CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 231Impact of Technology on AdolescentsPersonality Traits and PsychologyBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lying or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging, loneliness and normative versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood

Dumas, Tara M., Maxwell-Smith, Matthew, Davis, Jordan P., Giulietti, Paul A.·2017·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examined the extent to which emerging adults engage in different behaviors on Instagram, a popular social networking site, to gain attention and validation from others via “likes.” We also examined individual differences in the frequency of like-seeking behavior and motives for Instagram use as mediators of these relationships. Participants (N = 198 and 265 (replication study)) were recruited via an online crowdsourcing portal to complete a survey. Results demonstrated that, as predicted, participants engaged in an assortment of different like-seeking behaviors. Further, a two-factor solution emerged, with like-seeking behavior separated by whether they were normative (i.e., common or accepted, e.g., using filters or hashtags) or deceptive (e.g., buying likes or changing one’s appearance in photos using software). Deceptive like-seeking was predicted by stronger narcissism and a weaker sense of peer belonging, whereas normative like-seeking was predicted by stronger narcissism and a stronger sense of peer belonging. Further, consistent with hypotheses, significant mediators of the relation between narcissism and deceptive like-seeking included motives to use Instagram to increase popularity and showcase creativity. Results help to identify young people who are more susceptible to engaging in deceptive, potentially harmful acts to gain attention and validation on Instagram.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–230 of 230

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dumas, T. M., Maxwell-Smith, M., Davis, J. P., & Giulietti, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Dumas, Tara M.
ORCID
Davis, Jordan P.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
71
Pages
1-10
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037
OpenAlex
W2583030325
Cited by
231
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 1
FWCI
52.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Keywords
narcissism, Instagram, peer belonging, loneliness, emerging adulthood, social validation, attention seeking, motivations for social media use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review