speak with your society.

You mention that one should not "talk about narcissism without talking about influence," alluding to the great impact you have had on others. Do you think that is a little bit narcissistic? Even if that comment appears a bit conceited, your friend made some interesting points in the video: he says that social-networking sites are a way to "sell" yourself, and that we "sell" ourselves on and offline everyday. This is a valid point; with job opportunities so competitive today, we must market ourselves. Because potential employers do look at sites like Facebook pages, it is important that we represent ourselves in the best way possible.

This study may have been improved by also having participants judge themselves on the same narcissism scale by which they judged others, and further compared those ratings to their own Facebook pages. More than narcissism, this study seems to be about the judgment we place on others, when we should also consider our own behaviors and the ways in which we are ourselves perceived.

Internet Addiction: A Valid Affliction?

Psychologists continue to debate the legitimacy of internet addiction and its worthiness of a place in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due out in May 2012. Currently, the DSM-IV-TR does not include a section for addictions; substance abuse, its closest relative, exists on the first axis. Axis I disorders constitute mental illness, but the inclusion of internet addiction among them is a mistake because the internet itself is not an addiction, but a disguise for an existing disorder or an escape from boredom. In a hasty effort to pathologize human behavior, individuals attempt to shirk responsibility for their actions--diagnosing internet addiction would further enable this behavior. Although other countries recognize and treat internet addiction, this fascination should not be included in the DSM-V as an Axis I disorder, but instead, noted on the fourth axis as an environmental factor, only if a true Axis I disorder exists.

Superficially, surfing the internet for the majority of a day seems unhealthy and like an addiction, but other factors exist; excessive use may mask mental illness. Before reaching a conclusion, it is important to establish true addiction criteria: obsession with using the internet, tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, inability to limit use, and reliance on the internet to alter mood. But, the internet is not the abuser. The individual is not the victim (see left picture). According to media psychologist, Pamela Rutledge, "Like most addictions, Internet addiction is not about the Internet," but rather, it concerns the individual using the internet to the point of destruction within his or her own life. Those who use such internet activities to alter moods are exceptional candidates for an existing mental disorder, such as anxiety or depression. Regarding internet addiction as proven methodologically, Louise Nadeau, of Universite de Montreal's Department of Psychology, admits that "there is no reliable study or clinical data on the issue." To include internet addiction in the DSM-V on such a whim undermines the value of psychology as an empirical science.

By contrast, this lack of evidence may be irrelevant because the internet might simply be a functional way to complete work and a stimulating way to pass time. Because humans have an innate desire to avoid boredom, they enjoy using the internet because it offers endless possibilities for communication and information-gathering. With the internet's multi-functionality, one can complete a work e-mail, instant message a friend, and listen to an mp3 all simultaneously. If the internet were not used to complete these activities, the time spent doing each individually might actually exceed that in front of the computer. Additionally, if people could not use the internet, they would find other means of gaining access to what they want, for example excessive text messaging or video-game playing.

By rejecting these alternatives, a cycle governed by laws of behavioral psychology begins. One initially logs onto the internet to avoid boredom, and in turn, that avoidant behavior becomes positively reinforced by communication and entertainment, among others. Human behaviors work on this principle, though, so to call this an addiction is pathologizing regular human conduct. Normal behavior should not include withdrawal symptoms, yet a British online newspaper, MailOnline claims that an increase in blood pressure and brain activity do occur: "The stress of being disconnected [is] equivalent to that of running half an hour late for a key meeting, being about to sit an important exam or, in the worst cases, being sacked." This still seems normal. For example, if an individual is barred from the internet and experiences stress while expecting a work email, the stress really stems from the workplace and its expectations. The internet is simply an efficient means to finish overwhelming projects, like in the picture to the right. These studies on internet addiction must be examined skeptically; many studies are conducted to prove its harmful effects based on the agendas of psychologists who want to diagnose it as a disorder.

Instead of diagnosing internet addiction on the first axis, psychologists must make "internet abuse" more secondary. Because addictions do not currently exist as a category, psychologists would have to create one; this would further encourage future additions to an "addictions" category. Instead, to help preserve the integrity of the current DSM-IV-TR, psychologists could adopt a method of diagnosis whereby they would add "internet abuse" to the psychosocial and environmental axis IV. With this, they could still treat a patient for spending an unhealthy amount of time doing one thing, but it would put "the internet" in the background. This should only be used if there is in fact a true clinical diagnosis. For example, a psychologist diagnoses a patient with depression, spending an unhealthy amount of time watching tragic movies. Watching tragedies is arbitrary. The diagnosis is still depression whether the patient unhealthily manifests energy in watching tragedies, using the internet, or a plethora of other activities. No matter the activity, a psychologist would still try to train the patient in time management, coping skills, and productive ways to spend time.

Making "internet abuse" secondary would avoid a patient feeling the powerlessness that exists with axis I diagnoses. Upon receiving a diagnosis, one may feel less responsible for his or her actions; the likelihood of blaming behaviors or emotions on a psychosis heightens. Also, a self-fulfilling prophecy may emerge--a patient begins to act a certain way based on expectations of someone with that disorder. Dr. Jerald J. Block believes in diagnosing internet addiction and cites South Korea for considering it among its most problematic public health issues; 210,000 children ages 6-19 require treatment, and of those, 20% to 24% require hospitalization. By exaggerating this problem, children in South Korea will grow up to believe that they have a disease, so anything they become attached to in the future, the internet or otherwise, they can blame on "the disease." The older generation may not understand that the world is rapidly changing and that technology is a main component--"This is a media culture and to succeed in it, we have to know how to harness media technologies for our positive use and make peace with them," said Rutledge. Living in a "media culture", we must realize the importance of the internet, while still monitoring our activities and time spent doing them. Most importantly, if we take responsibility for our actions and use the internet as a helpful tool, we will seldom confuse it for a life-consuming monster.