Popular media has been giving significant coverage to a recently published article on the relationship between narcissism–a personality trait that captures admiration or love of  self–and use of social network sites (SNSs).  This line of research is not new (see here and here[pdf], for example), but it brings more attention to an ongoing discussion regarding Gen Y, technology, and the “downfall” of modern society. More broadly, it considers long and ongoing questions related to the potential negative impacts of new technology on individuals, groups, and relationships.

While none of the studies I’ve referenced above establish causality, media stories I have read suggest that sites such as Facebook are, in fact, making today’s youth more narcisstic. Take, for example, the headline, “Facebook Feeds Narcissism, Survey Finds” from a CNN article about the recent study. In response to this, I (first) get an exasperated look on my face and (second) direct the authors to the following xkcd strip:

As to my exasperation, first let me comment on a pet peeve of mine. As I have been in media in one form or another now for more than a decade, I understand that catchy titles draw in readers; however, bad reporting of data and not acknowledging limitations of studies often leads to gross exaggeration of research findings. Academic studies are typically written in a way that make them inaccessible (both literally and cognitively) to the average person. This is a major reason we have journalists: to transcribe technical findings into a format that nearly anyone can understand. Due to either a lack of knowledge on the part of the writer, the desire to write a more “interesting” story, or sheer laziness, this process often ends like a game of “telephone,” with the final story only somewhat resembling the original. And while I don’t expect your average newspaper or broadcast news writer to understand the technicalities of a newly published stem-cell study (heck, I would barely understand that), distinguishing between correlation and causation is essential to accurate reporting. Furthermore, it is essential that when reporting significant findings (such as those which could have an impact on policy down the line), writers acknowledge potential limitations to the findings, such as issues of generalizability, small sample sizes, or small effect sizes.

Okay, back to the findings. The most recent study found positive correlations between various components of a user’s profile and narcissism. Unfortunately, the coding of profile components appear to be seriously flawed for a number of reasons. First, coding was only performed by the author, which prevents inter-coder reliability from being established and potentially introduces researcher bias: because the author is also the coder, she could unconsciously have coded content to reflect the findings she wanted. Another concern is that the author provides no details regarding if she created a code book or, assuming she did, how she established criteria for coding. For example, she states that use of positive adjectives such as “nice” and “funny” in the About Me section of the profile were coded as indicators of narcissism, which I find to be a bit of a stretch. Likewise, she coded the use of photo editing software for the profile picture to be an indicator of narcissism, which raises two concerns from me: (1) photo editing software is often not easy to detect, and (2) in cases when it is, it may be serving an artistic purpose rather than an egotistical one. Because the author had no interaction with participants regarding why they made decisions regarding content choices, it is impossible to make assertions as to the reason behind these choices.

A second point related to this and the other studies I have seen on narcissism and SNSs relates to the technology itself. SNSs are centered on sharing information; they are designed with the intent to simplify the process through which users can post content to an audience. Facebook prompts users to post status updates with the query, “what’s on your mind?,” which is a direct request for information about the individual. Therefore, we need to be especially careful in creating operational definitions of what constitutes  narcissistic content in order to make sure we are measuring what we set out to measure and not merely capturing standard practices on the site. Furthermore, research should work to establish behavioral norms on the site — what a researcher perceives of as “narcissistic,” such posting a specific type of photo, may in fact be the norm for that given group.

A third consideration to consider when interpreting the results of this and other studies on narcissism and SNSs is the choice of population. Early research on SNSs (and, to be honest, the vast majority of current research as well) tends to employ college student populations, most likely because college students were the primary users of the site and college students are a convenient sample for academic research. College students are, in many ways, in a four-year transition from youth to adulthood, a period that J.J. Arnett refers to as “emerging adulthood.” It is unsurprising that people at this age are self-absorbed — not only are they trying to figure themselves out, but they’re apt to try a variety of ways to fit in, which probably requires a bit of self-promotion.

So is “Generation Me” a more apt name for Gen Y (as at least one book has suggested)? Or have advancements in technology merely made young people’s narcissistic tendencies more public than previously possible? While only research can answer this question, one study provides some initial insights: a recent meta-analysis of studies conducted between 1976 and 2006 found no relationship between cohort and egotism, individualism, self-enhancement, or self-esteem. In other words, kids today are just as caught up in themselves now as they were when their parents were there age; they simply couldn’t share their thoughts on how awesome they were with the rest of the world as easily.

In looking forward, an important next step is to conduct more research with non-college student populations and to identify ways of studying new technology adoption and use over time so as to address questions related to the types of changes in beliefs and behaviors that social media may be effecting. I’ll be presenting research in November at the National Communication Association’s annual conference on how adult users (ages 25-55) negotiate the tensions between using Facebook to obtain social capital benefits and concerns related to making those disclosures. I also hope to employ multiple methodologies (both qualitative and quantitative) in some future studies so as to achieve both breadth and depth of findings. More on that as it develops, but I should probably stop talking so much about myself, lest you think I’m narcissistic. 🙂

I need to make a (somewhat embarrassing)  disclosure. Yes, I once played Farmville. And Cafe World. I started playing out of both curiosity and the sense that I needed to try it out because of its relationship to my research; I stayed because it hooked me the same as it hooks millions of other players. Yes, I wasted hours planting and harvesting virtual crops and “cooking” virtual dishes. I never took to the creative aspect of the games by trying to create the most aesthetically pleasing space (mainly because I’m not very artistically inclined) and I never posted about it to my News Feed (because that is quite annoying). Instead, it was the competition that kept me–I certainly took a small pleasure from “beating” fellow network members at leveling up, at least in the beginning. After awhile, even that becomes a chore as levels take days, if not weeks, to increase just one level.

Then one day earlier this year I quit on impulse; I removed all game-related applications from my Facebook. And I felt a relief when I did so, like I had taken out the trash, trash that was starting to stink.

Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating a little on that last statement. But I did feel some relief when I quit playing the games, like I no longer had to hide a dirty little secret–that I played the most annoying game on the Internet–from my friends.  Why was I so loathe to admit to playing games that 240 million other people do? Why is Zynga (the company behind these games) the source of so much wrath, its games stigmatized by many? And to take a step back even further, what benefits (if any) could be accrued through playing these games?

While Zynga founder Mark Pincus is nothing if not a shrewd businessman (his company is set to clear $500 million in revenue this year and the company reached 100 million users years quicker than Facebook), his games also excel at inciting a deep-seeded hatred by non-players. If you Google “I hate Farmville,” 124,000 results pop up. A popular YouTube video spoofing a Farmville commercial opens with, “Are you tired of playing games that are fun?” And while I agree that Farmville and its cousins are not the action-packed games you often see on PS3 and Xbox these days, they’re certainly not anything new. People have been playing simple games like this for years: whether it’s Solitaire or the Adventures of Lolo, there is a slightly competitive element, but in the end, it’s merely just another way to pass the time.

I think why people hate these games so much is because of sharing abuse–as one interview participant noted in research I conducted at the beginning of the year, she hated that her friend kept “polluting her page” with constant updates about Mafia Wars. It should be noted that in March, Facebook changed some of its policies to halt the influx of notifications from third-party applications like Farmville–and that these changes are attributed to a multi-million-user decrease in players of these games between April and May 2010. But the onslaught of updates throughout late 2009 and early 2010, coupled with people not knowing that it was easy to hide all those updates from their News Feed, was certainly enough to try even the most easy-going person’s patience. And, unfortunately for Zynga, the games became synonymous with words ranging from irritating to devil-spawn.

My research team–led by the awesome Yvette Wohn–recently had a paper accepted at HICSS 2011 that looks at the potential positive outcomes associated with social network game (SNG) play. Employing qualitative methods (consisting of in-depth interviews with 18 adult Facebook users ages 25-55), we found some recurring game-related themes emerge across interviews. While some non-players may see SNGs as anti-social, players in our study repeatedly referred to social aspects of gameplay. We found three ways in which these games benefitted relationships between various sets of individuals on the site, which we classified as initiating, maintaining, and enhancing. Below is a (very brief) summary of findings related to these three types of behaviors.

• Some individuals forged new relationships through SNGs. At first, these “friendships” were created so as to advance within the game, but oftentimes game-related interactions led to real relationship development and interaction outside of the game.
• Many individuals play these games with existing offline friends as a relational maintenance strategy similar to the short communications that may occur through other communication channels in Facebook, such as wall posts of status updates. Especially for friends or relatives who were geographically dispersed, in-game interactions such as gift-giving acted as an alternative way to say “hi” or “I’m thinking of you.”
• Finally, some individuals noted that gameplay allowed them to strengthen relationships with previously distant (or non-existant) ties. Establishing common ground through the game led to interactions that would most likely not have occurred without the impetus of shared gameplay.

So maybe Farmville isn’t evil after all. I know people love to hate on it, but these games represent yet another option in our relationship maintenance toolbox. Just because the tool is there doesn’t mean you have to use it, but it’s pretty apparent that beyond simply providing many people with entertainment, it may actually be serving a positive function for users looking to form new relationships and maintain–and even enhance–existing ones.

That still doesn’t mean I’m logging back on, but I guess I won’t diss it so much anymore.

I’ll post a pdf of the full paper once in a few months.