SMSXXX10.1177/2056305116664219Social Media + SocietyOuwerkerk and Johnson 664219research-article2016

Article

Social Media + Society July-September 2016: 1­–13 Motives for Online Friending and © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Following: The Dark Side of Social DOI: 10.1177/2056305116664219 Network Site Connections sms.sagepub.com

Jaap W. Ouwerkerk and Benjamin K. Johnson

Abstract Motives for “friending,” following, or connecting with others on sites are often positive, but darker motives may also play an important role. A survey with a novel Following Motives Scale (FMS) demonstrates accordingly that positive, sociable motives (i.e., others providing a valued source for humor and information, others sharing a common background, as well as relationship maintenance) and inspirational motives (i.e., others providing a target for upward social comparison) can be distinguished from darker motives related to insecurity (i.e., others providing reassurance, preference for online interaction, mediated voyeurism, as well as social obligation), and even darker antisocial motives related to self-enhancement (i.e., others providing a target for downward social comparison, competition, schadenfreude, gossip, as well as “hate-following”). Results show that lower self-esteem and higher levels of need for popularity, narcissism, and dispositional schadenfreude characterize users with stronger dark side motives, whereas users with more sociable motives report more satisfaction with life, thereby providing construct validity for the novel scale. Convergent validity is demonstrated by positive relations between following motives and both time spent and following counts on different social network sites. Moreover, an embedded experiment shows that antisocial motives predicted acceptance of a friendship request from a male or female high school acquaintance who suffered a setback in the domain of appearance or status (i.e., a convenient source for self-enhancement), thereby providing additional convergent validity for the Antisocial Motives subscale.

Keywords social network sites, self-esteem, narcissism, need for popularity, schadenfreude, social comparison

“Thank you for making me realize how little I care about my SNSs (e.g., Krishnan & Atkin, 2014). The number, naming, friends on Facebook.” and types of motivations identified for general SNS use vary (Anonymous participant) between these studies, but typically include maintaining exist- ing relationships as well as seeking new ones, entertainment, One of the defining characteristics of social network sites passing time, information seeking, and self-presentation. (SNSs) is the user’s ability to choose who he or she wants to Although such motivations may directly or indirectly influ- connect with, referred to as “friending” (on Facebook), “con- ence the decision to follow others on SNSs, we argue that they necting” (on LinkedIn), or “following” (on and do not fully reflect the wide variety of motives for the specific ). However, studies addressing specific motives for choice to follow others. For one thing, measures assessing following others on SNSs are lacking, as scholars have motivations for general SNS use tend to be skewed to the posi- focused predominantly on motivations for general use and tive and sociable, focusing on harmless enjoyment and typically use measures that do not reflect specific features of strengthening social connections, thereby neglecting the dark SNSs (cf. Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011). For exam- ple, research from a uses and gratifications perspective (Katz, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) has investigated motivations for Corresponding Author: general use of MySpace (e.g., Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, Jaap W. Ouwerkerk, Department of Communication Science, Vrije 2008), Facebook (e.g., Joinson, 2008; Papacharissi & Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Mendelson, 2011), Twitter (e.g., Chen, 2011), or various Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 Social Media + Society side of SNSs in general (cf. Fox & Moreland, 2015), and fol- who they met offline, or to engage in so-called social brows- lowing behavior in particular (cf. Wang, 2015). This lack of ing (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006). A strongly related attention for darker motives in past research may partly reflect motive for following someone on SNSs is that he or she shifted norms and practices on SNSs over time. Indeed, the shares a common background or social identity, although this presence of darker following motives may help explain why does not necessarily require a pre-established offline rela- current users tend to maintain relatively expansive social net- tionship. In line with this notion, a study by Barker (2009) works. Online social networks are distinct from offline net- demonstrated that communication with peer group members works in allowing interaction with, and social observation of, was the most important motivation for general SNS use, a greater number of weak ties (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, especially for people who place a high value on group mem- 2011). SNSs make these connections possible, but the motives bership. Moreover, based on the aforementioned finding that for forming and maintaining them are less clear. The goal of entertainment and information seeking are often identified as the present research is therefore to identify a wide variety of important motivations for general SNS use, we assume that motives for the specific choice to follow others on SNSs users are motivated to follow others when they are perceived rather than for general SNS use. More specifically, using an as valued social sources for humor or information. Finally, online survey with a novel Following Motives Scale (FMS) consistent with the notion that social comparison processes and an embedded experiment, we attempt to show (a) that may play an important role on SNSs (Haferkamp & Krämer, positive, sociable motives for following others can be distin- 2011; Vogel, Rose, Roberts, & Eckles, 2014) and that people guished from darker motives related to social insecurity and are often motivated to engage in upward social comparisons from even darker antisocial motives related to a need for self- with superior others to serve self-improvement goals enhancement, (b) that these motives are related differently to (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997), we suggest that users can be personality traits, (c) that these motives are related to self- motivated to follow others on SNSs because they provide a reported time spent as well as following counts on SNSs, and source for inspirational upward social comparisons. (d) that antisocial following motives predict the inclination to Several studies have alluded to darker motives for follow- accept a hypothetical Facebook friendship request from a ing behavior on SNSs that are related to social insecurity. high school acquaintance who suffered a setback, thereby Research has shown that some people feel safer, more effica- providing a convenient source for self-enhancement. cious, more confident, and more comfortable with online interpersonal interactions and relationships than with tradi- Following Motives: The Good, the Bad, tional face-to-face activities, a preference that has been linked and the Ugly to problematic Internet use (Caplan, 2002). Accordingly, we suggest that some users may be motivated to follow others on Our approach to the development of the FMS was to identify SNSs because they prefer to interact with them online. A a wide range of possible motives from relevant literature that related phenomenon is that people may want to observe oth- could explain the specific choice to follow others on SNSs ers—both close friends and more distant acquaintances— rather than general SNS use, thereby allowing for a more from a safe distance by mediated surveillance (Ellison et al., detailed understanding of how and why users relate to others 2011). This behavior has also been characterized as mediated on SNSs. These motives are reviewed below and can be voyeurism, the discrete observation of others’ personal lives grouped into three larger categories expected to yield dis- (Bumgarner, 2007), and is linked to a higher number of crete factors. Specifically, we distinguish between positive, friends on Facebook (Joinson, 2008) and retention of friends sociable motives for following others (i.e., the good), darker on Facebook who are considered seldom contacts (Wang, motives related to feelings of social insecurity (i.e., the bad), 2015). Users may thus be motivated to follow others on SNSs and even darker antisocial motives related to a need for self- to enable them to engage in mediated surveillance or voyeur- enhancement (i.e., the ugly). ism. In addition, feelings of insecurity may lead people to We suggest that positive, sociable motives for following seek contact with others who they expect will provide posi- others are closely related to motivations that are commonly tive feedback on their activities on SNSs. Such reassurance identified for general SNS use in studies from a uses and seeking, which has been identified as a form of problematic gratifications perspective. As noted earlier, maintaining rela- Facebook use (Clerkin, Smith, & Hames, 2013), may there- tionships has often been found to be an important motivation fore constitute another motive for following others on SNSs. for general SNS use. Scholars have emphasized the social Finally, social insecurity may prompt users to follow others capital provided by followed others (i.e., resources and ben- because they do not want to hurt their feelings (i.e., out of efits accrued from network relations) as well as the impor- social obligation). Indeed, some people may accept others as tance of strengthening weak ties (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & “friends” on SNSs regardless of closeness, because rejecting Lampe, 2007). Relationship maintenance is therefore likely or ignoring a friendship request is perceived as risky behavior to be also an important motive for the specific choice to fol- (boyd, 2008). It should be noted that pursuing motives related low others on SNSs. Accordingly, early research into to social insecurity (e.g., reassurance seeking) often requires Facebook showed that users chose mostly to follow people two-way, reciprocal connections (afforded by most SNSs but Ouwerkerk and Johnson 3 default on Facebook) to facilitate exchange, whereas one-way and from antisocial motives related to a need for connections (as afforded by Twitter and Instagram) are suffi- self-enhancement. cient for pursuing positive motives such as seeking informa- tion or inspiration from others. Available options for forming unidirectional and bidirectional links are thus a relevant affor- Following Motives and Personality dance when considering motives across different SNSs. Traits Some users may possess even darker antisocial motives for To provide construct validity for the novel FMS, we investi- following others on SNSs that are related to a need for self- gate its relations with several personality traits. We have enhancement. Indeed, people’s need to view themselves posi- argued that darker motives for following others are related to tively is regarded by many contemporary psychologists as a social insecurity and a need for self-enhancement. It is there- primary drive of human behavior (e.g., Baumeister, 1991). fore reasonable to assume that these following motives are Consistent with the notion that people compare themselves inversely related to indices of social and psychological well- with less fortunate others (i.e., make downward social com- being such as self-esteem and satisfaction with life. By con- parisons) to achieve, maintain, or protect a positive self- trast, research indicating that SNS use may increase evaluation via contrast (Wills, 1981), research demonstrates well-being, as a result of more frequent interactions with that temporary exposure to SNS user profiles of inferior others friends (Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006) and social increases positive affect (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011) and capital (Ellison et al., 2007), suggests that positive, sociable self-esteem (Vogel et al., 2014). In addition, a study by Johnson motives could be associated with higher levels of well-being. and Knobloch-Westerwick (2014) shows that more negative In addition, as opposed to positive motives, dark side motives moods result in less selective exposure to user profiles of are likely to be related to a strong need for popularity and upward comparison targets and more exposure to those of narcissism. The former refers to a motivation to behave in downward comparison targets. We therefore assume that some ways to appear popular (Santor, Messervey, & Kusumakar, users could be motivated to follow others because they pro- 2000), whereas the latter is a dispositional tendency toward vide an easy target for self-enhancing downward social com- grandiose, albeit insecure, self-views, which are maintained parison or opportunities to defeat them in competition. Taking by seeking external validation and self-centered behavior this one step further, people may actually derive pleasure from (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Indeed, both constructs correlate the misfortunes of others on SNSs or experience so-called positively with self-enhancing activities on SNSs, such as schadenfreude. Schadenfreude reactions to media content strategic self-presentation and profile enhancement have also been linked to self-enhancement. For example, (Carpenter, 2012; Utz, Tanis, & Vermeulen, 2012). Moreover, research demonstrates that people with chronically low self- a similar pattern of relations can be expected for the disposi- esteem, and whose self-evaluation is directly threatened, are tional tendency to experience schadenfreude, which shows a more likely to experience schadenfreude when watching a strong link with narcissism (Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & contestant failing miserably in a televised talent show (Van Black, 2014). Other personality traits may have similar rela- Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Van Koningsbruggen, & Wesseling, 2012). tions with different following motives. For example, we have We therefore suggest that users may follow others on SNSs argued that users may follow others on SNSs to enable them because they provide a target for schadenfreude. Another to make self-enhancing downward comparisons as well as motive related to self-enhancement is the inclination to follow inspirational upward comparisons, suggesting that the gen- others so that one can gossip about them with third parties. eral tendency to make social comparisons (i.e., comparison Although people who gossip tend to be disliked (Farley, 2011), orientation; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) should be positively sharing information about others with third parties may ele- related to both antisocial and positive, sociable following vate their power (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) and social status motives. We include the aforementioned personality traits in (Baumeister, Zhang, & Vohs, 2004). Moreover, it has been our study and formulate the hypothesis below: noted that negative gossip often proceeds from downward social comparison and can be understood as the gossiper’s H2. Antisocial and insecurity motives for following oth- pursuit of a positive self-view (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Finally, ers (i.e., dark side motives) will be positively related to (a) to establish their superiority, users may even want to connect need for popularity, (b) narcissism, and (c) dispositional to others who they scorn and dislike. To our knowledge, this schadenfreude and will be negatively related to (d) self- phenomenon, referred to as “hate-following” by journalists esteem and (e) satisfaction with life. (Golby, 2014; compare with television “hate-watching”), has not received any scientific attention. Based on the motives outlined above, the first goal of the present research is to Following Motives, Time Spent on develop an FMS to test the hypothesis below: SNSs, and Friending H1. Positive, sociable motives for following others on Because following motives should be related to the intensity SNSs are distinct from motives related to social insecurity of SNS use (i.e., both time spent and following counts on 4 Social Media + Society

SNSs; Ellison et al., 2007) to demonstrate convergent valid- name or email address. During the data collection in May ity of the novel FMS, we formulate the hypothesis below: 2015, 438 participants provided consent and started the sur- vey. Only completed surveys of SNS users were analyzed H3. Following motives will be positively related to (a) (N = 284), resulting in a sample composed of 156 males and self-reported time spent on SNSs and (b) self-reported 128 females with a mean age of 29.55 years (standard devia- following counts on SNSs. tion [SD] = 9.66). An overwhelming majority resided in the Netherlands (81.3%), followed by Germany (10.2%), However, it has been noted that self-report measures may whereas a small minority resided in other nations (8.5%). not always accurately reflect actual usage and number of The survey contained questions concerning the time spent as “friends” (Junco, 2013). For example, we have suggested well as following counts on different SNSs, statements that users with antisocial following motives may have a assessing different motives for following others on SNSs that strong need for popularity. They may therefore over-report formed the basis for the development of the FMS, statements their number of “friends” to appear more popular, thereby measuring personality traits, as well as an embedded experi- artificially strengthening the association between antisocial ment testing reactions toward, and acceptance of a hypotheti- motives and following counts. To provide additional conver- cal Facebook friendship request from, a high school gent validity, especially for our measurement of antisocial acquaintance who was either male or female and had suf- following motives, we therefore include an online experi- fered a setback in the domain of status or appearance, thereby ment in our survey. In this experiment, we present partici- providing an easy target for self-enhancement. The survey pants with a hypothetical Facebook friendship request from a used a required-response setting. At the end, respondents high school acquaintance who suffered a setback, thereby were thanked for participating and presented with an oppor- providing an easy target for self-enhancing downward social tunity to provide comments. comparison, schadenfreude, and gossip. Previous research (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011) suggests that such self-enhanc- Measures ing benefits on SNSs may differ depending on the gender of the observer in combination with the gender of the compari- Unless indicated, measures consisted of statements where son target (male vs. female) and the domain of comparison participants could respond on 7-point scales in terms of (status vs. appearance). Although this is not the main focus degree of agreement (1 = total disagreement, 7 = total of the present research, we therefore assign participants to agreement). one of four experimental conditions in which these two fac- tors are systematically varied: Time Spent on SNSs. Participants indicated on five 7-point scales how often (1 = never, 2 = 0–1 hr, 3 = 1–2 hr, 4 = 2–3 hr, H4. Stronger antisocial following motives will increase 5 = 3–4 hr, 6 = 4–5 hr, 7 = more than 5 hr) they used Facebook (a) the inclination to accept a hypothetical Facebook ( = 3.64, SD = 1.48), Twitter (M = 1.43, SD = 0.76), Linke- friendship request from a male or female high school dIn (M = 1.79, SD = 0.80), Instagram (M = 2.06, SD = 1.24), or acquaintance who suffered a setback in the domain of sta- other social media (M = 1.78, SD = 1.15) on average per day. tus or appearance, (b) the level of schadenfreude toward We also created a scale for total time spent on SNSs by sum- this acquaintance, and (c) the intention to gossip about ming these scales (M = 10.70, SD = 3.45). him or her with third parties. Following Counts on SNSs. If participants indicated that they used Facebook (n = 283), Twitter (n = 94), LinkedIn (n = 198), Method or Instagram (n = 163), they were asked how many people they Participants and Procedure followed or befriended on each SNS using 15-point scales ranging from 1 (1–50) to 15 (more than 700) with incremental The study was conducted online using Internet-based survey steps of 50. If participants indicated that they did not use a software. The link to the survey (available in Dutch or specific type of SNS, they were assigned the value “0” for the English) was distributed among the networks of several uni- number of people followed on that SNS (M = 9.20, Facebook versity students, resulting in a convenient and purposive SD = 4.08; M = 1.36, SD = 2.88; M = 3.30, Facebook Twitter Twitter LinkedIn sample that contained predominantly students, a population SD = 3.63; M = 2.71, SD = 3.74). We created LinkedIn Instagram Instagram known for their intensive use of SNSs. The survey was pre- also a scale for total following count by summing these scales sented as a study on “social media use and personality” and (M = 16.56, SD = 9.91). as an incentive participants could enter a raffle to win a €100 prize by providing their email address upon completion. FMS. Based on a literature review of following motives on Given the sensitive nature of some questions, we emphasized SNSs, as outlined in the introduction, we initially identified that, in accordance with ethical standards of scientific 14 possible motives and developed three statements reflect- research, participants’ answers could not be linked to their ing each motive. Some items were based on measures from Ouwerkerk and Johnson 5 studies on preference for online interaction (Caplan, 2002), and Inspirational Motives were moderately correlated (r = .33, voyeurism (Nabi, Biely, Morgan, & Stitt, 2003), and rela- p < .001). Other correlations ranged from .13 to .27. tionship maintenance (Lampe et al., 2006). All 42 statements (see Table 1) were preceded by the stem “I follow some peo- Personality Traits. Participants were asked to respond to the ple on social media” and presented in mixed order. The items 20 statements of Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State Self- were analyzed by an exploratory factor analysis using maxi- Esteem Scale. Importantly, when introducing these items, mum likelihood as extraction method and an oblique rotation we did not ask participants to respond based on how they (promax), as recommended by Costello and Osborne (2005). felt right now, but rather based on how they perceived The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade- themselves and their life in general, thereby reflecting trait quacy (.90) indicated that the data were appropriate for rather than state measures of Performance Self-Esteem analysis. The scree test suggested that four factors should (7 items; M = 5.40, SD = 0.88, α = .75), Social Self-Esteem be retained that all had an Eigenvalue greater than 1 (11.59, (7 items; M = 4.53, SD = 1.09, α = .80), Appearance Self- 5.17, 2.09, and 1.96, respectively) and together accounted for Esteem (6 items; M = 4.90, SD = 1.09, α = .82), and Total 49.54% of the variance (27.59%, 12.30%, 4.98%, and 4.67%, Self-Esteem (20 items; M = 4.94, SD = 0.82, α = .88). In respectively). addition, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, The resulting pattern matrix in Table 1 shows that the first Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was presented (five items; factor clearly represents Antisocial Motives for following M = 4.87, SD = 1.16, α = .84). Moreover, we selected four others and includes all items related to others being a target items from Santor et al. (2000) to assess Need for Popular- for gossip (a1–3), schadenfreude (b1–3), “hate-following” ity (“At times, I’ve ignored some people in order to be more (c1–3), and downward comparison (d1–3), as well as two of popular with others”/“I’d do almost anything to avoid being the three items related to others being a target for competition seen as a loser”/“It’s important that people think I’m (e1–2). The second factor represents Insecurity Motives for popular”/“At times, I’ve changed the way I dress in order to following others, and includes all items related to preference be more popular”; M = 2.85, SD = 1.25, α = .79), presented for online interaction (f1–3) and reassurance seeking (g1–3), the Single Item Narcissism Scale (M = 2.80, SD = 1.63) two of the three items related to social obligation (i1–2), as developed by Konrath, Meier, and Bushman (2014), and well as one of the mediated surveillance items (h1), and the included four items to assess dispositional schadenfreude remaining competition item (e3) that in hindsight may reflect (“At times it gives me pleasure when I compare myself making social comparisons to gain self-knowledge about with others who are worse off”/“I sometimes experience one’s abilities and thus can be interpreted as being related to joy when I learn that someone else fails”/“Every now and insecurity. The third factor reflects Sociable Motives for fol- then I cannot resist a little smile when another person suf- lowing others, and includes all items related to others being a fers a setback”/“I sometimes think there is some truth in the valued social source for humor (j1–3) and information (k1– saying that the best joy is malicious joy”; M = 2.82, 3), others sharing a common identity or being liked (l1–3), SD = 1.43, α = .86). Finally, we presented the short 6-item and relationship maintenance (m1–3), as well as one of the version of the Iowa–Netherlands Comparison Orientation mediated surveillance items (h3) that in hindsight may not Measure (M = 3.75, SD = 1.33, α = .86) from Gibbons and necessarily imply that surveillance takes place without Buunk (1999) to assess people’s general tendency to make knowledge of the target and thus can be interpreted as being social comparisons. related to relationship maintenance. Finally, all items related to others being a source for inspirational upward social com- Embedded Experiment. To test whether antisocial following parisons (n1–3) loaded on a separate fourth factor and will motives can predict the inclination to accept a hypothetical therefore be referred to as Inspirational Motives for following Facebook friendship request from a male or female high others. The remaining item related to social obligation (i3) school acquaintance who suffered a setback in the domain of did not reach the recommended minimum factor loading of status or appearance, as well as the level of schadenfreude .32 (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), whereas the remaining and intention to gossip about him or her with third parties, item related to mediated surveillance (h2) had a relatively low participants were asked to imagine themselves in a situation loading on the primary factor combined with a relatively high described in a short vignette. In this situation, they were crossloading. Therefore, these two items were removed from invited to be a friend on Facebook by a high school acquain- further analyses and scales were constructed with the 40 tance (“X”) who had suffered a setback in a certain domain. remaining items representing Antisocial Motives (14 items; In the male comparison target/status setback condition, they M = 2.44, SD = 1.10, α = .93), Insecurity Motives (10 items; read that X, who had excelled in high school, was now very M = 2.87, SD = 1.16, α = .88), Sociable Motives (13 items; unsuccessful (see Figure 1). Moreover, to make the described M = 5.08, SD = 0.89, α = .85), and Inspirational Motives (3 situation more realistic, they were presented with a screen- items; M = 3.81, SD = 1.44, α = .83). The resulting dark side shot depicting his latest status update (“Going on vacation scales for Antisocial and Insecurity Motives were strongly tomorrow!”) and a third-party comment (“No job but money correlated (r = .71, p < .001), whereas the scales for Sociable for a vacation? Welfare must pay well!”), which was “liked” 6 Social Media + Society

Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Items From the Following Motives Scale (Pattern Matrix).

Component

I II III IV I follow some people on social media . . . So I can make fun of them when talking to others (a1) .88 So I can laugh about the setbacks they suffer (b1) .84 So I can derive pleasure from the stupid things they say or do (b2) .82 So I can gossip about them with others (a2) .77 So I can enjoy myself when I learn they fail or make a fool of themselves (b3). .74 Because there is something addictive about being annoyed by them (c1) .70 So I can talk about their lives with others (a3). .67 Because they show me that there is always someone who is worse off than me (d1) .60 Because, although I dislike them, I find them intriguing (c2) .54 Because they demonstrate that I am better off by comparison (d2) .54 Because I want to know what they are doing, despite the fact I actually don’t like them (c3) .53 Because they make me feel superior (d3) .48 .30 Because I want to know whether I am better or worse off than them (e1) .47 .32 Because I enjoy competing with them (e2) .42 .29 Because I’m more confident about talking to them online (f1) .86 Because it’s safer to relate to them in an online setting (f2) .80 Because I know they will say nice things about me (g1) .77 Because I get along with them better in an online setting (f3) .73 Because I know they will care about what I post (g2) .69 Because I know they will like my posts (g3) .61 So I can observe them without them knowing (h1) .27 .41 Because I like to compare their achievements with my own (e3) .30 .40 Because I don’t want to hurt their feelings (i1) .39 Because I feel socially obliged to do so (i2) .34 So I can get to see a side of them that I wouldn’t normally get to see (h2)a .33 .31 Because a friend or family member pressured me to do so (i3)a .29 Because I like their sense of humor (j1) .78 Because they are funny (j2) .72 Because they share great jokes (j3) .69 Because they always have something interesting to tell (k1) .62 Because we have a lot in common (l1) .56 Because I like them (l2) .56 Because they provide useful information on shared interests or hobbies (k2) .52 Because I met them socially and want to learn more about them (m1) .46 Because I know them from the past and want to keep in touch (m2) .45 Because we have similar backgrounds (l3) .27 .43 Because they are friends and I want to know everything that happens in their lives (m3) .43 Because they are a great source for news (k3) .28 .39 So I can get a peek into their lives (h3) .38 Because their accomplishments help me set goals to improve myself (n1) .90 Because they provide a standard I can aspire to (n2) .78 Because their achievements provide a source of inspiration for me (n3) .64

I: antisocial motives; II: insecurity motives; III: sociable motives; IV: inspirational motives. Only loadings > .25 are depicted. aItem removed from further analyses. by three people. In the male comparison target/appearance described condition, participants were presented with a setback condition, they read that the looks of X, who had screenshot depicting his latest status update (“ . . . added been perceived as very attractive in high school, had deterio- three photos to the album 2015”) and a comment (“What rated substantially (see Figure 2). As in the previously happened to that good looking boy? Maybe you should find Ouwerkerk and Johnson 7

Figure 1. Screenshot of the male comparison target, status setback condition.

Figure 2. Screenshot of the male comparison target, appearance setback condition. a new personal trainer?”), which was “liked” by three peo- Measures Embedded Experiment. After reading the described ple. To exclude possible confounds, all names appearing in situation, participants responded to two statements that the screenshots were blurred and all profile pictures pix- served as manipulation checks for perceived appearance of X elated. The two other conditions were identical with the (“I think that X looks good at the moment”; M = 3.18, exception that X was presented as female rather than male SD = 1.39) and perceived status of X (“I think that X has a (yet using the same blurred images). high status at the moment”; M = 2.79, SD = 1.22). Moreover, 8 Social Media + Society

two scales used in previous research (e.g., Van Dijk et al., have positive correlations with following counts on Facebook 2012) were presented to assess schadenfreude (e.g., “Think- and Instagram, as well as with total following count, thereby ing about the situation, I would not be able to suppress a little demonstrating that dark side motives may indeed play an smile”; five items; M = 3.05, SD = 1.60, α = .91) as well as important role in actual following behavior. In addition, socia- sympathy toward X as a possible contrast measure (e.g., “I ble motives show positive correlations with following count would feel sympathy for X”; three items; M = 4.41, SD = 1.52, on Facebook and Twitter, as well as with total following count, α = .87). In addition, one statement assessed the intention to whereas inspirational motives have only a positive correlation gossip about X (“I would be inclined to tell the story to other with following count on Instagram. friends from high school”; M = 4.40, SD = 1.87) and one statement the tendency to accept the friendship request of X Results Embedded Experiment (“I would be inclined to accept the friendship request from X”; M = 4.67, SD = 1.87). The two manipulation checks of the embedded experiment were analyzed by analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Results Domain (status vs appearance), Gender Participant (male vs female), and Gender Target (male vs female) as factors. Then Correlations of FMS With Personality Traits the dependent variables were analyzed by multiple regres- sions on the four following motives, controlling for the main Table 2 (top) shows that, as predicted, people with relatively effects of the aforementioned factors (see Table 3 and 4). strong dark side motives for following others on SNSs are characterized by low self-esteem, a strong need for popular- Manipulation Checks. Results show a significant main effect ity, as well as high levels of narcissism and dispositional of Domain on perceived status, F(1, 276) = 24.38, p < .001, schadenfreude. That is, both antisocial motives and insecurity η 2 = .08. Consistent with our manipulation, in the status set- p motives are inversely related to performance self-esteem, back condition, the target was perceived as having less status social self-esteem, total self-esteem, and, albeit to lesser (M = 2.44, SD = 1.20) than in the appearance setback condi- extent, appearance self-esteem. By contrast, sociable motives tion (M =3 .12, SD = 1.14). No other effects were significant. are unrelated to self-esteem, and inspirational motives show Results also show a significant main effect of Domain on only a relatively weak, albeit significant, negative correlation perceived appearance, F(1, 276) = 4.69, p = .031, η 2 = .02. p with performance self-esteem. Moreover, antisocial motives Consistent with our manipulation, in the appearance setback and insecurity motives both show strong positive correlations condition, the target was perceived as looking less good with need for popularity, narcissism, as well as dispositional (M = 3.01, SD = 1.31) than in the status setback condition schadenfreude. Sociable motives show only a relatively weak, (M = 3.37, SD = 1.46). In addition, we obtained a significant albeit significant, correlation with need for popularity, as do interaction effect between Gender Participant and Gender inspirational motives with narcissism and dispositional Target, F(1, 276) = 6.00, p = .015, η 2 = .02. Simple main p schadenfreude. A somewhat different pattern of relations was effects show that female participants perceived a female tar- obtained with satisfaction with life. That is, only sociable get as looking better (M = 3.50, SD = 1.18) than a male target motives for following others show a positive correlation with (M = 2.89, SD = 1.28), F(1, 276) = 6.18, p = .014, η 2 = .02, p satisfaction with life, whereas the other motives have nega- whereas no such difference was obtained for male partici- tive, albeit non-significant, correlations. Finally, comparison pants (M = 3.10, SD = 1.53 and M = 3.27, SD = 1.46, respec- orientation was positively related to antisocial motives, inse- tively), F(1, 276) = 0.80, p = .371, η 2 = .00. curity motives, sociable motives, and inspirational motives. p Schadenfreude. As anticipated, stronger antisocial motives Correlations of FMS With Time Spent and increased schadenfreude felt toward the target described in Following Counts on SNSs the experiment. No other motives were significant predictors (see Table 3). Table 2 (middle) shows that antisocial motives and insecurity motives both have positive correlations with time spent on Sympathy. Results in Table 3 show that stronger antisocial Facebook and Instagram, as well as with total time spent on motives decreased sympathy reactions, whereas stronger SNSs, suggesting that these two dark side motives for follow- insecurity motives increased sympathy reactions. In addi- ing others have a substantial contribution to SNS use. In addi- tion, we obtained an effect of Gender Participant, indicating tion, sociable motives show positive correlations with time that female participants showed more sympathy (M = 4.85, spent on Facebook and Twitter, as well as with total time spent SD = 1.44) than male participants (M = 4.06, SD = 1.49). on SNSs, whereas inspirational motives have only a positive correlation with time spent on Instagram. Table 2 (bottom) Gossip Intention. As expected, stronger antisocial motives shows that antisocial motives have a positive correlation with increased gossip intention. Moreover, stronger sociable number of friends on Facebook, whereas insecurity motives motives also increased gossip intention, whereas stronger Ouwerkerk and Johnson 9

Table 2. Correlations of Personality Traits, Time Spent on SNSs, and Following Counts on SNSs with Dimensions of the Following Motives Scale (FMS).

Antisocial motives Insecurity motives Sociable motives Inspirational motives

r p r p r p r p Personality traits Self-esteem (performance) −.32 <.001 −.29 <.001 .09 .142 −.12 .040 Self-esteem (social) −.35 <.001 −.36 <.001 −.11 .058 −.06 .305 Self-esteem (appearance) −.15 .010 −.17 .004 .08 .181 .01 .835 Self-esteem (total) −.35 <.001 −.36 <.001 .01 .840 −.07 .246 Need for popularity .47 <.001 .49 <.001 .13 .031 .08 .164 Narcissism .26 <.001 .21 .001 .03 .644 .12 .046 Dispositional schadenfreude .66 <.001 .50 <.001 .07 .229 .12 .049 Satisfaction with life −.11 .065 −.06 .310 .13 .027 −.03 .658 Comparison orientation .52 <.001 .47 <.001 .18 .003 .23 <.001 Time spent on SNSs Facebook .14 .022 .13 .024 .16 .006 .05 .406 Twitter .07 .215 .06 .287 .14 .019 −.00 .948 LinkedIn .12 .053 .06 .334 .04 .492 .05 .426 Instagram .19 .001 .16 .006 .02 .757 .13 .028 Other −.04 .514 −.04 .469 .00 .944 −.10 .091 Total .16 .008 .13 .031 .12 .048 .05 .447 Following counts on SNSs Facebook .13 .025 .12 .044 .14 .023 .12 .054 Twitter −.03 .634 .06 .360 .13 .024 .01 .926 LinkedIn −.03 .623 .01 .838 .09 .130 .04 .538 Instagram .09 .119 .14 .019 .07 .239 .13 .026 Total .07 .235 .12 .040 .15 .009 .11 .059

SNS: social network site. N = 284.

Table 3. Multiple Regressions of Schadenfreude and Sympathy on Domain (Status, Appearance), Gender Target (Male, Female), Gender Participant (Male, Female), and Dimensions of the Following Motives Scale (FMS).

Schadenfreude Sympathy

B SE B β p B SE B β p Factors Domain 0.02 0.16 .01 .898 0.19 0.17 .06 .272 Gender target −0.15 0.15 −.05 .346 0.28 0.17 .09 .099 Gender participant −0.10 0.16 −.03 .510 0.81 0.17 .27 < .001 Following Motives Scale Antisocial motives 0.82 0.10 .57 <.001 −0.32 0.11 −.24 .003 Insecurity motives 0.05 0.10 .04 .599 0.38 0.11 .29 <.001 Sociable Motives 0.16 0.10 .09 .088 0.11 0.10 .06 .311 Inspirational motives −0.06 0.06 −.06 .297 0.10 0.06 .10 .112 Model summary R2 = .36 F(7, 276) = 22.47 <.001 R2 = .15 F(7, 276) = 6.83 <.001

SE: standard error. N = 284. inspirational motives decreased gossip intention (see Table Friending. As predicted, stronger antisocial motives increased 4). In addition, we obtained an effect of Gender Participant, the inclination to accept a friendship request. Moreover, indicating that female participants had a stronger gossip results in Table 4 show that stronger sociable motives also intention (M = 4.73, SD = 1.81) than male participants increased friending. In addition, we obtained an effect of (M = 4.13, SD = 1.89). Domain, indicating a stronger inclination to accept a 10 Social Media + Society

Table 4. Multiple Regressions of Gossip Intention and Friending on Domain (Status, Appearance), Gender Target (Male, Female), Gender Participant (Male, Female), and Dimensions of the Following Motives Scale (FMS).

Gossip intention Friending

B SE B β p B SE B β p Factors Domain 0.02 0.19 .01 .921 0.43 0.21 .12 .047 Gender target 0.20 0.19 .05 .290 −0.21 0.21 −.06 .333 Gender participant 0.74 0.19 .20 <.001 0.47 0.21 .13 .029 Following Motives Scale Antisocial motives 0.69 0.12 .41 <.001 0.33 0.14 .19 .018 Insecurity motives 0.10 0.12 .06 .384 −0.06 0.14 −.04 .679 Sociable motives 0.57 0.12 .27 <.001 0.55 0.13 .26 <.001 Inspirational motives −0.18 0.08 −.14 .012 −0.07 0.08 −.05 .390 Model summary R2 = .31 F(7, 276) = 17.63 <.001 R2 = .12 F(7, 276) = 5.30 <.001

SE: standard error. N = 284.

friendship request in case of an appearance setback (M = 4.84, low scores on darker following motives may have been SD = 1.85) rather than a status setback (M = 4.49, SD = 1.88), caused by participants answering in a socially desirable way. as well as an effect of Gender Participant, indicating that However, we have no compelling reason to believe that par- female participants were more inclined to friending (M = 4.91, ticipants would downplay dark side motives more compared SD = 1.81) than male participants (M = 4.46, SD = 1.90). to exaggerating positive motives. Moreover, several partici- pants remarked that they enjoyed completing the survey in Discussion an honest manner, despite the fact that some questions were “really bitchy-oriented” and “unexpectedly confronting.” To provide more insights into following behavior in general, To provide construct validity for the FMS, we investi- and dark side following in particular, we investigated motives gated the relations of following motives with several person- for the specific choice of following others on SNSs rather ality traits. Consistent with H2 and our argument that darker than motives for general use. We believe that such an motives for following others are related to social insecurity approach uniquely contributes to a more detailed under- and a need for self-enhancement, the results of the present standing of how and why users relate to others on SNSs. By research show that, as opposed to positive sociable and inspi- developing a novel scale (FMS), we were able to demon- rational motives, insecurity motives and antisocial motives strate that positive sociable and inspirational motives for fol- both have strong negative relations with self-esteem. lowing others on SNSs can be distinguished from darker Moreover, our findings show that higher levels of need for insecurity motives, as well as from even darker antisocial popularity, narcissism, and dispositional schadenfreude also motives related to a need for self-enhancement, thereby sup- characterize users with relatively strong dark side motives. porting H1. However, it should be noted that the mean scores By contrast, and in line with the notion that SNS use may for sociable and inspirational motives were substantially enhance well-being as a result of more frequent interactions higher than those for insecurity and antisocial motives, sug- with friends (Valkenburg et al., 2006) and social capital gesting that users possess much stronger positive motives (Ellison et al., 2007, 2011), only sociable following motives than dark side motives. This difference may reflect a “posi- were positively related to satisfaction with life. Finally, all tivity offset,” a general human tendency to be positively four motives were associated with the general tendency to motivated in absence of a clear threat (e.g., Cacioppo, make social comparisons (i.e., comparison orientation), Gardner, & Berntson, 1997). This does not imply, however, thereby emphasizing the importance of social comparison that negative motives are not important. They should become processes on SNSs (cf. Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011; Johnson more relevant when threats to the self do arise. Indeed, & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014; Vogel et al., 2014) and although stronger positive motives may indicate that social reflecting the wide variety of social comparison motives that networks largely consists of positively evaluated close have been identified in the literature, including making friends, darker following motives may partially explain why downward comparisons for self-enhancement (Wills, 1981), users maintain relatively expansive social networks that also making comparisons with similar others to obtain an accu- consist of many weak ties. Future research that distinguishes rate self-evaluation (Festinger, 1954), and engaging in inspi- between motives for connecting to close others and weak ties rational upward comparisons for self-improvement could shed light on this issue. Alternatively, the relatively (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Ouwerkerk and Johnson 11

As predicted by H3, following motives were positively comparison dimension for females rather than males because related to self-reported time spent as well as following counts of gender-role socialization (Harter, 1998) or evolutionary- on different SNSs, thereby demonstrating convergent valid- based competition (Buss, 1988). ity of the novel FMS. Moreover, consistent with H4, the A number of limitations should be highlighted. First of all, results of the embedded experiment show that stronger anti- the FMS measured motives regarding social media broadly social following motives increased the inclination to accept a construed. However, specific platforms were considered in hypothetical Facebook friendship request from a male or terms of usage and network size, and some differential pat- female high school acquaintance who suffered a setback in terns emerged. Future research should examine how affor- the domain of status or appearance, as well as the level of dances of particular social media platforms are able to satisfy schadenfreude toward this acquaintance and the intention to the four following motives. Next, given the investigation’s gossip about him or her with third parties. In addition, stron- focus on highlighting negative motives, the embedded experi- ger antisocial motives decreased sympathy toward the high ment only employed scenarios depicting a high school school acquaintance. These findings provide additional con- acquaintance suffering a setback. However, future research vergent validity for the FMS in general and the Antisocial could also use good fortune scenarios as a point of compari- Motives subscale in particular. Moreover, they suggest that son and to further validate the FMS. Also, presenting the self-enhancing activities on SNSs are not limited to strategic FMS and trait scales before the embedded experiment may self-presentation and profile enhancement (e.g., Utz et al., have sensitized participants in their friend request response. 2012), but may also include strategies that are dependent on However, asking about a diverse range of motives and traits, connections with specific others, as they can provide conve- both positive and negative, likely mitigated any influence on nient sources for self-enhancement activities (e.g., targets for responses. Future research might also improve on the single- downward comparison or gossip). item measure of intention to accept (or initiate) a friendship Sociable motives were also positively related to the incli- request, and also use more intensive measures of SNS activ- nation for “friending” the high school acquaintance and the ity. Moreover, including a Social Desirability Scale (e.g., intention to gossip about him or her. The former finding Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) could assess whether socially desir- underlines the importance of relationship maintenance able responding influences scores on the different motives. (including for weak ties, Ellison et al., 2011) in following behavior, whereas the latter finding is consistent with the Conclusion notion that gossiping with third parties may not only serve a self-enhancement goal, but is also an important tool for Our findings provide clear evidence that a variety of “good, social bonding (Dunbar, 2004). Although stronger antisocial bad, and ugly” motives can explain the formation and main- motives increased schadenfreude and decreased sympathy tenance of online connections, and that these motives are toward the high school acquaintance, insecurity motives linked to personality traits and online behavior in predictable were unrelated to schadenfreude and positively related to ways. However, research on motives for the use of specific sympathy. This suggests that, in contrast to true soldiers of features of SNSs requires the development of new measures misfortune on SNSs that are characterized by even darker that follow formal and rigorous methods for scale develop- antisocial motives, users with strong insecurity motives may ment and validation. From this perspective, the present be reluctant to express reactions to others’ misfortune that research provides only a first, albeit important, step in devel- violate social conventions, because they perceive this as oping a final measure for following motives on SNSs. In risky behavior. Given that participants were only presented future studies, we will attempt to provide additional validity with downward comparison targets, we did not expect to find for the FMS by using random samples rather than the non- any effects of inspirational motives. However, inspirational random, albeit purposive, sample of the present research and motives were inversely related to the intention to gossip by investigating relations with other individual personality about the high school acquaintance, indicating that these traits. Another goal would be to produce a short-form version motives may not only be associated with a tendency to make without sacrificing the reliability and validity of the sub- upward comparisons, but also to avoid talking about unin- scales (for example, by including only the highest loading spiring downward comparison targets. item of the 14 different motives we identified initially). We When accounting for the effects of following motives, the also encourage other researchers to build on the present systematic variations of the comparison domain and com- research by using the FMS in their studies and by identifying parison target had relatively little effect on the dependent other possible motives for following others. By doing so, we variables of our embedded experiment. Most relevant for the should be able to increase our understanding of behavior at focus of the present research was the finding that friending the very core of SNSs. was more likely following a setback in appearance rather than status. However, additional analyses revealed that this Acknowledgements effect was only obtained for female participants. This may We thank Sven Ulrich and Amber Hellmeister for their help with reflect the idea that appearance is a more relevant social collecting data and creating stimulus material. 12 Social Media + Society

Declaration of Conflicting Interests Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011) Connection strat- egies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled com- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect munication practices. New Media & Society, 13, 873–892. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Farley, S. D. (2011) Is gossip power? The inverse relationships Funding between gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 574–579. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. ship, and/or publication of this article. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015) The dark side of social networking References sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stress- Barker, V. (2009) ‘Older adolescents’ motivations for social net- ors associated with Facebook use and affordance. Computers work site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. collective self-esteem, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999) Individual differences in 209–213. social comparison: The development of a scale of social Baumeister, R. F. (1991) The meaning of life. , NY: comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Guilford Press. Psychology, 76, 129–142. Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004) Gossip as cul- Golby, J. (2014, October 23). Hate-following people on social tural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8, 111–121. media is therapeutic, says science. Vice Magazine [website boyd, D. (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role post]. Retrieved from http://www.vice.com/read/joel-golby- of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham hate-follow-is-good-for-you (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–142). Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N. C. (2011) Social comparison 2.0: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking Bumgarner, B. A. (2007, November 5) You have been poked: sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, Exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among 309–314. emerging adults. First Monday, 12. Retrieved from http://first- Harter, S. (1998) The development of self-representations. In W. monday.org/article/view/2026 Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Buss, D. M. (1988) The evolution of human intrasexual compe- child psychology Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality tition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and development (pp. 553–617). New York, NY: John Wiley & Social Psychology, 54, 616–628. Sons. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997) Beyond Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991) Development and valida- bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of atti- tion of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of tudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910. Review, 1, 3–25. Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014) Glancing up Caplan, S. E. (2002) Problematic Internet use and psychological or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive-behav- on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, ioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 33–39. 18, 553–575. Joinson, A. N. (2008) Looking at, looking up or keeping up with Carpenter, C. J. (2012) Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional people? Motives and use of Facebook. Proceedings of the and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors Differences, 52, 482–486. in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp. 1027–1036. Chen, G. M. (2011) Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspec- New York: ACM Press. tive on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with Junco, R. (2013) Comparing actual and self-reported measures of others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 755–762. Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626–631. Clerkin, E. M., Smith, A. R., & Hames, J. L. (2013) The inter- Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974) Utilization of mass personal effects of Facebook reassurance seeking. Journal of communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz Affective Disorders, 151, 525–530. (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspec- Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005) Best practices in explor- tives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, atory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the CA: SAGE. most out of your data. Practical Assessment, Research and Konrath, S., Meier, B. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2014) Development Evaluation, 10, article 7. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/ and validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). getvn.asp?v=10&n=7 PLoS ONE, 9, e103469. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) The Krishnan, A., & Atkin, D. (2014) Individual differences in social satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, networking site users: The interplay between antecedents and 49, 71–75. consequential effect on level of activity. Computers in Human Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004) Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review Behavior, 40, 111–118. of General Psychology, 8, 100–110. Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000) Passing the word: Toward Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) The benefits of a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use Management Review, 25, 428–438. of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. A. (2006) Face(book) Communication, 12, 1143–1168. in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. Ouwerkerk and Johnson 13

Proceedings of ACM special interest group on computer- Utz, S., Tanis, M., & Vermeulen, I. (2012) It is all about being supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 4–8 popular: The effects of need for popularity on social network November, pp. 167–170. New York: ACM Press. site use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997) Superstars and me: Predicting 15, 37–42. the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006) Friend and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103. networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001) Unraveling the paradoxes being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. 9, 584–590. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. Van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. R. (2003) & Wesseling, Y. M. (2012) “So you wanna be a pop star?”: Reality-based television programming and the psychology of Schadenfreude following another’s misfortune on TV. Basic its appeal. Media Psychology, 5, 303–330. and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 168–174. Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2011) Toward a new(er) socia- Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014) Social bility: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st Popular Media Culture, 3, 206–222. century (pp. 212–230). New York, NY: Routledge. Wang, S. S. (2015) To unfriend or not: Exploring factors affect- Porter, S., Bhanwer, A., Woodworth, M., & Black, P. J. (2014) ing users in keeping friends on Facebook and the implications Soldiers of misfortune: An examination of the Dark Triad and on mediated voyeurism. Asian Journal of Communication, 25, the experience of schadenfreude. Personality and Individual 465–485. Differences, 67, 64–68. Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004) A social comparison account of Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008) MySpace and Facebook: gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8, 122–137. Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend- Wills, T. A.(1981) Downward comparison principles in social psy- networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174. chology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271. Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000) Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and Author Biographies girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and sub- Jaap W. Ouwerkerk (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is an stance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 163–182. Associate Professor of Communication Science at the Vrije Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011) Universiteit Amsterdam. His research interests include social iden- Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to tity theory, intergroup relations, deviant Internet behavior, and unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, schadenfreude as an emotional response to media content. 2322–2329. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972) Short, homogeneous versions Benjamin K. Johnson (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an of the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Assistant Professor of Communication Science at the Vrije Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193. Universiteit Amsterdam. His research interests include selective Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001) Using multivariate statis- exposure in new media settings, especially as it relates to social com- tics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. parison, impression management, and self-regulation processes.