"I Bet You Think This Thesis is About You: The Manifestation of Narcissism Through Facebook"

ABSTRACT Raised and immersed in a digital landscape, the Millennial Generation of the United States has witnessed and participated in the revolution of Web 2.0 and social networking. Their involvement in this technology revolution is most noted in the social networking site Facebook.com. With one-billion active users and a median user age of 22, Facebook is the number one social networking site in the United States, as well as in the world. With the large presence of Millennials on Facebook, the emotional, psychological, and social effects of Facebook use have been explored to discover if there are any consequences to living in this online environment. Described as a way to “share and express what matters to them,” Facebook allows for the creation of an online presence; providing an outlet for self-promotion and selfabsorbency through actions and activity conducted on the site. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how Facebook content and activity manifests narcissistic traits in active Facebook users of the Millennial Generation. Narcissism on Facebook will be associated with activity, (status updates, “Likes,” etc.) profile content, (self-promotion through text and pictures) and with the overall design of the Facebook platform. All of these actions are linked to certain aspects and criteria of trait narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as defined through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One. Preface. How Did We Get Here?

1 Chapter Two. Introduction 4 Chapter Three. Literature Review________________________________________________ Narcissism 7 Millennials 9 Internet and Social Media 11 Chapter Four. Narcissism History of Narcissism 14 Narcissism: Subclinical and Clinical 18 Narcissism Clinical Diagnosis, DSM-IV 19 Trait Narcissism and the NPI-40 21 Chapter Five. Millennials Millennials: Who Are They 23 “Generation Me�

24 Technology and Online Presence 26 Millennials and Social Networks 27 Chapter Six. Facebook Current Statistics and the Facebook User 29 The Facebook Profile History 30 2004 to 2005 30 2006 31 2007 32 2008 32 2009 33 2010 34 Present: Facebook Timeline 35 Chapter Seven. Manifesting Narcissism on Facebook Vanity 38 Exhibitionism 40 Superiority 42 Exploitativeness 44 Entitlement 45 Chapter Eight. Results Facebook Content: Images 47 Facebook Content: Text 48 Facebook Activity and Motivation 49 Chapter Nine. Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions 51 Recommendations 52 Appendix Works Cited 54

Brittis 1

Chapter One: Preface. How Did We Get Here?

My first introduction to Facebook was in the fall of 2004. Huddled around a desktop computer, my friend Kathryn and I peered curiously over the shoulder of her older brother Anthony. Anthony had just begun his sophomore year at Fordham University, while Kathryn and I were high school sophomores. Anthony was browsing a new site called “The Facebook” and we were enthralled with this website we had never heard of before. We badgered Anthony insistently, begging him to explain to us what he was doing and what it was. He said he didn’t know much, but that he could only get on because he was a college student and that it was a great way to check out the girls he had classes with. From this point on, we flocked to the computer anytime he logged on, anxious to know who and what was on The Facebook. Two years later, in the summer of 2006, I was a high school graduate and enrolled to begin in the fall at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut. Throughout that summer, I received correspondence from Sacred Heart relating to all the aspects of starting my college career there, but there was only one letter I wanted---my new Sacred Heart e-mail address. This e-mail address was my key to the world of Facebook, a world I was only able to observe from afar. The second the letter arrived I created an account and was under the Facebook spell. I filled out my profile and started friending other incoming freshmen at the school. My activity on Facebook only increased throughout my college career. At parties, we’d take hundreds of photos telling everyone to “check them out on Facebook.” The next morning, my roommate and I would meticulously browse through the photos, declaring one photo, after careful consideration, “profile picture worthy.” The number of friends I had on Facebook grew exponentially throughout my college career. These “friends” were people I had classes with, met at parties, and

Brittis 2 sometimes, even total strangers. I never stepped back and reflected on my activity and use of Facebook until my senior year. Walking down the hall, I spotted a recently added Facebook friend walking towards me. As our paths met, I smiled, waved, and gave a bright “hello!” My greeting was met with silence, as the eyes of my newest “friend” stayed glued straight ahead.

Had she not heard me? Did she not realize that we had just connected on Facebook? I was befuddled by this interaction, or lack thereof, and started to wonder if Facebook friendships were different than “real life” relationships. This trend only grew worse with time; I heard stories of friends who chatted on Facebook but never exchanged a word face to face, or of the girl with 900 friends who barely knew a quarter of them personally. The rise of Facebook coincided with the rise of the smartphone. By my senior year of college, almost all of the student body had a smartphone. The presence of smartphones on my campus was notable; students would walk through the halls in a catatonic state, hands gripping the keyboard of their phone, eyes fixated on the screen, never peering up to say hello, or look for a friend.

This social observation sparked my initial interest in culture and technology. I had become so immersed in an online world that I had never thought to step back and examine the consequences and effects of it. My personal fascination with the topic has only grown since my time in college. Many would call me an Internet dystopian, but I fear that our reliance on technology for communication will only continue to cause irreparable damage to our social skills, communication skills, and the basic way we relate to one another as human beings. Since its start from a Harvard dorm room in 2004, Facebook has changed drastically. The first layout and functionality of Facebook initially emphasized a focus on connecting and communicating with others. From this simple start, it has transformed into the ultimate self-marketing tool.

Facebook profiles allow for the most extreme personalization, emphasizing your personality and

Brittis 3 persona instead of how you relate to others on the network. This shift has created an emphasis on the concept of “me,� creating a platform for self-promotion and self-absorbency.

Brittis 4 Chapter Two: Introduction Since the beginning of history, the effects and consequences following the introduction of a new technology have been observed and noted. From the invention of the printing press, to the personal computer, each new medium has brought about changes in society, including affects on both intrapersonal and interpersonal communication.

There has been a noticeable shift in the culture of American in the last decade. An emphasis has been placed on the idea of “me,” with society encouraging us to celebrate our individuality excessively. This is seen through popular aphorisms, declaring, “Be Yourself,” and “Love Who You Are.” This focus on self has been mislabeled as self-esteem, when in reality, it is encouraging the development of narcissistic personality traits. Since 1986, narcissism in college students has increased by 30% (Twenge et al., 875), solidifying speculation over a possible rise in narcissism. The generation linked to this increase is “Generation Y,” also known as “Millennials.” Born roughly from 1982-2002, Millennials are the first digital generation raised during the rise of the Internet (Bayne and Ross). In addition to encouragement from society to be self-absorbed, the introduction of new media has served as a platform to continue these narcissistic tendencies.

The most recent medium that can be attributed to this cultural shift is the rise of Web 2.01. Within the creation of Web 2.0, came the rise of blogs, social networks, and YouTube, which encourages users to “Broadcast Yourself” (Courtois, Mechant, and De Marez). Of these facets of Web 2.0, social networks including MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook are the most 1

The term “Web 2.0” was first used by Darcy DiNucci in her writing “Fragmented Future.”

DiNucci defines Web 2.0 as “the ether through which interactivity happens” (32). She also characterizes Web 2.0 as being accessible through different “guises” including televisions, cell phones, cars, gaming consoles and “maybe even your microwave.” The most defining feature of Web 2.0 is found in its networking ability, allowing for a higher volume of communication with others, done at a faster speed.

Brittis 5 dominant; causing a major impact on culture. These platforms have created a “glocal2” (Wellman 29) society, where constraints on time and space are removed, allowing people to communicate freely and openly. Internet communication is done behind the mask of an online persona. This persona consists of many components varying on the platform it is found on. By using text, images, video, and audio clips, users create an online representation of themselves. The use of personas is most seen on social networks where users create profiles and communicate with others. The most popular of these social networks is Facebook: with one-billion active users, Facebook is the number one social network in the United States and in the world (Hampton et al.

3). The median age of a Facebook user is 22 (Facebook, “One Billion People on Facebook Factsheet”), making the Millennial3 Generation the dominant force on the site.

In this thesis, the role of Facebook in fostering and manifesting narcissism is discussed, as seen in its largest user demographic: Millennials. Through this examination, it is suggested that Facebook provides users with a platform that reinforces preexisting narcissistic characteristics in the Millennial Generation. The relational changes in Facebook and Millennials is investigated; discussing how over time, an increase in aspects of trait narcissism in Millennials has been met with a multitude of changes to the Facebook platform that encourage selfpromotion and exhibitionism. For the purpose of this thesis, narcissism is discussed as both clinical and subclinical.4 Narcissism is measured and assessed through a conjunction of the

2

The term “glocal” is a reference to Marshall McLuhan’s “global village,” and describes the idea that Internet users connect to others without the constraints of location, becoming heavily involved in both global and local connections (Wellman 29).

3 For the purpose of this paper, from this point on, the term “Millennials” will be used interchangeably with “Generation Y” or “Gen-Y” and refer to those born between 1983-2003.

4 For the purpose of this paper, from this point on, the term “subclinical narcissism” will be used interchangeably with “trait narcissism.” Both refer to Freud’s definition of “primary narcissism” as a “stable personality trait” that is part of normal human development (Freud, “On Narcissism”).

Brittis 6 clinical diagnosis, as found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV5, statements on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory6, and general symptoms of narcissism as defined in prior research. These characteristics are categorized under five of the seven component traits used on the NPI-40: superiority, vanity, entitlement, exhibitionism, and exploitativeness (Raskin and Terry). Within each category of narcissism, there is discussion of Facebook activity and content that correlates with that particular aspect of narcissism. Activity and content on Facebook investigated includes: text and images in the profile, frequency of status updates, content of status updates, number of friends, overall amount of activity, and motivation behind activity.

In order to properly analyze this relationship, it is necessary to explore prior research in the field. Chapter three provides a literature review of theories surrounding the social effects of Internet use, characteristics of Gen-Y, and Facebook as it relates to psychological well-being.

The history of narcissism and its roots in psychology and social psychology is discussed in chapter four, tracing a history beginning in AD 8 (Ovid). Following this, chapter five covers the Millennials through defining their characteristics, relation to narcissism, and online presence.

Documenting the chronological history of Facebook, chapter six provides current statistics, as well as an examination of changes to the platform over time. Finally, chapter seven allows for the union of these topics, discussing Facebook activities as they relate to narcissism, proving an obvious cyclical relationship between the two.

5

For the purpose of this paper, from this point on, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, will be referred to as the “DSM-IV.” 6 For the purpose of this paper, from this point on, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory will be referred to as the “NPI” or the “NPI-40” (Raskin and Terry).

Brittis 7 Chapter Three: Literature Review In order to understand how narcissism in Millennials could be enabled and displayed on Facebook, it is important to discuss prior theories in the field across these three topics. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this thesis, only those theories most relevant to the proposed topic will be discussed, rather than a review of all mentioned literature. Research and theories are presented on the following topics: narcissism and its defining characteristics, Millennials and their defining characteristics, Millennials and their ties to narcissism, and social effects of social media, in particular, Facebook.

Narcissism The first applicable discussion is found in the field of social psychology with the personality trait of narcissism. Research on this topic is vast, covering both clinical and subclinical cases. Many of these studies focus on a particular defining aspect of narcissism, relating it to behavioral issues in subjects. Defined by a need to be the center of attention and the desire to stand out (Raskin and Terry), theories on exhibitionism as a facet of narcissism have explored its relation to the use of mobile phones (Koskela), its presence in those seen as highly creative (Raskin), and presence in celebrities (Young and Pinsky). Amy B. Brunell, Sara Staats, Jamie Barden, and Julie M. Hupp, focus on the characteristic of exhibitionism as it relates to cheating in school in their article, “Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt.� With the goal of connecting academic dishonesty with narcissism, Brunell et al. collected data from a group of 199 participants reporting cheating behaviors. In addition to this, all participants completed the NPI-40 to gauge their narcissism.

Hypothesizing that the exhibitionism dimension of the NPI would predict greater cheating, Brunell et al. additionally related this tendency to a lack of guilt, due to the desire to excel

Brittis 8 academically at any cost. Results corresponded with the hypothesis, proving that narcissists are more likely to engage in academic dishonesty. The importance of this study is found in its exploration of the specific concept of exhibitionism and the provided definitions. The concepts provided by Brunell et al. in their definition of exhibitionism, show a “tendency to show off to gain admiration” (324), and “exhibitionism as a mechanism for flaunting their superiority to others” (324). The two most important aspects to consider when evaluating the importance of this study, include the use of the NPI-40 to measure narcissism and the studied demographic.

Through use of the NPI-40, Brunell et al. emphasize its reliability and validity, demonstrating its importance to this thesis. Additionally, the age group explored demonstrates a focus on Millennials, with the median age of subjects at 19.87 (324).

Of the defining characteristics of narcissism, studies discussing vanity show its affects on mating (Egan and McCorkindale), presence in music (DeWall et al.), and its relation to body image (Davis, Claridge, and Cerullo). Proposing that “narcissism is characterized in part by an acute concern for one’s appearance,” Simine Vazire, Laura P. Naumann, Peter J. Rentfrow, and Samuel D. Gosling, discuss the correlation between narcissism and vanity through manifestations in physical appearance. Seen again is the use of the NPI-40 for measurement, as well as a focus on Millennials, with the average age of subjects being 18.7 (Vazire et al. 1441).

Vazire et al. explain the physical presence of narcissism through a neat and organized appearance, requiring time and preparation, with narcissists like to wear expensive and flashy clothing (1439). Furthermore, vanity and narcissism in the physical appearance of women is seen through the application of makeup and display of cleavage (1439). Through the examination of photographs, the study supported existing theories of narcissism associated with both vanity and exhibitionism (1445). A strength of this study is seen in the application of the NPI-40 and the use

Brittis 9 of specific statements from it, (“I like looking at myself in the mirror,” “I like to display my body”) as they related to vanity. Statements relating to exhibitionism, (“I am apt to show off if I get the chance,” “I like to start new fads and fashions”) were also used for their correspondence to vanity. The hypothesis was proven to be correct, showing a tendency for narcissists to wear heavier makeup, wear brand name clothes, and appear stylish (1444). An additional aspect of physical appearance that was positively related to narcissism was the tendency to wear more provocative clothing, with a less inhibited display of the body (1446). It is interesting to note that this was associated with “unrestricted sociosexuality,” showing that narcissists posses less restricted sexual attitudes and behaviors (Vazire et al. 1446). This shows the importance of further research linking sexual attitudes and activities to narcissistic characteristics, as it may prove to be related to vanity, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, and self-sufficiency. Another important aspect of the methods practiced in this study was the use of photographs to gauge vanity and narcissism. With the hypothesis proven true, it provides the conclusion that narcissism, exhibitionism, and vanity are all present and observable in images.

Millennials A high presence in research conducted on Millennials has also been noted (Howe and Strauss). Of this research, we see discussions of challenges in the education of Millennials (McGlynn), as well as their presence in the work place (Hershatter and Epstein). Much of the discussion focused on Millennials has been for the goal of defining their main characteristics.

This is seen in Howe and Strauss’ “Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation,” where Millennials are described as optimistic, educated, and focused on success (Howe and Strauss 4).

Another defining Millennial characteristic that has been seen across multiple studies is their

Brittis 10 status as digital natives7 (Jones et al.). Studies concerning technology show that Millennials are confident and superior in their use of technology (Howe and Strauss 12), and that they believe that the Internet has had a positive effect on their education and personal relationships (Oblinger). Studies have also demonstrated that Millennials believe the Internet has allowed them to express their ideas more than they would in face-to-face interactions (Oblinger).

Just as recent studies have shown an emphasis on the discussion of Millennials, we see an additional emphasis on the topic of an increase in narcissism as it relates to Millennials (Twenge et al.). This topic offers two opposing arguments: Millennials are more narcissistic than generations before them (Twenge et al., ) and Millennials are no more, or no less, narcissistic than predecessors (Trzesniewski and Donnellan). Using the NPI-40, Jean Twenge, Sara Konrath, Joshua Foster, W. Keith Campbell, and Brad Bushman, studied results of the inventory between 1979 and 2006. Results of the study showed a 30% increase in NPI scores from 1982, with increases in the traits of extraversion, self-esteem, agency and assertiveness (Twenge et al., 875). The study focused on data from college students and stated that through research of past studies, “data on college students are, as far as we know, the best available to study change in narcissism over the generations among nonclinical samples” (894).

Due to the large use of this age group in studies on narcissism over time, there is room for the counterargument that simply the age group is narcissistic, not one specific generation.

Defending the Millennials, the writings of Howe and Strauss attributed narcissism to Baby Boomers (Howe and Strauss 10) and low-self esteem to Generation-X (4). Characterized as smart, technology savvy, confident, and called “team players” (8), Howe and Strauss emphasized that Millennials are “not [as] self-absorbed” (8) as previous generations. The theories discussed 7

The term “digital native” refers to those who have grown up with computers and the Internet, making them naturally proficient with new digital technologies (Bayne and Ross 1).

Brittis 11

by Howe and Strauss used statistical data8 to support their argument, but were not based on their own empirical data collection (Twenge et al., 879). This method of comparing data to broad statements creates a serious weakness in their theory. Despite providing an opposing viewpoint to a multitude of research that characterizes Millennials as narcissistic, this weakness in lack of evidence trumps any perceived strengths in their argument.

Internet & Social Media An extensive amount of research has been conducted on various implications of Internet use (DiMaggio et al.) and in particular, the effects from presence on social networks (O’Keeffe and Clarke-Pearson). One topic that has created a divide between opposing sides, is the affects on social involvement from the Internet (Kraut et al.). In a study of 73 households over a twoyear period, researchers explored the social and psychological impacts of the Internet as it related to involvement and well-being. Results found that greater use of the Internet was associated with a greater decline in communication with other family members within each studied household (Kraut et al. 1017). Responding to studies linking social isolation with Internet use, James Katz and Phillip Aspden explored the opposite by providing data that showed evidence of Internet users becoming more involved in existing communities (Katz and Aspden 84), as well as the Internet being used as a medium to create friendships (85).

With much research provided on the Internet and its effects, focus has shifted to social networks due to their rise in popularity (Hampton et al.). The main function of social networks is seen in the concept of self-presentation (Mehdizadeh) and this has been linked to various psychological effects including self-esteem (Gonzalez and Hancock). In a study of 63 Facebook 8

An example of the use of statistical data by Howe and Strauss is seen in their response to the hypothetical question, “are they [Millennials] rule breakers?” (8) where they correlate their response of “no, they’re rule followers” with data on the number of killings and suicides in all U.S. schools, at all grade levels, from 1992 to 2000.

Brittis 12 users, subjects were left alone in a room to examine the content of their personal Facebook page.

They were then given a questionnaire that assessed self-esteem. Results showed an immediate increase in self-esteem after subjects reflected on their Facebook profile. It is important to note a particular aspect of the results that stems from the Hyperpersonal model9 that was used, proving that self-selection of the information chosen to represent oneself leads to positive effects on selfesteem. With this in mind, the work of Gonzalez and Hancock opens up an additional area of focus: the concept of deception as seen through editing a Facebook profile to create an ideal image of oneself. This emphasizes a major weakness in the mentioned study due to the lack of consideration of the implications of creating a “false self-image.�

As research on self-esteem continued to increase, discussion on narcissism in Millennials began, eventually leading to the need for a differentiation of the two terms (Thorton and Moore).

Just as self-esteem was being related to social networks, studies began to show a link between narcissism and social networks. One of the more noted studies in this area was conducted by Soraya Mehdizadeh, who collected self-esteem and NPI reports from 100 Facebook users at York University (Mehdizadeh 357). Content of Facebook profiles were considered for their level of self-promotion, as well as considering quantity of time spent online. The subjects ranged from ages 18 to 25, with an equal ratio of males to females (359). The goal of the study was to not only consider self-esteem, but to also discuss narcissism. Differing from other studies of its kind, results showed a difference in self-promotional content between genders (359). Another

9 As defined by Joseph B. Walther: “The hyperpersonal model of computer-mediated communication (CMC) posits that users exploit the technological aspects of CMC in order to enhance the messages they construct to manage impressions and facilitate desired relationships (2538).

Brittis 13 difference is noted in the use of the NPI-1610, rather than the NPI-40. This difference displays a possible weakness in the validity of the research, since most prior work has established that the use of the NPI-40 is a preferred method (Brunell et al. 324). A particular strength is found in the study through the analysis of both text and images. A notable comparison is found to the work of Gonzalez and Hancock, with results showing that “individuals higher in narcissism and lower in self-esteem were related to greater online activity as well as some self-promotional content�

(Mehdizadeh 357). This best exemplifies differences in studies conducted on this topic, emphasizing the need for further research.

10

The NPI-16 was developed from the NPI-40 as a shorter and unidimensional measure of subclinical narcissism (Ames, Rose, and Anderson 440).

Brittis 14 Chapter Four: Narcissism History of Narcissism Comprised of fifteen books, Ovid’s “Metamorphosis” describes the history of the world from creation to the reign of Julius Caeser (Fowler). Ovid’s collection of stories, have been referred to by poets and artists more than any other piece of Latin literature, due to the extensive descriptions of ancient gods and heroes (Fowler). In book three of Ovid’s work, we find history’s first mention of narcissism in the tale of Narcissus. Upon the birth of Narcissus, his mother, who was considered “the loveliest nymph,” consulted the prophet Tiresias to find out if her son would live a long life. Narcissus was described as someone whom “one could fall in love with,” even as a baby, yet this did not save him from the foreboding words of Tiresias. Famous for his “faultless answers,” Tiresias told Narcissus’ mother that the boy would live to an old age only, “if he does not discover himself” (Ovid). This warning was forgotten as Narcissus grew into a proud and handsome hunter. Narcissus rejected the countless girls who desired him and was unaffected by their advances because of his intense pride. Of his many admirers was Echo, a mountain nymph whose only speech was the repetition of words spoken to her. After admiring Narcissus from afar, Echo finally approaches him and places her arms around his neck in longing. Narcissus, disgusted by the advances from Echo, rejects her and flees from her into the woods. Scorned and ashamed, Echo wanders into the woods and lives a lonely life hidden in caves. Heartbroken, she wastes away into nothing but bones, leaving only the sound of her voice to carry on. After rejecting Echo, Narcissus continues to refuse the romantic advances of both men and women.

One of those scorned turns to the gods for revenge on Narcissus, saying, “so may he himself love, and so may he fail to command what he loves!” This wish is granted by the goddess Nemesis, who finds Narcissus tired and thirsty after a day of hunting, searching for a place to

Brittis 15 quench his thirst. As Narcissus approaches a fountain to drink, he is seized by the reflection he sees in the water and like a statue, remains transfixed with his own image. Narcissus attempts to embrace the image he sees but to no avail, and remains with his reflection, falling deeply in love.

Just as Echo wasted away in her unrequited desire, Narcissus does the same, wasting away, leaving only a flower in place of his body.

The first reference to this myth in the field of psychoanalysis was by Havelock Ellis in 1898, who described a patient as “Narcissus-like” (Symington). This was followed the following year by sexologist Paul Nacke, who used the term “narcismus.” Both psychologists used these terms to compare Ovid’s myth with the concept of auto-eroticism11. With Nacke and Ellis’ works, came inspiration for the most well-known and referenced writings on narcissism by Sigmund Freud in 1914, seen in “On Narcissism: An Introduction12.” Freud describes his discussion of narcissism as an extension of libido theory (Freud, “On Narcissism” 75) and deems it necessary to be conceptualized upon so that the idea of primary or normal narcissism may be established (74). Freud recognizes narcissism in two forms: primary narcissism or normal narcissism and secondary narcissism, considered a perversion (74). Seen as a developmental stage, Freud states that we are all born into a blissful state of “primary narcissism,” where we are unable to separate our self from the outside world and see no distinction between the two. This infantile primary narcissism occurs before the ego is

11

Ellis defined “auto-eroticism” in 1898 as “the phenomena of spontaneous sexual emotion generated in the absence of an external stimulus proceeding, directly or indirectly from another person” (Ellis). Ellis expanded on this definition by discussing an “extreme form” of autoeroticism he called narcissism, or “the tendency for the sexual emotion to be absorbed and often entirely lost in self-admiration” (Ellis).

12 It is worth mentioning that in “Narcissism: An Introduction,” Freud credits Paul Nacke with the term “narcissism,” but later corrects himself in his writings “Three Essays,” saying that Ellis was the first to establish the term. In 1928, Ellis responded to this addressing Freud stating that the “priority” should be divided between him and Nacke.

Brittis 16

established, and is the time during development where the child’s pleasures are concentrated from, and derive from, the self and the body (Mitchell 79). During this infancy, the child finds pleasure in vital functions, such as being fed and protected, all relating to the ego-libido. Despite this initial emphasis from the child on ego-libido, there is also the presence of object-libido: the child depends on others to provide them with the vital functions they derive pleasure from. Due to this dependency on others, the infant then develops sexual desire, or object libido, for those caring for it (Freud, “On Narcissism” 87). Object-libido continues after infancy; stemming from mother love, and continues to be seen in love for family members, friends, romantic love, and in object love (87). Primary narcissism is interrupted by the development of the ego, which creates a “vigorous attempt to recover that state” (100). Following this, is the development of ideal ego,13 which creates a new search for satisfaction through fulfilling expectations for oneself (100). Freud establishes primary narcissism, ideal ego, and the satisfaction of love being returned through object-libido from others, as the three sources that create our self-concept or sense of ourselves. This determines a sense of pride, attractiveness, and self-confidence. Since the departure from primary narcissism requires a progression to object-libido, the subjects feelings of self-worth are initially lowered. But with reciprocated object love from others, this loss is not felt and does not lower the subject’s feelings of self-worth. Freud establishes this object-libido relationship as a point where narcissism can develop: if a subject’s object love is unwilling or unable to return love, the libido becomes withdrawn and attached on the subject’s own ego. This creates detachment from society, the inability to relate to others, and a focus on only self.

13

During the development of the ideal ego, we refer to Lacan’s “mirror stage” where an infant recognizes itself for the first time in the sense of the word “I,” and recognizes the ego as dependent on others or external objects (Gallop).

Brittis 17 Following this description from Freud in 1914, came “Libidinal Types� in 1931, where Freud describes the character of a narcissistic as independent, energetic, confident, and aggressive.

The first to conduct research on narcissism in an empirical sense was Henry Murray in 1938. Murray created a scale for measuring correlates of narcissism, which despite not being the same scale currently used, was the first of its kind in the history of the disorder (Campbell, Brunell, and Finkel). Continuing the exploration of narcissism from the Freudian perspective, Heinz Kohut and Otto Kernberg contributed greatly to the formal diagnosis of narcissism that was eventually established in the DSM-III. Kernberg felt that narcissism was a subtype of borderline personality disorder and created very specific descriptions of narcissistic behaviors: These patients present an unusual degree of self-reference in their interactions with other people, a great need to be loved and admired by others, and a curious apparent contradiction between a very inflated concept of themselves and an inordinate need for tribute from others. Their emotional life is shallow. They experience little empathy for the feelings of others, they obtain very little enjoyment from life other than from the tributes they receive from others or from their own grandiose fantasies, and they feel restless and bored when external glitter wears off and no new sources feed their self-regard. They envy others, tend to idealize some people from whom they expect narcissistic supplies and to depreciate and treat with contempt those from whom they do not expect anything (often their former idols). In general, their relationships with other people are clearly exploitative and sometimes parasitic. It is as if they feel they have the right to control and possess others and to exploit them without guilt feelings—and, behind a surface which very often is charming and engaging, one senses coldness and ruthlessness.

Brittis 18 Very often such patients are considered to be dependent because they need so much tribute and adoration from others, but on a deeper level they are completely unable really to depend on anybody because of their deep distrust and depreciation of others...

(Kernberg 227-28).

At the same time Kernberg was conducting research on narcissism, Christopher Lasch was also collecting research from Freud on narcissism to write his influential book, “The Culture of Narcissism,” which was published in 1979. Lasch took the small clinical term and applied it to the post-Vietnam War culture of America. Lasch then traced the history of the presence of narcissism in America, attempting to prove that the prevalence of narcissism was only increasing with time (Lasch). Looking at traits in society, Lasch described the characteristics of narcissism as: Dependence on the vicarious warmth provided by others combined with a fear of dependence, a sense of inner emptiness, boundless repressed rage…intense fear of old age and death, [and]fascination with celebrity (Lasch 33).

The importance of Lasch’s work was found not in its significance to the field of psychology, but more to the field of sociology; noting a significant cultural change that has only continued to grow.

Narcissism: Clinical and Subclinical In Freud’s work on narcissism, the difference between primary and secondary narcissism is noted (Freud, “On Narcissism” 74), calling primary narcissism, “normal,” and classifying secondary narcissism, as a “perversion” (74). Freud’s categorization of primary and secondary narcissism can be related to the current terminology of narcissism as “clinical” and “subclinical.”

We see clinical narcissism or secondary narcissism, in the form of Narcissistic Personality

Brittis 19 Disorder. Clinical diagnosis is determined by the criterion listed in the DSM-IV while the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, measures subclinical narcissistic personality traits. Subclinical narcissism is evident in the personalities of many people and considered “normal;” this normal type of narcissism is discussed as “trait narcissism” or “narcissistic personality” (Twenge and Campbell 23).

NPD Clinical Diagnosis: DSM-IV The official clinical diagnosis of narcissism was established by its addition to the DSMIII in 1980 (“DSM: History of the Manual”). Categorized under “Personality Disorders,” narcissism’s official diagnostic name is “Narcissism Personality Disorder14.” NPD is categorized as a “Cluster B” personality disorder, characterized by dramatic and erratic emotional behavior (Miller, Widiger, and Campbell). NPD remained in the DSM when it was revised in 1994 to become the DSM-IV. Minor changes were made in the description from the previous edition in order to differentiate it from other personality disorders, especially Histrionic Personality Disorder15 (First, Frances, and Pincus 364). The diagnosis for NPD in the DSM-IV features nine characteristics and states that the presence of at least five of the characteristics indicates NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder 301.81: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

14

For the purpose of this paper, from this point on, “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” will be referred to as “NPD.” 15 Histrionics Personality Disorder refers to a condition in which people act overly dramatic or excessively emotional in a way that draws attention to themselves. They may also act seductively or inappropriately, in a ways to seek approval (DSM-IV).

Brittis 20 (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) (4) requires excessive admiration (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (DSM-IV).

In order to make a clinical diagnosis of NPD, the subject must not only meet five of the nine criteria, but also have these criteria present over a long-term pattern of behavior (Twenge and Campbell 22). In addition to this, the subject must also be suffering from an additional impairment, such as depression, troubled relationships, or career failures (22). The diagnosis of NPD has been met with much debate and controversy in the field and has led to the discussion by researchers of the possibility of two types of people diagnosed with NPD: “extraverted, outgoing, and exhibitionistic folks…and more introverted depressed, vulnerable, and psychological empty (but also grandiose) people who are sometimes seen in psychotherapy”

Brittis 21 (23). These two types of narcissists are also seen in the discussion of the causes of NPD: some feel that NPD is caused by excessive pampering and over-indulgent parenting styles, while others say that NPD could be a result of neglect, abuse, or trauma from childhood (“Narcissistic Personality Disorder”). Regardless of reasoning for the presence of NPD, both causes are manifested during childhood, with symptoms of NPD appearing during late adolescence or early adulthood, coinciding with the emergence of personality (“Narcissistic Personality Disorder”).

Clinically, 1 in 16 Americans have been impaired with NPD at some point in their lives (Twenge and Campbell 23). There is no actual “cure” for NPD, but work is done through psychotherapy.

The presence of those who actually have NPD in the clinical setting has been debated upon: narcissists view themselves as winners, why would they feel that something was wrong with them and seek clinical help (Campbell, Brunel, and Finkel 59)? Research has shown that NPD is more common in those with higher educational backgrounds (Maffei et al.), or those in special professions. A difference in regard to gender has also been noted, with clinical diagnosis 50-75% more present in males (“Narcissistic Personality Disorder”). This statistic is quite remarkable when reflecting back to the writing of Freud in “On Narcissism:” Freud notes the difference in gender as he sees males more prone to “object-love” attachment, a dependency he correlates to the development of narcissism (Freud, “On Narcissism” 88).

Trait Narcissism & the NPI-40 As previously mentioned, Freud established the concept of narcissism as a facet of personality. Since then, this idea has been expanded on through the discussion of “normal narcissists,” who are far more common than those clinically diagnosed with NPD (Twenge and Campbell 23). Generally speaking, those who are considered narcissistic have been described as self-centered, boastful, vain, attention-hungry, and entitled (23). Due to an interest in the

Brittis 22 presence of narcissism on a cultural level, research has been conducted as an attempt to measure levels of narcissism on a subclinical level. In 1979, Robert Raskin and Howard Terry created the most widely used scale found in this research. Using the criteria for NPD listed in the DSM-IV, Raskin and Terry created a 40 item forced choice scale for measuring the narcissistic personality trait. Raskin and Terry’s “Narcissistic Personality Inventory,” is comprised of seven factors relating to narcissism: authority, self-sufficiency, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, vanity, and entitlement (Raskin and Terry 894). The forty questions that comprise the NPI include: “I really like to be the center of attention,” “I like to display my body,” “I will be a success,” and “I am going to be a great person” (Raskin and Terry 894) (see illustration 1). The test is scored on a scale of 40: scoring between 12-15 is considered average, with celebrities scoring close to 18, and narcissists above 20 (Young and Pinksy). Raskin and Terry first used the NPI in a study of 1,018 college students in California from 1979 to 1985 (Raskin and Terry 893).

Results showed an increase in narcissism over the time span studied. Using Raskin and Terry’s scale, a study of college students from 31 campuses around the US was conducted from 1982 to 2006 (Twenge et al.,). The study showed the average NPI score steadily increasing from 15.5 to 17.5 in 2006. Studies correlating to this increase in NPI scores are endless: there is no doubt that the personality trait of narcissism has grown over time. In addition to this overall increase, there has been a specific demographic that has shown the largest increase in narcissistic characteristics: Millennials.

Brittis 23 Chapter Five: Millennials Millennials: Who Are They?

Each generation noted in the history of the nation has possessed the power to shape the cultural landscape of that particular time. By establishing their own beliefs, values, and characteristics, each generation has gained the attention of society and coerced them to accommodate to their culture. We have noted the cultural trends associated with the GI Generation, Baby Boomers, and Generation X, and how they helped to establish what issues were important in the nation during their reign (Winograd and Hais 66) Now, we turn our attention to the “Millennial Generation,” who have been described as “America’s next great generation,” and the “powerhouse generation” (Howe and Strauss 4).

Born after 1980, and more specifically between 1982 and 200316, (Twenge, Campbell, and Freeman 1046) Millennials are the most ethnically and racially diverse of all generations, with 61% white, 14% black, 19% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 1% Other (Kohut et al. 1). In addition to the growth in racial diversity from Generation X to Generation Y, an increase in education is noted, with 54% of Millennials having completed some college, compared to 49% of Generation Xers and 36% of Baby Boomers (10). Major events characterizing the era of the Millennials includes the Columbine Shooting, the rise of the Internet, and September 11th. When asked what makes their generation unique, Millennials listed technology use, music/pop culture, liberal/tolerant, smarter, and clothes, as their defining characteristics (5). The idea of being “unique” is rampant in Millennials: 4 out of 10 Millennials have a tattoo and 1 in 4 have a piercing somewhere besides an earlobe (1). Most Millennials do not associate themselves with a 16

Differences in the years spanning the birth of Millennials has been noted with some sources stating 1977 while others use 1983 as the first year of birth for Millennials (Twenge, Campbell, and Freeman). For this paper, both groups will be discussed but those in the Millennial Generation will be defined as being born between 1983 and 2003.

Brittis 24 particular religion, nor do they practice a religion (2). Only 21% of Millennials are married and 34% are parents (2). Statistics on Millennial marriage show the trend of getting married later in life, with the average age of marriage being 27 (Winograd and Hais 71). Relating to this, the percentage of women in the workforce rose to 60% in 2000 (71), showing a focus from women on career, instead of past traditional values. Millennials statistically have been seen to put marriage and children off until later in life and instead are seen focusing on career and selfdevelopment.

Characteristically, the values and priorities of the Millennials have changed since past generations. In a study comparing the traits of young people in high school and college today with those at the same age from the Baby Boomers and Generation X, an increase was shown in Millennials valuing money, image, and fame (Twenge, Campbell and Freeman 1045). Once again, comparing values over generations, we see college students in 1971, who ranked being well-off financially as number eight in their life goals, while since 1989, college students have consistently ranked this priority as number one (1045). This shows that values relating to the Millennials have been more “extrinsic,” or relating to money, fame, and image and less “intrinsic,” relating to self-acceptance, community, and affiliation (1046).

“Generation Me” With an emphasis on the concepts of “success” and “getting ahead” from Millennials, comes the effect of less focus or empathy for others (1046). A sense of detachment and isolation from society and community has been fostered in Millennials through a focus on extrinsic values, resulting in an increase in the focus of “self.” This shows a decrease in the concept of community from Generation X and the Baby Boomer Generation (1045), creating a shift from “we,” to “me.” In order to understand this shift, the cultural landscape during the “upbringing” of

Brittis 25 Millennials must be explored. Beginning in 1980, a decrease was seen in the use of birth control, number of abortions and number of divorces (Winograd and Hais 79). From 1980 to 2005, the rate of abortions steadily decreased17, showing a cultural change emphasizing the importance and value of having children (79). This shift set the tone during the era Millennials were born, allowing them to enter into an already established role of importance and uniqueness. The “selfesteem movement18,” only fostered this sense of entitlement, with books written about selfesteem and children increasing from 485 during the 1970s, to 9,068 during the 1980s and 1990s (Manning, Everett, and Roberts). With publications stressing the importance of high self-esteem in children, parents followed suit, emphasizing positive reinforcement and self-esteem in their parenting practices (Winograd and Hais 79). Also seen in the era of Millennials, was an emphasis on co-parenting and an increase in the time-spent daily with parents (71). The family unit became focused upon the success and well being of the child, emphasized by parental praise and reinforcement through statements such as, “I am special,” and “I can be anything I want to be.” A study of mothers and grandmothers of 3 year olds in the U.S., showed universal agreement by mothers to the question, “Do you think a person’s self-esteem could ever be too high?” while more than two-thirds of grandmothers disagreed, saying those with too high selfesteem could be arrogant, self-centered, selfish, and spoiled (Twenge and Campbell 16).

With an established sense of importance from their parents, Millennials continue to grow up in an environment focusing on “self.” Compared to Baby Boomers, Millennials are twice as likely to agree with the statement “There is no single right way to live” (Twenge 19). The effects 17

The rate of abortions per 1,000 women dropped steadily from a peak of 29.3 in 1980 and 1981, when the final Gen-Xers were born, to a low of 21, as the final Millennials were coming into the world in 2000.The absolute number of abortions reported in the United States declined from a high of over 1.3 million through the 1980s, to a low of about 300,000 in 2005.

18 Described by Twenge and Campbell as a movement that occurred during the 1980s that stressed the importance of self-confidence and self-esteem.

Brittis 26 of the self-esteem movement and parenting techniques related to it, are seen in countless statistics on Millennials: 80% of recent college students scored higher in general self-esteem than the average 1960s college student, and 93% of late 2000s tweens scored higher in general selfesteem than the average 11 to 13 year old did in 1980 (Twenge and Campbell 13). The sense of being special and unique is emphasized and declared proudly by Millennials, including 15 year old Tyler Hudgens of Virginia: “We’re the Millennial Generation, we’re special, one of a kind.

It’s our turn, our time to shine” (Howe and Strauss 3). Tyler isn’t alone in this sentiment; 61% of Millennials said that their generation has a unique and distinctive identity, (Kohut et al. 13) with 24% attributing technology use to this unique nature (13).

Technology and Online Presence Millennials are correct contributing technology to their defining characteristic; they are history’s first digital generation, almost constantly “plugged in.” As “digital natives,” Millennials use of technology is seen through multiple mediums: 94% own a cellphone, 70% own a laptop, and 69% own an iPod or Mp3 player (Lemaire). Almost ten out of ten Millennials said that they sleep with their cell phone on next to their bed, emphasizing the concept of being constantly “plugged in.” In addition to the overwhelming number of Millennials who own different technologies, there is a large online presence of Millennials on various Internet platforms (Hampton et al.). Concerning Internet use in general, 90% of all Millennials say they use the Internet, and 96% of college educated Millennials say they use the Internet (Kohut et al. 29). The most amount of time Americans spend on the Internet is seen on social networks and blogs (Nielsen, “State of the Media” 2), and making up the largest number amongst all age groups present on social networks and blogs, are those ages 18 to 34 (3).

Brittis 27 With the rise of “smartphones,” came the ability to access the Internet “on the go.”

Looking at the smartphone demographic, of all users in the United States, 66% are between the ages of 25 to 34, making older Millennials the largest group of users (Nielsen, “Smartphone Growth”). The remainder of the Millennials, ages 18 to 24, come in as second largest smartphone users (Nielsen, “Smartphone Growth”). The dominance of Millennials in the field of smartphones extends to the use of social networking mobile apps, with the largest demographic of users falling into the Millennial age bracket (Nielsen, “Smartphone Growth”). Of the top five mobile applications downloaded on smartphones, three are social networking apps (Nielsen, “Smartphone Growth”). The three most popular applications include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Nielsen, “Smartphone Growth”), all of which find the ages of their largest group of users falling in the Millennial age demographic19. Not only are Millennials the largest user demographic on social networks, but they are also the most frequent users, with 29% visiting social networks several times a day and 26% visiting once a day (Kohut et al.29).

Millennials and Social Networks With the massive amounts of data proving Millennials to be the largest and most present online demographic, one must turn to the activity conducted online and in particular, on social networks, in order to relate characteristics of Millennials to their online activity. Their online presence is felt strongly on social networks, with 75% saying they have a profile on a social networking site (1). As previously mentioned, Millennials’ prioritize the need for self-expression and establishing a sense of uniqueness, and this is demonstrated online. Two-thirds of social network users say that their primary reason for use is to stay in touch with friends 19

Facebook user’s median age is 22 as of September 2012 (Facebook, “One Billion People on Facebook Factsheet”) with 54% of users under the age of 45 (“A Case Study in Social Media Demographics”). 26% of Twitter users are ages 18-29 (Smith). YouTube’s largest demographic is 34% and made up by users ages 18-34 (Rashtchy et al.).

Brittis 28 and family (Smith 2). With Facebook as the primary network used, the use of status updates is seen as one of the most highly used features, with 51% of Millennials posting more than once per day (Hampton et al.). In addition to posting still images on social networks, users can post selfmade videos, with the use of uploading videos seen predominantly on YouTube.com (Courtois, Mechant, and De Marez). Only 7% of Americans have posted a video of themselves online, but of this small percentage, Millennials are much more likely to have posted than any other age demographic, with 20% of Millennials having posted a video of themselves online (Kohut et al.1).

Brittis 29 Chapter Six: Facebook From a Harvard University dorm room in 2004, Mark Zuckerberg created “The Facebook,” a social networking site that would eventually become the most popular social networking site in the United States (Nielsen, “State of the Media”). The original intention of The Facebook was stated on the welcome screen prior to logging in: “TheFacebook is an online directory that connects people through social networks at colleges” (“Evolution of the Facebook Website Design from 2004 to 2011”). Initially, the site only allowed access to students at Harvard University, but began to expand to other Ivy League schools and eventually to most universities in the United States by 2004 (Rosmarin). Dropping the “the” from its name, Facebook registered under the domain, “Facebook.com” in August 2005 (Phillips). Immediately after, in September 2005, Facebook opened up its user registration to high school students in the United States, and then began to expand worldwide (Phillips). At this point in time, the number of active Facebook users grew from 1 million at the end of 2004, to 5.5 million by the end of 2005 (“Number of Active Users at Facebook Over the Years”). The purpose and mission of Facebook is clearly stated on their Key Facts section of the site: Founded in 2004, Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them (Facebook, “Newsroom: Key Facts”).

Current Statistics & The Facebook User As previously mentioned, the growth of Facebook over its first two years on the web showed a 4.5 million user increase (“Number of Active Users at Facebook Over the Years”).

This growth only has continued drastically on a global and national scale. As of October 2012,

Brittis 30 Facebook recorded 1 billion active monthly users and 552 million daily active users on average in June 2012 (Facebook, “Newsroom: Key Facts”), reconfirming its position as number one most used social networking site (Hampton et al.).

Originally intended for a specific age demographic, Facebook no longer places restrictions on users based on age (Phillips) causing an increase on the average age of a Facebook user (Hampton et al.). In the U.S., 59% of Internet users use at least one social network, with 92% using Facebook (Hampton et al.). Considering the Millennial Generation, 49% of Facebook users are between the ages of 18 to 35. This age group accounts for the most active Facebook users in the United States, with 21% posting on Facebook several times a day, 30% posting once a day, and 79% posting at least once a week (Hampton et al.). The average Facebook user has 229 friends, with 7% of these friends being total strangers (Hampton et al.).

The Facebook Profile History: 2004-2005 Since its start in 2004, the formatting and functionality of Facebook has greatly changed and this is mainly seen in the evolution of the profile page. The first profile (see illustration 2) consisted of “stuff you’d cover in the first five minutes you met someone” (Lessin). This included: profile picture, gender, orientation, marital status, date of birth, hometown, educational background, political views, interests, and contact information. Differing from the current layout, the first profile did not feature a “wall” for others to write on, but instead had a simple text box (Zuckerberg) (see illustration 3). The original Facebook profile only allowed for one picture to be displayed per user. The first Facebook platform did not allow for many features besides the profile, but did have a “groups” option, where multiple users could post on a group page dedicated to a specific cause. In addition to groups, each user had an “inbox,” that allowed for

Brittis 31 private messages to be exchanged with others. Both of these features have remained present on the platform since the first version.

2006 In 2006, (see illustration 4) Facebook changed the platform drastically. The first change was seen in the introduction of the news feed and mini feed, which showed user activity in the form of “status updates.” Each update allowed other users to comment through a pop up text box.

The comments were listed underneath each update or activity on the main news feed20, allowing for feedback from other users. This new profile also brought the addition of photo albums, allowing for multiple profile pictures, as well as the ability to tag other users in photos, linking each photo to their profile page (Zuckerberg). Users were also given the ability to upload photos to Facebook from their mobile phones and receive Facebook mobile texts21 (Loomer). Due to the rising focus on blogging in 2006, (Thompson) Facebook launched their own blog that gave updates on what changes the company were working on. For their users, Facebook allowed for the presence of user’s blogs, through “Notes,” which gave users the ability to import a blog from another site onto Facebook. In addition to importing blogs, Notes let users write on whatever topic they wanted; combining the text with illustrations and tagging friends who were mentioned in the post (Abram). Profile customization also became more extensive; creating clubs, jobs, and “About Me” sections, as well as a listing of a users’ favorite music, movies, and quotes (Zuckerberg). Facebook introduced the ability to “share” in October 2006. This feature planted “share” buttons on various web pages, allowing users to publish whatever they wanted to “share”

20

It is important to note that users were only able to comment on the main news feed of Facebook and not on the mini feed located on each profile page. The ability to comment on the mini feed was added in 2008 (Witnah).

21 Both of these functions were done through MMS messaging and should not be confused the Facebook application found on smart phones.

Brittis 32 directly on their Facebook, without having to copy and paste the URL (Hughes). Additionally, Facebook added features making it easier for users to connect through an updated search function, as well as “friend details,” which traced a users connection to others (Loomer). The final feature added in 2006 was in December, with the creation of “profile picture albums,” which collected a user’s Facebook profile pictures into one album, covering their profile photo history (Loomer).

2007 The year following these changes brought only slight layout alterations, including the addition of the “Make Profile Picture” option underneath tagged photos of users (Roche). The most significant changes found this year were in mobile functions for Facebook. Users were able to subscribe to other users’ statuses, receive updates via MMS, and were able to change their status through MMS services (Loomer). With the introduction and popularity of the iPhone (Hachman), came the Facebook mobile site, allowing users to more easily navigate the website on their mobile browser (Hewitt). An additional significant change during 2007, included “Video,” which allowed for the upload of “home” videos, to be tagged and shared with friends (Putnam).

2008 The profile photo option expanded in January 2008 to include the ability to edit, crop, and rotate a photo (Roche). The crop function also featured an interface that set the exact dimensions for a profile photo, allowing users to increase the portion of the photo that they were featured in (Roche). 2008 (see illustration 5) also introduced the “publisher tool bar,” which allowed users to post not only status updates to their friends, but publish photos, videos, notes, and links to their profile (Deng). Tabs were added to profiles, allowing for expanded profile

Brittis 33 content including applications or “apps.” The commenting function on news feeds was expanded to allow commenting on mini-feeds directly on a user’s “Wall” (Witnah). Facebook continued on its quest to connect people together through the launch of “Facebook Chat,” allowing users to chat with their Facebook friends in “real time” (Wiseman, “Facebook Chat: Now We’re Talking”). With the popularity of the iPhone on the rise, Facebook released their first Facebook application (Hewitt). The creation of the Facebook application allowed for access of Facebook on the go, enabling users to constantly be logged in to their Facebook--updating their profile and status without the limitations of location.

2009 In the beginning of 2009, Facebook was clocking in with 150 million users, growing by 50 million from late 2008 (Loomer). Their expansion continued with the introduction of the new home page, which gave real-time updates from Facebook friends (Deng). The publisher tool, which was previously located only on a user’s wall, was duplicated on the new homepage, allowing users to “contribute to the stream” in real time (Deng). The publisher asked, “What’s On Your Mind?” encouraging users to contribute more through updates and posts (Deng). 2009 also introduced the “Like” button, which has become a staple in popular culture. As introduced

by Facebook, the Like button’s function was to nonverbally comment on a friend’s status: “Wherever you can add a comment on your friends' content, you'll also have the option to click “Like” to tell your friends exactly that: ‘I like this’ (Pearlman). The reasoning behind adding the Like button in addition to comments, was to “make room in the comments section for longer accolades” (Pearlman). To publicize birthdays and anniversaries, Facebook added the “birthday reminder” function to the homepage (Loomer). Also seen on the homepage, was the “friend suggestion” box, recommending new friends to add based off of networks and location (Gleit). In

Brittis 34 an attempt to further personalize the Facebook experience, came the addition of “usernames,” which gave users’ profiles a specific URL, calling it “your personal destination, or home, on the Web” (DiPersia). Further improvements on the photo function were seen, with the expansion of the limit of photos in an album from 60 to 100. Important to note was the addition of the ability to post Facebook statuses on Twitter, integrating the two sites and eliminating the possibility of Twitter trumping Facebook (Gummelt).

2010 Integration with other social sites continued in 2010, with the addition of Skype and AIM. Photos were improved upon once again, with an increase in the size of photos to 720 pixels, as well as with the creation of a new photo browser, and easier uploading and tagging abilities (Loomer). The site continued to expand on how users could share their personal activities through the addition of the “check in” feature on Facebook Places. Users could tell their Facebook friends exactly where they were at a specific time, by checking in from a mobile device (Sharon). The most important of all changes during 2010, was the new profile (see illustration 6), introduced in December 2010 (Wiseman, “Introducing the New Profile). The layout of the profile drastically changed: basic information was now compressed and located at the top of the page. Underneath this, was a row of recently tagged photos, emphasizing the idea that, “there is no better way to learn about a person than through photos” (Wiseman, “Introducing the New Profile”). Users were given the ability to filter and group friends, “highlighting friends who are important” (Wiseman, “Introducing the New Profile”). The personal interests area was expanded; adding photos to listed interests and allowing users to list courses completed at school and projects done at work. The religious and political affiliation option was also further developed through linking your philosophical views through Facebook

Brittis 35 (Wiseman, “Introducing the New Profile”). Photos were once again improved with the “infinite scrolling” option, increasing the number of photos displayed and improving the ease of going through older photos (Wiseman, “Introducing the New Profile”).

Present: Facebook Timeline A recently noted addition to Facebook was its purchase of image sharing social network Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 (Rusli). Similar to Twitter integration, Instagram users were now given the ability to connect their Facebook and Instagram accounts, allowing for simultaneous posting. Despite having introduced a new Facebook profile in 2010, the Facebook blog introduced the site’s newest feature in September: Timeline. Although it is quite evident that Facebook changes have been frequent in the history of the site, no change was quite big as Timeline. Currently, the Timeline layout is still the functioning format of Facebook used today.

The layout of the new Timeline profile includes a wider spread with a horizontal photo acting as a banner. This photo, called a “cover,” is totally customizable by the user (Lessin). Instead of filing through “recent activity,” Timeline has altered the profile page into a sequential account of posts, photos, and “life events as they happened in time” (Lessin). Timeline also allows the user to gauge what events they consider important or unimportant, by starring favorite events, which doubles the size, or by removing events altogether (Lessin). If users feel that important events are missing from their Timeline, they can go back to when they happened and add them.

Additionally, instead of manually filtering through events and adding them, users can access their private activity log, which documents everything shared since the user first joined Facebook (Lessin). From this log, the user can additionally select and add whatever events they want featured on their Timeline. Timeline also allows for the integration of a social app, “that lets you show the things you like to do on your Timeline – the music you listen to, the recipes you try, the

Brittis 36 runs you take and more� (Lessin). The takeover of Timeline continued to December 2011, with the introduction of the new Timeline mobile app (Johnson). Since the addition of Timeline, there have been no major additional changes to the layout of Facebook up until the time of the publication of this paper.

Brittis 37 Chapter Seven: Manifesting Narcissism on Facebook As discussed in the previous chapter, the layout and functions of Facebook have changed drastically from its humble beginning in 2005. Originally intended to connect people at colleges, there has been a noticeable shift from an emphasis on community, to an emphasis on the individual user. Each change to the content and structure of Facebook has created the ability to further personalize the user experience, and has allowed for this shift in purpose to grow. As previously stated, the purpose of this work is not to prove that Facebook has created narcissism or NPD, but to exemplify and discuss how Facebook provides an outlet for self-promotion and self-absorbency, therefore encouraging the development of narcissistic tendencies. For the purpose of this discussion, trait narcissism will be defined as subclinical and related to Raskin and Terry’s NPI-4022 and clinical narcissism will be defined as those diagnosed with NPD as stated in the DSM-IV23. The presence of narcissism on Facebook is found within two major functions of the site: content and activity. Both of these functions will be related to narcissism through a combination of the clinical and subclinical descriptions, as well as the characteristics of narcissism as listed in the DSM-IV24.

22

Raskin and Terry state that their scale was “originally developed to explore individual differences in narcissism, as those differences may be expressed in nonclinical populations�

(Raskin and Terry 892). With this in mind, all comparisons relating to their inventory will be categorized under trait narcissism.

23 As previously mentioned, clinical diagnosis of NPD requires a long-term pattern of behavior, as well as the presence of an additional impairment (DSM-IV). For the purpose of this paper, characteristics of this diagnosis will be used. These comparisons to the diagnosis of NPD but are not intended to provide a diagnosis of the disorder, but to show the presence of narcissistic characteristics as clinically defined.

24 The DSM-IV states that in order to begin the diagnosis of NPD, there must be the presence of at least five of the nine listed characteristics. Raskin and Terry created a list of seven categories of narcissism drawing from the DSM-IV diagnosis. For the purpose of this paper, all nine characteristics will be discussed as they relate to both the clinical and subclinical descriptions.

Brittis 38 Vanity Vanity could be considered one of the most applicable characteristics of narcissism as it relates to Facebook. On the NPI, the presence of vanity is seen in three statements: “I like to display my body,” “I like to look at my body,” and “I like to look at myself in the mirror” (Raskin and Terry 894). These three statements are all evident in the Facebook activity of many users and seen through the posting of profile pictures, photo albums, videos, notes, status updates, and tagging photos.

“I like to display my body” Narcissists have been characterized by having an “acute concern for ones appearance” (Vazire et al. 1439). Having a preoccupation with good looks, narcissists are more likely to “wear expensive flashy clothing, have an organized neat appearance requiring a lot of preparation, wear makeup….and show cleavage” (1439). The appearance of the subject is also characterized by an emphasis on appearing sexy and being provocative. This is quite evident in Facebook profile photos; the sexier a profile picture, the better self-image a user has (Buffardi and Campbell 1308). The presence of Facebook photos fulfilling the latter criteria are prevalent, with 50% of Millennials stating that they have posted a nude or semi/nude video or picture of themselves online (“Sex and Tech” 1) (see illustration 7).

“I like to look at myself in the mirror” Falling under the ability to post photos on Facebook, we see the prevalence of “mirror shots,” known as “self-shots” (see illustrations 8 and 9). These pictures are taken usually with a camera phone or digital camera, by holding the device in front of the subject, or by using the reflection in a mirror to capture a users’ entire body. Mirror shots have become a cultural phenomenon and despite receiving criticism of the practice from onlookers, the use of self-shots

Brittis 39 is still quite prevalent on Facebook. Ironically, relating back to the NPI, we see the statement, “I like to look at myself in the mirror,” being fulfilled on Facebook. Looking at the concept of vanity as it relates to the general definition of narcissism, there are an array of descriptions: practices self-admiration and self-absorbency (Emmons), believes they are more attractive than others, and shows arrogant or haughty behaviors or attitudes (DSM-IV). Through the function of “status updates,” users post pictures and videos accompanied by text, allowing for the practice of vanity as a whole. With 20% of Millennials having posted a video of themselves online (Kohut et al.1), it is not surprising to learn that narcissists find pleasure in watching themselves on videotape (Twenge and Campbell 142). Referring back to the discussion of the presence of Millennials on Facebook, we see vanity practiced, with 50% of Millennials updating their status from one to several times per day (Hampton et al.15).

Not only does the platform allow for users to exercise their vanity online, but it also encourages it. Facebook has increased the number of photos allowed per user, updated photo quality and size, and expanded the use of photo albums (Loomer). Recognizing their users interest in posting photos, Facebook has released a myriad of features, including photo editing and tagging. These abilities encourage narcissism, allowing users to select only the best and most flattering pictures to be displayed on their profile, along with the option of “untagging” those that they dislike. As previously mentioned, Facebook has only continued to add features that encourage this behavior, the most recent being the release of “Timeline” (Facebook, “Introducing Timeline”). In regards to vanity, Timeline further emphasizes the use of images on Facebook through the creation of the “cover photo.” In addition to and separate from the profile picture, the cover photo horizontally spans the head of the user profile, making it the largest aspect on the page. Overall, the profile picture and cover picture make it easy to show off on

Brittis 40 Facebook, with its large size and presence on the page, showing Facebooks’ encouragement to indulge in vanity on their website.

Exhibitionism Intertwined with vanity, exhibitionism relates to the ways and means of receiving attention and excessive admiration (DSM-IV). Because of the preoccupation with receiving attention and admiration from others, we see how vanity and exhibitionism overlap on Facebook.

By posting images online, the users’ purpose is to display their own attractiveness, showing qualities of an exhibitionist. Exhibitionism is present in seven narcissistic choices in statements on the NPI-40. Of these seven statements, we see more than half exemplified on Facebook.

“Modesty doesn’t become me” and “I will usually show off if I get a chance” Once a revered characteristic, modesty is far from present on Facebook. Facebook has become the platform for announcing all major (and minor) life events. Although many Facebook users have stated that they use the site as a way to communicate with friends and family (Hampton et al.), we see communication conducted on Facebook in a much more grandiose manner. After logging in, users are directed to the “news feed,” which provides updates on the activities of Facebook friends, as well as the capability to update the users own status, answering Facebook’s question, “What’s on your mind?” Not only is this basic function encouraging personal showcasing, but it also encourages the narcissism of others, through the trade and exchange of Likes and comments. Status updates are not only shown on the users personal profile, but are displayed on the news feeds of friends. This allows for the users message to be seen at a high volume and frequency. Status updates are far from modest; we see flashy pictures of engagement rings (see illustration 10), new cars (see illustration 11), adorable babies, and new pets (see illustration 12). Aside from materialistic exhibitionism, there is a high volume of status

Brittis 41 updates focused around bragging about various achievements: weight loss (see illustration 13), exercise (see illustration 14), and job promotions (see illustration 15). In addition to status updates, “Facebook Places” allows users to “check in” at various locations, facilitating the ability to brag about their most recent vacation (see illustration 16), visit to an exclusive nightclub, (see illustration 17) or dinner at an expensive restaurant (see illustration 18).

“I like to start new fads and fashions” versus “I don’t care about new fads and fashions” Encouraged by Facebook’s functions, users have created various trends through posting status updates with pictures, accompanied by a hashtag25. The use of hashtags was first seen on Twitter as a way for users to easily sort through conversations that interested them (Gannes).

Hashtags frequently used can become “trending topics,” and provide the platform with an idea of what most people are discussing (“What are Hashtags?”). Despite being used as an organizational function for Twitter, hashtags are seen on all social platforms, including Facebook26. Some hashtags have created a mass following, with the most popular hashtags on Facebook accompanied by a photo: #ootd (“outfit of the day”), #tbt (“Throwback Thursday”), and #selfies (self-taken photos). Status updates stamped with #ootd are used to show what kind of outfit the user is wearing (see illustration 19), while #tbt updates, (see illustration 20) let users post photos of themselves from the past, usually from childhood. We also see the use of hashtags in self-made categories, used more as a way to describe a photo or provide a caption.

Additionally, these hashtag captions are used to draw attention to certain aspects of an update or photo: #longhair (see illustration 21), #selfie (see illustration 22), and #nofilter (see illustration 25

Although previously used in Internet Relay Chat categorization, hashtags were popularized by Chris Messina, who proposed the use of hashtags to Twitter in order to categorize conversations from users (Gannes).

26 The use of hashtags on Facebook may be attributed to the feature of syncing Twitter and Facebook accounts, allowing for simultaneous identical updates on both platforms. With the presence of tweets on Facebook, users began to use hashtags even when they weren’t tweeting.

Brittis 42 23). As previously stated, there is a tendency for narcissists to dress provocatively and show more cleavage (Vazire et al., 1439) and hashtags allow for users to draw attention to this (see illustration 24). As seen in the latter mentioned illustration, users may use hashtags with captions such as “#boobs,” to shamelessly seek sexual attention on Facebook.

Superiority Concepts of superiority are seen on Facebook as they overlap with other facets on the NPI. Superiority relates to a high regard for oneself (Tavares 55), with a high capacity for status, and delusions of grandiosity and self-importance (DSM-IV). The DSM-IV description characterizes narcissism as the belief that an individual is unique and special, and that this individual should only associate with those who are as equally as special. This desire for the display of high status association is found through photos and status updates on Facebook. Users make a calling for their “beautiful friends,” to respond to their post (see illustration 33), or show themselves hanging out with celebrities or well-known figures (see illustration 34). These posts not only show the narcissists need for special association, but they fulfill their desires for fame and image (Twenge, Campbell, and Freeman 1046).

“I think I am a special person” The trait of uniqueness is seen on the NPI-40 in the statement: “I think I am a special person,” versus “I am no better or no worse than most people” (Raskin and Terry 894). But what do narcissists consider the word special to mean? According to the dictionary, “special” is defined by “being in some way superior, distinguished by some unusual quality, readily distinguishable from others in the same category” (Merriam-Webster). Narcissists are eager to stand out from the crowd, and use various forms of self-promotion to prove to others that they are special and unique. The simple layout of the first Facebook profile did not allow for much

Brittis 43 customization; despite having different text and different profile pictures, the layout of the Facebook profile was uniform for all users. With each alteration to the layout, came further abilities for users to customize their page to emphasize their own uniqueness. But despite the multitude of changes in layout, no previous changes in customization have been as extreme as the introduction of the Timeline profile page. Of all the features found in Timeline, the most notable emphasizing the idea of being unique is the cover. The cover photo on the profile is the biggest image seen on the profile page and Facebook wastes no time in describing its function: “Your Cover: Fill this wide, open space with a unique image that represents you best. It’s the first thing people see when they visit your Timeline” (Facebook, “Introducing Timeline”). In its introduction of this feature, Facebook gives users the ability to click through four photos to see how the feature works: of these four photos, three are pictures of the user, encouraging users to use the cover space as a larger picture of themselves.

“I like to be complimented” and “I know that I am good because everyone keeps telling me so” On Facebook, we see a cyclical relationship between online actions related to vanity and exhibitionism, with Facebook activity related to superiority. In order to relate this trait to Facebook activity, we must hypothesize on the motivation behind Facebook activity. When users conduct activity on Facebook, it is published in real-time to the friends of that user, giving them the ability to comment or like whatever they choose. This function is highly utilized on Facebook, with 54% of Millennials commenting on photos one to several times per day, and 60% commenting on statuses one to several times per day (Hampton et al. 17-18). Looking towards the like function, 72% of Millennials “Like” content on Facebook at least once per day (19). Facebook users witness their friends’ comments and Likes--they know the more often they make Facebook posts, the more feedback they will most likely receive. They also know that the

Brittis 44 more interesting or provocative the post, the more feedback and attention it will receive. This knowledge only reinforces the narcissistic tendencies found in posting images, by rewarding this behavior with Likes and comments. Reflecting back at the values expressed to be most important

by Millennials, there was an obvious focus on extrinsic values, including fame and image (Twenge, Campbell and Freeman 1046). Extrinsic values require and are determined wholly by external feedback (1046). Social networks are an outlet for Millennials to receive external feedback from others, creating an emphasis on the extrinsic values of image and fame in the online world.

“I wish somebody would someday write my biography” The NPI states narcissism related with superiority as seen in the desire for noted attention from others, wishing that “someday someone would write my biography” (Raskin and Terry).

This is not such much related to behavior exhibited on Facebook as it is found in the purpose of the platform’s Timeline feature. Described as giving users the ability to “tell your story” (Facebook, “Introducing Timeline”), Facebook’s layout changes are designed to document life events, “telling your story from beginning, to middle, to now” (Facebook, “Introducing Timeline”). Along with the description of the features of Timeline, Facebook presents a brief video showing the story of Andy Sparks. The video follows Andy from his birth in 1974, all the way to the birth of his daughter in 2012, essentially creating a video biography of his life as seen through Facebook. Narcissists no longer have to wish that someone would someday write their biography—Facebook is already doing it for them.

Brittis 45 Exploitativeness “I find it easy to manipulate others” The DSM describes the character trait of exploitativeness, as someone who is interpersonally exploitative and “takes advantages of others to achieve his/her own ends” (DSMIV). With frequent posts being met with comments and Likes from other Facebook friends, the narcissistic Facebook user may realize the benefit of having a larger number of friends or friend requests. This leads to manipulation, as the user attempts to build a greater network of friends, with the hopes of receiving more positive feedback from a larger audience. Not only is the user being manipulative, but they are encouraging the creation of empty relationships. Narcissists, by definition, are unable to participate in healthy relationships, (Twenge and Campbell) and instead, favor shallow and superficial relationships (111). Narcissists use these relationships to feed their ego (212) by being associated with attractive partners, friends, and with a posse or crew, as well as appearing to have a large amount of friends (214). These vapid relationships are rampant on Facebook: there is no limit to the number of friends you can have (see illustration 25) and Facebook friendships are used as a indication of social status (110). The average Faceebook user has 229 Facebook friends (Hampton et al.), allowing for a limitless amount of feedback from a wide variety of online friends. Narcissistic Facebook users brag about their relationships (see illustrations 26 and 27), exploiting them to appear popular, important, and loved by many.

Entitlement “I expect a great deal from other people” The characteristics of entitlement and exploitativeness have been paired together by researchers on narcissism (Carpenter 482). Narcissists are willing to exploit others in order to reach their own goals. Not only are they using others for their own needs, but narcissists expect

Brittis 46 others to treat them favorably and to automatically comply with their expectations (DSM-IV).

When these expectations are not met, narcissists may become hostile and angry, displaying aggressive behavior. Looking towards Facebook, the narcissist expects praise, positive feedback, and frequent commenting from friends. Antisocial behavior has been seen on Facebook through the presence of aggression when someone disagrees with a statement (see illustration 28).

Because of the empty relationships encouraged by and found on Facebook, it is very easy for a user to dispose of any “friends” that do not meet their expectations. With the ability to simply “unfriend” someone with the click of a button, the narcissistic Facebook user can easily get rid of those who do not agree with them (see illustration 29), or those who do not provide them with enough feedback.

Brittis 47 Chapter Eight: Results Observations of Facebook content and activity as it relates to self-absorbency allowed for the easy recognition of patterns, noting a higher frequency of some themes over others. Due to the nature of this study, results can be analyzed through focusing on the following as they relate to the traits of narcissism discussed in the previous chapter: 1. Facebook Content: Images and Text 2. Activity on Facebook (Number of friends, number of check-ins, frequency of posts) and motivation behind Activity As previously stated, this study focuses on five characteristics of narcissism: superiority, vanity, entitlement, exhibitionism, and exploitativeness. In concern to the characteristics of narcissism discussed, activity conducted on Facebook related to a higher display of the traits of exhibitionism, vanity and superiority. Vanity, superiority, and exhibitionism were observed through the content of text and photos on Facebook. Exploitativeness and entitlement were linked to Facebook activity and motivation behind it. All of these traits were observed on Facebook through qualitative observations. In addition to these general observations, I provide non-quantitative data of 20 Millennial Facebook users, whose activity was noted in specific areas. The 20 Millennial subjects consisted of 10 males and 10 females, ranging in ages 20 to 28, with Facebook account creation beginning as early as 2004 and most recently in 2008. The results of these observations can be found in the illustrations section in tables one and two.

Facebook Content: Images One of the functions of Facebook that commonly utilized photos was the status update.

There was a noticeably high presence of status updates that were focused around the user displaying qualities of exhibitionism. Many updates included camera phone self-shots, both with

Brittis 48 and without captions. Other pictures included in status updates involved material objects: engagement rings, clothing, elaborate cocktails, and tech devices. The frequent use of images on Facebook was also noted in the profile. On the Facebook profile, more than half of the observed users’ profile pictures were of themselves alone; either in the form of a picture taken alone or through editing out other people. Profile photos were the most prominent way for the user to display pictures of themselves and the characteristic of vanity, with the average user observed having 77 profile pictures. Self-images were also present in the cover photo, with 7 observed users featuring themselves exclusively in their cover photo. Despite some users displaying more personal pictures, there was a higher number of users who used more artistic images (i.e. scenic photographs). The observed average number of total photos posted on Facebook was 2553.

These photos are located within user albums, which were present on all profiles, with the average of the twenty observed users having 48 albums. Finally, a high presence of mobile uploads was noted, with 19 out of 20 users posting mobile upload albums, with an average of 109 mobile photos per user.

Facebook Content: Text The use of text on Facebook for self-promotion was evident in multiple functions.

Usually, photos uploaded in status updates featured a text caption. Captions demonstrated certain trends with the use of hashtags. More often than not, hashtags were used to draw attention to certain aspects of a photo or for self-promotion (i.e. #selfie). Text seen in status updates observed the users’ tendency to passively brag by publicizing personal events or by making bold declarations of happiness (i.e. “My life is the best!”), displaying the characteristic of exhibitionism. Observed status updates also displayed characteristics of superiority, with users posting updates about meeting and associating with famous and beautiful people (see illustration

Brittis 49 31). Some updates noted displayed narcissistic statements as a whole; declaring unusual self-love or admiration (see illustration 32). Users’ also showed an inclination to use status updates to declare personal opinions and views. The most observable use of text in status updates was to provide descriptions of personal habits, plans, and activities for that day. More often than not, this type of status update showed underlying self-promotion. The use of the Notes feature of Facebook was also investigated for its ability to publish self-focused material, but this was not a highly utilized function on Facebook, with 8 of 20 users posting a note in their Facebook history, and the highest number of notes posted being 4. In the “About Me� section of the profile, there was a high likelihood of users providing self-written descriptions, with half of observed users showing a positive self-view.

Facebook Activity and Motivation The most frequent activities conducted on Facebook were found in posting status updates and providing feedback to updates through comments and Likes. Observed status updates, showed that most, if not all, status updates were provided with feedback, through comments or Likes. It was highly unlikely to observe a status update that had not received feedback of any sort. The activity of checking in was also practiced at a high volume, with all 20 observed users utilizing the check-in feature, averaging 277 check-ins per user. Facebook activity was also linked to the integration of Instagram and Twitter accounts. Eleven of the 20 users had their Instagram account connected to their Facebook, but only 2 users connected their Twitter account27. As discussed in the previous chapter, the motivation for Facebook activity is found in the desire for feedback from other Facebook friends, creating the need for a higher number of friends to

27

This could note a discrepancy in numbers since Instagram allows for the publication to Facebook and Twitter simultaneously, eliminating the need for Twitter updates to be linked to Facebook separately.

Brittis 50 provide a larger amount of feedback, allowing for the exploitation of others to achieve this goal.

Despite previous studies stating that the average user has 669 social networking ties (Hampton et al.), the average number of friends was noted to be 1,511, with one observed subject having a total of 5,198 Facebook friends.

Brittis 51 Chapter Nine: Conclusions & Recommendations With a large amount of data measuring the psychological effects of the Internet, I originally approached this thesis process by proposing to measure narcissism and Facebook by performing a quantitative study. After the proposal process, this original intention changed, as I realized that I had much more to say and discuss on the topic, than to statistically prove. Instead of focusing on a subject group and tracking their Facebook use, I chose to incorporate my personal observations on Facebook from six years of use, with my status as a member of the Millennial Generation.

Conclusions With these observations in mind, many personal conclusions and their consequences can be made. Firstly, the main function of Facebook has shifted far from interpersonal communication. Instead, the platform is mainly used to document the users life through pictures and updates. The presence of narcissistic tendencies was highly felt on Facebook and it also seemed as if the main purpose of Facebook was to brag or talk about yourself. Not only was this tendency strongly felt, but users seemed to be brazen; bragging extensively and indulging in compliments received through comments. I found myself laughing at the ease of discovering narcissistic status updates because of their high volume. Some updates (see illustrations 32 and 30), were so narcissistic that there seemed to be no reason for even categorizing them. One of the most concerning activities on Facebook is the publication of self-taken photos. As previously mentioned, this has been seen as a cultural trend, emphasizing the need for praise and attention of physical attributes. Facebook has recognized how their users are acting on the site and has encouraged these habits by creating a platform that is all about the individual. It is too bold to say that Facebook creates narcissism, but it certainly can be said that it encourages it.

Brittis 52 A possible consequence of this phenomenon includes a decrease in community involvement and person-to-person communication. With so many people focused with their online persona, there is no room for others unless they offer the narcissist some kind of benefit.

This creates isolation and a lack of interest in community. The decrease in community involvement has been witnessed through the practice of “slacktivism28,” seen in Internet petitions for a particular cause, with the goal of the user feeling socially engaged without requiring any actual effort.

The effects of these behaviors are also found in the decreased value of communication.

With so many people shouting, “look at me” on Facebook, the potential for the exchange of valuable information is affected. Despite this, it cannot be said that all exchanges on Facebook are useless. The function of the platform originally provided users with the ability to create meaningful exchanges, yet users chose to utilize it differently. It doesn’t seem fair to place blame on one over the other; both Facebook users and Facebook developers work cyclically, fostering narcissism.

Recommendations Despite the large amount of research conducted on this topic, there are many aspects not being explored. Much attention has been placed on the Facebook user in connection to narcissism, instead of focusing on the actual layout of Facebook. This thesis briefly discusses the layout of Facebook as it is designed to encourage narcissism, but I suggest that further research be conducted on this topic. Additionally, very little research has focused on one gender over the other. Only one of the mentioned studies in the literature review found a difference in the Facebook habits between genders (Mehdizadeh), but other studies stay away from this aspect.

28

Defined as online activism where the real life impact of actions is minimal if non-existent (Christensen).

Brittis 53 Another demographical difference to be explored is in regard to the presence of Baby Boomers on Facebook. Recently, a larger presence of Boomers has been noted on Facebook (Hampton et al. 8) and differences should be examined between the activities of Boomers, compared to Millennials. Most of the discussed studies were conducted over a short span of time, the only exception being the research of Twenge et al., who studied their subjects for a 20-year span. It would be quite beneficial to the field if further research was conducted longitudinally, in order to track changes in behavior and Facebook activity over time.

Aside from recommendations for future research, I feel that there should be a call to arms to Millennials to change their online habits. Society is encouraged to continue their plugged in habits through social media platforms, e-mailing, and the constant introduction of new technologies. I feel disheartened on a daily basis about the status of our society; we walk through the streets, barely looking up at those we pass by, we spend time at social functions tweeting about the event rather than enjoying it. The most valuable aspect of being human is found in our relationships with others. An “lol” can never replace a laugh shared with a friend and a “Like” can never replace congratulating your sister on her new promotion in person. I began my academic focus in Media Studies with an optimistic outlook, believing in the power of social networks for the greater good of communication. Now, I graduate an Internet dystopian, ashamed to be a member of a generation known for their isolating online habits. Regardless of this pessimism, I look towards a brighter future where we remember the power of personal relationships and use the Internet as a way to better these connections, instead of replacing them.

Brittis 54 Works Cited “A Case Study in Social Media Demographics.” OnlineMBA.com. Online MBA Inc., 2012. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

Abram, Carolyn. “Welcome to the Facebook Blog.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 22 Aug 2006. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Ames, Daniel, Paul Rose, and Cameron Anderson. "The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism." Journal of Research in Personality 440.450 (2006): 440-50. Print.

Bayne, Sian, and Jen Ross. "The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition." Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education.

London, England. Dec. 2007. Print. Reading transcript.

Brunell, Amy, et al. "Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt." Personality and Individual Differences 50: 323-28. Print.

Buffardi, Laura, and W. Keith Campbell. "Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34.10 (2008): 1303-14. Print.

Campbell, W. Keith. "Narcissism and Romantic Attraction." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77.6 (1999): 1254-70. Print.

Campbell, W. Keith, Amy Brunell, and Eli Finkel. "Narcissism, Interpersonal SelfRegulation, and Romantic Relationships." 2006. Self and Relationships: Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006. 57-83.

Print.

Carpenter, Christopher. "Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior." Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012): 482-86. Print.

Brittis 55 Christensen, Henrik. "Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?" First Monday 16.2 (2011): 2-7. Print.

Courtois, C., P. Mechant, and L. De Marez. "Teenage Uploaders on YouTube: Networked Public Expectancies, Online Feedback Preference, and Received On-Platform Feedback." Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14.5 (2011): 315-22.

Print.

Davis, Caroline, Gordon Claridge, and Debbie Cerullo. "Reflections on narcissism: Conflicts about body-image perceptions in women." Personality and Individual Differences 22.3 (1997): 309-16. Print.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Print.

Deng, Peter. “Welcome to Your New Homepage.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 11 March 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

DeWall, C., et al. “Tuning in to psychological change: Linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions over time in popular U.S. song lyrics.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 5.3. (2011): 200-207. Print.

DiMaggio, Paul., et al. "Social Implications of the Internet." Annual Review Sociology 27 (2001): 307-36. Print.

DiNucci, Darcy. "Fragmented Future." Print 32.4 (1999): 32. Print.

DiPersia, Blaise. “Coming Soon: Facebook Usernames.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 31 June 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

"DSM: History of the Manual." American Psychiatric Association. APA, 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Brittis 56 Egan, Vincent, and Cara McCorkindale. "Narcissism, vanity, personality and mating effort." Personality and Individual Differences 43.8 (2007): 2105-15. Print.

Ellis, Havelock. “Autoeroticism: A Psychological Study.” Alienist and Neurologist. 19 (1898) : 260-299. Web. 17 Oct 2012.

Emmons, Robert. "Narcissism: Theory and Measurement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52.1 (1987): 11-17. Print.

"Evolution of the Facebook Website Design from 2004 to 2011." Geeks Club. N.p., 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.

Facebook. “Introducing Timeline.” Facebook.com. Facebook, n.d.Web. 13 Oct. 2012.

---------“Newsroom: Key Facts.” Facebook.com. Facebook, n.d.Web. 13 Oct. 2012.

---------“Newsroom: One Billion People on Facebook Factsheet.” Facebook.com. Facebook, 14 Sept. 2012,Web. 13 Oct. 2012 First, Michael B., Allen Frances, and Harold Allen Pincus. DSM-IV-TR Guidebook. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2004. Print.

Fowler, Harold N. A History of Roman Literature. New York: D. Appleton, 1903. Print.

Freud, Sigmund. On Narcissism: An Introduction. 1914. Print.

---------Libidinal Types. 1931. Print.

Gallop, Jane. “Lacan’s “Mirror Stage”: Where to Begin.” SubStance. 38.11 (1982) : 118- 128.

Web. 17 Oct 2012.

Gannes, Liz. "The Short and Illustrious History of Twitter #Hashtags." Gigaom. Gigaom, 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

Gleit, Naomi. “Suggestions for Helping New Friends.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 23 Oct 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Brittis 57 Gonzalez, Amy, and Jeff Hancock. "Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem." Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14.1-2 (2011): 79-83. Print.

Gummelt, Michael. “Publishing to Twitter from Facebook Pages.” The Facebook Blog.

Facebook Inc., 20 Aug 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Hachman, Mark. “A Visual History of the iPhone.” PC Magazine [New York] 11 Sept 2012.

Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Hampton, Keith et al. “Pew Research Center: Social Networking Sites and Our Lives.” Pew Internet and American Life Project. 16 June 2011. Web. 10 Oct 2012.

Hershatter, Andrea, and Molly Epstein. "Millennials and the World of Work: An Organization and Management Perspective." Journal of Business and Psychology 25.2 (2010): 211-23.

Print.

Hewitt, Joe. “Facebook for the iPhone is Here.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook, Inc., 15 Aug 2007. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. Milliennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage Books, 2000. Print.

Hughes, Chris. “Share is Everywhere.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 31 Oct 2006.Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Johnson, Mick. “Timeline: Now Available on Mobile.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 18 Dec 2011. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Jones, Chris et al. “Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university?” Computers & Education 54.3 (2011): 722–732. Print.

Brittis 58 Katz, James, and Philip Aspden. "A Nation of Strangers?" Communications of the ACM 40.12 (1997): 81-86. Print.

Kernberg, Otto. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Lanham: Jason Aronson Inc., 2000. Print.

Kraut, Robert et al."Internet Paradox." American Psychologist 53.9 (1998): 1017. Print.

Kohut, Andrew et al. “Pew Research Center: Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next.”

Pew Internet and American Life Project. Feb 2010. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

Koskela, Hille. "Webcams, TV Shows and Mobile phones: Empowering Exhibitionism."

Surveillance & Society 2.2-3 (2004): 199-215. Print.

Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: Norton, 1991. Print.

Lemaire, Michael. “The Millennial Teenager: Infographic.” OnlineSchools.com. QuinStreet Inc., 2012. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

Lessin, Samuel W. “Tell Your Story With Timeline. The Facebook Blog. Facebook, Inc., 12 Dec 2011. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Loomer, Jon. “Detailed History of Facebook Changes 2004-2012.” Jon Loomer.

JonLoomer.com, 2012 May 6. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Maffei, Cesare, et al. "Personality Maladjustment, Defenses, and Psychopathological Symptoms in Nonclinical Subjects." Journal of Personality Disorders 9.4 (1995): 33045. Print.

Manning, Terri, Bobbi Everett, and Cheryl Roberts. "The Millennial Generation: The Next Generation in College Enrollment." The Center for Applied Research (2009): n. pag.

Print.

Brittis 59 McGlynn, Angela. "Teaching Millennials, Our Newest Cultural Cohort." Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review 71.4 (2005): 12-16. Print.

Mehdizadeh, S. "Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook."

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking13.4 (2010): 357-64. Print.

Miller, Joshua D., Thomas A. Widiger, and W. Keith Campbell. "Narcissistic personality disorder and the DSM-V." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 119.4 (2010): 640 49. Print.

Mitchell, John J. The Natural Limitations of Youth: The Predispositions That Shape the Adolescent Character. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. Print.

“Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” WebMD. WebMD, LLC., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012.

Nielsen. State of the Media: The Social Media Report Q3. New York: The Nielsen Company, 2011. Web. 10 Oct 2012.

---------Survey: New U.S. Smartphone Growth by Age and Income. New York: The Nielsen Company, 2012. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

---------State of the Appnation: A Year of Change and Growth in U.S. Smartphones. New York: The Nielsen Company, 2012. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

---------Who’s Watching YouTube? New York: The Nielsen Company, 2006. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

“Number of Active Users at Facebook Over the Years.” Associated Press [New York] 4 Oct 2012: n. pag. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Oblinger, Diana. “The New Student.” Educating the Net Generation and Game Changers.(2002) Print.

O'Keeffe, Gwenn, and Kathleen Clarke-Pearson. "The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families." Pediatrics 127.4 (2011): 800-04. Print.

Brittis 60 Ovid. Metamorphoses: Book Three. A.D. 8. Web. 17 Oct 2012.

Pearlman, Leah. “I Like This.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 9 Feb 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Phillips, Sarah. "A Brief History of Facebook." The Guardian [London] 24 July 2007: n. pag.

Print.

Pinsky, Drew, and S. Mark Young. "Narcissism and Celebrity." Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006): 463-71. Print.

Putnam, Chris. “Video is Here.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 22 June 2007. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Rashtchy, Safa et al. "The User Revolution." Investment Research (2007): 1-422. Print.

Raskin, Robert. "Narcissism and Creativity: Are They Related?” Psychological Reports 46.1: 5560. Print.

Raskin, R, and H Terry. “A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54.5 (1988): 890-902. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.

Roche, Alexandre. “From Tagged Photo to Profile Photo.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 15 Jan 2008. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Rosmarin, Rachel. "Open Facebook." Forbes 11 Sept. 2006: n. pag. Print.

Rusli, Evelyn M. “Facebook buys Instagram for $1 Billion.” New York Times. 9 Apr. 2012: n.pag. Print.

“Sex and Tech.” The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The National Campaign, 2008. Web. 21 Nov. 2012.

Brittis 61 Sharon, Michael. “Who, What, When, and Now…Where.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 18 Aug 2010. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Smith, Aaron. “Pew Research Center: Why Americans Use Social Media.” Pew Internet and American Life Project 14 Nov 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

"Special." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

Symington, Neville. Narcissism: A New Theory. London: Karnac Books, 2012. Print.

Tavares, Marcelo. "A multimethod study of four dimensions of narcissism: Exploitativeness, entitlement, exhibitionism, and superiority." ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1993): n. pag. Print.

Thompson, Clive. “The Early Years.” New York Magazine [New York] 12 Feb 2006: n. pag.

Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Thornton, Bill, and Scott Moore. "Physical Attractiveness Contrast Effect: Implications for SelfEsteem and Evaluations of the Social Self." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19.4 (1993): 474-80. Print.

Trzesniewski, Kali H., and M. Brent Donnellan. "Reevaluating the Evidence for Increasingly Positive Self-Views Among High School Students More Evidence for Consistency Across Generations (1976–2006)." Psychological Science 20.7 (2009): 920-22. Print.

Twenge, Jean. Generation Me. New York: Free Press, 2006. Print.

Twenge, Jean M., et al. "Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory." Journal of Personality 76.4 (2008): 875-902. Print.

Twenge, Jean and Keith Campbell. The Narcissism Epidemic. New York: Free Press, 2009.

Print.

Brittis 62 Twenge, Jean, Campbell, W. Keith, and Elise Freeman. “Generational Differences in Young Adults’ Life Goals, Concern for Others, and Civic Orientation, 1966-2009.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102.5 (2012) : 1045-1062. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

Twitter. “What are Hashtags?” Twitter.com. Twitter Inc., 2012. Web 29 Nov 2012.

Vazire, Simine et al. "Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self-Reported Facebook-Related Behaviors and Observable Profile Information." Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 14.9 (2011): 483-88. Print.

Walther, Joseph B. "Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition." Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007): 2538-57. Print.

Wellman, Barry. "The Glocal Village: Internet and Community." The Arts and Science Review 1.1 (2004): 26-30. Print.

Winograd, Morley, and Michael D. Hais. Millenial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2008. Print.

Wiseman, Josh. “Introducing the New Profile.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 5 Dec 2010.

Web. 22 Oct 2012.

---------“Facebook Chat: Now We’re Talking.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 6 Apr 2008. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Witnah, Tom. “We’re Open for Commentary.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 26 June 2008. Web. 22 Oct 2012.

Zuckerberg, Mark. “The Next Step.” The Facebook Blog. Facebook Inc., 30 Aug 2006. Web. 22 Oct 2012.