Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

The role of personality psychopathology in social network site behaviors☆ T

Jennifer K. Boland, Jaime L. Anderson
⁎

Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Social network sites (SNSs) have proliferated across the internet, engaging millions of users. Although the ex-
Social network site pansion of SNSs has made communication easier, it has also been connected to mental health concerns. Previous
Social media research has suggested not all users are engaging with SNSs in the same ways or for the same reasons; however,
Pathological personality traits much of the literature concerning personality and SNSs has focused solely on the connection between narcissism
Social media disorder
and SNS use (e.g., Andreassen, Pallesen, & Griffiths, 2017; Sorokowski et al., 2015). The current study examined
Social Media Attitudes and Behaviors Scale
the relationship between pathological personality traits and SNS behaviors more broadly, and the role that self-
esteem plays in moderating this relationship. An Amazon MTurk sample of 238 participants completed self-
report questionnaires measuring personality, self-esteem, and SNS behaviors. Negative Affectivity and
Antagonism tended to show the strongest associations with maladaptive SNS behaviors, and self-esteem was
found to moderate very few of these relationships. These findings suggest that individuals particularly high in
the personality domains of Negative Affectivity and Antagonism may be more at-risk for SNS misuse than their
less dysregulated peers.

1. Introduction
Over the past 20 years, social network sites (SNSs) have engaged
millions of users. For research, SNSs have been defined as web-based
services allowing users to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile
within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom
they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of con-
nections and those made by others within the system (Boyd & Ellison,
2007). SNSs are so pervasive in American culture that an estimated
69% of adults reported using Facebook in 2019, with up to 74% of these
users visiting Facebook daily (Perrin & Anderson, 2019). The wide-
spread use of SNSs has made their usage central to many larger con-
versations in contemporary culture, including issues from cyberbullying
in middle schools (Barlett & Helmstetter, 2018), to “fake news” on
Facebook (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017).
Although the expansion of SNSs has made communication easier, it
has also been connected to mental health concerns. For example, the
longer an individual has used Facebook, the more likely they are to
perceive others as happier than themselves, and the less likely they are
to believe life is fair (Chou & Edge, 2012). Additionally, increased
screentime on SNSs and other online activities may be linked to in-
creases in depressive symptoms and suicide rates (Twenge, Joiner,
Rogers, & Martin, 2018). With such a large majority of adults using
SNSs in their daily lives, the study of online behavior is emerging as a
critically important area of research investigation.
Although prevalence rates have shown most individuals in the U.S.
are using SNSs, research has suggested not all users are engaging with
SNSs similarly. At their most extreme, individual patterns of SNS use
vary to the point of addiction, which has been proposed as an emerging
“Social Media Disorder” (Van den Eijnden, Lemmens, & Valkenburg,
2016). There is also evidence that some individuals are likely to self-
disclose or “act out” on the internet more frequently or intensely than in
person, due in part to the anonymity and lack of face-to-face cues of-
fered by online communication (Suler, 2004). This phenomenon, called
the online disinhibition effect, has been bifurcated into two categories:
benign disinhibition (e.g., sharing very personal information, showing
unusual acts of generosity) and toxic disinhibition (e.g., using rude
language, making harsh threats). Suler's early work indicates that in-
dividual differences, such as personality variables, likely play an im-
portant role in determining who is most susceptible to the online dis-
inhibition effect, but research has yet to thoroughly investigate these
differences. Higher levels of online disinhibition have been linked to
maladaptive SNS behaviors, such as cyberbullying (Udris, 2014), but
the individual differences that could explain who is most at risk of
expressing the toxic variant of online disinhibition remains unstudied.
One set of factors that has been investigated to explain these

☆
This study was funded by a grant from the Society for Personality Assessment.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, Campus Box 2447, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA.
E-mail address: jla068@shsu.edu (J.L. Anderson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109517
Received 5 June 2019; Received in revised form 11 July 2019; Accepted 13 July 2019
Available online 26 July 2019
0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson
differences in SNS use is five-factor model (FFM) personality trait
profiles. For example, a previous study showed individuals higher in
extraversion are more likely to comment on someone else's page, and
those higher in openness change their profile pictures more frequently
(Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011). Another study
showed individuals who score highly on measures of conscientiousness
and agreeableness are less likely to post content perceived as proble-
matic (e.g., photos containing substances or sexual content) than their
peers (Karl, Peluchette, & Schlaegel, 2010). Another study demon-
strated highly extraverted individuals are more likely to post content
related to alcohol and drugs on SNSs (Stoughton, Thomspon, & Meade,
2013). Moreover, research has shown these personality factors may
vary across age groups, with extraversion being a particularly salient
predictor of SNS use among young adults, whereas openness to ex-
perience is more predictive for older individuals (Correa, Hinsley, & de
Zúñiga, 2010).
Motives for SNS use also vary, with some individuals looking to
fulfill a need to belong, whereas others are looking to fulfill a need for
self-presentation (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012). Longitudinal research
has shown that, among female adolescents, greater depressive symp-
tomatology predicts more frequent SNS use, but increased frequency of
SNS use does not predict greater depressive symptomatology (Heffer,
Good, Daly, MacDonell, & Willoughby, 2019). Individuals also show
differing attitudes of what material is appropriate to post online, in-
cluding self-promoting or risqué pictures or comments (Peluchette &
Karl, 2008), and even illegal material (Drouin & Miller, 2015).
Existing literature suggests individuals' motives for SNS use likely
differ based on a variety of factors, including age, gender, and mental
illness. Recent literature has begun to investigate the role pathological
personality traits play in SNS behavior. Although limited research has
found connections between antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and
the posting of illegal material on SNSs (Drouin & Miller, 2015), the
majority of the research focuses on the connection between narcissism
and SNS use (Andreassen, Pallesen, & Griffiths, 2017; Buffardi &
Campbell, 2008; Kim, Lee, Sung, & Choi, 2016; Mehdizadeh, 2010;
Sorokowski et al., 2015). The definition of narcissism has varied, al-
though most have focused on narcissism as measured by the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988; NPI-16; Ames, Rose,
& Anderson, 2006). These studies have generally found higher levels of
narcissistic traits to be linked to more SNS activity (Buffardi &
Campbell, 2008), more frequent SNS use (Mehdizadeh, 2010), and
higher scores on a measure of SNS addiction behaviors (Andreassen
et al., 2017).
1.1. The current study
The current study examined the relationship between pathological
personality traits, as measured in relation to the DSM-5's dimensional,
trait-based alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) and a
host of maladaptive SNS attitudes and behaviors, including SNS ad-
diction (Andreassen et al., 2017), time spent on SNSs (Mehdizadeh,
2010), and online disinhibition (Suler, 2004; Udris et al., 2014). Our
goal was to identify personality factors associated with types of mala-
daptive SNS behaviors to assist in the prevention and treatment of
disorders directly related to SNS use (e.g., social media disorder) and
traditional mental health diagnoses that have been associated with SNS
use (e.g., depression, Twenge et al., 2018).
The AMPD in DSM-5 (APA, 2013) includes a trait model of per-
sonality psychopathology, comprising 25 trait facets, arranged under
five broad domains (i.e., Negative Affect, Disinhibition, Psychoticism,
Detachment, and Antagonism), roughly conceptualized as negative
poles of the FFM domains of normative personality. The intent of the
model is to move from a categorical-based diagnostic scheme of PDs
into a dimensional framework. Nevertheless, to aid in the immediate
clinical utility of this model, six of the PDs contained in Section II of the
DSM-5 have been preserved in the AMPD. These PDs—antisocial,
2
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517
avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and schizoty-
pal—are conceptualized as specific constellations of pathological traits.
For instance, antisocial PD (ASPD) is comprised of manipulativeness,
callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, risk taking, impulsivity, and irre-
sponsibility; whereas, narcissistic PD (NPD) is comprised of grandiosity
and attention seeking (APA, 2013).
Although SNS behaviors have been examined in relation to nor-
mative personality and measures of narcissism, minimal literature dis-
cusses the relationship of other pathological traits with online social
behaviors, despite evidence that pathological personality is linked to
impairments in many types of functioning, including social functioning
(Boland, Damnjanovic, & Anderson, 2018). This study examined whe-
ther individuals who self-reported higher levels of disordered person-
ality traits showed differences in SNS behaviors, including their levels
of SNS use, online disinhibition, and other measures of disordered on-
line functioning.
Broadly, we hypothesized individuals who self-report higher levels
of pathological personality traits would be more likely to score higher
on measures of disordered SNS functioning. Based on previous research
regarding narcissism and SNS behavior (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2017;
Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Mehdizadeh, 2010, etc.), we expected in-
dividuals reporting high levels of narcissistic traits (i.e., Grandiosity
and Attention-seeking) would score higher on measures of SNS addic-
tion. Similarly, we expected individuals reporting high levels of ex-
ternalizing/antisocial traits (e.g., Callousness, Hostility, Impulsivity,
etc.) to score higher on measures of online disinhibition, in line with
previous research linking ASPD to posting illegal material on SNSs
(Drouin & Miller, 2015). The focus on narcissistic and antisocial PDs in
previous SNS behavior research informed our hypotheses; however,
given the lack of SNS research involving other maladaptive personality
traits or domains, no specific hypotheses related to these other traits
were rendered in the current study.
Additionally, given research linking SNS use to differing perceptions
of the self and others (Chou & Edge, 2012) and lower self-esteem to
higher frequency and lengths of time spent on Facebook (Mehdizadeh,
2010) we hypothesized associations among personality psycho-
pathology and maladaptive SNS behavior variables would be moder-
ated by levels of self-esteem. Indeed, we predicted lower levels of self-
esteem would strengthen the relationship between personality psy-
chopathology and maladaptive SNS behaviors. This moderating effect
could be attributable to the longer and more frequent periods of time
spent on SNSs by individuals with lower self-esteem, which has been
linked to negative outcomes, such as increased depressive symptoma-
tology (Twenge et al., 2018).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
Participants were 489 adults recruited through Amazon Mechanical
Turk, who completed an online survey through Qualtrics. An embedded
validity scale (described below) was used to identify participants sus-
pected of random responding. As a result, 251 participants were ex-
cluded. Participants who successfully passed validity checks were fi-
nancially compensated (1.50 USD) for their time. Of the 238
participants included in the analyses, 51.1% identified as female, 48.5%
identified as male, and 0.4% identified as another gender. Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 65 years old (M = 34.62; SD = 9.88). Of the
total sample, 78.6% identified as White, 10.9% identified as Black/
African American, 5.0% identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 8.0% identified
as Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.7% identified as Native American, and 1.7%
identified as another race, with 5.9% of the sample identifying as more
than one race/ethnicity. The majority of participants had used SNSs for
5–15 years (78.6%), with Facebook cited as the most frequently used
SNS by 49.6% of participants. Descriptive statistics can be found in
Table 1.
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Table 1 for this scale, and it cannot be used to diagnose PDs1; however, varia-
Descriptive statistics. bility of PD trait endorsement was, generally positively skewed but
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Dev. indicative of variation in responses among participants. Descriptive
statistics are shown in Table 1.
SNS Scales
Number of SNS used 1 7 3 1.35
SMDS Total 0 9 1.37 2.19 2.2.2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)
ODS Total 0 27 12.21 6.53
The RSE (Rosenberg, 1979) is a 10-item self-report questionnaire
ODS Benign 0 21 10.28 5.21
ODS Toxic 0 12 1.93 2.65 intended to measure global self-esteem. Participants were asked to rate
SMABS Subscales each item on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4
SNS Behaviors (strongly disagree). Cronbach's alpha for total RSE score in the current
Active Use 1 5 2.01 0.84 study was a 0.94.
Passive Use 1 5 3.08 0.92
Addiction 1 4.55 1.75 0.73
SNS Attitudes
Excessive Use 1 4.20 2.10 0.76
2.2.3. The Social Media Attitudes and Behaviors Scale (SMABS)
Emotion Regulation 1 4.67 2.06 0.82 This 104-item scale (developed ad-hoc) was designed to assess the
Interpersonal 1 4.50 2.38 0.85 attitudes and behaviors of individuals on SNSs. The scale combined
Attention 1 4 1.63 0.67 items inspired by previous research on compulsive and problematic/
Socializing 1 4 2.05 0.67
risky internet use (e.g., Jelenchick et al., 2014), active and passive SNS
Sharing 1 4 2.19 0.70
Consumption 1 4 2.85 0.60 use (e.g., Verduyn et al., 2015), internet addiction (e.g., Kuss, Griffiths,
Avoidance 1 4 2.25 0.71 Karila, & Billieux, 2014), and the gratifications, motives, and mood
Self-Esteem Scale changes individuals experience before and after using SNSs (e.g.,
RSE Total 10 40 19.48 7.09 Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012; Leung, 2004; Rosen, Whaling,
PID-5-SF
Negative Affectivity 0 2.92 0.82 0.69
Carrier, Cheever, & Rokkum, 2013; Yang & Brown, 2013), and asked
Anxiousness 0 3 1.07 0.95 participants to identify how frequently they use particular SNSs and
Emotional Lability 0 3 0.63 0.78 engage in particular SNS behaviors using Likert-type scales. These items
Hostility 0 2.75 0.57 0.71 comprised 11 subscales, broadly categorized into two areas: SNS Be-
Perseveration 0 3 0.75 0.75
haviors and SNS Attitudes. Descriptive statistics for each subscale are
Restricted Affectivity 0 3 2.15 0.79
Separation Insecurity 0 3 0.75 0.75 outlined in Table 1.
Submissiveness 0 2.75 0.93 0.72 Cronbach's alpha levels for subscales ranged from poor (α = 0.56;
Detachment 0 2.75 0.76 0.70 Consumption of Information) to excellent (α = 0.92; Active Use).
Anhedonia 0 3 0.62 0.82 Further reliability analyses were conducted on the two subscales with
Depressivity 0 3 0.45 0.77
reliabilities of α < 0.70 (i.e., Consumption of Information, α = 0.56;
Intimacy Avoidance 0 3 0.62 0.82
Suspiciousness 0 3 0.56 0.65 Socializing, α = 0.69), and they were found to display acceptable (i.e.,
Withdrawal 0 3 1.06 0.89 r = 0.15–50; Clark & Watson, 1995) mean inter-item correlations (i.e.,
Antagonism 0 2.50 0.49 0.53 Consumption of Information, r = 0.24; Socializing, r = 0.36). The full
Attention-seeking 0 3 0.63 0.70
SMABS is included in Appendix A.
Callousness 0 3 0.34 0.59
Deceitfulness 0 2.50 0.47 0.60
Grandiosity 0 2.75 0.40 0.61
Manipulativeness 0 2.75 0.60 0.66 2.2.4. The Online Disinhibition Scale (ODS)
Disinhibition 0 2.42 0.53 0.54 The ODS (Udris, 2014) is an 11-item self-report scale intended to
Distractibility 0 3 0.80 0.85 assess individuals' levels of disinhibition while engaging in online
Impulsivity 0 2.75 0.46 0.63 communication. Participants were asked to rate each item on a Likert-
Irresponsibility 0 2.50 0.32 0.46
Rigid Perfectionism 0 3 2.12 0.84
type scale ranging from 0 (disagree) to 3 (agree). In the current study,
Risk-taking 0 2.25 0.41 0.54 the overall scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.85), as did
Psychoticism 0 2.17 0.47 0.55 both subscales (α = 0.86 [Benign Disinhibition]; α = 0.82 [Toxic Dis-
Eccentricity 0 3 0.79 0.88 inhibition]).
Perceptual Dysregulation 0 2.25 0.22 0.45
Unusual Beliefs & 0 2.50 0.40 0.58
Experiences
2.2.5. The 9-Item Social Media Disorder Scale (SMDS)
Note. Standard Dev. = standard deviation; SNS = social networking site; The 9-Item Social Media Disorder (SMD) Scale (Van den Eijnden
SMDS = Social Media Disorder Scale; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; PID- et al., 2016) is a self-report scale intended to assess the nine criteria
5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5, short form. currently used to define SMD. Although SMD is not included in the
DSM-5, it has been conceptualized as a specific form of internet ad-
2.2. Measures diction, which is currently measured as internet gaming disorder (IGD).
Participants were asked to respond to each item in a dichotomous (yes/
2.2.1. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form (PID-5-SF) no) manner regarding whether they had experienced that situation in
The PID-5-SF (Maples et al., 2015) is an abbreviated, 100-item the past year. Both the shortened 9-item and longer 27-item versions of
version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; APA, 2013). This the SMDS have been shown to be psychometrically sound (Van den
self-report scale is intended to measure the five broad trait domains and Eijnden et al., 2016). The scale showed good internal consistency in our
25 trait facets found in the DSM-5 AMPD. Participants rated each item study (α = 0.87). Because SMD is not an officially recognized diagnosis,
on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (very false or often false) to 3 no diagnostic cut-offs have been established for this scale.
(very true or often true). The official PID-5 scoring algorithm was used
to score trait facets, wherein scores were derived using the mean across 1
The trait model included in the AMPD is only one criteria of personality
all items on each facet. Domain scores showed good internal con- disorder diagnosis. To render full diagnoses, evidence of pathological traits and
sistency, with Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951) ranging from 0.89 significant functional impairment would be necessary to provide rates of di-
(Antagonism) to 0.91 (Detachment). Currently, no clinical norms exist agnosis.

3
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Table 2
Correlations of SMABS Subscales with PID-5-SF Facets.
PID-5-SF Facets Addiction Excessive Use Emotion Regulation Interpersonal Attention-seeking Socializing Sharing Consumption Avoidance

Anxiousness 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.38
Emotional Lability 0.28 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.19 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.35
Hostility 0.31 0.33 0.29 0.30 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.35
Perseveration 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.17 0.09 0.14 0.46
Restricted Affectivity −0.23 −0.21 −0.23 −0.20 −0.13 −0.09 0.06 0.06 −0.20
Separation Insecurity 0.34 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.42
Submissiveness 0.33 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.26 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.48
Anhedonia 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.09 −0.05 0.09 0.32
Depressivity 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.36 0.23 0.11 −0.05 0.06 0.37
Intimacy Avoidance 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.24 0.16 0.08 −0.05 0.12 0.17
Suspiciousness 0.34 0.36 0.34 0.43 0.30 0.23 0.10 0.11 0.38
Withdrawal 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.02 −0.11 −0.21 −0.04 0.21
Eccentricity 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.32 0.25 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.35
Perceptual Dysregulation 0.45 0.29 0.23 0.25 0.36 0.25 0.21 0.02 0.28
Unusual Beliefs & Experiences 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.02 0.25
Attention-seeking 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.47 0.39 0.37 0.16 0.29
Callousness 0.34 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.04 −0.01 0.13
Deceitfulness 0.41 0.34 0.26 0.27 0.36 0.24 0.14 0.13 0.37
Grandiosity 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.15 0.10 0.20
Manipulativeness 0.32 0.22 0.15 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.14 0.04 0.18
Distractibility 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.45
Impulsivity 0.35 0.30 0.22 0.20 0.28 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.29
Irresponsibility 0.45 0.34 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.32
Rigid Perfectionism −0.30 −0.29 −0.27 −0.35 −0.29 −0.23 −0.18 −0.17 −0.30
Risk-taking 0.30 0.24 0.14 0.18 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.04 0.23

Note. Moderate correlations in bold. SMABS = The Social Media Attitudes and Behaviors Scale; PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form.

2.2.6. Validity indicator Table 3

Six validity indicator items were dispersed throughout the protocol Correlations of SNS Scales with PID-5-SF Facets.
to ensure participants were not randomly responding to the item con- PID-5-SF Facets ODS Total ODS Benign ODS Toxic SMDS
tent. They were written as statements that most participants would
disagree with, such as “I wrote three best-selling novels last year” and “I Anxiousness 0.33 0.36 0.09 0.24
Emotional Lability 0.25 0.29 0.05 0.21
am close personal friends with the Prime Minister of Zanzibar.”
Hostility 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.23
Individuals who agreed with two or more validity items were removed Perseveration 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.30
from analyses. Restricted Affectivity −0.31 −0.19 −0.37 −0.11
Separation Insecurity 0.24 0.29 0.04 0.19
3. Results Submissiveness 0.28 0.30 0.11 0.23
Anhedonia 0.28 0.29 0.13 0.21
Depressivity 0.34 0.32 0.21 0.23
3.1. Correlation and regression analyses Intimacy Avoidance 0.27 0.19 0.28 0.24
Suspiciousness 0.43 0.41 0.26 0.22
To test our hypothesis regarding the relationship between mala- Withdrawal 0.29 0.30 0.13 0.10
Eccentricity 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.13
daptive personality traits and disordered SNS functioning, we evaluated
Perceptual Dysregulation 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.32
zero-order and multivariate associations among both trait and domain Unusual Beliefs & Experiences 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.22
scores on the PID-5-SF and the measures of SNS-related behaviors. Due Attention-seeking 0.30 0.27 0.22 0.26
to the large number of analyses conducted and potential for error, we Callousness 0.32 0.15 0.48 0.19
have focused the following discussion on findings that are at least Deceitfulness 0.38 0.26 0.41 0.30
Grandiosity 0.34 0.22 0.40 0.24
moderate in magnitude (i.e., r ≥ 0.30) for correlations and used a
Manipulativeness 0.35 0.25 0.37 0.23
Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels of 0.01 in regression analyses. Distractibility 0.31 0.33 0.12 0.23
Correlation results can be found in Tables 2–3 and regression results Impulsivity 0.29 0.23 0.25 0.25
can be found in Tables 4–5. Irresponsibility 0.23 0.15 0.28 0.34
Rigid Perfectionism −0.37 −0.38 −0.17 −0.23
At the domain level, Negative Affectivity (r's = 0.08–0.46) and
Risk-taking 0.28 0.17 0.35 0.26
Antagonism (r's = 0.17–0.46) tended to show the strongest associations
with maladaptive SNS behaviors. Regression analyses indicated similar Note. Moderate correlations in bold. PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-
findings. For example, our overall model explained 24.8% of the var- 5 Short Form, ODS = Online Disinhibition Scale, ODS Benign = ODS Benign
iance in Excessive SNS Use (R2 = 0.25), with Negative Affectivity un- Disinhibition Subscale, ODS Toxic = ODS Toxic Disinhibition Subscale,
iquely contributing 6.9% of this variance (β = 0.37), and Antagonism SMDS = Social Media Disorder Scale.
uniquely contributing 4.0% (β = 0.25), with the next highest predictor
uniquely explaining only 0.5% of the variance (Psychoticism;
β = −0.01). This pattern was similar across all other SNS attitudes and In addition, we discovered a strong relationship between trait facets
behaviors, with the notable exception of the SNS Sharing and and maladaptive SNS behaviors. For example, 19 of the 25 PID-5-SF
Consumption scales. Rather than Negative Affectivity or Antagonism, facets were associated with scores of social media addiction at a level of
Detachment was the only significant predictor of SNS Sharing r ≥ 0.30. We also found some support for our hypotheses concerning
(β = −0.34), and none of the tested personality variables were sig- maladaptive personality traits' differential associations with SNS be-
nificant predictors of SNS Consumption (R2 = 0.03). haviors. For example, we hypothesized individuals higher in traits

4
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Table 4
Regression models of SMABS Subscales based on PID-5-SF Personality Domains.
SMABS Subscale Neg. Affect Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism

2
Addiction R 0.29
r 0.40 0.29 0.43 0.46 0.36
β 0.24 −0.01 0.30 0.18 −0.03
rsp 0.17 −0.01 0.23 0.11 −0.02
p 0.003 0.84 < 0.001 0.04 0.75
Excessive Use R2 0.25
r 0.43 0.28 0.33 0.38 0.28
β 0.37 0.02 0.25 0.08 −0.10
rsp 0.26 0.01 0.20 0.05 −0.07
p < 0.001 0.83 < 0.001 0.38 0.22
Emotion Regulation R2 0.20
r 0.41 0.31 0.24 0.31 0.24
β 0.36 0.10 0.15 0.01 −0.08
rsp 0.26 0.08 0.12 0.01 −0.05
p < 0.001 0.18 0.04 0.93 0.36
Interpersonal R2 0.22
r 0.38 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.33
β 0.34 0.09 0.25 −0.16 0.09
rsp 0.24 0.07 0.20 −0.10 0.06
p < 0.001 0.21 0.001 0.08 0.30
Attention R2 0.18
r 0.23 0.15 0.38 0.29 0.32
β 0.14 −0.10 0.32 0.01 0.13
rsp 0.10 −0.08 0.25 < 0.01 0.09
p 0.08 0.16 < 0.001 0.96 0.13
Avoidance R2 0.27
r 0.46 0.28 0.29 0.44 0.36
β 0.33 −0.03 0.13 0.02 0.17
rsp 0.24 −0.02 0.10 0.11 0.01
p < 0.001 0.70 0.07 0.06 0.78
Socializing R2 0.13
r 0.12 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.21
β 0.13 −0.18 0.34 −0.08 0.11
rsp 0.09 −0.14 0.27 −0.05 0.08
p 0.13 0.02 < 0.001 0.39 0.22
Sharing R2 0.11
r 0.09 −0.13 0.17 0.13 0.15
β 0.13 −0.34 0.17 0.05 0.13
rsp 0.09 −0.27 0.14 0.03 0.09
p 0.14 < 0.001 0.03 0.63 0.15
Consumption R2 0.03
r 0.15 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.07
β 0.19 −0.03 0.13 −0.06 −0.05
rsp 0.14 −0.02 0.10 −0.04 −0.03
p 0.04 0.72 0.12 0.57 0.59

Note. Significant predictor relationships (p < 0.01) are in bold. SMABS = The Social Media Attitudes and Behaviors Scale; PID-5-SF = The Personality Inventory for
DSM-5 Short Form; Neg. Affect = Negative Affect.

common to ASPD2 would be associated with online disinhibition. Four
of these traits were moderately correlated with Toxic Online Disin-
hibition (Manipulativeness: r = 0.37; Callousness: r = 0.48; Deceitful-
ness: r = 0.41; and Risk-taking: r = 0.35). Notably, these traits were not
associated strongly with measures of Benign Online Disinhibition
(r's ≤ 0.26). Additionally, we predicted narcissistic traits3 would be
associated with SNS Addiction scores. Although both traits were mod-
erately associated with SNS Addiction scores (Grandiosity: r = 0.35;
Attention-seeking: r = 0.30), many other traits were associated with
this SNS behavior at a level at least as strong. Using an alternative
measure of addiction behaviors, the SMDS, neither Grandiosity
(r = 0.24) nor Attention-seeking (r = 0.26) were moderately associated
with SMDS scores.
For other SNS variables, moderate associations tended to cluster
among personality traits within a broader domain, rather than fitting
the specifically-proposed disorder profiles of the AMPD. For example,
2
Manipulativeness, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Risk-Taking,
Impulsivity, and Irresponsibility.
3
Grandiosity and Attention-seeking.
facets of Negative Affectivity (i.e., Anxiousness, Perseveration,
Separation Insecurity, and Submissiveness) and Detachment (Intimacy
Avoidance and Suspiciousness) were at moderately associated with SNS
Emotion Regulation. Conversely, although SNS Attention-seeking was
associated with many of the facets of Antagonism (Attention-seeking:
r = 0.47; Deceitfulness: r = 0.36; Grandiosity: r = 0.32, and
Manipulativeness: r = 0.30), it was also associated with at least one
trait from each of the four other broad maladaptive personality do-
mains.
3.2. Moderation analyses
We used an additional regression model to examine self-esteem as a
moderator of the personality-SNS behavior relationship. Bonferroni
adjusted alpha levels of 0.01 were used to determine significance. Four
interaction effects, spanning three of the tested SNS outcome variables
(i.e., ODS Total Score, ODS Benign Disinhibition Score, and ODS Toxic
Disinhibition Score) were found to significantly moderate the re-
lationships between personality and SNS outcomes, each explaining
approximately 3–4% additional variance in these relationships. These
results are detailed in Table 6 and interactions are shown in Figs. 1–3.

5
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Table 5
Regression models of the ODS and SMDS based on PID-5-SF Personality Domains.
SNS Scales Neg. Affect Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism

2
Online Disinhibition Scale R 0.25
r 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.34 0.34
β 0.21 0.12 0.33 −0.04 0.02
rsp 0.15 0.10 0.27 −0.02 0.02
p 0.01 0.09 < 0.001 0.69 0.77
Toxic Disinhibition Subscale R2 0.22
r 0.08 0.22 0.46 0.24 0.21
β −0.07 0.11 0.46 0.02 −0.05
rsp −0.05 0.09 0.36 0.02 −0.04
p 0.37 0.14 < 0.001 0.79 0.55
Benign Disinhibition Subscale R2 0.20
r 0.38 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.32
β 0.30 0.10 0.19 −0.06 0.05
rsp 0.21 0.08 0.15 −0.04 0.04
p < 0.001 0.19 0.01 0.54 0.52
Social Media Disorder R2 0.14
r 0.26 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.24
β 0.13 0.03 0.21 0.13 −0.04
rsp 0.09 0.02 0.17 0.09 −0.03
p 0.13 0.70 0.01 0.16 0.65

Note. Significant predictor relationships (p < 0.01) are in bold. ODS = Online Disinhibition Scale; SMDS = Social Media Disorder Scale; PID-5-SF = The Personality
Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form; SNS = Social Networking Sites; Neg. Affect = Negative Affect.

Table 6
Moderation effect of self-esteem on the relationship between PID-5-SF Personality Domains and ODS Scores.
Predictors ODS Total Scores ODS Benign Disinhibition Scores ODS Toxic Disinhibition Scores

R2/ΔR2 β rsp p R2/ΔR2 β rsp p R2/ΔR2 β rsp p

Negative Affect
Block 1 0.13* 0.15* 0.03
Negative Affect 0.22 0.17 0.005 0.31 0.24 < 0.001 −0.06 −0.04 0.51
RSE 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.16 0.01
Block 2 0.01 0.002 0.03*
Negative Affect 0.24 0.19 0.002 0.31 0.24 < 0.001 −0.03 −0.02 0.76
RSE 0.22 0.16 0.008 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.27 0.20 0.002
Negative Affect∗RSE −0.13 −0.11 0.06 −0.05 −0.05 0.42 −0.20 −0.19 0.004
Detachment
Block 1 0.13* 0.12* 0.05*
Detachment 0.23 0.17 0.005 0.19 0.15 0.02 0.18 0.14 0.03
RSE 0.17 0.13 0.03 0.19 0.15 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.49
Block 2 0.02 0.006 0.03
Detachment 0.27 0.20 0.001 0.21 0.16 0.01 0.23 0.17 0.01
RSE 0.21 0.16 0.009 0.21 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.08 0.21
Detachment∗RSE −0.14 −0.13 0.04 −0.09 −0.08 0.22 −0.18 −0.16 0.01
Antagonism
Block 1 0.24* 0.16* 0.23*
Antagonism 0.38 0.37 < 0.001 0.25 0.24 < 0.001 0.45 0.44 < 0.001
RSE 0.26 0.26 < 0.001 0.28 0.27 < 0.001 0.11 0.11 0.07
Block 2 0.02 0.04* < 0.001
Antagonism 0.39 0.38 < 0.001 0.26 0.26 < 0.001 0.45 0.44 < 0.001
RSE 0.25 0.25 < 0.001 0.26 0.26 < 0.001 0.11 0.11 0.07
Antagonism∗RSE −0.15 −0.15 0.01 −0.19 −0.19 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.77
Disinhibition
Block 1 0.15* 0.13* 0.06*
Disinhibition 0.25 0.21 < 0.001 0.20 0.18 0.004 0.20 0.18 0.01
RSE 0.20 0.17 0.004 0.21 0.18 0.003 0.07 0.06 0.31
Block 2 0.03* 0.02 0.03*
Disinhibition 0.30 0.25 < 0.001 0.24 0.21 0.001 0.26 0.22 0.001
RSE 0.22 0.19 0.001 0.23 0.20 0.001 0.10 0.09 0.17
Disinhibition∗RSE −0.19 −0.18 0.004 −0.14 −0.13 0.03 −0.19 −0.17 0.006
Psychoticism
Block 1 0.16* 0.15* 0.06*
Psychoticism 0.26 0.25 < 0.001 0.24 0.22 < 0.001 0.18 0.16 0.01
RSE 0.23 0.22 < 0.001 0.23 0.22 < 0.001 0.11 0.11 0.09
Block 2 0.02 0.02 0.01
Psychoticism 0.27 0.26 < 0.001 0.25 0.23 < 0.001 0.18 0.17 0.01
RSE 0.26 0.24 < 0.001 0.26 0.24 < 0.001 0.13 0.12 0.07
Psychoticism∗RSE −0.15 −0.14 0.02 −0.15 −0.15 0.02 −0.07 −0.07 0.27

Note. Significant R2 results (p < 0.01) are denoted with an *. Bolded beta weights and semi-partial correlations represent significant results. ODS = Online
Disinhibition Scale. RSE = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale.

6
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517

Fig. 1. Interaction effect of PID-5-SF Disinhibition and RSE Self-esteem scores one standard deviation above and below their means on ODS Total Online
Disinhibition score. PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form. RSE = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. ODS = Online Disinhibition Scale.

Fig. 2. Interaction effect of PID-5-SF Antagonism and RSE Self-esteem scores one standard deviation above and below their means on ODS Benign Online
Disinhibition score. PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form. RSE = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. ODS = Online Disinhibition Scale.

Fig. 3. Interaction effect of PID-5-SF Disinhibition and RSE Self-esteem scores one standard deviation above and below their means on ODS Toxic Online
Disinhibition score. PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form. RSE = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. ODS = Online Disinhibition Scale.

7
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson
Self-esteem significantly moderated the relationship between PID-5-
SF Disinhibition and overall levels of Online Disinhibition. Simple slope
analyses revealed PID-5-SF Disinhibition significantly and positively
predicted levels of Online Disinhibition when Self-esteem was low
(β = 0.46), but not when Self-esteem was high (β = 0.14).
Additionally, Self-esteem moderated the relationship between PID-5-SF
Antagonism and Benign Online Disinhibition. Simple slope analyses
showed PID-5-SF Antagonism positively predicted Benign Online
Disinhibition when Self-esteem was low (β = 0.46), but not when Self-
esteem was high (β = 0.06). Self-esteem also significantly moderated
the relationship of PID-5-SF Disinhibition to Toxic Online Disinhibition.
According to simple slope analyses, PID-5-SF Disinhibition significantly
and positively predicted Toxic Online Disinhibition when Self-esteem
was low (β = 0.41), but not when Self-esteem was high (β = 0.10).
4. Discussion
The primary purpose of the current study was to examine re-
lationships among maladaptive personality traits and SNS attitudes and
behaviors. As SNSs continue to evolve, becoming further entangled
with wider social concerns, it is important to have knowledge of the
way users behave online to promote safe, healthy use of these products.
Our results showed a general pattern of association across SNS attitudes
and behaviors and maladaptive traits. Thus, our hypothesis, based on
previous research linking problematic online behaviors to antisocial
(Drouin & Miller, 2015) and narcissistic personalities (e.g., Andreassen,
Pallesen, & Griffiths, 2017; Kim et al., 2016) was supported. One no-
table exception to this pattern was the SNS Sharing scale, which was
moderately associated with only one of the examined personality
variables (Attention-seeking). Additionally, our regression analyses re-
vealed that the only significant predictor of Sharing was Detachment,
which showed a negative association. This association contrasted with
models for other SNS behaviors, which primarily featured associations
with Negative Affectivity and Antagonism. Given the content of items
on the Sharing scale of the SMABS (e.g., I use social media to… “share
photos of my life,” “post to my personal page”), this lack of strong as-
sociations with maladaptive personality functioning is unsurprising, as
these behaviors are not necessarily maladaptive. This finding suggests
different types or levels of personality functioning may influence nor-
mative versus maladaptive patterns of SNS use.
We also hypothesized that specific clusters of personality variables
would associate more strongly with particular SNS use variables. Our
results showed that although our hypothesized narcissistic personality
traits were moderately associated with SNS Addiction scores, this re-
lationship was by no means unique among the full range of studied
traits. Additionally, neither Grandiosity nor Attention-seeking was
moderately associated with scores on the Social Media Disorder Scale
(SMDS), which conceptualizes SMD as a form of internet addiction (Van
den Eijnden et al., 2016). When comparing personality traits associated
with both SNS Addiction and SMDS scores, all four of the traits at least
moderately associated with SMDS scores (i.e., Perseveration, Perceptual
Dysregulation, Deceitfulness, and Irresponsibility) were moderately
associated with the SNS Addiction scale. This overlapping pattern of
associations suggests the SNS Addiction scale encompasses a broader
range of SNS attitudes and behaviors than the SMDS, and that the two
scales may not reflect the same underlying concept of SNS addiction.
Further research on both scales, including a psychometric examination
of all SMABS subscales, would be useful in distinguishing whether the
SNS Addiction scale measures addiction-related behaviors or serves as a
broader measure of disordered SNS functioning.
Additionally, we found some support for our hypothesis regarding
antisocial traits in that four hypothesized traits were moderately cor-
related with Toxic Online Disinhibition. However, we did not find this
same pattern of association across measures of Benign Online
Disinhibition, which also led to a lack of association across Online
Disinhibition Total scores. Although both benign and toxic disinhibition
8
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517
factors have shown associations with cyberbullying in previous re-
search (Udris, 2014), our finding in this study suggests the potential of
differential personality factors driving disparate types of disinhibited
online behaviors. This suggests there may not be a singular personality
profile for identifying individuals at-risk of cyberbullying; however,
unsurprisingly, those with stronger antisocial traits may engage in more
toxic behaviors.
Further examination of the relationships among personality and SNS
variables suggested the clustering of moderate associations among
personality traits within broader domains, rather than within specifi-
cally-proposed profiles of the AMPD (e.g., antisocial PD, narcissistic
PD). Consistently, traits subsumed under the Negative Affectivity and
Antagonism domains showed associations with many of the SNS be-
havior variables, and a combination of one or both domain predictors
were significant in regression models of each of the examined SNS
behavior variables (with the previously-mentioned exception of
Sharing). This pattern suggests individuals high in levels of Negative
Affectivity and/or Antagonism are likely to be at higher risk than their
peers for SNS misuse. Specifically, individuals exhibiting higher levels
of Negative Affectivity may be particularly at-risk for using SNSs as a
form of emotion regulation or avoidance, while those exhibiting higher
levels of Antagonism may be particularly at-risk for exhibiting atten-
tion-seeking or toxically disinhibited online behaviors and symptoms of
SMD.
4.1. Moderation relationships
Based on previous research that has linked increased SNS use to
differing perceptions of the self and others (Chou & Edge, 2012) and
lower self-esteem to higher frequency and lengths of time spent on
Facebook (Mehdizadeh, 2010), we hypothesized lower levels of self-
esteem would strengthen maladaptive personality-SNS behavior re-
lationships. This hypothesis was shown to be largely untrue across the
majority of our associations. Indeed, the only associations with which
self-esteem significantly interacted were those related to the ODS (Udris
et al., 2014). Among these associations, self-esteem significantly mod-
erated three relationships: PID-5-SF Antagonism with Benign Disin-
hibition, PID-5-SF Disinhibition with Total Online Disinhibition, and
PID-5-SF Disinhibition with Toxic Disinhibition.
Our hypothesis, that lower levels of self-esteem would strengthen
these relationships, was supported by these moderation findings.
Specifically, both relationships involving PID-5-SF Disinhibition as a
predictor were significant when Self-esteem was low, but not when Self-
esteem was high. This finding suggests higher self-esteem could serve as
a protective factor for individuals high in Disinhibition, who would
otherwise be at-risk for disinhibited online behaviors. The relationship
between PID-5-SF Antagonism and Benign Disinhibition showed the
same pattern; Antagonism was a significant predictor when Self-esteem
was low, but not when Self-esteem was high. This pattern again sug-
gests higher self-esteem could be a protective factor against disinhibited
online behaviors in individuals displaying higher levels of antagonism.
Although self-esteem was found to display statistically significant
moderation effects in several of these relationships, the magnitude of
these effects was generally low (explaining an additional 3–4% of
variance in the relationships), suggesting these effects may not replicate
in future studies or hold clinical significance. Additional research re-
plicating these results in varied populations would strengthen the claim
of self-esteem as a significant moderator of these relationships among
personality variables and disinhibited SNS behaviors.
4.2. Limitations & future directions
Several factors limit the current study, including the use of online
data collection methods utilizing only self-report measures, which can
lead to inflated correlations due to shared method variance. We also
attempted to minimize the effects of shared method variance by
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson
focusing on correlations of at least moderate significance (i.e.,
r > 0.30). Additionally, we chose to combat the common limitation of
lack of variability in personality pathology by using a sample of parti-
cipants recruited through Amazon MTurk. Although some researchers
have also questioned the representativeness of MTurk samples due to
self-selection, previous investigations have found MTurk samples to be
more socioeconomically and ethnically diverse than undergraduate or
social media-recruited samples (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013). Al-
though MTurk participants are not equivalent or fully representative of
a clinical sample, we would not expect all forms of personality psy-
chopathology to be common in clinical settings, because maladaptive
traits do not necessarily result in distress to the individual that would
encourage treatment-seeking (e.g., antisocial PD, narcissistic PD). Thus,
in some cases, a non-clinical community sample may provide a more
representative picture of personality pathology, which is particularly
important when investigating the broad effects that commonly-used
resources, such as SNSs, have on daily personality functioning.
The greatest limitation to our current study is the use of an ad-hoc
scale (the SMABS) to measure many of the examined SNS attitudes and
behaviors critical to the conclusions of this study. Although preliminary
psychometric testing was performed to ensure subscales on the SMABS
demonstrated consistent internal reliability, and all available informa-
tion in the literature on measuring SNS attitudes and behaviors was
used in creating the measure, no further testing of the validity of the
scale was performed. Issues such as the discrepancy between associa-
tions with the SNS Addiction subscale and the SMDS suggest that psy-
chometric issues of validity may be present in the SMABS and should be
explored in future research.
Additional directions for future research include replicating our re-
sults, particularly those related to our observed moderation effects, in
varied samples. This replication would provide further valuable insight
into the relationships of maladaptive personality traits and dysfunctional
SNS behaviors in a broader population. Further investigation into other
potential moderators of these relationships, such as internalizing psy-
chopathology, age, and other clinical and demographic factors would
also provide a clearer picture of which individuals are most at-risk for
engaging in maladaptive SNS behaviors. Future research should also
include other-rated reports of participants' personality functioning and
SNS use habits to ameliorate the inherent limitation of using purely self-
report data. Other-rated reports may be particularly important for as-
sessing levels of functioning in individuals with high levels of patholo-
gical personality traits, because research has shown that individuals with
some types of personality psychopathology may report less impairment
in their functioning than is accurate (Boland et al., 2018).
5. Conclusion
As SNS use continues to become more prominent in daily life in our
society, evaluating the impact of personality on SNS behaviors becomes
increasingly important. Our findings support the association of mala-
daptive personality characteristics, particularly those related to
Negative Affectivity and Antagonism, with a range of problematic on-
line behaviors, including addiction, excessive use, and disinhibited
posting, and potentially problematic motives for use, such as avoidance
and emotion regulation.
These findings present implications for the assessment and treat-
ment of emerging disorders of online behaviors by suggesting that in-
dividuals particularly high in the personality domains of Negative
Affectivity and Antagonism may be more at-risk for SNS misuse than
others. Future research should continue to assess the link between these
behaviors and personality characteristics in varied populations, while
also investigating the potential impact of moderators other than self-
esteem on this relationship. Only when we understand how mental
health factors interact with these new forms of digital behavior can we
can become more effective in our assessment and treatment of emerging
issues such as SMD, as well as more traditional diagnoses such as
9
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517
depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, that may be exacerbated
by SNS use or misuse.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109517.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis-
orders (5th ed.). 2013https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.744053.
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of nar-
cissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440–450.
Barlett, C. P., & Helmstetter, K. M. (2018). Longitudinal relations between early online
disinhibition and anonymity perceptions on later cyberbullying perpetration: A the-
oretical test on youth. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(4), 561–571. https://
doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000149.
Andreassen, C. S., Pallesen, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). The relationship between ad-
dictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large na-
tional survey. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 287–293.
Boland, J. K., Damnjanovic, T., & Anderson, J. L. (2018). Evaluating the role of functional
impairment in personality psychopathology. Psychiatry Research, 270, 1017–1026.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scho-
larship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167208320061.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of parti-
cipants and data gathered via Amazon MTurk, social media, and face-to-face beha-
vioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.
Chou, H. G., & Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: The
impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 15(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0324.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the web?: The
intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 247–253.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297–334.
Drouin, M., & Miller, D. A. (2015). Why do people record and post illegal material?
Excessive social media use, psychological disorder, or both? Computers in Human
Behavior, 48, 608–614.
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-re-
lated behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488.
Heffer, T., Good, M., Daly, O., MacDonell, E., & Willoughby, T. (2019). The longitudinal
association between social-media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents
and young adults: An empirical reply to Twenge et al. (2018). Clinical Psychological
Science, 7(3), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618812727.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 561–569.
Jelenchick, L. A., Eickhoff, J., Christakis, D. A., Brown, R. L., Zhang, C., Benson, M., &
Moreno, M. A. (2014). The Problematic and Risky Internet Use Screening Scale
(PRIUSS) for adolescents and young adults: Scale development and refinement.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.035.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). Who's posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-
cultural examination of personality differences. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 18(2), 174–186.
Kim, E., Lee, J., Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2016). Predicting selfie-posting behavior on social
networking sites: An extension of theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, 116–123.
Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., Karila, L., & Billieux, J. (2014). Internet addiction: A sys-
tematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical
Design, 20.
Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the internet as
predictors of online activities and internet addiction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
7(3), 333–348.
Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., ... Miller, J. D.
(2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured
with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality
Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pas0000120.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(4), 357–364.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 243–249.
Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2008). Social networking profile: An examination of student
attitudes regarding use and appropriateness of content. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
11(1), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9927.
Perrin, A., & Anderson, M. (2019). Share of U.S. adults using social media, including
Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
J.K. Boland and J.L. Anderson
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-
social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The media
and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K.
(2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2015.05.004.
Stoughton, J. W., Thomspon, L. F., & Meade, A. W. (2013). Big five personality traits
reflected in job applicants' social media postings. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 16(11), 800–805. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0163.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3),
10
Personality and Individual Differences 151 (2019) 109517
321–326.
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive
symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after
2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6,
3–17.
Udris, R. (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and
validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 41,
253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036.
Van den Eijnden, R. J., Lemmens, J. S., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The social media
disorder scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 478–487.
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., & Kross, E. (2015).
Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and long-
itudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057.
Yang, C., & Brown, B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities,
and late adolescents' social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(3), 403–416.