Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissists: Who Is at Higher Risk for Social Networking Addiction?

Abstract

Scholars have recently taken an interest in the connection between narcissism and Internet use, especially among users who frequent social networking sites (SNSs). Conversely, the association between narcissism and problematic use of SNSs (i.e., unregulated use that leads to negative outcomes) has been scarcely investigated. This study addresses this gap by comparing the mean levels of problematic use of SNSs among grandiose narcissists, vulnerable narcissists, and non-narcissists. A sample of 535 students completed the 16-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, and the Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale-2 (GPIUS2). Vulnerable narcissists reported (a) significant higher levels on all GPIUS2 subscales and total scores than non-narcissists and (b) a stronger preference for online social interactions and higher overall levels of problematic use of SNSs than grandiose narcissists. Conversely, no significant differences were found between grandiose narcissists and non-narcissists. This study suggests that vulnerable narcissism may contribute more to problematic use of SNSs than grandiose narcissism.

Introduction

In recent years, the study of narcissism has expanded enormously, and multiple studies^1–4 have documented the existence of two particular subtypes of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable. The grandiose type, also referred to as “overt” narcissism, is characterized by the search for admiration, high self-esteem, direct expression of exhibitionism, and arrogance.^5,6 It also reflects traits related to dominance, grandiosity, and aggression. Conversely, vulnerable narcissism, or “covert” and “hypersensitive” narcissism, is characterized by a defensive and insecure sense of grandiosity that is associated with low self-esteem, shame proneness, shyness, and hypersensitivity to the evaluation of others.⁷

Whereas arrogance and displays of dominance are peculiar to grandiose narcissism, both the forms are characterized by a sense of entitlement, grandiose fantasies,⁸ and a tendency to promote an image of perfection while pursuing the admiration of others.⁹ For this reason, previous research has often hypothesized that social networking sites (SNSs) represent an ideal environment for achieving narcissistic goals because they provide greater control over self-presentation and an opportunity to reach a wider audience.¹⁰

In keeping with these hypotheses, some research has highlighted a positive association between grandiose narcissism and how often users update their statuses,¹¹ upload attractive photos, promote their own content,¹² and make efforts to attract admiring friends to their own Facebook profile.¹³ Similar research has shown that grandiose narcissists tend to update their status more frequently for self- presentation purposes than non-narcissists.^10,13–16

The few studies that have considered the distinction between grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism found that both the forms turn out to be more interested in using online social platforms for self-presentation purposes than non-narcissists. This was revealed by the user's tendency to include more albums with personal photos on their Facebook pages.¹⁵ Other studies, meanwhile, have shown that vulnerable narcissism (but not grandiose narcissism) was positively and significantly associated with the user's attempts to secure privacy on SNSs.¹⁷

Building on these previous studies, it has been recently supposed that high levels of narcissistic traits can lead to SNS addiction—that is, a deficient self-regulation—and produce a host of negative outcomes, including psychosocial distress¹⁸ and relationship dissatisfaction.¹⁹ In line with studies showing that narcissism is positively related to self-promotion through online platforms, it has been speculated that individuals with elevated narcissistic traits might report a compulsive use of social media because SNSs provide them with an ideal tool in which to reinforce an idealized self and gain admiration.²⁰ Whereas previous studies failed to find a predictive role for narcissism in unspecified forms of Internet addiction,²¹ a positive correlation between grandiose narcissism and addictive use of social media has recently been reported.^22,23

Surprisingly, all of the studies already mentioned have focused on grandiose narcissism. No studies to date have investigated the association between vulnerable narcissism and problematic use of SNSs, nor have they compared grandiose and vulnerable narcissists in the context of problematic SNS use. On one hand, grandiose and vulnerable narcissists do not differ regarding their search for admiration, and SNSs have already been proven to offer users a good environment in which to attain narcissistic goals. On the other hand, vulnerable narcissists are more likely to experience conflict around their entitled expectations than grandiose narcissists.² It has also been recently reported that vulnerable narcissists have a strong need to seem perfect but they feel unable to project this image, whereas grandiose narcissists perceive a sense of being able to promote such an image of perfection.²⁴

Computer-mediated interactions and face-to-face interactions differ in a way that might be particularly appealing to vulnerable narcissists.^25,26 The hyperpersonal model²⁷ argues that the limited information transmitted online is an interpersonal advantage for some people, since evaluative verbal and nonverbal cues are not present in online self-presentation. Online interactions allow greater control over self-presentation and impression formation,²⁸ which may create a sense of security that is otherwise lacking among vulnerable narcissists. Indeed, communicating and self-presenting online were found to be associated with decreased risk of negative evaluation,²⁹ and previous research has shown that vulnerable narcissists are at least as sensitive to negative feedback as high-grandiose narcissists.

Moreover, vulnerable narcissists report a greater tendency to avoid direct feedback and they are more sensitive to interpersonal setbacks than grandiose narcissists. As a result, social media might be an ideal setting for the self-presentation of vulnerable narcissists as users can manipulate information by choosing what to disclose and what to hide. SNSs might provide vulnerable narcissists the opportunity to better manage the impression they want to give to others, thus increasing the chances to get that admiration they are afraid not being able to achieve in face-to-face exchanges and reducing the negative consequences (i.e., anger and shame) of their failure.

In keeping with these perspectives, it has been recently reported that vulnerable narcissists feel safer and more comfortable in online interactions than in face-to-face situations.³⁰ These preliminary results suggest that empirical research on problematic SNSs use should expand the focus of the attention by also considering the vulnerable form of narcissism.

This study represents a first step to fill this research gap by investigating differences in the problematic use of SNSs among grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. On one hand, grandiose narcissists might be particularly motivated to use SNSs because they provide the opportunity to reach a wide audience. On the other hand, vulnerable narcissists might be particularly motivated (i.e., more than grandiose narcissists) to use SNSs also because they provide the opportunity to get that admiration they fear they are not able to achieve in face-to-face situations.³¹

H1: Our first hypothesis states that higher levels of problematic use will be found among vulnerable and grandiose narcissists than among non-narcissists.

H2: Our second hypothesis, meanwhile, states that higher levels of problematic use can be expected among vulnerable narcissists than among grandiose narcissists .

Materials and Methods

Participants

A sample of 540 students studying in a European University were approached by 4 female assistants. Data collection consisted of written questionnaires, and general information about the purposes of the study was announced to the participants beforehand. All but five students agreed to join the study (N = 535; 50.9 percent F; mean age: 22.73 ± 2.77 years). The participation was voluntary and anonymous, and confidentiality was guaranteed. No formative credits or remunerative rewards were given. Study procedures were designed in accordance with the European research ethical guidelines. The study protocol was approved by the Director of the Department of Psychology.

Measures

Grandiose narcissism was assessed through the Italian adaptation³² of the brief abbreviated version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI).³³ The NPI-16 is a shorter, unidimensional measure of the NPI-40, which is designed to measure grandiose narcissism in the nonclinical population. It contains 16 pairs of items, each consisting of 2 conflicting proposals that the participants must express a preference for according to their own beliefs and feelings (e.g., “I like to be the center of the attention” vs. “I prefer to blend in with the crowd”). Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of grandiose narcissism. This 16-item forced-choice format personality questionnaire has an α = 0.72 and notable face, internal, discriminant, and predictive validity.³³ In this study, the Cronbach's alpha was α = 0.73

The Italian adaptation³⁴ of the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS)³⁵ was used to assess vulnerable narcissism. The HSNS is a 10-item, one-dimensional measure of vulnerable narcissism involving statements regarding feelings of narcissistic hypersensitivity (e.g., “My feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or by the hurtful remarks of others”). The HSNS has demonstrated reliability and validity in numerous studies.^36,37 Participants indicated to what extent the items were characteristic of their feelings and behavior using a response scale that ranges from 1 (very uncharacteristic or untrue) to 5 (very characteristic or true). Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of vulnerable narcissism. The internal consistency was α = 0.71. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha was α = 0.67

The Italian adaptation³⁸ of the Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale-2 (GPIUS2)³⁹ was used to assess the degree to which an individual experiences the types of cognitions, behaviors, and outcomes that arise because of the unique communicative context of the Internet. To compare our results with those reported by Andreassen et al.,²³ participants were asked to focus on their use of three SNSs (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram).

The GPIUS2 is a 15-item scale that addresses four higher order dimensions: (a) preference for online social interactions (POSI), which is defined as the belief that one is safer, more efficacious, and more confident with online interpersonal interactions than with face-to-face interactions (e.g., “Online social interactions are more comfortable for me than face-to-face interactions); (b) mood regulation, which pertains to the motivation to use the Web as a means of alleviating distressing feelings (e.g., “I have used the Internet to make myself feel better when I was down”); (c) deficient self-regulation, which refers to the inability of users to control their online behavior (e.g., “I find it difficult to control my Internet use) and obsessive thinking about the online world (e.g., “I think obsessively about going online when I am offline”); (d) negative outcomes, which describe the extent to which an individual experiences personal and social problems resulting from use of the Internet (e.g., “I have missed social engagements or activities because of my Internet use”).

Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of generalized problematic Internet use. The internal consistency Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.78 to 0.89. The Italian version of the GPIUS2 demonstrates solid construct and convergent validity. The Cronbach's alphas of the subscale in this study ranged from α = 0.747 to α = 0.805.

Results

Since a cutoff point for the NPI-16 and the HSNS has not been established, the mean total score and the standard deviation obtained by the total sample on the NPI and the HSNS were used to identify grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. The mean NPI score was 3.58 with a standard deviation of 2.925. The mean HSNS score was 25.47 with a standard deviation of 5.955. Scores that fell above mean plus one of the standard deviations of the NPI and below the mean plus one of the standard deviations of the HSNS were classified as high-grandiose narcissism. Scores that fell above the mean plus one of the standard deviations of the HSNS and below the mean plus one of the standard deviations of the NPI were classified as high-vulnerable narcissism.

Eighty participants (14.66 percent of the total sample) were identified as reporting high-grandiose narcissism, 67 (12.41 percent of the total sample) were identified as referring high-vulnerable narcissism, and 388 (71.03 percent of the total sample) obtained scores that were below the mean plus one of the standard deviations of both the NPI and the HSNS. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations achieved by the three subgroups on the NPI and the HSNS.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics on Narcissistic Personality Inventory and Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale Scores

Measures	Grandiose narcissists (N = 80) M ± SD	Vulnerable narcissists (N = 67) M ± SD	Non-narcissists (N = 388) M ± SD
HSNS	24.10 ± 4.91	34.48 ± 2.60	23.82 ± 4.79
NPI	8.63 ± 1.67	2.50 ± 1.81	2.54 ± 1.86

HSNS, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; NPI, Narcissistic Personality Inventory.

Of the 80 participants identified as grandiose narcissists, 55 were males (68.75 percent) and 25 were females (31.25 percent). Of the 67 participants identified as vulnerable narcissists, 24 were males (35.82 percent) and 43 were females (64.18 percent). A significant association between gender and narcissism was found: males had a higher probability of being classified as grandiose narcissists than females, whereas females had a higher probability of being classified as vulnerable narcissists than males (χ² = 17.744, p < 0.001).

Since the association between gender and narcissism was significant, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to investigate the main and interactive effects of narcissism and gender on GPIU. Descriptive statistics pertaining to the study variables for all three groups are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics on Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale-2 Subscales and Total Score

Narcissism groups	POSI (M ± SD)	Mood regulation (M ± SD)	Deficient self-regulation (M ± SD)	Negative outcomes (M ± SD)	GPIUS2 total score (M ± SD)
NN
F (n = 206)	1.68 ± 1.04	2.26 ± 1.3	1.90 ± 1.08	1.28 ± 0.63	2.13 ± 1.1
M (n = 182)	1.85 ± 1.01	2.32 ± 1.4	2.05 ± 1.07	1.59 ± 1.05	2.32 ± 1.19
Total (N = 388)	1.76 ± 1.03	2.29 ± 1.35	1.97 ± 1.08	1.43 ± 0.86	2.22 ± 1.14
VN
F (n = 43)	2.33 ± 1.51	2.98 ± 1.9	2.23 ± 1.29	1.78 ± 1.52	2.58 ± 1.34
M (n = 24)	2.73 ± 1.65	3.31 ± 1.49	2.70 ± 1.36	2.12 ± 1.31	3.06 ± 1.4
Total (N = 67)	2.47 ± 1.56	3.1 ± 1.76	2.40 ± 1.32	1.90 ± 1.45	2.75 ± 1.37
GN
F (n = 25)	1.74 ± 1.39	2.98 ± 2	2.23 ± 1.44	1.50 ± 1.08	2.43 ± 1.47
M (n = 55)	1.65 ± 1.06	2.37 ± 1.65	2.10 ± 1.21	1.62 ± 1.04	2.14 ± 1.02
Total (N = 80)	1.65 ± 1.06	2.56 ± 1.78	2.14 ± 1.29	1.58 ± 1.04	2.24 ± 1.18
Total
F (n = 274)	1.79 ± 1.18	2.44 ± 1.51	1.98 ± 1.16	1.38 ± 0.89	2.23 ± 1.18
M (n = 261)	1.88 ± 1.09	2.42 ± 1.49	2.12 ± 1.14	1.65 ± 1.08	2.35 ± 1.2
Total (N = 535)	1.83 ± 1.14	2.43 ± 1.5	2.05 ± 1.15	1.51 ± 0.99	2.29 ± 1.19

GN, grandiose narcissists; NN, non-narcissists; POSI, preference for online social interaction; VN, vulnerable narcissists.

Post hoc paired contrasts were conducted for the pairwise comparison. Among the most readily used post hoc tests available, the Games-Howell procedure was chosen because it was designed to cope with different sample sizes and offers the best performance when there are doubts that the population variances are equal.⁴⁰

Significant differences were found on all the GPIUS2 dimensions between vulnerable narcissists and non-narcissists (Table 3). Vulnerable narcissists also reported significantly higher scores on the POSI subscale and on the GPIUS2 total score than grandiose narcissists. In contrast, grandiose narcissists did not score significantly higher on the GPIUS2 dimensions and total score than non-narcissists.

Table 3.

Effects of Narcissism and Gender on GPIUS2 Subscales and Total Score: Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Games-Howell Post Hoc

				Games-Howell post hoc
Variables	Narcissism groups (NN, VN, GN)	Gender	Interaction	High GN vs. NN	High VN vs. NN	High GN vs. high VN
POSI	F = 13.45^**; η² = 0.05	F = 1.18	F = 0.94	n.s.	<0.01	<0.01
Mood regulation	F = 9.78^**; η² = 0.04	F = 0.17	F = 1.91	n.s.	<0.01	n.s.
Deficient self-regulation	F = 5.109^*; η² = 0.02	F = 1.34	F = 1.12	n.s.	<0.05	n.s.
Negative outcomes	F = 7.38^*; η² = 0.03	F = 4.64^*; η² = 0.009	F = 0.29	n.s.	<0.05	n.s.
GPIUS2 total score	F = 6.69^*; η² = 0.025	F = 7.779	F = 1.82	n.s.	<0.05	<0.05

GPIUS2, Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale-2.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01.

Discussion

This study hypothesized that (a) high narcissistic traits might be associated with problematic use of SNSs and (b) vulnerable narcissists report higher levels of problematic use than grandiose narcissists. In contrast with recent findings,²³ we did not find grandiose narcissists to be a higher risk for problematic use of SNSs than non-narcissists. However, significant differences were found between vulnerable narcissists and non-narcissists on all of the GPIUS2 subscales and total scores.

Vulnerable narcissists showed higher POSI and higher levels of overall problematic use than grandiose narcissists. Besides confirming recent evidence³⁰ regarding the positive association between vulnerable narcissism and the POSI, this study highlights for the first time that vulnerable narcissists (but not grandiose narcissists) were more likely to feel safer in an online environment. This suggests that SNSs might be the preferred tool among vulnerable narcissists to gain approval and admiration, whereas they might be just one of many tools grandiose narcissists use to achieve narcissistic goals.

Moreover, this greater sense of security users feel in online environments might also be responsible, at least in part, for the higher overall levels of problematic use that have been found among vulnerable narcissists. Indeed, previous studies^39,41 support the notion that feeling more confident and efficacious in an online setting is a cognitive precursor of problematic use of SNSs.

Interestingly, although vulnerable narcissists score significantly higher on the GPIUS2 total score scale, no significant differences were found regarding mood regulation, deficient self-regulation, and negative outcomes. Grandiose narcissists occupy an intermediate position between the highest scores obtained by vulnerable narcissists and the lowest scores reached by non-narcissists in three key areas: the tendency to use SNSs to regulate negative feelings, the inability to control one's own use of SNSs, and the negative outcomes arising from the use of SNSs. This suggests that the use of online platforms might be somewhat problematic among grandiose narcissists, yet less problematic among vulnerable narcissists.

An association between gender and narcissism was also found. Vulnerable narcissists are more likely to be women, whereas grandiose narcissism is more common among men. However, neither a main nor interactive effect of gender was found through the two-way ANOVA, with the exception of significant higher levels of negative outcomes among men (i.e., a main effect). Simultaneously, vulnerable narcissists, despite the higher proportion of females in this subgroup, reported higher scores in the negative outcomes subscale. As a result, it can be argued that men are at higher risk than women to develop negative outcomes associated with their use of SNSs, irrespective of vulnerable narcissistic traits. Similarly, vulnerable narcissists, regardless of gender, tend to report greater negative impacts on their daily functioning than non-narcissists and grandiose narcissists.

Some limitations of this study should be noted. This study relies entirely on self-report data, and future research should use indirect measure of both narcissism (e.g., projective tests) and problematic use of SNSs in an effort to overcome self-presentational biases and social desirability. Moreover, this study used a cross-sectional design, thus preventing us from testing questions of directionality. Although narcissism is conceptualized as a stable trait, it is impossible to rule out the idea that problematic use of SNSs reinforces the very issues that led to its use in the first place,⁴² thereby helping to sustain those particular narcissistic needs and desired gratifications. Future research may want to include potential mediating variables—for example, the perception of Internet advantages—that clarify the link between vulnerable narcissism and problematic use of SNSs.

In addition, the Cronbach alpha values obtained for the NPI and the HSNS were low, although consistent with those previously reported in the literature.³⁴ Finally, this study focused on undergraduate students since this is a population at high risk for SNS addiction,⁴³ and the factorial invariance of the Italian version of the GPIUS2 across different groups has not yet been tested. However, this severely limits the generalizability of the present findings to clinical and adult nonundergraduate populations. Moreover, the method used to identify the three groups is partially forced since a cutoff point for the narcissism measures has not been established. Finally, future research should involve clinical subjects who have been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Akhtar

, Thomson

. Overview: narcissistic personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1982; 139:12–20.

Dickinson

, Pincus

. Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2003; 17:188–207.

Wink

. Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996; 61:74–94.

Rose

. The happy and unhappy faces of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 2002; 33:379–391.

Miller

, Campbell

. Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 2008; 76:449–476.

Wink

. (1996) Narcissism. In Costello

, eds. Personality characteristics of the personality disordered. New York: Wiley, pp. 146–172.

Pincus

, Roche

. (2011) Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability. In Campbell

, Miller

, eds. Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. New York: Wiley, pp. 31–40.

Wallace

, Baumeister

. The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002; 82:819–834.

Sherry

, Gralnick

, Hewitt

, et al. Perfectionism and narcissism: testing unique relationships and gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014; 61–62:52–56.

10.

Buffardi

, Campbell

. Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulleting, 2008; 34:1303–1314.

11.

Carpenter

. Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012; 52:482–486.

12.

Mehdizadeh

. Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010; 13:357–364.

13.

Davenport

, Bergman

, et al. Twitter versus Facebook: exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 32:212–220.

14.

Marshall

, Lefringhausen

, Ferenczi

. The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015; 85:35–40.

15.

Brailovskaia

, Bierhoff

. Cross-cultural narcissism on Facebook: relationships between self-presentation, social interaction and the open and covert narcissism on a social networking site in Germany and Russia. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:251–257.

16.

Bergman

, Fearrington

, Davenport

, et al. Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: what narcissists do on social networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011; 50:706–711.

17.

Ahn

, Kwolek

, Bowman

. Two faces of narcissism on SNS: the distinct effects of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism on SNS privacy control. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 45:375–381.

18.

Müller

, Dreier

, Beutel

, et al. A hidden type of internet addiction? Intense and addictive use of social networking sites in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:172–177.

19.

Elphinston

, Nollen

. Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationshipsatisfaction. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 2011; 14:631–635.

20.

DeWall

, Buffardi

, Bonser

, et al. Narcissism and implicit attention seeking: evidence from linguistic analyses of social networking and online presentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011; 51:57–62.

21.

Chiung-Wen

. Staging on the Internet: research on online photo album users in Taiwan with the spectacle/performance paradigm. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 2007; 10:596–600.

22.

Ryan

, Xenos

. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationships between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computer in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:1658–1664.

23.

Andreassen

, Pallesen

, Griffiths

. The relationships between addictive use of social media, narcissism, self-esteem: findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 2016. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.006.

24.

Casale

, Fioravanti

, Rugai

, et al. The interpersonal expression of perfectionism among grandiose and vulnerable narcissists: perfectionistic self-presentation, effortless perfection, and the ability to seem perfect. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016; 99:320–324.

25.

Walther

. (2006) Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or:(and the net:(‘s with you:)) alone. In Manusov

, Patterson

, eds. Handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 461–480.

26.

Caplan

, High

. (2011) Online social interaction, psychosocial well-being, and problematic internet use. In Young

, Abreu

, eds. Internet addiction: a handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 35–53.

27.

Walther

. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996; 23:1–43.

28.

Valkenburg

. Peter J. Online communication among adolescents: an integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011; 48:121–127.

29.

Lee

, Stapinski

. Seeking safety on the Internet: relationships between social anxiety and problematic internet use. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2012; 26:197–205.

30.

Ksinan

, Vazsonyi

. Narcissism, Internet and social relations: a study of two tales. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016; 94:118–123.

31.

Besser

, Priel

. Emotional responses to a romantic partner's imaginary rejection: the roles of attachment anxiety, covert narcissism and self-evaluation. Journal of Personality, 2009; 77:287–325.

32.

Fossati

, Borroni

, Maffei

. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 2008; 1:96–115.

33.

Ames

, Rose

, Anderson

. The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 2006; 40:440–450.

34.

Fossati

, Borroni

, Grazioli

, et al. Tracking the hypersensitive dimension in narcissism: reliability and validity of the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale. Personality and Mental Health, 2009; 3:235–247.

35.

Hendin

, Cheeck

. Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a re-examination of Murray's Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 1997; 31:588–599.

36.

Miller

, Hoffman

, Gaughan

, et al. Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: a nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 2011; 79:1013–1042.

37.

Pincus

, Ansell

, Pimentel

, et al. Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 2009; 21:365–379.

38.

Fioravanti

, Primi

, Casale

. Psychometric evaluation of the generalized problematic internet use scale 2 in an Italian sample. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2013; 16:761–766.

39.

Caplan

. Theory and measurement of generalized problematic Internet use: a two-step approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 23:265–271.

40.

Field

. (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.

41.

Casale

, Fioravanti

, Caplan

. Online disinhibition: precursors and outcomes. Journal of Media Psychology, 2015; 27:170–177.

42.

Slater

. Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 2007; 17:281–303.

43.

Kuss

, Griffiths

. Online social networking and addiction—a review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011; 8:3528–3552.