Exploring How the Dark Triad and Curiosity Shape the Trajectory of Affective Events in Response to COVID-19 Stress and Psychological Well-Being: A Three-Way Interaction Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review:

 How the dark triad and curiosity may shape the trajectory of the affective events to COVID-19 stress and psychological well-3 being: a three-way interaction model.

The manuscript describes a complex body of research split into two studies. First, it tested the mediation of positive and negative affects between daily uplifts and daily hassles and COVID-9 stress and psychological wellbeing of workers respectively. Additionally, the moderated effect of curiosity and the moderated effect of the dark triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) on curiosity are evaluated. Figure 1 presents a good description of the effects expected.

I find the research interesting and of an important practical use. My main concern is related to the time when the research was performed. The study of COVID-19 stress should be placed in a temporal contest. It is not the same performing the study at the time of lockdown, in the middle of the pandemic, or at the end of it, or when the pandemic was officially declared ended. Therefore, the results should be placed in relation to the time when the studies were performed.

Abstract. Authors should follow Abstract´s journal structure, with Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Avoid acronyms such as TD or write its meaning between parentheses.

Narcissism is missing when authors refer to the dark triad (mentioning only psychopathy and Machiavellianism)

Introduction:

The sentence “Other studies have shown that the fear of COVID-19 was related to its related stress” should be rephased. Authors should avoid repeat the word “related.”

Authors should choose between the use of “and colleagues” or “et al.” The use of both is confusing.

Table 1 should be revised, the variables should be aligned, COVID-19 stress should be number 9 (There are two 7s)

Method: Participants and procedure: the word “total” is repeated in the first 4 words, delete one of them.

What is a secondary degree? people with two degrees, or people with a non-university degree? Please clarify.

Authors should write when the studies were performed in relation to the COVID-19. The end of the pandemic (public health emergency) was declared time ago.

Measures

The name of the Scales should be homogeneous, that is, with the first letter in capital. See Curiosity Scale

Authors should clearly separate both studies in the manuscript.

Data analyses

There are correlations between the variables in the results section, therefore, the description of these correlations analyses should be introduced in this subsection.

Results

Table 1 is a correlation matrix where authors could see how the variables are related, and what could it be expected from them. However, this table is not described at all. A good description is needed here. Curiosity has not relation with daily hassles, the same with negative affect. And the DT variables have not relationships with daily uplifts and positive affect.

Table 3 is another correlation table not described at all. A good description is needed here again.

In Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the legend on le right part should change because it exceeds the size of the square that surrounds them. My suggestion is to include the legend in the same square containing the slopes, for example on the right part of it, with low font size.

I do not see the use of the discussion in study 1 and study 2. They are just a summary of results, but they never compared the results with previous studies in the field. In my opinion they should be deleted or alternatively be placed at the end of the results in each study.

References

They need to be reviewed:

The name of some journals is abbreviated, or the first letter of the names are in lowercase.

The DOI is written in different ways, authors should follow journal´s indications, and use a single way.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

How the dark triad and curiosity may shape the trajectory of the affective events to COVID-19 stress and psychological well-3 being: a three-way interaction model.

The manuscript describes a complex body of research split into two studies. First, it tested the mediation of positive and negative affects between daily uplifts and daily hassles and COVID-9 stress and psychological wellbeing of workers respectively. Additionally, the moderated effect of curiosity and the moderated effect of the dark triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) on curiosity are evaluated. Figure 1 presents a good description of the effects expected. 

I find the research interesting and of an important practical use. My main concern is related to the time when the research was performed. The study of COVID-19 stress should be placed in a temporal contest. It is not the same performing the study at the time of lockdown, in the middle of the pandemic, or at the end of it, or when the pandemic was officially declared ended. Therefore, the results should be placed in relation to the time when the studies were performed.

 Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comment. We address all your comments below. We start our answers with ** to facilitate your reader. We identified when the data from the two studies were collected, both at the peak of COVID-19 (2020 and 2021).

Abstract. Authors should follow Abstract´s journal structure, with Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Avoid acronyms such as TD or write its meaning between parentheses.

**We changed the abstract’s structure to math your comment and the journal rules. We also removed the acronyms.

Narcissism is missing when authors refer to the dark triad (mentioning only psychopathy and Machiavellianism)

 **We clarified it in the abstract – as in study 1 we did not find the same pattern of results for narcissism.

Introduction:

The sentence “Other studies have shown that the fear of COVID-19 was related to its related stress” should be rephased. Authors should avoid repeat the word “related.”

**We changed it for: “Other studies have shown that the fear of COVID-19 is associated with its related stress”

Authors should choose between the use of “and colleagues” or “et al.” The use of both is confusing.

**Thank you for your comment. We removed “and colleagues” and replaced by “et al.”.

Table 1 should be revised, the variables should be aligned, COVID-19 stress should be number 9 (There are two 7s)

**We corrected it; thank you for your comment.

Method: Participants and procedure: the word “total” is repeated in the first 4 words, delete one of them.

**Thank you for observing it; we corrected it.

What is a secondary degree? people with two degrees, or people with a non-university degree? Please clarify.

**It is people with a non-university degree – we corrected in the manuscript.

Authors should write when the studies were performed in relation to the COVID-19. The end of the pandemic (public health emergency) was declared time ago.

**We added this information on both studies as you requested. Study 1 was conducted on the first peak of the covid-19 (2020) and the second one, in 2021.

Measures

The name of the Scales should be homogeneous, that is, with the first letter in capital. See Curiosity Scale

**We changed it as you requested.

Authors should clearly separate both studies in the manuscript.

**We now separated both studies. Thank you for your comment.

Data analyses

There are correlations between the variables in the results section, therefore, the description of these correlations analyses should be introduced in this subsection.

**We identified it: “First, descript analysis, together with correlations and an inspection to the reliability of the measures were performed in SPSS.”

Results

Table 1 is a correlation matrix where authors could see how the variables are related, and what could it be expected from them. However, this table is not described at all. A good description is needed here. Curiosity has not relation with daily hassles, the same with negative affect. And the DT variables have not relationships with daily uplifts and positive affect. 

**Thank you for your comment. We added a brief description of the correlation patterns between the variables.

Table 3 is another correlation table not described at all. A good description is needed here again.

**We added a description of the correlations presented in Table 3. Thank you.

In Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the legend on le right part should change because it exceeds the size of the square that surrounds them. My suggestion is to include the legend in the same square containing the slopes, for example on the right part of it, with low font size.

**We tried, but the whole figure appears to be de-formatted then.

I do not see the use of the discussion in study 1 and study 2. They are just a summary of results, but they never compared the results with previous studies in the field. In my opinion they should be deleted or alternatively be placed at the end of the results in each study.

**What about changing it to “summary of the results”?

References

They need to be reviewed: 

The name of some journals is abbreviated, or the first letter of the names are in lowercase.

The DOI is written in different ways, authors should follow journal´s indications, and use a single way.

**We made the corrections you suggested.

**Thank you once again for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. It undeniably helped us to improve it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a study entitled “How the dark triad and curiosity may shape the trajectory of the affective events to COVID-19 stress and psychological well-being: a three-way interaction model”.

Abstract

·       The authors report the findings of their studies without providing any possible explanation or implication. While I understand that the abstract has a words limit, I believe it would benefit from a brief discussion about the meaning of the results.

Introduction

·       The authors report the following statement: “Taylor, and colleagues (2020a) also showed that depending on the severity of the individuals’ COVID-19 stress, its impact would differ, in that the higher the severity, the more COVID-19-related avoidance, more panic buying, and the higher the coping difficulties during times of self-isolation.” However, it seems these results deviates from the main goals of their paper.

·       The authors state that much remains to be explored regarding the sources of distress, citing a paper that is already dated in this domain (i.e., Taylor et al., 2020a).

Here is a non-exhaustive list of papers that have investigated the sources of distress related to COVID-19:

Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., & Adini, B. (2020). Resilience and demographic characteristics predicting distress during the COVID-19 crisis. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113389.

Breslau, J., Roth, E. A., Baird, M. D., Carman, K. G., & Collins, R. L. (2023). A longitudinal study of predictors of serious psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological medicine, 53(6), 2418-2426.

Lo Destro, C., & Gasparini, C. (2021). COVID-19 psychological impact during the Italian lockdown: A study on healthcare professional. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 36(3), 222-237.

Jahanshahi, A. A., Dinani, M. M., Madavani, A. N., Li, J., & Zhang, S. X. (2020). The distress of Iranian adults during the Covid-19 pandemic–More distressed than the Chinese and with different predictors. Brain, behavior, and immunity, 87, 124.

Alyami, H., Krägeloh, C. U., Medvedev, O. N., Alghamdi, S., Alyami, M., Althagafi, J., ... & Hill, A. G. (2022). Investigating predictors of psychological distress for healthcare workers in a major Saudi COVID-19 center. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4459.

Wilson, W., Raj, J. P., Rao, S., Ghiya, M., Nedungalaparambil, N. M., Mundra, H., & Mathew, R. (2020). Prevalence and predictors of stress, anxiety, and depression among healthcare workers managing COVID-19 pandemic in India: a nationwide observational study. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(4), 353-358.

·       The theoretical rationale regarding why micro-positive or negative work events should influence COVID-19 stress should be more substantive and persuasive.

·       Please revise the first sentence of the “Psychological well-being” paragraph.

·       The reference to the Self-Determination Theory does not appear suitable within this context.

·       In my opinion, the following sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph to establish a connection with the subsequent one, optimizing the flow: “However, the positive effects of curiosity on social support are diminished in the presence of high levels of dark personality traits, such as the dark triad (Muris et al., 2013).”

·       The following findings do not seem pertinent in this context.: “Additionally, research by Hardy et al. (2017) suggests that the pleasure derived from exploring new ideas or solutions positively influences problem-solving skills and overall performance.”

·       The authors reported the following sentence: “Consequently, the presence of dark traits may divert their resources and efforts toward alternative interests and behaviors, which may not lead to a fulfilling exploration.” However, I believe that this explanation is somewhat weak concerning the theoretical foundations upon which it is based.

·       The authors do not present hypotheses for mediation and moderation models with well-being as the dependent variable (DV). However, these are referenced later in the study.

Materials and methods – Study 1

·       Please revise this sentence: “In total, a total of 251 individuals…”

·       The authors should specify the method of company recruitment, including the number of companies contacted and the timeframe during which the data were collected.

·       In particular, it seems crucial to encode the number of companies and the origin of each participant, as certain variables may depend on the contextual background (especially thinking of micro-positive and negative events), and the authors should be able to determine if this is indeed the case. In light of this, the utilization of multilevel models may also be necessary.

Number of items in the adopted scales – It appears that the number of items adopted by the authors for the following scales differs from the original versions. Could the authors please provide clarification on this aspect?

Daily Hassles and Uplifts at Work (SDHUS; 327 Junça-Silva et al., 2020);

Curiosity scale developed by 344 Kashdan et al. (2020)

·       The reference for Warr et al., 2014 is missing. Thus, it is not possible to check whether the scale adopted was the original one.

·       The first two scales utilized pertain to the last 24 hours. What implications do you think the fact that it is a somewhat situational measure might have?

·       The authors should specify, already during the description of the scales related to curiosity and COVID-19 stress, that despite both being presented as multi-dimensional, they are utilized as uni-dimensional. They should also provide the rationale behind this decision.

·       Check for typos: “Participants answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1- totally disagree; 5-totally disagree).”

Results – Study 1

·       The authors should provide an explanation for why daily uplifts significantly correlate with daily hassles and also why daily hassles exhibit a positive correlation with DT.

·       The authors should provide an explanation for the lack of support to H1a.

·       The significance of the total effect (line 389) is somewhat borderline; the p- value should be less than .05.

·       Please also report the main effects of the predictors for the moderated regression model.

·       Figure 2: Specify the content on the ordinate axis and provide the acronyms for 'ma' and 'maq'.

Discussion – Study 1

·       The results of the first study appear highly incongruent with each other. Consider addressing this in the discussions section of the first work.

·       In particular, explain the reason behind obtaining three different outcomes for the three factors of the Dark Triad in Hypothesis 3, with Hypothesis 4 not confirmed at all.

Participants and procedure – Study 2

·       The same issues raised for Study 1 also apply to Study 2.

·       Ryff (1989) psychological well-being scale comprises six sub-dimensions, yet not six items. Have the authors utilized a validated, abbreviated version? If so, how was it derived?

Results – Study 2

·       Please also report the main effects of the predictors for the moderated regression model.

·       Figure 4: Specify the content on the ordinate axis.

·       It appears from Figure 5 that there is essentially a main effect of positive affect.

Discussion – Study 2

·       The authors reported the following sentence: “Specifically, the findings show that psychological well-being tends to in-crease when positive affect is higher, and when curiosity and the three DT traits are lower.” However, graphically, the patterns are quite distinct from each other, irrespective of the potential significances of a triple interaction, which is inherently challenging to interpret.

Discussion

·       This explanation does not seem particularly persuasive: “Thus, this openness to others, which triggers joy when exploring new things, may buffer the individuals’ dark side, and as such, the experience of positive affect, leads them to feel less COVID-19 stress.

·       This is a mere speculation here, and the single subcomponent should be analyzed: “So, individuals who score high on psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, by being more xenophobic (a dimension of COVID-19 stress), may see their COVID-19 stress higher.”

·       The same applies here: “Vulnerable narcissists tend to experience frequent psychological distress (Miller, et al., 2008), which may justify the non-significant moderating effect and, as such less sensitivity to situational factors, such as daily micro-events and subsequent affective reactions.

In conclusion, I appreciate the authors' effort to integrate various constructs and assess their impact on individuals' stress and well-being. This is an ambitious and complex endeavor, yielding partly unexpected and incongruent results across the two studies.

Despite several positive aspects, there are noteworthy critiques. Specifically, the theoretical rationale underlying various relationships, as previously mentioned, appears scant in several instances. The proposed hypotheses do not seem to naturally emanate from the presented theories and literature.

The inclusion of two moderators (in addition to two dependent variables) further complicates the interpretation of the data. Additionally, significant concerns pertain to the utilization of adopted instruments and the manner in which regressions models are reported. The inclusion of "situational" dimensions related to the last 24 hours influencing stress or well-being seems conceptually peculiar.

Furthermore, it would be intriguing to understand the outcomes when moderators are considered individually. The direct recourse to this moderated moderated mediated model renders hypotheses and explanations particularly intricate, and the lack of congruence in the obtained results does not favor this approach.

Please, check for typos (e.g., “analying” line 123).

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The authors present a study entitled “How the dark triad and curiosity may shape the trajectory of the affective events to COVID-19 stress and psychological well-being: a three-way interaction model”.

 Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comment. We address all your comments below. We start our answers with ** to facilitate your reader.

Abstract

• The authors report the findings of their studies without providing any possible explanation or implication. While I understand that the abstract has a words limit, I believe it would benefit from a brief discussion about the meaning of the results.

**Thank you for your suggestion. We added it in the abstract.

Introduction

• The authors report the following statement: “Taylor, and colleagues (2020a) also showed that depending on the severity of the individuals’ COVID-19 stress, its impact would differ, in that the higher the severity, the more COVID-19-related avoidance, more panic buying, and the higher the coping difficulties during times of self-isolation.” However, it seems these results deviates from the main goals of their paper.

**We removed it from the introduction.

• The authors state that much remains to be explored regarding the sources of distress, citing a paper that is already dated in this domain (i.e., Taylor et al., 2020a).

Here is a non-exhaustive list of papers that have investigated the sources of distress related to COVID-19:

Kimhi, S., Marciano, H., Eshel, Y., & Adini, B. (2020). Resilience and demographic characteristics predicting distress during the COVID-19 crisis. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113389.

Breslau, J., Roth, E. A., Baird, M. D., Carman, K. G., & Collins, R. L. (2023). A longitudinal study of predictors of serious psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological medicine, 53(6), 2418-2426.

Lo Destro, C., & Gasparini, C. (2021). COVID-19 psychological impact during the Italian lockdown: A study on healthcare professional. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 36(3), 222-237.

Jahanshahi, A. A., Dinani, M. M., Madavani, A. N., Li, J., & Zhang, S. X. (2020). The distress of Iranian adults during the Covid-19 pandemic–More distressed than the Chinese and with different predictors. Brain, behavior, and immunity, 87, 124.

Alyami, H., Krägeloh, C. U., Medvedev, O. N., Alghamdi, S., Alyami, M., Althagafi, J., ... & Hill, A. G. (2022). Investigating predictors of psychological distress for healthcare workers in a major Saudi COVID-19 center. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4459.

Wilson, W., Raj, J. P., Rao, S., Ghiya, M., Nedungalaparambil, N. M., Mundra, H., & Mathew, R. (2020). Prevalence and predictors of stress, anxiety, and depression among healthcare workers managing COVID-19 pandemic in India: a nationwide observational study. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(4), 353-358.

 **Thank you for these references, they were very useful, and we added them to the manuscript.

• The theoretical rationale regarding why micro-positive or negative work events should influence COVID-19 stress should be more substantive and persuasive.

**Thank you for your comment. We improved this part of the manuscript (page 3).

• Please revise the first sentence of the “Psychological well-being” paragraph.

**We reformulated it for: “Psychological well-being describes the eudaimonic nature of well-being (Ryff, & Keyes, 1995). Psychological well-being has been defined as “the striving for perfection that represents the realization of one’s true potential” (Ryff, 1995, p.100).”

• The reference to the Self-Determination Theory does not appear suitable within this context.

**We removed it.

• In my opinion, the following sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph to establish a connection with the subsequent one, optimizing the flow: “However, the positive effects of curiosity on social support are diminished in the presence of high levels of dark personality traits, such as the dark triad (Muris et al., 2013).” 

**Thank you for your suggestion. We followed your advice and we removed the sentence for the end of the paragraph.

• The following findings do not seem pertinent in this context.: “Additionally, research by Hardy et al. (2017) suggests that the pleasure derived from exploring new ideas or solutions positively influences problem-solving skills and overall performance.”

**Thank you for your suggestion. We removed it.

• The authors reported the following sentence: “Consequently, the presence of dark traits may divert their resources and efforts toward alternative interests and behaviors, which may not lead to a fulfilling exploration.” However, I believe that this explanation is somewhat weak concerning the theoretical foundations upon which it is based.

**Thank you for your suggestion. We improved this section (pages 6-7).

• The authors do not present hypotheses for mediation and moderation models with well-being as the dependent variable (DV). However, these are referenced later in the study.

**Maybe you missed this:

Hypothesis 2a. Positive affect will mediate the positive relationship between daily uplifts and psychological well-being.

Hypothesis 2b. Negative affect will mediate the negative relationship between daily hassles and psychological well-being.

Hypothesis 5. The DT traits, (a) Machiavellianism, (b) psychopathy, and (c) narcissism moderate the moderated mediation model such that the moderating effect of curiosity on the indirect effect of daily uplifts on psychological well-being via positive affect becomes weaker when the individuals’ levels of DT, (a) Machiavellianism, (b) psychopathy, and (c) narcissism are high.

Hypothesis 6. The DT traits, (a) Machiavellianism, (b) psychopathy, and (c) narcissism moderate the moderated mediation model such that the moderating effect of curiosity on the indirect effect of daily hassles on psychological well-being via negative affect becomes stronger when the individual’ levels of DT, (a) Machiavellianism, (b) psychopathy, and (c) narcissism are high.

Materials and methods – Study 1

• Please revise this sentence: “In total, a total of 251 individuals…”

**We removed the redundancy.

• The authors should specify the method of company recruitment, including the number of companies contacted and the timeframe during which the data were collected.

**We added those pieces of information in the method section.

• In particular, it seems crucial to encode the number of companies and the origin of each participant, as certain variables may depend on the contextual background (especially thinking of micro-positive and negative events), and the authors should be able to determine if this is indeed the case. In light of this, the utilization of multilevel models may also be necessary.

**Although we recognize the importance of your comment, we did not identify the organization in the survey to avoid confidentiality issues.

Number of items in the adopted scales – It appears that the number of items adopted by the authors for the following scales differs from the original versions. Could the authors please provide clarification on this aspect?

Daily Hassles and Uplifts at Work (SDHUS; 327 Junça-Silva et al., 2020);

**We used 18 items.

Curiosity scale developed by 344 Kashdan et al. (2020)

**We used 12 items.

• The reference for Warr et al., 2014 is missing. Thus, it is not possible to check whether the scale adopted was the original one.

**We added it.

Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 342-363.https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449

• The first two scales utilized pertain to the last 24 hours. What implications do you think the fact that it is a somewhat situational measure might have?

**The scales are focused on the last 24h hours to minimize memory bias and because they are indeed situational assessments rather than general judgments.

• The authors should specify, already during the description of the scales related to curiosity and COVID-19 stress, that despite both being presented as multi-dimensional, they are utilized as uni-dimensional. They should also provide the rationale behind this decision.

**Thank you for your comment. We described it on page 9.

• Check for typos: “Participants answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1- totally disagree; 5-totally disagree).”

**Thank you for noticing it. We corrected it.

Results – Study 1

• The authors should provide an explanation for why daily uplifts significantly correlate with daily hassles and also why daily hassles exhibit a positive correlation with DT.
• The authors should provide an explanation for the lack of support to H1a.

**We improved this part of the discussion (see pages 17-18).

• The significance of the total effect (line 389) is somewhat borderline; the p- value should be less than .05.

**It was equal to 0.05.

• Please also report the main effects of the predictors for the moderated regression model.
• Figure 2: Specify the content on the ordinate axis and provide the acronyms for 'ma' and 'maq'.

**We added.

Discussion – Study 1

• The results of the first study appear highly incongruent with each other. Consider addressing this in the discussions section of the first work.
• In particular, explain the reason behind obtaining three different outcomes for the three factors of the Dark Triad in Hypothesis 3, with Hypothesis 4 not confirmed at all.

**We added some comments and explanations on pages 18-19.

Participants and procedure – Study 2

• The same issues raised for Study 1 also apply to Study 2.

**We added the information you asked.

• Ryff (1989) psychological well-being scale comprises six sub-dimensions, yet not six items. Have the authors utilized a validated, abbreviated version? If so, how was it derived?

**We used six items to avoid participants’ mortality. We have chosen the items with the highest loadings on the original scale.

Results – Study 2

• Please also report the main effects of the predictors for the moderated regression model.

**We did not test the simple moderation model, because Hayes (2018) suggests that for complex models as moderated moderated mediation models, testing the whole model is sufficient.

• Figure 4: Specify the content on the ordinate axis.

**It is specified on the Figure’s description.

• It appears from Figure 5 that there is essentially a main effect of positive affect.

**Yes, we agree. 

Discussion – Study 2

• The authors reported the following sentence: “Specifically, the findings show that psychological well-being tends to in-crease when positive affect is higher, and when curiosity and the three DT traits are lower.” However, graphically, the patterns are quite distinct from each other, irrespective of the potential significances of a triple interaction, which is inherently challenging to interpret.

**Yes, we agree. We have the general discussion more developed.

Discussion

• This explanation does not seem particularly persuasive: “Thus, this openness to others, which triggers joy when exploring new things, may buffer the individuals’ dark side, and as such, the experience of positive affect, leads them to feel less COVID-19 stress. 

**We improved the rational behind this assumption.

• This is a mere speculation here, and the single subcomponent should be analyzed: “So, individuals who score high on psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, by being more xenophobic (a dimension of COVID-19 stress), may see their COVID-19 stress higher.

**We indeed agree, and as such we removed this part.

• The same applies here: “Vulnerable narcissists tend to experience frequent psychological distress (Miller, et al., 2008), which may justify the non-significant moderating effect and, as such less sensitivity to situational factors, such as daily micro-events and subsequent affective reactions.

**This is not speculative as narcissists may be vulnerable or grandiose – presenting different characteristics.

In conclusion, I appreciate the authors' effort to integrate various constructs and assess their impact on individuals' stress and well-being. This is an ambitious and complex endeavor, yielding partly unexpected and incongruent results across the two studies.

Despite several positive aspects, there are noteworthy critiques. Specifically, the theoretical rationale underlying various relationships, as previously mentioned, appears scant in several instances. The proposed hypotheses do not seem to naturally emanate from the presented theories and literature.

The inclusion of two moderators (in addition to two dependent variables) further complicates the interpretation of the data. Additionally, significant concerns pertain to the utilization of adopted instruments and the manner in which regressions models are reported. The inclusion of "situational" dimensions related to the last 24 hours influencing stress or well-being seems conceptually peculiar. 

Furthermore, it would be intriguing to understand the outcomes when moderators are considered individually. The direct recourse to this moderated moderated mediated model renders hypotheses and explanations particularly intricate, and the lack of congruence in the obtained results does not favor this approach.

 **We completely agree when you mention that the model is complex and intricate. However, we believe that now the manuscript is clearer.

Please, check for typos (e.g., “analying” line 123).

**Thank you, we corrected this and other typos throughout the paper.

**Thank you once again for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. It undeniably helped us to improve it.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Based on the revisions made, I am confident in recommending the acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.