خودشیفتگی میان فرهنگی در فیس بوک: بررسی ارتباط بین خودارائه گری، تعامل اجتماعی و خودشیفتگی آشکار و پنهان در یک سایت شبکه اجتماعی در آلمان و روسیه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|38989||2015||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 6198 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 55, Part A, February 2016, Pages 251–257
Abstract The social platform Facebook has more than one billion members in different countries. Cross-culturally, the way users behave on this platform relates to some personality traits. The aim of the present study was to investigate, whether Russian and German Facebook users differ in the extent of open and covert narcissism, self-presentation and social interaction on Facebook. Furthermore, we investigated, whether there is a comparable relationship between narcissism and Facebook use in these countries. To this end, the data of 72 Russian platform members were collected and compared with the data of 122 German members. The narcissism values did not significantly differ between the two samples. This was also the case with the overall self-presentation and interaction. In contrast, some single measures of online behaviour differ. For example, German users set more “Likes” and had more online-friends than Russian users. Russian platform members used more applications than German users. In each group, a positive association between the two forms of narcissism and online activity was found. So far, the positive relations between narcissism and self-presentation and social interaction on Facebook seem to be universal in Western and Eastern countries.
. Introduction In the last ten years, Internet and Web 2.0 became one of the most important ways for communication and socialization. Especially, so-called social networking sites1 are used for this purpose (Moore & McElroy, 2012). They belong to the most visited online sites in the Web 2.0 worldwide (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Daily, many users spend a lot of time on SNSs, interacting with other members, independent of their spatial distance, and presenting many private details (Tosun, 2012). Often, the interaction takes place between people who know each other in the offline world (Ellison et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011, Kujath, 2011, Ross et al., 2009, Wilson et al., 2012 and Zywica and Danowski, 2008). However, members also use SNSs to establish new relationships (Cabral, 2011 and Hsu et al., 2011). One of the most popular SNSs is the international platform Facebook (Boyd and Ellison, 2007 and Mezrich, 2011). In 2015, more than 1.44 billion people use this site for their daily interactions (Protalinski, 2015). 1.1. Online behaviour and personality traits Recently research showed that some personality traits are related to the way we behave on SNSs. Kosinski, Stillwell, and Graepel (2013) predicted a range of personality traits of Facebook members (e.g., openness and extraversion) by analysing the “Likes” on their profile pages. Similar, Back et al. (2010) showed that strangers who viewed a Facebook profile were able to predict the owner's level of extraversion and openness. Extraverted users show a high level of social interaction on Facebook (Correa et al., 2010 and Tosun and Lajunen, 2010). They have many online-friends (Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky, 2010, Kuo and Tang, 2014, Ong et al., 2011 and Utz, 2010) and interact with them frequently by writing private messages and public status updates (Amiel and Sargent, 2004 and Ryan and Xenos, 2011). Much research has been carried out on the relation between the personality trait narcissism and behaviour on SNSs. Narcissism as a personality trait reflects a high level of self-love, positive and inflated self-view, sense of entitlement, self-serving bias, as well as an exaggerated sense of self-importance and uniqueness (Campbell et al., 2006 and Twenge et al., 2008). There is some theoretical and empirical evidence for the dual nature of narcissism (Rohmann et al., 2012, Rose, 2002 and Wink, 1991): grandiose or open narcissism is contrasted with vulnerable or covert narcissism. Open narcissists have a high demand of attention, admiration and popularity. To get these, they present themselves as self-confident, extraverted and charming interaction partners. They initiate many superficial relations in a short time and use them to regulate their self-esteem and for self-enhancement in particular (Campbell and Foster, 2002, Campbell et al., 2002, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001, Paulhus, 2001 and Twenge and Foster, 2008). Covert narcissists are also persuaded of their peculiarity, importance and grandiosity. However, they feel inferior to others and express a fragile self-confidence. Their social interactions are often affected by the presence of self-doubt, sensibility, dissatisfaction and social anxiety (Dickinson and Pincus, 2003 and Miller and Campbell, 2008). In recent studies, open narcissism predicted a high level of social interaction (e.g., number of online-friends, status updates) and self-presentation (e.g., number of uploaded photos) on Facebook. Narcissistic users visit their Facebook page more frequently and spend more time there than other members (Buffardi and Campbell, 2008, Mehdizadeh, 2010 and Winter et al., 2014). On the German platform StudiVZ, users with high covert narcissism also showed a high level of online activity (Brailovskaia & Bierhoff, 2012). The explanation of these results rests on the assumption that covert and open narcissism show a common narcissism core. Both types of narcissists are persuaded of their grandiosity and uniqueness and have a demand for admiration (Rohmann et al., 2012). On Facebook covert narcissists get the chance to present their narcissism in an open manner, like open narcissists. However, offline they do not possess the social skills of the open narcissists to gain public approval. Research of personality traits as predictors of online behaviour takes place mostly in English speaking countries (e.g., the USA) or Western Europe (e.g., Germany). Studies from other countries on this topic are rare. However, a recent study showed that in Singapore narcissism is also positively correlated with self-presentation on Facebook (e.g., status update frequency; Ong et al., 2011). This positive correlation was also observed on the Chinese platform Renren (Wang, Jackson, Zhang, & Su, 2012). We also looked for such studies in Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia). However, our search in international databases like PsycINFO showed no results. To reduce this lack of cross-cultural research on the relationship between personality and online behaviour, the aim of the current study is to investigate cross-culturally the use of the platform Facebook and its relationship to the personality trait narcissism in Germany and Russia. Why did we compare Russian and German Facebook users in particular? Firstly, both countries diverge regarding their cultural, historical, social and geographical conditions which is no surprise given their independent cultural traditions which go back to the middle ages and beyond. Culture represents a summary of shared attitudes, norms, values, procedures and assumptions within a community or society (Triandis & Suh, 2002). In general, culture is defined as shared life style of a group of people (Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011). Cultural similarities and differences are represented on cultural dimensions. Triandis (1995) emphasizes the cultural dimension of collectivism/individualism as especially relevant. In a collectivistic society attachment to the ingroup (e.g., the extended family) is favoured. The interdependence of group members is strongly emphasized. In contrast, in individualistic cultures personal independence, individual freedom, and individual peculiarity are emphasized. Family attachments are less important and are focused on the nuclear family. Russia is a large country between Europe and Asia. The Russian culture includes collectivistic but also individualistic elements. From the study of Latova and Latov (2007) the conclusion is justified that Russian society represents an attenuated collectivistic culture which is positioned between Asian and Western countries. Depending on the region values and norms may differ considerably. While in smaller cities and villages the family plays an important role, in larger towns, especially in Moscow, the expression of one's peculiarity is significant (Stadelbauer, 2010). However, Russia as a whole has undergone significant political and economic changes since 1990 (e.g., Höhmann, 2004). In contrast, Germany represents a Western European country with a predominantly individualistic culture. Germany is deeply committed to its democratic tradition and technological excellence (e.g., Rödder, 2011). Secondly, both countries seem to have the readiness to introduce new information technologies in common (e.g., Pokatzky, 2014). For example, many experts in information technology have a Russian or German background. Prominent information scientists include Georgy Adelson-Velsky, Andrey Kolmogorov, Leonid Levin, and Mark Semonovich Pinsker on the Russian side and Rudolf Ahlswede, Joachim Hagenauer, Peter Schirmbacher, and Konrad Zuse on the German side. In addition, Russians and Germans were in close contact across the centuries influencing each other (e.g., Horn, 2014). Therefore, in both cultures differences and similarities coexist and it is not at all clear from the beginning whether the differences or the similarities will characterize cross-cultural comparisons on the link between personality and online behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first cross-cultural study including Russia and Germany on the effect of narcissism on Facebook use. Furthermore, until now there is almost no research on open and covert narcissism and its relevance for online activities in Russia, although Russia is one of the important joint partner of the Internet. According to earlier results, we assume a positive relation between open and covert narcissism in both Germany and Russia (hypothesis 1). Also in both countries we expect a positive relation between narcissism and level of self-presentation and amount of social interaction on Facebook (hypothesis 2). Furthermore, we expect to find no significant differences of narcissism and online behaviour on Facebook between Germany and Russia (hypothesis 3
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the personality traits and their reliability in the German and Russian sample. Both personality traits were normally distributed. In both samples, the mean value of open narcissism is higher (e.g., Brailovskaia and Bierhoff, 2012 and Rohmann et al., 2012) and the mean value of covert narcissism is lower (e.g., Neumann, 2010 and Neumann and Bierhoff, 2004) than in earlier studies. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, minima, maxima, reliabilities, mean comparisons and effect sizes of the scales of open and covert narcissism (Russian and German sample). Russia Germany t df p g M SD Min Max α M SD Min Max α NPI 20.63 10.28 1 38 .931 19.64 10.06 1 39 .932 .654 192 n.s. – NI-R 2.08 1.17 .19 3.78 .987 2.30 .90 .28 4.00 .973 −1.363 121 n.s. – Notes. Russian sample: N = 72, German sample: N = 122; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; NI-R = Narcissistic Inventory-Revised; α = Cronbach's alpha; t = t-test, df = degrees of freedom; p = significance; g = Hedge's g (effect size). Table options t-tests for independent samples reveal that open and covert narcissism do not differ significantly between the Russian and German Facebook users (s. Table 1). The descriptive results of self-presentation are summarized in Table 2. A t-test reveals that there is no significant difference in the self-presentation scale between the German and Russian sample. However, German users indicate significantly more “Likes”. In contrast, Russian members use significantly more applications. The use frequency of applications does not differ significantly between the two samples. In both samples the most used applications are online-games (Russian sample: 52.8%; German sample: 32%). Table 2. Means, standard deviations, minima, maxima, mean comparisons and effect sizes of online self-presentation (Russian and German sample). Russia Germany t df p g M SD Min Max M SD Min Max Albums 6.57 5.18 1 28 6.88 6.50 1 46 −.342 192 n.s. – Photos 161.90 327.54 1 2345 113.55 197.92 0 1154 1.136 102 n.s. – “Likes” 43.18 38.94 2 153 66.05 46.30 2 202 −3.519 192 .001 .52 Applications 5.46 3.35 0 15 3.80 2.71 0 12 3.561 125 .001 .56 Applications use 2.14 1.08 1 5 2.25 1.28 1 5 −.671 169 n.s. – Self-presentation scale 2.67 .84 1.00 4.60 2.63 .84 1.00 4.40 .307 192 n.s. – Notes. Russian sample: N = 72, German sample: N = 122; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; t = t-test, df = degrees of freedom; p = significance; g = Hedge's g (effect size). Table options The social interaction scale and some single interaction variables (e.g., writing in groups) do not differ significantly between the Russian and German users. However, German users join significantly more groups and have significantly more online-friends than Russian users (s. Table 3). Table 3. Means, standard deviations, minima, maxima, mean comparisons and effect sizes of online social interaction (Russian and German sample). Russia Germany t df p g M SD Min Max M SD Min Max Groups 24.36 2.99 0 12 5.94 3.08 0 14 −3.488 192 .001 .52 Links 38.39 76.73 0 359 37.98 55.65 0 292 .043 192 n.s. – Online-friends 206.74 171.69 9 1007 285.93 172.84 25 1072 −3.091 192 .002 .46 Status updates write 12.65 1.19 1 6 2.72 1.61 1 6 −.339 182 n.s. – comment 13.50 1.44 1 6 3.75 1.43 1 6 −1.153 192 n.s. – Messages write 13.68 1.51 1 6 4.05 1.42 1 6 −1.707 192 n.s. – get 13.78 1.53 1 6 4.11 1.36 1 6 −1.552 192 n.s. – Groups write 112.65 1.21 1 5 2.63 1.42 1 6 .113 168 n.s. – Social interaction scale 3.05 1.12 1.00 5.50 3.36 1.03 1.38 5.75 −1.933 192 n.s. – Notes. Russian sample: N = 72, German sample: N = 122; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; t = t-test, df = degrees of freedom; p = significance; g = Hedge's g (effect size). Table options In both samples, open and covert narcissism correlate significantly positively (Russian sample: r(70) = .616, p < .001; German sample: r(120) = .664, p < .001). Also in both samples, narcissism correlates significantly positively with single measures of self-presentation and the aggregated self-presentation scale (s. Table 4). Table 4. Correlations between narcissism and online self-presentation (Russian and German sample). Russia Germany NPI NI-R NPI NI-R Albums .354∗∗ .369∗∗ .308∗∗ .270∗∗ Photos .267∗ .279∗ .419∗∗ .388∗∗ “Likes” .525∗∗ .563∗∗ .458∗∗ .502∗∗ Applications .677∗∗ .630∗∗ .414∗∗ .358∗∗ Applications use .751∗∗ .592∗∗ .469∗∗ .417∗∗ Self-presentation scale .777∗∗ .668∗∗ .558∗∗ .546∗∗ Notes. Russian sample: N = 72, German sample: N = 122; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; NI-R = Narcissistic Inventory-Revised; ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01. Table options Furthermore, narcissism correlates significantly positively with single measures of social interaction and the aggregated social interaction scale (s. Table 5). Table 5. Correlations between narcissism and online social interaction (Russian and German sample). Russia Germany NPI NI-R NPI NI-R Groups .691∗∗ .640∗∗ .312∗∗ .318∗∗ Links .347∗∗ .366∗∗ .345∗∗ .358∗∗ Online-friends .558∗∗ .457∗∗ .538∗∗ .463∗∗ Status updates write .732∗∗ .714∗∗ .601∗∗ .561∗∗ comment .702∗∗ .661∗∗ .536∗∗ .527∗∗ Messages write .661∗∗ .620∗∗ .596∗∗ .575∗∗ get .690∗∗ .608∗∗ .607∗∗ .506∗∗ Groups write .641∗∗ .536∗∗ .538∗∗ .517∗∗ Social interaction scale .810∗∗ .717∗∗ .558∗∗ .546∗∗ Notes. Russian sample: N = 72, German sample: N = 122; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; NI-R = Narcissistic Inventory-Revised; ∗∗p < .01. Table options In both samples, hierarchical multiple regression analyses with narcissism as independent variable and self-presentation scale and social interaction scale, respectively, as dependent variable show significant results. In the Russian sample, the total model explains 67% of the variance in the aggregated self-presentation scale, F(4,67) = 33.95, p < .001. Open (β = .577) and covert (β = .311) narcissism are significant predictors of self-presentation. Similar results emerge for the aggregated social interaction scale. The total model explains 74.5% of the variance in this variable, F(4,67) = 48.88, p < .001. Both open (β = .583) and covert (β = .352) narcissism turn out to be significant predictors of social interaction. In the German sample, the total model explains 40.4% of the variance of the self-presentation scale, F(4,117) = 19.81, p < .001. Once again, open (β = .370) and covert (β = .314) narcissism turn out to be significant predictors of self-presentation. The prediction of the social interaction scale is also significant, F(4,177) = 37.50, p < .001. The total model explains 56.2% of the variance. Both open (β = .467) and covert (β = .355) narcissism emerge as significant predictors of social interaction.