Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

The relative contributions of implicit and explicit self-esteemto narcissistic use of Facebook

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.0230747-5632/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (979) 422 1965.E-mail address: rshw5@mail.missouri.edu (R. Subramanian).

Roma Subramanian a,⇑, Kevin Wise b, Doug Davis a, Manu Bhandari a, Erin Morris a

a University of Missouri, School of Journalism, 179 Gannett Hall, Columbia, MO 65211-1200, USAb University of Illinois, Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising, 229 Gregory Hall, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 10 August 2014

Keywords:NarcissismExplicitImplicitSelf-esteemFacebook

a b s t r a c t

This study aimed to explore the relationship between narcissism and Facebook use. Based on a concep-tualization of narcissism as a discrepancy between implicit and explicit self-esteem, we investigated therelative contributions of each element of self-esteem to different Facebook behaviors presumed to repre-sent narcissism. We measured the explicit and implicit self-esteem of 81 participants using the Rosen-berg Self-Esteem Scale and the Self-Esteem Implicit Association Test (IAT), respectively. Mostparticipants then provided access to their Facebook accounts by friending a fictitious person. We codeda sample of these participants’ online behaviors, and then analyzed how they related to the measures ofself-esteem. Results suggest that implicit rather than explicit self-esteem drives Facebook behaviors asso-ciated with narcissism, with implicit self-esteem negatively correlated with number of Facebook friends.These results inform our understanding of the relationship between personality and online behavior.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Online social networks (OSNs) have afforded individuals manyof the same capabilities of a small broadcasting company. Peoplewho use OSNs like Facebook and Twitter control the means of bothmessage production and message transmission. These means areoften deployed to do what we call ‘‘broadcasting the self’’: usingthe OSN as a virtual show-and-tell feed by chronicling the mun-dane events of daily life through status updates and photo uploads.In essence, individuals with Facebook accounts can broadcastthemselves as often as they would like, as if they are the producersof their own personal reality show.

It is not a great leap to imagine that individuals’ propensity tobroadcast the self via OSNs might reflect their personality. Onespecific personality trait that seems related to broadcasting the selfis narcissism, which is manifested by an inflated self-concept andinability to maintain intimacy in personal relationships, perhapsbecause the inflated self-concept of the narcissist is easily threa-tened (e.g., Campbell, Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, & Kernis, 2007;Myers & Zeigler-Hill, 2012). It is easy to see why this might berelated to Facebook use, which affords people constant self-promo-tion behind the shield of computer-mediated communication.

Indeed, previous research suggests a positive relationshipbetween narcissism and OSN use (e.g., Buffardi & Campbell,2008). This apparent relationship, however, paints an incompletepicture as research in personality suggests that narcissism is basedon a discrepancy between explicit and implicit self-esteem. Morespecifically, people with narcissism tend to have very high explicitself-esteem but very low implicit self-esteem (e.g., Zeigler-Hill,2006). What we do not know is which of these components ofself-esteem is most related to Facebook use. Both seem plausible:Facebook provides a medium through which people can engagein endless self-promotion (explicit self-esteem) but does so in away that provides protection from ego threat (implicit self-esteem).

The goal of this study was to advance our understanding of therelationship between narcissism and OSN use. We explored therelationship between implicit and explicit self-esteem and bothoverall OSN use as well as specific Facebook behaviors. Specifically,we measured participants’ implicit and explicit self-esteem alongwith their self-reported OSN use. We also retrospectively moni-tored participants’ Facebook behavior and coded common behav-iors (e.g., status updates, photos) for both their frequency as wellas how often these behaviors were self-referent. We then analyzedthe extent to which the different forms of self-esteem were relatedto specific Facebook behaviors. Before reporting the results of thisstudy, we briefly explicate narcissism and summarize existingresearch on the relationship between this concept and OSN use.

R. Subramanian et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311 307

2. Literature review

2.1. Narcissism and discrepant self-esteem

Like many personality attributes, narcissism is more complexthan suggested by its common use in everyday language. It is con-ceptualized in the existing literature in terms of the relationshipbetween different elements of self-esteem. According to the maskmodel of narcissism, narcissists aim to continuously maintain‘‘grandiose but fragile self-views that mask deep-seated feelingsof inferiority rooted in early interpersonal experiences’’ (Bossonet al., 2008, p. 1417). Specifically, the mask model theorizes thatnarcissists have high explicit and low implicit self-esteem(Bosson et al., 2008).

Implicit and explicit self-esteem are weakly correlated and arebelieved to originate from independent systems (e.g., Baccus,Baldwin, & Packer, 2004; Brinol, Petty, & Wheeler, 2006). Explicitself-esteem resides in the cognitive or rational system, which oper-ates at the conscious level and implicit self-esteem in the experien-tial system, which operates at the nonconscious level (Kernis et al.,2005).

Implicit self-esteem is more likely to ‘‘capture unfiltered aspectsof self-esteem’’ (Buhrmester, Blanton, & Swann, 2011, p. 366)because it is measured indirectly, and therefore, respondents can-not knowingly change their responses. Explicit self-esteem, how-ever, refers to attitudes about oneself that the individual formsthrough conscious deliberation (Brinol et al., 2006). Thus, asagainst implicit self-esteem, individuals engage in constructingtheir explicit self-esteem, and this construction occurs to varyingdegrees (Dijksterhuis, Albers, & Bongers, 2008). The lesser the con-struction of explicit self-esteem, the more explicit self-esteemreflects implicit self-esteem (Dijksterhuis et al., 2008; Koole,Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001).

People with comparable self-esteem, that is, high explicit/highimplicit or low explicit/low implicit self-esteem do not engage inmuch construction of explicit self-esteem (Dijksterhuis et al.,2008). On the other hand, people with discrepant self-esteem, thatis, high explicit-low implicit or low implicit-high explicit self-esteem are ‘‘construction workers’’ (Dijksterhuis et al., 2008, p.93). In particular, people with high explicit/low implicit self-esteem engage in ‘‘self-presentation and self-deception’’(Dijksterhuis et al., 2008, p. 93).

Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem areassociated with dysfunctional or negative outcomes (Brinol et al.,2006). For example, citing a study by Shedler, Mayman, andManis (1993), Brinol et al. (2006) discuss how compared with indi-viduals with consistent self-esteem (high explicit/high implicitself-esteem), those with discrepant self-esteem were ‘‘significantlymore reactive on a combined index of heart rate and blood pres-sure and scored higher on behavioral indices of anxiety’’ (p. 155).Also, individuals with high-explicit/low-implicit self-esteemengage in greater self-enhancement than individuals with highexplicit/high implicit self-esteem (Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, &Swann, 2003). For example, they have overtly optimistic viewsabout their future, rate themselves highly with regard to personalattributes such as intellectual and social abilities, and are moredefensive (Bosson et al., 2003). Individuals with discrepant self-esteem, regardless of the direction of the discrepancy (that is, highexplicit/low implicit or low explicit/high implicit), will engage insuch self-enhancement to a greater extent than individuals withcongruent explicit and implicit self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2003;Kernis et al., 2005). Given the aforementioned conceptualizationof narcissism as self-esteem discrepancy, the next section exploresexisting research on the relationship between narcissism and OSNuse.

2.2. Narcissism and OSN use

There is a concern that social networking Web sites, whichencourage ‘‘self-promotion via self-descriptions, vanity via photos,and large numbers of shallow relationships’’ foster narcissism(Buffardi & Campbell, 2008, p. 1303). Narcissists use relationshipsto magnify their success and popularity, that is, for self-promotion;however, they are not interested in interpersonal intimacy(Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). OSNs might attract narcissists asthese sites encourage shallow relationships through ‘‘superficial‘friendships’ with large numbers of individuals and ‘sound-byte’driven communication between friends (i.e., wallposts)’’ (Buffardi& Campbell, 2008, p. 1305). Indeed, there is a correlation betweenhigh scores on a narcissism scale (Narcissistic Personality Inven-tory) and quantity of interaction on Facebook (Buffardi &Campbell, 2008; Ljepava, Orr, Locke, & Ross, 2013); posting self-promoting quotes; and main photo attractiveness, self-promotion,and sexiness (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Also, narcissism is asso-ciated with the number of friends an individual has on Facebook(Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, & Bergman, 2011). Also, grandi-ose exhibitionism, a component of narcissism, predicts self-pro-moting Facebook behavior, friend count, and accepting requestsfrom strangers (Carpenter, 2012).

The relationship between the components of narcissism, thatis, explicit and implicit self-esteem, and social network activityis less clear. For example, Krämer and Winter (2008) found noassociation between participants’ explicit self-esteem and theirself-presentation on a social networking site. Also, Tazghini andSiedlecki (2013) found no relationship between explicit self-esteem and number of Facebook friends. On the other hand,Mehdizadeh (2010) found that explicit self-esteem and Facebookactivity were significantly negatively correlated; specifically, lowexplicit self-esteem ‘‘correlated with a greater amount of timespent on Facebook per session and a greater amount of Facebooklogins per day’’ (p. 363). This is an interesting finding consideringthat narcissism, manifested as high Facebook activity, should becorrelated with high explicit self-esteem. Also, Ellison, Steinfield,and Lampe (2007) found that the relationship between intensityof Facebook use and bridging social capital (that is, weak connec-tions between individuals who provide information, but not emo-tional support, for each other) varied depending on the person’sdegree of self-esteem. Further, it has been found that individualswith low self-esteem report a greater sense of Facebook connect-edness (Tazghini & Siedlecki, 2013). These inconsistent findingssuggest a need to further investigate the relationship betweenexplicit self-esteem and OSN use.

RQ1: What is the relationship between OSN use and explicitself-esteem?

There are few studies that have examined the relationshipbetween implicit self-esteem, as a component of narcissism, andOSN use. It is worthwhile to explore this relationship as implicitself-esteem reflects core self-esteem to a greater extent than expli-cit self-esteem since it is not subject to conscious control or activeconstruction (like explicit self-esteem) (Dijksterhuis et al., 2008).For example, measures of implicit self-esteem, unlike those ofexplicit self-esteem, are not distorted by social desirability bias(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Examining the relationship betweenimplicit self-esteem and OSN use can help predict OSN behaviormore accurately.

RQ2: What is the relationship between OSN use and implicitself-esteem?

308 R. Subramanian et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311

Finally, as explained earlier, discrepant explicit and implicitcomponents of self-esteem result in fragile self-esteem. Individu-als with discrepant self-esteem, that is, either high explicit/lowimplicit or high implicit/low explicit, will engage in self-enhancement to a greater extent than individuals with congru-ent explicit and implicit self-esteem (Bosson et al., 2003;Kernis et al., 2005). However, to the best of our knowledge, thereare no studies that have looked at the relationship between dis-crepant self-esteem and OSN use. Clarifying the role betweendifferent components of self-esteem and OSN use could providea more nuanced understanding of what drives narcissistic behav-ior on social networking sites. Therefore, we propose the follow-ing research question:

RQ3: What is the relationship between OSN use and self-esteem discrepancy?

We explored these questions in a laboratory study in which par-ticipants completed measures of implicit and explicit self-esteemas well as Facebook use. Most participants then ‘‘friended’’ a Face-book identity that we had created. We content analyzed severaldifferent Facebook behaviors and assessed their relationship withthe self-esteem measures.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Eighty-one (81) undergraduates (61 women and 20 men, meanage = 20.33 years) received course credit for their participation inthis study.

3.2. Predictor variables

Explicit self-esteem. We measured participants’ explicit self-esteem using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,1965). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has been more empiri-cally validated than any other self-esteem measure (Robins,Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001; Gray-Little, Williams, &Hancock, 1997). A review of the convergent and discriminantvalidity of this scale found that it was one of the most validmeasures of global self-esteem (Byrne, 1983; Paxton, Neumark-Sztainer, Hannan, & Eisenberg, 2006). The scale is a 10-item, 4-point Likert-type instrument that asks respondents to identifytheir level of agreement with statements concerning how onefeels about oneself. Responses to all items were averaged, yield-ing an index of explicit self-esteem for each participant (Cron-bach’s a = .85).

Implicit self-esteem. We measured participants’ implicit self-esteem using a variation of the Implicit Association Test (IAT)designed specifically for self-esteem (Greenwald & Farnham,2000). The IAT has been extensively used and found to have inter-nal validity. Specifically, the IAT has been shown to have threeforms of construct validity: known groups validity, predictivevalidity, and discriminant validity (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000).We used the improved scoring algorithm described byGreenwald, Nosek, and Banaji (2003), yielding a ‘‘D’’ score for eachparticipant that represented their implicit self-esteem.

Explicit–implicit self-esteem discrepancy. We computed stan-dardized (Z) scores for both explicit and implicit self-esteem mea-sures to transform them to a common scale. We then computed thediscrepancy as the absolute value of the difference between thestandardized explicit and implicit self-esteem scores in accordancewith previous research (Brinol et al., 2006).

3.3. Outcome variables

Self-report Facebook use. We measured participants’ percep-tions of their own Facebook use with the Facebook Intensity scale,a 9-item instrument that combines Likert-type items (6 items; 5-point scale) measuring emotional impressions of one’s Facebookuse with more objective measures of duration of Facebook use,number of Facebook friends, and number of Facebook friends thatare ‘‘real’’ friends (Ellison et al., 2007). The 3 objective items wereconverted to a 5-point scale by computing percentile ranks andthen multiplying by 5. The combined 9-item scale had poor reli-ability, such that the 6 emotional impression items correlated neg-atively (and significantly) with the objective items. We alsoemployed a related measure of Facebook Connection Strategies(Ellison et al., 2007). This is a 13-item Likert-type scale that mea-sures reasons people use Facebook according to three sub-scales:Initiating, Social-Information Seeking, and Maintaining. The reli-ability of these subscales was also suspect (Cronbach’s as = .72,.64, and .69, respectively). Because of these reliability concerns,we dropped these self-report measures from further analyses.

Facebook behavior. Participants were asked to friend an anony-mous Facebook account (see Section 3.4 for details). Seventy-one(87.65%) agreed to do so. The 71 participants’ Facebook accountswere distributed between five coders such that four coders wereeach assigned 20 participants and the fifth coder, the remaining11 participants. Specifically, coder 1 coded for participants 1–20;coder 2, participants 15–35; coder 3, participants 30–50; coder 4,participants 45–65; and coder 5, the remaining participants, thatis, 60–71. We built in some overlap between pairs of coders so thatwe would be able to spot check for inconsistencies. (Coder 5 wasassigned a fewer number of participants simply because we had71 and not 80 participants.)

The coders then dated and coded the last 20 Facebook actions ofthe participants they were allocated as self-referent (coded as 1) ornon-self-referent (coded as 2) (self- and non-self-referent posts aredefined below). The scores for these 20 posts were then averaged,yielding an index of the extent to which each participant’s last 20posts were self-referent. A higher value on this index would there-fore mean a greater number of other- rather than self-referent posts.In other words, the higher the index, the less self-referent people’sposts are. We also coded the number of Facebook friends, photo-graphs, and posting frequency (scored as the number of days wehad to go back to amass 20 posts). The five coders all coded a subsetof 5 participants’ Facebook activity, demonstrating acceptable inter-coder reliability for exploratory research of this nature (Krippen-dorf’s a = .76, Cohen’s j = .76, average pairwise agreement = .90).

A self-referent post was defined as a Facebook post—text, photo,video, or multimedia (contained a combination of text and photo,text and video, photo and video, or text and other visual ele-ment)—on the student’s Profile/Timeline page that was posted bythe student (as against a post that the student had responded to)and was about the student’s life. A self-referent text post coulddescribe an event/occurrence in the student’s life (e.g., ‘‘My first timeat ... restaurant’’) or could be self-praise (e.g., ‘‘I made an A in ... class’’)or could be an opinion (e.g., ‘‘Great game!’’). A self-referent post typ-ically contained first-person personal pronouns (I, me, myself, my,mine). However, those posts that did not contain a first-person per-sonal pronoun but were clearly about the student (e.g., ‘‘Eating asandwich’’) were also coded as self-referent. A self-referent photoor video post was a photo or video post uploaded by the student(and not photos or videos in which the student was ‘‘tagged’’) thatcontained the student. (If a student uploaded a photo album, itwas coded as self-referent if one or more of the photos in the album‘‘preview’’ contained the student.) Finally, a self-referent multime-dia post had at least one self-referent element.

R. Subramanian et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311 309

A non-self-referent post was defined as a Facebook post—text,photo, video, or multimedia—on the student’s Profile/Timelinepage that was posted by the student (as against a post that the stu-dent had responded to) but was not about the student’s life. Exam-ples of non-self-referent posts were links to Web sites, quotes byfamous people, or ads (e.g., ‘‘Auditions for spring music festivalbegin tonight. Those interested please contact ...’’). Non self-refer-ent video or photo posts were videos or photos uploaded by thestudent that did not contain the student. Non-self-referent multi-media posts were those that contained no self-referent element.

3.4. Procedure

Each participant entered the laboratory, provided informedconsent, and sat down at a computer terminal. Participants thenviewed a short nature video that served as a preliminary emotionregulation and memory clearance task. Participants then com-pleted the Self-Esteem IAT. Consistent with previous research(Greenwald & Farnham, 2000), participants were randomlyassigned to 1 of 2 conditions that counterbalanced the sequenceof different blocks of the IAT. Once they had finished the IAT, par-ticipants completed the explicit measures in the following order:Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Facebook Intensity Scale, and Face-book Connection Strategies Scale. Upon completion of these tasks,participants were asked to log into their Facebook account and‘‘friend’’ a fictitious account. We did this so that we could gainaccess to participants’ Facebook accounts and could code theirFacebook posts. Participants were explicitly told that we wouldbe using this account to analyze their behavior. Posts were codedretrospectively, beginning from the last day of data collection, sothat most coded posts were those that participants had postedprior to taking the study. In this way, participants’ ‘‘natural’’ Face-book behavior could be captured. Participants were given theoption of refusing to do this, yet still receive credit for participatingin the study. When data collection was completed, each participantwas debriefed, thanked, and dismissed. The entire data collectionperiod lasted approximately thirty minutes.

4. Results

Our overarching research question was whether implicit andexplicit self-esteem differentially predict behaviors associatedwith Facebook use. Based on the literature conceptualizing narcis-sism as discrepant explicit–implicit self-esteem, we also assessedthe predictive value of this discrepancy in addition to that of itscomponents. We ran a series of linear regressions using these threevariables (explicit self-esteem, implicit self-esteem, and discrep-ancy) as predictors, with the Facebook behaviors described aboveas the outcome variables. The results of these analyses are shownin Table 1. Explicit self-esteem significantly and positively pre-dicted the index of self-referent posts (calculated as the averageof self- and non-self-referent posts) such that people with higherexplicit self-esteem tended to post more about others (coded as

Table 1Summary of linear regression analysis for variables predicting the index of self-referent p

Variable B SE B

Index of self-referent postsExplicit self-esteem 0.05 0.02Implicit self-esteem �0.03 0.02Discrepancy 0.04 0.03

Number of photos postedExplicit self-esteem �368.44 217.22Implicit self-esteem �62.38 178.79Discrepancy �541.68 257.40

* p < .05.

2) than about themselves (coded as 1). Implicit self-esteem signif-icantly and negatively predicted the number of Facebook friends,such that people with lower implicit self-esteem tended to havemore Facebook friends. The discrepancy between explicit andimplicit self-esteem significantly and negatively predicted thenumber of photos that a participant had in their Facebook account,such that the greater the discrepancy, the fewer the number ofphotos posted. None of the three predictor variables were signifi-cantly related to our measure of posting frequency.

5. Discussion

The theoretical motivation for this study came from numerousstudies suggesting a relationship between narcissism and Face-book use. With narcissism conceptualized as a discrepancybetween implicit and explicit self-esteem, this relationship begsthe question of whether Facebook use is driven by implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem, or self-esteem discrepancy. We mea-sured each with widely accepted measures and then analyzed par-ticipants’ online behavior. Results showed meaningful individualrelationships among these variables but no clear overall pattern.High explicit self-esteem predicts a higher percentage of Facebookposts that are more other- than self-referent. High implicit self-esteem predicts fewer Facebook friends. High self-esteem discrep-ancy predicts fewer photographs displayed.

5.1. Theoretical and practical ramifications

Online social networks provide excellent means for testing the-oretical propositions relating to aspects of group, as well as inter-personal communication, including self-disclosure (Naaman,Boase, & Lai, 2010), impression management (Krämer and Winter(2008)), and information spread (Centola, 2010; Dodds, Harris,Kloumann, Bliss, & Danforth, 2011). We revisited the concept ofdiscrepant self-esteem by measuring both explicit and implicitself-esteem, coupling these with posting behavior observed in anonline setting.

Self-esteem is discrepant when implicit and explicit measuresfall near opposite extremes of their respective dimensions. Explicitself-esteem is theoretically a conscious construct, and is goal-directed, as opposed to implicit self-esteem. This study revealedan unanticipated significant relationship between measured expli-cit self-esteem and the tendency to make self-referential posts,that is, the higher the explicit self-esteem score, the greater wasthe number of observed other-referential (or non-self-referential)posts. This contrasts with prior expectations that higher self-refer-ential posting activity would be seen among people who scorehigher on measures of explicit self-esteem, as this presumptivelyrelates to goal-oriented impression management. How this relatesto Mehdizadeh’s (2010) finding of more frequent OSN activityamong those lower in explicit self-esteem is unclear.

Results from our implicit self-esteem measure, the IAT(Greenwald & Farnham, 2000), suggested that implicit self-esteem

osts, number of friends, number of photos posted, and days to 20 posts.

b B SE B b

Number of friends0.25* �126.18 74.19 �0.21�0.21 �125.60 60.92 �0.25*

0.18 �54.84 87.71 �0.08

Days to 20 posts�0.21 �33.75 29.23 �0.15�0.04 15.99 25.24 0.08�0.26* �41.43 34.51 �0.16

310 R. Subramanian et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311

significantly predicted the number of Facebook friends such thatparticipants with higher implicit self-esteem tended to have fewerfriends. This result is in line with previous research identifying thesuperficial harvesting of Facebook friends as a narcissistic behavior(Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). The data reported here provide evi-dence that variance in acquiring friends is attributable to implicitself-esteem, rather than explicit or discrepant self-esteem.

Discrepant self-esteem predicted the number of photos our par-ticipants had displayed on their Facebook accounts, with lower dis-crepancy predicting a higher number of photos. This unexpectedresult raises interesting questions about existing theories of narcis-sism such as does the conceptualization of narcissism as discrepantself-esteem need to be revisited? Bosson et al. (2008) suggest thatit does. According to the authors, narcissists may not have overallor global low implicit self-esteem. Instead, their implicit self-esteem may be low along certain dimensions. Specifically, narcis-sists are high in implicit agentic traits (e.g., assertive, dominant)and low in implicit communal traits (e.g., cooperative, affection-ate). According to the authors, the inconsistent relationshipsbetween narcissistic behavior and self-esteem in the literature(and as in our study) may be because the IAT used does not differ-entiate between implicit self-esteem in agentic versus communaldomains. Support for this hypothesis has been found: Campbellet al. (2007) created IATs that captured implicit agency and impli-cit communion and found that narcissism was positively related toimplicit agency and unrelated to implicit communion. Repeatingour study with these IATs would help us get a deeper understand-ing of the nature of participants’ discrepant self-esteem and itsrelationship to narcissistic behavior.

5.2. Limitations

Much is made over lack of external validity when using samplesconsisting solely of American university undergraduates. Thisstudy’s external validity was enhanced on two counts: using a fic-titious friend’s account to observe subjects’ genuine Facebookactivities as opposed to self-report estimates of behavior. Second,the use of a college sample is relevant because of the degree ofsocial media’s penetrance and its subsequent influence among thisnumerically significant portion of society.

Reliance on a dichotomous measure (‘self’ versus ‘other’), whichmay not capture all referential subtleties in posting communica-tion, limits the depth of interpretation we can make from the sub-jects’ Facebook posts. Development of software routines havinghigher sensitivity to lexical nuance would broaden the potentialrange of conclusions made from study of Facebook posting andinterpersonal communication in general.

5.3. Conclusion

By examining how the explicit and implicit self-esteem compo-nents of narcissism predict Facebook use, this study offers a deeperunderstanding of the relationship between narcissism and Face-book use. Results indicated that implicit rather than explicit self-esteem drives narcissistic Facebook behavior, with low implicitself-esteem predicting more Facebook friends. Also, high explicitself-esteem predicts the mean number of other-referent posts.Finally, discrepant self-esteem predicts the number of Facebookphotos, with lower discrepancy predicting a higher number ofphotos.

As is often the case, this preliminary attempt to answer onequestion has yielded several others. We mentioned earlier the needto further segment our sample and explore the relationshipsdescribed here but with more specific clusters. Additional detailscould also be added to our behavioral coding scheme; clearly wehave just scratched the surface here in terms of the range of online

behaviors one could measure that might be related to self-esteem.These findings suggest that the relationship between OSN use andnarcissism is more nuanced than the lay assumption that peoplewho make frequent self-referent posts are narcissists. Rather, theactivities we associate with narcissism reflect a dynamic underly-ing relationship between implicit and explicit self-esteem.

References

Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteemthrough classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15(7), 498–502.

Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011).Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on socialnetworking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 706–711.

Bosson, J. K., Brown, R. P., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Swann, W. B. (2003). Self-enhancementtendencies among people with high explicit self-esteem: The moderating role ofimplicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 2(3), 169–187.

Bosson, J. K., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C. H., & Kernis, M.H. (2008). Untangling the links between narcissism and self-esteem: Atheoretical and empirical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(3), 1415–1439.

Brinol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2006). Discrepancies between explicit andimplicit self-concepts: Consequences for information processing. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 154–170.

Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking Websites. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314.

Buhrmester, M. D., Blanton, H., & Swann, W. B. (2011). Implicit self-esteem: Nature,measurement, and a new way forward. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 100(2), 365–385.

Byrne, B. M. (1983). Investigating measures of self-concept. Measurement andEvaluation in Guidance, 16, 115–126.

Campbell, W. K., Bosson, J. K., Goheen, T. W., Lakey, C. E., & Kernis, M. H. (2007).Donarcissists dislike themselves ‘‘deep down inside?’’. Psychological Science,18(3), 227–229.

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-socialbehavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 482–486.

Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.Science, 329(5996), 1194–1197.

Dijksterhuis, A., Albers, L., & Bongers, K. (2008). Digging for the real attitude:Lessons from research on implicit and explicit self-esteem. In R. E. Petty, R. H.Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new wave of implicit measures(pp. 229–250). New York: Psychology Press.

Dodds, P. S., Harris, K. D., Kloumann, I. M., Bliss, C. A., & Danforth, C. M. (2011).Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network:Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e26752.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theoryanalysis of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23, 443–451.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test tomeasure selfesteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 79, 1022–1038.

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using theimplicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.

Kernis, M. H., Abend, T. A., Goldman, B. M., Shrira, I., Paradise, A. N., & Hampton, C.(2005). Self-serving responses arising from discrepancies between explicit andimplicit selfesteem. Self and Identity, 4(4), 311–330.

Koole, S. L., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2001). What’s in a name:Implicit selfesteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80(4), 669–685.

Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship ofselfesteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within socialnetworking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116.

Ljepava, N., Orr, R. R., Locke, S., & Ross, C. (2013). Personality and socialcharacteristics of Facebook non-users and frequent users. Computers inHuman Behavior, 29(4), 1602–1607.

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem onFacebook. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 13(4), 357–364.

Myers, E. M., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2012). How much do narcissists really likethemselves? Using the bogus pipeline procedure to better understand the self-esteem of narcissists? Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 102–105.

Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C. H. (2010). Is it really about me? Message content insocial awareness streams. In Proc. of the American computing machinery’s 2010computer supported cooperative work conference (CSCW) (pp. 189–192).

Paxton, S. J., Neumark-Sztainer Hannan, P. J., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2006). Bodydissatisfaction prospectively predicts depressive mood and low self-esteem inadolescent girls and boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(4),539–549.

R. Subramanian et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 306–311 311

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. AmericanPsychologist, 48(11), 1117–1131.

Tazghini, S., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2013). A mixed method approach to examiningFacebook use and its relationship to self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior,29(3), 827–832.

Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem:Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality,74(1), 119–144.