The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior: The Multiple Mediating Roles of Status Motivation and Belongingness Motivation

The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior: The Multiple Mediating Roles of Status Motivation and Belongingness Motivation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior: The Multiple Mediating Roles of Status Motivation and Belongingness Motivation Li Xinying, Guo Li, Li Yuting, Ren Yan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/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 Prosocial risk behavior (PRB) refers to individuals' active engagement in potentially risky behaviors to promote the well-being of others or society. Although the relationship between narcissistic personality traits and prosocial behavior has received widespread attention, the mechanism through which state narcissism influences PRB remains unclear. Based on the social motivation theory, this study investigated the effect of state narcissism on PRB among university students and examined the multiple mediating roles of status motivation and belonging motivation. A convenient sampling method was employed to conduct a questionnaire survey among 691 university students. The measurement tools included the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the Status Motivation Scale, the Belonging Motivation Scale, and the Adolescent Prosocial Risk Behavior Scale. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 24.0 and the PROCESS macro program for correlation analysis, regression analysis, and Bootstrap mediation effect testing. The results indicated that state narcissism significantly and positively predicted status motivation (β = 0.459, p < 0.001) and PRB (β = 0.271, p < 0.001), but had a weaker predictive effect on belonging motivation (β = 0.276, p < 0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that status motivation played a significant mediating role between state narcissism and PRB (indirect effect = 0.0382, 95% CI [0.0291, 0.0487]), whereas the mediating effect of belonging motivation was not significant (indirect effect = -0.0065, 95% CI [-0.0118, -0.0021]). This study elucidated the mechanism by which state narcissism drives PRB by enhancing status motivation, providing a new theoretical perspective on the relationship between narcissism and prosocial behavior, and offering practical implications for guiding positive social behaviors among university students. Prosocial risk behavior State narcissism Status motivation Belonging motivation Multiple mediation effect Figures Figure 1 Introduction Prosocial Risk Behavior (PRB) refers to individuals' active engagement in potentially risky behaviors that may involve unknown risks to themselves (physical, emotional, or social) for the well-being of others or society [1]. It significantly differs from prosocial behavior, with the key distinction lying in the uncertainty of the behavioral costs. While prosocial behaviors may incur personal costs or losses (e.g., donating money to a charity), these costs or losses are typically known, whereas the risks associated with prosocial risk behaviors are unknown or uncertain [2]. In prosocial behaviors, individuals must weigh the risks they face against the suffering or harm experienced by others [3]. To date, most research on the cognitive mechanisms underlying human prosocial behavior has primarily focused on the latter aspect, i.e., exploring how empathy for others' suffering or distress motivates altruistic behavior [4].However, research on individuals' defensive responses in risky or dangerous situations and their impact on prosocial behavior remains relatively scarce. University students are in adolescence, a stage that is not only a period of vulnerability to negative behaviors but also a critical opportunity for healthy development [1]. Cognitive neuroscience research indicates that both negative risk-taking behaviors and positive prosocial behaviors rely on the same neural circuits [5]. The increase in these behaviors during adolescence is partly attributed to changes in these neural circuits before and during this period. Prosocial risk behavior plays a significant role in promoting social harmony and progress, particularly for university students, who are in a critical period of value formation and personality development, making the study of this behavior highly meaningful. Research indicates that prosocial risk behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors, including personality traits, parent-child relationships, and empathy [6-7]. Personality traits are a significant factor in predicting individual behavior and have a notable impact on prosocial risk behavior. Among various traits, narcissism, a complex and dual-natured trait, has garnered considerable attention regarding its relationship with prosocial behavior. According to the Narcissistic Self-Regulatory Model proposed by Morf and Rhodewalt, narcissism manifests in two forms among the general population: trait narcissism and state narcissism [8]. Trait narcissism refers to a stable, long-term personality characteristic, whereas state narcissism represents a temporary increase in narcissistic levels resulting from psychological factors in specific situations or moments, an elevation that is short-lived [8]. Social cognitive theory posits that cognitive factors such as cognitive evaluations, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations influence individuals' behavioral decisions [9]. As a situational manifestation of narcissism, state narcissism may influence prosocial risk behavior by affecting self-evaluation, which in turn influences cognitive evaluations. For instance, individuals with high state narcissism may be more confident and thus more willing to take risks to help others, whereas those with low state narcissism may be more cautious due to a lack of confidence. Furthermore, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior may be influenced by other factors, such as moral responsibility, perceptual abilities, verbal skills, degree of care, and attitudes toward rules and regulations. These factors may constitute one of the two dimensions of prosocial risk behavior, namely moral responsibility and strength [10], influencing individuals' willingness to take risks to help others. Studies have found a significant positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial behavior [3]. However, the impact of narcissism, particularly state narcissism, on prosocial risk behavior and the underlying mediating mechanisms warrant further exploration. Social motivation theory emphasizes the influence of social factors on individual behavior, positing that individuals' social motivations influence their behavioral decisions [11]. In the context of prosocial risk behavior, individuals' social motivations primarily manifest as status motivation and belonging motivation. Status motivation refers to the desire to surpass others or gain their respect, while belonging motivation pertains to the desire to be part of a group and achieve a sense of belonging. These two motivations play a crucial role in individuals' social behaviors, influencing their decision-making and behavioral expressions [11]. The dual-process model of prosocial risk behavior indicates that narcissism in individuals can be divided into vulnerable narcissism (seeking belonging and security) and grandiose narcissism (seeking admiration and status), where the specific needs individuals strive to fulfill serve as both the goal and baseline for their actions [12]. When there is a significant discrepancy between an individual's actual status and their expected goals or baseline—such as when their grandiose narcissism, represented by damaged reputation or lower social status, is diminished—this gap may enhance their prosocial tendencies and willingness to take risks, prompting them to engage in behaviors that appear altruistic. Conversely, vulnerable narcissists may use prosocial risk-taking to integrate into groups and compensate for their internal sense of insecurity. Motivation conflict theory suggests that when an individual's behavior is driven by multiple motivations, these different motivations may compete or conflict with each other [13].The activation of state narcissism drives individuals to be simultaneously influenced by both status motivation and belonging motivation, potentially leading to behavioral conflict. For instance, an individual may both avoid taking risks due to concerns about damaging their image and desire to gain acceptance and approval through such actions. The specific behavior enacted depends on which motivation is activated in a given context: in public settings, status motivation typically dominates, causing narcissistic individuals to be more cautious and avoid risk-taking behaviors; whereas in intimate groups, belonging motivation usually prevails, making narcissistic individuals more willing to take risks to gain acceptance and approval. Furthermore, according to risk sensitivity theory, an individual's evaluation of risks during situations of motivational conflict depends on the assessment of potential gains versus losses [14]. If a risky behavior is perceived as potentially damaging to their established status (loss > gain), it will inhibit prosocial risk behavior; conversely, if the behavior is believed to lead to group acceptance (gain > loss), it will promote prosocial risk behavior. Most current research indicates that narcissistic individuals tend to focus more on gaining others' admiration and less on establishing emotional belonging [15], often pursuing status to resolve the conflict between status and belonging needs, while rarely simultaneously considering the impact of narcissism on both. Based on the aforementioned theoretical foundations, this study posits that state narcissism influences prosocial risk behavior among university students. Specifically, status motivation and belonging motivation serve as mediators in the relationship between state narcissism and prosocial risk behavior. That is, state narcissism affects individuals' prosocial risk behavior by influencing their status motivation and belonging motivation. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between state narcissism and prosocial risk behavior, revealing the underlying mediating mechanisms. It also provides a theoretical basis and practical guidance for promoting prosocial risk behavior among university students. Methods 1.1 Participants A convenient sampling method was employed to recruit university students via the NaoDao platform. A total of 720 questionnaires were distributed randomly. After excluding responses that were identified as following a pattern or failing the attention check, 691 valid questionnaires were collected, representing a response rate of 95.97%. The sample consisted of 239 males (34.59%) and 452 females (65.41%). In terms of academic year, the sample included 316 first-year students (45.73%), 151 second-year students (21.84%), 99 third-year students (14.32%), 96 fourth-year students (13.89%), and 29 fifth-year students (4.19%). 1.2 Methods 1.2.1 Narcissistic Personality Inventor y This study utilized the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, jointly developed by Zheng Yong and Huang Li from Southwest University in 2005 [16]. The inventory consists of 28 items, divided into two subscales: the Grandiose Narcissism subscale and the Vulnerable Narcissism subscale. The Grandiose Narcissism subscale contains 20 items, while the Vulnerable Narcioissism subscale contains 15 items, with 7 items being common to both subscales. The entire inventory employs a 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate more pronounced narcissistic traits. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.814. 1.2.2 Status Motivation Scale The Status Motivation Scale, developed by Cassidy and Lynn (1989), was employed. This scale encompasses three dimensions: reputation, respect, and influence, consisting of a total of 10 items, including two reverse-scored items [17]. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A score closer to 1 indicates a lower level of status motivation, while a score closer to 5 indicates a higher level of status motivation. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.75. 1.2.3 Belonging Motivation Scale The Belongingness Motivation Scale, developed by Malone and Pillow (2012), was utilized. This scale comprises three dimensions: group integration, relationship maintenance, and social acceptance, with a total of 9 items, including one reverse-scored item (e.g., "I often feel I don't belong to any group") [18]. The scale employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total score ranges from 9 to 45, where a score closer to 1 indicates a lower level of belonging motivation, and a score closer to 5 indicates a higher level of belonging motivation. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.717, indicating good reliability. 1.2.4 Prosocial Behavior Scale The Adolescent Prosocial Risk Behavior Scale, translated and revised by Dou Kai et al. (2020), was used [10]. This scale is a localized adaptation of the Prosocial Risk Behavior subscale from the Adolescent Prosocial and Health Risk Behavior Scale (PHARBS) developed by Skaar et al. (2014). The scale consists of 6 items, using a 5-point rating scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Higher scores indicate a higher level of prosocial risk behavior, such as "I am willing to stand up for classmates who are being bullied." The Cronbach's α coefficient for this scale in the study was 0.712. 1.3 Statistical Analysis Following data collection, SPSS 24.0 software was used for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. The PROCESS macro program, employing a bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method with 5000 resamples, was utilized to test the mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation in the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior. Results 2.1 Common Method Bias Test Harman's single-factor test was conducted to examine potential common method bias by performing an exploratory factor analysis on all items of the four variables [ 19 ]. The results indicated that there were 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first common factor explained 21.18% of the variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40%. This suggests that there was no severe common method bias in the present study. 2.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis The results of descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis are presented in Table 1 . Gender showed a significant negative correlation with narcissism (r = -0.115**, p < 0.05) and with status motivation (r = -0.125**, p < 0.01). Narcissism was significantly positively correlated with status motivation (r = 0.468**, p < 0.001), belonging motivation (r = 0.272**, p < 0.01), and prosocial risk behavior (r = 0.282**, p < 0.01). Status motivation was significantly positively correlated with belonging motivation (r = 0.273**, p < 0.01) and prosocial risk behavior (r = 0.431**, p 0.05). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (r) Among Variables Variables \(\:\stackrel{-}{\text{x}}\pm\:\text{s}\) Gender Narcissism Status Motivation Belonging Motivation Gender 1.65 ± 0.47 1 Narcissism 81.18 ± 16.18 -0.115** 1 Status Motivation 31.5 ± 6.34 -0.125** 0.468** 1 Belonging Motivation 38.09 ± 7.05 0.001 0.272** 0.273** 1 PRB 19.19 ± 3.27 -0.129** 0.282** 0.431** 0.027 Note: 1 = male, 2 = female; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, same below. As shown in Table 1 , narcissism was significantly correlated with university students' status motivation, belonging motivation, and prosocial risk-taking behavior tendency, meeting the statistical requirements for further mediation analysis [ 20 ]. Therefore, controlling for grade level, this study employed SPSS 26.0 and the PROCESS macro [ 21 ] with 5,000 resamples to examine the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior, specifically testing the serial multiple mediation roles of status motivation and belonging motivation. The regression results of the mediation model indicated that gender had a significant total effect on university students' prosocial risk-taking behavior (B = -0.098, P < 0.01). After including the mediator variables, gender negatively predicted university students' status motivation (B = -0.072, P < 0.05) and also negatively predicted their belonging motivation (B = -0.066, P 0.05). Status motivation positively predicted university students' prosocial risk-taking behavior (B = 0.459, P < 0.001), and belonging motivation also positively predicted this behavior (B = 0.398, P < 0.001), as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1 . Table 2 Parallel Mediation Model of University Students' Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior. Regression Equation Coefficient of Determination Regression Coefficients Outcome Variable Predictor Variable R R方 F B t PRB Gender 0.299 0.089 33.686*** -0.098 -2.676*** Narcissism 0.271 7.4*** Status Motivation Gender 0.473 0.224 99.195*** -0.072 -2.128* Narcissism 0.459 13.586*** Belonging Motivation Gender 0.274 0.075 27.906*** 0.033 0.892 Narcissism 0.276 7.471*** PRB Gender 0.459 0.211 45.803*** -0.066 -1.913 Narcissism 0.12 3.065** Status Motivation -0.114 -3.188*** Belonging Motivation 0.398 10.181*** Mediation effects bootstrapping results indicated that the indirect effects of status motivation and belonging motivation between narcissism and prosocial behavior were [0.0382, -0.0065], and neither of the 95% confidence intervals included 0 (status motivation: [0.0291, 0.0487]; belonging motivation: [-0.0118, -0.0021]), suggesting that status motivation and belonging motivation play parallel mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial behavior. Specifically, narcissism influences prosocial behavior through its positive effect on status motivation and negative effect on belonging motivation, thereby exerting differential directional impacts on prosocial behavior. Furthermore, the difference in the mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation was 0.0447, and its 95% confidence interval [0.0334, 0.0575] did not include 0, indicating a significant contrast indirect effect between the two pathways, i.e., the mediating role of status motivation was significantly stronger than that of belonging motivation (see Table 3 ). Table 3 Parallel Mediation Analysis Mediation Pathway Indirect Effect Value Boot SE Bootstrap 95%CI Relative Mediation Effect Size Lower Bound Upper Bound Total Indirect Behavior 0.0318 0.0048 0.0225 0.0418 55.79% Status Motivation 0.0382 0.0049 0.0291 0.0487 67.02% Belonging Motivation -0.0065 0.0025 -0.0118 -0.0021 -11.40% Status Motivation-Belonging Motivation 0.0447 0.0061 0.0334 0.0575 78.42% Discussion 3.1 The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior This study investigated the association between state narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students. Consistent with prior research [ 1 , 2 ], our findings indicate that state narcissism serves as a significant positive predictor of such behavior. State narcissism, characterized as a contextual and transient manifestation of narcissistic traits, may influence prosocial risk-taking by modulating self-evaluation, subsequently shaping cognitive appraisals that culminate in behavioral decisions [ 5 ]. For instance, individuals experiencing heightened state narcissism might exhibit greater confidence and a corresponding willingness to engage in risky prosocial acts, whereas those with lower state narcissism may exhibit more caution due to diminished self-assurance [ 5 ]. Furthermore, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking is likely moderated by additional factors, including moral responsibility, perceived efficacy, verbal ability, degree of empathy, and attitudes toward social norms [ 6 ]. These elements may contribute to the conceptualization of prosocial risk-taking along dimensions such as moral agency and efficacy [ 7 ], thereby influencing an individual's propensity to undertake risks for the benefit of others [ 7 ]. While previous research has established a general positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial behavior [ 8 ], the present study provides further insight into the specific mechanisms through which state narcissism impacts prosocial risk-taking among university students, thereby offering a theoretical foundation and practical implications for fostering such behaviors [ 9 ]. 3.2 Parallel Mediation Effects of Status Motivation and Belonging Motivation Results indicated a significant positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior, consistent with perspectives from the Narcissistic Self-Regulation Model and Social Cognitive Theory. Narcissistic individuals influence their behavioral decision-making through self-regulatory mechanisms, while state narcissism, as a situational trait, may promote greater prosocial risk behavior in specific contexts by enhancing individuals' self-efficacy and outcome expectations [ 9 , 22 ]. However, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior is not direct but rather operates through the parallel mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation. Specifically, narcissism significantly positively predicted both status motivation and belonging motivation. Status motivation reflects individuals' pursuit of respect, reputation, and social influence, whereas belonging motivation embodies their need for group integration and social acceptance [ 11 ]. Findings revealed that individuals with higher levels of narcissism tended to engage in prosocial risk behavior to enhance their social status, thereby satisfying their status motivation [ 15 ]. Concurrently, narcissistic individuals may also engage in such behavior to gain group identification, fulfilling their belonging motivation [ 12 ]. These two motivations exerted distinct mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior. Mediation effect testing revealed that narcissism exerted differential directional influences on prosocial behavior by positively impacting status motivation and negatively impacting belonging motivation, indicating that both status and belonging motivation served as parallel mediators between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, the mediating effect of status motivation was significantly stronger than that of belonging motivation, suggesting that narcissistic individuals were more inclined to drive prosocial risk-taking behavior through the pursuit of social status rather than group belonging. This finding aligns with Risk-Sensitive Theory, which posits that individuals weigh potential gains against losses during motivational conflicts; when the rewards associated with status motivation (e.g., social acclaim) outweigh those of belonging motivation (e.g., group acceptance), status motivation becomes the dominant driving force [ 14 ]. The desire for status and gaining others' respect exerted a greater influence on university students' engagement in prosocial risk-taking behavior compared to the desire for belonging and group integration, a notion consistent with perspectives from Social Motivation Theory and Motivation Conflict Theory. Social Motivation Theory posits that individuals' social motivations influence their behavioral decisions; within the context of prosocial risk-taking, these primarily manifest as status and belonging motivations, both of which play significant roles in shaping social behavior [ 23 ], affecting individuals' decisions and behavioral expressions. Motivation Conflict Theory suggests that the induction of state narcissism can simultaneously drive individuals via both status and belonging motivations, potentially leading to behavioral conflict. For instance, an individual might both avoid risk for fear of damaging their image while also desiring acceptance and recognition through risk-taking. The specific behavior enacted depends on which motivation is activated in the given context [ 24 ]: In public settings, status motivation typically predominates, leading narcissistic individuals to be more cautious and avoid risk-taking behavior [ 25 ]; conversely, within intimate groups, belonging motivation usually takes precedence, making narcissistic individuals more willing to take risks to gain acceptance and recognition. When behavior is driven by multiple motivations, these can compete or conflict [ 26 ]. Additionally, the study found that contextual differences between public and intimate settings moderated the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. In public settings, where status motivation dominates, narcissistic individuals may be more cautious to avoid image damage; whereas within intimate groups, where belonging motivation prevails, they may be more willing to take risks to secure group acceptance [ 13 ]. This context dependency further validates the tenets of Motivation Conflict Theory, suggesting that the activation levels of different motivations across varying contexts influence individuals' behavioral manifestations [ 13 ]. The findings of this study suggest that, when promoting prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students, attention should be paid not only to their narcissistic traits but also to their social motivations, particularly status and belonging motivations. By cultivating a sense of social responsibility and mission in students, their motivation to pursue social status and gain respect from others can be stimulated [ 27 ], thereby encouraging their engagement in prosocial risk-taking behavior. Concurrently, it is also crucial to focus on students' sense of belonging and foster a positive social environment where they feel warmth and support, thereby enhancing their motivation to participate in prosocial risk-taking behavior. In conclusion, status motivation and belonging motivation play significant mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Narcissistic individuals drive their prosocial risk-taking behavior through the pursuit of social status and group belonging, with the relative importance of these two motivations being moderated by context. This finding not only deepens our understanding of the relationship between narcissism and prosocial behavior but also provides practical implications for promoting prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students. For instance, it suggests designing context-specific interventions to activate particular social motivations, thereby guiding positive prosocial behavior. 3.3 Implications and Limitations This study examined the influence of state narcissism on prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students, elucidating the relationships among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. It provides a theoretical basis and practical guidance for promoting such behavior. The findings imply that university educators should attend to students' narcissistic traits, understand their psychological states and behavioral tendencies, and implement corresponding educational measures to guide them in channeling the energy associated with narcissism into positive actions, such as participating in volunteer services and social practice activities, thereby fostering prosocial risk-taking behavior. Concurrently, universities can organize various social practice activities and volunteer programs to stimulate students' status and belonging motivations, helping them recognize their social responsibilities and values and encouraging active participation in public welfare initiatives. Furthermore, universities might offer courses related to emotional management to assist students in learning and mastering emotional regulation skills, enhancing their ability to maintain composure and rationality when facing risks and challenges, and enabling them to make more informed decisions. However, this study also has certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional research design employed precludes establishing causal relationships among the variables. Future research could adopt longitudinal tracking studies to further explore the dynamic interplay among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Second, the sample was restricted to university students; future research should broaden the scope to investigate prosocial risk-taking behavior across different age groups and cultural contexts. Finally, data were collected using questionnaires; future studies could integrate other methodologies, such as experimental and interview methods, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Future research could further investigate the specific mechanisms through which state narcissism influences prosocial risk-taking behavior, such as cognitive processing and emotional regulation, thereby deepening the understanding of their relationship. Additionally, it would be valuable to differentiate between various types of narcissism, such as overt and covert narcissism, and examine whether their effects on prosocial risk-taking behavior differ. Moreover, comparative studies across different cultural contexts could explore the influence of cultural factors on prosocial risk-taking behavior. Declarations 1.Ethics approval and consent to participate （ 1 ） Ethics Approval: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Shanxi Medical University, with approval number 2023SJL71 (Date of Approval: 2020.03.13). The research was conducted in strict accordance with the approved protocol. （ 2 ） Consent to Participate: All participants were fully informed about the study's purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits, and they all signed written informed consent forms before participating in the study. （ 3 ） Privacy and Confidentiality: This study strictly protects the privacy and anonymity of participants. All collected data are stored and processed in an encrypted or anonymized format. Any information that could identify participants has been removed or securely stored. 2 . Consent for publication Consent to Publish Statement: All participants signed an electronic informed consent form, agreeing to the publication of data or related results from this study in open-access journals. 3 . Availability of data and materials Data availability statement: The data are available upon reasonable request. Researchers requesting data access should contact [Guo Li] via [ [email protected] ]. 4 . Competing Interests Competing Interests Statement: All the authors declare that there are no competing interests that could affect the objectivity and reliability of the results of this study. 5.Funding : The content of this article does not represent the views of any organization or institution, nor has it received any form of financial support. 6. Authors' contributions ： Li Xinying handled the conceptualization, methodology, project administration, data curation, and resources. Guo Li was responsible for the conceptualization, data curation, and writing of the original draft, as well as software development. Li Yuting was involved in visualization, project administration, resources, conceptualization, and methodology. Ren Yan was involved in reviewing and editing, project administration, resources, conceptualization, writing the original draft, and supervision. 7. Acknowledgements ： Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to the teachers and colleagues who provided me with help and guidance during the research process. The discussions and exchanges with them were incredibly beneficial, offering new ideas and directions for my research.Furthermore, I would like to thank my family and friends. Their understanding, support, and encouragement have been a constant source of motivation for me, and they have provided me with great comfort and help when I encountered difficulties and setbacks.Here, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks once again to everyone who has helped and supported me. References Do KT, Moreira G, J.F. and, Telzer EH. But is helping you worth the risk? Defining Prosocial Risk Taking in adolescence. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2017;25:260–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.008 . Booth JA, Farrell A, Varano SP. Social Control, Serious Delinquency, and Risky Behavior. Crime Delinquency. 2008;54(3):423–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707306121 . LIU W, ZHU Y, BAI Y, WANG, H. and, HAN Y. Indulge in self-admiration or offer help to others? The influence of employee narcissism on prosocial behavior. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2022;54(3):300. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2022.00300 . CHANG B, HUANG, J., LIN, P. and, FANG J. Caring for oneself, and even more for others: The ‘altruistic’ mechanism of self-compassion. Psychol Dev Educ. 2024;40(3):324–34. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2024.03.03 . Telzer EH. Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: A new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.10.010 . [online] 17. Armstrong-Carter E, Telzer EH. The development of prosocial risk‐taking behavior: Mechanisms and opportunities. Child Dev Perspect. 2025;19(2):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12525 . Forney WS, Crutsinger C, Forney JC. Influence of Parent-Child Relationships on the Global Self-Worth and Morality of Juvenile Delinquents. J Family Consumer Sci. 2006;98(1):40–6. Morf CC, Rhodewalt F. Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model. Psychol Inq. 2001;12(4):177–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1 . Beattie S, Dempsey C, Roberts R, Woodman T, Cooke A. The moderating role of narcissism on the reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Sport . Exerc Perform Psychol. 2017;6(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000092 . Li Z, Benson A. Culture and Narcissism: The Roles of Fundamental Social Motives. Curr Res Behav Sci. 2022;3:100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2022.100072 . ZHAN Y, LIU C, XIAO, X., TAN, Q. and, FU X. Rosocial Risk Behavior: Its Theoretical Models and Neural Mechanisms. Chin Sci Bull. 2023;68(2):154–68. SUN H, AN X, LI A, LAI, H. and, LI Z. The influence of motivation conflict on mixed loss-gain intertemporal choice: An approach-avoidance motivation perspective. Adv Psychol Sci. 2022;30(12):2628–38. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02628 . SONG Y, XU R, XING C. Risk-sensitivity theory: Need motivates risky decision-making. Adv Psychol Sci. 2017;25(3):486. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2017.00486 . Zeigler-Hill V, Vrabel JK, McCabe GA, Cosby CA, Traeder CK, Hobbs KA, Southard AC. Narcissism and the pursuit of status. J Pers. 2018;87(2):310–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12392 . ZHEN Y, HUANG L. Overt Narcissism and Covert Narcissism: A Psychological Analysis of Narcissistic Personality. Psychol Sci. 2005;28(5):4. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2005.05.064 . Kilsheimer JC. Status Consumption: The Development and Implications of a Scale Measuring the Motivation to Consume for Status. The Florida State University; 1993. Levett-Jones T, Lathlean J, Higgins I, McMillan M. Development and psychometric testing of the Belongingness Scale–Clinical Placement Experience: An international comparative study. Collegian. 2009;16(3):153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2009.04.004 . DOU K, HUANG Y, LI J, NIE Y. Revision of the Adolescent Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior Scale and Testing of Its Reliability and Validity. Chin J Health Psychol. 2020;28(10). https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2020.10.023 . ZHOU H, LONG L. Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases. Adv Psychol Sci. 2004a;12(6):942–942. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018 . WEN Z, YE B. Testing Methods for Moderated Mediation Models: Competition or Substitution? Acta Physiol Sinica. 2014;46(5):714–26. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00714 . WEN Z, YE B. Mediation Analysis: Methods and Model Development. Adv Psychol Sci. 2014;22(5):731–45. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731 . Rubin M, Hewstone M. Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification. Personality Social Psychol Rev. 1998;2(1):40–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3 . Leary MR, Baumeister RF. The Nature and Function of self-esteem: Sociometer Theory. Advances Experimental Social Psychology [online]. 2000;32(00):1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(00)80003-9 . Zeigler-Hill V, Showers CJ. Self-Structure and Self-Esteem Stability: The Hidden Vulnerability of Compartmentalization. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(2):143–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294872 . ZHANG X, GUO, L. and, ZHANG Z. Arrogant yet Vulnerable’: The Connotation, Measurement, Influencing Factors, and Effects of Narcissistic Leadership. J Hubei Univ Econ. 2021;19(4). https://doi.org/10.3969/i.issn.1672-626x.2021.04.009 . LING H, SHI C. (2011). The relationship between narcissistic traits and achievement motivation among college students. Chin J Health Psychol, 19(4), p.3. doi:cnki:SUN:JKXL.0.2011-04-032. Deci EL, Ryan RM. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , [online] 11(4), pp.227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7324494","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":497534629,"identity":"93377b8f-ff33-49b2-a001-69f3cbc2863c","order_by":0,"name":"Li Xinying","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanxi Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Li","middleName":"","lastName":"Xinying","suffix":""},{"id":497534630,"identity":"065657f0-299e-4912-a6c7-508c1015730f","order_by":1,"name":"Guo Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanxi Medical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guo","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":497534631,"identity":"9269d3ae-c2cb-4fd0-9253-5c789c7de639","order_by":2,"name":"Li Yuting","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanxi Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Li","middleName":"","lastName":"Yuting","suffix":""},{"id":497534632,"identity":"317ffbcb-1d49-4020-886d-0ff94f4e1fea","order_by":3,"name":"Ren Yan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanxi Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ren","middleName":"","lastName":"Yan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-08 07:23:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88870408,"identity":"5e195cdb-63db-4324-92cf-6a0338d126a8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 09:09:26","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22991,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic Diagram of the Parallel Mediation Model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7324494/v1/6f2d83a6897ea656cb8bf44c.jpeg"},{"id":91148402,"identity":"27e9119b-d3ba-498e-9c39-0a6d123b7485","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-12 06:44:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":843084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7324494/v1/7348257b-6e71-4e6f-9fd1-012915de986d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior: The Multiple Mediating Roles of Status Motivation and Belongingness Motivation","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eProsocial Risk Behavior (PRB) refers to individuals\u0026apos; active engagement in potentially risky behaviors that may involve unknown risks to themselves (physical, emotional, or social) for the well-being of others or society [1]. It significantly differs from prosocial behavior, with the key distinction lying in the uncertainty of the behavioral costs. While prosocial behaviors may incur personal costs or losses (e.g., donating money to a charity), these costs or losses are typically known, whereas the risks associated with prosocial risk behaviors are unknown or uncertain [2]. In prosocial behaviors, individuals must weigh the risks they face against the suffering or harm experienced by others [3]. To date, most research on the cognitive mechanisms underlying human prosocial behavior has primarily focused on the latter aspect, i.e., exploring how empathy for others\u0026apos; suffering or distress motivates altruistic behavior [4].However, research on individuals\u0026apos; defensive responses in risky or dangerous situations and their impact on prosocial behavior remains relatively scarce. University students are in adolescence, a stage that is not only a period of vulnerability to negative behaviors but also a critical opportunity for healthy development [1]. Cognitive neuroscience research indicates that both negative risk-taking behaviors and positive prosocial behaviors rely on the same neural circuits [5]. The increase in these behaviors during adolescence is partly attributed to changes in these neural circuits before and during this period. Prosocial risk behavior plays a significant role in promoting social harmony and progress, particularly for university students, who are in a critical period of value formation and personality development, making the study of this behavior highly meaningful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch indicates that prosocial risk behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors, including personality traits, parent-child relationships, and empathy [6-7]. Personality traits are a significant factor in predicting individual behavior and have a notable impact on prosocial risk behavior. Among various traits, narcissism, a complex and dual-natured trait, has garnered considerable attention regarding its relationship with prosocial behavior. According to the Narcissistic Self-Regulatory Model proposed by Morf and Rhodewalt, narcissism manifests in two forms among the general population: trait narcissism and state narcissism [8]. Trait narcissism refers to a stable, long-term personality characteristic, whereas state narcissism represents a temporary increase in narcissistic levels resulting from psychological factors in specific situations or moments, an elevation that is short-lived [8]. Social cognitive theory posits that cognitive factors such as cognitive evaluations, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations influence individuals\u0026apos; behavioral decisions [9]. As a situational manifestation of narcissism, state narcissism may influence prosocial risk behavior by affecting self-evaluation, which in turn influences cognitive evaluations. For instance, individuals with high state narcissism may be more confident and thus more willing to take risks to help others, whereas those with low state narcissism may be more cautious due to a lack of confidence. Furthermore, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior may be influenced by other factors, such as moral responsibility, perceptual abilities, verbal skills, degree of care, and attitudes toward rules and regulations. These factors may constitute one of the two dimensions of prosocial risk behavior, namely moral responsibility and strength [10], influencing individuals\u0026apos; willingness to take risks to help others. Studies have found a significant positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial behavior [3]. However, the impact of narcissism, particularly state narcissism, on prosocial risk behavior and the underlying mediating mechanisms warrant further exploration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Social motivation theory emphasizes the influence of social factors on individual behavior, positing that individuals\u0026apos; social motivations influence their behavioral decisions [11]. In the context of prosocial risk behavior, individuals\u0026apos; social motivations primarily manifest as status motivation and belonging motivation. Status motivation refers to the desire to surpass others or gain their respect, while belonging motivation pertains to the desire to be part of a group and achieve a sense of belonging. These two motivations play a crucial role in individuals\u0026apos; social behaviors, influencing their decision-making and behavioral expressions [11]. The dual-process model of prosocial risk behavior indicates that narcissism in individuals can be divided into vulnerable narcissism (seeking belonging and security) and grandiose narcissism (seeking admiration and status), where the specific needs individuals strive to fulfill serve as both the goal and baseline for their actions [12]. When there is a significant discrepancy between an individual\u0026apos;s actual status and their expected goals or baseline\u0026mdash;such as when their grandiose narcissism, represented by damaged reputation or lower social status, is diminished\u0026mdash;this gap may enhance their prosocial tendencies and willingness to take risks, prompting them to engage in behaviors that appear altruistic. Conversely, vulnerable narcissists may use prosocial risk-taking to integrate into groups and compensate for their internal sense of insecurity. Motivation conflict theory suggests that when an individual\u0026apos;s behavior is driven by multiple motivations, these different motivations may compete or conflict with each other [13].The activation of state narcissism drives individuals to be simultaneously influenced by both status motivation and belonging motivation, potentially leading to behavioral conflict. For instance, an individual may both avoid taking risks due to concerns about damaging their image and desire to gain acceptance and approval through such actions. The specific behavior enacted depends on which motivation is activated in a given context: in public settings, status motivation typically dominates, causing narcissistic individuals to be more cautious and avoid risk-taking behaviors; whereas in intimate groups, belonging motivation usually prevails, making narcissistic individuals more willing to take risks to gain acceptance and approval. Furthermore, according to risk sensitivity theory, an individual\u0026apos;s evaluation of risks during situations of motivational conflict depends on the assessment of potential gains versus losses [14]. If a risky behavior is perceived as potentially damaging to their established status (loss \u0026gt; gain), it will inhibit prosocial risk behavior; conversely, if the behavior is believed to lead to group acceptance (gain \u0026gt; loss), it will promote prosocial risk behavior. Most current research indicates that narcissistic individuals tend to focus more on gaining others\u0026apos; admiration and less on establishing emotional belonging [15], often pursuing status to resolve the conflict between status and belonging needs, while rarely simultaneously considering the impact of narcissism on both.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Based on the aforementioned theoretical foundations, this study posits that state narcissism influences prosocial risk behavior among university students. Specifically, status motivation and belonging motivation serve as mediators in the relationship between state narcissism and prosocial risk behavior. That is, state narcissism affects individuals\u0026apos; prosocial risk behavior by influencing their status motivation and belonging motivation. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between state narcissism and prosocial risk behavior, revealing the underlying mediating mechanisms. It also provides a theoretical basis and practical guidance for promoting prosocial risk behavior among university students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1 Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA convenient sampling method was employed to recruit university students via the NaoDao platform. A total of 720 questionnaires were distributed randomly. After excluding responses that were identified as following a pattern or failing the attention check, 691 valid questionnaires were collected, representing a response rate of 95.97%. The sample consisted of 239 males (34.59%) and 452 females (65.41%). In terms of academic year, the sample included 316 first-year students (45.73%), 151 second-year students (21.84%), 99 third-year students (14.32%), 96 fourth-year students (13.89%), and 29 fifth-year students (4.19%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2 Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2.1 Narcissistic Personality Inventor\u003c/strong\u003ey\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study utilized the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, jointly developed by Zheng Yong and Huang Li from Southwest University in 2005 [16]. The inventory consists of 28 items, divided into two subscales: the Grandiose Narcissism subscale and the Vulnerable Narcissism subscale. The Grandiose Narcissism subscale contains 20 items, while the Vulnerable Narcioissism subscale contains 15 items, with 7 items being common to both subscales. The entire inventory employs a 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate more pronounced narcissistic traits. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.814.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2.2 Status Motivation Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Status Motivation Scale, developed by Cassidy and Lynn (1989), was employed. This scale encompasses three dimensions: reputation, respect, and influence, consisting of a total of 10 items, including two reverse-scored items [17]. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A score closer to 1 indicates a lower level of status motivation, while a score closer to 5 indicates a higher level of status motivation. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.75.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2.3 Belonging Motivation Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Belongingness Motivation Scale, developed by Malone and Pillow (2012), was utilized. This scale comprises three dimensions: group integration, relationship maintenance, and social acceptance, with a total of 9 items, including one reverse-scored item (e.g., \u0026quot;I often feel I don\u0026apos;t belong to any group\u0026quot;) [18]. The scale employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The total score ranges from 9 to 45, where a score closer to 1 indicates a lower level of belonging motivation, and a score closer to 5 indicates a higher level of belonging motivation. The internal consistency coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.717, indicating good reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2.4 Prosocial Behavior Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Adolescent Prosocial Risk Behavior Scale, translated and revised by Dou Kai et al. (2020), was used [10]. This scale is a localized adaptation of the Prosocial Risk Behavior subscale from the Adolescent Prosocial and Health Risk Behavior Scale (PHARBS) developed by Skaar et al. (2014). The scale consists of 6 items, using a 5-point rating scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Higher scores indicate a higher level of prosocial risk behavior, such as \u0026quot;I am willing to stand up for classmates who are being bullied.\u0026quot; The Cronbach\u0026apos;s\u0026nbsp;\u0026alpha;\u0026nbsp;coefficient for this scale in the study was 0.712.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.3 Statistical Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing data collection, SPSS 24.0 software was used for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. The PROCESS macro program, employing a bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method with 5000 resamples, was utilized to test the mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation in the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Common Method Bias Test\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarman's single-factor test was conducted to examine potential common method bias by performing an exploratory factor analysis on all items of the four variables [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. The results indicated that there were 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first common factor explained 21.18% of the variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40%. This suggests that there was no severe common method bias in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Gender showed a significant negative correlation with narcissism (r = -0.115**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and with status motivation (r = -0.125**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Narcissism was significantly positively correlated with status motivation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.468**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), belonging motivation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.272**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and prosocial risk behavior (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.282**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Status motivation was significantly positively correlated with belonging motivation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.273**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and prosocial risk behavior (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.431**, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Belonging motivation did not show a significant correlation with prosocial risk behavior (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.027, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations (r) Among Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\stackrel{-}{\\text{x}}\\pm\\:\\text{s}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;16.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.115**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.125**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.468**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.09\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.272**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.273**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.129**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.282**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.431**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote: 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;male, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;female; *p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, ***p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, same below.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, narcissism was significantly correlated with university students' status motivation, belonging motivation, and prosocial risk-taking behavior tendency, meeting the statistical requirements for further mediation analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, controlling for grade level, this study employed SPSS 26.0 and the PROCESS macro [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] with 5,000 resamples to examine the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior, specifically testing the serial multiple mediation roles of status motivation and belonging motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe regression results of the mediation model indicated that gender had a significant total effect on university students' prosocial risk-taking behavior (B = -0.098, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). After including the mediator variables, gender negatively predicted university students' status motivation (B = -0.072, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and also negatively predicted their belonging motivation (B = -0.066, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). However, the direct effect of gender on university students' prosocial risk-taking behavior was no longer significant (B = -0.03, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Status motivation positively predicted university students' prosocial risk-taking behavior (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.459, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and belonging motivation also positively predicted this behavior (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.398, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParallel Mediation Model of University Students' Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegression Equation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoefficient of Determination\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegression Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcome Variable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePredictor Variable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR方\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.686***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.098\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.676***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.271\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.4***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.473\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.224\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e99.195***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.072\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.128*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.459\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.586***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.274\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.906***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.892\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.276\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.471***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.459\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.211\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45.803***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.066\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.913\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarcissism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.065**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.114\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.188***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.398\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.181***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMediation effects bootstrapping results indicated that the indirect effects of status motivation and belonging motivation between narcissism and prosocial behavior were [0.0382, -0.0065], and neither of the 95% confidence intervals included 0 (status motivation: [0.0291, 0.0487]; belonging motivation: [-0.0118, -0.0021]), suggesting that status motivation and belonging motivation play parallel mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial behavior. Specifically, narcissism influences prosocial behavior through its positive effect on status motivation and negative effect on belonging motivation, thereby exerting differential directional impacts on prosocial behavior. Furthermore, the difference in the mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation was 0.0447, and its 95% confidence interval [0.0334, 0.0575] did not include 0, indicating a significant contrast indirect effect between the two pathways, i.e., the mediating role of status motivation was significantly stronger than that of belonging motivation (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParallel Mediation Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMediation Pathway\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoot\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBootstrap 95%CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelative Mediation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEffect Size\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLower Bound\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUpper Bound\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal Indirect Behavior\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0318\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0048\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0225\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0418\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.79%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0382\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0049\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0291\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0487\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67.02%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.0065\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0025\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.0118\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.0021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-11.40%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus Motivation-Belonging Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0447\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0061\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0334\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0575\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78.42%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the association between state narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students. Consistent with prior research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], our findings indicate that state narcissism serves as a significant positive predictor of such behavior. State narcissism, characterized as a contextual and transient manifestation of narcissistic traits, may influence prosocial risk-taking by modulating self-evaluation, subsequently shaping cognitive appraisals that culminate in behavioral decisions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. For instance, individuals experiencing heightened state narcissism might exhibit greater confidence and a corresponding willingness to engage in risky prosocial acts, whereas those with lower state narcissism may exhibit more caution due to diminished self-assurance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking is likely moderated by additional factors, including moral responsibility, perceived efficacy, verbal ability, degree of empathy, and attitudes toward social norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. These elements may contribute to the conceptualization of prosocial risk-taking along dimensions such as moral agency and efficacy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], thereby influencing an individual's propensity to undertake risks for the benefit of others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. While previous research has established a general positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], the present study provides further insight into the specific mechanisms through which state narcissism impacts prosocial risk-taking among university students, thereby offering a theoretical foundation and practical implications for fostering such behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Parallel Mediation Effects of Status Motivation and Belonging Motivation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults indicated a significant positive correlation between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior, consistent with perspectives from the Narcissistic Self-Regulation Model and Social Cognitive Theory. Narcissistic individuals influence their behavioral decision-making through self-regulatory mechanisms, while state narcissism, as a situational trait, may promote greater prosocial risk behavior in specific contexts by enhancing individuals' self-efficacy and outcome expectations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior is not direct but rather operates through the parallel mediating effects of status motivation and belonging motivation. Specifically, narcissism significantly positively predicted both status motivation and belonging motivation. Status motivation reflects individuals' pursuit of respect, reputation, and social influence, whereas belonging motivation embodies their need for group integration and social acceptance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Findings revealed that individuals with higher levels of narcissism tended to engage in prosocial risk behavior to enhance their social status, thereby satisfying their status motivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Concurrently, narcissistic individuals may also engage in such behavior to gain group identification, fulfilling their belonging motivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. These two motivations exerted distinct mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial risk behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMediation effect testing revealed that narcissism exerted differential directional influences on prosocial behavior by positively impacting status motivation and negatively impacting belonging motivation, indicating that both status and belonging motivation served as parallel mediators between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, the mediating effect of status motivation was significantly stronger than that of belonging motivation, suggesting that narcissistic individuals were more inclined to drive prosocial risk-taking behavior through the pursuit of social status rather than group belonging. This finding aligns with Risk-Sensitive Theory, which posits that individuals weigh potential gains against losses during motivational conflicts; when the rewards associated with status motivation (e.g., social acclaim) outweigh those of belonging motivation (e.g., group acceptance), status motivation becomes the dominant driving force [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The desire for status and gaining others' respect exerted a greater influence on university students' engagement in prosocial risk-taking behavior compared to the desire for belonging and group integration, a notion consistent with perspectives from Social Motivation Theory and Motivation Conflict Theory. Social Motivation Theory posits that individuals' social motivations influence their behavioral decisions; within the context of prosocial risk-taking, these primarily manifest as status and belonging motivations, both of which play significant roles in shaping social behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], affecting individuals' decisions and behavioral expressions. Motivation Conflict Theory suggests that the induction of state narcissism can simultaneously drive individuals via both status and belonging motivations, potentially leading to behavioral conflict. For instance, an individual might both avoid risk for fear of damaging their image while also desiring acceptance and recognition through risk-taking. The specific behavior enacted depends on which motivation is activated in the given context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]: In public settings, status motivation typically predominates, leading narcissistic individuals to be more cautious and avoid risk-taking behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]; conversely, within intimate groups, belonging motivation usually takes precedence, making narcissistic individuals more willing to take risks to gain acceptance and recognition. When behavior is driven by multiple motivations, these can compete or conflict [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, the study found that contextual differences between public and intimate settings moderated the relationship between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. In public settings, where status motivation dominates, narcissistic individuals may be more cautious to avoid image damage; whereas within intimate groups, where belonging motivation prevails, they may be more willing to take risks to secure group acceptance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. This context dependency further validates the tenets of Motivation Conflict Theory, suggesting that the activation levels of different motivations across varying contexts influence individuals' behavioral manifestations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study suggest that, when promoting prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students, attention should be paid not only to their narcissistic traits but also to their social motivations, particularly status and belonging motivations. By cultivating a sense of social responsibility and mission in students, their motivation to pursue social status and gain respect from others can be stimulated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], thereby encouraging their engagement in prosocial risk-taking behavior. Concurrently, it is also crucial to focus on students' sense of belonging and foster a positive social environment where they feel warmth and support, thereby enhancing their motivation to participate in prosocial risk-taking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, status motivation and belonging motivation play significant mediating roles between narcissism and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Narcissistic individuals drive their prosocial risk-taking behavior through the pursuit of social status and group belonging, with the relative importance of these two motivations being moderated by context. This finding not only deepens our understanding of the relationship between narcissism and prosocial behavior but also provides practical implications for promoting prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students. For instance, it suggests designing context-specific interventions to activate particular social motivations, thereby guiding positive prosocial behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Implications and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the influence of state narcissism on prosocial risk-taking behavior among university students, elucidating the relationships among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. It provides a theoretical basis and practical guidance for promoting such behavior. The findings imply that university educators should attend to students' narcissistic traits, understand their psychological states and behavioral tendencies, and implement corresponding educational measures to guide them in channeling the energy associated with narcissism into positive actions, such as participating in volunteer services and social practice activities, thereby fostering prosocial risk-taking behavior. Concurrently, universities can organize various social practice activities and volunteer programs to stimulate students' status and belonging motivations, helping them recognize their social responsibilities and values and encouraging active participation in public welfare initiatives. Furthermore, universities might offer courses related to emotional management to assist students in learning and mastering emotional regulation skills, enhancing their ability to maintain composure and rationality when facing risks and challenges, and enabling them to make more informed decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, this study also has certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional research design employed precludes establishing causal relationships among the variables. Future research could adopt longitudinal tracking studies to further explore the dynamic interplay among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Second, the sample was restricted to university students; future research should broaden the scope to investigate prosocial risk-taking behavior across different age groups and cultural contexts. Finally, data were collected using questionnaires; future studies could integrate other methodologies, such as experimental and interview methods, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships among state narcissism, social motivations, and prosocial risk-taking behavior. Future research could further investigate the specific mechanisms through which state narcissism influences prosocial risk-taking behavior, such as cognitive processing and emotional regulation, thereby deepening the understanding of their relationship. Additionally, it would be valuable to differentiate between various types of narcissism, such as overt and covert narcissism, and examine whether their effects on prosocial risk-taking behavior differ. Moreover, comparative studies across different cultural contexts could explore the influence of cultural factors on prosocial risk-taking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.Ethics\u0026nbsp;approval\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;consent\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval:\u003c/strong\u003e This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Shanxi Medical University, with approval number 2023SJL71 (Date of Approval: 2020.03.13). The research was conducted in strict accordance with the approved protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate:\u003c/strong\u003e All participants were fully informed about the study\u0026apos;s purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits, and they all signed written informed consent forms before participating in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e（\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e）\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrivacy and Confidentiality:\u003c/strong\u003e This study strictly protects the privacy and anonymity of participants. All collected data are stored and processed in an encrypted or anonymized format. Any information that could identify participants has been removed or securely stored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e. Consent\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish Statement: All participants signed an electronic informed consent form, agreeing to the publication of data or related results from this study in open-access journals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e. Availability\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;data\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability statement: The data are available upon reasonable request. Researchers requesting data access should contact [Guo Li] via [[email protected]].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e. Competing\u0026nbsp;Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting Interests Statement: All the authors declare that there are no competing interests that could affect the objectivity and reliability of the results of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.Funding\u003c/strong\u003e: The content of this article does not represent the views of any organization or institution, nor has it received any form of financial support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e：\u003c/strong\u003eLi Xinying handled the conceptualization, methodology, project administration, data curation, and resources. Guo Li was responsible for the conceptualization, data curation, and writing of the original draft, as well as software development. Li Yuting was involved in visualization, project administration, resources, conceptualization, and methodology. \u0026nbsp;Ren Yan was involved in reviewing and editing, project administration, resources, conceptualization, writing the original draft, and supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e：\u003c/strong\u003eFirstly, I would like to express my gratitude to the teachers and colleagues who provided me with help and guidance during the research process. The discussions and exchanges with them were incredibly beneficial, offering new ideas and directions for my research.Furthermore, I would like to thank my family and friends. Their understanding, support, and encouragement have been a constant source of motivation for me, and they have provided me with great comfort and help when I encountered difficulties and setbacks.Here, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks once again to everyone who has helped and supported me.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDo KT, Moreira G, J.F. and, Telzer EH. But is helping you worth the risk? Defining Prosocial Risk Taking in adolescence. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2017;25:260\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBooth JA, Farrell A, Varano SP. Social Control, Serious Delinquency, and Risky Behavior. Crime Delinquency. 2008;54(3):423\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707306121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0011128707306121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLIU W, ZHU Y, BAI Y, WANG, H. and, HAN Y. Indulge in self-admiration or offer help to others? The influence of employee narcissism on prosocial behavior. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2022;54(3):300. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2022.00300\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/sp.j.1041.2022.00300\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHANG B, HUANG, J., LIN, P. and, FANG J. Caring for oneself, and even more for others: The \u0026lsquo;altruistic\u0026rsquo; mechanism of self-compassion. Psychol Dev Educ. 2024;40(3):324\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2024.03.03\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2024.03.03\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTelzer EH. Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: A new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;57\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.10.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dcn.2015.10.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. [online] 17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArmstrong-Carter E, Telzer EH. The development of prosocial risk‐taking behavior: Mechanisms and opportunities. Child Dev Perspect. 2025;19(2):63\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12525\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdep.12525\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForney WS, Crutsinger C, Forney JC. Influence of Parent-Child Relationships on the Global Self-Worth and Morality of Juvenile Delinquents. J Family Consumer Sci. 2006;98(1):40\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorf CC, Rhodewalt F. Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model. Psychol Inq. 2001;12(4):177\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeattie S, Dempsey C, Roberts R, Woodman T, Cooke A. The moderating role of narcissism on the reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and performance. \u003cem\u003eSport\u003c/em\u003e. Exerc Perform Psychol. 2017;6(2):199\u0026ndash;214. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/spy0000092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Z, Benson A. Culture and Narcissism: The Roles of Fundamental Social Motives. Curr Res Behav Sci. 2022;3:100072. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2022.100072\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.crbeha.2022.100072\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZHAN Y, LIU C, XIAO, X., TAN, Q. and, FU X. Rosocial Risk Behavior: Its Theoretical Models and Neural Mechanisms. Chin Sci Bull. 2023;68(2):154\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSUN H, AN X, LI A, LAI, H. and, LI Z. The influence of motivation conflict on mixed loss-gain intertemporal choice: An approach-avoidance motivation perspective. Adv Psychol Sci. 2022;30(12):2628\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.02628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSONG Y, XU R, XING C. Risk-sensitivity theory: Need motivates risky decision-making. Adv Psychol Sci. 2017;25(3):486. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2017.00486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/sp.j.1042.2017.00486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeigler-Hill V, Vrabel JK, McCabe GA, Cosby CA, Traeder CK, Hobbs KA, Southard AC. Narcissism and the pursuit of status. J Pers. 2018;87(2):310\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12392\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jopy.12392\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZHEN Y, HUANG L. Overt Narcissism and Covert Narcissism: A Psychological Analysis of Narcissistic Personality. Psychol Sci. 2005;28(5):4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2005.05.064\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2005.05.064\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKilsheimer JC. Status Consumption: The Development and Implications of a Scale Measuring the Motivation to Consume for Status. The Florida State University; 1993.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevett-Jones T, Lathlean J, Higgins I, McMillan M. Development and psychometric testing of the Belongingness Scale\u0026ndash;Clinical Placement Experience: An international comparative study. Collegian. 2009;16(3):153\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2009.04.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.colegn.2009.04.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDOU K, HUANG Y, LI J, NIE Y. Revision of the Adolescent Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior Scale and Testing of Its Reliability and Validity. Chin J Health Psychol. 2020;28(10). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2020.10.023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2020.10.023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZHOU H, LONG L. Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases. Adv Psychol Sci. 2004a;12(6):942\u0026ndash;942. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWEN Z, YE B. Testing Methods for Moderated Mediation Models: Competition or Substitution? Acta Physiol Sinica. 2014;46(5):714\u0026ndash;26. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00714\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWEN Z, YE B. Mediation Analysis: Methods and Model Development. Adv Psychol Sci. 2014;22(5):731\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubin M, Hewstone M. Social Identity Theory\u0026rsquo;s Self-Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification. Personality Social Psychol Rev. 1998;2(1):40\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeary MR, Baumeister RF. The Nature and Function of self-esteem: Sociometer Theory. Advances Experimental Social Psychology [online]. 2000;32(00):1\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(00)80003-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0065-2601(00)80003-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeigler-Hill V, Showers CJ. Self-Structure and Self-Esteem Stability: The Hidden Vulnerability of Compartmentalization. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(2):143\u0026ndash;59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294872\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0146167206294872\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZHANG X, GUO, L. and, ZHANG Z. Arrogant yet Vulnerable\u0026rsquo;: The Connotation, Measurement, Influencing Factors, and Effects of Narcissistic Leadership. J Hubei Univ Econ. 2021;19(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3969/i.issn.1672-626x.2021.04.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3969/i.issn.1672-626x.2021.04.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLING H, SHI C. (2011). The relationship between narcissistic traits and achievement motivation among college students. Chin J Health Psychol, 19(4), p.3. doi:cnki:SUN:JKXL.0.2011-04-032.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM. (2000). The \u0026lsquo;what\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;why\u0026rsquo; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, [online] 11(4), pp.227\u0026ndash;268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"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":"Prosocial risk behavior, State narcissism, Status motivation, Belonging motivation, Multiple mediation effect","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eProsocial risk behavior (PRB) refers to individuals' active engagement in potentially risky behaviors to promote the well-being of others or society. Although the relationship between narcissistic personality traits and prosocial behavior has received widespread attention, the mechanism through which state narcissism influences PRB remains unclear. Based on the social motivation theory, this study investigated the effect of state narcissism on PRB among university students and examined the multiple mediating roles of status motivation and belonging motivation. A convenient sampling method was employed to conduct a questionnaire survey among 691 university students. The measurement tools included the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the Status Motivation Scale, the Belonging Motivation Scale, and the Adolescent Prosocial Risk Behavior Scale. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 24.0 and the PROCESS macro program for correlation analysis, regression analysis, and Bootstrap mediation effect testing. The results indicated that state narcissism significantly and positively predicted status motivation (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.459, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and PRB (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.271, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), but had a weaker predictive effect on belonging motivation (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.276, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The mediation analysis revealed that status motivation played a significant mediating role between state narcissism and PRB (indirect effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0382, 95% CI [0.0291, 0.0487]), whereas the mediating effect of belonging motivation was not significant (indirect effect = -0.0065, 95% CI [-0.0118, -0.0021]). This study elucidated the mechanism by which state narcissism drives PRB by enhancing status motivation, providing a new theoretical perspective on the relationship between narcissism and prosocial behavior, and offering practical implications for guiding positive social behaviors among university students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Relationship Between Narcissism and Prosocial Risk-Taking Behavior: The Multiple Mediating Roles of Status Motivation and Belongingness Motivation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-12 09:09:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7324494/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":"0fe68bb4-51fc-4288-a585-65afd05a648b","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-09T05:08:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-12 09:09:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7324494","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7324494","identity":"rs-7324494","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}