• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Students Who Use Facebook More for Self-Promotion Show Less Concern for Others

April 4, 2011, 8:11 pm

When W. Pitt Derryberry, an associate professor of psychology at Western Kentucky University, began to survey college students about their technology use, he expected to find technology responsible for declines in moral judgment among students. What he found was that it was how students used technology, rather than just the amount of time spent with high-tech tools, that led to moral lapses.

Male students, for example, reported less use of technology than did their female counterparts, but they were more likely to indicate that their use was for self-serving purposes.

Mr. Derryberry and Meghan M. Saculla, an adjunct psychology instructor at Flagler College, surveyed 279 students to look at connections between their use of technology and their moral judgment—particularly their ability to understand the societal implications of their behavior. Their paper on the results of the study will be presented later this week at the American Educational Research Association conference.

Over all, students who frequently used social media as a tool for self-promotion and a vehicle to increase their popularity were more likely to be narcissistic and exhibit less nuanced moral reasoning than those who didn’t. Posting hundreds of pictures or self-involved status updates are examples of such behavior, and men were more likely to say they engaged in this behavior than were women, the study found.

Earlier research has identified a decline among college students in that outward-looking moral judgment, referred to as “postconventional reasoning,” and surmised that increased use of technology might be responsible.

Participants in the study were asked about how often and in what way they used social media, mobile phones, and portable MP3 players and were also given surveys to assess their level of narcissism and moral judgment.

But merely using those tools doesn’t automatically make students more narcissistic or self-involved.

“It’s not as much about the usage as about the attitudes,” says Ms. Saculla, who conducted the research for her master’s thesis at Western Kentucky.

Ms. Saculla also cautions that the technology might not make students any more narcissistic—it’s just as plausible that the technology merely provides a medium for narcissistic people to strut their stuff.

The study also found that first-year students used technology more and had a lower level of postconventional reasoning than did upperclassmen.

Mr. Derryberry, who oversaw the research and has focused on moral judgment in much of his work, thinks that difference might be attributable to the moral development that occurs as part of a student’s growth in college, but he says he hopes to do a longitudinal study in the future to trace the moral development and technology usage of students as they progress in their academic careers.

The study also suggested that narcissism and postconventional reasoning don’t automatically cancel each other out. The authors point to politicians and the examples of high-profile celebrities, such as Bono, Angelina Jolie, and Brad Pitt, known for their humanitarian efforts.

“There are some very principled narcissists,” Mr. Derryberry says.

This entry was posted in Gadgets, Social Networking, Student Life. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • electronicmuse

    The real problem with students (and most people) promoting themselves on Facebook, or any other “social networking” media, is that they have little or nothing to actually promote. Are they promoting the book they’ve written? The music CD they’ve produced? Their etchings? Even a really good chili recipe?

    Nope, it’s primarily a knee-jerk response to Andy Warhol’s insight/warning that we’ll all be “famous for fifteen minutes,” uh-make that fifteen seconds, now that we’re officially “connected” in the brave new world of the “electronic era.”

    All mass media eventually devolve into sales tools, little more. On the other hand, the computer is an incredibly powerful tool for students of all ages. Perhaps students should worry less about their contrived public personae, and spend more time with their computers to actually produce something that warrants promotion. Then Facebook and its ilk might serve them well.

    Students: don’t try to “find your voice” at age 20. And don’t remotely imagine that you’ll find yourself by sticking your photo online. As with any good chili recipe, how about letting it cook a little? And, while you’re waiting, disconnect and get to work! You might create something worth promoting.

    It might be that our society will “connect,” rather than “amuse” itself to death.

  • texasmusic

    How do you think the chili gets cooked? By not trying to “find your voice” at age 20? No. By experimentation. If you’re not doing this experimentation at age 20, you’re not likely to “find your voice” by age 26 or so. Believe it not, when people are posting back at you among all your self-promotion, you can sometimes get very good ideas. Also, if someone does something good, it could very well be worth some self-promotion, even though it isn’t always “I just put out a new album that’s #6 on the Billboard chart.” We’re extra proud of him, but I’m also proud of my friend who goes “sailing” on an interesting choice of wheels. I’m proud of him for his unique humor and general good nature. Just because it’s Facebook doesn’t make it bad. Nor does using it in this manner. I don’t see it as a bad thing or a good thing. It just is.

  • electronicmuse

    There is a time for experimentation, and a time for public presentation. To quote Edgard Varese (approximately), ” . . . by the time of the concert, the experimentation is over,” (regarding his so-called “experimental” music.

    To quote Jack Nicholson’s character, in “A Few Good Men,” apropos to the trivia most students put on Facebook: “You’re not ready for Facebook!”

    And as Van Gogh said (approximately), first the fist . . . then the paintings.

  • bowl_haircut

    Perhaps it’s time to consider the possibility that “finding one’s voice” is a vastly
    overrated exercise in self-indulgence made more intense by late capitalism’s “environment of optionality” (de Zengotita).

    We all star in our own little films (some are “indie,” some are summer action-blockbusters, some “urban,” etc.), but as electronicmuse points out, in most cases, there’s just not a whole lot going on in the script.

  • Guest

    I’m not sure what we can derive from these results. In effect it’s saying narcissistic people are not that way because of technology, but this affects the way they use tech, so? Am I missing something here?

  • goodeyes

    Enjoy life as you only get one and ignore the critics.

  • 11272784

    Another study which reinforces that which we already knew to be true.

  • katisumas

    Van Gogh never said anything like that. It’s more like something Gaugin would come up with. (on the other hand Van Gogh might have said: “first the ear, then…..” but again that episode had to do with Gaugin’s nasty temper.. and both using lead based paint, Van Gogh more than most anyone else….)

  • katisumas

    The sample isn’t statistically significant.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/cshunt312 Courtney Hunt

    I’m glad to see research that incorporates Digital Era technologies and realities, but I also agree it’s important to recognize the many limitations of this study, including the relatively small sample size, the age group, the timing of data collection, and other factors not measured. If we are still in the early days of social media adoption, our efforts to create effective research studies will be similarly experimental. But we have to start somewhere…

    Courtney Hunt
    Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

  • ivalriche

    I dunno, sounds fishy to me. I am not clear what the moral problem is with people who like to post their pictures and a lot of status updates. I need to hear about this postconventional thinking to get a stronger sense of what the problem is. I’m sure if you took away facebook men would spend more time masturbating. WHat’s the difference?

  • elearners

    I’m curious about this study’s gender discrepancy. Are men are more honest about their so-called narcissism than women? Or does the stereotypical male hunter instinct mean Facebook is a fishing hook to reel in sales objectives, whereas the stereotypical female nurturer instinct means Facebook is an online cocktail party for ladies to connect?

    Great point(s) from texasmusic and electronicmuse. The chili cooks in a slow burner; you’ll see as much self promotion in the opposite age spectrum (except it may be pictures of one’s petunia garden instead of one’s newest sports car). The point of technology like social media, online course forums and comment threads like this is, as texasmusic said, to “get very good ideas.” Self-promotion is simply one route to ideas.

    As someone with +600 Facebook friends, I admit there’s a fine line between “connect” and “sales tool”. But more virtual or real friends leads to more dialogue, which leads to more ideas and more problem-solving opportunities.

    Aimee Chou
    eLearners.com web producer

  • http://twitter.com/SheldonWordNerd Sheldon the WordNerd

    This seems to me very much a chicken-and-egg situation. The narcissists (a defining characteristic of narcissism is lack of concern for others) are more likely to be heavy Facebook self-promoters. They may also become more narcissistic when given a platform that makes tooting their own horns so easy. The same could be said about Facebook itself…is the success of social media a result of our societal narcissism, or are we becoming more narcissistic because of social media? Sounds like the researchers are trying to answer these questions, but I suspect that the definition of narcissism, at least for psychologists, is going to be in flux (the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder is under consideration to be removed from the DSM). Are too many of us narcissists to rightly call it a “disorder” now?

  • electronicmuse

    Well, yeah he did. He said that he had ” . . . a draughtsman fist,” as even a cursory visit online (if you must) would indicate. And he went on to explain how important that was as an asset that undergirded his painting. (Theo told me this, by the way). And, it was likely antimony as well as lead, as artists in those days used to “point” their brushes by twirling them in the corners of the mouth . . . not recommended by OSHA of course.

    But, the real point should not be lost. We have an entire generation of students who imagine they are ready for the Big Time as frosh, when in fact they know little of their craft and art, and even less of their “shared” (?) culture. How did they get such notions of unalloyed self-importance? Could 12 years of unending praise for any effort, no matter how feeble, be the culprit? Could a society that has elevated style and image above all, have anything to do with it?

    There is a rather obvious “principle” in psychology (borrowed from physiology) called “homeostasis,” that indicates that a system pushed out of its “comfort zone,” will often struggle to return to nominal conditions. Problem is, our public schools don’t push their charges-it might make them “uncomfortable.” Grade inflation is only an outcropping of a more serious syndrome at work, and Facebook for those who have nothing to say is only a medium for expressing the problem in a more public way.

    Again I say, when you have actually produced something of value you would like to present to the Tribe, by all means, flog it on Facebook. Otherwise . . .

    More monks deep in study. Fewer narcissists acting out in public. Better society.

  • electronicmuse

    Couldn’t have said it better myself, thanks!

    The idea of “crowdsourcing” to channel one’s life or career is unfortunate and misguided. Whatever happened to the notion of listening to the people who love us? Family, and oddly enough, a few teachers and mentors along the way, know us and our abilitities and aspirations a lot better than “friends” on Facebook.

    If the notion of having 600 “friends” weren’t so sad, it would be laughable! We’ll all be lucky to count on one or two hands the number of friends we’ll have in a lifetime.

  • saswriter

    Hmmm . . . . How did the researchers determine whether the respondents were capable of making good moral judgments? How did they draw a line between technology use and such decision-making? These questions don’t seem to be answered here. Guess I’ll have to see the paper.
    As far as Facebook goes, I am a 51-year-old female who spends about five to 10 minutes most days checking in on that site. Friends around my age–male and female–post photos of their kids, grandkids, gardens and even homecooked gourmet meals! They brag about their best time in a 5K or show off their new hairstyles. So how is that different from what the college students do? :)
    But I know–yes, know–that most of these people (and yes, I do know most of them pretty well) aren’t self-serving types. Like me, they’re just looking to connect with others for a few minutes and maybe get an “Attagirl!” or “Attaboy!” from someone out there. Maybe they follow a friend’s battle with cancer. Maybe they read posts, too, that inspire them to be better people that day. I know I have.
    Unless we’re neglecting real face-to-face relationships or getting too wrapped up in all that “affirmation” (because it’s there, almost 24-7, it seems), Facebook narcissism seems pretty harmless for healthy people. The new wears off after awhile, anyway.
    Maybe a better question, one that could be answered to aid college students, is what is healthy and unhealthy use of Facebook. And maybe that’s really the question the researchers sought to answer.

  • drj50

    I remember a standout interactions with a couple of institutions. One acknowledged of my application and gave the date by which they expected to complete their first round of evaluations. If I didn’t hear anything by that date, I could assume I was out of the running. It didn’t create the most warm and fuzzies I ever had on the job market, but I appreciated having a way to know what was going on.

    The all-time winner was Notre Dame. I applied for a lowel-level academic administrative position (maybe an assistant dean). I sent my application by email on a Thursday and received an acknowledgement by regular mail (you know, on paper, delivered by the post office) on Saturday (48 hours later)! I immediately emailed  to tell them how much I now REALLY wanted to work for an outfit that was that well-organized and considerate. I didn’t get the job (two weeks later they told me, again by regular mail, that I was no longer being considered), but the consideration and professionalism still stand out.

    And then there are those schools that ask you to answer a variety of questions that are kind of like, but not exactly like, the questions other schools ask. You take hours to craft answers, submit all your materials, and never hear a word. Not one. Not even “we got your stuff, thanks for applying.” Just deafening silence.

  • vitupera

    When a candidate is completely out of the running they should be notified as soon as possible. Search committees are notorious for shoddy administration. Every committee member should strive to project the finest example of professionalism. This, however, is the exception instead of the rule. A clear and concise job description comes first, coupled with an efficient application method (I’ve applied for one job that required different portions be posted, emailed, and uploaded). Notification of receipt is next, and a disclosure of planned timetable. There is no excuse for work so lazy and careless by faculty that it would receive an “F” grade if produced by a student. I am aware that when I serve or chair a search committee other members think me an annoying pedant but our candidates always receive the first class treatment equivalent to the importance of the choice we are making.

    I was taught to take this process so seriously because I once had the privilege of being invited to the finalists’ lectures 2 weeks before being notified of my rejection for that position.

  • j20craig

    I can appreciate your dilemma of having both feet in two camps
    by addressing the considerations of two constituents. However, may I raise a different
    perspective that is not being stated here? I, too, have served on selection panels
    for candidates seeking positions and understand the anxiety candidates can have
    for operating in the dark; not knowing where they stand or unable to plan for
    future engagements.

     

    What about the reputation of the  College or University seeking to fill the positions?
    The perspective of applicants can be very fragile with many feeling that the institution
    is merely going through the motions of appearing that the application process is
    a front for a hidden agenda to select a preferred candidate already on campus. These
    notions cannot be dismissed because I have personally experienced evidence of this
    in my personal search for positions. Again, the reputation of the institution should
    be considered to allow all candidates some understanding of the fairness the institution
    want so exercise with its selection of the “best” candidate for the job.
    Letting all candidates know the progress of the process, the effort being given
    to select the best candidate, and to provide notification to candidates as soon
    as possible when their candidacy is not being considered may be regretful but often
    appreciate by applicants. A well written letter expressing empathy and appreciation
    for the candidate taking the time to complete all administrative requirements for
    the position will go a long way toward the reputation for an institution. Candidates
    will maintain a favorable perspective for such schools as institutions they would
    desire to gain employment.   

  • drj50

    It would be nice if more schools produced a “well written letter expressing empathy and appreciation,” but, while silence or curt letters produce a negative impression, even a nice rejection letter doesn’t create much in the way of positive feelings for the institution or its reputation. Thanking me politely for applying is the least a school can do.

  • whizzkid43

    I am in such a hold pattern right now and it is frustrating. They finally called me to ask if they can talk to my references.  apparently they called my references a month or so ago. Now nothing. I applied for this position in November. I want to call but don’t want to appear too anxious. Then I wonder if they have already done the interviews and have not contacted me., It is a sorry way to do business pure and simple.

  • rebek56

    At my institution, search committees have been forbidden from contacting candidates outside the interview process, and all communication with non-selected candidates is handled by HR. If my experience is at all typical, the problem does not lie with the faculty committees but with the process itself.

  • kestewart

    j20craig, thanks for your comments.  I agree that the behavior of the search committee members does, for applicants (and perhaps the circle of friends/colleagues/mentors to whom the applicants are discussing the application process), reflect on their College or University.  Recognizing that long periods with no communication may create bad feelings about the institution is another reason that, when I’m serving on a search committee, I feel that tension of what to tell candidates and when.  The professional circles within some (most?) of our disciplines are quite small, so those kinds of bad feelings can have a real effect on an institution’s reputation over time.  Rebek56′s comment is relevant here, too: perhaps some kind of coordination between the search committee chair and HR (when HR requires that their office, rather than search committee members, communicates with candidates) so there is at least a timely notice to all candidates when the search has progressed to an advanced or final stage would be helpful. (Another task for the search committee chair! Those assignments certainly should not be accepted lightly or without a good understanding of the work involved.) Katharine

  • j20craig

    Whizzkid43: Hang in there. I feel your pain and frustration.

  • raouldebord

    The waiting is certainly torture and universities and departments are not always prompt – for various reasons ranging from laziness to overload to keeping their options open – in keeping people involved in the hiring process informed.

    That said, the peer-sourced Academic Jobs Wiki is a useful source for those stuck waiting to hear back about hiring decisions. Like any such forum, it can play host to rumors and false information, but it is a way to keep up with the process. While surety is disappointing, it’s less painful than the waiting.

  • krusa

    whizzkid43-
    I’ve been there too. Here’s a tip I was given long ago: Message you can send at this time: 

    “May I please have an update on the status of my application? I need to know how to respond to another opportunity.”

    This should nudge them along and get you out of LIMBO – which is so draining.  Good luck!

  • oscarwilde

    As a department chair responsible for multiple searches annually, my preference is to inform those whom we’ve interviewed once they are out of the running. However, we have been strictly cautioned by HR, the legal office, and the offices of the dean and provost against saying ANYTHING until we have a signed contract from the selected candidate. It is very frustrating, as my inclination is to be up front with all candidates as possible.

  • thetravelinggrad

    In your professional opinion, is it okay to ask what the hiring process looks like after the interview?

  • kestewart

    Travelinggrad, I think after your interview, it’s reasonable to ask the chair of the committee what you can expect in terms of when you will likely hear from the committee about a decision. In my experience, they will likely hedge a little; schedules do get disrupted and they may have constraints on them from their HR or legal offices as mentioned above. But I think most search committee chairs don’t mind being asked and will try to give you a time frame in which you can expect to hear something. I do think krusa’s advice, above, is good too: if you don’t hear something within the time frame you are given, it’s not unreasonable to do a polite email query about the status of your candidacy.

  • thetravelinggrad

    Thank you! I have an interview today & this article felt a little discouraging – although it is a harsh reality. I really appreciate your advice!

  • midcareerprof

    Any thoughts on how the process is different for a senior position with tenure?  Does it take longer, generally?  I’ve only ever served on searches at the TT level, and am waiting now to hear about an endowed senior spot. 

  • kestewart

     Midcareerprof, please forgive my delay in responding! I certainly hope that by now you’ve heard something about that endowed position.  My experience is that more senior positions often do take a bit longer, but I will qualify that statement by saying that this really is just my experience.  So, if the plural of anecdote is data…

    I suspect that search times are quite variable, and they depend a great deal on factors that have nothing to do with the seniority of the open position.  Rather, it’s going to be the size and quality of the applicant pool, the beliefs of the search committee members about how they should communicate with applicants, the time delays in getting applicants to campus for interviews, etc., that drive the delay.  When I’ve been involved as an applicant in a search for a more senior position and I’ve waited a good while, I’ve sent an email to the chair of the committee, saying that I would be grateful for an update on the status of the search although I of course understand that the chair cannot share specific information about my application’s status.