User talk:Cartwheelin*Sun/Social media and psychology

Narcissism and social medial use

Narcissistic personality disorder has been connected with an inflated sense of self-worth and a need for excessive attention. This personality disorder has multiple variating types. (1) Grandiose (LINK TO WIKI PAGE); typically arrogant, a higher sense of entitlement, and a belief that they are better than everyone and everyone knows it. (2) Malignant (LINK TO WIKI PAGE); similar to grandiose, but as one try's to lift themselves up, they have no concern with destroying others in the process. (3) Covert (LINK TO WIKI PAGE); arrogance mixed with highly self-absorbed tendencies. Inability to accept responsibility and a chronic victim of the world. (4) Communal (LINK TO WIKI PAGE); self-absorbed and needs acknowledgment for the good they do while typically the good they do is all for show and not genuine. (CITE ALL)

There is a direct connection between narcissistic personality disorder and social media. There is a connection between narcissism and motives for social media, such as seeking admiration for content and increase following. Narcissists find their content to be of higher quality and therefore share more information on their social media platforms due to a feeling of superiority. (CITE)

Narcissism was related to a greater number of posts, more time spent on social media platforms, and having more friends/followers on their platforms. (CITE) Narcissism may be associated with the addictive use of social media. (CITE)

Most studies find positive relationships between grandiose (LINK TO WIKI PAGE) forms of narcissism and self-reported social media activities. There is still variance in the results, and ongoing studies investigate how narcissism relates to the use of social media. (CITE)

I have made some edits to the additions you would like to add. The additions are beneficial to the page, but there do need to be intext citations to link the information to a source. The way that the information was written was in an essay format. On Wikipedia, information should be written in a more direct format with citations added for the reader to gain more information if needed. The third paragraph looked like a thought about the topic and less of an addition that could be cited by a reliable source. If I am incorrect, add that into the addition with a citation. There were a few grammatical and spelling errors that I fixed. I believe that with the edits I made, this addition will benefit the article. Connorcwa (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and the addition section, the added content improves the article overall although it was not added to the article that I could see. The section has a nice balance of data and history on a psychological disorder and the impacts that it has on social media and on its users. The strength of this section is the flow of the definition, history, content and data. I think this addition flows and would benefit from being in the article because it gives the reader something else to think about and the article is relatively short so this would extend the content. Areas for improvement would be to take out the last summary sentence in the addition (it comes across a little summarized which is not needed), add more citations to this section, add an image or two to the preexisting areas, and maybe add some supporting content to the lead that gives more detail about what's to come in the article. Overall, it was a great addition. Hanmarnel11 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)