How local and global metacognition relate to overt and covert narcissism in adolescents

How local and global metacognition relate to overt and covert narcissism in adolescents | 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 Article How local and global metacognition relate to overt and covert narcissism in adolescents Cuizhen Liu, Jingyi Shi, Tieyong Luo, Xiao Hu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/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 Narcissism, a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, is often associated with overconfident behaviors, reflecting distorted metacognitive functioning. Previous research mainly relies on self-report measures to claim that narcissists are blindly overconfidence. However, whether narcissism is linked to actual impairments in metacognitive ability is still unclear. This study systematically explored the associations between overt/covert narcissism and metacognition at both local and global levels in a large adolescent sample (N = 873). Participants completed a perceptual judgment task with confidence ratings, along with the narcissism and self-esteem questionnaires. The results revealed a clear dissociation: overt narcissism was positively correlated with metacognition at both the local level and the global level, whereas covert narcissism showed no such correlations. Critically, overt narcissism negatively moderated the dynamic translation of prospective global confidence into trial-level local confidence, while covert narcissism exerted no moderation. Moreover, self-esteem emerged as the key psychological mechanism accounting for the differential relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition. These findings challenge the traditional view of narcissists as blindly overconfident. Instead, overt narcissists with high self-esteem exhibit adaptive metacognition, with their confidence reflecting calibrated self-monitoring rather than mere bias. Social science/Psychology/Human behaviour Social science/Education narcissism confidence metacognition self-esteem Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Narcissism, a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and a need for excessive admiration, is often associated with overconfident behaviors such as overestimating their own abilities and performance. This overconfidence reflects a distortion in metacognitive functioning—the ability to monitor, evaluate, and control one’s own cognitive processes (Flavell, 1979 ). Most previous studies, conducted primarily with adults, have found that narcissism leads to higher metacognitive bias, i.e., overconfidence. For instance, Meisel et al. ( 2015 ) demonstrated that individuals with higher narcissism scores exhibited significantly greater overconfidence across both U.S. and Chinese cultural contexts. Similarly, Macenczak et al. ( 2016 ) showed that narcissism, especially when combined with a sense of power, amplified overconfidence. Previous research, largely based on self-report measures, has claimed that narcissists are blindly overconfident, implying a metacognitive deficit. However, whether narcissism is linked to actual impairments in metacognitive ability is unclear. It is important to note that high confidence does not necessarily reflect good metacognitive ability, which refers to the capacity to use confidence to discriminate correct from incorrect responses. Studies have demonstrated that confidence level and metacognitive efficiency are not reliably linked (Hu et al., 2023 ; Luo & Liu, 2023 ). For instance, a person who reports very high confidence about nearly every answer regardless of objective performance exhibits poor metacognitive efficiency, because their confidence fails to track accuracy. Thus, the critical question of whether narcissism is associated with actual impairments in metacognitive ability remains to be examined. This gap in understanding the relationship between narcissism and metacognition becomes especially salient when we consider the adolescent population. The findings from adult samples may not apply to adolescents, a population marked by intense self-exploration and rapid cognitive maturation (Crone & Dahl, 2012 ; Steinberg, 2005 ). Unlike adults, whose narcissistic traits stabilize or wane over time (Foster et al., 2003 ), adolescents experience a sensitive period where narcissism is more pronounced, shaped by ongoing identity construction and social comparison (Campbell & Miller, 2011 ; Jin & Yang,2025). At the same time, adolescence is a pivotal period for metacognitive development, as sophisticated skills like strategic thinking and self-regulation are developing rapidly (Kuhn, 2000 ; Schneider, 2008 ; Weil et al., 2013 ). This overlap of emerging personality traits and a still-maturing metacognitive system makes adolescence a critical window for examining how narcissism shapes self-evaluation. Previous research has recognized two distinct forms of narcissism: overt narcissism and covert narcissism (Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2018 ; Miller et al., 2011a ). Specifically, the overt form, described as Grandiosity–Exhibitionism consists of exhibitionism, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, grandiosity and desire for attention (Miller et al., 2013b ; Wink, 1991 ). Conversely, the covert or Vulnerability–Sensitivity form of narcissism is characterized by hypersensitivity to criticism, a lack of self-confidence, being socially withdrawn, but similar to the overt form, an element of grandiosity (Miller et al., 2018 ; Wink, 1991 ). However, research specifically exploring how these two subtypes interact with metacognition remains scarce. Littrell et al. (2020) found that overt narcissists did not report deficits in metacognitive clarity; instead, they exhibited significantly higher overconfidence in their cognitive abilities (e.g., overestimating their performance on reasoning tasks) and lower scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), reflecting a disconnect between their self-perceived cognitive competence and actual reflective thinking ability. In contrast, individuals with higher levels of covert narcissism reported significantly less clarity about their cognitive processes, including difficulties in identifying the reasoning behind their decisions or recognizing the strengths and limitations of their thinking strategies. These findings suggest that the two narcissism subtypes interact with metacognition in distinct ways. A more nuanced understanding of narcissism and metacognition requires distinguishing local from global metacognitive processes, as these two levels capture distinct aspects of self-evaluation that may be differentially impacted by narcissistic traits. Local metacognition refers to momentary, trial-by-trial evaluations linked to specific cognitive acts (e.g., judging one’s confidence in the answer to a single question). Global metacognition involves broader, enduring assessments of one’s cognitive abilities across multiple tasks, contexts, or time scales (e.g., forming the belief “I am poor at reasoning overall” after a series of exams; Seow et al., 2021 ). These two levels also interact dynamically: local confidence can update global self-beliefs, and global beliefs can bias local confidence judgments (Marcke et al., 2024 ; Rouault et al., 2019 ). Importantly, different subtypes of narcissism may interact differently with each level of metacognition. For instance, overt narcissists may tend to show consistent overconfidence at both levels: in local metacognition, they may overestimate their confidence in individual trials; in global metacognition, they may inflate their overall cognitive competence. This pattern serves to reinforce their grandiose self-image (Miller et al., 2011b ). Covert narcissists, on the other hand, might diverge: at the global level, fear of ego threat could lead them to underassess their overall abilities; at the local level, where evaluations are tied to specific, momentary acts rather than global self-worth, they may still express overconfidence. In addition, previous research has suggested that self-esteem may play an important role in how narcissism affects metacognition. Self-esteem is a key factor distinguishing overt from covert narcissism. For instance, Brookes ( 2015 ) found that overt narcissism positively predicted both self-esteem and self-efficacy, while covert narcissism negatively predicted self-esteem. Self-esteem may thus serve as a central mechanism underlying the psychological benefits attributed to narcissism. Sedikides et al. ( 2004 ) demonstrated that self-esteem fully mediated the relationship between narcissism and psychological well-being, indicating that narcissism can confer certain mental health benefits. However, when narcissism was not accompanied by high self-esteem, it was associated with increased psychopathology. Additionally, self-esteem itself is considered a higher-order form of metacognition (Hoven et al., 2023 ). Thus, corresponding to this framework, the influence of narcissism on metacognitive processes may also operate through its relationship with self-esteem. Specifically, among overt narcissists with high self-esteem, it is possible that this trait may be associated with more accurate or enhanced metacognitive insight. In contrast, when overt narcissism coexists with low or unstable self-esteem, it may lead to metacognitive distortions, such as inflated self-assessments that serve as a compensatory mechanism for underlying fragility and avoidance. Taken together, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between overt/covert narcissism and metacognition in adolescents. We employed an objective dot discrimination perceptual task to measure participants’ metacognition. This task allowed for the simultaneous collection of both local and global confidence, enabling us to explore how narcissism affects the dynamic interaction between these two metacognitive processes. Importantly, we also computed the accuracy of confidence judgments at the local level, i.e., metacognitive efficiency (Fleming & Lau, 2014 ), which permits us to determine whether the overconfidence observed in narcissism is truly a form of blind overconfidence or if it represents an adaptive outcome of improved confidence judgment accuracy. In addition, as a core distinguishing feature of the two narcissistic subtypes, we examined the role of self-esteem in the relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition. 2. Methods 2.1 Participants The participants were students from the tenth and eleventh grades at a high school in Shanxi Province, China. Data collection took place in a computer room, organized by classes. A total of 1,314 students completed a perceptual judgment task with metacognitive measures, along with the narcissism and self-esteem questionnaires. For the perceptual judgment task, participants that met any of the following criteria were excluded: 1) The participant did not make any perceptual judgment responses during the first five trials of the practice phase; 2) The proportion of trials without a perceptual judgment response during the formal experiment phase exceeded 10%; 3) The difficulty level of any trial during the formal experiment phase exceeded the simplest limit (i.e., the difference in dot counts was greater than 112) but the participant still made an incorrect response in that trial; 4) The proportion of trials where the participant did not make a confidence judgment during the formal experiment phase exceeded 10%; 5) The participant gave the same confidence rating on all trials during the formal experiment phase. For the questionnaires, participants were excluded if they gave the same score for all items in either the narcissism or self-esteem questionnaire. After screening, the final sample consisted of 873 valid participants, including 388 males and 485 females, with an average age of 16.4 years ( SD = 2.9). 2.2 Perceptual judgment task Participants were asked to perform the perceptual judgment task with confidence ratings, as illustrated in Fig. 1 . Before starting the formal task, participants made a prospective global confidence judgment about the overall accuracy they expected in the entire experiment using a continuous slider (50% – 100%), responding to the prompt: “Before the experiment begins, please estimate your expected performance: What percentage of correct responses do you think you can achieve in the upcoming experiment?” After completing half of the trials, they made a mid-task global confidence judgment for the initial 60 trials, responding to: “Please estimate your performance in the first half of the task: What percentage of correct responses do you believe you achieved during this initial phase?”. Finally, after completing all 120 trials, they made a final retrospective global confidence judgment for their overall performance, responding to the prompt: “Now thinking back on the entire experiment, how accurate do you think your responses were overall?”. For a single trial, participants began by fixating on a central cross for 1500ms, followed by the presentation of two dot-pattern stimuli for 500ms. Participants were then asked to judge which side contained more dots within 3000ms, with their chosen option highlighted by a blue background for 500ms. They subsequently rated their decision confidence on a 6-point scale (1 = purely guessing – 6 = completely certain) within 3000ms, after which their selected confidence level was highlighted for 500ms. The experiment included 30 practice trials followed by 120 formal trials. In each trial, two squares were presented, with one square containing a constant number of 113 dots, while the other having a varying number of dots. The difference in the number of dots ranged from 1 to 112, meaning one square could have up to 225 dots. The difficulty of the task was controlled using a “one-up-two-down” staircase procedure. If the participant made one incorrect response, the program automatically increased the point difference by one step-size to reduce the task difficulty. If the participant made two consecutive correct responses, the program automatically decreased the point difference by one step-size to increase the task difficulty. The smaller the point difference, the more difficult the task. The step-size was calculated in log-space, with a starting point of e 4 (55 dots difference), changing by ± 0.5 for the first 10 trials, ± 0.3 for the next 10 trials, and ± 0.1 for the rest of the task (Rouault et al., 2018 ). For instance, if a participant made an incorrect response on the first trial, the difference in the number of dots increased to e 4.5 (91 dots difference) on the next trial. The staircase procedure began during the practice phase, and the formal experiment continued with the point difference from the last trial of the practice phase. This staircase method allowed the experiment to control task difficulty based on the participant’s performance, minimizing the possibility of performance being confounded with confidence ratings. 2.3 Global and local metacognition measures In the current study, we systematically examined global metacognition, local metacognition, and the potential dynamic interplay between them. The experiment captured the temporal dynamics of global metacognition through three time points of global confidence assessment. These time points revealed how global metacognition evolved from “prospective expectation” to “in-process evaluation” and finally to “retrospective judgment.” Local metacognition was assessed using two indices: metacognitive bias and metacognitive efficiency. Metacognitive bias refers to the tendency to give an overall high or low confidence rating. Each participant’s mean confidence level was computed as the indicator of metacognitive bias (Rahnev, 2025 ). Metacognitive efficiency reflects the accuracy of the subject’s local confidence judgments while controlling for task performance, and was calculated through an extension of signal detection theory (SDT). In the framework of SDT, the perceptual decision task is known as type-1/first-order decisions and the subsequent confidence rating in correctly perceiving the stimuli is type-2/second-order decisions. We used meta-d’ to estimate the type-2 sensitivity, i.e., metacognitive sensitivity, to represent the degree to which confidence discriminates between correct and incorrect trials (Fleming & Lau, 2014 ). Statistically, meta-d’ is the value of type 1 performance ( d’ ) that would been predicted to give rise to the observed confidence rating data assuming an ideal observer. Higher metacognitive sensitivity means that one’s local confidence ratings are more informative about the accuracy of one’s perceptual judgments. The ratio ( meta-d’/d’ ) then reflects a measure of metacognitive efficiency that controls for task performance ( d’ ). We hypothesized potential dynamic interactions between global and local metacognition, with changes in global confidence manifesting as variations in local confidence. For example, a high prospective global estimate is likely to result in a relatively high level of local confidence in the initial trials. As the task progresses, participants are continuously adjusting their local confidence rating in each trial based on their objective perceptual performance. This adjustment process in the average confidence level will ultimately be reflected in the estimation of retrospective global confidence. 2.4 Questionnaires Narcissism personality questionnaire. This study used the Narcissism Personality Questionnaire developed by Zheng and Huang ( 2005 ) to assess both overt and covert narcissism. The questionnaire consists of 28 items, using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of narcissism. There are 20 items measuring overt narcissism, which can be divided into four dimensions: Desire for Power (items: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), Sense of Privilege (items: 4, 8, 9, 12, 28), Sense of Superiority (items: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27), and Self-Admiration (items: 2, 3, 10). There are 15 items measuring covert narcissism, divided into three dimensions: Vulnerability (items: 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15), Sense of Privilege (items: 4, 5, 8, 9, 12), and Self-Admiration (items: 2, 3, 10). Seven items measure both overt and covert narcissism, with two common dimensions shared between the two types: Sense of Privilege and Self-Admiration. However, the items in the Sense of Privilege dimension are not entirely the same across the two types. Item 5 measures the sense of privilege in covert narcissism, while Item 28 measures it in overt narcissism. This questionnaire has demonstrated good performance with Chinese adolescent samples (He et al., 2016 ; Min & He, 2015 ) and showed good reliability in this study (Cronbach's α was 0.872 for overt narcissism and 0.818 for covert narcissism). Self-esteem scale. The Chinese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Simmons & Rosenberg, 1975 ), translated by (Ji & Yu, 1999 ), was used to assess individuals’ self-esteem. The questionnaire consists of 10 questions with a 4-point scoring system, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Cronbach's α for the scale was 0.829 in this study. 2.5 Analyses All variables were standardized to z -scores before analysis. First, we conducted a correlation analysis to examine the relationships between different subtypes of narcissism (overt and covert) and metacognition at different levels. At the local level, the indicators we examined included average local confidence, metacognitive efficiency, accuracy, and perceptual sensitivity. At the global level, we analyzed global confidence estimates at three time points: prospective, mid-task, and retrospective global confidence. Next, we investigated the role of narcissism in the changes between global and local metacognition. Through structural equation modeling (SEM), we studied the moderating effect of narcissism on the changes between global and local metacognition. Subsequently, we sought to explore whether the impact of narcissism on the dynamic changes in global and local metacognition is related to self-esteem, which was treated as a mediating variable. All data analysis processes and data visualizations were completed using R (Version 4.5.1). The deidentified data and scripts supporting the findings are available at https://osf.io/7ztrj/overview?view_only=0d0dd9ec8df4401c97cee805479db4b9 . This study was not preregistered. 3. Results 3.1 Overt narcissism correlated with metacognition while no such correlations for covert narcissism At the local level, our analysis revealed significant positive correlations between overt narcissism and both average local confidence ( r = 0.13, p = 0.001) and metacognitive efficiency ( r = 0.11, p = 0.014). For covert narcissism, however, no significant relationships were found with either local confidence ( r = − 0.02, p > 0.99) or metacognitive efficiency ( r = 0.03, p > 0.99). Furthermore, neither overt nor covert narcissism exhibited a correlation with participants’ perceptual accuracy or perceptual sensitivity (all | r s | 0.19). This indicates that narcissism may influence subjective evaluations of local confidence but does not alter participants’ actual perceptual abilities. At the global level, we found that overt narcissism displayed significant positive correlations with prospective global confidence ( r = 0.11, p = 0.025), mid-task global confidence ( r = 0.14, p = 0.007), and retrospective global confidence ( r = 0.12, p = 0.005). In contrast, covert narcissism showed no significant correlations with any of these global confidence measures (all | r s | 0.99). This suggests that individuals with higher levels of overt narcissism are more prone to report higher global confidence, whereas covert narcissism does not appear to influence external subjective confidence reports. The correlation results are presented in Fig. 2 . 3.2 Overt but not covert narcissism regulated confidence dynamics. Correlation analyses revealed that overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global confidence irrelevant to objective task performance, whereas no such correlations were observed for covert narcissism. Subsequently, we aimed to explore whether narcissism moderates the dynamic between global and local confidence judgments, with a specific focus on differential effects of narcissism subtypes. As depicted in Fig. 3 , prospective global confidence served as the independent variable, local confidence as the mediator, and retrospective global confidence as the dependent variable. Narcissism subtypes were tested as moderators in two key processes across the temporal course: one from the influence of prospective global confidence to subsequent local confidence, and the other from the integration of local confidence signals into the retrospective global confidence. Significant direct effects from prospective to retrospective global confidence were observed for both types (Overt: c’ = 0.59, z = 19.64, p < 0.001; Covert: c’ = 0.60, z = 19.64, p < 0.001). Supporting the mediation model, analyses also revealed that average trial confidence partially mediated the relationship between prospective and retrospective global confidence for both overt ( b = 0.08, z = 5.47, p < 0.001) and covert narcissism ( b = 0.09, z = 6.20, p < 0.001). The path coefficients from prospective global confidence to average trial confidence were significant for both overt ( b = 0.42, z = 12.68, p < 0.001) and covert narcissism ( b = 0.43, z = 12.91, p < 0.001). Similarly, paths from average trial confidence to retrospective confidence were also significant for both overt ( b = 0.20, z = 5.39, p < 0.001) and covert narcissism ( b = 0.21, z = 6.38, p < 0.001). Critically examining the moderating role of narcissism, a negative moderating effect was observed for overt narcissism on the pathway from prospective global to local confidence ( b = − 0.07, z = − 2.71, p = 0.030). This effect was manifested as a 25.9% reduction in sensitivity (slope difference = 0.124) where high overt narcissism (> 1 SD above the mean) substantially weakened the translation of global prospective confidence into local confidence judgments compared to low overt narcissism (< 1 SD below the mean). In contrast, covert narcissism showed no significant moderation on this pathway ( b = − 0.01, z = − 0.29, p = 0.765). Additionally, for the integration pathway from average trial confidence to retrospective global confidence, neither overt narcissism ( b = − 0.01, z = − 0.22, p = 0.823) nor covert narcissism ( b = − 0.03, z = − 0.74, p = 0.460) demonstrated significant moderation effects. These findings suggest that narcissism, specifically overt narcissism, exerts a specific effect on higher-order metacognitive regulation (where prospective global confidence modulates local confidence) while preserving the function of lower-order metacognitive integration (the integration of local evidence into retrospective global confidence). 3.3 Self-esteem positively mediated the relationship between overt narcissism and metacognition, while negatively mediating the relationship between covert narcissism and metacognition The above findings demonstrated that different subtypes of narcissism showed clear dissociable relationships with metacognition: overt narcissism not only had significant positive correlations with both local and global confidence, but also significantly moderated the dynamics between local and global confidence, whereas no similar effects were found for covert narcissism. Subsequently, we aimed to investigate whether this dissociable effect could be explained by self-esteem. As shown in Fig. 4 , several mediation models were constructed to examine whether self-esteem mediated the relationships between narcissistic personality traits and metacognitive indices. For local confidence, we found significant opposite indirect effects of the two types of narcissism on local confidence ratings through self-esteem: overt narcissism, b = 0.17, z = 4.86, p < 0.001; covert narcissism, b = − 0.16, z = − 4.88, p < 0.001 (Fig. 4 a). Because the direct path from overt ( c’ = 0.08, z = 1.52, p = 0.129) or covert narcissism ( c’ = −0.01, z = − 0.24, p = 0.810) to local confidence was not statistically detectable, the effects of both types of narcissism on local confidence were mainly explained by self-esteem. These results indicate that increased confidence in individuals with high overt narcissism stems from heightened self-esteem. In contrast, covert narcissism is associated with lower self-esteem, which in turn results in diminished confidence. For metacognitive efficiency, similarly, the indirect effects of both types of narcissism on metacognitive efficiency through self-esteem were statistically significant: overt narcissism, b = 0.08, z = 2.39, p = 0.017; covert narcissism, b = − 0.07, z = − 2.40, p = 0.016 (Fig. 4 b). The direct path from overt ( c’ = 0.08, z = 1.33, p = 0.183) or covert narcissism ( c’ = 0.01, z = 0.20, p = 0.844) to metacognitive efficiency was not statistically detectable. Therefore, the effect of both types of narcissism on metacognitive efficiency can be considered primarily mediated by self-esteem. This pattern suggests that individuals with high overt narcissism may have better metacognitive ability due to heightened self-esteem, whereas those with high covert narcissism tend to have lower self-esteem, which in turn leads to reduced metacognitive judgment accuracy. For all global confidence indices, the mediation effect of self-esteem on the relationships between narcissism and each of them was statistically detectable (Fig. 4 c): the path from overt narcissism to prospective global confidence: b = 0.12, z = 3.44, p = 0.001; the path from covert narcissism to prospective global confidence: b = − 0.11, z = − 3.44, p = 0.001; the path from overt narcissism to mid-task global confidence: b = 0.09, z = 2.70, p = 0.007; the path from covert narcissism to mid-task global confidence: b = − 0.09, z = − 2.71, p = 0.007; the path from overt narcissism to retrospective global confidence: b = 0.10, z = 2.95, p = 0.003; the path from covert narcissism to retrospective global confidence: b = − 0.10, z = − 2.93, p = 0.003. These results follow a consistent pattern of mediation: overt narcissistic boosts global confidence through higher self-esteem, while covert narcissistic diminishes global confidence through lowering self-esteem. The only exception was mid-task global confidence, for which the effect of overt narcissism was not fully mediated by self-esteem, as overt narcissism’s direct effect on mid-task global confidence was also significant ( c’ = 0.13, z = 2.14, p = 0.032). 4. Discussion This study systematically investigated how narcissism (overt and covert) affects metacognition at the local and global levels in a large adolescent sample ( N = 837). Our results revealed that overt narcissism consistently showed a positive correlation with metacognition at both the local level (i.e., local confidence and metacognitive efficiency) and the global level (i.e., prospective, mid-task, and retrospective global confidence). Covert narcissism, however, failed to reveal any such correlations. We also found that narcissism moderated the dynamic interplay between global and local confidence. Specifically, overt narcissism significantly weakened the top-down process by which prospective global confidence informed local confidence judgments. In contrast, the bottom-up process of integrating local confidence to form retrospective global confidence was not significantly moderated by either overt or covert narcissism. Lastly, our findings revealed that self-esteem could be the key psychological mechanism accounting for the differential relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition. For overt narcissism, the higher levels of confidence (local and global) and metacognitive efficiency were mainly driven by elevated self-esteem. Conversely, for covert narcissism, the lower levels of these metacognitive indicators were driven by reduced self-esteem. Our findings clearly demonstrate a dissociation between overt and covert narcissism in metacognition. Specifically, overt narcissism exhibited positive associations with both local/global confidence and metacognitive efficiency, whereas covert narcissism showed no significant relationships with any metacognitive measures. While previous research had frequently linked narcissism to overconfidence (Meisel et al., 2015 ), our results suggest that narcissism does not uniformly predict overconfident behavior. This inconsistency may arise from earlier studies’ failure to distinguish between narcissism subtypes, a distinction well-documented in the literature (Given-Wilson et al., 2011 ; Miller et al., 2011a ). Supporting this view, Littrell et al. (2024) also found that overt narcissism, but not covert narcissism, was associated with metacognitive bias (overconfidence). However, contrary to our findings, they reported that higher overt narcissism correlated with lower metacognitive accuracy. This discrepancy may be explained by methodological differences. Littrell et al. (2024) employed a mixed-task design (numerical reasoning and memory recall tasks), which introduced variability in task difficulty and made it difficult to standardize performance across participants, potentially compromising metacognitive measurement. In contrast, our study used a stepwise adaptive method that adjusted task difficulty based on individual perceptual thresholds, ensuring better control over task performance. Moreover, their metacognitive measure, calculated by subtracting average confidence in correct responses from average confidence in incorrect responses, may have been susceptible to confidence response biases. Instead, we adopted the more robust meta-d'/d' metric (Fleming & Lau, 2014 ), which provides a “bias free” assessment of metacognitive efficiency. A more novel finding of this study is that overt narcissism negatively moderated the influence of prospective global confidence on local trial-level confidence, whereas covert narcissism showed no significant moderating effect. Given that overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global confidence, individuals high in overt narcissism displayed elevated confidence across both levels. Their grandiose self-view supports high global self-assessments, while a general tendency toward high confidence results in stable local judgments that are relatively independent of momentary expectations (Campbell et al., 2004 ; Kroencke et al., 2023 ). As a result, their local confidence was less influenced by prospective global confidence, as pre-existing high confidence diminished reliance on prior beliefs. In contrast, individuals low in overt narcissism displayed lower and more malleable confidence. Their local confidence judgments may therefore be more susceptible to contextual influences—including their own prospective global expectations. Thus trial-level confidence was more strongly shaped by prior global beliefs, leading to a stronger positive relationship. The absence of a moderating effect for covert narcissism can be attributed to its lack of significant correlation with either confidence level. Regarding the retrospective phase, the lack of a significant moderating effect is likely due to the fact that the formation of retrospective global confidence is more strongly constrained by objective evidence accumulated during task performance (Rouault et al., 2019 ), thereby limiting narcissism-related influences. Our findings also challenge the traditional view that narcissists exhibit blind overconfidence. Rather, overt narcissists demonstrated both high confidence and high metacognitive efficiency at the local level, indicating that their confidence is not merely inflated but reflects an actual ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect responses. Critically, self-esteem mediated the relationship between overt narcissism and metacognitive efficiency, suggesting a key distinction: the confidence of overt narcissists with high self-esteem differs fundamentally from classic “overconfidence bias.” While overconfidence bias entails subjective confidence vastly exceeding objective performance (e.g., overestimating accuracy in cognitive tasks), overt narcissists’ confidence, when rooted in self-esteem, correlated with improved metacognitive efficiency. This challenges the stereotype of narcissists as “unrealistically overconfident” and instead supports an adaptive perspective: overt narcissism’s confidence can be conducive to accurate self-monitoring when grounded in genuine self-esteem. This aligns with Sedikides et al. ( 2004 ), who proposed self-esteem as a “central mechanism” behind narcissism’s psychological benefits (e.g., reduced anxiety, persistence). Our study extends this framework to metacognition, suggesting self-esteem acts as a motivational anchor for overt narcissists. The mediating role of self-esteem further clarifies the negative moderating effect of overt narcissism: individuals with high levels of overt narcissism and genuine self-esteem appeared to maintain a self-contained confidence system, in which local confidence was less influenced by global expectations. Their genuine high self-esteem fosters agency certainty (Brown et al., 2016 ), a stable belief in their capacity to monitor and adjust cognitive processes, which also facilitates calibrated confidence judgments. Our research offers valuable implications for adolescent development and education. The findings indicate that promoting healthy self-esteem is an essential educational objective to mitigate the metacognitive gaps associated with narcissistic traits. For adolescents high in overt narcissism, educational efforts should focus on fostering competency-grounded self-esteem by reinforcing the connection between self-worth and demonstrable effort or skill development. This approach can facilitate more accurate self-assessment and promote adaptive learning strategies (Brummelman et al., 2016 ). For those high in covert narcissism, interventions should aim to build a secure foundation of self-esteem through consistent unconditional positive regard and acknowledgement of incremental progress. This may help reduce defensive avoidance and reengage them in active metacognitive monitoring (Park & Crocker, 2008 ; Zeigler-Hill, 2006 ). 5. Summary This study advances our understanding of the relationship between narcissistic subtypes and metacognitive dynamics in adolescence. Overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global metacognition, regardless of objective task performance, while covert narcissism showed no such correlations. Importantly, we clarify how overt narcissism influences the confidence dynamics pathway from prospective global confidence to trial-level local confidence. Self-esteem appears to serve as a potential mediating mechanism, such that the higher levels of local and global confidence observed in overt narcissists are primarily driven by elevated self-esteem. These findings challenge the traditional view of narcissists as blindly overconfident; instead, overt narcissists with high self-esteem demonstrate adaptive metacognition, with their confidence reflecting calibrated self-monitoring rather than mere bias. Our study has significant implications for adolescent development and education, suggesting that narcissistic tendencies could be shaped into metacognitive strengths by cultivating a healthy sense of self-esteem. Declarations The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shaanxi Normal University. References Brookes, J. (2015). The effect of overt and covert narcissism on self-esteem and self-efficacy beyond self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences , 85 , 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.013 Brown, A. A., Freis, S. D., Carroll, P. J., & Arkin, R. M. (2016). Perceived agency mediates the link between the narcissistic subtypes and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences , 90 , 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.055 Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., & Sedikides, C. (2016). Separating Narcissism From Self-Esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 25 (1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415619737 Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 17 (4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.475 Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder , wiley online books. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118093108 Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience , 13 (9), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist , 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Fleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 8 , 443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443 Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality , 37 (6), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6 Given-Wilson, Z., McIlwain, D., & Warburton, W. (2011). Meta-cognitive and interpersonal difficulties in overt and covert narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences , 50 (7), 1000–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.014 He, D., Fan, C., Niu, G., Lian, S., & Chen, W. (2016). The effect of parenting styles on adolescents’ cyberbullying: The mediating role of covert narcissism. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology , 24 (01), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.01.009 Hoven, M., Luigjes, J., Denys, D., Rouault, M., & van Holst, R. J. (2023). How do confidence and self-beliefs relate in psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach. Nature Mental Health , 1 (5), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00062-8 Hu, X., Yang, C., & Luo, L. (2023). Are the contributions of processing experience and prior beliefs to confidence ratings domain-general or domain-specific? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General , 152 (1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001257 Ji, Y. F., & Yu, X. (1999). The Self-Esteem Scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal , Suppl. , 318–320. Jin, Y., & Yang, Y. (2025). How Childhood Shapes Adolescents’ Belief in Justice: A Longitudinal Study Examining the Link Between Childhood Stressful Environment and Belief in a Just World. Journal of Personality , online published. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13028 Kroencke, L., Kuper, N., Mota, S., Geukes, K., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Back, M. D. (2023). Narcissistic status pursuit in everyday social life: A within-person process approach to the behavioral and emotional dynamics of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 125 (6), 1519–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000467 Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 9 (5), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088 Littrell, S., Fugelsang, J., & Risko, E. F. (2019). Overconfidently underthinking: Narcissism negatively predicts cognitive reflection. Thinking & Reasoning , 26 (3), 352–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1633404 Luo, T., & Liu, C. (2023). The impact of feedback on metacognition: Enhancing in easy tasks, impeding in difficult ones. Consciousness and Cognition , 116 , 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103601 Macenczak, L. A., Campbell, S., Henley, A. B., & Campbell, W. K. (2016). Direct and interactive effects of narcissism and power on overconfidence. Personality and Individual Differences , 91 , 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.053 Malesza, M., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2018). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences , 126 , 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.021 Marcke, H. V., Denmat, P. L., Verguts, T., & Desender, K. (2024). Manipulating prior beliefs causally induces under- and overconfidence. Psychological Science , 35 (4), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797624123157 Meisel, M. K., Ning, H., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2015). Narcissism, overconfidence, and risk taking in U.S. and Chinese student samples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 47 (3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115621968 Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., & Campbell, W. K. (2013b). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality trait model. Journal of Personality Assessment , 95 (3), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.685907 Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Keith Campbell, W. (2011a). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality , 79 (5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Keith Campbell, W. (2011b). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality , 79 (5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Vize, C., Crowe, M., Sleep, C., Maples-Keller, J. L., Few, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality , 86 (2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12303 Min, W., & He, N. (2015). Relationship between middle school students’ narcissism and peer relations: Self-esteem as a mediator. China Journal of Health Psychology , 23 (5), 772–776. https://doi.org/10.1334/j.cnki.cjhp.2015.05.035. Park, L. E., & Crocker, J. (2008). Contingencies of self-worth and responses to negative interpersonal feedback. Self and Identity , 7 (2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701398808 Rahnev, D. (2025). A comprehensive assessment of current methods for measuring metacognition. Nature Communications , 16 (1), 701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56117-0 Rouault, M., Dayan, P., & Fleming, S. M. (2019). Forming global estimates of self-performance from local confidence. Nature Communications , 10 (1), 1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09075-3 Rouault, M., Seow, T., Gillan, C. M., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Psychiatric Symptom Dimensions Are Associated With Dissociable Shifts in Metacognition but Not Task Performance. Biological Psychiatry , 84 (6), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.017 Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education , 2 (3), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.x Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 (3), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400 Seow, T. X. F., Rouault, M., Gillan, C. M., & Fleming, S. M. (2021). How local and global metacognition shape mental health. Biological Psychiatry , 90 (7), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.013 Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, F. (1975). Sex, sex roles, and self-image. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 4 (3), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537165 Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 9 (2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005 Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and Cognition , 22 (1), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004 Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 61 (4), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590 Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality , 74 (1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x Zheng Y., & Huang L. (2005). Overt and covert narcissism: A psychological exploration of narcissistic personality. Journal of Psychological Science , 28 (5), 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2005.05.064 Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. 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-8214411","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":561668979,"identity":"ec87e516-a2c4-4324-96c9-bfec555398c7","order_by":0,"name":"Cuizhen Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shaanxi Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cuizhen","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":561668980,"identity":"f717c70c-7e99-4e1b-81b2-3619ea3ea086","order_by":1,"name":"Jingyi Shi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jingyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Shi","suffix":""},{"id":561668981,"identity":"a5ec8523-8bd5-44e3-8998-9c6d5f8db5f7","order_by":2,"name":"Tieyong Luo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tieyong","middleName":"","lastName":"Luo","suffix":""},{"id":561668982,"identity":"4dcb1e76-8a75-40f6-84b8-d59363e4a35d","order_by":3,"name":"Xiao Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-26 15:16:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99187162,"identity":"ddea3f6e-0dbf-4a8a-abc8-ad17cb9245ff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10724731,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscriptnarcissismandmetacognition.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/45b9f05696fc2a3eebff0ebc.docx"},{"id":99317548,"identity":"27395a81-e655-4b1c-8790-03fc9e56d393","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:30:21","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"COMMSPSYCHOL250909.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/e4c1624946d9c8782e485773.json"},{"id":99187160,"identity":"791942ac-6d7f-416a-9425-a98b1ccaf9e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":116108,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"COMMSPSYCHOL2509090enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/c7d54287559a8db6c0921051.xml"},{"id":99315900,"identity":"7431a8f5-3cc6-4dc9-8ce8-8b2ef816114b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:27:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6027430,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/57ff19d4ea6715c461f1729d.jpeg"},{"id":99187168,"identity":"77503632-a2e4-4f6d-8b18-5af61cfd08ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4086744,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/7901e4054652c40350030769.jpeg"},{"id":99187170,"identity":"5be29779-069e-47fa-badd-241008489e96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":226206,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/a8a5b52a8a8ee36b81852e40.png"},{"id":99187167,"identity":"7df1b717-8ae2-4848-8315-43a3a6f92fd4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":284703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/81116a75d8accf4a93e6bd23.png"},{"id":99316564,"identity":"6aad4f4d-81ae-461b-b94f-b6482ee7e65d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37932,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/2605624db34bc4f5d9478ab3.png"},{"id":99187166,"identity":"4b741a03-733f-41dd-9054-f782ab70e82e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":52359,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/15f8edcd059fa106b4ea854c.png"},{"id":99315995,"identity":"745caaa2-6a7c-445a-b98a-e46c0f411744","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:27:33","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/81965608adf531102b9c0557.png"},{"id":99187173,"identity":"8adb2b97-ba26-4cb8-932c-35f1c96dcb6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":43826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/574370e05204c2041fe42518.png"},{"id":99187171,"identity":"47319313-82ba-4aa2-bab5-66a8e27dfdff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":115158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"COMMSPSYCHOL2509090structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/f9f23acb7f0b8a69c9b96c6a.xml"},{"id":99187174,"identity":"d6d02cef-bb8f-4d3b-b52c-7579a67b2d4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":124015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/c52bb222218ff15cb4053999.html"},{"id":99187176,"identity":"fda38e7a-8b48-4622-a116-3ab6c703584a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":144755,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlowchart of the perceptual judgment task. \u003c/strong\u003eBefore commencing the task, participants provided prospective global confidence estimates to assess their expected accuracy on a continuous slider (50% – 100%). After completing 60 trials, participants gave a mid-task global confidence estimate regarding their current performance accuracy. Upon finishing all 120 trials, participants provided a retrospective global confidence judgment for their overall accuracy. For a single trial, a fixation cross was presented for 1500ms, followed by the stimuli presentation for 500ms. After the stimuli disappear, participants judged which box contained more white dots within 3000ms, with their response highlighted for 500ms. Participants then rated their confidence in their choice within 3000ms, witha 500ms highlight for the rating.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/bdab586cd6661ff0b3faad8e.png"},{"id":99187161,"identity":"2d06eaa1-a491-4432-ba12-1c00dbba8064","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":235289,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOvert narcissism but not covert narcissism correlates with local/global confidence and metacognitive efficiency. \u003c/strong\u003eAt the local level: (a) Overt narcissism shows a significant positive correlation with local confidence, while covert narcissism shows no correlation. (b) Overt narcissism shows a significant positive correlation with metacognitive efficiency, while covert narcissism shows no correlation. (c) Neither overt nor covert narcissism shows a significant correlation with perceptual sensitivity. At the global level: (d-f) Overt narcissism shows significant positive correlations with prospective global confidence, mid-taskconfidence, and retrospective global confidence, while covert narcissism shows no correlations. The shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval. \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e-values were Bonferroni-adjusted for multiple comparisons (\u003cem\u003ek \u003c/em\u003e= 14, adjusted \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0036).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/06fd8d6f2e85a1f7aa87c051.png"},{"id":99187175,"identity":"e2addd8b-82e4-485b-8c02-823e8736821e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":226206,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOvert but not covert narcissism modulates the confidence dynamicspathway from prospective global confidence to trial-level local confidence. \u003c/strong\u003eThis comparative structural equation modeling demonstrates thatlocal confidence consistently serves as a significant mediator between prospective and retrospectiveglobal confidence in both overt (model a) and covert narcissism (model b). Critically, overt narcissism exhibits a significant negative moderating effect specifically on the path from prospective global confidence to local confidence. Individuals with high overt narcissism (\u0026gt; 1 SD above the mean) substantially weakens the translation of global prospective confidence into local confidence judgments (slope = 0.355) compared to those with low overt narcissism (\u0026lt; 1 SD below the mean, slope = 0.479). ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/3f9254defab94f832bef6841.png"},{"id":99187164,"identity":"80e6cad2-3d4f-4817-83b2-d35cc38a2b7e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 00:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":284703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediation roles of self-esteem in the relationships between narcissism subtypes (overt and covert) and local/global metacognitive measures. \u003c/strong\u003eSelf-esteem positively mediates the relationship between overt narcissism and all metacognitive indices, whereas it negatively mediates the association between covert narcissism and all metacognitive indices (a: local confidence, b: metacognitive efficiency, and c: prospective, mid-task, and retrospective global confidence). Path coefficients represent standardized estimates. ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/294fc65f75cab603cc254eab.png"},{"id":101675463,"identity":"fe815ddf-48ce-477f-ab76-735b32278f07","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-02 13:27:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1481758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8214411/v1/2c20c40f-e615-4821-ba2b-88333abbe189.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"How local and global metacognition relate to overt and covert narcissism in adolescents","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNarcissism, a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and a need for excessive admiration, is often associated with overconfident behaviors such as overestimating their own abilities and performance. This overconfidence reflects a distortion in metacognitive functioning\u0026mdash;the ability to monitor, evaluate, and control one\u0026rsquo;s own cognitive processes (Flavell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Most previous studies, conducted primarily with adults, have found that narcissism leads to higher metacognitive bias, i.e., overconfidence. For instance, Meisel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that individuals with higher narcissism scores exhibited significantly greater overconfidence across both U.S. and Chinese cultural contexts. Similarly, Macenczak et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) showed that narcissism, especially when combined with a sense of power, amplified overconfidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious research, largely based on self-report measures, has claimed that narcissists are blindly overconfident, implying a metacognitive deficit. However, whether narcissism is linked to actual impairments in metacognitive ability is unclear. It is important to note that high confidence does not necessarily reflect good metacognitive ability, which refers to the capacity to use confidence to discriminate correct from incorrect responses. Studies have demonstrated that confidence level and metacognitive efficiency are not reliably linked (Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Luo \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, a person who reports very high confidence about nearly every answer regardless of objective performance exhibits poor metacognitive efficiency, because their confidence fails to track accuracy. Thus, the critical question of whether narcissism is associated with actual impairments in metacognitive ability remains to be examined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis gap in understanding the relationship between narcissism and metacognition becomes especially salient when we consider the adolescent population. The findings from adult samples may not apply to adolescents, a population marked by intense self-exploration and rapid cognitive maturation (Crone \u0026amp; Dahl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Steinberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike adults, whose narcissistic traits stabilize or wane over time (Foster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), adolescents experience a sensitive period where narcissism is more pronounced, shaped by ongoing identity construction and social comparison (Campbell \u0026amp; Miller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Jin \u0026amp; Yang,2025). At the same time, adolescence is a pivotal period for metacognitive development, as sophisticated skills like strategic thinking and self-regulation are developing rapidly (Kuhn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Weil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This overlap of emerging personality traits and a still-maturing metacognitive system makes adolescence a critical window for examining how narcissism shapes self-evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has recognized two distinct forms of narcissism: overt narcissism and covert narcissism (Malesza \u0026amp; Kaczmarek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011a\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, the overt form, described as Grandiosity\u0026ndash;Exhibitionism consists of exhibitionism, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, grandiosity and desire for attention (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013b\u003c/span\u003e; Wink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, the covert or Vulnerability\u0026ndash;Sensitivity form of narcissism is characterized by hypersensitivity to criticism, a lack of self-confidence, being socially withdrawn, but similar to the overt form, an element of grandiosity (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). However, research specifically exploring how these two subtypes interact with metacognition remains scarce. Littrell et al. (2020) found that overt narcissists did not report deficits in metacognitive clarity; instead, they exhibited significantly higher overconfidence in their cognitive abilities (e.g., overestimating their performance on reasoning tasks) and lower scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), reflecting a disconnect between their self-perceived cognitive competence and actual reflective thinking ability. In contrast, individuals with higher levels of covert narcissism reported significantly less clarity about their cognitive processes, including difficulties in identifying the reasoning behind their decisions or recognizing the strengths and limitations of their thinking strategies. These findings suggest that the two narcissism subtypes interact with metacognition in distinct ways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA more nuanced understanding of narcissism and metacognition requires distinguishing local from global metacognitive processes, as these two levels capture distinct aspects of self-evaluation that may be differentially impacted by narcissistic traits. Local metacognition refers to momentary, trial-by-trial evaluations linked to specific cognitive acts (e.g., judging one\u0026rsquo;s confidence in the answer to a single question). Global metacognition involves broader, enduring assessments of one\u0026rsquo;s cognitive abilities across multiple tasks, contexts, or time scales (e.g., forming the belief \u0026ldquo;I am poor at reasoning overall\u0026rdquo; after a series of exams; Seow et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These two levels also interact dynamically: local confidence can update global self-beliefs, and global beliefs can bias local confidence judgments (Marcke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rouault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, different subtypes of narcissism may interact differently with each level of metacognition. For instance, overt narcissists may tend to show consistent overconfidence at both levels: in local metacognition, they may overestimate their confidence in individual trials; in global metacognition, they may inflate their overall cognitive competence. This pattern serves to reinforce their grandiose self-image (Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011b\u003c/span\u003e). Covert narcissists, on the other hand, might diverge: at the global level, fear of ego threat could lead them to underassess their overall abilities; at the local level, where evaluations are tied to specific, momentary acts rather than global self-worth, they may still express overconfidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, previous research has suggested that self-esteem may play an important role in how narcissism affects metacognition. Self-esteem is a key factor distinguishing overt from covert narcissism. For instance, Brookes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found that overt narcissism positively predicted both self-esteem and self-efficacy, while covert narcissism negatively predicted self-esteem. Self-esteem may thus serve as a central mechanism underlying the psychological benefits attributed to narcissism. Sedikides et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that self-esteem fully mediated the relationship between narcissism and psychological well-being, indicating that narcissism can confer certain mental health benefits. However, when narcissism was not accompanied by high self-esteem, it was associated with increased psychopathology. Additionally, self-esteem itself is considered a higher-order form of metacognition (Hoven et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, corresponding to this framework, the influence of narcissism on metacognitive processes may also operate through its relationship with self-esteem. Specifically, among overt narcissists with high self-esteem, it is possible that this trait may be associated with more accurate or enhanced metacognitive insight. In contrast, when overt narcissism coexists with low or unstable self-esteem, it may lead to metacognitive distortions, such as inflated self-assessments that serve as a compensatory mechanism for underlying fragility and avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between overt/covert narcissism and metacognition in adolescents. We employed an objective dot discrimination perceptual task to measure participants\u0026rsquo; metacognition. This task allowed for the simultaneous collection of both local and global confidence, enabling us to explore how narcissism affects the dynamic interaction between these two metacognitive processes. Importantly, we also computed the accuracy of confidence judgments at the local level, i.e., metacognitive efficiency (Fleming \u0026amp; Lau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which permits us to determine whether the overconfidence observed in narcissism is truly a form of blind overconfidence or if it represents an adaptive outcome of improved confidence judgment accuracy. In addition, as a core distinguishing feature of the two narcissistic subtypes, we examined the role of self-esteem in the relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participants were students from the tenth and eleventh grades at a high school in Shanxi Province, China. Data collection took place in a computer room, organized by classes. A total of 1,314 students completed a perceptual judgment task with metacognitive measures, along with the narcissism and self-esteem questionnaires. For the perceptual judgment task, participants that met any of the following criteria were excluded: 1) The participant did not make any perceptual judgment responses during the first five trials of the practice phase; 2) The proportion of trials without a perceptual judgment response during the formal experiment phase exceeded 10%; 3) The difficulty level of any trial during the formal experiment phase exceeded the simplest limit (i.e., the difference in dot counts was greater than 112) but the participant still made an incorrect response in that trial; 4) The proportion of trials where the participant did not make a confidence judgment during the formal experiment phase exceeded 10%; 5) The participant gave the same confidence rating on all trials during the formal experiment phase. For the questionnaires, participants were excluded if they gave the same score for all items in either the narcissism or self-esteem questionnaire. After screening, the final sample consisted of 873 valid participants, including 388 males and 485 females, with an average age of 16.4 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.9).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Perceptual judgment task\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to perform the perceptual judgment task with confidence ratings, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Before starting the formal task, participants made a prospective global confidence judgment about the overall accuracy they expected in the entire experiment using a continuous slider (50% \u0026ndash; 100%), responding to the prompt: \u0026ldquo;Before the experiment begins, please estimate your expected performance: What percentage of correct responses do you think you can achieve in the upcoming experiment?\u0026rdquo; After completing half of the trials, they made a mid-task global confidence judgment for the initial 60 trials, responding to: \u0026ldquo;Please estimate your performance in the first half of the task: What percentage of correct responses do you believe you achieved during this initial phase?\u0026rdquo;. Finally, after completing all 120 trials, they made a final retrospective global confidence judgment for their overall performance, responding to the prompt: \u0026ldquo;Now thinking back on the entire experiment, how accurate do you think your responses were overall?\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor a single trial, participants began by fixating on a central cross for 1500ms, followed by the presentation of two dot-pattern stimuli for 500ms. Participants were then asked to judge which side contained more dots within 3000ms, with their chosen option highlighted by a blue background for 500ms. They subsequently rated their decision confidence on a 6-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;purely guessing \u0026ndash; 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;completely certain) within 3000ms, after which their selected confidence level was highlighted for 500ms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment included 30 practice trials followed by 120 formal trials. In each trial, two squares were presented, with one square containing a constant number of 113 dots, while the other having a varying number of dots. The difference in the number of dots ranged from 1 to 112, meaning one square could have up to 225 dots. The difficulty of the task was controlled using a \u0026ldquo;one-up-two-down\u0026rdquo; staircase procedure. If the participant made one incorrect response, the program automatically increased the point difference by one step-size to reduce the task difficulty. If the participant made two consecutive correct responses, the program automatically decreased the point difference by one step-size to increase the task difficulty. The smaller the point difference, the more difficult the task. The step-size was calculated in log-space, with a starting point of e\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e (55 dots difference), changing by \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 for the first 10 trials, \u0026plusmn; 0.3 for the next 10 trials, and \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 for the rest of the task (Rouault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, if a participant made an incorrect response on the first trial, the difference in the number of dots increased to e\u003csup\u003e4.5\u003c/sup\u003e (91 dots difference) on the next trial. The staircase procedure began during the practice phase, and the formal experiment continued with the point difference from the last trial of the practice phase. This staircase method allowed the experiment to control task difficulty based on the participant\u0026rsquo;s performance, minimizing the possibility of performance being confounded with confidence ratings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Global and local metacognition measures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the current study, we systematically examined global metacognition, local metacognition, and the potential dynamic interplay between them. The experiment captured the temporal dynamics of global metacognition through three time points of global confidence assessment. These time points revealed how global metacognition evolved from \u0026ldquo;prospective expectation\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;in-process evaluation\u0026rdquo; and finally to \u0026ldquo;retrospective judgment.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocal metacognition was assessed using two indices: metacognitive bias and metacognitive efficiency. Metacognitive bias refers to the tendency to give an overall high or low confidence rating. Each participant\u0026rsquo;s mean confidence level was computed as the indicator of metacognitive bias (Rahnev, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Metacognitive efficiency reflects the accuracy of the subject\u0026rsquo;s local confidence judgments while controlling for task performance, and was calculated through an extension of signal detection theory (SDT). In the framework of SDT, the perceptual decision task is known as type-1/first-order decisions and the subsequent confidence rating in correctly perceiving the stimuli is type-2/second-order decisions. We used \u003cem\u003emeta-d\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e to estimate the type-2 sensitivity, i.e., metacognitive sensitivity, to represent the degree to which confidence discriminates between correct and incorrect trials (Fleming \u0026amp; Lau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Statistically, \u003cem\u003emeta-d\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e is the value of type 1 performance (\u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e) that would been predicted to give rise to the observed confidence rating data assuming an ideal observer. Higher metacognitive sensitivity means that one\u0026rsquo;s local confidence ratings are more informative about the accuracy of one\u0026rsquo;s perceptual judgments. The ratio (\u003cem\u003emeta-d\u0026rsquo;/d\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e) then reflects a measure of metacognitive efficiency that controls for task performance (\u003cem\u003ed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe hypothesized potential dynamic interactions between global and local metacognition, with changes in global confidence manifesting as variations in local confidence. For example, a high prospective global estimate is likely to result in a relatively high level of local confidence in the initial trials. As the task progresses, participants are continuously adjusting their local confidence rating in each trial based on their objective perceptual performance. This adjustment process in the average confidence level will ultimately be reflected in the estimation of retrospective global confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Questionnaires\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNarcissism personality questionnaire.\u003c/b\u003e This study used the Narcissism Personality Questionnaire developed by Zheng and Huang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) to assess both overt and covert narcissism. The questionnaire consists of 28 items, using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of narcissism. There are 20 items measuring overt narcissism, which can be divided into four dimensions: Desire for Power (items: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), Sense of Privilege (items: 4, 8, 9, 12, 28), Sense of Superiority (items: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27), and Self-Admiration (items: 2, 3, 10). There are 15 items measuring covert narcissism, divided into three dimensions: Vulnerability (items: 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15), Sense of Privilege (items: 4, 5, 8, 9, 12), and Self-Admiration (items: 2, 3, 10). Seven items measure both overt and covert narcissism, with two common dimensions shared between the two types: Sense of Privilege and Self-Admiration. However, the items in the Sense of Privilege dimension are not entirely the same across the two types. Item 5 measures the sense of privilege in covert narcissism, while Item 28 measures it in overt narcissism. This questionnaire has demonstrated good performance with Chinese adolescent samples (He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Min \u0026amp; He, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and showed good reliability in this study (Cronbach's \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e was 0.872 for overt narcissism and 0.818 for covert narcissism).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-esteem scale.\u003c/b\u003e The Chinese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Simmons \u0026amp; Rosenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e), translated by (Ji \u0026amp; Yu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), was used to assess individuals\u0026rsquo; self-esteem. The questionnaire consists of 10 questions with a 4-point scoring system, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Cronbach's \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e for the scale was 0.829 in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.5 Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll variables were standardized to \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e-scores before analysis. First, we conducted a correlation analysis to examine the relationships between different subtypes of narcissism (overt and covert) and metacognition at different levels. At the local level, the indicators we examined included average local confidence, metacognitive efficiency, accuracy, and perceptual sensitivity. At the global level, we analyzed global confidence estimates at three time points: prospective, mid-task, and retrospective global confidence. Next, we investigated the role of narcissism in the changes between global and local metacognition. Through structural equation modeling (SEM), we studied the moderating effect of narcissism on the changes between global and local metacognition. Subsequently, we sought to explore whether the impact of narcissism on the dynamic changes in global and local metacognition is related to self-esteem, which was treated as a mediating variable. All data analysis processes and data visualizations were completed using R (Version 4.5.1). The deidentified data and scripts supporting the findings are available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/7ztrj/overview?view_only=0d0dd9ec8df4401c97cee805479db4b9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/7ztrj/overview?view_only=0d0dd9ec8df4401c97cee805479db4b9\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. This study was not preregistered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Overt narcissism correlated with metacognition while no such correlations for covert narcissism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the local level, our analysis revealed significant positive correlations between overt narcissism and both average local confidence (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) and metacognitive efficiency (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.014). For covert narcissism, however, no significant relationships were found with either local confidence (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.99) or metacognitive efficiency (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.99). Furthermore, neither overt nor covert narcissism exhibited a correlation with participants\u0026rsquo; perceptual accuracy or perceptual sensitivity (all |\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e| \u0026lt; 0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt;0.19). This indicates that narcissism may influence subjective evaluations of local confidence but does not alter participants\u0026rsquo; actual perceptual abilities. At the global level, we found that overt narcissism displayed significant positive correlations with prospective global confidence (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.025), mid-task global confidence (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007), and retrospective global confidence (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005). In contrast, covert narcissism showed no significant correlations with any of these global confidence measures (all |\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e| \u0026lt; 0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt;0.99). This suggests that individuals with higher levels of overt narcissism are more prone to report higher global confidence, whereas covert narcissism does not appear to influence external subjective confidence reports. The correlation results are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Overt but not covert narcissism regulated confidence dynamics.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analyses revealed that overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global confidence irrelevant to objective task performance, whereas no such correlations were observed for covert narcissism. Subsequently, we aimed to explore whether narcissism moderates the dynamic between global and local confidence judgments, with a specific focus on differential effects of narcissism subtypes. As depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, prospective global confidence served as the independent variable, local confidence as the mediator, and retrospective global confidence as the dependent variable. Narcissism subtypes were tested as moderators in two key processes across the temporal course: one from the influence of prospective global confidence to subsequent local confidence, and the other from the integration of local confidence signals into the retrospective global confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant direct effects from prospective to retrospective global confidence were observed for both types (Overt: \u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.59, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; Covert: \u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.60, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Supporting the mediation model, analyses also revealed that average trial confidence partially mediated the relationship between prospective and retrospective global confidence for both overt (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The path coefficients from prospective global confidence to average trial confidence were significant for both overt (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.43, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Similarly, paths from average trial confidence to retrospective confidence were also significant for both overt (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20, z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCritically examining the moderating role of narcissism, a negative moderating effect was observed for overt narcissism on the pathway from prospective global to local confidence (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.07, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.030). This effect was manifested as a 25.9% reduction in sensitivity (slope difference\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.124) where high overt narcissism (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 SD above the mean) substantially weakened the translation of global prospective confidence into local confidence judgments compared to low overt narcissism (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1 SD below the mean). In contrast, covert narcissism showed no significant moderation on this pathway (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.765). Additionally, for the integration pathway from average trial confidence to retrospective global confidence, neither overt narcissism (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.823) nor covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.460) demonstrated significant moderation effects. These findings suggest that narcissism, specifically overt narcissism, exerts a specific effect on higher-order metacognitive regulation (where prospective global confidence modulates local confidence) while preserving the function of lower-order metacognitive integration (the integration of local evidence into retrospective global confidence).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.3 Self-esteem positively mediated the relationship between overt narcissism and metacognition, while negatively mediating the relationship between covert narcissism and metacognition\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe above findings demonstrated that different subtypes of narcissism showed clear dissociable relationships with metacognition: overt narcissism not only had significant positive correlations with both local and global confidence, but also significantly moderated the dynamics between local and global confidence, whereas no similar effects were found for covert narcissism. Subsequently, we aimed to investigate whether this dissociable effect could be explained by self-esteem. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, several mediation models were constructed to examine whether self-esteem mediated the relationships between narcissistic personality traits and metacognitive indices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor local confidence, we found significant opposite indirect effects of the two types of narcissism on local confidence ratings through self-esteem: overt narcissism, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.17, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; covert narcissism, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.16, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea). Because the direct path from overt (\u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.08, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.129) or covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.01, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.810) to local confidence was not statistically detectable, the effects of both types of narcissism on local confidence were mainly explained by self-esteem. These results indicate that increased confidence in individuals with high overt narcissism stems from heightened self-esteem. In contrast, covert narcissism is associated with lower self-esteem, which in turn results in diminished confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor metacognitive efficiency, similarly, the indirect effects of both types of narcissism on metacognitive efficiency through self-esteem were statistically significant: overt narcissism, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017; covert narcissism, \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.07, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.016 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eb). The direct path from overt (\u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.08, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.183) or covert narcissism (\u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.01, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.844) to metacognitive efficiency was not statistically detectable. Therefore, the effect of both types of narcissism on metacognitive efficiency can be considered primarily mediated by self-esteem. This pattern suggests that individuals with high overt narcissism may have better metacognitive ability due to heightened self-esteem, whereas those with high covert narcissism tend to have lower self-esteem, which in turn leads to reduced metacognitive judgment accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor all global confidence indices, the mediation effect of self-esteem on the relationships between narcissism and each of them was statistically detectable (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ec): the path from overt narcissism to prospective global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001; the path from covert narcissism to prospective global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001; the path from overt narcissism to mid-task global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.70, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007; the path from covert narcissism to mid-task global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007; the path from overt narcissism to retrospective global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003; the path from covert narcissism to retrospective global confidence: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.10, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003. These results follow a consistent pattern of mediation: overt narcissistic boosts global confidence through higher self-esteem, while covert narcissistic diminishes global confidence through lowering self-esteem. The only exception was mid-task global confidence, for which the effect of overt narcissism was not fully mediated by self-esteem, as overt narcissism\u0026rsquo;s direct effect on mid-task global confidence was also significant (\u003cem\u003ec\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.13, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.032).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study systematically investigated how narcissism (overt and covert) affects metacognition at the local and global levels in a large adolescent sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;837). Our results revealed that overt narcissism consistently showed a positive correlation with metacognition at both the local level (i.e., local confidence and metacognitive efficiency) and the global level (i.e., prospective, mid-task, and retrospective global confidence). Covert narcissism, however, failed to reveal any such correlations. We also found that narcissism moderated the dynamic interplay between global and local confidence. Specifically, overt narcissism significantly weakened the top-down process by which prospective global confidence informed local confidence judgments. In contrast, the bottom-up process of integrating local confidence to form retrospective global confidence was not significantly moderated by either overt or covert narcissism. Lastly, our findings revealed that self-esteem could be the key psychological mechanism accounting for the differential relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition. For overt narcissism, the higher levels of confidence (local and global) and metacognitive efficiency were mainly driven by elevated self-esteem. Conversely, for covert narcissism, the lower levels of these metacognitive indicators were driven by reduced self-esteem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings clearly demonstrate a dissociation between overt and covert narcissism in metacognition. Specifically, overt narcissism exhibited positive associations with both local/global confidence and metacognitive efficiency, whereas covert narcissism showed no significant relationships with any metacognitive measures. While previous research had frequently linked narcissism to overconfidence (Meisel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), our results suggest that narcissism does not uniformly predict overconfident behavior. This inconsistency may arise from earlier studies\u0026rsquo; failure to distinguish between narcissism subtypes, a distinction well-documented in the literature (Given-Wilson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011a\u003c/span\u003e). Supporting this view, Littrell et al. (2024) also found that overt narcissism, but not covert narcissism, was associated with metacognitive bias (overconfidence). However, contrary to our findings, they reported that higher overt narcissism correlated with lower metacognitive accuracy. This discrepancy may be explained by methodological differences. Littrell et al. (2024) employed a mixed-task design (numerical reasoning and memory recall tasks), which introduced variability in task difficulty and made it difficult to standardize performance across participants, potentially compromising metacognitive measurement. In contrast, our study used a stepwise adaptive method that adjusted task difficulty based on individual perceptual thresholds, ensuring better control over task performance. Moreover, their metacognitive measure, calculated by subtracting average confidence in correct responses from average confidence in incorrect responses, may have been susceptible to confidence response biases. Instead, we adopted the more robust \u003cem\u003emeta-d'/d'\u003c/em\u003e metric (Fleming \u0026amp; Lau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which provides a \u0026ldquo;bias free\u0026rdquo; assessment of metacognitive efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA more novel finding of this study is that overt narcissism negatively moderated the influence of prospective global confidence on local trial-level confidence, whereas covert narcissism showed no significant moderating effect. Given that overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global confidence, individuals high in overt narcissism displayed elevated confidence across both levels. Their grandiose self-view supports high global self-assessments, while a general tendency toward high confidence results in stable local judgments that are relatively independent of momentary expectations (Campbell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Kroencke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, their local confidence was less influenced by prospective global confidence, as pre-existing high confidence diminished reliance on prior beliefs. In contrast, individuals low in overt narcissism displayed lower and more malleable confidence. Their local confidence judgments may therefore be more susceptible to contextual influences\u0026mdash;including their own prospective global expectations. Thus trial-level confidence was more strongly shaped by prior global beliefs, leading to a stronger positive relationship. The absence of a moderating effect for covert narcissism can be attributed to its lack of significant correlation with either confidence level. Regarding the retrospective phase, the lack of a significant moderating effect is likely due to the fact that the formation of retrospective global confidence is more strongly constrained by objective evidence accumulated during task performance (Rouault et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), thereby limiting narcissism-related influences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings also challenge the traditional view that narcissists exhibit blind overconfidence. Rather, overt narcissists demonstrated both high confidence and high metacognitive efficiency at the local level, indicating that their confidence is not merely inflated but reflects an actual ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect responses. Critically, self-esteem mediated the relationship between overt narcissism and metacognitive efficiency, suggesting a key distinction: the confidence of overt narcissists with high self-esteem differs fundamentally from classic \u0026ldquo;overconfidence bias.\u0026rdquo; While overconfidence bias entails subjective confidence vastly exceeding objective performance (e.g., overestimating accuracy in cognitive tasks), overt narcissists\u0026rsquo; confidence, when rooted in self-esteem, correlated with improved metacognitive efficiency. This challenges the stereotype of narcissists as \u0026ldquo;unrealistically overconfident\u0026rdquo; and instead supports an adaptive perspective: overt narcissism\u0026rsquo;s confidence can be conducive to accurate self-monitoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ewhen grounded in genuine self-esteem. This aligns with Sedikides et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), who proposed self-esteem as a \u0026ldquo;central mechanism\u0026rdquo; behind narcissism\u0026rsquo;s psychological benefits (e.g., reduced anxiety, persistence). Our study extends this framework to metacognition, suggesting self-esteem acts as a motivational anchor for overt narcissists. The mediating role of self-esteem further clarifies the negative moderating effect of overt narcissism: individuals with high levels of overt narcissism and genuine self-esteem appeared to maintain a self-contained confidence system, in which local confidence was less influenced by global expectations. Their genuine high self-esteem fosters agency certainty (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), a stable belief in their capacity to monitor and adjust cognitive processes, which also facilitates calibrated confidence judgments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur research offers valuable implications for adolescent development and education. The findings indicate that promoting healthy self-esteem is an essential educational objective to mitigate the metacognitive gaps associated with narcissistic traits. For adolescents high in overt narcissism, educational efforts should focus on fostering competency-grounded self-esteem by reinforcing the connection between self-worth and demonstrable effort or skill development. This approach can facilitate more accurate self-assessment and promote adaptive learning strategies (Brummelman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). For those high in covert narcissism, interventions should aim to build a secure foundation of self-esteem through consistent unconditional positive regard and acknowledgement of incremental progress. This may help reduce defensive avoidance and reengage them in active metacognitive monitoring (Park \u0026amp; Crocker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Zeigler-Hill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Summary","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study advances our understanding of the relationship between narcissistic subtypes and metacognitive dynamics in adolescence. Overt narcissism was positively correlated with both local and global metacognition, regardless of objective task performance, while covert narcissism showed no such correlations. Importantly, we clarify how overt narcissism influences the confidence dynamics pathway from prospective global confidence to trial-level local confidence. Self-esteem appears to serve as a potential mediating mechanism, such that the higher levels of local and global confidence observed in overt narcissists are primarily driven by elevated self-esteem. These findings challenge the traditional view of narcissists as blindly overconfident; instead, overt narcissists with high self-esteem demonstrate adaptive metacognition, with their confidence reflecting calibrated self-monitoring rather than mere bias. Our study has significant implications for adolescent development and education, suggesting that narcissistic tendencies could be shaped into metacognitive strengths by cultivating a healthy sense of self-esteem.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shaanxi Normal University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrookes, J. (2015). The effect of overt and covert narcissism on self-esteem and self-efficacy beyond self-esteem. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e, 172\u0026ndash;175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, A. A., Freis, S. D., Carroll, P. J., \u0026amp; Arkin, R. M. (2016). Perceived agency mediates the link between the narcissistic subtypes and self-esteem. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e, 124\u0026ndash;129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.055\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrummelman, E., Thomaes, S., \u0026amp; Sedikides, C. (2016). Separating Narcissism From Self-Esteem. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 8\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415619737\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., \u0026amp; Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavioral Decision Making\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 297\u0026ndash;311. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.475\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, W. K., \u0026amp; Miller, J. D. (2011). \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ewiley online books. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118093108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrone, E. A., \u0026amp; Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. \u003cem\u003eNature Reviews. Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(9), 636\u0026ndash;650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive\u0026ndash;developmental inquiry. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(10), 906\u0026ndash;911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleming, S. M., \u0026amp; Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Human Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., \u0026amp; Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 469\u0026ndash;486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00026-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiven-Wilson, Z., McIlwain, D., \u0026amp; Warburton, W. (2011). Meta-cognitive and interpersonal difficulties in overt and covert narcissism. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1000\u0026ndash;1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, D., Fan, C., Niu, G., Lian, S., \u0026amp; Chen, W. (2016). The effect of parenting styles on adolescents\u0026rsquo; cyberbullying: The mediating role of covert narcissism. \u003cem\u003eChinese Journal of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(01), 41\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2016.01.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoven, M., Luigjes, J., Denys, D., Rouault, M., \u0026amp; van Holst, R. J. (2023). How do confidence and self-beliefs relate in psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach. \u003cem\u003eNature Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(5), 337\u0026ndash;345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00062-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, X., Yang, C., \u0026amp; Luo, L. (2023). Are the contributions of processing experience and prior beliefs to confidence ratings domain-general or domain-specific? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology. General\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e152\u003c/em\u003e(1), 28\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001257\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJi, Y. F., \u0026amp; Yu, X. (1999). The Self-Esteem Scale. \u003cem\u003eChinese Mental Health Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuppl.\u003c/em\u003e, 318\u0026ndash;320.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, Y., \u0026amp; Yang, Y. (2025). How Childhood Shapes Adolescents\u0026rsquo; Belief in Justice: A Longitudinal Study Examining the Link Between Childhood Stressful Environment and Belief in a Just World. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, online published. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKroencke, L., Kuper, N., Mota, S., Geukes, K., Zeigler-Hill, V., \u0026amp; Back, M. D. (2023). Narcissistic status pursuit in everyday social life: A within-person process approach to the behavioral and emotional dynamics of narcissism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e125\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1519\u0026ndash;1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000467\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(5), 178\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittrell, S., Fugelsang, J., \u0026amp; Risko, E. F. (2019). Overconfidently underthinking: Narcissism negatively predicts cognitive reflection. \u003cem\u003eThinking \u0026amp; Reasoning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 352\u0026ndash;380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1633404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, T., \u0026amp; Liu, C. (2023). The impact of feedback on metacognition: Enhancing in easy tasks, impeding in difficult ones. \u003cem\u003eConsciousness and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e, 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103601\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacenczak, L. A., Campbell, S., Henley, A. B., \u0026amp; Campbell, W. K. (2016). Direct and interactive effects of narcissism and power on overconfidence. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e, 113\u0026ndash;122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalesza, M., \u0026amp; Kaczmarek, M. C. (2018). Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism and impulsivity. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e, 61\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarcke, H. V., Denmat, P. L., Verguts, T., \u0026amp; Desender, K. (2024). Manipulating prior beliefs causally induces under- and overconfidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 358\u0026ndash;375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797624123157\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeisel, M. K., Ning, H., Campbell, W. K., \u0026amp; Goodie, A. S. (2015). Narcissism, overconfidence, and risk taking in U.S. and Chinese student samples. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 385\u0026ndash;400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115621968\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. D., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., \u0026amp; Campbell, W. K. (2013b). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality trait model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(3), 284\u0026ndash;290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.685907\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., \u0026amp; Keith Campbell, W. (2011a). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1013\u0026ndash;1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., \u0026amp; Keith Campbell, W. (2011b). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1013\u0026ndash;1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Vize, C., Crowe, M., Sleep, C., Maples-Keller, J. L., Few, L. R., \u0026amp; Campbell, W. K. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(2), 186\u0026ndash;199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12303\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMin, W., \u0026amp; He, N. (2015). Relationship between middle school students\u0026rsquo; narcissism and peer relations: Self-esteem as a mediator. \u003cem\u003eChina Journal of Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 772\u0026ndash;776. https://doi.org/10.1334/j.cnki.cjhp.2015.05.035.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, L. E., \u0026amp; Crocker, J. (2008). Contingencies of self-worth and responses to negative interpersonal feedback. \u003cem\u003eSelf and Identity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 184\u0026ndash;203. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701398808\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahnev, D. (2025). A comprehensive assessment of current methods for measuring metacognition. \u003cem\u003eNature Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56117-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRouault, M., Dayan, P., \u0026amp; Fleming, S. M. (2019). Forming global estimates of self-performance from local confidence. \u003cem\u003eNature Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09075-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRouault, M., Seow, T., Gillan, C. M., \u0026amp; Fleming, S. M. (2018). Psychiatric Symptom Dimensions Are Associated With Dissociable Shifts in Metacognition but Not Task Performance. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(6), 443\u0026ndash;451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. \u003cem\u003eMind, Brain, and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 114\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., \u0026amp; Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self-esteem matters. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(3), 400\u0026ndash;416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.400\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeow, T. X. F., Rouault, M., Gillan, C. M., \u0026amp; Fleming, S. M. (2021). How local and global metacognition shape mental health. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(7), 436\u0026ndash;446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimmons, R. G., \u0026amp; Rosenberg, F. (1975). Sex, sex roles, and self-image. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 229\u0026ndash;258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537165\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Cognitive Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 69\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., \u0026amp; Blakemore, S.-J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. \u003cem\u003eConsciousness and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 264\u0026ndash;271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(4), 590\u0026ndash;597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e(1), 119\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZheng Y., \u0026amp; Huang L. (2005). Overt and covert narcissism: A psychological exploration of narcissistic personality. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1259\u0026ndash;1262. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2005.05.064\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":"[email protected]","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":"narcissism, confidence, metacognition, self-esteem","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNarcissism, a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, is often associated with overconfident behaviors, reflecting distorted metacognitive functioning. Previous research mainly relies on self-report measures to claim that narcissists are blindly overconfidence. However, whether narcissism is linked to actual impairments in metacognitive ability is still unclear. This study systematically explored the associations between overt/covert narcissism and metacognition at both local and global levels in a large adolescent sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;873). Participants completed a perceptual judgment task with confidence ratings, along with the narcissism and self-esteem questionnaires. The results revealed a clear dissociation: overt narcissism was positively correlated with metacognition at both the local level and the global level, whereas covert narcissism showed no such correlations. Critically, overt narcissism negatively moderated the dynamic translation of prospective global confidence into trial-level local confidence, while covert narcissism exerted no moderation. Moreover, self-esteem emerged as the key psychological mechanism accounting for the differential relationships between narcissistic subtypes and metacognition. These findings challenge the traditional view of narcissists as blindly overconfident. Instead, overt narcissists with high self-esteem exhibit adaptive metacognition, with their confidence reflecting calibrated self-monitoring rather than mere bias.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How local and global metacognition relate to overt and covert narcissism in adolescents","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-30 00:09:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8214411/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","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":"65831205-77e4-4da5-b218-90c0835341db","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":59804125,"name":"Social science/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":59804126,"name":"Social science/Education"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-02T13:27:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-30 00:09:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8214411","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8214411","identity":"rs-8214411","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}