Thank you very much for your guidance on this revision. We look forward to hearing from you.

Transcription

1 1 PAINTED BUNTING MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY REVISION NOTES FROM AUTHORS (ROUND 2) We would like to submit a revision of our manuscript. As you requested, we have run new studies that employ additional experimental controls. These new studies address the review team s concerns about using the same comparison task in all studies and provide stronger support for our theory. Another issue was related to our selection of tie strength as a moderator of the effect of social network use on self-control. To address the review teams concerns, we have rewritten the front end to provide stronger justification for why we expect tie strength to moderate our effects. Specifically, we argue that because people are more concerned about the image they present to strong ties in their social network, social network use only triggers the narcissistic mindset when users are focused on strong ties while browsing a social network. To support this prediction, we have added a pretest showing that our measure of tie strength captures the extent to which people are focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook. Additionally, we manipulated the extent to which participants were focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook in a new study. The review team also requested that we provide stronger theoretical support and empirical evidence for the narcissistic mindset. The revised front end now provides stronger theoretical support for why we expect browsing a social network to result in a narcissistic mindset. Additionally, we have run two additional studies that offer direct evidence that social network use leads people to adopt a narcissistic mindset. Finally, you had suggested that we examine whether race or ethnicity plays a role in our correlational study findings. We did collect information on participants ethnicity, but our effects are only significant for Caucasians. Follow up analyzes on each non-caucasian ethnic group found directionally similar findings. However, the effects did not reach significance due to low sample sizes within each ethnic group since Caucasians accounted for over 75% of our sample. Adding ethnicity as a covariate to our analysis did not change our findings. Thank you very much for your guidance on this revision. We look forward to hearing from you. Response to Associate Editor Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper and for providing us with such a clear roadmap on how to move forward. We are excited that you found our research interesting. Below, we discuss how we addressed the concerns highlighted in your report: 1. Need for additional experimental controls:

2 2 We agree that relying on the same control condition (CNN.com) has confounds and makes our research vulnerable to alternative explanations. The revised manuscript addresses this issue in three ways. First, we replicated the results of study 2b using a different control (no browsing) condition. Specifically, we had participants browse TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, which has content that is more social than CNN.com but is not a social network. The results of this replication are reported in the discussion section of study 2b. In addition, we replaced the old study 3 with a new study 3 using a control condition that is similar to one suggested by the review team. We agree with you that having participants browse someone else s Facebook page introduces confounds. Consequently, we had people recall and write about the experience of browsing Facebook instead of actually browsing Facebook. This not only eliminated the confound associated with browsing someone else s social network, but also allowed us to ensure that all subjects were equally focused on Facebook in both the browsing and no browsing conditions, which we confirmed with a manipulation check. The results of this new study 3 are consistent with those in previous studies that had CNN.com as the control condition. Finally, we ran a new study (new study 4) to show that our effects are due to self presentation on social networks. In this study, we dropped the control condition so that all participants browsed Facebook. However, we manipulated the extent to which participants focused on the image they were presenting to others in their network (self presentation condition) or the image others in their network were presenting to them (other presentation condition). The results in the self presentation condition replicate those in the browsing condition in the new study 3. Additionally, the results in the other presentation condition replicate those in the control condition in the new study 3. Thus, we believe that we have successfully addressed any concerns that our findings are due to having participants only browse CNN.com because we were able to provide similar findings using several different experimental controls. 2. Relationship between self-esteem, narcissism, and self-control: We have clarified our theory and provided additional evidence regarding the underlying mechanism. We agree that the role of self-esteem versus narcissism was not clear in the previous version of our paper. We have rewritten the front end to clarify our theory. Specifically, we argue that, because people present an inflated self-image to others on social networks, using a social network leads to the self absorbed, excessive form of self-esteem associated with narcissism. This excessive self-esteem leads people to adopt a narcissistic mindset, making them more likely to display narcissistic tendencies, such as self indulgent behavior and poor self-control, after browsing a social network. The revised manuscript provides additional evidence for this process in two new studies (studies 3 and 4). In study 3, we show that browsing a social network leads to a narcissistic mindset. Specifically, we show that browsing Facebook leads participants to score higher on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, a widely used measure of narcissism, compared to those who did not browse Facebook. This effect only emerges in participants focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook and is mediated by self-esteem.

3 3 In study 4, we demonstrate that the narcissistic mindset results from self presentation via social networks. Specifically, we show that browsing Facebook increases narcissism when people are focused on the information they are sharing with others in their network (i.e., self presentation). The same effect is not observed when people focus on information that others in their network are sharing with them. As in study 3, these results only occur for individuals focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook and are mediated by self-esteem. 3. Effects of strong versus weak ties: You are correct that we are predicting that those with strong ties will display less selfcontrol because they are more likely to experience higher self-esteem after browsing Facebook. We agree that our explanation for why this will occur could have been stronger in the previous version of the manuscript. Consequently, we have rewritten this section in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we argue that because social network use enhances self-esteem through self-presentation and people are more concerned about the image they present to strong ties, social network usage should only enhance self-esteem and trigger the narcissistic mindset when users are focused on strong ties while browsing a social network. To support this prediction, we have added a pretest to study 1a showing that our measure of tie strength does capture the extent to which people are focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook. Additionally, we manipulated the extent to which participants were focused on strong ties in the new study 3. The results of this study show that those focused on strong ties while browsing Facebook displayed higher selfesteem and report higher levels of narcissism than those that did not browse Facebook. Those focused on weak ties did not report any differences in self-esteem or narcissism between browsing conditions. In sum, we appreciate the detailed feedback and clear guidance you provided. We feel that we have successfully addressed the issues you raised, and that it has improved the manuscript. We look forward to your response. Response to Reviewer A We really appreciate your helpful comments on our manuscript. Below, we discuss any remaining concerns of yours not addressed in our note to the AE: 1. We apologize for not being clear in the previous version of the manuscript, but our theory argues that social networks lead to narcissistic behaviors because of the inflated self image people are presenting to others on social network. To support this theory, we have added a study (new study 4) that shows that the narcissistic mindset results from self presentation via social networks. We hope this study clarifies the process. You do raise an interesting question about whether similar effects would be observed from positive self presentation on other web sites (e.g., Picasa). Our sense is that it would, but we decided to limit the scope of our research to social networks because of their recent popularity and widespread, frequent usage. 2. Your concerns about our operationalization of tie strength are valid. However, we operationalized tie strength using the percentage of close friends (as opposed to total close friends) for several reasons, most notably because in any given browsing session

4 4 it is highly unlikely that a user will be exposed to all of his or her network. Thus, the number of close friends one has or a related network size measure may not be appropriate. Instead, the proportion of one s contacts deemed to be close is more appropriate. This in a sense captures how a person thinks more holistically about their set of social network contacts and the general extent to which one perceives their network as containing closer friends, which is what we intend this moderator to be. This is discussed in more detail in study 1a. Additionally, following your suggestion, we operationalized of tie strength differently in the new study 3. Thank you for this suggestion. Specifically, we manipulated the extent to which people focused on strong or weak ties while browsing Facebook. The results are consistent with those in prior studies, suggesting that our results are not merely an artifact of how we operationalized tie strength. 3. We acknowledge your point about the DV in study 1a. However, if participants were focused on the resell value of the ipad, we are not sure why only those with strong ties that browsed Facebook would be willing to bid more and take a lower resell value on the ipad. Although willingness to pay has been used in a number of studies to measure spending control (e.g., Fujita et al. 2006), we would be happy to drop this study if the review team feels strongly about it. 4. Based on your reaction to the old study 4 (now study 5), we have decided to reposition the study. The main purpose of the study was to show that our effects observed in the lab are consistent with behaviors displayed by social network users in the real-world. Consequently, we have limited our conclusions to focus on the similar pattern of results between the lab studies and the online survey involving actual behavior. 5. You are correct that online panels are unlikely to be truly representative of all U.S. Internet users so we have removed this from our study summaries. Additionally, we have added demographic statistics of the samples. Response to Reviewer B We really appreciate your feedback on our manuscript and are thrilled that you find our research provocative. Your comments have helped us with our theoretical development and process evidence. Below, we discuss how we addressed your concerns: 1. Your comments about our theory and supporting evidence were very helpful in guiding our revision. After reading your comments, it was clear that we needed to strengthen the theoretical development of our paper. Consequently, we have rewritten the front end to better explain why browsing a social network should lead people to adopt a narcissistic mindset and why this effect would only emerge for people with strong ties to their network. This revised theory is summarized in our note to the AE. We also ran two new studies to provide the additional evidence for our theory that you suggested. The first (new study 3), shows that browsing Facebook leads participants who are focused on strong ties to adopt a narcissistic mindset. The second (new study 4), which was based on your suggestion that we manipulate the context of the browsing experience, shows that this narcissistic mindset is due self presentation via social networks. Specifically, we manipulated the extent to which participants focused on the image they were presenting to others in their network (self

5 5 presentation condition) or the image others in their network were presenting to them (other presentation condition). The results in the self presentation condition are consistent with those in the browsing condition in prior studies. 2. You raised very valid concerns about using CNN.com as the only control condition in all of our experiments. We address this issue by employing different experimental controls that are summarized in detail in our note to the AE. You had concerns about the strong tie participants in the CNN.com condition potentially showing greater selfcontrol in studies 2a and 2b. Although those differences were not significant, we did replicate the findings in study 2b using a different control condition (i.e., browsing TMZ.com) to assuage your concerns about this issue. This replication is summarized in the discussion of study 2b. To address your concern about ruling out depletion via arousal, we ran a follow-up study using a similar design as studies 1 and 2 where we asked people if they felt tired or depleted after the browsing task (Facebook vs. CNN.com). We did not find that browsing, tie strength, or their interaction affected depletion or how tired people felt. Due to space constraints we did not report this study in the revised manuscript. Response to Reviewer C Thank you for your suggestions on our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping us strengthen the conceptual development of our research and position our findings. Below, we discuss how we addressed your concerns: 1. Contribution: Although previous research has shown that concepts related to self-esteem can reduce self-control, to the best of our knowledge, our research is the first to show that a momentary increase in self-esteem can reduce self-control. Following your advice, we have integrated this discussion into the front end to strengthen our theoretical development and better position our research. 2. Conceptual Issues: We agree that our process explanation was confusing so we have rewritten the front end to strengthen our conceptual development. Our changes are discussed in more detail in the note to the AE. Following your advice, we now provide direct evidence for the narcissistic mindset by measuring narcissism after browsing Facebook in two new studies (studies 3 and 4). In these studies, we also go into more detail about why browsing Facebook results in a narcissistic mindset. First, we show that it is not simply thinking about Facebook that drives the effect, but that people have to actually browse (and thus experience) social interactions on Facebook. In study 3, we had people either recall and write about browsing Facebook or actually browse Facebook. The results show there was no difference in how much people thought about Facebook between conditions, but only those focused on strong ties that actually browsed Facebook displayed increased self-esteem and a narcissistic mindset. In study 4, we show that the effect of browsing Facebook on narcissism is due to self presentation concerns. Specifically, we demonstrate that only those focused on strong ties cued to think about self presentation while browsing Facebook displayed increased self-esteem and a narcissistic mindset. 3. Study Design and Analysis Issues: Like you, we were concerned that our measurement of tie strength might affect how people responded to browsing Facebook or our DVs, which

6 6 is why we included a filler task between our measurement of tie strength and the browsing task in study 2b. To address this concern more directly, we manipulated tie strength in the new study 3. The results are consistent with those in study 2. You are correct that we are reporting the tests as the simple effect of Facebook vs. No Facebook at different levels of tie strength. However, we are presenting the graphs with tie strength on the horizontal axis because it is a continuous variable in most of our studies. We feel it would be confusing to the reader to put the browsing conditions on the horizontal axis because readers may then infer that Facebook was a continuous variable. Following your suggestion, we have changed the coding of our categorical browsing variable to contrast coding. Additionally, we have dropped the old study 3 to allow us to include additional studies that go into more detail about the narcissistic mindset. 4. Nature of the Effect: You raise an interesting point about whether the effect would persist over time. Due to space constraints, we did not address the issue of persistence and priming at length in the revised manuscript. We include this as an interesting avenue for future research in the General Discussion. We did, however, include a filler task after the browsing task in study 2b, in line with your suggestion, and the effect was still present. 5. Implications: Following your suggestion, we have added more implications for policy makers in the General Discussion. Regarding your question about age, we did find that age was correlated with some of our DVs (e.g., credit card debt), but we did not find that it interacted with our factors.