Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissists’ Reactions to Social Media Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media (e.g., Instagram) provides a platform ripe for making upward social comparisons (i.e., comparing oneself to someone better off; Dumas et al., 2017; Frederick & Zhang, 2019). These upward comparisons have negative implications for people’s self-esteem, particularly when individuals seek social validation (Greenwood et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2014). Vulnerable narcissists (i.e., introverted, insecure, but egotistical individuals) and grandiose narcissists (i.e., extroverted, confident, and egotistical individuals) look for others’ approval via social media more than their non-narcissistic counterparts (Greenwood et al., 2018; Ozimek et al., 2018) Using social media as a means of social validation may negatively impact narcissist’s self-esteem, particularly after viewing successful Instagram influencers. The present study investigated how grandiose and vulnerable narcissists feel after viewing popular Instagram profiles. We hypothesized that vulnerable narcissists would engage in more social comparison and experience lower self-esteem after viewing successful social media influencer profiles than grandiose narcissists. Participants (N = 201; 154 females, 46 males; Mage = 20.92, SD = 3.63) were randomly assigned to view either 10 popular Instagram influencer profiles or food profiles and their self-esteem was assessed. We found that individuals high in grandiose narcissism experienced lower self-esteem after viewing influencer profiles compared to those low in grandiose narcissism. Those high in vulnerable narcissism, however, experienced a decrease in self-esteem after viewing both food and influencer profiles compared to those low in vulnerable narcissism. Social media perpetuates a cycle of social comparisons that contributes to decreases in self-esteem, particularly among those high in vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. Presented in absentia on April 27, 2020 at Student Research Day at MacEwan University in Edmonton, Alberta. (Conference cancelled) Faculty Mentor: Miranda Giacomin Department: Psychology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".