Attachment Styles, Vulnerable Narcissism, Emotion Dysregulation and Perceived Social Support: A Mediation Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review this paper. The study investigates the relationships between attachment styles, vulnerable narcissism, emotional dysregulation, and perceived social support. While I found the paper informative, I have identified several major and minor concerns that I believe warrant attention before finalizing the manuscript.

My primary concerns align with those highlighted by the authors themselves in the limitations section of their paper. Despite the authors' acknowledgment of potential limitations associated with the cross-sectional design, the inherent issues persist. The paper employs strong causal language, yet it is essential to acknowledge the diverse array of potential relationships that could exist among the variables. For instance, it is plausible that a lack of perceived social support may contribute to emotional dysregulation or heighten uncertainty which can be compensated with vulnerable narcissism. Furthermore, the reliance on self-report measures introduces the possibility of biases and inaccurate self-assessments, thereby warranting caution in interpreting the results. I would recommend tempering the causal language throughout the manuscript and maybe in the theoretical introduction/discussion incorporating additional evidence from previous studies utilizing non cross-sectional designs and alternative assessment methods (if such studies exist).

I have an issue with the statistical analysis which might be stem from my ignorance. I must confess some confusion regarding the fluctuations in the parameters between vulnerable narcissism and emotional dysregulation, vulnerable narcissism and perceived social support, and emotional dysregulation and perceived social support. I thought that the only numbers which would change from mediation to mediation are the parameters between attachment style and vulnerable narcissism, and attachment style and perceived social support. I would greatly appreciate clarification on this matter to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the statistical findings (Aren't the four mediations the same except using each attachment style as the IV in the analysis? Then why the numbers between the other variables change?)

Lastly, a minor discrepancy I notived is in the description of the perceived social support measure. Although the authors indicate a 7-point Likert scale, after that they write that the scale is ranging from 1 to 5.

In conclusion, while I commend the authors for their thorough study, addressing these concerns would strengthen the validity and rigor of their findings, thereby enriching the scholarly discourse in this field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study sought to analyze, through a mediation model, the association of attachment styles, vulnerable narcissism, emotional dysregulation, and perceived social support. The manuscript is well-written. The manuscript overall presents all the necessary information for readers to understand the author’s point of view. However, I have a few concerns. 

 

Major 

-       In the first paragraph, the authors introduce all four attachment styles and somewhat connect them to emotional regulation. This section lacks references, and only the secure attachment style was properly connected to emotional regulation. I suggest the authors further discuss how each attachment is related to an adequate or dysfunctional emotional regulation behavior.

-       In Figure 1, I understand that the authors are just showing the reader the intended model for the study. However, when they use squares for the attachment styles and circles for the other variables, it can confuse readers into thinking attachment styles are going to be treated as an observed variable, while the others are going to be treated as latent ones. Indeed, after reading the data analysis section, this was confirmed. Why were the attachment styles treated as observed variables? Is it because of poor internal consistency of the facets (they were not shown in Table 1)? I highly suggest they review this.

 

Minor

-       I suggest the authors to look for more informative keywords. Keywords that already appear in the title do not maximize manuscript reach once published. 

-       Are emerging adults, young adults? Also, calling the participants boys and girls is inconsistent with their respective ages (18-25).

-       Figure 2 and Table 2 present mostly the same results. I suggest the authors to keep only Table 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed my comments, and I have no further suggestions.