Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Self-presentation mediates the relationship between Self-criticism and

emotional response to Instagram feedback☆
Christina A. Jackson 1, Andrew F. Luchner ⁎,1
Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Instagram, a social networking site (SNS) with an emphasis on photo-sharing, is popular among young adults.
Received 26 November 2016 Past research revealed positive and negative consequences from SNS use. We investigated how individuals
Received in revised form 8 April 2017 emotionally respond to imagined positive and negative Instagram feedback depending on personality and
Accepted 22 April 2017
self-presentation on Instagram, using a sample of Instagram users 18–30. The Depressive Experiences Question-
Available online 26 April 2017
naire measured personality; the Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (adapted for Instagram) measured
Keywords:
self-presentation on Instagram; positive and negative Instagram feedback scenarios were created to simulate sit-
Personality uations experienced on Instagram; positive and negative affect clusters measured emotional reaction to the
Self-presentation Instagram scenarios. False self-presentation mediated the relationship between Self-criticism and affective re-
Emotional reaction sponse to negative Instagram scenarios, highlighting the negative impact of intent to deceive on social media. Ad-
Social networking site ditionally, individuals scoring high in the maladaptive personality measures, Dependency and Self-criticism,
Instagram responded with negative affect to the negative Instagram scenarios. Participants scoring high in Dependency
and Efficacy (adaptive personality) responded with positive affect to the positive Instagram scenarios. We
discussed the implications of the findings within the context of the two polarities model of personality and
past research.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Social networking sites (SNSs) greatly changed the way we communi-
cate, relate, and express ourselves. The most well-known SNS, Facebook,
boasts over 1.09 billion daily active users (Facebook Newsroom, 2016).
Several individuals, inspired by the success of Facebook, developed SNSs
to target specific functions of use (e.g. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat). So-
cial networking sites encourage users to present the most positive aspects
of one's life (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011) with the motivation of gaining
virtual approval from friends via likes and comments. Past research re-
veals several psychological benefits of SNS use (Gonzales & Hancock,
2011; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). However, SNS use presents cer-
tain barriers to psychological wellbeing. Past research indicates an associ-
ation between Facebook usage and low self-esteem (Vogel, Rose, Roberts,
& Eckles, 2014), negative affect (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014; Verduyn
☆ This research was funded by grants from the John R. and Ruth W. Gurtler Fund, the
John Hauck Foundation, and the Rollins College Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences.
Both authors contributed to design, collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, and
drafting and revising the article.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Rollins College, 1000 Holt
Avenue, Winter Park, FL 32789, United States.
E-mail address: aluchner@rollins.edu (A.F. Luchner).
1
Department of Psychology, Rollins College.
et al., 2015), decreased life satisfaction (Satici & Uysal, 2015), depressive
symptoms (Steers, Wickham, & Acitelli, 2014; Feinstein et al., 2013), di-
minished subjective wellbeing (Kross et al., 2013), and narcissism
(Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Carpenter, 2012; Mehdizadeh, 2010).
Instagram is a mobile photo sharing application which greatly in-
creased in popularity since its founding in 2010, with over 500 million ac-
tive monthly users (Instagram Press News, 2016). Unlike Facebook,
Instagram primarily focuses on photo sharing, image enhancement, and
nonreciprocal relationships. A recent survey indicates that Instagram is
the second most popular social media platform, with 59% of online adults
ages 18–29 using Instagram (Pew Research Center, 2016). Instagram's
rapid growth led to increased interest in investigating the psychological
correlates of Instagram use. Previous research examined the relationship
between narcissism and aspects of Instagram use (Sheldon & Bryant,
2016; Moon, Lee, Lee, Choi, & Sung, 2016; Sung, Lee, Kim, & Choi,
2016). Most research investigated aspects of frequency of Instagram
use (selfie-posting frequency, time spent, passive use), rather than ex-
ploring the experience, which may provide greater meaning to the liter-
ature. Ultimately, the research completed on Instagram has not caught up
with the social media platform's rapid growth. Instagram's recent growth
as well as its popularity among young adults demonstrates the impor-
tance of researching this SNS. We examined how an individual's person-
ality influences how they present themselves on Instagram and affects
their emotional response to feedback on Instagram.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.052
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 C.A. Jackson, A.F. Luchner / Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6
1.1. Personality and SNS use: the two polarities model
Previous research identifies that SNS use fulfills two broad needs: the
need to belong and the need for self-presentation (Nadkarni & Hofmann,
2012). The present research assesses personality using the two polarities
model of personality. The two polarities model of personality suggests
normal personality development requires the reciprocal interaction be-
tween the need to form and maintain satisfying relationships (interper-
sonal relatedness) and the need to have an independent sense of self
(self-definition) (Luyten & Blatt, 2013). Disruptions in personality devel-
opment earlier in life result in exaggerations in relatedness or self-defini-
tion at the expense of the other (Blatt, 2008), which is associated with
psychopathology (Luyten & Blatt, 2011). Self-critical individuals priori-
tize their need for self-definition over maintaining healthy interpersonal
relationships. Dependent individuals prioritize their need for relatedness
over forming a healthy self-concept (Luyten & Blatt, 2013).
Individuals motivated by interpersonal relatedness are more vulnera-
ble to interpersonal feedback (e.g. being liked, rejected) (Besser & Priel,
2011) and low self-esteem (Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs, 1995),
while self-critical individuals use SNSs to fulfill the need for self-presenta-
tion (Mongrain & Zuroff, 1995). However, the ways that adaptive and
maladaptive development needs are met through SNS use is complex.
For example, past research associates frequent Facebook usage with
both greater relatedness satisfaction and relatedness dissatisfaction. Relat-
edness dissatisfaction motivates use, and greater use is associated with
greater relatedness satisfaction (Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch, 2011). This im-
plies users partially meet their need for relatedness through SNS use.
Conversely, Instagram allows users to express differing aspects of the
self, as the formation of one's identity is influenced by reactions and feed-
back from others (Michikyan, Dennis, & Subrahmanyam, 2015). Individ-
uals with narcissistic personality styles may present the false self on SNSs
to gain recognition from others, through likes and comments (Balick,
2014). Past research indicates Instagram is more consistent with an
individual's personal identity rather than their relational identity, when
compared to other SNSs. Self-promotion is a main feature exhibited on
Instagram more than other SNSs (Marcus, 2015). These findings suggest
Instagram users are more concerned with carefully selecting images to
promote their self-concept rather than connecting with others.
1.2. The present study
We investigated how reactions to feedback on Instagram are related to
personality, specifically developmental needs to relate and define oneself.
Hypothesis 1. Individuals scoring high in Efficacy (adaptive self-defini-
tion) exhibit differences in emotional reactivity and false self-presenta-
tion compared to individuals scoring high in Self-criticism (maladaptive
self-definition).
Hypothesis 2. Individuals scoring high in Dependency (maladaptive
relatedness) report greater emotional reactions to positive and negative
Instagram feedback.
Hypothesis 3. Individuals with high scores in Self-criticism (maladaptive
self-definition) report greater emotional reactions to negative feedback.
Hypothesis 4. Individuals with high scores in Self-criticism (maladap-
tive self-definition) report greater presentation of the false self on
Instagram.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure
We recruited participants through Prolific Academic, a crowd-sourc-
ing website that compensates individuals for participating in research.
We restricted participation to participants reporting the United States,
the United Kingdom, or Canada as their country of residence, the use of
Instagram at least once per month, ages 18–30, and an approval rating
of 95% or higher. Participants completed a survey consisting of questions
regarding demographic information and Instagram usage, to ensure par-
ticipants were active users. Applying a counterbalanced design, the sur-
vey randomly presented measures investigating emotional reactions to
Instagram scenarios, self-presentation on Instagram, and personality to
participants. Participants spent an average of 16 min to complete the sur-
vey. We excluded survey responses from analysis when completed under
7 min (9 participants), when participants were not active Instagram
users (7 participants), or when questionable or invalid responding pat-
terns emerged (15 participants). The percentage of those removed is con-
sistent with findings of previous research (Meade & Craig, 2011). The
Institutional Review Board from a small liberal arts college approved all
procedures, and all participants consented to participate.
2.2. Participants
Overall, participants completed 238 surveys; however, we excluded
31 surveys from analysis. Participants with adequate submissions were
compensated £1.17. The final sample consisted of 207 participants
(52.7% female, 45.9% male, 1.4% transgender; mean age: 23.46, SD:
3.23; 4.3% African American, 12.6% Asian, 5.3% Hispanic, 0.5% Native
American, 73.9% Caucasian, 3.4% other). Of these participants, 125 re-
ported their current country of residence as the United States, 64 report-
ed their current country of residence as the United Kingdom, and 18
reported their current country of residence as Canada. There were no sig-
nificant gender differences in emotional reaction to positive, t(202) =
0.60, p = 0.18, and negative, t(202) = 0.54, p = 0.71, Instagram
feedback.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Instagram self-report
Participants reported the minimum number of “likes” necessary to
be satisfied with an Instagram post.
2.3.2. DEQ
The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D'Afflitti, &
Quinlan, 1976) is a 66-item scale that measures the adaptive and mal-
adaptive personality configurations, Self-criticism and Dependency.
The scale is measured on a 7-point continuum from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on Dependency or Self-criti-
cism indicate maladaptive personality, while lower scores indicate
adaptive personality. The scale was originally created to assess anaclitic
and introjective depression; however, it has been used to measure per-
sonality (Luyten & Blatt, 2013). Empirical studies have supported the
validity of three factors (Dependency, Self-criticism, Efficacy) in the
measurement of personality in clinical and nonclinical samples (Blatt,
2008). Previous research demonstrated the high internal consistency
of the scales (Zuroff, Quinlan, & Blatt, 1990). The Dependency scale
consisted of statements like, “Without support from others who are
close to me, I would be helpless.” The present study used the Efficacy
and Self-criticism scales to measure adaptive and maladaptive forms
of self-definition. An example statement from the Self-criticism scale
is, “I often find that I don't live up to my own standards or ideals.”
Items in the Efficacy scale reflect feelings of resiliency and competence
(Blatt et al., 1976). An example statement from the Efficacy scale is, “I
have many inner resources (abilities, strengths).”
2.3.3. SPFBQ
The Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (SPFBQ; Michikyan,
Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2014) is a 17-item scale that measures vary-
ing degrees of presentation of the self on Facebook. The questionnaire
assesses the degree in which an individual expresses facets of the real,
 C.A. Jackson, A.F. Luchner / Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6
ideal, and false self on Facebook with a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly
disagree, to 5 strongly agree). For the purpose of the study the items
were adapted from Facebook to Instagram. An example statement
from the real self-presentation subscale is, “The way I present myself
on (Instagram) is how I am in real life.” (α = 0.772). The ideal self-pre-
sentation subscale consisted of statements like, “I post things on my
(Instagram) to show aspects of who I want to be.” (α = 0.763). An ex-
ample statement from the false self-deception subscale is, “I post infor-
mation about myself on my (Instagram) that is not true.” (α = 0.794). A
statement from the false self-exploration subscale is, “On (Instagram) I
can tryout many aspects of who I am much more than I can in real life.”
(α = 0.716). A statement from the false self-impress/compare subscale
is, “I only show aspects of myself on (Instagram) that I know people
would like.” (α = 0.718).
2.3.4. Positive and negative affective response to Instagram feedback
We constructed two positive and two negative scenarios involving
“liking” and “following” feedback on Instagram. The positive and nega-
tive “likes” scenarios involved receiving greater or fewer than their pre-
viously reported minimum number of “likes” to be satisfied with an
Instagram post. The positive “follow” scenario involved being “followed”
by someone you know, while the negative “follow” scenario involved
“following” someone you know and not being “followed” back. Partici-
pants imagined the scenario and then reported the extent to which
they would experience a list of emotions in response to each situation.
Positive and negative affect clusters from the Consumption Emotions Set
(CES; Richins, 1997) were used to measure the degree of positive and
negative emotional response to the Instagram scenarios. While this mea-
sure was created to assess consumption-related emotion, it was used to
measure emotional reaction to scenarios online (Fleuriet, Cole, &
Guerrero, 2014). Four negative (anger, worry, sadness, shame) affect
clusters of three emotions were used to measure the emotional response
due to the negative “follow” and negative “like” scenarios. Four positive
(joy, happiness, excitement, love) affect clusters of three emotions
were used to measure the emotional response to the positive “follow”
and “like” scenarios. The scale was measured using a four-point response
scale (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, moderately; 4, strongly). The positive sce-
narios were combined to create a positive Instagram feedback scale (α =
0.957) and the negative scenarios were combined to create a negative
Instagram feedback scale (α = 0.957).
3. Results
We calculated Pearson product-moment correlations to determine
the relationship between personality, self-presentation, and emotional
response. The results of the analysis indicated several significant correla-
tions (see Table 1). Consistent with Hypothesis 4, Self-criticism was pos-
itively related to false-self presentation, r = 0.30, p b 0.01, and
negatively related to real-self presentation, r = − 0.14, p b 0.05. Ad-
ditionally, presentation of the false self-impress/compare was
weakly associated with Self-criticism, r = 0.19 p b 0.01, as well as
Dependency, r = 0.15 p b 0.05. Efficacy was weakly related to pre-
sentation of the real self, r = 0.36, p b 0.01, ideal self, r = 0.21, p b
0.01, and false self-exploration, r = 0.20, p b 0.01, on Instagram. In
terms of the relationship between personality and affective re-
sponse, Efficacy was weakly related to positive emotional response,
r = 0.21, p b 0.01, and not significantly related to negative emotion-
al response, consistent with Hypothesis 1. Dependency was weakly
related with positive, r = 0.25, p b 0.01, and negative, r = 0.14, p b
0.05, emotional response, in support of Hypothesis 2. Consistent
with Hypothesis 3, Self-criticism was weakly related to negative
emotional response, r = 0.14, p b 0.05, and not significantly related
to positive emotional response.
Presentation of the false self-deception was weakly related with pos-
itive, r = 0.25, p b 0.01, and moderately related with negative, r = 0.40,
p b 0.01, emotional response, whereas presentation of the real self was
3
weakly related to overall negative emotional response, r = −0.15, p b
0.05. Fisher's r-z transformation was used to distinguish the significant
differences between correlations (Lee & Preacher, 2013). The correla-
tion between false self-deception and negative emotional response
was significantly different than the correlation of false self-deception
and positive emotional response, Z = 2.32, p = 0.02, two-tailed. A sig-
nificant difference was revealed in the correlation of real self-presenta-
tion between the personality variables Efficacy and Self-criticism, Z =
5.84, p b 0.001, two-tailed.
A distinct pattern emerged among the associations between
maladaptive self-definition, self-presentation, and emotional re-
sponse. Further examination of the weak to moderate correlations
between Self-criticism and false self-deception, false self-deception
and negative emotional response, and the weak, yet significant cor-
relation between Self-criticism and negative emotional response led to
the development of a mediation model (see Fig. 1). A mediation analysis
was conducted using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). The analysis in-
volved the bootstrapping (5000 resampling) technique with 95% bias
corrected confidence intervals. First, it was identified that Self-criticism
was associated with false self-deception, b = 0.29, t(205) = 4.57, p b
0.01. Then, it was established that false self-deception was associated
with negative emotional response, b = 0.22, t(204) = 5.92, p b 0.01.
The total effect was accounted for with the association between Self-crit-
icism and negative emotional response, b = 0.08, t(204) = 2.07, p =
0.039. The mediation analysis revealed false self-presentation mediated
the relationship between Self-criticism and negative emotional re-
sponse, b = 0.06; 95% CI [0.033 to 0.109]. The direct effect of Self-
criticism on negative emotional response was not significant, b =
0.01, t(204) = 0.33, p = 0.74, when controlling for the role of false
self-deception, which suggests complete mediation.
Since we collected data using self-report measures, it is important to
determine the potential impact of common method bias on findings.
We applied a post-hoc statistical remedy, the Harman's single-factor
test, to address the issue of method bias. The test revealed that 28.76%
of the variance was explained by a single factor. Because less than a ma-
jority of the variance was explained, it was determined that common
method bias did not substantially influence the results of the study
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
4. Discussion
We investigated the relationships between personality, self-presen-
tation, and emotional reaction to feedback scenarios on Instagram. The
results of the study revealed the essential role of self-presentation in un-
derstanding the relationship between Self-criticism and emotional re-
sponse to Instagram feedback. Correlational evidence supported the
hypothesized relationship between maladaptive personality and affec-
tive response to positive and negative Instagram feedback. As predicted
with Hypothesis 2, maladaptive relatedness was associated with affec-
tive reactions in response to positive and negative feedback. Therefore,
interpersonal feedback on Instagram may be perceived as more reward-
ing or threatening when individuals are preoccupied with connecting
with others and focused on maintaining satisfying interpersonal rela-
tionships (Besser & Priel, 2011; Luyten & Blatt, 2013).
In contrast to the emotional reactivity to both positive and negative
feedback of those who are more concerned with connections with
others, emotional reactivity to explicitly negative feedback was related
to having a less cohesive sense of self. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, in-
dividuals with maladaptive self-definition reacted negatively to the neg-
ative Instagram feedback, and were unaffected by the positive feedback.
Self-critical individuals may interpret fewer “likes” on a post or “follow-
ing” someone and not being “followed” back as a threat to their self-
worth due to implied failure or criticism from others (Besser & Priel,
2011; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003). The results suggest individ-
uals who are more self-involved do not emotionally benefit from positive
feedback, yet report greater affect in response to negative feedback on
4 C.A. Jackson, A.F. Luchner / Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among personality, self-presentation on Instagram, and affective response to Instagram feedback.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. DEQ-DP –
2. DEQ-SC 0.05 –
3. DEQ-EF 0.30⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ –
4. RS 0.04 −0.14⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ –
5. IS 0.12 0.16⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎ –
6. FS-D 0.05 0.30⁎⁎ −0.01 −0.45⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ –
7. FS-CI 0.15⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ 0.14 0.04 0.41⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎ –
8. FS-E 0.11 0.10 0.20⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎ 0.50⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎ –
9. Pos-AR 0.25⁎⁎ 0.00 0.21⁎⁎ 0.13 0.34⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ –
10. Neg-AR 0.14⁎ 0.14⁎ 0.08 −0.15⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ 0.24⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎ –
M −0.46 0.52 −0.42 3.73 3.40 2.11 3.18 3.11 2.39 1.47
SD 0.92 0.99 1.10 0.74 0.95 0.95 1.03 0.92 0.66 0.53

Note. DEQ-DP = Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-Dependency scale; DEQ-SC = Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-Self-Criticism scale; DEQ-EF = Depressive Experiences
Questionnaire-Efficacy scale; RS = Self Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire-real self; IS = Self Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire-ideal self; FSD = Self Presentation on Facebook
Questionnaire-false self-deception; FSCI = Self Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire-false self-compare/impress; FSE = Self Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire-false self-explo-
ration; Pos-AR = degree of positive affective response to combined positive “liking” and “following” feedback scenarios; Neg-AR = degree of negative emotional response to combined
negative “liking” and “following” feedback scenarios.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

Instagram. Potentially not receiving the feedback that is believed to be
deserved is a result of the high need for achievement, as self-critical indi-
viduals are rarely satisfied with accomplishments (Blatt, 2008).
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Efficacy was positively related with
affective response to positive feedback and unrelated with negative af-
fective response, whereas Self-criticism was unrelated with affective re-
sponse to positive feedback and positively related to negative affective
response. Additionally, Efficacy was positively related with real self-
presentation on Instagram, while Self-criticism was negatively related
with real self-presentation on Instagram. These findings suggest that in-
dividuals with adaptive needs for self-definition only experience posi-
tive affective consequences from Instagram use, whereas individuals
with maladaptive needs for self-definition only experience negative af-
fective consequences from Instagram use. The inverse relationship be-
tween adaptive and maladaptive needs for self-definition regarding
emotional response to Instagram feedback may suggest that individuals
who are more resilient to threats of the self are less likely to experience
negative affective consequences from receiving negative feedback on
Instagram. This is supported by the relationship between Efficacy and
resilience to stressful situations (Blatt, 2008). The relationship with
adaptive self-definition and positive emotion may suggest that individ-
uals with healthy self-worth are responsive to social validation through
being “liked” or “followed,” which may reaffirm their sense of self.
In support of Hypothesis 4, maladaptive self-definition was positive-
ly related with presentation of the false self-deception, and negatively
related with presentation of the real self. Interestingly, presentation of
false self-deception on Instagram was positively related with positive
and negative affective response, whereas presentation of the real self
was negatively related with negative affective response. Individuals
who presented the false self with the intent to deceive on Instagram re-
ported significantly greater negative than positive emotion in response
to the feedback scenarios. When an individual presents the self on
Instagram that is inconsistent with their true self, this may result in
greater negative affective consequences. This finding is supported by

Fig. 1. Mediation analysis depicting the effect of Self-criticism on negative affective response to combined “liking” and “following” feedback through false self-deception. The direct
pathway depicts the significant association between Self-criticism and negative affective response. The dashed line indicates the relationship between Self-criticism and negative
affective response, controlling for presentation of the false-self-deception. The unstandardized coefficients are reported with the standard error in parentheses. ***p b 0.001, *p b 0.05.
 C.A. Jackson, A.F. Luchner / Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6
the relationship between presentation of the false self-deception and
depressive symptoms (Michikyan et al., 2015).
The relationship between maladaptive self-definition and negative
emotional response to feedback was fully mediated by presentation of
false self-deception on Instagram. Therefore, maladaptive emphasis on
the self is not an adequate predictor of negative affect in response to
negative Instagram feedback. This association is dependent on whether
the individuals attempts to deceive others through posting. Therefore,
individuals focused on issues of self-worth and identity were more like-
ly to report negative affect on Instagram when they used Instagram to
deceive others. Individuals motivated by maladaptive self-definition
may feel the need to create a false version of the self on Instagram to
seek validation and support from others (Balick, 2014). In the absence
of validation in the form of a certain number of “likes,” self-critical indi-
viduals presenting the self on Instagram to deceive others may be more
vulnerable to experiencing heightened negative affect and experience
negative outcomes with Instagram use.
These findings emphasize the role of personality and self-presenta-
tion in the affective experience of Instagram use. Past research on the
psychological impact of SNSs implicates frequency of usage and nega-
tive social comparison to negative outcomes (Lup, Trub, & Rosenthal,
2015; Vogel et al., 2014). The findings of the current research highlight
that negative affective consequences of Instagram use (and potentially
SNS use in general) may be reliant on personality characteristics. Indi-
viduals with adaptive personality characteristics may be less likely to
be negatively affected by Instagram usage, whereas individuals with
maladaptive personalities may be more likely to experience negative
consequences. This research emphasized the mediating role of false
self-deception in the relationship between Self-criticism and affective
response to negative interpersonal feedback on Instagram. Personality,
in combination with presenting oneself in a false or misleading way in
order to deceive others, influences how one emotionally responds to in-
terpersonal feedback. The implication, therefore, is that utilization of
Instagram is not inherently maladaptive, but depends on factors that in-
clude personality.
4.1. Limitations and future directions
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the find-
ings. While the Instagram scenarios were created to simulate situations
online, the scenarios relied on the participants' ability to imagine the sit-
uation and accurately assess their emotional response. Additionally, the
scenarios were not comprehensive in every experience on Instagram
and focused exclusively on “liking” and “following” feedback. The mea-
sures depended on self-report which is subject to error. Although we ad-
dressed the issue of common method bias using a pre hoc procedural
(eliminating common scale properties) and post hoc statistical remedy
(Harman's single-factor test), common method bias may have affected
results as all variables were assessed using self-reported measures and
all data was collected at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future re-
searchers could apply additional methods to reduce the influence of
method bias statistically by including a marker in the measures to com-
pare responses or procedurally by psychological distancing or separation
of common items to reduce systematic response patterns (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Future research is needed to explore
the role of self-presentation on Instagram and identity formation in
young adult users. Less research has been completed on Instagram, and
the majority focuses on narcissism (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016; Moon et
al., 2016). It is important for future research to examine the relationship
between both adaptive and maladaptive personality characteristics and
implications of Instagram use.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend sincere appreciation to Dr. Paul Harris who
assisted in the mediation analysis. This research was funded by grants
5
from the John R. and Ruth W. Gurtler Fund; the John Hauck Foundation;
and the Rollins College Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences.
References
Balick, A. (2014). The psychodynamics of social networking: Connected-up instantaneous
culture and the self. London: Karnac Books.
Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2011). Dependency, self-criticism and negative affective responses
following imaginary rejection and failure threats: Meaning-making processes as
moderators or mediators. Psychiatry Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 74(1),
31–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2011.74.1.31.
Blatt, S. J. (2008). Polarities of experience: Relatedness and self-definition in personality de-
velopment, psychopathology, and the therapeutic process. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11749-000.
Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal
young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383–389.
Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behav-
ior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 482–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2011.11.011.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and
daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 234–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.84.1.234.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social
capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.
2007.00367.x.
Facebook Newsroom (2016, June). Facebook stats. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.
com/company-info/ (accessed July 2016).
Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013).
Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as
a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 161–170. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0033111.
Fleuriet, C., Cole, M., & Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Exploring Facebook: Attachment style and
nonverbal message characteristics as predictors of anticipated emotional reactions
to Facebook postings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 429–450. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10919-014-0189-x.
Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of ex-
posure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
14(1–2), 79–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050.
Instagram Press News (2016, June 21). 500 million windows to the world. Retrieved
from https://www.instagram.com/press/?hl=en (accessed July 2016).
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., ... Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook
use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8), 1–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841.
Leary, M. R., Terdal, S. K., Tambor, E. S., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interper-
sonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(3), 518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518.
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference be-
tween two dependent correlations with one variable in common [computer software].
Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #instasad?: Exploring associations
among Instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and
strangers followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(5),
247–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0560.
Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2011). Integrating theory-driven and empirically-derived models
of personality development and psychopathology: A proposal for DSM V. Clinical
Psychology Review, 31(1), 52–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.003.
Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2013). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in normal and
disrupted personality development: Retrospect and prospect. American Psychologist,
68(3), 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032243.
Marcus, S. R. (2015). Picturing' ourselves into being: Assessing identity, sociality and
visuality on Instagram. Presented at the international communication association con-
ference (Puerto Rico: San Juan).
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2011, April). Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology (Chicago, IL).
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(4), 357–364. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2009.0257.
Michikyan, M., Dennis, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2015). Can you guess who I am? Real,
ideal, and false self-presentation on Facebook among emerging adults. Emerging
Adulthood, 3(1), 55–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167696814532442.
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell who I am? Neuroti-
cism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. Computers in
Human Behavior, 33, 179–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010.
Mongrain, M., & Zuroff, D. C. (1995). Motivational and affective correlates of dependency
and self-criticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(3), 347–354. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00139-J.
Moon, J. H., Lee, E., Lee, J., Choi, T. R., & Sung, Y. (2016). The role of narcissism and self-pro-
motion on Instagram. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 22–25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.042.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52(3), 243–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007.
6 C.A. Jackson, A.F. Luchner / Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018) 1–6
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in so-
cial science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 539–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(2), 127–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209499.
Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and
concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on Facebook.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship
between the big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658–1664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2011.02.004.
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook's emotional consequences: Why
Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in
Human Behavior, 35, 359–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.003.
Satici, S. A., & Uysal, R. (2015). Well-being and problematic Facebook use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 49, 185–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.005.
Pew Research Center (2016, November 11). “Social Media Update, 2016”, Washington, D.
C. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-
2016/.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and re-
latedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 766–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0022407.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcis-
sism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059.
Steers, M. N., Wickham, R. E., & Acitelli, L. K. (2014). Seeing everyone else's highlight reels:
How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 33(8), 701–731 (101521jscp2014338701).
Sung, Y., Lee, J., Kim, E., & Choi, S. M. (2016). Why we post selfies: Understanding motiva-
tions for posting pictures of oneself. Personality and Individual Differences, 97,
260–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.032.
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., ... Kross, E. (2015). Passive
Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal ev-
idence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/xge0000057.
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media,
and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/ppm0000047.
Zuroff, D. C., Quinlan, D. M., & Blatt, S. J. (1990). Psychometric properties of the depressive
experiences questionnaire in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment,
55(1–2), 65–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5501&2_7.