{"paper_id":"3c1f3cb7-714a-4817-895a-656ecfae3ab0","body_text":"Sustaining Well-Being Under Daily Stress: The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth and the Short-Lived Protective Function of Grandiose Narcissism Trait | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sustaining Well-Being Under Daily Stress: The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth and the Short-Lived Protective Function of Grandiose Narcissism Trait Quan Wei, Jianyong Li, Huiqing Huang, Ziyi Li, Yangmei Luo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Stress is a major risk factor for mental health and well-being, yet few studies have examined its effects on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being from a within-person, dynamic perspective. While self-worth is considered an essential internal resource for sustaining well-being, it remains unclear whether it mediates the immediate association between stress and well-being at the momentary level. In addition, although grandiose narcissism has been proposed as a potential psychological buffer in stressful contexts, its protective function remains debated, with its efficacy potentially varying across the temporal scale. In light of these unresolved questions, the present study employed a 10-day experience sampling design with four assessments per day among 166 participants and used dynamic structural equation modeling to test the dynamic relations between momentary stress and two forms of well-being, as well as the roles of momentary self-worth and grandiose narcissism trait. The results showed that (1) momentary stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent hedonic well-being, but did not directly predict subsequent eudaimonic well-being; (2) momentary self-worth mediated the effects of stress on both subsequent hedonic and eudaimonic well-being; and (3) grandiose narcissism trait moderated the effect of momentary stress on subsequent self-worth, but this moderating effect was not observed when the time interval increased or at the between-person level. Taken together, these findings suggest that self-worth is a key mechanism linking stress to well-being, whereas the short-term buffering role of grandiose narcissism is limited. Momentary stress Momentary well-being Momentary self-worth Grandiose narcissism trait Dynamic structural equation model Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1 Introduction Well-being, which has long been a central concern in human thought and social development, is commonly defined as an optimal state of psychological functioning and subjective experience (Ryan & Deci, 2001 ). Rooted in different philosophical traditions, contemporary well-being research has evolved along two major perspectives. The first, hedonic well-being, conceptualizes happiness as the maximization of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, primarily involving increased positive affect and reduced negative affect. The second, eudaimonic well-being, highlights the fulfillment of human potential and the pursuit of a purposeful and meaningful life (Delle Fave, 2023 ). Despite their conceptual differences, both perspectives provide important theoretical frameworks for understanding psychological health and social flourishing (Ryan & Deci, 2001 ). In modern fast-paced societies, stress has become a pervasive challenge in daily life and is a major risk factor for mental health and well-being (Ramanathan & Desrouleaux, 2022 ; Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ). Extensive research has examined the relationship between stress and well-being, yet several important issues remain insufficiently understood. First, because hedonic and eudaimonic well-being stem from different theoretical traditions and value orientations, stress may influence them in different ways. However, most empirical studies have focused primarily on hedonic well-being (Gerhardt et al., 2021 ; van Agteren et al., 2021 ), and the two forms of well-being are seldom examined within the same analytic framework. As Baumeister et al. ( 2013 ) argued, a life that is pleasurable but lacks meaning may be shallow and empty, whereas a meaningful life devoid of pleasure may be burdened with worry and anxiety. Thus, understanding both forms of well-being simultaneously is essential for a comprehensive account of human flourishing. Second, previous research has tended to conceptualize stress, well-being, and related constructs as relatively stable traits. Such studies have typically relied on cross-sectional or long-interval longitudinal designs to examine contemporaneous associations or between-person differences (Brinsley et al., 2025 ; Muris & Otgaar, 2023 ), paying much less attention to psychological processes that fluctuate within individuals over time. Yet relationships at the between-person (trait) level and those at the within-person (state) level may diverge or even contradict one another, and conflating these two levels risks ecological or atomistic fallacies (Hox et al., 2017 ). A more complete understanding of how stress shapes well-being therefore requires a within-person or state-level perspective. Prior research has shown that both forms of well-being fluctuate at microtemporal scales (van Halem et al., 2024 ), and individuals’ evaluations of their own well-being often reflect moment-to-moment changes from the recent past to the present (Ryan & Deci, 2001 ). Moreover, in everyday life, stress arises more often from minor hassles and situational fluctuations than from major traumatic events (Feng et al., 2023 ). Such minor daily stressors may trigger sharp short-term changes in emotional and self-evaluative experiences and, when accumulated, may constitute long-term risks for well-being (Johnsson et al., 2015 ; Miller et al., 2008 ). Experience-sampling studies have similarly shown that momentary fluctuations in daily stress exert immediate effects on individuals’ emotional states and self-evaluations (Erbas et al., 2018 ; Klusmann et al., 2021 ). Thus, without examining these micro-level processes in real time, the mechanisms linking stress to well-being cannot be fully understood. Although some studies have begun to use intensive longitudinal designs to examine momentary stress and related psychological states, such work remains limited relative to research focusing on major stressors or trait-like stress, and evidence regarding the dynamic processes through which momentary stress affects well-being is still insufficient. At the level of psychological mechanisms, self-worth is considered an essential internal resource that helps individuals cope with threatening information and sustain well-being (Howell, 2017 ; Steele, 1988 ). Exposure to stressful circumstances can disrupt the systems that support self-worth, undermine individuals’ sense of personal value, and in turn impair well-being (Howell, 2017 ; Semmer et al., 2019 ). Meanwhile, individuals do not merely endure stress passively; grandiose narcissism trait plays a meaningful role in shaping how people respond to stress (Kang & Zhao, 2024 ). According to the status pursuit in narcissism model, individuals high in grandiose narcissism employ cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal strategies to defend their idealized self-image when facing stress, thereby buffering its negative impact and producing short-term gains in well-being (Grapsas et al., 2020 ). These considerations highlight the importance of examining the roles of self-worth and grandiose narcissism in how individuals adapt to daily stress. However, little is known about how momentary self-worth fluctuates under high-frequency, short-lived stressors and how these fluctuations relate to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Likewise, it remains unclear whether grandiose narcissism moderates these within-person processes. Taken together, the present study employed an intensive experience-sampling design to investigate the dynamic processes through which momentary stress shapes well-being, adopting a within-person perspective to disentangle state fluctuations from between-person differences. We further examined the mediating role of momentary self-worth and the potential time-dependent moderating role of grandiose narcissism, with the aim of providing new theoretical and empirical insights into psychological adaptation to daily stress. 2 Momentary Stress and Well-being Momentary stress refers to the psychological and physiological tension or subjective experience that arises when important daily needs or goals are obstructed and individuals perceive their coping resources as threatened (Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ; Semmer et al., 2019 ). According to conservation of resources theory, the experience of stress compels individuals to draw upon and deplete their existing cognitive and emotional resources in order to cope. The loss of these personal resources may generate psychological distress and impair social functioning, thereby reducing overall well-being (Hobfoll, 1989 ). Research has shown that stress conflicts with hedonic motivation and undermines individuals’ pursuit of pleasure and comfort (van Halem et al., 2024 ). Experience-sampling research has shown that momentary stress impairs individuals’ ability to effectively recognize and regulate their positive and negative emotional states (Erbas et al., 2018 ). Klusmann et al. ( 2021 ) further found that resource depletion caused by momentary stress diminishes individuals’ capacity to manage negative stimuli, contributing to emotional exhaustion. In more severe cases, stress weakens individuals’ ability to experience pleasure from typically enjoyable activities, potentially leading to anhedonia (Zhao et al., 2024 ). Thus, momentary stress exerts a detrimental influence on hedonic well-being. Momentary stress also negatively affects eudaimonic well-being. From the perspective of the meaning-making model, resource loss can disrupt the harmony between individuals’ core beliefs and their lived reality, thereby constraining their perception of life meaning and hindering goal pursuit and value realization (Park, 2010 ). Studies have shown significant negative associations between stress and eudaimonic well-being (Pak, 2025 ). Stress may weaken perceived coherence and controllability in life, thereby reducing one’s sense of meaning (Park & Baumeister, 2017 ). Ward et al. ( 2023 ) reported that momentary stress consumes cognitive resources, prompting individuals to adopt maladaptive coping strategies, limiting goal-directed motivation, and reducing meaning-related experiences. In addition, the uncertainty and frustration inherent in stressful situations may inhibit individuals’ capacity to derive or construct positive meaning from their experiences (Kamijo & Yukawa, 2018 ), making it difficult to stay focused on goals or perceive personal growth (Righetti et al., 2014 ; Ward et al., 2023 ), ultimately lowering eudaimonic well-being. Although existing research has identified potential effects of stress on both forms of well-being, direct comparisons of their differential associations remain limited, and the moment-to-moment dynamics and underlying psychological mechanisms at micro-temporal timescales are not yet well understood. The present study therefore examines whether momentary self-worth mediates these within-person associations. 2.1 The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth Momentary self-worth refers to individuals’ immediate cognitive evaluations and affective experiences concerning “who I am” and “whether I am valuable” within the context of social life and self-relations (Huang & Yang, 1998 ; Pelham & Swann, 1989 ). From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, individuals strive to protect, retain, and accumulate existing resources to cope with environmental demands. At the psychological level, self-affirmation theory provides a more specific explanatory framework, positing that people are motivated to maintain a sense of self-integrity—namely, the feeling and belief that the self is valuable and capable of adaptive functioning (Sherman & Cohen, 2006 ; Steele, 1988 ). Thus, self-worth, as the experiential manifestation of self-integrity, represents a central psychological resource for sustaining well-being (Howell, 2017 ). A substantial body of research suggests that self-worth promotes positive emotional experiences and enhances perceptions of meaning, making it a key resource for cultivating and maintaining both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Filosa et al., 2024; Muris & Otgaar, 2023 ; Paradisi et al., 2024 ). However, momentary stress in daily life may threaten the very resources upon which self-worth is constructed. Semmer et al. ( 2019 ) argued that stress experiences can disrupt individuals’ self-narratives by conveying messages that devalue, challenge, or undermine the self, thereby eliciting negative emotions and self-doubt. When stress exceeds available coping resources, individuals may experience a loss of control that interferes with their self-evaluations, lowering self-worth (Galanakis et al., 2016 ). Once self-worth is diminished, individuals may develop pessimistic views of self-improvement, experience heightened negative affect, and become more entrenched in maladaptive thinking patterns, making it difficult to sustain positive emotions (Shi et al., 2025 ) and undermining meaning-making processes (C. L. Park, 2010 ). Consistent with this, Lee et al. ( 2013 ) found that self-worth mediates the association between stress and depressive tendencies—an inverse indicator of mental health and well-being (Luo et al., 2018 ; Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ; Ryan & Deci, 2001 ). Taken together, self-worth may represent a key mechanism through which momentary stress influences both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Yet the existing evidence that stress threatens self-worth and subsequently affects well-being is primarily derived from cross-sectional designs or trait-level assessments. According to the homeostatic model of identity protection, individuals’ self-worth undergoes adaptive moment-to-moment fluctuations in response to stress to prevent the escalation of negative emotions (Sedikides, 2021 ), suggesting that self-worth also functions as a state-like construct. The present study therefore examines whether momentary self-worth mediates the within-person associations between momentary stress and both forms of well-being. 2.2 The Moderating Role of Grandiose Narcissism Trait Grandiose narcissism trait is a personality trait characterized by overly positive and inflated self-evaluations, a sense of superiority, and expectations of special treatment and admiration from others (Kang & Zhao, 2024 ; Grapsas et al., 2020 ). According to the status pursuit in narcissism model, grandiose narcissism reflects a dynamic self-regulatory process guided by a strong motivation to achieve and maintain social status. This model proposes that, when confronted with stress or threat, individuals high in grandiose narcissism engage in self-enhancement or derogation of others to protect their self-worth and buffer against the adverse effects of stress on well-being (Grapsas et al., 2020 ). In stressful situations, such individuals may seek or create opportunities to validate their status or demonstrate competence in front of others; when self-enhancement is insufficient, they may restore status through devaluing others. These responses can reduce the erosion of self-worth caused by stress and help preserve hedonic well-being (via maintaining positive affect and avoiding negative affect) and eudaimonic well-being (via reinforcing feelings of meaning and purpose). Empirical findings support these theoretical propositions. A diary study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic found that individuals high in grandiose narcissism paid less attention to stressors and were more inclined to engage in positive self-presentation, thereby reducing perceived stress and its negative consequences (Sękowski et al., 2025 ). Other research suggests that grandiose narcissists selectively attend to feedback that enhances self-worth while dismissing or devaluing information that threatens it (Giacomin & Jordan, 2014 ). Some scholars further argue that, in contemporary social environments, grandiose narcissism may function as an adaptive strategy, promoting higher self-satisfaction and well-being (Zheng & MacCann, 2023 ). Because such individuals typically possess heightened self-confidence and perceived social advantage, they may display greater psychological resilience and more effective coping responses in stressful contexts, which helps protect their self-worth and mental health (Papageorgiou et al., 2019 ). Taken together, these findings suggest that grandiose narcissism may moderate the associations between stress, self-worth, and both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Nevertheless, the protective role of grandiose narcissism remains controversial (Papageorgiou et al., 2019 ). Inconsistencies in empirical findings may stem from differences in temporal scale. In the short term, individuals high in grandiose narcissism may rely on strong psychological resilience and exaggerated self-views to shield themselves from the immediate impact of stress on self-worth and affect (Leniarska & Zajenkowski, 2022 ; Papageorgiou et al., 2019 ). Over longer periods, however, this protective effect may weaken due to interpersonal costs, making grandiose narcissism a less stable buffer against stress (Orth et al., 2024 ; Zuckerman & O’Loughlin, 2009 ). These patterns suggest that the protective function of grandiose narcissism may be primarily short-lived. Based on these considerations, the present study examines whether the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism is time-dependent—specifically, whether its moderating role weakens as the time interval increases or when analyses shift from the within-person to the between-person level. 2.3 The Present Study The present study employed an experience sampling design to capture individuals’ moment-to-moment experiences in daily life and to examine, from a dynamic within-person perspective, the associations between stress and two forms of well-being, as well as the mediating role of momentary self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism. Guided by conservation of resources theory and integrating self-affirmation theory with the status pursuit in narcissism model, we developed a moderated longitudinal mediation framework (see Fig. 1 ). To analyze the intensive longitudinal data, we used dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM; Asparouhov et al., 2018 ), which allows for a clear separation of within-person and between-person variability. Compared with traditional multilevel models, DSEM further enables the investigation of temporal processes by estimating autoregressive and lagged effects (Fang et al., 2025c ; Zheng et al., 2021 ). This approach is well suited for uncovering the dynamic mechanisms through which daily stress influences well-being. 3 Method 3.1 Participants The study was part of an experience sampling (ESM) research database established by our research group, and the current project constituted an independent sub-study within this database (ethics approval number: HR2020-02-001). Participants were recruited nationwide through online advertisements, yielding a total sample of 166 individuals. All participants completed a set of trait questionnaires prior to the ESM period and subsequently engaged in a 10-day ESM protocol with four assessments per day (40 assessments in total). The final sample included 127 women (76.51%) and 39 men (23.49%), with a mean age of 24.00 ± 4.86 years. Of the participants, 26 (15.66%) lived in rural areas and 140 (84.34%) lived in urban areas. In total, 5,663 valid momentary responses were obtained, yielding an average compliance rate of 85.29%. Following prior recommendations (Murray et al., 2023 ; Schultzberg & Muthén, 2018 ), statistical power was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Under a two-tailed alpha level of .05 and assuming small-to-moderate effect sizes, the results indicated that the detection power for all major paths in the model exceeded 0.99, demonstrating that the sample size was adequate to ensure stable model estimation and sufficient statistical power. 3.2 Procedure 3.2.1 Baseline Assessment Before the start of the ESM period, participants were required to read an informed consent form and an instruction sheet outlining the study procedures. After providing consent, participants completed a baseline questionnaire via the online survey platform Wenjuanxing ( http://www.wjx.cn/ ). The baseline measures included demographic information (age, gender, occupation, and household registration status) and trait questionnaires (a narcissistic personality scale and a short-form depression scale). Participants were instructed to answer carefully within the designated time frame. 3.2.2 Experience Sampling Phase Following the baseline assessment, participants downloaded and used the Psychorus mobile application for the ESM task. The app sent four random prompts each day between 08:00 and 23:00, with a minimum interval of two hours between prompts. Upon receiving a prompt, participants had 30 minutes to report their current momentary states, including stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being. Responses submitted beyond the 30-minute window were automatically invalidated. To enhance ecological validity and ensure adequate temporal coverage, the daily prompt schedule was fully randomized for each participant. 3.3 Baseline Measures 3.3.1 Grandiose Narcissism Grandiose narcissism was assessed using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988 ), a classical and widely used instrument for measuring grandiose narcissistic traits (Kang & Zhao, 2024 ). The inventory contains 40 forced-choice items, each consisting of a narcissistic and a non-narcissistic statement. Participants selected the statement that best described them. All items were scored 0/1 and summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of grandiose narcissism. Composite reliability in the present sample was ω = 0.84. 3.3.2 Control Variables Given the importance of demographic characteristics in well-being research (Helliwell et al., 2024 ) and the established role of depressive symptoms as a major risk factor for well-being (Luo et al., 2018 ; Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ), gender, age, residential status (rural vs. urban), and depressive symptoms were included as time-invariant covariates. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977 ), which includes 20 items rated on a four-point scale (0 = rarely or none of the time, 3 = most or all of the time). Scores were summed to yield a total depression score, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptomatology. Composite reliability in the present sample was ω = 0.90 3.4 Experience Sampling Measures 3.4.1 Momentary Stress Momentary stress was assessed with a single item commonly used in daily stress research (Erbas et al., 2018 ): “How stressed do you feel right now?” Participants responded on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much), with higher scores indicating greater momentary stress. 3.4.2 Momentary Self-Worth Momentary self-worth was measured with two items adapted from Heppner et al. ( 2008 ): “I have many positive qualities right now” and “I am quite satisfied with who I am right now”. Both items were rated on a 0–100 scale (0 = not at all, 100 = very much). Scores were averaged, with higher values reflecting higher momentary self-worth. Composite reliability was ω b = 0.94 at the between-person level and ω w = 0.67 at the within-person level. 3.4.3 Momentary Hedonic Well-Being Momentary hedonic well-being was operationalized as affect balance (positive affect minus negative affect; Sheldon et al., 2013 ). Following prior ESM studies (Lydon-Staley et al., 2019 ; Song et al., 2024 ), eight emotion items were used. Positive affect included four items (relaxed, satisfied, happy, excited). Negative affect included four items (depressed, anxious, frustrated, angry). Participants rated each emotion from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). Positive and negative affect scores were computed as the mean of their respective items, and affect balance was obtained by subtracting negative from positive affect. For positive affect, composite reliability was ω b = 0.93 and ω w = 0.80, and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) showed good fit: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02. For negative affect, composite reliability was ω b = 0.97 and ω w = 0.81, with similarly good MCFA fit: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02. 3.4.4 Momentary eudaimonic well-being Momentary eudaimonic well-being was assessed using three items following previous measurement approaches (Lawes et al., 2023 ; White & Dolan, 2009 ): “How meaningful/purposeful/helpful do you feel right now?” All items were rated from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). The mean score of the three items represented momentary eudaimonic well-being, with higher scores indicating higher levels of momentary meaning and purpose. Composite reliability was ω b = .93 at the between-person level and ω w = 74 at the within-person level. MCFA indicated excellent model fit: CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.00. 3.5 Data Analysis 3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS 27.0. The ggplot2 package in R was used for data visualization. Scale reliability and validity were examined in Mplus 8.3. 3.5.2 Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling Following prior analytical recommendations and procedures (Fang et al., 2025a ; Fang et al., 2025b ), dynamic structural equation models were estimated in Mplus 8.3. The DSEM framework distinguishes two levels: the between-person level (Level 2) and the within-person level (Level 1). The time interval was set to 4 hours, corresponding to the four daily assessments conducted between 08:00 and 23:00. Irregular response intervals and missing data due to nonresponses were handled using the Kalman filter. Model parameters were estimated using Bayesian methods with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling and noninformative priors. Four MCMC chains were run with a total of 10,000 iterations. Convergence was evaluated using the proportional scale reduction (PSR) statistic and trace plots. Convergence was considered adequate when PSR < 1.05 and when the trace plots showed all chains overlapping and fluctuating randomly within a stable band. Effects were deemed statistically significant when their 95% highest posterior density credible intervals (95% HPD CI) did not include zero. Given the conceptual distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Delle Fave, 2023 ) and to reduce the risk of convergence or estimation difficulties associated with model complexity (Fang et al., 2025b ), the two forms of well-being were modeled separately. Accordingly, two models were estimated: Model 1 with hedonic well-being as the outcome and Model 2 with eudaimonic well-being as the outcome. Each model included four core variables: grandiose narcissism, stress, self-worth, and well-being. At the within-person level (Level 1), the model estimated autoregressive effects for stress, self-worth, and well-being, along with lagged effects from stress to subsequent self-worth, from stress to subsequent well-being, and from self-worth to subsequent well-being. To satisfy the DSEM assumption of temporal stationarity, time was included as a predictor at Level 1 to detrend the variables. At the between-person level (Level 2), all Level 1 parameters (including latent means, autoregressive effects, and lagged effects) were allowed to vary randomly across individuals. Grandiose narcissism, grand-mean centered, was included as a moderator to examine its moderating role on the first stage of the mediation pathway (i.e., the effect of prior stress on subsequent self-worth) and the direct pathway (i.e., the effect of prior stress on subsequent well-being). Moderated mediation was further evaluated by comparing conditional indirect effects at ± 1 SD of grandiose narcissism; significant differences would indicate that the mediation effect of self-worth varied as a function of narcissism (Fang et al., 2025b ). Baseline depressive symptoms, gender, age, and residential status were included as Level 2 covariates to control for potential confounding variables. The final model structures are shown in Fig. 2 . 4 Results 4.1 Common Method Bias To reduce the potential influence of common method bias, procedural remedies were implemented, including anonymous participation, random presentation of items, and the inclusion of reverse-scored items. Following the recommendations of Tang and Wen (2020), Harman’ s single-factor test was conducted. For the baseline survey, the single-factor CFA model showed poor model fit: CFI = 0.34, TLI = 0.32, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.17. For the experience sampling data, the single-factor MCFA model also demonstrated inadequate fit: CFI = 0.71, TLI = 0.69, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.08. These results indicate that no single factor accounted for the majority of covariance among the measures, suggesting that common method bias was unlikely to pose a serious threat in the present study. 4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1 . Correlation analyses indicated that stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being were all significantly associated at both the between-person and within-person levels ( ps < 0.001). At the between-person level, grandiose narcissism was positively correlated with self-worth and eudaimonic well-being ( ps < 0.05), whereas its associations with stress and hedonic well-being were nonsignificant ( ps > 0.05). All experience-sampling variables exhibited fluctuations across time points but showed no evident upward or downward trends over the 10-day period (see Fig. 3 ). In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all variables exceeded 0.059 (see Table 1 ), supporting the use of dynamic structural equation modeling. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Stress (0.41) –0.26 *** –0.57 *** –0.22 *** 2. Self-worth –0.27 *** (0.61) 0.56 *** 0.65 *** 3. Hedonic well-being –0.65 *** 0.63 *** (0.46) 0.50 *** 4. Eudaimonic well-being –0.27 *** 0.81 *** 0.61 *** (0.50) 5. Grandiose narcissism –0.01 0.24 ** 0.09 0.18 * — 6. Gender a 0.08 –0.18 * –0.18 * –0.09 0.06 — 7. Age –0.12 0.21 ** 0.11 0.24 ** –0.04 –0.06 — 8. Residential status b 0.16 * 0.01 –0.07 0.03 0.04 0.07 –0.09 — 9. Depressive 0.29 *** –0.26 *** –0.41 *** –0.24 ** 0.11 0.18 * –0.11 0.09 — M 47.76 63.08 27.73 55.59 13.14 0.23 24.00 0.16 19.08 SD 16.15 12.97 22.88 13.43 6.38 0.43 4.86 0.37 9.83 Note. N between =166, N within =5663. Correlations below the diagonal represent between-person associations; correlations above the diagonal represent within-person associations. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are ICCs for each variable. a = dummy-coded variable (male = 1, female = 0), with the mean representing the proportion of male participants. b = dummy-coded variable (rural = 1, urban = 0), with the mean representing the proportion of rural participants. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001(two-tailed). 4.3 Results of the Dynamic Structural Equation Models The PSR values and trace plots indicated satisfactory convergence for all models. The primary unstandardized parameter estimates are presented in Table 2 . All autoregressive effects were significant across both models, suggesting that individuals’ current psychological states were predicted by their own states four hours earlier. This indicates relatively stable temporal dynamics in stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being. The lagged effects further showed that current stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent self-worth ( b hedonic = − 0.033, 95% HPD CI = [–0.049, − 0.016]; b eudaimonic = − 0.030, 95% HPD CI = [–0.047, − 0.013]). Notably, the direct effects of stress differed across the two types of well-being. Specifically, current stress significantly predicted lower subsequent hedonic well-being ( b hedonic = − 0.098, 95% HPD CI = [–0.143, − 0.054]), whereas its effect on subsequent eudaimonic well-being was nonsignificant ( b eudaimonic = − 0.024, 95% HPD CI = [–0.048, 0.001]). At the same time, current self-worth significantly predicted both subsequent hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being ( b hedonic = 0.282, 95% HPD CI = [0.187, 0.379]; b eudaimonic = 0.178, 95% HPD CI = [0.127, 0.233]). Based on these findings, mediation analyses showed that self-worth significantly mediated the links between prior stress and subsequent well-being ( b hedonic = − 0.016, 95% HPD CI = [–0.028, − 0.006]; b eudaimonic = − 0.009, 95% HPD CI = [–0.016, − 0.003]). Regarding the moderating role of grandiose narcissism, the results revealed no significant moderation on the direct paths from stress to well-being. However, grandiose narcissism significantly moderated the first half of the mediation pathway—that is, the effect of stress on self-worth ( b hedonic = 0.003, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.007]; b eudaimonic = 0.004, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.007]). Conditional indirect effects were further evaluated at levels of grandiose narcissism corresponding to ± 1 SD from the mean. The results indicated significant differences between high and low narcissism groups in the indirect effect of stress on well-being via self-worth ( b hedonic = 0.012, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.025]; b eudaimonic = 0.009, 95% HPD CI = [0.002, 0.018]), demonstrating that the indirect pathway was moderated by grandiose narcissism. To further probe the moderated mediation, the Johnson–Neyman technique was applied. As shown in Fig. 4 , the mediating effect of self-worth gradually diminished as levels of grandiose narcissism increased. Specifically, when grandiose narcissism exceeded 4.64 (for hedonic well-being) and 4.37 (for eudaimonic well-being), the indirect effect of stress via self-worth became nonsignificant. These findings suggest that higher levels of grandiose narcissism can buffer the detrimental impact of momentary stress on self-worth, thereby attenuating its indirect effects on both forms of well-being. Table 2 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates Pathways Fixed Effects: b [95% HPD CI] Model 1 Hedonic Well-being Model 2 Eudaimonic Well-being Autoregressive Effects Stress t−1 →Stress t (φ S ) 0.201[0.156, 0.242] 0.186[0.142, 0.227] Self-worth t−1 →Self-worth t (φ SW ) 0.214[0.170, 0258] 0.223[0.179, 0.268] Well-being t−1 →Well-being t (φ WB ) 0.173[0.126, 0.218] 0.138[0.091, 0.186] Lagged Effects Stress t−1 →Self-worth t (γ S→SW ) –0.033[–0.049, − 0.016] –0.030[–0.047, − 0.013] Self-worth t−1 →Well-being t (γ SW→WB ) 0.282[0.187, 0.379] 0.178[0.127, 0.233] Stress t−1 →Well-being t (γ S→WB ) –0.098[–0.143, − 0.054] –0.024[–0.048, 0.001] Moderation Effects Grandiose Narcissism→γ S→SW (γ3) 0.003[0.001, 0.007] 0.004[0.001, 0.007] Grandiose Narcissism→γ S→WB (γ4) 0.005[–0.002, 0.012] 0.002[–0.002, 0.006] Conditional Indirect Effects IND_H –0.010[–0.023, 0.002] –0.005[–0.012, 0.002] IND –0.016[–0.028, − 0.006] –0.009[–0.016, − 0.003] IND_L –0.022[–0.035, − 0.010] –0.014[–0.022, − 0.007] IND_H – IND_L 0.012[0.001, 0.025] 0.009[0.002, 0.018] Note. Labels shown in round parentheses indicate the corresponding path labels in the model diagram. b denotes unstandardized coefficients. Parameters shown in bold indicate that the 95% HPD CI does not include zero, whereas parameters in gray indicate the opposite. IND_H, IND, and IND_L represent the conditional indirect effects of self-worth when grandiose narcissism is set at + 1 SD, the mean (0), and − 1 SD, respectively. IND_H – IND_L denotes the difference between the indirect effects at + 1 SD and − 1 SD. 4.4 Supplementary Analyses 4.4.1 Separate Modeling of the Indicators of Hedonic Well-being Given that positive affect and negative affect may represent relatively independent psychological dimensions (Cooke et al., 2022 ; Li et al., 2025 ), we conducted additional models in which these two indicators of hedonic well-being were analyzed separately rather than combined into a single affect balance score. The results showed that the effect patterns were consistent with those of the integrated model; that is, all paths in the dynamic moderated mediation model remained significant or nonsignificant in the same direction, indicating that the main findings were not dependent on the operationalization of hedonic well-being. 4.4.2 Between-person Moderated Mediation Analysis To examine the moderated mediation effects at the between-person level, we extracted the latent means of each experience sampling variable to represent their between-person components, following the procedure described by Fang et al. ( 2025b ). Using PROCESS Model 58 in SPSS, we tested the mediation effect of self-worth and the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism while controlling for gender, age, residence, and depressive symptoms. Results showed that, similar to the within-person findings, self-worth significantly mediated the association between between-person stress and between-person well-being ( b hedonic = − 0.127, 95%CI = [–0.253, − 0.004]; b eudaimonic = − 0.124, 95%CI = [–0.246, − 0.002]). Stress significantly predicted hedonic well-being ( b = − 0.686, 95%CI = [–0.827, − 0.545]) but did not significantly predict eudaimonic well-being ( b = − 0.686, 95%CI = [–0.827, − 0.545]). However, grandiose narcissism did not significantly moderate any of the tested paths. Notably, grandiose narcissism significantly predicted self-worth but did not significantly predict either form of well-being, suggesting that individuals high in narcissism did not report higher hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. 4.4.3 Sensitivity Analyses To evaluate the robustness of the results, we conducted sensitivity analyses focusing on two aspects: the specification of time intervals and the inclusion of covariates. Specifically, we re-estimated the primary model paths under different analytical configurations. When the time interval was extended from 4 hours to 8 hours, all lagged effects weakened. Under this longer interval, the lagged effect of stress on hedonic well-being became nonsignificant, and the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism on the link between stress and self-worth also disappeared, suggesting attenuation of momentary psychological effects over longer time spans. In contrast, the results remained substantively unchanged regardless of whether covariates were included or excluded from the analysis. Overall, the findings across analytic strategies supported the robustness of the main model. 5 Discussion As a common psychological experience in daily life, stress has profound implications for individuals’ mental health and well-being (Ramanathan & Desrouleaux, 2022 ; Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ). Drawing on conservation of resources theory and integrating self-affirmation theory with the status pursuit model of narcissism, the present study employed dynamic structural equation modeling to examine how momentary stress influences hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and to further elucidate the mediating role of self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism. Below, we discuss the findings in detail. 5.1 The Effects of Momentary Stress on Two Forms of Well-being The results demonstrated that momentary stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent hedonic well-being, whereas its direct effect on eudaimonic well-being was nonsignificant. A similar pattern emerged at the between-person level: individuals experiencing higher stress tended to report lower hedonic well-being, but stress did not directly predict eudaimonic well-being. These findings align with Riepenhausen et al. ( 2022 ), who suggested that different orientations of well-being exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity to stress—stress exerts a more immediate and pronounced influence on hedonic well-being, whereas its association with eudaimonic well-being is more complex. Hedonic well-being largely depends on short-term affective experiences—immediate subjective pleasure that is particularly susceptible to momentary fluctuations and external disturbances (Huta & Waterman, 2014 ). Under daily stress, pleasurable experiences and engagement in enjoyable activities may be disrupted by negative affect or increased cognitive load, resulting in short-term fluctuations in hedonic well-being (Klusmann et al., 2021 ; van Halem et al., 2024 ). Moreover, stress increases individuals’ sensitivity to negative information and fosters pessimistic expectations about future events, leading to overestimations of anticipated negative emotions (Braund et al., 2019 ). This cognitive bias may promote avoidance of potentially pleasurable activities, further reducing opportunities for positive affect and ultimately undermining the affective balance underlying hedonic well-being.Importantly, the negative impact of stress on hedonic well-being was time-dependent. When the time interval between assessments was extended to eight hours, the lagged effect of stress on hedonic well-being was no longer significant, indicating that this influence reflects short-lived reactions. Consistent with the hedonic treadmill perspective, individuals’ pleasure tends to return quickly to baseline despite transient situational fluctuations (Luo et al., 2019 , 2022 ), resulting in a diminished stress effect over longer intervals. In contrast, eudaimonic well-being emphasizes long-term meaning-making processes and represents a more stable psychological structure (Huta & Waterman, 2014 ). As a result, it displays greater resilience against stress (Park & Baumeister, 2017 ). Because eudaimonic well-being is grounded in personal growth, goal pursuit, and the realization of values, individuals may maintain a relatively stable level of eudaimonic well-being even under stress by relying on long-term goals and meaning-oriented coping strategies. Stress may even be incorporated into meaning-making processes (Park, 2010 ). Recent experience sampling research suggests that daily stress can shift activity preferences toward more meaningful activities (Huang et al., 2025 ). Although stress intensifies negative affective experiences, it may also prompt deeper reflection and reframe stressful events as opportunities for growth, thereby preserving eudaimonic well-being (Kamijo & Yukawa, 2018 ). Taken together, these findings highlight the immediate impact of daily stress and the differential psychological structures underlying hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being. They support the perspectives of the hedonic treadmill and eudaimonic staircase: hedonic well-being is highly sensitive but quickly adaptive, whereas eudaimonic well-being is more stable and enduring (Luo et al., 2019 , 2022 ). The results also suggest that while stress poses an immediate threat to hedonic well-being, its impact on eudaimonic well-being is less direct and requires consideration of self-worth as a potential underlying mechanism. 5.2 The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-worth The results indicated that momentary self-worth mediated the relationship between momentary stress and both forms of well-being. When individuals experienced higher stress at a given moment, their self-worth decreased, which in turn predicted lower subsequent hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The between-person findings mirrored these within-person dynamics: individuals experiencing higher stress tended to report lower self-worth and lower well-being. These results are consistent with previous studies (Filosa et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2013 ). Mechanistically, stress typically entails threats to competence or personal resources, triggering self-doubt and negative self-evaluation, thereby undermining self-worth (Muris & Otgaar, 2023 ). Stress also reinforces attentional biases toward negative information and fuels self-confirming cognitive patterns during self-evaluation (Braund et al., 2019 ; Kamijo & Yukawa, 2018 ). When stress is interpreted as failure or status loss, self-devaluative emotions such as shame and anger may be triggered (Semmer et al., 2019 ). According to self-affirmation theory, declining self-worth compromises the individual’ s capacity to maintain a positive self-view, thereby weakening the psychological foundation of well-being. Threats to self-integrity lead individuals to engage in defensive and constricted processing of situations, reducing their openness to positive experiences and limiting their ability to derive positive emotion or meaning from daily life (Howell, 2017 ; Sherman & Cohen, 2006 ). Sustained decreases in self-worth further erode confidence in personal growth and hinder the pursuit of values (Righetti et al., 2014 ; Ward et al., 2023 ), posing long-term threats to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Thus, self-worth emerges as a core mechanism supporting well-being and a key psychological resource that enables individuals to cope with everyday stress, underscoring the explanatory power of self-affirmation theory in everyday psychological functioning. 5.3 The Moderating Role of Grandiose Narcissism The results showed that grandiose narcissism moderated the effect of momentary stress on subsequent self-worth and moderated the indirect effect of stress on well-being through self-worth, but did not moderate the direct effect of stress on well-being. This pattern indicates that the “protective effect” of grandiose narcissism primarily operates through self-enhancement processes that buffer self-worth from stress, rather than directly attenuating the emotional consequences of stress. This aligns with previous findings suggesting that the positive functions of grandiose narcissism are rooted in self-enhancement (Zuckerman & O’Loughlin, 2009 ). Individuals high in grandiose narcissism appear capable of resisting the erosive impact of momentary stress on self-worth, thereby preventing downstream declines in well-being. Under stress, narcissistic individuals activate agentic strategies that inflate their perceived competence or status, helping them maintain a sense of superiority (Leniarska & Zajenkowski, 2022 ). Self-focus allows them to highlight personal strengths and internal resources while dismissing negative feedback (Giacomin & Jordan, 2016 ). Their strong status motivation and self-presentational tendencies may further enable them to interpret stress as an opportunity for competence display or self-verification (Grapsas et al., 2020 ; Papageorgiou et al., 2019 ). Interestingly, the results also showed that stress did not directly affect eudaimonic well-being, and at high levels of narcissism (per the Johnson–Neyman analysis), stress no longer influenced eudaimonic well-being indirectly through self-worth. In some cases, the association even trended positive—supporting claims that stress may, under certain interpretations, facilitate meaning-making rather than undermine it (Park, 2010 ; Riepenhausen et al., 2022 ). However, this moderating effect was limited to short-term within-person processes. When the time interval was extended to eight hours, the moderating role of narcissism disappeared; similarly, no moderation emerged at the between-person level. This suggests that the psychological protection conferred by grandiose narcissism is short-lived and cannot accumulate into long-term well-being or resilience. Long-term real-world feedback—such as sustained social rejection or failure—may gradually undermine inflated self-views, thus weakening self-enhancement mechanisms over time (Orth et al., 2024 ; Zuckerman & O’Loughlin, 2009 ). That is, although grandiose narcissism may provide adaptive short-term benefits, these effects are fragile; in the longer term, narcissism often leads to interpersonal strain and reduced social support (Grapsas et al., 2020 ), which ultimately undermine resilience. In sum, the present findings reveal the time-dependent psychological consequences of grandiose narcissism: while it offers immediate protection in day-to-day fluctuations, this advantage does not persist over longer timescales or between individuals. This provides new empirical support for the status pursuit model and offers deeper insight into the “double-edged” nature of grandiose narcissism. 5.4 Implications and Limitations 5.4.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications The present study integrates stress, well-being, self-worth, and grandiose narcissism into a unified framework, revealing the differential effects of stress on two orientations of well-being and the psychological mechanisms underlying these effects. The findings validate the mediating role of self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism, thereby enriching current understandings of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, the study extends empirical evidence for self-affirmation theory and the status pursuit model of narcissism, offering new insights into the “adaptive–fragile” duality of grandiose narcissism. In addition, this research adopts a dynamic within-person perspective to examine how stress influences well-being, contributing meaningfully to trait-level literature and the development of related theories. By combining experience sampling with dynamic structural equation modeling, the study captured short-term fluctuations and daily dynamics of psychological experiences. This approach effectively distinguishes within- and between-person processes, thereby reducing the interpretive limitations associated with single-timescale designs (Asparouhov et al., 2018 ; Fang et al., 2025c ). Practically, the findings provide evidence-based guidance for daily stress management and well-being promotion. Self-worth emerged as a key psychological resource that protects individuals from everyday stress and supports well-being, suggesting that interventions should emphasize its cultivation and enhancement. Moreover, while grandiose narcissism exhibited a short-term protective function, this benefit was not sustained over time, highlighting the need for practitioners to recognize both its immediate adaptive qualities and its potential interpersonal costs and long-term risks. 5.4.2 Limitations and Directions for Future Research Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the present study did not differentiate between types or sources of daily stress. Different forms of stress may affect psychological outcomes through distinct mechanisms, and even the same stressor may exert varying influences across different stages of cognitive processing and emotional experience. In some cases, certain stressors may even facilitate meaning-making and personal growth (Pak, 2025 ; Ward et al., 2023 ). Future research may further differentiate stress types and stages to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the stress–well-being relationship. Second, the study focused exclusively on the agentic subtype of grandiose narcissism. However, grandiose narcissism is a multidimensional construct with diverse expressions. In collectivistic cultures, communal narcissism may demonstrate psychological functions distinct from agentic narcissism. For example, individuals high in communal narcissism may rely on exaggerated group identification or pride, potentially shaping unique pathways in the stress–well-being association (Sękowski et al., 2025 ; Kang & Zhao, 2024 ). Future research should explore different forms of narcissism and examine their psychological and behavioral implications across cultural contexts. Finally, although dynamic structural equation modeling is a powerful analytical tool, it assumes homogeneity in parameter structures across individuals, which may limit its capacity to capture within-group heterogeneity. In addition, due to convergence and estimation constraints, DSEM faces challenges when modeling highly complex multivariate systems (Fang et al., 2025c ). Future studies could employ group iterative multiple model estimation (GIMME) to better uncover individual-specific dynamic patterns linking stress and different forms of well-being (Zheng et al., 2021 ), or incorporate time-series network approaches for more complex multivariate modeling. 6 Conclusion This study shows that momentary stress reduces hedonic well-being, while its direct influence on eudaimonic well-being remains limited in the short term. Self-worth plays a central role in these daily processes, serving as a key pathway through which stress shapes both emotional experiences and the sense of meaning in everyday life. Although grandiose narcissism can soften the immediate impact of stress on self-worth, this benefit appears only in short time windows and does not extend across longer intervals or between individuals. These findings underscore the importance of self-worth as an essential psychological resource for maintaining well-being in the context of everyday stress, and they suggest that the adaptive and vulnerable sides of grandiose narcissism may unfold differently across temporal scales. Declarations Author Contribution Quan Wei served as lead for conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing. Jiangyong Li served in a supporting role for conceptualization, methodology, validation, and writing – review and editing. Huiqing Huang served as lead for data curation and investigation and served in a supporting role for conceptualization.Ziyi Li served in a supporting role for conceptualization, project administration, supervision, and writing – review and editing. Yangmei Luo served as a lead role for data curation, conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, and writing – review and editing. Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 25 (3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803 Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 8 (6), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764 Braund, T. A., Palmer, D. M., Tillman, G., Hanna, H., & Gordon, E. (2019). Increased chronic stress predicts greater emotional negativity bias and poorer social skills but not cognitive functioning in healthy adults. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping , 32 (4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2019.1598555 Brinsley, J., O’Connor, E. J., Singh, B., McKeon, G., Curtis, R., Ferguson, T., … Maher, C. (2025). Effectiveness of digital lifestyle interventions on depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 27 (1), e56975. https://doi.org/10.2196/56975 Cooke, E. M., Schuurman, N. K., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Examining the within- and between-person structure of a short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: A multilevel and dynamic approach. Psychological Assessment , 34 (12), 1126–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001167 Dan, D. T., Wen Z, L,. (2020). Statistical Approaches for Testing Common Method Bias: Problems and Suggestions. Journal of Psychological Science , 43 (1), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20200130 Delle Fave, A. (2023). Eudaimonic and hedonic happiness. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 2206–2212). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_3778 Erbas, Y., Ceulemans, E., Kalokerinos, E. K., Houben, M., Koval, P., Pe, M. L., & Kuppens, P. (2018). Why I don’t always know what I’m feeling: The role of stress in within-person fluctuations in emotion differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 115 (2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000126 Fang, J., Wen, Z. L., Dong, Y. M., Wang, X. J. (2025a). Mediation analysis of intensive longitudinal data. Advances in Psychological Science , 33 (4), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2025.0717 Fang, J., Wen, Z. L., Wang, H. H., Gu, H. L. (2025b). Moderated mediation analyses of intensive longitudinal data. Acta Psychologica Sinica , 57 (5), 915–928. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0915 Fang, J., Wen, Z. L., Wei, D., Wang, H. H., Gu, H. L., Li, Y. (2025c). Intensive Longitudinal Moderation Analysis Based on Dynamic Structural Equation Models. Chinese Journal of Applied Pyschology . Advance online publication. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/33.1012.B.20250624.1028.001 Feng, G., Xu, X., & Lei, J. (2023). Tracking perceived stress, anxiety, and depression in daily life: A double-downward spiral process. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1114332 Filosa, L., Sommovigo, V., Tavolucci, S., Rosa, V., Alivernini, F., Baiocco, R., … Alessandri, G. (2025). Daily associations between global self-esteem and self-concept clarity and their relationships with subjective well-being in a sample of adult workers. Journal of Personality , 93 (2), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12934 Galanakis, M. J., Palaiologou, A., Patsi, G., Velegraki, I.-M., & Darviri, C. (2016). A literature review on the connection between stress and self-esteem. Psychology , 7 (5), 687–694. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.75071 Gerhardt, C., Semmer, N. K., Sauter, S., Walker, A., de Wijn, N., Kälin, W., … Elfering, A. (2021). How are social stressors at work related to well-being and health? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health , 21 (1), 890. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10894-7 Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2014). The wax and wane of narcissism: Grandiose narcissism as a process or state. Journal of Personality , 84 (2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12148 Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine: Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. Journal of Research in Personality , 63 , 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.009 Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science , 15 (1), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619873350 Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L., & Wang, S. (Eds.). (2024). World Happiness Report 2024 . University of Oxford: Wellbeing Research Centre. Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science , 19 (11), 1140–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02215.x Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44 (3), 513–524. Howell, A. J. (2017). Self-affirmation theory and the science of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies , 18 (1), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9713-5 Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications . Routledge. Huang, H., Wu, X., Hu, J., Hu, Y., & Gan, Y. (2025). Temporal dynamics between daily stress, activity choice, and well‐being: An experience sampling study. Stress and Health , 41 (4), https://doi.org/e70085.10.1002/smi.70085 Huang, X. T., & Yang, X. (1998). Making a scale of self-worth for young students . Journal of Psychological Science , 21 (4), 289–292, 382. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.1998.04.001 Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies , 15 (6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0 Johnsson, E., Zolkowska, K., & McNeil, T. F. (2015). Prediction of adaptation difficulties by country of origin, cumulate psychosocial stressors and attitude toward integrating: A swedish study of first-generation immigrants from somalia, vietnam and China. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry , 61 (2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014537639 Kalokerinos, E. K., Murphy, S. C., Koval, P., Bailen, N. H., Crombez, G., Hollenstein, T., … Bastian, B. (2020). Neuroticism may not reflect emotional variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 (17), 9270–9276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919934117 Kamijo, N., & Yukawa, S. (2018). The Role of Rumination and Negative Affect in Meaning Making Following Stressful Experiences in a Japanese Sample. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02404 Kang, T. H., & Zhao, J. (2024). Narcissism research approaches and integration: Dynamics, regulation, and personality characteristics. Advances in Psychological Science , 32 (8), 1354–1365. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01354 Klusmann, U., Aldrup, K., Schmidt, J., & Lüdtke, O. (2021). Is emotional exhaustion only the result of work experiences? A diary study on daily hassles and uplifts in different life domains. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping , 34 (2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1845430 Lawes, M., Hetschko, C., Schöb, R., Stephan, G., & Eid, M. (2023). The impact of unemployment on cognitive, affective, and eudaimonic well-being facets: Investigating immediate effects and short-term adaptation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 124 (3), 659–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000417 Lee, J., Joo, E., & Choi, K. (2013). Perceived stress and self‐esteem mediate the effects of work‐related stress on depression. Stress and Health , 29 (1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2428 Leniarska, M., & Zajenkowski, M. (2022). Why narcissism reduces distress: The consequences of narcissistic intellectual self-confidence. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668257 Li, J., Qi, H., Huang, H., Wang, J., Chen, X., & Luo, Y. (2025). Inter‐ and intraindividual relations between agentic, communal self‐enhancement and hedonic, eudaimonic well‐being: Feedback and mediation mechanisms. Journal of Personality . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13015 Luo, Y. M., Mo, F., Chen, X. H., Jiang, H. D., You, X. Q. (2018). The habituation of hedonic and eudaimonic affect. Acta Psychologica Sinica , 50 (9), 985–996. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00985 Luo, Y., Jiang, H., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., & You, X. (2019). Temporal dynamics of hedonic and eudaimonic reward processing: An event-related potentials (ERPs) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 137 , 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.12.009 Luo, Y., Zhang, X., Jiang, H., & Chen, X. (2022). The neural habituation to hedonic and eudaimonic rewards: Evidence from reward positivity. Psychophysiology , 59 (3), e13977. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13977 Lydon-Staley, D. M., Xia, M., Mak, H. W., & Fosco, G. M. (2019). Adolescent emotion network dynamics in daily life and implications for depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 47 (4), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0474-y Miller, K. E., Omidian, P., Rasmussen, A., Yaqubi, A., & Daudzai, H. (2008). Daily stressors, war experiences, and mental health in afghanistan. Transcultural Psychiatry , 45 (4), 611–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461508100785 Muris, P., & Otgaar, H. (2023). Self-esteem and self-compassion: A narrative review and meta-analysis on their links to psychological problems and well-being. Psychology Research and Behavior Management , 16 , 2961–2975. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S402455 Murray, A., Speyer, L., Thye, M., Stewart, T., Obsuth, I., Kane, J., … Rhodes, S. (2023). Illuminating the daily life experiences of adolescents with and without ADHD: Protocol for an ecological momentary assessment study. BMJ Open , 13 (9), e077222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077222 Orth, U., Krauss, S., & Back, M. D. (2024). Development of narcissism across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin , 150 (6), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000436 Pak, Y. (2025). Intertwinement of entrepreneurial stress and eudaimonic well-being: A phenomenographic approach. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2025.2519284 Papageorgiou, K. A., Gianniou, F.-M., Wilson, P., Moneta, G. B., Bilello, D., & Clough, P. (2019). The bright side of dark: Exploring the positive effect of narcissism on perceived stress through mental toughness. Personality and Individual Differences , 139 , 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.004 Paradisi, M., Matera, C., & Nerini, A. (2024). Feeling important, feeling well. The association between mattering and well-being: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Happiness Studies , 25 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00720-3 Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin , 136 (2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301 Park, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Meaning in life and adjustment to daily stressors. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 12 (4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209542 Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (4), 672–680. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement , 1 (3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 Ramanathan, R., & Desrouleaux, R. (2022). Introduction: The science of stress. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine , 95 (1), 1–2. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 (5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890 Riepenhausen, A., Wackerhagen, C., Reppmann, Z. C., Deter, H.-C., Kalisch, R., & Veer, I. M. (2022). Positive cognitive reappraisal in stress resilience, mental health, and well-being: A comprehensive systematic review. Emotion Review . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114642 Righetti, F., Kumashiro, M., & Campbell, S. B. (2014). Goal difficulty and openness to interpersonal goal support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 (9), 1107–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214535954 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology , 52 (Volume 52, 2001), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Schultzberg, M., & Muthén, B. (2018). Number of subjects and time points needed for multilevel time-series analysis: A simulation study of dynamic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 25 (4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862 Sedikides, C. (2021). Self-construction, self-protection, and self-enhancement: A homeostatic model of identity protection. Psychological Inquiry , 32 (4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004812 Sękowski, M., Piotrowski, J., Nowak, B., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., & Maltby, J. (2025). Which narcissists are more stressed? The link between narcissistic forms and stress experience in a five-day diary study during COVID-19. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International De Psychologie , 60 (4), e70080. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.70080 Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Jacobshagen, N., Beehr, T. A., Elfering, A., Kälin, W., & Meier, L. L. (2019). Stress as offense to self: A promising approach comes of age. Occupational Health Science , 3 (3), 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5 Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention model. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 901–914). Oxford University Press. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self‐defense: Self‐affirmation theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). Elsevier. Shi, X., Zhang, W., Chen, X., & Zhu, Y. (2025). Longitudinal relations among self-compassion, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms in college students: Disentangling the within-person process from stable between-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 54 (1), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02069-5 Song, X., Niu, L., Admon, R., Long, J., Li, Q., Peng, L., … Zhang, R. (2024). Aberrant positive affect dynamics in individuals with subthreshold depression: Evidence from laboratory and real-world assessments. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology : IJCHP , 24 (1), 100427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100427 Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Elsevier. van Agteren, J., Iasiello, M., Lo, L., Bartholomaeus, J., Kopsaftis, Z., Carey, M., & Kyrios, M. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing. Nature Human Behaviour , 5 (5), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01093-w van Halem, S., van Roekel, E., & Denissen, J. (2024). Understanding the dynamics of hedonic and eudaimonic motives on daily well-being: Insights from experience sampling data. Journal of Happiness Studies , 25 (7), 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00812-0 Ward, S., Womick, J., Titova, L., & King, L. (2023). Meaning in life and coping with everyday stressors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 49 (3), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211068910 White, M. P., & Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activities. Psychological Science , 20 (8), 1000–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x Zhao, X., Ma, H., Li, N., Wu, W., Ma, X., Zhang, X., … Cai, M. (2024). Association between sleep disorder and anhedonia in adolescence with major depressive disorder: The mediating effect of stress. BMC Psychiatry , 24 (1), 962. 10.1186/s12888-024-06434-3 Zheng, A. H., & MacCann, C. (2023). Happiness is associated with higher narcissism but lower psychopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between happiness and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences , 215 , 112381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112381 Zheng, S. F., Zhang, L. J., Qiao, X. Y., Pan, J. H. (2021). Intensive longitudinal data analysis: Models and application. Advances in Psychological Science , 29 (11), 1948–1969. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01948 Zuckerman, M., & O’Loughlin, R. E. (2009). Narcissism and well‐being: A longitudinal perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology , 39 (6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.594 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8322268\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":573081832,\"identity\":\"9a3cfddd-bfd3-4bf0-823a-93ee0350cbf3\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Quan Wei\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Shaanxi Normal University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Quan\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Wei\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":573081834,\"identity\":\"2301a1b5-177b-4669-903c-c4d5524cdcad\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Jianyong Li\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Shaanxi Normal University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jianyong\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Li\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":573081835,\"identity\":\"9706d600-c913-4905-b6b1-bcfc6a26e574\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Huiqing Huang\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Peking University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Huiqing\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Huang\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":573081836,\"identity\":\"661271f0-c8a8-4315-a31f-3840e252c4c5\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Ziyi Li\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Shaanxi Normal University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ziyi\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Li\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":573081841,\"identity\":\"23968ac3-ff06-4a2e-9762-c2164d10e255\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Yangmei Luo\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Shaanxi Normal University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Yangmei\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Luo\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-12-10 02:38:40\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":100396911,\"identity\":\"713eb7a4-0971-43f1-b622-45faa64beea2\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:17\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":281108,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Manuscript1210.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/ec07b5bdd8374918f0a4eed7.docx\"},{\"id\":100397231,\"identity\":\"c1214176-e9df-47c3-8f24-94aa1686b779\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:42\",\"extension\":\"json\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":7245,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"8c8a0ea1aa7544669d5bc1e7177bf223.json\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/0df32f7b1f68e3f3d704e2d2.json\"},{\"id\":100397094,\"identity\":\"b0e5cc8d-0033-4ca2-b02c-40c4ddabb93e\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:31\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":200444,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"8c8a0ea1aa7544669d5bc1e7177bf2231enriched.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/e44455b0798e89099632410b.xml\"},{\"id\":100396474,\"identity\":\"2b710207-c0a9-4fed-9a62-ff67482f8d92\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:40:45\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":77887,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/a68c5decc65659d55f881586.png\"},{\"id\":100396969,\"identity\":\"095e6333-4872-4f53-bd81-fd21317b6add\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:26\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":201304,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/e8d02142dcc0b3a9836ec49f.png\"},{\"id\":100397043,\"identity\":\"ae91c14c-c4d9-4f32-a9d7-39bdf93b3434\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:30\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":5,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":15067,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/50d7c0698e489506527712ee.png\"},{\"id\":100396743,\"identity\":\"767e50e4-050d-4582-bd39-bb2a9f14e573\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:01\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":6,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":217063,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage4.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/b3ae45a08d2e91bd5f7b9a98.jpeg\"},{\"id\":100396200,\"identity\":\"1a075c85-b21d-4eb8-b06d-32f6ff76662e\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:40:06\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":7,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":19166,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/535b9ff44b39b6aade5c158a.png\"},{\"id\":100396848,\"identity\":\"327e8489-779f-47d3-ab1f-4ab33317a9e6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:12\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":8,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":46729,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/3fabfc874257e3f0dab0f889.png\"},{\"id\":100396432,\"identity\":\"9bd2fc50-359f-4290-99fb-4277f67be347\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:40:43\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":9,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":14265,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/937ffa71d5200b0712797ffb.png\"},{\"id\":100396846,\"identity\":\"97950c47-4064-4f9d-854d-9f1ba654a968\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:12\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":10,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":46045,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage4.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/1305d53aab15db5336f976f5.png\"},{\"id\":100397153,\"identity\":\"cc40725a-26bc-478c-9f55-ee964d0e6d6d\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:38\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":11,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":196978,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"8c8a0ea1aa7544669d5bc1e7177bf2231structuring.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/ba0eb28415fdd120e58aee90.xml\"},{\"id\":100397155,\"identity\":\"27189ed7-2255-4aac-9078-181040eac6f3\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:38\",\"extension\":\"html\",\"order_by\":12,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":211236,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"earlyproof.html\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/c0b4d6c0afbef8282bfa5112.html\"},{\"id\":100396671,\"identity\":\"9960893b-f689-408f-ba78-325d22678d95\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:40:57\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":39474,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eConceptual Model of the Moderated Longitudinal Mediation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/9f317b77f7cb0d8e52ee368d.jpg\"},{\"id\":100396644,\"identity\":\"4e2357b5-3ddc-44be-a0a0-27d5d2c8a5d7\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:40:56\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":68863,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eDynamic Structural Equation Model.For brevity, control variables and detrending components are not displayed.GN = grandiose narcissism, S = stress, SW = self-worth, WB = well-being. γ denotes the Level-1 lagged effects and the Level-2 regression paths. γ3 represents the moderation of grandiose narcissism on the Level-1 path from stress to self-worth (γ\\u003csub\\u003eS→SW\\u003c/sub\\u003e), γ4 represents its moderation of the Level-1 path from stress to well-being (γ\\u003csub\\u003eS→WB\\u003c/sub\\u003e). φ denotes the autoregressive effects. \\u003cem\\u003el \\u003c/em\\u003eindicates latent means, the superscript w denotes within-person estimates, ε represents residuals, and σ\\u003csup\\u003e2 \\u003c/sup\\u003erepresents residual variances.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/9b2144b6e67b3e27ac83cead.jpg\"},{\"id\":100396754,\"identity\":\"cfbb96b3-7e29-489c-9c11-00f8fc45556c\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:03\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":60995,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eTime-series plots of the experience-sampled state variables. Points on the lines represent the mean scores of all participants at each time point (\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ebetween\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 166), and the shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence intervals.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"3.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/f2997fc3e7ed4bc882f06cd7.jpg\"},{\"id\":100397091,\"identity\":\"e169715a-b731-4439-9242-6fc4594344c3\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 11:41:31\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"Figure 4\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":39067,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eJohnson–Neyman plot of the moderated mediation effect of grandiose narcissism.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"4.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/d06b389652e1a836a62f789f.jpg\"},{\"id\":100407747,\"identity\":\"013c211c-1c2a-4171-8985-5f9ad510149d\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 13:04:58\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1645732,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8322268/v1/20415f45-a900-4b9c-a45c-1e2805e77f12.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Sustaining Well-Being Under Daily Stress: The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth and the Short-Lived Protective Function of Grandiose Narcissism Trait \",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1 Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eWell-being, which has long been a central concern in human thought and social development, is commonly defined as an optimal state of psychological functioning and subjective experience (Ryan \\u0026amp; Deci, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e). Rooted in different philosophical traditions, contemporary well-being research has evolved along two major perspectives. The first, hedonic well-being, conceptualizes happiness as the maximization of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, primarily involving increased positive affect and reduced negative affect. The second, eudaimonic well-being, highlights the fulfillment of human potential and the pursuit of a purposeful and meaningful life (Delle Fave, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Despite their conceptual differences, both perspectives provide important theoretical frameworks for understanding psychological health and social flourishing (Ryan \\u0026amp; Deci, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn modern fast-paced societies, stress has become a pervasive challenge in daily life and is a major risk factor for mental health and well-being (Ramanathan \\u0026amp; Desrouleaux, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Extensive research has examined the relationship between stress and well-being, yet several important issues remain insufficiently understood. First, because hedonic and eudaimonic well-being stem from different theoretical traditions and value orientations, stress may influence them in different ways. However, most empirical studies have focused primarily on hedonic well-being (Gerhardt et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; van Agteren et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR65\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), and the two forms of well-being are seldom examined within the same analytic framework. As Baumeister et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e) argued, a life that is pleasurable but lacks meaning may be shallow and empty, whereas a meaningful life devoid of pleasure may be burdened with worry and anxiety. Thus, understanding both forms of well-being simultaneously is essential for a comprehensive account of human flourishing.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, previous research has tended to conceptualize stress, well-being, and related constructs as relatively stable traits. Such studies have typically relied on cross-sectional or long-interval longitudinal designs to examine contemporaneous associations or between-person differences (Brinsley et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Muris \\u0026amp; Otgaar, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e), paying much less attention to psychological processes that fluctuate within individuals over time. Yet relationships at the between-person (trait) level and those at the within-person (state) level may diverge or even contradict one another, and conflating these two levels risks ecological or atomistic fallacies (Hox et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). A more complete understanding of how stress shapes well-being therefore requires a within-person or state-level perspective. Prior research has shown that both forms of well-being fluctuate at microtemporal scales (van Halem et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR66\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e), and individuals\\u0026rsquo; evaluations of their own well-being often reflect moment-to-moment changes from the recent past to the present (Ryan \\u0026amp; Deci, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e). Moreover, in everyday life, stress arises more often from minor hassles and situational fluctuations than from major traumatic events (Feng et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such minor daily stressors may trigger sharp short-term changes in emotional and self-evaluative experiences and, when accumulated, may constitute long-term risks for well-being (Johnsson et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Miller et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e). Experience-sampling studies have similarly shown that momentary fluctuations in daily stress exert immediate effects on individuals\\u0026rsquo; emotional states and self-evaluations (Erbas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Klusmann et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, without examining these micro-level processes in real time, the mechanisms linking stress to well-being cannot be fully understood. Although some studies have begun to use intensive longitudinal designs to examine momentary stress and related psychological states, such work remains limited relative to research focusing on major stressors or trait-like stress, and evidence regarding the dynamic processes through which momentary stress affects well-being is still insufficient.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the level of psychological mechanisms, self-worth is considered an essential internal resource that helps individuals cope with threatening information and sustain well-being (Howell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Steele, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR64\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1988\\u003c/span\\u003e). Exposure to stressful circumstances can disrupt the systems that support self-worth, undermine individuals\\u0026rsquo; sense of personal value, and in turn impair well-being (Howell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Semmer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Meanwhile, individuals do not merely endure stress passively; grandiose narcissism trait plays a meaningful role in shaping how people respond to stress (Kang \\u0026amp; Zhao, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). According to the status pursuit in narcissism model, individuals high in grandiose narcissism employ cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal strategies to defend their idealized self-image when facing stress, thereby buffering its negative impact and producing short-term gains in well-being (Grapsas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). These considerations highlight the importance of examining the roles of self-worth and grandiose narcissism in how individuals adapt to daily stress. However, little is known about how momentary self-worth fluctuates under high-frequency, short-lived stressors and how these fluctuations relate to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Likewise, it remains unclear whether grandiose narcissism moderates these within-person processes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTaken together, the present study employed an intensive experience-sampling design to investigate the dynamic processes through which momentary stress shapes well-being, adopting a within-person perspective to disentangle state fluctuations from between-person differences. We further examined the mediating role of momentary self-worth and the potential time-dependent moderating role of grandiose narcissism, with the aim of providing new theoretical and empirical insights into psychological adaptation to daily stress.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"2 Momentary Stress and Well-being\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eMomentary stress refers to the psychological and physiological tension or subjective experience that arises when important daily needs or goals are obstructed and individuals perceive their coping resources as threatened (Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Semmer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). According to conservation of resources theory, the experience of stress compels individuals to draw upon and deplete their existing cognitive and emotional resources in order to cope. The loss of these personal resources may generate psychological distress and impair social functioning, thereby reducing overall well-being (Hobfoll, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1989\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearch has shown that stress conflicts with hedonic motivation and undermines individuals\\u0026rsquo; pursuit of pleasure and comfort (van Halem et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR66\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Experience-sampling research has shown that momentary stress impairs individuals\\u0026rsquo; ability to effectively recognize and regulate their positive and negative emotional states (Erbas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Klusmann et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) further found that resource depletion caused by momentary stress diminishes individuals\\u0026rsquo; capacity to manage negative stimuli, contributing to emotional exhaustion. In more severe cases, stress weakens individuals\\u0026rsquo; ability to experience pleasure from typically enjoyable activities, potentially leading to anhedonia (Zhao et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR69\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, momentary stress exerts a detrimental influence on hedonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary stress also negatively affects eudaimonic well-being. From the perspective of the meaning-making model, resource loss can disrupt the harmony between individuals\\u0026rsquo; core beliefs and their lived reality, thereby constraining their perception of life meaning and hindering goal pursuit and value realization (Park, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). Studies have shown significant negative associations between stress and eudaimonic well-being (Pak, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Stress may weaken perceived coherence and controllability in life, thereby reducing one\\u0026rsquo;s sense of meaning (Park \\u0026amp; Baumeister, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Ward et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e) reported that momentary stress consumes cognitive resources, prompting individuals to adopt maladaptive coping strategies, limiting goal-directed motivation, and reducing meaning-related experiences. In addition, the uncertainty and frustration inherent in stressful situations may inhibit individuals\\u0026rsquo; capacity to derive or construct positive meaning from their experiences (Kamijo \\u0026amp; Yukawa, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e), making it difficult to stay focused on goals or perceive personal growth (Righetti et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ward et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e), ultimately lowering eudaimonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlthough existing research has identified potential effects of stress on both forms of well-being, direct comparisons of their differential associations remain limited, and the moment-to-moment dynamics and underlying psychological mechanisms at micro-temporal timescales are not yet well understood. The present study therefore examines whether momentary self-worth mediates these within-person associations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.1 The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary self-worth refers to individuals\\u0026rsquo; immediate cognitive evaluations and affective experiences concerning \\u0026ldquo;who I am\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;whether I am valuable\\u0026rdquo; within the context of social life and self-relations (Huang \\u0026amp; Yang, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1998\\u003c/span\\u003e; Pelham \\u0026amp; Swann, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1989\\u003c/span\\u003e). From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, individuals strive to protect, retain, and accumulate existing resources to cope with environmental demands. At the psychological level, self-affirmation theory provides a more specific explanatory framework, positing that people are motivated to maintain a sense of self-integrity\\u0026mdash;namely, the feeling and belief that the self is valuable and capable of adaptive functioning (Sherman \\u0026amp; Cohen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR61\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2006\\u003c/span\\u003e; Steele, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR64\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1988\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, self-worth, as the experiential manifestation of self-integrity, represents a central psychological resource for sustaining well-being (Howell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA substantial body of research suggests that self-worth promotes positive emotional experiences and enhances perceptions of meaning, making it a key resource for cultivating and maintaining both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Filosa et al., 2024; Muris \\u0026amp; Otgaar, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Paradisi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, momentary stress in daily life may threaten the very resources upon which self-worth is constructed. Semmer et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e) argued that stress experiences can disrupt individuals\\u0026rsquo; self-narratives by conveying messages that devalue, challenge, or undermine the self, thereby eliciting negative emotions and self-doubt. When stress exceeds available coping resources, individuals may experience a loss of control that interferes with their self-evaluations, lowering self-worth (Galanakis et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Once self-worth is diminished, individuals may develop pessimistic views of self-improvement, experience heightened negative affect, and become more entrenched in maladaptive thinking patterns, making it difficult to sustain positive emotions (Shi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR62\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e) and undermining meaning-making processes (C. L. Park, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). Consistent with this, Lee et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e) found that self-worth mediates the association between stress and depressive tendencies\\u0026mdash;an inverse indicator of mental health and well-being (Luo et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ryan \\u0026amp; Deci, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTaken together, self-worth may represent a key mechanism through which momentary stress influences both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Yet the existing evidence that stress threatens self-worth and subsequently affects well-being is primarily derived from cross-sectional designs or trait-level assessments. According to the homeostatic model of identity protection, individuals\\u0026rsquo; self-worth undergoes adaptive moment-to-moment fluctuations in response to stress to prevent the escalation of negative emotions (Sedikides, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), suggesting that self-worth also functions as a state-like construct. The present study therefore examines whether momentary self-worth mediates the within-person associations between momentary stress and both forms of well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.2 The Moderating Role of Grandiose Narcissism Trait\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGrandiose narcissism trait is a personality trait characterized by overly positive and inflated self-evaluations, a sense of superiority, and expectations of special treatment and admiration from others (Kang \\u0026amp; Zhao, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Grapsas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). According to the status pursuit in narcissism model, grandiose narcissism reflects a dynamic self-regulatory process guided by a strong motivation to achieve and maintain social status. This model proposes that, when confronted with stress or threat, individuals high in grandiose narcissism engage in self-enhancement or derogation of others to protect their self-worth and buffer against the adverse effects of stress on well-being (Grapsas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). In stressful situations, such individuals may seek or create opportunities to validate their status or demonstrate competence in front of others; when self-enhancement is insufficient, they may restore status through devaluing others. These responses can reduce the erosion of self-worth caused by stress and help preserve hedonic well-being (via maintaining positive affect and avoiding negative affect) and eudaimonic well-being (via reinforcing feelings of meaning and purpose).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmpirical findings support these theoretical propositions. A diary study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic found that individuals high in grandiose narcissism paid less attention to stressors and were more inclined to engage in positive self-presentation, thereby reducing perceived stress and its negative consequences (Sękowski et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Other research suggests that grandiose narcissists selectively attend to feedback that enhances self-worth while dismissing or devaluing information that threatens it (Giacomin \\u0026amp; Jordan, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). Some scholars further argue that, in contemporary social environments, grandiose narcissism may function as an adaptive strategy, promoting higher self-satisfaction and well-being (Zheng \\u0026amp; MacCann, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR70\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Because such individuals typically possess heightened self-confidence and perceived social advantage, they may display greater psychological resilience and more effective coping responses in stressful contexts, which helps protect their self-worth and mental health (Papageorgiou et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Taken together, these findings suggest that grandiose narcissism may moderate the associations between stress, self-worth, and both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNevertheless, the protective role of grandiose narcissism remains controversial (Papageorgiou et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Inconsistencies in empirical findings may stem from differences in temporal scale. In the short term, individuals high in grandiose narcissism may rely on strong psychological resilience and exaggerated self-views to shield themselves from the immediate impact of stress on self-worth and affect (Leniarska \\u0026amp; Zajenkowski, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Papageorgiou et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Over longer periods, however, this protective effect may weaken due to interpersonal costs, making grandiose narcissism a less stable buffer against stress (Orth et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zuckerman \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Loughlin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e). These patterns suggest that the protective function of grandiose narcissism may be primarily short-lived.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on these considerations, the present study examines whether the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism is time-dependent\\u0026mdash;specifically, whether its moderating role weakens as the time interval increases or when analyses shift from the within-person to the between-person level.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec5\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.3 The Present Study\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe present study employed an experience sampling design to capture individuals\\u0026rsquo; moment-to-moment experiences in daily life and to examine, from a dynamic within-person perspective, the associations between stress and two forms of well-being, as well as the mediating role of momentary self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism. Guided by conservation of resources theory and integrating self-affirmation theory with the status pursuit in narcissism model, we developed a moderated longitudinal mediation framework (see Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo analyze the intensive longitudinal data, we used dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM; Asparouhov et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e), which allows for a clear separation of within-person and between-person variability. Compared with traditional multilevel models, DSEM further enables the investigation of temporal processes by estimating autoregressive and lagged effects (Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025c\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zheng et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR71\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). This approach is well suited for uncovering the dynamic mechanisms through which daily stress influences well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3 Method\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.1 Participants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e The study was part of an experience sampling (ESM) research database established by our research group, and the current project constituted an independent sub-study within this database (ethics approval number: HR2020-02-001). Participants were recruited nationwide through online advertisements, yielding a total sample of 166 individuals. All participants completed a set of trait questionnaires prior to the ESM period and subsequently engaged in a 10-day ESM protocol with four assessments per day (40 assessments in total). The final sample included 127 women (76.51%) and 39 men (23.49%), with a mean age of 24.00\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;4.86 years. Of the participants, 26 (15.66%) lived in rural areas and 140 (84.34%) lived in urban areas.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn total, 5,663 valid momentary responses were obtained, yielding an average compliance rate of 85.29%. Following prior recommendations (Murray et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Schultzberg \\u0026amp; Muth\\u0026eacute;n, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e), statistical power was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Under a two-tailed alpha level of .05 and assuming small-to-moderate effect sizes, the results indicated that the detection power for all major paths in the model exceeded 0.99, demonstrating that the sample size was adequate to ensure stable model estimation and sufficient statistical power.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2 Procedure\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec9\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.1 Baseline Assessment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Before the start of the ESM period, participants were required to read an informed consent form and an instruction sheet outlining the study procedures. After providing consent, participants completed a baseline questionnaire via the online survey platform Wenjuanxing (\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttp://www.wjx.cn/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"http://www.wjx.cn/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e). The baseline measures included demographic information (age, gender, occupation, and household registration status) and trait questionnaires (a narcissistic personality scale and a short-form depression scale). Participants were instructed to answer carefully within the designated time frame.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.2 Experience Sampling Phase\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFollowing the baseline assessment, participants downloaded and used the Psychorus mobile application for the ESM task. The app sent four random prompts each day between 08:00 and 23:00, with a minimum interval of two hours between prompts. Upon receiving a prompt, participants had 30 minutes to report their current momentary states, including stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being. Responses submitted beyond the 30-minute window were automatically invalidated. To enhance ecological validity and ensure adequate temporal coverage, the daily prompt schedule was fully randomized for each participant.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.3 Baseline Measures\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.3.1 Grandiose Narcissism\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGrandiose narcissism was assessed using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin \\u0026amp; Terry, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1988\\u003c/span\\u003e), a classical and widely used instrument for measuring grandiose narcissistic traits (Kang \\u0026amp; Zhao, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). The inventory contains 40 forced-choice items, each consisting of a narcissistic and a non-narcissistic statement. Participants selected the statement that best described them. All items were scored 0/1 and summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of grandiose narcissism. Composite reliability in the present sample was ω\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.84.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.3.2 Control Variables\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGiven the importance of demographic characteristics in well-being research (Helliwell et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e) and the established role of depressive symptoms as a major risk factor for well-being (Luo et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), gender, age, residential status (rural vs. urban), and depressive symptoms were included as time-invariant covariates.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDepressive symptoms were measured using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1977\\u003c/span\\u003e), which includes 20 items rated on a four-point scale (0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;rarely or none of the time, 3\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;most or all of the time). Scores were summed to yield a total depression score, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptomatology. Composite reliability in the present sample was ω\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.90\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4 Experience Sampling Measures\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4.1 Momentary Stress\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary stress was assessed with a single item commonly used in daily stress research (Erbas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e): \\u0026ldquo;How stressed do you feel right now?\\u0026rdquo; Participants responded on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much), with higher scores indicating greater momentary stress.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4.2 Momentary Self-Worth\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary self-worth was measured with two items adapted from Heppner et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e): \\u0026ldquo;I have many positive qualities right now\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;I am quite satisfied with who I am right now\\u0026rdquo;. Both items were rated on a 0\\u0026ndash;100 scale (0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;not at all, 100\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;very much). Scores were averaged, with higher values reflecting higher momentary self-worth. Composite reliability was ω\\u003csub\\u003eb\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.94 at the between-person level and ω\\u003csub\\u003ew\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.67 at the within-person level.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4.3 Momentary Hedonic Well-Being\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary hedonic well-being was operationalized as affect balance (positive affect minus negative affect; Sheldon et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR60\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). Following prior ESM studies (Lydon-Staley et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Song et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR63\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e), eight emotion items were used. Positive affect included four items (relaxed, satisfied, happy, excited). Negative affect included four items (depressed, anxious, frustrated, angry). Participants rated each emotion from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). Positive and negative affect scores were computed as the mean of their respective items, and affect balance was obtained by subtracting negative from positive affect.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor positive affect, composite reliability was ω\\u003csub\\u003eb\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.93 and ω\\u003csub\\u003ew\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.80, and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) showed good fit: CFI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.98, TLI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.95, RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.07, SRMR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.02. For negative affect, composite reliability was ω\\u003csub\\u003eb\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.97 and ω\\u003csub\\u003ew\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.81, with similarly good MCFA fit: CFI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.99, TLI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.96, RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.07, SRMR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.02.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4.4 Momentary eudaimonic well-being\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMomentary eudaimonic well-being was assessed using three items following previous measurement approaches (Lawes et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; White \\u0026amp; Dolan, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR68\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e): \\u0026ldquo;How meaningful/purposeful/helpful do you feel right now?\\u0026rdquo; All items were rated from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). The mean score of the three items represented momentary eudaimonic well-being, with higher scores indicating higher levels of momentary meaning and purpose. Composite reliability was ω\\u003csub\\u003eb\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.93 at the between-person level and ω\\u003csub\\u003ew\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;74 at the within-person level. MCFA indicated excellent model fit: CFI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.00, TLI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.00, RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.00, SRMR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.00.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5 Data Analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS 27.0. The ggplot2 package in R was used for data visualization. Scale reliability and validity were examined in Mplus 8.3.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.2 Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFollowing prior analytical recommendations and procedures (Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025a\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025b\\u003c/span\\u003e), dynamic structural equation models were estimated in Mplus 8.3. The DSEM framework distinguishes two levels: the between-person level (Level 2) and the within-person level (Level 1). The time interval was set to 4 hours, corresponding to the four daily assessments conducted between 08:00 and 23:00. Irregular response intervals and missing data due to nonresponses were handled using the Kalman filter. Model parameters were estimated using Bayesian methods with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling and noninformative priors. Four MCMC chains were run with a total of 10,000 iterations. Convergence was evaluated using the proportional scale reduction (PSR) statistic and trace plots. Convergence was considered adequate when PSR\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;1.05 and when the trace plots showed all chains overlapping and fluctuating randomly within a stable band. Effects were deemed statistically significant when their 95% highest posterior density credible intervals (95% HPD CI) did not include zero.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGiven the conceptual distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Delle Fave, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e) and to reduce the risk of convergence or estimation difficulties associated with model complexity (Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025b\\u003c/span\\u003e), the two forms of well-being were modeled separately. Accordingly, two models were estimated: Model 1 with hedonic well-being as the outcome and Model 2 with eudaimonic well-being as the outcome. Each model included four core variables: grandiose narcissism, stress, self-worth, and well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the within-person level (Level 1), the model estimated autoregressive effects for stress, self-worth, and well-being, along with lagged effects from stress to subsequent self-worth, from stress to subsequent well-being, and from self-worth to subsequent well-being. To satisfy the DSEM assumption of temporal stationarity, time was included as a predictor at Level 1 to detrend the variables.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the between-person level (Level 2), all Level 1 parameters (including latent means, autoregressive effects, and lagged effects) were allowed to vary randomly across individuals. Grandiose narcissism, grand-mean centered, was included as a moderator to examine its moderating role on the first stage of the mediation pathway (i.e., the effect of prior stress on subsequent self-worth) and the direct pathway (i.e., the effect of prior stress on subsequent well-being). Moderated mediation was further evaluated by comparing conditional indirect effects at \\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;1 SD of grandiose narcissism; significant differences would indicate that the mediation effect of self-worth varied as a function of narcissism (Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025b\\u003c/span\\u003e). Baseline depressive symptoms, gender, age, and residential status were included as Level 2 covariates to control for potential confounding variables. The final model structures are shown in Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4 Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1 Common Method Bias\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo reduce the potential influence of common method bias, procedural remedies were implemented, including anonymous participation, random presentation of items, and the inclusion of reverse-scored items. Following the recommendations of Tang and Wen (2020), Harman\\u0026rsquo; s single-factor test was conducted. For the baseline survey, the single-factor CFA model showed poor model fit: CFI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.34, TLI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.32, RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.06, SRMR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.17. For the experience sampling data, the single-factor MCFA model also demonstrated inadequate fit: CFI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.71, TLI\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.69, RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.10, SRMR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.08. These results indicate that no single factor accounted for the majority of covariance among the measures, suggesting that common method bias was unlikely to pose a serious threat in the present study.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e. Correlation analyses indicated that stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being were all significantly associated at both the between-person and within-person levels (\\u003cem\\u003eps\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001). At the between-person level, grandiose narcissism was positively correlated with self-worth and eudaimonic well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eps\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05), whereas its associations with stress and hedonic well-being were nonsignificant (\\u003cem\\u003eps\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll experience-sampling variables exhibited fluctuations across time points but showed no evident upward or downward trends over the 10-day period (see Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all variables exceeded 0.059 (see Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), supporting the use of dynamic structural equation modeling.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\" colnum=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\" colnum=\\\"10\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVariables\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e8\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1. Stress\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.41)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.26\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.57\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.22\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2. Self-worth\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.27\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.61)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.56\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.65\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3. Hedonic well-being\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.65\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.63\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.46)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.50\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4. Eudaimonic well-being\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.27\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.81\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.61\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.50)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5. Grandiose narcissism\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.24\\u003csup\\u003e**\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.18\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6. Gender\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.08\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.18\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.18\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.06\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7. Age\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.12\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.21\\u003csup\\u003e**\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.24\\u003csup\\u003e**\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.04\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.06\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e8. Residential status\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.16\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.07\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.03\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.04\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.07\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9. Depressive\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.29\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.26\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.41\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.24\\u003csup\\u003e**\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.18\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e47.76\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e63.08\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e27.73\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e55.59\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e13.14\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.23\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e24.00\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.16\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e19.08\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e16.15\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12.97\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e22.88\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e13.43\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6.38\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.43\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.86\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.37\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.83\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"10\\\"\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eNote.\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ebetween\\u003c/sub\\u003e=166, \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ewithin\\u003c/sub\\u003e=5663. Correlations below the diagonal represent between-person associations; correlations above the diagonal represent within-person associations. Values in parentheses on the diagonal are ICCs for each variable. a\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;dummy-coded variable (male\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, female\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0), with the mean representing the proportion of male participants. b\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;dummy-coded variable (rural\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, urban\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0), with the mean representing the proportion of rural participants. *\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05, **\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01, ***\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001(two-tailed).\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec25\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3 Results of the Dynamic Structural Equation Models\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe PSR values and trace plots indicated satisfactory convergence for all models. The primary unstandardized parameter estimates are presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e. All autoregressive effects were significant across both models, suggesting that individuals\\u0026rsquo; current psychological states were predicted by their own states four hours earlier. This indicates relatively stable temporal dynamics in stress, self-worth, hedonic well-being, and eudaimonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe lagged effects further showed that current stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent self-worth (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.033, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.049, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.016]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.030, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.047, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.013]). Notably, the direct effects of stress differed across the two types of well-being. Specifically, current stress significantly predicted lower subsequent hedonic well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.098, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.143, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.054]), whereas its effect on subsequent eudaimonic well-being was nonsignificant (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.024, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.048, 0.001]). At the same time, current self-worth significantly predicted both subsequent hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.282, 95% HPD CI = [0.187, 0.379]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.178, 95% HPD CI = [0.127, 0.233]). Based on these findings, mediation analyses showed that self-worth significantly mediated the links between prior stress and subsequent well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.016, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.028, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.006]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.009, 95% HPD CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.016, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.003]).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRegarding the moderating role of grandiose narcissism, the results revealed no significant moderation on the direct paths from stress to well-being. However, grandiose narcissism significantly moderated the first half of the mediation pathway\\u0026mdash;that is, the effect of stress on self-worth (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.003, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.007]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.004, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.007]). Conditional indirect effects were further evaluated at levels of grandiose narcissism corresponding to \\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;1 SD from the mean. The results indicated significant differences between high and low narcissism groups in the indirect effect of stress on well-being via self-worth (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.012, 95% HPD CI = [0.001, 0.025]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = 0.009, 95% HPD CI = [0.002, 0.018]), demonstrating that the indirect pathway was moderated by grandiose narcissism.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo further probe the moderated mediation, the Johnson\\u0026ndash;Neyman technique was applied. As shown in Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, the mediating effect of self-worth gradually diminished as levels of grandiose narcissism increased. Specifically, when grandiose narcissism exceeded 4.64 (for hedonic well-being) and 4.37 (for eudaimonic well-being), the indirect effect of stress via self-worth became nonsignificant. These findings suggest that higher levels of grandiose narcissism can buffer the detrimental impact of momentary stress on self-worth, thereby attenuating its indirect effects on both forms of well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnstandardized Parameter Estimates\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePathways\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFixed Effects: \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e [95% HPD CI]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModel 1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHedonic Well-being\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModel 2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEudaimonic Well-being\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eAutoregressive Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStress\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Stress\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (φ\\u003csub\\u003eS\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.201[0.156, 0.242]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.186[0.142, 0.227]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSelf-worth\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Self-worth\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (φ\\u003csub\\u003eSW\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.214[0.170, 0258]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.223[0.179, 0.268]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWell-being\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Well-being\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (φ\\u003csub\\u003eWB\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.173[0.126, 0.218]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.138[0.091, 0.186]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eLagged Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStress\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Self-worth\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (γ\\u003csub\\u003eS\\u0026rarr;SW\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.033[\\u0026ndash;0.049, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.016]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.030[\\u0026ndash;0.047, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.013]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSelf-worth\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Well-being\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (γ\\u003csub\\u003eSW\\u0026rarr;WB\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.282[0.187, 0.379]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.178[0.127, 0.233]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStress\\u003csub\\u003et\\u0026minus;1\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u0026rarr;Well-being\\u003csub\\u003et\\u003c/sub\\u003e (γ\\u003csub\\u003eS\\u0026rarr;WB\\u003c/sub\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.098[\\u0026ndash;0.143, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.054]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.024[\\u0026ndash;0.048, 0.001]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eModeration Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGrandiose Narcissism\\u0026rarr;γ\\u003csub\\u003eS\\u0026rarr;SW\\u003c/sub\\u003e(γ3)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.003[0.001, 0.007]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.004[0.001, 0.007]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGrandiose Narcissism\\u0026rarr;γ\\u003csub\\u003eS\\u0026rarr;WB\\u003c/sub\\u003e(γ4)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.005[\\u0026ndash;0.002, 0.012]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.002[\\u0026ndash;0.002, 0.006]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eConditional Indirect Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIND_H\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.010[\\u0026ndash;0.023, 0.002]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.005[\\u0026ndash;0.012, 0.002]\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIND\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.016[\\u0026ndash;0.028, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.006]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.009[\\u0026ndash;0.016, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.003]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIND_L\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.022[\\u0026ndash;0.035, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.010]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026ndash;0.014[\\u0026ndash;0.022, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.007]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIND_H \\u0026ndash; IND_L\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.012[0.001, 0.025]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.009[0.002, 0.018]\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eNote.\\u003c/b\\u003e Labels shown in round parentheses indicate the corresponding path labels in the model diagram. \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e denotes unstandardized coefficients. Parameters shown in bold indicate that the 95% HPD CI does not include zero, whereas parameters in gray indicate the opposite. IND_H, IND, and IND_L represent the conditional indirect effects of self-worth when grandiose narcissism is set at +\\u0026thinsp;1 SD, the mean (0), and \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;1 SD, respectively. IND_H \\u0026ndash; IND_L denotes the difference between the indirect effects at +\\u0026thinsp;1 SD and \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;1 SD.\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec26\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.4 Supplementary Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec27\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.4.1 Separate Modeling of the Indicators of Hedonic Well-being\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGiven that positive affect and negative affect may represent relatively independent psychological dimensions (Cooke et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Li et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e), we conducted additional models in which these two indicators of hedonic well-being were analyzed separately rather than combined into a single affect balance score. The results showed that the effect patterns were consistent with those of the integrated model; that is, all paths in the dynamic moderated mediation model remained significant or nonsignificant in the same direction, indicating that the main findings were not dependent on the operationalization of hedonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec28\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.4.2 Between-person Moderated Mediation Analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo examine the moderated mediation effects at the between-person level, we extracted the latent means of each experience sampling variable to represent their between-person components, following the procedure described by Fang et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025b\\u003c/span\\u003e). Using PROCESS Model 58 in SPSS, we tested the mediation effect of self-worth and the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism while controlling for gender, age, residence, and depressive symptoms. Results showed that, similar to the within-person findings, self-worth significantly mediated the association between between-person stress and between-person well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003ehedonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.127, 95%CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.253, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.004]; \\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003csub\\u003eeudaimonic\\u003c/sub\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.124, 95%CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.246, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.002]). Stress significantly predicted hedonic well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.686, 95%CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.827, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.545]) but did not significantly predict eudaimonic well-being (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e = \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.686, 95%CI = [\\u0026ndash;0.827, \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.545]). However, grandiose narcissism did not significantly moderate any of the tested paths. Notably, grandiose narcissism significantly predicted self-worth but did not significantly predict either form of well-being, suggesting that individuals high in narcissism did not report higher hedonic or eudaimonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec29\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.4.3 Sensitivity Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo evaluate the robustness of the results, we conducted sensitivity analyses focusing on two aspects: the specification of time intervals and the inclusion of covariates. Specifically, we re-estimated the primary model paths under different analytical configurations. When the time interval was extended from 4 hours to 8 hours, all lagged effects weakened. Under this longer interval, the lagged effect of stress on hedonic well-being became nonsignificant, and the moderating effect of grandiose narcissism on the link between stress and self-worth also disappeared, suggesting attenuation of momentary psychological effects over longer time spans. In contrast, the results remained substantively unchanged regardless of whether covariates were included or excluded from the analysis. Overall, the findings across analytic strategies supported the robustness of the main model.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5 Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAs a common psychological experience in daily life, stress has profound implications for individuals\\u0026rsquo; mental health and well-being (Ramanathan \\u0026amp; Desrouleaux, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Drawing on conservation of resources theory and integrating self-affirmation theory with the status pursuit model of narcissism, the present study employed dynamic structural equation modeling to examine how momentary stress influences hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and to further elucidate the mediating role of self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism. Below, we discuss the findings in detail.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec31\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.1 The Effects of Momentary Stress on Two Forms of Well-being\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe results demonstrated that momentary stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent hedonic well-being, whereas its direct effect on eudaimonic well-being was nonsignificant. A similar pattern emerged at the between-person level: individuals experiencing higher stress tended to report lower hedonic well-being, but stress did not directly predict eudaimonic well-being. These findings align with Riepenhausen et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), who suggested that different orientations of well-being exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity to stress\\u0026mdash;stress exerts a more immediate and pronounced influence on hedonic well-being, whereas its association with eudaimonic well-being is more complex.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHedonic well-being largely depends on short-term affective experiences\\u0026mdash;immediate subjective pleasure that is particularly susceptible to momentary fluctuations and external disturbances (Huta \\u0026amp; Waterman, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). Under daily stress, pleasurable experiences and engagement in enjoyable activities may be disrupted by negative affect or increased cognitive load, resulting in short-term fluctuations in hedonic well-being (Klusmann et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; van Halem et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR66\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Moreover, stress increases individuals\\u0026rsquo; sensitivity to negative information and fosters pessimistic expectations about future events, leading to overestimations of anticipated negative emotions (Braund et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). This cognitive bias may promote avoidance of potentially pleasurable activities, further reducing opportunities for positive affect and ultimately undermining the affective balance underlying hedonic well-being.Importantly, the negative impact of stress on hedonic well-being was time-dependent. When the time interval between assessments was extended to eight hours, the lagged effect of stress on hedonic well-being was no longer significant, indicating that this influence reflects short-lived reactions. Consistent with the hedonic treadmill perspective, individuals\\u0026rsquo; pleasure tends to return quickly to baseline despite transient situational fluctuations (Luo et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), resulting in a diminished stress effect over longer intervals.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, eudaimonic well-being emphasizes long-term meaning-making processes and represents a more stable psychological structure (Huta \\u0026amp; Waterman, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). As a result, it displays greater resilience against stress (Park \\u0026amp; Baumeister, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Because eudaimonic well-being is grounded in personal growth, goal pursuit, and the realization of values, individuals may maintain a relatively stable level of eudaimonic well-being even under stress by relying on long-term goals and meaning-oriented coping strategies. Stress may even be incorporated into meaning-making processes (Park, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). Recent experience sampling research suggests that daily stress can shift activity preferences toward more meaningful activities (Huang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Although stress intensifies negative affective experiences, it may also prompt deeper reflection and reframe stressful events as opportunities for growth, thereby preserving eudaimonic well-being (Kamijo \\u0026amp; Yukawa, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTaken together, these findings highlight the immediate impact of daily stress and the differential psychological structures underlying hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being. They support the perspectives of the hedonic treadmill and eudaimonic staircase: hedonic well-being is highly sensitive but quickly adaptive, whereas eudaimonic well-being is more stable and enduring (Luo et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). The results also suggest that while stress poses an immediate threat to hedonic well-being, its impact on eudaimonic well-being is less direct and requires consideration of self-worth as a potential underlying mechanism.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec32\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.2 The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-worth\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe results indicated that momentary self-worth mediated the relationship between momentary stress and both forms of well-being. When individuals experienced higher stress at a given moment, their self-worth decreased, which in turn predicted lower subsequent hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The between-person findings mirrored these within-person dynamics: individuals experiencing higher stress tended to report lower self-worth and lower well-being. These results are consistent with previous studies (Filosa et al., 2024; Lee et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMechanistically, stress typically entails threats to competence or personal resources, triggering self-doubt and negative self-evaluation, thereby undermining self-worth (Muris \\u0026amp; Otgaar, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Stress also reinforces attentional biases toward negative information and fuels self-confirming cognitive patterns during self-evaluation (Braund et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kamijo \\u0026amp; Yukawa, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). When stress is interpreted as failure or status loss, self-devaluative emotions such as shame and anger may be triggered (Semmer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). According to self-affirmation theory, declining self-worth compromises the individual\\u0026rsquo; s capacity to maintain a positive self-view, thereby weakening the psychological foundation of well-being. Threats to self-integrity lead individuals to engage in defensive and constricted processing of situations, reducing their openness to positive experiences and limiting their ability to derive positive emotion or meaning from daily life (Howell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Sherman \\u0026amp; Cohen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR61\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2006\\u003c/span\\u003e). Sustained decreases in self-worth further erode confidence in personal growth and hinder the pursuit of values (Righetti et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ward et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e), posing long-term threats to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThus, self-worth emerges as a core mechanism supporting well-being and a key psychological resource that enables individuals to cope with everyday stress, underscoring the explanatory power of self-affirmation theory in everyday psychological functioning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec33\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.3 The Moderating Role of Grandiose Narcissism\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe results showed that grandiose narcissism moderated the effect of momentary stress on subsequent self-worth and moderated the indirect effect of stress on well-being through self-worth, but did not moderate the direct effect of stress on well-being. This pattern indicates that the \\u0026ldquo;protective effect\\u0026rdquo; of grandiose narcissism primarily operates through self-enhancement processes that buffer self-worth from stress, rather than directly attenuating the emotional consequences of stress. This aligns with previous findings suggesting that the positive functions of grandiose narcissism are rooted in self-enhancement (Zuckerman \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Loughlin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIndividuals high in grandiose narcissism appear capable of resisting the erosive impact of momentary stress on self-worth, thereby preventing downstream declines in well-being. Under stress, narcissistic individuals activate agentic strategies that inflate their perceived competence or status, helping them maintain a sense of superiority (Leniarska \\u0026amp; Zajenkowski, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Self-focus allows them to highlight personal strengths and internal resources while dismissing negative feedback (Giacomin \\u0026amp; Jordan, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Their strong status motivation and self-presentational tendencies may further enable them to interpret stress as an opportunity for competence display or self-verification (Grapsas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Papageorgiou et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterestingly, the results also showed that stress did not directly affect eudaimonic well-being, and at high levels of narcissism (per the Johnson\\u0026ndash;Neyman analysis), stress no longer influenced eudaimonic well-being indirectly through self-worth. In some cases, the association even trended positive\\u0026mdash;supporting claims that stress may, under certain interpretations, facilitate meaning-making rather than undermine it (Park, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e; Riepenhausen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHowever, this moderating effect was limited to short-term within-person processes. When the time interval was extended to eight hours, the moderating role of narcissism disappeared; similarly, no moderation emerged at the between-person level. This suggests that the psychological protection conferred by grandiose narcissism is short-lived and cannot accumulate into long-term well-being or resilience. Long-term real-world feedback\\u0026mdash;such as sustained social rejection or failure\\u0026mdash;may gradually undermine inflated self-views, thus weakening self-enhancement mechanisms over time (Orth et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zuckerman \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Loughlin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e). That is, although grandiose narcissism may provide adaptive short-term benefits, these effects are fragile; in the longer term, narcissism often leads to interpersonal strain and reduced social support (Grapsas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e), which ultimately undermine resilience.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn sum, the present findings reveal the time-dependent psychological consequences of grandiose narcissism: while it offers immediate protection in day-to-day fluctuations, this advantage does not persist over longer timescales or between individuals. This provides new empirical support for the status pursuit model and offers deeper insight into the \\u0026ldquo;double-edged\\u0026rdquo; nature of grandiose narcissism.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec34\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.4 Implications and Limitations\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec35\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.4.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe present study integrates stress, well-being, self-worth, and grandiose narcissism into a unified framework, revealing the differential effects of stress on two orientations of well-being and the psychological mechanisms underlying these effects. The findings validate the mediating role of self-worth and the moderating role of grandiose narcissism, thereby enriching current understandings of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, the study extends empirical evidence for self-affirmation theory and the status pursuit model of narcissism, offering new insights into the \\u0026ldquo;adaptive\\u0026ndash;fragile\\u0026rdquo; duality of grandiose narcissism.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn addition, this research adopts a dynamic within-person perspective to examine how stress influences well-being, contributing meaningfully to trait-level literature and the development of related theories. By combining experience sampling with dynamic structural equation modeling, the study captured short-term fluctuations and daily dynamics of psychological experiences. This approach effectively distinguishes within- and between-person processes, thereby reducing the interpretive limitations associated with single-timescale designs (Asparouhov et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025c\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePractically, the findings provide evidence-based guidance for daily stress management and well-being promotion. Self-worth emerged as a key psychological resource that protects individuals from everyday stress and supports well-being, suggesting that interventions should emphasize its cultivation and enhancement. Moreover, while grandiose narcissism exhibited a short-term protective function, this benefit was not sustained over time, highlighting the need for practitioners to recognize both its immediate adaptive qualities and its potential interpersonal costs and long-term risks.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec36\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.4.2 Limitations and Directions for Future Research\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeveral limitations should be acknowledged. First, the present study did not differentiate between types or sources of daily stress. Different forms of stress may affect psychological outcomes through distinct mechanisms, and even the same stressor may exert varying influences across different stages of cognitive processing and emotional experience. In some cases, certain stressors may even facilitate meaning-making and personal growth (Pak, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ward et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Future research may further differentiate stress types and stages to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the stress\\u0026ndash;well-being relationship.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, the study focused exclusively on the agentic subtype of grandiose narcissism. However, grandiose narcissism is a multidimensional construct with diverse expressions. In collectivistic cultures, communal narcissism may demonstrate psychological functions distinct from agentic narcissism. For example, individuals high in communal narcissism may rely on exaggerated group identification or pride, potentially shaping unique pathways in the stress\\u0026ndash;well-being association (Sękowski et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kang \\u0026amp; Zhao, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Future research should explore different forms of narcissism and examine their psychological and behavioral implications across cultural contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, although dynamic structural equation modeling is a powerful analytical tool, it assumes homogeneity in parameter structures across individuals, which may limit its capacity to capture within-group heterogeneity. In addition, due to convergence and estimation constraints, DSEM faces challenges when modeling highly complex multivariate systems (Fang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025c\\u003c/span\\u003e). Future studies could employ group iterative multiple model estimation (GIMME) to better uncover individual-specific dynamic patterns linking stress and different forms of well-being (Zheng et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR71\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), or incorporate time-series network approaches for more complex multivariate modeling.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"6 Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study shows that momentary stress reduces hedonic well-being, while its direct influence on eudaimonic well-being remains limited in the short term. Self-worth plays a central role in these daily processes, serving as a key pathway through which stress shapes both emotional experiences and the sense of meaning in everyday life. Although grandiose narcissism can soften the immediate impact of stress on self-worth, this benefit appears only in short time windows and does not extend across longer intervals or between individuals. These findings underscore the importance of self-worth as an essential psychological resource for maintaining well-being in the context of everyday stress, and they suggest that the adaptive and vulnerable sides of grandiose narcissism may unfold differently across temporal scales.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eQuan Wei served as lead for conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, visualization, writing \\u0026ndash; original draft, and writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing. Jiangyong Li served in a supporting role for conceptualization, methodology, validation, and writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing. Huiqing Huang served as lead for data curation and investigation and served in a supporting role for conceptualization.Ziyi Li served in a supporting role for conceptualization, project administration, supervision, and writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing. Yangmei Luo served as a lead role for data curation, conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, and writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAsparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., \\u0026amp; Muth\\u0026eacute;n, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. \\u003cem\\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 359\\u0026ndash;388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBaumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., \\u0026amp; Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e8\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 505\\u0026ndash;516. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBraund, T. A., Palmer, D. M., Tillman, G., Hanna, H., \\u0026amp; Gordon, E. (2019). Increased chronic stress predicts greater emotional negativity bias and poorer social skills but not cognitive functioning in healthy adults. \\u003cem\\u003eAnxiety, Stress, \\u0026amp; Coping\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e32\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 399\\u0026ndash;411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2019.1598555\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBrinsley, J., O\\u0026rsquo;Connor, E. J., Singh, B., McKeon, G., Curtis, R., Ferguson, T., \\u0026hellip; Maher, C. (2025). Effectiveness of digital lifestyle interventions on depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being: Systematic review and meta-analysis. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Medical Internet Research\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e27\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), e56975. https://doi.org/10.2196/56975\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCooke, E. M., Schuurman, N. K., \\u0026amp; Zheng, Y. (2022). Examining the within- and between-person structure of a short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: A multilevel and dynamic approach. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Assessment\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e34\\u003c/em\\u003e(12), 1126\\u0026ndash;1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001167\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDan, D. T., Wen Z, L,. (2020). Statistical Approaches for Testing Common Method Bias: \\u003cem\\u003eProblems and Suggestions. Journal of Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e43\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 215\\u0026ndash;223. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20200130\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDelle Fave, A. (2023). Eudaimonic and hedonic happiness. In \\u003cem\\u003eEncyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 2206\\u0026ndash;2212). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_3778\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eErbas, Y., Ceulemans, E., Kalokerinos, E. K., Houben, M., Koval, P., Pe, M. L., \\u0026amp; Kuppens, P. (2018). Why I don\\u0026rsquo;t always know what I\\u0026rsquo;m feeling: The role of stress in within-person fluctuations in emotion differentiation. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e115\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 179\\u0026ndash;191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000126\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFang, J., Wen, Z. L., Dong, Y. M., Wang, X. J. (2025a). Mediation analysis of intensive longitudinal data. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e33\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 717\\u0026ndash;728. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2025.0717\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFang, J., Wen, Z. L., Wang, H. H., Gu, H. L. (2025b). Moderated mediation analyses of intensive longitudinal data. \\u003cem\\u003eActa Psychologica Sinica\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e57\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 915\\u0026ndash;928. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0915\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFang, J., Wen, Z. L., Wei, D., Wang, H. H., Gu, H. L., Li, Y. (2025c). Intensive Longitudinal Moderation Analysis Based on Dynamic Structural Equation Models. \\u003cem\\u003eChinese Journal of Applied Pyschology\\u003c/em\\u003e. Advance online publication. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/33.1012.B.20250624.1028.001\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFeng, G., Xu, X., \\u0026amp; Lei, J. (2023). Tracking perceived stress, anxiety, and depression in daily life: A double-downward spiral process. \\u003cem\\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e14\\u003c/em\\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1114332\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFilosa, L., Sommovigo, V., Tavolucci, S., Rosa, V., Alivernini, F., Baiocco, R., \\u0026hellip; Alessandri, G. (2025). Daily associations between global self-esteem and self-concept clarity and their relationships with subjective well-being in a sample of adult workers. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e93\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 361\\u0026ndash;377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12934\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGalanakis, M. J., Palaiologou, A., Patsi, G., Velegraki, I.-M., \\u0026amp; Darviri, C. (2016). A literature review on the connection between stress and self-esteem. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e7\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 687\\u0026ndash;694. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.75071\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGerhardt, C., Semmer, N. K., Sauter, S., Walker, A., de Wijn, N., K\\u0026auml;lin, W., \\u0026hellip; Elfering, A. (2021). How are social stressors at work related to well-being and health? A systematic review and meta-analysis. \\u003cem\\u003eBMC Public Health\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e21\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 890. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10894-7\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiacomin, M., \\u0026amp; Jordan, C. H. (2014). The wax and wane of narcissism: Grandiose narcissism as a process or state. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e84\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 154\\u0026ndash;164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12148\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiacomin, M., \\u0026amp; Jordan, C. H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine: Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Research in Personality\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e63\\u003c/em\\u003e, 12\\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.009\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGrapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., \\u0026amp; Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). The \\u0026ldquo;why\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;how\\u0026rdquo; of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. \\u003cem\\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e15\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 150\\u0026ndash;172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619873350\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHelliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L., \\u0026amp; Wang, S. (Eds.). (2024). \\u003cem\\u003eWorld Happiness Report 2024\\u003c/em\\u003e. University of Oxford: Wellbeing Research Centre.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHeppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., \\u0026amp; Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e19\\u003c/em\\u003e(11), 1140\\u0026ndash;1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02215.x\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. \\u003cem\\u003eAmerican Psychologist\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e44\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 513\\u0026ndash;524. \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHowell, A. J. (2017). Self-affirmation theory and the science of well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e18\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 293\\u0026ndash;311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9713-5\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHox, J., Moerbeek, M., \\u0026amp; Van de Schoot, R. (2017). \\u003cem\\u003eMultilevel analysis: Techniques and applications\\u003c/em\\u003e. Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHuang, H., Wu, X., Hu, J., Hu, Y., \\u0026amp; Gan, Y. (2025). Temporal dynamics between daily stress, activity choice, and well‐being: An experience sampling study. \\u003cem\\u003eStress and Health\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e41\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), https://doi.org/e70085.10.1002/smi.70085\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHuang, X. T., \\u0026amp; Yang, X. (1998). Making a scale of self-worth for young students\\u003cem\\u003e. Journal of Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e21\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 289\\u0026ndash;292, 382. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.1998.04.001\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHuta, V., \\u0026amp; Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e15\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 1425\\u0026ndash;1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJohnsson, E., Zolkowska, K., \\u0026amp; McNeil, T. F. (2015). Prediction of adaptation difficulties by country of origin, cumulate psychosocial stressors and attitude toward integrating: A swedish study of first-generation immigrants from somalia, vietnam and China. \\u003cem\\u003eThe International Journal of Social Psychiatry\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e61\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 174\\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014537639\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKalokerinos, E. K., Murphy, S. C., Koval, P., Bailen, N. H., Crombez, G., Hollenstein, T., \\u0026hellip; Bastian, B. (2020). Neuroticism may not reflect emotional variability. \\u003cem\\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e117\\u003c/em\\u003e(17), 9270\\u0026ndash;9276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919934117\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKamijo, N., \\u0026amp; Yukawa, S. (2018). The Role of Rumination and Negative Affect in Meaning Making Following Stressful Experiences in a Japanese Sample. \\u003cem\\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e9\\u003c/em\\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02404\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKang, T. H., \\u0026amp; Zhao, J. (2024). Narcissism research approaches and integration: Dynamics, regulation, and personality characteristics. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e32\\u003c/em\\u003e(8), 1354\\u0026ndash;1365. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01354\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKlusmann, U., Aldrup, K., Schmidt, J., \\u0026amp; L\\u0026uuml;dtke, O. (2021). Is emotional exhaustion only the result of work experiences? A diary study on daily hassles and uplifts in different life domains. \\u003cem\\u003eAnxiety, Stress, \\u0026amp; Coping\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e34\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 173\\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1845430\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLawes, M., Hetschko, C., Sch\\u0026ouml;b, R., Stephan, G., \\u0026amp; Eid, M. (2023). The impact of unemployment on cognitive, affective, and eudaimonic well-being facets: Investigating immediate effects and short-term adaptation. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e124\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 659\\u0026ndash;681. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000417\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLee, J., Joo, E., \\u0026amp; Choi, K. (2013). Perceived stress and self‐esteem mediate the effects of work‐related stress on depression. \\u003cem\\u003eStress and Health\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e29\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 75\\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2428\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLeniarska, M., \\u0026amp; Zajenkowski, M. (2022). Why narcissism reduces distress: The consequences of narcissistic intellectual self-confidence. \\u003cem\\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e12\\u003c/em\\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668257\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLi, J., Qi, H., Huang, H., Wang, J., Chen, X., \\u0026amp; Luo, Y. (2025). Inter‐ and intraindividual relations between agentic, communal self‐enhancement and hedonic, eudaimonic well‐being: Feedback and mediation mechanisms. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality\\u003c/em\\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13015\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLuo, Y. M., Mo, F., Chen, X. H., Jiang, H. D., You, X. Q. (2018). The habituation of hedonic and eudaimonic affect. \\u003cem\\u003eActa Psychologica Sinica\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e50\\u003c/em\\u003e(9), 985\\u0026ndash;996. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00985\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLuo, Y., Jiang, H., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., \\u0026amp; You, X. (2019). Temporal dynamics of hedonic and eudaimonic reward processing: An event-related potentials (ERPs) study. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Psychophysiology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e137\\u003c/em\\u003e, 63\\u0026ndash;71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.12.009\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLuo, Y., Zhang, X., Jiang, H., \\u0026amp; Chen, X. (2022). The neural habituation to hedonic and eudaimonic rewards: Evidence from reward positivity. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychophysiology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e59\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), e13977. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13977\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLydon-Staley, D. M., Xia, M., Mak, H. W., \\u0026amp; Fosco, G. M. (2019). Adolescent emotion network dynamics in daily life and implications for depression. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e47\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 717\\u0026ndash;729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0474-y\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMiller, K. E., Omidian, P., Rasmussen, A., Yaqubi, A., \\u0026amp; Daudzai, H. (2008). Daily stressors, war experiences, and mental health in afghanistan. \\u003cem\\u003eTranscultural Psychiatry\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e45\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 611\\u0026ndash;638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461508100785\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMuris, P., \\u0026amp; Otgaar, H. (2023). Self-esteem and self-compassion: A narrative review and meta-analysis on their links to psychological problems and well-being. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychology Research and Behavior Management\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e16\\u003c/em\\u003e, 2961\\u0026ndash;2975. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S402455\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMurray, A., Speyer, L., Thye, M., Stewart, T., Obsuth, I., Kane, J., \\u0026hellip; Rhodes, S. (2023). Illuminating the daily life experiences of adolescents with and without ADHD: Protocol for an ecological momentary assessment study. \\u003cem\\u003eBMJ Open\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e13\\u003c/em\\u003e(9), e077222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077222\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOrth, U., Krauss, S., \\u0026amp; Back, M. D. (2024). Development of narcissism across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Bulletin\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e150\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 643\\u0026ndash;665. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000436\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePak, Y. (2025). Intertwinement of entrepreneurial stress and eudaimonic well-being: A phenomenographic approach. \\u003cem\\u003eEntrepreneurship \\u0026amp; Regional Development\\u003c/em\\u003e, 1\\u0026ndash;30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2025.2519284\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePapageorgiou, K. A., Gianniou, F.-M., Wilson, P., Moneta, G. B., Bilello, D., \\u0026amp; Clough, P. (2019). The bright side of dark: Exploring the positive effect of narcissism on perceived stress through mental toughness. \\u003cem\\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e139\\u003c/em\\u003e, 116\\u0026ndash;124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.004\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eParadisi, M., Matera, C., \\u0026amp; Nerini, A. (2024). Feeling important, feeling well. The association between mattering and well-being: A meta-analysis study. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00720-3\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePark, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Bulletin\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e136\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 257\\u0026ndash;301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePark, J., \\u0026amp; Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Meaning in life and adjustment to daily stressors. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e12\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 333\\u0026ndash;341. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209542\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePelham, B. W., \\u0026amp; Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e57\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 672\\u0026ndash;680.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRadloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. \\u003cem\\u003eApplied Psychological Measurement\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e1\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 385\\u0026ndash;401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRamanathan, R., \\u0026amp; Desrouleaux, R. (2022). Introduction: The science of stress. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e95\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 1\\u0026ndash;2.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRaskin, R., \\u0026amp; Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e54\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 890\\u0026ndash;902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRiepenhausen, A., Wackerhagen, C., Reppmann, Z. C., Deter, H.-C., Kalisch, R., \\u0026amp; Veer, I. M. (2022). Positive cognitive reappraisal in stress resilience, mental health, and well-being: A comprehensive systematic review. \\u003cem\\u003eEmotion Review\\u003c/em\\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114642\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRighetti, F., Kumashiro, M., \\u0026amp; Campbell, S. B. (2014). Goal difficulty and openness to interpersonal goal support. \\u003cem\\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e40\\u003c/em\\u003e(9), 1107\\u0026ndash;1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214535954\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRyan, R. M., \\u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. \\u003cem\\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e52\\u003c/em\\u003e(Volume 52, 2001), 141\\u0026ndash;166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchultzberg, M., \\u0026amp; Muth\\u0026eacute;n, B. (2018). Number of subjects and time points needed for multilevel time-series analysis: A simulation study of dynamic structural equation modeling. \\u003cem\\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 495\\u0026ndash;515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSedikides, C. (2021). Self-construction, self-protection, and self-enhancement: A homeostatic model of identity protection. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Inquiry\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e32\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 197\\u0026ndash;221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004812\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSękowski, M., Piotrowski, J., Nowak, B., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., \\u0026amp; Maltby, J. (2025). Which narcissists are more stressed? The link between narcissistic forms and stress experience in a five-day diary study during COVID-19. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Psychology: Journal International De Psychologie\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e60\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), e70080. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.70080\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSemmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Jacobshagen, N., Beehr, T. A., Elfering, A., K\\u0026auml;lin, W., \\u0026amp; Meier, L. L. (2019). Stress as offense to self: A promising approach comes of age. \\u003cem\\u003eOccupational Health Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e3\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 205\\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., \\u0026amp; Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention model. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, \\u0026amp; A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), \\u003cem\\u003eThe Oxford handbook of happiness\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 901\\u0026ndash;914). Oxford University Press.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSherman, D. K., \\u0026amp; Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self‐defense: Self‐affirmation theory. In \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e (Vol. 38, pp. 183\\u0026ndash;242). Elsevier.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShi, X., Zhang, W., Chen, X., \\u0026amp; Zhu, Y. (2025). Longitudinal relations among self-compassion, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms in college students: Disentangling the within-person process from stable between-person differences. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e54\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 255\\u0026ndash;270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02069-5\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSong, X., Niu, L., Admon, R., Long, J., Li, Q., Peng, L., \\u0026hellip; Zhang, R. (2024). Aberrant positive affect dynamics in individuals with subthreshold depression: Evidence from laboratory and real-world assessments. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology : IJCHP\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e24\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 100427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100427\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSteele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e (Vol. 21, pp. 261\\u0026ndash;302). Elsevier.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003evan Agteren, J., Iasiello, M., Lo, L., Bartholomaeus, J., Kopsaftis, Z., Carey, M., \\u0026amp; Kyrios, M. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing. \\u003cem\\u003eNature Human Behaviour\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e5\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 631\\u0026ndash;652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01093-w\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003evan Halem, S., van Roekel, E., \\u0026amp; Denissen, J. (2024). Understanding the dynamics of hedonic and eudaimonic motives on daily well-being: Insights from experience sampling data. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(7), 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00812-0\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWard, S., Womick, J., Titova, L., \\u0026amp; King, L. (2023). Meaning in life and coping with everyday stressors. \\u003cem\\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e49\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 460\\u0026ndash;476. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211068910\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWhite, M. P., \\u0026amp; Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activities. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e20\\u003c/em\\u003e(8), 1000\\u0026ndash;1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZhao, X., Ma, H., Li, N., Wu, W., Ma, X., Zhang, X., \\u0026hellip; Cai, M. (2024). Association between sleep disorder and anhedonia in adolescence with major depressive disorder: The mediating effect of stress. \\u003cem\\u003eBMC Psychiatry\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e24\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 962. 10.1186/s12888-024-06434-3\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZheng, A. H., \\u0026amp; MacCann, C. (2023). Happiness is associated with higher narcissism but lower psychopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between happiness and the dark triad. \\u003cem\\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e215\\u003c/em\\u003e, 112381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112381\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZheng, S. F., Zhang, L. J., Qiao, X. Y., Pan, J. H. (2021). Intensive longitudinal data analysis: Models and application. \\u003cem\\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e29\\u003c/em\\u003e(11), 1948\\u0026ndash;1969. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01948\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZuckerman, M., \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Loughlin, R. E. (2009). Narcissism and well‐being: A longitudinal perspective. \\u003cem\\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e39\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 957\\u0026ndash;972. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.594\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Momentary stress, Momentary well-being, Momentary self-worth, Grandiose narcissism trait, Dynamic structural equation model\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eStress is a major risk factor for mental health and well-being, yet few studies have examined its effects on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being from a within-person, dynamic perspective. While self-worth is considered an essential internal resource for sustaining well-being, it remains unclear whether it mediates the immediate association between stress and well-being at the momentary level. In addition, although grandiose narcissism has been proposed as a potential psychological buffer in stressful contexts, its protective function remains debated, with its efficacy potentially varying across the temporal scale. In light of these unresolved questions, the present study employed a 10-day experience sampling design with four assessments per day among 166 participants and used dynamic structural equation modeling to test the dynamic relations between momentary stress and two forms of well-being, as well as the roles of momentary self-worth and grandiose narcissism trait. The results showed that (1) momentary stress significantly and negatively predicted subsequent hedonic well-being, but did not directly predict subsequent eudaimonic well-being; (2) momentary self-worth mediated the effects of stress on both subsequent hedonic and eudaimonic well-being; and (3) grandiose narcissism trait moderated the effect of momentary stress on subsequent self-worth, but this moderating effect was not observed when the time interval increased or at the between-person level. Taken together, these findings suggest that self-worth is a key mechanism linking stress to well-being, whereas the short-term buffering role of grandiose narcissism is limited.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Sustaining Well-Being Under Daily Stress: The Mediating Role of Momentary Self-Worth and the Short-Lived Protective Function of Grandiose Narcissism Trait \",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-01-16 08:27:17\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8322268/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"4a829986-3b4b-4830-bb06-f9bf90b1cb74\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"January 16th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-05-15T10:53:28+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-01-16 08:27:17\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8322268\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8322268\",\"identity\":\"rs-8322268\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}