Narcissism and problematic social media use: A systematic literature review

Addictive Behaviors Reports

Vanessa Banchi¹  Silvia Casale² 

[1] Corresponding author.;Department of Health Sciences, Psychology Unit, University of Florence, Via San Salvi 12, Padiglione 26, 50135 Florence, Italy;

关键词: Narcissism;    Problematic social media use;    Problematic Facebook Use;    Systematic review;   

DOI  :  

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Introduction: The relationship between narcissism and social media use has been a topic of research since the advent of the first social media website. While numerous meta-analyses have been conducted to synthesize empirical evidence on the association between narcissism and typical online behaviors (e.g., uploading photos and usage frequency), evidence on the association between narcissism and Problematic Social Media Use (PSMU) has not yet been systematized. The current study represents the first systematic review on this topic. Methods: Electronic literature databases, including the Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and EMBASE, were searched to identify studies that examined the relationship between narcissism and PSMU. We found 14 empirical studies on narcissism and PSMU. Additionally, seven studies focused on the association with Problematic Facebook Use (PFU). Results: Consistent results were reported regarding the positive and significant association between grandiose narcissism and PFU (0.13 < r < 0.32). The only two studies that included a vulnerable narcissism measure reported a positive and significant correlation with PFU as well. Studies that did not distinguish between different online platforms (i.e., those measuring PSMU) reported less consistent results. Conclusions: The results generally revealed that narcissism might be involved in PFU, but it might not have consistent effects across social media platforms. The assessment of problematic social media use without distinguishing different platforms might not individuate narcissists' preferences and risks. However, our findings need to be interpreted with caution not only due to the relatively small number of studies on this topic but also because 19 studies out 21 used a cross-sectional design.

【 授权许可】

Unknown